4 ms·

Widevine retiring its Cloud License Service (CLS)

43 points by dabinat 8mo ago

decimalenough 8mo ago
This is.. not huge news? Google is discontinuing its own Widevine server, but Widevine is not going anywhere, you can still run your own server or use any of a number of third-party hosts offering it: https://widevine.com/solutions/widevine-providers https://widevine.com/solutions/widevine-providers And surprise surprise, the blog post in question appears to be very thinly disguised marketing for one of those third parties. Also, the Google service was free and came with no SLA or support, meaning anybody remotely serious about DRM was not relying it on in the first place.
- pastescreenshot 8mo ago
  I think that is right technically, but there is still real migration pain here for teams that quietly depended on the free hosted path. The annoying part is usually not swapping providers. It is finding every place license issuance, renewal, and failure handling got baked into the stack and validating it before the old service disappears.
- dabinat 8mo ago
  > And surprise surprise, the blog post in question appears to be very thinly disguised marketing for one of those third parties. To be fair, there is no official Google announcement to link to. They seem to have announced this very quietly and it is easy for someone to go to the Widevine docs and build something around the server without realizing it’s going away.
ACCount37 8mo ago
Modern DRM for video and audio is such a strange construct. It never stopped a thing. Clearly, it only exists to cover someone's arses and check some boxes off the requirement lists. And yet, some people put actual effort into integrating it, and keep shipping mandatory DRM modules that run with deranged levels of privilege in places like TrustZone. They keep restricting some browsers and phones from being able to view Full HD content - despite that Full HD footage being on every shady pirate streaming website that runs on ads for online slot machines and penis enlargement pills, and the 4K versions of that very same content being available day 1 in any torrent search engine. Because some cheeky madman somewhere has a few exploits, and one exploit is all it takes for DRM to stay broken forever. Punish the legitimate users, and completely fail to deter the pirates. Security theater at its finest. Every time I read of how modern economics eliminate waste and inefficiency, this kind of DRM stands out as a counterexample. It never worked and never will - nonetheless, here it is. Some people keep writing and signing the licensing deals with those stupid requirements that don't touch reality in them. Other people keep needing to fulfill them. And so, the strange useless cover-your-arse-ware lingers in every device, like the smell of stale piss in a public toilet. With no care for how unwelcome it is.
- limagnolia 8mo ago
  Digital Restrictions Management has nothing to do with modern economics. It is political and legal theatre.
  - seba_dos1 8mo ago
    Most of those Stallmanesque nicknames feel kinda childish, but this one is so spot on that it always takes a moment for me to realize that it's not how it was originally named when I see it being used.
- rvnx 8mo ago
  A big part of the responsibility lays on software and hardware companies like Google or Apple that implement (or allow) support for these DRMs. They could perfectly refuse them, and de-facto DRMs would be marginalized, to a point it would not even be an option.
  - ACCount37 8mo ago
    Oh, definitely. They could put the foot down and end this pointless charade swiftly. But if Google and Apple had the balls to go against the big media, the world would look very differently. They are, in fact, the big media themselves now. They have the power, and more than enough of it. No streaming service can afford to skip having an app on iOS or Android - all Apple has to do is crack the whip. Say "this DRM is no longer compliant with our device policy and will be phased out by 2030" and there goes that. But they still act like they're weird web teens who can't raise a voice against the big media boys without getting bullied for it. That, or they believe this DRM charade serves them - and user experience can go suck a dick.
    - realusername 8mo ago
      > That, or they believe this DRM charade serves them - and user experience can go suck a dick. I'd go for this option, the duopoly think it could be an extra barrier which can help them to prevent future competition.

43 points by dabinat 8mo ago

This is.. not huge news? Google is discontinuing its own Widevine server, but Widevine is not going anywhere, you can still run your own server or use any of a number of third-party hosts offering it: https://widevine.com/solutions/widevine-providers https://widevine.com/solutions/widevine-providers And surprise surprise, the blog post in question appears to be very thinly disguised marketing for one of those third parties. Also, the Google service was free and came with no SLA or support, meaning anybody remotely serious about DRM was not relying it on in the first place.

pastescreenshot 8mo ago
I think that is right technically, but there is still real migration pain here for teams that quietly depended on the free hosted path. The annoying part is usually not swapping providers. It is finding every place license issuance, renewal, and failure handling got baked into the stack and validating it before the old service disappears.
dabinat 8mo ago
> And surprise surprise, the blog post in question appears to be very thinly disguised marketing for one of those third parties. To be fair, there is no official Google announcement to link to. They seem to have announced this very quietly and it is easy for someone to go to the Widevine docs and build something around the server without realizing it’s going away.

ACCount37 8mo ago

Modern DRM for video and audio is such a strange construct. It never stopped a thing. Clearly, it only exists to cover someone's arses and check some boxes off the requirement lists. And yet, some people put actual effort into integrating it, and keep shipping mandatory DRM modules that run with deranged levels of privilege in places like TrustZone. They keep restricting some browsers and phones from being able to view Full HD content - despite that Full HD footage being on every shady pirate streaming website that runs on ads for online slot machines and penis enlargement pills, and the 4K versions of that very same content being available day 1 in any torrent search engine. Because some cheeky madman somewhere has a few exploits, and one exploit is all it takes for DRM to stay broken forever. Punish the legitimate users, and completely fail to deter the pirates. Security theater at its finest. Every time I read of how modern economics eliminate waste and inefficiency, this kind of DRM stands out as a counterexample. It never worked and never will - nonetheless, here it is. Some people keep writing and signing the licensing deals with those stupid requirements that don't touch reality in them. Other people keep needing to fulfill them. And so, the strange useless cover-your-arse-ware lingers in every device, like the smell of stale piss in a public toilet. With no care for how unwelcome it is.

limagnolia 8mo ago
Digital Restrictions Management has nothing to do with modern economics. It is political and legal theatre.
- seba_dos1 8mo ago
  Most of those Stallmanesque nicknames feel kinda childish, but this one is so spot on that it always takes a moment for me to realize that it's not how it was originally named when I see it being used.
rvnx 8mo ago
A big part of the responsibility lays on software and hardware companies like Google or Apple that implement (or allow) support for these DRMs. They could perfectly refuse them, and de-facto DRMs would be marginalized, to a point it would not even be an option.
- ACCount37 8mo ago
  Oh, definitely. They could put the foot down and end this pointless charade swiftly. But if Google and Apple had the balls to go against the big media, the world would look very differently. They are, in fact, the big media themselves now. They have the power, and more than enough of it. No streaming service can afford to skip having an app on iOS or Android - all Apple has to do is crack the whip. Say "this DRM is no longer compliant with our device policy and will be phased out by 2030" and there goes that. But they still act like they're weird web teens who can't raise a voice against the big media boys without getting bullied for it. That, or they believe this DRM charade serves them - and user experience can go suck a dick.
  - realusername 8mo ago
    > That, or they believe this DRM charade serves them - and user experience can go suck a dick. I'd go for this option, the duopoly think it could be an extra barrier which can help them to prevent future competition.