Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Using HTML5 Video For ARM Chromebook
sfcrazy writes "Netflix is using HTML5 video streaming instead of using Microsoft's Silverlight on Chromebooks (which now supports DRM for HTML5). Recently Google enabled the much controversial DRM support for HTML5 in Chrome OS to bring services like Netflix to Chromebooks using HTML5."
Still no word on general support for GNU/Linux, but x86 or ARM, what's the difference? (If you're ok with DRM at least.)
No, im not. But thanks for asking.
Decisions, decisions...
Not that either are ideal, but considering that Silverlight (or Netflix) can't manage to sync my audio and video on my current netbook, I'd be willing to switch to improve my Netflix stream.
Let us live so that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry -- Mark Twain
Eh? Netflix seems to work just fine on my Android tablets, and I'm pretty sure it's not using Silverlight there. Probably doesn't use it on the various Smart TVs and Blu-Ray players that support it, either. Is this just a case of Google deciding to enable something that other people were using already? Or do these other platforms use Moonlight or something?
Breakfast served all day!
Differece is the presence of microsoft execs on the Netflix board. The lack of Netflix streaming (such as it is) seems to discourage many the potential linux switcher.
I'm totally ok with DRM, provided that it's very clear how to implement it, and I don't need to sign any contracts or otherwise agree to keep any trade secrets. Just write up the RFC, send it to IETF, and we'll all get to work on our your-DRM-compatible players. Everybody wins.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I'd actually love to give Netflix my money, but DRM is a deal breaker. I can get better service with torrents and rss, so I do. I'd pay for that too, if it were licensed. But not a penny for DRM.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
So, what's chromebook's user-agent string, so i can finally watch netflix w/o installing silverlight?
The article ( and Slashdot ) somehow links the Netflix app to Encrypted Media Extensions but I don't see where this is confirmed.
It is also likely that Netflix used Native Client. NaCl may also explain why it's only available for certain platforms.
> It's quite simple. The difference is that a Chromebook has hardware support for DRM. Your generic Loonix "boxes" doesn't.
That's moronic. Most of the supported devices on the planet don't have any "special hardware support" and are quite capable of running Linux as well as whatever other operating systems have a supported Netflix client.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Netflix did use NaCl on the Intel Chromebooks, but are now using HTML5/EME on the ARM chromebooks. Here is the official Chrome Google+ feed announcement.
If you're not OK with DRM, then you're not OK with motion pictures published by Columbia, Disney, Fox, Paramount, Universal, or Warner.
It will get broken open, just like any stupid DRM schemes.
And it will take W3C a trillion years to fix it, as per usual.
This is just to make the media companies happy.
Just be happy knowing that you will be smart enough to know how to get around it eventually.
We won't be getting away from DRM any time soon, and you cannot change the will of others.
Tell others about things like Vodo and Kickstarter, that is the best you can do, realistically.
The media industry will remain mostly closed for decades to come. And they will be caught cold in an alleyway before they allow it to become more open.
We have a long battle ahead of us if we wish for an open media industry where we can pay and decide what lives and aren't decided upon by stupid and HUGELY estimated viewing figure groups.
Their products are easily accessible DRM free.
Not without running the risk of being sued for copyright infringement. Even in countries where downloading is not prohibited, torrent users upload as they download, or they get very little download speed from public trackers and kicked off private trackers.
how could you have a documented, published DRM standard that actually works? Anyone could use the standard to write a "player" that does nothing more than record the stream.
Following Kerckhoffs's principle, the algorithm is published but the required cryptographic keys are secret.
What don't YOU understand about the privilege of copyright being extended for a limited time? What don't YOU understand about the fact that without this...
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
By moving your expectations to rental, they've created an imaginary divide, as if these inventions were somehow immune from the obligation to the public they were produced under the aegis of. They're not.
If the public cannot obtain the full benefit of the work, then the obligation to the public has been sundered and the author(s) should be taken to task for it. We have every reason to expect that a purchase results in ownership, and that ownership carries the ability to protect that property and use it as we see fit, as long as we don't interfere with those rights during the protected period. From this comes the right to copy for our own use; to back up; to create mixes of titles in the order that pleases us; to review and study the content; to excerpt sections for fair use in conveying to others our opinions and interpretations of the work itself.
DRM advocates have almost completely snowed the American public (and likely, others) in taking from them the very benefits the constitution intended to secure for them WRT artistic productions. That you have been taken in by this does not surprise me. What concerns me isn't your individual error, but the broad negative effects this will have on our society. It is insidious in the short term and invidious in the long.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Yesterday I was showing to my friend and logged into my gmail account in Chrome running in his windows box. Impressed him with my two factor authentication, text message to my phone and all that. But made the mistake of clicking yes to "synch" when prompted by chrome.
It brought all my bookmarks on to his machine!. So I deleted them in his machine, then they were also gone from my account in my Chromebook. Not only that all HIS bookmarks were on my machine. I deleted them. Then I found all my saved web passwords were on his machine! This screw up after bragging about two factor authentication. He uninstalled Chrome and reinstalled to get rid of all remnants of anything. I lost my bookmarks. Apparently this is a common problem with Chrome and google synch and it has been widely reported and complained about. Still the dialog asking for synch did not give any warning that my passwords and bookmarks and auto-completes are being downloaded into a new machine. I am very disappointed by Chrome and google.
Luckily he is a friend, and I never store any serious passwords in my gmail account. So no serious harm done. Now where is that AC who called me a shill?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
It works at least as well any of the flash sites, like Amazon.com, on my Samsung Chromebook.
Wow, that is nice. On my x86 Acer C7 Chromebook, which was using Silverlight just last week, is stellar using HTML5. I was wondering why the video looks and "feels" different.
Kriston
this is good for people with outdated pcs or macs
So true. If anything copyright terms should have been shorter and shorter because of progress in technology decrease the time to market and decreases the time to realize a profit for the author.
50 years ego you needed a longer copyright term for the author to realize a profit from his or her work, because you didn't had DVDs and the Internet. Today it's all digital and the publishing business have very sophisticated technology to bring the work to the market.
But because of Disney and Hollywood I predict that the public domain will be eliminated, by ever increasing copyright terms to protect Mickey Mouse. If it's not already eliminated by DRM and DRM protective laws. The craziness of DVD regions alone is the master example of how far Hollywood will go to rape the public interests.
Any politician that works for the public should press for shorter copyright terms and any politician that works for the public should press for the abolishment of DRM. Because the damage to the public clearly outweighs the benefits of a few. I would go so far as to lose any copyright protection by using any form of DRM.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
Distribution of player keys would depend on posting a bond that a developer won't make such a player. Misused keys would be revoked and unable to view streams.
Doesn't this mean that getting Netflix to work on Linux might be as simple as spoofing the user agent from a Chromebook? Especially if you were using Chrome, Netflix probably wouldn't detect that you're not actually using a Chromebook. Has anyone tried this?
Not all DRM is evil. It really depends on who is applying it, when, where, and how. DRM is an ugly name for a set of technologies that have their uses; if I agree to let Netflix stream a movie to me and understand that my computer is going to encrypt and handle it in such a way that I won't be able to save or download the movie, that's OK with me; I'm still the one in control. That doesn't mean proprietary video streaming will always be crammed down my throat.
Using DRM in this way is a great boon for open technology. In this case it's helping HTML5 video to stand on its own and be established as a universal standard. When the standard become more popular, it becomes easier to utilize it for our own libertarian purposes. This will get people off of and away from disgusting things like Flash and Silverlight. It's a win win situation.
You know... delayed gratification
Except the U.S. Congress keeps extending this delay. It's already well over a decade past the human life expectancy.
Netflix style DRM is acceptable. Content providers should be able to protect themselves (even if it is generally a useless endavor)
DRM ala the new simcity is pretty unacceptable. It's one thing to keep an ongoing service going, it's different to make a local application unusable.
There is nothing that I'm going to download onto my system that I don't have complete access to. I'll cheat and install binaries occasionally, cuz I'm lazy, but it just feels wrong to have anything on my box that isn't under my control. Isn't that the definition of malware?
it's due to hardware-level support of DRM
No, it's not. Because when the Netflix app was being released to a select group of Android phones and tablets, some minor build.prop hacking of the extracted APK enabled it to play on a whole other bunch of machines. This is still true for some machines where Netflix thinks it won't work... but it does.
Da Blog
All it is is a tag that says 'here be video'.
What is the actual codec? That's where the magic sauce resides.
I really dont see the problem with DRM when it comes to Netflix. For £5.00 per month I get a much better selection of Movies and TV shows than I could even consider getting from a satellite / cable subscription costing much more. There are no limits as to how many times i can watch stuff - and while i cant download the shows / movies for keeps I dont need to so long as i have an internet connection. In prinicple I dont agree with DRM - but in the case of Netflix it is well worth the money DRM or No DRM and so damn convenient.
When I consider the cost of a Netflix subscription it doesnt bother me that i dont own the content.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
why does one need any of those things? The object is to watch the movie, I don't want a copy of it. I don't want to watch it on a wide variety of devices. I want to watch it on my computer.
Performance? My 6 year old opteron with its 7 year old video card can run Netflix on Silverlight on Windows on VMWare on linux and it runs just fine.
Usability? how can it be easier to use netflix? holy cow!
If I wanted more then maybe there would be something to complain about, but I want to watch movies.
SURE they can tell you what you can do with the hardware you bought, if you want to use their service.
It's no different from the oil company refusing to service you if you mess with your furnace.
You sign the contract, you get something, you give something. You don't HAVE to sign.
sure you can spend arbitrary resources decoding their stream and breaking their DRM but you could also just pay the fee, watch some movies, and have a life.
There's a committee of people at Netflix who evaluate all technologies including anything having to do with their website and their guiding principle is "We choose whatever runs the slowest clunkiest and least user friendly. For mobile apps multiply that by 5."
The movies themselves are fine, it's the DRM i don't like.
Under current law, it's the right of the companies that financed those movies to dictate that you can't have one without the other. So until the law changes, if you support these movies, you support digital restrictions management.
why not just pay the fee and watch some movies?
netflix, their hands are tied. the content holders want the DRM. No DRM, no neftlix. I am willing to accept that.
save your battles for things that deserve them.
netflix is not the devil. they make it possible for people to watch movies at home
if you want to change the system you are not going to do it by hacking netflix, you are just going to make trouble for everyone. they will not give up, they cannot. you will just force them to spend more engineering time and raise their costs, you will not "save the world" or even a small piece of it.
One of the things I sometimes hear about, are "Netflix exclusive" TV shows. I'm not sure I really know what that actually means.
"Lilyhammer" was supposed to be one, I thought, but it hit the scene right around the same time it hit Netflix. "Arrested Development" season 4 will supposedly be another. We'll see what happens. But I suspect that either Netflix has never actually had any exclusive content, or it has already been cracked.
Netflix is a subscription model, not a purchase model. It's also a fairly legitimate one, unlike games or OS's (or even some movie purchases) where you're paying a substantial fee for something that masquerades as a purchase yet distributers try to treat as a lease/rental.
Under $10 a month. Unlimited ability to watch from the catalog (subject to your internet connection limits). It's an on-demand rental service. It never pretends to be anything else.
If people want to buy a movie, they can still buy it. You might as well complain that the video rental store isn't letting you keep your rentals (yes, it is possible to copy them, but it's also against your contract with the store).
Who cares now if netflix does not run natively on linux anymore. The netflix linux app runs pretty well in ubuntu 12.10 there is some jerkiness for a few seconds but it's usually when i'm running other intensive applications.
It may not occur to everyone, but Netflix, Lovefilm, NOW TV or whatever don't have control over any of these things. It's entirely dictated by the movie studios, for example, we /have/ to use silverlight, because of DRM. We can't allow hdmi-out, because the movie studios won't let us. No streaming movie provider makes or has the ability to make any of these decisions, it is entirely within the realm of the rights-holder.
The only reason any of these work outside of silverlight is by the hardware vendor providing some form of DRM under which videos can be delivered. Anybody making hardware will provide this DRM if they have any sense, but for things like Linux, where DRM is a No-No and Microsoft won't support it, you're pretty much stuffed.
The irony is that the provider I work for develops the entire service on Linux, and yet any of our customers who want to watch movies on Linux, simply can't.
No, that is bullshit.
You can subscribe to Netflix and soak your eyeballs in content if you want. You can also soak a video camera in the content if you want. It's flying through your living room, and you can record it. That is where you exercise your fair use. In your living room, not on Netflix servers. What is coming into your eyeballs can also go into your video camera, and you can use that recording in any non-commercial way. You don't have a right to demand that Netflix servers store the content in the particular digital format you favor. You don't have a right to demand they send their content over the Internet in an unencrypted form because that would be more convenient to you. The content is not published on a server, it is published in a Netflix app on the screen in front of you.
Being a technical person, you are probably thinking, “well, I want to copy the content in the highest possible quality, and accessing the server will give me better quality than what I get on my camcorder.” Also bullshit. The content that is coming out of the screen is better quality than the content that is coming off the server, because what is coming off the screen is motion video, while what is coming off the server is just an encrypted bitstream, not video at all. The best possible picture is already there with you in the room. If you don't like it, go ahead and record the encrypted bitstream. But you don't have a right to the key, same as you don't have the right to the master tapes to Led Zeppelin IV because you bought the LP. If you copy the LP, it will have clicks and pops and vinyl distortion, so you may want the master tapes to get a much better sound. Well, you don't have a right to that unpublished work. The encrypted bitstream between a Netflix server and client is also unpublished work — it is not published until it hits the screen in decrypted form.
In short:
- Netflix servers = master tapes <— unpublished works ... you only have a right to fair use on published works.
- Netflix client = LP <— published works
So to you, a movie ceases to exist after three months. Am I understanding you correctly?
Besides, movies have those distracting dots known as CAP codes as DRM against camcording.
when it's on tv it also doesn't have DRM
Pay-per-view has DRM. Premium cable has DRM. Basic cable has DRM. Even OTA channels are soon to have DRM on some cable systems. True, OTA showings are unencrypted, but very, very few movies appear to ever be shown OTA. And even for those that are, during the long periods between the theatrical showing and the first OTA showing, and between the end of one OTA showing and the next OTA showing if any, the movie is no longer fine.
So when someone recommends a movie to you, but it left cinemas years ago and there are no foreseeable plans to show it on OTA TV, how do you usually reply?
i can strip away the DRM [from a movie on DVD]
As Mayor Kravindish in Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon would put it: "This is illegal, you know." Universal v. Reimerdes.
What is fine and what you don't like are sold as a package deal. Unless a movie is currently playing in cinemas or is currently showing on over-the-air television, you can either commit a crime by separating what is fine and what you don't like or do without. Are movies desirable enough to run the risk of being prosecuted?
I understand what you think is fine and what you don't like.
Finally, you got there in the end! That's all there is to it, see: The movies themselves are fine, it's the DRM i don't like. And now you understand...took you a while.