HTML5 Video in Safari on OS X Yosemite(techblog.netflix.com)
techblog.netflix.com
HTML5 Video in Safari on OS X Yosemite
http://techblog.netflix.com/2014/06/html5-video-in-safari-on-os-x-yosemite.html
10 comments
For those not hip to the lingo, "premium video" means DRM.
Yea but honestly, this doesn't bother me.
I can't think of a single way where this hurts the consumer:
- I don't own the video, so there's no need to be able to do a backup to multiple places, or to have an un-encrypted copy.
- I get better battery life (although this isn't related to DRM, but if we wanted a native playback in the browser, we'd need this.
- Sounds like WebCrypto will probably do hardware-accelerated encryption/decryption (using AES-NI probably?), which is a win overall on the security side.
Cons:
- I don't get to rip the video anymore.
- I can't just play the video on any device (although it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback)
- I can't look at the back and forth JS-based traffic on this netflix site
Where I get more mad is if I _purchased_ the movie, and it's encrypted and I can't do anything with it.
Rentals? Don't care.
I can't think of a single way where this hurts the consumer:
- I don't own the video, so there's no need to be able to do a backup to multiple places, or to have an un-encrypted copy.
- I get better battery life (although this isn't related to DRM, but if we wanted a native playback in the browser, we'd need this.
- Sounds like WebCrypto will probably do hardware-accelerated encryption/decryption (using AES-NI probably?), which is a win overall on the security side.
Cons:
- I don't get to rip the video anymore.
- I can't just play the video on any device (although it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback)
- I can't look at the back and forth JS-based traffic on this netflix site
Where I get more mad is if I _purchased_ the movie, and it's encrypted and I can't do anything with it.
Rentals? Don't care.
> I can't think of a single way where this hurts the consumer
You already listed it, and without even thinking about it described why it's such a serious problem:
> I can't just play the video on any device (although it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback)
Suppose that I want a device I can verify. The reasons for this have nothing to do with movies. I just want to know that the device I'm using for my business doesn't have a backdoor put there e.g. by the Chinese government or any other government or corporation when it was manufactured. I want to know nobody has access to my trade secrets, so I want to be able to verify the device myself, or be secure in the knowledge that someone I trust has verified it and that anyone can who wants to.
This should have nothing to do with movies. I don't care whether or not anybody else wants to watch Batman on their iPad, I just want to look at all the bits I paid for and be able to change them as I please.
But if somebody releases a device I can verify, that device would be incompatible with DRM, because DRM can't withstand transparency. And devices have network effects. Hence why "it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback" -- because having Netflix creates more sales for a device than being approved by neckbeards, so the manufacturers all respond to the market. Anyone who tolerates DRM is making everyone less secure.
And it's even worse than that, because it's not just that you can't verify a device with DRM. You also can't make a device with DRM. If you don't know what's in the black box then you can't reproduce it. The only way a system gets DRM is if Netflix et al will do the work, which they don't do for anything without enough existing market share. And how is a system supposed to get any market share if it can't display any content? This is why Microsoft likes DRM. It destroys the ability of newcomers to enter the market. That's the real consumer harm. Can you imagine what the landscape would have looked like if Microsoft had "provided" DRM for images and web pages in the 90s? No Firefox and no iPhone.
You already listed it, and without even thinking about it described why it's such a serious problem:
> I can't just play the video on any device (although it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback)
Suppose that I want a device I can verify. The reasons for this have nothing to do with movies. I just want to know that the device I'm using for my business doesn't have a backdoor put there e.g. by the Chinese government or any other government or corporation when it was manufactured. I want to know nobody has access to my trade secrets, so I want to be able to verify the device myself, or be secure in the knowledge that someone I trust has verified it and that anyone can who wants to.
This should have nothing to do with movies. I don't care whether or not anybody else wants to watch Batman on their iPad, I just want to look at all the bits I paid for and be able to change them as I please.
But if somebody releases a device I can verify, that device would be incompatible with DRM, because DRM can't withstand transparency. And devices have network effects. Hence why "it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback" -- because having Netflix creates more sales for a device than being approved by neckbeards, so the manufacturers all respond to the market. Anyone who tolerates DRM is making everyone less secure.
And it's even worse than that, because it's not just that you can't verify a device with DRM. You also can't make a device with DRM. If you don't know what's in the black box then you can't reproduce it. The only way a system gets DRM is if Netflix et al will do the work, which they don't do for anything without enough existing market share. And how is a system supposed to get any market share if it can't display any content? This is why Microsoft likes DRM. It destroys the ability of newcomers to enter the market. That's the real consumer harm. Can you imagine what the landscape would have looked like if Microsoft had "provided" DRM for images and web pages in the 90s? No Firefox and no iPhone.
Not exactly sure how any of this relates to Netflix playback.
Plus, who actually has the expertise to truly verify that a device has no backdoors? Security Experts? Well they can do the same with these devices (MSE seems to be a W3C standard). How far will you go? Hardware?
Like I said, when I purchase something, I hate when it has DRM applied. I own about 50 books on the Kindle, and they are all DRM-encumbered, and I hate that I can't lend them to other members of my family like I could do easily with a paper book. These are my books. I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with them (including backing them up).
But I read this post about Netflix video rentals and I think "awesome, I can watch a hi-def movie on my laptop without burning my lap." I suppose others just can't get past the fact that this involves DRM.
But these are rentals. I have no such expectations.
Plus, who actually has the expertise to truly verify that a device has no backdoors? Security Experts? Well they can do the same with these devices (MSE seems to be a W3C standard). How far will you go? Hardware?
Like I said, when I purchase something, I hate when it has DRM applied. I own about 50 books on the Kindle, and they are all DRM-encumbered, and I hate that I can't lend them to other members of my family like I could do easily with a paper book. These are my books. I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with them (including backing them up).
But I read this post about Netflix video rentals and I think "awesome, I can watch a hi-def movie on my laptop without burning my lap." I suppose others just can't get past the fact that this involves DRM.
But these are rentals. I have no such expectations.
> Not exactly sure how any of this relates to Netflix playback.
DRM is a black box with privileged access to hardware whose purpose is to download encrypted information to your computer and prevent you (the computer's owner) from reading it. It would be more effective at hiding the installation of a rootkit than at its stated purpose.
> Plus, who actually has the expertise to truly verify that a device has no backdoors? Security Experts? Well they can do the same with these devices (MSE seems to be a W3C standard).
Please identify the location where the source code to the black boxes they require can be viewed for auditing by members of the public.
DRM is a black box with privileged access to hardware whose purpose is to download encrypted information to your computer and prevent you (the computer's owner) from reading it. It would be more effective at hiding the installation of a rootkit than at its stated purpose.
> Plus, who actually has the expertise to truly verify that a device has no backdoors? Security Experts? Well they can do the same with these devices (MSE seems to be a W3C standard).
Please identify the location where the source code to the black boxes they require can be viewed for auditing by members of the public.
At least Mozilla's EME implementation is the least evil because it runs the black box inside an open source sandbox.
The lesser evil is still evil. In some ways it can actually be worse because people are then less willing to root it out, allowing it to fester.
But the OP was referring to a single way it hurts the consumer compared to the situation today. We can talk all we want about ideal situations but they're not going to happen.
Things happen when people make them happen.
Some things also happen when no-one has made them happen. Not sure what relevance either has to real life, though.
You can say it will never happen all you like, but that's the same thing people said about DRM for music, and they were wrong. The only way to be sure it will never happen is to assume that it won't and stop trying.
Again, with DRM in music, are you making a distinction between streaming music, and owning music? Because I don't care if my Spotify or Rdio stream is encrypted. It has no effect on the user experience whatsoever. (In that sense, Netflix is closer to Spotify or Pandora than to iTunes Movies).
But I absolutely care of the music that I own is encrypted.
But I absolutely care of the music that I own is encrypted.
There are multiple distinct issues here: A) The first order effects of streaming DRM (i.e. can't watch on device without DRM); B) The second order effects of streaming DRM (i.e. device without DRM is unavailable in the market because majority of would-be users demand availability of streaming video); C) Will the studios distribute content without DRM.
What you're saying is that A) doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that B) really does matter quite a lot, and in a way that has nothing to do with downloading vs. streaming.
The ironic thing is that Hollywood is shooting itself in the foot. You want to commoditize your complements.[1] DRM is doing the complete opposite and creating a huge barrier to entry in the markets complementary to streaming video. Look at the book publishers and Amazon -- is that really the position Hollywood wants to be in when negotiating with Apple or Google? Hollywood benefits from more competition in the systems market. Dropping a boat anchor in the form of the inability to display their content on any small timer who tries to compete with one of their powerful third party distributors is masochism. Which is why C) isn't half as implausible as some people seem to think.
[1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html
What you're saying is that A) doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that B) really does matter quite a lot, and in a way that has nothing to do with downloading vs. streaming.
The ironic thing is that Hollywood is shooting itself in the foot. You want to commoditize your complements.[1] DRM is doing the complete opposite and creating a huge barrier to entry in the markets complementary to streaming video. Look at the book publishers and Amazon -- is that really the position Hollywood wants to be in when negotiating with Apple or Google? Hollywood benefits from more competition in the systems market. Dropping a boat anchor in the form of the inability to display their content on any small timer who tries to compete with one of their powerful third party distributors is masochism. Which is why C) isn't half as implausible as some people seem to think.
[1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html
Really? I care how Spotify is encrypted. I can't get a 3rd-party player to play Spotify over the cell network with ads, just like the desktop client does. If I use their player I get an inferior Pandora-style radio. Similarly, even with paid streams I'm stuck with their client, like it or not.
Conversely, I know of old school internet radio stations (shoutcast/icecast style) that charge for high bandwidth streams. I can play those streams on any player I want, over any network I want.
No-DRM is better in all cases.
Conversely, I know of old school internet radio stations (shoutcast/icecast style) that charge for high bandwidth streams. I can play those streams on any player I want, over any network I want.
No-DRM is better in all cases.
I'm not sure where you're getting your "better battery life" from. DRM adds computational complexity, which directly decreases battery life.
Yup, I actually addressed that above. The DRM is tangential to battery life.
The video will have DRM. That's not up for debate.
What's up for debate is whether you need a plugin (which runs in a sandbox) or you can decode using code closer to the metal (browser native).
To be able to play these videos natively in the browser without sandboxed plugin code, you need to still have DRM. Whether you like it or not, this is what the studios want.
The better battery life comes from begin able to decode the video in hardware, because you aren't using a plugin anymore. And you aren't using a plugin anymore because you natively support the DRM.
The video will have DRM. That's not up for debate.
What's up for debate is whether you need a plugin (which runs in a sandbox) or you can decode using code closer to the metal (browser native).
To be able to play these videos natively in the browser without sandboxed plugin code, you need to still have DRM. Whether you like it or not, this is what the studios want.
The better battery life comes from begin able to decode the video in hardware, because you aren't using a plugin anymore. And you aren't using a plugin anymore because you natively support the DRM.
> The video will have DRM. That's not up for debate.
It really should be.
It really should be.
Unfortunately, right now it's completely lopsided. The studios have somehow arranged things in a way that they have full leverage over tech companies.
The music companies couldn't accomplish this. Maybe the studios closely watched and learned from the "failures" of the music industry.
One example of how DRM will hurt the consumer is what I hear about DVDs starting with unskippable ads. The studios have shown nothing but contempt for customers. Don't think I'm advocating for DRM by being excited about this news.
But seriously, in this case, I've just never heard anyone complain about DRM with Netflix or be hampered by it. I don't see how this is anything but a win-win for consumers without adversely affecting the content-watching experience.
The music companies couldn't accomplish this. Maybe the studios closely watched and learned from the "failures" of the music industry.
One example of how DRM will hurt the consumer is what I hear about DVDs starting with unskippable ads. The studios have shown nothing but contempt for customers. Don't think I'm advocating for DRM by being excited about this news.
But seriously, in this case, I've just never heard anyone complain about DRM with Netflix or be hampered by it. I don't see how this is anything but a win-win for consumers without adversely affecting the content-watching experience.
The "better battery life" point is a claim from Apple that their DRM implementation is less CPU intensive than the current Silverlight method.
Eventually you will not be able to _purchase_ a movie or a book. There will be commercial and non-commercial and then they'll start trying to outlaw non-commercial because it hurts the economy. Read "The Right to Read" by RMS.
That will literally never happen. If anyone seriously believes that there will be a day without the legal ability to purchase some media or to publish media without making it DRM-encumbered has some serious issues with their thought process.
Has there been any point in history where it has been easier to make a movie, record a song, or write a story? Has there been any point in history where our culture has been more free? Man it would be a shame if we didn't get to see the latest Hollywood blockbuster, but culture will always continue. There's no way to remove that right within any legal framework.
Has there been any point in history where it has been easier to make a movie, record a song, or write a story? Has there been any point in history where our culture has been more free? Man it would be a shame if we didn't get to see the latest Hollywood blockbuster, but culture will always continue. There's no way to remove that right within any legal framework.
It doesn't need to happen within a legal framework, it will happen within a technical and social one. Mobile platforms are walled gardens, that deliver DRM-crippled content. When the ability to sideload media content is quietly removed from the next version of your favorite mobile OS, how will you get your DRM-free content then?
As long as you can publish on the web, as long as you can write an email, as long as you can make a phone call, send a text, or even talk to the person standing next to you, culture still goes on. There's literally no way to stop it without the death of mankind.
What you're worried about is that we won't be able to buy a copy of the next superhero movie. Oh well. There's still plenty of free and worthwhile works of media that can never be forced to close.
What you're worried about is that we won't be able to buy a copy of the next superhero movie. Oh well. There's still plenty of free and worthwhile works of media that can never be forced to close.
Well, you can always "rip" the video. Worst case you use a screen recorder.
But, what does Netflix gain from using DRM?
But, what does Netflix gain from using DRM?
To a large extent, probably, their contracts with content owners require it, for it is customary for such contracts to require DRM. Look at the music industry; did it _actually_ make piracy easier when iTunes dropped DRM? Not really, but the content owners (or one in particular) fought it for years.
>what does Netflix gain from using DRM?
A business. Without DRM their is no way they'd be able to get the content they charge for.
A business. Without DRM their is no way they'd be able to get the content they charge for.
> But, what does Netflix gain from using DRM?
The studios will license them video.
The studios will license them video.
Licensing deals with the movie industry. I don't think Netflix is pushing for DRM here but the content owners.
Tech illiterate content companies will license them content.
[deleted]
I hate to see DRM in HTML, but I'd much rather have DRM HTML5 video from netflix than Silverlight or Flash.
For a company like Netflix it isn't non-DRM HTML5 vs DRM HTML5, it's DRM HTML5 or Flash/Silverlight/other proprietary plugin.
For a company like Netflix it isn't non-DRM HTML5 vs DRM HTML5, it's DRM HTML5 or Flash/Silverlight/other proprietary plugin.
Much as I would still have preferred EME be made a standard through a body other than the W3C, I'm still glad it's a standard and it will be nice to finally have a non-fan-revving Netflix experience on Macs.
Apple is the master of branding.
(For any downvoters: this was meant as a compliment.)
(For any downvoters: this was meant as a compliment.)
Perhaps, but this language comes from Netflix, not Apple:
http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.h...
http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.h...
As far as I can tell, as long as the DRM is in Flash or Silverlight then some people still hope that "getting rid of DRM" is a winnable fight.
I doubt that's true, myself. It'd be nice, but I don't see it happening.
My online video watching is primarily Netflix with a healthy dose of Hulu Plus, iTunes, and Youtube. Not much of it is available without DRM. That is not a technical choice. That is a commercial choice being made by the people who own the content. Since I'm not going to steal it from them, their choice matters more than mine.
So DRM stays. Might as well have it built-in, more efficient and more secure.
I doubt that's true, myself. It'd be nice, but I don't see it happening.
My online video watching is primarily Netflix with a healthy dose of Hulu Plus, iTunes, and Youtube. Not much of it is available without DRM. That is not a technical choice. That is a commercial choice being made by the people who own the content. Since I'm not going to steal it from them, their choice matters more than mine.
So DRM stays. Might as well have it built-in, more efficient and more secure.
I can CHOOSE to not use Silverlight or Flash. I know it seems like an RMS way of thinking, but with plugins I can choose not to use them.
Now, I have no choice. And the EME spec branches out beyond HTML5 Video. If additional working groups dictate it, soon you won't even be able to view page source or take content.
Now, I have no choice. And the EME spec branches out beyond HTML5 Video. If additional working groups dictate it, soon you won't even be able to view page source or take content.
>Now, I have no choice.
I'm pretty sure you can disable the proprietary DRM blobs on your browser.
You will miss out on a lot of DRM'd content out there, but you can still choose.
You will miss out on a lot of DRM'd content out there, but you can still choose.
You are presumably already choosing not to use Netflix now. I'm not. I'm choosing to use Netflix now, and I want the more secure, more efficient built-in method.
That said, I would like a more secure, more efficient built-in method for any non-DRM video source that chooses to be distributed openly too!
That said, I would like a more secure, more efficient built-in method for any non-DRM video source that chooses to be distributed openly too!
How on earth having an unknown, unsecure, unreviewed binary blob running on your computer be "the more secure method"? Compared to what?
But having a blob in the browser running in a sea of proprietary code (MacOS), I don't think it makes such a big difference.
"a more secure ... non-DRM video source" - more secure compared to what? What does security means to you? If you are going to watch non-DRMed video, it's already as secure as it can get, all you need for the efficiency part is better codecs, think of VP9, or Daala.
"a more secure ... non-DRM video source" - more secure compared to what? What does security means to you? If you are going to watch non-DRMed video, it's already as secure as it can get, all you need for the efficiency part is better codecs, think of VP9, or Daala.
More secure than Flash or Silverlight which are what I personally use today. VP9 and Daala are not, as far as I know, available for me to use when watching netflix.
> "which provides the content protection needed for premium video services like Netflix"
I don't think the qualifier "premium" and DRM are so tightly coupled as Netflix suggests. I could imagine a universe in which premium, that is high quality content, could exist without DRM. So it's not "needed" as such. Those are weasel words.
I don't think the qualifier "premium" and DRM are so tightly coupled as Netflix suggests. I could imagine a universe in which premium, that is high quality content, could exist without DRM. So it's not "needed" as such. Those are weasel words.
I can imagine it too, and I'm sure Netflix can as well. But nearly everyone making high quality/premium video TODAY requires DRM.
Edit: To clarify, if someone wants to make a service like Netflix and have it actually ship today (or any time in the near future), then yes, DRM is "needed."
Edit: To clarify, if someone wants to make a service like Netflix and have it actually ship today (or any time in the near future), then yes, DRM is "needed."
[deleted]
I love how they spin DRM into the fancy sounding "Premium Video".
Keep in mind that the choice you have with Netflix is not "DRM" or "No DRM". It's "Microsoft's old unsupported (or soon-to-be unsupported?) Silverlight" or "Something new that will be maintained going forward and doesn't rely on Microsoft to keep it alive."
Also, this is for rentals, not stuff you own, so for me, at least, it's not a big deal if there's DRM on it.
Also, this is for rentals, not stuff you own, so for me, at least, it's not a big deal if there's DRM on it.
So this is how freedom dies: with applause for +2h of battery life watching videos.
I know that EME is a sticky wicket for a lot of folks, but what freedom have you lost here? Netflix was already encumbered with DRM requirements from their license terms. They just chose to go with a more standards based and performant solution.
I don't have an opinion strong enough to do something, but the problem for me is that if it's too easy it'll just get used by default. It's a feature I don't want.
I was traveling for work to another country. I went to launch Steam to play a local game and either because the network was misconfigured, Steam didn't like me being in another country, or something else I don't care about, I couldn't launch it to play my downloaded, single-player game. I live in a major US city with Internet from a major cable company. Hulu tells me I'm using a proxy and won't let let use the website anymore. When emailing support they offered no help. Back when iTunes had DRM I was at a wedding at a location without Internet. The bride/groom planned their own music but hadn't authenticated the computer with the playlist for the wedding. These are all companies with more "user-friendly" DRM than most.
I like downloading lectures and conference talks. I'm concerned if major video host, like YouTube, were to adopt this I won't be able to download these things and watch while commuting or traveling. It could just as easily happen if Netflix becomes the only host for public domain content or opens to user-submitted video.
I was traveling for work to another country. I went to launch Steam to play a local game and either because the network was misconfigured, Steam didn't like me being in another country, or something else I don't care about, I couldn't launch it to play my downloaded, single-player game. I live in a major US city with Internet from a major cable company. Hulu tells me I'm using a proxy and won't let let use the website anymore. When emailing support they offered no help. Back when iTunes had DRM I was at a wedding at a location without Internet. The bride/groom planned their own music but hadn't authenticated the computer with the playlist for the wedding. These are all companies with more "user-friendly" DRM than most.
I like downloading lectures and conference talks. I'm concerned if major video host, like YouTube, were to adopt this I won't be able to download these things and watch while commuting or traveling. It could just as easily happen if Netflix becomes the only host for public domain content or opens to user-submitted video.
I think you can see the argument that putting this into the standards is a different order of lossage than simply having various implementations.
Agreed.
Also, EME isn't limited only to traditional Movie & TV uses of video. It could be used for web-like content (rendered and encoded at the server) with un-blockable ads.
Also, EME isn't limited only to traditional Movie & TV uses of video. It could be used for web-like content (rendered and encoded at the server) with un-blockable ads.
Not all internet users are Netflix subscribers. Installing Silverlight is fairly heavyweight, and a lot of people aren't willing to install something like that to watch some random cat video on a random website.
The net effect of this was that the average video on the internet was not DRM'd, and couldn't be without losing significant potential marketshare. Once all browsers natively support DRM this will likely change.
The net effect of this was that the average video on the internet was not DRM'd, and couldn't be without losing significant potential marketshare. Once all browsers natively support DRM this will likely change.
Installing Silverlight is fairly heavyweight, and a lot of people aren't willing to install something like that to watch some random cat video on a random website.
Nonsense. Folks have installed Flash forever in order to watch cat videos. Youtube was Flash based and Flash has even been bundled with Chrome. If folks have wanted to DRM their cat videos they've had the ability and its not happened. Its not client side compatibility thats prevented this its that the DRM encoding and streaming costs and complexity that make this a poor choice for content providers.
Nonsense. Folks have installed Flash forever in order to watch cat videos. Youtube was Flash based and Flash has even been bundled with Chrome. If folks have wanted to DRM their cat videos they've had the ability and its not happened. Its not client side compatibility thats prevented this its that the DRM encoding and streaming costs and complexity that make this a poor choice for content providers.
This is a delayed reply, but I really disagree.
Flash has (had?) already won. Everyone already has it installed: almost all consumer computers have it installed by default and Chrome runs it without even having the adobe software installed.
I think it is an absurd claim mistake that a random website running silverlight would have remotely the same view rate as one using flash. That delta cost more than outweighs the tiny benefit of DRM, and when everything is HTML5 video and DRM comes with actually zero cost to potential users it will be significantly more widespread.
Flash has (had?) already won. Everyone already has it installed: almost all consumer computers have it installed by default and Chrome runs it without even having the adobe software installed.
I think it is an absurd claim mistake that a random website running silverlight would have remotely the same view rate as one using flash. That delta cost more than outweighs the tiny benefit of DRM, and when everything is HTML5 video and DRM comes with actually zero cost to potential users it will be significantly more widespread.
How is freedom dying? They are probably already using a DRM mechanism for other products (Apple TV, Playstation, Xbox, Samsun Smart TV, take your pick).
Is DRM in Safari on Yosemite really taking away a freedom?
Is DRM in Safari on Yosemite really taking away a freedom?
Because the once Netflix-specific DRM mechanism will become the common mechanism for every content producer/distributor, and will make it easy for them to lock content behind golden barriers.
So is this freedom dying, or is it some imagined right to free entertainment?
There is nothing like a right to free entertainment, whether free as in beer or free as in speech. If you thought I'm one of these people who just want to access everything without paying anyone, I'm sorry but you're wrong.
My biggest concern is that it will be easier for people who are against sharing to continue their way, and will not make it easier for people who are for sharing. I want to respect the decision of the people who create, but if it is easier for them to make sure we can't see their movie more than once, it feels like more and more content (and people) will be against the principles of sharing.
My biggest concern is that it will be easier for people who are against sharing to continue their way, and will not make it easier for people who are for sharing. I want to respect the decision of the people who create, but if it is easier for them to make sure we can't see their movie more than once, it feels like more and more content (and people) will be against the principles of sharing.
Now that Apple has implemented MSE does this mean that I'll have a significantly higher chance of HTML5 Youtube videos actually playing on Safari?
At the moment I get the "install flash" message on Youtube videos a disappointingly often amount of the time. Weirdly I've had the experience where embedded HTML5 Youtube videos will play, but they won't when I click through to watch the full-size video on Youtube.
At the moment I get the "install flash" message on Youtube videos a disappointingly often amount of the time. Weirdly I've had the experience where embedded HTML5 Youtube videos will play, but they won't when I click through to watch the full-size video on Youtube.
YouTube appears to require Flash when playing a video with ads from the YouTube site. Embeds of the same video show the HTML5 version ad-free.
Here's a tip I've found useful: if you run into the "Install Flash" message, you can usually edit the URL to play in HTML5 instead. Change "watch?v=" to "embed/" (and if there are other querystring arguments starting with an ampersand, just strip them off). There are a few YouTube gateway sites that do something similar, but I remember the 'embed' trick better.
Here's a tip I've found useful: if you run into the "Install Flash" message, you can usually edit the URL to play in HTML5 instead. Change "watch?v=" to "embed/" (and if there are other querystring arguments starting with an ampersand, just strip them off). There are a few YouTube gateway sites that do something similar, but I remember the 'embed' trick better.
I use the "click to flash" plugin on Safari to block flash. On YouTube, the html 5 video version loads 100% of the time for me. I also have no problem with playing them full screen.
Am I missing something or do I just not watch enough YouTube to come across the problem you are describing?
Am I missing something or do I just not watch enough YouTube to come across the problem you are describing?
This has nothing to do with browser technology though correct? This is just individual sites not being more proactive about providing desktop fallbacks.
If you want a short term solution, I usually just swap to an iPad user agent string if I want to force html5 video.
If you want a short term solution, I usually just swap to an iPad user agent string if I want to force html5 video.
Currently, Google just doesn't provide a HTML5 option for a lot of their video. They may be more willing to do so with MSE available, of course.
Is this the same DRM over HTML5 that was discussed a few months ago or is this another fragmented DRM?
The "same DRM" is inherently fragmented because of CDM plugins. But, yes, this is the W3C's EME.
Hopefully this takes us one step closer to Netflix on Linux
pipelight gets us there. We'll never a libre solution for netflix video on linux, because now its in the W3C standard.
One would assume they'll stop supporting the Silverlight version once all the major browser vendors support the DRM.
Eh they'll likely have to keep silverlight as a fallback for at-least half a decade.
A fallback for what, exactly? Once IE, Chrome, Firefox, and Safari support it, that's all they care about. I think they're more likely to drop old-IE than the typical webapp.
IE11 only works on Windows 7/8, and OS X 10.10 is only supported by Macs up to about 5 years old. Even then, a lot of people don't actually keep their OS/browsers up to date. I expect Netflix's demographics are quite broad, and probably still quite a lot of people on XP and 5+ year old computers. There's not really any reason for them to drop support for Silverlight, they'll probably just keep new features for the HTML5 player.
>A fallback for what, exactly?
IE, Chrome, and Firefox users who haven't updated their browser.
IE, Chrome, and Firefox users who haven't updated their browser.
Could they go with flash? I can't believe I'm asking for this, but at least that would work on Linux without much hassle (pipelight is 32bit and I don't really want to go there).
Still no options for Linux?
Firefox will soon support EME, and, if I'm not mistaken, Chrome already does. Someone just needs to implement the CDM modules (DRM blobs) that support the types of encryption/decryption required by Netflix, and then it should "just work" in any browser that supports EME.
Right now the best option for Netflix on Linux is Pipelight - http://fds-team.de/cms/pipelight-installation.html
It runs Silverlight through Wine as a plugin in Firefox/Chrome on Linux. Works flawlessly for me even with HD video.
As for the future, I believe Chrome already supports the underlying technology, and Firefox confirmed they will be adding it in the future, so they will probably support Netflix's HTML5 DRM at some point. Although I'm not sure that it's any more of promising for Linux compatibility than existing propritary software - it will still need to be compiled specifically for each platform, and may even have some OS level requirements too (not sure on that, but the fact this is only working with Windows 8.1 and OS X 10.10 makes me think so). So Linux may still be left out and not be able to run certain DRM extensions.
It runs Silverlight through Wine as a plugin in Firefox/Chrome on Linux. Works flawlessly for me even with HD video.
As for the future, I believe Chrome already supports the underlying technology, and Firefox confirmed they will be adding it in the future, so they will probably support Netflix's HTML5 DRM at some point. Although I'm not sure that it's any more of promising for Linux compatibility than existing propritary software - it will still need to be compiled specifically for each platform, and may even have some OS level requirements too (not sure on that, but the fact this is only working with Windows 8.1 and OS X 10.10 makes me think so). So Linux may still be left out and not be able to run certain DRM extensions.
(All?) recent Chromebook devices can stream Netflix videos. It has been possible for the last year or so: http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.h...
Before someone says "Chrome OS is not Linux": well it is Linux-based, it runs the Linux kernel, and the Linux version of Chrome. I am not aware of any of our (Google's) internal plans, but I presume the intent is to eventually make all the HTML5 Premium Video Extensions functional on plain Chrome with no dependencies on bits of software currently in Chrome OS. This would make streaming possible on all Linux platforms, providing Netflix doesn't artificially restricts playback to only Chrome OS. (I am also not aware of any of Netflix's future plans).
Before someone says "Chrome OS is not Linux": well it is Linux-based, it runs the Linux kernel, and the Linux version of Chrome. I am not aware of any of our (Google's) internal plans, but I presume the intent is to eventually make all the HTML5 Premium Video Extensions functional on plain Chrome with no dependencies on bits of software currently in Chrome OS. This would make streaming possible on all Linux platforms, providing Netflix doesn't artificially restricts playback to only Chrome OS. (I am also not aware of any of Netflix's future plans).
Can GNU/Linux use blackbox DRM?
It's been done before with e.g. Steam or Spotify. I would assume some company or organization would need to release a pre-compiled binary implementation, which could then be handled in much the same way that Flash is currently handled on Linux.
"Can"? Sure, there is no technical reason it can't be deployed.
"Should" or "would"? Not likely, because it will be easily circumvented. There are also more fundamental reasons why linux and DRM are at odds: https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-condemns-partnership-between-mo...
"Should" or "would"? Not likely, because it will be easily circumvented. There are also more fundamental reasons why linux and DRM are at odds: https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-condemns-partnership-between-mo...
Why not? You any install closed-source software on Linux. Firefox will solve this by downloading the binary component for DRM on startup IIRC.
[deleted]
Does anyone know what DRM/CDM it uses? I assume FairPlay, but cant find any info about it at all