Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pipelight: A Way To Get Netflix On Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Chewi View Post
    I must admit that I haven't read much about it but this is roughly what I was expecting. If it were to come to Linux then I imagine it would require a "neutral" third party who could competently support the platform but also be trusted not to spill the beans. Google seems like the only likely candidate and maybe Chrome OS could motivate them to do it. Pure speculation on my part, of course, but hey.
    fyi chromeos already has netflix and google has no plans on sharing it with the rest of linux

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
      This is complete bullshit as far as i can tell.
      It is not complete bullshit. It's exactly what it is: a standard for loading arbitrary plugins to the browser.

      Don't take my word for it, hear it from a member of the HTML working group: http://manu.sporny.org/2013/drm-in-html5/

      Please provide your source that shows where websites will be able to upload their own binary blobs which will execute arbitrary code. I don't see that anywhere in the spec here: http://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/
      From your own link:

      This specification does not define a content protection or Digital Rights Management system. Rather, it defines a common API that may be used to discover, select and interact with such systems as well as with simpler content encryption systems. Implementation of Digital Rights Management is not required for compliance with this specification: only the simple clear key system is required to be implemented as a common baseline.
      Scroll a bit down, look at the diagram on the page: http://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/stack_overview.png

      Look at the part "Content Decryption Module" or CDM for short. This is exactly the binary blob that runs arbitrary code and interacts with the platform. It's basically a browser plugin, just implemented in a way that lets the browser to download and execute it on-the-fly, without installing it via the usual channels (browser extension installer, system package manager etc.)

      See the part where it says "CDM may use or defer to platform capabilities"?

      If you go to the part about CDM's, it explains the term as:

      The Content Decryption Module (CDM) is a generic term for a part of or add-on to the user agent that provides functionality for one or more Key Systems. Implementations may or may not separate the implementations of CDMs and may or may not treat them as separate from the user agent. This is transparent to the API and application. A user agent may support one or more CDMs.
      Now, to be fair, a CDM doesn't have to be a binary blob. But in practice, it will have to be, because DRM cannot ever be open-source or transparent. It would go against the very purpose of DRM, which is to restrict user freedom. You cannot lock someone in a prison, then give them detailed instructions how to escape.

      Basically, each browser will have to implement certain DRM APIs. Like the HTML5 video spec, they will be able to pass this off to the underlying OS if they don't want to support it directly, so that OSS browsers will be able to use it.
      And these APIs include downloading and executing binary blobs, or, CDM's.

      The netflix html5 support, for example, uses MS's PlayReady DRM system (since only IE11 has support so far). Apple has their own system, and so does Android. My guess is that Netflix will end up supporting all 3 DRM systems, so that their videos can play on any device. The question then, is whether linux will support any of those 3 systems. PlayReady and Apple's DRM are probably out of the question. It's possible Google might allow someone to license support for their system, but I wouldn't count on it anytime soon.
      Yeah, so any way you look at it, this is just going to end up as something that divides the web into islands, where parts of the web run only on certain devices, and other parts run on other devices...

      Comment


      • #33
        All interesting stuff. I'll look a little closer next time I hear news on this subject.

        Since it seems that no one has posted that they got this thing to work on a real site yet, I just thought I'd let you know that I got Blinkbox working on Gentoo. I had to install Silverlight 5.0 and fake the version as 5.1. This is a little fiddly so I'll see if I can come up with a way to make it a bit easier.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by dee. View Post
          And these APIs include downloading and executing binary blobs, or, CDM's.
          Where? I don't see it anywhere.

          Originally posted by dee. View Post
          It is not complete bullshit. It's exactly what it is: a standard for loading arbitrary plugins to the browser.

          Don't take my word for it, hear it from a member of the HTML working group: http://manu.sporny.org/2013/drm-in-html5/



          From your own link:



          Scroll a bit down, look at the diagram on the page: http://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/stack_overview.png

          Look at the part "Content Decryption Module" or CDM for short. This is exactly the binary blob that runs arbitrary code and interacts with the platform. It's basically a browser plugin, just implemented in a way that lets the browser to download and execute it on-the-fly, without installing it via the usual channels (browser extension installer, system package manager etc.)

          See the part where it says "CDM may use or defer to platform capabilities"?

          If you go to the part about CDM's, it explains the term as:



          Now, to be fair, a CDM doesn't have to be a binary blob. But in practice, it will have to be, because DRM cannot ever be open-source or transparent. It would go against the very purpose of DRM, which is to restrict user freedom. You cannot lock someone in a prison, then give them detailed instructions how to escape.



          And these APIs include downloading and executing binary blobs, or, CDM's.


          Yeah, so any way you look at it, this is just going to end up as something that divides the web into islands, where parts of the web run only on certain devices, and other parts run on other devices...
          Obviously a CDM could be implemented in a browser plugin you download from the site. The same way a HTML5 video codec could be implemented that way. But no one does that, because it's stupid. Getting the DRM security stuff working is even more complicated than a video codec, so there is strong incentive NOT to do it that way, and instead use the pre-existing solutions already present on systems that are known to "work".

          This view is born out by the only existing implementation I'm aware of so far. Netflix. They don't try to roll their own security, because that's idiotic. They just use IE to plug into the pre-existing DRM on windows so it works out of the box. Just like they use h264 video instead of creating and distributing their own netflix codec.

          There may be porn sites out there that try to prompt you to download some plugin to view their videos - but they already do that, and they already try to serve you .exe files. If you're stupid enough to run those you deserve to be rooted, and nothing is any different than the current status quo. It's certainly not going to download that stuff without prompting you to install.
          Last edited by smitty3268; 08-18-2013, 07:03 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
            Obviously a CDM could be implemented in a browser plugin you download from the site. The same way a HTML5 video codec could be implemented that way. But no one does that, because it's stupid. Getting the DRM security stuff working is even more complicated than a video codec, so there is strong incentive NOT to do it that way, and instead use the pre-existing solutions already present on systems that are known to "work".
            Are you suggesting that such a DRM scheme wouldn't be pushed out simply because it's "stupid" to do it that way? Considering the history of DRM, I can well imagine (in fact I would expect) that the "content industry" would insist upon it -- they'd see it as a superior approach, that intrinsically offers them much more control.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Bernard Swiss View Post
              Are you suggesting that such a DRM scheme wouldn't be pushed out simply because it's "stupid" to do it that way? Considering the history of DRM, I can well imagine (in fact I would expect) that the "content industry" would insist upon it -- they'd see it as a superior approach, that intrinsically offers them much more control.
              If that were true, why haven't they already insisted on such things from existing DRM providers? They could insist Silverlight DRM followed their own model. They could insist iTunes used their model.

              They haven't because DRM schemes are incredibly complicated and easily defeated in most cases. They realize they are better off letting Apple and Microsoft spend a ton of money making those systems, and just being assured they work. They don't have the expertise in creating such systems anyway.

              Furthermore, it's not certain the browsers will even allow such a thing. The spec says they need to support "a" CDM, meaning at least one. But it never specifies they need to allow multiple systems. That's the same as with html video, where it turns out browsers were incredibly tight about exactly what they allowed to run. Instead of allowing any codecs, they very carefully only allowed specific ones. There's no reason to believe IE will even run any CDM except for their own Fairplay system. It'd be extremely easy for them to claim security when asked why.

              Could content providers eventually demand more? Sure. They're stupid, and who knows what they'll demand next. But that doesn't really have anything to do with the browser EME extensions. It could happen just as easily with or without them.


              I'm sympathetic towards those who think DRM sucks, I really am. I'm also sympathetic towards people who think the EME specs suck. They really do. However, the real point of the spec isn't to be a good spec, easily implementable by all parties involved. It's to allow web apps direct access to MS's DRM, Android's DRM, and Apple's DRM. That's the entire point of the spec, and all the generic language and extendable blah, blah, blah, 3rd party CDM's, etc. are all nonsense tacked on to try and make it more palatable as an open spec. No one is going to bother implementing that part of things in reality. The exact same way the html5 video specs were left annoyingly vague because no one could agree on a single standard - and yet each browser did 1 specific thing that was exactly what everyone knew was going to happen from the start. The specs are really only being made to describe what the browsers were doing anyway, not some kind of catalyst that caused things to happen a certain way. Which kind of brings up the point of whether there's any reason to make this an HTML spec at all, rather than just allowing the browsers to define their own API - but whatever. Open standards is the buzzword of today, so a W3C spec had to be made, and now here we are.
              Last edited by smitty3268; 08-19-2013, 01:36 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                You don't actually need all these hacks and to jump through all these hoops in order to watch the content that's on Netflix. Until Netflix addresses the issue and makes it easy for Linux users to watch their stuff, all you need is a simple BitTorrent client. Works like a charm. No need to mess with NPAPI plugins or Wine DLLs.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Chewi View Post
                  As I said, I currently only use Lovefilm through the mail. If I had an online subscription, I could use the Wii. I only used Blinkbox once and for that, I booted into my Windows 8 on my wife's laptop. She normally uses openSUSE. I like Blinkbox because it is PAYG rather than subscription-based but they don't have a Wii app. I do have an Xbox 360 too but you need a Gold subscription for both services (and Netflix?) and that pisses me off. Why do you have to pay for one service just to access another completely unrelated paid service? I used to have a Gold subscription but I don't have time for console games these days.
                  All right, and what about the ones you get via mail?

                  Originally posted by ModplanMan View Post
                  Here's a novel concept:

                  How about not giving money to the people who are actively working on DRM to stop you watching things on the platform you use, who actively lobby for stronger enforcement and longer copyright terms, who are demanding DRM be made a part of html standards and so on and so forth. At the very least get this stuff on DVD or Blu-ray second hand if you can.
                  DVD also inherently has DRM. Blu-ray not only has DRM, but has insanely paranoid DRM with layers upon layers upon layers of keys hidden in various places that decode one another, not to mention that some even require a secure connection all the way to the screen. So buying DVDs and especially Blu-rays is supporting DRM, second-hand or not.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    DVD also inherently has DRM. Blu-ray not only has DRM, but has insanely paranoid DRM with layers upon layers upon layers of keys hidden in various places that decode one another, not to mention that some even require a secure connection all the way to the screen. So buying DVDs and especially Blu-rays is supporting DRM, second-hand or not.
                    My point was supporting it financially. Buying second hand if you really must watch the latest blockbuster gives none of the money to the studio insisting on loading it with DRM, and at least the DRM on DVD's is largely broken. So no, it isn't still "supporting DRM", the studio demanding DRM gets none of the money.

                    Simply don't pay for services that actively make it difficult for you to use them when you know it's going to the same person trying to make it difficult for you.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                      If that were true, why haven't they already insisted on such things from existing DRM providers? They could insist Silverlight DRM followed their own model. They could insist iTunes used their model.
                      But so far there doesn't exist an API in web standards for this to be practical. The EME model allows this in a more practical, less user-bothering way. Why should we make DRM easy? If the content providers want to use DRM, let them pay the cost, let them make it inconvenient for the user. EME is just pushing the dirty work of DRM schemes onto the browsers, instead of having the content providers do it like they should.

                      They haven't because DRM schemes are incredibly complicated and easily defeated in most cases. They realize they are better off letting Apple and Microsoft spend a ton of money making those systems, and just being assured they work. They don't have the expertise in creating such systems anyway.
                      Exactly my point.

                      And do you think Apple and Microsoft will just let anyone use their DRM systems for free? This whole thing just smells like a power-grab. Netflix is now a big deal, they want to prevent future market disruptors and raise entry barriers by making it harder for others to become online distributors. Hollywood, MPAA and the rest demand DRM, and this means new distributors will have to either create their own DRM schemes that satisfy the demands of the copyright mafia, or they will have to pay royalties to Apple/Netflix/Microsoft/Google for using their DRM-schemes.

                      Furthermore, it's not certain the browsers will even allow such a thing. The spec says they need to support "a" CDM, meaning at least one. But it never specifies they need to allow multiple systems. That's the same as with html video, where it turns out browsers were incredibly tight about exactly what they allowed to run. Instead of allowing any codecs, they very carefully only allowed specific ones. There's no reason to believe IE will even run any CDM except for their own Fairplay system. It'd be extremely easy for them to claim security when asked why.
                      Yes it does, the spec specifically mentions that there can be arbitrary CDM's. Of course all browsers won't support all CDM's, especially if they are incompatible with the OS or arch, or if the CDM's only run on certain browser.

                      Could content providers eventually demand more? Sure. They're stupid, and who knows what they'll demand next. But that doesn't really have anything to do with the browser EME extensions. It could happen just as easily with or without them.
                      Except that without EME, it would be too inconvenient for them and too inconvenient for the users.

                      I'm sympathetic towards those who think DRM sucks, I really am. I'm also sympathetic towards people who think the EME specs suck. They really do. However, the real point of the spec isn't to be a good spec, easily implementable by all parties involved. It's to allow web apps direct access to MS's DRM, Android's DRM, and Apple's DRM. That's the entire point of the spec, and all the generic language and extendable blah, blah, blah, 3rd party CDM's, etc. are all nonsense tacked on to try and make it more palatable as an open spec. No one is going to bother implementing that part of things in reality. The exact same way the html5 video specs were left annoyingly vague because no one could agree on a single standard - and yet each browser did 1 specific thing that was exactly what everyone knew was going to happen from the start. The specs are really only being made to describe what the browsers were doing anyway, not some kind of catalyst that caused things to happen a certain way. Which kind of brings up the point of whether there's any reason to make this an HTML spec at all, rather than just allowing the browsers to define their own API - but whatever. Open standards is the buzzword of today, so a W3C spec had to be made, and now here we are.
                      So then we agree that there shouldn't be a W3C spec for this thing, and that DRM shouldn't be a web standard.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by dee. View Post
                        But so far there doesn't exist an API in web standards for this to be practical. The EME model allows this in a more practical, less user-bothering way. Why should we make DRM easy? If the content providers want to use DRM, let them pay the cost, let them make it inconvenient for the user. EME is just pushing the dirty work of DRM schemes onto the browsers, instead of having the content providers do it like they should.
                        I don't understand why you think it's any easier or harder for them at all. It's the exact same thing.

                        And do you think Apple and Microsoft will just let anyone use their DRM systems for free?
                        Of course not. Another reason to believe that IE will only ever run MS's own DRM system, and no one else's. They'll want a cut of money for any DRM content they play. Why play nice and allow others to profit instead?

                        This whole thing just smells like a power-grab. Netflix is now a big deal, they want to prevent future market disruptors and raise entry barriers by making it harder for others to become online distributors. Hollywood, MPAA and the rest demand DRM, and this means new distributors will have to either create their own DRM schemes that satisfy the demands of the copyright mafia, or they will have to pay royalties to Apple/Netflix/Microsoft/Google for using their DRM-schemes.
                        Welcome to 1999. This is DRM 101.

                        Yes it does, the spec specifically mentions that there can be arbitrary CDM's.
                        Exactly my point. There "can" be arbitrary CDM's. Browsers aren't forced to support any, though. Which is exactly why they're only going to support the one's baked into their OS and block all others.

                        Except that without EME, it would be too inconvenient for them and too inconvenient for the users.
                        Again, i just don't see any difference. Unless you've got insider information into the way MS and Apple DRM works, then you don't either. How is "updating a binary plugin to a browser" any easier than "updating Silverlight (which is a binary plugin to a browser)"?.

                        So then we agree that there shouldn't be a W3C spec for this thing, and that DRM shouldn't be a web standard.
                        Yeah, probably - or at least not if none of them can agree on a single system which will work everywhere (a.k.a. an actual good spec). Unlike you, i just don't see why it matters. If browsers and content providers are going to do it anyway, what does it matter if it's officially a standard or not? Meh...
                        Last edited by smitty3268; 08-19-2013, 10:23 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          If you want pay movies

                          Many have asked why paid content providers using DRM don't support Linux. Well, the way I see it, Hollywood is simply going to tell you to use their pay operating system, one they can control, if you want pay movies. An interesting hack to bypass this against Netflix would be to get IE 11 running under WINE, then see if the HTML5 DRM modules being used in that browser with GTML5 by Netflix will run in that configuration. I can't say, I've never done busieness with with a paid content provider in my life.

                          Otherwise, if you really need to pay for video, my suggestion is to dual-boot. A good enough hacker might also might be able to crack their DRM by running Windows in a virtual machine under Linux-with the host operating system used to capture the stream to a file. Hell, something like Windows 7/Silverlight over Stoned Bootkit or a descendant of it might be enough without going the VM route, so Hollywood gets no guarantee with any form of DRM simply by requiring a paid, closed OS.

                          On the other hand, they do know that if they allow their DRM'ed shit onto Linux, the content will be instantly intercepted, and the quality will exceed that of the 1080p camera facing 1080p monitor copies nobody can stop. They will have no way to stop screen capture, as without control over the kernel you can't prevent video screen capture. No custom hyperviser or bootkit required, much less hacking skill, thus far more copies made and faster. Since DRM pisses people off, such copies tend to propagate.

                          I only know of one DRM scheme that would ever work: Releasing movies only in a huge, high bandwidth format nobody's connection can handle, then getting users hooked on that format's quality or features. Otherwise, forget about it.

                          If you don't like DRM, boycott all DRM'ed content without exception. Ignore it or pirate it, but never let them have your money.
                          Last edited by Luke; 08-19-2013, 11:15 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by ModplanMan View Post
                            My point was supporting it financially. Buying second hand if you really must watch the latest blockbuster gives none of the money to the studio insisting on loading it with DRM, and at least the DRM on DVD's is largely broken. So no, it isn't still "supporting DRM", the studio demanding DRM gets none of the money.

                            Simply don't pay for services that actively make it difficult for you to use them when you know it's going to the same person trying to make it difficult for you.
                            They do get the money indirectly. One could say that pirating the movies would ensure they don't get the money at all... And if you need to crack the DRM to watch it, then how different is it from pirating, anyway? No, I'd say not buying any movies at all is the way to go. There is still plenty of DRM-free entertainment, such as YouTube.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I am one of those weird people who think we should pay for content.... to the content creators. Not some third party whose only means of survival is selling other peoples hard work (DRM). To this end here is what I wish.

                              All major TV channels (HBO, AMC, SyFy etc.) create a private torrent tracker and load up 1080p versions of all their shows as they are made. I and a number of other people would be very happy to pay for the privilege of using this tracker knowing that our money is going to direct to the creators of the content. My only insistence would be that they provide the show in a container of my choice (in my case .mkv but whatever). I could then do whatever I want with my File at home and move it to be used in any way I wish. ( In my case stream from my fileserver to XBMC)

                              Movies would work in a very similar fashion but rather than it being the big studios (Warner Bros, Universal etc.) it is the Production companies that host the tracker (Scott Free, Bad Robot etc.) and hence make the money.

                              This would of course mean that the studios would collapse... and we can't have that now can we

                              I know it will never happen because these companies, rather than embracing this technology like steam et al. have, have decided that it is evil.

                              meh I can dream, until then I just torrent everything and get it the way I want anyways it's their fault they are losing my $ and no one elses

                              just my two cents

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Chewi View Post
                                I don't blame any of them for using Silverlight. With their only real choices being shut down or suck it up, their hands were effectively tied.
                                The non-PC netflix clients, such as Roku, blu-ray players, integrated into hdtvs, PS3s, don't use Silverlight. The PC version didn't need to use Silverlight technically, but Microsoft probably made Netflix a deal they couldn't refuse, and why not? Now, that the Silverlight web plugin is basically dead, Netflix is planning to move to HTML5, which sounds like a better route for Linux support.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X