Michael Larabel at Phoronix.com reports:
Going back for a few years it's been possible to play Netflix movies on Linux using some hacks like with running Microsoft Silverlight on a modified version of Wine. More recently, Pipelight has been working out well as a easy-to-use solution for getting Netflix movies to play on Linux web-browsers, albeit it's still not a native experience. Fortunately, times are quickly changing.
According to reader reports this Saturday morning, with just modifying the user-agent of the latest beta version of Google's Chrome web browser, it's possible to get Netflix running natively on Linux. Thanks to DRM support with HTML5 and Google's Chrome developers moving quick to implement the support that's backed by Netflix, you can today run Chrome and play Netflix videos without having to use Pipelight or any other plug-ins the support simply works through having DRM'ed HTML5 video support.
That being said, changing the user-agent string is necessary for Netflix to actually work in Chrome on Linux.
More information on Pipelight can be found here.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Monday August 11 2014, @12:21AM
While I am happy that native Netflix comes to linux, it is a bitter pill to swallow.
Essentially having a DRM plugin that runs *completely unknown code* on your CPU from a website, is the worst of all possible worlds.
If DRM mean that javascript source could be signed, preventing malware injection, that would be an improvement.
This is might well keep some people happy, but it is a very negative step.
For my fellow linux users, I recommend running this browser in a VM, or using a new user account with no permissions, and running within an Xnest or VNC server.
Once DRM is allowed to run, malware or govts spyware, will be in through the back door...
OK that's my rant, anyone know if there are protections to prevent this nightmare scenario?
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Monday August 11 2014, @12:36AM
Apparently changing your user agent back to Linux seems to keep it from running. Well, at least keep it from playing videos at netflix.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by RedGreen on Monday August 11 2014, @01:14AM
"OK that's my rant, anyone know if there are protections to prevent this nightmare scenario?"
Well you can always not run the DRM infested crap application, no one is holding a gun to your head, not yet anyways...
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 1) by Adamsjas on Monday August 11 2014, @01:43AM
Do you suppose this unknown code is effectively sand-boxed by Chrome? I thought that was their big claim to fame.
Do you suppose you could chroot Chrome?
(Score: 1) by Wootery on Wednesday August 13 2014, @12:43PM
The 'sandboxing' presumably refers to Chrome using a different process for each tab. Every browser aims to 'sandbox' its JavaScript, of course.
'Sandbox' really just refers to the developers' intent, not to any real technical strategy. The JVM is a 'sandbox', in that its security features are intended to enable execution of Java bytecode in a restricted environment... but it's so full of bugs (even after all these years) that it's essentially worthless from a security perspective.
To answer your question, though: no, the Chrome 'sandbox' buys you nothing here, as it's not in-browser JavaScript code. HTML5 DRM is essentially just a way for browser plugins to be installed and run, i.e. closed-source native-code blobs. They therefore run outside of Chrome, and might try to do just about anything with your system. The idea of taking steps to ensure this code is run with low privileges, is quite sensible.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday August 11 2014, @04:59AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @07:42AM
DRM and encryption are more like opposites.
Encryption is for sending information from A to B, without C being able to listen. This is pure math, and all the good encryption algorithms are public.
DRM is for sending information from A to B, without B being able to listen. From a mathematical point of view, that doesn't even make sense. It's about using your own hardware against you, to force you to do things that they want and prevent you to do things that you want. As such, DRM pretty much falls within the definition of malware. The government may not be involved, but the people who own the government (i.e. those who get to buy laws (e.g. copyright extensions) instead of one person one vote) are definitely involved.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday August 11 2014, @03:05PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by Wootery on Wednesday August 13 2014, @12:51PM
I'll have a go at a less DRM-hostile take:
I'll start with the second question: no, DRM isn't really encryption, it's by nature just obfuscation (for the reasons AC points out).
The first point: that depends on how security conscious/paranoid you are. Government agencies who want to spy on everything (thanks to the US government's respect for the constitution, there's No Such Agency) want to spy on Linux computers, and binary-blobs are a good way to infect. (And yes, big companies are in bed with them.)
(Score: 2) by hamsterdan on Monday August 11 2014, @06:04AM
People were complaining about not being to easily watch Netflix on Linux.
The studios would *never* allow anyone to stream unencrypted stuff, so it's either DRM or no Netflix.
Besides, how many Linux users run 100% open-source code? most (if not all) installations run some kind of binary blob without any existing source code (VGA and Wifi are the first that come to mind).
I'm not ranting, at least now Linux users have the choice to run it natively.
(Score: 5, Informative) by q.kontinuum on Monday August 11 2014, @09:29AM
The studios streamed un-encrypted stuff for the better half of a century. It was caused terrestrial television and started back in 1929AD. That was of course not on-demand, and there was advertisement pretty soon on most channels, but saying they'd never stream anything unencrypted when they actually only recently (in comparison) started to send DRM-crippled stuff is not entirely true.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 1) by Hairyfeet on Monday August 11 2014, @05:30PM
It was also lower resolution than the crappiest youTube video and the equipment to record it cost on the upper end of 6 figures. Me thinks your comparison? Not work too good.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Monday August 11 2014, @06:24PM
It was also state of the art that time, and during the 90's a VHS recorder was available in the 3 digits (and practically owned by every household). Me thinks your counter-argument? Not work too good ;-)
I do realize that pay-TV was using DRM already before internet-streaming became available, but that was at least decrypted on the receiver and available for recording afterwards. My consolation is that there will always be the analogue gap: Given a good monitor, good speakers and good recording equipment it will *always* be possible to record streamed material.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 1, Troll) by Hairyfeet on Monday August 11 2014, @10:01PM
Uhhh...VCR recordings? Yeah you may not know this but they degrade with every play and anything recorded off of rabbit ears back then? Wouldn't have been a great picture to start with. They didn't have to worry about that anymore than the RIAA worried about kids making a copy of a song on the radio with a cassette, because the medium was strictly lo-fi and would trash itself soon enough. Arguing that "it was state of the art at the time" doesn't change the fact its a self destructing media.
Oh and just FYI but VCR tapes haven't been of any decent quality since the early 80s (when they were crazy high) so by the time the 90s rolled around the picture on first record was piss poor and with every play it got shittier, nothing like a digital broadcast at all. I should know as one of the jobs I offer at the shop is the conversion of tapes and photos to digital media and even with wedding videos, where they were recorded only once on a pristine high quality tape and then socked away in a nice cool drawer? yeah even then the picture is already degrading and crappy. That didn't stop Valenti and the MPAA trying to get 'em outlawed, but in any case comparing this to a digital download? yeah...not even close.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by hamsterdan on Tuesday August 12 2014, @04:20AM
Remember Macrovision? The Studios lawsuits against Sony for their Betamax?
As soon as people were able to *record* what was streamed, they tried to prevent it.
(even if each time you made a copy, the quality was degraded. videotape could only be copied 2-3 times before being unwatchable.), but they still tried to prevent it.
Not the same thing with Digital. even after 25 copies, it's the *exact* same content, couple that with how much easier internet has made it to share stuff, DRM is *not* going away.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday August 12 2014, @06:38AM
I didn't say DRM would go away (nor am I 100% convinced it will stay). Remember the efforts of the music industry to get DRM into the music sector? I didn't see any DRM protected music for quite some time, it's usually all mp3 now. I understand the content industry wants to have DRM. But the consumer has a choice. I don't know how the legal situation is in the US at the moment, but in most European countries I think I'm entitled to rip the DVDs I purchased for personal use (e.g. to put them on my home media center, my mobile phone or tablet to play it to my son on a long car/train/plane trip), and even to evade copy protection mechanisms. Surely the Land of the Free won't have any more stringent prohibition in place ;-)?
Even if breaking the copy protection is still illegal by the DCMA, there will always be the analogue hole [wikipedia.org], and I'be surprised if there won't be any specialized equipment to exploit it (although I never used it). And once it is re-digitized, it is free of any DRM.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @10:17AM
But only by installing the Let-Google-Spy-On-You-Browser (aka Chrome).
Make a plugin that runs in Firefox, or make a standalone Linux application, then I may consider using that product. But not if I need to use Chrome.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by opinionated_science on Monday August 11 2014, @12:30PM
That is true, but missed the point about "trojan horse".
They (google) are trying to get DRM in browsers via feature creep, and using the one service that is popular enough to make it seem as "utility" vs "invasion".
The giant horse may not have been "utility" but it lead to "invasion" !!!!
As for 100% open-source code - some of us try. But where it is NOT open source, there are limited use cases that limit the damage they can do.
One exception is Nvidia binary blobs where for many of us, we need to use them to get decent performance out of out purchases. But then again, my video card cannot talk to my network...I think!!
Chrome "phoning home" with DRM has the potential sweep your home directory with blessed malware - or worse "cryptlocker" it in place, and send you an extorion-o-gram.
It is bad enough with Android having a laughable security model, let's not let google put it on our desktops via the backdoor of HTML5.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Monday August 11 2014, @06:11AM
Uhhh...go to Redbox? Seriously nobody is forcing you to give Netflix your money and if you don't like this solution it might be because they have no plans to support you so its nothing but a kludged together hack. But if you feel you HAVE to have netflix? Then I'm sure you know there are several set top boxes out there that support netflix, or you can get one of the new consoles.
You really have plenty of options here, if you don't like it simply don't use it, but you shouldn't condemn anyone who uses it because freedom means free to choose to disagree and if others have no problem with this that is THEIR choice.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Monday August 11 2014, @02:47PM
Yeah. Dont use netflix. Dont use chrome. Dont enable javascript.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday August 11 2014, @01:24AM
Aw, shucks. Chrome? Might as well run it in Windows.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ticho on Monday August 11 2014, @06:13AM
So, I have to jump through hoops and pretend I am on Windows? No, thanks, thepiratebay doesn't require any of that.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by jasassin on Monday August 11 2014, @10:32AM
Heh.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Monday August 11 2014, @10:54AM
So big corporations are building walled gardens on top of free software. Now they're creating tunnels for DRM to get into free software. This is what "open source" has done to freedom, by sacrificing principle for expediency. Corporations love "open source" because they can exploit it like this.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Monday August 11 2014, @12:50PM
But they can't. Only if you use it. Only if they can compel you to use it. As someone has pointed out, you might just as well use Windoze in a VM. FOSS means I don't have to compile it in. I can fork it. Chrome has already been forked once I think (Chromium?)
My fundamental point is the browser is a user interface to the outside world - it is simply too valuable a tool to have mechanisms that *deliberately* make it impossible to debug/monitor downloaded software. Java has always had this problem, but was never *part* of the browser standard.
With all the discussion about zero-day exploits it is quite brazen. This is practically a backdoor for use by whomever....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @11:40PM
i don't get it.
so this is like a plug-in that has the purpose to download another "sanctioned" plug-in, that will verify that you are not doing anything ev1l (make a backup on your universal made-to-copy machine) with the data (movie) they are going to send you? or how?
does it need "root" to work? in this case forget it : )
but if it doesn't have "root" then how is it the real DRM?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 16 2014, @04:22PM
https://www.defectivebydesign.org/cancelnetflix [defectivebydesign.org]