
Chrome 57 Will Permanently Enable DRM - fagnerbrack
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/chrome-57-permanently-enabled-drm,33527.html
======
comex
This article is out of date.

If you look at the actual bug report [1], a replacement option to disable
Widevine has already been implemented.

This isn't some evil plot, it's just fallout from Chrome removing support for
third-party plugins and thus the plugin management UI (chrome://plugins).

[1]
[https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=686430](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=686430)

~~~
gear54rus
> This isn't some evil plot, it's just fallout from Chrome removing support
> for third-party plugins and thus the plugin management UI

So instead it's just a fallout from an earlier plot that is no less evil than
this one appears to be.

~~~
Dylan16807
Removing binary plugin support is not evil at all.

~~~
chii
but attempting to add DRM to an open standard is!

~~~
lima
"Lesser of two evils". I prefer a nicely sandboxed and secured EME plugin over
the insecure and clunkly silverlight pipelight trickery that was necessary
before.

Blame the media industry for forcing it.

~~~
hlandau
I don't think so.

If Google was only implementing DRM to tick boxes, they wouldn't be
implementing "extracurriculars" like hardware-based DRM on ChromeOS devices.

They wouldn't own the very DRM company whose product they're peddling, a
company which advertises to the very industry which is supposedly forcing
Google's hand. [http://www.widevine.com/](http://www.widevine.com/)

Take a look at this page and search for 'HW_SECURE_ALL':
[http://www.widevine.com/product_news.html](http://www.widevine.com/product_news.html)

Now, what exactly is the point in implementing a more secure DRM variant
(which as far as I can tell uses remote attestation) if content remains
available to more 'vulnerable' platforms? We even have a potential lockin
motive by Google here, too. I can see it now: "Only available on ChromeOS."

~~~
Buge
Did you know that Netflix only supports up to 720p on Chrome and Firefox?
Because the DRM in those is easy to circumvent. People want higher than 720p,
so browsers implement better DRM.

------
josteink
As Google was one of the main enablers of DRM on the web[1], this is hardly
surprising. Basically without Google colluding with NetFlix, we would still
have a DRM-free web-standard.

Remember that next time you start up Chrome. You helped Google do this.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#Digital_rights_managemen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#Digital_rights_management)

~~~
oblio
Is having non-standard DRM-enablers really any better?

There is a real need for DRM, people and companies are asking for it, it's not
going away.

~~~
vetinari
Let's make an intellectual exercise.

What would happen, if these companies would not get what they are asking for?

\- Would the companies go back to distributing disc? Hardly.

\- Would they make their own clients? Probably yes.

And the difference wrt today situation would be what?

1) The browsers and standards would remain clean - unlike today.

2) Only supported devices and platforms would be able to play videos - Just
like today.

3) If you wanted to play DMRed video, you would have launch separate
application. In my eyes, that's acceptable price to pay for 1)

~~~
charlesdm
Not sure I agree on this.

I don't think DRM is great (hate it, actually), but I do understand why the
content companies would want it. If I were a content owner I would want to use
some sort of DRM system as well, even if it's easy to circumvent.

Does it really matter whether DRM is enabled in Chrome? It has to do with ease
of use more than anything. I don't like it, but I don't see how not including
EME is good for the end user, if the alternative is having to install a
secondary app.

You should want the whole process to be as frictionless as possible, even if
that means giving up "amazing code quality" or "a beautiful standard". You can
have great code and a crappy app. I don't think the world needs more crappy
apps with great code.

~~~
vetinari
Sure they want it, if I were content owner I would probably want it too.

From my POV, DRM enabled Chrome matters. It matters, because

\- it makes browsers that do not include DRM uncompetetive (especially those
who have another business model or do not have bizdev capabilities of Google,
Microsoft or Apple).

\- it taints the standards and,

\- sets the expectations or baseline for having the DRM available.

If the alternative would be to install a secondary app, things would be more
obvious:

\- that there is a price in developing, maintaining and supporting DRM,

\- that price would have to be paid for those who wish the DRM,

\- having DRM available would not be seen as automatic,

\- you could not use bizdev capabilities in DRM to be able to push your
browser - i.e., only Edge supports Netflix in FullHD (Chrome only in 720p).
Yes, the official excuse is that Edge supports DRM X and Chrome only DRM Y,
but in the end, it is only a business deal that DRM X is deemed acceptable for
FHD and DRM Y is not.

~~~
manigandham
> you could not use bizdev capabilities in DRM to be able to push your browser

How is another browser different from a "secondary app"? It's the same thing.

------
schiffern
So much for "but DRM plugins are the better solution, because you can decline
to install them."

eg
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7058004](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7058004)

This is exactly why 'slippery slope' arguments are not as fallacious as people
make them out to be. Humans are not rationally acting robots. Spreading out an
unacceptable change into a series of gradual and individually acceptable
changes _does work_ (even though logically it shouldn't), because it slowly
shifts people's baseline expectations.

~~~
thehardsphere
> This is exactly why 'slippery slope' arguments are not as fallacious as
> people make them out to be.

"Slippery slopes" are only fallacious when you don't actually describe a
mechanism from reaching the top of the slope to the bottom.

"If we let women vote, next thing you know there will be gays in the
military." That's fallacious because there's no connection at all between
women's sufferage and gays in the military. Many slippery slope arguments take
that form.

"If we allow DRM plugins, we will eventually have DRM in the browser always
on," could be considered fallacious because it's not made explicit how one
gets from DRM plugins to DRM always on, even if it may be implicitly obvious.

"If we allow DRM plugins, we will eventually have DRM in the browser always on
because that is the endgame Netflix et al wants and they are spreading out the
implementation of their evil master plan to gain compliance" isn't fallacious
as a slippery slope because the mechanism is made explicit.

~~~
matt4077
It doesn't work like that.

"Slippery slope" is, by itself, a mechanism. It means exactly what you're
describing in your last paragraph, except it does not require someone
explicitly planning the progression.

"Spreading out the implementation..." does not improve the argument because
it's just restating the definition of "slippery slope". The statement that
Netflix has some "evil master plan" is an assertion without proof and doesn't
add anything to the argument, either.

~~~
thehardsphere
I'm sorry, but I think you're simply incorrect.

The premise that Netflix is acting with mallace could be false or true. If
that premise is stated and false, then the argument is valid yet unsound
because it has a false premise. Valid meaning, the conclusion would follow
from the premises if all of them were true.

If you remove discussion of the mechanism from the argument, so that it reads
like the arguments stated in the first and second paragraphs, then the
argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
That's what a fallacy is.

------
dorianm
My favorite story about DRM is how even Netflix's CEO would rather not use DRM
but basically less than 1% of the users care about DRM while it's a
requirements when signing contracts with movies producers.

This makes perfect sense, and at the end of the day those who produce there
content have a right to choose the conditions of how it's distributed

~~~
josteink
> My favorite story about DRM is how even Netflix's CEO would rather not use
> DRM

On which I call bullshit. They still use it for their own productions and
series.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
> On which I call bullshit.

Why? DRM adds cost and complexity to Netflix's operations. I bet a not
insignificant number of customer support issues are related to DRM (e.g. bad
drivers).

> They still use it for their own productions and series.

Because that's what their platform is. The vast majority of their content
remains licensed, and that licensed content requires DRM. They'd have to run a
largely different platform just for their own content to be DRM free and now
have customers with inconsistent experiences depending on which content was
displayed.

------
crypt1d
I dropped Chrome few weeks ago when this news initially appeared. I've been
using Firefox and haven't looked back at Chrome since.

I've been a Chrome user since its earliest releases. I remember switching away
from Firefox at the time because Chrome seemed faster on my old PC, and I also
loved the minimalistic design. Now I feel Firefox has an edge again, and I
also get to supported a company whose values are apparently more aligned with
mine. Go Mozilla!

~~~
simooooo
Chrome has the best dev tools. Until that is sorted we will be tied.

I use Safari most other times. Never Firefox though

~~~
pas
They are trying ..
[http://devtoolschallenger.com/](http://devtoolschallenger.com/) .. I don't
know what else you'd want (because I'm not a frontend guy and I can see how
slow the backend shit is from the server log just as well thankyou :) )

------
shmerl
It's a shame this garbage made it into HTML standard, and Google were
complicit in it.

~~~
kasparsklavins
Better than using flash, which Spotify Web player used to do.

~~~
chii
not really. flash is dying, and osx devices is probably going to stop
supporting it soon enough, and the rest of the world is going to follow. if
DRM isn't in the standard, it illegitimizes any DRM that you have to install,
which improves content consumption for users, and hopefully force media
producers to use DRM free formats, even when they don't want to (they cannot
realistically ask users to install a blob without taking a hit in signup and
conversion).

however, if DRM is built-in to the browser, users no longer have a gate to
cross, and so DRM media will become the norm.

~~~
colde
More likely what would happen is that DRM'ed content is only available on
mobile devices and Windows. If you think that not having DRM in the browsers
would cause anyone to abandon it, you are wrong.

~~~
shmerl
DRM-free can be achieved. But for that we don't need betrayals like Google's
and the like. They only delay things.

------
dagenleg
With Firefox constantly shooting itself in the foot and Google being it's
usual evil self we are slowly but surely moving into the dystopian future of
walled internet. Oh well.

~~~
lima
Isn't Firefox progressing nicely?

------
lossolo
If you have great product you don't need DRM, you will make money of it either
way. Look at CD Project RED (creators of Witcher game series), their CEO said
"We can't force you to buy our game but we can convince you to do so" and they
don't use DRM because they choose to. They made a lot of money because they
just care about their product and their clients.

------
shaan7
So all we need is a powerful enough GPU and record the screen while playing a
"DRM-enabled" movie?

~~~
gcp
This doesn't actually work. Try it!

~~~
tajen
How? Do cameras detect DRM contents?

~~~
kuschku
You’re joking, but yes, that’s actually a thing.

Watermarks with detection in cameras and scanners, be it the simple EURion
constellation[1], ContentArmor[2] or the watermarking techniques developed by
Denuvo, these things exist.

Some directly prevent you from photographing the content or filming it, others
tell the camera to add identifying information steganographically. Even others
are only used for ContentID. All of them work even if the material is going
through analog copying.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation)
[2] [http://contentarmor.net/](http://contentarmor.net/)

~~~
zapu
Also [1], which relies on watermarking audio of content, which then can be
detected by hardware players and the playback can be stopped if it discovers
that e.g. you play a BluRay rip from USB stick. It survives encoding with
different codecs. I'm not sure if it has been cracked yet or not.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia)

~~~
grw_
Appears to be 'cracked' as far as is possible- i.e, can remove the watermark
itself, but not possible to undo the degradation to the original signal that
the watermarking introduces.

[http://cyberside.net.ee/ripping/cinex_wp_release1.pdf](http://cyberside.net.ee/ripping/cinex_wp_release1.pdf)

------
GoofballJones
Just a question on principles...as someone elsewhere here has stated that this
article is out of date and that you can, in fact, disable Widevine in Chrome
57.

But either way, let's say you couldn't disable it...and that it was also the
case in Chromium. Couldn't someone fork Chromium and put out a new browser
with that disabled? Chromium is all open source, yes? So what's stopping
someone from doing that?

------
vbezhenar
Does DRM even work? I can hardly believe, that encryption keys are not leaked
and determined hackers can't copy protected content.

~~~
pornel
DRM works great, but DRM is not for protecting content from piracy. It's for
getting leverage over playback device manufacturers.

[https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2](https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2)

~~~
vbezhenar
That's a very interesting point of view, thanks, it certainly makes sense.
Though I don't really understand, why bother with all those encryptions, if
you can just add some metadata to the video container. Something like
"printing is forbidden" flag in PDF.

~~~
pornel
Usually metadata like "printing is forbidden" or "ad is unskippable" is
effectively optional, as someone could write a player that ignores it.

However, adding any encryption covered by DMCA makes it the law, and allows
you to use the police to enforce your file format's specification.

------
aruggirello
Is Chromium affected too?

~~~
GoofballJones
That's what I'd like to know also. And if so, what is stopping a group of
people from forking Chromium and building one that can turn it off? Chromium
is open source, yes?

With everyone crying and complaining about Firefox on this thread, why not all
get together and fork THAT browser too? There have been forks of software
before...some MUCH bigger than a browser. Take MATE forking off from Gnome 2
when people didn't like Gnome 3 at the time. Look at LibreOffice. Why should
Chromium or Firefox be any different?

------
tehabe
What I don't like about Widevine/EME in Chrome: you don't when it is being
used. It would be a big improvement if you knew and could ask the website why
it is using EME on something. Of course it should also possible to know for
what EME is being used.

~~~
josteink
EME should be a permissions, just as much as asking for the users microphone
and web-camera. Iirc when Firefox caved in on this whole CDM thing, they made
it something the website needs to request access to before it can be
activated.

I see no technical reasons for why Chrome shouldn't be able to do the same.

I guess Google has an active interest in promoting DRM, and as such making DRM
cumbersome to use is counter to that goal.

~~~
tehabe
This is actually the case, but the setting in incomplete, you have a setting
called "Allow sites to play protected content (recommended)" in the Settings
(Chrome 57).

Missing is "Ask" and a whitelist.

------
hartator
Time to cancel Netflix.

------
rasz_pl
How about a button to disable mandatory Extension updates?

------
tbrowbdidnso
Cool, thanks Google.

------
Sylphine
I will have to read the article later but if this is true then I will have to
say to Chrome those memorable words found in Terminator 2. Hasta la vista,
baby.

