It doesn't work with lovefilm.
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.
By the way, I almost got it working. The test page works and Blinkbox got as far as authenticating before it bombed out with an error. This was using Silverlight 5.1. I note that the "netflix-desktop" package has scripts that set up Silverlight 4 for Lovefilm so maybe it's worth giving that version a try.
Of course this may be an unrealistic goal, as majority of people don't really care and happily sign away any and all of their rights in exchange for some hollywood drama. But it's at least a good reason to get your entertainment elsewhere than from Netflix. At least I can say that my money doesn't go towards supporting DRM-schemes.
It doesn't matter if you're on windows or not, if you run unsafe, unknown black-box code, it really doesn't matter which OS it's ran on. Do you think just because you run Linux you're immune to malware? That's incorrect. There's plenty of damage a malware can do even without root permissions.Of course I understand that. Like all proprietary software, it's a calculated risk. At least we're not on Windows where the whole damn system is potentially a rootkit.
But DRM is a bit more than just any regular proprietary software. DRM is inherently designed to work against the user, to deny user freedom. If the software is designed not to trust the user, how could the user trust the software?
Then you have bought the PR and propaganda the EME-proponents are spreading - they're apparently trying very, very hard to sweep under the rug the actual technical details of the monstrosity they are trying to attach into HTML5. Basically, EME is nothing but a common, standard way for webpages to upload arbitrary plugins on-the-fly to your browser, which your browser then executes. These plugins (although the proponents don't like to call them "plugins", because it doesn't suit their agenda) are invariably binary blobs, which can have direct access to your system, and in the case of DRM they are invariably closed-source - since the whole concept of DRM is incompatiblle with user freedom or transparency. DRM is software that works against the user.I was under the impression that the idea was to have some kind of unified framework under which these things could work, not to have a completely separate implementation for every site and service. If it were the latter then I agree, it would suck.
Now, think about this for a while. There will be no "unified framework" as such, it's just a way for webpages to execute arbitrary code on the user's computer. This is not only a huge security risk (think sketchy webpages, porn and such, that upload blobs on your computer... and before you know it, you're part of a botnet), but it's inherently platform-dependent: since these are all binary blobs, a blob designed for x86/windows cannot run on ARM/Linux or even x86/Linux. The blobs might even be browser-dependent, where a blob designed to run on IE won't run on Firefox or Chrome (they might not want their DRM-blobs to run on an open-source browser).
So the proponents of EME are being doubly dishonest: they are claiming that this is somehow an improvement against the current situation, where we have to deal with two proprietary plugins (Flash, Silverlight) which it isn't - clearly, having a zillion proprietary, platform-dependent plugins that get loaded on your browser on-the-fly is no improvement to the situation, but to the contrary. They try to sell it to the public as "getting rid of browser plugins" while omitting the fact that we'd be replacing them with new browser plugins instead. What really is attractive to the proponents about EME is the fact that the specification doesn't specify any set DRM scheme - they will be able to update and change the plugins every time old DRM schemes get broken, as they so often are.
The thing is, if we let this DRM thing escalate in this way, where the content producers are demanding for stricter and more "robust" (ie. hard to break) DRM schemes, pretty soon it will get to the point where there will be DRM in not just the content, but the OS and hardware as well. Think microsoft's "trusted computing" scheme: where the entire OS will monitor you, and prevent you from doing things that goes against the interests of rightsholders. If you try to make copies of a file or use a screen-recorder, the computer will just say "I can't let you do that, Dave" and possibly inform the authorities. Of course this means that DRM'd content won't be available on platforms that refuse to implement such perverse schemes, such as any open source system, because open source inherently allows user freedom and that isn't compatible with DRM.
That is the future you sign up for when you support DRM, or companies that use it.
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.
Dee is correct that there will be a few different systems, and the OS will likely need binary blobs to support them, which Linux will probably not get support for. But websites can't just upload arbitrary blobs.
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.
Last edited by smitty3268; 08-18-2013 at 04:56 PM.