Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Netflix Now Works On Linux With HTML5 DRM Video Support In Chrome

timothy posted about a month and a half ago | from the better-than-impossible dept.

Chrome 201

An anonymous reader writes "Beginning with the Chrome 38 Beta it's now possible to watch Netflix without any Wine/Silverlight plug-ins but will work natively using Chrome's DRM-HTML5 video capabilities with Netflix. The steps just involve using the latest beta of Chrome and an HTTP user-agent switcher to tell Netflix you're a Windows Chrome user, due to Netflix arbitrarily blocking the Linux build."

cancel ×

201 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why is (2)

José Pedro Soares (3770371) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638317)

Netflix arbitrarily blocking the Linux build

I find it hard to believe that they would do it just because they can.

Re:Why is (4, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638359)

If they do not want my OS, they do not want my money... I mean it is nice that it can work, but I am not signing up yet.

Re:Why is (5, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638441)

I used to be a long term NF user (the mail dvd's, that is) but the service started getting slow (mailings were not as fast as before) and many titles were dropped (not NF's fault, but I still had less choice).

TPB does what I need and there's never a problem with compatibility ;)

sorry, entertainment industry, but I gave up on you. for decades (quite a few of them) I helped fund your overpriced shite. that has now ended.

my cost is that of a VPN and that's it. and so, I'm 'there' until things drastically change, and I don't see that happening even in my lifetime.

so, even though linux is now 'working', I could actually care less. too little, too late.

Re:Why is (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638489)

I could actually care less

So exactly how much less could you actually care then?

Re:Why is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638663)

Thanks, Weird Al.

Re:Why is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638691)

I couldn't care less about your failure to grasp what they said

Re:Why is (0, Offtopic)

tepples (727027) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638675)

In practice, "I could care less" means "I could hardly care less".

Re:Why is (4, Funny)

Richy_T (111409) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638703)

To the same kind of people who consider a lottery ticket an investment.

Re:Why is (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638817)

. . . which *still* means that you care. So, how much do you care?

Peopel gyrate about trying to explain that "I could care less" is some shortenend saying, yet all of them end up stating that the person *does* care to some magnitude.

Either say "I don't care," or "I could not care less," or be prepared for a misunderstanding. Oh, and claiming that people *really* did understand what you said and that they are just pedantic is weak sauce for those that simply don't care enough to speak to be understood.

Re:Why is (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638965)

Either say "I don't care," or "I could not care less," or be prepared for a misunderstanding.

Not caring would mean a care level of zero. "I could not care less" implies the impossibility of going below zero.

To get over this endless debate, we just need to define "care" properly. To me, "care" is a positive thing with an obvious negative. Say you walk past a kid who is sitting there and crying. If you care, you ask them what's wrong and offer help. If you don't care, you keep walking. You can easily go below this zero level of caring, for example by beating them up or molesting them. Of course, some people may interpret this as a kind of caring -- i.e. taking interest. In this case, we would have to consider "care" as the absolute value, thus legitimizing the impossibility of going below zero.

So far, the options are basically between a real number and a non-negative real. It's really (heh) as far as you can go, because e.g. complex numbers don't have the concept of less or more. Nevertheless, for another fancy insult you might as well say your care level for them is imaginary.

Re:Why is (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47639031)

People who say "I could care less" are wrong and no amount of rationalization changes that. The saying is "I couldn't care less" As in the amount one cares is zero. And no, you can't go below zero, if you were to go negative that would imply that you do in fact care about whatever it is, even if rather than wanting it, you now want to avoid it.

Not that I really care, I wasn't the one that started this thread, but it's ridiculous that people put so much effort into rationalizing something that is outright wrong.

OTOH, if they mean that they could care less as in they care somewhat, that's a completely different matter. It's just in practice, I've never encountered anybody who intended to say that.

Re:Why is (4, Insightful)

TeknoHog (164938) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639245)

I also think "I could care less" is dumb. I just wanted to point out how zero is not always the lower limit, because obviously this is an important topic to many a Slashdotter.

Frankly, if you mean "I don't care", then by all means say so, there's no need to put it in any fancier terms. Especially when you get it wrong, which is what frequently occurs whilst endeavouring to overliteralize, perchance even hypercorrect matters.

Of course, if you actually say "I don't care about $x", there's still a non-zero level of caring. If you genuinely don't care, you won't even think about it, you just walk away.

Re:Why is (1)

rthille (8526) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639581)

I _could_ care less, but I don't care enough to try to not care that hard :-)

Re:Why is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638871)

In practice, "I could care less" means "I could hardly care less".

That's reasonable, which in practice means that it's stupid!

Though in this case the original phrase was "I could actually care less". Surely if people start inserting the word actually we should be allowed to take a sentence at its literal meaning rather than the exact opposite.

Re: Why is (1)

LordKronos (470910) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638919)

Rather than "actually" how about "I could theoretically care less"

Re: Why is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47639017)

I couldn't care less because it couldn't be more obvious that people using the wrong expression couldn't be more clueless.

Re:Why is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47639149)

In practice, "I could care less" means "I could hardly care less".

Not in my experience. I've only ever heard & seen it used by people who cluelessly used "COULD care less" in a context where they clearly meant "could NOT care less".

Re:Why is (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47639153)

In practice saying "I could care less" means you're illiterate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw

Re:Why is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47639347)

WORD CRIME

Re:Why is (1)

PReDiToR (687141) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638823)

I've started to think of it as
- I could actually care less if I really tried.

This small addendum makes my stress levels lower.
Stupid people are taking over the world; me getting het up about their poor grammar seems likely to make me one of them.

Re:Why is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638971)

"me getting het up about their poor grammar seems"

What does the sentence above actually mean?

Re:Why is (1)

ChrisTaylor2904 (553656) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639657)

Getting het up means getting annoyed or irritated. So the phrase becomes : Me getting annoyed about their poor grammar seems likely to make me one of them.

Alternative version : If I get annoyed about their poor grammar, I am likely to become one of them.

Re:Why is (1)

whereiswaldo (459052) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639283)

Sorry, return type is boolean, not floating point.

Re:Why is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638585)

so, even though linux is now 'working', I couldn't actually care less. too little, too late.

FTFY!

Damn it, people! It's not that hard...

Re: Why is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638693)

If you've given up on them then support someone else's work that doesn't use DRM. Don't use TPB and justify it to yourself because it was inconvienent.

When you've actually worked your ass off on a film these "lol just gonna watch it anyway and not pay u!" posts are fucking infuriating. Nothing is forcing you to watch the film I worked on.

How about I use your GPL code in my product and not release the changes? That's copyright infringement too but somehow its unethical now?

Re: Why is (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638721)

If you've given up on them then support someone else's work that doesn't use DRM. Don't use TPB and justify it to yourself because it was inconvienent.

Choice 1: Download the film. Result: You watch the film, and the authors don't get any money.
Choice 2: Don't watch the film at all. Result: You don't watch the film, and the authors still don't get any money.

Yeah, real rational there. Can't stand that people are enjoying 'your' data without shelling out some money?

That's copyright infringement too but somehow its unethical now?

There's no such thing as absolute morality. Copyright itself (yes, even the GPL) is just a bad concept.

Re: Why is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638765)

Access to culture is a human right. Next you will argue that we need to get rid of child labor laws.

Re: Why is (1, Troll)

Opportunist (166417) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638827)

Yes, it is. Ripping someone off who tried to be fair to you is unethical. Ripping someone off who tried to rip you off isn't.

You might see the difference.

Re: Why is (3, Insightful)

MatthiasF (1853064) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638885)

Depends on the circumstances, doesn't it?

In these cases, the issue is a want (consume content) and not a need (consume food/water/air). So, you are ripping someone else off because you want what they have but do not need it.

And in those circumstances, you are the one being unethical. Only when you have a need that someone acts unfairly to address it, does ethics start to play a role.

Otherwise, you're just being inaccurate and melodramatic.

Re: Why is (1, Troll)

Opportunist (166417) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638911)

I guess ethical is as much a matter of personal perception and preference as art is.

Personally, I don't consider it unethical to rip someone off who tried to rip me off. I won't start that kind of game, but I sure know how to play and win it.

Re: Why is (1)

anmre (2956771) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639025)

I see your point. However, assuming that you actually do use TPB or something similar (you didn't specify), do you re-seed what you've downloaded? Because if you don't, then you are actually putting the seeders (distributors) at greater risk of getting caught and prosecuted for copyright infringement than you are willing to take on yourself. You would be consuming without paying in any form whatsoever. That would be unethical.

Re: Why is (1, Troll)

qpqp (1969898) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639085)

And in those circumstances, you are the one being unethical.

Here's a universal truth for you (i.e. no matter what the marketing and law shills are telling you, this applies at the base level).
There are three main categories of freeloaders:

  1. 1. Those, who'd like to pay but didn't find a way (i.e. unavailable on netflix/itunes/etc.)
  2. 2. Those, who'd like to pay but didn't find a convenient way (i.e. DRM issues, different platform, too much of a hassle to register, not accepting , etc.)
  3. 3. Those, who won't pay as a matter of principle (i.e. "all copyright is bad")

In all three cases, chances are that the person consuming a media product has friends who will be willing to go to lengths to pay for a specific product and get a collector's edition, because the freeloader told them that the product is worth consuming.

Also, most true (for common values of true) artists, could't possibly care less if someone paid for their work or not, as long as they get as much exposure as possible. And if you do care, go to your studio/distributor/manager and tell them you're upset that categories one and two don't have a possibility to pay for your work, and/or sue them for the difference in missed opportunities.

Re: Why is (1)

qpqp (1969898) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639089)

Second category was supposed to say "not accepting <insert payment method here>" in brackets.

Re: Why is (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639229)

What about those who don't pay simply because they don't want or have to?

I'd be tempted to put them higher up the list than some of your three.

Re: Why is (2)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639235)

Artists who don't need to eat I suppose.

Re: Why is (1)

qpqp (1969898) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639733)

No, just Artists. You know, the ones that have an urge to produce a work of art regardless of pay. For some recent examples, you can just look at the millions of FLOSS developers.

Re: Why is (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639157)

Re: Why is (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639257)

.Ripping someone off who tried to rip you off isn't.

Well, there's a difference between charging more than you're willing to pay and "ripping you off".

I've given this issue a great deal of thought. I'm something of an expert on ethics having spent a large part of my life diligently trying to eliminate ethical considerations from my behavior, and then the past few decades carefully adding them back in.

Regarding the downloading of professionally produced media without permission: My rule of thumb is how readily I could actually pay for it. For example, since I'm not willing to engage any of the cable or direct TV vendors, because they are evil companies that suck, I find it impossible to watch certain things that are produced by cable stations. In many cases, they don't have any mechanism for paying for a TV show that I would like to see besides buying cable, which I refuse to do on ethical grounds. I've got nothing against the writers and artists and producers who make these shows, and would love to give them my money, but they've made it impossible by partnering with cable companies and satellite companies. So, in this case, eztv is my friend.

I have a similar relationship with the popular movies. I could either see them in a theater, which I don't do because I hate being around other people who are not related to my by blood or marriage (and in some cases not even them) or I again I'm faced with the cable conundrum. So, it's TPB in the case that I don't want to wait for something to hit Netflix.

But music, I pay for. Since there's nothing mainstream that interests me, it's relatively easy to download the music from a torrent site, and (I'm serious) then send the artist a check for $5, which I figure is about how much they'd be making on the download. In some cases, if the music is really great, I'll send a tenner (and have even gone $20 on occasion. It's really easy to find the artist's management, and you'd be surprised how often the checks get cashed, which is cool. I have cancelled checks from some very interesting artists, which I collect.

I have a policy on books, but it's too complicated to go into right now and it smells like dinner's almost ready.

Re: Why is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47639041)

I'm not sure why they'd care. The service isn't for sale to them, now if the service were for sale and they did this anyways, that would be completely different. The question is why on earth people would get heated up because people who aren't being offered a service are refusing to do without.

Re: Why is (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639331)

If you've given up on them then support someone else's work that doesn't use DRM. Don't use TPB and justify it to yourself because it was inconvienent.

They are stealing our rights to privacy and free speech, so he is "stealing" a movie. You are right in that it is not a fair trade... But shooting them presents other problems.

Re:Why is (2)

Garrynz (904755) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638737)

David Mitchell rant about "could care less" explains it better than I could https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Re:Why is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47639321)

sorry, entertainment industry, but I gave up on you. for decades (quite a few of them) I helped fund your overpriced shite. that has now ended.

Entitled much?

Re:Why is (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638899)

Why would you want Netflix anyway? To the bet of my knowledge they don't carry faggot pr0n and being a Linux user I'm guessing that's your game.
 
Why don't you step over to linuxfaggotsgettingpoundedintheass.com and enjoy?

Re:Why is (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47639105)

linuxfaggotsgettingpoundedintheass.com

This domain is available, maybe you'd like to start a business, if you're so convinced of what you say?

Re:Why is (5, Insightful)

astro (20275) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638369)

Because no matter how strongly they state that a configuration is not supported, if it's not expressly blocked, people will try to get technical support for it. And with the distro landscape as it is, supporting mainstream software on "Linux" is a nightmare.

Re:Why is (2)

markdavis (642305) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638401)

If it is browser based, is it really THAT hard to "support"? Just wondering.

BTW- as far as I am aware, no distro includes or supports Chrome, anyway... only Chromium (which is open source).

Re:Why is (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638503)

BTW- as far as I am aware, no distro includes or supports Chrome, anyway... only Chromium (which is open source).

What do you mean by support?

On my linux box, I have both Chromium and Chrome installed. Chrome makes it easier to switch google apps profiles [howtogeek.com] than Chromium.

Re:Why is (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638671)

I've started to differentiate two notions of "support" in the past year or so. One of them, the most popular definition among users, is "it works on my system". The other is what the developers mean: "we'll answer your email regarding your predicament". If it works it doesn't mean that it's also supported. It just means you're one lucky guy. You may be 10 billion lucky guys, but if the developer doesn't want to support your lucky install, expect borkage with each new release.

Re: Why is (1)

corychristison (951993) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638513)

Which raises another question. Can you make Chromium work with Netflix?

I'm a firefox guy personally. I use pipelight and it works quite well.

Re: Why is (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638611)

Which raises another question. Can you make Chromium work with Netflix?

I'm a firefox guy personally. I use pipelight and it works quite well.

I use it as well but it has a habbit of getting the audio stream out of synce with the video and tends to misbehave with multiple monitors. I will have to try this on chrome and see if it works better.

Re: Why is (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639349)

I use it as well but it has a habbit of getting the audio stream out of synce with the video

Oh good. I thought I was just using pipelight wrong.

Re: Why is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638713)

Pipelight... now there's a well guarded secret... I like it just by reading its documentation already.

Re: Why is (1)

Microlith (54737) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638791)

Can you make Chromium work with Netflix?

Unlikely, unless you do a pipelight-style solution. The HTML5 support won't work because the CDM is only part of the closed source Chrome builds.

Re:Why is (3, Informative)

astro (20275) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638535)

From the replies on the linked blog post, people are having distro-specific successes / failures even after following the instructions. I can imagine this being anything from distro specific paths, to permissions on certain binaries that could be different for say, Fedora from Mint, to codec issues (though as I understand it with Chrome the codecs are all basically wrapped up in the binary?) The specific technical details of this situation are a bit out of my area of expertise but I don't think any of the things I guess at here are out of the realm of possibility.

Technical issues aside - I welcome this development. I know and understand completely that a lot of people have issues with DRM making it's way into the core HTML (5) specs, but I kind of see it as unavoidable if we want to enjoy commercial content without needing completely non-standard garbageware like Silverlight or Flash. I have used Netflix with the Compholio Wine / Pipelight stuff, and while it works, it struggles to do so.

Yeah, there is a slippery slope and lots of compromise - but I would have less reason to ever boot into Windows if my paid subscriptions to content that I enjoy could work natively under "Linux". And just don't ask me to stop watching movies or playing 3xA game titles, because I won't.

Re:Why is (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638607)

If it is browser based, is it really THAT hard to "support"?

Yes. I have actually done phone support, and you would not believe how dumb some people are. Many will call for support before they even turn their computer on. They want someone to babysit them through the entire process before they even try to do it themselves. The only way to deal with these people cost effectively, is to hire a bunch of Indians or Filipinos, and have them walk the users through a canned script. Once you start throwing in additional variables, and Linux has a lot of variables, then the complexity of the script increases exponentially. Pretty soon, you end up having to hire expensive tech support people that are actually capable of thinking and troubleshooting. Why should Netflix do that for an extra 1% in sales?

Re:Why is (1)

the_gadfly (556428) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639457)

Yes. I have actually done phone support, and you would not believe how dumb some people are. Many will call for support before they even turn their computer on. They want someone to babysit them through the entire process before they even try to do it themselves.

Yeah, because no one is more likely to call tech support to learn how to turn the computer on than a Linux user.

Re:Why is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638627)

> If it is browser based, is it really THAT hard to "support"? Just wondering.

Hi, I have 20 programs I didn't tell you about mucking around with this oddball system nobody you know has a copy of. Can you troubleshoot this obscure problem with my unsupported system? Also, I plan to complain a lot but I won't actually answer any of your questions. Thanks and bye!

You might think I'm kidding but...

Re:Why is (1)

JSG (82708) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638867)

In Gentoo you get three versions of Chrome - stable, beta, unstable. My wife's Arch running laptop has Chrome although to be fair I did have to add it from the community package source which seems to be pretty obligatory anyway.

Pretty sure Ubuntu and Mint have it available. I doubt very much that Debian, with its legendarily large repo of stuff can't manage a major browser.

If you can install Linux there's a fair chance you can get Chrome to run on it.

Re:Why is (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638447)

more like: because linux being more hackable you either end up with a secure system that works in very limited configurations, or with the drm being defeated somewhere between the os, the drivers and the video card.

All hail Chrome, the Flash of the next decade :)

Re:Why is (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638847)

Linux isn't really more hackable. Having access to its open source only makes it more legal.

Re:Why is (5, Funny)

VTBlue (600055) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638593)

A Linux user calling tech support...that's rich.

Re:Why is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638821)

man netflix

No manual entry for netflix

HELP!

Re:Why is (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638845)

Oh, I've heard Linux users calling tech support all sort of things. Most of them not suitable for polite conversation, but still...

Re:Why is (1)

fred911 (83970) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639083)

Reaching a "tech" that's not scripted on the first, second or third call is just as rare.

Re:Why is (1)

quantaman (517394) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638801)

Because no matter how strongly they state that a configuration is not supported, if it's not expressly blocked, people will try to get technical support for it. And with the distro landscape as it is, supporting mainstream software on "Linux" is a nightmare.

It might be simpler than that.

Up till now there hasn't been a browser that would identify as Linux and run Netflix (unless the Wine/Silverlight combo did so).

So if a browser identifies as coming from Linux it's a surefire guarantee it won't work, so rather than trying to run and throwing up an obscure but unfixable error it's better to simply tell the user to give up right at the start.

Now there's a Chrome beta where Netflix can run on Linux, maybe when the beta is released they'll start official Linux support, but I wouldn't draw too much from their long term plans based on the fact that they block a formerly unrunnable configuration.

Re:Why is (1)

Air-conditioned cowh (552882) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639063)

More likely the Netfix website code just assumes that any desktop Linux build is incompatible because that has historically always been the case. Now it isn't anymore perhaps it will version check Chrome on Linux and decide whenever the Netflix devs get around to it, though I can't see it being much of a priority to them however much I would like it to be.

Re:Why is (0, Troll)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638371)

Reed Hastings, the douche who runs netfix, is a huge microsoftie.

Re:Why is (5, Interesting)

CrankyFool (680025) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639699)

He's really not. Right now, for example, he mostly works on a Chromebook. At least that's what he's usually on when I see him working in the kitchen*.

(I work at Netflix)

* Reed doesn't have an office / cubicle / set location, so he tends to work either in a common area or in a random conference room until you kick him out because you reserved the room

Re:Why is (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638407)

Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, was also on the Board of Directors for Microsoft from 2007 through 2012.

So yes, they can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Hastings

Re:Why is (3, Insightful)

Stormwatch (703920) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638483)

Ex-Microsoft people, always causing trouble to their new companies to benefit their old company. See also: Stephen Elop.

Re:Why is (3, Informative)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638841)

He also was CEO of Pure Software. The guys who did the Purify malloc debugging tool for UNIX. Being in the board of directors does not mean much.

Re:Why is (1)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639111)

Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, was also on the Board of Directors for Microsoft from 2007 through 2012.

So yes, they can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Hastings

So what's the theory for Netflix working fine on my PS4, Wii, Apple TV, iPhone, iPad, iMac, etc.?

Christ, nobody cares that strongly about Linux. I mean... that's why there's no conspiracy to exclude it... I'm sure you love it, but damn.

Why is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638649)

From the comments on the thread, it doesn't seem to work for a large number of people (myself included). It's possible that they're whitelisting builds they've tested and know work rather than blacklisting Linux.

Re: Why is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638657)

They obiously don't need every customer they could have, meaning there is no competition?
Like MS has been in PC fot 20 years, FB in social media. They have control?

Re:Why is (3, Insightful)

Shoten (260439) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638863)

"due to Netflix arbitrarily blocking the Linux build"

i.e., generating a valid page based on detection of a Linux-based USER-AGENT from the browser, to save the user from trying to troubleshoot what has been, until recently, a problem that the user could not fix. Hardly sinister.

not for long... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638397)

Netflix Now Works On Linux

After they discover people are doing this (thanks slashdot!) it isn't going to be working for much longer.

Re:not for long... (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638855)

And how do you plan to stop it?

The problem is, whatever answer you get from a remote machine that is not entirely under your control depends on what that remote machine wants to tell you, not on what it should tell you in your opinion.

Re:not for long... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47639287)

It's a closed source DRM blob. They can do whatever they want.

How long before a Firefox solution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638413)

Anybody know? They have been talking about their own HTML5 video encryption for a while, for this to suddenly be a Chrome thing.

Re:How long before a Firefox solution? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638573)

You can track it here [mozilla.org] .

So... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638451)

How do I remove the DRM, save it as mkv and upload it to TPB?

Re:So... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638599)

How do I remove the DRM, save it as mkv and upload it to TPB?

Why bother? It's already there.

Re:So... (3, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639217)

Right click on video player, "Save video as...", then when the Save dialog comes up, where it says "File type" switch from ".drm" to ".mp4".

Re:So... (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639675)

And if your computer is too old to play MPEG-4 video files, simply change the extension to ".mpg"

Wake Me Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638487)

Wake me up when it's the Year of the Linux Desktop and I don't have to care about such twaddle and it Just Works.

Re:Wake Me Up (4, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638515)

Desktop is over. Everything is now tablet, and a few years ago was "The Year Of Linux On The Tablet," or Android anyway...
(Slight sarcasm alert)

What about Niggerflix? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638619)

Will they still support Niggerflix?

hum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47638783)

Could it maybe be because there are 100+ too many damn distros to deal with compared to lets say XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1 all win32 compatible. It would be nice if the linux community concentrated on 1 - 3 distros and put their energy into creating better applications. But if it's true that Netflix somehow is blocking linux from running their service it is pretty damn shameful since netflix relies on linux, bsd servers and also linux based devices like roku to get their netflix services into many homes. Find a way to ban netflix from linux that will teach them.

But, netflix streaming monthly releases have been getting pretty damn bad anyway especially for the u.s region. For example, SG1 is in fact licensed by netflix but only available in UK, Denmark, Chile, etc... Because the greedy asshole copyright owners want to milk u.s(bigger market) as much as they can in dvd sales and in syndication, well it is their right anyway, but they are still assholes.

Re:hum (0)

allo (1728082) | about a month and a half ago | (#47638945)

No, because you change the UA and it works. So why should it be a problem for them?

I guess the reason is, there are good screen records for linux, which can make lossless copies.

great news! (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639123)

This is great news! Now I can refurb laptops that have HDMI but are generally not so fast and had XP or Vista with Ubuntu and sell them as netflix devices. I've had a lot of requests for $50-100 netflix devices that can surf the web. They're cheaper than the price difference on non-smart and smart TVs and they're a hell of a lot more upgradeable. What I find most surprising is that Chrome runs on Linux. I had no idea!

Re:great news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47639689)

People will be really grateful that you sell them old laptops as Netflix devices.

And then reality will set in and they will realize that they need a remote to control it meaning an additional cost and that a laptop looks stupid next to a TV. In the end, you better recommend them to buy an Apple TV, a Roku or something similar.

Works for Chromium? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47639209)

Does anyone know if this works for Chromium, the open source offshoot of Chrome? What about the latest official Ubuntu repo installation? Mint?

Another blow for freedom (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47639211)

The hollowing out of Linux and free software continues. Not only do corporations use it to build walled gardens (Google, Apple), now they're building a tunnel of anti-freedom into its core. Will anything be left of free software soon other than "open source" exploited by corporations?

Re:Another blow for freedom (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47639517)

Freedom is about choice, options, and you don't have to install the DRM.

Hack (1)

Meneth (872868) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639233)

So, how long until this DRM module is hacked to let you save uncrypted copies?

Re:Hack (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639697)

Probably two days ago.

Now with 100% equal DRM! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47639243)

So instead of using ugly, proprietary, client restricted, DRM infected players like Silverlight, we can NOW use an ugly, proprietary, DRM infected client like Chrome (now with %100 more Datamining and user tracking than the leading web browser).

Its not really a win for 'nix users when we could have just implemented DRM in Moonlight if we had wanted it (and which also came down to licensing issues). So what? Is Google going to open source their HTML5 streaming DRM and make it option for the distros which don't want it? [read: nearly all of them]

The take away will be 'see, Linux users didn't adopt the HTML5 that they wanted so badly. Guess they just don't matter after all.'

Raspberry PI (1)

Xiver (13712) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639255)

I wish Netflix or Amazon Prime ran on my Raspbmc setup.

working in Debian Sid VM (4, Informative)

jtotheh (229796) | about a month and a half ago | (#47639701)

I was able to get this working using the instructions in the original post - with the following changes:

I first tried with Debian stable. The google-chrome-unstable deb installs OK, but I couldn't get the video to play.
I saw posts that it might work with sid. So I cooked up a sid vm.
My default NAT network was disabled, I found some instructions to re-enable it.
Once I had a sid vm, I found that there was no sound. I set it to ac97 in virt-manager but ended up abandoning virt-manager and using this command line
sudo qemu-system-x86_64 /var/lib/libvirt/images/siddy.img -cpu kvm64,+nx -enable-kvm -m 1536 -soundhw hda -usb

Once I had sound and networking going, I installed the google-chrome-unstable deb in the VM. Then I found the user-agent extension and installed that. I created a user-agent using EXACTLY the string given in the original post...

And now I'm watching a netflix movie.

Right now I have the chrome in the VM displaying to a Xephyr window in the host environment, will be interested to see if there is a better way.

And it's true we should not have to do crap like this to use our netflix accounts!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>