Netflix confirms it is blocking rooted/unlocked Android devices
androidpolice.com
androidpolice.com
The first, is a 'searcher'. Here, that is sonarr (for finding TV series) and radarr (for finding movies). There are some alternatives. Most notably couchpotato for movies. You simply tell these programs what you want to see, and they look through torrents and newsgroups to find that content.
Next, you need a downloader (or 2 if you use both torrents and newsgroups). For this, it is important that your 'searchers' can talk to the downloader, so things happen automatically. Basically anything should work here.
Finally, and optionally, there is a viewer. Plex is the biggest here. It allows you to view your media anywhere with an internet connection, it also tracks your library, and what you've watched. You can set up your searchers to export all downloaded files to plex.
For starters, I'd set up a simple searcher-downloader system, and build up from there.
Then once you have Sonarr and/or Radarr setup for TV/Movies you can use something like Ombi to allow family/friends to request content and have it automatically downloaded and added to Plex.
The gleeful attitude many have to pirating makes me sad. I've downloaded shows too, but whenever possible I use legal methods to watch. I believe it is content worth paying for, and if a show disappears from Netflix it's probably available somewhere else. It's at least worth checking before you go to your friend for Plex access.
He has a 42" tv and from 12 feet away he finds it quite difficult to notice any difference with HD. Maybe he's alone in this?
Fortunately, I don't get too much from say 1080p over 720p, and hevc at 1080p seems to do very well, even at the lower quality (relatively) settings... so I'm getting 1080p content saved at file sizes sometimes half 720p avc.
In any case, I still pay for netflix/amazon, just got an NVidia Shield TV and love it so far (though had considered DirectTV Now, but they don't support Android TV for no reason). I cut the cord a while ago, and other than the Superbowl (next year just going to a bar), haven't missed it.
May setup Plex eventually as well, for now, kodi over the lan works great.
Encoding speed? Does it really save that much space?
Holy crap. Is that using Pied Piper compression or something?
One of the first things I noticed when first seeing DirectTV and DVD quality, for example was the pixelation of things, usually in the background... to this day it sometimes distracts me... that alone is about enough for me.
The way regions are selected for compression is also better, but I'm not into the technical details enough to explain well... all I know is I can get about 5/3 to 5/2 more content in HEVC while at an equivalent or better quality. So yeah, it's a big deal...
So 2500 movies per year time 100 years time 4 GB per movie is 1 million GB, 1000 TB or 1 Petabyte.
And that's just movies. If you also want TV shows, it's probably going to be several times that (though until recently, they were produced at lower resolution).
Still 125 TB is a lot.
I often think our resource usage as a species is insane. In an age when you can download anything in minutes at any time of the day we (well, some of us) fill terabytes of hard drive space with endless duplicates of movies and tv shows we'll probably never watch, albums we'll never listen to and more recently books we'll never read. And that's just digital, don't get me started on raw materials
I guess I missed this story. You can no longer access Netflix via a VPN? I would be curious to know how they are detecting this. Does this mean you can not access your Netflix content when you take a trip abroad?
This is a pretty crappy situation and I guess you can vote with your wallet.
I am surprised that Netflix which increasingly relies on their own content would feel the need to placate this Hollywood greed?
I'm also curious what heuristic they are using to decide if I am on a VPN?
EDIT:
From: https://torrentfreak.com/netflix-vpn-crackdown-a-year-of-fru...
>"It is still unclear how Netflix’s IP-blacklisting works. A few providers have noticed that some of their IP-ranges were already banned before they were active, suggesting that Netflix automatically flags IPs from certain organizations"
And that's on top of the pathetic selection when you're trying to be honest with them and not fake your country. Screw that.
I imagine the number of people that care about rooting their phone is small enough that it doesn't really matter to their revenue.
You can't expect to be able to collect a 9+ figures from a random individual
Could have fooled me.
Nor do I, but the app was useful for sending the video to chromecast.
That said, I find chromecast painful and restrictive in terms of streaming content from other regions using VPN. Chromecast is very uptight and locked down to your native location. I stopped using Chromecast for that reason after not finding a workaround. When I was only watching my region's content (Australia) the Netflix app was useful. Unfortunately, Australia's Netflix content library was too weak, so I needed other regions to make it worthwhile.
With a decent router you could configure it to connect to the VPN of your choice and then route requests from your Chromecast's IP over it. The Chromecast would probably not know the difference, and you can also route anything else over whatever VPNs you like.
I believe they are not specifically going after the nerds. They need such heavy protection only because otherwise some nerds will make circumvention tools which the average person will then use.
I prefer watching Netflix on my TV rather than a tiny phone screen, but if I did want to watch it on mobile, I'm a bit worried how they might treat my Fairphone.
I dropped Netflix after whoever is in the group that decides policy for Netflix decided that Hurricane Electric's IPv6 tunnels are "a VPN" that is being used to circumvent Netflix's location checks with no warning.
(I'm aware of the DNS tricks I can do to only return IPv4 addresses in response to queries for the netflix.com zone. I choose not to do them and, instead, to not avail myself of Netflix's content.)
For instance my HTPC has an Nvidia 1050ti card and can do UHD colour 4k output. I can play UHD test files just fine.
But the Netflix app won't show me 4K content as they require you to have a Kaby Lake CPU, which has some new hardware DRM module built in.
Now quite a lot of eyes are on it after the recently discovered AMT vulnerability so we will see how good this DRM thing is in practice. Can't way for the day Netflix will start demanding running the latest BIOS version to patch DRM bugs.
So we've gone from "this website works best in Netscape", to "this website works everywhere" to "this app requires you to have a specific motherboard".
Sure sounds like progress. Who do we have to thank for this?
(i just have no idea how to get enough people to care about this kind of stuff to matter, and even if I'm the one people come to for recommendations, I can't in good conscious recommend the platform/device where netflix won't work)
If they're targeting consumers, why do they give a damn if the phone is rooted or not? As long as they pay netflix to stream the content to them?
Or is this "just" to prevent fake locations and such, to please their content producing/distributing overlords?
That content is not broadcast with DVB, it's not distributed on BluRay.
To that point if they can prevent there being a way to rip the raw video bitstream from the handful of platforms they do support, then they can prevent their shows being pirated (at least in full quality.)
The licensing of other content was definitely the reason they locked down the geo streaming though 100%.
Wth would I pay extra for a Nexus/Pixel if unlocking it causes all Android software which uses DRM to start failing due to "not being compatible"?
Might as well buy a Samsung then. Or even better: an iPhone.
It's no longer your device anyway.
And to think Android was once open source. Now it's infected with DRM all the way down to the bootloader.
Such a shame. There are no free devices anymore.
Edit: to clear I've always been OK with DRM in apps (as opposed to HTML) because that clearly isolates it from the general purposey bits of the platform. Seems that's no longer the case with Android.
You want to eat your cake and have it too. DRM is technically impossible, so problems like the one you described are inevitable. Bummer, I guess.
They are giving you access, so somehow you should be able to get the stream should you want to.
What I really meant is that making DRM difficult to crack generally goes against owner control over the machine. The more control you have the easier it is to simply copy the decrypted data or at least attempt exploiting some bugs in the DRM engine if the former is impossible. So we see things like signed bootloaders or dedicated "secure" cores running alongside normal CPUs with some secret firmware on them.
In particular, it seems that Android's DRM can be subverted by the bootloader (presumably it uses the ARM TrustZone extension, which is configured by the bootloader and then locked away from the OS) and hence the OP has to choose between DRM and unlocked bootloader.
"Netflix does not value your money, therefore you cannot use our services. However, you can always pirate the content on Internet for free."
If a content owner wants to make access to their content difficult, why should their content be relevant?
When Microsoft tried Secure Boot there was a huge outcry. But when HBO/Netflix/Verizon/WB demand a complete lockdown of your device (to the point where AACS 2.0 demands you have a special CPU, Motherboard, GPU and more components that lock you out and disable themselves if you use custom software/drivers), then suddenly even on HN I see a huge amount of people defending a complete lockout from your device to the point where you're not allowed to even install a custom, better, driver.
What is it about some shows/movies that would be SO DAMAGING to whole society if a few people would be able to copy them on another device or even give it to a friend?!
That's a standard I have zero knowledge of, because I have absolutely zero intentions going down that road for any reason what so ever. And I wish that would apply to much more people!
My PC represents the last bastion of true computing freedom, and I'm not giving up that, just to be able to watch some movies in a freaking web-browser.
(In the name of pragmatism and not being a complete neckbeard, I have separate, unfree, locked down devices for that specific purpose)
I for one am shocked that their monopoly position has resulted in such behavior.
Also, I've just noticed that Netflix on the web demands to "verify my hardware" (on Chromebook) to determine if my laptop is properly locked down for video playback. The DRM assault is getting worse, not better.
>"AACS 2.0 is a DRM standard used in UHD/4K Blu-Ray disks."
How does this relate to the context of streaming from HBO/Netflix? Are these companies offering 4K streams on their services?
It was more demonstration of a trend.
American society worships the ultra-successful like cults - the cult of the millionaire - pro athletes, singers and actors.
Hollywood and it's products, therefore, are sacred.
Who benefits? The people that make this DRM tech. Who I'm sure make all sorts of claims about how this time, it really will solve the problem...
To detect root, apps will try something like attempt to call su. If you're rooted and don't want the app to detect it, you can jail the app and prevent it from being able to detect it.
Note that this is in theory. Almost all apps will implement root/jailbreak detection using the same crappy method, just like almost all of them use the same crappy method to detect if e.g. cert pinning is active. But some will use a very clever method that is not widely known and not well-documented.
While it's true you can theoretically defeat any of these checks, in practice it (like most of reverse engineering) can be made incredible complex and difficult. For example, Facebook/Instagram have (as of the last time I checked) a complex custom system for checking if cert pinning has been bypassed, such that you can't just return-void the checks very easily.
This involves using signed hardware that helps determine if the execution environment is trusted. So, users can still root the device, but Android + Play Services can still determine if features (such as DRM) can be relied on.
It makes sense for Google to develop these features, especially as it wants to move Android to new devices (Cars?), reduce risk for mobile payments, in addition to giving stronger security features to content distributors. This also lets Android devices compete with security features like Apple's secure enclave.
Honestly, if you are going to root your device you must accept you are not using it in the supported way the vendor intends. Therefore, you should not expect all the features of the supported configuration. I think that's a fair trade-off. Rooting your device is awesome!
Being an asshole is also legal, but it's still not OK to be an asshole.
I was reluctant to unroot an old phone to try Android Pay, but having to do it just to watch some movies a tad too far. For me anyway. https://phunehehe.net/xperia-android/
HDMI caps are mostly kind of shitty quality. Look at the UHD BluRay releases (smurfs excluded.)
For example, Artem's unlocked stock Pixel is still on Widevine Level 1, the most secure level, but fails SafetyNet because it is unlocked.
(What does "unlocked stock" mean - does the Pixel ship carrier-unlocked? Was it unlocked by calling up the carrier and asking for an unlock, or in some other way?)
That said, the kernel could just lie about what was passed to it sooooo...
ohh you believe if you are an "Admin" on windows you have control over the OS.... no Redmond has control over the Windows OS, they have DRM built in well below "Admin"
1. Root on Linux is not the same as Admin on Windows. Sorry
2. They do limit Linux playback to 720p, you can not play 1080p or higher streams on linux largely due not having control over the OS.
No need to be sorry, but how so?
> 2. They do limit Linux playback to 720p, you can not play 1080p or higher streams on linux largely due not having control over the OS.
I didn't know that. Is it done based on OS detection or is it just Netflix neglecting to support? What if I fool Netflix into thinking I'm running windows? Will I be able to play 1080p/4k then?
Not without SilverLight or their app as far as I can tell.
With root on linux there is nothing outside of your control, With Admin on Windows there are still all kinds of things outside of your control. Just look at the Telemetry controversy as an example. No way for even an "admin" to disable it
>I didn't know that. Is it done based on OS detection or is it just Netflix neglecting to support?
In order to play HD Content you much have a OS that refuses to follow the Admin's wishes, instead follows the wishes of the OS Vendor.
You much have full stack DRM built into the OS that is not bypassable.
Currently the Only OS that support browser based HD Playback from netflix is Windows in the Edge Browser because MS DRM is built into the OS and the Admin of the OS has no control over it.
Resolution:
Google Chrome up to 720p
Internet Explorer up to 1080p
Microsoft Edge up to 4K*
Mozilla Firefox up to 720p
Opera up to 720p
Safari up to 1080p on Mac OS X 10.10.3 or later
Linux and other browsers on Windows lack the ability to do this at an OS Level there for netflix limits the stream quality because the OS does not have the proper DRM Controls
This is the exact same reason they do not want the Netlfix app on Rooted devices
Joke's on them. I only use Netflix on my laptop on the go and then my bandwidth is usually bad enough that 1080p is unachievable anyway.
Now let someone come and disrupt this industry swamp with DRM-free video.
Then why does Netflix apply drm to all served content, including its own?
For sure the same argument could be applied to fb photos, the point is - it's a slippery slope and I'm not willing to walk it. It is a tradeoff though, the one which means that society is willing to trade their freedom. "The dancing pigs" phenomenon if you wish, the Felten & McGraw quote applies so much to security as it does to freedom and privacy: Given a choice between dancing pigs and security/freedom/privacy, users will pick dancing pigs every time.
As a thought experiment I wonder if my relatives will start to care about it when the wedding pictures I have taken for them suddenly will be DRM so they would need to ask my permission to print each and every of one (I guess not, they probably be just mad at me).
What the f* are they expecting us to do? Surely they can't be that stupid?!
My phone is not rooted. It is unlocked. Netflix app works fine on this phone.
Surely not all Netflix content is licensed under terms which prevent it from being distributed to rooted devices.
Edit: I just realized that cable companies sometimes have hostile notices about their dealings with certain stations. I'm guessing Netflix isn't quite in the same position of power though.
Do their contracts with the content providers say "All your content, even content that doesn't come from us, must be provided with this much DRM"?
They however are not opposed to DRM like many people believe, they are Huge supporters and developers of DRM technology.
If you oppose DRM, Netflix is just as much an enemy as the MPAA is
But you have read the headline, haven't you? They only work with a google rootkit installed, now.
In particular, most users of Netflix on Android have a threat model that involves Google legitimately having the ability to push software updates to the phone that run as root. So "rootkit" is not a very useful term, any more than describing any Debian package maintainer script as a "random volunteer's rootkit" would be.
Suppose further that someone put forward the argument that it's not so bad, as at least there is no rootkit involved.
Then, yes, it would obviously be perfectly sensible to in that context call that Debian package a "random volunteer's rootkit".
Whether most users would like to have some other functionality provided by that same package is completely irrelevant to the question at hand, as is whether most users would install the package.
This happens to lots of people under the name of systemd. I think any definition of "rootkit" that includes involuntary installations of systemd is so broad that we cannot conclude anything from the term. (There are legitimate criticism of Debian requiring systemd, but they're basically entirely orthogonal from the criticisms of, say, the Sony BMG rootkit.)
So, let me ask - what in particular are you seeing as the "google rootkit," and how would you describe its negative behavior in words other than "it's a rootkit"?
Well, I am not all that well-versed in Android/Google components/APIs/whatever, so I can't really tell you what specific component that would be, but as I understand it, there is some mechanism provided by the platform that allows an app to check whether the owner is locked out from controlling their own device, right?
So, it's some component with high privileges that gives the power to control how you use your device to a party that's not you ... now, "rootkit" isn't really all that clearly defined, but I would say that that's clearly the core of what makes a rootkit a rootkit, don't you think?
A rootkit, traditionally, hides its existence from you and provides root access (i.e., code execution as root) for some outside attacker. Oxford defines it as "a set of software tools that enable an unauthorized user to gain control of a computer system without being detected;" Veracode defines it as "a clandestine computer program designed to provide continued privileged access to a computer while actively hiding its presence;" Wikipedia, citing McAfee, says that a it's "designed to enable access to a computer or areas of its software that would not otherwise be allowed (for example, to an unauthorized user) and often masks its existence or the existence of other software." I think these two properties are the core of what makes a rootkit a rootkit (and also the core of what makes it bad).
This Google service neither attempts to hide its existence nor does it provide remote access / code execution to anyone.
The closest term I can think of for something that provides information to others is "spyware", but even that's a serious stretch. This utility is most similar to the function called by desktop software installers that check to see if you have enough disk space, so the installer can choose to abort based on the result. And I'd definitely not call that a "rootkit" or "spyware".
I mean, Windows doesn't even have a default privileged user named "root", does that mean that the Sony BMG rootkit was not a rootkit, because, traditionally, that's the name applied to stuff that gave access to the root account on a unixoid system? If all you cared about was etymological purity, you certainly could make that argument.
Now, what does "access to a computer" mean? What does "otherwise not allowed" mean? What does "remote access" mean? What does "code execution" mean? What does "hiding" mean?
Does the average user actually know that there is a component on their phone that reports to google whether they have tinkered with it? Is it advertised to them that that is the case? What would it take in your mind to qualify as "hiding"? And mind you, traditional, unixy, rootkits aren't necessarily undetectable either, not even on the running system.
Suppose there were some mandatory software installed on your phone that allowed some other party to control which telephone numbers you are allowed to call. Is that "remote access"? I mean, it's obviously giving someone remote control over what your phone will do, or refuse to do. What would it take in your mind to qualify as "remote access"? Would that necessarily require code execution? And if so, what does "code execution" actually mean? Is a javascript interpreter you can load code into (aka a web browser) "code execution"? Or is it not because it's in a sandbox? But then, what if the phone has a hypervisor, and the "rootkit" only gives you root access to the linux kernel running on top of that hypervisor ... that's also kindof a sandbox, so that doesn't qualify as a rootkit either? Or does it?
Suppose you were to ask people "do you want to have software installed on your phone that reports to third parties whether you have tinkered with your phone?" ... how many people do you think would say "yes"? If it's installed on the phones of people who would answer "no" to this question, wouldn't that qualify as "access [...] that would not otherwise be allowed"? How would you justify that as authorized use of the phone? Or would you?
What distinguishes spyware from rootkits is exactly that spyware just exfiltrates data, whily rootkits allow some sort of control of the system (but also, the distinction isn't always all that clear-cut).
Now, you might argue that google's component is just spyware (and you kindof did) ... but that's again missing the big picture, because the whole point of this spyware obviously is to control what the user can do with their device, even if part of that mechanism then is technically implemented by a third party and/or on a remote server.
> This utility is most similar to the function called by desktop software installers that check to see if you have enough disk space, so the installer can choose to abort based on the result.
That shows that you are completely missing the point: This is about power structures, not about technical implementation details. You might as well be arguing that a gun is most similar to a computer case, because they are both made from metal, in a discussion about whether someone holding a gun to your head is comparable to someone threatening to hit you with a baseball bat.
Netflix employees used to help out users in Australia with VPN issues back before Netflix launched over here. It's all different now.
Edit: For the price I pay, I don't mind that too much though.
You write this in the past tense, but the DVD service is alive and (mostly) well. ("Mostly" because they are not replacing rarer DVDs as they go missing from their inventory.)
I presently subscribe to both services because I love older films.
For most, a large enough selection instantly is much better than a full selection w/ a 3 day lead time
Think of it like Netflix successfully became HBO faster than HBO could become them, so now they're expanding content to fit the new and old general demographics- the cable and youtube viewerships.
They're also big on data, so if they're making it, it's not because they think no one wants it. We share an account with my SO's sisters, and despite all watching about the same amount, it's amazing just how different (and accurate) the recommendations are for each of us.
I think in this case they have worse odds though, Freedom or Lucky Patcher or some Xposed module will be up to the task if there is enough interest.
There are going to be people that continue to excuse netflix and believe it is all pressure from content providers.
News Flash for people that believe that, Netflix is a content provider now. They fully support DRM for their content, they are not being "pressured" by content providers to do this. They support anti-consumer policies like DRM, and are just like the MPAA in this regards
Stop allowing Netflix to hide behind their PR machine and blame 3rd parties for polices they fully support and endorse
No I do not believe for 1 second Neflix is being pressured by anyone to enact these draconian drm polices nor where they forced to support EME in HTML5.
Netflix is just another anti-consumer, anti-freedom corporation.
MPAA did not come in strong arm Netflix, Netflix is a willing and eager participant in the development and spread of DRM
> They are not being pressured
I'm sure they are; but they are becoming aggressive and they are no longer a cool upstart company battling against a big media monopoly that everyone hated. They are that monopoly now
They're behaving EXACTLY like all other DRM obsessed content providers.