Slashdot Mirror
HD Monitor Causes DRM Issues with Netflix
Jeremiah Cornelius points us to Davis Freeberg's blog, where he discusses his "nightmare scenario" of losing access to his DRM-protected purchases by upgrading his PC monitor.
"When I called them they confirmed my worst fears. In order to access the Watch Now service, I had to give Microsoft's DRM sniffing program access to all of the files on my hard drive. If the software found any non-Netflix video files, it would revoke my rights to the content and invalidate the DRM. This means that I would lose all the movies that I've purchased from Amazon's Unbox, just to troubleshoot the issue. Because my computer allows me to send an unrestricted HDTV feed to my monitor, Hollywood has decided to revoke my ability to stream 480 resolution video files from Netflix. In order to fix my problem, Netflix recommended that I downgrade to a lower res VGA setup."
Tag this Vista only. I ain't got no problems like that with XP.
Slashdotted.
Yet another reason to pirate all the content you want.
Looks like I'll be cancelling my Netflix account for awhile then. Once again, it proves that companies make it easier to just pirate stuff than it is to try and legally pay for it.
Do I have this right? So the MS DRM sniffer goes and finds MS sample videos added as part of the default XP install and invalidates everything?
I buy sheet music online - the site only allows you to print to a physical printer NOT a PDF recorder (it also prints my full name on the sheet music). I'm sure there is someone who is smart enough out there to bypass this, I've thought about it (for the technical challenge) but really I'm probably just to lazy to even try.
This was one of those "features" of Vista that I heard about in the earlier days of the hype. There wasn't a clearly defined explanation of how they would indeed tie DRM to your HD monitor but I guess the results are starting to show. Someday maybe all of our hardware will be locked down so that if you don't buy content with appropriate DRM, it simply won't play. Hurray for freedom!
Soon they will sue our eyes and ears.
I highly doubt it. But, it wouldn't surprise me too much.
Do not buy from Netflix. If they are this stupid, then simply quit buying from them. More importantly, let them know why. Once that happens enough, they will quit doing this. Until then, the MPAA (who is really behind this) will continue to do this.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
This perhaps doesn't directly address the problem mentioned, but this is what I do. I only bother with Netflix DRM because I get it "free" anyway with my subscription.
Anyway, using a script I wrote, I parse the HTML saved from Firefox (pretending to be IE7) and download the highest bandwidth version of a movie. I then cringe and for the only time each month boot Windows and using Mirakagi, FreeUse4Win, WMP and unDRM the file. Then I can play in perpetuity in Linux/MythTV.
The size of the files is normally 1-2GB. Yes, that's less than DVD quality, but pretty acceptable in most cases. You can fetch the keys for 9 hours of movies per month (for the basic subscription), but they round up, so if you do it carefully and get keys for 8.5 hours of movies, you can make the last one a 3 hour epic - about 5-7 movies total.
This is all based upon information I got from here: http://forum.rorta.net/showthread.php?t=1134&page=6 (link to last page)
Kaffeine didn't play the resulting WMVs very well. mplayer and VLC do a better job.
Here's an idea. Don't use Netflix. Just pretend they went bankrupt and no longer exist. Seriously, fuck em!
Onto the next media provider please...
Life is not for the lazy.
Well, the solution is simple. First, pirate the movies you've already bought. Hell, you paid for them, why shouldn't you be allowed to view them in high-res? And secondly, never buy another damn movie from there again, and tell everyone to avoid them for this reason.
Vote with your wallet. The only reason they do this shit is because we let them.
So it won't work even if the previous video is legal? I sure hope their EULA is tight.
I would hope that it bypass the M$ video files that are part of the os / M$ apps and the HDCP DRM system needs vista.
You're probably a lot less confused than this fellow with the "problems." Either he is completely misunderstanding (and misrepresenting) what is going on, or he made this whole thing up.
There's a simple solution to this that all NetFlix customers can take: Cancel your netflix account and checkout thepiratebay and isohunt. No DRM to worry about over there.
This sounds suspicious. If this story is true, then all the more reason to be extra mistrusting about the pay-for video download sites. For audio (at Amazon), it's dumb simple: click the song you want, & download your mp3(with one-click service). Why shouldn't it be this simple with video (I haven't tried Unbox yet)?
DRM promised to do all this to you and more. And yet, you purchased DRM-protected content? Hardly a nightmare, more of a told-you-so. Please, everyone, when content is only available DRM-protected, pirate it instead. This is the only way to discourage these companies from abusing us.
Not that you would or should but you could always take the simple easy way and print your sheet music. Use white out on your name ... and use a scanner to make it digital again! LOL
in the Drama Section.
Does anyone have a link to the story? Because I use Vista64 with an HDCP capable DVI monitor monitor running at 1900x1200 and have no problem watching Netflix or any other videos. What exactly is this Guy doing that is special? He talks about giving "Access" to his files, which means he's somehow denying it access in the first place. I'll reserve judgment until I can read the post, but it doesn't pass the smell test.
Not sure this would work or even be worth the trouble but perhaps putting your non-netflix video on a virtual drive that you can hide when you need to use the netflix DRM crap?
My long standing philosophy has been to reward businesses that treat me well with more of by business. When businesses disrespect you, don't reward them by giving them more money. Sadly, I believe that this is lost on most Americans. That aside, I have been using Netflix for about a year now (not for downloading movies, but for the old fashion mail service). I plan on canceling my account as soon as I get home. I would encourage those that are as outraged as I am to do the same.
Read the F'ing EULA my friend.
And if you don't stop fast-forwarding through those Axe commercials we're going to deactivate your reproductive module.
The fact that you can download mp3s from amazon.com is probably due to the fact that computer speakers have become such a low-end commodity that vendors can't convince anyone to "upgrade" to DRM-enabled models.
Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
mfilemon is a printer port driver for Windows 2000/XP (maybe Vista and 2003, ymmv), so the Windows Printer thinks it's an Applescript or generic HP laser printer but it actually just dumps postscript files in a directory of your choosing. You can probably rig up any number of other scenarios where a "real" printer just sends postscript output to a network port somewhere that you can capture, or just turn on print-to-file with a normal printer, depending on how smart the DRM on the application is.
The good news is: people that support Vista and HDMPAAlywood movies are screwed again. Rejoice !
...and yet you were still foolish enough to actually pay for DRM'ed content?
So do you drink out of bottles with a skull and crossbones on them, too?
expandfairuse.org
Did Soulskill make any attempt to verify this story before allowing it to be posted? I really don't things are as they appear. For one it sounds like a Microsoft problem not a Netflix problem.
Ah, like 7.1 with DRM upgrade - I see!
Looks like the webserver had some non-netflix content on it and its DRM got revoked.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
I don't see why all the antipathy against Netflix exists - it's not even Netflix that is distributing the files he would lose, just that the streaming player will not work because of a corruption in the DRM database.
Blame Windows for not having a better handle on backing up that data, sure. Blame UnBox for selling such crippled media - OK then. But Netflix has no other choices because content providers will not accept other solutions. They aren't even storing anything locally, just streaming.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
you should have known when you bought DRM tainted video. There is no perpetual access to the data you paid for.In the short term DRM might look harmless but its going to be a pain in the neck for people who actually pay for using it.
Solution: Use your wallet to prove your point. Buy used cds and dvds if you must. Stay away from HDDVD and blueray disks/players. Buy mp3 audio from amazon.com and stop buying DRM stuff.
Slashdotted already. Here's a mirror: http://davisfreeberg.com.nyud.net:8090/2008/01/03/bad-copp-no-netflix/
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
A Microsoft problem? No. The feature is implemented correctly. If the monitor does not have the authorization chip that the new drivers in Vista are set to check for (thus closing the analog hole), the DRM will not play. Because VGA is older, the content will play on that. It's a feature of Windows Media, that might be fixed if Microsoft does not implement the monitor check in Silverlight which they are switching to. Since they want to support Macs, and Apple isn't that stupid, hopefully they won't be able to.
--Sam
This is a bug that only affects Windows Vista (defective DRM is prevalent). Upgrading to Windows XP will solve the problem.
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
'Using static .html documents instead of painful .php scripts will practically eliminate CPU usage.'
I know using static html is faster, but is php really painful? begin php sucks anyway flamewar!
how would they track who uploaded it to Youtube?
This should be moderated as +5 Interesting, not because of DRM-digital anecdote, but because somebody actually got Creative drivers to work!
Chickens! Why it seems they've come home to roost!
I always said that as soon as customers started loosing legally purchased media and having real difficulties with brand new hardware that the days or DRM would be over. Could that day be here already?! Happy 2008 all.
To boldly use to and too two times and get it right too! They're not gonna believe their eyes when they see it there!
I guess you'd argue that since I'm not in prison, I not really free, since I don't have the freedom to enjoy their nice stripped outfits? What part of Free OS didn't you understand?
No, I'd argue that you don't understand the issue. A Free OS doesn't fix the problem.
It's not allowing me to access his webpage.
/. traffic... ;) )
(Or maybe his server just melted down from all the
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
I don't know what's up with this so-called story, but the link provided in the story (along with the entire domain it comes from) is requiring username/password authentication, and in the fist 10 comments someone is alleging that the story is a complete fake to start with. WTF? Someone please take the story down until someone makes sense out of it?
He's the stupid one. Now, this isn't to say that Netflix's policies are not evil, but come on! What geek in his right mind would buy into one of these restrictive DRM schemes in the first place? Perhaps he thought that Netflix would wise up and do the right thing by the customer...I just can't understand why one would buy into these schemes and not expect to get burned.
Blar.
(7.1 + DRM) = (-1 * (infinity))
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
I tried posting this on the blog but I hit submit and got the too-much-CPU error, so it's addressed to the author of the article.
Why is this even being discussed? If you're surpised this happened to you then you haven't been paying attention. Anyone who knows anything about Vista knows that it is completely loaded down with content protection "features". But you bought the OS anyway. If you didn't know that before you bought the OS, then you should have done a little research about why so many people have negative attitudes towards Vista. Then you bought movies that are similarly encumbered by DRM, because you "like the experience". I don't think the experience you like is the same as the experience the companies you bought the movies from like. Then you're surpised when the DRM-laden OS doesn't do what you want with the DRM-laden content that you purchased. Is this really a surprise to you? Yeah, the only thing that you have a stand at losing are licenses that you purchased legally, but - in case you haven't been paying attention - the only thing DRM has *ever* accomplished is to lock out legitimate users, it doesn't do anything against piracy (they still find a way, for every DRM scheme there are several holes).
I mean, seriously, I just don't have any sympathy for you at all, you paid the money to fund DRM, now you're dealing with it. I haven't bought anything that includes DRM except for the normal copy protection on PC games, and I'm going to be using XP until they release a patch for Vista that removes the content protection schemes. It's not up to my operating system to police what I'm doing, that's my responsibility. If you choose to buy into the DRM industry, then you're going to have to deal with issues like these.
In order to access the Watch Now service, I had to give Microsoft's DRM sniffing program access to all of the files on my hard drive. If the software found any non-Netflix video files, it would revoke my rights to the content and invalidate the DRM.
It will destroy your paid-for content if you have other content from another vendor? Sounds like an antitrust violation AND consumer fraud.
I'd bring this up with the FTC.
And I'd sue Netflix in small claims for everything you've paid so far. B-)
= = = =
Imagine if fifty, just fifty, people a day did that. They might think it's a movement. And that's what it is. The Alice's Restaurant Anti-DRM-masaccree movement. And you can join just by singing it, the next time it comes around on the guitar... B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Reboot the machine
Reload the application
Reinstall the Operating system
Now we can add
Revert to a previous version
Vista has given me a whole new view of windows, Oh and it looks like the site is past it's quota. Slashdot strikes again.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Even though I'm an HDTV fanatic, it wasn't until this past weekend, that I finally made the jump to an HD monitor. While I don't have HDTV tuners on my Media Center, I do have an HD camcorder and it was important for me to be able to edit my high resolution videos.
After doing a little bit of research, I decided to pick up a SyncMasterTM 226BW from Samsung. Between the new monitor and my ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT video card, the resolution looks absolutely stunning. Even my home movies look fantastic in HDTV. I really couldn't have been happier with the upgrade.
Unfortunately, Hollywood isn't quite as thrilled about my new HD Media Dream Machine and they've decided to punish me by revoking my Watch Now privileges from Netflix.
I first found out about the problem on New Year's Eve, when I went to log into my account. When I tried to launch a streaming movie, I was greeted with an error message asking me to "reset" my DRM. Luckily, Netflix's help page on the topic included a link to a DRM reset utility, but when I went to install the program, I stopped dead in my tracks when I saw this warning.
[img]
The minute I saw"this will potentially remove playback licenses from your computer, including those from companies other than Netflix or Microsoft" I knew better than to hit continue. Before nuking my entire digital library, I decided to call Netflix's technical support, to see if I could get to the bottom of my C00D11B1 error message.
When I called them they confirmed my worst fears. In order to access the Watch Now service, I had to give Microsoft's DRM sniffing program access to all of the files on my hard drive. If the software found any non-Netflix video files, it would revoke my rights to the content and invalidate the DRM. This means that I would lose all the movies that I've purchased from Amazon's Unbox, just to troubleshoot the issue.
Technically, there is a way to back up the licenses before doing a DRM reset, but it's a pretty complex process, even by my standards. When I asked Netflix for more details, they referred me to Amazon for assistance.
Perhaps even worse than having to choose between having access to Netflix or giving up my Unbox movies was the realization that my real problems were actually tied to the shiny new monitor that I've already grown fond of.
Netflix's software allows them to look at the video card, cables and the monitor that you are using and when they checked mine out, it was apparently a little too high def to pass their DRM filters.
Because my computer allows me to send an unrestricted HDTV feed to my monitor, Hollywood has decided to revoke my ability to stream 480 resolution video files from Netflix. In order to fix my problem, Netflix recommended that I downgrade to a lower res VGA setup.
As part of their agreement with Hollywood, Netflix uses a program called COPP (Certified Output Protection Protocal). COPP is made by Microsoft and the protocol restricts how you are able to transfer digital files off of your PC. When I ran COPP to identify the error on my machine, it gave me an ominous warning that "the exclusive semaphere is owned by another process."
My Netflix technician told me that he had never heard of this particular error and thought that it was unique to my setup. When I consulted Microsoft, they suggested that I consult the creator of the program. Since Microsoft wrote the COPP software, I wasn't sure who to turn to after that.
The irony in all of this, is that the DRM that Hollywood is so much in love with, is really only harming their paying customers. When you do a DRM reset, it's not your pirated files that get revoked, it's the ones that you already paid for that are at risk. I'm not allowed to watch low res Netflix files, even though I have the capability to download high def torrents? How does this even make sense? It's as if the studios want their digital strategies to fail.
While I understand the need for the studios to protect their content, I believe that these measures g
hey, if you goto http://davisfreeberg.com/ the story is the first one on his page, and readable with screenshots there. Let's slashdot his homepage too....
Sorry everyone /. was a little too powerful for my hosting company and they won't let me up my quota. If anyone knows of any webhosting companies that can handle the /. effect, I'm in the market for a new one. In the meantime, here is a link to another copy of the article in case you would like to read it. If someone can get Commander Taco to update it in the main article, I would appreciate it. Thanks for all the support and I hope that you don't hate me too much for making the mistake of buying Vista and DRM movies. Sometimes you have to experience how crappy DRM is first hand, in order to realize how much value it strips from your content.
Never Pick A Fight With Someone Who Buys Ink By The Barrel.
As soon as you put the word "digital" into a sentence, the XXAA guys lose their shit. I want to know why they think that people care about quality loss? What gives them this impression? Is it the crappy 128Mbps MP3s that everyone is happy to listen to on their iPods? Do they really think that running through the analog port and then encoding is going to significantly degrade quality for these people?
If you want to talk video, I know an awful lot of people who went to Blockbuster when all they had were well-worn VHS tapes with this god-awful Macrovision protection. The picture on most flat-panels look shittier than the picture on the tube TVs that they replace, but people buy them anyway because they are more convenient and don't require the entire living room.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
This is just the beginning.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You can use Netflix's same service on Windows XP with no drawbacks or disabled features - no Vista required - and XP doesn't have this "you don't get what you paid for" feature. Why oh why does anyone use Vista?
I don't think Netflix deserves the blame here. If they do it's 10% them, 70% Microsoft, and 20% for the user for upgrading to the worst OS since Microsoft Bob.
I don't mean to troll or anything, but can someone explain why anybody who understands the concept of DRM would ever even consider having anything to do with it?
- Organisation acquires vendor's DRM-protected video disc, gets temporary license to try it out.
- Staff member sits on it 'cause she's busy, temp license runs out.
- Second temp license requested, IT manager attempts to get videos playing. Any attempt on the laptop he's current using results in a crash.
- IT manager puts it aside long enough for the second temp license to expire, then hands it to me.
- I don't know any of the above as I try to get it working. Ironically, since I'm on a Vista PC all the Media Player DRM works perfectly, but the license isn't current.
- Call vendor to try and get license sorted out, they refuse to help saying we've already had plenty of time to try it.
- I explain DRM to the involved staff here.
- We contact the vendor to say that since we've never been able to get it working, we don't want it.
- Vendor panics at missed sale, gives us third trial license.
- We get videos playing, finally, on a laptop that can be used for presentations.
- We buy product (sigh).
I should find out if it's still working or if it's fallen over in the few months since I last saw it.or more like most on audio does not have Digital out and most speakers are the same way.
also S/PDIF does not let do any thing like that as well.
also HDMI is just DVI + S/PDIF
(In best AD voice) And THAT'S why you don't use DRM. Thank god for bt.
Can karma get worse than terrible?
You're about to find out.
he also changed his video card and likely the video is tied to the old SN / ID of the hdcp chip in the old video card.
Sub says all
Well I'm a Netflix customer and haven't had any such problems yet with my low res-monitor but thanks for the shout...
However I'm not immune from DRM either, and after having a DVD copy protection scheme knock itself out of playing on my computer, being as determined as I was, I found a program on the Internet to disable copy protections in about 10 seconds flat which also included the ability to clone DVD's...so anyone ever need a region free, copy protect free version of a DVD that won't play right in your comp just let me know...not that I'm a pirate or anything.
BTW MPAA: go ahead and attempt to sue me, I've committed no wrong whatsoever and I've forgotten the names of more lawyers who will work for me pro-bono or cheap than you will ever know...
...in bed
I am curious -- would it be possible to watch Netflix streams on Linux under wine?
In this case one can control (through wine) which files a sniffer can see.
Screw DRM! It can go to hell.
They should offer reasonable terms, and put their foot down on DRM. There are plenty of indy film makers who'd be happy with that arrangement.
Starve the bastards out until they play fair.
Another version of the story here: http://www.seekingalpha.com/article/58905-hollywood-goes-too-far-to-protect-content
Amazon EC2, or S3 for static content. In fact, if you were fast enough, you could set up an HTTP redirect on your old server (assuming it can even handle that) to point to an S3 cache.
I'm sure there are plenty of others, though. Just telling what I know.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Downgrading to XP won't work. XP doesn't support the hardware level DRM on new HD monitors so you'd have to use the VGA port on your video card.
it seems like all these companies have forgotten that their users are the source of their income.
keep treating us this way, and see what happens!
I have always found services like netflix to be unnecessary. I use a little-known service called bit-torrent to get my movies. the selection is good and the price is great. best of all, no region restrictions, and no DRM! everyone should use it!
-I only code in BASIC.-
I reckon he got what's coming to him. What is this "HD-Camcorder" bullshit? If he were supposed to be producing things he wouldn't be called a consumer, now would he?
/MPAA
That boy aughta be grateful that we gave him a chance to consume premium content at all, much less on some damn pirate machine he thinks he owns.
DO NOT buy from Layeredtech or any SAVVIS reseller if you can help it!
I would have recommended them, until they shut off my server because they didn't approve of one of my websites (which wasn't in any way illegal) - and would only turn it back on if I would remove the offending website. Not only the content, the entire site. They wouldn't even let me put an index page up explaining to visitors what had happened to the site!
Read on if you want the long explanation. Proof via saved web pages are links at the end
--
I hosted a forum (think PHPBB type) on my server, among other things. At one point it was a fairly popular hang out for kids on AOL Instant Messenger - and in one thread they were discussing social engineering as a way to obtain screen names. No explicit details, just in general. Eventually I re-purposed the forum and moved these threads to an 'Archive' section in case anyone wanted information at a later date. The last post in the offending thread was July 8, 2005.
On October 5, 2006 - over a year later - I get an email from Layeredtech, saying I have violated the SAVVIS AUP (SAVVIS is their upstream host - Layeredtech is just a reseller basically). AOL had emailed SAVVIS and claimed the thread was hosting confidential AOL information. SAVVIS then incompetently classified it as a "phishing site" and passed it on to Layeredtech. The Layeredtech rep looked at the site and changed the description to "hack site". Now keep in mind this has all happened in the space of less than 3 hours, before they decide to disconnect the server completely from the network until I respond. I notice the site is down/check my email 30 minutes later and see what has happened - asking them to reevaluate and also verify that the takedown request was from AOL and not from a malicious 3rd party.
After a few more back and forth replies I am told that the server will be put back online if I make the entire site resolve to a 404 error - nothing else will suffice. (Remember, the only offending material is one year old thread in an entire forum) I finally agree as I have no other way to get the most recent database backups off the server. At this point I'm thinking that the 404 request is just 'letter of the law' and maybe the rep just has to say that. I make my backups just to be safe, and replace the entire forum with an index page announcing why it was down.
A week later I get an email saying that I must remove this index page and make it resolve to a 404 or they will shut down the server again. At this point I cancel my account with them and move my data elsewhere.
Now, this is just conjecture on my part - but at the time I did some research and found an article about AOL and SAVVIS doing some business together, so it's possible that's why they dealt with it so harshly - but I wouldn't want to risk it, and wouldn't give my business to anyone who handled a matter so entirely incompetently as those two did (Layeredtech and SAVVIS).
Here are the pages from the whole fiasco:
the offending forum thread:
http://www.tsourceweb.com/files/ltserver/post.htm
the entire support ticket exchange with layeredtech:
http://www.tsourceweb.com/files/ltserver/layered.htm
my temporary announcement page:
http://www.tsourceweb.com/files/ltserver/index.html
So now everyone's going to race to their blogs and post "Peter Gutmann was right and I was wrong"... right?
(crickets chirp)
you bought a creative labs card for high end audio? no wonder it didn't work.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Why on earth would a vendor want to make the advertisement/presentation be restricted?
That is a great example of where DRM hurts everyone...
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Bad situation, definitely...
And before I say this and everyone mods me for flamebait, i'm just echoing what I think is right...
STOP BUYING DRM PROTECTED MEDIA. Problem solved. Read a book, peruse Slashdot, talk to your wife... i dunno, but giving the hollywood pigs their chow will not bring about any change.
mod away, sry.
No words of wisedom here.
I didn't think I'd need to spell that out.
If you pay for uncracked DRM media, you're encouraging this sort of bullshit. Just pirate it until they either go out of business or stop being assholes.
Ok, this story is setting off my bullshit radar. Particularly this line:
I'm no fan of Mikeysoft but do you realize the massive implications if what he's saying here is true? Forget the bloody HD monitor, basically, he's saying that he's discovered that Netflix in conjunction with Microsoft have configured things so that ONLY Netflix or Microsoft videos are permitted on his machine? Yeeaaaaah, riiiight.
I strongly suspect that the OP completely and utterly misunderstood something and jumped to the most farfetched and outlandish conclusion possible based on that misunderstanding. Or maybe he knows all to well what he's doing and has shares in Blockbuster.
Dear makers of DRM: please keep this up! Please, please, please keep making it harder for consumers to view your stuff. I've got an idea! How about a program that deletes all mp3s and (why the hell not) installs a root kit. I still don't think that goes far enough. You might want to kill all avi file usage too. Of course this only hurts the low tech pirates. You might want to limit streaming to ANY device that hasn't been registered. How about if I decide to take a game to a friend's house to show him how awesome it is? Fuck that! He hasn't paid a license so brick his machine. Pop a new HD-DVD/Blue Ray/ETC into a car stereo? Better make that thing call home before he can hear it. Also maybe make him swipe a card, enter a password and give a retinal scan too. Make him jump through hoops! Hoops that are on FIRE! Maybe then people will dump this tired crap and move to a standard that works for everyone.
*Technically* speaking, I can't think of any legitimate non-DRM afflicted digital video sources. The movie download services are all encumbered as far as I know. You buy any digital media format (HD-DVD, Blue Ray, DVD) and they are all technically DRM-encumbered (DVD counts as encumbered, despite it's pathetically weak methodologies. Even in the analog realm, many VHS tapes that were released used Macrovision to block fair use rights.
Somewhere along the way,the consumer lost and rather than standing their ground and refusing the technology that denies them their fair-use rights, they've accepted whatever hacks around the system and kept buying. Macrovision on VHS was met with filters you could buy at any electronics store. DeCSS made people consider the DVD protection issue moot. I've not yet touched the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray situation, but I hear many stories about those schemes being defeated. And for download services, Fu4wm for example is used for that.
It's a really sad state of affairs, every single DRM scheme ever put forth has been handily defeated, but you don't see, for example, the movie studios making claims that DVD is a useless format because it has no technically meaningful DRM. You'd think that would be noticed as evidence that DRM is unnecessary hassle in a market of mostly fair consumers...
I admit to myself purchasing DVDs on occasion (I can find *no* venue to get unencumbered video, so I have to settle for ineffective DRM, but have found after the fact that some of my titles had no attempt at CSS), but beyond that, I've been avoiding the situation of DRM media because I don't want to deal with it. I've been looking to buy unencumbered music, but so far the selection of tracks I recognize isn't there. I'm relegated to CD purchases (making sure to keep track of the boneheaded efforts on that front to avoid supporting it with my money).
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
> Yet another reason to stick to analog speakers.
Yet another reason to avoid Creative. Go buy something from Echo or Terratec, and you won't have to put up with such crappy limits.
I don't know which to feel worse about; the guy having DRM issues, or the fact that he purchased a monitor that can't actually display and entire 1080i/p/either HDTV image natively. Gotta insist on the WUXGA these days. It won't bite!
No, apparently you don't know what you're doing. With the required DRM in a protected video path, data flows in encrypted format from the source to display device. You do not get the chance to dump the data. Even Torvalds agrees that DRM can exist in Linux.
And research this before suggestion litigation. The issue is corrupted DRM storage, not destruction of existing paid-for content.
This has nothing to do with the DRM in Windows, but everything to do with corrupted DRM storage and hardware that doesn't support HDCP. Don't blame the OS, blame the user that bought HD was too cheap to get a monitor with HDCP.
No thanks - but if you have to bind something to an online-only service to crack, you're asking for problems.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Wikipedia has been DRM'd too! look here. You'll need a license before you can edit ;)
;)
If they continue using this draconian DRM, how is anyone going to spread the word to the world ?
(too bad I didn't find any more general information about COPP on Wikipedia..)
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Netflix has a monopoly on movies? I was not aware.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
We buy product (sigh).
So you gave money to a company that trust you so little it protected a demo video? They trust you so little they assumed you would steal their sales pitch about the product?
How much do you think they will trust you when you try to contact them for, say, a support issue, or an upgrade?
I've made it a policy to trust a vendor with my money at most in the same way they seem to trust me. In this case, that would translate as "not at all" and I would never give them my money.
I remember reading 2-3 years ago research articles claiming that state-of-the-art image watermarking techniques were pretty robust against alterations and 100% undetectable even though their algorithms were known. Which makes sense, this is the same principle as in cryptography: the security of the mechanism should not rely on the secrecy of the algorithm itself.
Now I understand that video watermarking techniques is an entirely different domain, but I am surprised by your comment... So are you talking about watermarking of images or videos ?
I'd assumed the streaming was a separate offering.
Lots of times dropping out is not the way to accomplish change.
But sometimes it is. You're still funding the MAFIAA through Netflix. Just use thepiratebay.com and don't fund them at all.
I just don't get this. I have a 22" LCD widescreen Acer monitor - 1680x1050, and it only has a VGA connector. It looks beautiful.
To be honest, I'm fairly skeptical about the claims of superiority of HDMI. Are people being suckered?
Technically, if you want to get all fiddly about it, an SPDIF cable won't take the bandwidth that HD audio requires anyway; it would need to be downconverted to either 16/44.1 PCM stereo or some lossy format from the likes of Dolby or DTS.
Otherwise you can pass it via HDMI (which has all the DRM handshaking that lets the **AA calm down a bit) or 6-channel analogue.
If it were a brand new standard I'd ask why they don't mandate a mere downconversion to standard bitrate PCM instead of full-on silence, but I suspect at the time that option was considered more effort than they thought they could be bothered with. Oh well.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
DRM did NOT come from the DRM Fairy. It came from the media companies... so yes, I'm quite happy to point at the nincompoops that requested this farcial setup to begin with.
And to Hollywood... There's not an encryption scheme you can make that we can't break. Stop wasting time and energy on this crap if you want a healthier revenue stream.
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
I think you may want to email Neelie Kroes (EU commission) on this (mainly because the DoJ seems to be bought by MS). Could get interesting ..
Insert
Others already pointed out the "trusted" path (trusted by the content provider to not be compromised by you, the user).
I will point out that given the industry's fear of piracy and digital exchange, and the lesson they're taking from the RIAA, music industry and mp3s (which is NOT "release in an unencumbered digital format", but is "get ahead of the curve with protection before it eats you"), the movie industry would simply not release content playable on computers without the protection. So, if they didn't bother with DRM because it was unimplementable, they simply wouldn't release the content.
(Yes, yes, I know that DRM is an inherently flawed approach -- any encryption system where the recipient of the encrypted message AND the attacker are the same person is doomed to failure. Thus "trusted" computing as the "answer" -- which isn't really, but it pushes the compromise out a bit further.)
No recognisable watermark.
Get a few dozen, average them and you have NO watermark.
Unless the watermark is the same on all of them, in which case all you can do is recognise it is a pirate copy.
Yeah. Hence the sigh. Dollars to donuts, none of the videos we bought will be used before the first year's subscription expires.
We has it.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Amazing. I'll sigh with you....
Is it the crappy 128Mbps MP3s that everyone is happy to listen to on their iPods?
I don't know about you, but most of mine are 128Kbs....
I am no expert, but here is a watermarking technique robust to this "averaging attack". To watermark a movie composed of N frames where N is at least a couple thousands, choose a random number 0 <= X <= 999, then watermark frames X, X+1000, X+2000, X+3000, etc, using a simple standard image watermarking algorithm. This algorithm must satisfy the condition that the average of an original frame and its watermarked version is likely to produce a frame where the watermarking is still detectable (most existing watermarking algorithms would satisfy this condition). That's it.
To attack this watermarking technique, it seems you would need to average thousands of movies, because a small set of watermarked movies would unlikely have the exact same frames watermarked. Of course this technique wouldn't be able to withstand a frame rate re-sampling, but I am sure you could make it more resistant to this (e.g. by watermarking frrames X, X+1, X+2, X+3, X+1000, X+1001, X+1002, X+1003, etc).
I'm not moving from DVD.
I saw this and many other problems coming with the announcements of various online video services. Microsoft started all of this with their version of DRM management and it can only escalate from this point.
Like so many others on here, I suggest not only ditching these online services because their services are not worth the prices they ask (any price), but even the battles over Blu-Ray over HD media vs our common carrier; DVD has left me feeling they are trying to invalidate the DVD format now for something else. That caveat also means my old content will no longer be playable after a time if they can successfully get everyone switched off of DVD to some other format.
"Wanna watch that movie again;.. you gotta give it up for a new player and new media sir!"
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
Generally the error is caused by COPP compliancy issues between the OS/Vid Card/Monitor (any of those). Easiest fix is to use a vga connection which will disable the compliancy and thereby bypass it. I spent a good 2-3 hours with a (very surprisingly) knowledgeable Netflix tech guy to trouble shoot the issue and in the end it was the vga thing that work (we tried many other things to no avail).
A work around which I used to still use DVI but get around the compliancy was to hook my monitor (which has both dvi and vga) to both ports on my vid card. So primary was dvi and secondary was vga. And when I want to watch a movie, I set my video settings to clone both displays (which are actually outputs to the same display) and since using both dvi and vga at the same time disables the compliancy, I can watch netflix vids on my dvi connection ^_^
LOL! Got me!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I don't have any problem with piracy. Do you? I love to have almost all of the movies produced accessible from my computer without waiting for it to be broadcasted on some obscure TV-channel that I don't have access to. I also love being able to get all old computer-games which can't be bought anymore and that people can mix any music they want without having to pay for producing CDs and big spaces in shops to sell them.
If this leads to that Hollywood can only spend half as much money on every movie, I think that would just be positive for the quality of the crap they're doing. It would definitely bring us a more varied film-industry and people will continue to go to movie theatres even if the movies can be freely downloaded and watched at home. The big difference is that people will watch unknown movies and tell their friends if they are good, which will make it easier for "small" films.
I can accept that content producer for example get 50% of the ad income from a torrent site, but when they fight against people sharing information they can't and mustn't win as that would be the end of freedom and progress.
Vote for Dr. Ron Paul to have your personal liberty back. There is no freedom to fascism.
All this boils down to HDCP (High Definition Content Protection). Its a protocol that blu-ray, HDDVD, and Windows Medial 11 DRM content run through. The decoders, based in hardware, that play this content perform endpoint to endpoint content protection. This entire system was designed for 1 simple reason: to prevent you from recording the steap being outputed from the player to another medium. Since it's a digital signal all the way, it is too easy to make perfect copies simply by steaming the HDMI signal into a device that can record HD feeds. HDCP is a protocol that prevents this streaming by requiring each device in the chain to support the protocol or the video will be downscaled or blocked entirely by the viewing source. The software or firmware playing the source can also detect bidirectionally if the display, or any device between itself and the display, is not compliant and software can thus revoke the keys that media player 11 won't let you back up anymore...
What does all this prevent? It prevents the layman from making copies of DRM media that they are already holding a copy of in their hands, or have already legally downloaded. Does this stop piracy? NO! It's easy enough to strip the DRM and keep the HD video and audio feeds intact, then distribute the files in free and open formats anyway. What was the point?
DRM sucks. It's too easy to bypass. Lets look at watermarking instead. why? A watermarked file will play on anything, with or without decryption or decoding. problem is, you can't tell if a file is digitally watermarked or not, at least, not unless you can compare it directly with the original unmarked source material (gold master), which you can not do. The mathematics required to validly detect and remove a watermark and MASSIVE. Once watermarked files start leaking into the community (likely to be SEEDED by the RIAA and other organizations), if you get a watermarked file on your machine illegally, or worse, someone else gets one of yours, then it's a self incriminating scenario, and you can be easily found guilty. It's the perfect theft deterent. Realistically, it's no different that laser etching a diamond, or putting a tracking seen beneath your pet's skin. If someone other than you is in posession of it, it's stolen. simple.
You can't remove a watermark unless 1) you know it's there, 2) you know the source it came from, 3) you know the file is unmodified, so that the watermark pattern is in fact preserved perfectly in the file, and 4) you have an unwatermarked version to comapre it to or have a database of the specifics of each individually watermarked file pattern, which will be different for each track distributed by each company. It's virtually impossible to defeat, and has no DRM or hardware specific blockouts. We should be encouraging the use of this technology!
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
In theory, future HDCP content could invalidate whatever key it is using to decrypt the signal; in practice, the makers of the HDFury probably cloned the keys of something extremely popular (for example, a Sony Bravia or Sharp Aquos television), so revoking the key would infuriate thousands of HDTV owners.
The manufacturers of HDFury say that it is a totally legal conversion device, but they're either ignorant, or lying. The specifications for HDCP-protected content state that it is up to the content provider whether analog outputs on the device are enabled. Something tells me they're not exactly honoring what the content provider tells them to do.
(I probably don't have to tell you that even attempting to purchase an HDFury makes you a criminal in the United States thanks to the DMCA, but if you're the sort to buy one I doubt you're very worried about that.)
Since all these problems are being caused by Vista, shouldn't you stop using MS products?
->
The President theoretically gets the choice of either passing or rejecting bills in their entirety. No modifications. However, GWB's habit of issuing signing statements modifying leglislation he passes effectively bypasses that restriction.
The President can also indicate whether or not he will pass a particular piece of leglislation early on... for example he indicated NAY for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) early on in its passage.
Perfect example in this case: avisynth. It's the backbone of just about all the canned windows DVD ripper tools and it has an interface to the media player APIs. As such it is trivial (yes, I've done it - and I've contributed code to the project so I know quite well how it works) to create a filter chain that accepts an encrypted WMV source and dumps raw video right to the hard drive in the form of an AVI.
No "tanks" needed...
If you had a virtualized machine image just for NetFlix it might be possible to get around all this BS.
Let M$S search a virtual machine that only has a video player and NetFlix.
Another one for I-Tunes
Another one for whatever...
Sit them all on a secure platform.
Only NetFlix vids and M$S read only image on the netflix "machine".
DRM is worked around.
http://www.xboxmediacenter.com/wiki/index.php?title=Linux_port_project
Mine is running on Mythbuntu 7.10 from SVN. Nearly feature complete and on a good CPU will play 1080P just fine. This is on x86 PC hardware and is under VERY active development.
http://www.xboxmediacenter.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=52 for more info.
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Strange game... only winning move is not to play.
Ask for a refund. If they refuse, just sue them.
What jury would back them?
You paid money for a "product". You changed hardware and their product no longer worked. They told you "tough luck".
What if your DVDs didn't work in your new DVD player? Would they tell you "tough luck"?
I don't care what legalese gobbledy-gook you had to agree to. The common sense says, if you buy a product, you expect it to work.
They're using their grammar skills there.
The product itself is video. The video isn't a sales pitch about the product - the video IS the product.
Windows has no other choices because content providers will not accept other solutions.
They had the choice not to include DRM deep in the bowels of Windows. They really did. Movies would still play, even HD content would still play, just downgraded. They had a very real choice. Far more real than Netflix, or even Unbox.
At the core it's Microsoft's choice that makes it all poassible.
So next time when you hate, do it right.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I hope I'm not the only one who has said this, but PIRATE THE SHIT! I think we've reached a point where anyone who knowingly puts up with the industry's extensive and incredibly invasive DRM schemes is being silly. As bad as things have gotten, I think it's perfectly fair to toss aside any moral concerns about non-commercial illegal downloading. If you want something that will serve you BETTER than Netflix, try a binary USENET service. Totally anonymous, encrypted, super fast, and filled to the brim with HD content. MINUS THE DRM.
Hey, don't worry I'm sure that in X number of years when the copyright legally expires on that content that the DRM will automatically deactivate and you will be able to play/copy it all you want. Since that would be legal at that time.
(OK OK sarcasm over)
Those who can, do.
There is a simple solution to all this DRM nonsense and this person even having his unrelated hardware purchases influenced by the DRM is a good enough reason to just not buy DRM content and where you can't get it legally without DRM just to Pirate it! Vote with your Wallet! F**k DRM in it's bug ridden a$$.
RebateFX.com - Spread rebates for Forex traders
First of all, there's no need to tie the media to a particular hardware device. The media NEEDS to be tied to the buyer. At this point, all other devices need to to is make sure the user is the buyer. Basically, the buyer is given the key. The key can be stored in a USB device. USB is ubiquitous now. This way you can take your media anywhere and as long as you bring your "key" with you, it will play on any supported playback device. Why is this so hard people?
Right, there's a DAC somewhere...
It isn't so much that there hasn't been any attempts at controlling audio. Look at WMA, and other DRM schemes. It's just that no new audio formats have gained any traction. In particular, the cables that go from source to speaker have stayed the same, but even with software, it's been quite. Look at DVD-Audio or SACD and you'll notice that they're crawling with DRM. However, nobody wants it, because CD's and MP3's are by and large good enough. And if they aren't among the preferred formats, then it's likely LP's as opposed to any of the new HD formats. Granted, there are takers for both DVD-A and SACD, but they're the same ones who'll drop $25K on the newest top-of-the-line receiver every year without second thought.
Images, on the other hand, are still in development. Since our visual resolution is far greater than what existing formats offer, there's always room for new formats, and always reasons to upgrade to newer hardware. And that's why you hear about DRM in video more. Even so however, the HD video formats aren't doing terribly well either, though significantly better than the HD audio formats.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Watermarking does not prevent casual copying, which is what the **AA are trying to stomp out. P2P is just the most visible form of piracy, and thus P2P gets all the attention from both sides. However, P2P is just one front in their battle against we the people, and they haven't forgotten the other fronts even if we have.
Specifically replying though, your method of watermarking does not prevent people from buying a legit copy and posting it online. The alternative method would be to uniquely watermark every copy, which is costly, but doable. Which is why it's done only for screeners.
Regardless, it is possible to remove watermarks or distort watermarks with two copies of the same file. Since they're the same, they should be digitally equivalent. If they're not, then you know something's up.
Watermarks work for screeners because it's hard to get ahold of two copies of the same work. But even that doesn't work completely, as it's possible, despite being difficult, to get two copies and do the comparison. And once a scheme has been detected once, it has effectively been defeated.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
At least the down-moderation seems to be much more frequent than in a lot of other threads so it seems to me that there is someone trying to suppress information they don't like. Even if a text isn't 100% correct it can still contain enough substance to be valid. That's why it's possible to comment anything that seems to be wrong.
I'm just waiting for
Of course - this post will get down-moderated as being "Offtopic", "Troll" or "Flamebait" as soon as I press the button...
The essential part here is that there are conflicts of interest - and software conflicts when handling DRM - and it is resolved in a manner that is completely unacceptable. A resolution of the problem that renders the DRM data invalid for other media and then also request that the user re-authorized that media is so slimy that it only begs for a hack that circumvents all DRM technology.
But on an OS to which I have the code, I can dump any data that flows to my video or sound card and reencode it as I wish, rendering the DRM useless. If everyone used such open source OS systems, companies would not bother implementing DRM.
No need to switch though, as others correctly point out. Just don't buy DRMed content. Remember the disc format Divx?
Watermarking does not prevent copying, but it provides a quick and simple system to determine who made and distributed the copy. Legit copies would be individually watermarked at the time of purchase (when downloaded). This is not an expensive system when done on a community of scale. Each unique distributed work would need it's own watermarkign pattern, within which the personal details of the purchaser would get recorded. only a few hundred individual packets need to be modified for each file as it's transimited, so the overhed to watermark is relatively small.
It would be possible to compare 2 different files and strip the differences between them, but much of the watermark would be the same between both files. If the watermark systematically repeats within the same file, using algorithms, then data stripped by comparing 2 files may or may not be sufficient to completely erase the data. the watermark should be able to be reconstituted from as little as 10% of it's surviving data. Also, stripping this information is a MASSIVE process requiring huge amounts of ram and lenghty system resources. besides, how do you validate that the copy your comparing it to is the exact same eddition with the exact same watermark pattern? or that it wasn't seeded by the recording industry with the intent of spoofing a watermark stripping application? The only way to be sure is for 2 people that trust each other to each have a legitimate copy of the media to be cleaned... If you got a "cleaned" file from a P2P, how can you be sure it is in fact clean? Also, you can only clean what's NOT identicle. Part of the watermark is a self identifying section that sais "I'm watermarked" so simply having a watermarked file on your PC that's been "cleaned" could be against the law. Sure, your personal information gets stripped (or theirs does, and even this is only a HOPE it's been stripped) but if authorities find you in posession, you're still automatically guilty. A media player could easily be created to look for broken watermarks like this
most people commit crimes like this only because they are 99% certain they can get away with it. Reduce that certainty to say 10% and how many people would still do it?
Some company (Sony) logs onto a P2P and posts "cleaned" files. They then partner with Microsoft to have WMP, or some other background tool snoop for the broken watermarks they purposely distributed. Once found, the system reports everything it knows about your personal PC and you back to Sony automatically... How do you know the fise you got from BT isn't Sony's file??? Sure, the less than 1% of people that can install a completely open sourced linux system and bypass all of this by using exclusively rematered and recompressed files, and players known to not be spying, they'll still steal... The 99% of other folks who have Windows or a Mac and don't know any better? They'll either get smart or get cuaght.
Others will simply rip from retial copies (cracked bluray disks without watermarks). The ones who will get caught quickest are the ones who are looking through BT for cracked bluray files which in fact happen to be watermarked Sony files... It's too easy to get caught because it's impossible to tell a clean file from a watermarked file, both play equally without DRM or proprietary requirements.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
So how does it defeat an attack where you get, say, three or more copies of a movie and go with "majority rule" for any corrupt frames, using the frame in the majority of them?
Besides, if you can detect the watermark (know where and how it's stored), you can overwrite it. Because that has to remain secret, the schemes just don't work very well.
21c5763c76c61e8f77910accd9b110cfd6878c567fa5473d2e042e8e720dfc37
Just so there is no confusion amongst readers....VideoLan and VLC are the same thing. VLC is just an abbreviation.
And if you haven't checked out this media player yet (shame on you, you should know better), then I highly suggest you check it out. Since I switched to VLC, I can definitely say my life is MUCH much easier. I've also made my friends/families lives easier by asking them to switch too. No more codecs. No more DRM. No more MS nonsense, just to play a regular multimedia file.
I have a 37" 1080P HD-Monitor and VLC plays fine on it. Both standard def and high def content. So much so that I don't even recognize the issues that are discussed in this article. I don't think I've ever seen this on my system. (not being able to play HD content at full res).
This: http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/01/drm-free-future.html Someone buy the guy who decided to do this a beer!
DRM doesn't work. We know it, and now they know it too.
I refused to install the microsoft drm (via netflix!) for precisely this reason over the weekend. Read all my files on hard drive ? What do you think I am ? Someone who can't read ? WTF! As a compromise I'm quite happy to get my DVDs by mail a day later. For a change I'll log off the idiot box and exercising other dormant faculties of mine.... (Remember books anyone.)
Is this really the case? I had not heard of the audio angle but I imagine LOTS and LOTS of people have audio separated from their video within their home theater. Most of us have been doing that for some time now (ie: video out of cable box to TV, digital audio out to the audio receiver, harmony remote to make it work nicely together).
If I am reading your post correctly....that can not be done anymore because of the "unprotected" audio-out port.
So even if I have a "good" HDCP compliant monitor, and a "good" HDCP compliant source (like Blu-ray player), I can't send my audio through my home theater receiver? In other words, you can't separate the audio and video anymore because the audio ports (which have been around a long time) are unprotected. Both Coax and Toslink.
On one hand, that's jacked up. On the other hand, I now understand why my TV has a toslink out connection. It's basically a passthru so you can take HDMI/HDCP into the TV and split out the audio from the TV to the audio receiver.
I've been waiting all day to come home and try Netflix's service on my new HDTV to see if this guy was right. Without much ado, he's wrong.
First, the guy wrote that "Because my computer allows me to send an unrestricted HDTV feed to my monitor, Hollywood has decided to revoke my ability to stream 480 resolution video files from Netflix. In order to fix my problem, Netflix recommended that I downgrade to a lower res VGA setup."
I have a computer with DVI out connected to a HDMI input on a 1080p television. A Samsung HL-T5087S to be exact. I'm running the TV at 1920x1080. But, yet I did not have to "downgrade to a lower res VGA setup" to get Netflix's streaming service to work. So, he's wrong.
Next he said that he had to give Microsoft's "sniffing program access to all of the files on my hard drive." Once again, that is complete BS. I too was faced with "Reset Microsoft DRM Utility." I clicked it and a second later it was done. I have a spanned drive of 2 terabytes of xvid files on my computer. Do you really think Microsoft's utility could have scanned all of those files in one second?! Clearly, it did no scanning of my system at all, it merely reset whatever DRM crap it had to reset and it was done.
Anyone who has read my posts and comments here know I'm not in favor of DRM. But if someone is going to attack it, they should get their facts straight and not simply make crap up.
And I just have to add this, what sort of moron buys movies from Amazon's Unbox service?! If you really want to watch a movie over and over again, buy the DVD! You can watch it on any DVD player. You can take it to a friend's house and watch it. You can rip it to your iPod or other portable player. You can make as many backups as you want. Bitching about the DRM in Unboxed movies you bought reflects much more poorly on the buyer than on the seller.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I didn't realize they were taking money from their own profits to pay for the costs of streaming! What a wonderful gift from Netflix! Wrong. You are paying for the streaming.
Then I guess you don't know how businesses and loss leaders work.
I pay the same price before and after they offered this service (in fact less than when I started). So to me it's obvious in what way this service is being treated - as a loss leader to DRAW IN customers.
Thanks for trying, though you may wish to think about what running a business means more in the future before you comment again.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
erm, Sony can not post their own work to P2P without breakign its own license so to speak. Its called entrapment and legally can be quite problematic.
They don't learn do they? How long will it be before all these corporate monkeys realise that as long as a human can view it, then it is copyable? (Yes, I just made a new word up!). The sooner they start offering incentives rather than penalties (such as DRM, the ultimate penalty - Sony take note!), the sooner we will all be in a situation where we can pay happily for what we want to watch, when we want to, and on what we want to.
I have a homebrew PVR that I was happily using to watch Heroes via the Watch Instantly. The AGP 7600GS card outputs to my 30" HD-CRT via a component cable dongle. Sometime in the past couple of days Netflix wanted my computer to upgrade to Windows Media 11 and now I get the cryptic DRM error. No change in hardware, just some standard, recommended software update f-ed up my system.
If they'd actually give a detailed error explaining the issue (not giving false hope that it's just a DRM reset away from being fixed) I wouldn't have wasted a few hours looking for solutions online.
Bad, Netflix, Bad! All I wanted to do was using the account I was paying for to watch a tv show (which is freely available at nbc.com with annoying commercials forced in) uninterruped.