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."

Comments

Owned

[CJ145]

Yet another reason to pirate all the content you want.

Re:Owned

[packeteer]

How would that help? They wouldn't even troubleshoot on a system like Linux. He could have refused their scan and kept his freedom.

In my opinion it is your own fault if you purchase DRM content. You don't HAVE to have their content. I know you really want to because its big Hollywood movies but what is difficult to understand. Your making a choice to retain your freedom or your use of Hollywood entertainment. If you know before hand that you could be screwed over while not doing anything wrong as well as not being able to go after the content provider because they did nothing outside of their agreement who's fault is it? It's surely not theirs. You decided to play their game and to pay them for the privilege. You get burned and cry to slashdot. It's very sad that there is good content that is going to be locked in DRM away but thats just bait for suckers.

Re:Owned

[MMC Monster]

Agree.

(Unfortunately) More people should get burnt by these DRM schemes so that people will ask twice before signing up for them. As knowledgeable as we (the /. community) is, we have to get the word out to friends and family when they ask for our recommendations. It doesn't take much. When they ask about bluray or HD-DVD, just mention off the cuff the dueling standards. If they talk about downloadable content, ask them what happens when you change computers or if the service closes down. Mention that the Walmart service (backed by a company bigger than Microsoft) is closing down and the mess it leaves the customers.

We are the people with the (purchasing) power. We have the power to get rid of DRM. We just have to use it wisely.

Re:Owned

[rho]

It probably isn't even that cheap.

It's a free add-in to their service. For every buck per month you spend you get an hour of streaming. It may not be cheap, but since their standard mail service is already worth the money I spend, the Watch Now is a pleasant bonus.

It probably isn't even superior to their snal-mail variant and possibly not even much better in terms of delivery speed.

It would be better if the library were more robust, but the speed is fine. It starts in a few seconds.

Anything Netflix is offering over the web I can also stream around the house if I want to.

I don't know what you mean here, but it reminds me of the folks who say "I can just torrent whatever I want." Maybe, but I'm not interested in maintaining multiple gigabytes of video files, and torrents are hideously slow for things that are not widely popular. Netflix trades "free" for excellent service and breadth of offerings. It's like a massive hard drive with high latency. Since movies arrive in a timely fashion I'm rarely waiting for stuff, and on the off chance I want something now now now, and assuming it's offered on Watch Now, that option is available.

I dunno, maybe it's just because I have no vested interest in screwing the MPAA or whatever. The few bucks I give to Netflix every month is more than repaid in the service they provide without any streaming.

Cancelling

[Lulfas]

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.

Re:Cancelling

[Thomas M Hughes]

In this instance, it's not really Netflix's fault. Netflix has repeatedly said that they want to make their steaming feature available to more operating systems, browsers and the like. The reason they haven't is because the MPAA studios which supply the movies that Netflix's rents won't license them movies unless they use some form of DRM that they approve of. And they only approve of Microsoft's DRM, which means the only options open for Netflix are Microsoft supplied DRM movies or nothing at all.

If you want proof of this, there are videos of Netflix having a working demo of their streaming tech on OS X from back in March, but they still haven't released it for the main site, since they still haven't gotten approval on the DRM from the sudios.

If you're going to protest, your protests should be directed at the MPAA. That may involve a boycott of Netflix as well, but it definitely shouldn't stop there, nor should Netflix be the primary focus.

works as advertised

[osssmkatz]

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

Re:Alternative to DRM

[roca]

That doesn't work because watermarks are incredibly easy to get around. Simple signal processing techniques will eliminate most watermarks without noticeably affecting the output. In many cases you can just add your own watermark over the top and either destroy the existing watermark or no-one knows which one is the original watermark.

Pretty much all watermarking research assumes that an attacker does not know how the watermarking technique works and does not intelligently attack the watermark. That assumption is hopelessly unrealistic. It's 100% security by obscurity.

Re:I'll bite.

[bigstrat2003]

And you're neatly sidestepping the issue altogether. Nice trick, that. The issue is that switching to a "free" (however one defines that, which is a discussion unto itself) OS will not solve the problem at all. All that will happen is you'll have to pirate your videos, which is the same damn solution that you'd have to go to under Windows... so the OS change has netted you no benefit whatsoever with respect to this DRM issue.

Re:I'll bite.

[toadlife]

You Free(TM) OS fanboys are all fucking idiots.

The original poster proposed using a Free(TM) OS as a method of fighting DRM.
The next poster correctly pointed out that using a Free(TM) OS has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.
Then you idiots keep railing about how using a Free(TM) OS will somehow solve the DRM problem - completely ignoring (and seemingly ignorant of) the fact that DRM can be implemented in ANY operating system with or without cooperation from the authors of the OS.

The issue is DRM and protected content, not operating systems. You can choose not to purchase and consume protected content weather or not you run a Free(TM) OS or not.

Re:vista only

[cjsm]

And this is the problem with most DRM schemes. They do nothing to solve the real problems of pirated media, and instead put all kinds of shackles on the people who actually pay good money for their music, movies, and software; in the process making pirated media superior to bought media.

Re:DRM display lockout

[MightyMartian]

Finally I don't agree with any of this DRM crap at all. I think it's all bullshit and will never purchase any DRM'd video files, ever. But I don't like untrue FUD being tossed around even if it is against a MS product. Hell, it's not like the content providers will ever let their crap play on an OS without the ability to use this kind of DRM - what was MS supposed to do, not support the DRM and not even give consumers the option of watching DRM'd files? That's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater (even if in this case the baby is a seriously ugly SOB that few - but some - would want)

Yes they should have said stuff it to the studios. Microsoft controls over 90% of the desktops on the planet. For once they could have used their monopoly position to some good.

Re:I'll bite.

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, the issue is DRM content AND operating systems. Vista added all sorts of "features" whose only point is to restrict the way that videos can be played back and make overly restrictive digital rights restrictions easier. DRM "could" be implemented under Linux, but there is not pervasive rights restrictions throught libraries, the kernel, and the X server as there are rights restrictions in Vista through libraries, kernel, and video system. A "protected video path" type setup under Linux would simply not be very possible, and if someone tried it, the source is available so it can be circumvented trivially.

          The primary reason for free software being a good antidote to DRM is that I am voting with my wallet. Buying or staying with XP "instead" of Vista doesn't send Microsoft the message -- they may want you to get Vista, but you are still sending money Microsoft's way. OSX is also a big DRM supporter. So, by not purchasing OSX or Windows it sends the message to Apple & Microsoft that I will not spend money with DRM supporters.

Re:vista only

[BosstonesOwn]

This is a reason why piracy is becoming such a problem.

Not only is it cheaper to download it off the net some where (pick your favorite source) the people who rip the content rip out the drm which makes it just easier to use. No worries about licenses , no worries about 2 services destroying each other, no worries about changing hardware and having to repurchase half your library because one service uses it and the other doesn't.

These companies just don't realize that drm is draconian. Multi Os platforms and easy to use video content that will play any where is what the future should hold. instead they try ad put a strangle hold on the content and tell us we can only use it on windows , and maybe if your lucky a mac. Basically telling me what OS and what hardware I should run by placing system requirements on the content , meanwhile on a Linux or Solaris box, I don't need anywhere near those resources to watch a downloaded movie.

Draconian restrictions were also used at the fall of the roman empire. I think we (the US) is really shooting ourselves in the foot with these restrictions.

And Yes I have seen these errors on my wifes Vista computer. God how I'd love to strip out vista and install ubuntu or fedora for her. Im tired of cleaning out windows systems !

hate to say i told you so...

[Thirdsin]

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.

Re:vista only

[networkBoy]

Ironic 'taint it matey?

Honestly though, there is little to no competition to a fully "pirate" setup.
* XBMC on old Xbox with component video cables (720p max, but that's what my LCD is :-)
* LAMP media server, exports *everything* on simple usr/pwd shares
* movies transcoded from my library
* MP3's transcoded from my library
* BBC shows and other public broadcasting shows I like

No real reason I couldn't add an RSS feed to TPB and autograb shows other than WGHB and BBC stuff (or movies etc.)
According to the **AA my copies of my music/movies are not proper and thus "pirate" etc. and it blows absolutely every other option I've tried out of the water. In theory I could add a myth back-end server and capture off the air/cable with a DVB card or a hauppage + cable box setup, but honestly there is no need.

XBMC is even better than myth in my opinion, and both of them kick the pants off of XP-MCE.
-nB

Re:vista only

[arivanov]

This should not be called DRM.

This should be called illegal restraint of trade and monopoly abuse.

It should be also dealt with accordingly.

Re:vista only

[erroneus]

To some degree you're right. But in some ways, you've got it backward.

DRM has managed to make "pirates" out of people. Sharing music through various means has been a part of human culture since the dawn of time. We sing to each other, play for each other, perform for each other. By natural extension, we loaned or copied sheet music to to each other, we loaned or copied player piano tracks to each other, we loaned or copied records and tapes to each other, and now more recently, we share and copy MP3s to each other.

The industry has taken a human social behavior and have criminalized it for their own profits adding "force of law" to their business model.

This stuff has gotten out of hand long ago and it is taking far too long to set things straight. The best answer is to restore copyright durations to their original time frame. There's no need to extend it to over 100 years as we seem to have it now. In fact, under present law, there is very high risk of losing the public domain entirely as well as losing access to artistic works in the future! Consider the issues we have seen with document formats and the push to get them into open standard formats. The purpose? To avoid having important and public information being lost due to the format no longer being supported while remaining secret. Right now, we're collecting our music in digital formats that are locked away by both technology and law where neither accounts for an "end" of the duration of copyright. It accounts for nothing about what happens when the works are no longer covered under copyright. The works are lost!