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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Okay, I won't buy from Netflix, especially since they don't "sell" digital downloads. What they do offer is an online-viewing service that's included "free" (currently) with their standard by-mail service. A service which, I might add, happens to work beautifully if you're running XP. It looks like this guy's problems stem from the fact that he's running Vista and has decided to change his hardware (even if it is only the monitor). We were given plenty of warning that Vista would do this, so we shouldn't be surprised when it happens.
This guy's the limit!
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.
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.
Your advice is pointless. From his own perspective, of course he'll stop buying them, since simply he can't play them.
But for this to happen "often enough", the problem has to occur often enough. And with DRM, despite having more edge cases affecting mostly prosumers and advanced users, the masses find their content working in a basic use scenario.
It's a frog-in-a-slowly-boiling-water effect.
And as much as they try it, they still can't do it effectively!
I find it amazing that people don't boycott this stuff more. I mean, buying DRM content is really stupid.
On the other hand, sometimes boycotting bad products is almost impossible. Until some time ago, it was impossible to buy a notebook without Windows bundled in it. That meant that if you wanted to boycott Microsoft you would have to give up on your notebook. It took several years, but the market is changing and now it's possible to buy notebooks with other OS or no OS even from major vendors.
DRM content, on the other hand, is easier to boycott. You really can live without it. And in some cases, it seems that the boycott is being effective.
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
Actually according to the article, the author DID use it, and he got access revoked even though HE DID NOTHING WRONG, so it kinda runs counte rto bein gable to consume DRM'ed content in the first place
Whoever did this ripped this guy off big time.
If it weren't for microsoft's screwhappy lawyers and deep pockets, I'd be temped to sue.
Don't confuse streaming over the Internet and torrenting with streaming through a local network to another TV. He is saying "I can view it anywhere I want" not "I can get anything I want". Big difference.
He wants to view all of his content - even his legally obtained DRM content - anywhere in his house. Its exactly like expecting to place a TV or radio anywhere in the house and being allowed to watch and listen to the same channels. What if Channel 7 only let you watch Channel 7 on Sony branded TVs? What if you couldn't watch Channel 7 on a Sony TV if you had a Hitachi TV in the same house?
We do not inherit the Earth from our parents. We borrow it from our children.
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.
- 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.Well, I was unable to read the original story because of slashdotting. The story seems to be "real", in that things likely happened as he explains, but he's (probably not deliberately, though definately hyperbolically) misrepresenting many of the facts.
First, nothing "scans all your files". Second, he makes it sound like you aren't allowed to watch videos without DRM, which is not correct. Third, it's not terribly difficult to backup your licenses. It's 3 clicks in Windows Media.
What this boils down to is when the DRM is "reset", the signing code is regenerated, which means that any files that use DRM that were downloaded with the old signing code will no longer play, because the signing key is no longer valid. Nothing "scanned all the files", nor were licenses "revoked". If they were revoked, you couldn't back them up and restore them with the new signing key.
Basically, it's the same thing that happens if you wipe your hard disk and re-install iTunes. None of your iTunes music downloads will work, because it regenerated a new signing key.
Now, this is still a problem that adding a higher resolution monitor causes the DRM to no longer function without resetting, but it's not an insurmountable problem, and it's almost *NOTHING* like what the author is trying to portray the situation as.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Personally, I've backed up all my Unbox purchases by stripping the DRM with FU4WM and burning the resulting files to DVD, to avoid the potential for any real DRM problems in the future. Unlike this one, which isn't a real problem. It's a software/driver conflict combined with poor tech support, and a blogger who didn't give enough details in the post to solve the problem, but who is instead blowing things way out of proportion.
I don't like DRM, and therefore don't like using Unbox or Netflix's online services frequently. But let's not exaggerate. This problem has nothing to do with "Hollywood [not being] 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." You had a conflict of some sort on your machine. Tech support gave you the only tool they know to give everyone to fix it. You could just ignore them and solve it yourself without losing your videos. Or, as I said, just download them again, like you are allowed to do with Unbox.
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
Why the hell you want to FFW Axe commercials???
They are the last of the good commercials after the Bud ads...
Hell i had a friend who believed in the AXE commercial (The elevator advt) that he "quietly" mentioned in the elevator he was wearing AXE.
We forced the elevator to stop and all 3 of us males got down leaving him to ride the elevator with the gals....(all 4 of them laughing).
You shd have seen his face the whole day...
I bet he stopped being buying Axe after that...
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
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.
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 think the part you missed is that in the future he can download a higher resolution torrent and never have to worry about backing up anything or getting a new license from who-knows-who thus, the high road is more trouble for consumers than the low road.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
yup...and all I can say is... GOOD
I really hope this happens to lots and lots of people. I really hope just fuckloads of people lose access to what they paid for. If I believed in any gods, I would pray to them for this.
I hope it causes such a stink, that the US congress has to step in and hold hearings. I hope this becomes such a public relations nightmare that DRM dissapears so thoroughly that it becomes nothing more than a footnote in books on the histories of bad ideas.
I can think fo nothing better than seeing the conspirators who put together this crap being drug out before congressional panels and skewered for their antisocial machinations.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
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.)
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.
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.