Why There's Still No Netflix App For Android

An anonymous reader writes "Why is there a Netflix app for iOS devices and Windows Phone 7, yet no Netflix support for Android? Well, Netflix has been working on an Android app but has run into a few technical hurdles because Android lacks a universal DRM solution which means that the company has to work with different handset manufacturers separately in order to ensure that the installed DRM protocol meets the requirements laid out by the movie studios."

Comments

I Can Dream, Can't I?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the preponderance of Android devices where you really can't enforce DRM will drive companies like Netflix to start bargaining for the right to stream without DRM. Not that it'll probably happen, but it's a nice dream...

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[goombah99]

Maybe the preponderance of Android devices where you really can't enforce DRM will drive companies like Netflix to start bargaining for the right to stream without DRM. Not that it'll probably happen, but it's a nice dream...

Dream on just like everyone from napster to limewire did. It took apple's $1 song to make it easier to pay than pirate music. Everyone won. Moreover apple installed speedbump DRM (I.e. just a pain in the but to remove and not worth your time, but removable if you wanted. even apple's own tools could remove (e.g. imovie). ) then they pushed for drm free music.

Complain, but they moved the ball forward more in 1 year than all the attempts before.

On the otherhand the handsets present a new playing filed where it looks like lockdown platforms are going to be the norm for a variety of reasons.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[Anonymous Coward]

> lockdown platforms are going to be the norm for a variety of reasons.

If by "variety of reasons" you mean, "that people are idiots *and* stupid", then sure, it's a variety.

People don't have to buy that shit. But they're buying it by the millions.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[tverbeek]

The only way that Netflix streaming came to the Mac was for them to resort to Microsoft technology for DRM purposes. So Netflix will come to Android as soon as Microsoft ports Silverlight – and its DRM system (so don't start talking about Moonlight) – to Google's OS. (cue laughter)

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a lot of people who use a Mac to get awayfrom Microsoft. Asking us to install SilverLight on our Mac for Netflix is totally insane.

Fortunately, Netflix also supports other Apple devices, the Wii and the PS3.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dream on just like everyone from napster to limewire did. It took apple's $1 song to make it easier to pay than pirate music. Everyone won. Moreover apple installed speedbump DRM...

The DRM being used for audio may not be as invasive as it once was, but has anyone noticed what's in the license agreements (like that which appears during the latest iTunes update)? I can't remember the last time I actually tried to read the agreement, but I sure don't remember it talking about allowing gathering a bunch of other info from our systems to (among other things) "...verify compliance with the terms of this License." Many ripping, conversion, disc-burning and anti-virus apps keep logs of all the files/discs they've processed.

"4. Consent to Use of Data. You agree that Apple and its subsidiaries may collect and use technical and related information, including but not limited to technical information about your computer, system and application software, and peripherals, that is gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, product support and other services to you (if any) related to the Apple Software and to verify compliance with the terms of this License.Apple may use this information, as long as it is in a form that does not personally identify you, to improve our products or to provide services or technologies to you."

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[Bahamut_Omega]

Is it me; or do we need to start bringing in the Yakuza to wipe out the Mafiaa?

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[Antisyzygy]

All I want to do is DreeeaaAaeeem. Dream Dream Dreeeam DreeeaaAaeeem. Dream Dream Dreeeam DreeeaaAaeeem.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess Netflix is using Silverlight on the iOS incarnation of its player, right? Wrong, methinks. And Silverlight embedded in Roku and the billion other set top boxes and BluRay players? Not likely.

Netflix is not bound to M$ DRM anymore.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[nabsltd]

It took apple's $1 song to make it easier to pay than pirate music. Everyone won.

Except for people who want high-quality digital copies at a reasonable price.

It's now becoming very hard to get CD-quality audio without paying a significant premium. There are plenty of lossless codecs out there, but no vendor has stepped up and offered individual tracks in high quality. It's not like it takes any significant time to download, either...6–20 seconds for a 320kbps MP3 or 20–90 seconds for a 900kbps (or so) lossless file

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[wvmarle]

DRM = Digital Restrictions Management.

No rights given to the customer that they didn't already have (that's why sellers prefer to call their customers "consumers" instead), only restrictions on what they can do with it. Only restrictions to the seller as they can only sell to people that have also bought in to their specific scheme.

It puts restrictions on all sides: before I have already argued why it's self-defeating due to these restrictions companies put themselves in (in case of music it gave Apple all pricing power with their iTunes/iPod monopoly; same with Amazon's book DRM). Basically you want to sell music with DRM, your only viable option is iTunes/iPod with their 80% or so market share. The rest is splintered. But it gives Apple all power, and now we see music being sold without DRM. Books to follow.

Here again indeed a case of self-defeating DRM. The studio's apparently have a problem "supporting" all those schemes, or is it Android that doesn't support them? Hard to say. Everyone has been trying to reinvent this broken wheel, and of course they do not interoperate. No surprise there.

But those dreams of yours may not be that far off, AC.

Music DRM has all but been defeated already with music being sold on-line without DRM. iTunes started bit by bit to remove DRM from their offerings, studio after studio gave in. Not sure whether they still use it now or that it has been abolished completely.

Book DRM will likely be the next "victim" to a splintered market, Amazon already supports DRM-free books - it is only likely that this will continue as the Kindle is far from the only available book reader nowadays.

Movie DRM is likely to be next. Again the problem is indeed that sellers restrict themselves to a part of the market they can sell to, they exclude themselves from a large number of potential buyers. Buyers that as it stands CAN NOT buy, even if they want to - and can't be good for any business.

So yes I predict that in some 10 years from now we're looking at DRM as a fad from the 1990s/2000s, and that by then the whole media markets have totally revamped with for starters much lower prices, worldwide availability (no silly geographical restrictions), and probably with some new payment methods making it actually easy and safe to buy stuff on-line, hopefully even competition by multiple resellers but on the Internet that's a major issue in itself.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[Anonymous Coward]

From Netflix's point of view, do you think they prefer to have the complexities, customer support problems, and platform problems that DRM creates? Do you think they would rather have an Android app or not have an Android app?

Now, do you think that they have maybe already hit on the idea to "start bargaining"? Do you think they might have even been pushing for this, oh, years ago? The problem with negotiations is that the other side has no obligation to do what you want.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[shmlco]

256kbps AAC isn't good enough for you?

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[Dwonis]

It's fine, as long as you never ever want to transcode it.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[Tharsman]

When you talking about rentals or streaming only services, services where you did not buy the movie, can you tell me how you would expect people to, well, not just keep the stuff they downloaded without a DRM?

Call it what you want, but in the rental or pure streaming world, you are not buying the product and they are entitled to use DRM to keep it from becoming permanent in your system. Same way the video club would keep enough information on file to charge you for the movie and/or ruin your credit if you did not return the movie.

I can see people upset about DRM in purchased digital content, but in rented content?

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[wvmarle]

DRM has the same problems for sellers in both rented and purchased content. They can only sell to those who have their DRM client installed.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[kevinmenzel]

Not if you're going to run it through a matrix processor to send it to surround speakers, or listen to it in your recording studio... I mean, it's fine for my car, but even wrecking my ears with years of drumming I can still - by in large, with careful listening, on my GOOD speakers, tell the difference between 256AAC and CD audio... in that high end where they add the shaping noise, slightly - SLIGHTLY blurring the cymbals. And to be incredibly fair, there are plenty of recordings where I can't tell the difference based on that - especially modern pop and modern rock - where the recording, even on the CD, has had some dithering applied at some point - largely from a digital limiter used to get the volume nice and high. But the albums I rate as 5* recordings, yeah, those I can tell a difference on. B.B. King and Eric Clapton's Riding With The King, and Bela Fleck and the Flecktone's Outbound are two where, in my studio, I can tell.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[Tharsman]

As far as streaming services go, they expect you to have such DRM clients installed anyways. Flash? Silverlight? Whatever it is iOS or Windows Phone 7 use?

Other than this Android "fragmentation" issue (where some hardware makers have added their own DRM services, others have not) it does not sound like it's a big issue for Netflix to find consumers that already have the DRM platform they require.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[Phopojijo]

Maybe content companies will realize that DRM simply doesn't work... especially not when compared to the benefits of being smart with their business models.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[Dan541]

Fuck DRM just download instead.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[nabsltd]

256kbps AAC isn't good enough for you?

No, since that's only very slightly better than a ~192kbps MP3 created with finely tuned command line options to LAME, which is what I use for my MP3s.

Although, I do agree with one of the other responses...for much of current music, the CD is pretty crappy, too, mostly because of the loudness war, but that can make it even harder for any lossy compression to be accurate when they rely on psychoacoustic masking.

But, really, with terabyte drives selling for $50, why do we need lossy compression on our music? You can store about 3000 hours of lossless music per terabyte. Based on the average track size in my music library, that would be over 45,000 tracks. So, when it takes $50 to store $45K of music, why settle for lossy?

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[EdIII]

Not just Google's OS. The same reasons you outline continue to prevent Netflix from working on any version of Linux as well.

I am honestly beginning to wonder if it is worth the fight anyway. Netflix is useful when you get the DVDs shipped. Their online library is a heck of a lot less than their shipping library. Lately I have not been able to find much that I want to watch instantly.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[Yvanhoe]

But iTunes appeared 9 years ago. At the time we celebrated it like a first breach on the DRM dogma citadel. Nine fucking years. In IT technology that is supposed to be an eternity. Can't we go to the next step now ?

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[teh kurisu]

But, really, with terabyte drives selling for $50, why do we need lossy compression on our music?

That's fine for desktop PCs, where you can just whack in an extra 3.5" hard drive and dedicate it to your music collection. It's not so practical for laptops, because requiring an external drive to be hooked up to access your music collection sacrifices portability.

Neither is it practical for phones and portable MP3 players. You could automatically transcode when the device is synced, but that's going to drive up the time it takes to sync dramatically. Or you could offer two versions of the same file for download, but you're driving up your bandwidth requirements and the customer's storage requirements even further.

I actually think that most people are happy with the bitrates that are available now, and wouldn't welcome increased file size, download time and/or sync time. The fact that you disagree (and the fact that you're using finely-tuned command line options to LAME) puts you in the audiophile niche, and as with any niche market prices are going to be higher.

If you really care about audio quality, buy vinyl and contribute to its resurgence. There's no such thing as a lossless digital format.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes, the $1 per song initiative, which made it only slightly more expensive over the cost of an album to download a DRM-encumbered digital track with near zero overheads rather than to buy the real physical disk and artwork. What a win for music lovers that was.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[delinear]

People who understand the technology can predict what will happen if it goes wrong and get annoyed about that. People who don't understand the technology only get annoyed when it does go wrong. That's the only real difference. Other than that, once people understand the technology, be they geek or layman, the main response is almost universally, "why?"

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[dwinks616]

Unless your desktop system is still running a 386, transcoding on the fly isn't going to drastically increase sync times. USB maxes out at about 29MB/s, and most devices you'd sync max at even less than that. The mid-range microSD card in my droid tops out at about 15-20MB/s write speed. My desktop has no issues transcoding songs at 1 song every 5-10 seconds, which is as fast as the receiving media can handle.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[delinear]

Does the average person have anywhere close to 45,000 tracks on their phone or laptop? Besides, it's not like they couldn't give us the high quality and let us resize it to suit, it'd be nice to have the best quality lossless files for the home media system even if you did then encode at a much compressed rate for your PMP of choice.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[delinear]

I'm not sure what you were celebrating 9 years ago, but Apple was one of the biggest distributors of DRM encumbered music until as recently as 2007, and it didn't go wholly DRM-free until 2009 (and even then, it embeds tags in the tracks to try and discourage sharing). Needless to say it's volte face came about not due to some internal benevolent decision, but primarily because it was under increasing pressure from consumers, competing DRM-free offerings and from Europe, to drop DRM - so I wouldn't be so quick to salute it as a bastion of the breach on DRM dogma.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[teh kurisu]

No, but the average person doesn't have a 1 TB hard drive in their phone or laptop either.

My 32 GB phone has 2,234 tracks on it (most of them at 256 kb/s IIRC), which isn't a huge amount, but they have to coexist with everything else that's stored there. If they were CD quality, they wouldn't fit, simple as that.

My point is that the value proposition of offering CD quality audio is, for the majority of people, quite low. Aside from the greater storage and bandwidth requirements, a lot of people simply won't be able to tell the difference, whether due to hearing, equipment (cheap headphones, etc.) or background noise. So I don't think the added expense and complication of providing CD quality audio is justified for the size of the niche that it caters for, unless that niche is prepared to accept higher prices.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[delinear]

There are plenty of us who currently use Windows and still don't want to install Silverlight. I already have one bloated plugin for playing annoying ads installed on my system, I thought the plan was to migrate away from the likes of Flash, meanwhile MS is still trying to push us down the road of having yet another variation on this same theme installed. Well I've managed to avoid it so far (despite them pushing more and more of their own content via Silverlight, i.e. everywhere on xbox.com).

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[teh kurisu]

I don't understand your numbers. A 4 minute song at 256 kb/s weighs in at less than 10 MB, so you should be able to comfortably transfer one of those in less than a second. If it takes 5 seconds to transcode that file, that's a five-fold increase in total transfer time.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[Anonymous Coward]

In realyty Apple has done exactly that, and notice all + rated music on iTunes is DRM free. They are sligthly higher price than the originall 99c but that is probably a compromise that Apple had to make with the content owners.

So your world of DRM free, might just come true, but I doubt from companies like netflix. I could be wrong though.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[lowrydr310]

On the otherhand the handsets present a new playing filed where it looks like lockdown platforms are going to be the norm for a variety of reasons.

I'm just not seeing the benefit of watching movies on a sub-4" screen. Movies on a "handset." Am I just an outlier, or is this the 'in' thing right now?

I have one of these fancy android handsets with a big (4.3") screen and I don't use it to watch movies yet. Mine even has an HDMI output. The only problem for me is that I'd be lucky to be able to watch an entire movie without the battery running out. I could always plug the charger in, but then what would I do if I was watching a movie and I got an incoming phone call? There is a benefit to not have all you devices bundled into one.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[LWATCDR]

No.
And honestly I don't want Netflix for my phone. For a tablet I can see it but not on a phone for me. Maybe if my phone has HDMI but then my BluRay player, two of my game consoles, and laptop can all stream NetFlix to my TV now.
What really needs to happen to be honest is for an internet only show to take off big time. To become mainstream. Some writer, producer and actors will have to create a show that is only available for streaming and or download that becomes mainstream. Then some smart tech company will have to sponsor it and use it for advertising. Frankly I am I could see Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and or Apple all doing that. Think about how cheap the sets are for say Big Bang are. Video production costs have really dropped and now distribution is cheap.
Only when traditional media companies are threatened will they give in an adapt.
In many ways it is like what happened with software. Believe it or not there was a time when just a simple word processor like WordStar and WordPerfect or spreadsheet like Lotus 123 cost several hundreds of dollars. Now even Microsoft offers cheap versions of Office.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[Guspaz]

iTunes only charged $10 per album at the time, so it was far cheaper regardless of if you only bought a few songs, or if you bought the entire album.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[Yvanhoe]

It was a breach because they put some DRM that was easy to break (not things like encrypted files that had to be decoded by a downloaded key each time you wanted to play a file.) and they put a massive catalog under this scheme, forcing things a bit. They didn't care much about people cracking their DRMs, in fact their success coexisting with such cracks was what allowed them to go DRM-free eight years later.

It was thanks to iPods preponderance that this worked. Suggesting that Android devices could have a similar effect like the GGP did is not that far fetched.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[tverbeek]

Netflix's streaming library is growing pretty steadily. Shipping discs around through the USPS is going to go away in the next year or two, but it's going away. Be sure of that.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[tverbeek]

make that "isn't going to go away in the next year or two"

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[tlhIngan]

It's fine, as long as you never ever want to transcode it.

I've never understood why people are so opposed to transcoding music, yet they'll happily transcode video (and the associated audio track).

I mean, they'll take something in h.264, transcode it to WebM and deem it good. Or more commonly, MPEG-2 into h.264 or ASP, and the audio goes from MPEG audio to MP3 or something. Or even h.264 to h.264 (downscaled). Or even whatever YouTube uses for audio. YouTube especially since it gets played back on anything from phones to HDTVs with A/V receivers attached.

I know the eyes aren't as good as the ears, but they'll happy transcode the audio as well - MPEG audio to MP3 or AAC, or Dolby Digital/DTS to MP3 or AAC. Though at least the higher quality rips tend to preserve the bitstream data.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[GameboyRMH]

Digital movie rentals can't work if there must be a guarantee that the content won't be saved on the client side - and there can't be, because DRM is a flawed concept that just can't work. So Netflix should either sell the movies DRM-free or go out of business if it isn't profitable for them to continue digital movie "rentals."

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[shmlco]

Ummmm... what? As a general rule, 256kbps AAC is roughly considered to be equivalent to 320kbps MP3, since the AAC codec is a much better codec with superior sound quality.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[suutar]

They'll have to support subtitles and alternate audio languages before they can totally ditch shovelling discs. I hope they reach that point soon :)

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[nabsltd]

No, but the average person doesn't have a 1 TB hard drive in their phone or laptop either.

You act like people download directly to their phone and don't store their music anywhere else. I think you are far more "niche" if you do this than if you want quality audio like I do. Also, it's pretty easy to upgrade a laptop hard drive, and 1TB goes for about $120.

My 32 GB phone has 2,234 tracks on it (most of them at 256 kb/s IIRC), which isn't a huge amount, but they have to coexist with everything else that's stored there.

So, you really do only store music on your phone? No computer of any kind? But, based the on average track size in my library, it would take about 50GB to store those music files losslessly. Sure, it won't fit on your phone, but it will fit on almost every reasonable computer hard drive, and <sarcasm>there are now 3 or 4 programs that allow you transcode files from one audio format to another and store those files on a portable device (like a phone), with very little effort.</sarcasm>

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[nabsltd]

As a general rule, 256kbps AAC is roughly considered to be equivalent to 320kbps MP3, since the AAC codec is a much better codec with superior sound quality.

With default encoder settings, AAC does have many advantages at low bitrates, and does fine at high bitrates, epecially compared to the average MP3 encoder, and especially on known hard-to-encode data (transients, for one).

But, a very good MP3 encoder (like LAME) with the right tweaks does as good or better as the average AAC encoder at the same bitrate. In general, it's much harder to tweak AAC, as the options are simply enormous, and it hasn't been around as long. You can also get into some very long encoding times in the quest for top quality with AAC. So, it's likely that MP3 can generate better audio at the same bitrate in the same amount of encode time.

Last, even if AAC sounds better, it also has the disadvantage of being more computationally expensive to decode, which results in shorter battery life. When the battery runs out, the quality of AAC audio isn't very good. ;->

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[teh kurisu]

You act like people download directly to their phone and don't store their music anywhere else. I think you are far more "niche" if you do this than if you want quality audio like I do.

I store my music on an external hard drive, because there isn't space for it on my laptop's drive. I would much rather have it on my laptop's internal drive, and yeah, maybe I should upgrade.

Also, it's pretty easy to upgrade a laptop hard drive, and 1TB goes for about $120.

That depends on the laptop, doesn't it? Some are relatively accessible, some aren't. And that only covers the physical act of removing the old one and replacing it with a new one. There's also the requirement in most cases to copy the data across. That's something you or I could do, but not the average user.

And of course, if you're a SSD user, 1TB is going to be prohibitively expensive for a long time to come, but that's also a pretty small niche.

So, you really do only store music on your phone? No computer of any kind? But, based the on average track size in my library, it would take about 50GB to store those music files losslessly.

I like being able to store all my music on my phone, so that I don't have to think about what to take with me when I leave the house. I thought that was the whole point of the 'iPod revolution'. Maybe I'm alone in this though.

<sarcasm>there are now 3 or 4 programs that allow you transcode files from one audio format to another and store those files on a portable device (like a phone), with very little effort.</sarcasm>

Very little effort indeed (I believe iTunes even has this option), but at the expense of increased sync time, and this gets back to the crux of my argument. For the vast majority of people, there is little advantage to CD quality audio, because they're not going to notice the difference. They will notice the disadvantages, such as increased download time, increased hard disc usage and/or increased sync time.

That means there is little market pressure compelling music stores to switch their catalogues wholesale to CD quality, and so the people like yourself who do desire this are a niche.

Too Easy

[redemtionboy]

Seems like there could be some solution...staring me right in the face...I dunno....maybe no DRM....but nahhh. That's just crazy...

Re:Too Easy

[MoonBuggy]

I genuinely wonder what the execs have against that solution, in this case. They aren't morons, they know there are fifty different ways to get a movie up onto the torrent sites, and that grabbing a low quality stream from a phone handset wouldn't be the top of the list, so it seems a little odd that they'd be this bothered about it.

Put aside the "Lolz the MPAA are evil bastards" mindset (which, I must admit, I do often agree with) for a minute and try to work out the business logic behind this. The only thing I can think of is that they don't believe that allowing Netflix on Android will motivate enough new subscribers to be worth setting a "no DRM" or "lax DRM" precedent in one of their contracts. That's still working on the logic that DRM stops copying, though, which really doesn't appear to be the case.

Re:Too Easy

[aliquis]

"... and nothing of value was lost"

Over here our libraries provide e-books. But you can't read them on the Kindle because it doesn't support whatever DRM they use.
But I doubt the copyright holders agree with being able to borrow books at a library in the first place so how much difference would it make if you could read/keep the book forever or not? Regardless of time you're free to read it through. How much value does the information held after you've already consumed it? And the copy is digital ..

Re:Too Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. Right now the torrent sites are filled with x264 rips of blurays, but if this netflix app came out on android with a flaw in the DRM, the torrent sites would clearly start offering these low resolution versions instead.

Re:Too Easy

[varmittang]

Yeah, because no one will create a stream ripper for non-DRM Netflix movies. That's just crazy...

Re:Too Easy

[MoonBuggy]

If it's on Netflix, there's already a DVD/TV rip on the torrent sites. Why would they bother?

Re:Too Easy

[coryking]

Too bad that isn't netflix's call. The movie studios are the ones to blame, and I'm pretty sure they don't give a rusty rats ass if you can watch any movie on any media besides BluRay.

Though I have to wonder if Netflix has the political clout to tell the movie studios to piss off. I doubt it, they are completely dependent on said studios and making a hardline stance like "fuck you, we womt do business unless you remove the DRM" would be an easy to spot bluff. The movie studios have nothing to lose (in their mind) and everything to gain telling Netflix to take a hike.

Re:Too Easy

[bonch]

Which would lead to piracy, which would lead to severely reduced profits, which would lead to no incentive to put movies on Netflix in the first place. But hey, at least it fit the moral code of anti-DRM advocates.

Re:Too Easy

[icebraining]

Because DRMed streams are never ripped...

Re:Too Easy

[hedwards]

That depends how much the library is willing to pay. The local library here provides audio books in MP3 format. You have to download using a proprietary app, but once it's on your computer it's the honor system that you'll delete them when you're supposed to.

Re:Too Easy

[MoonBuggy]

Give me one good reason to believe that:
(a) there would be any more copyright infringement due to Netflix stream rips than there already is from DVD and TV rips of the same content.
(b) the DRM will remain unbroken, in contrast to almost every other widespread DRM scheme ever implemented.

If you think DRM would actually have any impact in this particular case I'd be genuinely interested to hear why.

Re:Too Easy

[XanC]

Can you tell us more about this? What library, what app, what service? Thanks.

Re:Too Easy

[betterunixthanunix]

which would lead to severely reduced profits

What profits would you be referring to? You do realize that, according to the movie studios, the overwhelming majority of movies lose money, and have lost money consistently for the past few decades, right?

Honestly, if downloading were killing movie studios, we would have stopped having new movies years ago. The studios are not hurting, they are just greedy and demand more money than they made previously, using downloading as an excuse for squeezing more money out of consumers.

Re:Too Easy

[CAIMLAS]

No kidding - particularly as it pertains to mobile handsets.

Mobiles have a disproportionate amount of bandwidth and processing power available to them, compared to available storage.

A streamed movie weighs in at around 500Mb-2Gb of space, depending on the bitrate sampled. Are you really going to spend the money on extra storage just to store these movies to SD cards when and watching them again is trivial via Netflix, and almost everyone has access to such things? The only outside reason you might want to have them downloaded is if you intend to watch them 'offline' or your network performance is spotty/dropping out. You're not going to keep them on flash cards indefinitely - and there are certainly easier ways to pirate films, if that's your aim.

Re:Too Easy

[DurendalMac]

Ah, but how hard would it be to make Netflix think your desktop browser is an Android phone?

Re:Too Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I think the part you're missing is that they are morons, at least technical morons. Like anyone who has dealt with big business run by MBAs with no technical knowledge of the fundamentals of the business they are running these guys likely have a very simplistic understanding of DRM on the order of "DRM stops piracy". Add in lawyers who are notorious for the same lack of understanding and the simplistic understanding gets codified into legally binding contracts. As such corporate policy/contracts rarely address the nuances of any technical issue and instead often end up being detrimental to all involved including the company that wrote them.

Re:Too Easy

[TheRaven64]

What evidence do you have for that? What things can you stream from Netflix that you can't already (easily) get hold of pirated copies of? I use a service like Netflix here in the UK - I could easily pirate everything I've ever rented from them on DVD or streamed with their Flash thing. The DRM in both cases is irrelevant - it doesn't stop pirates, it just stops me from using the streaming thing on all devices that I might want to use.

I don't pirate for two reasons. First, and most important, the legal streaming stuff is actually more convenient - it will start playing a few seconds after I press play. Second, I actually don't mind giving the studios some positive reinforcement (i.e. money) when they make stuff I like. There's little enough stuff that I want to watch being made, I don't want them to make less of it.

Re:Too Easy

[jo_ham]

Now replace "how about no DRM on movies" with "Universal Healthcare, as used in all other developed nations" when talking about sane solutions for an indication of how an entrenched mindset, and strong corporate interests with disinformation campaigns and deep pockets can make the obvious choice seem like the wrong thing to do. ;)

Re:Too Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. Right now the torrent sites are filled with x264 rips of blurays, but if this netflix app came out on android with a flaw in the DRM, the torrent sites would clearly start offering these low resolution versions instead.

For that matter...I know of several people who own/rent/borrow the movie...rip the DVD and they have a copy of whatever they want to entertain themselves on their phones. Problem solved...no torrent downloaded...no problem with any Netflix application and nothing appears online.

Re:Too Easy

[tsj5j]

I don't think MPAA even understands technology or the internet, or you won't see them suing individual filesharers (way to boost your karma!) and trying to take down stuff like Limewire (by the time you're done, 10 alternatives appear!).

They are genuinely worried about their business model; and for good reason - those execs are used to millions of dollars per year salaries and generally don't want to lose those salaries.
Right now, they're just resisting any form of non-DRM technology for the simple reason that they don't understand it that well, really.

Re:Too Easy

[aliquis]

The library of the city, Örebro, Sweden, but most likely all the libraries in all other cities in Sweden to (maybe not school libraries and such.)

http://www.elib.se/bibliotek/

Our: http://www.elib.se/library/default.asp?lib=105

Readers: http://www.elib.se/library/get_install.asp?lib=105

Questions: http://www.elib.se/library/faq.asp?lib=105

Formats: Adobe encrypted EPUB and PFD or Mobipocket.

Re:Too Easy

[aliquis]

187 IT & technology books:
http://www.elib.se/library/search.asp?secondrun=YES&BCAT=314&lib=105&text=IT+%26+teknik&typ50=50&typ54=54&typ56=56&typ71=71&typ75=75&lang=

All the library pages are slow as shit, work like shit, are layouted like shit, are coded like shit, and just in general suck.. shit.

I can't understand how they can suck so bad. Most likely same design as they had 10-15 years ago. Their own design or someone elses? Impossible to update?

Re:Too Easy

[wrook]

Obviously I can't know exactly what they are thinking, but here's my guess. To us the business case is obvious: if you provide a service which is convenient and cheap enough, most people will opt for convenience and pay for the product. I mean you *could* have a garden and grow your own food, and you could prepare that food yourself. It isn't *that* much work and the result is very rewarding. But most people would rather get in their car and drive to Mac Donald's. Why? Because it is convenient. People are willing to pay for that convenience as long as the cost is reasonable.

But the media execs, even if they realize this, want the freedom to charge whatever they want for things. What is a movie *worth*? Well, since you don't need it at all it doesn't have any intrinsic value. It's only value comes from creating a desire to want to see it and limiting the availability to see it. The value of the movie becomes what the customer is willing to pay, not what it's intrinsic worth is.

The media industry has also realized that high prices serve their interest even if they don't directly make high profits as a result. People will want to see movies more if there are huge amounts of special effects, high priced actors, etc, etc. If the average movie costs $1 million to make, you will have a lot of competition from other companies. But if it costs $100 million, there aren't many groups with the capital to break in and compete with you. So if you can raise prices and spend all your money on production, advertising, etc, etc you still end up ahead. This is especially true if you are performing all those services and skim a profit at each step (i.e., the movie makes no profit but every service performed makes a profit and since you own those services you make a profit).

So in other words, they need to keep supply low to keep prices high to maintain their monopoly position in the industry. I believe this is their real interest in DRM. The "convenience" price point is too low to accomplish this.

Re:Too Easy

[demonlapin]

Don't confuse Hollywood accounting for a "loss" with actually losing money.

Re:Too Easy

[tronbradia]

Seems like there could be some solution...staring me right in the face...I dunno....maybe no DRM....but nahhh. That's just crazy...

Your brilliant solution would also involve not having any proprietary movies or TV shows available to stream, because the copywrite owners would refuse to allow it.

But hey, Netflix is great even without proprietary content, right?

Re:Too Easy

[magus_melchior]

That's because the only "side of the story" they ever hear is from DRM salespeople, and because they only WANT to hear that side of the story. Media industry execs are still cut from the same cloth as the Disney execs who rejected a one-time-use VHS rental cassette because it didn't prevent group viewings-- if they aren't getting the same number of sales as there are eyeballs on the planet, sales are lost, ergo someone is stealing, full stop. They can argue that they're protecting artists and filmmakers until they're blue in the face, and we know they're lying when in reality they're thinking a backup copy of purchased physical media is illegal and that ripping off Peter Jackson for the LotR trilogy is SOP.

Even when it comes to sales and losses due to DRM or online file sharing, they're probably cooking the books anyway, because for some reason they don't want to admit that they are wrong in any respect.

Re:Too Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. No DRM is fine. Netflix can go fuck themselves.

Re:Too Easy

[Karlt1]

Ah, but how hard would it be to make Netflix think your desktop browser is an Android phone?

And then all you have to do is fool your phone into thinking that it has a port of Silverlight installed.....

Re:Too Easy

[PopeRatzo]

The Chicago Public Library provides audio books in various formats, including MP3 and WMA. They've also got a proprietary app for downloading and listening to them, including burning them to an audio CD. If there's any DRM, it's so trivial I haven't noticed.

And back to the topic at hand, why do you need a Netflix app when you've got a web browser. I remember that you couldn't play Netflix movies on the G4 or G5 Macs, but since they've had Intel processors, they play Netflix movies through the browser just fine.

And what do Android users care about netflix as long as AXX0 is their content provider?

Re:Too Easy

[Billly Gates]

There has been some limited success in DRM and pirating. Most if it is thanks to virus and malware writters. I used to use Limewire/Frostwire, DC++, and several others back in the day. I recenetly needed Frontpage or Dreamweaver for a business I want to start and can not afford a new one. I was shocked to the high amounts of contaminated torrents today. In 2003 I got maybe 1 virus from the loads of porn and other apps I downloaded. I only downloaded 3 torrents and got infected to the point where I had to wipe my whole system again with restore discs. Thats the price I get I suppose.

But I will not download a torrent again and drm makes it hard to get anything decent. If it was easy to copy video files you bet there would be many times more as it seems only the malware writers are the only ones defeating the DRM and packaging the infected movies and filez. In my opinion the executives made a wise business decision as much as it pisses everyone else off. They exist to make money and are just doing their job which is making it easier to download it off Itunes or go to BestBUY.

Re:Too Easy

[jonwil]

In the case of Netflix specifically, its a rental and not a purchase. So if there was no DRM, it would be almost impossible to stop someone renting the content and then saving a permanent copy (all without ever indicating to the outside world that such a thing had been done)

Re:Too Easy

[Chaos Incarnate]

We already know Netflix doesn't have that clout, or we wouldn't be seeing month-long delays between when a disc is at retail and available for rent via Netflix.

Re:Too Easy

[MoonBuggy]

Firstly, it's an awful lot harder to install malware from a video file than it is to bundle it in with the installation of already cracked software.

If it was easy to copy video files you bet there would be many times more as it seems only the malware writers are the only ones defeating the DRM and packaging the infected movies and filez.

This line makes me think you might be shilling or trolling. If not, you're severely misinformed. It's as easy as one person getting the DVD and firing up handbrake, then throwing a torrent on the pirate bay. Video DRM specifications and keys are published in the wild and implemented in open source software. I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying that the studios are severely misled if they think more DRM is going to do anything to change it.

Re:Too Easy

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

For actual purchases, totally cool. For rentals, like Netflix is doing, DRM-less will never fly.

Re:Too Easy

[MoonBuggy]

I did think that initially, but according to TFA it's a streaming service, not a download with an expiry date. Sure, someone could put together a stream ripper much more easily if there were no DRM, but if they're going to pirate anyway, why would they bother doing so by saving reduced quality streams onto their phone from their paid Netflix subscription (presumably so they can watch them after the subscription lapses) rather than just torrenting a DVD rip?

Re:Too Easy

[wvmarle]

I have seen quite some low-res versions of stuff on the torrent sites.

It makes sense, for the simple reason that most phones can not handle a 1080p stream. They just don't have the horsepower for it. Let alone a screen big enough to need such a size. Indeed if I were to download video for my phone, I'd be looking for something that's more fitting to it's 320x240 screen resolution, and the 2 GB memory card.

Re:Too Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do you want to implement your solution? Should Netflix do it unilaterally? Or do you seriously think the studio execs are losing sleep over the lack of a Netflix app on Android?

Re:Too Easy

[socsoc]

What is Mac Donalds? Is it a grocer near you? Or do you mean McDonalds?

Re:Too Easy

[Voyager529]

I agree, but to a certain point. First, I just joined Netflix a month ago, and out of seven movies I've looked up since then (I only look when I know I've got the time to watch it), only one of them has been available for live streaming. They've had the rest, but DVD shipment only. Presumably if they had the required clout to tell the MPAA where to shove their DRM, they'd have significantly more titles available for streaming.

By contrast, I remember reading an article saying that Netflix eclipsed bittorrent in the percentage of internet traffic. There's obviously demand, but the question is whether Netflix is monetizing that amount of traffic to make a significant enough dent in the MPAA ledgers to use it as leverage. If memory serves, iTunes was either #1 or #2 in music retailing before they had enough leverage with the MPAA to say "time for DRM to end up on the shelf next to the 8-track tape". I don't think Netflix is there yet, but give it a few years and the story may change. Like you said, the first sign of it will be 0-day releases. DRM will follow.

Re:Too Easy

[eharvill]

No, he means Old MacDonald's Farmers Market - http://www.yelp.com/biz/old-macdonalds-farmers-market-san-jose.

Re:Too Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be Slashdot's official copyright astroturfing troll. You have that talent for drawing hits with pure bullshit.. You win the intertubes!!! What a goof...

Re:Too Easy

[markatto]

It is trivial to re-encode a high resolution video at a lower resolution one. The reverse is not true. (Well technically it is just as easy, but it's pretty pointless.)

Re:Too Easy

[Kethinov]

I genuinely wonder what the execs have against that solution

I've spoken with some of the higher-ups at Netflix and asked them this. They're well aware that things like DRM fuck up the quality of the user experience. Their hands are tied. They value their relationships with movie studios more than they value the optimal user experience. So they deliver the best user experience hollywood will let them deliver. It is for this reason that I declined a job opportunity there. I can't work for a company that values their relationship with the corrupt and backward content industry more than the user experience.

Re:Too Easy

[amRadioHed]

What do you suggest Netflix do? When their entire business is about providing content from movie studios then obviously their relationship with the studios has to be paramount. Do you seriously think it would improve the user experience by losing access to all the major studios content?

Re:Too Easy

[Kethinov]

My suggestion to Netflix when I visited was that they use their strong position in the market as leverage to convince the content industry to abandon these consumer restrictions that prevent Netflix from delivering the kind of user experience that they would be capable of delivering otherwise.

If anyone can strongarm big content out of their fixation with DRM, it's a company like Netflix. And if discussions in private, behind closed doors don't work, then my suggestion to Netflix was that they take it into the public sphere and write an open letter to their customers explaining why it is their content partners, not Netflix, who are preventing them from delivering an ideal user experience.

I think if Netflix publicly campaigned for an end to DRM and enlisted the public for populist support, then big media might cave. That is what I suggest that Netflix do, and it is what I suggested on the day I met with them.

Their response was that they do occasionally use their strong position in the market to effect compromise with the studios, but that they work on a more gradual scale. They said my vision was too grandiose and bold and that it would jeopardize their relationships with their content partners.

My response to that was that fortune favors the bold. Netflix didn't destroy Blockbuster by playing it safe. They destroyed Blockbuster by innovating and doing something different. Something different for the sake of a better user experience.

I fear that Netflix has lost its way and that one day they will suffer the same fate as Blockbuster at the hands of a newer media company that understands how media over the internet should be consumed.

Re:Too Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeeees, those cellphone-quality movies would sure look great on my 1920x1200 desktop...

Re:Too Easy

[Shakrai]

It makes sense, for the simple reason that most phones can not handle a 1080p stream. They just don't have the horsepower for it.

Even if they did have the horsepower I rather doubt that the current cellular networks are up to the task. I can't even stream South Park Studios on my cell phone without buffering pauses on 3G. Works just fine on wi-fi, so I can't blame the phone....

Re:Too Easy

[LingNoi]

Big Media would never cave, what would happen is that Big Media would make their own NetFlix. He who holds the copyrights makes the rules.

Re:Too Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

They're old-media people trying to compete in a new-media world. Just like every greying generation who finds their world paradigm obsoleted by the advances in society and generations beneath them.

Re:Too Easy

[dhavleak]

It isn't a low-quality stream -- all wp7 / android / iphones are now 800x480 resolution or higher, i.e. they are 480p (dvd-quality) or higher. If the stream isn't 480p now, it will be soon enough. Besides, people will pirate lower resolutions streams often enough.. they're not that picky.

I also don't buy the logic that no-DRM gets more customers -- Netflix has never had a no-DRM streaming option but they keep setting all kinds of insane records with their streaming option, in terms of numbers of customers, titles streamed per unit time, percentage of US internet bandwidth (as high as 40%!), etc. etc. They are literally on fire. A huge reason for that is that their DRM Just Works (tm). i.e. you as a customer never have to worry about what devices you've enabled, where you've transferred your content to, how many times you've viewed it, if your download failed did you still get charged for it, etc -- none of that crap happens on Netflix, so people simply don't care. The other part is that they have a half-decent catalog available for streaming -- and that's because they use DRM. The studios are willing to let Netflix stream their titles because they know they'll get paid.

It's rare to see a business/pricing model as simple and fair as Netflix's, a delivery mechanism that's as easy/hassle-free, and for it to be combined with compelling content. DRM is one of the enablers in this case. The solution to the lack of a DRM option on Android is not to convince world+dog that their business model needs to change, and that their partners are living in the dark ages by insisting on DRM -- nope -- the solution, is quite simply to provide a DRM framework that can be used in creating a Netflix app on Android.

Re:Too Easy

[hitmark]

Given that a cable company, that wanted to provide off-site DVR service for their customers, have to keep a separate copy of the same show for each customer, this is unlikely to happen any time soon.

I suspect that the basic issue is that the lawyers and such are to used to thinking in terms of physical media (how it has been since gutenberg) and so want to make the digital world behave in the same, predictable, way. Talk about trying to put a furious bobcat back in the bag.

Re:Too Easy

[geminidomino]

That's why everyone should have one of these: nothing else is so good at getting image data where none existed before

Yes, that's the only reason I want one. Honest. <_<

Re:Too Easy

[dwinks616]

Physical media existed LONG before Gutenberg...LONG LONG before...

Re:Too Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well even if they're stupid when it comes to technology, they're not stupid when it comes to making money - what they should be doing is realising they can't fight the tide, pouring their money into developing the best filesharing solutions around then lobbying for an end to DRM :)

Re:Too Easy

[delinear]

It effectively already is impossible to stop someone renting the content and saving a permanent copy, with or without DRM, so why make the experience poor for your honest customers? Maybe they could try a new business model based around trust and respect - I give them my money, they trust me not to distribute my copy to everyone on the planet. Then focus on going after the people who actually profit from ripping off others (i.e. the ones selling ripped disks or ad-hosted torrent sites) instead of making all of your customers feel like criminals.

Re:Too Easy

[delinear]

Netflix won't care until it hits their bottom line. If customers cared, and avoided Netflix, citing DRM as the reason, you can bet Netflix would be in there fighting the studios every inch of the way, but for now the status quo, while probably a little more costly technically, is good enough for them. The tricky part is getting customers to care - most people only care about DRM after they've been burned by it.

Re:Too Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Your right about the convieniance part.

But, I'm sick and tired of Hollywood movies targetd for a brain dead audiance. Their special effects and celebrity actors just dont cut it.

Let me illustrate my point. Take the movei tripple x, I did watch the first one, but they did a good job in inculting my intelect with it. Take the scene where Diesel takes his fancy sticker bombs ant stick them to a bunch of vehicles at a manison. Then after he goes in and joins the party, when he leaves the party he pulls up a remot controll out of his pocket. All fine, but then they once again goes and shows the sticker bombs that they are still stuck on the vehcles, they havn't fallen off, he put them there sucessfully and now he's about to blow them up.
Do I have to mention I never watched an other tripple x movie.

The same goes for Mission impossible, the first piece of crap was enough, never again.

Today I watch French, Danish, Irich, Swedish and even a few finnish movies. The Danish and Swedish beats the crapp out of any hollywood production today, but that aint that difficult or is it.

The latest Hollywood production movie I watched was Avatar. That one I actually went to the movies to watch, I didn't expect much of the story, the trailers had allready told the whole story. I went to watch it purely for at intresst in the 3D asspect of it. But even that sucked. The commersials before the movie and after, did better useage of the 3D spectra, anyway that was the situation in Finland. The avatar movies just sucked on every aspect it could suck on. Lame story, was told in 2 minute trailer. Lame casting, and photage.

So No, special effects and expencive celebrity actors, does not make me want to watch them, instead that has become a recepie of movies to avoid.

But, true I would probably rent more Hollywood stuff if it became more convineantly available trough iTunes, which it's not here yet.

PS
man bollywood makes movies with richer content...

Re:Too Easy

[theCoder]

I also don't buy the logic that no-DRM gets more customers

I currently only have computers running Linux at home. Because of the DRM, Netflix doesn't work on Linux. It doesn't "just work." Despite this, I have considered several times becoming a Netflix customer and just not being able to use the streaming option, but for just DVDs, Redbox seems to be a better option.

I'm probably in the (vast) minority, but the idea that DRM is stopping people from being customers isn't true.

Re:Too Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it is crazy.

Here is how the conversation will go...
Netflix: I Want to sell your media over the internet.
Hollywood: We would love too, but if it is too easy for someone to pirate our stuff and still maintain a good quality we both over a period of time will loose out on a lot of money. What protections do you have.
Netflix: Umm. None, We feel that DRM is bad and Evil.
Hollywood: Oh Kay.... We will have to discuss it with our lawers and perhaps give you a call back.

There is no call back.

Consumer looses out because they cannot get content digitally legally, with or without DRM.
Netflix looses because they are unable to sell more content to make themselfs popular.
Hollywood looses for the same reason.

Now if Hollywood did accept they will need some real numbers showing that the reward to themselves is greater then the cost of piracy.

Re:Too Easy

[delinear]

Offered the chance to monetise a distribution channel that dwarfs even bit torrent, you really think the studios would choose to take their content home and sulk? Sure, they might decide long term to screw Netflix over by forming their own distribution channel, but sure term they'd still want their slice of the money pie. They might stamp their feet and make a fuss, but when it came right down to it, if Netflix had the guts to put itself on the line over this, the studios would have to give in. We've seen it before with record labels and music DRM, we'll see it again with publishers and book DRM. Netflix won't take this stance of course, like most big companies they're risk-averse, but someone else will come along and do it instead, then Netflix will either have to jump on the bandwagon or see their own pie being eaten.

Re:Too Easy

[tronbradia]

One word: iTunes. Nobody is sulking.

Re:Too Easy

[bergie17]

So two things. 1) This is rented content, I don't see what the big deal with DRM is on content that you don't actually own is? When you stream netflix, you are effectively "renting the movie". 2) Yeah, I could go to the torrent site, download a hi-res version (Several hours, or days, depending on how obscure the title is), convert it to a lower resolution so that it will fit on my phone, upload it to my phone and then yay! I didn't have to pay for anything! OR, when I'm waiting at the DMV to renew my license, I can simply browse thousands of titles and start the movie immediately. Wake up people, not all DRM is bad, Netflix streaming to devices is a GOOD THING that I'm happy to pay for. All the hours I'd spend, finding, reformatting and uploading to my phone easily justify the 10.99 I pay a month (And hopefully cheaper soon once they come with a Streaming only plan!).

Re:Too Easy

[MoonBuggy]

It isn't a low-quality stream -- all wp7 / android / iphones are now 800x480 resolution or higher, i.e. they are 480p (dvd-quality) or higher. If the stream isn't 480p now, it will be soon enough. Besides, people will pirate lower resolutions streams often enough.. they're not that picky.

I assumed that it was low quality on the basis that it's streaming over 3G, not just on the basis of the small screen. Even if it is DVD quality, my point still stands: I have yet to see a convincing argument (or any argument at all, for that matter) for why anybody would rip a Netflix stream from their paid subscription rather than renting & ripping a DVD/BD or (far more likely) downloading a torrent from someone who's already done so. If you think that there will be more copies made from Netflix streams than there already are from physical media I'd be interested to hear why.

I also don't buy the logic that no-DRM gets more customers -- Netflix has never had a no-DRM streaming option but they keep setting all kinds of insane records with their streaming option, in terms of numbers of customers, titles streamed per unit time, percentage of US internet bandwidth (as high as 40%!), etc. etc. They are literally on fire. A huge reason for that is that their DRM Just Works (tm). i.e. you as a customer never have to worry about what devices you've enabled, where you've transferred your content to, how many times you've viewed it, if your download failed did you still get charged for it, etc -- none of that crap happens on Netflix, so people simply don't care.

The DRM just works on supported platforms. The only reason for the lack of Android support is DRM problems. Thus DRM has lost them potential customers for whom viewing content on their mobile device is a key feature. It's not a matter of those few geeks who are irritated by DRM (or object to it philosophically), it's a matter of entire platforms being removed from the market because the DRM is causing problems at the development end.

The studios are willing to let Netflix stream their titles because they know they'll get paid.

If you're streaming on Netflix, you've already paid. If you don't want to pay, there are literally millions of torrents out there. If, for some reason, you really want to freely share content that you've already paid for, you can buy a DVD (or have Netflix mail one to you) and rip that. I don't see how DRM on the Netflix stream would change any of this. Again, if you think differently, I'd be interested to hear your side.

It's rare to see a business/pricing model as simple and fair as Netflix's, a delivery mechanism that's as easy/hassle-free, and for it to be combined with compelling content. DRM is one of the enablers in this case. The solution to the lack of a DRM option on Android is not to convince world+dog that their business model needs to change, and that their partners are living in the dark ages by insisting on DRM -- nope -- the solution, is quite simply to provide a DRM framework that can be used in creating a Netflix app on Android.

You've yet to suggest why DRM on Netflix streams will have any impact on the amount of infringing content copied and shared. The whole point of my original post was that if you don't want to pay there are plenty of options for you. Netflix is for those who, for legal or moral reasons, do choose to pay. Why would DRM change any of that?

I accept that the easier option (compared to convincing the movie studios otherwise) is probably to implement the DRM on Android. What I was saying is that I don't understand the vehement insistence on DRM from the studios when the cat is well and truly out of the bag. It will have precisely zero effect on the number of movies available on torrent sites.

Re:Too Easy

[blair1q]

grabbing a low quality stream from a phone handset

Funny thing about digital signals. Unless your connection is bad, you get exactly the same quality no matter what device you're streaming to, as long as that device can ask for all the quality.

One app later, you have a phone that loops through a database of film titles asking for 1080p streams, gets them, and offloads them realtime to a torrent server.

So if it was my content I wouldn't let those phones ask for it either.

Re:Too Easy

[suutar]

Netflix is for those who, for legal or moral reasons, do choose to pay.

Besides legal and moral reasons, there's also convenience. Say I decide on the spur of the moment that I want to watch Star Trek IV. With a torrent, I'd have to find the torrent, wait for it to download, possibly extract the video from an archive format, and then after watching it delete it (after burning it to a DVD if I want a permanent copy so I don't have to do it again). With netflix streaming, I hit search and inside a minute I'm watching opening credits, and when I'm done I don't have to worry about disk space. And I don't have to make an effort to make a permanent copy, because unless Paramount decides they hate Netflix, it's not likely to become unstreamable.
This convenience is actually why I pay the surcharge for streaming; spur of the moment beats waiting a couple of days for a DVD to show up in the mail, in spite of reduced quality.

Re:Too Easy

[dhavleak]

It stops you from becoming a customer -- yes. But the catalog that is available for streaming, is available because it's DRM-protected. Without DRM, the studios would not have agreed to make it available. Because the content is available, Netflix has a business.

So they lose customers in your situation, but they gain everyone else. Easy trade-off. Note that there's no good reason that there can't be a DRMed streaming solution on Linux as well. It probably won't be open source -- but that doesn't mean it can't be done. It's probably just a function of demand -- how many Linux-only users there are (so revenue to be generated from them) vs. the cost of creating a linux netflix solution.

Re:Too Easy

[dhavleak]

I have yet to see a convincing argument (or any argument at all, for that matter) for why anybody would rip a Netflix stream from their paid subscription rather than renting & ripping a DVD/BD or (far more likely) downloading a torrent from someone who's already done so.

Why do you even need an argument for that? Just because you have one content delivery mechanism that's easy to pirate, you should just give up on securing your content and allow the pirates to fuck you over? Hell no -- secure what you can, and prosecute the ones that pirate anyway.

Re:Too Easy

[MoonBuggy]

Why do you even need an argument for that?

DRM harms the legitimate consumer to some extent, (restricting fair use, reducing platform compatibility, preventing resale, and so forth) thus there should be a good argument for its implementation.

Just because you have one content delivery mechanism that's easy to pirate, you should just give up on securing your content and allow the pirates to fuck you over?

The content is on the torrent sites already, taken from the DVDs or blu-rays. If there's already at least one bit-perfect DRM free copy circulating, what possible difference can it make how many more are made?

I get the impression that we'll never agree on this one. Despite what you may think, I don't support copyright infringement (although I do support reform, with limited terms of 15-20 years), I just vehemently oppose what the industry is doing to harm me, a legitimate consumer, in the name of preventing copyright infringement. What makes it all the worse is firstly that it doesn't even work, and secondly that, while some measures are intended to protect against infringement, others can only be intended to extract a greater profit by technologically preventing legitimate uses. That these measures are sold as 'anti piracy' when that is quite clearly not the case only feeds the mistrust.

Re:Too Easy

[amRadioHed]

That sounds nice and all, but I'm not so sure it would accomplish anything. As Heinlein said, never try to teach a pig to sing. By all indications the MPAA are clearly pigs when it comes to DRM.

Re:Too Easy

[dhavleak]

DRM harms the legitimate consumer to some extent, (restricting fair use, reducing platform compatibility, preventing resale, and so forth) thus there should be a good argument for its implementation.

This is often true, but its not a given. In Netflix's case you can't claim fair use has been restricted. And the catalog being available at all, is because of it being protected (otherwise, the studios would simply not license it to netflix) -- the platform compatibility comes a pretty distant second when the alternative is to not have a business at all.

The content is on the torrent sites already, taken from the DVDs or blu-rays. If there's already at least one bit-perfect DRM free copy circulating, what possible difference can it make how many more are made?

Many reasons. You can actually remove pirated copies from circulation (essentially going after the torrent sites, going after the downloaders and uploaders, etc. etc. to the point where pirating stuff is risky enough that nobody does it -- or to stick to the same point as DRM -- where you reduce piracy to the point where the 'lost sales minimized' recoup the money you spent on prosecuting people). Another reason -- bittorrent + codec hell + virus/trojan risks + watching a movie on a computer monitor or using shitty upscaling to TVs is already a fairly convoluted way to get content, compared to legit options. The more you keep working away at reducing the options for pirates, the more inconvenient the piracy options become.

Despite what you may think, I don't support copyright infringement

Acknowledged. I know -- we're just having a conversation -- I certainly don't automatically assume everyone who disagrees with me is a freeloader, and I often have to fight the perception that I am pro-DRM -- the labels aren't helpful because it assumes that people on each side don't see the shades of grey -- I'm sure we both do.

I just vehemently oppose what the industry is doing to harm me, a legitimate consumer, in the name of preventing copyright infringement.

But that's the thing -- they can never harm you. They can harm a lot of people who don't know better, but nobody on this site can claim that. We know how DRM works, we know what our rights are, and we know which DRM systems trample on them, and which ones don't etc. We know everything we need to, to make educated decisions, and to not buy media that's encumbered in DRM that will hurt us, and to not oppose media that uses DRM that does not -- or at least we should. The blanket opposition, even in cases where it does not hurt, hurts the credibility of the larger cause.

Re:Too Easy

[hitmark]

While true, copyright only became a issue when one could make one master layout and press out multiple copies.

Before that, each copy was hand written. Depending on the workmanship it would take as long as the original text, or longer.

Hollywood's DRM requirements exposed

[davidwr]

"to ensure that the installed DRM protocol meets the requirements laid out by the movie studios."

This just in from a super-secret document floating around the torrentsphere:

The movie studio's requirement is that the phone detects when you are aiming a camera at it and shuts off the video.

Funny, no mention of shutting off the sound if an audio-recording device is nearby. Must've been an oversight on Hollywood's part. It wouldn't be the first.

PlayReady DRM

[Mulder3]

Netflix uses MS PlayReady DRM... Microsoft provides an implementation of a PlayReady client in ANSI C... Android has a NDK to write native apps.... So, what's the problem here?

Re:PlayReady DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Stubborn idiots.

Re:PlayReady DRM

[arivanov]

Having PlayWhatever is not enough. There is a req for it to talk to the device low level crypto. That is pretty much the standard req for stuff like that.

I would not be surprised if it is not properly standardised at that level and every manufacturer has gone his own way.

The other problem here may be the "trusted path" problem. While it is possible to have a trusted path all the way to the TPM (or whatever crypto element the phone has) the requirements for making sure it is unbroken are likely to be considerably more stringent if the phone can be reflashed with a third party build. This is one place where security through obscurity (as in closed phone OS) makes things much easier.

Re:PlayReady DRM

[xigxag]

Don't know anything about Android but PlayReady is software. The DRM that the studios want extends to hardware, e.g. ports not visible to app unless they say so, per title limitations on what sorts of information gets passed through usb, devices designed in such a way as to prevent titles from being saved to SD card, etc. Can't do that unless the hardware is consistent across devices or each device has its own version of the Netflix app.

Re:PlayReady DRM

[MichaelKristopeit163]

MS PlayReady DRM requires standardized hardware and platform layer support that android doesn't provide.

the movie studios see a big difference between DRM that can be beat by jumping some leads with a soldering iron and DRM that can beat with a software update.

it seems netflix are not willing to release an "android app" until EVERY "android" phone can use the app. having to explain to users that they don't have the "right" android would make both netflix and the android alliance look bad. to me, forcing a hardware encryption chip for media signals that can easily be routed around is pointless... but this is what the studios are demanding... they make the movies, they can sell them to whoever they want.

Re:PlayReady DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

From the blog it sounds like the hardware manufacturers have to do something at the device level for the DRM to work. Plus the licensing fees MS charges for PlayReady DRM seem to be quite significant - http://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/device_technology.mspx .

So the issue seems to be for Netflix to get Android device manufacturers to build whatever is required at device level and for Android SDK to provide standard DRM implementation that works across all devices. They don't end up paying boat load of money to Microsoft that way and don't have to deal with device manufacturers individually.

Re:PlayReady DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Allowing that "never" is a real long time, Netflix customer support advised me that they NEVER will support Linux. So, there ya go...

Re:PlayReady DRM

[fbartho]

Android CPUs are pretty slow. I bet that + the rest of the platform's immaturity is what's hanging them up. Sure *technically* you can write your code in c/c++ but you end up having to personally import every damn library from the STL up.

Re:PlayReady DRM

[hedwards]

But Netflix is a mostly US only company and the carriers can barely handle the traffic they're presently providing. I'm not sure that they could handle the extra traffic for Netflix. Or at least not in a way which is satisfactory. I know that just going over WiFi my connection often times can't handle it.

Re:PlayReady DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Android CPUs are pretty slow. I bet that + the rest of the platform's immaturity is what's hanging them up.

uhh, someone's nerd card needs to be revoked. All modern android phones have very fast CPUs. Even the first generation android devices had 528mhz MSM7200 chipsets which is more than sufficient for this DRM business. The WM7 phones all use the same QSD8250 or similar snapdragon spec'd chipset as what is in the Nexus One, Desire, Evo 4g, Droid Incredible and similar Android phones (which I might add are faster than the iphone3s and iphone4s in many aspects. Heck, the Galaxy S phones use the same CPU core that is in the ipad and iphone4.

So no, Android CPUs are not slow, you have no idea what you are talking about, they are the same and in some cases faster than what are available in iphones and WM7 devices. As for the immaturity of the platform, seriously? yeah, cause the WM7 platform is way more mature having been out for a whole month now.

+just a side point, who is going to pirate streaming movies on their phone? We have computers for that purpose if we so choose to do so...

Re:PlayReady DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

On the PC, it doesn't matter is one is using an Atom netbook or an AMD desktop, WinXP or Win7, Firefox or IE--instant playing works because it's software-based DRM. And streaming works on ARM arch also, but only for iphone/ipad.

Re:PlayReady DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

slow my ass. each of the phones going back to the G1 had h264 acceleration, which makes video rendering silky smooth. I say go with hulu plus and tell netflix to suck it as Hulu is at least willing to work with hardware manufacturers, rather than expecting everybody to have their devices locked down like a federal prison. If hulu makes tons of money off of android, then netflix will change their tune real quick

Re:PlayReady DRM

[MichaelKristopeit163]

"works" is relative to requirements... not having the DRM works just as well.

the hardware requirements and interface CAN be fulfilled by every "android" phone... the issue is there is not standardized hardware in every "android" phone which would make the fulfillment of the hardware interface much easier.

Re:PlayReady DRM

[gmhowell]

Why should the studios be concerned with the problems of either Netflix or the phone carriers? As a matter of fact, if the viewing experience is negative, all the better for them. It pushes more views on cable, theatres, DVD rentals, etc.

Re:PlayReady DRM

[metamatic]

So you're telling me that Microsoft PlayReady DRM has access to hardware security features on the iPhone and iPad? That sounds a little far fetched.

Re:PlayReady DRM

[h4rr4r]

MS will not do that, they must protect the WP7. Just like no netflix on linux.

Re:PlayReady DRM

[jonwil]

There are any number of DRM solutions already being used for MPAA films (iTunes on Windows XP for one AFAIK) that dont have this kind of hardware-enforced restrictions and will play content (certainly content at the resolutions that make sense for a phone) over any output and dont use any special API calls to do it and will store downloaded content on any disk (with the software enforcing any "no installing on removable disk" restrictions).

Re:PlayReady DRM

[MichaelKristopeit181]

you spend your days fantasizing that you are me. i spend my days actually being me. do you NEED to be me? OR, do you NEED to NOT BE YOURSELF?

you're completely pathetic.

"MichaelKristopeit175" is operated by a pathetic individual attempting to steal my identity.

to the individual responsible: i assume you welcome death. present yourself to me; admit what you've done, then i'll bring upon you the ultimate punishment for your transgressions.

Re:PlayReady DRM

[wvmarle]

Other posters indicate that MS's DRM requires certain hardware. That's a problem.

Even if no such hardware was required: how about key distribution? This is the hard part, keeping them secret. Closed source is a requirement for that - in open source there is no secret. And actually keeping the keys secret and well hidden in the final compiled binary, that's what went wrong with the DVD and resulted in DeCSS.

DRM and open source just don't go together.

Re:PlayReady DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an issue (not a problem!) with Android. Since it is open source, companies can back it with whatever hardware they want. So since there was never a standard trusted path, there can never be a standard trusted path.

Re:PlayReady DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you arguing with yourself? Maybe you need to post in another thread or take your meds or something.

Slightly Offtopic -- Opinion on VOD home systems

[ittybad]

I like Netflix -- combined with my Wii, it is great. Also on my Wii, I have a USB loader that allows me to play my back-upped games without having to insert the CD each time. Is there a similar thing that can be done with, say, a blue-ray player, an external hard-drive, and my movie collection? I would imagine a situation where I put my DVD into the player, it recognizes that this movie has not been saved to the hard drive, and copies it (prolly with an ISO to preserve menus and such) and then lets me play any of my movies on demand. Does anyone have success with a similar type of system? Is it all "do it yourself" or is there a product that can be purchased somewhere? Thanks for any help.

Ubuntu instead!

[linuxwonder]

Forget Android...what about Ubuntu? Just once I would like to access my Netflix accnt. without having to start my VM for XP!

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[AnonymousClown]

Forget Android...what about Ubuntu? Just once I would like to access my Netflix accnt. without having to start my VM for XP!

or ANY Linux distro for that matter....

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[Yvan256]

Windows XP in a VM is really your only option? You don't have a PS3, a Wii, an iPhone, iPod touch, iPad or the new Apple TV?

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[CAIMLAS]

Um, no? Believe it or not, there are quite a few households where there are neither game platforms nor trendy Apple gadgets (Adults typically live here.)

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[betterunixthanunix]

Why should that surprise you? I do not have any of those things in my home either...then again, I am not a Netflix customer...

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[Anonymous Coward]

What? I couldn't hear what you are saying. Once you get off your high horse, maybe we can hear you way down here...

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[MBGMorden]

You speak like those devices are a given. It's a royal pain in the butt to get most Apple devices to sync with Ubuntu - so much so that anyone who uses Ubuntu probably is going to look for alternative options - like an Android phone for example.

That right there knocks the last 4 items off of your list. Now consider the possibility that he's not a gamer (I know - shock, horror), and then a PS3 or Wii becomes equally unlikely.

People aren't guaranteed to have all the hip devices.

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[jo_ham]

Oh, I'm sorry, we couldn't hear you all the way over here in grown up world.

What an extraordinary childish statement, betraying your clear bias against people who play games for entertainment (or, shock horror, use their games consoles to access services like Netflix) or choose to use computer and peripherals/devices from a particular hardware vendor.

Anyone who uses Cisco hardware has silly hair! Nah nah!

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[Yvan256]

My real question is: why does he have a Netflix account in the first place? He knew the supported platforms but now he's complaining that his own work-around is annoying?

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[markdavis]

I use Mandriva and Fedora and I don't think it is any harder or easier to work with Apple equipment than Ubuntu. Perhaps you all mean "Linux" and not "Ubuntu"? Or do some people suddenly think Linux = "Ubuntu"?

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[eldepeche]

oh snap

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[eldepeche]

I heard they mail you DVDs if you want.

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[KingMotley]

Actually. It is easier to just upgrade ubuntu to windows 7. Sync works great then and you can even play games again.

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps he got it thinking of getting the movies mailed to him, but he decided that it would be more convenient to stream them to his PC, until he found out it's still fucking inconvenient still (though you must admit less so). That would describe me. I tend to do both (VM with XP and when I feel like dealing with the little bit more inconvenience, I've had them mailed to me).

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[Yvan256]

True, I keep forgetting that Netflix doesn't suck south of the border.

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, there are no adults in your house then. So do you prefer Xbox360 or PS3?

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[Gregory Arenius]

"I heard they mail you DVDs if you want."

I seem to recall that the main way to watch DVDs on Linux uses a package that is illegal to distribute in many countries (DeCSS). Sure, it is more readily available than other options but it is still considered illegal.

Cheers,
Greg

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[MBGMorden]

Perhaps you missed the fact that the GP specifically mentioned Ubuntu, hence it's the distro at hand.

I swear though, it's like you can't win for losing. Call it Linux and some evangelist is going to jump down your throat screaming "LINUX IS JUST A KERNEL!!!!!". Call it by the distro name (the specific one being talked about) and they STILL aren't happy.

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[MBGMorden]

I seem to recall that most people who watch DVD's aren't plugging them into their computers . . ..

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[delinear]

True, but just because he doesn't have a games console, doesn't necessarily follow that he doesn't have a DVD player (after all, you can pick up a reasonable quality DVD player for next to nothing these days).

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[anonymousNR]

for that to be possible either Microsoft has to release proprietary version of PlayReady DRM (which they never will to their competitors) ,
or someone has to write an open source equivalent of PlayReady DRM (which no open source developer would agree to), but like a poster above said

Netflix uses MS PlayReady DRM... Microsoft provides an implementation of a PlayReady client in ANSI C... Android has a NDK to write native apps

and because google or whatever bunch of companies that own android shouldn't have a problem with.

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[markdavis]

:)

You are correct, I should have complained to the grandparent.

Do we want DRM on the platform?

[mlts]

My question is, do we want DRM on the platform? Slippery slope here -- First it will be to protect movies. Then it will spread to apps, and then to critical parts of the Android OS, which makes it easier for cellular carriers to force device makers to lock their phones down.

We have enough issues with lockdown, especially the fact that there are -zero- [1] Android phones shipping in the US that have the ability to support custom ROMs.

I'll pass on the DRM. Netflix can stream and cache or roll their own solution in the apk so it doesn't affect the whole phone.

[1]: Of course, you can get a N1 or something else via import, but no US cellular carrier sells an open phone, and the only phones Google sells are ones that are antediluvian in nature when it comes to Android versions.

Re:Do we want DRM on the platform?

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Re:Do we want DRM on the platform?

[Fuzzums]

I personally take it one step further. Even to a whole new platform.
I use DRM for birth control.

Re:Do we want DRM on the platform?

[ceoyoyo]

It's not your choice. And there's already DRM on Android phones, according to the article, just no universal standard. So you're too late.

Re:Do we want DRM on the platform?

[girlintraining]

We have enough issues with lockdown, especially the fact that there are -zero- [1] Android phones shipping in the US that have the ability to support custom ROMs

Umm, dude -- they all have that ability. Whether it's been developed or not is another matter.

Re:Do we want DRM on the platform?

[fermion]

This is same question I have about Flash on the iPhone. Do we really want a hack solution on an otherwise well devised. The reason to allow such a resource hog is so we can get access to content. The downside is that if Flash is allowed them developers will have incentive to write cappy Apps.

It is interesting that Flash was touted on Android because it would solve problems like this. The remakable thing is, apparently, flash does not solve problems. Even on the PC, netflix uses Silverlight.

So the answer is that DRM is needed because it solves a problem that many people want solved. Without it the market is limited to those that do not see it is a problem. In the case of Android, phones sales may never suffer due to not having Netflix. OTOH some are producing android tablets, and those may be hurt because of lack of netflix.

Re:Do we want DRM on the platform?

[Anonymous Coward]

and then to critical parts of the Android OS, which makes it easier for cellular carriers to force device makers to lock their phones down.

Hasn't been a problem with iOS. I quite enjoy having no carrier crap forced on my iPhone.

Re:Do we want DRM on the platform?

[jonwil]

Show me an GSM/UMTS android handset with full support for custom ROMs, a physical QWERTY keyboard and the latest software and I will buy Android.
Since no such Android phone exists, my next phone will be a Nokia N900.

Re:Do we want DRM on the platform?

[lennier1]

If there's no pressing need to get a new phone in the next couple of months it might pay off to keep a closer eye on Meego-related changes, since the N900 represents over a year old hardware.

Re:Do we want DRM on the platform?

[Ostracus]

My question is, do we want DRM on the platform? Slippery slope here -- First it will be to protect movies. Then it will spread to apps, and then to critical parts of the Android OS, which makes it easier for cellular carriers to force device makers to lock their phones down.

Considering how cellular networks work with their "always necessary"* connections DRM would be more effective. And even setting aside that the carriers already have a degree of control over who connects to their network. So in other words the slippery slope was already part of the design and the remaining question is how far does the powers that be want to push it.

*Yes I know about WiFi enabled phones.

Re:Do we want DRM on the platform?

[jonwil]

I will need to be buying a phone soon anyway because I will be switching carriers in a month or 2 when my contract runs out and my current phone is carrier locked (and not worth trying to unlock given its age)

Re:Do we want DRM on the platform?

[maccodemonkey]

I can see it now...

Android: Entirely completely open unless we're not a big fan of how you decide to operate your business.

anyone know a Linux-compat netflix-like service?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have netflix now but am thinking to drop it because the streaming service relies on silverlight and does not work with Linux desktops, which is what my HTPC is.

Does anyone know of a similar service that works with Linux? Not Hulu - I mean the same business model as netflix where I can get streaming video without commercials over the net in addition to a mail DVD service.

Much appreciated if you do. I'd like to vote with my dollars against Netflix here, even though I'm happy with their service in other ways.

Same tale, over and over again.

[Superken7]

Since when does DRM work to prevent piracy? The phones will get rooted/jailbroken/hacked anyways.

Maybe they just want that to cover their asses when someone actually starts ripping netflix movies, so they can't be pointed at because they used DRM?
Or maybe they just want to look secure to their partners because they "use DRM"?

Who knows, but fact is that is just a smokescreen and the bubble will pop sooner or later, and they are making a lot of noise about nothing. They look like idiots in our eyes, but they would need to look like idiots to everyone, including themselves. I hope they do sooner than later.

Re:Same tale, over and over again.

[hedwards]

It's really tough to get content providers online if you're not using DRM. Just look at how much work gog.com has gone to in order to procure games. And those are games that are years to decades old and are easily available in pirated form already.

Movies are almost certainly worse considering how much more cartel controlled they are than games.

Re:Same tale, over and over again.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Since when does DRM work to prevent piracy?

It doesn't, but it does make them comfortable offering a rental service. Since DRM's biggest problem is that it makes content only useful for a limited amount of time, and Netflix is only about rentals, I don't think we should be waving our pitchforks about it.

and why do we need drm?

[Libertarian001]

All is hear is the studios screaming at me that they don't want my money every time I open my wallet.

Re:and why do we need drm?

[Tharsman]

There may be an argument when it comes to purchases. If I buy something, it's mine and the existence of a DRM is questionable (although we know it's there to avoid re-distribution.)

When it comes to renting the content, though, things are very different. Digital media must be protected to prevent trivial things like browser add-ons from just downloading a stream you paid for directly, via monthly fee, or by agreeing to endure ads.

I see no reason to complain about a streaming service relying on DRM to keep their data secure. It's almost as extreme as complaining because bank websites encrypt their data transfers.

Re:and why do we need drm?

[girlintraining]

All is hear is the studios screaming at me that they don't want my money every time I open my wallet.

Oh, they want your money. They just want it again, and again, and again.

Re:and why do we need drm?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course - they don't just want your money, they want your money on subscription.

Re:and why do we need drm?

[magus_melchior]

All I hear is motivation for the developer community to make ripping DVDs/BDs to mobile formats easier and faster. Who needs Netflix when you can view your own backup copy for free?

Re:Slightly Offtopic -- Opinion on VOD home system

[Anonymous Coward]

_Slightly_ off-topic?

Re:Slightly Offtopic -- Opinion on VOD home system

[Anonymous Coward]

there are addon's for xmbc that dose this for you,

Forget Android

[Yvan256]

I just want a decent selection from Netflix Canada.

Re:Forget Android

[WCLPeter]

While I agree with you in principle, greater selection is often a good thing, the selection available now is actually quite decent for the 7.99 per month price point.

I've been enjoying re-watching older films that I would never consider buying on DVD, but are still good enough to watch every once in a while. Been catching up on the old Doctor Who's I haven't seen since I was a kid, Tom Baker is still the man, and watching old episodes of Red Dwarf, there were a bunch of episodes I'd missed over the years. My nieces, when they come to visit, are loving it as the children's selection is quite robust and has a lot of their favourites.

Sure its frustrating to see the "Not Available" showing when you search for an old show, I've really been wanting to watch Space 1999 again now that I'm old enough to understand what the hell is going on, but hopefully if the service takes off in Canada they'll be able to work out the licensing issues. As it stands now its worth it based on their current selection and I'll continue to pay the 7.99 per month for the foreseeable future.

Re:Forget Android

[Yvan256]

Good for you if you think the current selection is decent, but in my opinion it's pretty slim. Even if movies and TV shows from at least a decade ago or older would be available, but no luck there either. Cheers, Seinfeld, Space 1999 (as you said), all the Star Trek TV series, etc. Nothing half-decent is listed apart from a few dozen movies. Then there's some nonsense like having Terminator 2 but not the first one, so we know it's licensing issues.

Comment to anyone who's working for one of the media provider in Canada: if you think I'll use your expensive and limited VOD services instead of Netflix, think again. I haven't had cable/satellite for the last four years and you'll never see a dime from me ever again. Economics 101: rip off your customers and you'll lose them.

Re:Forget Android

[WCLPeter]

Nothing half-decent is listed apart from a few dozen movies.

Based solely on the browsing interface I'd agree with you, its horrendous. You get to see perhaps two or three dozen movies, depending on the device, and have to search for everything else. Problem is I never know what I want to watch until I actually see it so I end up spending most of my time typing in names of stuff I want to see in the hopes they have it.

I'm not saying its super decent because I do agree with you that the pickings are slim and if it were 19.99 a month I'd agree that the price is way too high for what it is, but at 7.99 there is enough content there to justify spending that to get access to the service. Or putting it another way, despite the fact they didn't have stuff I really wanted to see they did have enough for me to watch half a dozen movies, some Red Dwarf, Doctor Who's, and Sponge Bob and Curious George for the nieces; I only signed up two weeks ago. I would have spent far more than 7.99 if I'd have had to buy, or rent, all those discs outright and I didn't have to go to Best Buy / Future Shop or Blockbuster / Rogers Video to get it.

I'm going to keep it for six months and see where the service goes and as long as I watch at least one movie per month it'd be the same as going to Blockbuster / Rogers Video, though I have a feeling I'll be watching a lot more than that. Who knows, if it starts getting better, I might just give up cable! ;-)

Re:Forget Android

[Yvan256]

Are you telling it costs 8$ to rent a movie from Blockbuster or Rogers Video?

And here I thought my local rental place was a rip-off at 4$ per movie or 3 movies for 9$...

Re:Forget Android

[WCLPeter]

Its been a while since I've gone to a Blockbuster or Rogers Video but I do remember paying upwards of 5.99 the last time I went, throw in gas money there and back (the Blockbuster is up the street but has shitty new movie selections, they're always gone, and the Rogers Video is an hour and a half round trip walking) and its easy to get that up to 6.99 easy.

Or for a dollar more I can use Netflix to watch a couple of movies a month, sure I don't get the same selection as the BB or RV but so far I've managed for find movies I've been interested in watching. I think I'm going to check out Iron Eagle next, its one of my favourites and I haven't seen it in a few years; hopefully they'll work on licensing the sequels soon. ;-)

Why watch movies on your phone?

[AnAdventurer]

Oh, now I remember, most of you have normal type jobs or go to school and want entertainment for every second you are not in said activity. Me, I can't be bothered to watch a movie touch screen phone during my AK/HI 6 hour long commuter flights.

Re:Why watch movies on your phone?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Sometimes before I go to sleep I fire up a TV show on Netflix and watch it before drifting off. Sometimes it's more comfortable that way. Everybody has different preferences, it doesn't automatically mean that people want a constant barrage of stuff 24-7.

Netflix does run on *some* Android devices

[happymellon]

Netflix runs on the Google TV... http://blog.netflix.com/2010/10/netflix-on-google-tv.html
Google TV runs on Android... http://code.google.com/tv/web/faq.html
Thus Netflix runs on Android. I don't really know much about the whole pkg infrastructure, is the Android VM still close enough to Java for the write once run anywhere?

Re:Netflix does run on *some* Android devices

[happymellon]

Ok, I hadn't really looked in to this before. It seems like the Netflix app is an x86 compiled apk so it will not run on ARM. But if they ever get that compatibility layer for Ubuntu running, it would give you Netflix on Linux ;)

XDA already ripped the app from the Google TV. http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=812601&page=6

Re:Netflix does run on *some* Android devices

[Anonymous Coward]

is the Android VM still close enough to Java for the write once run anywhere?

While that has been Java's tagline, it has never been true in any case. It's one of the reasons why people think Java is stupid. There are scripting languages that are much more portable than Java and C/C++ definitely is if you use cross-platform API's.

Re:Netflix does run on *some* Android devices

[happymellon]

Then you sir write crappy code. Please don't blame a language for not being portable, if you insist on using proprietary extensions.

Please define "never true" with regards to Squirrel:
http://squirrel-sql.sourceforge.net/

Re:Netflix does run on *some* Android devices

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

Having been involved in developing one of the early GoogleTV apps, I can say that Netflix does indeed work. So it is possible and it's possible with DRM.

However...

For higher end 720p-1080p content, ok....sure, I get it. Make it marginally harder to steal while your "new release" DVDs and BluRay content is in stores for whatever makes sense as a honeymoon period. But for your typical mobile content which is normally at much lower audio/video resolution, spare me.

Be happy that you got your micropayment from whatever android kiosk the owner used, even if it means that someone can "steal" that low rez crap later. Chances are if they really wanted to steal the content, they'd just download a ripped DVD/BluRay disk from the net, so it seems a bit silly to make it harder for folks to pay for the convenience of not bothering with all that.

Best,

Re:Netflix does run on *some* Android devices

[cbhacking]

For a specific purpose like that, the app would almost certainly be written using the native SDK. Among other things, that pretty much guarantees it wouldn't be portable to a phone.

Re:Netflix does run on *some* Android devices

[delinear]

Not sure how it's even stealing, when it's a subscription rental service. If anything, paying them for movies that you're then not watching using their bandwidth has to be a net win - you get a better experience, they cut costs and the studios still get their cut. Sure, you might decide one day to end your scubscription - well you might do that anyway if they make it hard for you to watch stuff how you want and someone else offers an alternative.

Well... kinda...

[Anonymous Coward]

Complain, but they moved the ball forward more in 1 year than all the attempts before.

Only because they're big enough that the change matters. Services like LegalSounds have been selling songs (from large labels, too) without DRM for $1 for the better part of a decade. Of course, they never gained the publicity of Apple but for us who knew about them, Apple didn't really provide anything new. As for the prices, I think that Wallmart has done more work driving down the price of buying music in general...

I'm not trying to say that what Apple did wasn't good. Just saying that adding "...with a computer" to what Wallmart was doing wasn't that massive step, especially when smaller companies around the world had already began doing it.

Re:Well... kinda...

[DurendalMac]

Um, Apple's library of music was far, FAR bigger than that of LegalSounds. There's a huge difference between some cherry-picked tracks and a vast music library.

Re:Well... kinda...

[ToasterMonkey]

Services like LegalSounds have been selling songs (from large labels, too) without DRM for $1 for the better part of a decade. Of course, they never gained the publicity of Apple

I don't know, but I'd guess the lack of DRM is probably what held them back, by limiting their catalog.

I'm not trying to say that what Apple did wasn't good. Just saying that adding "...with a computer" to what Wallmart was doing wasn't that massive step, especially when smaller companies around the world had already began doing it.

Apple was in the fortunate position to provide all of "speed bump" DRM, low prices, store front and hardware integration. You're right, not a massive step, but a significant one.
Did Walmart figure people were still listening to CD's on Walkmans or something? I guess if they had any intention of selling digital music they would have done something by now, but who knows.

Re:Well... kinda...

[dosware]

If my memory is correct, Wal-mart did offer digital downloads at good prices (0.89/song) for a few years. Format was Windows Media w/DRM. They shut down the service a while back.

Re:Well... kinda...

[Anonymous Coward]

And there's a lot more people willing to spend $150 for a $30 MP3 player who don't know about LegalSounds. I'll bet if LS had the same publicity / user base, they'd have GASP the same amount of tracks!

Re:Well... kinda...

[DinDaddy]

Your memory is good. Songs were $.88, and WMA/Windows Media Player 9 only. No Mac/linux/iPod support.

Why DRM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't HDMI already been cracked, so the content can already be extracted from DRMed players?
Yeah, I have an Android device with HDMI, but I don't intend to copy what I shouldn't. I just don' t like to waste CPU time and I really hate people making fragile apps.

Re:Why DRM?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Hasn't HDMI already been cracked, so the content can already be extracted from DRMed players?

It isn't about making it un-capturable, it's about it being a rental model and making the studios/networks providing the content happy about supporting it.

Keyword

[Tharsman]

From the article:

Although we don’t have a common platform security mechanism and DRM, we are able to work with individual handset manufacturers to add content protection to their devices. Unfortunately, this is a much slower approach and leads to a fragmented experience on Android, in which some handsets will have access to Netflix and others won’t.

Let the Android Fragmentation wars resume! I do ponder, though, if Netflix approached Google on this topic before feeling "forced" to deal with individual handset manufacturers.

Re:Keyword

[wvmarle]

OK we're nerds. But for the general public, who's not so deep into computers/software/etc: do they buy an "iOS device" or an "iPhone"? Do they buy an "Android phone" or a "SonyEricsson X6 phone"? Do they buy a "Symbian phone" or a "Nokia N-something"?

Or in other words: does an average consumer buy a phone because of its OS, or because of its model?

And if they were to buy say an iPhone and an iPad, would they realise that the underlying OS is basically the same?

Something I'm actually quite curious about. After all a general consumer will go out a computer shop to "buy a PC" or to "buy an Apple", not to buy "a computer running Windows" or "a computer running Mac OS-X".

Re:Keyword

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see it from for the general public point of view:

- Apple's marketing makes it clear that getting applications and games is very easy and works on their devices. Only three devices, all running the same OS. The only technical thing to explain would be "requires iOS 4.1". Since the newer iOS doesn't support older devices, there's no need to list all supported iPhones, iPod touches and iPads.

- Android, like it or not, is a fragmentation problem: different OS versions (sometimes locked/controlled by the carrier), the hardware capabilities (touch screen or not, keyboard or not... it's more complicated than different CPU speeds or RAM sizes), the brand of the phone (leading to confusion for software compatibility) and the marketing campaigns (too many companies and carriers doing the marketing - again, confusing for the potential customers).

Re:Keyword

[Tharsman]

This is a very good point. I happened to talk with a friend of my wife's last night about "what phone to buy". She went to TMobile and looked at some and had her mind set in 2 phones, either the myTouch 4G or the HTC HD7. She had no clue what Android was, or what Windows was. All she cared about was that the phone had a good camera. Both phones she wanted are about the same, as far as camera go so I recommended her to go with the myTouch as it also has a front camera and faster internet.

It does not help that most stores just have plastic shells of the phones for display and the user has to pick on looks and buttons and not able to actually test the experience.

The iPhone is a different matter. It is surfing the iPod popularity wave more than anything. The masses love their iPods and the iPhone is just an phone + iPhone. There are also people that seem to want phones to download apps, and these seem to be more inclined to go for an iPhone than any android device. I think that reflects in market statistics. Off course, these are as likely to just get an iPod Touch if their contract is not due to expire.

This aside, though, although the user may not know better, you can't say iOS and iPhone separately. Both are one. It's one product, even if the core OS is also powering the iPad and iPod. I don't think the masses would be as crazy as they are now for iPhones if they ran Android.

The computer world is different, though. Since i was in college I hear people specifically ask for Windows PCs, or Mac machines (very conscious they don't run Windows.) I never, in my life, heard of a casual user ask for Linux PCs, though. Sometimes I hear even more specifics, like "I want a PC with Microsoft Office."

GoogleTV has Netflix. GoogleTV is Android

[Hohlraum]

albeit a modified version of 2.1 They are full of shit and just making excuses.

Because Netflix picked Silverlight

[Anonymous Coward]

If Netflix choose Flash to deliver their streaming video they would have had a solution for just about every platform and special solutions for a very few (IOS, consoles etc)... Oh well, guess is sucks to pick the wrong solution.

Re:Because Netflix picked Silverlight

[93 Escort Wagon]

If Netflix choose Flash to deliver their streaming video they would have had a solution for just about every platform and special solutions for a very few (IOS, consoles etc)... Oh well, guess is sucks to pick the wrong solution.

I take it you're choosing to ignore the uneven and generally crappy reviews that have been given to the portable implementation of Flash?

Errm.. different question should be..

[novar21]

Why would I watch a movie on such a small screen? Esp. one that I paid money for? I have a nice large HD screen at home. Much nicer to see that size than something that small. I just might be getting old an my eye sight starting to fail, but is it really fun watching a movie on something that small? I like entertainment an all, but on a nice big screen with a bowl of popcorn.. female by your side.. seems to me to be far more entertaining. Just my two cents. Your mileage may vary.

Re:Errm.. different question should be..

[MoonBuggy]

Long(ish) journeys seem to be the most sensible reason. I probably wouldn't pay money specifically for something to watch while I'm stuck on the train for a few hours, but if it's part of a subscription service that I'm already paying for then it seems like a rather pleasant added benefit to be able to access it from anywhere (albeit on a small screen). As a somewhat niche secondary benefit, there are also smartphones with TV/monitor outputs (I believe the iPhone supports it, for example) - if I wanted to take a movie (which I don't have a physical copy of) around to a friend's house tonight, hooking up a phone to their TV seems like a reasonable way of doing so.

Re:Slightly Offtopic -- Opinion on VOD home system

[Anonymous Coward]

sure there is. I, uh, 'back-up' my movies all the time.

Re:GoogleTV has Netflix. GoogleTV is Android

[jo_ham]

This is talked about in TFA, although not directly, that they can work with individual manufacturers to bring it to Android, but this is a slow approach and leads to some devices having access and others not. Clearly GoogleTV is one of the former, while other android devices are part of the latter group.

Blockbuster

[Fez]

So what is Blockbuster doing to appease the studio execs?

There is a Blockbuster app to stream movies on my Droid X, but I won't use it. They want to charge per movie instead of including access as part of my Blockbuster-by-mail subscription.

Seems Netflix is caving in more and more to the studios lately, between the delays in some new releases and this mess. I find it hard to believe this is a technical problem, someone is probably paying them to not do it.

Re:Blockbuster

[Tharsman]

So what is Blockbuster doing to appease the studio execs?

It was noted in the article that Blockbuster went through similar issues, and that it was only available in the Droid X at first. They did not noted who else can run Blockbuster's app, though.

Get a roku box

[voss]

A HD roku box with n wireless is $99 which is about the same as the cost of a Windows 7 OEM dvd.

That's not a bug, it's a feature.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

You shouldn't be using netflix anyway.

Until the world changes, and we get rid of the MAFIAA, and people realise that we need to change the way we pay the authors, that copyright is broken, and that we need a new system ... until that day comes, there's only one simple solution that'll let you live happy, and will let the establishment know that they are doing it wrong by the numbers:

Free Software, Pirated content.

So, get your Android device, and start working on a Cuevana extension.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature.

[shutdown -p now]

Free Software, Pirated content.

That sounds illogical. If you don't mind pirating content, why not do the same with software? And if you would rather support free software by boycotting proprietary, then you should also support free content in the same way. Make up your mind.

Re:That's not a bug, it's a feature.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

It ain't the same and you know it damn well. Regarding software, you need good enough software that is compliant with certain standards. In Art, there is no standards. There are no good-enough, pink-floyd-compliant bands.

So, with software, I could find Free Software that does everything I need. Software is a tool, Art isn't.

I have nothing against the artists, and I know damn well that the artists want to earn good money while reaching the audience. Right now, there are corporations in the middle screwing both the public and the artist.

The solution is to ignore the existence of this corporations by downloading whatever you want. At one point, the artists will be reaching their audience, but won't be making a profit. So they'll fire their agents and find a new, more fair way of getting paid.

How many movies do you watch?

[Anonymous Coward]

and is there some huge reason a delay of a day or two matters when you watch them? Can't you "access your netflix account" via the US postal service, then have the DVD in hand, which leads to being able to use it on your ubuntu machine, plus some gray area "time shifting" of the content? Why would you want to use up so much of your data plan on your wireless when you can get it direct to your desktop linux box the easy way, at *the same cost*? Ten bucks is ten bucks a month, VLC works just great on ubuntu, and it gets delivered rather painlessly, in a much easier to deal with format, right to your door. Plus, you don't have to VM borgware. Why deal with cooties and hassle when you don't have to?

Re:How many movies do you watch?

[delinear]

I'm guessing if you're watching movies on a phone it's more of an opportunistic than a planned event - you find yourself with a little unexpected time to kill or whatever so decide to watch something, in which case a wait of a couple of days plus some format shifting is not going to work.

I think it really is self delusion

[Sycraft-fu]

Hollywood is one of the worst, but many game publishers, and others really do think the DRM war can be won. They think if they can just lock things down well enough, then it'll be over, people won't be able to pirate and sales will go through the roof.

This was real evident with Blu-ray. They went to some very extreme lengths to protect the discs. This wasn't a "Well it'll stop casual people at home," thing they really though they'd stop the pros. They flat out said BD+ would be unbroken for at least 10 years. Ya well we see how well that all worked out. They really had talked themselves in to it that if they just made the DRM good enough, they'd stop it.

It is a delusion that is encouraged by another delusion in that pirated copies are seen as lost sales. Many companies really do believe this. They do because it is such an attractive idea. I mean if your game sold 5 million copies but was download 20 million times, think how much more money you could have made! Gets them all excited with the thought that by investing resources in DRM you could literally increase your profits a few hundred percent.

Now of course that isn't true, even if there were perfect DRM you'd find only a fraction of those pirated copies would translate in to actual sales. People will try something for $0 that they won't for more. Even if perfect DRM could be a reality it wouldn't increase sales like they hope. However the idea is so attractive that many delude themselves in to thinking it is real.

Of course the DRM providers, and there are many, sell this too. They tell you how much more money you'll make with their DRM than without.

Ultimately it all culminates in an attitude that the objective is not to maximize sales and thus maximize profits, it is to minimize piracy, even if it reduces sales. Counter productive, but we know humans are good at that kind of thing.

Re:I think it really is self delusion

[wvmarle]

I mean if your game sold 5 million copies but was download 20 million times, think how much more money you could have made! Gets them all excited with the thought that by investing resources in DRM you could literally increase your profits a few hundred percent.

I wouldn't be surprised as all that DRM actually would cost sales due to people not being able to try out the game (though they could give away a trial with just one level or so instead, still not as good as a friend saying "hey try this out!"), and the likely bad press they get from the moments the DRM fails and blocks legitimate buyers. The stronger the DRM protections the more likely this is.

Re:I think it really is self delusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Crock of shit. I used to spend maybe $1000 per year on DVD rentals. Now I spend $0 and download everythng from torrents. The only difference between you and me is that I KNOW I'm a thief, and often feel pretty shitty about it.

Re:I think it really is self delusion

[zmollusc]

Well, BD+ has protected the discs from being bought by me so far, and I see no reason why I should not resist buying both discs and players for the full ten years. As a bonus, I haven't needed to upgrade my SD CRT telly since the late nineties.

Re:I think it really is self delusion

[dhavleak]

It is a delusion that is encouraged by another delusion in that pirated copies are seen as lost sales. Many companies really do believe this. They do because it is such an attractive idea. I mean if your game sold 5 million copies but was download 20 million times, think how much more money you could have made! Gets them all excited with the thought that by investing resources in DRM you could literally increase your profits a few hundred percent.

Very very tenuous logic. You don't need to assume that all the pirated copies = lost sales. You merely need to assume some kind of realistic percentage of the pirates would buy the game if pirating was not an option. Let's be ridiculously conservative, and assume that percentage is as low as 1%. Let's assume that this game costs $10. Going with your figure of 20 million downloads, at $10 per game, you're talking 200 million dollars. Now if you assume that only 1% of the pirates would actually buy, you're down to 2 million dollars in lost sales. So your DRM solution has to cost you less than 2 million dollars, for it to be worth it -- simple math

Now consider this -- nobody creates a DRM solution for a single piece of content -- they create it for a class of content (like say, all PS3 games use the same DRM solution, all iTunes songs use the same DRM solution, etc. etc.) -- so you're actually talking about multiple titles that would be pirated many million times -- and you're distributing the cost of your DRM solution across the "lost sales minimized" for all that content -- not just individual titles

The last piece of the puzzle you seem to be missing -- if you don't combat piracy, it's the same thing as endorsing it. If you never protect your content, and you never prosecute people that pirate your content, then the people who are paying for it start looking like suckers. Basically, when everyone around you is downloading music/movies/games for free, and you're the only one paying for it, and there's no penalty and no inconvenience for the freeloaders -- why would you pay for it? So it's not even just about the 20 million downloads -- the 5 million people who paid might also stop paying if you turn a blind eye to piracy.

Don't take this as an endorsement for DRM in general -- I hate FairPlay / PlaysForSure type DRM schemes as much as the next person. But any opposition to them has to make sense, for it to be taken seriously.

Re:I think it really is self delusion

[Anonymous Coward]

I once had a legitimately purchased, expensive professional music software package. It was protected with a hardware based DRM solution. The problem is, I used this software in performances and it was made unstable by the hardware DRM. I know this because it drove me to download and use a cracked versions of the software because it was stable.

All the DRM did in this case was inconvenience the legitimate software users. We shelled out hundreds of dollars for a greatly inferior product.

The nearest inverse has happened. I had used a pirates version of another product and became quite fond of it. But the software crashed a lot. I still wanted to use the software but I didn't want my workflow interrupted with crashes. I eventually paid for the full product. But sadly to my surprise, the crashing was just as frequent in the legitimate copy.

I've never seen DRM really curtail piracy, only inconvenience legitimate customers. I'd believe this makes the paying consumer look even more like a sucker.

Re:I think it really is self delusion

[delinear]

All logically sound, but what the above doesn't take into account is how many sales they will lose as a result of DRM rather than piracy. Okay, it might not seem like a lot if a few geeks take a stance and refuse to buy, but if they tell their friends, who then write on their blogs, whose commenters then go and tweet about it... It's probably even more difficult to track sales lost this way than it is to put a figure on what piracy costs.

Re:I think it really is self delusion

[MoonBuggy]

Your logic is also rather tenuous. In short, you assume that DRM prevents copying without any real evidence.

If one want a game, film or TV show for free, there is a near 100% chance that there's a torrent available. Not only that, the torrented version is often less restricted than the paid version. Why, then, does anyone pay for content? It's because they feel a legal and/or moral obligation to do so. Of course, not everyone pays, but many do.

Even with DRM, there's nearly 100% availability of infringing content. Why do you think removing DRM would increase the instances of this content being downloaded freely rather than paid for? The paid content would become more attractive by virtue of being unrestricted. The infringing content would be identical to how it is now.

As you say, opposition to DRM has to make sense to be taken seriously, so if there are any holes in my logic I'm happy to be told!

Re:I think it really is self delusion

[Unequivocal]

Good point - and the opposite is also true. My purchases of legal MP3's went through the roof once Amazon started offering a fairly deep catalog of them.

Re:I think it really is self delusion

[dhavleak]

what the above doesn't take into account is how many sales they will lose as a result of DRM rather than piracy

Quite correct -- so without making assumptions since I have no hard data to go on, you end up with the following equation:

(Lost sales recovered due to DRM - Sales lost due to people who abhor DRM) vs. (cost of DRM solution).

As long as the left hand side is greater, it's worth it for the content owners to resort to DRM. It's possible that the left-hand-side of that equation is actually negative, which means your product simply isn't that compelling, people aren't willing to pay for it, and no amount of DRM will help you -- that's when you need to reconsider your business model, and your product. Math aside, don't forget about the part where your paying customers become suckers if you don't go after the pirates. The 'suckers' will eventually become 'freeloaders' if you don't.

Re:I think it really is self delusion

[dhavleak]

Your logic is also rather tenuous. In short, you assume that DRM prevents copying without any real evidence.

I'm not assuming anything -- the 1% was just for arguments sake to show how you would actually approach the "is it worth it" question. Parent had claimed the content owners look at 100% of pirated downloads and start salivating. I'm just pointing out that it's unreasonable to assume that they are that stupid.

Even with DRM, there's nearly 100% availability of infringing content

Just add it to the equation. Sure, DRM is circumventable. The content owner just needs to know if it's a sufficient deterrent so that if they have a compelling product, they make more money with it than without. If the math works out, it's worth it. If it doesn't, they might need a more compelling product, no DRM, better DRM (i.e. DRM that doesn't frustrate legit users), better business model, or some combination thereof.

Re:GoogleTV has Netflix. GoogleTV is Android

[KarmaMB84]

Native app with x86 assembly maybe?

On demand payments?

[antdude]

Forget Android... what about on demand payments instead of subscriptions? I don't watch many movies and TV shows on discs and streaming. I love Redbox for its 99 cents and no need to subscribe.

50 Ways

[lennier]

Grab the .swf, Jeff
Google *.ru, Stu
Just use DeCSS, Tess
There must be
50 ways to get a movie

Netflix DRM isn't all that bad

[guyminuslife]

This is a DRM article, so of course there's the usual slew of posturing and moral outrage. I don't care for most of the more draconian forms of DRM myself. But there's really nothing particularly horrible about Netflix's usage of DRM, other than that it excludes Linux desktop distros and makes problems for Android. It's very clear that when you pay for Netflix, you're not "buying" any movies, you're licensing the rights to stream them from their servers. It's not a big hassle. Nothing particularly wrong with this model so long as they're up-front about it.

(This will get modded troll, you watch.)

Re:Netflix DRM isn't all that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your statement that Netflix using DRM to protect content that I have not purchased isn't, itself, bad. I do get annoyed when their use of DRM prevents me from viewing content on my operating system of choice.

Ya but that's the problem

[Sycraft-fu]

The DRM is stopping it from doing something that Netflix wants to do and consumers want to pay for. That is where so many anti-DRM arguments come from. I mean I'll grant you, if you have a supported media device the DRM doesn't really seem to matter. On my Blu-ray player I just watch whatever and it works great. However as soon as you head out of that, the problems begin. On computers, you cannot watch HD content because of DRM/licensing issues. The media industry worries that it is easier to rip on a computer, so they restrict it to SD only. Then you have things like the android handsets, which are extremely popular, that are having problems getting Netflix because of the DRM.

So even though it should have been non-invasive or whatever it isn't, it is causing problems. That is a major argument against DRM. It really doesn't do anything to stop copying, people can simple get the Blu-rays rip them and then torrent them (AACS and BD+ are thoroughly bypassed), but it does hurt legit consumer applications.

If they do this,

[assertation]

than can they offer streaming netflix to the rest of the Linux users?

Re:GoogleTV has Netflix. GoogleTV is Android

[Rich0]

Yeah, that will sure put a dent in piracy. Gee, those hackers will have to resort to just downloading the DVD rip off of a torrent site and then downrezzing it for android. Actually, for some of the newer handsets they might not even have to do that, as I bet a lot of those are about the right resolution/performance to just play native DVD.

I could see the argument when they were talking about protecting HD, and back when HD was still at a premium and wasn't all over the internet yet. Now that you can hardware-capture HD with consumer equipment, and even crack HDCP, let alone blu-ray player keys/etc, it seems like the cat is really out of the bag on this one.

The only real use for a netflix app is to, well, stream paid videos from netflix. If you want to have have the movie long-term it is easier to just to download it or rip it from any of 47 different sources.

How to do DRM properly

[Dwonis]

Today's DRM is so much more complicated than it needs to be. That complexity wastes everyone's time and money, and it creates unnecessary barriers to competition and innovation.

Since DRM rarely stops anyone who wants to bypass it anyway, it would make far more sense to just publish a standard for embedding licensing information into the media as RDF (Creative Commons provides an excellent example of how to do this), and do away with the pointless proprietary pseudo-cryptographic data-obfuscation systems that currently plague the industry.

In other words, make DRM restrictions advisory, rather than attempting (and failing) to make them mandatory. The downside of this approach is that a lot of people would undoubtedly un-check the "Obey DRM" checkboxes in their software. However, many of these people would bypass DRM restrictions anyway, and this needs to be weighed against the fact that we would finally get an *industry standard DRM* that everyone---including the open-source crowd---could live with.

microsift

[Anonymous Coward]

one word : silverlight

aha

[shentino]

"in order to ensure that the installed DRM protocol meets the requirements laid out by the movie studios."

So it's the movie studios that are pushing DRM onto everyone.

No wonder HD-DVD took a dive in favor of Blu-Ray.

Re:aha

[Lumpy]

They are also the ones forcing the useless HDCP on everyone and the analog"hole" sunset.

HDCP protects nothing, in fact it's so cracked that any fool with a DSP and a programming kit can make his own HDMI HDCP stripper. all HDCP does is make home and commercial AV gear switching a PITA or crappy at best.
I dont have to rip the latest Office episode off of my Dish receiver, I get a version that is clean and has all commercials cut out off the bittorrents 10 minutes after the episode ends. I would record it myself (no I dont want their DVR, it sucks. I want my MythTV DVR or a TiVo that allows commercial skipping) I am not interested in sharing the episode, I want to watch it on my terms and on my timetable.

DRM is a epic fail. All it does is get in the way of the person wanting to be legal. IT is not even a speed bump to those that give up and go to the dark side. Hell even the dark side has low to no risk if you know how to do it.

Anyone that supports DRM is horribly uneducated.

Not really so mysterious.

[Sitnalta]

iOS (iPod/iPhone) got Netflix only a couple months ago, and it is only now working right. It is apparently really, really hard to get this albatross of a program shoe-horned onto a mobile device.

Too Easy: Misdirection.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the content producers aren't the ones pushing for DRM, but the cellular carriers? If there's a content explosion the content producers would win, and so would the consumers. Caught in the middle is the wireless carriers unable to handle the load. Raising rates would help but that would make them look like the bad guys. Making content inconvenient would slow things down and make someone else look like the bad guys...like everyone's favorite enemy.

Mod parent up!

[dafing]

Good call :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twisted_World_of_Marge_Simpson

Not "less invasive", it is GONE

[SuperKendall]

The DRM being used for audio may not be as invasive as it once was

It's not any level of invasive. It is gone. Apple is to thank for it. However much people may hate Apple for other reasons, they at least deserve credit for the good they do as well.

as long as it is in a form that does not personally identify you, to improve our products or to provide services or technologies to you

So if the data cannot be tied directly back to you, why would you care they are collecting it? There are really great technical reasons to collect that data, that really do make the software better for the most people.

Re:Not "less invasive", it is GONE

[davester666]

Technically, music bought through iTunes still does include DRM, namely, it embeds your iTunes information within tags in the song file. So, there is some social pressure to not widely distribute the file that you've bought.

Re:Not "less invasive", it is GONE

[dhavleak]

Thank Apple for what? They were probably the single largest distributor of DRMed content in the world. When they started selling non-DRMed content through iTunes, it was only because non-DRM alternatives were starting to become more compelling (like the Amazon music store), and they were coming under regulatory scrutiny, and they had sufficient lock-in already achieved that it didn't matter much.

A lot of people fought long and hard for vendors to start selling music without DRM, long before Steve Jobs opportunistically jumped on the bandwagon and appropriated the movement for his own needs.

Re:Not "less invasive", it is GONE

[Unequivocal]

Hear hear! Well said - Amazon coming onto the scene and negotiating MP3 tracks from the publishers is what seems to finally pushed Apple into the same position. Let's not forget Apple originally tried to sell their MP3 tracks for MORE than the DRM tracks cost (under the perverse logic that you could do more with an MP3 therefore it was more valuable and should cost more - crazy talk).

Apple certainly laid the ground work for Amazon to get into the game, no doubt about that.

Re:Not "less invasive", it is GONE

[DinDaddy]

So now social engineering is DRM as well as being a computer virus.

Wait, that makes sense.

Re:Not "less invasive", it is GONE

[DinDaddy]

How many of you people are there?

The labels (you know, the companies that OWN the music and DICTATE the terms under which it is sold) allowed Amazon to sell DRM-free to undercut Apple's success in the market, and reduce Apple's leverage over them.

Amazon did not just get to unilaterally sell DRM-free music.

Stop mixing your apple hate with fantasy.

Re:Not "less invasive", it is GONE

[VisceralLogic]

Technically, music bought through iTunes still does include DRM, namely, it embeds your iTunes information within tags in the song file. So, there is some social pressure to not widely distribute the file that you've bought.

No, technically, it's not DRM, since it in no way manages rights.

Re:Not "less invasive", it is GONE

[SuperKendall]

When they started selling non-DRMed content through iTunes, it was only because non-DRM alternatives were starting to become more compelling (like the Amazon music store)
Sorry to blow your revisionism, but the Amazon thing was a last attempt to shut out Apple. When the studios realized it wasn't working, they finally caved on DRM free music - or did you forget for a while after Amazon sold music DRM free, they were the only ones allowed to do so? Apple had been asking for some time to be able to do so before Amazon ever started, and EMI finally caved with the others following shortly.

Repeat, Amazon was an attempt by the music makers to restore control over music to the studios from Apple, but BECAUSE Apple's DRM was working so well at the time, the studios had to get rid of DRM in order to make other sales channels outside iTunes viable. So even the fact Amazon sold DRM free music was thanks to Apple, because the studios would never have done that had they any other choice.

That is the only way DRM can be removed, by having one single player obtain so much market share and control over distribution, that the media companies have no choice but to abandon DRM in order to use other sales channels. Sadly, I'm not sure we'll ever see that happen with video as no one player is large enough to get into the same position as Apple did with audio, so we probably have at least a decade of heavily protected video. Ugh.

Re:Not "less invasive", it is GONE

[dhavleak]

Apple had been asking for some time to be able to do so before Amazon ever started, and EMI finally caved with the others following shortly.

I'm afraid you're the revisionist. EMI announced that they will make their catalog available w/o DRM before Job's open letter. Job's letter came well after Amazon had launched and enjoyed some success, after EMI's announcement, and right after iTunes + FairPlay came under regulatory scrutiny in Europe.

Not interested in getting into a conversation about it.. believe what you will.. to each their own.

Re:Not "less invasive", it is GONE

[Unequivocal]

I'm not hating on Apple amigo - and if you read what I said, it's the exact same thing that you said. Amazon negotiated a DRM-free deal and then Apple followed suit. Why do you think the record companies negotiated with Amazon on DRM? Either Apple wouldn't play ball or the the companies wanted two players at the table. Either way, Amazon brought low cost DRM free music to the masses first.

Good point, modern DRM is symbolic

[LostMyBeaver]

It's like putting a state of the art lock on a glass door. It'll keep the "honest people" out during the hours which the store isn't open, but even if you were to put bars behind the glass, cameras in the shop, sharks in the moat, etc... the guy who wants to get in to take something when the store isn't closed will find another way. Digging a tunnel underground into the shop is more work, but all it really takes is a shovel.

CSS is cracked, AACS is cracked, BD-J is more or less cracked (it's sloppy though, a real crack shouldn't require evaluating and fixing for each new patch, but since you can simply disassemble the BD-J algorithm and make a patch in 10 minutes, it doesn't matter much), HDCP is cracked (though we don't have a proper device for it), Windows Media DRM is not cracked, but it's hacked. Apple DRM isn't even worth mentioning as Apple doesn't invest heavily in its development anymore. Flash DRM is still a challenge, but why would you bother with better streams available on other formats? Audible DRM is still in tact... more or less, but creative people can strip that pretty easily.

In short, DRM is entirely ineffective. All it's doing is making it a hair more inconvenient to pirate than to buy. The only practical option for the movie studios is to offer an easily downloadable version of their films in good enough quality to be competitive with Blu-Ray rips that can be reliable downloaded quickly. With only a little effort, they can add measures to make it inconvenient to simple give copies to other people.

I for one would purchase movies online (for a little less than a DVD in the store, as I wouldn't receive the disc and I'd know the middle man was cut out) if I could easily burn them to DVD and/or copy them to iPhone. Additionally, if I were to start doing this, then I can name 30 direct acquaintances who would do the same. This is because for a number of people, they don't adopt technology until the "smart computer guys" say that it's the way to go first.

Here in Norway, we still don't have Norwegian e-books. Well we do, but the selection is piss poor and the publishers here are being childish. For example, if you want to buy an audio book in Norwegian, you go to the store and instead of CDs you can purchase these "special media players" which are really cheap flash based MP3 players. You pay about $80-$150 a book and you can't even return the player when you're done. This is their way of offering with DRM. Sure, you still have the analog loophole, but since the device only plays back in real time, it can take 40 hours to copy a single book. So, we as consumers don't bother buying it and instead opt for the English version of the book from amazon, iTunes, etc...

Re:Good point, modern DRM is symbolic

[dwinks616]

In short, DRM is entirely ineffective. All it's doing is making it a hair more inconvenient to pirate than to buy.

I think you meant it's making it more convenient to pirate than to buy. It takes 15 seconds to find and click on a torrent, and just as long to download (or less) than the "legal" content. When I'm done, I have music/video that I can listen to on any device I want, watch on anything I want, easily put on my phone, transcode, etc. Until the content is available DRM free and at reasonable prices ($0.05 a song, $0.20 per 30 minute tv show, $1 a movie at most) I'll continue to use torrents. Even at a mere $0.05 a track, it will still cost MORE than I paid for my droid phone to fill up its SD card once.

Re:Good point, modern DRM is symbolic

[delinear]

In short, DRM is entirely ineffective. All it's doing is making it a hair more inconvenient to pirate than to buy.

If only that were true you might still be able to just about justify DRM as a means to deter casual piracy, but actually it's more likely to make it more inconvenient to buy than to pirate. Having to sit through ads/anti-copyright spam on DVDs I've paid for, or having games fail to run because the DRM decides it doesn't like my setup, or not being able to back up an expensive game disk before letting the kids loose with it, or having to jump through hoops to format or device shift music - these are all only concerns for the legitimate customer, the pirate can safely ignore them all and enjoy a truly unencumbered experience. As someone who does pay for his media, it's really frustrating to know that people are not only getting the same thing free, but that they're getting a substantially better experience in the bargain, and let me clarify that it's not the pirates I'm angry at, it's the companies. When will these big companies listen to what I - the person putting money into their pockets in the first place - want from my media, instead of chasing shadows?

And what would happen to the 200mil?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what would happen to the 200mil? NOTHING.

BD was effective for some time, but you didn't see any reduction in price from the reduction in piracy, did you. Windows XP's activation worked for some time, but the price was, if anything, higher (despite selling more casual copies "on the kids computers"). Why was that?

Because the losses aren't ploughed back in to the economy, they're kept.

Now, how much does that DRM cost in lost actual sales, production of DRM, licensing of DRM and support costs extras? After all 100% of the locked product is under DRM.

More than 200 milllion?

Aye.

Then you have to add on the FACT OF MEASUREMENT that when music was available for free on piracy networks ordinary joe could use, music sales were HIGHER.

After all, if you've found you actually LIKE the movie, there's no risk in buying it, is there...

Re:And what would happen to the 200mil?

[delinear]

Indeed - companies always argue they need DRM because of piracy and that piracy drives up the cost of our media, yet we know from masses of evidence that any time a company successfully controls the supply of a product they will abuse the hell out of that control to drive up prices. We've seen it time and again throughout history - more control does not mean lower prices - yet they expect us to buy into DRM on vague suggestions that less piracy means lower costs.

Rented DVD and video

[Anonymous Coward]

Rented DVD and video. No effective DRM there, but people rent DVDs AND RETURN THEM UNCOPIED. Not 100%, but most of the time because it's not worth the hassle when you can watch the movie again just by mooching over to the rental store and getting it again (with the advantage that you don't have to keep a load of burned DVDs organised and your conscience is clear).

Re:Rented DVD and video

[delinear]

Besides, when you're paying a flat fee for the service and can re-watch anything you want without having to pay again, it's even more ridiculous to think people would bother copying/storing this stuff. Why should I waste disk space when I can have them do it for me. Sure, you might get the odd guy who decides to download their entire library then cancel his subscription, but if people like that are really determined they'll get the content anyway, even if they have to install a stream ripped (or just go to a torrent site and get the full box set rips without the fee).

Dear Netflix....

[Lumpy]

If I WANT a copy of the movie I am streaming, I'm certianly not going to rip the 320X240 version you are sending to the phone. I'll add the DVD to my disc list and rip it when it shows up.

WTF is the paranoia over DRM on a very low quality phone video stream? Nobody will even WANT to rip that stream, That is the best DRM possible, make it a crappy quality.

Can you imagine a world without DRM?

[roystgnr]

Movies would become copyable! You'd be able to go right over to Google, type "avatar torrent", and get millions of hits pointing you at places where you could download Avatar without paying its producers a dime!

So what if the studios have to make it harder for those of us who are willing to pay them? Surely not getting as much of our money is a small price to pay, as long as they're successfully preventing nightmarish copyright infringement such as I described above. Why, the only conceivable excuse for giving up on DRM would be if, for some strange reason, it doesn't actually work.

Netflix or Productivity?

[daspecster]

So the choices are (movies and netflix) or my smartphone? You know what...if I cancelled my netflix and stopped going to see movies...that would free up so much of my time! I could spend time figuring out how to make my millions instead of gaining weight on the sofa! Even if I don't make my millions I could read and expand my mind! Plus with all the money I save I could probably buy a used sports car and have some REAL fun. Hmmm...which should I choose?

Netflix on PPC Macs?

[Anonymous Coward]

And why no Netflix for PPC macs?

You, sir, are why we have DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

I recenetly needed Frontpage or Dreamweaver for a business I want to start and can not afford a new one. .

I hope you won't object when people using your new business don't pay you when they can't afford it. I know you'll be very altruistic and offer your services for free.

Hopefully, you don't complain when they say it is only trying before buying and if your services are OK--by their definition, not yours--you might be paid.

FYI: This isn't a real issue

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a company that one of our main products is a movie streaming service to mobile devices including Android. We have no such problems creating streaming content that satisfies the movie studios.

Android has Flash support.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am okay with not having Netflix on my Nexus One. I have full, stable, flash support. Not being able to stream Netflix to a screen with is ~5 inches is not a big deal. Where this could end up being a deal breaker for potential sales is on Android based tablets. Then again these tablets will have full flash support where iOS still has none.

What's the point of DRM on a portable device?

[slapout]

What's the point of DRM for streaming content on a portable device anyway? The DRM is just going to eat up more cellular bandwidth and require more cpu on the device. The device isn't going to have enough space to store the whole movie. The fact that it's streaming (and will therefore only have a small portion of the movie in memory at any one time) should negate the need for DRM. It's just crazy

Re:Slightly Offtopic -- Opinion on VOD home system

[suutar]

Kaleidiscape tried to make a hard-drive based dvd jukebox awhile back, and got sued out of existence. It's a durn shame; I'd have loved to buy one.

Re:Slightly Offtopic -- Opinion on VOD home system

[suutar]

I take it back. They're still in business, and they seem to have come up with ways to approximate their storage system, though it looks like it involves streaming from their site.

Technically, metdata is not DRM

[SuperKendall]

it embeds your iTunes information within tags in the song file

That's not DRM. It what way does that manage rights? Metadata is just there, it doesn't cause anything to work or not work on any device.

Re:Slightly Offtopic -- Opinion on VOD home system

[suutar]

Nope, I'm wrong. it stores on hard disks in the unit, and streams from there to your player unit (unless you get the combined one). It appears that for blu-rays you have to leave the physical disk in the "Disc Vault" carousel, but not for DVDs. Looks pretty cool. I wish I could afford it :)

Check facts; you have timeline wrong.

[SuperKendall]

I'm afraid you're the revisionist. EMI announced that they will make their catalog available w/o DRM before Job's open letter.

Check(Feb 2007) your facts(April 2007).

I'm pretty sure that like all Apple haters you really believed what you posted, hatred does that to a mind... you need to try and snap out of this mind altering hatred you cannot break free of. No company is worth the mental energy it takes to hate them so much it distorts time.

I'm not going to read your response since I really doubt you can do anything but some Hater inspired display of vitrol, but if you can recover I wish you the best.

Re:Check facts; you have timeline wrong.

[dhavleak]

Dig a little deeper. I know this because I followed the whole thing incredibly closely and I remember my anger at Jobs when he appropriated the DRM-free movement without so much as even a nod towards the people that had been fighting for this for so long.

I don't have a problem with Apple. I do have a problem with Steve Jobs, primarily because I think he's deceitful. I don't understand why saying something unfavorable means that I hate Apple, and from your reaction it really looks like you idolize them (or Jobs, or both). No company is worth that. But as I said, to each their own.

Your original post said something about us being thankful to Apple, which made me puke a little because Apple in no way led the movement, they merely used it to escape regulatory scrutiny in Europe, the timing was brilliant for them, and as usual their PR was masterful. They did good by offering us the privilege to buy non-DRMed tracks for 30 cents extra. But thank them??? Hell fucking no.

Anyway.. I'm breaking my own rules now.. threads like this rarely result in anyone changing their mind, and I hate becoming a caricature of the internet tough guy meme.. I hope I have the strength to not respond to the next message on this thread.

Who needs this?

[androidsdream]

I apologize if I am obtuse on this (as may be the case) But I just don't see how netflix on a phone is even useful. The idea of watching a full-length movie on it is not appealing to me. Also, streaming over 3g is going to eat up battery life (and your data cap) quicker than anything else. Using it on wi-fi makes sense, but if I 'm near wi-fi why don't I just watch on my laptop/iPad?