Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Wants To Go HTML5, But Not Without DRM
FuzzNugget writes "In a recent blog post, Netflix details their plans to transition from Silverlight to HTML5, but with one caveat: HTML5 needs to include a built-in DRM scheme. With the W3C's proposed Encrypted Media Extensions, this may come to fruition. But what would we sacrificing in openness and the web as we know it? How will developers of open source browsers like Firefox respond to this?"
The great thing about Silverlight is its ability to stream content as your internet line can take it. This means Silverlight will dynamically adjust the video and audio bitrate so that even users on less-than-fast lines can stream Silverlight video content.
That is a clear advantage over Flash and/or HTML5 based video content. Another is the easy integration with other projects when using visual studio. It enables you to rapidly develop new software and code.
This being said, the DRM probably isn't as needed by the Netflix itself but the content providers. It most likely says somewhere in their contracts that Netflix has to use DRM when streaming their content. It's the movie studios that demand it, not Netflix.
Throwing a tantrum and crying like babies, instead of enabling users worldwide to use the web in the ways the web offers. Remember the h.264/mp4 debacle? Yeah.
... they would transition to providing shows I actually want to watch, and in a timely manner.
Wouldn't be surprised if they're being arm-twisted by their content providing cartel. Nice reminder they haven't up and died yet. As if we needed one, re cispa.
You went with Silverlight. Now have fun being stuck with Silverlight. The end.
The Studios That Provide Content for Netflix Want To Go HTML5, But Not Without DRM
FTFY
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
For the love of all that is good NetFlix, just leave it alone. Currently you have the smoothest video streaming service available, there's nothing wrong with it. Leave it alone.
also, anything that can be displayed on my screen can be recorded and saved into a file. it doesn't matter if it's in silverlight, flash or html
The only way DRM can work if if you make the decrypted video uncaptureable. So on any system where the root user can read the frame buffer there is no point. HTML5 DRM will only work on systems that have DRM build in to the OS, which is pretty much the same systems that have silverlight.
The only way i can see it ever getting to linux is if the encrypted stream can be passed to rights managed hardware on a GPU. but then if i have a GPU that can effectively play the encrypted stream, why would i ever worry about decrypting it in the first place, i could dump the network stream to disk, and play back through GPU whenever I wanted.
Won't stop it from being cracked on the same day it is implemented.
And then they will be stuck with broken DRM for ages at the pace W3C goes at.
To create an incredibly complex DRM scheme would require a lot of resources to do in realtime.
Not only that, it will STILL be displayed on a screen, and it will STILL be sending audio through a sound driver.
It is trivial to setup both a screen recorder and virtual audio capture driver.
I really don't see why people are worrying.
Yeah, they could have used.... Flash. Hooray? Or Apple HLS?
The bottom line is that non DRMed content is a non-starter for them. It's not that they can't figure out how to get away from Silverlight, it's that they can't figure out where to go instead.
They want DRM but since that doesn't actually work they'll be wanting secure boot with a signed software stack all the way down. This would require the exclusion of Firefox and others. Somehow I doubt the Encrypted Media Extension would actually allow the plugin to work in an open source browser. If it does, then all it really does is allow a locked down app to be displayed in the web browser and get stuff fed into it from said browser. Why not just give people your locked down app and forget about the browser? The browser can still be told to open links using external apps, so this would still allow people to link to videos and such.
I really don't see the need for adding EME to HTML5. What are the actual use cases that don't have simple solutions without it?
I'm done with DRM. If it's required, then I'm not interested.
Just a side note: to use current Netflix on Linux, guys uses wine + firefox + moonlight. And it works pretty fine. See more here, a working ppa with all the solution working: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2084592 This is a good point about current Linux distros status: if you don't want port your application, no problem, we can simulate your environment. Ok, not FOSS solution, but at least works.
"But what would we sacrificing in openness and the web as we know it?"
Let's recap. The proposal for opened and standardized DRM method in HTML is just a bunch of callback and methods so a media content can say it has a protection and then the web browser can look up in its plugin repository if a DRM plugin can decrypt the content. The HTML part is 100% open and standardized. The actual DRM encryption and keys are not. Which is the point of any DRM scheme.
So adding DRM support into HTML, as media play/pause/method already did, won't make the Web more closed or more proprietary. The opposite is true.
Currently, media owner that choose to use protection for their content must rely on proprietary technologies. With a standard DRM framework (ie for distributing and handling protected content, not the part of decrypting it), at least, we could have much more openness on this kind of content.
Now, adding DRM to HTML does NOT change the web. Should an actor decide to use those DRMs features, you are totally free to NOT use their services. But the thing for sure is that we will have much more actors ready to use standard and open functionality to distribute their content in a protected way.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Netflix is already using HTML5 for Chromebook. It was already discussed here on Slashdot.
How come they can't roll this out to web browsers more generically? Getting the DRM binary blob installed in the client's web browser is an issue or something?
Better known as 318230.
I know it's blasphemy to say so, especially on Slashdot, but I have zero problem with Netflix using DRM. Why? It's a rental service. I have not purchased these videos. I do not own them. Therefore I have no expectation of any sort of rights to do what I want with them. So, as while I'm totally against it for things like iTunes or a BluRay. It completely makes sense to me that Netflix needs some sort of mechanism, even if it only keep 99% of people from keeping a local copy.
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
They could have done what they do on Android an iOS - made a Netflix app.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Wouldn't be surprised if they're being arm-twisted by their content providing cartel.
Netflix is producing or more likely, co-producing original content, which in time, will make its way into other distribution channels.
I know that people are generally opposed to DRM - shoot, I am one of them, because half the time, it doesn't work right, but if the system works.... I bought an eInk reader a few months back, and actually tried buying books through them, but the books would only stay authorized for a few days - to get them to work again, I had to delete both the book and the sql database off the tablett and resync. CD checks on games are always a bitch, and internet-verification games - shoot, I almost always download cracks for them, even though I legally own them.
But when DRM works fine - IE, I stick a DVD in my player and it plays, or I stick a Blu-Ray in and it plays, I am fine. Oh, upconverting only works over HDMI? No problem, I haven't run component in years (well, except for the XBox as I have one of the early models). What does annoy me is when you get a Blu-Ray that won't play on certain players (ie non-PS3s) until you apply some firmware update (actually, may have the issues with non-patched PS3s as well, but I normally keep it updated to stream Netflix).
I have considered jailbreaking the PS3, though, to play region-locked discs. Luckily, many Blu-Rays are region-free, or are available in the US, but I have come across a few region B locked discs that don't have US releases.
Had to replace an HDMI cable a few months ago because it was having handshake issues. Granted, HDMI cables are only a couple of bucks, but the only issue I had with this cable was that it would loose sync for about half-a-second every 30 minutes or so, didn't really even notice, until I moved and plugged that cable up to my Blu-Ray player instead of to the cable-box, and in my new area, then realizing that my new cable company DRMed everything, even free OTA channels.
Netflix is currently the only streaming video app that seems to work on my rooted Android tablet (Time Warner Cable, Hulu, and Ultraviolet in Flixster won't work on rooted devices), not sure what streaming methodology they are using on Android, but willing to bet its not silverlight. As long as I can still use it on my tablett, I am fine.
Where was I going with this? Oh yeah, so I am fine with DRM IF IT WORKS and is WELL IMPLEMENTED. I understand protecting your stuff, and I am a collector, so like to have Physical media in my hands anyways. But if I have authorization errors, handshake issues, and my legal media just doesn't work, I will break your DRM or pirate the product. I tried playing your game, but if you don't play nice....
So, as long as the HTML5 DRM works, I am fine with it.
At least flash is supported on more platforms.
The simple answer is just make a native netflix application. The web browser is not needed.
Dear Netflix,
Fuck you.
Sincerely,
Everyone.
Why do they need DRM, when they already only send you data in real time? There is an inherent limit to how much you could possibly pirate with Netflix (wall clock) and it seems like it'd be pretty easy to figure out when someone was programmatically stream ripping (everyone has to sleep... eventually).
Amazon Prime and Hulu have effectively no DRM (they use RTMPE, known broken for years and years through a trivial MITM attack) and I don't think anything on TPB comes from either of them.
Yes, and the killswitch too.
I know it's blasphemy to say so, especially on Slashdot,
Pretty much yeah.
but I have zero problem with Netflix using DRM
Curious.
It's a rental service. I have not purchased these videos. I do not own them. Therefore I have no expectation of any sort of rights to do what I want with them.
What so? You can (or used to be able to) rent DVDs and do whatever the hell you liked with them within the bounds of copyright law. Making something a rental does not magically make it different.
even if it only keep 99% of people from keeping a local copy.
Says the man with a good internet connection.
I find it much better to download a high quality local copy and then watch that, then delete it (e.g. on iPlayer). That's also a perfectly reasonable way to use such a service, especially as with that I'm not held to ransom by my crappy internet connection.
And can you rent a copy, put it on your phone (no not stream to the phone) as a downloaded copy so you can watch it with no cell service?
You may support defective by design software because it happens to suppor the small subset of things that you happen to do with it, but do not pretend that is is reasonable or lets people do all the reasonable things they want.
There is no technical difference between a reasonable copy for reasonable purposes and an illegal copy for nefarious ones. That is why DRM is always, without exception, bad.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Netflix is facing some hard choices. With Microsoft abandoning Silverlight on its own sites, the writing is on the wall. I say, let Netflix demand anything it pleases, and ignore all such demands. Eventually, Netflix will have to switch from Silverlight to something, and HTML5 is the obvious choice. If Netflix can't get DRM in the standard, they'll still have to find a way to keep streaming using existing standards.
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
And this is why extremism, even with the best intentions is also bad.
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
It's missing from the last sentence of the summary and it makes no sense without it.
Since he (and no on besides you) gives a shit about the things you bring up your point is moot.
Not sure how the heck it protects itself from a fake video driver
That probably has something to do with the "Winqual" process.
The great thing about HTML5 is that it runs on all devices at no cost unlike Silverlight.
Using which video codec? AVC has a cost, and VP8 is illegal if the patent court agrees with Nokia.
Firefox cannot implement it because opensource DRM is absolutely not possible.
"A browser like Mozilla is *legally prevented* from actually implementing DRM, because they have to reveal all their code, including the decryption code that contains the secrets you use to decrypt," said Google Chrome team member Tab Atkins Jr., in a reply to the mailing list discussion.
"The proposal comes from authors at Google, Microsoft and Netflix, companies that stand to profit from the union of HTML5 and DRM ... Netflix responded that this particular component of a browser would have to be implemented as closed source"
All your arguments are pointless. Netflix is not a service that rents physical media, it's a stream service. If your device can't stream, it's not Netflix's problem.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I have zero problem with Netflix using DRM. Why? It's a rental service. I have not purchased these videos. I do not own them.
I agree 100%. That said, I have a problem with DRM in the html5 spec. I think Netflix has found a perfect reason to continue using Silverlight, and I have no problems with that.
And this is why extremism, even with the best intentions is also bad.
You appear to be making a point. Generally when making a point one actually has to make it otherwise your posts become inscrutable.
Your post: DRM is reasonable on rentals because it stops people making a local copy.
My post: Taking a local copy is entirely reasonable for a rental for a variety of reasons.
Your post: And this is why extremeism even with the best intentions is also bad.
My post: WTF?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I agree with you _but_...
Why the heck would I want to download a Netflix video to my hard drive? It would just fill it up. I can stream Netflix movies to my appleTV or iPad, so the only reason I might download something is if I wanted to watch it when I was going to be disconnected.
Netflix has made piracy unnecessary by making so much great content available for a reasonable rate... there's no reason to protect against it anymore, since Netflix is a more convenient way of watching the content than any pirate collection of videos. They've won. Just like being able to buy audio tracks means I no longer have to go to pirate sites to try to find music I like. Piracy is becoming obsolete as content availability becomes totally reasonable.
Celebrate Excellence!
Please please please please make your website even slower and clunkier with even more lag and stutter and weird formatting that barely runs on a high end machine w/o making the viewer wonder if it's going to crash. I beg of you. Because there's nothing and I mean nothing like the smell of Reed Hastings backed by Hedge Fund Money to crap all over their customers with Marie Antoinette indifference to make me want to run outside and shoot everyone in the neighborhood.
A reasonable argument, and I support your right to use DRM. But you can install whatever DRM'ed client software Netflix requires yourself and keep that junk out of the HTML specification where it's not welcome.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
And how would a DRM standard inhibit the openness of HTML5? It's just like the video tag, you don't have to use it. And it certainly has nothing to do with openness of internet as currently the same people are using flash or silverlight.. The advantage of having a DRM standard in HTML5 is not having to use plugins like flash or silverlight. I certainly don't know why a lot of people are so opposed to having DRM options in HTML5, as a developer you're not forces to use them if you don't want to.. And existence of DRM in itself is something people are responsible for themselves, if they just had bought everything nicely in the past instead of just ripping it without paying, DRM would never have been a necessity (yes as a user you may say it's not necessary, but try and view it from a content producer's standpoint).
I'm not a fan of DRM. If I purchase and download a video or audio file, I don't want some stupid protection scheme preventing me from playing it on arbitrary devices. I want to transcode it and watch it on my smart phone. I want to watch it on a Linux box.
But Netflix is a SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE. By paying a monthly fee, I get access to unlimited streaming content, with the tradeoff that I can't just suck content down to my computer and hoard it. So when I choose to end my subscription, access to the unlimited streaming ends. This is a perfectly reasonable business model. It's analogous to renting a DVD vs. buying one. If I buy one, I should be able to rip it. If I rent one, it's unethical for me to rip it. The DRM scheme is orthogonal to this moral dilemma. So as far as Netflix is concerned, the DRM is something I don't even need to know about it, as long as I'm able to reliably stream content I've paid for access to.
People complain about the patent protection on H.264 for content they want to download. But I believe the FSF has even pointed out how this is irrelevant for subscription streaming services. You're paying a subscription fee, and a small portion of this is paid to the patent holder to give you and your provider use of the technology. Keep in mind that patents aren't evil; they're just heavily abused. And use of patented technology in a streaming service isn't abusive (at least not in the case of Netflix).
In other words what we want isn't "no DRM." What we want is control over media we've rightfully paid for. Most of us aren't pirates. We just want our money's worth. What that means, in many cases, is a requirement for "no DRM." When you're using a subscripion service, failure to access the content you've paid for is an IT problem, not an abuse of DRM. (The fact that Netflix isn't yet available for Linux is a side issue. That's a gap in platform support, not a DRM problem.)
Oh, and one other point: Supporting DRM is WAY MORE of a pain for Netflix than it is for the user. For most users (except those on unsupported platforms), Netflix "just works." Netflix engineers have to wrestle with this stupid impediment in order to do what they really want to do, which is to stream content. But they can't get that content without satifying the content providers who demand the use of DRM. If you really want to pick on someone, go after the content companies.
Because the viewpoint you're posting with is exactly why I felt the need to make my first post at all. Slashdot is unfortunately filled with so many zealots that it's hard to put out a moderate viewpoint sometimes. Your assumption that "DRM is always bad because it's DRM" comes off pretty extremist to me. Sorry if I somehow misread your sentiment though...
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
There is no DRM in HTML5. The spec everyone's so up in arms about simply adds hooks where a 3rd party plugin can connect with it. The actual DRM component will never be part of the actual HTML spec.
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
I know that, but it's still adding support for a DRM scheme in the HTML5 specification, even if there is no DRM included. Why not let the 3rd party plugin handle all of the DRM itself? This keeps stupid crap out of the official spec and makes it harder for the use of DRM to spread via a convenient universal API.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
HTML is a markup language that attempts to be cross platform and presentation agnostic, whereas DRM is all about controlling the user experience.
1) DRM is not an actual type of media content, it's just a way of regulating access in time and space: It's like the bad old days when HTML designers were forcing us to browse their websites EXACTLY in 800x600 on a particular browser. Here you're supposed to have EXACTLY the right credentials from EXACTLY the right secure enviromnent. This is just as stupid. Today most people browse the web from a phone where even desktop style drop down menus from 5 years ago are a pain.
2) DRM in HTML kills web pages: Documents and web pages are timeless. Any web page that exists today, if it is archived, can be displayed 10 years from now. But in 10 years, the DRM content will be impossible to read because either the authentication servers are gone, or your credentials no longer work, or the product has been discontinued, etc. Either way, a web page becomes corrupted for reading. Documents are archivable. Digital rights are not.
3) DRM makes the Internet brittle: If you have DRM on lots of web pages, when it goes stale it's going to be like 404's without Google's page cache. Is that the web we want?
4) DRM support has no business being part of HTML: The HTML standard is already a very complex language. Anyone who wants to implement a web browser or HTML parser has to support a lot of things. There's no reason why DRM should be supported as well, just to have a standards compliant HTML parsing system.
5) The end result of 4) is that programmers and companies who must support HTML documents, as it gets more complex, won't implement the full standard, just the tiny bits they actually need. Then we'll be back in the 90s with incompatible browsers and parsers everywhere.
6) DRM breaks transparency. For example, think about what it takes to implement a spam filter that parses HTML pages as in 4). With DRM content locking away parts of an HTML document, this breaks the security model. A random spam filter is obviously not going to have account access to view/scan whatever the content is, so either it lets it through (hello spammers/phishers) or it blocks it without trying (hello user complaints).
7) If companies like Netflix want DRM, they should put it where it already belongs, at the server in the authentication part of the HTTP protocol. HTML is a document format for content, digital rights aren't content.
8) Alternatively, Netflix can build a DRM plugin and require its users to use it. Oh but wait, with all the different browsers we're now using, that would be painful to support everywhere, right? Much better to ask the WHOLE WORLD to support DRM and keep it up to date, so that Netflix doesn't need to do anything! Wrong. DRM is sufficiently niche that those companies that want to use it should implement it themselves, and support it themselves. It's common sense.
9) DRM is a business model, not a content markup. And as business models go, it's quite expensive to implement, since a single breach in the chain invalidates it and we all know that some hackers crack those chains just for fun. So it's natural that Netflix doesn't want to pay for it, and prefers to externalise the cost to the Internet at large. We shouldn't let it.
10) I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'll stop now. Just say no to DRM in HTML.
Sorry if I somehow misread your sentiment though...
Well, yes you did and it would seem somewhat intentionally, because my post wasn't "DRM is bad because it's DRM", but "DRM is bad because it prevents perfectly legetimate use since it is impossible to destinguish between legetimate use and illegetimate use".
And I provided some examples, which you ignored.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Currently I torrent all of the content I consume.
Even forgetting the cost piracy still beats streaming in the following ways:
1. new content is available almost as soon as it is broadcast (hello game of thrones)
2. content never goes away due to marketing schemes (unless it is so obscure or old that absolutely nobody seeds it)
3. I download once, and keep as long as I like.
4. Transfer and view on any device I own or give a copy to a friend without jumping through any hoops.
5. Works on Linux (htpc is linux only)
That said if Netflix added a Steam-like model where I could download the content to view offline (as much as I wanted to store, no arbitrary limits), and a license checker phoned home once a month then I would subscribe in a heartbeat. That would certainly be worth $15-20 a month. The current service is not.
even if it only keep 99% of people from keeping a local copy.
99% of people don't want a local copy. Otherwise they'd be ripping DVD's. I know we all know lots of other geeks, but really, the people who rip DVD's are the 1%'ers in the tech world. Those people will find a way to capture DRM'ed Netflix streams anyway.
So the entire exercise is a waste of time, other than that some wankers at the studios don't understand the above paragraph. IP is an immoral concept, so to enshrine it in a W3C standard is the wrong thing to do. Making something immoral easy is to pervert the proper incentives structures.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Silverlight does not work on anything except Windows XP, Vista, 7 and 8.
DRM screws all legitimate customers to (temporarily) frustrate a few bad eggs. also bad. and also tends to only be provided to the software giants who pay big and patent everything.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Is it something you can eat ? Who cares about users as long as you can be virtual dictador ruling over ... nothing.
But.. but.. my entitlement! a bloo bloo bloo
I wonder if Netflix really understands its own benefit to its customers.
1. Anyone can get any show they want from 'illegal' areas like torrents or various streaming websites.
In short, if I actually wanted to get illegal content, I, like everyone else out there can already do it.
The reason we go with Netflex is because it is very convenient to not have to sit around searching torrents, encoding/decoding video files, dealing with crappy hosting websites, dealing with suspicious malware, hacking around with javascript ...
Netflix is cheap enough to get paid for convenience.
It is the convenience we are paying for with Netflix.
So what exactly is NetFlix trying to prevent us from doing with DRM? I have no idea. If we want to go through all that trouble, we'd be torrenting anyways.
You method of control is pretty simple netflix. Track users and what they are watching. If you see too many people using the same account from different countries or whatever, then you know someone is sharing the account. I'm assuming they can do this in HTML5... or maybe I'm mistaken.
But DRM? You have no need for it NetFlix.
Netflix is very likely only trying to check a checkbox on their licensing contract, said contract made with the big movie umbrellas, who themselves represent people who are quite a bit detached from reality and/or sign blanket contracts that don't differentiate between usages. That big chains mean some licensees like Netflix have to fulfill requirements that don't necessarily make sense.
I have no expectation of any sort of rights to do what I want with them.
So you don't mind not being able to watch those videos? On a device of your choice? At the time you want to? Want to skip or pause, rewind?
DRM is the way to a painful existence. It's also giving Big Media new rights and scrapping our rights like fair use.
I say give me liberty of death.
just like Apple getting rid of drm on mp3s, Netflix would be a lot more successful if they get rid of the drm and allow people to watch content on whatever device they want to. I know I would watch a lot more if they did not limit their content to only certain devices and software stacks.
You may support defective by design software because it happens to suppor the small subset of things that you happen to do with it, but do not pretend that is is reasonable or lets people do all the reasonable things they want. There is no technical difference between a reasonable copy for reasonable purposes and an illegal copy for nefarious ones. That is why DRM is always, without exception, bad.
So, I'm pretty sure I did read you right. Your words make it sound like you're pretty hardcore in believing this to be a binary issue, with no option for a middle ground. Pretty much the definition of extremism. That and the use of Stallman's old "defective by design" rhetoric. So, I think we're done here...or at least I am.
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Netflix needs is pushed to the rest of the open Web.
It is Netflix problem how they implement DRM in an open Web. It is not a problem of the open Web.
The issue is not about Netflix needing DRM. The issue is about DRM included in the open Web.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
Netflix has decided to make changes to its Application Programming Interface (API). These changes include eliminating the database (called the OData catalog) that Streaming Soon uses to inform you of new and upcoming content on Netflix. You can read more about it here. Sadly, this means the end of the line for Streaming Soon, unless Netflix reactivates this database. If you would like to send an e-mail to Netflix about this, please direct it to publicapi@netflix.com Thank you for your support over the years. It has been a pleasure enhancing your Netflix experience.
That sucks...
Hopefully they will allow it again in the future.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Oh come on!
I say "let's give it to them." It would be a warm-fuzzy for them. Meanwhile, people with source code or whatever will have access to the streams unencrypted through a modified browser or addon which will then enable them to save directly to their local storage. Their combination of greed and paranoia will be to the public's benefit eventually, but the sooner we move away from proprietary addons and the like, the better. It's a "net win" so to speak.
That's what always drives me crazy. There's a lot of times where a DVD or BluRay isn't viable (ie, traveling with a tablet or ultrabook) and streaming away from a solid connection is only really viable IMHO if you don't care about your cellular data consumption or you're in a place with awesome wireless, which almost never means a hotel, airplane or in a car.
I would think that Netflix could somehow implement a secure checkout system like Apple iTunes or Amazon instant, possibly even integrating it into your disc queue so that it counted as a physical disc.
It's a rental service. I have not purchased these videos. I do not own them. Therefore I have no expectation of any sort of rights to do what I want with them.
What so? You can (or used to be able to) rent DVDs and do whatever the hell you liked with them within the bounds of copyright law. Making something a rental does not magically make it different.
Legally, you can't do anything other than watch a rented DVD any place you can physically take the DVD player plus the content (the rented DVD).
The Netflix model is identical, in that you can watch the content anywhere you can physically take the Netfilix player device and the content. The Netflix player device might be a phone or a standalone box (Roku, etc.) and the content is streamed from a server. This means that anywhere you have Internet access and can take the player device and connect it to the Internet, you can play the content.
Says the man with a good internet connection.
I find it much better to download a high quality local copy and then watch that, then delete it (e.g. on iPlayer). That's also a perfectly reasonable way to use such a service, especially as with that I'm not held to ransom by my crappy internet connection.
And can you rent a copy, put it on your phone (no not stream to the phone) as a downloaded copy so you can watch it with no cell service?
If Netflix doesn't offer the features you want, then you can pay for a service that does. It's not likely you'll find any service that has a price point anywhere near that of Netflix for your use case, though, as most "rent and download to view offline" services are charging at least $2/movie, and usually closer to $4. As long as you only want to watch 2-3 movies/month, then Netflix isn't a good deal, but for more than that, it's pretty much unbeaten, although Amazon Prime isn't bad, as you also get other benefits.
How is IP an immoral concept? You can't just make blanket statements like that and act like it's something everyone agrees with you on.
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
The internet should be an open, free exchange of information. The internet should not be co-opted to lock down information to prevent access. If a company's business model does not work, then the company can go brick themselves up in a walled garden and try to lure people inside.
You both make valid arguments, but I side with the grandparent (DRM == fine for rental SERVICES) more than your argument.
Fine, ignoring the Netflix EULA which I'm sure is long and requires a law-degree to understand 100%... you know what's going on. You subscribed to their streaming service so they could stream movies to you. They only want you to be able to do it under specific conditions (in certain countries, on certain devices, etc). Heck, in the EULA it probably says that trying to bypass their security and download their content will result in civil action of something.
You know what they mean and you know what you're paying for. Saying "Well I'm still technically doing what the service provides" is trying to be sneaky. And even if you are doing what you suggest, nobody else would. They would just download it and either distribute it or keep it long after they cancel their sub.
Ignoring the fact that this is a service and legal-else and what not. The ESSENCE of what you're describing is like a grade-schooler saying "you said we could play outside, you didn't say we couldn't climb on top of the school and run on the roof"
Or (as an adult) you ask a friend and neighbor if you can borrow his car to pick something up from the store. He agrees and the throws you the keys. 36 hours go by and you return the car to a pissed off friend.
- W T F were you?!?!?
- Oh, sorry you said I could borrow your car to run to the store so I decided to drive 2 states over and go to THAT store. You SAID I could go to the store, so that's what I did.
But DRM? You have no need for it NetFlix.
Netflix needs DRM because the studios/content owners insist on it. No DRM, not content licensing deals.
That's the only reason.
I will add... I'd be more on your side if you were talking about iTunes movies and stripping off the DRM from them. As the whole "licensed file" vs "purchased file" debate / argument is a bit more valid since we're not really talking about a subscription service. You paid for that file to sit on your hard-drive until the sun grows cold.
But here, you're talking about working around a streaming subscription service in a way that would result in being able to permanently download their library.
Seriously why is this even worth fighting for? It'll be broken within a month and an unofficial patch will be available for open source browsers.
\u262D = \u5350
Well, this is how you ended your "argument"...
Indeed. Typically an argument has a concluding statement preceedeb by supporting argunments. That's a far cry from the claim that I just said it's bad because it's bad.
Your words make it sound like you're pretty hardcore in believing this to be a binary issue, with no option for a middle ground.
What is the middle ground? Either you have DRM or you don't. How is it anything other than binary? I guess you could have exceptionally obnoxious forms (like the recent Sims game), but it is pretty much binary.
Pretty much the definition of extremism.
Yes in that a conclusion reached by a series of arguments backed up with personal experience is extremism. I happen to agree with RMS because I have previously purchased encumbered things and I can no longer use them despite paying good money for a completely legal copy. This has now happened a number of times to me, with various sorts of different DRM. At this point I'd feel that throwing good money after bad is a form of madness (inability to learn from experience) than anything else.
You are basically advocating the polar opposite: so by your definition that is also extremism.
So, I think we're done here...or at least I am.
Well, yeah. You clearly ran out of anything cohrerent to say 3 posts ago.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Perhaps you should send them a list of shows they should be providing, along with all your other demands.
The film Song of the South and the animated series Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea. These are both decades old, and neither is available on DVD.
And this is why extremism, even with the best intentions is also bad.
Why are you so adamant about forbidding slavery? You don't want people to be able to secure cheap work force without the risk of employees quitting? Come on, learn to compromise!
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Fine...let's play your game...
What is the middle ground? Either you have DRM or you don't. How is it anything other than binary? I guess you could have exceptionally obnoxious forms (like the recent Sims game), but it is pretty much binary.
So, now you've made it clear you either did not even read my original post or most certainly did not comprehend it. The whole point is this: DRM on things you have purchased = Bad. DRM on things you rent = perfectly fine and reasonable.
Yes in that a conclusion reached by a series of arguments backed up with personal experience is extremism. I happen to agree with RMS because I have previously purchased encumbered things and I can no longer use them despite paying good money for a completely legal copy. This has now happened a number of times to me, with various sorts of different DRM. At this point I'd feel that throwing good money after bad is a form of madness (inability to learn from experience) than anything else.
Once again, we're NOT talking about things you have purchased! That IS bad...but that's not what we're frakking talking about here >_<
You are basically advocating the polar opposite: so by your definition that is also extremism.
No, if I was advocating the polar opposite, I'd be advocating that any and all things should have DRM! Because it's just awesome! (that was sarcasm, since apparently you need everything spelled out for you)
Well, if anything you have at least done the service for me today in remembering how pathetic this community is for when you actually want to have a discussion rather than iconoclasts spouting off the same repetitive bullshit. Slashdot comments might as well be a thread on 4chan it still seems. Thanks...
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
Have any of you tried to get multi-language subtitles working in an HTML5 video? You just can't do it. Especially for languages with multi-dialects like Chinese where you need zh-TW, zh-HK, etc. subtitles. I'd love to know how Netflix is going to deal with the lack of text tracks and adaptive streaming in HTML 5 video.
So, now you've made it clear you either did not even read my original post or most certainly did not comprehend it.
Yeah I did. I even pointed several examples of why DRM on rented things was annoying and intrusive.
Once again, we're NOT talking about things you have purchased! That IS bad...but that's not what we're frakking talking about here >_
You're still buying the right to watch it for a while.
Only apparently you have to watch it on the designated device (no transcoding it to another one) and you have to have a good enough internet connection that doesn't drop out at all while you're watching. That's terrible compared to, for example, a rented DVD.
Well, if anything you have at least done the service for me today in remembering how pathetic this community is for when you actually want to have a discussion rather than iconoclasts spouting off the same repetitive bullshit. Slashdot comments might as well be a thread on 4chan it still seems. Thanks...
You can believe that if you wish. Instead you are merely upset at your inability to convince someone else that your point of view is reasonable. In this case it's unlikely. I used to be on the other side of the fence and time and bitter experience have pushed me to this side, so you'd have to come up with a really compelling argument that I haven't heard before.
Or you can just blame the quality of the commenters. Up to you.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
People who 'sell' video have a stated goal. The decoded video image should NOT be interceptable anywhere along the chain to the digital display device. Only Human eyes (or a camera) should be able to 'capture' any frame of the video. All industry standards, including the hardware acceleration of video decoding in your PC or tablet, respect this requirement.
Open-source does NOT get to say "screw this". If a user wants a 'protected path' option so they can buy and watch video streams, the user must be given this ability.
There is a programming issue here, but not the one you think. Hardware accelerated video has the issue of being a 'special case'. It usually can only decode a fixed number of streams at one time. Imagine a web page that could only show 2 JPG images at once. We expect 'generality' from decode engines (any number of pictures, any number of sound streams), but video decoding usually lacks this.
Accepting that some video decoding is a 'special case' is a grown-up idea that clashes with a childish culture that too many old-school open-source/free software people hold sacred. Luckily, these people are increasing being sidelined as we prepare for the end of Wintel and the traditional PC.
Future solutions, including the browser, will have to accept the distinction between 'general' video streams and a DRM-video stream of high value to the user that almost certainly has focus on the display. HTML5 should accept such streams as a special case and not try to force them into a general video stream model. Follow the Bluray model, and accept no more than two DRM streams being decoded at the same time (which is how almost all hardware works- based on the 'need' for so-called PiP = picture-in-picture).
HTML5 can then assume ordinary video streams do NOT use DRM, and can be decoded by hardware or software, allowing for as many simultaneous streams as the computer can handle.
Just don't code in HTML5.
Not the movie (though silly horror sci-fi fun) but the phenomena. I still enjoy having Netflix (streaming only) but I've hit the wall of watching everything I'm really interested in, leaving me to check in once a week to see if anything new has shown up. It really brings home how glacially slow the hide-bound Hollywood middlemen are when it comes to unclenching their strangling claws.
It's a shame that some people get caught up so much in "being right" that they stop considering another's position, but don't leave because of it- there are several people willing to discuss and change opinions still here. That said, I think we'd agree that certain DRM is simply unacceptable, even if on things we rent. I feel like the renting/owning distinction isn't relevant in terms of DRM, though- IANAL, and so obviously my interpretation of law or what it should be is incorrect, but when I rent something, I feel like I have any capabilities that I would when owning it except I have to return it in its original condition at the end of the contract term. I wouldn't want my landlord checking in on me every minute to make sure I haven't done anything bad with my apartment, certainly. That said, there's plenty of other middle grounds to escape to. If I want to pay a local artist based on how often I listen to his music, I could write a simple script that calculated how much I owe him every month and display that info to me- and if I went over some limit that I personally chose, would halt reading the file and tell me so. That, IMO, constitutes DRM, but is a bit different in that I have absolute power in how much I'm paying and to who, I'm free to disable it if I wish, it's incredibly noninvasive, and it has zero legal enforcement. If we're willing to agree that this is DRM (which we may not!), then obviously the optimal amount of DRM- something that could, in theory, balance the wants of both the consumer and the producer of the content- lies somewhere within this spectrum.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Amazon Prime streaming video. Amazon Prime video uses no drm. You can get a plugin for xbmc and stream it on a linux box. If amazon can convince content providers to stream unencrypted video why can't netflix? No, this is netflix originally being in bed with Microsoft, and now just being d***s.
Why don't they just actually use Adobe flash for Windows and Linux pc's so that people actually get hardware accelerated decoding because Silverlight sure as hell doesn't support it with the streams netflix serves. Then at least on a linux PC you don't have to piss around with the netflix-desktop package which is basically a highly modified version of WINE along with firefox and the silverlight plugin just to load up the site and hope you get a decent framerate. And if you want to use the Media hint plugin for Firefox so you can actually get american netflix outside of the USA such as in Canada for example, you have to add that too.
And besides if i recall correctly wasn't HTML 5 not even hardware accelerated either?
It's a rental service. I have not purchased these videos. I do not own them. Therefore I have no expectation of any sort of rights to do what I want with them.
With digital distribution, the "Rental" vs "Purchase" distinction is illusory. The First Sale Doctrine does not apply in the absence of physical media. The "lack of ownership = lack of any rights" is the heart of "the VCR is the Boston Strangler" argument.
Just because you have no expectation of any sort of rights doesn't mean you don't have any rights, nor does it mean that other people don't also have any rights.
NetFlix can just implement their apps without using HTML5 video. Most their uses are on devices with custom apps for each (which I believe are HTML GUIs with a hacked in video player.)
There is no reason they must be web based on the desktop - they have custom apps for everything else.
NetFlix won't abandon HTML5 just because they won't get their way; they'll work around it just as they do TODAY.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
If their crappy content delivery method is susceptible to glitches and quality degredation, I will only subscribe if they are happy for my payments to suffer from similar quality degredation (bounced cheques/ washers and buttons instead of coins/ refused transactions).
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
I wonder if you understand how Netflix or content licenses work. The content owners contractually require Netflix to implement some sort of DRM. No DRM, no content licenses. No content licenses, no Netflix (yes, Netflix does own the rights for a handful of shows now, but nowhere near the majority). Do you understand now?
I want netflix without hacks. No one is forcing you to use that extension or twisting your arm so who gives a damn?
Your tone is belligerent and aggressive. He most certainly isn't alone in thinking that Netflix can use DRM to help sustain their (rental) business model. What exactly do you want to do with it that Netflix won't let you do? And then, why don't you take your money to a provider that does offer that option, rather than insisting a company gets rid of a reasonable (or at the very least defensible) policy purely to accommodate a small subset of its users.
It's simple - Netflix itself don't care about DRM. Content providers does. It's iTunes versus recording labels all over again.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
I would be really glad if that happend. Silverlight is worse than Flash and a serious pain in the ass for all non window users.
If Netflix had a service that I could actually use I would be ahppy to pay for it instead of watching slow rips on weid streaming sites.
But it would be even cooler when I did not ahve to turn on my ssh tunnel everytime I want to watch a english episode of X while using netflix.....
Hail and prasie to the service that manages to bring this to europe at a reasonable price!
We have learned a great deal in the last few decades. It's time to abandon the w3c, which has been overrun by commercial interests, and instead pursue a new noble vision.
The only way DRM can work if if you make the decrypted video uncaptureable. So on any system where the root user can read the frame buffer there is no point. HTML5 DRM will only work on systems that have DRM build in to the OS, which is pretty much the same systems that have silverlight.
The only way i can see it ever getting to linux is if the encrypted stream can be passed to rights managed hardware on a GPU. but then if i have a GPU that can effectively play the encrypted stream, why would i ever worry about decrypting it in the first place, i could dump the network stream to disk, and play back through GPU whenever I wanted.
All companies like Netflix need to be able to say is "look, it's DRM'd!" and the content industry suits will breathe a sigh of relief, and continue under the assumption that DRM ever does anything. That is as long as people like you don't shout from the rooftops that it won't work, sheesh! Stop ruining it for the rest of us.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
"They'll simply keep on doing what they do now and use Flash or Silverlight"
Except NetFlix write neither. The companies are dropping them for HTML5.
"or they'll ship a plugin."
They have to already: the DRM algorithm and secret has to be downloaded as a plugin-like system for NetFlix if they get their demands.
So, two of the three options aren't available, and the third one is no different from what they have to do if HTML5 doesn't get DRM or gets DRM and therefore no difference at all.
Except that HTML shouldn't define a DRM system, because the W3C web browser which is completely open source could NOT have the DRM mechanism in it or the DRM system is broken. If the reference implementation can't be built, then it isn't HTML.
He asked "Would you say that "light" prison rape without permanent harm isn't bad?".
It is asking WHY you consider "light" X OK, and giving an X where it's patently obvious that you cannot just claim "it's light, as in not damaging in certain ways".
You'd be surprised how annoying HDCP can be. You absolutely have to be running analog to do that which drops the quality a hair.
EME is not a built-in DRM scheme; it's a standard interface to DRM schemes in general.
EME has been in Chromium since m25 (behind a command-line flag initially) and is currently in Chrome stable and enabled-by-default.
Hence the " ... and major content providers support and use it". Its all very well having it in open platforms if nobody will allow you to use it in the open platforms. That could well be the case if providers worry about hacked versions of the browser saving content.
DRM:
1) attempts to protect company's paid content against the free distribution of this content between non-paying users;
2) attempts to restrict the number of devices where the DRM protected content can be used;
3) attempts to restrict the amount of activations of protected content by device;
4) is very difficult for the user to save the DRM protected content by medium or long term, due to replacement by newer devices or changing the login credentials (username and password).
So:
A) backup of the DRM protected content by the user is useless;
B) is a hell for users to manage;
C) software already exist that breaks items 1, 2 and 3 above.
D) several company don't use DRM technology correctly.
Reference:
i) How Digital Rights Management Works (http://www.howstuffworks.com/drm.htm).
How Digital Rights Management Works DRM: 1) attempts to protect company's paid content against the free distribution of this content between non-paying users; 2) attempts to restrict the number of devices where the DRM protected content can be used; 3) attempts to restrict the amount of activations of protected content by device; 4) is very difficult for the user to save the DRM protected content by medium or long term, due to replacement by newer devices or changing the login credentials (username and password). So: A) backup of the DRM protected content by the user is useless; B) is a hell for users to manage; C) software already exist that breaks items 1, 2 and 3 above; D) several company don't use DRM technology correctly. I think DRM is OK for rental services (short term retention without perpetual ownership). Reference: i) How Digital Rights Management Works (http://computer.howstuffworks.com/drm.htm).
one of the reasons I don't subscribe to any media repository is because of rubbish DRM.
I like to fully download something, stick it on whatever device I want and watch it without interruptions.
I am willing to pay good money for such a service, but no since they won't let me cache/download content all I end up with is buffering and not being able to watch stuff on a train.
This is the reason I don't subscribe to netflix, love film or whatever. If I own the physical media I can rip it, encode it or set it on fire.
All DRM is fundamentally broken (and I can't believe I'm quoting my father here):
If it can be watched, it can be recorded. Just like the 80s when they printed on vinyl sleeves that "cassette tapes are ruining the music industry"
...and Flash's reputation is justly ruined as a result. Silverlight/Moonlight was a solid product and had a good reputation. The problem with silverlight is that Microsoft is effectively abandoning it because it too believes the plugin era is dead, and so the Mono project is following suit.