4 ms·

It's a real shame that DRM once again stifles progress and limits the video resolution to 480p in this VR app.

by Strom 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- bonyt 11y ago
  > "The reasonable thing to do was just limit the streams to SD resolution – 720x480. That is slightly lower than I would have chosen if the need for a secure execution environment weren't an issue, but not too much" Looks like the need for a "secure execution environment" led to the limitation.
  - aianus 11y ago
    And yet all HD content is still easily available for pirating. When will content producers learn that they're losing money because of terrible distribution strategies and not because it's technically possible to pirate?
    - nemothekid 11y ago
      Content Producers everywhere pretty much realize DRM is a non starter. The reason its still in there is: 1.) There are old 5, 10, 15 year contracts that still stipulate that the content needs to delivered over some reasonably secure DRM system, and no one wants hire lawyers to renegotiate those contracts. 2.) For new contracts, content producers just reuse old contracts, and the side that wants to eschew DRM isn't usually the content producers. That said, when the other side brings up "how about we remove the DRM clause", the producers are pretty much "sure, for $100,000 more bucks". So its become a negotiating point the studios now hold to extort money from any platform that wants DRM-less content. You could wonder "why don't producers care about the UX" - for most big studios digital revenues are still nothing compared to physical sales and syndication rights - so they have no incentive to care.
      - aianus 11y ago
        > for most big studios digital revenues are still nothing compared to physical sales and syndication rights This begs the question. The revenues are nothing compared to physical sales and syndication because in many cases watching the content legally online is not an option at all.
        TodPunk 11y ago
        Actually, the harsh reality is that we do not yet have a digital content ecosystem that makes consuming any digital media easy for the vast majority of the population (US or otherwise). This is why netflix can do what they do: they have a walled garden where the entire experience is driven purely by their interface and delivery mechanisms (see also: Steam in the PC games space). I've written specs for studio approved DRM schemes and done pre-dvd content on in-flight entertainment systems. Please believe me when I say that it is a nightmare even if you DO know what you're doing with all the tech involved, but even if it weren't a legal problem there's a good example that is pretty damning as a foundational assumption: we still don't know how to share a file. I mean that sincerely: try to get your average non-tech worker to send a file to your grandmother on their own. I can not overstate this enough. This does not work. We have a lot of distance to cover before the digital content world cares about our niche whims.
        aianus 11y ago
        > we still don't know how to share a file I disagree. Without DRM it would be as simple as generating a temporary signed link to S3 upon clicking 'Buy'. I could implement it myself in an hour. Even grandma would be able to use it no problem (click buy -> double click file -> watch movie).
        fr0styMatt2 11y ago
        I'm curious about this, because I read your response but think I'm missing something. Non-techy people routinely consume digital content on YouTube or on their Facebook feeds. Most new 'smart' TVs stream YouTube at least as a minimum. Which part is difficult? Are you talking more about the tech from the content distributor's side (as opposed to the consumer)?
- acqq 11y ago
  It's in the Fine Article: "The reasonable thing to do was just limit the streams to SD resolution – 720x480. That is slightly lower than I would have chosen if the need for a secure execution environment weren't an issue"
- Strom 11y ago
  How is it DRM that is limiting that? There are four rather lengthy paragraphs and a graph in the article that explains this.
MichaelGG 11y ago
Yeah the moment I read about casting lighting based on screen contents, I was thinking "things you can't do with 'secure' output". Sad. This partially remains why other players are better than Netflix. If I ever need to really modify playback, I'm all set, no problem.

It's a real shame that DRM once again stifles progress and limits the video resolution to 480p in this VR app.

by Strom 11y ago

It's a real shame that DRM once again stifles progress and limits the video resolution to 480p in this VR app.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

bonyt 11y ago
> "The reasonable thing to do was just limit the streams to SD resolution – 720x480. That is slightly lower than I would have chosen if the need for a secure execution environment weren't an issue, but not too much" Looks like the need for a "secure execution environment" led to the limitation.
- aianus 11y ago
  And yet all HD content is still easily available for pirating. When will content producers learn that they're losing money because of terrible distribution strategies and not because it's technically possible to pirate?
  - nemothekid 11y ago
    Content Producers everywhere pretty much realize DRM is a non starter. The reason its still in there is: 1.) There are old 5, 10, 15 year contracts that still stipulate that the content needs to delivered over some reasonably secure DRM system, and no one wants hire lawyers to renegotiate those contracts. 2.) For new contracts, content producers just reuse old contracts, and the side that wants to eschew DRM isn't usually the content producers. That said, when the other side brings up "how about we remove the DRM clause", the producers are pretty much "sure, for $100,000 more bucks". So its become a negotiating point the studios now hold to extort money from any platform that wants DRM-less content. You could wonder "why don't producers care about the UX" - for most big studios digital revenues are still nothing compared to physical sales and syndication rights - so they have no incentive to care.
    - aianus 11y ago
      > for most big studios digital revenues are still nothing compared to physical sales and syndication rights This begs the question. The revenues are nothing compared to physical sales and syndication because in many cases watching the content legally online is not an option at all.
      - TodPunk 11y ago
        Actually, the harsh reality is that we do not yet have a digital content ecosystem that makes consuming any digital media easy for the vast majority of the population (US or otherwise). This is why netflix can do what they do: they have a walled garden where the entire experience is driven purely by their interface and delivery mechanisms (see also: Steam in the PC games space). I've written specs for studio approved DRM schemes and done pre-dvd content on in-flight entertainment systems. Please believe me when I say that it is a nightmare even if you DO know what you're doing with all the tech involved, but even if it weren't a legal problem there's a good example that is pretty damning as a foundational assumption: we still don't know how to share a file. I mean that sincerely: try to get your average non-tech worker to send a file to your grandmother on their own. I can not overstate this enough. This does not work. We have a lot of distance to cover before the digital content world cares about our niche whims.
        aianus 11y ago
        > we still don't know how to share a file I disagree. Without DRM it would be as simple as generating a temporary signed link to S3 upon clicking 'Buy'. I could implement it myself in an hour. Even grandma would be able to use it no problem (click buy -> double click file -> watch movie).
        fr0styMatt2 11y ago
        I'm curious about this, because I read your response but think I'm missing something. Non-techy people routinely consume digital content on YouTube or on their Facebook feeds. Most new 'smart' TVs stream YouTube at least as a minimum. Which part is difficult? Are you talking more about the tech from the content distributor's side (as opposed to the consumer)?
acqq 11y ago
It's in the Fine Article: "The reasonable thing to do was just limit the streams to SD resolution – 720x480. That is slightly lower than I would have chosen if the need for a secure execution environment weren't an issue"
Strom 11y ago
How is it DRM that is limiting that? There are four rather lengthy paragraphs and a graph in the article that explains this.

MichaelGG 11y ago

Yeah the moment I read about casting lighting based on screen contents, I was thinking "things you can't do with 'secure' output". Sad. This partially remains why other players are better than Netflix. If I ever need to really modify playback, I'm all set, no problem.