35 ms·

Save Netflix

813 points by thecombjelly 10y ago

stegosaurus 10y ago
Many companies that exist today seemingly couldn't begin in 2016. The major computing platforms now have gatekeepers (Google Play, iOS App Store). Personal computers with attached storage are disappearing and giving way to thin clients attached to the mainframe - without computing power, individuals have less choice. I think we need to focus far more on hardware - it's never looked darker - Secure Boot and the ME make me worried for the future of x86, even. I'll be fine as long as my old machines survive - but how are businesses going to produce mass market software when all the popular hardware is locked down? Just to pick an arbitrary example - how does a project like Bitcoin take off when all we have are tivoized devices that won't run un"trusted" code? The community of a few hundred hardware hackers isn't big enough. Not only that, despite the fact that 256GB of flash can be had for ~40GBP, the latest smartphones come with piffling amounts of storage and seemingly no expandable slots. It's a deliberate design decision to force the use of the network. The IBM compatible desktop computer produced the revolution we see today. What's the next step?
- Karunamon 10y ago
  ME is one thing (though given the hoops one must jump through to set it up, I'm inclined to believe most of the vitriol directed at it is the paranoid FUD variety), ..but secure boot? What possible reason could you have for being against a system that prevents bootkits from pwning your machine? You can load your own keys and boot whatever OS you want on all but a tiny subset of appliance-like locked down hardware nobody cares about. In general, code signing is a Good Thing, so long as the control remains in the hands of the user.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    "..but secure boot? What possible reason could you have for being against a system that prevents bootkits from pwning your machine?" The fact that I can do the same thing with firmware on a cheap ROM write-protected with a jumper. Additionally, the fact that there's competing I.P. in FOSS and corporate sectors for firmware that does trustworthy boot while leaving what's allowed in my control. "In general, code signing is a Good Thing, so long as the control remains in the hands of the user." With Microsoft and Intel style secure boot, it remains in the hands of Microsoft and Intel. And so on. Which is why we're against it.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      The fact that I can do the same thing with firmware on a cheap ROM write-protected with a jumper Except secure boot isn't about firmware, it's about the code loaded on DASDs. >With Microsoft and Intel style secure boot, it remains in the hands of Microsoft and Intel. As long as you can program your own keys into it, I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion.
      - dsp1234 10y ago
        As long as you can program your own keys into it Is this not the definition of gatekeeper? A system where you have to ask permission, but that permission is always granted is inherently different from a system where no permission is ever needed. Among other things, that permission can be revoked at any time for any reason.
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
        "Among other things, that permission can be revoked at any time for any reason." BOOM! They can charge you for it and they can revoke it. Many companies did "open" platforms or software that later closed things off. Plus, they get more information about you than they even need. So, we can choose between a security standard that's in our control or theirs. And by theirs, we're talking about companies with a history of real scumbaggery. The design should default to us with no asking for permission. Numerous ones in CompSci and I.P. markets can do that. No excuse except Microsoft and Intel's profits and schemes.
        Karunamon 10y ago
        but that permission is always granted is inherently different from a system where no permission is ever needed. Indeed. And that system, the one we've been using for a few decades leaves you vulnerable to bootkits in such a way that you'll never know you've been owned. The PKI has to have a trust root anchored somewhere for the concept to work, and it can be anchored under your control using your keys.
        10y ago
- doctorshady 10y ago
  Couldn't agree more. One of the really annoying things about the mass popularization of tech is we seem to always choose the sexier products over the more practical ones. On the hobbyist side of things, I wonder what it would take to get like, say, a kit ATX motherboard developed; one with modular parts that could gradually be upgraded or repaired over time, and designed to last at least a decade or two.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago
    Buy an old PC-XT motherboard and you'll have essentially that, except for the form factor.
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    It's always been the software. VHS beat Beta, both beat V2000. V2000 was the best quality by far. VHS took a long time to get close. VHS had the most films. Same with PCs - the software done it. MS Office, Wordperfect, etc. Lots of more interesting, more sexy machines in the market became also-rans. I'm glad cars never quite got to the same homogeneity or we'd all be driving a Datsun Sunny or something equally horrific. I wish the market had settled for 5 or 6 different PC / phone / chip architectures, as I think the progress would have been more interesting, and much much further. Damnit Motorola should have kept making 680x0s, they were much nicer than Intels to program.
    - dognotdog 10y ago
      > I'm glad cars never quite got to the same homogeneity or we'd all be driving a Datsun Sunny or something equally horrific. Well, cars are incredibly homogenous ( https://medium.com/swlh/the-zombie-mobile-b03932ac971d#.mu5k6xfki https://medium.com/swlh/the-zombie-mobile-b03932ac971d#.mu5k... ) Some niche markets exist, but 98% of what's being bought is a completely interchangeable middle ground compromise, made by huge companies that are only looking at maximizing short term profits, without care for technological, economic, or sociological advancement. In every industry that requires large up-front costs for economic mass production, this is true. Hopefully, 3D printing and its sister technologies will make manufacturing many things on a smaller scale more affordable, and disperse the (mass-) consumer-producer dichotomy once again, in favour of local on-demand production of everyday items. Only with such a level and flexible playing field can you expect innovation to thrive: if it becomes affordable to buy (or create) the best tool for the job, instead of relying on mass-produced mediocrity because one-off items increase one or two orders of magnitude more in cost than in marginal utility.
- jerf 10y ago
  "Many companies that exist today seemingly couldn't begin in 2016." I've often thought all web search engines would be considered grotesquely illegal if they hadn't been there since the beginning, but only started today. It is at times a fragile existence as it is even so.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    Same with public libraries, for that matter. Can you imagine the hue and cry that the major publishers would raise if someone were just now suggesting buying one copy of a book for the express purpose of lending it to hundreds of readers? Or worse, having the government pay for it? They'd be burning up the telephone lines to Washington and hiring lobbyists by the trainload.
    - gist 10y ago
      Yes but there is enough friction with public libraries that that was never an issue. Also noting that many expensive books (or directories) have a market in selling to public libraries. Plus remember that only one person can take out a book at one time (unless multiple copies) and books take time to read so the impact is not the same as with digital works (you have to get to the library to take the book out and there are limits to how many you can borrow is another factor).
    - Matt3o12_ 10y ago
      Just imagine how big their outcry would be if it was new thatyou could lend a friend your book by just giving it to them in person. Now suddenly he and his friends will not buy that book and read its content for free. That would also be considered piracy and surely forbidden as well. Some digital laws are just ridiculous.
  - growt 10y ago
    You're right. In germany there is a law called "Leistungsschutzrecht" that makes it illegal to publish snippets of news stories of the big publishing houses especially in search results such as google news. After some months the publishers realised that now they weren't getting as much pageviews as before (go figure) and granted google an exclusive license to publish their stuff. So now there is a law that would require any new search engine to make deals with every major newspaper in germany. On the other hand we do not have such a thing as fair use, so I imagine that image search is an endless ongoing lawsuit in germany, as every image thumbnail is illegal publishing of copyrighted material.
- 542458 10y ago
  What is there in Bitcoin that requires running untrusted code?
  - iMerNibor 10y ago
    Think they were talking about "untrusted" as in not reviewed by/available in an "app store"
    - 542458 10y ago
      Okay, but I'm still not getting it. I mean, what's keeping anybody from getting their bitcoin wallet or miner on an app store? The Apple OSX app store has at least one wallet on it. (Not that I agree with the "lock down everything" approach tech companies are taking, that is.)
      - stegosaurus 10y ago
        The article is specifically talking about the 'next Netflix'. I'm talking here about the 'next Bitcoin'. Perhaps the current one is fine. What about the one after that? What about the 'Bitcoin' that launches in 20 years? Do we have any mass market free platforms left then? Workstations may always exist - servers may always exist - but right now, the masses have general purpose computers on their desks, in their messenger bags. I want that to last.
      - morganvachon 10y ago
        I think it's more to do with the creation of cryptocurrencies in the first place, not just using them. A thin client with no level of user control (i.e. everything you do with it is managed on servers controlled by your provider) cannot be used to create something as low level as a cryptocurrency, or indeed any form of low level development. Of course, this kind of thing is why we will always have some form of generic, user-managed-hardware market. If you take away the tools used to create the apps and services controlled by the gatekeepers, you won't have any apps and services. To put it another way, Apple doesn't want to be responsible for creating the millions of apps in their store, they just want to be the ones in control of those apps. The workstation is not going away.
- JTon 10y ago
  > The major computing platforms now have gatekeepers (Google Play, iOS App Store) So true. You can sideload on Android though. So all is not lost.
  - stegosaurus 10y ago
    I can. You can. The general public can whilst the 'allow untrusted sources' box exists. But once that box goes, the vast majority of the audience for software outside of Google Play is gone. F-Droid is already tiny as it stands!
  - coroutines 10y ago
    I think what OP is talking about is even though we know how to get over the walls of these gardens, the average user would not. :(
  - Falcon9 10y ago
    And with Xcode 7 you can deploy apps to your iOS devices with a free dev account.
    - khedoros 10y ago
      Which is fine, but if I write a piece of software that I want to distribute outside of the app store, then everyone that wants to install it needs their own Mac, right? I don't think that's quite comparable to side-loading, which can be done from the device itself, without any external account or hardware.
      - vbezhenar 10y ago
        There's nothing magical in Mac. iOS apps use standard cryptographic algorithms for their digital signature, so one can write a crossplatform client which will generate developer certificate for user, sign any given binary using that certificate and install it onto iOS device. For user it won't be any harder than typing "iport install things" (or click button with some fancy GUI). I'm surprised that this idea wasn't implemented yet.
- cm3 10y ago
  > Personal computers with attached storage are disappearing and giving way to thin clients attached to the mainframe - without computing power, individuals have less choice. Only for those who don't use more than a smart phone. Everybody who takes photos, does engineering, develops software, works with media, plays games, or has a laptop, will at least have external local storage of some kind. > What's the next step? Something else produced on IBM compatible PCs or Macs, naturally. All of this sounds like this: everybody goes to a fast food chain to get food, what will happen to kitchens now?
  - frio 10y ago
    > Only for those who don't use more than a smart phone. Sadly, that's an increasingly large segment of the population. Anecdotally, many of my extended family only have mobiles, maybe a tablet, and maybe a videogame console -- no laptops or desktops to be found. Many friends have similar stories.
    - rnovak 10y ago
      To counter your anecdote with one of my own: Literally everyone I know, including my 93 year old grand-parents own a smartphone and at least a laptop or desktop. Every. Single. One. That includes my technologically challenged siblings. Anecdotes are just that. I wont take yours to represent society as a whole, as you shouldn't take mine to either.
      - sloanesturz 10y ago
        Compare your experiences, though, to that of the developing world. Many hundreds of millions of people have gone online for the first time this decade and almost all new Internet users only have smart phones. This huge population never owned a PC and may never need to own one, especially as apps get better and better.
        Godel_unicode 10y ago
        Phone with SSH client, Bluetooth keyboard, Chromecast to TV, digitalocean Ubuntu droplet. No computer != can't write code. What millenial had access to anything close to that nice when they learned to code?
- merpnderp 10y ago
  HTML5 service workers allowing near parity of web apps to native apps could easily change all that. If my web app on a phone can receive push notifications from my server even when it isn't running, there's not much I can't do.
- weisser 10y ago
  > Many companies that exist today seemingly couldn't begin in 2016. Is that bad or surprising? Companies are very much dependent on timing, opportunity, seeing things as they are vs where they should go, and moving things in that direction. Example: Android — hardware companies didn't want Microsoft to dominate desktop AND mobile OS — huge opportunity for someone to act on this market reluctance to accept MS. Once the timing is gone, so is much of the opportunity.
- balls187 10y ago
  > Personal computers with attached storage are disappearing and giving way to thin clients attached to the mainframe Just pulled my old punch cards out of the attic and dusted them off, hoping I can use them again!
- digi_owl 10y ago
  > I think we need to focus far more on hardware - it's never looked darker - Secure Boot and the ME make me worried for the future of x86, even. Thing is that ever since the first PC, "personal" computing has really been about business computing. Heck, visicalc basically sold Apple IIs. This because it allowed accountants to not argue with sysadmins about mainframe time. Secure boot and ME is Intel and MS responding to business needs. Thing is tough that flexibility/usability will always be the enemy of security. A building is more usable when the door are left unlocked, but at the same time you can't use said building to store valuables. PCs could ignore security for the most part back in the day, because they were airgapped. Frankly the most secure thing a home user can do is to pull the plug on the router when they are not using the net. But then what is not using the net these days?
  - Kliment 10y ago
    ME is a huge net negative for security though
    - digi_owl 10y ago
      From who's vantage point? The end user, or the corporate sysadmin managing a fleet of desktops and laptops?
      - Kliment 10y ago
        Either - it's a massive added convenience, but in a corporate security setting an attacker invisibly having remote access to screen, input devices, and data is a security nightmare, and a single compromise can grant access to the entire fleet.
- enjo 10y ago
  The major computing platforms now have gatekeepers (Google Play I can happily install whatever I like on my stock Android device.
  - sspiff 10y ago
    You need to enable untrusted sources hidden away in a settings menu somewhere, and click past a nasty warning informing you of how dangerous outside software can be.
- brakmic 10y ago
  I may sound way too off-topic, so I expect a lot of down-votes, but I think one should learn at least a little bit about hardware and how to design it manually. For example how to create FPGA designs by writing them in VHDL or Verilog. In some sense it's like in the 70es or 80es. Big Corporations, (almost) monopolies, prehistoric laws...and a bunch of tech-savvy kids refusing to bow down ;)
  - cubano 10y ago
    You're asking this of a population whom think that setting the time on their microwave oven is too difficult?
  - erichocean 10y ago
    I'm doing that with my kids. Hardware has never felt so open. I'm loving the RISC-V project!
- nunez 10y ago
  > The IBM compatible desktop computer produced the revolution we see today. What's the next step? Something that envelops everything we do in our daily life whether we want it or not; sounds a lot like online advertising and social media!
- derf_ 10y ago
  > I think we need to focus far more on hardware - it's never looked darker... On the contrary, the slowdown of Moore's Law means the future has never been brighter for open hardware. Someone could actually design something for a process that hasn't been obsolete for over two years and still have a hope of getting it manufactured before it becomes that way.
- skybrian 10y ago
  At one time, most people didn't use computers at all. The people who did were the hacker minority. Machines were not portable or networked - you'd only pack them up in your car to take them to the local computer group. We may go back to that. There may be a hacker community using Arduino, Raspberry Pi, and Android phones and Chromebooks running in developer mode. That's still going to be a lot more than a few hundred hardware hackers. Look at how many people bought Raspberry Pi alone. There's a big middle ground between mainstream and utter obscurity.
- bubblesorting 10y ago
  > Secure Boot and the ME make me worried for the future of x86, even. funny you mention that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11422531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11422531
- Razengan 10y ago
  > despite the fact that 256GB of flash can be had for ~40GBP, the latest smartphones come with piffling amounts of storage and seemingly no expandable slots. I'm sure there's different speeds and other variables to consider in flash storage, just as prices vary for RAM and just about everything else really. The exact tech in an SD card may not be suitable for your phone or tablet's permanent storage, and definitely not suitable for an SSD, otherwise everyone would be installing their OS on SD cards.
jewel 10y ago
I'd love to have something like Netflix but with every movie ever. I'd even be willing to pay a reasonable fee per movie to stream them. I have hope that companies with a business model like VidAngel could legally provide that. VidAngel is a family-friendly video streaming company that filters movies as they stream. While filtering may not be something that you're interested in personally, what I'd like to draw your attention to is their business model. They sell the movie to the viewer for $20, and then the viewer has the option to sell it back for $19 (SD) or $18 (HD) within 24 hours. I have no idea if this is legal or if they are just under the radar, but so far VidAngel has a wide selection of new releases with a price point that feels reasonable to me personally.
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  https://www.vidangel.com/legal/terms https://www.vidangel.com/legal/terms > VidAngel provides a service that allows its Users to buy or sell physical media, such as DVD and Blu-ray discs. While a User owns any physical media purchased from VidAngel, VidAngel will provide streaming services to permit the User to stream the Video Content associated with that physical media as many times as desired. [...] Using the VidAngel Services, a User may purchase physical media from VidAngel, whom then stores the physical media in VidAngel’s physical media vault. [...] VidAngel also provides shipping and handling service that allows any User to direct VidAngel to ship, to an address identified by the User, any physical media the User owns which is stored in VidAngel’s physical media storage vault. A reasonable shipping and handling fee applies. The amount of the shipping and handling fee, which is generally dependent on shipping location, time, and other shipping and handling circumstances, is disclosed to a User when the User requests the shipping. You are buying a physical copy which they keep, or so they say. It is almost certainly questionably legal, because the license you receive from the film distributor when you purchase a physical copy does not permit you to stream the work, nor does VidAngel's license permit digitizing the work and streaming it out to you simply because you "own" another copy. There's no army of contractors running around inserting your disc in racks upon racks of Blu-Ray players. They digitized and are serving a film from some other copy. That requires special licensing which their pricing scheme does not circumvent, nor the "ownership" (which is flirting with fraud, by my read). Modifying the content with filters, especially user-selected ones, is even worse. Just doing that for broadcast requires special care. I know because I used to edit films for OTA broadcast, and observed the legal side that went into crossing every T. It took months before I was even allowed to load up a film in an editor, because merely importing the content into Avid entails a licensed usage. Film copyright is serious. I don't care how many lawyers vetted this, it will not stand up under scrutiny (and, importantly, I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with that). What concerns me more about VidAngel, though, is their mixed messaging and shadiness. On their about page, they say: > That’s why VidAngel does not claim to be a moral authority. We will never tell you what to watch or what filters to use. You have the choice to watch however the BLEEP you want. Sounds great. But then, one reads this: > As VidAngel has grown and reached a broader audience, a few new customers have begun asking if they can stream on VidAngel without filters. [...] The short answer is, unfortunately, NO. > There are a lot of great streaming websites for unfiltered movies like Amazon, Google Play, and Vudu. Use those sites for watching movies as-is, and use VidAngel for any movies you choose to filter. (Note that the second link asks "why are filters required?" and then does not answer the question.) http://blog.vidangel.com/2016/01/07/vidangel-policy-can-i-watch-vidangel-without-filters/ http://blog.vidangel.com/2016/01/07/vidangel-policy-can-i-wa... https://vidangel.groovehq.com/knowledge_base/topics/why-are-filters-required https://vidangel.groovehq.com/knowledge_base/topics/why-are-... So it sounds like the filtering is important in their interpretation of copyright law (I only say this due to "unfortunately") or they are a moral authority and don't want to admit it to you. Which smells either way. Avoid like the plague and throw a few bucks at someone who flies by day, has a registered DMCA agent, and doesn't employ WHOIS privacy on their domain. What are they hiding? Seriously, if you take money and employ WHOIS privacy, I get immediately suspicious. They're based out of Provo and only reveal that on their Privacy page (legally-required, I'm sure). I can safely predict exactly what is going on based on their being based in Utah and that the owner went to BYU, which is why it's funny that they try so hard to convince you that they're not a moral authority but then don't let you watch uncut content at all, then tell you that you're getting a choice. Quite the spin.
rashkov 10y ago
This was so light on technical information that I am more puzzled than before I read the article. Haven't the browsers standardized on a few DRM schemes already? Does that have anything to do with what the W3C is doing now, and if not, just what is the W3C up to that is offensive to the EFF? Are they talking about protecting data streams, such as movies? Why would you compare that to what Netflix was doing with physical DVDs?
- drdaeman 10y ago
  I think it's all about EME: https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/
- throwaway160303 10y ago
  Yes they have, yes it does, they think the world would be better if everyone Just Said No to DRM and the W3C isn't going along with their grand plan, yes, and because they (correctly) think it'll sound convincing to the target audience (mostly other Just Say No-ers, probably consisting mostly of the EFF and Mozilla. And that's it.) I'm really getting tired of what seems to be the EFF's somewhat-newfound mission (it's been getting steadily worse over the last couple years) to push the limits of "shrill squawking about nonsense" to new heights.
  - rashkov 10y ago
    I'm generally a fan of the EFF's work but I completely agree when you call this "shrill squawking". The lack of any coherent argument or details in this statement reminds me of some the "rally the mob" emails that I receive from Fight For The Future. It's a shame that they take their audience for granted and feel that it's enough to rile people up to send angry emails using nothing more than an appeal to their own authority. That may work for a while but at the expense of their credibility.
    - studentrob 10y ago
      Agreed though I'd put it in slightly less harsh tones. Rhetoric from EFF and FFTF is light on the informative side, and heavy on the FUD side.
serge2k 10y ago
> making some of the most innovative programming on any of our screens Evidently the author hasn't seen "the ranch"
- joshmanders 10y ago
  I took time this weekend to watch it and holy crap is it so bad. But I watched the whole season, and when I let go of any sense of good that could come out of it, I enjoyed it.
- blakeyrat 10y ago
  F is for Family is the last of their "original series" I tried. Wow. What a hateful show. It's like they found the world's greatest misanthropist, gave them $10,000,000, and said, "here, make a show that's kind of like The Simpsons I guess." I have to admit I watched all the episodes, kind of like how when you see a horrible train collision you stick around to see how many bodies will be strewn about when it's over.
  - waterside81 10y ago
    It was comedian Bill Burr's idea. He pitched it to Vince Vaughan's production company, who then went to Netflix.
    - 91bananas 10y ago
      And he was probably not paid $10,000,000. But he is damn hilarious in that show
      - blakeyrat 10y ago
        You thought it was funny? I found every minute of it horrifying.
    - morganvachon 10y ago
      > Vince Vaughan[sic] That explains a lot.
city41 10y ago
Minor correction: > It's Netflix, from its founding in 1997, the company mailed DVDs around America and then the world, right up to 2007, when it switched to streaming. Netflix's DVD service never went beyond the US, and still exists to this day.
- morganvachon 10y ago
  I was bothered by that too. Up until three years ago, we had kept the DVD-by-mail subscription active for those movies we wanted to watch that weren't available on the streaming sub. After we got our first Roku, we dropped the DVD sub since pretty much anything we wanted to watch was offered on one Roku channel or another (not to mention Netflix's streaming offerings steadily improved over the years).
fludlight 10y ago
The information density of this article is very low. > For the first time in its history, the W3C is adding encumbrances to the Web, rather than removing them. How, specifically, so?
- davexunit 10y ago
  >How, specifically, so? By pushing the EME standard. A Netflix employee is on the working group for it.
tombert 10y ago
I don't know the right solution to the HTML5 DRM thing. I hate DRM, I don't really support its use, but I also use Linux full-time. Without the HTML5 DRM, I don't think I'd be able to watch Netflix on my laptop, without some Wine wrapper, and really, is that much better? I don't see the studios signing off on Netflix without the use of DRM, and since Silverlight doesn't work on Linux, I selfishly don't have a problem with HTML5 DRM...most of the time. That said, ethical-me totes does have a problem with DRM being part of the otherwise-open web. Relying on stuff that I can can't break sort of makes my inner-Stallman sad.
- zerocrates 10y ago
  I have a hard time getting too worked up over EME. Netflix's content providers want DRM (as probably does Netflix itself, for its self-productions), and the EME-based stuff seems to be a clear win vs. Flash or Silverlight. The alternatives are clinging longer to Flash and friends or pushing things yet further out into apps where services are free to have whatever DRM they want. Sure, you could instead hope for a world where the the studios don't want or mandate DRM, but that's pretty pie-in-the-sky thinking, especially for a cheap subscription service like Netflix.
  - Matt3o12_ 10y ago
    Why do companies still want DRM. I can understand that they wanted it when it was new but DRM has been proven to be worthless in terms of adding copyright protection and be a pain in the ass for the end use (I can't watch Netflix on my PC because the VGA adapter does not supper DMR). It is only a matter of hours before a cracked movie lands on torrent sites. So what is the purpose of DRM?
    - zerocrates 10y ago
      It seems that the intent is just to raise enough of a barrier to prevent casual copying: so, make it so there's not some 1-click program you can install that can dump all of House of Cards to your desktop. Of course, this doesn't do anything about torrenting which can accomplish just that. I don't know if they're attempting to target people who are scared or morally opposed to torrenting, but would copy off a subscription service?
tryitnow 10y ago
Glad to see this. I've criticized EFF before. Not because I disagree with them but because they haven't done a good enough job clearly communicating why they're relevant. This article shows that they're improving in that direction. Netflix is something that average people really get and the idea that future Netflixes could be stillborn is a good way to communicate the importance of these issues. Good job, EFF.
deegles 10y ago
I believe that in a few years every content owner will have developed their own streaming platform. Or the opposite in Netflix's case. Customers will be forced to pay for N different providers to get access to all content. What we need is legislation similar to radio broadcasting, which has fixed per-play rates, but for video.
- cpeterso 10y ago
  Perhaps this is a business opportunity for white label streaming services (as hosted SaaS or on-premise deployment).
  - malka 10y ago
    Plex could develop their product to fill this market imo
  - deegles 10y ago
    I'm surprised Netflix hasn't already done this TBH.
tootie 10y ago
I don't understand this post at all. And I'm smart.
schnable 10y ago
Maybe I'm missing something, but how would EME have stopped Netflix? They always had proper licensing and DRM for their digital content.
- thomas4019 10y ago
  I'm wondering the exact same thing.
- jcl 10y ago
  I think the author's point is that the Netflix of today was only able to afford proper licensing and DRM for digital content because they made so much money mailing around discs, against strong objection from the content providers. And if someone wanted to bootstrap a new video distribution service today on a digital platform, EME would give the content providers the power to put an end to it.
smaili 10y ago
Anyone else miss Blockbuster?
- blakeyrat 10y ago
  Blockbuster's DVD mailing service was way better than Netflix's. Ironically, while Blockbuster stores were (rightly) criticized for having a very small, limited selection, their selection of DVDs was incredibly complete-- far larger than Netflix's. Even their envelopes were better-designed. So yeah I kind of miss it.
AndyMcConachie 10y ago
I don't understand this argument. Netflix depends on DRM and always has. Also, this pledge won't protect anyone. Because there's no guarantee that the people/companies suing the developer who breaks future DRM will have signed the pledge. The best protection a developer can have against the DMCA is to not live in the USA. I generally support everything the EFF does, but I don't get this. If the W3C doesn't standardize DRM we'll still get DRM. It will just be more buggy and with more security holes. Just like MS Silverlight and Adobe Flash. The idea that you can prevent something from being developed by not standardizing it is absurd.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  > I don't understand this argument. Netflix depends on DRM and always has. Nope, they never really have (though it may be changing now that they are producing their own content). The studios supplying them with content on the other hand has.
  - AndyMcConachie 10y ago
    Do you think they would have gotten any contracts for content without DRM? I doubt it.
  - schnable 10y ago
    No DRM support from Netflix - no content on Netflix.
- zanny 10y ago
  The argument is that Netflix grew on the first sale loophole, but today movies are not being released on physical media and for some bizarre reason the people are complacent in these companies effectively removing first sale doctrine if the information isn't on external media. You could not start start Netflix's DVD business with steaming, and since DVDs are dead, streaming is all that is left, so you cannot found another Netflix - which means you cannot get to another independent content developer like Netflix has become that way.
- wallacoloo 10y ago
hmans 10y ago
Remember when everyone agreed that there was no point to competing with AOL and CompuServe?
- derptron 10y ago
  I was a Prodigy rebel.
shmerl 10y ago
Film industry is one of the most corrupted and backwards thinking (MPAA is the prime example). So this can be rephrased as "Help fixing film industry which keeps pushing for retarded idea of DRM at every occasion!". And really it's not the whole film industry. Actual creators most often don't care about this garbage. It's publishers and lawyers who feel the need to satisfy their unquenchable urge for control. DRM and DMCA give them that. Ego feeding control feeling (which is really fake, since in essence they don't control it anyway). I'd call them control freaks. And how can one exactly fix it? GOG attempted it a while back[1], trying to replicate their success with DRM-free gaming. But they failed. [1]: https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree_movies/post499 https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
profeta 10y ago
Wow. the whole thread here one have a single top-level comment, with a completely wrong understanding of the issue. (and yes, the title of the linked article is awful)
useYourIllusion 10y ago
5 years old but still very relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg
rtpg 10y ago
So this is about the DRM stuff in the new specs? Didn't Netflix use DRM since the outset? I know there's some moral positioning about standardising DRM, but would it really affect the 'next Netflix'? Standardised DRM responds to business needs, and companies have already discovered that DRM-Free is a feature, so standardising DRM won't make DRM-free stuff disappear... From the petition page: >Imagine a new, disruptive company figured out a way to let hundreds of people watch a single purchased copy of a movie, even though the rightsholders who made that movie objected. > Of course, it's also the business model of Netflix, circa 1997 This is only true in a pedantic sense. Netflix was shipping around physical copies. Sending digital copies goes by another name: broadcasting! The Supreme court already ruled on that one. I can't see people being like "oh, yeah, people should be able to broadcast other people's content to hundreds of thousands without the content owner's positions" (Think: this is the main objection to Facebook's Video strategy) I guess EFF has a position and this is them trying to defend it but their narrative is pretty unconvincing from where I stand.
dfc 10y ago
I am confused. Save netflix from DRM? Despite Netflix's commitment to open source I can't stream movies because the DRM solution Netflix chose is not supported under linux.
- ac29 10y ago
  Netflix works fine under Linux and has for over a year.
  - dfc 10y ago
    Wow! This is great news, I never thought there would be an open source Netflix solution. Can you give me some pointers for where to find more information? I did a quick search and did not find anything.
    - ac29 10y ago
      1) Open Google Chrome. 2) Go to netflix.com 3) Watch netflix.
Houshalter 10y ago
This article is very confusing. What exactly about DRM prevents Netflix?
empressplay 10y ago
TFA makes it sound like Netflix bootstrapped itself by buying DVDs from WalMart, which is false -- Rental DVDs, of course, are purchased from distributors and are substantially more expensive than consumer DVDs.
- nkurz 10y ago
  You state your answer with great confidence, but I think you are wrong. In the US (where Netflix is based), the "first sale doctrine" has been held to allow the rental of any legally purchased DVD (even those purchased at Walmart): Because of the first-sale doctrine, any DVD reseller, including Netflix, can basically buy a DVD at WalMart, and turn around and rent it to someone else the very same day. The content owners have absolutely no control over whether the copy can be resold or rented. Period. As such, Netflix has the ability to rent (via DVD) any movie which has ever been sold on DVD, and its costs are relatively fixed as a result of the retail price of the actual DVD. http://abovethecrowd.com/2011/09/18/understanding-why-netflix-changed-pricing/ http://abovethecrowd.com/2011/09/18/understanding-why-netfli... In your defense, it appears that many lawyers also do not understand this law. Here for example we see three saying that rental of consumer DVD's is clearly illegal, and two saying that it's just fine: http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-it-legal-to-rent-out-dvd-s-i-ve-purchased--815989.html http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-it-legal-to-rent-out-dv... This is probably because various studios have attempted to convince the public that rental of consumer DVD's is not allowed, even though falsely marking DVD's in this way is probably not legal: http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/05/first-sale-fandango.html http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/05/first-sale-fandango... But while I'm pretty certain you are wrong, and although I think I understand the law here, I am not a lawyer, much less a specialist in copyright law. If you can point to evidence that supports your contention, I'd be eager to see it.
disposeofnick9 10y ago
Verizon is throttling YouTube for unlimited data-plan customers a lot, to where it's unusable... other sites work somewhat better.
worldunited 10y ago
Why is my phone going to CRASH
scorpio3203 10y ago
Honestly I have no thoughts on this

813 points by thecombjelly 10y ago

Many companies that exist today seemingly couldn't begin in 2016. The major computing platforms now have gatekeepers (Google Play, iOS App Store). Personal computers with attached storage are disappearing and giving way to thin clients attached to the mainframe - without computing power, individuals have less choice. I think we need to focus far more on hardware - it's never looked darker - Secure Boot and the ME make me worried for the future of x86, even. I'll be fine as long as my old machines survive - but how are businesses going to produce mass market software when all the popular hardware is locked down? Just to pick an arbitrary example - how does a project like Bitcoin take off when all we have are tivoized devices that won't run un"trusted" code? The community of a few hundred hardware hackers isn't big enough. Not only that, despite the fact that 256GB of flash can be had for ~40GBP, the latest smartphones come with piffling amounts of storage and seemingly no expandable slots. It's a deliberate design decision to force the use of the network. The IBM compatible desktop computer produced the revolution we see today. What's the next step?

Karunamon 10y ago
ME is one thing (though given the hoops one must jump through to set it up, I'm inclined to believe most of the vitriol directed at it is the paranoid FUD variety), ..but secure boot? What possible reason could you have for being against a system that prevents bootkits from pwning your machine? You can load your own keys and boot whatever OS you want on all but a tiny subset of appliance-like locked down hardware nobody cares about. In general, code signing is a Good Thing, so long as the control remains in the hands of the user.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "..but secure boot? What possible reason could you have for being against a system that prevents bootkits from pwning your machine?" The fact that I can do the same thing with firmware on a cheap ROM write-protected with a jumper. Additionally, the fact that there's competing I.P. in FOSS and corporate sectors for firmware that does trustworthy boot while leaving what's allowed in my control. "In general, code signing is a Good Thing, so long as the control remains in the hands of the user." With Microsoft and Intel style secure boot, it remains in the hands of Microsoft and Intel. And so on. Which is why we're against it.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    The fact that I can do the same thing with firmware on a cheap ROM write-protected with a jumper Except secure boot isn't about firmware, it's about the code loaded on DASDs. >With Microsoft and Intel style secure boot, it remains in the hands of Microsoft and Intel. As long as you can program your own keys into it, I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion.
    - dsp1234 10y ago
      As long as you can program your own keys into it Is this not the definition of gatekeeper? A system where you have to ask permission, but that permission is always granted is inherently different from a system where no permission is ever needed. Among other things, that permission can be revoked at any time for any reason.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        "Among other things, that permission can be revoked at any time for any reason." BOOM! They can charge you for it and they can revoke it. Many companies did "open" platforms or software that later closed things off. Plus, they get more information about you than they even need. So, we can choose between a security standard that's in our control or theirs. And by theirs, we're talking about companies with a history of real scumbaggery. The design should default to us with no asking for permission. Numerous ones in CompSci and I.P. markets can do that. No excuse except Microsoft and Intel's profits and schemes.
      - Karunamon 10y ago
        but that permission is always granted is inherently different from a system where no permission is ever needed. Indeed. And that system, the one we've been using for a few decades leaves you vulnerable to bootkits in such a way that you'll never know you've been owned. The PKI has to have a trust root anchored somewhere for the concept to work, and it can be anchored under your control using your keys.
        10y ago
doctorshady 10y ago
Couldn't agree more. One of the really annoying things about the mass popularization of tech is we seem to always choose the sexier products over the more practical ones. On the hobbyist side of things, I wonder what it would take to get like, say, a kit ATX motherboard developed; one with modular parts that could gradually be upgraded or repaired over time, and designed to last at least a decade or two.
- HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago
  Buy an old PC-XT motherboard and you'll have essentially that, except for the form factor.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  It's always been the software. VHS beat Beta, both beat V2000. V2000 was the best quality by far. VHS took a long time to get close. VHS had the most films. Same with PCs - the software done it. MS Office, Wordperfect, etc. Lots of more interesting, more sexy machines in the market became also-rans. I'm glad cars never quite got to the same homogeneity or we'd all be driving a Datsun Sunny or something equally horrific. I wish the market had settled for 5 or 6 different PC / phone / chip architectures, as I think the progress would have been more interesting, and much much further. Damnit Motorola should have kept making 680x0s, they were much nicer than Intels to program.
  - dognotdog 10y ago
    > I'm glad cars never quite got to the same homogeneity or we'd all be driving a Datsun Sunny or something equally horrific. Well, cars are incredibly homogenous ( https://medium.com/swlh/the-zombie-mobile-b03932ac971d#.mu5k6xfki https://medium.com/swlh/the-zombie-mobile-b03932ac971d#.mu5k... ) Some niche markets exist, but 98% of what's being bought is a completely interchangeable middle ground compromise, made by huge companies that are only looking at maximizing short term profits, without care for technological, economic, or sociological advancement. In every industry that requires large up-front costs for economic mass production, this is true. Hopefully, 3D printing and its sister technologies will make manufacturing many things on a smaller scale more affordable, and disperse the (mass-) consumer-producer dichotomy once again, in favour of local on-demand production of everyday items. Only with such a level and flexible playing field can you expect innovation to thrive: if it becomes affordable to buy (or create) the best tool for the job, instead of relying on mass-produced mediocrity because one-off items increase one or two orders of magnitude more in cost than in marginal utility.
jerf 10y ago
"Many companies that exist today seemingly couldn't begin in 2016." I've often thought all web search engines would be considered grotesquely illegal if they hadn't been there since the beginning, but only started today. It is at times a fragile existence as it is even so.
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  Same with public libraries, for that matter. Can you imagine the hue and cry that the major publishers would raise if someone were just now suggesting buying one copy of a book for the express purpose of lending it to hundreds of readers? Or worse, having the government pay for it? They'd be burning up the telephone lines to Washington and hiring lobbyists by the trainload.
  - gist 10y ago
    Yes but there is enough friction with public libraries that that was never an issue. Also noting that many expensive books (or directories) have a market in selling to public libraries. Plus remember that only one person can take out a book at one time (unless multiple copies) and books take time to read so the impact is not the same as with digital works (you have to get to the library to take the book out and there are limits to how many you can borrow is another factor).
  - Matt3o12_ 10y ago
    Just imagine how big their outcry would be if it was new thatyou could lend a friend your book by just giving it to them in person. Now suddenly he and his friends will not buy that book and read its content for free. That would also be considered piracy and surely forbidden as well. Some digital laws are just ridiculous.
- growt 10y ago
  You're right. In germany there is a law called "Leistungsschutzrecht" that makes it illegal to publish snippets of news stories of the big publishing houses especially in search results such as google news. After some months the publishers realised that now they weren't getting as much pageviews as before (go figure) and granted google an exclusive license to publish their stuff. So now there is a law that would require any new search engine to make deals with every major newspaper in germany. On the other hand we do not have such a thing as fair use, so I imagine that image search is an endless ongoing lawsuit in germany, as every image thumbnail is illegal publishing of copyrighted material.
542458 10y ago
What is there in Bitcoin that requires running untrusted code?
- iMerNibor 10y ago
  Think they were talking about "untrusted" as in not reviewed by/available in an "app store"
  - 542458 10y ago
    Okay, but I'm still not getting it. I mean, what's keeping anybody from getting their bitcoin wallet or miner on an app store? The Apple OSX app store has at least one wallet on it. (Not that I agree with the "lock down everything" approach tech companies are taking, that is.)
    - stegosaurus 10y ago
      The article is specifically talking about the 'next Netflix'. I'm talking here about the 'next Bitcoin'. Perhaps the current one is fine. What about the one after that? What about the 'Bitcoin' that launches in 20 years? Do we have any mass market free platforms left then? Workstations may always exist - servers may always exist - but right now, the masses have general purpose computers on their desks, in their messenger bags. I want that to last.
    - morganvachon 10y ago
      I think it's more to do with the creation of cryptocurrencies in the first place, not just using them. A thin client with no level of user control (i.e. everything you do with it is managed on servers controlled by your provider) cannot be used to create something as low level as a cryptocurrency, or indeed any form of low level development. Of course, this kind of thing is why we will always have some form of generic, user-managed-hardware market. If you take away the tools used to create the apps and services controlled by the gatekeepers, you won't have any apps and services. To put it another way, Apple doesn't want to be responsible for creating the millions of apps in their store, they just want to be the ones in control of those apps. The workstation is not going away.
JTon 10y ago
> The major computing platforms now have gatekeepers (Google Play, iOS App Store) So true. You can sideload on Android though. So all is not lost.
- stegosaurus 10y ago
  I can. You can. The general public can whilst the 'allow untrusted sources' box exists. But once that box goes, the vast majority of the audience for software outside of Google Play is gone. F-Droid is already tiny as it stands!
- coroutines 10y ago
  I think what OP is talking about is even though we know how to get over the walls of these gardens, the average user would not. :(
- Falcon9 10y ago
  And with Xcode 7 you can deploy apps to your iOS devices with a free dev account.
  - khedoros 10y ago
    Which is fine, but if I write a piece of software that I want to distribute outside of the app store, then everyone that wants to install it needs their own Mac, right? I don't think that's quite comparable to side-loading, which can be done from the device itself, without any external account or hardware.
    - vbezhenar 10y ago
      There's nothing magical in Mac. iOS apps use standard cryptographic algorithms for their digital signature, so one can write a crossplatform client which will generate developer certificate for user, sign any given binary using that certificate and install it onto iOS device. For user it won't be any harder than typing "iport install things" (or click button with some fancy GUI). I'm surprised that this idea wasn't implemented yet.
cm3 10y ago
> Personal computers with attached storage are disappearing and giving way to thin clients attached to the mainframe - without computing power, individuals have less choice. Only for those who don't use more than a smart phone. Everybody who takes photos, does engineering, develops software, works with media, plays games, or has a laptop, will at least have external local storage of some kind. > What's the next step? Something else produced on IBM compatible PCs or Macs, naturally. All of this sounds like this: everybody goes to a fast food chain to get food, what will happen to kitchens now?
- frio 10y ago
  > Only for those who don't use more than a smart phone. Sadly, that's an increasingly large segment of the population. Anecdotally, many of my extended family only have mobiles, maybe a tablet, and maybe a videogame console -- no laptops or desktops to be found. Many friends have similar stories.
  - rnovak 10y ago
    To counter your anecdote with one of my own: Literally everyone I know, including my 93 year old grand-parents own a smartphone and at least a laptop or desktop. Every. Single. One. That includes my technologically challenged siblings. Anecdotes are just that. I wont take yours to represent society as a whole, as you shouldn't take mine to either.
    - sloanesturz 10y ago
      Compare your experiences, though, to that of the developing world. Many hundreds of millions of people have gone online for the first time this decade and almost all new Internet users only have smart phones. This huge population never owned a PC and may never need to own one, especially as apps get better and better.
      - Godel_unicode 10y ago
        Phone with SSH client, Bluetooth keyboard, Chromecast to TV, digitalocean Ubuntu droplet. No computer != can't write code. What millenial had access to anything close to that nice when they learned to code?
merpnderp 10y ago
HTML5 service workers allowing near parity of web apps to native apps could easily change all that. If my web app on a phone can receive push notifications from my server even when it isn't running, there's not much I can't do.
weisser 10y ago
> Many companies that exist today seemingly couldn't begin in 2016. Is that bad or surprising? Companies are very much dependent on timing, opportunity, seeing things as they are vs where they should go, and moving things in that direction. Example: Android — hardware companies didn't want Microsoft to dominate desktop AND mobile OS — huge opportunity for someone to act on this market reluctance to accept MS. Once the timing is gone, so is much of the opportunity.
balls187 10y ago
> Personal computers with attached storage are disappearing and giving way to thin clients attached to the mainframe Just pulled my old punch cards out of the attic and dusted them off, hoping I can use them again!
digi_owl 10y ago
> I think we need to focus far more on hardware - it's never looked darker - Secure Boot and the ME make me worried for the future of x86, even. Thing is that ever since the first PC, "personal" computing has really been about business computing. Heck, visicalc basically sold Apple IIs. This because it allowed accountants to not argue with sysadmins about mainframe time. Secure boot and ME is Intel and MS responding to business needs. Thing is tough that flexibility/usability will always be the enemy of security. A building is more usable when the door are left unlocked, but at the same time you can't use said building to store valuables. PCs could ignore security for the most part back in the day, because they were airgapped. Frankly the most secure thing a home user can do is to pull the plug on the router when they are not using the net. But then what is not using the net these days?
- Kliment 10y ago
  ME is a huge net negative for security though
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    From who's vantage point? The end user, or the corporate sysadmin managing a fleet of desktops and laptops?
    - Kliment 10y ago
      Either - it's a massive added convenience, but in a corporate security setting an attacker invisibly having remote access to screen, input devices, and data is a security nightmare, and a single compromise can grant access to the entire fleet.
enjo 10y ago
The major computing platforms now have gatekeepers (Google Play I can happily install whatever I like on my stock Android device.
- sspiff 10y ago
  You need to enable untrusted sources hidden away in a settings menu somewhere, and click past a nasty warning informing you of how dangerous outside software can be.
brakmic 10y ago
I may sound way too off-topic, so I expect a lot of down-votes, but I think one should learn at least a little bit about hardware and how to design it manually. For example how to create FPGA designs by writing them in VHDL or Verilog. In some sense it's like in the 70es or 80es. Big Corporations, (almost) monopolies, prehistoric laws...and a bunch of tech-savvy kids refusing to bow down ;)
- cubano 10y ago
  You're asking this of a population whom think that setting the time on their microwave oven is too difficult?
- erichocean 10y ago
  I'm doing that with my kids. Hardware has never felt so open. I'm loving the RISC-V project!
nunez 10y ago
> The IBM compatible desktop computer produced the revolution we see today. What's the next step? Something that envelops everything we do in our daily life whether we want it or not; sounds a lot like online advertising and social media!
derf_ 10y ago
> I think we need to focus far more on hardware - it's never looked darker... On the contrary, the slowdown of Moore's Law means the future has never been brighter for open hardware. Someone could actually design something for a process that hasn't been obsolete for over two years and still have a hope of getting it manufactured before it becomes that way.
skybrian 10y ago
At one time, most people didn't use computers at all. The people who did were the hacker minority. Machines were not portable or networked - you'd only pack them up in your car to take them to the local computer group. We may go back to that. There may be a hacker community using Arduino, Raspberry Pi, and Android phones and Chromebooks running in developer mode. That's still going to be a lot more than a few hundred hardware hackers. Look at how many people bought Raspberry Pi alone. There's a big middle ground between mainstream and utter obscurity.
bubblesorting 10y ago
> Secure Boot and the ME make me worried for the future of x86, even. funny you mention that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11422531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11422531
Razengan 10y ago
> despite the fact that 256GB of flash can be had for ~40GBP, the latest smartphones come with piffling amounts of storage and seemingly no expandable slots. I'm sure there's different speeds and other variables to consider in flash storage, just as prices vary for RAM and just about everything else really. The exact tech in an SD card may not be suitable for your phone or tablet's permanent storage, and definitely not suitable for an SSD, otherwise everyone would be installing their OS on SD cards.

jewel 10y ago

I'd love to have something like Netflix but with every movie ever. I'd even be willing to pay a reasonable fee per movie to stream them. I have hope that companies with a business model like VidAngel could legally provide that. VidAngel is a family-friendly video streaming company that filters movies as they stream. While filtering may not be something that you're interested in personally, what I'd like to draw your attention to is their business model. They sell the movie to the viewer for $20, and then the viewer has the option to sell it back for $19 (SD) or $18 (HD) within 24 hours. I have no idea if this is legal or if they are just under the radar, but so far VidAngel has a wide selection of new releases with a price point that feels reasonable to me personally.

jsmthrowaway 10y ago
https://www.vidangel.com/legal/terms https://www.vidangel.com/legal/terms > VidAngel provides a service that allows its Users to buy or sell physical media, such as DVD and Blu-ray discs. While a User owns any physical media purchased from VidAngel, VidAngel will provide streaming services to permit the User to stream the Video Content associated with that physical media as many times as desired. [...] Using the VidAngel Services, a User may purchase physical media from VidAngel, whom then stores the physical media in VidAngel’s physical media vault. [...] VidAngel also provides shipping and handling service that allows any User to direct VidAngel to ship, to an address identified by the User, any physical media the User owns which is stored in VidAngel’s physical media storage vault. A reasonable shipping and handling fee applies. The amount of the shipping and handling fee, which is generally dependent on shipping location, time, and other shipping and handling circumstances, is disclosed to a User when the User requests the shipping. You are buying a physical copy which they keep, or so they say. It is almost certainly questionably legal, because the license you receive from the film distributor when you purchase a physical copy does not permit you to stream the work, nor does VidAngel's license permit digitizing the work and streaming it out to you simply because you "own" another copy. There's no army of contractors running around inserting your disc in racks upon racks of Blu-Ray players. They digitized and are serving a film from some other copy. That requires special licensing which their pricing scheme does not circumvent, nor the "ownership" (which is flirting with fraud, by my read). Modifying the content with filters, especially user-selected ones, is even worse. Just doing that for broadcast requires special care. I know because I used to edit films for OTA broadcast, and observed the legal side that went into crossing every T. It took months before I was even allowed to load up a film in an editor, because merely importing the content into Avid entails a licensed usage. Film copyright is serious. I don't care how many lawyers vetted this, it will not stand up under scrutiny (and, importantly, I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with that). What concerns me more about VidAngel, though, is their mixed messaging and shadiness. On their about page, they say: > That’s why VidAngel does not claim to be a moral authority. We will never tell you what to watch or what filters to use. You have the choice to watch however the BLEEP you want. Sounds great. But then, one reads this: > As VidAngel has grown and reached a broader audience, a few new customers have begun asking if they can stream on VidAngel without filters. [...] The short answer is, unfortunately, NO. > There are a lot of great streaming websites for unfiltered movies like Amazon, Google Play, and Vudu. Use those sites for watching movies as-is, and use VidAngel for any movies you choose to filter. (Note that the second link asks "why are filters required?" and then does not answer the question.) http://blog.vidangel.com/2016/01/07/vidangel-policy-can-i-watch-vidangel-without-filters/ http://blog.vidangel.com/2016/01/07/vidangel-policy-can-i-wa... https://vidangel.groovehq.com/knowledge_base/topics/why-are-filters-required https://vidangel.groovehq.com/knowledge_base/topics/why-are-... So it sounds like the filtering is important in their interpretation of copyright law (I only say this due to "unfortunately") or they are a moral authority and don't want to admit it to you. Which smells either way. Avoid like the plague and throw a few bucks at someone who flies by day, has a registered DMCA agent, and doesn't employ WHOIS privacy on their domain. What are they hiding? Seriously, if you take money and employ WHOIS privacy, I get immediately suspicious. They're based out of Provo and only reveal that on their Privacy page (legally-required, I'm sure). I can safely predict exactly what is going on based on their being based in Utah and that the owner went to BYU, which is why it's funny that they try so hard to convince you that they're not a moral authority but then don't let you watch uncut content at all, then tell you that you're getting a choice. Quite the spin.

rashkov 10y ago

This was so light on technical information that I am more puzzled than before I read the article. Haven't the browsers standardized on a few DRM schemes already? Does that have anything to do with what the W3C is doing now, and if not, just what is the W3C up to that is offensive to the EFF? Are they talking about protecting data streams, such as movies? Why would you compare that to what Netflix was doing with physical DVDs?

drdaeman 10y ago
I think it's all about EME: https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/
throwaway160303 10y ago
Yes they have, yes it does, they think the world would be better if everyone Just Said No to DRM and the W3C isn't going along with their grand plan, yes, and because they (correctly) think it'll sound convincing to the target audience (mostly other Just Say No-ers, probably consisting mostly of the EFF and Mozilla. And that's it.) I'm really getting tired of what seems to be the EFF's somewhat-newfound mission (it's been getting steadily worse over the last couple years) to push the limits of "shrill squawking about nonsense" to new heights.
- rashkov 10y ago
  I'm generally a fan of the EFF's work but I completely agree when you call this "shrill squawking". The lack of any coherent argument or details in this statement reminds me of some the "rally the mob" emails that I receive from Fight For The Future. It's a shame that they take their audience for granted and feel that it's enough to rile people up to send angry emails using nothing more than an appeal to their own authority. That may work for a while but at the expense of their credibility.
  - studentrob 10y ago
    Agreed though I'd put it in slightly less harsh tones. Rhetoric from EFF and FFTF is light on the informative side, and heavy on the FUD side.

serge2k 10y ago

> making some of the most innovative programming on any of our screens Evidently the author hasn't seen "the ranch"

joshmanders 10y ago
I took time this weekend to watch it and holy crap is it so bad. But I watched the whole season, and when I let go of any sense of good that could come out of it, I enjoyed it.
blakeyrat 10y ago
F is for Family is the last of their "original series" I tried. Wow. What a hateful show. It's like they found the world's greatest misanthropist, gave them $10,000,000, and said, "here, make a show that's kind of like The Simpsons I guess." I have to admit I watched all the episodes, kind of like how when you see a horrible train collision you stick around to see how many bodies will be strewn about when it's over.
- waterside81 10y ago
  It was comedian Bill Burr's idea. He pitched it to Vince Vaughan's production company, who then went to Netflix.
  - 91bananas 10y ago
    And he was probably not paid $10,000,000. But he is damn hilarious in that show
    - blakeyrat 10y ago
      You thought it was funny? I found every minute of it horrifying.
  - morganvachon 10y ago
    > Vince Vaughan[sic] That explains a lot.

city41 10y ago

Minor correction: > It's Netflix, from its founding in 1997, the company mailed DVDs around America and then the world, right up to 2007, when it switched to streaming. Netflix's DVD service never went beyond the US, and still exists to this day.

morganvachon 10y ago
I was bothered by that too. Up until three years ago, we had kept the DVD-by-mail subscription active for those movies we wanted to watch that weren't available on the streaming sub. After we got our first Roku, we dropped the DVD sub since pretty much anything we wanted to watch was offered on one Roku channel or another (not to mention Netflix's streaming offerings steadily improved over the years).

fludlight 10y ago

The information density of this article is very low. > For the first time in its history, the W3C is adding encumbrances to the Web, rather than removing them. How, specifically, so?

davexunit 10y ago
>How, specifically, so? By pushing the EME standard. A Netflix employee is on the working group for it.

tombert 10y ago

I don't know the right solution to the HTML5 DRM thing. I hate DRM, I don't really support its use, but I also use Linux full-time. Without the HTML5 DRM, I don't think I'd be able to watch Netflix on my laptop, without some Wine wrapper, and really, is that much better? I don't see the studios signing off on Netflix without the use of DRM, and since Silverlight doesn't work on Linux, I selfishly don't have a problem with HTML5 DRM...most of the time. That said, ethical-me totes does have a problem with DRM being part of the otherwise-open web. Relying on stuff that I can can't break sort of makes my inner-Stallman sad.

zerocrates 10y ago
I have a hard time getting too worked up over EME. Netflix's content providers want DRM (as probably does Netflix itself, for its self-productions), and the EME-based stuff seems to be a clear win vs. Flash or Silverlight. The alternatives are clinging longer to Flash and friends or pushing things yet further out into apps where services are free to have whatever DRM they want. Sure, you could instead hope for a world where the the studios don't want or mandate DRM, but that's pretty pie-in-the-sky thinking, especially for a cheap subscription service like Netflix.
- Matt3o12_ 10y ago
  Why do companies still want DRM. I can understand that they wanted it when it was new but DRM has been proven to be worthless in terms of adding copyright protection and be a pain in the ass for the end use (I can't watch Netflix on my PC because the VGA adapter does not supper DMR). It is only a matter of hours before a cracked movie lands on torrent sites. So what is the purpose of DRM?
  - zerocrates 10y ago
    It seems that the intent is just to raise enough of a barrier to prevent casual copying: so, make it so there's not some 1-click program you can install that can dump all of House of Cards to your desktop. Of course, this doesn't do anything about torrenting which can accomplish just that. I don't know if they're attempting to target people who are scared or morally opposed to torrenting, but would copy off a subscription service?

tryitnow 10y ago

Glad to see this. I've criticized EFF before. Not because I disagree with them but because they haven't done a good enough job clearly communicating why they're relevant. This article shows that they're improving in that direction. Netflix is something that average people really get and the idea that future Netflixes could be stillborn is a good way to communicate the importance of these issues. Good job, EFF.

deegles 10y ago

I believe that in a few years every content owner will have developed their own streaming platform. Or the opposite in Netflix's case. Customers will be forced to pay for N different providers to get access to all content. What we need is legislation similar to radio broadcasting, which has fixed per-play rates, but for video.

cpeterso 10y ago
Perhaps this is a business opportunity for white label streaming services (as hosted SaaS or on-premise deployment).
- malka 10y ago
  Plex could develop their product to fill this market imo
- deegles 10y ago
  I'm surprised Netflix hasn't already done this TBH.

tootie 10y ago

I don't understand this post at all. And I'm smart.

schnable 10y ago

Maybe I'm missing something, but how would EME have stopped Netflix? They always had proper licensing and DRM for their digital content.

thomas4019 10y ago
I'm wondering the exact same thing.
jcl 10y ago
I think the author's point is that the Netflix of today was only able to afford proper licensing and DRM for digital content because they made so much money mailing around discs, against strong objection from the content providers. And if someone wanted to bootstrap a new video distribution service today on a digital platform, EME would give the content providers the power to put an end to it.

smaili 10y ago

Anyone else miss Blockbuster?

blakeyrat 10y ago
Blockbuster's DVD mailing service was way better than Netflix's. Ironically, while Blockbuster stores were (rightly) criticized for having a very small, limited selection, their selection of DVDs was incredibly complete-- far larger than Netflix's. Even their envelopes were better-designed. So yeah I kind of miss it.

AndyMcConachie 10y ago

I don't understand this argument. Netflix depends on DRM and always has. Also, this pledge won't protect anyone. Because there's no guarantee that the people/companies suing the developer who breaks future DRM will have signed the pledge. The best protection a developer can have against the DMCA is to not live in the USA. I generally support everything the EFF does, but I don't get this. If the W3C doesn't standardize DRM we'll still get DRM. It will just be more buggy and with more security holes. Just like MS Silverlight and Adobe Flash. The idea that you can prevent something from being developed by not standardizing it is absurd.

digi_owl 10y ago
> I don't understand this argument. Netflix depends on DRM and always has. Nope, they never really have (though it may be changing now that they are producing their own content). The studios supplying them with content on the other hand has.
- AndyMcConachie 10y ago
  Do you think they would have gotten any contracts for content without DRM? I doubt it.
- schnable 10y ago
  No DRM support from Netflix - no content on Netflix.
zanny 10y ago
The argument is that Netflix grew on the first sale loophole, but today movies are not being released on physical media and for some bizarre reason the people are complacent in these companies effectively removing first sale doctrine if the information isn't on external media. You could not start start Netflix's DVD business with steaming, and since DVDs are dead, streaming is all that is left, so you cannot found another Netflix - which means you cannot get to another independent content developer like Netflix has become that way.
wallacoloo 10y ago

hmans 10y ago

Remember when everyone agreed that there was no point to competing with AOL and CompuServe?

derptron 10y ago
I was a Prodigy rebel.

shmerl 10y ago

Film industry is one of the most corrupted and backwards thinking (MPAA is the prime example). So this can be rephrased as "Help fixing film industry which keeps pushing for retarded idea of DRM at every occasion!". And really it's not the whole film industry. Actual creators most often don't care about this garbage. It's publishers and lawyers who feel the need to satisfy their unquenchable urge for control. DRM and DMCA give them that. Ego feeding control feeling (which is really fake, since in essence they don't control it anyway). I'd call them control freaks. And how can one exactly fix it? GOG attempted it a while back[1], trying to replicate their success with DRM-free gaming. But they failed. [1]: https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree_movies/post499 https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

profeta 10y ago

Wow. the whole thread here one have a single top-level comment, with a completely wrong understanding of the issue. (and yes, the title of the linked article is awful)

useYourIllusion 10y ago

5 years old but still very relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg

rtpg 10y ago

So this is about the DRM stuff in the new specs? Didn't Netflix use DRM since the outset? I know there's some moral positioning about standardising DRM, but would it really affect the 'next Netflix'? Standardised DRM responds to business needs, and companies have already discovered that DRM-Free is a feature, so standardising DRM won't make DRM-free stuff disappear... From the petition page: >Imagine a new, disruptive company figured out a way to let hundreds of people watch a single purchased copy of a movie, even though the rightsholders who made that movie objected. > Of course, it's also the business model of Netflix, circa 1997 This is only true in a pedantic sense. Netflix was shipping around physical copies. Sending digital copies goes by another name: broadcasting! The Supreme court already ruled on that one. I can't see people being like "oh, yeah, people should be able to broadcast other people's content to hundreds of thousands without the content owner's positions" (Think: this is the main objection to Facebook's Video strategy) I guess EFF has a position and this is them trying to defend it but their narrative is pretty unconvincing from where I stand.

dfc 10y ago

I am confused. Save netflix from DRM? Despite Netflix's commitment to open source I can't stream movies because the DRM solution Netflix chose is not supported under linux.

ac29 10y ago
Netflix works fine under Linux and has for over a year.
- dfc 10y ago
  Wow! This is great news, I never thought there would be an open source Netflix solution. Can you give me some pointers for where to find more information? I did a quick search and did not find anything.
  - ac29 10y ago
    1) Open Google Chrome. 2) Go to netflix.com 3) Watch netflix.

Houshalter 10y ago

This article is very confusing. What exactly about DRM prevents Netflix?

empressplay 10y ago

TFA makes it sound like Netflix bootstrapped itself by buying DVDs from WalMart, which is false -- Rental DVDs, of course, are purchased from distributors and are substantially more expensive than consumer DVDs.

nkurz 10y ago
You state your answer with great confidence, but I think you are wrong. In the US (where Netflix is based), the "first sale doctrine" has been held to allow the rental of any legally purchased DVD (even those purchased at Walmart): Because of the first-sale doctrine, any DVD reseller, including Netflix, can basically buy a DVD at WalMart, and turn around and rent it to someone else the very same day. The content owners have absolutely no control over whether the copy can be resold or rented. Period. As such, Netflix has the ability to rent (via DVD) any movie which has ever been sold on DVD, and its costs are relatively fixed as a result of the retail price of the actual DVD. http://abovethecrowd.com/2011/09/18/understanding-why-netflix-changed-pricing/ http://abovethecrowd.com/2011/09/18/understanding-why-netfli... In your defense, it appears that many lawyers also do not understand this law. Here for example we see three saying that rental of consumer DVD's is clearly illegal, and two saying that it's just fine: http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-it-legal-to-rent-out-dvd-s-i-ve-purchased--815989.html http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-it-legal-to-rent-out-dv... This is probably because various studios have attempted to convince the public that rental of consumer DVD's is not allowed, even though falsely marking DVD's in this way is probably not legal: http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/05/first-sale-fandango.html http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/05/first-sale-fandango... But while I'm pretty certain you are wrong, and although I think I understand the law here, I am not a lawyer, much less a specialist in copyright law. If you can point to evidence that supports your contention, I'd be eager to see it.

disposeofnick9 10y ago

Verizon is throttling YouTube for unlimited data-plan customers a lot, to where it's unusable... other sites work somewhat better.

worldunited 10y ago

Why is my phone going to CRASH

scorpio3203 10y ago

Honestly I have no thoughts on this