5 ms·

If I go to a page with a video on it that uses flash, the rest of the page works just fine if I don't have the flash plugin installed. This is identical behavio

by pdkl95 11y ago

If I go to a page with a video on it that uses flash, the rest of the page works just fine if I don't have the flash plugin installed. This is identical behavior to not having the CDM. If the rest of the page also uses flash, that's entirely separate. It is even possible that the rest of the page could be flash, while playing a video with either the native <video> tag or through a CDM. Integration between the video and the rest of the page is going to break without {video tag support with the necessary codec,flash,EME support with the necessary CDM}. Again, there is no difference. You're trying to pretend that there is somehow a more usable page with EME+CDM over flash, when most of the time the video was the goal. > having spent the last decade founding and building a premium content streaming service You're fighting against the General Purpose Computer. Sorry, you don't get to run code on my computer without my approval. You don't get to turn my General Purpose Computer into an appliance. If you care at all about preserving any control over your own General Purpose Computers, stop. You've already spent a decade building the seeds of technology that lock down the web. Now John Deere has used the same ideas to take away property rights. You are adding difficulties to legitimate users while the pirates ignore your CDM and go straight to torrents/etc. Was the delusion that you're protecting anything worth these costs?

dasil003 11y ago
I grant you that the point is largely video, and I probably made a poor choice to reference other things happening on the page, but even within purely the video playback, a CDM is hands down far less proprietary code than a plugin like Flash which not only is poorly optimized for any given browser, but also introduces a whole host of other issues which a CDM doesn't get anywhere near (eg. flash cookies). The rest of your comment is just straight up offensive zealotry. Spare me the ideological rants and go re-read my opening comment carefully. I spent the first 7 years fighting against DRM in direct conversation with rights holders. I have signed deals with hundreds of small distributors to stream content without DRM. I have done more for the cause of avoiding DRM in practice than a million EFF press releases which do nothing but preach to the choir. Furthermore, I am not building DRM, I am only implementing existing industry-standard DRM as required by studios. I can choose not to do so, in which case I won't get the content I need to build a viable business, and then I will go out of business, but the status quo will not have changed. This nonsense about me forcing you to run code on your computer without your approval is asinine. I am not forcing you to run anything, run what you want, but I'm not allowed to stream certain content to you without it, that is beyond my control. If you only want unencumbered content, then don't use my service. This is not the same class of issue as nerfed hardware like John Deere. Like it or not, there is a legitimate reason for legal copyright which is inherently different from property rights, and conflating the two completely undermines any legitimate point which you might wish to make.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > ...a CDM is hands down far less proprietary code than a plugin like Flash Sure, but it still relies a binary blob, just like Flash. > ...I am only implementing existing industry-standard DRM as required by studios. I can choose not to do so, in which case I won't get the content I need to build a viable business, and then I will go out of business, but the status quo will not have changed. Don't forget the story of how Apple forced the music industry into abandoning DRM on their "high-value intellectual property". Had Google, Mozilla, Apple, and Microsoft all refused to play ball, and also continued to push towards the removal of Flash and Silverlight from the web, we would likely soon be seeing either the same abandonment of DRM'd streaming video, or the abandonment of streaming video by the major studios (and subsequent void filling by smaller players).
  - cpeterso 11y ago
    Streaming services would most likely move to native desktop applications, like they do with mobile apps, before abandoning DRM. Netflix already has a Windows desktop application, but they don't seem to promote it much. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/netflix/9wzdncrfj3tj https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/netflix/9wzdncrfj...
toyg 11y ago
> Was the delusion that you're protecting anything worth Dude, that's just not how you make friends and influence people. He knows all the arguments, he said it. Wouldn't it be more interesting to try to find with him a way we can all work together towards a better future, without attempting to shame the counterpart into a public admission of moral failure which will, of course, never happen? That's why Linux has been successful: beyond the zealots, there were significant amounts of people (including Torvalds) who did not ask anyone to repent their proprietary sins before joining. "We build A, you build B, let's see if we can make something together which is a bit more like A, because we honestly think A is awesome, but hey, we like your B as well! It's just that we cannot help you if you keep it to yourself..." The thing is, "we" are currently not building anything that might allay studios' fears. "We" don't even understand those fears, or choose to disregard them entirely. Of course they'll go out and do their own thing. If there was a safe way to deliver what they want (encrypted tamper-proof streaming) in an open-source package, they would likely consider it. But there isn't, afaik. Are "we" building it? No, we try to slut-shame "them" into giving up. That ain't gonna work, when there are billion of dollars and millions of jobs at risk.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  > If there was a safe way to deliver what they want (encrypted tamper-proof streaming) in an open-source package, they would likely consider it. But there isn't, afaik. The problem is fundamentally that "encrypted tamper-proof streaming" is not possible regardless of whether the implementation is open source. It would be trivial to write free software that respects copying restrictions. And then people would be able to bypass it using the same methods used when the copying restrictions are enforced by proprietary software, i.e. by writing different software that doesn't respect the copy restrictions. > That ain't gonna work, when there are billion of dollars and millions of jobs at risk. There is no risk to money or jobs. There is literally more Netflix content on torrent sites than there is on Netflix. Netflix nonetheless makes substantial profits. Eliminating DRM would reduce piracy by improving the experience of legitimate purchasers without having any effect on the experience of people who download from torrent sites. > Are "we" building it? No, we try to slut-shame "them" into giving up. When you encounter someone who is demanding that everyone look for water using a divining rod, you don't build them a divining rod. You teach them that it isn't possible to find water that way.
rayiner 11y ago
If you don't want DRM, don't watch media that requires DRM. Nobody is making you use it. It's something you use because want to use Netflix, etc.
- Endy 11y ago
  And that would be why I don't use Netflix.
- gajjanag 11y ago
  Exactly. What I have found is that when I examine deeply enough, most DRM content is not even worth it, and even for purely entertainment purposes, there exist plenty of non DRM solutions: movie theaters, libraries, outdoor activities to name just a few. I found Michael Niedermayer's quote very nice in this regard: "Breaking DRM is a little like attempting to break through a door even though the window is wide open and the only thing in the house is a bunch of things you dont want and which you would get tomorrow for free anyway" (https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2016-January/188242.html https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2016-January/18824...). And if you really don't even want to accidentally support or open such DRM content, you can configure the browser appropriately (media.eme.enabled and --disable-eme in Firefox).
  - alexvoda 11y ago
    This is exactly what I do, I disable EME in all browsers I use first thing after installing. Anything that is DRMed is not worth my time.
- lomnakkus 11y ago
  (Not PP.) > If you don't want DRM, don't watch media that requires DRM. Well, obviously I don't. > Nobody is making you use it. The point is that there are fears that this could change once DRM is entrenched enough -- and getting into browsers is a Big Step along that road. (Hence the talk about changing General Purpose computers into appliances.)
  - jensen123 11y ago

by pdkl95 11y ago

dasil003 11y ago

I grant you that the point is largely video, and I probably made a poor choice to reference other things happening on the page, but even within purely the video playback, a CDM is hands down far less proprietary code than a plugin like Flash which not only is poorly optimized for any given browser, but also introduces a whole host of other issues which a CDM doesn't get anywhere near (eg. flash cookies). The rest of your comment is just straight up offensive zealotry. Spare me the ideological rants and go re-read my opening comment carefully. I spent the first 7 years fighting against DRM in direct conversation with rights holders. I have signed deals with hundreds of small distributors to stream content without DRM. I have done more for the cause of avoiding DRM in practice than a million EFF press releases which do nothing but preach to the choir. Furthermore, I am not building DRM, I am only implementing existing industry-standard DRM as required by studios. I can choose not to do so, in which case I won't get the content I need to build a viable business, and then I will go out of business, but the status quo will not have changed. This nonsense about me forcing you to run code on your computer without your approval is asinine. I am not forcing you to run anything, run what you want, but I'm not allowed to stream certain content to you without it, that is beyond my control. If you only want unencumbered content, then don't use my service. This is not the same class of issue as nerfed hardware like John Deere. Like it or not, there is a legitimate reason for legal copyright which is inherently different from property rights, and conflating the two completely undermines any legitimate point which you might wish to make.

simoncion 11y ago
> ...a CDM is hands down far less proprietary code than a plugin like Flash Sure, but it still relies a binary blob, just like Flash. > ...I am only implementing existing industry-standard DRM as required by studios. I can choose not to do so, in which case I won't get the content I need to build a viable business, and then I will go out of business, but the status quo will not have changed. Don't forget the story of how Apple forced the music industry into abandoning DRM on their "high-value intellectual property". Had Google, Mozilla, Apple, and Microsoft all refused to play ball, and also continued to push towards the removal of Flash and Silverlight from the web, we would likely soon be seeing either the same abandonment of DRM'd streaming video, or the abandonment of streaming video by the major studios (and subsequent void filling by smaller players).
- cpeterso 11y ago
  Streaming services would most likely move to native desktop applications, like they do with mobile apps, before abandoning DRM. Netflix already has a Windows desktop application, but they don't seem to promote it much. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/netflix/9wzdncrfj3tj https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/netflix/9wzdncrfj...

toyg 11y ago

> Was the delusion that you're protecting anything worth Dude, that's just not how you make friends and influence people. He knows all the arguments, he said it. Wouldn't it be more interesting to try to find with him a way we can all work together towards a better future, without attempting to shame the counterpart into a public admission of moral failure which will, of course, never happen? That's why Linux has been successful: beyond the zealots, there were significant amounts of people (including Torvalds) who did not ask anyone to repent their proprietary sins before joining. "We build A, you build B, let's see if we can make something together which is a bit more like A, because we honestly think A is awesome, but hey, we like your B as well! It's just that we cannot help you if you keep it to yourself..." The thing is, "we" are currently not building anything that might allay studios' fears. "We" don't even understand those fears, or choose to disregard them entirely. Of course they'll go out and do their own thing. If there was a safe way to deliver what they want (encrypted tamper-proof streaming) in an open-source package, they would likely consider it. But there isn't, afaik. Are "we" building it? No, we try to slut-shame "them" into giving up. That ain't gonna work, when there are billion of dollars and millions of jobs at risk.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> If there was a safe way to deliver what they want (encrypted tamper-proof streaming) in an open-source package, they would likely consider it. But there isn't, afaik. The problem is fundamentally that "encrypted tamper-proof streaming" is not possible regardless of whether the implementation is open source. It would be trivial to write free software that respects copying restrictions. And then people would be able to bypass it using the same methods used when the copying restrictions are enforced by proprietary software, i.e. by writing different software that doesn't respect the copy restrictions. > That ain't gonna work, when there are billion of dollars and millions of jobs at risk. There is no risk to money or jobs. There is literally more Netflix content on torrent sites than there is on Netflix. Netflix nonetheless makes substantial profits. Eliminating DRM would reduce piracy by improving the experience of legitimate purchasers without having any effect on the experience of people who download from torrent sites. > Are "we" building it? No, we try to slut-shame "them" into giving up. When you encounter someone who is demanding that everyone look for water using a divining rod, you don't build them a divining rod. You teach them that it isn't possible to find water that way.

rayiner 11y ago

If you don't want DRM, don't watch media that requires DRM. Nobody is making you use it. It's something you use because want to use Netflix, etc.

Endy 11y ago
And that would be why I don't use Netflix.
gajjanag 11y ago
Exactly. What I have found is that when I examine deeply enough, most DRM content is not even worth it, and even for purely entertainment purposes, there exist plenty of non DRM solutions: movie theaters, libraries, outdoor activities to name just a few. I found Michael Niedermayer's quote very nice in this regard: "Breaking DRM is a little like attempting to break through a door even though the window is wide open and the only thing in the house is a bunch of things you dont want and which you would get tomorrow for free anyway" (https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2016-January/188242.html https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2016-January/18824...). And if you really don't even want to accidentally support or open such DRM content, you can configure the browser appropriately (media.eme.enabled and --disable-eme in Firefox).
- alexvoda 11y ago
  This is exactly what I do, I disable EME in all browsers I use first thing after installing. Anything that is DRMed is not worth my time.
lomnakkus 11y ago
(Not PP.) > If you don't want DRM, don't watch media that requires DRM. Well, obviously I don't. > Nobody is making you use it. The point is that there are fears that this could change once DRM is entrenched enough -- and getting into browsers is a Big Step along that road. (Hence the talk about changing General Purpose computers into appliances.)
- jensen123 11y ago