18 ms·

> DRM is a hugely important part of the online video workflow and HTML5 offers a very useful tool with Encrypted Media Extensions. DRM has never been important

> DRM is a hugely important part of the online video workflow and HTML5 offers a very useful tool with Encrypted Media Extensions. DRM has never been important for online video workflow and it's only useful in the way a walled garden is useful... it will require that each pair of browser-website (with EME) negotiate before allowing it, basically making it impossible for smaller browsers to become useful at all

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
air 10y ago
Netflix begs to differ.
- pstuart 10y ago
  workflow or delivery?
- izacus 10y ago
  With what? EME is a "cure" for a problem you shouldn't have in the first place. Idiotic technology to do nothing useful and solve no problems to make some content company executives feel better about their liability. EME does abosolutely nothing to prevent piracy and only serves as another roadblock for people to jump before seeing videos.
  - dietrichepp 10y ago
    Just because you shouldn't have a problem doesn't mean you don't actually have that problem.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Bad actors exist, hence the technology does something useful. Piracy [probably] isn't a problem for you, but if you think it isn't a problem at all, then you should read this: http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/04/29/what-happens-when-pirates-play-a-game-development-simulator-and-then-go-bankrupt-because-of-piracy/ http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/04/29/what-happens-when-...
    - tveita 10y ago
      We are talking about online video, where DRM is astoundingly ineffective. Any release is almost immediately available to download. Whether or not piracy is a problem is immaterial to the importance of DRM if DRM has no effect on piracy.
    - takeda 10y ago
      All it shows is that there is certain group of people which will pirate even if the content would be given for free. The people that would view paid content should not be punished with DRM, that only works on certain platforms and certain browsers. It actually makes pirated product much better than original. Pirated videos besides being free work on all platforms, you can view it on your computer, phone, tablet. Living or visiting a different country does not revoke your rights to see it, and you can make as many copies of it as you want.
    - serge2k 10y ago
      DRM does nothing to stop piracy.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    It does accomplish a few things. 1. Makes it easier for them to control access by legitimate customers. Yes, this is pretty always consumer hostile BS, but it's a use case. 2. If someone does come up with an app to download shows or whatever, they have the legal argument of "you broke DRM to do this".
- spriggan3 10y ago
  Netflix can make its own app, outside the web.
  - dcgudeman 10y ago
    One of the most attractive features of netflix is the ability stream movies on the browser. Why would we want to move that to a separate app?
    - exodust 10y ago
      I wouldn't call limiting resolution to 720p in the browser "attractive". Are you aware of this limit? In Chrome and Firefox, you can't watch Netflix above 720p. It's why I must use IE with Silverlight to watch Netflix at full HD on Windows 7.
      - sosborn 10y ago
        > In Chrome and Firefox, you can't watch Netflix above 720p. Oh my god, the horror!
        exodust 10y ago
        Well, if youtube clips uploaded at 1080p couldn't be watched at 1080p, people would complain. When services advertise "hd video" and it doesn't actually work in HD... I'm sure you can figure it out. But then maybe you can't, given your remark.
      - Tiksi 10y ago
        I thought the limit/split was 1080p in browser, 4k only through certain channels?
        exodust 10y ago
        No, there's a page on Netflix listing the resolution limits per browser, I checked before I posted.
macspoofing 10y ago
>DRM has never been important for online video workflow Yes it has. Always.
- Spivak 10y ago
  No it hasn't. It's just been a demand from media execs that distribution networks are forced to implement. Netflix is competing with free and winning -- they've created something that's actually more convenient than piracy. I can already download everything on Netflix from my friendly local piracy site, but I don't because the eight bucks a month is worth less than the time I would waste pirating it. Hell, Netflix could put a download button next to all their content and I bet it wouldn't affect piracy. The value isn't in the content but the distribution network that's so good even pirates can't compete with it.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    Absolutely. The only case where (I prefer to call it "morally ambiguous streaming") wins is in series with ongoing seasons. But Netflix is so fast and convenient, I usually end up waiting for it to appear on Netflix, or rewatching it there.
  - mikk14 10y ago
    Meh. Netflix would not affect piracy because their offer is very small. Netflix is good if you're an American and not very into movies. As soon as you are looking for something outside the "very mainstream" you're out of luck. Your "I can already download everything on Netflix from my friendly local piracy site" works, but the other way around doesn't. I've been a Netflix user for years, but I'm on the verge of unsubscribing, because I realized that since January I've only watched House of Cards.
    - duaneb 10y ago
      They offer more than any comparable service.
    - gshulegaard 10y ago
geofft 10y ago
There's a difference between "In a perfect world, DRM is necessary" and "In the world we live in, DRM is useful". To make a possibly-emotionally-charged analogy, it's like patent licenses for free software. In a perfect world, software patents wouldn't exist. But in the world we live in now, you cannot build practical systems without acknowledging that they do exist and they need to be dealt with, and that you need to be as clear about patent rights as you are about copyright. So e.g. the Apache License and GPLv3 have some text about software patents and how they interact. It is hugely important for some people (depending on their jurisdiction, quality of counsel, amount they care, etc.) that they use licenses like those that acknowledge software patents. That's not to say that software patents are inherently useful, and certainly we should work towards a world where they're not, but if you're building a real project, you have to work with the world as it is. In the world we live in, the people who own the content that lots of people want to see have decided that they care about DRM. Whether they should care about DRM (or whether the viewers should want to view that content, for that matter) is beside the point for the discussion of whether DRM is currently useful. By all means—including the means of making DRM technically cumbersome—convince them to stop caring about DRM. But the ability to provide DRM is, unfortunately, useful today.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > But the ability to provide DRM is, unfortunately, useful today. It's useful in the sense that snake oil is useful after somebody signs a contract to use snake oil. That doesn't mean it's actually useful, it means somebody signed a dumb contract. When that happens you can go out and take bids from snake oil suppliers and rub snake oil on your skin every day that does nothing but cost money and make you smell bad, or you can fix the contract.
Tloewald 10y ago
If you want to critique that sentence, you're going about it the wrong way. The whole reason for Flash's tenacity in the video market was its thorough support for DRM. This is decidedly _not_ an advantage of HTML5.
- azakai 10y ago
  Flash had video long before HTML5 did, and HTML5 video support has only very recently been consistent (e.g., the codec wars). Those made Flash a better option for a long time, regardless of DRM, and might also be reasons why Flash has stuck around in this space. DRM is not the whole story.
  - PretzelFisch 10y ago
    In addition HTML5 video playback controls/features have been almost missing compared to the richness offered in flash.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

air 10y ago

Netflix begs to differ.

pstuart 10y ago
workflow or delivery?
izacus 10y ago
With what? EME is a "cure" for a problem you shouldn't have in the first place. Idiotic technology to do nothing useful and solve no problems to make some content company executives feel better about their liability. EME does abosolutely nothing to prevent piracy and only serves as another roadblock for people to jump before seeing videos.
- dietrichepp 10y ago
  Just because you shouldn't have a problem doesn't mean you don't actually have that problem.
- bduerst 10y ago
  Bad actors exist, hence the technology does something useful. Piracy [probably] isn't a problem for you, but if you think it isn't a problem at all, then you should read this: http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/04/29/what-happens-when-pirates-play-a-game-development-simulator-and-then-go-bankrupt-because-of-piracy/ http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/04/29/what-happens-when-...
  - tveita 10y ago
    We are talking about online video, where DRM is astoundingly ineffective. Any release is almost immediately available to download. Whether or not piracy is a problem is immaterial to the importance of DRM if DRM has no effect on piracy.
  - takeda 10y ago
    All it shows is that there is certain group of people which will pirate even if the content would be given for free. The people that would view paid content should not be punished with DRM, that only works on certain platforms and certain browsers. It actually makes pirated product much better than original. Pirated videos besides being free work on all platforms, you can view it on your computer, phone, tablet. Living or visiting a different country does not revoke your rights to see it, and you can make as many copies of it as you want.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    DRM does nothing to stop piracy.
- serge2k 10y ago
  It does accomplish a few things. 1. Makes it easier for them to control access by legitimate customers. Yes, this is pretty always consumer hostile BS, but it's a use case. 2. If someone does come up with an app to download shows or whatever, they have the legal argument of "you broke DRM to do this".
spriggan3 10y ago
Netflix can make its own app, outside the web.
- dcgudeman 10y ago
  One of the most attractive features of netflix is the ability stream movies on the browser. Why would we want to move that to a separate app?
  - exodust 10y ago
    I wouldn't call limiting resolution to 720p in the browser "attractive". Are you aware of this limit? In Chrome and Firefox, you can't watch Netflix above 720p. It's why I must use IE with Silverlight to watch Netflix at full HD on Windows 7.
    - sosborn 10y ago
      > In Chrome and Firefox, you can't watch Netflix above 720p. Oh my god, the horror!
      - exodust 10y ago
        Well, if youtube clips uploaded at 1080p couldn't be watched at 1080p, people would complain. When services advertise "hd video" and it doesn't actually work in HD... I'm sure you can figure it out. But then maybe you can't, given your remark.
    - Tiksi 10y ago
      I thought the limit/split was 1080p in browser, 4k only through certain channels?
      - exodust 10y ago
        No, there's a page on Netflix listing the resolution limits per browser, I checked before I posted.

macspoofing 10y ago

>DRM has never been important for online video workflow Yes it has. Always.

Spivak 10y ago
No it hasn't. It's just been a demand from media execs that distribution networks are forced to implement. Netflix is competing with free and winning -- they've created something that's actually more convenient than piracy. I can already download everything on Netflix from my friendly local piracy site, but I don't because the eight bucks a month is worth less than the time I would waste pirating it. Hell, Netflix could put a download button next to all their content and I bet it wouldn't affect piracy. The value isn't in the content but the distribution network that's so good even pirates can't compete with it.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Absolutely. The only case where (I prefer to call it "morally ambiguous streaming") wins is in series with ongoing seasons. But Netflix is so fast and convenient, I usually end up waiting for it to appear on Netflix, or rewatching it there.
- mikk14 10y ago
  Meh. Netflix would not affect piracy because their offer is very small. Netflix is good if you're an American and not very into movies. As soon as you are looking for something outside the "very mainstream" you're out of luck. Your "I can already download everything on Netflix from my friendly local piracy site" works, but the other way around doesn't. I've been a Netflix user for years, but I'm on the verge of unsubscribing, because I realized that since January I've only watched House of Cards.
  - duaneb 10y ago
    They offer more than any comparable service.
  - gshulegaard 10y ago

geofft 10y ago

There's a difference between "In a perfect world, DRM is necessary" and "In the world we live in, DRM is useful". To make a possibly-emotionally-charged analogy, it's like patent licenses for free software. In a perfect world, software patents wouldn't exist. But in the world we live in now, you cannot build practical systems without acknowledging that they do exist and they need to be dealt with, and that you need to be as clear about patent rights as you are about copyright. So e.g. the Apache License and GPLv3 have some text about software patents and how they interact. It is hugely important for some people (depending on their jurisdiction, quality of counsel, amount they care, etc.) that they use licenses like those that acknowledge software patents. That's not to say that software patents are inherently useful, and certainly we should work towards a world where they're not, but if you're building a real project, you have to work with the world as it is. In the world we live in, the people who own the content that lots of people want to see have decided that they care about DRM. Whether they should care about DRM (or whether the viewers should want to view that content, for that matter) is beside the point for the discussion of whether DRM is currently useful. By all means—including the means of making DRM technically cumbersome—convince them to stop caring about DRM. But the ability to provide DRM is, unfortunately, useful today.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> But the ability to provide DRM is, unfortunately, useful today. It's useful in the sense that snake oil is useful after somebody signs a contract to use snake oil. That doesn't mean it's actually useful, it means somebody signed a dumb contract. When that happens you can go out and take bids from snake oil suppliers and rub snake oil on your skin every day that does nothing but cost money and make you smell bad, or you can fix the contract.

Tloewald 10y ago

If you want to critique that sentence, you're going about it the wrong way. The whole reason for Flash's tenacity in the video market was its thorough support for DRM. This is decidedly _not_ an advantage of HTML5.

azakai 10y ago
Flash had video long before HTML5 did, and HTML5 video support has only very recently been consistent (e.g., the codec wars). Those made Flash a better option for a long time, regardless of DRM, and might also be reasons why Flash has stuck around in this space. DRM is not the whole story.
- PretzelFisch 10y ago
  In addition HTML5 video playback controls/features have been almost missing compared to the richness offered in flash.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]