5 ms·

That's just playing word games. Netflix lobbied for EME so they could serve DRM'd video, end of story.

artursapek 10y ago
Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Why is everyone so upset? Having the option to use DRM in native web APIs is not a bad thing.
- davexunit 10y ago
  >Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Uber wouldn't be a viable business model if it didn't exploit drivers and dodge laws that apply to taxis. Airbnb wouldn't be a viable business model if it didn't sidestep hotel laws. If your business depends on having unjust power over your customers then you ought to go out of business.
  - pitaj 10y ago
    These are completely different realms. Legality of Uber and Airbnb is very different from Netflix losing all 3rd party content if they didn't provide DRM. Also, many people seem to have a real hard-on for the same legal system that outlaws marijuana and created the DMCA.
- sigmar 10y ago
  >Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Uh, why not? All Netflix series are already getting pirated even with DRM.
  - artursapek 10y ago
    Houses get broken into even when they have locks, so why do you keep a lock on your house?
    - MichaelGG 10y ago
      This terrible analogy would only be remotely close if your house was copied to millions of people, and a single person breaking in could expose everything inside to everyone on the Internet.
      - artursapek 10y ago
        So it's ok to steal things that are easy to steal?
        cr0sh 10y ago
        Stealing implies that the theft of the "thing" denies the original owner of possession and use of that same "thing". Digital IP is different - you can make infinite copies of it. A copy I make does not diminish your copy, nor does it deprive you of possession of your copy, or usage of that copy. What it does deny you is the amount of money which you might have made on the sale of that copy (if you are the rights-holder and are selling the digital IP "thing" to others). I haven't, however, stopped you from continuing to sell your digital IP "thing" - you still have it. You just don't have the money. Surely you can see this difference? If it could be called anything, it would be considered theft of opportunity, rather than theft of an object. You have been deprived of making a portion of money. Now - that's very close to - if not almost identical, to me going up to your digital IP (via website, a kiosk, you at a table burning copies onto disc - whatever), looking at it, then saying to you "I would love to have a copy of this, but you know, I just won't, because you are charging money for it". I still haven't deprived you of your IP - you still have it, you still have your copy, etc. What I have done is deprived you of the opportunity of making money. Should I go to jail, or be fined, or be forced to pay you the money in some manner because I didn't buy it? The only real difference between the two? Well - in the first scenario, I have a copy of the digital IP; in very real terms, I have the knowledge of a particular number (because that is what any digital work can be reduced to - just a very large number) - in the second case - I don't. But - what if on the off chance I somehow guess that large number? What if I am able to do that? Since it is a real number, there is that possibility (granted, the probability of being able to do so is vanishingly small). I know have the knowledge of that number, and can use it as I see fit - including decoding it to watch it as a movie, or play it as a piece of music, or whatever. But I didn't copy it from you; in fact, you might not even know that I now know your number! Have I committed a crime? DRM (and the laws which surround it) - in a very real sense - is a system put in place to criminalize and prosecute people for knowledge of particular numbers - nothing more, nothing less. In other words, knowledge of such numbers is considered a crime, unless you have paid money for that knowledge - even possibly if you independently arrive at that knowledge. Agree or disagree - but it's the truth.
  - bisby 10y ago
    Because the studios are the ones demanding DRM. I was under the impression that netflix original content is actually far more relaxed on restrictions (I don't recall where I heard this). They don't want DRM necessarily, but if they say "DRM is not an option" then the change of getting major studios on board is 0. And even if you take netflix original content out of the picture, that applies. their "viable business" is "stream other people's content" and "other people" have to agree to that, and won't without DRM.
    - MichaelGG 10y ago
      Netflix probably also enjoys this, as it presents a barrier to entry. They also don't say anything negative about DRM[1], instead talking about "premium" content. They even go as far as to say: "This is a requirement for any premium subscription video service" -- this is blatantly false, unless you redefine premium to mean "requires DRM", in which case it's circular. Also note the use of "protect" as if it was a positive or good thing. 1: http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.html http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.h...
      - bisby 10y ago
        perhaps "This is a requirement for any premium subscription video service that wants to interact with popular studios because if you don't interact with popular studios people don't view your service as premium." Premium = big name movies Big name movies = big name studios Big name studios = full of corporate bigwigs who dont understand that DRM doesn't stop piracy
    - shmerl 10y ago
      > Because the studios are the ones demanding DRM. I was under the impression that netflix original content is actually far more relaxed on restrictions Where can you buy it DRM-free?
      - bisby 10y ago
        I honestly don't remember where I had seen/heard this. Which admittedly makes my claim far less credible. But it was something along the lines of being able to play some netflix content on some player without DRM being applied to it. DRM would be something they use because they want to, not because it's part of their contract with themselves.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Why not? Shareholder accountability. "We didn't bother protecting our content, and yes, sales are down 25% year over year, but..." Fired.
    - MichaelGG 10y ago
      Can you explain how this works? If there was no DRM, how would that lower their sales? Last I checked, things on Netflix were easily downloadable via torrents. Are you suggesting that there are many shows on Netflix that someone wants to pirate, but the DRM is preventing them?
      - astrodust 10y ago
        I'm saying that if CEO you do nothing to prevent piracy then you get blamed for all the piracy. If you're using industry standards, like DRM, to protect the content they can't hold you accountable. It's just a cost of doing business. If one day the industry recognizes that DRM is useless and it's no longer demanded by content holders, then as CEO of Netflix you can abandon it. Steve Jobs told the music industry to suck it up and deal, and they did. He was unable to convince the movie/TV industry to do the same.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Obviously, because if it was as convenient to pirate Netflix videos as it was to view them on Netflix, nobody would subscribe to Netflix, and their business would fail.
    - tveita 10y ago
      It already is as convenient to pirate Netflix videos as it is to view them on Netflix. You'll get a better selection, with a better UI, and often higher quality encodes. I still keep a Netflix subscription, because I want to pay for stuff, but it's hard to feel I'm getting value out of it. I hope you realize the movies people 'pirate' have been stripped of the DRM. Even if the original file had DRM, that does not inconvenience downloaders at all.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Really? I'm ready to believe you. What's the URL I enter to get the Netflix viewing experience, in my browser, without a credit card?
        piracythrowaway 10y ago
        one example: https://solarmovie.sc https://solarmovie.sc
        tptacek 10y ago
        Wow. This isn't as convenient as Netflix, but I concede that it's a lot more convenient than I thought piracy was at this point, and probably past the threshold where it matters.
- josteink 10y ago
  > Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Why is everyone so upset? Having the option to use DRM in native web APIs is not a bad thing. Because Netflix is freeloading on our open technology to deliver closed content, and putting the cost to support their DRM on us. It's not right. It's not fair. They are fragmenting the web by making "web sites" which are browser and OS-specific. If they want to make closed, OS-dependent stuff anyway, they should have to pay the cost, not us. They should just make a native app. Like they already do for at least 10 other platforms. Basically keep your closed and non-free poison out of my browser and open web-standards. That's a no-DRM zone. I'll use your app though, if you just go make it.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    In what sense is Netflix "freeloading"? Where does the free ride stop? Are they allowed to use TCP/IP stacks to deliver DRM? The HTTP protocol? Or is just Mozilla that's the problem?
    - Touche 10y ago
      The free ride stops when they add stuff to a spec that other people can't freely implement.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        I understand why you don't like EME DRM. I don't understand the sense in which it is free-riding.
        Touche 10y ago
        It's offloading the cost of implementing proprietary software onto others.
    - pikzen 10y ago
      You don't see in what sense forcing the implementation of DRM into an open standard (HTTP in a broad sense, which includes HTML, JS, etc.), that has been developed for the past decades in a rather open way so your company can keep making profits could be "freeloading"? Not to mention setting it up in such a way that their part of the web is broken if for some reason you do not have their blessing for their DRM. Netflix came in and screwed over everyone, in a way that is just as bad as Flash. Sure, use the TCP/IP stack. Send your data over the internet. Make your own software based on that, it's just a transport layer and it screws no one else. Except they seem to be pretty damn awful at it, considering how comically bad all their desktop apps are.
- pitaj 10y ago
  If you're like one these people who believe that DRM is actually an act of evil, then I guess it makes sense.
- shmerl 10y ago
  That's false. DRM doesn't enable business. It's not even needed at all.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    If that's true, why does every major content provider disagree with you?
    - shmerl 10y ago
      They don't disagree. The usage of DRM has nothing to do with normal reasons. See https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree_movies/post499 https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree...
      - tptacek 10y ago
        What the hell is Gog? Serious question. It was obviously never going to be my contention that there were no DRM-free video content producers. Just the major ones.
        shmerl 10y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOG.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOG.com (the article incorrectly calls it Cypriot company, it's Polish). And I meant major ones. They admit that DRM isn't needed. See the report in the link above. Their usage of DRM isn't caused by business enabling requirements, but has completely crooked unrelated reasons.
        tptacek 10y ago
        So basically every mainstream movie and television content producer is colluding with every other such producer for some crooked end? By revenue, the overwhelming majority of the media industry is a criminal conspiracy?
- apostacy 10y ago
  I use Netflix, simply because it is slightly more convenient than what I used to do, torrenting. I'm willing to pay for that convenience. Besides, they said that the Apple Music Store couldn't survive without DRM. And then one day they removed it and nobody even noticed. Now nobody uses DRM when they sell music. Even Spotify don't bother encrypting cached mp3s on your hard drive. If Netflix switched to unencrypted streams tomorrow, it would have no effect. There is no content that is exclusive to Netflix. As soon as Netflix makes something available, it is immediately ripped losslessly and put on The Pirate Bay.

Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Why is everyone so upset? Having the option to use DRM in native web APIs is not a bad thing.

davexunit 10y ago
>Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Uber wouldn't be a viable business model if it didn't exploit drivers and dodge laws that apply to taxis. Airbnb wouldn't be a viable business model if it didn't sidestep hotel laws. If your business depends on having unjust power over your customers then you ought to go out of business.
- pitaj 10y ago
  These are completely different realms. Legality of Uber and Airbnb is very different from Netflix losing all 3rd party content if they didn't provide DRM. Also, many people seem to have a real hard-on for the same legal system that outlaws marijuana and created the DMCA.
sigmar 10y ago
>Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Uh, why not? All Netflix series are already getting pirated even with DRM.
- artursapek 10y ago
  Houses get broken into even when they have locks, so why do you keep a lock on your house?
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    This terrible analogy would only be remotely close if your house was copied to millions of people, and a single person breaking in could expose everything inside to everyone on the Internet.
    - artursapek 10y ago
      So it's ok to steal things that are easy to steal?
      - cr0sh 10y ago
        Stealing implies that the theft of the "thing" denies the original owner of possession and use of that same "thing". Digital IP is different - you can make infinite copies of it. A copy I make does not diminish your copy, nor does it deprive you of possession of your copy, or usage of that copy. What it does deny you is the amount of money which you might have made on the sale of that copy (if you are the rights-holder and are selling the digital IP "thing" to others). I haven't, however, stopped you from continuing to sell your digital IP "thing" - you still have it. You just don't have the money. Surely you can see this difference? If it could be called anything, it would be considered theft of opportunity, rather than theft of an object. You have been deprived of making a portion of money. Now - that's very close to - if not almost identical, to me going up to your digital IP (via website, a kiosk, you at a table burning copies onto disc - whatever), looking at it, then saying to you "I would love to have a copy of this, but you know, I just won't, because you are charging money for it". I still haven't deprived you of your IP - you still have it, you still have your copy, etc. What I have done is deprived you of the opportunity of making money. Should I go to jail, or be fined, or be forced to pay you the money in some manner because I didn't buy it? The only real difference between the two? Well - in the first scenario, I have a copy of the digital IP; in very real terms, I have the knowledge of a particular number (because that is what any digital work can be reduced to - just a very large number) - in the second case - I don't. But - what if on the off chance I somehow guess that large number? What if I am able to do that? Since it is a real number, there is that possibility (granted, the probability of being able to do so is vanishingly small). I know have the knowledge of that number, and can use it as I see fit - including decoding it to watch it as a movie, or play it as a piece of music, or whatever. But I didn't copy it from you; in fact, you might not even know that I now know your number! Have I committed a crime? DRM (and the laws which surround it) - in a very real sense - is a system put in place to criminalize and prosecute people for knowledge of particular numbers - nothing more, nothing less. In other words, knowledge of such numbers is considered a crime, unless you have paid money for that knowledge - even possibly if you independently arrive at that knowledge. Agree or disagree - but it's the truth.
- bisby 10y ago
  Because the studios are the ones demanding DRM. I was under the impression that netflix original content is actually far more relaxed on restrictions (I don't recall where I heard this). They don't want DRM necessarily, but if they say "DRM is not an option" then the change of getting major studios on board is 0. And even if you take netflix original content out of the picture, that applies. their "viable business" is "stream other people's content" and "other people" have to agree to that, and won't without DRM.
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    Netflix probably also enjoys this, as it presents a barrier to entry. They also don't say anything negative about DRM[1], instead talking about "premium" content. They even go as far as to say: "This is a requirement for any premium subscription video service" -- this is blatantly false, unless you redefine premium to mean "requires DRM", in which case it's circular. Also note the use of "protect" as if it was a positive or good thing. 1: http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.html http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.h...
    - bisby 10y ago
      perhaps "This is a requirement for any premium subscription video service that wants to interact with popular studios because if you don't interact with popular studios people don't view your service as premium." Premium = big name movies Big name movies = big name studios Big name studios = full of corporate bigwigs who dont understand that DRM doesn't stop piracy
  - shmerl 10y ago
    > Because the studios are the ones demanding DRM. I was under the impression that netflix original content is actually far more relaxed on restrictions Where can you buy it DRM-free?
    - bisby 10y ago
      I honestly don't remember where I had seen/heard this. Which admittedly makes my claim far less credible. But it was something along the lines of being able to play some netflix content on some player without DRM being applied to it. DRM would be something they use because they want to, not because it's part of their contract with themselves.
- astrodust 10y ago
  Why not? Shareholder accountability. "We didn't bother protecting our content, and yes, sales are down 25% year over year, but..." Fired.
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    Can you explain how this works? If there was no DRM, how would that lower their sales? Last I checked, things on Netflix were easily downloadable via torrents. Are you suggesting that there are many shows on Netflix that someone wants to pirate, but the DRM is preventing them?
    - astrodust 10y ago
      I'm saying that if CEO you do nothing to prevent piracy then you get blamed for all the piracy. If you're using industry standards, like DRM, to protect the content they can't hold you accountable. It's just a cost of doing business. If one day the industry recognizes that DRM is useless and it's no longer demanded by content holders, then as CEO of Netflix you can abandon it. Steve Jobs told the music industry to suck it up and deal, and they did. He was unable to convince the movie/TV industry to do the same.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Obviously, because if it was as convenient to pirate Netflix videos as it was to view them on Netflix, nobody would subscribe to Netflix, and their business would fail.
  - tveita 10y ago
    It already is as convenient to pirate Netflix videos as it is to view them on Netflix. You'll get a better selection, with a better UI, and often higher quality encodes. I still keep a Netflix subscription, because I want to pay for stuff, but it's hard to feel I'm getting value out of it. I hope you realize the movies people 'pirate' have been stripped of the DRM. Even if the original file had DRM, that does not inconvenience downloaders at all.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Really? I'm ready to believe you. What's the URL I enter to get the Netflix viewing experience, in my browser, without a credit card?
      - piracythrowaway 10y ago
        one example: https://solarmovie.sc https://solarmovie.sc
        tptacek 10y ago
        Wow. This isn't as convenient as Netflix, but I concede that it's a lot more convenient than I thought piracy was at this point, and probably past the threshold where it matters.
josteink 10y ago
> Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Why is everyone so upset? Having the option to use DRM in native web APIs is not a bad thing. Because Netflix is freeloading on our open technology to deliver closed content, and putting the cost to support their DRM on us. It's not right. It's not fair. They are fragmenting the web by making "web sites" which are browser and OS-specific. If they want to make closed, OS-dependent stuff anyway, they should have to pay the cost, not us. They should just make a native app. Like they already do for at least 10 other platforms. Basically keep your closed and non-free poison out of my browser and open web-standards. That's a no-DRM zone. I'll use your app though, if you just go make it.
- tptacek 10y ago
  In what sense is Netflix "freeloading"? Where does the free ride stop? Are they allowed to use TCP/IP stacks to deliver DRM? The HTTP protocol? Or is just Mozilla that's the problem?
  - Touche 10y ago
    The free ride stops when they add stuff to a spec that other people can't freely implement.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I understand why you don't like EME DRM. I don't understand the sense in which it is free-riding.
      - Touche 10y ago
        It's offloading the cost of implementing proprietary software onto others.
  - pikzen 10y ago
    You don't see in what sense forcing the implementation of DRM into an open standard (HTTP in a broad sense, which includes HTML, JS, etc.), that has been developed for the past decades in a rather open way so your company can keep making profits could be "freeloading"? Not to mention setting it up in such a way that their part of the web is broken if for some reason you do not have their blessing for their DRM. Netflix came in and screwed over everyone, in a way that is just as bad as Flash. Sure, use the TCP/IP stack. Send your data over the internet. Make your own software based on that, it's just a transport layer and it screws no one else. Except they seem to be pretty damn awful at it, considering how comically bad all their desktop apps are.
pitaj 10y ago
If you're like one these people who believe that DRM is actually an act of evil, then I guess it makes sense.
shmerl 10y ago
That's false. DRM doesn't enable business. It's not even needed at all.
- tptacek 10y ago
  If that's true, why does every major content provider disagree with you?
  - shmerl 10y ago
    They don't disagree. The usage of DRM has nothing to do with normal reasons. See https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree_movies/post499 https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree...
    - tptacek 10y ago
      What the hell is Gog? Serious question. It was obviously never going to be my contention that there were no DRM-free video content producers. Just the major ones.
      - shmerl 10y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOG.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOG.com (the article incorrectly calls it Cypriot company, it's Polish). And I meant major ones. They admit that DRM isn't needed. See the report in the link above. Their usage of DRM isn't caused by business enabling requirements, but has completely crooked unrelated reasons.
        tptacek 10y ago
        So basically every mainstream movie and television content producer is colluding with every other such producer for some crooked end? By revenue, the overwhelming majority of the media industry is a criminal conspiracy?
apostacy 10y ago
I use Netflix, simply because it is slightly more convenient than what I used to do, torrenting. I'm willing to pay for that convenience. Besides, they said that the Apple Music Store couldn't survive without DRM. And then one day they removed it and nobody even noticed. Now nobody uses DRM when they sell music. Even Spotify don't bother encrypting cached mp3s on your hard drive. If Netflix switched to unencrypted streams tomorrow, it would have no effect. There is no content that is exclusive to Netflix. As soon as Netflix makes something available, it is immediately ripped losslessly and put on The Pirate Bay.