12 ms·

Sorry, but as someone who spent nearly a decade founding and building a premium content VOD service, and 6 of those years fighting fiercely against DRM and maki

Sorry, but as someone who spent nearly a decade founding and building a premium content VOD service, and 6 of those years fighting fiercely against DRM and making great content available without DRM, I have both the knowledge and moral authority to say that you're living in a fantasy world. You might as well say that anyone who is not living an RMS-sanctioned ascetic technology lifestyle is hurting the cause of free software everywhere. Technically that might be true, but a few true believers martyring themselves is not going to change the social and political forces that drive software over time. Here's the bottom line: browser makers have absolutely zero leverage over DRM. Firefox refusing to implement DRM would have been 1000 times more likely to lead to Firefox's irrelevance and death than it would lead to rightsholders caving on DRM requirements. Even if all browsers banded together and refused, all that would mean is that premium content would not be available in browsers, and that would lead to a significant devaluation of the web in favor of proprietary apps. It is a techno-centric fantasy to think that browser makers have even a modicum of leverage here. The fact is content producers would restrict themselves to licensed devices in a heartbeat, and they would get away with it to, because at the end of the day, people want to watch what they want to watch. EME is a ideological compromise, sure, but it's a net benefit to the open web since its scope is small and it maintains the overall schema of web standards. It shouldn't be considered worse than proprietary plugins with arbitrary scope.

franciscop 10y ago
I don't agree with "people want to watch what they want to watch." IMO the 2005-2015 wave of pirated content was due to the exact opposite; users (people in the living room) not going the extra literal mile to buy/rent a DVD. With the coming of Spotify & Co the music pirate scene has pretty much died off and it's because the physical CDs are replaces by something orders of magnitude easier. Same thing is happening with video content now that most houses have the capability of streaming it. What people want to do after work is to sit in the sofa and press "play". They don't want to start installing software.
- bearcobra 10y ago
  > What people want to do after work is to sit in the sofa and press "play". They don't want to start installing software. Maybe, but Roku, Fire Sticks, Apple TV & Chromecast all seem to indicate that people are willing to put in some effort to set up a platform for video consumption. That combined with pre-installed solutions like iTunes and Microsoft Movies & TV give users some pretty easy options to compete with their browser.
- e40 10y ago
  I don't agree with "people want to watch what they want to watch." I have quite a few data points that say you are flat wrong about that. I would add to this: people watch what they want to watch and how they want to watch it. I've literally downloaded HBO shows even though I'm an HBO Now subscriber. The Roku HBO Now app is so horrible, I just hate using it.
  - jameskegel 10y ago
    I agree with this. My frustration is not only HBO, but also UFC. I pay for Fight Pass because I love the sport, and I want to support it, but my Roku experience is so bad that I found myself looking for other means of consuming it.
    - e40 10y ago
      Me, too (on the UFC)! I never use it. I just pay them because I download the content elsewhere.
  - mastazi 10y ago
    > I have quite a few data points Show us the data points or it didn't happen. I am highly sceptical about your statement and am convinced that most people are willing to pay in exchange for ease of use and convenience.
    - Silhouette 10y ago
      Show us the data points or it didn't happen. Sorry, that's not how it works. The situation is what it is, and the people with hard data are going to act on it, and your scepticism does not change any of that. As another person with business interests that produce custom video content for niche markets, I have shifted significantly in my attitude towards DRM since discovering how real people behave. We tried to be nice and considerate and not limit access to the video files with DRM. We did this while producing new, original content unlike anything else out there for our subscribers. We held out for several years. But we got to the point where we were spending so much time dealing with that that it was directly affecting our ability to deliver for the vast majority of our customers who respected the rules. We were losing out on revenues, our genuine customers were losing out on new content, and the only people winning were the freeloaders and the people enjoying our content on other people's sites/channels/whatever. My concern about DRM affecting legitimate customers if something goes wrong is as strong as ever, so we still take a cautious approach and err on the side of being nice. However, I have no qualms at all about DRMing every single asset we have, and I have no qualms whatsoever about deploying the lawyers against people who knowingly, maliciously and without remorse rip off the results of several years of hard work and share them with others. As a final point, none of this negates your point that making access convenient and prices reasonable improves conversion rates. But I see little evidence that this helps if part of your potential market is finding your content totally free from someone else first.
khedoros1 10y ago
This is all true. What has happened is probably the best out of a set of crappy options. It's only a net benefit compared to the other non-fantasy possibilities, though. EME is more something to be resigned to than happy about. > It shouldn't be considered worse than proprietary plugins with arbitrary scope. True. Proprietary plugins with limited scope are better than proprietary plugins with arbitrary scope, all other things being equal.
ReverseCold 10y ago
Someone can fork FF though and make it so that the DRM looks like it's there to the websites it visits, but it isn't really there. There's no way DRM can't be removed if I own the device that can play it.
- bubblethink 10y ago
  You don't understand how this works. Firefox just provides some APIs that the DRM blob can use. All the decryption is done by the blob, not Firefox. You can reverse engineer the blob itself to an extent, but that will also become impossible with SGX (hence 4k on kabylake + edge only).
  - flukus 10y ago
    Can't you just run in an emulator to get the blob? It looks like qemu was the first to support SGX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Guard_Extensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Guard_Extensions
    - bubblethink 10y ago
      No, that's all fine for mucking around and developing apps, but actual SGX needs attestation which the emulator can't fake. That's the whole point of SGX.
      - flukus 10y ago
        But how does that remain a secret when the browser can MitM everything between the CPU and the web?
        bubblethink 10y ago
        There is a hardware-based secret which emulators cannot obtain or fake. That breaks the attestation chain. At the heart of it, there is some stuff that only your processor can do and not you the user even though you may have full control over the operating system. The OS is in SGX's threat model.
matt4077 10y ago
Browser makers have plenty leverage. A Firefox user watching Netflix will, and this is a tautology, be worse off if they cannot continue doing so. That may lead to people switching to other browsers more often than dropping Netflix subscriptions, but the costs for Netflix wouldn't be 0, and may even be substantial considering the population of people using Firefox is self-selected to those placing a high value on openness. If Chrome were to ship without DRM, Netflix would cave faster than you can say "thepiratebay". See what happened to flash when it wasn't supported on the iPhone. There are millions of archived predictions of Apple's demised in forums such as this, but even though they had 20% of the market at peak, they easily killed flash. Unfortunately, Google has an interest in DRM for its own sake. This may serve as a welcome reminder that the awesome job they have done with Chrome is a result of an alignment of interest between them and the web community: they need the open web to compete against iOS and the closed Facebook ecosystem. That situation may not last forever. I'm quite happy to have had RMS and other true-believing ascetic martyrs shaping the techno-centric fantasy world we're living in. If your defeatist attitude had prevailed in the early years, we'd all be writing VBScript to animate the spinning gif on homepage.doc – yes, Microsoft once tried to push .doc to replace .html. I also think the music industry has proven quite clearly that you'll have a lot more success with carrots than sticks. I honestly don't know what benefit they think they're getting from DRM, considering all their material somehow ends in a .torrent anyway.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Not only is it not true that Netflix would cave if they didn't have native browser support, but we know it's not true, because Netflix for years relied on plugins to deliver over browsers. Meanwhile, every year that passes, browsers have less leverage as more Netflix subscribers get their content either on set-top boxes or mobile devices (where Netflix has total end-to-end control), and fewer are stuck with browsers.
  - danso 10y ago
    Have to say that this mirrors my experience. Netflix as an app is ubiquitous -- it's on virtually every electronic device I have, from smart TV to Chromecast to phone to tablet to Wii U and PS4. I believe I have Flash specifically updated and enabled for Netflix (or one of the video services, HBO maybe?). If Netflix required a specialized Mac OS X, I probably would install it. I imagine browsers have less leverage when it comes to the average non-technically inclined user.
pdeuchler 10y ago
I think we lost the ability to make fun of RMS once the Snowden revelations come out. Regardless... >> It is a techno-centric fantasy to think that browser makers have even a modicum of leverage here You realize the world's largest browser vendors are Google, Apple, and Microsoft... right? >> EME is a ideological compromise, sure, but it's a net benefit to the open web since its scope is small and it maintains the overall schema of web standards. Ahhh yes, the classic "compromise some of my morals to save the rest of them". Works every time.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Google and Apple have very little leverage. If even one major studio withdrew all their content from Apple and only made it available on Netflix, Apple could potentially lose millions of subscribers. People want to watch what they want to watch.
  - pdeuchler 10y ago
    I do not buy this for several reasons: 1) Content production is rapidly moving to an "in house" model, where subscribers are more heavily influenced by original and exclusive content 2) I doubt there would be large transfers of subscribers, more a slight depression across the board and large increases in piracy, as we saw rather distinctly with the early days of music providers (like before itunes early days) 3) Google and Apple each by themselves are worth the entirety of Hollywood many times over. I think it's less them having little leverage, and more them playing a longer game and not caring about DRM battles in the short term.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Content is indeed moving in house, and all the companies that are doing in-house production in any meaningful way DRM their content. So what does this matter?
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    > People want to watch what they want to watch. You keep using this phrase. Doesn't that also suggest that, if given enough trouble, they will just pirate that content instead? DRM has shown to do very little to stop that, so why continue pretending that it does.
zzalpha 10y ago
tl;dr Content is king. And you're absolutely right.
amelius 10y ago
People have been recording the things they watch since the invention of the VCR. DRM will not have any impact on that. Someone will come along, and make a video-grabbing utility that bypasses the DRM. Also, many of the content is already available via bittorrent. DRM is pointless. But perhaps you are right about "browser vendors refusing to cooperate" not being the best possible approach. However, do you know what is?
- grinich 10y ago
  This is like saying door locks are pointless because you can break a window and climb through. Protecting media copyright isn't a black or white thing like crypto. It's about compromises to drive behavior and consumer spending with convenience.
  - amelius 10y ago
    What exactly do you think this DRM will stop? 1. People who have access to the content can usually see it over and over again (when they have a subscription to a service like Netflix). DRM will do nothing here. 2. People who don't have access to the content can't even see the DRM'ed version of the file, so DRM will do nothing here either. 3. People who want to pirate (illegally distribute) the content have advanced tools and knowledge to circumvent DRM, so DRM is of no use here again.
    - recursive 10y ago
      Whether you have access to content isn't an immutable fact of your genetics. People can freely move between groups 1 and 2. That's the whole point. For instance, I didn't have access to netflix content, and then I signed up for a netflix account and paid them money, and now I do have access.
      - unicornporn 10y ago
        > Whether you have access to content isn't an immutable fact of your genetics. People can freely move between groups 1 and 2. That's the whole point. So you're saying people could move to another jurisdiction to be able to watch their favorite show on Netflix? Yeah, that truly sounds like freedom to me. Or am I misinterpretating you?
flukus 10y ago
I think you're living in fantasy world where DRM actually works. Not once has DRM prevented me from watching a netflix show, it's only prevented me from watching it on netflix.
- bunderbunder 10y ago
  DRM works to do the only thing it was ever really meant to do, which is give copyright holders warm fuzzies so that they're more willing to put their content up for sale on legal channels that don't require much in the way of technical savvy to use. Which means that it also works for the vast majority of consumers, since that's all they really ever wanted in the first place. The whole bit about preventing people from copying content is just a feel good story that's told to TV executives in order to further DRM's primary purpose.
- Karlozkiller 10y ago
  > I think you're living in fantasy world where DRM actually works. Not once has DRM prevented me from watching a netflix show, it's only prevented me from watching it on netflix. Yes, yes, and yes. DRM has blocked me from Netflix as a Linux user (not anymore obviously), blocked me from games due to bugs in the DRM in windows and or rootkits, and blocked me because the DRM does not work in Linux while the actual game does. And often you can find DRM free piracy versions. DRM is a pestilence that blocks legitimate use.
- tadblarney 10y ago
  It's like saying banning handguns would be pointless because bad guys can get guns. Well: Supply and Demand, if it's harder to get guns, their will be less of them. In Canada, where there is strict rules around handguns - and they are actually enforced (unlike, say Mexico where they're banned but gov. can't enforce it) - there is a lot less 'handgun related crime' and very few handguns floating around. (I'm not making an ideological statement about gun laws here, just using it as an example) Most people don't know how to get around DRM, or consider it 'somewhat immoral' and won't do it. The idea that 'all content should be free' is an interesting popular intellectual phenom. If you've actually ever created something yourself, and had someone steal it under this ideology, then it really 'brings home' how much it's not a very fair concept at all. As much as I hate Disney - if they make some dumb film - it's theirs to sell and control. That film is not public property. People don't want to pay for stuff, and they don't want ads (i.e. ad blockers) - well - the 'long run' economic case is that there is no content. And there is no way around this (i.e. some make the argument that bands should just give away their music and make their money playing live, but this is not realistic for 99.9% of creations) In the 'creative economy' - where even software is a creative function - then stuff can't be free. Firefox is only possible because Google gives them money - from their ads. Can DRM and excessive IP protections hurt everyone - absolutely. But that does't mean they are not necessary. The #1 issue in the creative economy going forward relates to this - how we can effectively, responsibly and fairly manage IP. We have to deal with it, we can't take the naive position that 'all the stuff should be free to me because I don't want to pay for it'.
greggman 10y ago
All evidence points to the opposite. Browser usage has expanded every single day since they were introduced ~26 something years ago. All that time there was no DRM in the browser. Proprietary plugins have been the source of the majority of exploits. EME will be no different
throwaway91111 10y ago
Any evidence?
shmerl 10y ago
> all that would mean is that premium content would not be available in browsers I doubt that. All browsers boycotting DRM freaks would cause more rational heads in the media industry to push against those who insist on DRM, and it could become the tipping point in ridding video of this disease. They themselves admit, they don't mind it, but don't want to be first to disrupt the status quo. So cowardice of browser makers only advanced the problem. But I agree that Firefox alone couldn't change things. This had to be a combined effort. But others simply either have no guts to stand against DRM, or are themselves dirty with it.
Eric_WVGG 10y ago
More people already watch movies on internet-connected set top boxes like Apple TVs and PS4s, or i-devices, than computers. At worst Netflix could have resorted to desktop apps for their movies. DRM doesn't need to be on the web.
beefsack 10y ago
> Even if all browsers banded together and refused, all that would mean is that premium content would not be available in browsers, and that would lead to a significant devaluation of the web in favor of proprietary apps Not everyone sees this as a bad thing. Horses for courses; the web doesn't have to be the platform for everything.
frik 10y ago
EME is a binary blob from Adobe. Welcome again the Flash days - not.
josteink 10y ago
> Sorry, but as someone who spent nearly a decade founding and building a premium content VOD service, and 6 of those years fighting fiercely against DRM and making great content available without DRM, I have both the knowledge and moral authority to say that you're living in a fantasy world. .... EME is a ideological compromise, sure, but it's a net benefit to the open web If you need DRM, nobody is forcing you to create a solution based on a open-platform. Go make a OS and platform-specific app instead. I mean... That's what EME makes browsers and web-sites into anyway. You now have so called "web-sites" where your OS and platform has to be "supported". And then you might as well make a native app. Like Netflix does. Like Spotify does. Like everyone does. We don't need DRM in our open standard.
miclill_kit 10y ago
>...I have both the knowledge and moral authority... So, you are god then?
pdog 10y ago
> You might as well say that anyone who is not living an RMS-sanctioned ascetic technology lifestyle is hurting the cause of free software everywhere. "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." ―George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903) "Maxims for Revolutionists"

franciscop 10y ago

I don't agree with "people want to watch what they want to watch." IMO the 2005-2015 wave of pirated content was due to the exact opposite; users (people in the living room) not going the extra literal mile to buy/rent a DVD. With the coming of Spotify & Co the music pirate scene has pretty much died off and it's because the physical CDs are replaces by something orders of magnitude easier. Same thing is happening with video content now that most houses have the capability of streaming it. What people want to do after work is to sit in the sofa and press "play". They don't want to start installing software.

bearcobra 10y ago
> What people want to do after work is to sit in the sofa and press "play". They don't want to start installing software. Maybe, but Roku, Fire Sticks, Apple TV & Chromecast all seem to indicate that people are willing to put in some effort to set up a platform for video consumption. That combined with pre-installed solutions like iTunes and Microsoft Movies & TV give users some pretty easy options to compete with their browser.
e40 10y ago
I don't agree with "people want to watch what they want to watch." I have quite a few data points that say you are flat wrong about that. I would add to this: people watch what they want to watch and how they want to watch it. I've literally downloaded HBO shows even though I'm an HBO Now subscriber. The Roku HBO Now app is so horrible, I just hate using it.
- jameskegel 10y ago
  I agree with this. My frustration is not only HBO, but also UFC. I pay for Fight Pass because I love the sport, and I want to support it, but my Roku experience is so bad that I found myself looking for other means of consuming it.
  - e40 10y ago
    Me, too (on the UFC)! I never use it. I just pay them because I download the content elsewhere.
- mastazi 10y ago
  > I have quite a few data points Show us the data points or it didn't happen. I am highly sceptical about your statement and am convinced that most people are willing to pay in exchange for ease of use and convenience.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    Show us the data points or it didn't happen. Sorry, that's not how it works. The situation is what it is, and the people with hard data are going to act on it, and your scepticism does not change any of that. As another person with business interests that produce custom video content for niche markets, I have shifted significantly in my attitude towards DRM since discovering how real people behave. We tried to be nice and considerate and not limit access to the video files with DRM. We did this while producing new, original content unlike anything else out there for our subscribers. We held out for several years. But we got to the point where we were spending so much time dealing with that that it was directly affecting our ability to deliver for the vast majority of our customers who respected the rules. We were losing out on revenues, our genuine customers were losing out on new content, and the only people winning were the freeloaders and the people enjoying our content on other people's sites/channels/whatever. My concern about DRM affecting legitimate customers if something goes wrong is as strong as ever, so we still take a cautious approach and err on the side of being nice. However, I have no qualms at all about DRMing every single asset we have, and I have no qualms whatsoever about deploying the lawyers against people who knowingly, maliciously and without remorse rip off the results of several years of hard work and share them with others. As a final point, none of this negates your point that making access convenient and prices reasonable improves conversion rates. But I see little evidence that this helps if part of your potential market is finding your content totally free from someone else first.

khedoros1 10y ago

This is all true. What has happened is probably the best out of a set of crappy options. It's only a net benefit compared to the other non-fantasy possibilities, though. EME is more something to be resigned to than happy about. > It shouldn't be considered worse than proprietary plugins with arbitrary scope. True. Proprietary plugins with limited scope are better than proprietary plugins with arbitrary scope, all other things being equal.

ReverseCold 10y ago

Someone can fork FF though and make it so that the DRM looks like it's there to the websites it visits, but it isn't really there. There's no way DRM can't be removed if I own the device that can play it.

bubblethink 10y ago
You don't understand how this works. Firefox just provides some APIs that the DRM blob can use. All the decryption is done by the blob, not Firefox. You can reverse engineer the blob itself to an extent, but that will also become impossible with SGX (hence 4k on kabylake + edge only).
- flukus 10y ago
  Can't you just run in an emulator to get the blob? It looks like qemu was the first to support SGX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Guard_Extensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Guard_Extensions
  - bubblethink 10y ago
    No, that's all fine for mucking around and developing apps, but actual SGX needs attestation which the emulator can't fake. That's the whole point of SGX.
    - flukus 10y ago
      But how does that remain a secret when the browser can MitM everything between the CPU and the web?
      - bubblethink 10y ago
        There is a hardware-based secret which emulators cannot obtain or fake. That breaks the attestation chain. At the heart of it, there is some stuff that only your processor can do and not you the user even though you may have full control over the operating system. The OS is in SGX's threat model.

matt4077 10y ago

Browser makers have plenty leverage. A Firefox user watching Netflix will, and this is a tautology, be worse off if they cannot continue doing so. That may lead to people switching to other browsers more often than dropping Netflix subscriptions, but the costs for Netflix wouldn't be 0, and may even be substantial considering the population of people using Firefox is self-selected to those placing a high value on openness. If Chrome were to ship without DRM, Netflix would cave faster than you can say "thepiratebay". See what happened to flash when it wasn't supported on the iPhone. There are millions of archived predictions of Apple's demised in forums such as this, but even though they had 20% of the market at peak, they easily killed flash. Unfortunately, Google has an interest in DRM for its own sake. This may serve as a welcome reminder that the awesome job they have done with Chrome is a result of an alignment of interest between them and the web community: they need the open web to compete against iOS and the closed Facebook ecosystem. That situation may not last forever. I'm quite happy to have had RMS and other true-believing ascetic martyrs shaping the techno-centric fantasy world we're living in. If your defeatist attitude had prevailed in the early years, we'd all be writing VBScript to animate the spinning gif on homepage.doc – yes, Microsoft once tried to push .doc to replace .html. I also think the music industry has proven quite clearly that you'll have a lot more success with carrots than sticks. I honestly don't know what benefit they think they're getting from DRM, considering all their material somehow ends in a .torrent anyway.

tptacek 10y ago
Not only is it not true that Netflix would cave if they didn't have native browser support, but we know it's not true, because Netflix for years relied on plugins to deliver over browsers. Meanwhile, every year that passes, browsers have less leverage as more Netflix subscribers get their content either on set-top boxes or mobile devices (where Netflix has total end-to-end control), and fewer are stuck with browsers.
- danso 10y ago
  Have to say that this mirrors my experience. Netflix as an app is ubiquitous -- it's on virtually every electronic device I have, from smart TV to Chromecast to phone to tablet to Wii U and PS4. I believe I have Flash specifically updated and enabled for Netflix (or one of the video services, HBO maybe?). If Netflix required a specialized Mac OS X, I probably would install it. I imagine browsers have less leverage when it comes to the average non-technically inclined user.

pdeuchler 10y ago

I think we lost the ability to make fun of RMS once the Snowden revelations come out. Regardless... >> It is a techno-centric fantasy to think that browser makers have even a modicum of leverage here You realize the world's largest browser vendors are Google, Apple, and Microsoft... right? >> EME is a ideological compromise, sure, but it's a net benefit to the open web since its scope is small and it maintains the overall schema of web standards. Ahhh yes, the classic "compromise some of my morals to save the rest of them". Works every time.

tptacek 10y ago
Google and Apple have very little leverage. If even one major studio withdrew all their content from Apple and only made it available on Netflix, Apple could potentially lose millions of subscribers. People want to watch what they want to watch.
- pdeuchler 10y ago
  I do not buy this for several reasons: 1) Content production is rapidly moving to an "in house" model, where subscribers are more heavily influenced by original and exclusive content 2) I doubt there would be large transfers of subscribers, more a slight depression across the board and large increases in piracy, as we saw rather distinctly with the early days of music providers (like before itunes early days) 3) Google and Apple each by themselves are worth the entirety of Hollywood many times over. I think it's less them having little leverage, and more them playing a longer game and not caring about DRM battles in the short term.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Content is indeed moving in house, and all the companies that are doing in-house production in any meaningful way DRM their content. So what does this matter?
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  > People want to watch what they want to watch. You keep using this phrase. Doesn't that also suggest that, if given enough trouble, they will just pirate that content instead? DRM has shown to do very little to stop that, so why continue pretending that it does.

zzalpha 10y ago

tl;dr Content is king. And you're absolutely right.

amelius 10y ago

People have been recording the things they watch since the invention of the VCR. DRM will not have any impact on that. Someone will come along, and make a video-grabbing utility that bypasses the DRM. Also, many of the content is already available via bittorrent. DRM is pointless. But perhaps you are right about "browser vendors refusing to cooperate" not being the best possible approach. However, do you know what is?

grinich 10y ago
This is like saying door locks are pointless because you can break a window and climb through. Protecting media copyright isn't a black or white thing like crypto. It's about compromises to drive behavior and consumer spending with convenience.
- amelius 10y ago
  What exactly do you think this DRM will stop? 1. People who have access to the content can usually see it over and over again (when they have a subscription to a service like Netflix). DRM will do nothing here. 2. People who don't have access to the content can't even see the DRM'ed version of the file, so DRM will do nothing here either. 3. People who want to pirate (illegally distribute) the content have advanced tools and knowledge to circumvent DRM, so DRM is of no use here again.
  - recursive 10y ago
    Whether you have access to content isn't an immutable fact of your genetics. People can freely move between groups 1 and 2. That's the whole point. For instance, I didn't have access to netflix content, and then I signed up for a netflix account and paid them money, and now I do have access.
    - unicornporn 10y ago
      > Whether you have access to content isn't an immutable fact of your genetics. People can freely move between groups 1 and 2. That's the whole point. So you're saying people could move to another jurisdiction to be able to watch their favorite show on Netflix? Yeah, that truly sounds like freedom to me. Or am I misinterpretating you?

flukus 10y ago

I think you're living in fantasy world where DRM actually works. Not once has DRM prevented me from watching a netflix show, it's only prevented me from watching it on netflix.

bunderbunder 10y ago
DRM works to do the only thing it was ever really meant to do, which is give copyright holders warm fuzzies so that they're more willing to put their content up for sale on legal channels that don't require much in the way of technical savvy to use. Which means that it also works for the vast majority of consumers, since that's all they really ever wanted in the first place. The whole bit about preventing people from copying content is just a feel good story that's told to TV executives in order to further DRM's primary purpose.
Karlozkiller 10y ago
> I think you're living in fantasy world where DRM actually works. Not once has DRM prevented me from watching a netflix show, it's only prevented me from watching it on netflix. Yes, yes, and yes. DRM has blocked me from Netflix as a Linux user (not anymore obviously), blocked me from games due to bugs in the DRM in windows and or rootkits, and blocked me because the DRM does not work in Linux while the actual game does. And often you can find DRM free piracy versions. DRM is a pestilence that blocks legitimate use.
tadblarney 10y ago
It's like saying banning handguns would be pointless because bad guys can get guns. Well: Supply and Demand, if it's harder to get guns, their will be less of them. In Canada, where there is strict rules around handguns - and they are actually enforced (unlike, say Mexico where they're banned but gov. can't enforce it) - there is a lot less 'handgun related crime' and very few handguns floating around. (I'm not making an ideological statement about gun laws here, just using it as an example) Most people don't know how to get around DRM, or consider it 'somewhat immoral' and won't do it. The idea that 'all content should be free' is an interesting popular intellectual phenom. If you've actually ever created something yourself, and had someone steal it under this ideology, then it really 'brings home' how much it's not a very fair concept at all. As much as I hate Disney - if they make some dumb film - it's theirs to sell and control. That film is not public property. People don't want to pay for stuff, and they don't want ads (i.e. ad blockers) - well - the 'long run' economic case is that there is no content. And there is no way around this (i.e. some make the argument that bands should just give away their music and make their money playing live, but this is not realistic for 99.9% of creations) In the 'creative economy' - where even software is a creative function - then stuff can't be free. Firefox is only possible because Google gives them money - from their ads. Can DRM and excessive IP protections hurt everyone - absolutely. But that does't mean they are not necessary. The #1 issue in the creative economy going forward relates to this - how we can effectively, responsibly and fairly manage IP. We have to deal with it, we can't take the naive position that 'all the stuff should be free to me because I don't want to pay for it'.

greggman 10y ago

All evidence points to the opposite. Browser usage has expanded every single day since they were introduced ~26 something years ago. All that time there was no DRM in the browser. Proprietary plugins have been the source of the majority of exploits. EME will be no different

throwaway91111 10y ago

Any evidence?

shmerl 10y ago

> all that would mean is that premium content would not be available in browsers I doubt that. All browsers boycotting DRM freaks would cause more rational heads in the media industry to push against those who insist on DRM, and it could become the tipping point in ridding video of this disease. They themselves admit, they don't mind it, but don't want to be first to disrupt the status quo. So cowardice of browser makers only advanced the problem. But I agree that Firefox alone couldn't change things. This had to be a combined effort. But others simply either have no guts to stand against DRM, or are themselves dirty with it.

Eric_WVGG 10y ago

More people already watch movies on internet-connected set top boxes like Apple TVs and PS4s, or i-devices, than computers. At worst Netflix could have resorted to desktop apps for their movies. DRM doesn't need to be on the web.

beefsack 10y ago

> Even if all browsers banded together and refused, all that would mean is that premium content would not be available in browsers, and that would lead to a significant devaluation of the web in favor of proprietary apps Not everyone sees this as a bad thing. Horses for courses; the web doesn't have to be the platform for everything.

frik 10y ago

EME is a binary blob from Adobe. Welcome again the Flash days - not.

josteink 10y ago

> Sorry, but as someone who spent nearly a decade founding and building a premium content VOD service, and 6 of those years fighting fiercely against DRM and making great content available without DRM, I have both the knowledge and moral authority to say that you're living in a fantasy world. .... EME is a ideological compromise, sure, but it's a net benefit to the open web If you need DRM, nobody is forcing you to create a solution based on a open-platform. Go make a OS and platform-specific app instead. I mean... That's what EME makes browsers and web-sites into anyway. You now have so called "web-sites" where your OS and platform has to be "supported". And then you might as well make a native app. Like Netflix does. Like Spotify does. Like everyone does. We don't need DRM in our open standard.

miclill_kit 10y ago

>...I have both the knowledge and moral authority... So, you are god then?

pdog 10y ago

> You might as well say that anyone who is not living an RMS-sanctioned ascetic technology lifestyle is hurting the cause of free software everywhere. "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." ―George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903) "Maxims for Revolutionists"