3 ms·

It's probably a lot easier to have a blanket ban on VPNs and rooted devices than to allow them when you watch X versus when you watch Y.

by xienze 9y ago

jasonkostempski 9y ago
Maybe one day they'll have a separate price plan and app just for Netflix Original content. I'd switch to that right now if they offered it. Then we'd see which side of the fence they're on.
syshum 9y ago
I am sure it is, I am also sure if netflix has a ethical problem with DRM, and is actually in active opposition to DRM they would put forth the effort to allow their content DRM free, eliminate geo-fences, and allow the app on Rooted devices limited to only Netflix owned content They however are not opposed to DRM like many people believe, they are Huge supporters and developers of DRM technology. If you oppose DRM, Netflix is just as much an enemy as the MPAA is
- jasonkostempski 9y ago
  I'm guessing they're on the same boat as Tim Berners-Lee, thinking it a necessary evil if the world wants big budget films delivered through their browser. Personally, I'd only get on that boat if my life depended on it, which I think is the case for Netflix (I'm still not sure why TBL is on it). I think Netflix is at least fighting for DRM that isn't based on rootkits, something of a win for the general population.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > I think Netflix is at least fighting for DRM that isn't based on rootkits But you have read the headline, haven't you? They only work with a google rootkit installed, now.
    - geofft 9y ago
      I think that describing Google Play Services (or Android? or I'm-not-sure-what) as "a google rootkit" isn't super conducive to a meaningful discussion, even if there's a technical interpretation under which it's true. In particular, most users of Netflix on Android have a threat model that involves Google legitimately having the ability to push software updates to the phone that run as root. So "rootkit" is not a very useful term, any more than describing any Debian package maintainer script as a "random volunteer's rootkit" would be.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        Suppose you needed to install this particular Debian package with root privileges (well, necessarily, but you get the point) that you otherwise would not want to install and that then goes on to enforce a certain behaviour of your computer against your interests as a prerequisite for using some other piece of software. Suppose further that someone put forward the argument that it's not so bad, as at least there is no rootkit involved. Then, yes, it would obviously be perfectly sensible to in that context call that Debian package a "random volunteer's rootkit". Whether most users would like to have some other functionality provided by that same package is completely irrelevant to the question at hand, as is whether most users would install the package.
        geofft 9y ago
        > Suppose you needed to install this particular Debian package with root privileges (well, necessarily, but you get the point) that you otherwise would not want to install and that then goes on to enforce a certain behaviour of your computer against your interests as a prerequisite for using some other piece of software. This happens to lots of people under the name of systemd. I think any definition of "rootkit" that includes involuntary installations of systemd is so broad that we cannot conclude anything from the term. (There are legitimate criticism of Debian requiring systemd, but they're basically entirely orthogonal from the criticisms of, say, the Sony BMG rootkit.) So, let me ask - what in particular are you seeing as the "google rootkit," and how would you describe its negative behavior in words other than "it's a rootkit"?
  - geofft 9y ago
    Aren't HTML5 EME plugins sandboxable, though? That is, aren't they definitely not rootkits?
    - jasonkostempski 9y ago
      I wasn't saying HTML5 EME supported rootkits. DRM doesn't belong in the web standard, that's a fundamental belief of mine against DRM in general. I'm saying TBL and Netflix are both campaigning for non-rootkit-like DRM, better than the worst DRM, but DRM none the less. Netflix is a company, it's only real concern is making money, regardless what they're owners/employees personally believe, they won't get big budget films without it, so I understand why they're working for "Good" DRM. But no individual should be lobbying for "better" DRM.
Jach 9y ago
Doing the easy thing isn't (or didn't used to be) Netflix's style, one of the reasons HN has long loved its tech writeups. So the blanket ban is either a reversal of that culture or simply Netflix finding itself with aligned interests with other content producers and acting accordingly.

It's probably a lot easier to have a blanket ban on VPNs and rooted devices than to allow them when you watch X versus when you watch Y.

by xienze 9y ago

It's probably a lot easier to have a blanket ban on VPNs and rooted devices than to allow them when you watch X versus when you watch Y.

jasonkostempski 9y ago

Maybe one day they'll have a separate price plan and app just for Netflix Original content. I'd switch to that right now if they offered it. Then we'd see which side of the fence they're on.

syshum 9y ago

I am sure it is, I am also sure if netflix has a ethical problem with DRM, and is actually in active opposition to DRM they would put forth the effort to allow their content DRM free, eliminate geo-fences, and allow the app on Rooted devices limited to only Netflix owned content They however are not opposed to DRM like many people believe, they are Huge supporters and developers of DRM technology. If you oppose DRM, Netflix is just as much an enemy as the MPAA is

jasonkostempski 9y ago
I'm guessing they're on the same boat as Tim Berners-Lee, thinking it a necessary evil if the world wants big budget films delivered through their browser. Personally, I'd only get on that boat if my life depended on it, which I think is the case for Netflix (I'm still not sure why TBL is on it). I think Netflix is at least fighting for DRM that isn't based on rootkits, something of a win for the general population.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > I think Netflix is at least fighting for DRM that isn't based on rootkits But you have read the headline, haven't you? They only work with a google rootkit installed, now.
  - geofft 9y ago
    I think that describing Google Play Services (or Android? or I'm-not-sure-what) as "a google rootkit" isn't super conducive to a meaningful discussion, even if there's a technical interpretation under which it's true. In particular, most users of Netflix on Android have a threat model that involves Google legitimately having the ability to push software updates to the phone that run as root. So "rootkit" is not a very useful term, any more than describing any Debian package maintainer script as a "random volunteer's rootkit" would be.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      Suppose you needed to install this particular Debian package with root privileges (well, necessarily, but you get the point) that you otherwise would not want to install and that then goes on to enforce a certain behaviour of your computer against your interests as a prerequisite for using some other piece of software. Suppose further that someone put forward the argument that it's not so bad, as at least there is no rootkit involved. Then, yes, it would obviously be perfectly sensible to in that context call that Debian package a "random volunteer's rootkit". Whether most users would like to have some other functionality provided by that same package is completely irrelevant to the question at hand, as is whether most users would install the package.
      - geofft 9y ago
        > Suppose you needed to install this particular Debian package with root privileges (well, necessarily, but you get the point) that you otherwise would not want to install and that then goes on to enforce a certain behaviour of your computer against your interests as a prerequisite for using some other piece of software. This happens to lots of people under the name of systemd. I think any definition of "rootkit" that includes involuntary installations of systemd is so broad that we cannot conclude anything from the term. (There are legitimate criticism of Debian requiring systemd, but they're basically entirely orthogonal from the criticisms of, say, the Sony BMG rootkit.) So, let me ask - what in particular are you seeing as the "google rootkit," and how would you describe its negative behavior in words other than "it's a rootkit"?
- geofft 9y ago
  Aren't HTML5 EME plugins sandboxable, though? That is, aren't they definitely not rootkits?
  - jasonkostempski 9y ago
    I wasn't saying HTML5 EME supported rootkits. DRM doesn't belong in the web standard, that's a fundamental belief of mine against DRM in general. I'm saying TBL and Netflix are both campaigning for non-rootkit-like DRM, better than the worst DRM, but DRM none the less. Netflix is a company, it's only real concern is making money, regardless what they're owners/employees personally believe, they won't get big budget films without it, so I understand why they're working for "Good" DRM. But no individual should be lobbying for "better" DRM.

Jach 9y ago

Doing the easy thing isn't (or didn't used to be) Netflix's style, one of the reasons HN has long loved its tech writeups. So the blanket ban is either a reversal of that culture or simply Netflix finding itself with aligned interests with other content producers and acting accordingly.