5 ms·

If you were ok with Netflix DRM at some point, getting rid of VPNs is only better enforcing what they're trying to do with DRM, preventing unauthorized content

If you were ok with Netflix DRM at some point, getting rid of VPNs is only better enforcing what they're trying to do with DRM, preventing unauthorized content access. Probably not Netflix's choice. Binge-on is horrible, but you can opt-out completely in your T-Mobile account settings page. Amazon had unbox for a while.. you couldn't watch Netflix on linux at all forever until Chrome on linux added DRM support. I think this was their original wrong, and they've been doubling down since.

Nullabillity 9y ago
As Hastings said himself, at this point they're big enough that they can get whatever deals they want. Especially considering that they're pretty much the only reason the movie industry is making any money at all... So no, the "DRM is a requirement from the studios" excuse isn't acceptable anymore.
izacus 9y ago
> Probably not Netflix's choice. Oh come on, this apologising needs to stop. Netflix joined the major DRM pushers as soon as they started producing their own content. They were the major proponents of HTML DRM. They happily apply that DRM and geoblocking to the series they produce and even more happily geoblock them as well. They've joined the other major publishers in behaviour. This net neutrality backpedal is just another in the line of their anti-consumer move - now that preventing others from joining the market makes them profit, they'll happily throw neutrality under the bus. It was just popular as long as they were the ones screwed by the cable operators.
- scarface74 9y ago
  As far as DRM, isn't the usual spiel that when you have DRM you don't own the content you're buying? In the case of Netflix, you're explicitly not paying for content ownership, you are paying for access while you're subscribing. I have no issues with DRM for subscription based services. For instance, I have no problem with Apple using DRM for Apple Music (subscription) and then selling music on iTunes as DRM free. I will pay for DRMd movie rentals from Apple/Amazon but I would never pay to "own" a movie from either service.
  - wand3r 9y ago
    Good point. I hate DRM but I couldn't articulate why I didn't have much issue with this. It's a rental, you don't own it. I bought a book that was DRM and I can't read it. It was Barnes and Noble and they cancelled the app and I don't remember the logon to the site or even exists still. Netflix is protecting it's service. I am not a dogmatic absoltist, they are renting the content and you are leasing the service from them. If you really want a copy I would just full screen it and screen cap it with quicktime. There are probably easier ways. Point is, with Netflix you are unlikely to do it because for $9 (or whatever it costs) the value prop is higher than the opportunity cost of piracy.
  - izacus 9y ago
    Except of the tiny detail that you're not allowed to watch rented movies on devices that aren't completely locked down. The issue of DRM isn't just owning, it's forcing you to use a certain software stack and then disabling your paid access if the kernel/drivers/whatever differ from the few software stacks they tested. For example Netflix video is limited to low resolutions on Linux in free browsers. You're not allowed to watch rented content on Android you modified. And more. The added problem is that they threw a lot of money into standardization of DRM services. This now means that more and more services - even those with free and ad supported content - now stop working on systems that aren't whitelisted by Widewine or whatever DRM stack they use. With the speed of DRM adoption on the web, soon, you won't be able to watch most of streaming content on anything but fully locked down devices running a few whitelisted un-modified OSes. And that's a problem. Losing access to most modern video content (more and more modern western culture isn't available on anything but streaming services) just because I want night mode on my phone is excessive don't you think? Why would you let your stupid show provider dictate if you can add a driver to make the devices display more pleasant for your eyes? (And yes, I'm aware that not all restrictions are in place on all platforms yet, but take a look at BluRay AACS 2.0 DRM standard and new Android OS limitations for the directions they want to take you.)
    - scarface74 9y ago
      Except of the tiny detail that you're not allowed to watch rented movies on devices that aren't completely locked down. The issue of DRM isn't just owning, it's forcing you to use a certain software stack and then disabling your paid access if the kernel/drivers/whatever differ from the few software stacks they tested. And before, you weren't allowed to watch Netflix at all on any PC based stack that wasn't supported for MS Silverlight. Web based DRM actually gave you more choices, not fewer. For example Netflix video is limited to low resolutions on Linux in free browsers. You're not allowed to watch rented content on Android you modified. And that has nothing to do with web based DRM. Netflix has always run on custom clients on non-PC platforms. If they didn't have Web based DRM, what do you think is more likely? That they would make a custom app for the most popular platforms (like Sling TV) or that they would release DRM free video? And more. The added problem is that they threw a lot of money into standardization of DRM services. This now means that more and more services - even those with free and ad supported content - now stop working on systems that aren't whitelisted by Widewine or whatever DRM stack they use. With the speed of DRM adoption on the web, soon, you won't be able to watch most of streaming content on anything but fully locked down devices running a few whitelisted un-modified OSes. Video on the "open web" is not a priority for most video producers. If they wanted to DRM their content, the lack of a standard was never the issue -- they would just release apps for all of the platforms they cared about. There are plenty of DRM solutions for video on the web. And that's a problem. Losing access to most modern video content (more and more modern western culture isn't available on anything but streaming services) just because I want night mode on my phone is excessive don't you think? Why would you let your stupid show provider dictate if you can add a driver to make the devices display more pleasant for your eyes? (And yes, I'm aware that not all restrictions are in place on all platforms yet, but take a look at BluRay AACS 2.0 DRM standard and new Android OS limitations for the directions they want to take you.) Every company decides what consumers they want to serve. It is a free market -- they decide which consumers are worth serving and consumers decide which content they are willing to pay for and what tradeoffs they are willing to make.
- paublyrne 9y ago
  As far as geoblocking their own content ... I'll be waiting a little longer to get access to the new House of Cards season as usual but I have always assumed this is because of delays with doing the translation work. Is it not the case that all the Netflix content appears everywhere, once this extra work is complete?
- audi100quattro 9y ago
  They blocked VPNs around the same time as their global expansion, and when VPNs were becoming increasingly popular, in addition to becoming a new major content creator. I don't care about it enough to think more, you might be more right, but it's all just adding to their DRM regime.

Nullabillity 9y ago

As Hastings said himself, at this point they're big enough that they can get whatever deals they want. Especially considering that they're pretty much the only reason the movie industry is making any money at all... So no, the "DRM is a requirement from the studios" excuse isn't acceptable anymore.

izacus 9y ago

> Probably not Netflix's choice. Oh come on, this apologising needs to stop. Netflix joined the major DRM pushers as soon as they started producing their own content. They were the major proponents of HTML DRM. They happily apply that DRM and geoblocking to the series they produce and even more happily geoblock them as well. They've joined the other major publishers in behaviour. This net neutrality backpedal is just another in the line of their anti-consumer move - now that preventing others from joining the market makes them profit, they'll happily throw neutrality under the bus. It was just popular as long as they were the ones screwed by the cable operators.

scarface74 9y ago
As far as DRM, isn't the usual spiel that when you have DRM you don't own the content you're buying? In the case of Netflix, you're explicitly not paying for content ownership, you are paying for access while you're subscribing. I have no issues with DRM for subscription based services. For instance, I have no problem with Apple using DRM for Apple Music (subscription) and then selling music on iTunes as DRM free. I will pay for DRMd movie rentals from Apple/Amazon but I would never pay to "own" a movie from either service.
- wand3r 9y ago
  Good point. I hate DRM but I couldn't articulate why I didn't have much issue with this. It's a rental, you don't own it. I bought a book that was DRM and I can't read it. It was Barnes and Noble and they cancelled the app and I don't remember the logon to the site or even exists still. Netflix is protecting it's service. I am not a dogmatic absoltist, they are renting the content and you are leasing the service from them. If you really want a copy I would just full screen it and screen cap it with quicktime. There are probably easier ways. Point is, with Netflix you are unlikely to do it because for $9 (or whatever it costs) the value prop is higher than the opportunity cost of piracy.
- izacus 9y ago
  Except of the tiny detail that you're not allowed to watch rented movies on devices that aren't completely locked down. The issue of DRM isn't just owning, it's forcing you to use a certain software stack and then disabling your paid access if the kernel/drivers/whatever differ from the few software stacks they tested. For example Netflix video is limited to low resolutions on Linux in free browsers. You're not allowed to watch rented content on Android you modified. And more. The added problem is that they threw a lot of money into standardization of DRM services. This now means that more and more services - even those with free and ad supported content - now stop working on systems that aren't whitelisted by Widewine or whatever DRM stack they use. With the speed of DRM adoption on the web, soon, you won't be able to watch most of streaming content on anything but fully locked down devices running a few whitelisted un-modified OSes. And that's a problem. Losing access to most modern video content (more and more modern western culture isn't available on anything but streaming services) just because I want night mode on my phone is excessive don't you think? Why would you let your stupid show provider dictate if you can add a driver to make the devices display more pleasant for your eyes? (And yes, I'm aware that not all restrictions are in place on all platforms yet, but take a look at BluRay AACS 2.0 DRM standard and new Android OS limitations for the directions they want to take you.)
  - scarface74 9y ago
    Except of the tiny detail that you're not allowed to watch rented movies on devices that aren't completely locked down. The issue of DRM isn't just owning, it's forcing you to use a certain software stack and then disabling your paid access if the kernel/drivers/whatever differ from the few software stacks they tested. And before, you weren't allowed to watch Netflix at all on any PC based stack that wasn't supported for MS Silverlight. Web based DRM actually gave you more choices, not fewer. For example Netflix video is limited to low resolutions on Linux in free browsers. You're not allowed to watch rented content on Android you modified. And that has nothing to do with web based DRM. Netflix has always run on custom clients on non-PC platforms. If they didn't have Web based DRM, what do you think is more likely? That they would make a custom app for the most popular platforms (like Sling TV) or that they would release DRM free video? And more. The added problem is that they threw a lot of money into standardization of DRM services. This now means that more and more services - even those with free and ad supported content - now stop working on systems that aren't whitelisted by Widewine or whatever DRM stack they use. With the speed of DRM adoption on the web, soon, you won't be able to watch most of streaming content on anything but fully locked down devices running a few whitelisted un-modified OSes. Video on the "open web" is not a priority for most video producers. If they wanted to DRM their content, the lack of a standard was never the issue -- they would just release apps for all of the platforms they cared about. There are plenty of DRM solutions for video on the web. And that's a problem. Losing access to most modern video content (more and more modern western culture isn't available on anything but streaming services) just because I want night mode on my phone is excessive don't you think? Why would you let your stupid show provider dictate if you can add a driver to make the devices display more pleasant for your eyes? (And yes, I'm aware that not all restrictions are in place on all platforms yet, but take a look at BluRay AACS 2.0 DRM standard and new Android OS limitations for the directions they want to take you.) Every company decides what consumers they want to serve. It is a free market -- they decide which consumers are worth serving and consumers decide which content they are willing to pay for and what tradeoffs they are willing to make.
paublyrne 9y ago
As far as geoblocking their own content ... I'll be waiting a little longer to get access to the new House of Cards season as usual but I have always assumed this is because of delays with doing the translation work. Is it not the case that all the Netflix content appears everywhere, once this extra work is complete?
audi100quattro 9y ago
They blocked VPNs around the same time as their global expansion, and when VPNs were becoming increasingly popular, in addition to becoming a new major content creator. I don't care about it enough to think more, you might be more right, but it's all just adding to their DRM regime.