7 ms·

No, blame the movie studios, record labels etc. They're the one which require asinine DRM support for web browsers. Google/Microsoft/Apple/Adobe want to support

No, blame the movie studios, record labels etc. They're the one which require asinine DRM support for web browsers. Google/Microsoft/Apple/Adobe want to support media content, but to do so requires towing the line with the media companies otherwise they refuse to license the content (at least in HD+). Having worked with various DRM teams I know that they have to treat their code as if its the most secret code in the world, if they don't the media companies can swoop in and ban them and then no Netflix for your users. This is why Widevine code isn't open source (other than the glue EME code) and is almost certainly the reason for the refusal to work with a small open-source form of Chromium. If for example the project was used to "steal" content the media companies would be mad at Widevine, with lasting repercussions for all Chrome users. It's worth noting that typically all DRM teams work as if the hosting environment is an adversary. For example Widevine don't trust anything Chrome says as someone could recompile it and lie about the security. The only times this is relaxed is where the platform is deemed secure, such as CrOS or iOS.

Zak 8y ago
The weird thing about this is I can find a high-quality torrent for anything on Netflix in under a minute.
- sabujp 8y ago
  DRM are like locks on a house, just keeps honest people out
  - gloflo 8y ago
    Except the lock is remotely controlled by your adversary. And your house also belongs to them. According to your analogy.
    - psadauskas 8y ago
      And if you bought something from them, they're permitted to come in and take it away from you whenever they want.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        You never bought it in the first place. The Adversary doesn't sell things anymore, it only rents them out.
    - est31 8y ago
      Sounds familiar. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19536991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19536991
  - patagonia 8y ago
    DRM are like locks on a gated community, just creates economic moats to enable rent seeking and prolong the status quo.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Ok? That’s a strong argument in favor, isn’t it?
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      You've missed the joke. In the DRM case the honest people are the ones who should be allowed in, but the DRM only allows the pirates in.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        No, I think you’ve missed my point. A technology that prevents generally honest people from slipping casually into dishonesty sounds valuable. Battling people who are determined to be dishonest sounds much less valuable.
        Zak 8y ago
        I suppose in the case of Netflix and the like, it stops me from getting some lossless downloader browser extension that would surely exist but for the DRM and... what? Getting stuff to watch after I let the subscription lapse? Giving copies to my friends? The former is about the same effort as torrenting and about as obviously dishonest. The latter is mostly possible using Netflix as intended as long as I don't mind sharing my password with them.
        AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        Making a personal copy of a video you've paid for is in no way dishonest, and the user downloading it from a pirate site without paying is in no way impeded by DRM. The only thing it could even arguably be doing is preventing users from uploading videos to pirate sites, but that is empirically a massive failure given that all of the videos are already on the pirate sites. So all you're doing is battling the honest people who have paid and then want to make a copy for format shifting or some other fair use. And the legitimate value of battling that is a negative number.
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    More like locks on a motel room.
- rohan1024 8y ago
  Torrent is something that I have nothing to complain about. It's decentralised. No big corporation is trying to control it. It's truly by the people for the people. I wonder if more protocols like this will get invented and become mainstream. Or those glorious days are already behind us? Since every big corporation is just trying to grab market share by creating walled gardens for everything.
  - Reelin 8y ago
    I assume that policing of torrent networks by the authorities will continue to increase. As a result, I'm hopeful that darknet (ie social connection based) solutions might emerge at some point. Why use a VPN and a tracker (private or otherwise) if I could request things via (anonymized) friend-of-friend-of-friend in a straightforward manner? That way you only trust your immediate network.
tedivm 8y ago
We could just blame all of them, since they were all involved.
0815test 8y ago
Then Google/Microsoft/Amazon and others who are being impacted by this issue should throw some non-trivial money at media creators who are willing to commit to DRM-free content. Like Creative Commons or the Blender Foundation, for starters. We had a comparable opportunity there when Netflix started offering streaming services, but they chose to go with DRM across the board. Fine, whatever. But unless the tech industry seriously gets behind this, Big Media will start to take their "content" hostage and mandate use of their own DRM 'solutions' to "protect it adequately" - with royalties for use set as high as the market will bear. Yeah, you can say that would be an antitrust violation, whatever. Legal processes take a long time, and Big Media have plenty of political support behind them. They don't have to care if they can make things crappy enough for everyone else.
jhasse 8y ago
> No, blame the movie studios, record labels etc. They're the one which require asinine DRM support for web browsers. Google/Microsoft/Apple/Adobe want to support media content, but to do so requires towing the line with the media companies otherwise they refuse to license the content (at least in HD+). Let's say Google, Microsoft and Apple announce that they will be removing any DRM from their browsers on 2020-01-01. They will also remove any DRM playback app from their App Stores. So no Netflix on PCs, Macs, iPhones, iPads or any Android device (including stuff like Android TV). What do you think would happen?
- clarkmoody 8y ago
  This is the correct solution. The big tech companies control the distribution channels. Currently, they bend to the requirements of large content producers. If they leaned the other way, toward open source and DRM-free distribution, the producers would have no choice but to comply. Of course, content producers could run back to the state for more protection (as they always do) and get legislation forcing browser makers to comply. And around and around it goes.
  - wolfgke 8y ago
    > Of course, content producers could run back to the state for more protection (as they always do) and get legislation forcing browser makers to comply. Implementations of such forced-by-court features tend to be buggy. ;-) The implementation bugs might differ in subtle ways in each new browser release. ;-)
- chinathrow 8y ago
  Why would they need to remove the DRM playback app in your scenario? If they would only remove it from the browsers, they would start pushing their native applications like Netflix for Linux, Netflix for Windows, Netflix for Mac. And browsers would be free of their DRM which causes all this.
  - jhasse 8y ago
    Because that would still prevent Metastream from working with Netflix ;)
pera 8y ago
> No, blame the movie studios, record labels etc. More specifically, those associated with the MPAA and the RIAA.
jrockway 8y ago
I'm pretty sure some method Netflix uses is broken anyway. People don't seem to have trouble uploading 4k rips to Usenet. (Though I haven't actually checked recently.) We were sold DRM as "the evil legacy studios are evil and make us use DRM". Well, now that Netflix produces their own content and it's still DRM'd... I guess that isn't really the reasoning.
- 0815test 8y ago
  Turns out Netflix is an evil legacy studio after all!
- jedberg 8y ago
  Netflix doesn’t make most of their content. They just have exclusive license to show it. The studio that makes it still demands DRM. In the rare case of content that is actually made by Netflix, it’s easier to just put DRM on it, because otherwise every system dedicated to encoding and playback would have to have a code branch that was special for non-DRM content. It would be a maintenance nightmare. It’s a lot easier to push all content through the same pipelines.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    Netflix only content isn't "rare" anymore, sorry if I don't purchase this particular red herring. DRM benefits Netflix just as much, if not even more than it does traditional media companies.
    - jedberg 8y ago
      It’s very rare. I’ll bet you can’t name a single show that Netflix produces. Remember all those big name shows are produced by other people and then sold exclusively to Netflix. DRM does not benefit Netflix. It’s complicated and takes a lot of resources to run. They’d much rather not have to deal with it at all. Having DRM does not gain them any customers — in fact it loses them some. But it’s the only way they can get content.
      - 8y ago
michaelt 8y ago
Google/Microsoft/Apple/Adobe want to support media content, but to do so requires towing the line with the media companies Sounds like the problem is the web browser companies also deciding to be movie streaming companies. Thus giving movie producing companies leverage over web browser tech. If it weren't for Google Play Movies and iTunes Movies they could have just told the MPAA companies to take a hike.
anoncake 8y ago
Why not blame everyone involved who let EME happen? Blame is not a limited resource.
gowld 8y ago
As the OP explained in the backwards complaint, DRM support is NOT required for web browsers. You can make a web browser that does not render DRM content.
mindslight 8y ago
What is the point of this "blame", especially stating it as if it were exclusive? All of these companies are past the startup/responsive/customerserving stage. They're immune to public opinion when you just keep on patronizing them. Rather, focus on concrete steps you yourself can take: 1. Make sure the hostile black box is not available / disabled in your browser. So when you end up at a page that wants to use DRM and it doesn't work, you simply attribute the problem to the website being broken (which it is), and move on. If you do need to keep using the DRM crutch for now, then only use it on a separate dedicated browser or device. 2. Base your media setup around a DRM-free pipeline (eg Kodi). Make torrenting content your default. If you want to pay indie creators for DRM free downloads, feel free. But don't fund any studios that generally push DRM. 3. Share downloaded content with friends (eg USB drives), encouraging them to not fund Netflix et al developing and promulgating more DRM. This is especially relevant for "exclusive" releases that are meant to push people into signing up for yet another subscription.

Zak 8y ago

The weird thing about this is I can find a high-quality torrent for anything on Netflix in under a minute.

sabujp 8y ago
DRM are like locks on a house, just keeps honest people out
- gloflo 8y ago
  Except the lock is remotely controlled by your adversary. And your house also belongs to them. According to your analogy.
  - psadauskas 8y ago
    And if you bought something from them, they're permitted to come in and take it away from you whenever they want.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      You never bought it in the first place. The Adversary doesn't sell things anymore, it only rents them out.
  - est31 8y ago
    Sounds familiar. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19536991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19536991
- patagonia 8y ago
  DRM are like locks on a gated community, just creates economic moats to enable rent seeking and prolong the status quo.
- tptacek 8y ago
  Ok? That’s a strong argument in favor, isn’t it?
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    You've missed the joke. In the DRM case the honest people are the ones who should be allowed in, but the DRM only allows the pirates in.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      No, I think you’ve missed my point. A technology that prevents generally honest people from slipping casually into dishonesty sounds valuable. Battling people who are determined to be dishonest sounds much less valuable.
      - Zak 8y ago
        I suppose in the case of Netflix and the like, it stops me from getting some lossless downloader browser extension that would surely exist but for the DRM and... what? Getting stuff to watch after I let the subscription lapse? Giving copies to my friends? The former is about the same effort as torrenting and about as obviously dishonest. The latter is mostly possible using Netflix as intended as long as I don't mind sharing my password with them.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        Making a personal copy of a video you've paid for is in no way dishonest, and the user downloading it from a pirate site without paying is in no way impeded by DRM. The only thing it could even arguably be doing is preventing users from uploading videos to pirate sites, but that is empirically a massive failure given that all of the videos are already on the pirate sites. So all you're doing is battling the honest people who have paid and then want to make a copy for format shifting or some other fair use. And the legitimate value of battling that is a negative number.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  More like locks on a motel room.
rohan1024 8y ago
Torrent is something that I have nothing to complain about. It's decentralised. No big corporation is trying to control it. It's truly by the people for the people. I wonder if more protocols like this will get invented and become mainstream. Or those glorious days are already behind us? Since every big corporation is just trying to grab market share by creating walled gardens for everything.
- Reelin 8y ago
  I assume that policing of torrent networks by the authorities will continue to increase. As a result, I'm hopeful that darknet (ie social connection based) solutions might emerge at some point. Why use a VPN and a tracker (private or otherwise) if I could request things via (anonymized) friend-of-friend-of-friend in a straightforward manner? That way you only trust your immediate network.

tedivm 8y ago

We could just blame all of them, since they were all involved.

0815test 8y ago

Then Google/Microsoft/Amazon and others who are being impacted by this issue should throw some non-trivial money at media creators who are willing to commit to DRM-free content. Like Creative Commons or the Blender Foundation, for starters. We had a comparable opportunity there when Netflix started offering streaming services, but they chose to go with DRM across the board. Fine, whatever. But unless the tech industry seriously gets behind this, Big Media will start to take their "content" hostage and mandate use of their own DRM 'solutions' to "protect it adequately" - with royalties for use set as high as the market will bear. Yeah, you can say that would be an antitrust violation, whatever. Legal processes take a long time, and Big Media have plenty of political support behind them. They don't have to care if they can make things crappy enough for everyone else.

jhasse 8y ago

> No, blame the movie studios, record labels etc. They're the one which require asinine DRM support for web browsers. Google/Microsoft/Apple/Adobe want to support media content, but to do so requires towing the line with the media companies otherwise they refuse to license the content (at least in HD+). Let's say Google, Microsoft and Apple announce that they will be removing any DRM from their browsers on 2020-01-01. They will also remove any DRM playback app from their App Stores. So no Netflix on PCs, Macs, iPhones, iPads or any Android device (including stuff like Android TV). What do you think would happen?

clarkmoody 8y ago
This is the correct solution. The big tech companies control the distribution channels. Currently, they bend to the requirements of large content producers. If they leaned the other way, toward open source and DRM-free distribution, the producers would have no choice but to comply. Of course, content producers could run back to the state for more protection (as they always do) and get legislation forcing browser makers to comply. And around and around it goes.
- wolfgke 8y ago
  > Of course, content producers could run back to the state for more protection (as they always do) and get legislation forcing browser makers to comply. Implementations of such forced-by-court features tend to be buggy. ;-) The implementation bugs might differ in subtle ways in each new browser release. ;-)
chinathrow 8y ago
Why would they need to remove the DRM playback app in your scenario? If they would only remove it from the browsers, they would start pushing their native applications like Netflix for Linux, Netflix for Windows, Netflix for Mac. And browsers would be free of their DRM which causes all this.
- jhasse 8y ago
  Because that would still prevent Metastream from working with Netflix ;)

pera 8y ago

> No, blame the movie studios, record labels etc. More specifically, those associated with the MPAA and the RIAA.

jrockway 8y ago

I'm pretty sure some method Netflix uses is broken anyway. People don't seem to have trouble uploading 4k rips to Usenet. (Though I haven't actually checked recently.) We were sold DRM as "the evil legacy studios are evil and make us use DRM". Well, now that Netflix produces their own content and it's still DRM'd... I guess that isn't really the reasoning.

0815test 8y ago
Turns out Netflix is an evil legacy studio after all!
jedberg 8y ago
Netflix doesn’t make most of their content. They just have exclusive license to show it. The studio that makes it still demands DRM. In the rare case of content that is actually made by Netflix, it’s easier to just put DRM on it, because otherwise every system dedicated to encoding and playback would have to have a code branch that was special for non-DRM content. It would be a maintenance nightmare. It’s a lot easier to push all content through the same pipelines.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  Netflix only content isn't "rare" anymore, sorry if I don't purchase this particular red herring. DRM benefits Netflix just as much, if not even more than it does traditional media companies.
  - jedberg 8y ago
    It’s very rare. I’ll bet you can’t name a single show that Netflix produces. Remember all those big name shows are produced by other people and then sold exclusively to Netflix. DRM does not benefit Netflix. It’s complicated and takes a lot of resources to run. They’d much rather not have to deal with it at all. Having DRM does not gain them any customers — in fact it loses them some. But it’s the only way they can get content.
    - 8y ago

michaelt 8y ago

Google/Microsoft/Apple/Adobe want to support media content, but to do so requires towing the line with the media companies Sounds like the problem is the web browser companies also deciding to be movie streaming companies. Thus giving movie producing companies leverage over web browser tech. If it weren't for Google Play Movies and iTunes Movies they could have just told the MPAA companies to take a hike.

anoncake 8y ago

Why not blame everyone involved who let EME happen? Blame is not a limited resource.

gowld 8y ago

As the OP explained in the backwards complaint, DRM support is NOT required for web browsers. You can make a web browser that does not render DRM content.

mindslight 8y ago

What is the point of this "blame", especially stating it as if it were exclusive? All of these companies are past the startup/responsive/customerserving stage. They're immune to public opinion when you just keep on patronizing them. Rather, focus on concrete steps you yourself can take: 1. Make sure the hostile black box is not available / disabled in your browser. So when you end up at a page that wants to use DRM and it doesn't work, you simply attribute the problem to the website being broken (which it is), and move on. If you do need to keep using the DRM crutch for now, then only use it on a separate dedicated browser or device. 2. Base your media setup around a DRM-free pipeline (eg Kodi). Make torrenting content your default. If you want to pay indie creators for DRM free downloads, feel free. But don't fund any studios that generally push DRM. 3. Share downloaded content with friends (eg USB drives), encouraging them to not fund Netflix et al developing and promulgating more DRM. This is especially relevant for "exclusive" releases that are meant to push people into signing up for yet another subscription.