8 ms·

> Wow, Cory's article is totally over the top... What makes you think it's over the top? We have a public-interest organization pushing DRM, a technology that

by dlitz 14y ago

> Wow, Cory's article is totally over the top... What makes you think it's over the top? We have a public-interest organization pushing DRM, a technology that is decidedly against the public interest. I'm surprised that this is upvoted to the top of the thread, when you haven't done anything except say "this is over the top" and given us a link that explains what DRM is---as if the DRM's detractors don't already know what it is or how it works. > Sure, it'd be nice if the big media companies stopped insisting on using encryption to distribute their videos. But that's not likely to happen anytime soon. That's only true because technologists continue to lie to media companies, telling them that DRM is feasible and not harmful to their interests (even though, in addition to being against the public interest, it tends to cause monopolization of their distribution chains---just ask the music industry happened with iTunes). Look, these media companies are looking to us for advice; We're doing both them an ourselves a disservice by continuing to sell them DRM snake oil.

trunnell 14y ago
> you haven't done anything except say "this is over the top" and given us a link that explains what DRM is The link is the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) spec. EME is not DRM. It allows access to a decryption system outside of the browser. That is different than what Cory and others are claiming.
- makomk 14y ago
  It is precisely DRM. The entire point of it is to protect media streams from copying, and the BBC has specifically demanded that it be robust enough DRM enough to trigger anti-circumvention laws and allow them to have anyone who does manage to copy the decrypted streams arrested and jailed.
  - trunnell 14y ago
    EME merely allows access to a DRM system. I know this distinction sounds overly precise, but the fact that EME does not mandate a DRM system makes a big difference if you want to implement this spec in a browser. Were EME to actually specify the DRM then this spec would never have been jointly proposed by Google, Microsoft, and Netflix. It is an effective but incorrect bit of rhetoric when Cory equates EME to DRM in the article.
    - shmerl 14y ago
      It's all just an empty demagogy in lawyers style. EME is about DRM, but the language was made generic to avoid mentioning DRM. So to make things fair and clear - EME is intended to serve the cause of those who push DRM on the Web. And it's enough of a reason to oppose EME.
      - jshen 14y ago
        Look at ABC as an example. You can watch their video content via a Flash plugin, or via a native app for IOS. They do not let you watch their content via a browser without Flash. This is fairly common for media companies. Now think of the implications of not having EME. It creates a situation that pushes users away from the open web and onto native apps and proprietary plugins. EME is needed so that users don't move away from browsers to native apps. Users will go where the content is, no matter how vigorously you shout your ideology.
        shmerl 14y ago
        Aren't those plugins used already by those who rely on DRM? So what do you prefer, to make DRM (a dying unethical trend) part of the HTML5, or to retain its area of influence to plugins? Users know that plugins should be better avoided. They represent external, not very trustworthy entities for the web experience. This goes along with DRM which should be avoided for similar reasons. Pushing DRM into the browsers would only obscure this matter. EME is therefore not serving any good purpose for the open web and should be opposed. It's not like users who use DRM will suddenly get pushed into plugins or external applications. They already use them! And those who don't use and don't want to use DRM don't need that junk in the browser. And for publishers it should be a lesson to stop using all that DRM for good if they want to be part of the open web.
        jshen 14y ago
        Users will get pushed into native apps. Normal users don't know or care what DRM is. They click on a link to some video they want to watch from ABC, and if they are on a mobile device they are told they have to download the free app to watch it. They do, cause they want to want to watch, and we just helped push users off the open web!
gph 14y ago
>Look, these media companies are looking to us for advice; We're doing both them an ourselves a disservice by continuing to sell them DRM snake oil. Seems to be working out pretty well for Hulu/Netflix. Or is releasing your $100 million budget film DRM-Free onto the internet now profitable??
- lucian1900 14y ago
  Netflix requires a subscription to stream. DRM is irrelevant.
  - gph 14y ago
    Care to elucidate that point? So if netflix streamed their content with no-DRM (which none of the content companies they license from would allow, but we'll skip that fact) you assume no one would just get a subscription, copy their entire catalouge, and freely distribute it? Doesn't sound like a very sustainable business model to me...
    - entropy_ 14y ago
      The point is, that it is possible for someone who is technically savvy and who has a subscription to copy the streams right now. The reason they can't download the entire catalogue is probably because netflix/hulu have(or at least I hope they do) a system in place which prevents a single subscriber from accessing streams at a speed above what would be reasonably necessary for watching things one movie at a time. Which means that downloading the entire catalogue would take as long as it would take to watch everything which is probably prohibitively too much time. However, if, say, there's a particular movie that is available on netflix/hulu which you want to distribute freely for whatever reason and you are technically savvy, no DRM(short of netflix/hulu controlling the actual hardware you're watching from) will prevent you from doing so. Therefore, DRM offers no additional protection beyond what a regular login cookie-based system with rate limiting would offer.
    - mmastrac 14y ago
      DRM didn't stop House of Cards from appearing on PB: http://thepiratebay.se/search/house%20of%20cards/0/99/0 http://thepiratebay.se/search/house%20of%20cards/0/99/0 I don't see Netflix going out of business because of this.
duaneb 14y ago
> a technology that is decidedly against the public interest. Hey, not all of us believe that. I'm perfectly fine with putting DRM on streaming video; I certainly don't expect to be able to download all of netflix to my computer for one month's subscription. It's much more of an issue when I pay full price for a movie (after pressing the "Purchase" button) and I find I don't actually own it.

by dlitz 14y ago

trunnell 14y ago

> you haven't done anything except say "this is over the top" and given us a link that explains what DRM is The link is the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) spec. EME is not DRM. It allows access to a decryption system outside of the browser. That is different than what Cory and others are claiming.

makomk 14y ago
It is precisely DRM. The entire point of it is to protect media streams from copying, and the BBC has specifically demanded that it be robust enough DRM enough to trigger anti-circumvention laws and allow them to have anyone who does manage to copy the decrypted streams arrested and jailed.
- trunnell 14y ago
  EME merely allows access to a DRM system. I know this distinction sounds overly precise, but the fact that EME does not mandate a DRM system makes a big difference if you want to implement this spec in a browser. Were EME to actually specify the DRM then this spec would never have been jointly proposed by Google, Microsoft, and Netflix. It is an effective but incorrect bit of rhetoric when Cory equates EME to DRM in the article.
  - shmerl 14y ago
    It's all just an empty demagogy in lawyers style. EME is about DRM, but the language was made generic to avoid mentioning DRM. So to make things fair and clear - EME is intended to serve the cause of those who push DRM on the Web. And it's enough of a reason to oppose EME.
    - jshen 14y ago
      Look at ABC as an example. You can watch their video content via a Flash plugin, or via a native app for IOS. They do not let you watch their content via a browser without Flash. This is fairly common for media companies. Now think of the implications of not having EME. It creates a situation that pushes users away from the open web and onto native apps and proprietary plugins. EME is needed so that users don't move away from browsers to native apps. Users will go where the content is, no matter how vigorously you shout your ideology.
      - shmerl 14y ago
        Aren't those plugins used already by those who rely on DRM? So what do you prefer, to make DRM (a dying unethical trend) part of the HTML5, or to retain its area of influence to plugins? Users know that plugins should be better avoided. They represent external, not very trustworthy entities for the web experience. This goes along with DRM which should be avoided for similar reasons. Pushing DRM into the browsers would only obscure this matter. EME is therefore not serving any good purpose for the open web and should be opposed. It's not like users who use DRM will suddenly get pushed into plugins or external applications. They already use them! And those who don't use and don't want to use DRM don't need that junk in the browser. And for publishers it should be a lesson to stop using all that DRM for good if they want to be part of the open web.
        jshen 14y ago
        Users will get pushed into native apps. Normal users don't know or care what DRM is. They click on a link to some video they want to watch from ABC, and if they are on a mobile device they are told they have to download the free app to watch it. They do, cause they want to want to watch, and we just helped push users off the open web!

gph 14y ago

>Look, these media companies are looking to us for advice; We're doing both them an ourselves a disservice by continuing to sell them DRM snake oil. Seems to be working out pretty well for Hulu/Netflix. Or is releasing your $100 million budget film DRM-Free onto the internet now profitable??

lucian1900 14y ago
Netflix requires a subscription to stream. DRM is irrelevant.
- gph 14y ago
  Care to elucidate that point? So if netflix streamed their content with no-DRM (which none of the content companies they license from would allow, but we'll skip that fact) you assume no one would just get a subscription, copy their entire catalouge, and freely distribute it? Doesn't sound like a very sustainable business model to me...
  - entropy_ 14y ago
    The point is, that it is possible for someone who is technically savvy and who has a subscription to copy the streams right now. The reason they can't download the entire catalogue is probably because netflix/hulu have(or at least I hope they do) a system in place which prevents a single subscriber from accessing streams at a speed above what would be reasonably necessary for watching things one movie at a time. Which means that downloading the entire catalogue would take as long as it would take to watch everything which is probably prohibitively too much time. However, if, say, there's a particular movie that is available on netflix/hulu which you want to distribute freely for whatever reason and you are technically savvy, no DRM(short of netflix/hulu controlling the actual hardware you're watching from) will prevent you from doing so. Therefore, DRM offers no additional protection beyond what a regular login cookie-based system with rate limiting would offer.
  - mmastrac 14y ago
    DRM didn't stop House of Cards from appearing on PB: http://thepiratebay.se/search/house%20of%20cards/0/99/0 http://thepiratebay.se/search/house%20of%20cards/0/99/0 I don't see Netflix going out of business because of this.

duaneb 14y ago

> a technology that is decidedly against the public interest. Hey, not all of us believe that. I'm perfectly fine with putting DRM on streaming video; I certainly don't expect to be able to download all of netflix to my computer for one month's subscription. It's much more of an issue when I pay full price for a movie (after pressing the "Purchase" button) and I find I don't actually own it.