9 ms·

Cancel Netflix if you value freedom

87 points by lelf 13y ago

dubcanada 13y ago
I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. If netflix wants a way to add DRM so people can watch DRMed videos on the Internet let them. There is no negative. What is negative is the fact that people seem to think that netflix should just continue using a closed system made by Microsoft which doesn't work on Linux natively.
- revelation 13y ago
  Sure as hell we shouldn't mandate broken standards (a propietary, obfuscated binary blob? You must be kidding) just to support someones ill-guided business model. We didn't with the many attempts of the music industry.
- JoshTriplett 13y ago
  > I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. If netflix wants a way to add DRM so people can watch DRMed videos on the Internet let them. By all means let them. They can even work with browser vendors to make it "work" on any platform that has their proprietary DRM binary. But there aren't enough ten-foot poles in the world to call that an "HTML5" "standard".
- rosser 13y ago
  Remember, though: this is the FSF talking. There's no such thing as a shade of gray to them; you're either Free, as they define Free, or you're not. That's not to say they're always wrong, but you have to remember to evaluate everything they say through that lens...
  - muyuu 13y ago
    Their main problem is that Netflix are pushing for DRM to be in the HTML5 standard. This is indeed a complicated issue and could end up badly for the internet as a whole.
    - dubcanada 13y ago
      Someone hasn't even read the spec, it allows you to implement DRM. But it in itself is NOT DRM.
      - muyuu 13y ago
        And that's what they are apparently pushing for, to be implemented in the spec (maybe so it cannot be blocked? I'm not up to date with the details).
      - wmf 13y ago
        The entire purpose of EME is DRM, and EME plugins (that are actually used) will only be used to implement DRM. I believe the spec is deliberately obfuscated to try to defuse opposition, but that only worked for so long.
  - dubcanada 13y ago
    You're right, but people don't even read the spec. No where in that spec does it say DRM... This specification does not define a content protection or Digital Rights Management system. Rather, it defines a common API that may be used to discover, select and interact with such systems as well as with simpler content encryption systems. Implementation of Digital Rights Management is not required for compliance with this specification: only the simple clear key system is required to be implemented as a common baseline. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...
    - rpicard 13y ago
      I'd like to read that. Do you have a link to the spec in question?
- mtgx 13y ago
  You say it doesn't work on Linux natively, as if this DRM solution will.
- azakai 13y ago
  > There is no negative. What is negative is the fact that people seem to think that netflix should just continue using a closed system made by Microsoft which doesn't work on Linux natively. The negative is that the new proposal will also not work on Linux. It will also not work on other browsers, because each DRM implementation for EME will be incompatible (there are currently 2, incompatible of course, Google's and Microsoft's).
- ihsw 13y ago
  > If netflix wants a way to add DRM so people can watch DRMed videos on the Internet let them. That's fine, nobody is arguing against what Netflix can and should do with their own software and hardware that they distribute -- but the key difference is imposing their business requirements on everybody else. They have no authority -- be it moral, ethical, or logical -- to impose such a will on everybody.
teddyknox 13y ago
Cancel Netflix if you'd rather use Silverlight than HTML5 video.
- this_user 13y ago
  This. Netflix would like to add DRM to HTML 5 so they can migrate away from Silverlight. Right now there is no way (without Wine) to use Netflix under Linux. So in practice the FSF is campaigning against a more open web in which the #1 FOSS OS can run Netflix out of ideological reasons.
  - codygman 13y ago
    There are no plans for implementing on linux if DRM is added to HTML5 either (and it likely won't). As a linux user for 8 years I would love Netflix on linux but I don't believe it's going to happen.
jiggy2011 13y ago
If you value freedom , why did you sign up for netflix in the first place?
- rocky1138 13y ago
  Only game in town, in Canada.
Zikes 13y ago
I've been a Netflix customer for 8 years. I haven't paid for cable or satellite for most of those 8 years, and I've always tried my hardest to understand the driving forces behind Netflix's decisions, such as raising prices to manage skyrocketing license costs, and segregating streaming and DVD services so that the DVD customers don't artificially inflate streaming numbers to negatively affect licensing contracts. I was even prepared to accept their dreadful choice to completely separate the streaming service into a wholly different company, though I was glad that they ultimately decided against it. It was easy to see the economic reasoning behind many of those decisions, even though on the surface they seemed not to benefit the consumer. Clearly, DRM is required in order for them to license the shows we want to watch. It's unfortunate, but it is something I am prepared to accept. What upsets me about this particular instance is that they are moving to make DRM a part of what are supposed to be the open standards of the web. It flies in the face of the principles upon which the internet was designed and built, and regardless of what technical hurdles it would help the company to overcome it is also very clearly an anti-consumer move, the scope of which reaches far beyond Netflix itself. Maybe it's time I dusted off some of the books I've been meaning to read.
- Pxtl 13y ago
  Exactly. If DRM is necessary for Netflix to function, that's fine... but then Netflix should not run through pure HTML, it should require a native binary program separate from HTML to run the Netflix video stream. Flash and Silverlight are bad programs, but they're better than corrupting the HTML standard itself.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    Technically it would require a separate binary program. The amendments to the spec define a way for the browser to communicate with such programs. So a non-DRM browser can still comply with this part of the standard.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      An important thing to keep in mind however is that since this still requires a proprietary binary, this being included in the standard would not automagically get you Netflix support in Linux. Chrome supports Netflix on a Linux kernel right now. They only allow it to work in ChromeOS on authorized devices that are not "rooted". There are no technical hurdles to supporting Netflix on normal Linux distributions, it simply is not something that they are interested in doing. If you support this stuff being added to the standard because you want to watch Netflix on your MBP running Debian (or similar), then you are misguided.
mathattack 13y ago
This could also be worded, "Cancel Netflix if you value free software." By definition, Netflix users are paying for software (ok, a service) so it seems hard to get them rallied up for this cause. (This isn't a comment either way on the cause)
- neeee 13y ago
  There is a difference between gratis and libre software.
Karunamon 13y ago
Another missive by the FSF that's mostly meaningless to people who aren't willing to make huge sacrifices in their lives to avoid the (cue ominous music and thunder) 'non-free' bogeyman of the week. Seriously. My sincerest apologies if this sounds bitter, but this is a completely non-constructive rant. Again. The FSF's stances are completely untenable to most people. Aside: Why would someone who makes a principled stand on free software ever have signed up with Netflix in the first place?!
- mwcampbell 13y ago
  > Aside: Why would someone who makes a principled stand on free software ever have signed up with Netflix in the first place?! Maybe some people who didn't take a principled stand on software freedom, and therefore signed up for Netflix, can be convinced to take a stand and cancel.
- chc 13y ago
  Well, the many members of the free software movement used to be OK with using websites that did not give you open access to their stuff, since only the site itself was actually using the software and thus it wasn't violating your right to examine, modify and redistribute.
recursive 13y ago
Not as much as I value convenient streaming movies.
- mwcampbell 13y ago
  Do you seriously value convenient on-demand entertainment more than the abuse of technology by the powerful to hold onto their power?
  - talmand 13y ago
    As long as the abuse of technology you speak of is them holding onto their power of making money off the convenient on-demand entertainment that they produce and provide, no I don't have a problem with that. Especially when that power does not include the ability to force the consumer to pay for said product whether they want it or not. Wait, what exactly is the abuse of technology we're talking about here?
    - mwcampbell 13y ago
      A serious attempt to implement strong DRM will inevitably go way too deep into the hardware and software stacks. http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html Sony once tried to implement DRM using a rootkit, remember? Also, the movie industry pushed SOPA and PIPA.
      - talmand 13y ago
        The link you provide is not evidence of abuse, but of incompetency. Sony's rootkit shenanigans were already illegal under numerous laws in numerous jurisdictions, also an example of incompetency. SOPA and PIPA are examples of abuse on a political level and has little to do with what I'm asking. What abuse of technology provides what power and control over us when we are discussing DRM in the HTML stack? Even if they did get some type of DRM into the HTML stack (which isn't even happening, we're talking extensions here), you as a consumer still have more power and control by refusing to play their game in the first place. Again, what abuse of technology are we talking about here?
snowwrestler 13y ago
Of course the FSF is taking this position, and I'm glad that they are. Is it an impractical position? Totally, of course. DRM is not optional to video content suppliers, so no matter what replaces Silverlight, it will come with DRM. Without a W3C standard we might get several totally different, incompatible DRM implementations instead of one standard one. To folks who like standards, that will feel like a missed opportunity; but it doesn't seem any worse than what we have now.
- mwcampbell 13y ago
  > Is it an impractical position? Only because our consumer culture places such a high value on entertainment. There are way more important things, though. And no, I don't have a Netflix subscription; haven't for years. Flirted with Spotify some months ago, but canceled that too.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- mindslight 13y ago
  The problem isn't Netflix - it's going to use DRM regardless of how hard it is. The loss is the smaller and user-generated content sites who would have chosen to not mandate weird plugins, but will end up crippling videos to force people into sanctioned methods of viewing. Most cable companies set the "don't copy" bit on rebroadcasted over-the-air channels - they have little reason not to.
- azakai 13y ago
  > Without a W3C standard we might get several totally different, incompatible DRM implementations instead of one standard one. The EME spec does NOT define a single standard DRM implementation. The point of EME is to provide a single interface to a DRM module. The DRM modules will be entirely nonstandard, closed-source, and there will be many of them. Google has its own DRM module, Microsoft has its own. So there are already two, entirely incompatible DRM implementations. And none of them work on other browsers. Even if other browsers implemented EME, the actual DRM implementations would not work on them. So this is a step backwards, not forwards. It increases fragmentation.
Steko 13y ago
After you cancel netflix you might spend some of your newly free time reading the public domain versions of chicken little and the boy who cried wolf and pondering what their relevance might be to modern audiences.
aaronbrethorst 13y ago
The footnote sums up everything that is eyeroll-inducing for me in this post: We encourage users to do their microblogging with Web sites that do not include nonfree JavaScript, like identi.ca and other instances of pump.io. If you prefer Twitter, you can use the mobile version of the Twitter site which works with JavaScript turned off, even on a desktop computer.
- blhack 13y ago
  Use V8? It's open source, and written in C++, which there are open source compilers for. What on earth is their gripe with Javascript?
  - kanzure 13y ago
    Just because your JavaScript interpreter is open source does not mean that its license infects anything that it runs. Nothing about identica vs twitter is about your JavaScript interpreter, in that excerpt.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    It's with "non free" javascript. In other words the javascript code itself, not the runtime.
  - DasIch 13y ago
    This is not about the implementation but about Javascript code that is compiled into what is effectively "binary" form from the perspective of free software[1]. [1]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
- MostAwesomeDude 13y ago
  I'm confused. What part of this causes an eyeroll for you? Did you attempt to read the words in a spiral instead of the standard left-to-right, top-to-bottom style most English readers prefer?
- loginalready 13y ago
scrumper 13y ago
Freedom for me means a happy wife and an extra $110 in my bank account every month from not having a cable bill. I do think that fighting the inclusion of DRM in future HTML standards is worthwhile, but this isn't going to get me to pick up a sword.
- EdSharkey 13y ago
  I could have written this word-for-word. I am curious if asm.js is quick enough to produce code that could decode encrypted full-screen HD video on browsers whose vendors won't support the media extensions. Pardon me for ignorance on this subject, but is there something about DRM that requires a plugin or component built into the browser itself? Could our answer to Netflix be, "Write the codec yourself using asm.js"?
  - wmf 13y ago
    JS codecs are possible: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5653531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5653531 I don't know whether Hollywood would consider JS DRM secure enough; it probably depends how good a negotiator you are.
  - taopao 13y ago
    DRM isn't possible without cooperation with a "trusted" component. If the decoding is happening in an environment that is available for introspection (e.g. Javascript runtime) then you can trivially tee the decoded bits after they are decrypted.-
  - EdSharkey 13y ago
    @taopao, And for a component to be "trusted" it has to be code that was loaded with the operating system, or in this case, the operating environment (the browser)? It seems to me that quashing tampering or observing of the trusted component is the lynchpin. In JavaScript, there is no way to access unexposed internals of an IIFE, that seems to me to get us half way there. I wonder if there could be some way to add a "use trusted" pragma to an IIFE such that the browser would not allow debugging or watching the network traffic of that code? There'd have to be some new way to compare a checksum of the trusted code as well. I suppose that that could suffice in a video watermarking scenario, but Netflix could never watermark each and every video transmitted. I think they partner with some ISP's to cache content near to the users as well, so they're not even responsible for broadcasting the last mile of the video.
chrischen 13y ago
Hey can't I do both?
jlgaddis 13y ago
Done. http://i.imgur.com/TEmlmpw.png http://i.imgur.com/TEmlmpw.png
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  Good call, they will probably now offer you a free month to entice you back!
  - yaddayadda 13y ago
    Yep, with multiple emails when you don't take them up on it. There will be about one a week for a month, then they drop down to about one a month.
cheald 13y ago
I said it in a similar thread a few weeks back, and I'll say it here: Netflix isn't the problem. They're stuck with DRM if they want to exist because the people they get their content from won't license without it. Stop consuming all media produced by the studios who have been driving DRM forward if you value freedom. That means stop going to the movies, stop watching TV, cancel Netflix, don't patronize Redbox, don't even torrent the stuff you want to see. Just completely reject it. Go read a nice paperback book instead. Yes, that means you don't get your entertainment, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Kvetching that Netflix is the Big Bad Bogeyman here is like blaming your grocery store for the nutritional content of the food you buy from them.
- mtarnovan 13y ago
  Still, must they push for DRM in Html5? Why don't they just make a binary client ?
  - talmand 13y ago
    Wouldn't that still go against the FSF statement? The binary client would still require DRM of some sort.
  - untog 13y ago
    We already have those, in the form of Flash and Silverlight. It would be good to move to technologies that work on all platforms.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      What makes you think this will? This standard would still require proprietary binary blobs to be built for every platform that the DRM creator cares to support.
      - greg5green 13y ago
        Because the onus to create it is suddenly in the streamers hands instead of Microsoft or Adobe's. Netflix has a hell of a lot more reasons to make their DRM bit work in Linux than Adobe and way, way more reasons than Microsoft.
whitehat2k9 13y ago
Basically what Netflix wants to do is standardize the use of DRM technology in HTML and web applications. Currently, most "premium" content from Netflix, etc. is delivered via proprietary plugins such as Flash or Silverlight. What the new "DRM" extensions to HTML5 do is standardize the interface between your web browser/video player and DRM modules. The DRM module itself would probably still be a closed-source, black-box piece of software, but the playing of the video would be handled by the browser natively w/o the need for plugins like Flash or Silverlight (since after decryption you end up with a standard H264/WebM stream in a <video> tag.) Now, sure, you can argue until you're blue in the face that DRM is bad, but the good thing is that you're separating the DRM from the presentation/rendering layer. This is, without a doubt, a step forward. In theory this would make things even easier for pirates wanting to capture content since now there's a standardized way for the browser to interface with the DRM layer, decrypt the content, and play it. The FSF's argument here is null and void because Netflix never was a free service to begin with. They never claimed to offer Linux/free software compatibility, and as a private company they have no obligation to.
- mwcampbell 13y ago
  The idea of separation between DRM and the rendering layer is illogical. The dream of all DRM proponents is a leak-proof pipe between the encumbered media and your senses, lest you be able to rip a perfect copy. For a concrete example, look at how deep the content protection system introduced in Windows Vista goes. http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html The proposed Encrypted Media Extensions standard is merely an interface between browsers and systems such as this.
short_circut 13y ago
I have commented on these issues before and I feel like this one is being blown way out of proportion. We all understand why DRM is there. It is there so you can't rip the stream and save it and redistribute it. But here is the thing that irks me about this. On the server end of things Netflix has been a rather amazing contributor to open source softwares. This boycott seems rather like shooting your self your own foot to stop an intruder.
- 3amOpsGuy 13y ago
  I don't get the extra emphasis on Netflix here either. Netflix are part of the content industry, it's not that they're the best of a bad bunch, they're actively more open than some artists.
- ihsw 13y ago
  The destructive capabilities of a DRM-encumbered internet far outweigh the contributions that Netflix has made.
undershirt 13y ago
How are the encryption proposals "closing" the standards? Also, I'm seeing a clash of connotation between encryption for DRM and encryption for PRIVACY. Is encryption only good when it is protecting the freedom of the user, not the producer?
- mwcampbell 13y ago
  > Is encryption only good when it is protecting the freedom of the user, not the producer? Actually, yes. Your computer should only do what you want it to.
loginalready 13y ago
I'm surprised that on HN people cannot distinguish between Netflix business need to use DRM in their content delivery system (which is undesirable but defensible), and Netflix nefarious scheming to break the open web in order to make that an easier delivery system for DRM-ed content. It's like defending a company that wants to dump toxic waste into our drinking water with the argument "well, they have to leave it somewhere". Screw that. They want to use DRM, fine. But not at the expense of a free and open web. This isn't about DRM. This isn't about copyright. This isn't even about greed. This is about power and control.
- ihsw 13y ago
  DRM is power and control.
- talmand 13y ago
  This is the part I've never quite understood. What power and control are you speaking of?
- chc 13y ago
  > I'm surprised that on HN people cannot distinguish between Netflix business need to use DRM in their content delivery system (which is undesirable but defensible), and Netflix nefarious scheming to break the open web in order to make that an easier delivery system for DRM-ed content. I'm not aware of any portion of Netflix's proposals that would "break the open web." If the open web isn't broken by what Netflix and thousands of other companies are doing right now, how will "Netflix nefarious scheming" break it?
slig 13y ago
I don't get why Netflix can't just build a native app for each platform. For instance, they do have one for the iOS, shouldn't be too hard to port the core to OS X.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  They certainly could. Hell, they could write their very own NPAPI/PPAPI plugins. They don't want to do either because both of those options require more legwork than just using something that somebody else is responsible for.
LastZactionHero 13y ago
"... if you value freedom?" An over-the-top threat like that makes me want to keep Netflix for spite. Terrible headline.
stonemetal 13y ago
I am not sure I understand their argument. With netflix you are a renter. It is their property why shouldn't they protect it. If they were selling you something then sure it should be freely yours with no DRM. As far as these internet ideals that are violated, well I know copyright infringement drove internet growth for quite a while but I am not sure I would call that an ideal. How about we let consenting adults (legally) exchange information how they like and call that an ideal.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Nobody is arguing they shouldn't be able to protect their business, but the proposed changes to the HTML standard would affect every other business. Their authority to demand technological requirements of other's ends at their own property, and Netflix should have absolutely no ability to impose their business requirements on everybody else.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    How would this impose their business requirements on anybody else? If you don't use netflix you don't have to install their EME module.
    - ihsw 13y ago
      With this line of reasoning, why have standards at all? Why not jam every possible idea into HTML because "you don't have to use it"? My point is that the standards shouldn't be co-opted to fit every want and need that a transient entity has.
  - stonemetal 13y ago
    It isn't just their business, it is a common use case for the web today. Hulu, Amazon, audio guys like spotify and pandora are also doing something that would make use of it.
portmanteaufu 13y ago
As a personal matter, I've always found Netflix's use of DRM to be superfluous. Half of the reason I use Netflix is so I don't have to manage my own video collection. I don't even want to manage a collection of .avi's and wmv's. (What file format are people actually using for stored video these days?) Trying to save my own copies of their content would be self-defeating (except maybe to view something once on an airplane?)
- chc 13y ago
  All DRM is superfluous. If I wanted to pirate The Avengers, Netflix's DRM would not be a major stumbling block because I could just go to The Pirate Bay and get a copy there. The DRM is to satisfy the content providers. I don't think Netflix really cares, except in that satisfying the content providers is crucial to their business model.
mmanfrin 13y ago
I would prefer a DRM-enabled HTML than a proprietary embedded video player.
- mwcampbell 13y ago
  I think it's better for DRM, which is proprietary by nature, to remain obviously so, and to keep it at arm's length from HTML and other open Web standards. Why should the desires of the American entertainment industry have such influence over the standards of the World Wide Web?
- ihsw 13y ago
  Your preference is your own, but should you be able to impose it on everybody? Personally I respect your preferences but I cannot in good conscience support the unilateral imposition of your preferences on everybody else.
  - chc 13y ago
    Can you in good conscience support the unilateral imposition of your preferences on everybody else?
    - ihsw 13y ago
      Of course not, that is why we need to work together on this issue. High-powered lobbyists have always been at the reins of the W3C but it wasn't until now that the DRM maximalists started paying their salaries.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  "DRM-enabled HTML" is not what is on the table. The proposal is for a standardized interface for proprietary DRM modules to use. If you are not blessed with the creation of a DRM module for your particular platform then you will be left high and dry, even if your browser fully implements the standard.
jallmann 13y ago
If DRM wasn't implemented in the form of an opaque binary blob, would the FSF still object to it? There is no freedom-destroying threat from media itself, only in how it's packaged and distributed. The problem is fundamentally one of license enforcement, although TBH I'm unsure how it can be done a way that renders everything moot and/or objectionable.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  If DRM wasn't implemented in the form of an opaque binary blob but was instead implemented by the browser itself (which is not what EME would have happen), then I would build a copy of Firefox that would pretend to the server that it does DRM but would instead dump netflix streams to the disk. Well, I wouldn't, but somebody would.
jellicle 13y ago
I keep seeing in the comments the assertion that Netflix "cannot" offer DRM-free video, because something-something. This is exactly what people said about music, until Apple decided to do it, and did.
- chc 13y ago
  This is not actually what happened. What happened was, some music publishers decided they were willing to try offering non-DRM'd music for a higher price, and then Apple did it. Apple did not force a change here. (And even if they had, Netflix is not in Apple's privileged position. The movie studios care a lot less about Netflix than the music guys do about iTunes.)
kanamekun 13y ago
Quora has a good writeup on a few reasons why Netflix has been using Silverlight: 1. Cheap licensing terms for DRM: http://www.quora.com/When-does-Netflix-use-WideVine-DRM-instead-of-Microsoft-PlayReady-DRM http://www.quora.com/When-does-Netflix-use-WideVine-DRM-inst... 2. Strong support for CDNs, enabling lower-cost streaming: http://www.quora.com/Why-does-Netflix-use-Silverlight http://www.quora.com/Why-does-Netflix-use-Silverlight
chrisblackwell 13y ago
Going after Netflix is like going after a drug addict hooked on cocaine. Never mind that the addict is buying from someone far more evil on society. The addict is simply an easy target. Likewise, Netflix doesn't really care about DRM, and as long as you are paying them monthly, they really don't care what format the content is in. It's the movie and television studios that don't want their content online without DRM. Netflix is only able to do that deals with these studios if Netflix promises their content will be covered in DRM. No DRM, not content says the big bad studio. So now that Microsoft is sunsetting Silverlight, what are they to do?
dgreensp 13y ago
This is a great example of the FSF trying to blur together various notions of "free" while pretending that software and the web are in their own gleaming tower embodying those principles. Netflix and other similar services stream DRMed video to the browser, and they will continue doing so. Right now they use Silverlight, a proprietary Microsoft plugin whose future is unclear. Traditionally, sites have used Flash for any sort of video playing. Netflix would prefer to stream, play, and control the video using web standards, but as a distributor for Big Media, they need a DRM story. They'd like the story to be that the browser provides a facility for them to decrypt the content on the client. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of DRM, and the whole situation doesn't make sense so I don't believe it will last. Since all DRMed media comes with the decryption key, it's really only laws that make the encryption relevant, coupled with enough technical difficulty that a layperson would have to acquire some (illegal) software to perform the decryption. It sucks that ubiquitous hardware and software media formats come encumbered with restrictions (like "you can only play this DVD in the US" or "you can't skip this trailer") and are subject to patents; that you can't play a movie you bought on a physical disk for $12.99 on whatever computer or device you want in your own house. However, given the fact that legally, certain types of software are restricted in how they can be used, why not put that software in as small a box as possible? Just because Stallman doesn't want proprietary software on his computer doesn't mean you should have to run a separate runtime from your browser to use it. Let's make DRM a box with a key and a decryption algorithm and a sign that says, "Do not run!" Let's have royalty-free, open-source, standardized DRM, peer-reviewed by the hacker community to ensure that it's unbreakable without the key that you also have, and that there's no button visible to casual users that circumvents the restrictions. Treating DRM the way we treat other software actually weakens the concept by exposing the absurdity. Let's make it so easy to stream protected content that there's nothing to pay Netflix for, except maybe original content, instead of ending up in a world where we pay $60 a month to Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, and a dozen other services. The HTML standard is set by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which this block of corporations has been heavily lobbying as of late. The proposed adoption of EME is disturbing for what it says about the way decisions are made relative to the Web, but what does it mean for you as a free software user? Surprise, corporations are involved in web standards. Engineers at Google, Microsoft, Apple, Mozilla, and other companies wrote or reviewed many (most?) of the web standards in place today. DRM and free software don't mix... We'll see an explosion of DRM on the Web -- a growing dark zone inaccessible to free software users. I don't know if we'll see an "explosion of DRM on the Web" (it seems doubtful, unless it is because putting video on the Web is now more attractive to content-owners), but the decision to define "free software" as not doing any sort of DRM (the whole "doesn't mix" thing) is actually a very controversial part of the GPLv3 license. If a "free software user" is someone whose insistence on "the freedom to study how a program works and change it" threatens to cut them off from parts of the Internet, I wonder how many of these people there really are. Microsoft has already modified Internet Explorer to start supporting EME for media streaming. Simultaneously, Netflix has begun publicly promoting Internet Explorer, revealing a two-pronged strategy of pushing proprietary browsers while attacking Web standards in the W3C. Netflix doesn't have a "strategy" for attacking free software. It's not a "two-pronged" assault just because you feel affronted on two counts. Netflix presumably has their own motives, like simplifying their software, improving the experience for users, and supporting more devices. They want to work on Linux. They want to pay lip service to the idea of DRM while minimizing the impact on their service. Boycotting Netflix and impeding a web standard don't seem like great tactics for fighting DRM to me.
fburnaby 13y ago
Pardon me for being so naive, but why does Netflix have no competition in their market? There's no alternative to switch to, and once I've taken a step back and thought about it, this surprises me.
- wmf 13y ago
  Amazon Prime? Redbox streaming? It's not clear to me that it makes sense to define Netflix's exact business model as a market. If you look at streaming video in general as the market there are many competitors like Apple, MS, Sony, Hulu, Epix, etc.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Pardon me for being so naive, but why does Netflix have no competition in their market? Are you talking about the mail-DVD-rentals-to-your-house market or the stream-video-over-the-internet market. Because they've got plenty of fairly direct competition in the latter and currently more significant market (Amazon, Hulu, and Redbox streaming services, among others) as well as plenty of close substitutes (e.g., cable/satellite TV services which include "On Demand" series and movies) , and, if not a lot of direct competiton in the former market, at a minimum a close substitutes in the form of pervasive rental outlets (particularly Redbox).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
tildeslashblog 13y ago
No thanks, I'll just exercise my freedom to keep using their service. FSF's cries are nothing more than a demand to reduce the freedom of others for their own personal gain. That's not freedom.

87 points by lelf 13y ago

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. If netflix wants a way to add DRM so people can watch DRMed videos on the Internet let them. There is no negative. What is negative is the fact that people seem to think that netflix should just continue using a closed system made by Microsoft which doesn't work on Linux natively.

revelation 13y ago
Sure as hell we shouldn't mandate broken standards (a propietary, obfuscated binary blob? You must be kidding) just to support someones ill-guided business model. We didn't with the many attempts of the music industry.
JoshTriplett 13y ago
> I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. If netflix wants a way to add DRM so people can watch DRMed videos on the Internet let them. By all means let them. They can even work with browser vendors to make it "work" on any platform that has their proprietary DRM binary. But there aren't enough ten-foot poles in the world to call that an "HTML5" "standard".
rosser 13y ago
Remember, though: this is the FSF talking. There's no such thing as a shade of gray to them; you're either Free, as they define Free, or you're not. That's not to say they're always wrong, but you have to remember to evaluate everything they say through that lens...
- muyuu 13y ago
  Their main problem is that Netflix are pushing for DRM to be in the HTML5 standard. This is indeed a complicated issue and could end up badly for the internet as a whole.
  - dubcanada 13y ago
    Someone hasn't even read the spec, it allows you to implement DRM. But it in itself is NOT DRM.
    - muyuu 13y ago
      And that's what they are apparently pushing for, to be implemented in the spec (maybe so it cannot be blocked? I'm not up to date with the details).
    - wmf 13y ago
      The entire purpose of EME is DRM, and EME plugins (that are actually used) will only be used to implement DRM. I believe the spec is deliberately obfuscated to try to defuse opposition, but that only worked for so long.
- dubcanada 13y ago
  You're right, but people don't even read the spec. No where in that spec does it say DRM... This specification does not define a content protection or Digital Rights Management system. Rather, it defines a common API that may be used to discover, select and interact with such systems as well as with simpler content encryption systems. Implementation of Digital Rights Management is not required for compliance with this specification: only the simple clear key system is required to be implemented as a common baseline. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...
  - rpicard 13y ago
    I'd like to read that. Do you have a link to the spec in question?
mtgx 13y ago
You say it doesn't work on Linux natively, as if this DRM solution will.
azakai 13y ago
> There is no negative. What is negative is the fact that people seem to think that netflix should just continue using a closed system made by Microsoft which doesn't work on Linux natively. The negative is that the new proposal will also not work on Linux. It will also not work on other browsers, because each DRM implementation for EME will be incompatible (there are currently 2, incompatible of course, Google's and Microsoft's).
ihsw 13y ago
> If netflix wants a way to add DRM so people can watch DRMed videos on the Internet let them. That's fine, nobody is arguing against what Netflix can and should do with their own software and hardware that they distribute -- but the key difference is imposing their business requirements on everybody else. They have no authority -- be it moral, ethical, or logical -- to impose such a will on everybody.

teddyknox 13y ago

Cancel Netflix if you'd rather use Silverlight than HTML5 video.

this_user 13y ago
This. Netflix would like to add DRM to HTML 5 so they can migrate away from Silverlight. Right now there is no way (without Wine) to use Netflix under Linux. So in practice the FSF is campaigning against a more open web in which the #1 FOSS OS can run Netflix out of ideological reasons.
- codygman 13y ago
  There are no plans for implementing on linux if DRM is added to HTML5 either (and it likely won't). As a linux user for 8 years I would love Netflix on linux but I don't believe it's going to happen.

jiggy2011 13y ago

If you value freedom , why did you sign up for netflix in the first place?

rocky1138 13y ago
Only game in town, in Canada.

Zikes 13y ago

I've been a Netflix customer for 8 years. I haven't paid for cable or satellite for most of those 8 years, and I've always tried my hardest to understand the driving forces behind Netflix's decisions, such as raising prices to manage skyrocketing license costs, and segregating streaming and DVD services so that the DVD customers don't artificially inflate streaming numbers to negatively affect licensing contracts. I was even prepared to accept their dreadful choice to completely separate the streaming service into a wholly different company, though I was glad that they ultimately decided against it. It was easy to see the economic reasoning behind many of those decisions, even though on the surface they seemed not to benefit the consumer. Clearly, DRM is required in order for them to license the shows we want to watch. It's unfortunate, but it is something I am prepared to accept. What upsets me about this particular instance is that they are moving to make DRM a part of what are supposed to be the open standards of the web. It flies in the face of the principles upon which the internet was designed and built, and regardless of what technical hurdles it would help the company to overcome it is also very clearly an anti-consumer move, the scope of which reaches far beyond Netflix itself. Maybe it's time I dusted off some of the books I've been meaning to read.

Pxtl 13y ago
Exactly. If DRM is necessary for Netflix to function, that's fine... but then Netflix should not run through pure HTML, it should require a native binary program separate from HTML to run the Netflix video stream. Flash and Silverlight are bad programs, but they're better than corrupting the HTML standard itself.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  Technically it would require a separate binary program. The amendments to the spec define a way for the browser to communicate with such programs. So a non-DRM browser can still comply with this part of the standard.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    An important thing to keep in mind however is that since this still requires a proprietary binary, this being included in the standard would not automagically get you Netflix support in Linux. Chrome supports Netflix on a Linux kernel right now. They only allow it to work in ChromeOS on authorized devices that are not "rooted". There are no technical hurdles to supporting Netflix on normal Linux distributions, it simply is not something that they are interested in doing. If you support this stuff being added to the standard because you want to watch Netflix on your MBP running Debian (or similar), then you are misguided.

mathattack 13y ago

This could also be worded, "Cancel Netflix if you value free software." By definition, Netflix users are paying for software (ok, a service) so it seems hard to get them rallied up for this cause. (This isn't a comment either way on the cause)

neeee 13y ago
There is a difference between gratis and libre software.

Karunamon 13y ago

Another missive by the FSF that's mostly meaningless to people who aren't willing to make huge sacrifices in their lives to avoid the (cue ominous music and thunder) 'non-free' bogeyman of the week. Seriously. My sincerest apologies if this sounds bitter, but this is a completely non-constructive rant. Again. The FSF's stances are completely untenable to most people. Aside: Why would someone who makes a principled stand on free software ever have signed up with Netflix in the first place?!

mwcampbell 13y ago
> Aside: Why would someone who makes a principled stand on free software ever have signed up with Netflix in the first place?! Maybe some people who didn't take a principled stand on software freedom, and therefore signed up for Netflix, can be convinced to take a stand and cancel.
chc 13y ago
Well, the many members of the free software movement used to be OK with using websites that did not give you open access to their stuff, since only the site itself was actually using the software and thus it wasn't violating your right to examine, modify and redistribute.

recursive 13y ago

Not as much as I value convenient streaming movies.

mwcampbell 13y ago
Do you seriously value convenient on-demand entertainment more than the abuse of technology by the powerful to hold onto their power?
- talmand 13y ago
  As long as the abuse of technology you speak of is them holding onto their power of making money off the convenient on-demand entertainment that they produce and provide, no I don't have a problem with that. Especially when that power does not include the ability to force the consumer to pay for said product whether they want it or not. Wait, what exactly is the abuse of technology we're talking about here?
  - mwcampbell 13y ago
    A serious attempt to implement strong DRM will inevitably go way too deep into the hardware and software stacks. http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html Sony once tried to implement DRM using a rootkit, remember? Also, the movie industry pushed SOPA and PIPA.
    - talmand 13y ago
      The link you provide is not evidence of abuse, but of incompetency. Sony's rootkit shenanigans were already illegal under numerous laws in numerous jurisdictions, also an example of incompetency. SOPA and PIPA are examples of abuse on a political level and has little to do with what I'm asking. What abuse of technology provides what power and control over us when we are discussing DRM in the HTML stack? Even if they did get some type of DRM into the HTML stack (which isn't even happening, we're talking extensions here), you as a consumer still have more power and control by refusing to play their game in the first place. Again, what abuse of technology are we talking about here?

snowwrestler 13y ago

Of course the FSF is taking this position, and I'm glad that they are. Is it an impractical position? Totally, of course. DRM is not optional to video content suppliers, so no matter what replaces Silverlight, it will come with DRM. Without a W3C standard we might get several totally different, incompatible DRM implementations instead of one standard one. To folks who like standards, that will feel like a missed opportunity; but it doesn't seem any worse than what we have now.

mwcampbell 13y ago
> Is it an impractical position? Only because our consumer culture places such a high value on entertainment. There are way more important things, though. And no, I don't have a Netflix subscription; haven't for years. Flirted with Spotify some months ago, but canceled that too.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mindslight 13y ago
The problem isn't Netflix - it's going to use DRM regardless of how hard it is. The loss is the smaller and user-generated content sites who would have chosen to not mandate weird plugins, but will end up crippling videos to force people into sanctioned methods of viewing. Most cable companies set the "don't copy" bit on rebroadcasted over-the-air channels - they have little reason not to.
azakai 13y ago
> Without a W3C standard we might get several totally different, incompatible DRM implementations instead of one standard one. The EME spec does NOT define a single standard DRM implementation. The point of EME is to provide a single interface to a DRM module. The DRM modules will be entirely nonstandard, closed-source, and there will be many of them. Google has its own DRM module, Microsoft has its own. So there are already two, entirely incompatible DRM implementations. And none of them work on other browsers. Even if other browsers implemented EME, the actual DRM implementations would not work on them. So this is a step backwards, not forwards. It increases fragmentation.

Steko 13y ago

After you cancel netflix you might spend some of your newly free time reading the public domain versions of chicken little and the boy who cried wolf and pondering what their relevance might be to modern audiences.

aaronbrethorst 13y ago

The footnote sums up everything that is eyeroll-inducing for me in this post: We encourage users to do their microblogging with Web sites that do not include nonfree JavaScript, like identi.ca and other instances of pump.io. If you prefer Twitter, you can use the mobile version of the Twitter site which works with JavaScript turned off, even on a desktop computer.

blhack 13y ago
Use V8? It's open source, and written in C++, which there are open source compilers for. What on earth is their gripe with Javascript?
- kanzure 13y ago
  Just because your JavaScript interpreter is open source does not mean that its license infects anything that it runs. Nothing about identica vs twitter is about your JavaScript interpreter, in that excerpt.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  It's with "non free" javascript. In other words the javascript code itself, not the runtime.
- DasIch 13y ago
  This is not about the implementation but about Javascript code that is compiled into what is effectively "binary" form from the perspective of free software[1]. [1]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
MostAwesomeDude 13y ago
I'm confused. What part of this causes an eyeroll for you? Did you attempt to read the words in a spiral instead of the standard left-to-right, top-to-bottom style most English readers prefer?
loginalready 13y ago

scrumper 13y ago

Freedom for me means a happy wife and an extra $110 in my bank account every month from not having a cable bill. I do think that fighting the inclusion of DRM in future HTML standards is worthwhile, but this isn't going to get me to pick up a sword.

EdSharkey 13y ago
I could have written this word-for-word. I am curious if asm.js is quick enough to produce code that could decode encrypted full-screen HD video on browsers whose vendors won't support the media extensions. Pardon me for ignorance on this subject, but is there something about DRM that requires a plugin or component built into the browser itself? Could our answer to Netflix be, "Write the codec yourself using asm.js"?
- wmf 13y ago
  JS codecs are possible: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5653531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5653531 I don't know whether Hollywood would consider JS DRM secure enough; it probably depends how good a negotiator you are.
- taopao 13y ago
  DRM isn't possible without cooperation with a "trusted" component. If the decoding is happening in an environment that is available for introspection (e.g. Javascript runtime) then you can trivially tee the decoded bits after they are decrypted.-
- EdSharkey 13y ago
  @taopao, And for a component to be "trusted" it has to be code that was loaded with the operating system, or in this case, the operating environment (the browser)? It seems to me that quashing tampering or observing of the trusted component is the lynchpin. In JavaScript, there is no way to access unexposed internals of an IIFE, that seems to me to get us half way there. I wonder if there could be some way to add a "use trusted" pragma to an IIFE such that the browser would not allow debugging or watching the network traffic of that code? There'd have to be some new way to compare a checksum of the trusted code as well. I suppose that that could suffice in a video watermarking scenario, but Netflix could never watermark each and every video transmitted. I think they partner with some ISP's to cache content near to the users as well, so they're not even responsible for broadcasting the last mile of the video.

chrischen 13y ago

Hey can't I do both?

jlgaddis 13y ago

Done. http://i.imgur.com/TEmlmpw.png http://i.imgur.com/TEmlmpw.png

jiggy2011 13y ago
Good call, they will probably now offer you a free month to entice you back!
- yaddayadda 13y ago
  Yep, with multiple emails when you don't take them up on it. There will be about one a week for a month, then they drop down to about one a month.

cheald 13y ago

I said it in a similar thread a few weeks back, and I'll say it here: Netflix isn't the problem. They're stuck with DRM if they want to exist because the people they get their content from won't license without it. Stop consuming all media produced by the studios who have been driving DRM forward if you value freedom. That means stop going to the movies, stop watching TV, cancel Netflix, don't patronize Redbox, don't even torrent the stuff you want to see. Just completely reject it. Go read a nice paperback book instead. Yes, that means you don't get your entertainment, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Kvetching that Netflix is the Big Bad Bogeyman here is like blaming your grocery store for the nutritional content of the food you buy from them.

mtarnovan 13y ago
Still, must they push for DRM in Html5? Why don't they just make a binary client ?
- talmand 13y ago
  Wouldn't that still go against the FSF statement? The binary client would still require DRM of some sort.
- untog 13y ago
  We already have those, in the form of Flash and Silverlight. It would be good to move to technologies that work on all platforms.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    What makes you think this will? This standard would still require proprietary binary blobs to be built for every platform that the DRM creator cares to support.
    - greg5green 13y ago
      Because the onus to create it is suddenly in the streamers hands instead of Microsoft or Adobe's. Netflix has a hell of a lot more reasons to make their DRM bit work in Linux than Adobe and way, way more reasons than Microsoft.

whitehat2k9 13y ago

Basically what Netflix wants to do is standardize the use of DRM technology in HTML and web applications. Currently, most "premium" content from Netflix, etc. is delivered via proprietary plugins such as Flash or Silverlight. What the new "DRM" extensions to HTML5 do is standardize the interface between your web browser/video player and DRM modules. The DRM module itself would probably still be a closed-source, black-box piece of software, but the playing of the video would be handled by the browser natively w/o the need for plugins like Flash or Silverlight (since after decryption you end up with a standard H264/WebM stream in a <video> tag.) Now, sure, you can argue until you're blue in the face that DRM is bad, but the good thing is that you're separating the DRM from the presentation/rendering layer. This is, without a doubt, a step forward. In theory this would make things even easier for pirates wanting to capture content since now there's a standardized way for the browser to interface with the DRM layer, decrypt the content, and play it. The FSF's argument here is null and void because Netflix never was a free service to begin with. They never claimed to offer Linux/free software compatibility, and as a private company they have no obligation to.

mwcampbell 13y ago
The idea of separation between DRM and the rendering layer is illogical. The dream of all DRM proponents is a leak-proof pipe between the encumbered media and your senses, lest you be able to rip a perfect copy. For a concrete example, look at how deep the content protection system introduced in Windows Vista goes. http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html The proposed Encrypted Media Extensions standard is merely an interface between browsers and systems such as this.

short_circut 13y ago

I have commented on these issues before and I feel like this one is being blown way out of proportion. We all understand why DRM is there. It is there so you can't rip the stream and save it and redistribute it. But here is the thing that irks me about this. On the server end of things Netflix has been a rather amazing contributor to open source softwares. This boycott seems rather like shooting your self your own foot to stop an intruder.

3amOpsGuy 13y ago
I don't get the extra emphasis on Netflix here either. Netflix are part of the content industry, it's not that they're the best of a bad bunch, they're actively more open than some artists.
ihsw 13y ago
The destructive capabilities of a DRM-encumbered internet far outweigh the contributions that Netflix has made.

undershirt 13y ago

How are the encryption proposals "closing" the standards? Also, I'm seeing a clash of connotation between encryption for DRM and encryption for PRIVACY. Is encryption only good when it is protecting the freedom of the user, not the producer?

mwcampbell 13y ago
> Is encryption only good when it is protecting the freedom of the user, not the producer? Actually, yes. Your computer should only do what you want it to.

loginalready 13y ago

I'm surprised that on HN people cannot distinguish between Netflix business need to use DRM in their content delivery system (which is undesirable but defensible), and Netflix nefarious scheming to break the open web in order to make that an easier delivery system for DRM-ed content. It's like defending a company that wants to dump toxic waste into our drinking water with the argument "well, they have to leave it somewhere". Screw that. They want to use DRM, fine. But not at the expense of a free and open web. This isn't about DRM. This isn't about copyright. This isn't even about greed. This is about power and control.

ihsw 13y ago
DRM is power and control.
talmand 13y ago
This is the part I've never quite understood. What power and control are you speaking of?
chc 13y ago
> I'm surprised that on HN people cannot distinguish between Netflix business need to use DRM in their content delivery system (which is undesirable but defensible), and Netflix nefarious scheming to break the open web in order to make that an easier delivery system for DRM-ed content. I'm not aware of any portion of Netflix's proposals that would "break the open web." If the open web isn't broken by what Netflix and thousands of other companies are doing right now, how will "Netflix nefarious scheming" break it?

slig 13y ago

I don't get why Netflix can't just build a native app for each platform. For instance, they do have one for the iOS, shouldn't be too hard to port the core to OS X.

jlgreco 13y ago
They certainly could. Hell, they could write their very own NPAPI/PPAPI plugins. They don't want to do either because both of those options require more legwork than just using something that somebody else is responsible for.

LastZactionHero 13y ago

"... if you value freedom?" An over-the-top threat like that makes me want to keep Netflix for spite. Terrible headline.

stonemetal 13y ago

I am not sure I understand their argument. With netflix you are a renter. It is their property why shouldn't they protect it. If they were selling you something then sure it should be freely yours with no DRM. As far as these internet ideals that are violated, well I know copyright infringement drove internet growth for quite a while but I am not sure I would call that an ideal. How about we let consenting adults (legally) exchange information how they like and call that an ideal.

ihsw 13y ago
Nobody is arguing they shouldn't be able to protect their business, but the proposed changes to the HTML standard would affect every other business. Their authority to demand technological requirements of other's ends at their own property, and Netflix should have absolutely no ability to impose their business requirements on everybody else.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  How would this impose their business requirements on anybody else? If you don't use netflix you don't have to install their EME module.
  - ihsw 13y ago
    With this line of reasoning, why have standards at all? Why not jam every possible idea into HTML because "you don't have to use it"? My point is that the standards shouldn't be co-opted to fit every want and need that a transient entity has.
- stonemetal 13y ago
  It isn't just their business, it is a common use case for the web today. Hulu, Amazon, audio guys like spotify and pandora are also doing something that would make use of it.

portmanteaufu 13y ago

As a personal matter, I've always found Netflix's use of DRM to be superfluous. Half of the reason I use Netflix is so I don't have to manage my own video collection. I don't even want to manage a collection of .avi's and wmv's. (What file format are people actually using for stored video these days?) Trying to save my own copies of their content would be self-defeating (except maybe to view something once on an airplane?)

chc 13y ago
All DRM is superfluous. If I wanted to pirate The Avengers, Netflix's DRM would not be a major stumbling block because I could just go to The Pirate Bay and get a copy there. The DRM is to satisfy the content providers. I don't think Netflix really cares, except in that satisfying the content providers is crucial to their business model.

mmanfrin 13y ago

I would prefer a DRM-enabled HTML than a proprietary embedded video player.

mwcampbell 13y ago
I think it's better for DRM, which is proprietary by nature, to remain obviously so, and to keep it at arm's length from HTML and other open Web standards. Why should the desires of the American entertainment industry have such influence over the standards of the World Wide Web?
ihsw 13y ago
Your preference is your own, but should you be able to impose it on everybody? Personally I respect your preferences but I cannot in good conscience support the unilateral imposition of your preferences on everybody else.
- chc 13y ago
  Can you in good conscience support the unilateral imposition of your preferences on everybody else?
  - ihsw 13y ago
    Of course not, that is why we need to work together on this issue. High-powered lobbyists have always been at the reins of the W3C but it wasn't until now that the DRM maximalists started paying their salaries.
jlgreco 13y ago
"DRM-enabled HTML" is not what is on the table. The proposal is for a standardized interface for proprietary DRM modules to use. If you are not blessed with the creation of a DRM module for your particular platform then you will be left high and dry, even if your browser fully implements the standard.

jallmann 13y ago

If DRM wasn't implemented in the form of an opaque binary blob, would the FSF still object to it? There is no freedom-destroying threat from media itself, only in how it's packaged and distributed. The problem is fundamentally one of license enforcement, although TBH I'm unsure how it can be done a way that renders everything moot and/or objectionable.

jlgreco 13y ago
If DRM wasn't implemented in the form of an opaque binary blob but was instead implemented by the browser itself (which is not what EME would have happen), then I would build a copy of Firefox that would pretend to the server that it does DRM but would instead dump netflix streams to the disk. Well, I wouldn't, but somebody would.

jellicle 13y ago

I keep seeing in the comments the assertion that Netflix "cannot" offer DRM-free video, because something-something. This is exactly what people said about music, until Apple decided to do it, and did.

chc 13y ago
This is not actually what happened. What happened was, some music publishers decided they were willing to try offering non-DRM'd music for a higher price, and then Apple did it. Apple did not force a change here. (And even if they had, Netflix is not in Apple's privileged position. The movie studios care a lot less about Netflix than the music guys do about iTunes.)

kanamekun 13y ago

Quora has a good writeup on a few reasons why Netflix has been using Silverlight: 1. Cheap licensing terms for DRM: http://www.quora.com/When-does-Netflix-use-WideVine-DRM-instead-of-Microsoft-PlayReady-DRM http://www.quora.com/When-does-Netflix-use-WideVine-DRM-inst... 2. Strong support for CDNs, enabling lower-cost streaming: http://www.quora.com/Why-does-Netflix-use-Silverlight http://www.quora.com/Why-does-Netflix-use-Silverlight

chrisblackwell 13y ago

Going after Netflix is like going after a drug addict hooked on cocaine. Never mind that the addict is buying from someone far more evil on society. The addict is simply an easy target. Likewise, Netflix doesn't really care about DRM, and as long as you are paying them monthly, they really don't care what format the content is in. It's the movie and television studios that don't want their content online without DRM. Netflix is only able to do that deals with these studios if Netflix promises their content will be covered in DRM. No DRM, not content says the big bad studio. So now that Microsoft is sunsetting Silverlight, what are they to do?

dgreensp 13y ago

This is a great example of the FSF trying to blur together various notions of "free" while pretending that software and the web are in their own gleaming tower embodying those principles. Netflix and other similar services stream DRMed video to the browser, and they will continue doing so. Right now they use Silverlight, a proprietary Microsoft plugin whose future is unclear. Traditionally, sites have used Flash for any sort of video playing. Netflix would prefer to stream, play, and control the video using web standards, but as a distributor for Big Media, they need a DRM story. They'd like the story to be that the browser provides a facility for them to decrypt the content on the client. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of DRM, and the whole situation doesn't make sense so I don't believe it will last. Since all DRMed media comes with the decryption key, it's really only laws that make the encryption relevant, coupled with enough technical difficulty that a layperson would have to acquire some (illegal) software to perform the decryption. It sucks that ubiquitous hardware and software media formats come encumbered with restrictions (like "you can only play this DVD in the US" or "you can't skip this trailer") and are subject to patents; that you can't play a movie you bought on a physical disk for $12.99 on whatever computer or device you want in your own house. However, given the fact that legally, certain types of software are restricted in how they can be used, why not put that software in as small a box as possible? Just because Stallman doesn't want proprietary software on his computer doesn't mean you should have to run a separate runtime from your browser to use it. Let's make DRM a box with a key and a decryption algorithm and a sign that says, "Do not run!" Let's have royalty-free, open-source, standardized DRM, peer-reviewed by the hacker community to ensure that it's unbreakable without the key that you also have, and that there's no button visible to casual users that circumvents the restrictions. Treating DRM the way we treat other software actually weakens the concept by exposing the absurdity. Let's make it so easy to stream protected content that there's nothing to pay Netflix for, except maybe original content, instead of ending up in a world where we pay $60 a month to Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, and a dozen other services. The HTML standard is set by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which this block of corporations has been heavily lobbying as of late. The proposed adoption of EME is disturbing for what it says about the way decisions are made relative to the Web, but what does it mean for you as a free software user? Surprise, corporations are involved in web standards. Engineers at Google, Microsoft, Apple, Mozilla, and other companies wrote or reviewed many (most?) of the web standards in place today. DRM and free software don't mix... We'll see an explosion of DRM on the Web -- a growing dark zone inaccessible to free software users. I don't know if we'll see an "explosion of DRM on the Web" (it seems doubtful, unless it is because putting video on the Web is now more attractive to content-owners), but the decision to define "free software" as not doing any sort of DRM (the whole "doesn't mix" thing) is actually a very controversial part of the GPLv3 license. If a "free software user" is someone whose insistence on "the freedom to study how a program works and change it" threatens to cut them off from parts of the Internet, I wonder how many of these people there really are. Microsoft has already modified Internet Explorer to start supporting EME for media streaming. Simultaneously, Netflix has begun publicly promoting Internet Explorer, revealing a two-pronged strategy of pushing proprietary browsers while attacking Web standards in the W3C. Netflix doesn't have a "strategy" for attacking free software. It's not a "two-pronged" assault just because you feel affronted on two counts. Netflix presumably has their own motives, like simplifying their software, improving the experience for users, and supporting more devices. They want to work on Linux. They want to pay lip service to the idea of DRM while minimizing the impact on their service. Boycotting Netflix and impeding a web standard don't seem like great tactics for fighting DRM to me.

fburnaby 13y ago

Pardon me for being so naive, but why does Netflix have no competition in their market? There's no alternative to switch to, and once I've taken a step back and thought about it, this surprises me.

wmf 13y ago
Amazon Prime? Redbox streaming? It's not clear to me that it makes sense to define Netflix's exact business model as a market. If you look at streaming video in general as the market there are many competitors like Apple, MS, Sony, Hulu, Epix, etc.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Pardon me for being so naive, but why does Netflix have no competition in their market? Are you talking about the mail-DVD-rentals-to-your-house market or the stream-video-over-the-internet market. Because they've got plenty of fairly direct competition in the latter and currently more significant market (Amazon, Hulu, and Redbox streaming services, among others) as well as plenty of close substitutes (e.g., cable/satellite TV services which include "On Demand" series and movies) , and, if not a lot of direct competiton in the former market, at a minimum a close substitutes in the form of pervasive rental outlets (particularly Redbox).

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

tildeslashblog 13y ago

No thanks, I'll just exercise my freedom to keep using their service. FSF's cries are nothing more than a demand to reduce the freedom of others for their own personal gain. That's not freedom.