5 ms·
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
by 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 agoStill, must they push for DRM in Html5? Why don't they just make a binary client ?
- talmand 13y agoWouldn't that still go against the FSF statement? The binary client would still require DRM of some sort.
- untog 13y agoWe 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 agoWhat 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 agoBecause 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.
- jlgreco 13y agoHow many more Linux users do you think that they could actually add too their user list if they supported Linux? I mean, I am a Linux user and I give them my money anyway. I expect most others do as well.
- Silhouette 13y agoWhy don't they just make a binary client ? How does that help the situation at all? Either data is DRM-encumbered or it's not. The basic issues of rights of creators vs. rights of distributors vs. rights of consumers are exactly the same. All you're doing by arguing against a standardised way of using DRM on web sites is leaving lots of little walled gardens. Having all the data you want, in an unencumbered format, in a nice open field where anyone can play, isn't an option that's on the table right now. It won't magically become an option just because you force all the distributors to develop custom schemes for their DRM instead.
- jlgreco 13y agoIt helps because the barrier to entry to creating your own binary client is high. I don't have to worry about my local news station going coo-coo and DRMing their entire site because "Hey, it's easy so why not? Gotta stop those dastardly copy-pasters."
- cheald 13y agoWhy exactly do you care if your local news station DRMs their content?
- jlgreco 13y agoIs this a serious question? Are you trolling? Because I like to read it..
- cheald 13y agoIt's a serious question. DRM doesn't prevent you from consuming the content they provide under their terms, does it? The classic argument against DRM is that you don't really own something that you've purchased. But...you aren't purchasing your local news channel's broadcasts. You don't own them, you don't have any claim on them. What's wrong with the owner deciding what can be done with them?
- ihsw 13y ago> but you can't have your cake and eat it This line of reasoning is short-sighted and narrow-minded. Netflix and the iTunes Store flourished just fine with the amount of DRM we have now, why do we need more?
- jlgreco 13y agoAs far as I can tell, they don't want more DRM. Rather they want different DRM that is easier for them to implement and maintain. I find this problematic because it would also make it easier for others to do the same. Just imagine if old media websites started using it... DRM should be a pain in the ass. It should be something you have to dedicate lots of engineer hours to, constantly, so that using it cannot be something you casually decide to do. NPAPI and the like are pretty shitty, and that is the way it should be.
- cheald 13y agoBecause Silverlight is EOL and Netflix wants to continue to have a functioning business after Microsoft kills it?
- ihsw 13y agoThey can continue functioning on their own, without polluting the HTML standard. There's nothing stopping them from that.
- cheald 13y agoIt's a fantasy to think that premium video providers are going away. It's also a fantasy to think that they're going to be able to provide content sans DRM anytime in the next decade. You can either have a standardized way of delivering this content that there is obviously a massive demand for, or you can have everyone that wants to deliver video implement their own shitty browser plugin that will undoubtedly be full of security holes and performance issues and require regular patching. Trading Flash/Silverlight for a proprietary binary plugin per platform sounds genuinely awful to me. It's been a massive uphill battle with Flash/Silverlight - expanding that to a plugin per platform would be a nightmare. The demand for the product is there. Maybe I'm just more pragmatic than idealistic, but as someone who enjoys these services, I'd really rather than they not suck. My primary complaint with DRM in general is the sucky customer experience, not the DRM itself. For streaming services, the classic issue with DRM ("you don't really own it") doesn't apply, because you already explicitly don't own what you're streaming. As long as it doesn't get in my way, I have no issue with it. Proprietary binaries are a lot more likely to get in my way than a standardized set of HTML5 extensions are.