7 ms·

For those not hip to the lingo, "premium video" means DRM.

by mccr8 12y ago

smackfu 12y ago
Apple is the master of branding. (For any downvoters: this was meant as a compliment.)
- epistasis 12y ago
  Perhaps, but this language comes from Netflix, not Apple: http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.html http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.h...
atonse 12y ago
Yea but honestly, this doesn't bother me. I can't think of a single way where this hurts the consumer: - I don't own the video, so there's no need to be able to do a backup to multiple places, or to have an un-encrypted copy. - I get better battery life (although this isn't related to DRM, but if we wanted a native playback in the browser, we'd need this. - Sounds like WebCrypto will probably do hardware-accelerated encryption/decryption (using AES-NI probably?), which is a win overall on the security side. Cons: - I don't get to rip the video anymore. - I can't just play the video on any device (although it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback) - I can't look at the back and forth JS-based traffic on this netflix site Where I get more mad is if I _purchased_ the movie, and it's encrypted and I can't do anything with it. Rentals? Don't care.
- brador 12y ago
  Well, you can always "rip" the video. Worst case you use a screen recorder. But, what does Netflix gain from using DRM?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - evan_ 12y ago
    > But, what does Netflix gain from using DRM? The studios will license them video.
  - valarauca1 12y ago
    >what does Netflix gain from using DRM? A business. Without DRM their is no way they'd be able to get the content they charge for.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    Tech illiterate content companies will license them content.
  - planb 12y ago
    Licensing deals with the movie industry. I don't think Netflix is pushing for DRM here but the content owners.
  - rsynnott 12y ago
    To a large extent, probably, their contracts with content owners require it, for it is customary for such contracts to require DRM. Look at the music industry; did it _actually_ make piracy easier when iTunes dropped DRM? Not really, but the content owners (or one in particular) fought it for years.
- watty 12y ago
  I'm not sure where you're getting your "better battery life" from. DRM adds computational complexity, which directly decreases battery life.
  - pudquick 12y ago
    The "better battery life" point is a claim from Apple that their DRM implementation is less CPU intensive than the current Silverlight method.
  - atonse 12y ago
    Yup, I actually addressed that above. The DRM is tangential to battery life. The video will have DRM. That's not up for debate. What's up for debate is whether you need a plugin (which runs in a sandbox) or you can decode using code closer to the metal (browser native). To be able to play these videos natively in the browser without sandboxed plugin code, you need to still have DRM. Whether you like it or not, this is what the studios want. The better battery life comes from begin able to decode the video in hardware, because you aren't using a plugin anymore. And you aren't using a plugin anymore because you natively support the DRM.
    - __david__ 12y ago
      > The video will have DRM. That's not up for debate. It really should be.
      - atonse 12y ago
        Unfortunately, right now it's completely lopsided. The studios have somehow arranged things in a way that they have full leverage over tech companies. The music companies couldn't accomplish this. Maybe the studios closely watched and learned from the "failures" of the music industry. One example of how DRM will hurt the consumer is what I hear about DVDs starting with unskippable ads. The studios have shown nothing but contempt for customers. Don't think I'm advocating for DRM by being excited about this news. But seriously, in this case, I've just never heard anyone complain about DRM with Netflix or be hampered by it. I don't see how this is anything but a win-win for consumers without adversely affecting the content-watching experience.
- phkahler 12y ago
  Eventually you will not be able to _purchase_ a movie or a book. There will be commercial and non-commercial and then they'll start trying to outlaw non-commercial because it hurts the economy. Read "The Right to Read" by RMS.
  - freehunter 12y ago
    That will literally never happen. If anyone seriously believes that there will be a day without the legal ability to purchase some media or to publish media without making it DRM-encumbered has some serious issues with their thought process. Has there been any point in history where it has been easier to make a movie, record a song, or write a story? Has there been any point in history where our culture has been more free? Man it would be a shame if we didn't get to see the latest Hollywood blockbuster, but culture will always continue. There's no way to remove that right within any legal framework.
    - dublinben 12y ago
      It doesn't need to happen within a legal framework, it will happen within a technical and social one. Mobile platforms are walled gardens, that deliver DRM-crippled content. When the ability to sideload media content is quietly removed from the next version of your favorite mobile OS, how will you get your DRM-free content then?
      - freehunter 12y ago
        As long as you can publish on the web, as long as you can write an email, as long as you can make a phone call, send a text, or even talk to the person standing next to you, culture still goes on. There's literally no way to stop it without the death of mankind. What you're worried about is that we won't be able to buy a copy of the next superhero movie. Oh well. There's still plenty of free and worthwhile works of media that can never be forced to close.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > I can't think of a single way where this hurts the consumer You already listed it, and without even thinking about it described why it's such a serious problem: > I can't just play the video on any device (although it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback) Suppose that I want a device I can verify. The reasons for this have nothing to do with movies. I just want to know that the device I'm using for my business doesn't have a backdoor put there e.g. by the Chinese government or any other government or corporation when it was manufactured. I want to know nobody has access to my trade secrets, so I want to be able to verify the device myself, or be secure in the knowledge that someone I trust has verified it and that anyone can who wants to. This should have nothing to do with movies. I don't care whether or not anybody else wants to watch Batman on their iPad, I just want to look at all the bits I paid for and be able to change them as I please. But if somebody releases a device I can verify, that device would be incompatible with DRM, because DRM can't withstand transparency. And devices have network effects. Hence why "it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback" -- because having Netflix creates more sales for a device than being approved by neckbeards, so the manufacturers all respond to the market. Anyone who tolerates DRM is making everyone less secure. And it's even worse than that, because it's not just that you can't verify a device with DRM. You also can't make a device with DRM. If you don't know what's in the black box then you can't reproduce it. The only way a system gets DRM is if Netflix et al will do the work, which they don't do for anything without enough existing market share. And how is a system supposed to get any market share if it can't display any content? This is why Microsoft likes DRM. It destroys the ability of newcomers to enter the market. That's the real consumer harm. Can you imagine what the landscape would have looked like if Microsoft had "provided" DRM for images and web pages in the 90s? No Firefox and no iPhone.
  - untog 12y ago
    But the OP was referring to a single way it hurts the consumer compared to the situation today. We can talk all we want about ideal situations but they're not going to happen.
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
mortenjorck 12y ago
Much as I would still have preferred EME be made a standard through a body other than the W3C, I'm still glad it's a standard and it will be nice to finally have a non-fan-revving Netflix experience on Macs.
cenhyperion 12y ago
I hate to see DRM in HTML, but I'd much rather have DRM HTML5 video from netflix than Silverlight or Flash. For a company like Netflix it isn't non-DRM HTML5 vs DRM HTML5, it's DRM HTML5 or Flash/Silverlight/other proprietary plugin.

For those not hip to the lingo, "premium video" means DRM.

by mccr8 12y ago

For those not hip to the lingo, "premium video" means DRM.

smackfu 12y ago

Apple is the master of branding. (For any downvoters: this was meant as a compliment.)

epistasis 12y ago
Perhaps, but this language comes from Netflix, not Apple: http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.html http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.h...

atonse 12y ago

Yea but honestly, this doesn't bother me. I can't think of a single way where this hurts the consumer: - I don't own the video, so there's no need to be able to do a backup to multiple places, or to have an un-encrypted copy. - I get better battery life (although this isn't related to DRM, but if we wanted a native playback in the browser, we'd need this. - Sounds like WebCrypto will probably do hardware-accelerated encryption/decryption (using AES-NI probably?), which is a win overall on the security side. Cons: - I don't get to rip the video anymore. - I can't just play the video on any device (although it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback) - I can't look at the back and forth JS-based traffic on this netflix site Where I get more mad is if I _purchased_ the movie, and it's encrypted and I can't do anything with it. Rentals? Don't care.

brador 12y ago
Well, you can always "rip" the video. Worst case you use a screen recorder. But, what does Netflix gain from using DRM?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- evan_ 12y ago
  > But, what does Netflix gain from using DRM? The studios will license them video.
- valarauca1 12y ago
  >what does Netflix gain from using DRM? A business. Without DRM their is no way they'd be able to get the content they charge for.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  Tech illiterate content companies will license them content.
- planb 12y ago
  Licensing deals with the movie industry. I don't think Netflix is pushing for DRM here but the content owners.
- rsynnott 12y ago
  To a large extent, probably, their contracts with content owners require it, for it is customary for such contracts to require DRM. Look at the music industry; did it _actually_ make piracy easier when iTunes dropped DRM? Not really, but the content owners (or one in particular) fought it for years.
watty 12y ago
I'm not sure where you're getting your "better battery life" from. DRM adds computational complexity, which directly decreases battery life.
- pudquick 12y ago
  The "better battery life" point is a claim from Apple that their DRM implementation is less CPU intensive than the current Silverlight method.
- atonse 12y ago
  Yup, I actually addressed that above. The DRM is tangential to battery life. The video will have DRM. That's not up for debate. What's up for debate is whether you need a plugin (which runs in a sandbox) or you can decode using code closer to the metal (browser native). To be able to play these videos natively in the browser without sandboxed plugin code, you need to still have DRM. Whether you like it or not, this is what the studios want. The better battery life comes from begin able to decode the video in hardware, because you aren't using a plugin anymore. And you aren't using a plugin anymore because you natively support the DRM.
  - __david__ 12y ago
    > The video will have DRM. That's not up for debate. It really should be.
    - atonse 12y ago
      Unfortunately, right now it's completely lopsided. The studios have somehow arranged things in a way that they have full leverage over tech companies. The music companies couldn't accomplish this. Maybe the studios closely watched and learned from the "failures" of the music industry. One example of how DRM will hurt the consumer is what I hear about DVDs starting with unskippable ads. The studios have shown nothing but contempt for customers. Don't think I'm advocating for DRM by being excited about this news. But seriously, in this case, I've just never heard anyone complain about DRM with Netflix or be hampered by it. I don't see how this is anything but a win-win for consumers without adversely affecting the content-watching experience.
phkahler 12y ago
Eventually you will not be able to _purchase_ a movie or a book. There will be commercial and non-commercial and then they'll start trying to outlaw non-commercial because it hurts the economy. Read "The Right to Read" by RMS.
- freehunter 12y ago
  That will literally never happen. If anyone seriously believes that there will be a day without the legal ability to purchase some media or to publish media without making it DRM-encumbered has some serious issues with their thought process. Has there been any point in history where it has been easier to make a movie, record a song, or write a story? Has there been any point in history where our culture has been more free? Man it would be a shame if we didn't get to see the latest Hollywood blockbuster, but culture will always continue. There's no way to remove that right within any legal framework.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    It doesn't need to happen within a legal framework, it will happen within a technical and social one. Mobile platforms are walled gardens, that deliver DRM-crippled content. When the ability to sideload media content is quietly removed from the next version of your favorite mobile OS, how will you get your DRM-free content then?
    - freehunter 12y ago
      As long as you can publish on the web, as long as you can write an email, as long as you can make a phone call, send a text, or even talk to the person standing next to you, culture still goes on. There's literally no way to stop it without the death of mankind. What you're worried about is that we won't be able to buy a copy of the next superhero movie. Oh well. There's still plenty of free and worthwhile works of media that can never be forced to close.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> I can't think of a single way where this hurts the consumer You already listed it, and without even thinking about it described why it's such a serious problem: > I can't just play the video on any device (although it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback) Suppose that I want a device I can verify. The reasons for this have nothing to do with movies. I just want to know that the device I'm using for my business doesn't have a backdoor put there e.g. by the Chinese government or any other government or corporation when it was manufactured. I want to know nobody has access to my trade secrets, so I want to be able to verify the device myself, or be secure in the knowledge that someone I trust has verified it and that anyone can who wants to. This should have nothing to do with movies. I don't care whether or not anybody else wants to watch Batman on their iPad, I just want to look at all the bits I paid for and be able to change them as I please. But if somebody releases a device I can verify, that device would be incompatible with DRM, because DRM can't withstand transparency. And devices have network effects. Hence why "it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback" -- because having Netflix creates more sales for a device than being approved by neckbeards, so the manufacturers all respond to the market. Anyone who tolerates DRM is making everyone less secure. And it's even worse than that, because it's not just that you can't verify a device with DRM. You also can't make a device with DRM. If you don't know what's in the black box then you can't reproduce it. The only way a system gets DRM is if Netflix et al will do the work, which they don't do for anything without enough existing market share. And how is a system supposed to get any market share if it can't display any content? This is why Microsoft likes DRM. It destroys the ability of newcomers to enter the market. That's the real consumer harm. Can you imagine what the landscape would have looked like if Microsoft had "provided" DRM for images and web pages in the 90s? No Firefox and no iPhone.
- untog 12y ago
  But the OP was referring to a single way it hurts the consumer compared to the situation today. We can talk all we want about ideal situations but they're not going to happen.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago

mortenjorck 12y ago

Much as I would still have preferred EME be made a standard through a body other than the W3C, I'm still glad it's a standard and it will be nice to finally have a non-fan-revving Netflix experience on Macs.

cenhyperion 12y ago

I hate to see DRM in HTML, but I'd much rather have DRM HTML5 video from netflix than Silverlight or Flash. For a company like Netflix it isn't non-DRM HTML5 vs DRM HTML5, it's DRM HTML5 or Flash/Silverlight/other proprietary plugin.