4 ms·

In case this wasn't obvious to you, Netflix is not the internet's friend, fun examples include: - Browser DRM (making it impossible to produce a fully function

In case this wasn't obvious to you, Netflix is not the internet's friend, fun examples include: - Browser DRM (making it impossible to produce a fully functional AND open source browser) - HDCP-for-sockets (e.g., to replace HTTPS with something they can tie to platform DRM-protected key exchange -- http://techblog.netflix.com/2014/10/message-security-layer-modern-take-on.html http://techblog.netflix.com/2014/10/message-security-layer-m...) ... and now this.

Karunamon 12y ago
Thank the studios for most of this - they will not allow their content to be distributed without encumberance. Even if that somehow makes them evil (or insert other derogatory words here), their assistance in the fight for net neutrality makes them very much "the internet's friend", IMO. FWIW, I find it very hard to get outraged about DRM when it comes to streaming services - the usual "fair use" things that DRM usually inhibits does not do so in the context of streaming. The only thing you can't do with an encrypted stream that you can do with an unencrypted one is record it, and you agreed not to do that when you signed up for Netflix anyways. In other words, you're getting exactly what you pay for with the service: Ephemeral, on-demand streams of content.
- teacup50 12y ago
  > ... the usual "fair use" things that DRM usually inhibits does not do so in the context of streaming. Sure they do. Video rentals were based on the first-sale doctrine[1]; the video store bought the movie, the video store rented their copy to you, and you could play it on any device that was technologically capable. There was no end-to-end control over the production, distribution, and viewing pipeline: - Anyone could run a video rental store. - Anyone could develop and sell a VCR. - Consumers could watch the movies in any way they wanted, with any device they wanted, rented or purchased from any store their wanted. With DRM, that healthy competitive market has been collapsed down into: - Content distributors must license the media specifically for digital distribution, granting full control to the content owners (and increasingly are the content owners) - Only playback devices that are approved by the content distributors may be used. If you think Netflix is your friend because they support net neutrality, consider what it means when the distribution mechanisms for the content you might like to consume over that internet (apps, games, music, movies) are far from "neutral". Netflix — and other companies — don't simply want to be the pipes, any more than Comcast wants to be a commodity pipe. If they fight for net neutrality, that's a happy accident of their own commercial interests, but we'll have even less choice and competition than when we started if the Netflixs simply replace the Comcasts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    That's just it though. A video rental represents a physical object, a stream does not. There is no first sale doctrine on OD streaming content. Are you arguing that selling access to an ephemeral thing shouldn't be allowed? The physical copy of a movie and a stream of a movie are two different items, with the second one having far less value due to its nature. Here's where we diverge. If I go buy a movie, then as the first sale doctrine and common sense implies, I should be able to digitize it, format/time shift, etc. Rentals confer none of those rights, either legally or morally. You are paying for temporary access to a thing under the limited terms offered you by some third party. If you want more rights, buy instead of rent. This is not a new or troubling development! As to whatever you perceive Netflix's ambitions to be, I prefer to castigate them if/when they start abusing their position and become enemies to a free internet. They have shown zero evidence that they are doing this, quite the opposite in fact.
MichaelGG 12y ago
How is Message Security Layer HDCP-for-sockets? I saw nothing in the article that seemed outrageous. The only thing it looks like you could be objecting to is the fact that they want to use device cryptography if available, which makes sense. Of course, the DRM premise is flawed and these things don't need protecting like they talk about. It's great business for Netflix to pretend so, to ensure competitors have a harder time.
- teacup50 12y ago
  Read more closely: - Leveraging specific device security features would require hacking the SSL/TLS stack in unintended ways: imagine generating some form of client certificate that used a dynamically generated set of device credentials. - Whenever possible we want to take advantage of security features provided by devices and their software. - Some devices may already contain cryptographic keys that can be used to authenticate and secure initial communication. - However service tokens can be cryptographically bound to a specific device and/or user, which prevents data from being migrated without authorization. Device keys are hardware/OS-level DRM
  - walterbell 12y ago
    See also https://www.virusbtn.com/virusbulletin/archive/2014/01/vb201401-SGX https://www.virusbtn.com/virusbulletin/archive/2014/01/vb201...
icebraining 12y ago
As much as I wish EME wasn't a thing, it doesn't really change how functional an open source browser can be. It's just replacing a generic proprietary plugin like Flash or Silverlight with a content specific proprietary plugin (a CDM).
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
freehunter 12y ago
Well, it's either that or they just shut down. With Flash not supported on mobile devices or Linux and same thing with Silverlight, what are the other options for them to stream content in a manner acceptable to the companies licensing their shows to them? But we've had this debate many times in the past. It's just one of those things that people love to keep bringing up as if it changes anything.
- teacup50 12y ago
  So you're not culpable for your actions if you make a deal with the devil, just because it's to keep your business afloat?
  - EpicEng 12y ago
    Let's not be dramatic ("the devil", really?). Are you really saying that no Netflix is better than Netflix with browser DRM? I don't like the Hollywood players either, but it certainly shouldn't surprise anyone to learn that they don't want their content to be trivially copied and distributed outside of their control (read: death grip.) Personally, I'll take the Netflix we can have over no Netflix at all.
    - teacup50 12y ago
      Ethics aren't ethics if they can be abandoned for simple expediency.
      - EpicEng 12y ago
        I'm not convinced that the "ethics" surrounding content protection are so cut and dry (I'm ignoring malware masked add DRM here as i don't believe or applies). I wish that Hollywood would get with the times. I wish they would give me affordable and reasonable mediums with which to watch their content. That said, i recognize that it is their content, and i don't think that their methods here make them "bad" or "evil". I think they're dinosaurs who are slow to change and afraid of losing money. I don't think this is a moral issue, nor do i believe that we have an inaliable right to watch Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones.

Karunamon 12y ago

Thank the studios for most of this - they will not allow their content to be distributed without encumberance. Even if that somehow makes them evil (or insert other derogatory words here), their assistance in the fight for net neutrality makes them very much "the internet's friend", IMO. FWIW, I find it very hard to get outraged about DRM when it comes to streaming services - the usual "fair use" things that DRM usually inhibits does not do so in the context of streaming. The only thing you can't do with an encrypted stream that you can do with an unencrypted one is record it, and you agreed not to do that when you signed up for Netflix anyways. In other words, you're getting exactly what you pay for with the service: Ephemeral, on-demand streams of content.

teacup50 12y ago
> ... the usual "fair use" things that DRM usually inhibits does not do so in the context of streaming. Sure they do. Video rentals were based on the first-sale doctrine[1]; the video store bought the movie, the video store rented their copy to you, and you could play it on any device that was technologically capable. There was no end-to-end control over the production, distribution, and viewing pipeline: - Anyone could run a video rental store. - Anyone could develop and sell a VCR. - Consumers could watch the movies in any way they wanted, with any device they wanted, rented or purchased from any store their wanted. With DRM, that healthy competitive market has been collapsed down into: - Content distributors must license the media specifically for digital distribution, granting full control to the content owners (and increasingly are the content owners) - Only playback devices that are approved by the content distributors may be used. If you think Netflix is your friend because they support net neutrality, consider what it means when the distribution mechanisms for the content you might like to consume over that internet (apps, games, music, movies) are far from "neutral". Netflix — and other companies — don't simply want to be the pipes, any more than Comcast wants to be a commodity pipe. If they fight for net neutrality, that's a happy accident of their own commercial interests, but we'll have even less choice and competition than when we started if the Netflixs simply replace the Comcasts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
- Karunamon 12y ago
  That's just it though. A video rental represents a physical object, a stream does not. There is no first sale doctrine on OD streaming content. Are you arguing that selling access to an ephemeral thing shouldn't be allowed? The physical copy of a movie and a stream of a movie are two different items, with the second one having far less value due to its nature. Here's where we diverge. If I go buy a movie, then as the first sale doctrine and common sense implies, I should be able to digitize it, format/time shift, etc. Rentals confer none of those rights, either legally or morally. You are paying for temporary access to a thing under the limited terms offered you by some third party. If you want more rights, buy instead of rent. This is not a new or troubling development! As to whatever you perceive Netflix's ambitions to be, I prefer to castigate them if/when they start abusing their position and become enemies to a free internet. They have shown zero evidence that they are doing this, quite the opposite in fact.

MichaelGG 12y ago

How is Message Security Layer HDCP-for-sockets? I saw nothing in the article that seemed outrageous. The only thing it looks like you could be objecting to is the fact that they want to use device cryptography if available, which makes sense. Of course, the DRM premise is flawed and these things don't need protecting like they talk about. It's great business for Netflix to pretend so, to ensure competitors have a harder time.

teacup50 12y ago
Read more closely: - Leveraging specific device security features would require hacking the SSL/TLS stack in unintended ways: imagine generating some form of client certificate that used a dynamically generated set of device credentials. - Whenever possible we want to take advantage of security features provided by devices and their software. - Some devices may already contain cryptographic keys that can be used to authenticate and secure initial communication. - However service tokens can be cryptographically bound to a specific device and/or user, which prevents data from being migrated without authorization. Device keys are hardware/OS-level DRM
- walterbell 12y ago
  See also https://www.virusbtn.com/virusbulletin/archive/2014/01/vb201401-SGX https://www.virusbtn.com/virusbulletin/archive/2014/01/vb201...

icebraining 12y ago

As much as I wish EME wasn't a thing, it doesn't really change how functional an open source browser can be. It's just replacing a generic proprietary plugin like Flash or Silverlight with a content specific proprietary plugin (a CDM).

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

freehunter 12y ago

Well, it's either that or they just shut down. With Flash not supported on mobile devices or Linux and same thing with Silverlight, what are the other options for them to stream content in a manner acceptable to the companies licensing their shows to them? But we've had this debate many times in the past. It's just one of those things that people love to keep bringing up as if it changes anything.

teacup50 12y ago
So you're not culpable for your actions if you make a deal with the devil, just because it's to keep your business afloat?
- EpicEng 12y ago
  Let's not be dramatic ("the devil", really?). Are you really saying that no Netflix is better than Netflix with browser DRM? I don't like the Hollywood players either, but it certainly shouldn't surprise anyone to learn that they don't want their content to be trivially copied and distributed outside of their control (read: death grip.) Personally, I'll take the Netflix we can have over no Netflix at all.
  - teacup50 12y ago
    Ethics aren't ethics if they can be abandoned for simple expediency.
    - EpicEng 12y ago
      I'm not convinced that the "ethics" surrounding content protection are so cut and dry (I'm ignoring malware masked add DRM here as i don't believe or applies). I wish that Hollywood would get with the times. I wish they would give me affordable and reasonable mediums with which to watch their content. That said, i recognize that it is their content, and i don't think that their methods here make them "bad" or "evil". I think they're dinosaurs who are slow to change and afraid of losing money. I don't think this is a moral issue, nor do i believe that we have an inaliable right to watch Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones.