10 ms·

Why would users switch to this as yet non-existent proprietary DRM mechanism when free and open source solutions already exist and are widely used?

mark-r 12y ago
Because there will come a day when something they want to watch desperately will require it.
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  That day will never come[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole
  - TaylorAlexander 12y ago
    I remember the days where they talked about making video cameras that would actually stop recording if they were pointed at a piece of media with special markers in it. Nowadays people would use some kind of HDCP-breaking digital capture device, and regulating all video cameras is basically impossible with their ubiquity, but it's crazy to think about video cameras being modified against our will to suit the needs of one industry. Those in power will always try to take control away from us. Don't let them.
    - gatehouse 12y ago
      It isn't all that crazy, it has already been done to printers: http://www.pcworld.com/article/229647/counterfeit_money_on_color_laser_printers.html?null http://www.pcworld.com/article/229647/counterfeit_money_on_c... https://www.eff.org/issues/printers https://www.eff.org/issues/printers
      - derekp7 12y ago
        And VCRs too. The original Macrovision technique relied on the low tolerance to noise in the old record-mode AGC circuits on first generation VCRs. But when VCRs improved to the point that Macrovision was ineffective, legislation was passed so that VCR manufactures had to include a special circuit to recognize the Macrovision noise bursts, and emulate the old behavior. (Source: my memory of an old article in an electronics magazine, so the above may be somewhat inaccurate -- the article may have been only referring to proposed legislation, or possibly industry self-regulation).
        baddox 12y ago
        I remember hooking my first DVD player (I had just received for my birthday) to the family TV via an RF modulator, because the DVD player only output RCA and the TV only had a coaxial input. I tried playing The Matrix (the only DVD I had at the time), and the video constantly faded to black and back to normal every few seconds. In retrospect, I gather that was some sort of DRM implemented in the RF modulator, but I don't know if it has anything to do with what you're talking about.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    Nope, it will come aliright. You're just taking a black/white dichotomy. But they don't have to make it impossible - just inconvenient.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - baddox 12y ago
      They can make it inconvenient to access the analog hole, but they can't make it very inconvenient to play the DRM-free copy once someone has captured it.
  - schoen 12y ago
    I think you might be confusing whether the DRM will be effective at stopping copying with whether many users will adopt DRM-restricted tools and platforms.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    That's not practical for video in most cases - dedicated pirates will find a way around it, but casual consumers won't bother. Duplicating HD or better video by analog means without significant quality sacrifices is much easier said than done.
    - Retra 12y ago
      Yeah, until the video recorder on your cell phone gets a little nicer.
      - anigbrowl 12y ago
        It would have to get a lot nicer. I work in film and shooting an image of a TV or computer monitor is often a pain, even with high-end cameras, due to interference between the frame rates of the camera and display devices, as well as light intensity. For high quality results the typical workaround is to just throw up a grid pattern on the screen in question and composite in the desired image afterwards. Is it possible to get results this way, yes of course. Are the results any good, not really. Commercial pirates work with people in the exhibition sector, amateurs rely on known weaknesses in popular disc formats. You'd have to be pretty desperate to rely on streamed media as your 'original.'
        jsprogrammer 12y ago
        Unless the playback hardware is DRM'd and encased in an impenetrable box, you don't need to capture photons and compression waves, just the output at the DAC, which can give you perfect fidelity to the original digital signal.
        anigbrowl 12y ago
        Yes, but who does that in real life outside the tiny community of extreme hardware nerds? Absolutely such things are possible, but they're increasingly impractical. It's the same reason that people promote widespread adoption of encryption; there's no encryption so strong that it couldn't be easily circumvented at the endpoints by really dedicated sppoks, but the sheer inconvenience is itself a safeguard against mass surveillance.
- realusername 12y ago
  It will be the same problem as with current DRM techniques. It works now because it's still not fragmented yet. You will have your content available with your computer with particular updates and browser versions and for some reasons, it will never work with some combination of hardware + OS + driver + browser + country (especially with phones) and the result is people are going to pirate it anyway because it just works all the time, as always.
dijit 12y ago
users wont, content producers, publishers and companies will publish want DRM.
vertex-four 12y ago
Because I want to watch Netflix or whatever else requires it, and that's a value calculation I've made?
- click170 12y ago
  Still seems like a false dichotomy to me. Subscribe to Netflix and pirate your content if you have a firm believe in being DRM free while rewarding the creators of content you consume.
  - robotresearcher 12y ago
    Paying for a DRM-encumbered service is not really consistent with a "firm belief in being DRM free".
  - derekp7 12y ago
    Last I checked, the most effective way to pirate content is via a protocol such as Bit Torrent which requires you to also distribute pirated content. And that has legal ramifications, which then requires non-trivial methods to obscure your activities (paid proxy servers, etc). Most of us use Netflix not for ideological reasons, but for the pure convenience of it. Compared to Bit-Torrent,with Netflix you can easily browse titles, watch a bit, switch to another one, or watch whole seasons without waiting for multi-hour or multi-day downloads.
    - zaroth 12y ago
      If you are not adverse to piracy, or you believe you have a valid fair use right to access the content, but you don't want to be guilty of distribution (a much higher penalty) then Usenet is probably the best bet.
      - jambox888 12y ago
        > valid fair use right They seem to be making it tricky to rip DVDs/Blu Rays these days (dirty tricks to screw with Handbrake/VLC) so the only way to get a movie onto my media server is to dl from somewhere after I bought the disc. Ironic, no?
mccr8 12y ago
What do you mean by "as yet non-existent"? I believe Chrome, IE and Safari are all shipping it. It sounds like you can even use Netflix with it, as of last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8159110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8159110

mark-r 12y ago

Because there will come a day when something they want to watch desperately will require it.

jsprogrammer 12y ago
That day will never come[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole
- TaylorAlexander 12y ago
  I remember the days where they talked about making video cameras that would actually stop recording if they were pointed at a piece of media with special markers in it. Nowadays people would use some kind of HDCP-breaking digital capture device, and regulating all video cameras is basically impossible with their ubiquity, but it's crazy to think about video cameras being modified against our will to suit the needs of one industry. Those in power will always try to take control away from us. Don't let them.
  - gatehouse 12y ago
    It isn't all that crazy, it has already been done to printers: http://www.pcworld.com/article/229647/counterfeit_money_on_color_laser_printers.html?null http://www.pcworld.com/article/229647/counterfeit_money_on_c... https://www.eff.org/issues/printers https://www.eff.org/issues/printers
    - derekp7 12y ago
      And VCRs too. The original Macrovision technique relied on the low tolerance to noise in the old record-mode AGC circuits on first generation VCRs. But when VCRs improved to the point that Macrovision was ineffective, legislation was passed so that VCR manufactures had to include a special circuit to recognize the Macrovision noise bursts, and emulate the old behavior. (Source: my memory of an old article in an electronics magazine, so the above may be somewhat inaccurate -- the article may have been only referring to proposed legislation, or possibly industry self-regulation).
      - baddox 12y ago
        I remember hooking my first DVD player (I had just received for my birthday) to the family TV via an RF modulator, because the DVD player only output RCA and the TV only had a coaxial input. I tried playing The Matrix (the only DVD I had at the time), and the video constantly faded to black and back to normal every few seconds. In retrospect, I gather that was some sort of DRM implemented in the RF modulator, but I don't know if it has anything to do with what you're talking about.
- coldtea 12y ago
  Nope, it will come aliright. You're just taking a black/white dichotomy. But they don't have to make it impossible - just inconvenient.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - baddox 12y ago
    They can make it inconvenient to access the analog hole, but they can't make it very inconvenient to play the DRM-free copy once someone has captured it.
- schoen 12y ago
  I think you might be confusing whether the DRM will be effective at stopping copying with whether many users will adopt DRM-restricted tools and platforms.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  That's not practical for video in most cases - dedicated pirates will find a way around it, but casual consumers won't bother. Duplicating HD or better video by analog means without significant quality sacrifices is much easier said than done.
  - Retra 12y ago
    Yeah, until the video recorder on your cell phone gets a little nicer.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      It would have to get a lot nicer. I work in film and shooting an image of a TV or computer monitor is often a pain, even with high-end cameras, due to interference between the frame rates of the camera and display devices, as well as light intensity. For high quality results the typical workaround is to just throw up a grid pattern on the screen in question and composite in the desired image afterwards. Is it possible to get results this way, yes of course. Are the results any good, not really. Commercial pirates work with people in the exhibition sector, amateurs rely on known weaknesses in popular disc formats. You'd have to be pretty desperate to rely on streamed media as your 'original.'
      - jsprogrammer 12y ago
        Unless the playback hardware is DRM'd and encased in an impenetrable box, you don't need to capture photons and compression waves, just the output at the DAC, which can give you perfect fidelity to the original digital signal.
        anigbrowl 12y ago
        Yes, but who does that in real life outside the tiny community of extreme hardware nerds? Absolutely such things are possible, but they're increasingly impractical. It's the same reason that people promote widespread adoption of encryption; there's no encryption so strong that it couldn't be easily circumvented at the endpoints by really dedicated sppoks, but the sheer inconvenience is itself a safeguard against mass surveillance.
realusername 12y ago
It will be the same problem as with current DRM techniques. It works now because it's still not fragmented yet. You will have your content available with your computer with particular updates and browser versions and for some reasons, it will never work with some combination of hardware + OS + driver + browser + country (especially with phones) and the result is people are going to pirate it anyway because it just works all the time, as always.

dijit 12y ago

users wont, content producers, publishers and companies will publish want DRM.

vertex-four 12y ago

Because I want to watch Netflix or whatever else requires it, and that's a value calculation I've made?

click170 12y ago
Still seems like a false dichotomy to me. Subscribe to Netflix and pirate your content if you have a firm believe in being DRM free while rewarding the creators of content you consume.
- robotresearcher 12y ago
  Paying for a DRM-encumbered service is not really consistent with a "firm belief in being DRM free".
- derekp7 12y ago
  Last I checked, the most effective way to pirate content is via a protocol such as Bit Torrent which requires you to also distribute pirated content. And that has legal ramifications, which then requires non-trivial methods to obscure your activities (paid proxy servers, etc). Most of us use Netflix not for ideological reasons, but for the pure convenience of it. Compared to Bit-Torrent,with Netflix you can easily browse titles, watch a bit, switch to another one, or watch whole seasons without waiting for multi-hour or multi-day downloads.
  - zaroth 12y ago
    If you are not adverse to piracy, or you believe you have a valid fair use right to access the content, but you don't want to be guilty of distribution (a much higher penalty) then Usenet is probably the best bet.
    - jambox888 12y ago
      > valid fair use right They seem to be making it tricky to rip DVDs/Blu Rays these days (dirty tricks to screw with Handbrake/VLC) so the only way to get a movie onto my media server is to dl from somewhere after I bought the disc. Ironic, no?

mccr8 12y ago

What do you mean by "as yet non-existent"? I believe Chrome, IE and Safari are all shipping it. It sounds like you can even use Netflix with it, as of last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8159110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8159110