Cancel Netflix if you value freedom(fsf.org)
fsf.org
Cancel Netflix if you value freedom
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/cancel-netflix-if-you-value-freedom
163 コメント
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.
Flash and Silverlight are bad programs, but they're better than corrupting the HTML standard itself.
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.
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.
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.
> 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
I expect, though, that it will make it more likely for Netflix to add native Linux support, because providing one decryption plugin should be a lot easier than providing a whole movie playing application.
I expect, though, that it will make it more likely for Netflix to add native Linux support, because providing one decryption plugin should be a lot easier than providing a whole movie playing application.
The support they have in ChromeOS could be made to work in "regular" Linux with minimal to no effort. In ChromeOS netflix is played through Chrome, not with a completely separate movie playing application. They don't allow it to work off of ChromeOS on official ChromeOS devices.
The issue is policy, not technological.
The issue is policy, not technological.
Actually it probably requires hardware support (like ARM's security extensions (not sure how x86 does it)) so it probably can't be made to work with any old hardware.
I doubt it would make much different either way, they will add Linux support when there are hordes of people threatening to throw credit cards at them for it.
(I have been using Linux as my primary desktop for over a decade now)
So, never?
They have "Linux" support: on ChromeOS, Android, Roku, and likely several TVs and other devices. The ChromeOS support in particular is relevant to "regular Linux" support.
They just don't care, they don't have any real pressing reason to care, and frankly I don't think they ever will. The future of general consumer computers is in device/OS combos like Android and ChromeOS. When people flee Windows that is the sort of device they go to.
If Ubuntu Phone or whatever it is called ever takes off, I wager it will only support Netflix as ChromeOS does: works in Ubuntu Phone but not if you are running Ubuntu Phone Edition on "unofficial" hardware.
So, never?
They have "Linux" support: on ChromeOS, Android, Roku, and likely several TVs and other devices. The ChromeOS support in particular is relevant to "regular Linux" support.
They just don't care, they don't have any real pressing reason to care, and frankly I don't think they ever will. The future of general consumer computers is in device/OS combos like Android and ChromeOS. When people flee Windows that is the sort of device they go to.
If Ubuntu Phone or whatever it is called ever takes off, I wager it will only support Netflix as ChromeOS does: works in Ubuntu Phone but not if you are running Ubuntu Phone Edition on "unofficial" hardware.
If people flee Windows they go to a Mac. Most people buying Android/ChromeOS devices are buying them to supplement, not replace, their PCs.
Sure. Either way, those people are not fleeing to standard PC hardware running "traditional" Linux distros. There is not going to be any great push sometime in the future for Netflix to support "traditional" Linux.
> Clearly, DRM is required in order for them to license the shows we want to watch.
This couldn't be further from the truth now more than ever. DRM is required in the sense that their contractual obligations require it, but the technological and social requirement is just not there.
Why should the HTML standard be encumbered by something wholly unrelated? The copyright maximalists (including Netflix) need the web more than the web needs them.
This couldn't be further from the truth now more than ever. DRM is required in the sense that their contractual obligations require it, but the technological and social requirement is just not there.
Why should the HTML standard be encumbered by something wholly unrelated? The copyright maximalists (including Netflix) need the web more than the web needs them.
A contractual obligation that requires something is a requirement, regardless of the technical possibilities. DRM has never been required to do anything from a technical standpoint, so far as I'm aware.
Not to say that your other points aren't valid. I'd rather not see anything resembling DRM ever. I just want to point out that a legal obligation such as a contract does make this a valid requirement for Netflix and other digital streaming services.
Not to say that your other points aren't valid. I'd rather not see anything resembling DRM ever. I just want to point out that a legal obligation such as a contract does make this a valid requirement for Netflix and other digital streaming services.
That's perfectly fine, but their business interests don't give them the broad-sweeping and baseless authority to define the standards that will affect everybody that uses the internet.
Contractual obligation is exactly what I meant.
The interesting irony to me is that the more people who subscribe to Netflix, the less valuable their DRM is to content producers. As Netflix subscribers trend toward infinity, potential pirates of that content trend toward zero.
DRM was never about piracy, it was about controlling who can distribute what.
The law already said who could distribute what in terms of copyrighted works, and anyone violating that law was already a pirate. DRM is a technical means to (try to) enforce rights the law already gives. Your position is self-contradictory.
Um, I think you repeated the statement while trying to refute it. DRM is required for them to license the shows by their contractual obligations.
The social requirement is there in that the market wants the product that has contractual obligations. To meet that demand requires a change in technology.
I need the web to work the same way that Netflix needs it to work so that we may both benefit from it.
The social requirement is there in that the market wants the product that has contractual obligations. To meet that demand requires a change in technology.
I need the web to work the same way that Netflix needs it to work so that we may both benefit from it.
That's specious reasoning. They can distribute as many browsers and apps as they want, but they shouldn't be able to influence the entirety of the HTML standard to fit their narrow business requirements.
Entirety of the HTML standard? Who says they are? We're talking about one little part of the standard that has little to do with day-to-day HTML. Are you suggesting that Netflix is attempting to influence the future of the span element?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the suggestion is a unified approach to deal with plugins or extensions, not putting DRM inside HTML itself. If you oppose the idea of a plugin or extension then don't install it and don't use the service that they provide. A service that everyone who uses it voluntarily and willingly agreed to use it under the provider's terms.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the suggestion is a unified approach to deal with plugins or extensions, not putting DRM inside HTML itself. If you oppose the idea of a plugin or extension then don't install it and don't use the service that they provide. A service that everyone who uses it voluntarily and willingly agreed to use it under the provider's terms.
and and and the humanitarian requirement is there because the social requirement is that we get the service and that has the contractual requirement! HTML DRM is a humanitarian mission!
> This couldn't be further from the truth now more than ever.
You are thinking about this way to philosophical. Netflix would love to start using HTML5 today, DRM or no DRM, but the studios just wouldn't allow it. So...should they just close up shop because they can't have their way, and we can't have ours?
You are thinking about this way to philosophical. Netflix would love to start using HTML5 today, DRM or no DRM, but the studios just wouldn't allow it. So...should they just close up shop because they can't have their way, and we can't have ours?
What's the alternative?
How do you get DRM into browsers that don't support plugins or extensions?
If the browser doesn't support plugins or extensions, then this would not work either. This is basically nothing more than a standardized interface for plugins meant explicitly for DRM.
You ask users to opt-into the process. DRM should never be opt-out.
Don't use the Web. Use a native app.
netflix has apps in: google play store, kindla app store, ios app store, windows app store...
Maybe they should just go native on all platforms.
Maybe they should just go native on all platforms.
> 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
They aren't making DRM part of the standard. They are making an interface to interact with DRM part of the web. Actually, its to interact with encrypted media, which is a superset of DRM. I expect there will be people using it for privacy when sharing media with friends and family.
They aren't making DRM part of the standard. They are making an interface to interact with DRM part of the web. Actually, its to interact with encrypted media, which is a superset of DRM. I expect there will be people using it for privacy when sharing media with friends and family.
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?!
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?!
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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?
As 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.
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.
This line of reasoning is short-sighted and narrow-minded. Everything we have now flourishes just fine without the HTML spec being discussed. Why do we need a new HTML spec at all?
Because Silverlight is EOL and Netflix wants to continue to have a functioning business after Microsoft kills it?
They can continue functioning on their own, without polluting the HTML standard. There's nothing stopping them from that.
It'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.
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.
I never said that I thought they should 'go away' but what I'm saying is that they should mind their own business rather than trying to control everybody else's.
Whose business besides their own do you exactly think they're trying to control?
DRM systems have a habit of trying to push onerous requirements onto OSes and hardware.
I must have missed Netflix's HTML5 Palladium draft spec.
Doesn't that mean having a standardised, open, peer-reviewed system for isolating those onerous parts from the rest of the system would be an improvement?
My primary complaint with DRM in general is the sucky customer experience, not the DRM itself.
Exactly.
I do think there is a risk that it simply won't be possible to buy a legal permanent copy of a lot of content in a DRM'd era. More limited library subscription or streaming/rental models are likely to be more financially beneficial to content producers, and if the content is valuable enough, people will still pay for it on those terms.
At the moment, I'm leaning towards saying that's OK if the market will bear it. A reasonably priced service where I can listen to just about any music track I want probably does have more value to me than owning a bunch of little plastic discs with a tiny fraction of the same material on them.
At the same time, copyright is supposed to be a two-way street that motivates the creation and distribution of works for the general good. If the content producers can make a reasonable return much faster thanks to DRM, then it's also fair to say copyright terms should be dramatically shortened in this new environment, and maybe some form of positive obligation to release the content into the public domain should exist. This way, works can be produced and profitable faster for the benefit of creators, and then they can become public faster as well.
Part of the trouble today is that the intent of copyright laws has been so distorted that they really do serve more as a means to lock works up than to motivate their distribution. But this was a problem already, legally speaking, so I don't see much downside to highlighting the issue so there is increased pressure to fix the underlying problem.
Exactly.
I do think there is a risk that it simply won't be possible to buy a legal permanent copy of a lot of content in a DRM'd era. More limited library subscription or streaming/rental models are likely to be more financially beneficial to content producers, and if the content is valuable enough, people will still pay for it on those terms.
At the moment, I'm leaning towards saying that's OK if the market will bear it. A reasonably priced service where I can listen to just about any music track I want probably does have more value to me than owning a bunch of little plastic discs with a tiny fraction of the same material on them.
At the same time, copyright is supposed to be a two-way street that motivates the creation and distribution of works for the general good. If the content producers can make a reasonable return much faster thanks to DRM, then it's also fair to say copyright terms should be dramatically shortened in this new environment, and maybe some form of positive obligation to release the content into the public domain should exist. This way, works can be produced and profitable faster for the benefit of creators, and then they can become public faster as well.
Part of the trouble today is that the intent of copyright laws has been so distorted that they really do serve more as a means to lock works up than to motivate their distribution. But this was a problem already, legally speaking, so I don't see much downside to highlighting the issue so there is increased pressure to fix the underlying problem.
110% agreed.
Still, must they push for DRM in Html5? Why don't they just make a binary client ?
We already have those, in the form of Flash and Silverlight. It would be good to move to technologies that work on all platforms.
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.
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.
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.
How 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.
I mean, I am a Linux user and I give them my money anyway. I expect most others do as well.
Wouldn't that still go against the FSF statement? The binary client would still require DRM of some sort.
Why 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.
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.
It 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."
Why exactly do you care if your local news station DRMs their content?
Is this a serious question? Are you trolling?
Because I like to read it..
Because I like to read it..
It'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?
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?
The terms are not my primary concern. The capability to read it is. I want to be able to read it.
Right now I cannot use Netflix on my primary operating system. I can read the news because without strong incentive to DRM it (as Netflix has, their licensing terms require it) it is not worth implementing DRM.
Right now I cannot use Netflix on my primary operating system. I can read the news because without strong incentive to DRM it (as Netflix has, their licensing terms require it) it is not worth implementing DRM.
Question - have you actually read the draft specs for the proposed extensions? Here's a summary, straight from the source: http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.h... and the actual draft spec is here: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...
Nobody is suggesting a <html drm="true"> change here. We're not talking about enabling broad DRM for all the bytes delivered over HTTP internet. We're talking specifically about extensions to HTMLMediaElement (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLMediaEl...) which provide for challenge-response authentication and decryption of a media stream. Nobody has suggested that we should be adding some mechanism to HTML that allows a browser to talk to a webserver if the browser possess the right DRM license.
Nobody is suggesting a <html drm="true"> change here. We're not talking about enabling broad DRM for all the bytes delivered over HTTP internet. We're talking specifically about extensions to HTMLMediaElement (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLMediaEl...) which provide for challenge-response authentication and decryption of a media stream. Nobody has suggested that we should be adding some mechanism to HTML that allows a browser to talk to a webserver if the browser possess the right DRM license.
Have you read the specs? A proprietary binary blob is still required. The proposal is only for a standardized interface with that binary blob. If that binary blob is not provided for a particular platform then you are left out in the cold, as before.
> not talking about enabling broad DRM for all the bytes delivered over HTTP internet. We're talking specifically about extensions to HTMLMediaElement
Gee, you think news sites may have multimedia? Naaahhh...
> not talking about enabling broad DRM for all the bytes delivered over HTTP internet. We're talking specifically about extensions to HTMLMediaElement
Gee, you think news sites may have multimedia? Naaahhh...
Yes, I certainly have. I thought that perhaps you hadn't because you kept using the verb "read" rather than "watch" or "listen", which would actually apply to this discussion.
I'm quite well aware that binary blobs are required for the CDM. The requirement of a license server and server-side encryption compatible with a client-deployed CDM would still be prohibitive for the "small fish" (after all, if they cared, they could just use Flash or Silverlight like is done today).
I'm quite well aware that binary blobs are required for the CDM. The requirement of a license server and server-side encryption compatible with a client-deployed CDM would still be prohibitive for the "small fish" (after all, if they cared, they could just use Flash or Silverlight like is done today).
I suppose I am not as confident as you that small fish would stay out of the game. If. I was, my only objection would be that all things proprietary need to stay away from standards.
Right now I cannot use Netflix on my primary operating system. I can read the news because without strong incentive to DRM it (as Netflix has, their licensing terms require it) it is not worth implementing DRM.
You appear to have made a poor choice of operating system. Perhaps you should try a better one for your needs? There are lots of choices, and many of them would let you use Netflix if that's what you want to do.
You appear to have made a poor choice of operating system. Perhaps you should try a better one for your needs? There are lots of choices, and many of them would let you use Netflix if that's what you want to do.
Is this an argument you actually think that people concerned about this proposal will find satisfying? Or is it just something that you find satisfying to say. You cannot possibly think the first...
(Furthermore, I am able to watch Netflix videos on other devices. The inability to watch Netflix on my primary computer does not bother me. I don't have that support now, I won't in the future, I never had it and I never expected it.)
(Furthermore, I am able to watch Netflix videos on other devices. The inability to watch Netflix on my primary computer does not bother me. I don't have that support now, I won't in the future, I never had it and I never expected it.)
Is this an argument you actually think that people concerned about this proposal will find satisfying?
No, I'm just explaining why a problem of your own making, which will affect a tiny minority of people interested in viewing content on-line, is not reasonable grounds for undermining standards that would probably be in the interests of the overwhelming majority.
Or is it just something that you find satisfying to say.
Satisfying, no, but it is tiresome to watch people campaign for openness with one breath and then complain with the next that they can't access things that are paid for and only available in the closed world they chose not to participate in.
No, I'm just explaining why a problem of your own making, which will affect a tiny minority of people interested in viewing content on-line, is not reasonable grounds for undermining standards that would probably be in the interests of the overwhelming majority.
Or is it just something that you find satisfying to say.
Satisfying, no, but it is tiresome to watch people campaign for openness with one breath and then complain with the next that they can't access things that are paid for and only available in the closed world they chose not to participate in.
I am well aware that few people would be negatively impacted. I don't delude myself, I've already stated upthread that Linux is not a major player and, furthermore, that it never will be.
That does not give me reason to support this proposal.
> in the interests of the overwhelming majority.
It is in the interest of Netflix. Netflix streaming currently "Just Works"(tm) for most consumers, and it will continue to do so. Netflix wants it because it would make their lives easier. I have no reason to support this, and every reason to not.
The only thing that might be worse than the proposal itself is the absurd amount of misinformed Linux users who think that this will allow them to use Netflix or who think that Netflix really just wishes so hard that it could support Linux but is technically incapable of doing so... That is maddening.
"Satisfying, no, but it is tiresome to watch people campaign for openness with one breath and then complain with the next that they can't access things that are paid for and only available in the closed world they chose not to participate in."
I have no complaints with the status quo. I am oppose a proposal that would threaten it in a way that has the strong potential to negatively impact me. "Paid for" has absolutely no place in this equation for me. I pay for and consume many things, some of which I have to use in particular ways. I'm not bothered by this current state of affairs. I've made tradeoffs and I am not complaining about them (unlike many Linux users who refuse to stop complaining about no Netflix on Linux).
That does not give me reason to support this proposal.
> in the interests of the overwhelming majority.
It is in the interest of Netflix. Netflix streaming currently "Just Works"(tm) for most consumers, and it will continue to do so. Netflix wants it because it would make their lives easier. I have no reason to support this, and every reason to not.
The only thing that might be worse than the proposal itself is the absurd amount of misinformed Linux users who think that this will allow them to use Netflix or who think that Netflix really just wishes so hard that it could support Linux but is technically incapable of doing so... That is maddening.
"Satisfying, no, but it is tiresome to watch people campaign for openness with one breath and then complain with the next that they can't access things that are paid for and only available in the closed world they chose not to participate in."
I have no complaints with the status quo. I am oppose a proposal that would threaten it in a way that has the strong potential to negatively impact me. "Paid for" has absolutely no place in this equation for me. I pay for and consume many things, some of which I have to use in particular ways. I'm not bothered by this current state of affairs. I've made tradeoffs and I am not complaining about them (unlike many Linux users who refuse to stop complaining about no Netflix on Linux).
It helps because the barrier to entry to creating your own binary client is high.
It really isn't. It's significant, but for the kinds of royalties the big media guys are trying to protect for a major sports event or a Hollywood blockbuster or smash hit TV show, they'd pay it a dozen times over. The reality is that just means only a few of the most popular platforms will be able to view the DRM-encumbered content, and people on niche platforms will lose out.
It really isn't. It's significant, but for the kinds of royalties the big media guys are trying to protect for a major sports event or a Hollywood blockbuster or smash hit TV show, they'd pay it a dozen times over. The reality is that just means only a few of the most popular platforms will be able to view the DRM-encumbered content, and people on niche platforms will lose out.
If the barrier to entry is sufficiently high that small fish currently do not try to cross it.
I really don't give a shit if Netflix uses DRM. I honestly don't have a problem with them or other "big fish" using it. I am concerned about every fish using it.
I really don't give a shit if Netflix uses DRM. I honestly don't have a problem with them or other "big fish" using it. I am concerned about every fish using it.
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.
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.
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...
That's not to say they're always wrong, but you have to remember to evaluate everything they say through that lens...
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-med...
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-med...
I'd like to read that. Do you have a link to the spec in question?
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.
This is indeed a complicated issue and could end up badly for the internet as a whole.
Someone hasn't even read the spec, it allows you to implement DRM. But it in itself is NOT DRM.
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.
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).
> 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).
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).
> 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".
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".
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.
> 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.
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.
You say it doesn't work on Linux natively, as if this DRM solution will.
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.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?
What on earth is their gripe with Javascript?
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
[1]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
It's with "non free" javascript.
In other words the javascript code itself, not the runtime.
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.
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?
If that's eyeroll-inducing, you haven't been paying attention the past decade. Or even the past few weeks.
Virtually every negative effect the likes of RMS and the FSF have predicted when it comes to not using free software has come true.
There's nothing strange about encouraging people to avoid non-free solutions.
I'm far from a fundamentalist when it comes to free software, but I'm glad someone is still paying attention and reminds me of the consequences.
Virtually every negative effect the likes of RMS and the FSF have predicted when it comes to not using free software has come true.
There's nothing strange about encouraging people to avoid non-free solutions.
I'm far from a fundamentalist when it comes to free software, but I'm glad someone is still paying attention and reminds me of the consequences.
Virtually every negative effect the likes of RMS and the FSF have predicted when it comes to not using free software has come true.
And yet more people are enjoying more content and more benefits from technology than at any point in human history.
Sometimes content creation industries screw up in how they treat their customers, and it's good to realise that and to fix it when it happens.
Sometimes people take advantage of secrecy, and they should be called on it and punished for it, by market forces or laws or both.
However, the general FSF/RMS/GPL3 "everything must be free" philosophy seems counterproductive to me, because it denies the middle ground where most useful things actually happen and most real progress gets made. They're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and then the bath after it, and then knocking down the house because it wasn't built with the appropriately sourced bricks and living in a mud hut. How is that going to keep the baby cleaner?
And yet more people are enjoying more content and more benefits from technology than at any point in human history.
Sometimes content creation industries screw up in how they treat their customers, and it's good to realise that and to fix it when it happens.
Sometimes people take advantage of secrecy, and they should be called on it and punished for it, by market forces or laws or both.
However, the general FSF/RMS/GPL3 "everything must be free" philosophy seems counterproductive to me, because it denies the middle ground where most useful things actually happen and most real progress gets made. They're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and then the bath after it, and then knocking down the house because it wasn't built with the appropriately sourced bricks and living in a mud hut. How is that going to keep the baby cleaner?
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.
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.
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
The proposed Encrypted Media Extensions standard is merely an interface between browsers and systems such as this.
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
The proposed Encrypted Media Extensions standard is merely an interface between browsers and systems such as this.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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"?
@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.
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.
But it's only a matter of time before someone hacks their browser to ignore those directives.
This is true, but for the vast majority of consumers would supporting a trusted block of javascript be good enough? All the movie industry wants is to make sure that Joe Sixpack cant get a digital copy of the data stream.
I know I am sortof commandeering the word "trusted" for something much weaker than what I think industry wants it to be here, I realize that. Maybe using such a term in a weak solution would satisfy the pointy haired bosses of the world. >:)
Seems to me if some rogue binary goes in and tampers with my Firefox or Chrome binary in order to circumvent browser security, then the browsers would know it and fail with an error. Obviously, any browser that builds from source can be directly modified by a developer.
I know I am sortof commandeering the word "trusted" for something much weaker than what I think industry wants it to be here, I realize that. Maybe using such a term in a weak solution would satisfy the pointy haired bosses of the world. >:)
Seems to me if some rogue binary goes in and tampers with my Firefox or Chrome binary in order to circumvent browser security, then the browsers would know it and fail with an error. Obviously, any browser that builds from source can be directly modified by a developer.
JS codecs are possible: 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.
I don't know whether Hollywood would consider JS DRM secure enough; it probably depends how good a negotiator you are.
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.-
Good call, they will probably now offer you a free month to entice you back!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My point is that the standards shouldn't be co-opted to fit every want and need that a transient entity has.
Cancel Netflix if you'd rather use Silverlight than HTML5 video.
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.
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.
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.
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)
There is a difference between gratis and libre software.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The destructive capabilities of a DRM-encumbered internet far outweigh the contributions that Netflix has made.
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.
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.
Well, I wouldn't, but somebody would.
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-inst...
2. Strong support for CDNs, enabling lower-cost streaming: http://www.quora.com/Why-does-Netflix-use-Silverlight
1. Cheap licensing terms for 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
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?)
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.
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?
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?
> 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.
Actually, yes. Your computer should only do what you want it to.
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.
> 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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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]
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.
FSF's cries are nothing more than a demand to reduce the freedom of others for their own personal gain. That's not freedom.
"... if you value freedom?" An over-the-top threat like that makes me want to keep Netflix for spite. Terrible headline.
I would prefer a DRM-enabled HTML than a proprietary embedded video player.
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?
Why should the desires of the American entertainment industry have such influence over the standards of the World Wide Web?
"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.
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.
Can you in good conscience support the unilateral imposition of your preferences on everybody else?
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.
Not as much as I value convenient streaming movies.
Do you seriously value convenient on-demand entertainment more than the abuse of technology by the powerful to hold onto their power?
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?
Wait, what exactly is the abuse of technology we're talking about here?
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
Sony once tried to implement DRM using a rootkit, remember?
Also, the movie industry pushed SOPA and PIPA.
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.
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?
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?
OK, I didn't explain in that comment why DRM inevitably goes so deep into the technology stack. See my explanation here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6035701
Also, DRM gives companies like Netflix, and the developers of the proprietary platforms that Netflix builds on, the power to be gatekeepers.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6035701
Also, DRM gives companies like Netflix, and the developers of the proprietary platforms that Netflix builds on, the power to be gatekeepers.
Yes, it allows them to be gatekeepers. So what? What exactly is forcing you to pay money to go through that gate?
I do value it more than the abuse I think that it's likely or possible to cause. (which I think is very little)
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.
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.
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.
This is exactly what people said about music, until Apple decided to do it, and did.
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.)
Hey can't I do both?
[deleted]
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.
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.
> 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?
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?
This is the part I've never quite understood. What power and control are you speaking of?
DRM is power and control.
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.