I don't really understand the problem here. IMO Netflix is doing the fairest thing it can with DRM. It isn't selling us rights to own these videos/movies. It is granting us the right to stream the content, and doing so at a rather fair rate. Unlike the movie industry it isn't screwing us over with high rates and questionable rights limitations to things we own. I don't like the idea of yet another plugin either. But as far as I am concerned Netflix is one of the least guilty companies when it comes to using DRM to violate our rights. IMO they are doing it right and fair.
So if I understand this correctly, Netflix's crime is that they give us instant, unlimited access to all the movies ever for ten dollars a month, but in a way that means I might need to install software on my computer?
Well he is right, there is nothing wrong with having DRM on streamed content which you don't actually buy. The only problem is pushing for DRM becoming a part of the HTML specification.
Netflix isn't the problem here, the studios are. They're the ones demanding DRM and holding Netflix et al hostage unless they get it.
If you don't want DRM, then don't consume content distributed with DRM in any format, rather than just targeting a specific format. The boogeyman here is the studio licensing content to Netflix with DRM requirements and distributing DVDs with DRM. Stop consuming their content.
The distribution channel isn't the bad guy here. Making them out to be just obfuscates the issue.
Yup. People want content more than they don't want DRM. This is why if you want to actually vote against DRM, stop consuming content that is DRM'd. This means movies, TV, video games, e-books, and the like.
Most people don't actually care enough to do that.
Yes, but the raging against Netflix isn't the answer. Rage against the studios and cancel your Netflix account in the process.
Making Netflix out to be the bad guy here does a disservice to the whole issue because it doesn't actually address the people behind the problem, and implicitly says "funding the studios is fine, just don't do it through Netflix".
Netflix doesn't want to be saddled to Silverlight (because, let's be honest, who would want to be? It's a dead and failed technology). Netflix is contractually required to maintain DRM on the content they deliver. Of course they're going to want to be able to use the latest and greatest technologies while meeting their contractual obligations (which, you know, enable them to stay in business). They'd be fools to not try to get away from Silverlight, and they'd be fools to not try to find a way to fit their business into the future of the web. Sure, it'd be great if they gave the studios the finger and told them "We're doing HTML5 without DRM, deal with it", but Netflix already operates at the mercy of the studios' good will, and they cannot survive as a business if they aren't willing to meet the studios' demands on the content they license.
I am extremely skeptical about the suggestion that Netflix is some archvillian cackling to themselves about enslaving the web through DRM.
You cannot really justify streaming without DRM and the studios will never agree too it. The problem is having DRM as part of the HTML specification because it will harm the web as a whole.
I much prefer it to stay the way it is with silverlight.
Why would having DRM as part of the HTML specification hurt the web ? I am not in favour of DRM but these who want to protect their content always find a way (silverlight). It would probably be simpler for everybody if it was part of HTML.
Well for one it will cause a lot of friction with the open source community as they are generally very anti proprietary/close code which in turn will cause fragmentation in the browsers. I don't really know why, but I would prefer HTML to be free from DRM and use plugins to implement such things.
DRM on a product that I've just bought (video or song download) is bad, because it adds restrictions on how I can use something that I've exchanged money for. DRM on a product that is not mine and is merely being 'loaned' to me by a streaming service? That's fine, I'm down with that. It's unfortunately the only way studios are ever going to want to play ball, I'd prefer the righteous anger to be around ensuring paid for video downloads are all DRM free first.
I'm from Germany, we don't have Netflix here. We'll probably never going to have it.
When I want to (legally) watch a movie, I have to rent the DVD for 4 EUR at my local video store.
We have a local "alternative" called Lovefilm, where you can watch some movies from 5 years ago, but only the bad German synchronised version.
In Germany, Netflix is like some utopian fairyland.
So... you can watch all the movies/shows you want for a laughably low monthly price. And now you don't even need that crappy Silverlight plugin anymore.
Browser interfaces for integration with third party security mechanisms is actually a good thing. There are advantages to having custom client side encryption/decryptions schemes that don't have to live within the scary execution environment that is the browser but can be used to augment web page content.
This does nothing to force web users into accepting DRM. If you don't want DRM, don't use services from organisations which enforce it and don't install any of their stuff. Your browser will still work.
Hollywood wants people it's products to be used via DRM schemes. This will happen whether it is via a web page, a standalone application or dedicated set top box.
I would say yes, the web is large imagined as being an open, free, compatible, interoperable etc.
App stores etc have never been put forwards as open, free, sharing, compatible etc.
By shoe-horning black-box, most likely ill supported (in terms of os compability) proprietary DRM packages into the "open" web they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. "We use simple web browsers etc! (small print: xyz plugins required)"
If you want that kind of DRM infested, proprietary stuff then by all means get a desktop / mobile app. Stop trying to infest the "Free and open web".
flash was bad enough but at the time there was a good reason for it. There is not now.
> I would say yes, the web is large imagined as being an open, free, compatible, interoperable etc.
The web you imagine has not existed for a long time, if it even ever existed. HTTP has from a very early stage, for instance, supported restricting access to resources to authenticated users, so that people could put non-open, non-free, non-shared things on the web.
I'm not sure what the definition of an "open" web is here. The web has always supported paywalls and distribution of proprietary software via the SaaS model.
This proposal does not make DRM part of the web any more than internet explorer makes windows a part of the web.
So people dislike DRM simply because it conflicts with their fantastical dream of an "open web"? And whether the platform it's on claims to be open or not?
Just because the standard is there doesn't mean you have to use it or websites that make use of it. If I want to enjoy incredible amounts of content for a low price with a side of DRM, then let me. You can go use flash/silverlight/<insert other plugin name here> on another site.
And if you want to use netflix, just use something else than Linux and/or Firefox. It's perfectly fine that competing OS vendors (like Apple and Microsoft) make linux less attractive by way of a standard. It's also perfectly fine that competing browser vendors (like Apple, Microsoft and Google) make firefox less attractive by standard. In principle it's always perfectly fine if monopoly holders band together to exclude the competition. We're all down with that. Ohyeah, IE6 was so good, why do we need anything else?
Netflix have never been especially interested in selling to Linux users. Whether or you have this specification is immaterial.
If they can't have this, the alternative from their point of view is not stripping the DRM. The solution is standalone player applications or something else.
And now netflix is also not interested to be streaming to FirefoxOS, Firefox browsers, Opera, Ouya, and upcoming new device from Kickstarter, and so forth.
Mozilla isn't reluctant. They can't implement the DRM because the license to redistribute the proprietary DRM plugin is such that they couldn't offer their browser under the license they've been offering it.
Mozilla doesn't have to license anything. All mozilla has to do is implement the relevant part of the standard.
The DRM software itself is provided by a third party, the browser simply provides a mechanism for communication.
Is it? It seems another way to restrict competition, just like Amazon restricted competition through DRM for their e-books. Imagine if you could take your Kindles and read them on other apps ("hacking" them and converting to epub doesn't count).
What if Amazon goes out of business 10 years from now? Tough luck, you can't read your books anymore.
Just to lay out some facts...Google is also a supporter of DRM integration in HTML5 video[0]. Given the direction of YouTube with paid channels for premium content, cord cutting becoming a realty, and app enabled tv's and devices, my guess is that it's really the content publishers (hollywood) who is pushing for DRM.
I really wish people would come down out of their ivory tower and live in the actual world once in a while.
Expecting major motion picture studios to distribute their family jewels in a DRM free format is simply ludicrous. Everyone should support the inclusion of DRM in HTML5 because at least we can all have a standards supported way to view content.
Would you rather a world where they chose a proprietary codec that only worked on Microsoft Windows?
Microsoft? Maybe. But Netflix seems to have been working with both Microsoft and Google, and I think Apple, too, to make this work. So maybe they aren't just an idle player, and they may have been the ones trying to get the other major companies to do this for them (and others).
Agreed. Surely Netflix doesn't care ultimately, but studios are only going to sign contracts with them if they have things in place to guarantee it's all secure, i.e. DRM. There's surely no way that Netflix would fight for this, and then LOVEFiLM wouldn't use it as well?
Couple of commenters have mentioned "proprietary plugins" in regard to HTML5 DRM video, but isn't that wrong? I thought the point was that it gives vendors access to everything they need via javascript API's included with the browser (Removing the need for silverlight or flash to get access to encrypted streams and so on)?
I wanted to Cancel Netflix for using SilverLight, but I was too busy canceling Time Warner and AT&T for being evil overpriced monopolies.
Now that Netflix has gone to HTML5 things are better. I'm renting the content so I don't really care if they want DRM or not. To me, it's only unacceptable when buying video.
I have no problem with DRM on Netflix because I pay to stream the content and I think of it like leasing or renting. I don't pay to own digital copies of the movies I watch so I don't expect to own them.
If this is passed, can't we just grab the firefox source and delete the drm crap and fork the HTML5 specs? To hell with the W3C, we just fork and route around the problem?
The firefox source won't contain the DRM crap. It is such that Mozilla cannot support it. Microsoft and Google (browser vendors) are colluding to freeze out Mozilla.
I really don't understand why whoever owns the content would want DRM on Netflix, since you must be logged in (and obviously have paid) to watch anything.
The DRM is meant to prevent you from (easily) capturing the stream in order to make copies and give to all your friends who haven't paid and aren't logged in.
* Multiple monopoly holders collude to lock out the competition
* Discriminating against minority browser/OS platforms (such as firefox, linux, ouya etc.)
* Further fragmentation of video playback capability in an already fragmented video playback landscape
* Discriminating against small media startups
The propaganda:
* "no use of proprietary plugins" BS -> HTML DRM is based on proprietary plugins
* "more security" BS -> you still get a proprietary blob with a number of unknown security holes
* "more interoperability" BS -> HTML DRM makes videos work on less (and more selective devices) that happen to have the proprietary runtime implemented
* "more privacy" BS -> the proprietary DRM plugin is much less controllable by the user than Flash and Silverlight
flash and silverlight have gone trough an evolution where they are obligated to respect a users privacy and not to allow doing arbitrary things (like installing a rootkit on a machine) because of that.
The DRM plugins being more or less directly supplied by the MPAA have no restriction or expectation whatsoever. Users can't execute arbitrary code on them (maybe) but the providers of the plugin can very well install rootkits on your machine, and they're not obligated to give a user any control over the privacy and inner working of the plugin.
I accept Netflix and Steam over cable/movie theaters/gamestop the same way I accept nuclear power (over burning fossil fuels). They are really the only solutions that have any non-zero chance of succeeding in our present day economic/political environment.
Sure, they have their downsides and there are way better solutions that one can envision, and they are light years better than the things they are meant to replace and our world isn't ready yet for the better alternatives.
And thanks to HTML DRM Netflix will now remain the only provider with a non-zero chance of succeeding. Great Job all around, pat on the back to the monopoly holders. Well done.
