91–100 of 524 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just playing word games. Netflix lobbied for EME so they could serve DRM'd video, end of story.
Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Why is everyone so upset? Having the option to use DRM in native web APIs is not a bad thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Uh, why not? All Netflix series are already getting pirated even with DRM.
Because the studios are the ones demanding DRM. I was under the impression that netflix original content is actually far more relaxed on restrictions (I don't recall where I heard this). They don't want DRM necessarily, but if they say "DRM is not an option" then the change of getting major studios on board is 0. And even if you take netflix original content out of the picture, that applies. their "viable business" i…
"This is a requirement for any premium subscription video service" -- this is blatantly false, unless you redefine premium to mean "requires DRM", in which case it's circular.
Also note the use of "protect" as if it was a positive or good thing.
1: http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.h...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it. I can still make a recording of my screen can't I?
You can in the sense of pointing a video camera at the screen and recording it. But if you want to capture the pixels before they are converted into light, HDCP may prevent you from doing so [1]. [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP
The HDFury devices work great: https://www.hdfury.com/tag/hdcp-stripper/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did not put DRM into web standards. They put an open interface into web standards that can be used to interface to third party DRM, but could also be used for non-DRM purposes.
There are no use cases for EME other than DRM.
The conventional way to do so would require recipients to download an encrypted video file, then run a separate program to decrypt the file. Then they could play the file. Then they have to remember to delete the decrypted file if it is something sensitive that should not be lying about unencrypted on their system.
It should be possible to design a system that plugs into EME that greatly simplifies this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Uh, why not? All Netflix series are already getting pirated even with DRM.
Because the studios are the ones demanding DRM. I was under the impression that netflix original content is actually far more relaxed on restrictions (I don't recall where I heard this). They don't want DRM necessarily, but if they say "DRM is not an option" then the change of getting major studios on board is 0. And even if you take netflix original content out of the picture, that applies. their "viable business" i…
Where can you buy it DRM-free?
Does anyone else find it extremely off putting that companies that are supposed tech leaders are pushing "web" features to a subset of browsers? I really have trouble accepting the fragmentation in the web world. This includes less extreme cases like mobile/desktop versions of browsers without user ability to toggle between the two. Stuff on the web should just work on all browsers. How did we get to this point, seri…
> Stuff on the web should just work on all browsers. How did we get to this point, seriously? This isn't any different from the compatibility issues across desktop operating systems. You wouldn't expect a mac desktop app binary to "just work" when double-clicked on a Windows OS. I know, the web supposedly has a standard that should make this argument null, but the fact is browsers are basically being used as though t…
It actually is a completely different issue. The web is a standard, browsers implement that standard. It isn't perfect but its not the same intention as different OS architecture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the world was better when Flash and Silverlight were the media of choice for delivering video.
It would be better if the platforms that wanted DRM just made their own damn desktop apps, just like they make their own iOS apps, Android apps, Roku apps, smart tv apps, etc. There's no reason for them to be embedded in a browser.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the choice is between proprietary apps or DRM for multimedia content inside open web environment, I'd rather have the latter. Yes, in ideal world there will be DRM-free streaming - but unfortunately that's unrealistic.
> When the choice is between proprietary apps or DRM for multimedia content inside open web environment Why? That puts the cost of DRM on everyone except the ones who want to freeload on our open tech to take our freedom away. And that's ass backwards. You want non-free and closed? Cool deal. Go build it yourself.
This argument implicitly assumes that the big cost of DRM is actually implementing the DRM. Everyone knows that isn't true. The social cost of DRM is the effect on the users' freedom, and if the users are using entirely proprietary applets they're probably less free than if they depend on a single proprietary library.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? Shareholder accountability. "We didn't bother protecting our content, and yes, sales are down 25% year over year, but..." Fired.
Can you explain how this works? If there was no DRM, how would that lower their sales? Last I checked, things on Netflix were easily downloadable via torrents. Are you suggesting that there are many shows on Netflix that someone wants to pirate, but the DRM is preventing them?
If one day the industry recognizes that DRM is useless and it's no longer demanded by content holders, then as CEO of Netflix you can abandon it.
Steve Jobs told the music industry to suck it up and deal, and they did. He was unable to convince the movie/TV industry to do the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by "open web"? From the beginning or near the beginning it was possible and not uncommon to put things on the web with restricted access. The HTTP protocol itself supports a couple of login mechanisms which were intended to be used to restrict access to content, and these have been there since at least as early as 1996.
Meaning anyone can implement the technology that can show a web page. You can't show Netflix's web page, unless they preapprove of your DRM.
I understand that you don't want to run code Netflix approves of and that you're not permitted to read in its original source form. And that's fine, a good reason not to subscribe to Netflix. But how is that any more an offense to "the open web" than a subscription-only website?