Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you prefer letting streaming companies have full code execution on you desktop instead of having browsers mediate?
I wouldn't, and they knew that. They knew the adoption rates for out-of-browser proprietary content viewers were awful. That is why they dedicated resources to usurp the open web. If Mozilla had fought back, we might have progressed towards the death of the obsolete content model big media wants to keep in place and prevent change in the market. It would have at least been a step in the right direction - instead, the…
Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix
161–170 of 524 posts
Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought that the only change was that the DRM mechanism was turned into an open standard. How is this worse than before? As someone that occasionally uses Linux, I think it's great that Netflix works there now. Previously, the audience on Linux wasn't worth the development effort for Netflix. Am I missing something? Is this a case where an open standard is a bad thing?
> Am I missing something? Is this a case where an open standard Yes. The bit where this is an "open standard" to implement completely closed, non-standard plugins, which cannot be implemented by reading the spec. With this "open standard" any browser or OS not blessed by Hollywood can't have a full web experience. And I take great issues with that.
Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
> First, the DRM is still not standard. Only the interface to it is. Is a programming language a good analogy? The C++ spec says what a switch-statement should do, but nothing about how it must be implemented, right? > New browsers face a new barrier to entry It's not really a new barrier to entry though, is it? If I wrote a browser last year, were my chances of getting Netflix to support it better then than they are…
> Is a programming language a good analogy? The C++ spec says what a switch-statement should do, but nothing about how it must be implemented, right? No it isn't. Example: Netflix will ask for Widevine DRM provider (and exactly that provider!). It's a proprietary closed licensed platform and your system needs to have their binary blob licensed and compiled for it. If you don't have it and didn't pay for it, you won't…
Is there a better way to make strong DRM?
Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix
#164Translation: Netflix successfully lobied DRM into what is supposed to be the OPEN web standard, to the point where even Firefox couldn't afford not to support it. Dark days for the free exchange of information enabled by the web.
Yes, the world was better when Flash and Silverlight were the media of choice for delivering video.
Far outside the scope of providing authorized access to protected content.
What's terrible is Netflix could have used it's considerable influence to tell _that_ _Industry_ that we won't walk this walk anymore. EME - as I understand it - allows them to create a closed-source program that runs in a sandbox to authorize and reproduce content we've paid to view. It should have very limited ability to do this - but breaking out of sandboxes is what some software engineers are employed to figure out. We're trusting those companies with the ability to run their programs on our computer so we can watch Paul Blart: Mall Cop. We hope it works as it's defined, but it's not a guarantee.
It's not worth it and pirates don't rip from Netflix anyway. They usually work for the industry as some part of the distribution/theater network.
This hurts the customer. Our computers are not our own.
Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix
#165Earlier 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.
Users should have a lot more faith in the protections of a browser over the free-for-all security and privacy nightmare that is desktop computing.
Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix
#166This is the strategy Microsoft tried over a decade ago with ActiveX. And Firefox saved us. It was starting to be normalized, to have to install ActiveX controls to view certain content. Companies like CinemaNow[1] offered Netflix-like streaming movie services using Microsoft's ActiveX based Janus DRM over a decade ago. Thankfully, the community had more of a backbone back then. Firefox and Linux were not broken becau…
Back then there wasn't Chrome to switch to. Users disliked IE much more back then than they dislike Chrome today.
Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
This terrible analogy would only be remotely close if your house was copied to millions of people, and a single person breaking in could expose everything inside to everyone on the Internet.
So it's ok to steal things that are easy to steal?
Digital IP is different - you can make infinite copies of it. A copy I make does not diminish your copy, nor does it deprive you of possession of your copy, or usage of that copy.
What it does deny you is the amount of money which you might have made on the sale of that copy (if you are the rights-holder and are selling the digital IP "thing" to others). I haven't, however, stopped you from continuing to sell your digital IP "thing" - you still have it. You just don't have the money.
Surely you can see this difference? If it could be called anything, it would be considered theft of opportunity, rather than theft of an object. You have been deprived of making a portion of money.
Now - that's very close to - if not almost identical, to me going up to your digital IP (via website, a kiosk, you at a table burning copies onto disc - whatever), looking at it, then saying to you "I would love to have a copy of this, but you know, I just won't, because you are charging money for it".
I still haven't deprived you of your IP - you still have it, you still have your copy, etc. What I have done is deprived you of the opportunity of making money. Should I go to jail, or be fined, or be forced to pay you the money in some manner because I didn't buy it?
The only real difference between the two? Well - in the first scenario, I have a copy of the digital IP; in very real terms, I have the knowledge of a particular number (because that is what any digital work can be reduced to - just a very large number) - in the second case - I don't.
But - what if on the off chance I somehow guess that large number? What if I am able to do that? Since it is a real number, there is that possibility (granted, the probability of being able to do so is vanishingly small). I know have the knowledge of that number, and can use it as I see fit - including decoding it to watch it as a movie, or play it as a piece of music, or whatever. But I didn't copy it from you; in fact, you might not even know that I now know your number!
Have I committed a crime?
DRM (and the laws which surround it) - in a very real sense - is a system put in place to criminalize and prosecute people for knowledge of particular numbers - nothing more, nothing less. In other words, knowledge of such numbers is considered a crime, unless you have paid money for that knowledge - even possibly if you independently arrive at that knowledge.
Agree or disagree - but it's the truth.
Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was indeed, since people had started recognizing the problems with Flash and Silverlight, and they'd have been much easier to kill off. DRM should have stayed second-class, leaving the way open for competitors to offer a first-class web experience as long as they left DRM behind.
Sorry, but Hollywood has the upper hand here. Hollywood has no desire to enter an open platform. They're completely happy if none of their movies are online, ever. Really. They already have a massively profitable distribution system in the theaters. The problem is that people want to watch Hollywood movies on their computer, including people that use Linux. So what do you tell those people to do? Tell them run Window…
Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netflix uses a tiered system for HD video. The lowest price is no HD, the next is HD, and the highest is Ultra HD. You may also need to tweak your Netflix settings, since the default quality level is "Auto," rather than "High." It may be surprising, but many people don't much notice the difference.
Indeed it does, and I'm not in the lowest tier. The quality of video is very fine indeed when watching with, say, a Netflix app on a Sony TV, but I prefer to watch stuff on my desktop in a comfy chair, and for that, Netflix leaves wanting with video bitrate not always even above 1000 kbps. (Right now, for the movie “Collateral”, the highest bitrate offered is 870 kbps when watching in a browser. I'm almost certain it…
Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the world was better when Flash and Silverlight were the media of choice for delivering video.
That wasn't his central point I don't think, also Flash and Silverlight where largely beaten by the Open Web because they never got the adoption sufficient to rival it. So instead they lobbied for it to be built in, the day will come when view source won't work anymore because everything fed down will protected by DRM and we moved another step closer to turning the web into a gigantic walled garden for whoever the in…
this is a false statement, Flash was ubiquitous. Still today every chrome user on desktop has a flash player. Obviously, this isn't true for mobile, but before the mobile era flash was basically on every Windows and Mac computer with a browser.