211–220 of 524 posts
Translation: 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is DRM has been used for more than digital rights management. We've seen it used to surveill the user and collect information - and restrict actions on the users' computer when it thinks you're doing something illicit (not allowing you to burn things to disc, restricting the ability to screenshot videos, uninstalling/deleting programs, adding rootkits, etc). Far outside the scope of providing authorized a…
> What's terrible is Netflix could have used it's considerable influence to tell _that_ _Industry_ that we won't walk this walk anymore. Why do you assume they didn't? And if they did and the industry said no, what should they have done? Walk away, lose access to all its content, see a large part of their subscriber base move to different services that do support DRM and therefor get the content and eventually have t…
People do not seem happy about this, but I don't really understand what's going on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another way to look at it is that Netflix isn't part of the web. I suppose that viewpoint admits that obstinance on the part of Firefox was not going to get Netflix to offer their service without DRM.
Only insofar as Netflix was opting not to put their content on the web. Netflix was _not_ prevented from being on the web pre-DRM -- it's just that responsibility for meeting their requirements for access to content rested with them rather than browser developers. edit: not really sure how I messed up the original comment, which was an incoherent mess.
I understand the argument about this making it harder to develop new browsers and so on, but eschewing EME probably wasn't going to prevent that from happening, it would just happen in flash or other closed code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what sense is Netflix "freeloading"? Where does the free ride stop? Are they allowed to use TCP/IP stacks to deliver DRM? The HTTP protocol? Or is just Mozilla that's the problem?
The free ride stops when they add stuff to a spec that other people can't freely implement.
Earlier 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…
Look at Netflix and others who are starting to build alternatives to that ecosystem (in addition to working with it for existing content). If DRM remained second-class, maybe the next such alternative would loosen its stranglehold a bit to gain a broader audience and reduce friction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if I'm just looking too far into your comment, but I don't see why you're blaming Netflix (or it seems you are) or how you got to them being the bad guys for this? They're not the ones that make the content. If it was up to Netflix, they would just release their shows DRM-free on Netflix for any platform. Unfortunately, that's not how things work and they have to bow to the demands of the content distrib…
"I don't know if I'm just looking too far into your comment, but I don't see why you're blaming Netflix (or it seems you are) or how you got to them being the bad guys for this? They're not the ones that make the content. If it was up to Netflix, they would just release their shows DRM-free on Netflix for any platform. Unfortunately, that's not how things work and they have to bow to the demands of the content distri…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
I'm still not getting how this is a step backwards. Last year there was no Netflix on Linux. This year there is. Is there a better way to make strong DRM?
This DRM implementation would add this suffix: "and any number of third parties have chosen to allow my browser to use their proprietary decryption modules." This is the opposite of the Open Web and therefore a threat to user freedom and the integrity of the Web as a whole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Nope, there's a company in Shenzhen that makes a plug-and-play bypass device: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/warner-bros-sues...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Free as in freedom means companies are free to add things like DRM if the want and consumers are free to choose services that don't go down that path.