Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

techblog.netflix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 524 posts

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#411

Post by Eric_WVGG »

dasil003 wrote: post #231
cyborgx7 wrote: post #2

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.

Sorry, but as someone who spent nearly a decade founding and building a premium content VOD service, and 6 of those years fighting fiercely against DRM and making great content available without DRM, I have both the knowledge and moral authority to say that you're living in a fantasy world. You might as well say that anyone who is not living an RMS-sanctioned ascetic technology lifestyle is hurting the cause of free…

More people already watch movies on internet-connected set top boxes like Apple TVs and PS4s, or i-devices, than computers.

At worst Netflix could have resorted to desktop apps for their movies. DRM doesn't need to be on the web.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#412

Post by snakeanus »

riquito wrote: post #54
snakeanus wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>to the point where even Firefox couldn't afford not to support it Mozilla did not seem to care that much actually. And as long as torrents exist I do not think that there is any reason to support it.

It was either support EME or become the browser where you can't see any video. https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-missi...

More like "It was either support EME or become the browser where you can't use any useless service like Netflix." As long as torrents exist Netflix is useless.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#413

Post by beefsack »

dasil003 wrote: post #231
cyborgx7 wrote: post #2

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.

Sorry, but as someone who spent nearly a decade founding and building a premium content VOD service, and 6 of those years fighting fiercely against DRM and making great content available without DRM, I have both the knowledge and moral authority to say that you're living in a fantasy world. You might as well say that anyone who is not living an RMS-sanctioned ascetic technology lifestyle is hurting the cause of free…

> Even if all browsers banded together and refused, all that would mean is that premium content would not be available in browsers, and that would lead to a significant devaluation of the web in favor of proprietary apps

Not everyone sees this as a bad thing. Horses for courses; the web doesn't have to be the platform for everything.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#414

Post by nsomaru »

jMyles wrote: post #396
derekp7 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We somehow got away from DRM on audio. I was wondering how to do this for video too. What worked for audio, was that you had one vendor (Apple) that had a large enough market share. In order to sell DRMd media that worked on Ipods, the media companies had to sell through Apple. Or they could sell non-DRMd files that would still work on Ipods. They did the calculation, and figured they would make more money going non-…

> For video, people don't download it and take it with them (typically) ...which is crazy, especially for HD video. Why use the bandwidth every time you want to watch something when storage is so much cheaper?

Guessing that it's probably more rare to watch something again than it is to watch something new.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#415

Post by cstrahan »

jMyles wrote: post #396
derekp7 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We somehow got away from DRM on audio. I was wondering how to do this for video too. What worked for audio, was that you had one vendor (Apple) that had a large enough market share. In order to sell DRMd media that worked on Ipods, the media companies had to sell through Apple. Or they could sell non-DRMd files that would still work on Ipods. They did the calculation, and figured they would make more money going non-…

> For video, people don't download it and take it with them (typically) ...which is crazy, especially for HD video. Why use the bandwidth every time you want to watch something when storage is so much cheaper?

That's assuming people are going watch things multiple times. Most people, including myself, are one and done.

I've always rented the movies I've watched because I know I won't watch them again, so the savings is win on the whole.

I guess there's something to be said for TV shows, as people often watch those over. I generally don't watch TV series, the exception being a couple Netflix series that friends have begged me to watch, so I don't have too much of an opinion there.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#416

Post by flukus »

Silhouette wrote: post #404
flukus wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, some modern watermarking techniques can survive conversions like this, so if anyone is making a habit of recording content from a service using watermarking and redistributing it on a scale that justifies taking serious action, it'll be pretty easy to prove who it was when the lawsuit comes up. How many compromised netflix accounts do you think are floating around? At some point the bits have to actually go t…

If a compromised account was used, presumably the server logs will show an unusual access pattern on that account, in particular involving the content that has leaked being accessed from an unusual location. And then presumably the person whose account was used will have to make a convincing case that they shouldn't be held responsible for access using their credentials anyway.

Ok, what if a machine is compromised (there are millions of zombie boxes out there)? Someone can gain access, do their stuff and then upload the result. Are they going to start suing grandmas with weak wifi passwords? That worked so well for the RIAA last time.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#417

Post by problems »

Razengan wrote: post #365
zanny wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I'm going to immediately argue with you that there is no reasonable DRM. It comes from two ideological positions. One believes that content creators need complete systemic control of what they make - at all costs (that the creator maintains full control no matter how the content is interacted with) - and the other is that content shouldn't be controlled (or that I, as a buyer of content, should control the co…

> content shouldn't be controlled (or that I, as a buyer of content, should control the content I bought) How should content creators protect against people who access their content without buying it?

They quite frankly can't technically, only legally - they're selling a 0 margin good, anyone who has it can basically give away infinite copies at zero cost per additional copy. Anyone who wants it for free will have it for free. They need no more than drop a few words into Google or type the name of something into a fully automatic tool like Sonarr.

It's pointless for them to bother trying to stop piracy, especially of analog content using technical means.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#419

Post by Silhouette »

flukus wrote: post #416
Silhouette wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a compromised account was used, presumably the server logs will show an unusual access pattern on that account, in particular involving the content that has leaked being accessed from an unusual location. And then presumably the person whose account was used will have to make a convincing case that they shouldn't be held responsible for access using their credentials anyway.

Ok, what if a machine is compromised (there are millions of zombie boxes out there)? Someone can gain access, do their stuff and then upload the result. Are they going to start suing grandmas with weak wifi passwords? That worked so well for the RIAA last time.

Then it'll be up to the person whose account was accessed to provide some evidence that something like this happened and that it wasn't their fault. That's how these things work. You go to court, you make your case and the other side makes theirs, and the court draws its conclusions and acts accordingly.

However, you don't just get to conveniently avoid taking any responsibility when there are videos being distributed that are specifically linked to an account you signed up for that clearly said you couldn't redistribute the content you got through it, just because there's some vaguely possible alternative that might have once happened somewhere maybe.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#420

Post by frik »

dasil003 wrote: post #231
cyborgx7 wrote: post #2

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.

Sorry, but as someone who spent nearly a decade founding and building a premium content VOD service, and 6 of those years fighting fiercely against DRM and making great content available without DRM, I have both the knowledge and moral authority to say that you're living in a fantasy world. You might as well say that anyone who is not living an RMS-sanctioned ascetic technology lifestyle is hurting the cause of free…

EME is a binary blob from Adobe. Welcome again the Flash days - not.
Post reply on HN