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

431–440 of 524 posts

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#431

Post by chii »

tptacek wrote: post #264
BuuQu9hu wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to address this: > This is the idea of the open Web. CDMs are literally the opposite idea. Yes, both a CDM and passworded accounts limit access to content. The difference is that CDM providers are only letting certain Web browsers view the content. Passworded accounts have no such limitation. The open Web is dependent on any conceivable browser being interoperable with ALL Web content. Any barriers to intero…

EME strictly reduces the amount of "closed" code on the web. Without EME, more of the content protection stack is proprietary, and the trusted code base that enables content protection is larger. This is a very simple point that I think we all understand; I don't understand why EME's opposition thinks they can dodge it.

The assumption you make is that DRM _must_ exist in one form or another.

I, as an open web proponent, want to make it difficult for any business to add DRM to their media offering. by making DRM a difficult system to implement due to proprietary plugins, it increases the perceived value of just offering it without DRM.

but by having EME a standard, it makes it a no brainer to use DRM, because their customers will automatically have it as part of a browser. the cost of DRM is then externalised, and even legitimised such that it's the norm.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#432

Post by josteink »

drdrey wrote: post #409
eugeniub wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We somehow got away from DRM on audio. Did we? Look at Apple Music, Spotify, and other subscription music services. They all have DRM.

But music you buy on iTunes is DRM-free. That's a significant step away from DRM.

> But music you buy on iTunes is DRM-free. That's a significant step away from DRM.

And Amazon. And Google Play music. And band-camp. Etc etc.

In fact, I don't know a single place on the entire internet which still sells DRMed music. Such a thing simply ceased to exist.

Imagine if we could make the same happen for video. That would be real nice.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#433

Post by josteink »

matt4077 wrote: post #251
dasil003 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Browser makers have plenty leverage. A Firefox user watching Netflix will, and this is a tautology, be worse off if they cannot continue doing so. That may lead to people switching to other browsers more often than dropping Netflix subscriptions, but the costs for Netflix wouldn't be 0, and may even be substantial considering the population of people using Firefox is self-selected to those placing a high value on ope…

> If Chrome were to ship without DRM, Netflix would cave faster than you can say "thepiratebay".

True or not true, this is just not going to happen.

Google was the single browser pushing DRM into the web-standards to begin with. They were the first to ship with this enabled.

And Google already has a vested interest in DRM. They have their own media-services now, remember...

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#434

Post by chii »

tbirrell wrote: post #34
notyourwork wrote: post #4

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…

We cannot have both the uniformity that comes of a single universal browser and the benefits that come from a free marketplace. So long as anyone can make a browser, there will be differences. And the day we try to eliminate that will be a dark day indeed.

they should have a minimum level of compatibility. that's the meaning of a standard. that's why DVD players can play any DVD, no matter who manufactured it.

open standards means open competition. if in the future, only browsers who can implement the EME can survive, it will kill the small start up browser who other wise would have innovated and beat the incumbent.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#435

Post by ubernostrum »

MBCook wrote: post #387
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-…

> We somehow got away from DRM on audio. Guess which industry watched how that happened REALLY REALLY closely? The music industry was falling apart by the time they gave up on DRM, the video industry is still very strong and had time to learn where all the mistakes were made that lead to DRM free content.

The end of DRM for purchased music downloads was primarily driven by the need to break what the record industry perceived as a monopoly.

They got in bed with Apple, and at first they were happy with that -- Apple showed that offering a legal way to download music would succeed, so long as it was A) convenient, B) had a suitably large catalog and C) was priced in a way customers saw as fair.

And the result was Apple became a major player in the market, to the point that the record labels started getting scared of what Apple could now force them to do. So they needed to give Apple a competitor. Except... Apple wasn't about to license its Apple-specific DRM scheme to that competitor, and wasn't going to install the competitor's DRM scheme on Apple devices. Which left them with no way to introduce a serious competitor other than to go DRM-free so purchased music would be playable on all the popular devices, including Apple's. Thus, Amazon got to start selling DRM-free music (and eventually Apple got to sell it too).

I suspect sooner or later the book industry will have to go DRM-free to break Amazon's ebook stranglehold, in much the same way.

But video... is different. There isn't a monopolish player in the online video market. There are multiple competing services, some doing purchase and some doing temporary rental and some doing streaming and some doing combinations of multiple options, and there's nobody emerging with power to dictate to movie/TV studios the way Apple emerged in music or Amazon did in ebooks. Which suggests DRM on video is going to be with us for a while no matter what.

And video is one area where I have some sympathy for attempts to control access: the video market is quite young compared to music or books, and has had the short-term rental as a key segment of its market for roughly as long as it's existed. And this makes some sense, as video content tends to have less long-term re-use value: listening to a song multiple times, and re-reading a book multiple times, both seem to be much more common than watching a movie multiple times. So providing a reduced-price option which limits the number of times or amount of time of watching makes business sense. I'm unsure how to reconcile that with hardcore anti-DRM positions, since some type of access control is necessary to enable a rental market.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#436

Post by chii »

dblohm7 wrote: post #76
SwellJoe wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still a binary blob, isn't it?

Correct. The Web API is standardized, but how the engine interfaces with the actual content decryption modules is not.

that's just a play on words. it's not an open standard if a completely unaffiliated party cannot implement the full standard (which I assume is true due to the blob for decryption).

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#437

Post by boomboomsubban »

Silhouette wrote: post #419
flukus wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 distribute…

A compromised account is a vague possibility? I'm not amazing at these things, but I could probably access a WiFi network unconnected to me, mask my IP to a different location, and acquire a random Netflix account in a couple of hours. These things are likely, and wrongful lawsuits greatly damage the company while successful ones provide a minimal benefit.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#438

Post by braveo »

azernik wrote: post #422
braveo wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it has nothing to do with the original compression. Think of it like this. If you compress and distribute someone's wavy hand-cam pirating of a movie, the poor experience isn't due to the compression, but the way the move was recorded in the first place. likewise, recording a stream and then compressing it later, the quality isn't because of the original compression, it's because of the quality of the origina…

Recompression matters because most video compression is lossy . Every compress/decompress cycle introduces noise and artifacts.

right, which means by definition any compression is going to lose quality, even if done directly off the original, lossless versions.

that's the point, it's the quality of the input that matters, not the fact that it's been compressed previously.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#439

Post by miclill_kit »

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…

>...I have both the knowledge and moral authority...

So, you are god then?

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#440

Post by Silhouette »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #437
Silhouette wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 distribute…

A compromised account is a vague possibility? I'm not amazing at these things, but I could probably access a WiFi network unconnected to me, mask my IP to a different location, and acquire a random Netflix account in a couple of hours. These things are likely, and wrongful lawsuits greatly damage the company while successful ones provide a minimal benefit.

I'm not amazing at these things, but I could probably access a WiFi network unconnected to me, mask my IP to a different location, and acquire a random Netflix account in a couple of hours.

Really? How would you do that, exactly?

If you're looking online and find camcorder copies of videos that were served to a specific customer at a specific time, as confirmed by the watermarking, and your server logs show that that stream was sent to the customer's usual IP address at the time in question, what are the odds that they were the victim of a carefully crafted hack of the kind you're implying, and not just someone who set up a camcorder to record from their own account?

Post reply on HN