Live data from Hacker News

Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

techblog.netflix.com

461–470 of 524 posts

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#461
post #391

Why do companies put so much effort into DRM when a commonly available $20 device strips it away in real time? I don't want to steal streams, I just want my HDMI devices to work together. This little gem strips HDCP so my old (but nice) receiver can talk to my newer projector: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B004F9LVXC

Because a ton of people are honest and want to pay for content, and don't want to try that hard to pirate it. Even a small hurdle is enough to keep them on the straight and narrow. I'm quite willing to pay for content, I'll even go out of my way to find a way to do it sometimes. The few times I've looked into piracy in the last few years it's such a thorny mess that I'm quite happy to try and find a legal way to view…

IMO your missing the point - people wanting to pay for things legally does not somehow negate the existence of HDCP strippers and the pointlessness of DRM.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they need DRM in "open" web standards then they deserve to go out of business.

Who are you saying deserves to go out of business? Netflix? Because I can assure you Linux users that insist on Firefox support instead of just Chrome will not be the difference between them being in business or not. They themselves tend to be pretty understanding of the whole anti-DRM thing and contribute to FOSS technology more than most companies, but they cooperate with DRM content because that actually is the di…

> They themselves tend to be pretty understanding of the whole anti-DRM thing and contribute to FOSS technology more than most companies, but they cooperate with DRM content because that actually is the difference between them being in business and not.

Is it really though ? I mean ... their content still get pirated. Everybody's content gets pirated, yet most of them are still in business.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#463
post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't you just run in an emulator to get the blob? It looks like qemu was the first to support SGX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Guard_Extensions

No, that's all fine for mucking around and developing apps, but actual SGX needs attestation which the emulator can't fake. That's the whole point of SGX.

But how does that remain a secret when the browser can MitM everything between the CPU and the web?

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#464
post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Nobody normal buys music and shuffles files around anymore. They all just switched to DRMed streaming services.

I think the entire Plex userbase would disagree. There's also a reason Google Play Music lets you upload your own music: Not all music can be found in "regular" streaming catalogs.

Technicalities aside: Also I like to think that buying albums (even if I stream them later on) makes the artist more money. And I want to support the artists I appreciate as much as I can.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#465
post #446
post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I'd say this is false. I'd love to watch more videos when I commute. My Pay TV provider even offers a download option for their streaming sub service(DRMed and self destructing after X days I think, never tried it) which would indicate that there's certainly market demand for it.

Download as in "cache this title within this app for viewing in an environment where Internet connectivity doesn't work well yet" is very different from download as in "here's an .mp4/.webm file for you to hold onto for ever--have fun taking backups and figuring out which third party player can handle the subtitles.

Fun story: Not very long ago, I bought a copy of a documentary using the latter model.

Another person with whom I was going to watch the documentary had visited their site and seen what movie services it was on. I trusted that info at first without checking the documentary's own site. I got very annoyed about the movie services having the title geoblocked in my country (even when a movie service had presence here and in a neighboring country and the rights for both countries are typically sold as a bundle and the neighboring country had it available!).

Then I looked at the site of the documentary myself. And indeed, for the price of the Blu-Ray version, I could buy a full-HD .mp4 without DRM to download.

So I paid and downloaded the .mp4 plus .mp4s for all the Blu-Ray extras. And I downloaded a .srt file for the subtitles.

The Linux box I had connected to my TV couldn't do full HD well in software but could via VAAPI. However, the player that supported VAAPI was supposed to support .srt but didn't actually support at least this .srt file.

In the end, we watched it by pluggin in a more performant Windows laptop doing the whole thing in software.

Conclusion: This is what we always said we wanted. However, when it was there, I didn't expect it to be there and assumed I had to find the title on one of the big-name services instead of navigating to the documentary's own site. The UX of getting stuff to work was less smooth than with the locked-down streaming services.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#466
post #457
post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can thank Steve Jobs for that. When digital music downloads started record companies demanded DRM. They agreed to a model with iTunes of $0.99 per song. They chafed against this model and wanted pricing tiers. Jobs was willing to give them this but the price was to go DRM free. Jobs could get away with this for two reasons. First, he was Steve Jobs. Second, the record industry had unwittingly created a virtual mu…

Contrary opinion from a former Apple employee: "The music industry didn't go DRM free because they hated DRM; they went DRM free because they were fearful of the leverage Apple was gaining with their iTunes + FairPlay + iPod combination. Apple’s DRM created this lock, and it became so successful that the music industry went with the lesser of two evils (songs locked to Apple’s iPod monopoly vs. the distribution of DR…

> You say "Jobs was willing to give them this but the price was to go DRM free", but why would he do that if DRM was good for Apple, it's what locked this market to iPods?

Here goes a ~10yo tidbit from SJ [0]. Whether you take it at face value, see it as a PR trick, or anything in between is up to you.

> Apple was able to negotiate landmark usage rights at the time, which include allowing users to play their DRM protected music on up to 5 computers and on an unlimited number of iPods. Obtaining such rights from the music companies was unprecedented at the time, and even today is unmatched by most other digital music services. However, a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store.

> [...] only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats. It’s hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future. And since 97% of the music on the average iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users are clearly not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music.

> The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat.

> Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music.

[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20080107121341/http://www.apple....

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#467
post #452

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-…

You can thank Steve Jobs for that. When digital music downloads started record companies demanded DRM. They agreed to a model with iTunes of $0.99 per song. They chafed against this model and wanted pricing tiers. Jobs was willing to give them this but the price was to go DRM free. Jobs could get away with this for two reasons. First, he was Steve Jobs. Second, the record industry had unwittingly created a virtual mu…

> ... the record industry had unwittingly created a virtual music download monopoly in iTunes.

I really wonder how they could have been so stupid.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#468
post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody normal buys music and shuffles files around anymore. They all just switched to DRMed streaming services.

I think the entire Plex userbase would disagree. There's also a reason Google Play Music lets you upload your own music: Not all music can be found in "regular" streaming catalogs. Technicalities aside: Also I like to think that buying albums (even if I stream them later on) makes the artist more money. And I want to support the artists I appreciate as much as I can.

I meant "normal" as in mass-market, not "normal for HN". I, probably like you, of course have a unix fileserver in my residence (as well as a metric ass-ton of vinyl, because it seems we are similar types of nerd).

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#469
post #396

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?

Bandwidth is practically free at least where I'm living in. Storage is something I need to think about and go buy separately.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#470
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about sharing encrypted videos among a private group of people who are not technologically sophisticated? 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 s…

If you mean using EME just for non-DRM encryption, no it doesn't make sense: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11692420 If you mean that the recipients of the video are restricted in what they can do with it, that's a DRM use case.

From your linked comment:> If you want to use the Clear Key key system for privacy, you need to deliver the key over https

I don't see anything that requires that the key be delivered over the net. I just did a test with Clear Key where the page with the video playback has a text field that the viewer pastes the key into, and that worked [1].

The scenarios I'm envisioning involve sharing videos between people that have good non-web methods of communicating, so can distribute a video's encryption key via some non-web means. End user encryption applications tend to by usability train wrecks for non-tech people (heck, they are often terrible for tech people, too...), so what I'm going for here is trying to get rid of the video viewer having to go outside their browser to deal with viewing an encrypted video.

Maybe this can be done with MSE without EME, by handling the decryption in JavaScript?

[1] Based on the Clear Key sample here: https://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/eme/basics/

Post reply on HN