11–20 of 20 posts
The writer would’ve preferred Netflix stuck to propietary tech like Silverlight and Flash, which allows DRM, than move to an open standard like HTML5 video, which allows DRM. Writing on behalf of an organization that promotes an open web, her logic is defective.
It's reasonable for Netflix to want to protect their inventory, but I don't think the Web is ready for a content protection and monetization scheme. Before that can happen, it needs a P2P infrastructure that can handle low-friction commerce. Without that, it's stuck in the current model of gatekeeper services, which is what Netflix is, and that makes it hard for smaller players to get involved. DRM worries me because it could enforce the current situation rather than develop it.
Getting P2P commerce right is hard, but I'd like a solution that could enforce small ad-hoc contracts through trust systems. This is basically, "Gain trust for following accepted terms, lose trust for breaking them."
For instance, a music vendor might request that I pay five dollars after download a few albums. If I don't, they'll signal to their circle of music-vendor peers that I'm a welcher, and knock down my trust rating in that circle. If I do pay, however, that vendor would signal that I can be trusted, and that might result in discounts or access to higher-value services. Digital goods contracts would then be trust exchanges, and might even influence the topography of the P2P network, as a trusted buyer or seller would expand their available network through good behavior.
It's still a few steps away, but there's going to be a lot more opportunity for it as WebRTC stabilizes.
Hope you also stop watching all movies and television, buying ebooks, and purchasing or streaming music, because otherwise you're just funding the entities who are actually the ones driving the quest for HTML5 DRM extensions. I've said it before, I'll say it again - attacking Netflix is like boycotting the grocery store because of the nutritional content of the food they sell.
Indeed. I don't know who's behind this site, but reading this screed makes me feel embarrassed for them. What do they expect Netflix to do in response to this? Do they believe Netflix is some Dickensian villain who just wants to make everybody miserable through DRM? I really doubt Netflix cares that much about DRM. Probably a lot of people there would rather not have it. But they can't have a business without content…
If there is one thing DRM actually makes sense for, it's for streaming content you don't own. "The announcement is Netflix's latest chess move in their long game to blanket the web in DRM. Slipping a DRM delivery mechanism into the HTML5 standard is the online streaming giant's endgame." Really? Netflix exists not to disrupt cable and bring streaming video to the masses (not to mention money to its investors), but to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
netflix is the us company to which drm in html5 is the most beneficial as they're the business using it the most. that doesnt look like a grocery store to me. (the analogy is pretty off course anyways)
Nope, the movie studios are the companies to which DRM is most beneficial. Netflix just happens to currently be the biggest distributor. Let's do a little thought experiment: Let's say #CancelNetflix goes massively huge and Netflix goes out of business next week. Do you think that's actually going to keep DRM off the web? (The studios would be ecstatic at this outcome.)
but that would also keep netflix off the web/tv, which is what, I presume, you and many do not want to see happening (since obviously, if they disappear, getting content is even harder than it is now)
If there is one thing DRM actually makes sense for, it's for streaming content you don't own. "The announcement is Netflix's latest chess move in their long game to blanket the web in DRM. Slipping a DRM delivery mechanism into the HTML5 standard is the online streaming giant's endgame." Really? Netflix exists not to disrupt cable and bring streaming video to the masses (not to mention money to its investors), but to…
The same fantasy world as Itunes where Apple sells non-DRM mp3's?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, the movie studios are the companies to which DRM is most beneficial. Netflix just happens to currently be the biggest distributor. Let's do a little thought experiment: Let's say #CancelNetflix goes massively huge and Netflix goes out of business next week. Do you think that's actually going to keep DRM off the web? (The studios would be ecstatic at this outcome.)
yes actually, it would - without any really working online distribution system, no amount of money can force W3C to implement DRMs since there is point. but that would also keep netflix off the web/tv, which is what, I presume, you and many do not want to see happening (since obviously, if they disappear, getting content is even harder than it is now)
Netflix disappearing would be inconvenient for consumers, but the vacuum left by them would be rapidly filled by a competitor happy to acquiesce to the studios' DRM demands in order to get their replacement product to market the fastest.
Widevine is owned by Google. Google also owns the biggest mobile platform and the biggest desktop browser, and is making a strong push into owning the living room through devices like the Chromecast, as well. I will happily argue that the W3C's acceptance of HTML5 DRM (or Netflix's work towards developing a workable spec) is utterly irrelevant to its inevitable deployment across the connected internet.
The HTML5 spec is about allowing for pluggable CDMs. It failing isn't going to stop the actual deployment of CDMs and their enabling of DRM-protected content on the internet. The CDMs already exist, are already deployed, and aren't going away. We can either have a unified way to use them, or we can just continue to slog on through a bunch of crappy solutions like we've been doing for the last decade, but they just aren't going away, period. Making Netflix out to be the bad guy here is naive at best, and malicious at worst.