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

Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

andreasgal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 195 posts

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#111

Post by shmerl »

josteink wrote: post #98

This is terrible news from end to end. To solve it, we need to tackle the root problem and not blame the browsers: those who want to infect our open web with DRM. Cancel your Netflix subscription. Let them know why. Same with Hulu. Same with amazon video. same with anyone who tells you to that your open web is less important than their unwillingness to embrace the new, digital frontier. Don't give money to the asshat…

While I share your sentiment and never use any DRMed services to vote with my wallet, the critical mass of users don't care. It gives an ability to crooked publishers and distributors who oblige them to get away with unethical practices like DRM.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#112

Post by jedberg »

josteink wrote: post #98

This is terrible news from end to end. To solve it, we need to tackle the root problem and not blame the browsers: those who want to infect our open web with DRM. Cancel your Netflix subscription. Let them know why. Same with Hulu. Same with amazon video. same with anyone who tells you to that your open web is less important than their unwillingness to embrace the new, digital frontier. Don't give money to the asshat…

Canceling your streaming service subscriptions won't be sufficient, even if everyone did it.

You have to stop consuming Hollywood content. Stop going to movies. Stop watching TV shows. Stop listening to recorded music.

Then you might actually make a difference.

The streaming services are just stuck in the middle here -- Hollywood won't sell them, or anyone, content without DRM.

DRM actually makes sense for a streaming service, where you only have a temporary license to the content anyway. You're buying the right to watch or listen one time -- how is that supposed to be enforced?

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#113

Post by evilpie »

atopal wrote: post #104
wfjackson wrote: post #17

The writing was on the wall a while ago once Google implemented this into Chrome(Netflix on Chromebooks was the first real world use of this IIRC). Firefox no longer has the market power it once used to have thanks to Chrome being bundled and installed by default with Flash, Acrobat and Java updates etc. Google has been spending massively on pushing Chrome even bundled as default on new machines with OEM agreements t…

> in the meantime Firefox and Opera relied on the promise > and then were forced to start implementing support once > they realized Google was not going to keep the promise > and it was hurting them and then included support(I don't > think Opera ever did?). Not only that, Mozilla partnered with CISCO to make h264 usage free for all. Now, people can modify and redistribute Firefox and still retain the ability to play…

Actually what happened to that Cisco h264 project?

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#114

Post by ryanburk »

wamatt wrote: post #103
shmerl wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yes, you own the physical DVD, but you don't own the intellectual property of the movie itself. This holds true for physical copies, and it holds true for digital distribution as well. This is really irrelevant. When you buy a book you also own the book, and not the intellectual property it contains. Same thing with files - you can own the file, but not the intellectual property it represents. So legally nothing is…

"No, DRM can't enforce it (since this stuff is pirated practically instantaneously). So why is it used?" Strongly suspect this is due to contractual obligations with the studios. The agreements will almost certainly stipulate that content must be sufficiently protected. Hence Netflix plays ball, if it wants access.

one aspect of this - if you don't make an attempt to protect the content, even if it is "pirated practically instantaneously", then the studios can't go after anyone pirating their product in the legal system with any chance of winning. there is great fear of the slippery slope you go down in that world.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#115

Post by wmf »

shmerl wrote: post #105
wamatt wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No, DRM can't enforce it (since this stuff is pirated practically instantaneously). So why is it used?" Strongly suspect this is due to contractual obligations with the studios. The agreements will almost certainly stipulate that content must be sufficiently protected. Hence Netflix plays ball, if it wants access.

My question "why" was not pointed at Netflix. It was pointed at publishers (studios, etc.) which demand that DRM. They have no valid answer for that question. While Netfilx aren't an ideological champion for DRM, they are a huge proliferator of it. Compare it to distributors which sell only DRM-free content and actually attempt to influence publishers to sell through them (like GOG for games). Those are actually doin…

It's a form of price discrimination. If you want to watch a movie once ("rental") it costs $5 but it you want to watch it unlimited times it costs $20. As a customer, I appreciate this because it allows me to pay less when I want less.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#116

Post by icebraining »

shmerl wrote: post #64

Netflix is considered the main driver behind this DRM madness. In the context of Netflix, an often voiced reason for DRM is the fact that it rents movies, rather than sells them. Besides DRM being completely ineffective to prevent piracy, the concept of rentals itself doesn't make any sense for digital goods. The core logic behind a rental (for physical goods) is reusability. Physical goods have a fixed cost of produ…

Do you really think that studios would license content to Netflix without DRM?

The reason for Netflix to push DRM is simple: you can't offer a streaming service with just House of Cards and a handful of unknown shows.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#117

Post by iwwr »

jedberg wrote: post #112
josteink wrote: post #98

This is terrible news from end to end. To solve it, we need to tackle the root problem and not blame the browsers: those who want to infect our open web with DRM. Cancel your Netflix subscription. Let them know why. Same with Hulu. Same with amazon video. same with anyone who tells you to that your open web is less important than their unwillingness to embrace the new, digital frontier. Don't give money to the asshat…

Canceling your streaming service subscriptions won't be sufficient, even if everyone did it. You have to stop consuming Hollywood content. Stop going to movies. Stop watching TV shows. Stop listening to recorded music. Then you might actually make a difference. The streaming services are just stuck in the middle here -- Hollywood won't sell them, or anyone, content without DRM. DRM actually makes sense for a streamin…

You talk as if there is no other way to consume film content on a computer...

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#118

Post by icebraining »

shmerl wrote: post #76
jaxytee wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is completely no need to prevent users from retaining a copy once they watched it. For Netflix there's one big reason to: PROFIT

What profit? Netflix offers rentals only, and no sales. And Netflix DRM doesn't prevent any piracy since users who want to illegally retain the copy can do it either way. So what is the reason for them using it? They can simply use sales and have the same profit.

What profit?

The profit that comes from actually having content to offer, which wouldn't happen if they didn't have DRM to "protect" the studios' shows and films.

Regardless of their opinions on DRM, it's not their decision to make, unless they just want to stream self-produced content.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#119

Post by iandanforth »

Why is this even an issue? Sure it's offensive. But it's offensive like someone flipping you off, not like them breaking your leg. I am aware of zero freed-media channels that begin with web content. Music, movies, TV shows; all of the content that isn't available through corporate means is available online from people who don't copy the bits off of their browsers.

This DRM is trying to plug a hole that isn't leaking.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#120

Post by shmerl »

icebraining wrote: post #116
shmerl wrote: post #64

Netflix is considered the main driver behind this DRM madness. In the context of Netflix, an often voiced reason for DRM is the fact that it rents movies, rather than sells them. Besides DRM being completely ineffective to prevent piracy, the concept of rentals itself doesn't make any sense for digital goods. The core logic behind a rental (for physical goods) is reusability. Physical goods have a fixed cost of produ…

Do you really think that studios would license content to Netflix without DRM? The reason for Netflix to push DRM is simple: you can't offer a streaming service with just House of Cards and a handful of unknown shows.

I understand the situation with studios having crazy demands. My question was equally addressed to their reasoning. And I don't agree in general that Netflix has no way to improve things. Distributors have more influence on publishers than single users.

I already wrote elsewhere about GOG. They work with gaming publishers and convince them that DRM is never needed. And it works. Not always, but with some of them. The more it works, the easier it is for them to demonstrate it to others. But one needs a will to put an effort into it. GOG have DRM-free as their core value. Could Netflix attempt a similar effort? They could. But they don't value DRM-free distribution, so they don't want to bother.

Post reply on HN