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

371–380 of 524 posts

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#371

Post by ndesaulniers »

Rusky wrote: post #340
bubblethink wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't understand how this works. Firefox just provides some APIs that the DRM blob can use. All the decryption is done by the blob, not Firefox. You can reverse engineer the blob itself to an extent, but that will also become impossible with SGX (hence 4k on kabylake + edge only).

What's to stop someone reverse engineering the blob before it's loaded into an SGX enclave? I don't understand it very well so I could be missing something, but wouldn't that at least let someone document how the DRM works even if not running their own implementation?

Digital signatures. Not that I actually know how it's implemented, but I would expect someone like Netflix to pay Intel for the build infrastructure to be able to build signed blobs that the SGX will load.

The "someone" in your hypothetical can modify the blob, but then they won't be able to resign the blob, so SGX will fail to load it.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#372

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

syshum wrote: post #354
derefr wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that DRM is basically a "free market problem." In cases where there is a government-supported media production/distribution service, as with the BBC in Britain, no DRM is needed, because the success of the service is not dependent on income from licensing the content. Instead, the content itself is often put up for free on a government-hosted online archive, in as many formats as possible, to ensure…

Aside from the fact that your wrong about the BBC the issue itself is not a "free market problem" because copyright only exists because of government interference. Government created the "right" DRM is protecting against. In a pure free market, there is no copyright, thus no need for DRM to protect a right that does not exist

DRM schemes effectively allow the implementer to invent their own rules well beyond what copyright law specifically reserves (e.g. restrictions on resale and lending, ability to create their own licensing regime to publish on a given platform), so I don't see how DRM depends on government intervention. DRM is already defined more by business and technical considerations than by the law. If anything, it seems to me that draconian DRM schemes would be more desirable to vendors if they didn't also have copyright lawsuits in their arsenal.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#373

Post by tptacek »

piracythrowaway wrote: post #368
tptacek wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I'm ready to believe you. What's the URL I enter to get the Netflix viewing experience, in my browser, without a credit card?

one example: https://solarmovie.sc

Wow. This isn't as convenient as Netflix, but I concede that it's a lot more convenient than I thought piracy was at this point, and probably past the threshold where it matters.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#374

Post by flukus »

derekp7 wrote: post #336
amelius wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have been recording the things they watch since the invention of the VCR. DRM will not have any impact on that. Someone will come along, and make a video-grabbing utility that bypasses the DRM. Also, many of the content is already available via bittorrent. DRM is pointless. But perhaps you are right about "browser vendors refusing to cooperate" not being the best possible approach. However, do you know what is…

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-…

Aren't music publishers a lot less consolidated than there movie/TV counterparts?

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#375

Post by ac29 »

Still waiting on an update that allows for 1080P streaming on Linux. There's been a hard limit of 720P on all content and something like half of 3rd party content is limited to 480P. Everything available in HD streams at 1080P in Windows 10 or using a device like a Roku.

Whatever DRM they are using doesn't seem to be enough for them to be confident in allowing 1080P streaming on Linux, even for their own content.

A brief check in Firefox shows the limitation is there as well.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#376

Post by eugeniub »

derekp7 wrote: post #336
amelius wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have been recording the things they watch since the invention of the VCR. DRM will not have any impact on that. Someone will come along, and make a video-grabbing utility that bypasses the DRM. Also, many of the content is already available via bittorrent. DRM is pointless. But perhaps you are right about "browser vendors refusing to cooperate" not being the best possible approach. However, do you know what is…

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.

Did we? Look at Apple Music, Spotify, and other subscription music services. They all have DRM.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#377

Post by flukus »

infinite8s wrote: post #356
schrodinger wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's always the analog loophole. If you can watch it on your screen, you can record it.

If you discount the cost of your time to zero. Otherwise it's not even worth a minimum wage job.

It only needs to be done by one person, not every viewer.

And yes, the value of much of my time is effectively zero. The same is true for most people.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#378

Post by flukus »

Silhouette wrote: post #357
schrodinger wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's always the analog loophole. If you can watch it on your screen, you can record it.

Of course, but typically quality suffers significantly, so what you get isn't as good as the original and that in itself is a deterrent for a lot of people. 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…

> 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 to a display device as well, which can always be tapped.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#379

Post by [deleted] »

zanny wrote: post #258
wildmusings wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is reasonable DRM a problem in the first place? I'm paying Netflix $8 a month to watch thousands of movies whenever I want. Being constrained to a large number of devices that take some steps to prevent someone from ripping the movies is a fair tradeoff. It works flawlessly on my computer, on my phone, and on my xbox. The DRM hasn't bothered me once.

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…

[deleted]

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#380

Post by syshum »

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #372
syshum wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from the fact that your wrong about the BBC the issue itself is not a "free market problem" because copyright only exists because of government interference. Government created the "right" DRM is protecting against. In a pure free market, there is no copyright, thus no need for DRM to protect a right that does not exist

DRM schemes effectively allow the implementer to invent their own rules well beyond what copyright law specifically reserves (e.g. restrictions on resale and lending, ability to create their own licensing regime to publish on a given platform), so I don't see how DRM depends on government intervention. DRM is already defined more by business and technical considerations than by the law. If anything, it seems to me th…

What keeps DRM in play though is it is illegal to distrbute tools to circumvent DRM

So company like Slysoft, Replay, the devs of DeCSS, etc get sued out of existence when they create software that circumvents DRM

the cat and mouse game of DRM only works if you have government legal backing hamstringing the anti-drm crowd.

With out Anti-Circumvention laws there would be software on the open market to bypass every known DRM about 48 hours after it is release if not sooner

Post reply on HN