51–60 of 524 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Uh, why not? All Netflix series are already getting pirated even with DRM.
Houses get broken into even when they have locks, so why do you keep a lock on your house?
They really needed DRM to survive. It's great that they can run a sandbox in my computer so I can watch videos, something which wasn't possible with the open web standards. By the way, here's the list of titles which weren't pirated thanks to DRM: .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What Netflix is doing that hurts the web is opposing net neutrality now that they're big enough they can bargain for special treatment. This—on the other hand—provides a replacement for use cases which used poorly-supported, insecure, and battery-hungry proprietary plugins. I run Safari with no extensions and having this for Netflix and Amazon is fantastic. I trust Apple to patch security vulnerabilities and the brow…
You're not getting EME extensions from Apple, you're getting them from the third-party that developed the extensions. You can count on terrible security vulnerabilities being found in these. Movies aren't important. Netflix isn't important. The open web, the ideology (or as you put it pejoratively, "purity") behind it, is important.
From the beginning or near the beginning it was possible and not uncommon to put things on the web with restricted access. The HTTP protocol itself supports a couple of login mechanisms which were intended to be used to restrict access to content, and these have been there since at least as early as 1996.
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.
>to the point where even Firefox couldn't afford not to support it Mozilla did not seem to care that much actually. And as long as torrents exist I do not think that there is any reason to support it.
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-missi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just playing word games. Netflix lobbied for EME so they could serve DRM'd video, end of story.
Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Why is everyone so upset? Having the option to use DRM in native web APIs is not a bad thing.
Because Netflix is freeloading on our open technology to deliver closed content, and putting the cost to support their DRM on us. It's not right. It's not fair.
They are fragmenting the web by making "web sites" which are browser and OS-specific.
If they want to make closed, OS-dependent stuff anyway, they should have to pay the cost, not us. They should just make a native app. Like they already do for at least 10 other platforms.
Basically keep your closed and non-free poison out of my browser and open web-standards. That's a no-DRM zone.
I'll use your app though, if you just go make it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Why is everyone so upset? Having the option to use DRM in native web APIs is not a bad thing.
>Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Uber wouldn't be a viable business model if it didn't exploit drivers and dodge laws that apply to taxis. Airbnb wouldn't be a viable business model if it didn't sidestep hotel laws. If your business depends on having unjust power over your customers then you ought to go out of business.
Also, many people seem to have a real hard-on for the same legal system that outlaws marijuana and created the DMCA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not getting EME extensions from Apple, you're getting them from the third-party that developed the extensions. You can count on terrible security vulnerabilities being found in these. Movies aren't important. Netflix isn't important. The open web, the ideology (or as you put it pejoratively, "purity") behind it, is important.
What do you mean by "open web"? From the beginning or near the beginning it was possible and not uncommon to put things on the web with restricted access. The HTTP protocol itself supports a couple of login mechanisms which were intended to be used to restrict access to content, and these have been there since at least as early as 1996.
Netflix video quality sucks on browsers anyway – at least for movies. Half of them seem to be limited to something which could only be described as "less than DVD quality", some noticeably so. That's the reality for the paying customer – for a “pirate”, most of the movies in HD quality are a quick web search away, without needing to install any programs.
This only works because of DRM infecting web standards. Thanks for hurting the web, Netflix.
They did not put DRM into web standards. They put an open interface into web standards that can be used to interface to third party DRM, but could also be used for non-DRM purposes.
I don't like DRM, but I like binging Netflix in a corner on my laptop while I work. I've been doing it for years using Chrome with a fake user-agent to fool Netflix into thinking I'm on Windows (apparently that hasn't been needed for some time?) So...I'm torn, I guess. I'm glad Linux/Firefox can Netflix, but I'd like it if web standards were open and not patent encumbered. I guess it's a political issue and not a tec…
The actual web standard is open. Netflix was one of the key players in making this an open extensible standard instead of it being an extension or plugin for browsers.