Hacker News Reader

Comment by ihsw | Hacker News Reader

> Clearly, DRM is required in order for them to license the shows we want to watch.

This couldn't be further from the truth now more than ever. DRM is required in the sense that their contractual obligations require it, but the technological and social requirement is just not there.

Why should the HTML standard be encumbered by something wholly unrelated? The copyright maximalists (including Netflix) need the web more than the web needs them.

View on HN

A contractual obligation that requires something is a requirement, regardless of the technical possibilities. DRM has never been required to do anything from a technical standpoint, so far as I'm aware.

Not to say that your other points aren't valid. I'd rather not see anything resembling DRM ever. I just want to point out that a legal obligation such as a contract does make this a valid requirement for Netflix and other digital streaming services.

That's perfectly fine, but their business interests don't give them the broad-sweeping and baseless authority to define the standards that will affect everybody that uses the internet.

Contractual obligation is exactly what I meant.

The interesting irony to me is that the more people who subscribe to Netflix, the less valuable their DRM is to content producers. As Netflix subscribers trend toward infinity, potential pirates of that content trend toward zero.

DRM was never about piracy, it was about controlling who can distribute what.

The law already said who could distribute what in terms of copyrighted works, and anyone violating that law was already a pirate. DRM is a technical means to (try to) enforce rights the law already gives. Your position is self-contradictory.

Um, I think you repeated the statement while trying to refute it. DRM is required for them to license the shows by their contractual obligations.

The social requirement is there in that the market wants the product that has contractual obligations. To meet that demand requires a change in technology.

I need the web to work the same way that Netflix needs it to work so that we may both benefit from it.

That's specious reasoning. They can distribute as many browsers and apps as they want, but they shouldn't be able to influence the entirety of the HTML standard to fit their narrow business requirements.

Entirety of the HTML standard? Who says they are? We're talking about one little part of the standard that has little to do with day-to-day HTML. Are you suggesting that Netflix is attempting to influence the future of the span element?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the suggestion is a unified approach to deal with plugins or extensions, not putting DRM inside HTML itself. If you oppose the idea of a plugin or extension then don't install it and don't use the service that they provide. A service that everyone who uses it voluntarily and willingly agreed to use it under the provider's terms.

and and and the humanitarian requirement is there because the social requirement is that we get the service and that has the contractual requirement! HTML DRM is a humanitarian mission!

> This couldn't be further from the truth now more than ever.

You are thinking about this way to philosophical. Netflix would love to start using HTML5 today, DRM or no DRM, but the studios just wouldn't allow it. So...should they just close up shop because they can't have their way, and we can't have ours?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com