Hacker News Reader

Comment by atonse | Hacker News Reader

Yea but honestly, this doesn't bother me.

I can't think of a single way where this hurts the consumer:

- I don't own the video, so there's no need to be able to do a backup to multiple places, or to have an un-encrypted copy.

- I get better battery life (although this isn't related to DRM, but if we wanted a native playback in the browser, we'd need this.

- Sounds like WebCrypto will probably do hardware-accelerated encryption/decryption (using AES-NI probably?), which is a win overall on the security side.

Cons:

- I don't get to rip the video anymore.

- I can't just play the video on any device (although it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback)

- I can't look at the back and forth JS-based traffic on this netflix site

Where I get more mad is if I _purchased_ the movie, and it's encrypted and I can't do anything with it.

Rentals? Don't care.

View on HN

> I can't think of a single way where this hurts the consumer

You already listed it, and without even thinking about it described why it's such a serious problem:

> I can't just play the video on any device (although it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback)

Suppose that I want a device I can verify. The reasons for this have nothing to do with movies. I just want to know that the device I'm using for my business doesn't have a backdoor put there e.g. by the Chinese government or any other government or corporation when it was manufactured. I want to know nobody has access to my trade secrets, so I want to be able to verify the device myself, or be secure in the knowledge that someone I trust has verified it and that anyone can who wants to.

This should have nothing to do with movies. I don't care whether or not anybody else wants to watch Batman on their iPad, I just want to look at all the bits I paid for and be able to change them as I please.

But if somebody releases a device I can verify, that device would be incompatible with DRM, because DRM can't withstand transparency. And devices have network effects. Hence why "it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback" -- because having Netflix creates more sales for a device than being approved by neckbeards, so the manufacturers all respond to the market. Anyone who tolerates DRM is making everyone less secure.

And it's even worse than that, because it's not just that you can't verify a device with DRM. You also can't make a device with DRM. If you don't know what's in the black box then you can't reproduce it. The only way a system gets DRM is if Netflix et al will do the work, which they don't do for anything without enough existing market share. And how is a system supposed to get any market share if it can't display any content? This is why Microsoft likes DRM. It destroys the ability of newcomers to enter the market. That's the real consumer harm. Can you imagine what the landscape would have looked like if Microsoft had "provided" DRM for images and web pages in the 90s? No Firefox and no iPhone.

But the OP was referring to a single way it hurts the consumer compared to the situation today. We can talk all we want about ideal situations but they're not going to happen.

Things happen when people make them happen.

Some things also happen when no-one has made them happen. Not sure what relevance either has to real life, though.

You can say it will never happen all you like, but that's the same thing people said about DRM for music, and they were wrong. The only way to be sure it will never happen is to assume that it won't and stop trying.

Again, with DRM in music, are you making a distinction between streaming music, and owning music? Because I don't care if my Spotify or Rdio stream is encrypted. It has no effect on the user experience whatsoever. (In that sense, Netflix is closer to Spotify or Pandora than to iTunes Movies).

But I absolutely care of the music that I own is encrypted.

There are multiple distinct issues here: A) The first order effects of streaming DRM (i.e. can't watch on device without DRM); B) The second order effects of streaming DRM (i.e. device without DRM is unavailable in the market because majority of would-be users demand availability of streaming video); C) Will the studios distribute content without DRM.

What you're saying is that A) doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that B) really does matter quite a lot, and in a way that has nothing to do with downloading vs. streaming.

The ironic thing is that Hollywood is shooting itself in the foot. You want to commoditize your complements.[1] DRM is doing the complete opposite and creating a huge barrier to entry in the markets complementary to streaming video. Look at the book publishers and Amazon -- is that really the position Hollywood wants to be in when negotiating with Apple or Google? Hollywood benefits from more competition in the systems market. Dropping a boat anchor in the form of the inability to display their content on any small timer who tries to compete with one of their powerful third party distributors is masochism. Which is why C) isn't half as implausible as some people seem to think.

[1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html

Really? I care how Spotify is encrypted. I can't get a 3rd-party player to play Spotify over the cell network with ads, just like the desktop client does. If I use their player I get an inferior Pandora-style radio. Similarly, even with paid streams I'm stuck with their client, like it or not.

Conversely, I know of old school internet radio stations (shoutcast/icecast style) that charge for high bandwidth streams. I can play those streams on any player I want, over any network I want.

No-DRM is better in all cases.

Not exactly sure how any of this relates to Netflix playback.

Plus, who actually has the expertise to truly verify that a device has no backdoors? Security Experts? Well they can do the same with these devices (MSE seems to be a W3C standard). How far will you go? Hardware?

Like I said, when I purchase something, I hate when it has DRM applied. I own about 50 books on the Kindle, and they are all DRM-encumbered, and I hate that I can't lend them to other members of my family like I could do easily with a paper book. These are my books. I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with them (including backing them up).

But I read this post about Netflix video rentals and I think "awesome, I can watch a hi-def movie on my laptop without burning my lap." I suppose others just can't get past the fact that this involves DRM.

But these are rentals. I have no such expectations.

> Not exactly sure how any of this relates to Netflix playback.

DRM is a black box with privileged access to hardware whose purpose is to download encrypted information to your computer and prevent you (the computer's owner) from reading it. It would be more effective at hiding the installation of a rootkit than at its stated purpose.

> Plus, who actually has the expertise to truly verify that a device has no backdoors? Security Experts? Well they can do the same with these devices (MSE seems to be a W3C standard).

Please identify the location where the source code to the black boxes they require can be viewed for auditing by members of the public.

At least Mozilla's EME implementation is the least evil because it runs the black box inside an open source sandbox.

The lesser evil is still evil. In some ways it can actually be worse because people are then less willing to root it out, allowing it to fester.

I'm not sure where you're getting your "better battery life" from. DRM adds computational complexity, which directly decreases battery life.

The "better battery life" point is a claim from Apple that their DRM implementation is less CPU intensive than the current Silverlight method.

Yup, I actually addressed that above. The DRM is tangential to battery life.

The video will have DRM. That's not up for debate.

What's up for debate is whether you need a plugin (which runs in a sandbox) or you can decode using code closer to the metal (browser native).

To be able to play these videos natively in the browser without sandboxed plugin code, you need to still have DRM. Whether you like it or not, this is what the studios want.

The better battery life comes from begin able to decode the video in hardware, because you aren't using a plugin anymore. And you aren't using a plugin anymore because you natively support the DRM.

> The video will have DRM. That's not up for debate.

It really should be.

Unfortunately, right now it's completely lopsided. The studios have somehow arranged things in a way that they have full leverage over tech companies.

The music companies couldn't accomplish this. Maybe the studios closely watched and learned from the "failures" of the music industry.

One example of how DRM will hurt the consumer is what I hear about DVDs starting with unskippable ads. The studios have shown nothing but contempt for customers. Don't think I'm advocating for DRM by being excited about this news.

But seriously, in this case, I've just never heard anyone complain about DRM with Netflix or be hampered by it. I don't see how this is anything but a win-win for consumers without adversely affecting the content-watching experience.

Eventually you will not be able to _purchase_ a movie or a book. There will be commercial and non-commercial and then they'll start trying to outlaw non-commercial because it hurts the economy. Read "The Right to Read" by RMS.

That will literally never happen. If anyone seriously believes that there will be a day without the legal ability to purchase some media or to publish media without making it DRM-encumbered has some serious issues with their thought process.

Has there been any point in history where it has been easier to make a movie, record a song, or write a story? Has there been any point in history where our culture has been more free? Man it would be a shame if we didn't get to see the latest Hollywood blockbuster, but culture will always continue. There's no way to remove that right within any legal framework.

It doesn't need to happen within a legal framework, it will happen within a technical and social one. Mobile platforms are walled gardens, that deliver DRM-crippled content. When the ability to sideload media content is quietly removed from the next version of your favorite mobile OS, how will you get your DRM-free content then?

As long as you can publish on the web, as long as you can write an email, as long as you can make a phone call, send a text, or even talk to the person standing next to you, culture still goes on. There's literally no way to stop it without the death of mankind.

What you're worried about is that we won't be able to buy a copy of the next superhero movie. Oh well. There's still plenty of free and worthwhile works of media that can never be forced to close.

Well, you can always "rip" the video. Worst case you use a screen recorder.

But, what does Netflix gain from using DRM?

> But, what does Netflix gain from using DRM?

The studios will license them video.

>what does Netflix gain from using DRM?

A business. Without DRM their is no way they'd be able to get the content they charge for.

Tech illiterate content companies will license them content.

Licensing deals with the movie industry. I don't think Netflix is pushing for DRM here but the content owners.

To a large extent, probably, their contracts with content owners require it, for it is customary for such contracts to require DRM. Look at the music industry; did it _actually_ make piracy easier when iTunes dropped DRM? Not really, but the content owners (or one in particular) fought it for years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com