Cancel Netflix if you value freedom

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/cancel-netflix-if-you-value-freedom

by lelf • 13 years ago

87 161 13 years ago

dubcanada3• 13 years ago

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. If netflix wants a way to add DRM so people can watch DRMed videos on the Internet let them.

There is no negative. What is negative is the fact that people seem to think that netflix should just continue using a closed system made by Microsoft which doesn't work on Linux natively.

rosser• 13 years ago

Remember, though: this is the FSF talking. There's no such thing as a shade of gray to them; you're either Free, as they define Free, or you're not.

That's not to say they're always wrong, but you have to remember to evaluate everything they say through that lens...

muyuu2• 13 years ago

Their main problem is that Netflix are pushing for DRM to be in the HTML5 standard.

This is indeed a complicated issue and could end up badly for the internet as a whole.

dubcanada3• 13 years ago

You're right, but people don't even read the spec. No where in that spec does it say DRM...

This specification does not define a content protection or Digital Rights Management system. Rather, it defines a common API that may be used to discover, select and interact with such systems as well as with simpler content encryption systems. Implementation of Digital Rights Management is not required for compliance with this specification: only the simple clear key system is required to be implemented as a common baseline.

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...

mtgx• 13 years ago

You say it doesn't work on Linux natively, as if this DRM solution will.

azakai3• 13 years ago

There is no negative. What is negative is the fact that people seem to think that netflix should just continue using a closed system made by Microsoft which doesn't work on Linux natively.

The negative is that the new proposal will also not work on Linux. It will also not work on other browsers, because each DRM implementation for EME will be incompatible (there are currently 2, incompatible of course, Google's and Microsoft's).

revelation• 13 years ago

Sure as hell we shouldn't mandate broken standards (a propietary, obfuscated binary blob? You must be kidding) just to support someones ill-guided business model. We didn't with the many attempts of the music industry.

JoshTriplett• 13 years ago

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. If netflix wants a way to add DRM so people can watch DRMed videos on the Internet let them.

By all means let them. They can even work with browser vendors to make it "work" on any platform that has their proprietary DRM binary. But there aren't enough ten-foot poles in the world to call that an "HTML5" "standard".

ihsw15• 13 years ago

If netflix wants a way to add DRM so people can watch DRMed videos on the Internet let them.

That's fine, nobody is arguing against what Netflix can and should do with their own software and hardware that they distribute -- but the key difference is imposing their business requirements on everybody else.

They have no authority -- be it moral, ethical, or logical -- to impose such a will on everybody.

teddyknox• 13 years ago

Cancel Netflix if you'd rather use Silverlight than HTML5 video.

this_user• 13 years ago

This.

Netflix would like to add DRM to HTML 5 so they can migrate away from Silverlight. Right now there is no way (without Wine) to use Netflix under Linux. So in practice the FSF is campaigning against a more open web in which the #1 FOSS OS can run Netflix out of ideological reasons.

codygman• 13 years ago

There are no plans for implementing on linux if DRM is added to HTML5 either (and it likely won't). As a linux user for 8 years I would love Netflix on linux but I don't believe it's going to happen.

jiggy20117• 13 years ago

If you value freedom , why did you sign up for netflix in the first place?

rocky1138• 13 years ago

Only game in town, in Canada.

Zikes2• 13 years ago

I've been a Netflix customer for 8 years. I haven't paid for cable or satellite for most of those 8 years, and I've always tried my hardest to understand the driving forces behind Netflix's decisions, such as raising prices to manage skyrocketing license costs, and segregating streaming and DVD services so that the DVD customers don't artificially inflate streaming numbers to negatively affect licensing contracts. I was even prepared to accept their dreadful choice to completely separate the streaming service into a wholly different company, though I was glad that they ultimately decided against it.

It was easy to see the economic reasoning behind many of those decisions, even though on the surface they seemed not to benefit the consumer.

Clearly, DRM is required in order for them to license the shows we want to watch. It's unfortunate, but it is something I am prepared to accept. What upsets me about this particular instance is that they are moving to make DRM a part of what are supposed to be the open standards of the web. It flies in the face of the principles upon which the internet was designed and built, and regardless of what technical hurdles it would help the company to overcome it is also very clearly an anti-consumer move, the scope of which reaches far beyond Netflix itself.

Maybe it's time I dusted off some of the books I've been meaning to read.

Pxtl• 13 years ago

Exactly. If DRM is necessary for Netflix to function, that's fine... but then Netflix should not run through pure HTML, it should require a native binary program separate from HTML to run the Netflix video stream.

Flash and Silverlight are bad programs, but they're better than corrupting the HTML standard itself.

jiggy20117• 13 years ago

Technically it would require a separate binary program. The amendments to the spec define a way for the browser to communicate with such programs. So a non-DRM browser can still comply with this part of the standard.

astalwick• 13 years ago

What's the alternative? How do you get DRM into browsers that don't support plugins or extensions?

ihsw15• 13 years ago

You ask users to opt-into the process. DRM should never be opt-out.

wmf6• 13 years ago

Don't use the Web. Use a native app.

jlgreco19• 13 years ago

If the browser doesn't support plugins or extensions, then this would not work either. This is basically nothing more than a standardized interface for plugins meant explicitly for DRM.

ihsw15• 13 years ago

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.

Zikes2• 13 years ago

Contractual obligation is exactly what I meant.

talmand7• 13 years ago

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.

mcb3k• 13 years ago

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.

mortenjorck• 13 years ago

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.

chrisblackwell2• 13 years ago

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?

tzs2• 13 years ago

What upsets me about this particular instance is that they are moving to make DRM a part of what are supposed to be the open standards of the web

They aren't making DRM part of the standard. They are making an interface to interact with DRM part of the web. Actually, its to interact with encrypted media, which is a superset of DRM. I expect there will be people using it for privacy when sharing media with friends and family.

mathattack• 13 years ago

This could also be worded, "Cancel Netflix if you value free software." By definition, Netflix users are paying for software (ok, a service) so it seems hard to get them rallied up for this cause. (This isn't a comment either way on the cause)

neeee• 13 years ago

There is a difference between gratis and libre software.

Karunamon• 13 years ago

Another missive by the FSF that's mostly meaningless to people who aren't willing to make huge sacrifices in their lives to avoid the (cue ominous music and thunder) 'non-free' bogeyman of the week.

Seriously. My sincerest apologies if this sounds bitter, but this is a completely non-constructive rant. Again.

The FSF's stances are completely untenable to most people.

Aside: Why would someone who makes a principled stand on free software ever have signed up with Netflix in the first place?!

mwcampbell8• 13 years ago

Aside: Why would someone who makes a principled stand on free software ever have signed up with Netflix in the first place?!

Maybe some people who didn't take a principled stand on software freedom, and therefore signed up for Netflix, can be convinced to take a stand and cancel.

chc5• 13 years ago

Well, the many members of the free software movement used to be OK with using websites that did not give you open access to their stuff, since only the site itself was actually using the software and thus it wasn't violating your right to examine, modify and redistribute.

recursive2• 13 years ago

Not as much as I value convenient streaming movies.

mwcampbell8• 13 years ago

Do you seriously value convenient on-demand entertainment more than the abuse of technology by the powerful to hold onto their power?

talmand7• 13 years ago

As long as the abuse of technology you speak of is them holding onto their power of making money off the convenient on-demand entertainment that they produce and provide, no I don't have a problem with that. Especially when that power does not include the ability to force the consumer to pay for said product whether they want it or not.

Wait, what exactly is the abuse of technology we're talking about here?

recursive2• 13 years ago

I do value it more than the abuse I think that it's likely or possible to cause. (which I think is very little)

snowwrestler• 13 years ago

Of course the FSF is taking this position, and I'm glad that they are.

Is it an impractical position? Totally, of course. DRM is not optional to video content suppliers, so no matter what replaces Silverlight, it will come with DRM.

Without a W3C standard we might get several totally different, incompatible DRM implementations instead of one standard one. To folks who like standards, that will feel like a missed opportunity; but it doesn't seem any worse than what we have now.

mwcampbell8• 13 years ago

Is it an impractical position?

Only because our consumer culture places such a high value on entertainment. There are way more important things, though.

And no, I don't have a Netflix subscription; haven't for years. Flirted with Spotify some months ago, but canceled that too.

mindslight• 13 years ago

The problem isn't Netflix - it's going to use DRM regardless of how hard it is. The loss is the smaller and user-generated content sites who would have chosen to not mandate weird plugins, but will end up crippling videos to force people into sanctioned methods of viewing. Most cable companies set the "don't copy" bit on rebroadcasted over-the-air channels - they have little reason not to.

azakai3• 13 years ago

Without a W3C standard we might get several totally different, incompatible DRM implementations instead of one standard one.

The EME spec does NOT define a single standard DRM implementation.

The point of EME is to provide a single interface to a DRM module. The DRM modules will be entirely nonstandard, closed-source, and there will be many of them.

Google has its own DRM module, Microsoft has its own. So there are already two, entirely incompatible DRM implementations. And none of them work on other browsers. Even if other browsers implemented EME, the actual DRM implementations would not work on them.

So this is a step backwards, not forwards. It increases fragmentation.

jiggy20117• 13 years ago

Isn't DRM highly fragmented as it is?

Steko• 13 years ago

After you cancel netflix you might spend some of your newly free time reading the public domain versions of chicken little and the boy who cried wolf and pondering what their relevance might be to modern audiences.

aaronbrethorst• 13 years ago

The footnote sums up everything that is eyeroll-inducing for me in this post:

    We encourage users to do their microblogging
    with Web sites that do not include nonfree
    JavaScript, like identi.ca and other
    instances of pump.io. If you prefer Twitter,
    you can use the mobile version of the Twitter
    site which works with JavaScript turned off,
    even on a desktop computer.

blhack• 13 years ago

Use V8? It's open source, and written in C++, which there are open source compilers for.

What on earth is their gripe with Javascript?

kanzure• 13 years ago

Just because your JavaScript interpreter is open source does not mean that its license infects anything that it runs. Nothing about identica vs twitter is about your JavaScript interpreter, in that excerpt.

jiggy20117• 13 years ago

It's with "non free" javascript. In other words the javascript code itself, not the runtime.

DasIch• 13 years ago

This is not about the implementation but about Javascript code that is compiled into what is effectively "binary" form from the perspective of free software[1].

[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html

MostAwesomeDude• 13 years ago

I'm confused. What part of this causes an eyeroll for you? Did you attempt to read the words in a spiral instead of the standard left-to-right, top-to-bottom style most English readers prefer?

loginalready2• 13 years ago

If that's eyeroll-inducing, you haven't been paying attention the past decade. Or even the past few weeks.

Virtually every negative effect the likes of RMS and the FSF have predicted when it comes to not using free software has come true.

There's nothing strange about encouraging people to avoid non-free solutions.

I'm far from a fundamentalist when it comes to free software, but I'm glad someone is still paying attention and reminds me of the consequences.

Silhouette8• 13 years ago

Virtually every negative effect the likes of RMS and the FSF have predicted when it comes to not using free software has come true.

And yet more people are enjoying more content and more benefits from technology than at any point in human history.

Sometimes content creation industries screw up in how they treat their customers, and it's good to realise that and to fix it when it happens.

Sometimes people take advantage of secrecy, and they should be called on it and punished for it, by market forces or laws or both.

However, the general FSF/RMS/GPL3 "everything must be free" philosophy seems counterproductive to me, because it denies the middle ground where most useful things actually happen and most real progress gets made. They're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and then the bath after it, and then knocking down the house because it wasn't built with the appropriately sourced bricks and living in a mud hut. How is that going to keep the baby cleaner?

scrumper• 13 years ago

Freedom for me means a happy wife and an extra $110 in my bank account every month from not having a cable bill.

I do think that fighting the inclusion of DRM in future HTML standards is worthwhile, but this isn't going to get me to pick up a sword.

EdSharkey3• 13 years ago

I could have written this word-for-word.

I am curious if asm.js is quick enough to produce code that could decode encrypted full-screen HD video on browsers whose vendors won't support the media extensions.

Pardon me for ignorance on this subject, but is there something about DRM that requires a plugin or component built into the browser itself? Could our answer to Netflix be, "Write the codec yourself using asm.js"?

wmf6• 13 years ago

JS codecs are possible: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5653531

I don't know whether Hollywood would consider JS DRM secure enough; it probably depends how good a negotiator you are.

taopao• 13 years ago

DRM isn't possible without cooperation with a "trusted" component. If the decoding is happening in an environment that is available for introspection (e.g. Javascript runtime) then you can trivially tee the decoded bits after they are decrypted.-

EdSharkey3• 13 years ago

@taopao, And for a component to be "trusted" it has to be code that was loaded with the operating system, or in this case, the operating environment (the browser)?

It seems to me that quashing tampering or observing of the trusted component is the lynchpin. In JavaScript, there is no way to access unexposed internals of an IIFE, that seems to me to get us half way there.

I wonder if there could be some way to add a "use trusted" pragma to an IIFE such that the browser would not allow debugging or watching the network traffic of that code? There'd have to be some new way to compare a checksum of the trusted code as well. I suppose that that could suffice in a video watermarking scenario, but Netflix could never watermark each and every video transmitted. I think they partner with some ISP's to cache content near to the users as well, so they're not even responsible for broadcasting the last mile of the video.

chrischen• 13 years ago

Hey can't I do both?

jlgaddis• 13 years ago

Done.

http://i.imgur.com/TEmlmpw.png

jiggy20117• 13 years ago

Good call, they will probably now offer you a free month to entice you back!

yaddayadda• 13 years ago

Yep, with multiple emails when you don't take them up on it. There will be about one a week for a month, then they drop down to about one a month.

cheald10• 13 years ago

I said it in a similar thread a few weeks back, and I'll say it here: Netflix isn't the problem. They're stuck with DRM if they want to exist because the people they get their content from won't license without it.

Stop consuming all media produced by the studios who have been driving DRM forward if you value freedom. That means stop going to the movies, stop watching TV, cancel Netflix, don't patronize Redbox, don't even torrent the stuff you want to see. Just completely reject it. Go read a nice paperback book instead. Yes, that means you don't get your entertainment, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Kvetching that Netflix is the Big Bad Bogeyman here is like blaming your grocery store for the nutritional content of the food you buy from them.

mtarnovan• 13 years ago

Still, must they push for DRM in Html5? Why don't they just make a binary client ?

talmand7• 13 years ago

Wouldn't that still go against the FSF statement? The binary client would still require DRM of some sort.

untog• 13 years ago

We already have those, in the form of Flash and Silverlight. It would be good to move to technologies that work on all platforms.

Silhouette8• 13 years ago

Why don't they just make a binary client ?

How does that help the situation at all?

Either data is DRM-encumbered or it's not. The basic issues of rights of creators vs. rights of distributors vs. rights of consumers are exactly the same.

All you're doing by arguing against a standardised way of using DRM on web sites is leaving lots of little walled gardens. Having all the data you want, in an unencumbered format, in a nice open field where anyone can play, isn't an option that's on the table right now. It won't magically become an option just because you force all the distributors to develop custom schemes for their DRM instead.

ihsw15• 13 years ago

but you can't have your cake and eat it

This line of reasoning is short-sighted and narrow-minded. Netflix and the iTunes Store flourished just fine with the amount of DRM we have now, why do we need more?

jlgreco19• 13 years ago

As far as I can tell, they don't want more DRM. Rather they want different DRM that is easier for them to implement and maintain.

I find this problematic because it would also make it easier for others to do the same. Just imagine if old media websites started using it...

DRM should be a pain in the ass. It should be something you have to dedicate lots of engineer hours to, constantly, so that using it cannot be something you casually decide to do. NPAPI and the like are pretty shitty, and that is the way it should be.

cheald10• 13 years ago

Because Silverlight is EOL and Netflix wants to continue to have a functioning business after Microsoft kills it?

jacalata• 13 years ago

This line of reasoning is short-sighted and narrow-minded. Everything we have now flourishes just fine without the HTML spec being discussed. Why do we need a new HTML spec at all?

whitehat2k92• 13 years ago

Basically what Netflix wants to do is standardize the use of DRM technology in HTML and web applications. Currently, most "premium" content from Netflix, etc. is delivered via proprietary plugins such as Flash or Silverlight. What the new "DRM" extensions to HTML5 do is standardize the interface between your web browser/video player and DRM modules.

The DRM module itself would probably still be a closed-source, black-box piece of software, but the playing of the video would be handled by the browser natively w/o the need for plugins like Flash or Silverlight (since after decryption you end up with a standard H264/WebM stream in a <video> tag.) Now, sure, you can argue until you're blue in the face that DRM is bad, but the good thing is that you're separating the DRM from the presentation/rendering layer. This is, without a doubt, a step forward.

In theory this would make things even easier for pirates wanting to capture content since now there's a standardized way for the browser to interface with the DRM layer, decrypt the content, and play it.

The FSF's argument here is null and void because Netflix never was a free service to begin with. They never claimed to offer Linux/free software compatibility, and as a private company they have no obligation to.

mwcampbell8• 13 years ago

The idea of separation between DRM and the rendering layer is illogical. The dream of all DRM proponents is a leak-proof pipe between the encumbered media and your senses, lest you be able to rip a perfect copy.

For a concrete example, look at how deep the content protection system introduced in Windows Vista goes.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

The proposed Encrypted Media Extensions standard is merely an interface between browsers and systems such as this.

short_circut• 13 years ago

I have commented on these issues before and I feel like this one is being blown way out of proportion. We all understand why DRM is there. It is there so you can't rip the stream and save it and redistribute it.

But here is the thing that irks me about this. On the server end of things Netflix has been a rather amazing contributor to open source softwares. This boycott seems rather like shooting your self your own foot to stop an intruder.

3amOpsGuy• 13 years ago

I don't get the extra emphasis on Netflix here either.

Netflix are part of the content industry, it's not that they're the best of a bad bunch, they're actively more open than some artists.

ihsw15• 13 years ago

The destructive capabilities of a DRM-encumbered internet far outweigh the contributions that Netflix has made.

undershirt• 13 years ago

How are the encryption proposals "closing" the standards?

Also, I'm seeing a clash of connotation between encryption for DRM and encryption for PRIVACY. Is encryption only good when it is protecting the freedom of the user, not the producer?

mwcampbell8• 13 years ago

Is encryption only good when it is protecting the freedom of the user, not the producer?

Actually, yes. Your computer should only do what you want it to.

loginalready2• 13 years ago

I'm surprised that on HN people cannot distinguish between Netflix business need to use DRM in their content delivery system (which is undesirable but defensible), and Netflix nefarious scheming to break the open web in order to make that an easier delivery system for DRM-ed content.

It's like defending a company that wants to dump toxic waste into our drinking water with the argument "well, they have to leave it somewhere".

Screw that. They want to use DRM, fine. But not at the expense of a free and open web.

This isn't about DRM. This isn't about copyright. This isn't even about greed. This is about power and control.

ihsw15• 13 years ago

DRM is power and control.

talmand7• 13 years ago

This is the part I've never quite understood. What power and control are you speaking of?

chc5• 13 years ago

I'm surprised that on HN people cannot distinguish between Netflix business need to use DRM in their content delivery system (which is undesirable but defensible), and Netflix nefarious scheming to break the open web in order to make that an easier delivery system for DRM-ed content.

I'm not aware of any portion of Netflix's proposals that would "break the open web." If the open web isn't broken by what Netflix and thousands of other companies are doing right now, how will "Netflix nefarious scheming" break it?

slig• 13 years ago

I don't get why Netflix can't just build a native app for each platform. For instance, they do have one for the iOS, shouldn't be too hard to port the core to OS X.

jlgreco19• 13 years ago

They certainly could. Hell, they could write their very own NPAPI/PPAPI plugins. They don't want to do either because both of those options require more legwork than just using something that somebody else is responsible for.

LastZactionHero• 13 years ago

"... if you value freedom?" An over-the-top threat like that makes me want to keep Netflix for spite. Terrible headline.

stonemetal2• 13 years ago

I am not sure I understand their argument. With netflix you are a renter. It is their property why shouldn't they protect it. If they were selling you something then sure it should be freely yours with no DRM. As far as these internet ideals that are violated, well I know copyright infringement drove internet growth for quite a while but I am not sure I would call that an ideal. How about we let consenting adults (legally) exchange information how they like and call that an ideal.

ihsw15• 13 years ago

Nobody is arguing they shouldn't be able to protect their business, but the proposed changes to the HTML standard would affect every other business. Their authority to demand technological requirements of other's ends at their own property, and Netflix should have absolutely no ability to impose their business requirements on everybody else.

jiggy20117• 13 years ago

How would this impose their business requirements on anybody else? If you don't use netflix you don't have to install their EME module.

stonemetal2• 13 years ago

It isn't just their business, it is a common use case for the web today. Hulu, Amazon, audio guys like spotify and pandora are also doing something that would make use of it.

portmanteaufu• 13 years ago

As a personal matter, I've always found Netflix's use of DRM to be superfluous. Half of the reason I use Netflix is so I don't have to manage my own video collection. I don't even want to manage a collection of .avi's and wmv's. (What file format are people actually using for stored video these days?) Trying to save my own copies of their content would be self-defeating (except maybe to view something once on an airplane?)

chc5• 13 years ago

All DRM is superfluous. If I wanted to pirate The Avengers, Netflix's DRM would not be a major stumbling block because I could just go to The Pirate Bay and get a copy there. The DRM is to satisfy the content providers. I don't think Netflix really cares, except in that satisfying the content providers is crucial to their business model.

mmanfrin• 13 years ago

I would prefer a DRM-enabled HTML than a proprietary embedded video player.

mwcampbell8• 13 years ago

I think it's better for DRM, which is proprietary by nature, to remain obviously so, and to keep it at arm's length from HTML and other open Web standards.

Why should the desires of the American entertainment industry have such influence over the standards of the World Wide Web?

ihsw15• 13 years ago

Your preference is your own, but should you be able to impose it on everybody? Personally I respect your preferences but I cannot in good conscience support the unilateral imposition of your preferences on everybody else.

chc5• 13 years ago

Can you in good conscience support the unilateral imposition of your preferences on everybody else?

jlgreco19• 13 years ago

"DRM-enabled HTML" is not what is on the table. The proposal is for a standardized interface for proprietary DRM modules to use. If you are not blessed with the creation of a DRM module for your particular platform then you will be left high and dry, even if your browser fully implements the standard.

jallmann• 13 years ago

If DRM wasn't implemented in the form of an opaque binary blob, would the FSF still object to it? There is no freedom-destroying threat from media itself, only in how it's packaged and distributed. The problem is fundamentally one of license enforcement, although TBH I'm unsure how it can be done a way that renders everything moot and/or objectionable.

jlgreco19• 13 years ago

If DRM wasn't implemented in the form of an opaque binary blob but was instead implemented by the browser itself (which is not what EME would have happen), then I would build a copy of Firefox that would pretend to the server that it does DRM but would instead dump netflix streams to the disk.

Well, I wouldn't, but somebody would.

jellicle• 13 years ago

I keep seeing in the comments the assertion that Netflix "cannot" offer DRM-free video, because something-something.

This is exactly what people said about music, until Apple decided to do it, and did.

chc5• 13 years ago

This is not actually what happened. What happened was, some music publishers decided they were willing to try offering non-DRM'd music for a higher price, and then Apple did it. Apple did not force a change here. (And even if they had, Netflix is not in Apple's privileged position. The movie studios care a lot less about Netflix than the music guys do about iTunes.)

kanamekun• 13 years ago

Quora has a good writeup on a few reasons why Netflix has been using Silverlight:

1. Cheap licensing terms for DRM: http://www.quora.com/When-does-Netflix-use-WideVine-DRM-inst...

2. Strong support for CDNs, enabling lower-cost streaming: http://www.quora.com/Why-does-Netflix-use-Silverlight

chrisblackwell2• 13 years ago

Going after Netflix is like going after a drug addict hooked on cocaine. Never mind that the addict is buying from someone far more evil on society. The addict is simply an easy target.

Likewise, Netflix doesn't really care about DRM, and as long as you are paying them monthly, they really don't care what format the content is in. It's the movie and television studios that don't want their content online without DRM.

Netflix is only able to do that deals with these studios if Netflix promises their content will be covered in DRM. No DRM, not content says the big bad studio. So now that Microsoft is sunsetting Silverlight, what are they to do?

dgreensp• 13 years ago

This is a great example of the FSF trying to blur together various notions of "free" while pretending that software and the web are in their own gleaming tower embodying those principles.

Netflix and other similar services stream DRMed video to the browser, and they will continue doing so. Right now they use Silverlight, a proprietary Microsoft plugin whose future is unclear. Traditionally, sites have used Flash for any sort of video playing. Netflix would prefer to stream, play, and control the video using web standards, but as a distributor for Big Media, they need a DRM story. They'd like the story to be that the browser provides a facility for them to decrypt the content on the client.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of DRM, and the whole situation doesn't make sense so I don't believe it will last. Since all DRMed media comes with the decryption key, it's really only laws that make the encryption relevant, coupled with enough technical difficulty that a layperson would have to acquire some (illegal) software to perform the decryption. It sucks that ubiquitous hardware and software media formats come encumbered with restrictions (like "you can only play this DVD in the US" or "you can't skip this trailer") and are subject to patents; that you can't play a movie you bought on a physical disk for $12.99 on whatever computer or device you want in your own house.

However, given the fact that legally, certain types of software are restricted in how they can be used, why not put that software in as small a box as possible? Just because Stallman doesn't want proprietary software on his computer doesn't mean you should have to run a separate runtime from your browser to use it. Let's make DRM a box with a key and a decryption algorithm and a sign that says, "Do not run!" Let's have royalty-free, open-source, standardized DRM, peer-reviewed by the hacker community to ensure that it's unbreakable without the key that you also have, and that there's no button visible to casual users that circumvents the restrictions. Treating DRM the way we treat other software actually weakens the concept by exposing the absurdity.

Let's make it so easy to stream protected content that there's nothing to pay Netflix for, except maybe original content, instead of ending up in a world where we pay $60 a month to Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, and a dozen other services.

The HTML standard is set by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which this block of corporations has been heavily lobbying as of late. The proposed adoption of EME is disturbing for what it says about the way decisions are made relative to the Web, but what does it mean for you as a free software user?

Surprise, corporations are involved in web standards. Engineers at Google, Microsoft, Apple, Mozilla, and other companies wrote or reviewed many (most?) of the web standards in place today.

DRM and free software don't mix... We'll see an explosion of DRM on the Web -- a growing dark zone inaccessible to free software users.

I don't know if we'll see an "explosion of DRM on the Web" (it seems doubtful, unless it is because putting video on the Web is now more attractive to content-owners), but the decision to define "free software" as not doing any sort of DRM (the whole "doesn't mix" thing) is actually a very controversial part of the GPLv3 license. If a "free software user" is someone whose insistence on "the freedom to study how a program works and change it" threatens to cut them off from parts of the Internet, I wonder how many of these people there really are.

Microsoft has already modified Internet Explorer to start supporting EME for media streaming. Simultaneously, Netflix has begun publicly promoting Internet Explorer, revealing a two-pronged strategy of pushing proprietary browsers while attacking Web standards in the W3C.

Netflix doesn't have a "strategy" for attacking free software. It's not a "two-pronged" assault just because you feel affronted on two counts. Netflix presumably has their own motives, like simplifying their software, improving the experience for users, and supporting more devices. They want to work on Linux. They want to pay lip service to the idea of DRM while minimizing the impact on their service.

Boycotting Netflix and impeding a web standard don't seem like great tactics for fighting DRM to me.

fburnaby• 13 years ago

Pardon me for being so naive, but why does Netflix have no competition in their market? There's no alternative to switch to, and once I've taken a step back and thought about it, this surprises me.

wmf6• 13 years ago

Amazon Prime? Redbox streaming?

It's not clear to me that it makes sense to define Netflix's exact business model as a market. If you look at streaming video in general as the market there are many competitors like Apple, MS, Sony, Hulu, Epix, etc.

dragonwriter• 13 years ago

Pardon me for being so naive, but why does Netflix have no competition in their market?

Are you talking about the mail-DVD-rentals-to-your-house market or the stream-video-over-the-internet market. Because they've got plenty of fairly direct competition in the latter and currently more significant market (Amazon, Hulu, and Redbox streaming services, among others) as well as plenty of close substitutes (e.g., cable/satellite TV services which include "On Demand" series and movies) , and, if not a lot of direct competiton in the former market, at a minimum a close substitutes in the form of pervasive rental outlets (particularly Redbox).

tildeslashblog• 13 years ago

No thanks, I'll just exercise my freedom to keep using their service.

FSF's cries are nothing more than a demand to reduce the freedom of others for their own personal gain. That's not freedom.

Cancel Netflix if you value freedom

Related Stories