[digler999]

On their website is a banner: "Cancel netflix!". I click on it, and I'm told I should cancel netflix because they put DRM on their HTML5 delivery of movies.

Now look, Im a self-professed pirate. I say screw most DRM and I dont recognize IP law. However, I totally disagree that I should "cancel netflix". What are they supposed to do ? Deliver all their movies DRM-free and see them immediately get copied to torrent sites ? Or else, what , not use HTML5 and require STB/smart tv support to use their product (which ALL have DRM, btw ) ?

Netflix is the good guy, they are pioneers in electronic content delivery. They are fighting to break the monopoly of the movie industry while having to work with them to get content. And they are producing their own content. All for a very reasonable rate.

I will absolutely NOT cancel netflix because they support DRM. What a ridiculous thing to suggest.

[Endy]

They are not the "good guy" - they're merely among the lesser of a few evils. If they were the "good guy", they would deliver content 100% DRM-free and actively support the public domain. For me, "Cancel Netflix!" is not merely a call to remove myself from their service, but rather a call to remove a DRM-friendly platform from the face of the Web. Because as it stands, every other DRM jail can point to Netflix and say, "See! They do it and they're the good guy!" - and we need to cut that off at the ankles.

They do work with DRM on a regular basis. They are, or work willingly with, the bad guy. Until you remove yourself from them and we work to remove them completely, we will never win.

[digler999]

> they would deliver content 100% DRM-free

Then most of their content would be 60s era public domain garbage. No movie studio would license their content if any high-school freshman with libpcap installed could copy their whole catalog!

I'm NOT pro-DRM, all DRM does is get broken and it allows fraudulent business practices (such as the top comment Kindle owner post). But it's "the lesser of a few evils", to use your own words. No "decent" movies would be available if the studios knew the distributor was taking no steps to even try to keep it from being illegally copied.

Look, I never in a hundred years imagined I'd be on HN defending DRM, when I have a 24/7 VPN to Croatia for all my pirating needs. But truth is it's more effort to copy files from the NAS to the DLNA server than it is to use Netflix. (To be 100% honest, I dont even like watching TV and I just do it for my roomate).

But I digress, if they made no efforts whatsoever to show they do not condone piracy, what studio in their right mind would agree to license their content ? Ok, so they should do all original stuff you say ? Great, your $14/month online streaming service has 12 titles! whoo hoo ! Dont all try to sign-up at once!

[makomk]

Netflix's catalogue is small enough, the value of re-watching existing content low enough, and pirated copies widely available enough that it's unlikely people could be bothered to do this. Meanwhile the DRM means there are annoying restrictions on what devices you can actually watch i on.

[Endy]

> But I digress, if they made no efforts whatsoever to show they do not condone piracy, what studio in their right mind would agree to license their content ?

What makes you think the studios are in their right mind to begin with?

[Silhouette]

If they were the "good guy", they would deliver content 100% DRM-free and actively support the public domain.

And pay the hundreds or thousands of people involved in making a major movie or demanding TV show for months or years of their time with what, sunshine and rainbows? It would be lovely if we could all just contribute our skills and talents for the general improvement of humanity, but the thing about professionals is that their profession is what pays the rent.

I've always been pretty down on DRM, more on the basis that it often winds up inadvertently harming legitimate customers than anything else. And yet from personal experience, there are few things more depressing than spending years of your life creating something truly original, offering it without DRM-like protections for a fair price, and then watching as people just openly rip you off anyway. It turns out that if you challenge them, sometimes they freely acknowledge what they were doing, and in a stunning bit of irony, even ask you what you expected if you made your content available without DRMing it.

If you want to "win" from your point of view, you'd better start with telling people who actually create content at considerable expense in time and money how to deal with the problem of freeloaders in some other credible way. Otherwise, the only thing your approach would remove is a large amount of the creative work that gets done in the world. As I said, I don't much like DRM myself and typically don't buy DRM'd content unless I'm reasonably confident of my ability to break it should the need ever arise, but that's a long way from calling anyone who employs it in a genuine attempt to protect themselves from illegal behaviour a "bad guy".

[Endy]

You assume that I have a problem with less media in the world. I don't. If 90% of the new content that we see and hear disappeared tomorrow, I would be just fine with that. As it ism we have an overwhelming amount of content that distracts us from things that matter like actually helping people. We give tons and tons of money to entertainers while hard-working EMTs and fire fighters are woefully underpaid. We willingly individually give $12+ to waste two hours of our lives instead of giving that money to a good cause and seeing the people around us flourish - or giving it to creators who don't paywall their creations.

I vehemently make the somewhat radical statement that less corporate-backed media would have a positive impact on the world.

The lack of implied paywall is not going to stop the people who have real passion from doing what they love. And anyone who's skilled that it does stop (because they were in it for the money), well, we might mourn the loss. But someone will come along with the passion and skill to replace them. It might slow them, it might change the scope or the distribution, but it won't stop people from doing whatever it is they love.

I don't want professional media creators, copywrong, DRM, and corporate-backed media. I want a world of passionate hobbyists who produce beautiful things without the utterly ridiculous need to be "profitable".

[Silhouette]

You assume that I have a problem with less media in the world. I don't.

Then you're welcome to ignore anything DRM'd. No-one is forcing you to watch it, listen to it, play it or run it. What you're not welcome to do is dictate to many millions of other people who do enjoy that content and/or find it useful how they must live their lives or what must matter to them.

The lack of implied paywall is not going to stop the people who have real passion from doing what they love.

Perhaps not, but lack of funds to buy food or pay the rent certainly will.

And anyone who's skilled that it does stop (because they were in it for the money), well, we might mourn the loss. But someone will come along with the passion and skill to replace them.

Unfortunately, the world does not work like that. Producing the best work is often a full-time job for many people for an extended period. Few of us are lucky enough to be financially secure without working for a living, and that includes those with the talent and and skills and creativity to produce amazing work.

[Endy]

At best, we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

I don't agree to your assessment of the overall situation. Up to a point, I do believe that revolution doesn't always come easy - and right now, a revolution is what's needed against DRM and those who perpetuate it. I did say, though, that I believe in people who do things for passion. There might even be some content I'd be willing to fund, from proven creators through crowd-funding.

Also, I know several people who do create amazing work in their spare time. And most of them don't work in content-related fields.

[xhdjdjjxjs]

If you don't even like the media why do you care about not being able to watch it without DRM? Do you have to ruin it for everyone? I get so much utility from Netflix. This attitude reminds me of how some religious people want to force those who don't believe the religion to still follow its commandments. I'm going to go to hell either way, why do you care if I have some fun first?

[digler999]

So they should take investor's money and say "thanks guys, we're going to use your dollars to pay for new, cool shows and release them for free to the public domain, cause screw DRM! that's, why!"

[digler999]

oops, I intended to reply to the parent comment.

[Endy]

Yes.

[wyager]

The false premise behind your question is that DRM does anything to prevent copying.

[Silhouette]

Of course it does something to prevent copying. The idea that DRM doesn't prevent a single copy being made is as absurd as the idea that every single infringing copy made of a work represents a lost sale.

In reality, most infringing copies (other than professional pirates) are casual copies made just because someone can, and most works being copied illegally are recent. If DRM avoids even a modest fraction of those infringing copies for even a relatively short time before it's cracked, it probably still leads to increased legitimate sales as a result and has at least partially succeeded.

[carc]

Whether it is effective is irrelvant. The question is: Do they have a right to prevent you from copying? If you purchase something, like a video game, I 100% think that no, sellers do not have that right. In netflix's, I think that they do. Whether it's effective shouldn't factor into the equation.. it's an implementation detail.

[carc]

I feel a little disappointed that so far, based on the comments I'm reading, this seems to be the minority opinion.

[Silhouette]

Sadly, it is often the minority opinion. There are a lot more people who want to enjoy good content than people who actually spend the time and money creating that content.

[scarface74]

The whole schtick about DRM is that you don't own the content. When you subscribe to Netflix, it is explicit that you are paying for access not ownership. I have no problem paying for a DRMd Apple Music subscription as a rental model and DRM free music from iTunes music that I own.

[tluyben2]

I think the DRM-less Netflix can only work if they would sell you the movies; they don't; they rent them. You did not pay $25-30 per item you watched after which you can say you own it; you paid a fraction.

So I agree with you; they make it easy for me to watch legal content, something I have been shouting for for years. I would not care about DRM if I could watch everything like I can on Netflix; unless I buy it (on a DVD or online, no difference), in that case I'm actively against DRM. I generally am because it doesn't really work for the purpose it's used for so then it's more of a hassle, but like said, I wouldn't care if it's seamless. There were times when I could not watch content in Linux because the DRM decoder didn't work in Linux, so even if I paid, I couldn't get the content I paid for. That's another story, but with HTML5 that's all fixed.

The only time I pirate things still if they put geo restrictions; if some episode (and this is not an IF this is reality) of a series i'm following is aired first somewhere else and I really want to keep up to date I have no choice. If Netflix could break that mold...

Maybe someone knows; for Netflix originals they presumably own the rights right? So why do those not air the entire world at the same time? As if my assumption is the case, that makes them more evil again. I do not know much about the rights in this case though so maybe some greater evil forces them to...

[digler999]

Goodness gracious, I cannot think of a single movie I would like to "own". Is it just me? Am I the only one who doesn't like to watch the same 90m video over and over ?

Sure I dont represent every consumer, but I think this is why netflix is successful: not overselling the customer. You get to use the content and put it back. I know how Titanic ends, I dont need to see it over and over again. I get no utility from that. Some flicks might have fanatics that want to "own" it (whatever that means), but most dont.

[khedoros]

There's a lot that I don't want to see more than once...and Netflix is great for that. There's a lot that I do watch at least several times (spaced out over years, often). If I see something being sold for an amount I'm interested in paying, it at least means that I don't have to track down how to watch it next time that I want to.

[kazinator]

> Goodness gracious, I cannot think of a single movie I would like to "own".

Aww, c'mon. Not even this?

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/dvd-smokey-and-the-bandit-th...

Ah wait, you said single movie. Wink! Gotcha.

[tluyben2]

I cannot think of that either. That is basically why I stopped caring about it, for good or for bad. I was a soapbox standing, card carrying anti DRM but it is not an annoyance anymore so I backed off. I cannot stand DRM or whatever it is called on chips for OSs though...

[ecnahc515]

Are you referring to SecureBoot?

[slrz]

There were times when I could not watch content in Linux because the DRM decoder didn't work in Linux, so even if I paid, I couldn't get the content I paid for. That's another story, but with HTML5 that's all fixed.

How? Do you really watch video in the browser on your computer where you can run Google-provided builds of Chrome? Isn't that pretty annoying?

What do you do if you have some random small ARM or Atom box running Linux with an UI that's convenient to use on the big TV screen it's connected to and using a remote control? I don't see an obvious way to watch DRM-protected video there. HTML5/EME doesn't help a bit as you still need a (binary-only) content decryption module that you can't get for your platform.

[tluyben2]

I guess I am old and did not have that issue yet. I have fought computing for so long by using Linux as my primary OS since the mid 90s, I guess sometimes I stop thinking when something just works. I am not Stallman and I realize even there that I am limiting myself but when it just works and the damage is less than what is possible in my mind I will accept it. I cannot see a solution that works currently and Netflix etc do provide something that works for a price which you do not have to think about and you do not have risk of the feds running in. Maybe there is something here as a middle ground. Annoying as it is when you think about it, it seems to improve... You are right and yes when I think about it it is annoying as hell, but a) netflix simply cannot do without or they would have no content (my question about ownership remains) b) we have no good rapport for just opening up all. I understand we all are doing that anyway but not for most and so it is a hard sell.

Edit: as someone who grew up in the 80s, Linux is the best thing that happened to computing outside the internet and Linux was a large part of that as well. It was hell before with MS, Sun, HP, SGI, Digital, etc and their flavours of hell. They did a lot of good but the closed off nature was terrible.

[khedoros]

> What do you do if you have some random small ARM or Atom box running Linux with an UI that's convenient to use on the big TV screen it's connected to and using a remote control?

Myself, I run a small ARM box running (an embedded and completely inaccessible) Linux, designed as a dedicated streaming device (or sometimes a similar device that is included in the workings of my Blu-Ray player). I'm not particularly interested in using a TV as a display for a general-purpose computing device, so this works well for what I want to do.

I have a few ARM boxes that can't play anything DRMed other than what's handled by libdvdcss or libaacs, but those are the devices that I wouldn't use to play video even if I could.

[freshhawk]

"Netflix is the good guy, they are pioneers in electronic content delivery."

The basis for this is that Netflix was a major player in the success of the push for Encrypted Media Extensions in HTML5. The possibilities for abuse here are just unreal.

Pissing off their competitors by not being incompetent when it comes to technology isn't enough to make me call them "good guys" even if some of their stuff I happen to like. It's a bit more complex than "good guys" and "bad guys".

[digler999]

> The possibilities for abuse here are just unreal.

Serious question/request: please elaborate. I pay $14/month so I can watch 4K content on my TV and share an acct with my dad so he can watch 3 shows a week. My room mate uses it more than I do.

I pay the money with the expectation that I can watch video. What about DRM (in this particular case, I'm not saying I support ALL DRM) could be "abused" and prevent me from watching video ? The only thing that would slightly piss me off is if it only worked on Win/Mac platforms. But personally I dont even watch with a computer so this wouldnt affect me. Just as principle, thats the only potential for abuse I could foresee.

[khedoros]

EME requires a binary-blob decryption module. Imagine the scenario where the only browser that provides some function "X" that you use isn't one that a binary-blob is released for.

For most people that don't care about "X", they'll go for the browser that supports EME. As the userbase becomes more widespread, why wouldn't a content owner want to DRM-enshroud their media? Everyone but the mainstream gets squeezed out, choice is reduced, and we're all worse off for it.

Maybe that's a little over-dramatic. But if I want to watch DRM content and HTML5 with EME is the accepted standard for that, then I need a browser and platform that support it. That limits my choices, purely for the benefit of others. That's a reality that I wish I didn't have to deal with.

[Silhouette]

Everyone but the mainstream gets squeezed out, choice is reduced, and we're all worse off for it.

But we're not all worse off for it. In fact, only a small minority who choose to be outside the mainstream are worse off for it. Making unusual choices sometimes means you don't enjoy the same opportunities as those who go with the flow, even as you perhaps enjoy advantages in other respects, and as unfortunate as it might be, that's life.

In cases where we're talking about something important or even essential to living an otherwise normal life, there are arguments for regulatory intervention, public services, and so on to protect those who choose to follow a different path, and indeed those who have no choice.

But here we're talking about being able to enjoy certain entertainment via one particular channel. If that doesn't suit you, you can enjoy the same entertainment by various other means, such as watching a movie in a theatre or buying it on a disc, and there is a whole world of other entertainment you can enjoy instead if none of the alternatives suits you.

But if I want to watch DRM content and HTML5 with EME is the accepted standard for that, then I need a browser and platform that support it. That limits my choices, purely for the benefit of others.

That is true, but it limits you no more than not having that content available online at all.

[khedoros]

> But we're not all worse off for it. In fact, only a small minority who choose to be outside the mainstream are worse off for it.

But we are. Innovative ideas from fringe software tends to find its way back into more mainstream software.

> But here we're talking about being able to enjoy certain entertainment via one particular channel.

Well, and video information in general. Part of my argument was that if the technology makes it easy to "protect" content, and that becomes the standard expectation, things that shouldn't or don't need to be DRMed will be anyhow.

[phire]

As other's have pointed out, they are contractually required to use DRM by the content providers and it's not really effective anyway.

But what really annoys me is: I want to watch netflix on my TV, it's a little too far from my Computer so I have a Raspberry Pi hooked up to it. The Pi is fully capable of running netflix, it can run a webbroswer with html video support and decode 1080p mp4s. But because the raspberry pi foundation refuse to lock down the firmware and provide a safe area for the Widefire DRM plugin to run, netflix refuses to run.

I pay for netflix. Why should I have to buy a locked down device like the Chromecast to use it?

[roywiggins]

Netflix shows are all on torrent sites anyway. I'm not sure they would actually lose anything if they dropped the DRM.

[Silhouette]

After a lot of thinking about DRM over the years, I realised this is one of the great myths.

Yes, DRM is often readily broken. And yes, much of the content is available via "alternative sources" for those who know where to look and how to protect themselves from whatever else might try to come along for the ride. Those who really want to rip something and have a bit of know-how will most likely be able to do it sooner or later.

However, DRM can still prove a significant impediment to casual copying, which in itself may protect significant revenues for the content providers. DRM also makes it very clear to those with access to the content that certain things -- say, trying to keep permanent copies of content streamed from sites like Netflix that rely on subscriptions to operate -- are not intended to be possible. Again, in a culture where a lot of people have barely even heard of copyright and just assume anything available online is free, that can be a big win.

[roywiggins]

> Those who really want to rip something and have a bit of know-how will most likely be able to do it sooner or later.

The kind of piracy it does prevent is putting movies you've watched onto a USB stick and handing it to a friend who doesn't pay for a subscription.

For distributing pirated content online, people wanting to download pirate content still have to spelunk through torrent trackers or Popcorn Time or whatever to actually get the video, whether it was distributed originally with DRM or not. DRM-free just makes life a little bit easier for the uploaders.

[6stringmerc]

Not saying it's right, but in practical terms, I'm rather certain they would lose all their contracts with major studios / content holders. They're in such a tough & unique position.

[roywiggins]

Oh, for sure- it's not like it's Netflix that cares, its the contracts they have with content owners. I guess they could turn off DRM for the show they produce but that sounds like a technical hassle for no gain.

[__s]

Some gain. Some attempt could be made to then compare piracy rates of netflix's non-drm vs drm content. They'd be showing good will to those who side with "Cancel Netflix"

[6stringmerc]

Netflix has moved into the content creator sphere as a direct rebuttal to the, well, extortion that content holders have hung over their heads.

I was listening to a local talk radio station (1310 The Ticket) which does an 'Entertainment News' segment and they mentioned that the chief of FX went on record lamenting that Netflix might become a go-to for content.

One of the situations they mentioned was the upcoming Playboy series done in partnership with Hugh Heffner. The discussion was about how that series might have landed on FX or AMC a few years ago - now? Now it's a proprietary Netflix show.

I'm pivoting more toward screenwriting for 2017 and saw some chatter that Netflix doesn't particularly take "pitches" from the traditional Hollywood / content system. They reach out. According to the source, a meeting with Netflix is one of the hardest to "get" because of this approach.

They're trying to turn the tables and it seems to be paying dividends - at least from a customer engagement standpoint. Offering exclusive content is a whole different conversation (re: Drake, Chance the Rapper & Apple Music) but their actions are becoming recognized. I can definitely respect the move on general principle.

The question to be asked in turn is rooted in why would Netflix play by different rules than they had been subjected to re: DRM when the established system has trained a majority of customers to accept it.

[Crito]

From my perspective, Netflix and other legal streaming services have dealt quite a blow to the torrent scene. I'm sure there are private trackers that are alive and well, but the scene in total seems diminished even from a few years ago.

Personally I prefer to do my 'piracy' the old-fashioned way: at my local public library. Better selection than all but the most elite torrent sites...

[rincebrain]

Is it actually diminished, or just more out of the public eye?

I don't go trawling around for pirated content, but I've stopped hearing much in the news about big "busts" of things like Suprnova every other week - I think the first one I heard about in months, if not years, was all the noise around KickAssTorrents being shut down.

[digler999]

Can the average grandma use "torrent sites" (and figure out how to show the content on a TV) ? Can the average grandma use netflix ?

[mistercow]

What a strange reply. You're the one who brought up "torrent sites" in the first place.

[digler999]

The argument is way more nuanced than whether something is on torrent or not. Which is why it appears that I'm arguing against myself. I'm not.

I originally brought up that without DRM, someone could rip netflix's entire catalog and publish it straight to bittorrent. Thats a concern to IP stakeholders and likely a big reason they require DRM from Netflix.

He's saying "they're on torrent already, so why should netflix use DRM?". I'm countering that argument with the fact that just because something is available DRM-free on torrent doesn't mean it's as easy to access as Netflix, which requires DRM.

The broader point is that DRM can be technically ineffective, as in it can be circumvented, but it can still be "functional", as in fulfilling its originally intended function. DeCSS was published in '99, yet it's still not easy for an average user (grandma) to duplicate a DVD.

[roywiggins]

> DeCSS was published in '99, yet it's still not easy for an average user (grandma) to duplicate a DVD.

Would ripping a DVD really be easier without the DRM, for an average user? To strip the DRM you just need to have libdvdcss (or whatever) installed, and your ripping software strips the DRM without you even knowing it's there. It's not much harder than ripping a CD.

HandBrake doesn't even tell you there's any DRM- it's completely transparent, more or less one button to rip.

[nickpsecurity]

I agree. I think a barrier to distribution helps certain business models that are legit. Especially with the backdrop that most of the public don't care enough to change the situation. Ten years from now, overly-broad laws in copyright and big distributors owning rights will still exist. The work of groups like Netflix... even Redbox... are a nice compromise until something better comes along. I'm impressed Netflix got as far as they did.

[6stringmerc]

I appreciate you pointing this out, because it's a very spurious attitude. It is ridiculous, and thank you for explaining why you see it that way.

[AgentME]

>What are they supposed to do ? Deliver all their movies DRM-free and see them immediately get copied to torrent sites ?

Is that not already the current situation?

[ndesaulniers]

> Netflix is the good guy, they are pioneers in electronic content delivery. They are fighting to break the monopoly of the movie industry while having to work with them to get content. And they are producing their own content.

Then why don't they release their own content without DRM? It's because they favor DRM just as much as "the bad guys."

[carc]

Because you're not buying shows/movies from them....?

You're essentially renting here. I see DRM as generally bad only when it's on things you purchase.

[digler999]

Because they can deliver the content that users pay for though one platform. no need to deploy a major software update, full regression test, just for some political reason.

[IshKebab]

A) Everything is on bittorrent anyway

B) Music download sites removed their DRM and they're doing fine, last I checked

I heard an argument that it isn't about stopping piracy; it's about controlling legitimate distribution, e.g. so they can charge Samsung for putting Netflix on their TVs. No idea if that is true but it certainly sounds plausible.

[nurb]

In fact everything on Netflix is already available in torrent, so DRM-free or not, nothing will change on this side.