[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.