Netflix: We're Working On HTML5 Standard to Bring Streaming Video to All Devices | Hacker News Reader

Netflix: We're Working On HTML5 Standard to Bring Streaming Video to All Devices

readwriteweb.com

95 pointskingsidharth30 comments

Translation: We need DRM in HTML5. They don't quite say it, but they come very close and this isn't very much of a "translation".

DRM doesn't belong in a standard like HTML5. On the freedom side, the argument hardly needs to be made around here; on the Netflix/DRM-users side, you don't really want to standardize on DRM because then you're locked to the standard if it doesn't work, and, frankly it solves no problems for you anyhow. DRM and Linux are not going to fit together no matter how many standards docs you write and how hard you thump on them. And when the standard fails to work for you because it has been hacked, you will leave the standard anyhow.

These are pretty words but I can't see anybody actually getting anywhere with this, not just because the standards bodies really shouldn't do this but because it doesn't seem to be in anybody's interest to create an HTML5 DRM standard.

From http://techblog.netflix.com/2010/12/html5-and-video-streamin...:

We expect to be able to publish a draft of a Netflix profile describing a limited subset of the MPEG DASH standard early next year. It will define the requirements for premium on-demand streaming services like ours and will take advantage of hooks included in the DASH standard to integrate the DRM technologies that we need to fulfill our contractual obligations to the content providers, thus covering the sixth item on our list.

They aren't very coy about saying they need DRM.

Even leaving the DRM aside, some sort of agreed-upon standard for items 1-5 and 7 would still be very helpful; these are all capabilities that are left to Flash or Silverlight for cross-platform capabilities, and I'd think there would be plenty of use cases that could find one or more of those very helpful. (Adaptive bitrate streaming would be a huge improvement, and I'm sure Justin.tv would love a cross-platform streaming video standard.)

The part I didn't really include is their list of 7 requirements, which are... 1-The acceptable A/V container formats (e.g. Fragmented MP4, WebM, etc.); 2-The acceptable audio and video codecs (e.g. H.264, VP8, AAC, etc.); 3-The streaming protocol (e.g. HTTP, RTP, etc.); 4-A way for the streaming protocol to adapt to available bandwidth; 5-A way of conveying information about available streams and other parameters to the streaming player module; 6-A way of supporting protected content (e.g. with DRM systems); 7-A way of exposing all this functionality into HTML5

So...yeah, definitely DRM. And not coy, as you point out.

Amended translation: Our nervous and paranoid content provider partners upon whose good graces our entire business depends demand DRM before allowing us to deliver content to any platform.

It would be in the consumer's interest if there was DRM in HTML5. They would get content on more platforms more quickly.

I really can't see how DRM is ever, ever in the consumer's interest.

DRM lets them legitimately see content in digital form that they wouldn't otherwise be allowed to legitimately see.

Maybe. Remember how CBS was going to refuse to transmit in HD unless the broadcast flag was mandated?

But they already do that - sure it may not be legal, but since practically nobody is getting court, why does it matter?

So customers watch it illegitimately.

Piracy has made the content network capitalistic and is pro-consumer. It gives consumers choice and options.

Subscription media services are impossible without DRM. Many, many consumers enjoy these services, myself included.

I used to know several people who subscribed to HBO/Showtime/Cinemax/etc. and had built up enormous VHS tape libraries off those networks. Naturally, the DRM necessary to stop this hadn't been invented yet. And yet all of those companies have survived...

Not to mention the many, many years http://www.emusic.com/ operated on a subscription model.

That reasoning is completely false. Yes, the content industry insists that DRM must be in place to make a streaming solution work.

On the other hand, Hulu works just fine. Clearly subscription media services work fine without DRM. The requirements for DRM are just a symptom of an industry that doesn't understand digital media, and believes that DRM is effective at stopping piracy.

Hulu has DRM.

There's nothing impossible about a DRM-free media subscription. Just that the content creators likely will never go for it.

But if you compare a DRM-free to DRM-enabled services, DRM is of no benefit to the consumer. It's only a 'benefit' to the content creator/owner.

That used to be said about audio, and now DRM-free music is the norm.

Why can't we have DRM-free video? We should.

DRMed content are usually restrictied to certain regions. The USA usually gets it first, other countries later, if at all. A DRMed system is not in the interest of consumers of non-USA countries, since it will limit their choice and make them second class citizens.

Piracy has done wonders for consumers in non-USA countries. We no longer have to wait 1 or 2 years after films come out in the USA before they are shown in European cinemas.

Please link to the original source.

http://techblog.netflix.com/2010/12/html5-and-video-streamin...

This is really pushing the fundamental limit of DRM, namely, that you must both lock up the data so that the user can't "steal" it and give them the key so they can watch the movie.

you must both lock up the data so that the user can't "steal" it and give them the key so they can watch the movie.

All DRM is like that. All DRM tries to both give you the locked up content, give you the key and hide the key so you can't get it. It always fails.

What they are pushing is the definition of an open standard. My guess is that people kept asking them about HTML5, so they have written this press release saying why they don't use it.

They basically say they need DRM, but its impossible to have a DRM system that is also an open webstandard.

Clearly. Just to expand on why you're right, it's the client that's in charge of restricting the rights of the user -> enforcing "play once", "stream only", "24 hour pass" etc. If anyone can write a client based on the open standard, obviously anyone can write a client that ignores the granted rights.

If you need to rely on API keys and pre-approved platforms there isn't much open about it. At that point you're just trying to get 3rd party developers to build your proprietary clients for you.

> Anyone can write a client that ignores the granted rights.

Not necessarily; the server providing the video can look at your authentication cookie and the current timestamp, and decide whether to send you video or not.

The harder thing is preventing clients from stealing the data. If the player uses an open standard, someone could easily write a version that plays by all the authentication rules, but then pipes the playback bits to the hard drive and then torrent sites. And then suits get nervous about signing over their content, and we're right back to the status quo of digital media.

I hope Netflix has a clever solution for this, but it's hard to see how it's possible.

Saving the data for later play is one of the rights you manage with DRM - if you're not supposed to be able to play it later and the client allows you to, it's ignoring the granted rights. Sharing the data with friends is another "right" in DRM. What you're describing is authentication - something that you can clearly do within HTML5 as is.

Not necessarily; the server providing the video can look at your authentication cookie and the current timestamp, and decide whether to send you video or not.

Although that's true. It would be trivial for someone to publish, say, a Firefox extension that saves all the video to your harddisk as you watch it. If that happens the suits and lawyers will get very upset. They'd almost certainly change it from the open web standard. This means it'd be impossible to have a web standard with DRM.

Additionally, it's impossible to have DRM on an open source operating system, like Linux, where an attacker can fiddle with the OS internals to their heart's content.

Meanwhile consumers can access everything they want on torrent sites - should you not know about them, Google will helpfully auto-complete your searches for you - with no limitations and no stupid "this content is not available in your country" (not shown until after the preshow ad).

Netflix will have to get its stuff in order _now_ to remain relevant. If it is not already too late.

I am really excited about HTML5 + Torrent + Streaming. There was a post a few months ago at http://gigaom.com/video/wikipedia-is-using-bittorrent-p2p-fo...

Why does Netflix even bother with DRM or studios bother to pressure Netflix to use it? By the time something's on Netflix, there's often already a decent quality torrent. Their customers aren't going to steal their videos and neither will pirates.

Not without DRM, I'm sure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com