Hacker News Reader

Comment by jerf | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com