Hacker News Reader

Comment by comex | Hacker News Reader

Simple question:

Do you think EME is actually going to prevent Netflix shows from showing up on thepiratebay?

I don't think it has any chance - DRM on PCs is always pretty quickly bypassed - which is why it frustrates me so: it will likely end up preventing Linux users from accessing content legitimately, or Mac users from AirPlaying content to their TVs, with no actual benefit against piracy. At least where it pertains to high value content, it is little but a lie mutually agreed upon with rightsholders. :(

View on HN

> Do you think EME is actually going to prevent Netflix shows from showing up on thepiratebay?

No, and that isn't the purpose. The purpose is so that Netflix can show you movies that Hollywood lawyers insist be encumbered with DRM because they won't try and understand that DRM doesn't actually do anything. Maybe one day Netflix will be big enough to push back, like Apple did with mp3 DRM, but until then, this is the only way to show premium content to people without requiring a plugin from Microsoft.

> it will likely end up preventing Linux users from accessing content legitimately,

Actually, the inclusion of EME in HTML5 is exactly what would enable you to watch content on Linux.

So we're including things in the HTML spec just to satisfy hollywood lawyers now? We would be saddling a spec(and any browser wishing to implement it) for what will probably be a decade and possibly more just so hollywood execs/lawyers can cover their asses and protect a dying business model which will probably be outlived by both the spec and implementing browsers.

I find that stupid, to say the least. Especially since, it is highly likely that at some point, some company will be big enough to push back and distribute things DRM-free just like Apple did with iTunes.

But once the model dies, why does it matter if it is in the spec? If a company (say Apple) gets big enough to demand no DRM, like Apple did with music, then no one will use the standard anymore.

So why does it matter if the standard makes it easier to more widely distribute the content, which will only help in hastening its demise by allowing someone to grow big enough to push back?

Given that for EME to not be trivially bypassed, the CDM has to be a blob implementing its own decoders, how is this significantly different than Flash or Silverlight binary plugins?

Why would whoever's developing these CDMs (each individual site I'd assume?) suddenly invest the resources into providing Linux versions?

Google owns this company: http://www.widevine.com

Which already has a linux plugin. That is why they are pushing for the standard as well.

Locks don't prevent cars from being stolen or homes from being robbed. Determined attackers have the advantage. The real problem with DRM is the lack of convenience and user unfriendliness. I must say, however, that the DRM in Netflix is nearly invisible except for the plugins. It looks like this proposal effectively reduces the size of the plugins required.

DRM is not meant to stop the flow of content to thepiratebay, and never has been. Its purpose is to stop casual sharing, enforce region restrictions, and encourage repurchases. That's all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com