Comment by Zikes | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zikes | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I've been a Netflix customer for 8 years. I haven't paid for cable or satellite for most of those 8 years, and I've always tried my hardest to understand the driving forces behind Netflix's decisions, such as raising prices to manage skyrocketing license costs, and segregating streaming and DVD services so that the DVD customers don't artificially inflate streaming numbers to negatively affect licensing contracts. I was even prepared to accept their dreadful choice to completely separate the streaming service into a wholly different company, though I was glad that they ultimately decided against it.

It was easy to see the economic reasoning behind many of those decisions, even though on the surface they seemed not to benefit the consumer.

Clearly, DRM is required in order for them to license the shows we want to watch. It's unfortunate, but it is something I am prepared to accept. What upsets me about this particular instance is that they are moving to make DRM a part of what are supposed to be the open standards of the web. It flies in the face of the principles upon which the internet was designed and built, and regardless of what technical hurdles it would help the company to overcome it is also very clearly an anti-consumer move, the scope of which reaches far beyond Netflix itself.

Maybe it's time I dusted off some of the books I've been meaning to read.

Exactly. If DRM is necessary for Netflix to function, that's fine... but then Netflix should not run through pure HTML, it should require a native binary program separate from HTML to run the Netflix video stream.

Flash and Silverlight are bad programs, but they're better than corrupting the HTML standard itself.

Technically it would require a separate binary program. The amendments to the spec define a way for the browser to communicate with such programs. So a non-DRM browser can still comply with this part of the standard.

An important thing to keep in mind however is that since this still requires a proprietary binary, this being included in the standard would not automagically get you Netflix support in Linux.

Chrome supports Netflix on a Linux kernel right now. They only allow it to work in ChromeOS on authorized devices that are not "rooted". There are no technical hurdles to supporting Netflix on normal Linux distributions, it simply is not something that they are interested in doing. If you support this stuff being added to the standard because you want to watch Netflix on your MBP running Debian (or similar), then you are misguided.

> An important thing to keep in mind however is that since this still requires a proprietary binary, this being included in the standard would not automagically get you Netflix support in Linux

I expect, though, that it will make it more likely for Netflix to add native Linux support, because providing one decryption plugin should be a lot easier than providing a whole movie playing application.

The support they have in ChromeOS could be made to work in "regular" Linux with minimal to no effort. In ChromeOS netflix is played through Chrome, not with a completely separate movie playing application. They don't allow it to work off of ChromeOS on official ChromeOS devices.

The issue is policy, not technological.

Actually it probably requires hardware support (like ARM's security extensions (not sure how x86 does it)) so it probably can't be made to work with any old hardware.

I doubt it would make much different either way, they will add Linux support when there are hordes of people threatening to throw credit cards at them for it.

(I have been using Linux as my primary desktop for over a decade now)

So, never?

They have "Linux" support: on ChromeOS, Android, Roku, and likely several TVs and other devices. The ChromeOS support in particular is relevant to "regular Linux" support.

They just don't care, they don't have any real pressing reason to care, and frankly I don't think they ever will. The future of general consumer computers is in device/OS combos like Android and ChromeOS. When people flee Windows that is the sort of device they go to.

If Ubuntu Phone or whatever it is called ever takes off, I wager it will only support Netflix as ChromeOS does: works in Ubuntu Phone but not if you are running Ubuntu Phone Edition on "unofficial" hardware.

If people flee Windows they go to a Mac. Most people buying Android/ChromeOS devices are buying them to supplement, not replace, their PCs.

Sure. Either way, those people are not fleeing to standard PC hardware running "traditional" Linux distros. There is not going to be any great push sometime in the future for Netflix to support "traditional" Linux.

> Clearly, DRM is required in order for them to license the shows we want to watch.

This couldn't be further from the truth now more than ever. DRM is required in the sense that their contractual obligations require it, but the technological and social requirement is just not there.

Why should the HTML standard be encumbered by something wholly unrelated? The copyright maximalists (including Netflix) need the web more than the web needs them.

A contractual obligation that requires something is a requirement, regardless of the technical possibilities. DRM has never been required to do anything from a technical standpoint, so far as I'm aware.

Not to say that your other points aren't valid. I'd rather not see anything resembling DRM ever. I just want to point out that a legal obligation such as a contract does make this a valid requirement for Netflix and other digital streaming services.

That's perfectly fine, but their business interests don't give them the broad-sweeping and baseless authority to define the standards that will affect everybody that uses the internet.

Contractual obligation is exactly what I meant.

The interesting irony to me is that the more people who subscribe to Netflix, the less valuable their DRM is to content producers. As Netflix subscribers trend toward infinity, potential pirates of that content trend toward zero.

DRM was never about piracy, it was about controlling who can distribute what.

The law already said who could distribute what in terms of copyrighted works, and anyone violating that law was already a pirate. DRM is a technical means to (try to) enforce rights the law already gives. Your position is self-contradictory.

Um, I think you repeated the statement while trying to refute it. DRM is required for them to license the shows by their contractual obligations.

The social requirement is there in that the market wants the product that has contractual obligations. To meet that demand requires a change in technology.

I need the web to work the same way that Netflix needs it to work so that we may both benefit from it.

That's specious reasoning. They can distribute as many browsers and apps as they want, but they shouldn't be able to influence the entirety of the HTML standard to fit their narrow business requirements.

Entirety of the HTML standard? Who says they are? We're talking about one little part of the standard that has little to do with day-to-day HTML. Are you suggesting that Netflix is attempting to influence the future of the span element?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the suggestion is a unified approach to deal with plugins or extensions, not putting DRM inside HTML itself. If you oppose the idea of a plugin or extension then don't install it and don't use the service that they provide. A service that everyone who uses it voluntarily and willingly agreed to use it under the provider's terms.

and and and the humanitarian requirement is there because the social requirement is that we get the service and that has the contractual requirement! HTML DRM is a humanitarian mission!

> This couldn't be further from the truth now more than ever.

You are thinking about this way to philosophical. Netflix would love to start using HTML5 today, DRM or no DRM, but the studios just wouldn't allow it. So...should they just close up shop because they can't have their way, and we can't have ours?

What's the alternative? How do you get DRM into browsers that don't support plugins or extensions?

If the browser doesn't support plugins or extensions, then this would not work either. This is basically nothing more than a standardized interface for plugins meant explicitly for DRM.

You ask users to opt-into the process. DRM should never be opt-out.

Don't use the Web. Use a native app.

netflix has apps in: google play store, kindla app store, ios app store, windows app store...

Maybe they should just go native on all platforms.

> What upsets me about this particular instance is that they are moving to make DRM a part of what are supposed to be the open standards of the web

They aren't making DRM part of the standard. They are making an interface to interact with DRM part of the web. Actually, its to interact with encrypted media, which is a superset of DRM. I expect there will be people using it for privacy when sharing media with friends and family.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com