
#CancelNetflix: It's time to fight DRM with your wallet - edwintorok
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/cancelnetflix
======
short_circut
I don't really understand the problem here. IMO Netflix is doing the fairest
thing it can with DRM. It isn't selling us rights to own these videos/movies.
It is granting us the right to stream the content, and doing so at a rather
fair rate. Unlike the movie industry it isn't screwing us over with high rates
and questionable rights limitations to things we own. I don't like the idea of
yet another plugin either. But as far as I am concerned Netflix is one of the
least guilty companies when it comes to using DRM to violate our rights. IMO
they are doing it right and fair.

------
jasonkester
So if I understand this correctly, Netflix's crime is that they give us
instant, unlimited access to _all the movies ever_ for _ten dollars a month_ ,
but in a way that means I might need to install software on my computer?

Bastards.

~~~
mtgx
Their problem with it here is not that Netflix does that, but that they're
influencing W3C to bring such DRM mechanism to the web.

~~~
judofyr
There's nothing forcing W3C to follow Netflix' ideas?

Shouldn't we take this up with W3C instead?

------
cheald
Netflix isn't the problem here, the studios are. They're the ones demanding
DRM and holding Netflix et al hostage unless they get it.

If you don't want DRM, then don't consume content distributed with DRM in any
format, rather than just targeting a specific format. The boogeyman here is
the studio licensing content to Netflix with DRM requirements and distributing
DVDs with DRM. Stop consuming their content.

The distribution channel isn't the bad guy here. Making them out to be just
obfuscates the issue.

~~~
anigbrowl
It seems like people want to keep watching movies and TV shows, though, to the
point of being willing to pay for it.

~~~
cheald
Yup. People want content more than they don't want DRM. This is why if you
want to actually vote against DRM, stop consuming content that is DRM'd. This
means movies, TV, video games, e-books, and the like.

Most people don't _actually_ care enough to do that.

------
nicholassmith
I'm not cancelling my subscription. At all.

DRM on a product that I've just _bought_ (video or song download) is bad,
because it adds restrictions on how I can use something that I've exchanged
money for. DRM on a product that is not mine and is merely being 'loaned' to
me by a streaming service? That's fine, I'm down with that. It's unfortunately
the only way studios are ever going to want to play ball, I'd prefer the
righteous anger to be around ensuring paid for video downloads are all DRM
free first.

------
netmute
I'm from Germany, we don't have Netflix here. We'll probably never going to
have it. When I want to (legally) watch a movie, I have to rent the DVD for 4
EUR at my local video store. We have a local "alternative" called Lovefilm,
where you can watch some movies from 5 years ago, but only the bad German
synchronised version. In Germany, Netflix is like some utopian fairyland.

So... you can watch all the movies/shows you want for a laughably low monthly
price. And now you don't even need that crappy Silverlight plugin anymore.

I really don't see the problem here.

------
jiggy2011
Not this hyperbole again..

Browser interfaces for integration with third party security mechanisms is
actually a good thing. There are advantages to having custom client side
encryption/decryptions schemes that don't have to live within the scary
execution environment that is the browser but can be used to augment web page
content.

This does nothing to force web users into accepting DRM. If you don't want
DRM, don't use services from organisations which enforce it and don't install
any of their stuff. Your browser will still work.

Hollywood wants people it's products to be used via DRM schemes. This will
happen whether it is via a web page, a standalone application or dedicated set
top box.

~~~
pyalot2
And if you want to use netflix, just use something else than Linux and/or
Firefox. It's perfectly fine that competing OS vendors (like Apple and
Microsoft) make linux less attractive by way of a standard. It's also
perfectly fine that competing browser vendors (like Apple, Microsoft and
Google) make firefox less attractive by standard. In principle it's always
perfectly fine if monopoly holders band together to exclude the competition.
We're all down with that. Ohyeah, IE6 was so good, why do we need anything
else?

~~~
jiggy2011
Netflix have never been especially interested in selling to Linux users.
Whether or you have this specification is immaterial.

If they can't have this, the alternative from their point of view is not
stripping the DRM. The solution is standalone player applications or something
else.

~~~
pyalot2
And now netflix is also not interested to be streaming to FirefoxOS, Firefox
browsers, Opera, Ouya, and upcoming new device from Kickstarter, and so forth.

~~~
jiggy2011
It's always been an issue that they are not interested in minority platforms,
nothing here changes that.

Why do you think they will no longer support firefox browsers? I can't find
any source for this.

~~~
K0nserv
As I understand it Mozilla is very reluctant to implementing any DRM into
HTML5 videos and thus Netflix cannot support them.

EDIT: They can't implement it because it would conflict with their license,
thanks pyalot2 for the correction.

~~~
pyalot2
Mozilla isn't reluctant. They can't implement the DRM because the license to
redistribute the proprietary DRM plugin is such that they couldn't offer their
browser under the license they've been offering it.

~~~
jiggy2011
Mozilla doesn't have to license anything. All mozilla has to do is implement
the relevant part of the standard. The DRM software itself is provided by a
third party, the browser simply provides a mechanism for communication.

[https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-
med...](https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-
media/encrypted-media.html)

------
nikatwork
Didn't we do this dance with MP3s already?

1\. Music industry won't let legit digital music sales occur without DRM

2\. Apple bakes in DRM to iTunes, geeks everywhere decry Apple as satanic and
call for boycott

3\. Music industry realises digital formats will not be the apocalypse, slowly
MP3s filter through the market

4\. Apple drops DRM from iTunes [1]

Seriously peeps, let's just chillax and allow the process to unfold. The
dinosaurs will come to their senses eventually.

[1] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jan/06/apple-
drops...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jan/06/apple-drops..).

------
quackerhacker
Just to lay out some facts...Google is also a supporter of DRM integration in
HTML5 video[0]. Given the direction of YouTube with paid channels for
_premium_ content, cord cutting becoming a realty, and app enabled tv's and
devices, my guess is that it's really the content publishers (hollywood) who
is pushing for DRM.

My accounts cancel every month ;)

[0] [http://www.geek.com/microsoft/google-netflix-and-
microsoft-p...](http://www.geek.com/microsoft/google-netflix-and-microsoft-
propose-drm-for-html5-1537974/)

------
jezfromfuture
As if they didnt use drm before , idiot ppl need to protest the right
things...

------
forthewyn
I really wish people would come down out of their ivory tower and live in the
actual world once in a while.

Expecting major motion picture studios to distribute their family jewels in a
DRM free format is simply ludicrous. Everyone should support the inclusion of
DRM in HTML5 because at least we can all have a standards supported way to
view content.

Would you rather a world where they chose a proprietary codec that only worked
on Microsoft Windows?

------
lucid00
I think this campaign is aimed at the wrong company.

~~~
mtgx
Microsoft? Maybe. But Netflix seems to have been working with both Microsoft
and Google, and I think Apple, too, to make this work. So maybe they aren't
just an idle player, and they may have been the ones trying to get the other
major companies to do this for them (and others).

~~~
stock_toaster
My guess is they (Netflix) are contractually bound by the studios to use DRM.

~~~
edparry
Agreed. Surely Netflix doesn't care ultimately, but studios are only going to
sign contracts with them if they have things in place to guarantee it's all
secure, i.e. DRM. There's surely no way that Netflix would fight for this, and
then LOVEFiLM wouldn't use it as well?

------
tomguthrie
Couple of commenters have mentioned "proprietary plugins" in regard to HTML5
DRM video, but isn't that wrong? I thought the point was that it gives vendors
access to everything they need via javascript API's included with the browser
(Removing the need for silverlight or flash to get access to encrypted streams
and so on)?

------
buddylw
I wanted to Cancel Netflix for using SilverLight, but I was too busy canceling
Time Warner and AT&T for being evil overpriced monopolies.

Now that Netflix has gone to HTML5 things are better. I'm renting the content
so I don't really care if they want DRM or not. To me, it's only unacceptable
when buying video.

------
tzakrajs
We use Silverlight right now. HTML5 will be so much better. DRM isn't going
away.

------
brownbat
Slightly less annoying than HBO Go, which complains in the latest version of
Chrome that the sandbox is too restrictive.

The sandbox was put there for a reason HBO, stop trying to do whatever it is
you're trying to do!

------
orng
I have no problem with DRM on Netflix because I pay to stream the content and
I think of it like leasing or renting. I don't pay to own digital copies of
the movies I watch so I don't expect to own them.

------
calgoo
If this is passed, can't we just grab the firefox source and delete the drm
crap and fork the HTML5 specs? To hell with the W3C, we just fork and route
around the problem?

~~~
jiggy2011
You don't even need to do that. Simply don't install DRM systems on your
computer. The HTML5 specs do not mandate installation of any DRM whatsoever.

------
lucian1900
I really don't understand why whoever owns the content would want DRM on
Netflix, since you must be logged in (and obviously have paid) to watch
anything.

~~~
shuzchen
The DRM is meant to prevent you from (easily) capturing the stream in order to
make copies and give to all your friends who haven't paid and aren't logged
in.

~~~
lucian1900
But I can already easily capture the stream.

It seems to me that the proponents of DRM are either stupid or have motives
that do not have anything to do with stopping consumers from doing things.

------
Noppix
I don't mind as long as they don't go down the no-jailbreak route like Sky-Go,
still miss that shit on my iPad.

------
pyalot2
The defendants:

* Netflix

* BBC

* Microsoft

* Google

* MPAA

* W3C

The offenses:

* Multiple monopoly holders collude to lock out the competition

* Discriminating against minority browser/OS platforms (such as firefox, linux, ouya etc.)

* Further fragmentation of video playback capability in an already fragmented video playback landscape

* Discriminating against small media startups

The propaganda:

* "no use of proprietary plugins" BS -> HTML DRM is based on proprietary plugins

* "more security" BS -> you still get a proprietary blob with a number of unknown security holes

* "more interoperability" BS -> HTML DRM makes videos work on less (and more selective devices) that happen to have the proprietary runtime implemented

* "more privacy" BS -> the proprietary DRM plugin is much less controllable by the user than Flash and Silverlight

~~~
valleyer
> "more privacy" BS -> the proprietary DRM plugin is much less controllable by
> the user than Flash and Silverlight

Please explain.

~~~
pyalot2
flash and silverlight have gone trough an evolution where they are obligated
to respect a users privacy and not to allow doing arbitrary things (like
installing a rootkit on a machine) because of that.

The DRM plugins being more or less directly supplied by the MPAA have no
restriction or expectation whatsoever. Users can't execute arbitrary code on
them (maybe) but the providers of the plugin can very well install rootkits on
your machine, and they're not obligated to give a user any control over the
privacy and inner working of the plugin.

------
drivebyacct2
Am I a traitor for accepting Netflix (and their DRM) the same way I accept
Steam (and their DRM)?

Of course, I don't "accept" Netflix because they don't "accept" me as a Linux
user, so I'm not really dying to go to bat for them.

~~~
shuzchen
I accept Netflix and Steam over cable/movie theaters/gamestop the same way I
accept nuclear power (over burning fossil fuels). They are really the only
solutions that have any non-zero chance of succeeding in our present day
economic/political environment.

Sure, they have their downsides and there are way better solutions that one
can envision, and they are light years better than the things they are meant
to replace and our world isn't ready yet for the better alternatives.

~~~
pyalot2
And thanks to HTML DRM Netflix will now remain the only provider with a non-
zero chance of succeeding. Great Job all around, pat on the back to the
monopoly holders. Well done.

~~~
pfg
Sorry, did I miss something? Is Netflix the only provider allowed to use HTML
DRM?

DRM isn't the reason why Netflix has such a big market share (I have no idea
how one could even make that connection).

~~~
drivebyacct2
I don't think most people have any idea how the DRM extensions for HTML5 work,
frankly.

