
Cancel Netflix if you value freedom - lelf
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/cancel-netflix-if-you-value-freedom
======
Zikes
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.

~~~
ihsw
> 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.

~~~
talmand
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.

~~~
ihsw
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.

~~~
talmand
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.

------
Karunamon
Another missive by the FSF that's mostly meaningless to people who aren't
willing to make huge sacrifices in their lives to avoid the (cue ominous music
and thunder) 'non-free' bogeyman of the week.

Seriously. My sincerest apologies if this sounds bitter, but this is a
completely non-constructive rant. Again.

The FSF's stances are completely untenable to most people.

Aside: Why would someone who makes a principled stand on free software ever
have signed up with Netflix in the first place?!

~~~
mwcampbell
> Aside: Why would someone who makes a principled stand on free software ever
> have signed up with Netflix in the first place?!

Maybe some people who didn't take a principled stand on software freedom, and
therefore signed up for Netflix, can be convinced to take a stand and cancel.

------
cheald
I said it in a similar thread a few weeks back, and I'll say it here: Netflix
isn't the problem. They're stuck with DRM if they want to exist because the
people they get their content from won't license without it.

Stop consuming all media produced by the studios who have been driving DRM
forward if you value freedom. That means stop going to the movies, stop
watching TV, cancel Netflix, don't patronize Redbox, don't even torrent the
stuff you want to see. Just completely reject it. Go read a nice paperback
book instead. Yes, that means you don't get your entertainment, but you can't
have your cake and eat it, too.

Kvetching that Netflix is the Big Bad Bogeyman here is like blaming your
grocery store for the nutritional content of the food you buy from them.

~~~
ihsw
> but you can't have your cake and eat it

This line of reasoning is short-sighted and narrow-minded. Netflix and the
iTunes Store flourished just fine with the amount of DRM we have now, why do
we need more?

~~~
cheald
Because Silverlight is EOL and Netflix wants to continue to have a functioning
business after Microsoft kills it?

~~~
ihsw
They can continue functioning on their own, without polluting the HTML
standard. There's nothing stopping them from that.

~~~
cheald
It's a fantasy to think that premium video providers are going away. It's also
a fantasy to think that they're going to be able to provide content sans DRM
anytime in the next decade.

You can either have a standardized way of delivering this content that there
is obviously a massive demand for, or you can have everyone that wants to
deliver video implement their own shitty browser plugin that will undoubtedly
be full of security holes and performance issues and require regular patching.
Trading Flash/Silverlight for a proprietary binary plugin per platform sounds
genuinely awful to me. It's been a massive uphill battle with
Flash/Silverlight - expanding that to a plugin per platform would be a
nightmare.

The demand for the product is there. Maybe I'm just more pragmatic than
idealistic, but as someone who enjoys these services, I'd really rather than
they not suck. My primary complaint with DRM in general is the sucky customer
experience, not the DRM itself. For streaming services, the classic issue with
DRM ("you don't really own it") doesn't apply, because you _already_
explicitly don't own what you're streaming. As long as it doesn't get in my
way, I have no issue with it. Proprietary binaries are a lot more likely to
get in my way than a standardized set of HTML5 extensions are.

~~~
ihsw
I never said that I thought they should 'go away' but what I'm saying is that
they should mind their own business rather than trying to control everybody
else's.

~~~
cheald
Whose business besides their own do you exactly think they're trying to
control?

~~~
wmf
DRM systems have a habit of trying to push onerous requirements onto OSes and
hardware.

~~~
cheald
I must have missed Netflix's HTML5 Palladium draft spec.

------
dubcanada
I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. If netflix wants a way to add DRM so
people can watch DRMed videos on the Internet let them.

There is no negative. What is negative is the fact that people seem to think
that netflix should just continue using a closed system made by Microsoft
which doesn't work on Linux natively.

~~~
rosser
Remember, though: this is the FSF talking. There's no such thing as a shade of
gray to them; you're either Free, as _they_ define Free, or you're not.

That's not to say they're always wrong, but you have to remember to evaluate
everything they say through that lens...

~~~
dubcanada
You're right, but people don't even read the spec. No where in that spec does
it say DRM...

This specification does not define a content protection or Digital Rights
Management system. Rather, it defines a common API that may be used to
discover, select and interact with such systems as well as with simpler
content encryption systems. Implementation of Digital Rights Management is not
required for compliance with this specification: only the simple clear key
system is required to be implemented as a common baseline.

[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)

~~~
rpicard
I'd like to read that. Do you have a link to the spec in question?

------
aaronbrethorst
The footnote sums up everything that is eyeroll-inducing for me in this post:

    
    
        We encourage users to do their microblogging
        with Web sites that do not include nonfree
        JavaScript, like identi.ca and other
        instances of pump.io. If you prefer Twitter,
        you can use the mobile version of the Twitter
        site which works with JavaScript turned off,
        even on a desktop computer.

~~~
blhack
Use V8? It's open source, and written in C++, which there are open source
compilers for.

What on earth is their gripe with Javascript?

~~~
DasIch
This is not about the implementation but about Javascript code that is
compiled into what is effectively "binary" form from the perspective of free
software[1].

[1]: [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-
trap.html](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html)

------
whitehat2k9
Basically what Netflix wants to do is standardize the use of DRM technology in
HTML and web applications. Currently, most "premium" content from Netflix,
etc. is delivered via proprietary plugins such as Flash or Silverlight. What
the new "DRM" extensions to HTML5 do is standardize the interface between your
web browser/video player and DRM modules.

The DRM module itself would probably still be a closed-source, black-box piece
of software, but the playing of the video would be handled by the browser
natively w/o the need for plugins like Flash or Silverlight (since after
decryption you end up with a standard H264/WebM stream in a <video> tag.) Now,
sure, you can argue until you're blue in the face that DRM is bad, but the
good thing is that you're separating the DRM from the presentation/rendering
layer. This is, without a doubt, a step forward.

In theory this would make things even easier for pirates wanting to capture
content since now there's a standardized way for the browser to interface with
the DRM layer, decrypt the content, and play it.

The FSF's argument here is null and void because Netflix never was a free
service to begin with. They never claimed to offer Linux/free software
compatibility, and as a private company they have no obligation to.

~~~
mwcampbell
The idea of separation between DRM and the rendering layer is illogical. The
dream of all DRM proponents is a leak-proof pipe between the encumbered media
and your senses, lest you be able to rip a perfect copy.

For a concrete example, look at how deep the content protection system
introduced in Windows Vista goes.

[http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html](http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html)

The proposed Encrypted Media Extensions standard is merely an interface
between browsers and systems such as this.

------
Steko
After you cancel netflix you might spend some of your newly free time reading
the public domain versions of chicken little and the boy who cried wolf and
pondering what their relevance might be to modern audiences.

------
scrumper
Freedom for me means a happy wife and an extra $110 in my bank account every
month from not having a cable bill.

I do think that fighting the inclusion of DRM in future HTML standards is
worthwhile, but this isn't going to get me to pick up a sword.

~~~
EdSharkey
I could have written this word-for-word.

I am curious if asm.js is quick enough to produce code that could decode
encrypted full-screen HD video on browsers whose vendors won't support the
media extensions.

Pardon me for ignorance on this subject, but is there something about DRM that
requires a plugin or component built into the browser itself? Could our answer
to Netflix be, "Write the codec yourself using asm.js"?

~~~
EdSharkey
@taopao, And for a component to be "trusted" it has to be code that was loaded
with the operating system, or in this case, the operating environment (the
browser)?

It seems to me that quashing tampering or observing of the trusted component
is the lynchpin. In JavaScript, there is no way to access unexposed internals
of an IIFE, that seems to me to get us half way there.

I wonder if there could be some way to add a "use trusted" pragma to an IIFE
such that the browser would not allow debugging or watching the network
traffic of that code? There'd have to be some new way to compare a checksum of
the trusted code as well. I suppose that that could suffice in a video
watermarking scenario, but Netflix could never watermark each and every video
transmitted. I think they partner with some ISP's to cache content near to the
users as well, so they're not even responsible for broadcasting the last mile
of the video.

~~~
whitehat2k9
But it's only a matter of time before someone hacks their browser to ignore
those directives.

~~~
EdSharkey
This is true, but for the vast majority of consumers would supporting a
trusted block of javascript be good enough? All the movie industry wants is to
make sure that Joe Sixpack cant get a digital copy of the data stream.

I know I am sortof commandeering the word "trusted" for something much weaker
than what I think industry wants it to be here, I realize that. Maybe using
such a term in a weak solution would satisfy the pointy haired bosses of the
world. >:)

Seems to me if some rogue binary goes in and tampers with my Firefox or Chrome
binary in order to circumvent browser security, then the browsers would know
it and fail with an error. Obviously, any browser that builds from source can
be directly modified by a developer.

------
jlgaddis
Done.

[http://i.imgur.com/TEmlmpw.png](http://i.imgur.com/TEmlmpw.png)

~~~
jiggy2011
Good call, they will probably now offer you a free month to entice you back!

~~~
yaddayadda
Yep, with multiple emails when you don't take them up on it. There will be
about one a week for a month, then they drop down to about one a month.

------
stonemetal
I am not sure I understand their argument. With netflix you are a renter. It
is their property why shouldn't they protect it. If they were selling you
something then sure it should be freely yours with no DRM. As far as these
internet ideals that are violated, well I know copyright infringement drove
internet growth for quite a while but I am not sure I would call that an
ideal. How about we let consenting adults (legally) exchange information how
they like and call that an ideal.

~~~
ihsw
Nobody is arguing they shouldn't be able to protect their business, but the
proposed changes to the HTML standard would affect _every other business_.
Their authority to demand technological requirements of other's ends at their
own property, and Netflix should have absolutely no ability to impose their
business requirements on everybody else.

~~~
jiggy2011
How would this impose their business requirements on anybody else? If you
don't use netflix you don't have to install their EME module.

~~~
ihsw
With this line of reasoning, why have standards at all? Why not jam every
possible idea into HTML because "you don't have to use it"?

My point is that the standards shouldn't be co-opted to fit every want and
need that a transient entity has.

------
teddyknox
Cancel Netflix if you'd rather use Silverlight than HTML5 video.

~~~
this_user
This.

Netflix would like to add DRM to HTML 5 so they can migrate away from
Silverlight. Right now there is no way (without Wine) to use Netflix under
Linux. So in practice the FSF is campaigning against a more open web in which
the #1 FOSS OS can run Netflix out of ideological reasons.

~~~
codygman
There are no plans for implementing on linux if DRM is added to HTML5 either
(and it likely won't). As a linux user for 8 years I would love Netflix on
linux but I don't believe it's going to happen.

------
mathattack
This could also be worded, "Cancel Netflix if you value free software." By
definition, Netflix users are paying for software (ok, a service) so it seems
hard to get them rallied up for this cause. (This isn't a comment either way
on the cause)

~~~
neeee
There is a difference between gratis and libre software.

------
chrisblackwell
Going after Netflix is like going after a drug addict hooked on cocaine. Never
mind that the addict is buying from someone far more evil on society. The
addict is simply an easy target.

Likewise, Netflix doesn't really care about DRM, and as long as you are paying
them monthly, they really don't care what format the content is in. It's the
movie and television studios that don't want their content online without DRM.

Netflix is only able to do that deals with these studios if Netflix promises
their content will be covered in DRM. No DRM, not content says the big bad
studio. So now that Microsoft is sunsetting Silverlight, what are they to do?

------
slig
I don't get why Netflix can't just build a native app for each platform. For
instance, they do have one for the iOS, shouldn't be too hard to port the core
to OS X.

~~~
jlgreco
They certainly could. Hell, they could write their very own NPAPI/PPAPI
plugins. They don't want to do either because both of those options require
more legwork than just using something that somebody else is responsible for.

------
short_circut
I have commented on these issues before and I feel like this one is being
blown way out of proportion. We all understand why DRM is there. It is there
so you can't rip the stream and save it and redistribute it.

But here is the thing that irks me about this. On the server end of things
Netflix has been a rather amazing contributor to open source softwares. This
boycott seems rather like shooting your self your own foot to stop an
intruder.

~~~
3amOpsGuy
I don't get the extra emphasis on Netflix here either.

Netflix are part of the content industry, it's not that they're the best of a
bad bunch, they're actively more open than some artists.

------
jallmann
If DRM wasn't implemented in the form of an opaque binary blob, would the FSF
still object to it? There is no freedom-destroying threat from media itself,
only in how it's packaged and distributed. The problem is fundamentally one of
license enforcement, although TBH I'm unsure how it can be done a way that
renders everything moot and/or objectionable.

~~~
jlgreco
If DRM wasn't implemented in the form of an opaque binary blob but was instead
implemented by the browser itself (which is _not_ what EME would have happen),
then I would build a copy of Firefox that would pretend to the server that it
does DRM but would instead dump netflix streams to the disk.

Well, I wouldn't, but somebody would.

------
kanamekun
Quora has a good writeup on a few reasons why Netflix has been using
Silverlight:

1\. Cheap licensing terms for DRM: [http://www.quora.com/When-does-Netflix-
use-WideVine-DRM-inst...](http://www.quora.com/When-does-Netflix-use-WideVine-
DRM-instead-of-Microsoft-PlayReady-DRM)

2\. Strong support for CDNs, enabling lower-cost streaming:
[http://www.quora.com/Why-does-Netflix-use-
Silverlight](http://www.quora.com/Why-does-Netflix-use-Silverlight)

------
portmanteaufu
As a personal matter, I've always found Netflix's use of DRM to be
superfluous. Half of the reason I use Netflix is so I don't have to manage my
own video collection. I don't even want to manage a collection of .avi's and
wmv's. (What file format are people actually using for stored video these
days?) Trying to save my own copies of their content would be self-defeating
(except maybe to view something once on an airplane?)

~~~
chc
All DRM is superfluous. If I wanted to pirate The Avengers, Netflix's DRM
would not be a major stumbling block because I could just go to The Pirate Bay
and get a copy there. The DRM is to satisfy the content providers. I don't
think Netflix really cares, except in that satisfying the content providers is
crucial to their business model.

------
undershirt
How are the encryption proposals "closing" the standards?

Also, I'm seeing a clash of connotation between encryption for DRM and
encryption for PRIVACY. Is encryption only good when it is protecting the
freedom of the user, not the producer?

~~~
mwcampbell
> Is encryption only good when it is protecting the freedom of the user, not
> the producer?

Actually, yes. Your computer should only do what _you_ want it to.

------
fburnaby
Pardon me for being so naive, but why does Netflix have no competition in
their market? There's no alternative to switch to, and once I've taken a step
back and thought about it, this surprises me.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Pardon me for being so naive, but why does Netflix have no competition in
> their market?

Are you talking about the mail-DVD-rentals-to-your-house market or the stream-
video-over-the-internet market. Because they've got plenty of fairly direct
competition in the latter and currently more significant market (Amazon, Hulu,
and Redbox streaming services, among others) as well as plenty of close
substitutes (e.g., cable/satellite TV services which include "On Demand"
series and movies) , and, if not a lot of direct competiton in the former
market, at a minimum a close substitutes in the form of pervasive rental
outlets (particularly Redbox).

------
snowwrestler
Of course the FSF is taking this position, and I'm glad that they are.

Is it an impractical position? Totally, of course. DRM is not optional to
video content suppliers, so no matter what replaces Silverlight, it will come
with DRM.

Without a W3C standard we might get several totally different, incompatible
DRM implementations instead of one standard one. To folks who like standards,
that will feel like a missed opportunity; but it doesn't seem any worse than
what we have now.

~~~
azakai
> Without a W3C standard we might get several totally different, incompatible
> DRM implementations instead of one standard one.

The EME spec does _NOT_ define a single standard DRM implementation.

The point of EME is to provide a single interface to a DRM module. The DRM
modules will be entirely nonstandard, closed-source, and there will be many of
them.

Google has its own DRM module, Microsoft has its own. So there are already
two, entirely incompatible DRM implementations. And none of them work on other
browsers. Even if other browsers implemented EME, the actual DRM
implementations would not work on them.

So this is a step backwards, not forwards. It increases fragmentation.

~~~
jiggy2011
Isn't DRM highly fragmented as it is?

~~~
wmf
Yes, but many people are pitching EME as a solution to that fragmentation. It
isn't.

------
tildeslashblog
No thanks, I'll just exercise my freedom to keep using their service.

FSF's cries are nothing more than a demand to reduce the freedom of others for
their own personal gain. That's not freedom.

------
LastZactionHero
"... if you value freedom?" An over-the-top threat like that makes me want to
keep Netflix for spite. Terrible headline.

------
mmanfrin
I would prefer a DRM-enabled HTML than a proprietary embedded video player.

~~~
ihsw
Your preference is your own, but should you be able to impose it on
_everybody_? Personally I respect your preferences but I cannot in good
conscience support the unilateral imposition of your preferences on everybody
else.

~~~
chc
Can you in good conscience support the unilateral imposition of _your_
preferences on everybody else?

~~~
ihsw
Of course not, that is why we need to work together on this issue. High-
powered lobbyists have always been at the reins of the W3C but it wasn't until
now that the DRM maximalists started paying their salaries.

------
jiggy2011
If you value freedom , why did you sign up for netflix in the first place?

~~~
rocky1138
Only game in town, in Canada.

------
recursive
Not as much as I value convenient streaming movies.

~~~
mwcampbell
Do you seriously value convenient on-demand entertainment more than the abuse
of technology by the powerful to hold onto their power?

~~~
talmand
As long as the abuse of technology you speak of is them holding onto their
power of making money off the convenient on-demand entertainment that they
produce and provide, no I don't have a problem with that. Especially when that
power does not include the ability to force the consumer to pay for said
product whether they want it or not.

Wait, what exactly is the abuse of technology we're talking about here?

~~~
mwcampbell
A serious attempt to implement strong DRM will inevitably go way too deep into
the hardware and software stacks.

[http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html](http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html)

Sony once tried to implement DRM using a rootkit, remember?

Also, the movie industry pushed SOPA and PIPA.

~~~
talmand
The link you provide is not evidence of abuse, but of incompetency.

Sony's rootkit shenanigans were already illegal under numerous laws in
numerous jurisdictions, also an example of incompetency.

SOPA and PIPA are examples of abuse on a political level and has little to do
with what I'm asking.

What abuse of technology provides what power and control over us when we are
discussing DRM in the HTML stack? Even if they did get some type of DRM into
the HTML stack (which isn't even happening, we're talking extensions here),
you as a consumer still have more power and control by refusing to play their
game in the first place.

Again, what abuse of technology are we talking about here?

~~~
mwcampbell
OK, I didn't explain in that comment why DRM inevitably goes so deep into the
technology stack. See my explanation here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6035701](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6035701)

Also, DRM gives companies like Netflix, and the developers of the proprietary
platforms that Netflix builds on, the power to be gatekeepers.

~~~
talmand
Yes, it allows them to be gatekeepers. So what? What exactly is forcing you to
pay money to go through that gate?

------
dgreensp
This is a great example of the FSF trying to blur together various notions of
"free" while pretending that software and the web are in their own gleaming
tower embodying those principles.

Netflix and other similar services stream DRMed video to the browser, and they
will continue doing so. Right now they use Silverlight, a proprietary
Microsoft plugin whose future is unclear. Traditionally, sites have used Flash
for any sort of video playing. Netflix would prefer to stream, play, and
control the video using web standards, but as a distributor for Big Media,
they need a DRM story. They'd like the story to be that the browser provides a
facility for them to decrypt the content on the client.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of DRM, and the whole situation doesn't make
sense so I don't believe it will last. Since all DRMed media comes with the
decryption key, it's really only laws that make the encryption relevant,
coupled with enough technical difficulty that a layperson would have to
acquire some (illegal) software to perform the decryption. It sucks that
ubiquitous hardware and software media formats come encumbered with
restrictions (like "you can only play this DVD in the US" or "you can't skip
this trailer") and are subject to patents; that you can't play a movie you
bought on a physical disk for $12.99 on whatever computer or device you want
in your own house.

However, given the fact that legally, certain types of software are restricted
in how they can be used, why not put that software in as small a box as
possible? Just because Stallman doesn't want proprietary software on his
computer doesn't mean you should have to run a separate runtime from your
browser to use it. Let's make DRM a box with a key and a decryption algorithm
and a sign that says, "Do not run!" Let's have royalty-free, open-source,
standardized DRM, peer-reviewed by the hacker community to ensure that it's
unbreakable without the key that you also have, and that there's no button
visible to casual users that circumvents the restrictions. Treating DRM the
way we treat other software actually weakens the concept by exposing the
absurdity.

Let's make it so easy to stream protected content that there's nothing to pay
Netflix for, except maybe original content, instead of ending up in a world
where we pay $60 a month to Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, and a dozen other services.

 _The HTML standard is set by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which this
block of corporations has been heavily lobbying as of late. The proposed
adoption of EME is disturbing for what it says about the way decisions are
made relative to the Web, but what does it mean for you as a free software
user?_

Surprise, corporations are involved in web standards. Engineers at Google,
Microsoft, Apple, Mozilla, and other companies wrote or reviewed many (most?)
of the web standards in place today.

 _DRM and free software don 't mix... We'll see an explosion of DRM on the Web
-- a growing dark zone inaccessible to free software users._

I don't know if we'll see an "explosion of DRM on the Web" (it seems doubtful,
unless it is because putting video on the Web is now more attractive to
content-owners), but the decision to define "free software" as not doing any
sort of DRM (the whole "doesn't mix" thing) is actually a very controversial
part of the GPLv3 license. If a "free software user" is someone whose
insistence on "the freedom to study how a program works and change it"
threatens to cut them off from parts of the Internet, I wonder how many of
these people there really are.

 _Microsoft has already modified Internet Explorer to start supporting EME for
media streaming. Simultaneously, Netflix has begun publicly promoting Internet
Explorer, revealing a two-pronged strategy of pushing proprietary browsers
while attacking Web standards in the W3C._

Netflix doesn't have a "strategy" for attacking free software. It's not a
"two-pronged" assault just because you feel affronted on two counts. Netflix
presumably has their own motives, like simplifying their software, improving
the experience for users, and supporting more devices. They want to work on
Linux. They want to pay lip service to the idea of DRM while minimizing the
impact on their service.

Boycotting Netflix and impeding a web standard don't seem like great tactics
for fighting DRM to me.

------
jellicle
I keep seeing in the comments the assertion that Netflix "cannot" offer DRM-
free video, because something-something.

This is exactly what people said about music, until Apple decided to do it,
and did.

~~~
chc
This is not actually what happened. What happened was, some music publishers
decided they were willing to try offering non-DRM'd music for a higher price,
and _then_ Apple did it. Apple did not force a change here. (And even if they
had, Netflix is not in Apple's privileged position. The movie studios care a
lot less about Netflix than the music guys do about iTunes.)

------
chrischen
Hey can't I do both?

------
loginalready
I'm surprised that on HN people cannot distinguish between Netflix business
need to use DRM in their content delivery system (which is undesirable but
defensible), and Netflix nefarious scheming to break the open web in order to
make that an easier delivery system for DRM-ed content.

It's like defending a company that wants to dump toxic waste into our drinking
water with the argument "well, they have to leave it somewhere".

Screw that. They want to use DRM, fine. But not at the expense of a free and
open web.

This isn't about DRM. This isn't about copyright. This isn't even about greed.
This is about power and control.

~~~
chc
> _I 'm surprised that on HN people cannot distinguish between Netflix
> business need to use DRM in their content delivery system (which is
> undesirable but defensible), and Netflix nefarious scheming to break the
> open web in order to make that an easier delivery system for DRM-ed
> content._

I'm not aware of any portion of Netflix's proposals that would "break the open
web." If the open web isn't broken by what Netflix and thousands of other
companies are doing right now, how will "Netflix nefarious scheming" break it?

