Netflix Wants To Go HTML5, But Not Without DRM

FuzzNugget writes "In a recent blog post, Netflix details their plans to transition from Silverlight to HTML5, but with one caveat: HTML5 needs to include a built-in DRM scheme. With the W3C's proposed Encrypted Media Extensions, this may come to fruition. But what would we sacrificing in openness and the web as we know it? How will developers of open source browsers like Firefox respond to this?"

not much better

[ssam]

The only way DRM can work if if you make the decrypted video uncaptureable. So on any system where the root user can read the frame buffer there is no point. HTML5 DRM will only work on systems that have DRM build in to the OS, which is pretty much the same systems that have silverlight.

The only way i can see it ever getting to linux is if the encrypted stream can be passed to rights managed hardware on a GPU. but then if i have a GPU that can effectively play the encrypted stream, why would i ever worry about decrypting it in the first place, i could dump the network stream to disk, and play back through GPU whenever I wanted.

Re:Silverlight greatness

[ssam]

But how do you implement DRM in a web browser in *BSD or Linux in such a way that I can't capture the decrypted video to disk?

Re:Silverlight greatness

[StuartHankins]

I had almost the opposite experience. My iPad, iPhone and Wii stream Netflix fine, but when I wanted to view it on my laptop, they wanted me to install Silverlight (no thanks). I thought it seemed stupid to require that.

Re:Silverlight greatness

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

This means Silverlight will dynamically adjust the video and audio bitrate so that even users on less-than-fast lines can stream Silverlight video content.

I doubt that Silverlight is anything special in that regard. I would be stunned to learn that it used anything other than a standard codec like vc1 and just switches between a couple of different bit-rate streams that were pre-encoded.

This being said, the DRM probably isn't as needed by the Netflix itself but the content providers.

Nope. Netflix lurves DRM. They will force it on viewers even when the producer does not want it. [ninapaley.com] Hell, they won't even let the producer put up a message at the start of the movie to tell viewers they can get a DRM-free copy.

What do they actually want?

[gr8_phk]

They want DRM but since that doesn't actually work they'll be wanting secure boot with a signed software stack all the way down. This would require the exclusion of Firefox and others. Somehow I doubt the Encrypted Media Extension would actually allow the plugin to work in an open source browser. If it does, then all it really does is allow a locked down app to be displayed in the web browser and get stuff fed into it from said browser. Why not just give people your locked down app and forget about the browser? The browser can still be told to open links using external apps, so this would still allow people to link to videos and such.

I really don't see the need for adding EME to HTML5. What are the actual use cases that don't have simple solutions without it?

Re:Silverlight greatness

[SJHillman]

Very true. Of all of the services I subscribe to, including Internet, cell phone, electric, rent, insurance and so on, I feel Netflix is by far the best value and I'm happy to pay each month less than the cost of a movie ticket at a cheap theater in exchange for entertainment that's only limited by my free time and my crappy ISP (which, coincidentally, is one of the worst values I get for my money).

Likewise, I'll donate a few dollars here and there to software that I use even if it's released for free. It's partially because I want to see development continue but mostly because I feel it's a fair exchange.

Netflix is one of the places where DRM makes sense

[ZephyrXero]

I know it's blasphemy to say so, especially on Slashdot, but I have zero problem with Netflix using DRM. Why? It's a rental service. I have not purchased these videos. I do not own them. Therefore I have no expectation of any sort of rights to do what I want with them. So, as while I'm totally against it for things like iTunes or a BluRay. It completely makes sense to me that Netflix needs some sort of mechanism, even if it only keep 99% of people from keeping a local copy.

Re:W3C DRM proposal is OPEN!

[ADRA]

"Now, adding VBScript to HTML does NOT change the web. Should an actor decide to use those VBScript features, you are totally free to NOT use their services."

There is NOTHING that this buys anyone except a single client software download. The thing that this costs is an officially sanctioned DRM scheme by all web parties, which quite frankly have no business in DRM or protected content to begin with. The alternative, have an officially supported plugin that does everything the in-browser function would do anyways, but has the added benefit of BEING OPTIONAL.

If you want locked content, use a plugin designed to decode it. End of story. I mean frankly you'll need an out of browser component to make this work anyways, so why not just BUILD a DRM component yourself, you lazy content industry? Why shove -your- monetary scheme down the throats of everyone who may or may not want to buy into your business models? Hell, the MPAA's gotta be good for something. Get them to pay for it.

Neflix really doesn't understand it's own benefit

[scamper_22]

I wonder if Netflix really understands its own benefit to its customers.

1. Anyone can get any show they want from 'illegal' areas like torrents or various streaming websites.

In short, if I actually wanted to get illegal content, I, like everyone else out there can already do it.

The reason we go with Netflex is because it is very convenient to not have to sit around searching torrents, encoding/decoding video files, dealing with crappy hosting websites, dealing with suspicious malware, hacking around with javascript ...

Netflix is cheap enough to get paid for convenience.
It is the convenience we are paying for with Netflix.

So what exactly is NetFlix trying to prevent us from doing with DRM? I have no idea. If we want to go through all that trouble, we'd be torrenting anyways.

You method of control is pretty simple netflix. Track users and what they are watching. If you see too many people using the same account from different countries or whatever, then you know someone is sharing the account. I'm assuming they can do this in HTML5... or maybe I'm mistaken.

But DRM? You have no need for it NetFlix.

Re:Silverlight greatness

[arielCo]

If you mean BT Live, it's not meant for _files_ as you can find in TPB, but rather for broadcasts. It's also distributed, but a different animal altogether.

http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-s-bram-cohen-patents-revolutionary-live-streaming-protocol-130326/ [torrentfreak.com]

Re:Silverlight greatness

[lgw]

I don't think it can get any easier then modern torrenting. You search for a show on piratebay, hit download, then go to files in the torrent software, pick the episode you want to watch and click "stream".

That's it.

So, with torrents:
* search for a show on piratebay,
* hit download
* go to files in the torrent software,
* pick the episode you want to watch
* click "stream"

With Netflix:
* search for a show on Netflix
* click on picture

This is why Netflix makes money! Unlike so many others, they get it. For most users, it's easier to stream from Netflix than watch local files! If only the studios would get it.