Netflix Ditches Silverlight With HTML5 Support In IE11 337
An anonymous reader writes "Netflix today announced that it has finally taken the first step towards ditching Silverlight for HTML5, largely thanks to Microsoft, no less. The company has been working closely with the Internet Explorer team to implement its proposed 'Premium Video Extensions' in IE11 on Windows 8.1, meaning if you install the operating system preview released today, you can watch Netflix content using HTML5 right now. Back in April, Netflix revealed its plans to use HTML5 video in any browser that implements its proposed 'Premium Video Extensions.' These extensions allow playback of premium video (read: with DRM protection) directly in the browser without the need to install plugins such as Silverlight or Flash."
Still need to install something (Score:5, Insightful)
I like how it touts the fact that you don't need to install flash or silverlight but you still need to install Netflix's DRM stuff to decode the data. And if your operating system or machine isn't supported by Netflix, then you can't view the data. I don't see how this is any better than flash or silverlight. With those, you just need to install either flash or silverlight but now you need to install a DRM from each provider.
Re:Still need to install something (Score:5, Interesting)
I like how it touts the fact that you don't need to install flash or silverlight but you still need to install Netflix's DRM stuff to decode the data. And if your operating system or machine isn't supported by Netflix, then you can't view the data. I don't see how this is any better than flash or silverlight. With those, you just need to install either flash or silverlight but now you need to install a DRM from each provider.
The joke is that they did their content licensing deals based on MS drm( so that it is stipulated that on desktop it has to have their magic sauce because it's soooo unrippable) because of MS influence, the meat of the joke is that MS discontinued silverlight.
that's why you have netflix clients on phones and what have you but the only desktop platform is with silverlight!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think some HR departments are still looking for silverlight senior developers...
Re: Still need to install something (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is companies are having difficulties figuring out how to exploit those technologies. If they can't figure out how to bleed money from people with it then it has no value for them.
Re:Still need to install something (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not quite as bad as you're suggesting. You don't need to install a different DRM plugin for each content provider. You just need different plugins for different forms of DRM. At least in practice, I suspect, most users (i.e., those running common browsers and operating systems) won't have to install anything- the DRM plugins will ship with the browser. That's the case now with the Chromebooks and Windows 8.1/IE11.
Re:Still need to install something (Score:5, Insightful)
Please tell me how Firefox will ship a patent laden and proprietary DRM plugins?
For that matter, also Chromium (open source Chrome)?
Re:Still need to install something (Score:5, Informative)
They won't they will require you to download it just like most other plugins you get for FF. That's how it should be at least. I'm not sure what chrome will do. I would hope they would have it as a download, while I would probably install it at home I wouldn't want extra stuff shoved in from a fresh install.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd rather they just use Flash. It's not going anywhere on the desktop. And while I don't have it actually installed as a system-wide plug-in, whenever I wanted to watch Netflix on my computer I would do what I do now with other Flash-only content: fire up Chrome with its self-contained Flash plugin.
But no, Netflix had to use Silverlight, which I refuse to install, and now they're going to an even more limited IE11-only extension.
Re:Still need to install something (Score:4, Informative)
HELL NO!
Protecting content is job #1
you enjoying the is job #2
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah but they never were, they were using silverlight which was/is considerably better. I think the only reason netflix is dumping it, is because microsoft have basically gave it an EOL. I just hope the new one works on *nix.
Re:Still need to install something (Score:4, Interesting)
Take your own head out of the sand and face it, DRM is a broken concept. It's not only that DRM is unworkable, DRM is contrary to the social good. You think only of the mythical starving artist who deserves a chance to make a living, and skate right past the point that copyright is not the only way or even the best way to profit from artistic endeavor. And you don't think about the millions who are robbed, by this implicit tax, because adding DRM to everything is very costly, and most of all by breaking our implicit social contract to love thy neighbor. Sharing valuable information is more than a courtesy, it's the core of our lives. We are social animals. Artists' bosses will have to accept this eventually.
As an example, do you think it might be a good idea to apply DRM to knives? If a knife refused to function when held by anyone but the owner, you might think criminals could not take your knife and stab you with it, and so it would be safer. They couldn't steal your knife and use it themselves or sell it to a 3rd party. If you were ever convicted of a crime, or diagnosed as mentally troubled, the manufacturer could disable all your knives. Maybe just a speeding or parking ticket would count. This ability could be used to coerce you on other matters, such as being late on paying the rent or utility bills or those parking tickets. Disable your knives until you pay. This could be implemented by making the knife retractable, like a typical utility knife, and adding finger and palm print sensors to the handle. Would need batteries in the handle. The DRM knife would be far bulkier, clumsier, more expensive, and less useful than a knife without DRM. We would also have to outlaw non-DRM knives. Would be quite a task to make sure no one ever makes knives, out of stone, as our ancestors did in the Stone Age, or out of sheet metal or broken glass or who knows what.
Now you may think that's all a strawman. It is not. Trying to apply DRM to knives is just silly. Might not be silly to apply DRM to guns, but knives are just too simple. As silly as it is to apply DRM to knives, it's even sillier to try it on information. Being a physical item, a knife takes some effort to duplicate. Might be easier to make your own design than bother trying to copy another. By comparison, the effort required to share information is trivial.
Re:Still need to install something (Score:4, Informative)
No, it couldn't become standard. You know why? Because the entire point of this is to allow access to proprietary, vendor-specific DRM modules, and those DRM modules are intentionally not compatible with each other. (In fact they pretty much have to be in order to be effective as DRM.) As of this announcement, Netflix supports two mutually incompatible, single-platform DRM stacks for HTML5: Microsoft's PlayReady on IE11 and Windows 8.1, and Google's Widevine on non-rooted Chromebooks manufactured by Google partners. If you're not using one of those two stacks, it's both illegal and impossible to use the HTML5 version of Netflix. Firefox user? Forget it. Chrome user on the desktop? No way!
Suppose for instance that Apple decided to support this part of HTML5. You still wouldn't be able to watch Netflix on Apple platforms, even though they supported HTML5 EME, because they have their own DRM scheme which Netflix and Apple would have to negotiate a license for.
Re:Still need to install something (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously the problem is trying to do this in a web browser. Why should we play video in a web browser?
Why not just do it like we do on Android an iOS? Make it an app. Just download the Netflix app from the Windows/Mac app store and run it to organize your queues and what movies and such you want to watch. Videos play in the app.
No need to hassle with plugins, web browsers and all that. It's already an app everywhere else you go (including set top boxes and Blu-ray players, etc).
One app for Windows, one for OSX, another one for Chrome OS. No more battling between IE, Chrome, Firefox, etc.
Not really HTML5 (Score:5, Insightful)
If I still have to have an approved OS and browser and install a DRM plugin, it's not really just HTML5.
Oh wow, we swapped one plugin for another.
Re:Not really HTML5 (Score:5, Insightful)
In my minds of the corporate overlords these days, what's good for the goose is good for the goose and the gander can take it or leave it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's still not worth it. I live in America, got Netflix for free for 1 month... the content was such crap and so out of date it was laughable. The quality was terrible because it couldn't stream it live and the bandwidth I had at the time and there was no option to queue up a movie to watch later so all I could really do was pick from some crappy movies I'd already seen last year and see them in bellow 480 resolution. I think we watched half a movie before we just dumped the crap and went back to the pirate
Re:Not really HTML5 (Score:4, Informative)
Sounds like a problem with your internet connection and not a problem with Netflix. I stream in 720i regularly without any problems.
Re: (Score:3)
If that is the case, I have never noticed it because I stream Netflix to a 37" TV. While I notice some hiccups at the very beginning of a show/movie, the picture errors clear themselves up after about 30 seconds of play time. I have noticed older shows (Currently re-watching Star Trek TNG) always have worse quality, but only because the original was not recorded in 1080p. Not through any technical fault of Netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard Netflix Super HD is really nice and is 8Mb. I contacted my ISP and awaiting a response.
Re:Not really HTML5 (Score:5, Interesting)
If I can't find something on Netflix TPB or ExtraTorrent is my next stop. I like Netflix because I like watching movies I haven't seen in a long time and they have a pretty good anime selection, way better than my local video store (now closed) ever had and I don't have to spend days snooping the interwebs to find episodes. Also there's good content there for my two year old to watch. For eight bucks a month it's worth the effort it'd take me to find and download stuff for her and saves physical space in my house for crap movies/shows she'd only watch once and never look at again.
If they had newer movies and shows there, I'd be willing to pay more. Espically if I could get rid of my cable. If I could get rid of the cable I'd save nearly $100/month, but my wife is addicted to having crap playing in the background even when she's reading a book and not watching it. I just got Sickbeard setup a couple of weeks ago to auto download shows we watch and I'm starting to wean my wife off of channel surfing, but she still insists we can't get rid of the cable.
Part of the reason for getting Sickbeard is we live on the East coast (Atlantic time) and a lot of shows we want to watch don't end until almost midnight for us, we have a two year old and are up early every day so staying up late is less and less of an option. The cable company wants to charge us ANOTHER $15/month for one PVR or $25/month for two so we could have one for the bedroom and another for the living room, all on top of the $150/month for internet and cable we already pay. With Sickbeard I have it downloading to a 3TB ($250) external drive on a laptop in our bedroom closet that's hocked to our bedroom TV (HDMI cable through the wall). Then I use Plex to stream content to our downstairs Smart TV, it's a pretty awesome setup and I'm considering ripping, or just downloading, all the movies we own and sticking the DVD's in a box in the attic to save space in our living room. But it's a shame I have to expend all the energy to setup that system when I'd be perfectly willing to pay a reasonable price for a similar service.
I don't like cable, I don't like sitting through 20 minutes of useless commercials for every hour of TV I watch and have movies and shows interrupted, I don't like having to pay for tons of crap I don't want and pay extra to get the two or three channels I do want, then be nickled and dimed for equipment that's inconvenient to use and I have to give back if I cancel my service anyway, $300/year for two PVRs on top of the $1,650/year for basic cable and internet is stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
You, sir, are unpatriotic. Please report to your local thought police station immediately for retraining.
Re: (Score:2)
What is even more hilarious (and sad at the same time) is there is more Canadian content on the US netflix then on the Canadian one. You can get current episodes of Coonnttinnuum (the show is set in Vancouver, with all its duplicated letters in the title) and MacGyver, while US produced, was filmed in Vancouver with a largely Canadian cast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK, the content was so abysmal that "leave it" is what I did. Even if it was DRM free and FREE to use, I still wouldn't have a need to use them. It was like being in a video shop in the late 80s.
it seems it's pretty abysmal in most regions outside of US. mostly because all the good stuff apart from netflix exclusives is already peddled with region exclusive deals to tv companies.
so the end result is that for example mythbusters has seasons 1-3 in finland. and I can have "great" documentaries like supersize me. yeeeehaaaa!
Re: (Score:2)
90% of everything is shit, and the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.
I'm sure 90% of your TV is shit, but so is ours. What you're doing is concentrating on our 10% and your 100%. Over here on the other side of the pond, I do the same thing but from opposite perspective: "Damn, so there's much great stuff we're watching from the BBC."
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, he's talking about the content on offer on the UK netflix, not just UK content in general.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoops, my bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In my minds of the corporate overlords these days, what's good for the goose is good for the goose and the gander can take it or leave it.
She just filed for divorce on the grounds of not having her physical needs satisfied. Apparently he just sat on the couch all day and crowed about his profits, and grew fat and bloated until he couldn't fly, while she worked tirelessly doing volunteer work and helping poor children get access to music and movies that he had removed from the library and put in a video and record store across the street, then campaigned with local politicians to shut down the library because it was hurting his bottom line by
Re: (Score:2)
No-one managed to build an un-approved plugin yet?
Re:Not really HTML5 (Score:5, Informative)
Actually that would still be HTML5. That's why adding ECE to HTML5 is stupid: it solves none of the problems of Flash plugins while opening the door for a multitude of similar DRM plugins, each with its own, unique attack surface.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And what, pray tell, do you propose as an alternative? Should they abandon DRM to stick it to the man--immediately losing 99% of all their content? Yeah, now all that's on Netflix streaming are a handful of no-name indies, but they're all DRM free! We win!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Flash seems to work fine for everyone else.
Since they mail out easy to copy disks I would think no DRM is not much loss.
Re: (Score:2)
Flash seems to work fine for everyone else.
Does it?
Netflix streams HD movies to my PC, but uses Silverlight.
Amazon Prime only streams SD movies to my PC with HD being restricted to "approved devices", but uses Flash.
So quite frankly, Flash is not working for everyone else. Take your blinders off.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon prime does HD. I watched "Good Eats" in HD on my computer yesterday. Netflix does not work at all on that computer.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're already accusing me of stealing I might as well steal your precious ccontent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you understand it or not is irrelevant. The fact is, no video tag will take off unless it supports DRM. Thats reality, and you can either continue not understanding it or you can accept it and deal with practicalities like standardizing a DRM system.
Re: (Score:3)
The reality is you can't have a standardized DRM scheme if you want to keep FOSS alive. They are incompatible. Any FOSS browser that supported this DRM could trivially be made to output to a file, unless it just passed the data to the OS. Which just means now you can't have FOSS OSes anymore.
Re:Not really HTML5 (Score:5, Funny)
Its NOT a plugin citizen, we call them Extensions!
Re: (Score:2)
Yep pretty much but that's what you're stuck with, with HTML5 not having a good drm scheme in it. You're going to find a bunch of different DRM plugins for browsers. More attack vectors and so on.
I can see both sides to it though, DRM is a piece of shit so why include something comprable in HTML5 people will just find a way to circumvent it if they wish anyways.
On the other hand the content provider(here netflix) has to give content creators assurances that their content won't just be stolen and distribut
Re: (Score:2)
HTML5 can't have DRM in it. It would never work.
What would stop people from modifying open source browsers to simply write the video out to a file?
You can't have netflix on linux, if you could you very well can't have DRM. With firefox + linux there would be nothing stopping you from simply recording the video or hell writing it directly to a file.
Re: (Score:3)
including it in HTML5 would at least standardize it somewhat and allow one product to be patched for security holes.
Except that isn't how it works. The part which has been proposed for inclusion in HTML5 isn't any particular DRM scheme, but rather a generic API for linking various unspecified DRM schemes with the audio and video tags via Javascript. The implementation is either a non-standard DRM extension built into the web browser or a non-standard DRM plugin. Either way, different web sides can require different DRM schemes, which probably won't be portable to different web browsers, not to mention different platforms
Re: (Score:3)
We did more than that, we legitimized DRM!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No they haven't dropped silverlight yet, and I suspect that they will not until firefox and chrome all use html5 otherwise that would be silly. Then you could install FF or Chrome on your xp machine to which I have to ask. Why are you still using windows XP as your main media machine? I can understand in, industry why you would maybe have XP for older custom built applications but for a home machine watching netflix? XP is quickly becoming outdated for other reasons it hits EOL in less than a year. The
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We can't bake DRM into HTML5.
If you put DRM in an open source browser how would you stop anyone from simply making the changes to nueter the DRM?
Your stupid idea simply cannot work.
Don't see how that's better. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's supposed to be HTML5 - but is this really a standard?
If so, what is stopping other people (e.g. some Firefox extension developers) to build the exact same thing, allowing Netflix videos to play in other browsers?
And: how're they going to stop such plugins from not following the restrictions asked for by the DRM?
Re: (Score:2)
Your "and" explains your previous question.
They can't allow Firefox or anyone else to support this DRM directly since it would be trivial at that point to just ignore the content restrictions.
Re:Don't see how that's better. (Score:5, Informative)
If so, what is stopping other people (e.g. some Firefox extension developers) to build the exact same thing, allowing Netflix videos to play in other browsers?
Nothing prevents Firefox from implementing HTML5 ECE, but then nothing is requiring Netflix to support Firefox as an approved browser for their ECE module. Of course, trying to re-implement the ECE module itself to independently support Netflix is a federal crime under the DMCA.
If it's still MS only, who gives a shit? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's still MS only, who gives a shit?
Re: (Score:2)
The 90% of desktop users that use Windows?
Re:If it's still MS only, who gives a shit? (Score:5, Insightful)
They already had netflix working just fine. So why would they care?
Re: (Score:2)
No need for Silverlight which was never very popular.
Re: (Score:3)
So instead they install this plugin from widevine, which likely only netflix will use and thus not be very popular.
Wow, what an improvement
Re: (Score:3)
Try using it on not windows and get back to me.
Any flash replacement needs to at least support as many platforms if not more.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The 90% of desktop users that use Windows?
The PS3 is the most used Netflix client.
Re:If it's still MS only, who gives a shit? (Score:5, Informative)
No, PS3 is the most used "TV-connected" Netflix client.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not only MS.... (Score:2)
If it's still MS only, who gives a shit?
It's already in Chrome OS on Samsung ARM-based ChromeBooks. They beat Windows to the punch a while ago.
The only thing new here is that it's now also in Windows 8.1 preview IE11.
What it's likely never going to be is generic to a non-locked down browser implementation, which means it's not going to be on a BSD or Linux system without some form of lockdown. Otherwise it's too easy to do unencrypted frame grabbing to de-DRM the content, which is precisely what they don't want.
Of course, it's not like you coul
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could just get them to mail you DVDs or BluRay disks that are trivial to rip.
Netflix is likely already the biggest distributer of media being pirated via their disk mailing business.
You would not even have to worry about being sued, unless you tell someone what you are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wow, it will run on OSX too and for the three folks with chromebooks ChromeOS.
Wow, how amazing. They managed to add one minor OS to the previous supported list.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix already ran on my Chromebook.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that not abuse of a monopoly position?
We will not license our software to people who compete with us in our main market to protect that market at all costs.
HTML5 is now officially been Embraced and Extended (Score:5, Informative)
According to Netflix, Microsoft made this possible by implementing three features in its still-unfinished IE11:
The Media Source Extensions (MSE), using the Media Foundation APIs within Windows. Since Media Foundation supports hardware acceleration using the GPU, Netflix can achieve high quality 1080p video playback with minimal CPU and battery utilization.
The Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) using Microsoft PlayReady DRM. This provides the content protection needed for media services like Netflix.
The Web Cryptography API (WebCrypto), which allows Netflix to encrypt and decrypt communication between its JavaScript application and its servers.
Sounds like this is locked into windows via the Media Foundation APIs
Mac users (Score:2)
Indeed. Netflix current works for Mac users... what's going to happen to them?
Re:HTML5 is now officially been Embraced and Exten (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like this is locked into windows via the Media Foundation APIs
There may be lock in, but it's not exclusive to Microsoft:
Media Source Extensions (MSE) [w3.org] This specification extends HTMLMediaElement to allow JavaScript to generate media streams for playback. Allowing JavaScript to generate streams facilitates a variety of use cases like adaptive streaming and time shifting live streams.
Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) [w3.org] This proposal extends HTMLMediaElement providing APIs to control playback of protected content.
Web Cryptography API (WebCrypto) [w3.org] This specification describes a JavaScript API for performing basic cryptographic operations in web applications, such as hashing, signature generation and verification, and encryption and decryption.
They're all W3C standards track specifications. The first two have editors from the same three corporations; Google, Microsoft and Netflix. Google, in particular, can't tolerate not being capable of playing Netflix (10% of the population of the US subscribes to this) on its platforms (Android and Chrome OS.) It already works on both and you can take it for granted that Google expects to achieve parity with these specifications.
The last specification is not specific to streaming; it's a general purpose Javascript API to perform common cryptographic operations.
Re: (Score:2)
None of that changes the fact that these are simply incompatible with FOSS. No FOSS browser on a FOSS OS can ever support these. Well unless you want DRMed hardware, but then you might as well just give it all up anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
None of that changes the fact that these are simply incompatible with FOSS
No claim made to the contrary. It's still lock in, as I said. It's just not specific to Microsoft.
Reading comprehension. Try it sometime.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. The W3C "standard" is only a plugin API.
The EME is tied to vendor provided Content Decryption Modules (CDMs). The standard does not specify the CDMs at all. It's a black box with "do as you like" label.
So even if the web content is using EME it does not mean at all that you can watch the content in your web browser. Just like you cannot watch Flash content without Flash, you will not be able to watch content without the vendor CDM.
Re: (Score:2)
you will not be able to watch content without the vendor CDM.
Didn't claim you would be able to. I just pointed out that it isn't Microsoft only. The point of the original post was that the HTML5 extensions were "locked into windows," which they are clearly not. It may be locked into all kinds of other crap, but it's not Windows only.
And stop foaming at the mouth.
Re:HTML5 is now officially been Embraced and Exten (Score:4, Informative)
"Such as" (Score:5, Insightful)
Geez, talk about stretching the meaning of "such as." The whole point of this is that it lets you play it in the browser by installing a proprietary single-source plugin. Sure, you can argue that your plugin isn't "like" Sliverlight or Flash, just like Microsoft might say Silverlight is also not a plugin like Flash, and Adobe might argue that Flash is not a plugin like Java. And the guy serving malware on porn sites might argue his video codec is not a malware plugin like the other ones are. "My plugin takes spam-sending orders from this botnet, not that botnet! See? It's totally different!"
That is exactly how these extensions are not plugins like Flash or Silverlight. In other words: totally meaningless bullshit. It's just another plugin, which happens to use a newer API.
Lie all you want about it not being a plugin, but the lie is pretty transparent and does more to discredit the speaker than it does to really deceive anyone.
Firefox (Score:2)
How does this play out in the release version of Firefox? Because in TFA it sounds like, very soon, I may not be able to watch Netflix on my computer any more without a preview version of IE. :^(
For now, it's just use Silverlight, but will MS share its new platform lockdown?
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox can't support this. They best they could ever hope to do is pass this data to the OS and let it do the work. That will only work on Windows. OSX will likely get its own version and that will be it.
The OS has to protect itself from its owner to do this sort of thing. If you actually had control over the computer this would never work. Which is why it will not be supported on linux running on non-locked down hardware.
I have an idea (Score:2)
I rarely watch Netflix on the computer... (Score:2)
DRM is not necessary (Score:3)
We already know that is not true.
Video is not some special magical thing that needs different protection. IP is IP is IP. End of story.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, through the same Premium Video Extensions that is being used here.
Re:what about chrome os? (Score:5, Insightful)
If that suggests/implies it'll eventually work on Linux with HTML5/extensions on Chrome browser, I can live with that.
All the shouting about DRM being evil and everything doesn't really accomplish what we want. You end up looking like a zealot, and you would have better luck holding back the tide with a thimble. If you want to get rid of DRM, you need to show them that it's not necessary. The best way you can do that is by not pirating their stuff, and actually paying for it if you feel that it's worth paying for. If you don't think it's worth the price they're charging, then don't pay it, but don't download it and then rationalize it by saying that it's too expensive to pay for, or you plan on deleting it once you've watched it. The people creating content have a right to set the price they want to charge for it, and you, the consumer, have a right to vote with your wallet. But voting with your wallet does *not* mean circumventing the rights of the creators, it means not consuming the product at all.
And I realize there's a very good chance that you don't download stuff that you haven't paid for, and that I'm ranting at the wrong person, but I have absolutely zero sympathy for the people who piss and moan about DRM in one breath, and then talk about how they download their movies and music because information wants to be free. These people are the reason DRM exists in the first place. I don't like DRM either, but as long as it doesn't interfere with the legitimate use of a product or service I'm paying for, I don't really notice it. If it starts to interfere with my use, I simply won't buy the product in question. The market will sort itself out, but as long as people keep giving them a reason to invent more draconian methods, those methods are going to keep being created.
Re: (Score:2)
It does not suggest that, nor will that ever happen.
It is simply impossible to do so, since nothing would stop you from writing the output into a file. Unless you want to be booting a netflix signed kernel on your netflix signed hardware.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't in the slightest.
Rejecting flawed schemes that do nothing to accomplish the intended goal is zealotry?
It isn't necessary. It has already failed and will always fail. The problems is those who demand it the most are engaging in magical thinking and, like the most common magi
Re: (Score:2)
If everyone would embrace that DRM is evil and violets your rights then we would accomplish what we want. Netflix and Hollywood is just a tiny minority, and they are still a tiny minority on the Open Web.
But politicians and the W3C sucking up to Hollywood and to all the lobbying groups that spend Millions of dollars to push for harder punishments and stricter copyright. And it will not end at your videos, music and ebooks. I'm talking about fundamental rights, like property rights, re-sale rights, freedom o
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, find a browser that implements PVE like Google did for ChromeOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, the OS underneath has to support it too. Since it must deprive the user of control of his computer to ensure security.
Re: (Score:3)
The only ones I know of for network traffic are TCP and UDP. TCP guarantees in-order delivery of packets which think would be important for things like video, but I suppose that would cause lag if there were a lot of dropped packets.
Disclaimer, I do very little network stuff and only had exposure to Networking 1 and 2 during University ten years ago and setting up the occasional WiFi. So I'm probably out of date and this is a serious question
Re: (Score:2)
TCP hogs up precious BW? Since when? Only in environments where packet loss is substantial is there any real issue, but then again, UDP would likely be much worse. Throw in some of the better optional parts like selective ACK, and TCP is pretty efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ahh, so it seems that it is using the W3C extensions, it's just that Microsoft has implemented them in IE before other browsers have.
Bravo!
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know if it changed but when I was in Canada, Netflix content was horribly outdated. In the US however, not so. They have a lot of brand new stuff.
Without DRM, someone could use a basic chrome plugin or a greasemonkey script to download the original video straight up, with virtually no need to rip anything.
Im not saying I agree, but its not as simple as you make it sound.
That said, Im curious how many people actually watch netflix online anymore, with the proliferation of set top boxes and netflix be
Vicious circle. (Score:3)
You lock out a lot of users/platforms denting bottom line.
While no DRM would please the users, it would mightily displease the content owners, which Netflix is contracting with to legally provide their video streams. The vast majority of them *ABSOLUTELY DEMAND* DRM, as in not having it means Netflix can't legally offer their content.
Less content = less value = no customers anyways.
It's a bit of a crappy spot for Netflix to be in. Annoy the customers with DRM, or have no real content?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't have to install a plugin. I have to install an extension instead. Can someone tell me how/why this is better/different? FFS!
A) people don't like Silverlight
B) the rumor is Microsoft is dropping Silverlight
If (B) is true then you probably want some sort of alternative. For example, depending on how they code, the plug-in could be fairly modular. If that company / group goes belly-up then hopefully by then there are more modules to pick from.