Re: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:55 PM, cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote:

> **
>
> On Tuesday, Tue, 2013/07/02, Mark Watson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:54 AM, cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote:
>
> > > First: users do have a choice, there's always piracy (Big Content may
>
> > > not like it but that's a lost battle for them).
>
> >
>
> > I meant legal choices.
>
>
>
> Not everone is in the US, e.g. here in the Netherlands downloading is legal
>

You said piracy and I assume you meant copyright infringement which AFAIK
is illegal in most countries. Nevertheless, piracy is indeed a competitor
to legal services, albeit one which takes its main input without paying for
it.


>
>
> (hey look at that, lobbying for a tax on all storage media to compensate
> for piracy backfired)
>
>  > > Second: DRM is always and inevitably going to be more hassle for the
>
> > > user then a non-DRM version of the same software/service.
>
> >
>
> > If such an alternative is available, perhaps. We do invest a lot to make
>
> > our service as hassle-free as possible, though, despite our use of DRM.
>
>
>
> Seriously !?!
>

Yes, seriously. You might not be familiar with the service we (Netflix)
offer, as it is not yet available in the Netherlands. However, we will be
launching there later this year so you will be able to see for yourself.

I agree with the often-made point that the best way to reduce piracy is to
provide legal, convenient and reasonably-priced alternatives and that is
exactly what we aim to do with our service.

Our service is available on hundreds of different devices as well as
laptops/PCs and we do truly try to make it as convenient as possible to use
(this being an obvious competitive advantage if done well).


>
>
> As a consumer all I see is Big Content making things more annoying and
> killing good services through litigation or absurdly high licensing fees
> (yes digital media is a good with a marginal cost of near-zero, that means
> prices will and should be low, did you guys fail economy 101?)
>

The marginal cost of content distribution before digital media was not that
big a fraction of the overall costs. Production and marketing costs
dominate, so the transition to digital media, whilst certainly offering the
possibility of a better user experience, doesn't in itself imply
dramatically lower prices. Similarly, it's much easier to copy a digital
cinema file than an actual physical film reel, but this hasn't make it much
cheaper to go to the cinema.


>
>
> Worse not only is Big Content killing good services through litigation,
> they're refusing to then step up and offer a similar (level of) service.
>

I'm not sure how this claim is relevant here.


>
>
> One illustration of that 'more annoying theme' is this very good
> infographic: http://boingboing.net/2010/02/18/infographic-buying-d.html
>

Yep, I don't think that's a good user experience either. It's better if the
user can easily find the content they want to watch, click 'play' and just
watch. That's what we'd like to do, rather than 'click play, read annoying
install plugin dialog, wonder if installing the plugin is safe, check if
your system meets plugin system requirements, wait for plugin to download
etc. etc.

What's frustrating is that we face opposition to technical proposals which
can make the user experience better in this way.


>
>
> Hollywood has a documented history of abusing drm features to force
> commercials down our troats, and keep us from (legally) playing a DVD on
> our linux/BSD/... systems, keep us from watching a DVD bought on vacation,
> and, and, and ...
>

The proposed Encrypted Media Extensions don't support forced commercials or
region restrictions etc. (in respect of streamed/downloaded content, or
DVDs). If you think the spec could be used that way, I'd welcome proposals
to change it to stop that.


>
>
> One illustration of that 'killling good services without providing an
> alternative' theme: it's been 5 or 6 years since Big Content got allofmp3
> shutdown (3 different lawsuits failed to do it, so they finally managed to
> lobby a law change).
>
> I have yet to see a site sanctioned by big content that comes anywhere
> close the level of service that site offered (and drm has been dead for
> music for a while now, so that's obviously not the problem)
>
>
>
> You're asking us to believe that 'this time will be different'. Why should
> we believe that?
>

You can believe what you like with respect to how DRM is and will be used
on the web. I'm only trying to convince you that the situation for users
will be better if W3C gets involved than if they don't.


> Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me is applicable here.
>
>
>
> Given Big Content's trackrecord, we need some proof/guarantee that abuse
> will not happen YET AGAIN.
>
>
>
> In the absense of such a guarantee, support for DRM is playing the fool
> and supporting an abusive business model. That's not something W3C should
> be doing, it calls into question the judgement of W3C, and by extention the
> validity of every standard they recommend.
>

Well, what we're trying to do is make the user experience of playing online
DRM-protected content better than it is today. Whether W3C works on this
will have no effect on whether DRM is used and for what content it is used,
but it could have a positive effect on the user experience and the privacy,
security and accessibility properties of the solution. The W3C could also
have some influence on the supported use-cases, as noted above.


>
>
> > > Thirth: DRM is always and inevitably going to be more hassle for the
>
> > > provider due to the extra overhead of managing the licenses and user
>
> > > complaints (hey I've bougth a new phone/tablet/computer, now my media
>
> > > don't
>
> > > work anymore)
>
> >
>
> > True. This is a good reason to believe that just improving the client
>
> > side with EME won't drive a significant increase in the use of DRM by
>
> > providers.
>
>
>
> What I'm sure will happen is yet some more iterations of the "we're
> abondoning DRM scheme X so all your bought content will become useless on
> date y, you'll have to rebuy it"-scam
>

For my part I'm exclusively concerned with streaming. Personally, I agree
that a "license" to a piece of content that is conditioned on various
external factors out of my control is not a product I would choose to buy
(though I would like to have the choice, or rather, I don't want any 3rd
party telling me what choices I can or cannot have). I would prefer to
"own" a copy or to rent or access it as part of a subscription service. But
that is my personal choice.


>
>
> This is not a hypothetical issue:
>
> Microsoft, [1] Yahoo, [2], and Major League Baseball [3] are just 3 big
> companies who've pulled that at least once already.
>
>
>
> The track record of Big Business regarding keeping promises is .... bad
> (to put it mildly).
>
>
>
> DRM requires that ordinary users trust big business to keep up their part
> of the bargain, talk about requiring rose-colored glasses!
>
>
>
> Again I ask why should we believe that "this time will be different"?
>
>
>
> In the absence of a believable guarantee why is W3C aiding and abetting
> similar abuses in the future?
>
>
>
> > > Given the 2nd and 3th point, DRM content is at an inherent
>
> > > disadvantage. Consequently in any competition between otherwise
>
> > > equivalent DRM and non-DRM
>
> > > content the DRM-content is bound to lose in the long run.
>
> >
>
> > True, but such a competition between 'otherwise equivalent' services is
>
> > unlikely to happen in practice. At least for video content services
>
> > competition is mainly driven by content, price and device support.
>
>  Hollywood in particular has a history of fighting new media, loosing the
> fights and subsequently coming to the realisation that not only did the
> world not end, embracing the new thing lead to an increase in profits.
>
>
>
> DRM vs No-DRM is no different from past iterations of that pattern (I
> thought the rise of iTunes wised up the industry to that fact, but
> apperently not). Stop dragging out the fight.
>
>
>
> > > Given that an increasing amount of (individual/small) content producers
>
> > > are _already_ doing the DRM-free thing. The most likely outcome is
>
> > > that non-DRM will (slowly) reach critical mass, after which any
>
> > > providers sticking to DRM are going to find themselves rapidly
>
> > > irrelevant.
>
> > >
>
> > > Whishfull thinking? Maybe, but on my part or yours? Time well tell
>
> >
>
> > In the meantime, we'd like to work on improving the technology.
>
>
>
> Abusive technology should not be improved. Sofar DRM-technology has been
> nothing but a long list of abuses.
>
>
>
> I get that the serial abusers that make up Big Content demand it be done
> anyway.
>
> I don't get why W3C is getting on board with that.
>
>
>
> This is a litmus test situation: "can W3C still be trusted or have they
> sold out"? Is W3C really going to follow ISO down the drain (see [4]) ?
>

I think it's well understood that some people have an objection to DRM and
some of the ways it has been used in the past. I think you're making an
argument against DRM per se and this is not that fight.

What hasn't been demonstrated in this discussion is how the W3C not working
on this, as far as the technology is concerned, represents a win for users.
W3C's absence will surely make all of the user experience, security,
privacy and accessibility problems that are raised in this context worse.

...Mark



>
>
> [1]
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/04/drm-sucks-redux-microsoft-to-nuke-msn-music-drm-keys/
>
> [2]
> http://socialtimes.com/yahoo-music-to-turn-off-drm-server-apparently-learns-nothing-from-msn-fiasco_b2457
>
> [3]
> http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/11/major-league-baseballs-drm-change-strikes-out-with-fans/
>
> [4]
> http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/259004/nations_question_iso_merit_following_dropped_ooxml_appeals/
>
> --
>
> Cheers, Cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
>