Re: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

On Wednesday, Wed, 2013/07/03, Mark Watson wrote:
> 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.

In the Netherlands there's a tax on hard disks, DVD-RW's and other storage 
media. That tax is there to provide compensation for copyright 
infringement/piracy. 

Consequently any downloaded content arguably _was_ payed for 
(true, not through the expected channel and probably at lower prices then 
Big Content would like, but them's the breaks).

> Yes, seriously. You might not be familiar with the service we (Netflix)
> offer, as it is not yet available in the Netherlands. 

restricting a webservice by locality is an obvious artificial barrier, 
which (from the user's point of view) has no silver lining.

Yes, I realise that it's something forced on Netflix by Hollywood, 
BUT... that just illustrates the fundamental problem of Hollywood not 
getting the web (combined with massive hubris)

> However, we will be launching there later this year so you will be able to
> see for yourself.

(more or less offtopic but... It's my understanding from articles I've read 
that Netflix DRM currently requires silverlight, since my machines run Debian 
GNU/Linux instead of MS Windows ... no I won't, even if I was willing to 
break my DRM=no sale rule)

> 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).

DRM is counterproductive to that goal 

yeah I know, we're back to Hollywood demands and control, screw em, not in 
our Open Web standards

> > 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. 

tangentially off topic again, but lets compare...

marginal cost of distribution of physical media is made up by:
- cost of sourcing a physical box
- cost of printing the artwork for the content
- cost of pressing the disc
- cost of combining the media, the box and the artwork into 1 package
- cost of a marketing push to convince stores that they should allocate 
their limited shelfspace on your product instead of the competition
- cost of getting the box physically to the store
- cost of the logistical layer that ensures enough, but not to many, 
physical media are made and distributed to every store and all the tracking 
that requires
- cost of employees to man the stores and process the sales
- cost of transaction fee for payment
- cost of getting rid of excess physical copies that haven't sold

marginal cost of distribution over the web is made up by:
- the bandwith and cpu usage needed to server the media file and process the 
sale, both of which are negligable already and getting lower every year
- cost of transaction fee for payment

You're cutting out the following middlemen out of the picture with fully 
webbased distribution:
1) the box manufacturer 
2) the artwork printer 
3) the dvd presser 
4) the packager 
5) the sales agent convincing the stores to carry specific content
6) the logistical expert keeping the distribution and manufacturing going as 
needed
7) the trucker 
8) the store sales clerk

In addition web distribution avoids completely:
- the risk of over or underproduction
- the thorny logistical problem of assuring timely manufacturing and 
delivery, and of (trying to) make sure no store has to few or to many copies

Next the capital costs of 
- a server or even a complete datacentrum, uplink and website versus
- a physical distribution network with tens of thousands of stores (to reach 
the same global audience) and all associated costs (manufacturing, trucks, 
stores, physical inventory) 
... are again easily an order of magnitude different.

Quite obviously that easily allows a serious price differential

But lets look at a practical experiment with video:
- Louis CK sold his show "Live at the Beacon Theater" on his site for 5$ and 
DRM free
- the site was new no so he had all the startup overhead included in the 
production costs (and he didn't skimp as the site survived the unexpectedly 
rapid and massive success)
- after just 12 days he stated publicly that he was completely amazed to 
have made a million dollars (that's 200k sales) [1]
- cost breakdown as stated on the above link:
  * 250k production costs for the show and website combined
  * given how much he was (unexpectedly) making he voluntarily gave another
     250k in bonuses to those involved with the production
  * he gave 280k to various charities
  * kept 220k for himself
- To compare: amazon lists a DVD of his previous shows as 10-15$ a piece 
[2]. I have no numbers of how much of that DVD price ends in royalties for 
Louis, but given how amazed he was at how much income the digital 
distribution was bringing in, it's obviously a lot less then 5$

=> In other words cutting the price to a 3th or more is easily doable while 
increasing profits (for the content producer) massively

Given the above, I call bullshit on your statement.

Going to all digital distribution definately can, should (and ultimately 
will) drastically lower the price.

[1] https://buy.louisck.net/news/another-statement-from-louis-c-k
[2] http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_p_n_format_browse-
bi_mrr_1?rh=n%3A2625373011%2Ck%3A%22louis+ck%22%2Cp_n_format_browse-
bin%3A2650304011&keywords=%22louis+ck%22&ie=UTF8&qid=1372873162&rnid=2650303011
[3] http://www.futureofcopyright.com/home/blog-post/2011/06/10/video-on-
demand-increasingly-popular-in-the-netherlands.html

> 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.

Obviously since the experience of going to the cinema has not noticably 
changed for the customer as a consequence. 
Nor has the overhead of providing that experience.

The experience of going to buy a dvd vs downloading a media file on the other 
hand is massively different (and so are the costs for providing that DVD vs a 
download as discussed above)

Idem for the experience of going to the rental place for a movie vs using a 
video on demand streaming service.

> > 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.

Ok, answer me this:
Why is Netflix's streaming service not globally available right now? 

Might it have something to do with legal threats and absurd Hollywood 
licencing demands?

There's no logical or technical reason why streaming a video to someone in 
europe or asia should require a different licensing agreement from streaming 
it to someone in the US. This is obvious abuse of a legal monopoly.

> 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.

to meet the new boss (same as the old boss) do 
s/plugin/CDM/g

the CDM is still a black box of which I need to wonder:
- what it does and consequently if it's save to run
- if my system meets its requirements (probably not as I run Debian with all 
free software and no hardware protected media pipeline)
- still needs to get to and be approved on my system (you approve and 
download only once, same as flash/silverlight/java. Or possibly it might be 
included in your browser already, as chrome does with flash)

you've nicely illustrated how EME+CDM doesn't help the slightest bit from a 
user perspective

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

the current proposals don't make the user experience any better, they're 
pure sleight of hand:
- renaming the plugin to CDM
- stamping 'standard web technology' on it (this is the objectionable part)
- changing the specific black box used

that's all it does

> > 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.

EME itself doesn't, true.

But EME is only the API for the browser to talk to the CDM. Given that a CDM 
is a black box there's no telling what requirements/conditions the CDM's 
will impose. Regarding the specific abuses of region locks and forced 
commercials, see below...

First regarding forced commercials:

If Big Content wants to provides DRM'd files that include a trailer or 
commercial before the movie. 
If the CDM is one of the kind that doesn't return decrypted frames but plays 
renders them directly (see the graphic in section 1 of the spec [4])
Then how exactly is EME going to stop the CDM from preventing the skipping 
of the trailer/commercial? I don't see any such guarantees anywhere in the 
spec.

This is not a hypothetical thread:
The draft [4] currently contains the following in section 7.1.1: 
"WebM streams may be partially encrypted, both at the Track level and the 
block level." 
So obviously the necessary groundwork for different restrictions on different 
parts of the stream are already explicitly present.

WebM is a Google thing, Google is waging the battle of forced adds right now 
on youtube and most recently against Microsoft [5]
What did you think Google was going to use WebM+CDM for?

Second, this is exactly the pattern that hollywood is using with DVDs and 
their DRM, there's no reason to expect them to suddenly change their tune.

Since the CDM's are explicitly allowed to depend on specific hardware 
access/conditions, what's to stop a CDM from requiring a GPS chip and 
checking the location?

Hollywood has a history of trying to enforce regionlocking, why would they 
change their tune?

There's no protection against abuse in the spec, given the historical track 
record of video media and drm there's every reason to believe that abuse 
will take place.

The burden of proof is not with the DRM opponents here.

[4] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-
media.html
[5] http://www.zdnet.com/google-to-microsoft-blocking-ads-with-windows-
phone-youtube-app-is-a-no-no-7000015457/

> 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.

better how? I don't see any improvements, only sleight of hand. 

Name some, and spell it out, the above was ... unconvincing

> > 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.

exchanging the black box called a plugin with a black box called a 
CDM changes nothing.

W3C has explicitly stated it's not going to standarize the black boxes, 
consequently endorsment of EME by the W3C has no bearing on the 
privacy/security/accesibility of those black boxes as the spec makes no 
requirements or guarantees

If I'm missing something, then spell it out clearly (cause if so I'm 
apperently slow)

> The W3C could also have some influence on the supported use-cases, as
> noted above.

indeed, by stamping it 'standards approved' it's gonna encourage DRM 
slightly, that's a Bad Thing
 
> 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

Do you realise you've essentally just admitted that DRM is a ripoff deal. 
How do you reconcile that with activily arguing _for_ support of DRM?

> (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.

that's a copout:

DRM is an obviously abusive technology (you just admitted that it's a bad 
deal above)

As the old business adage says "there's a sucker born every second"...

While true enough, that doesn't make technology designed to abuse that any 
less despicable, nor does it make adding that technology to Open Web 
Standards any more acceptable
 
> 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. 

s/some/most/g 

If it's well known, why are you (and W3C) completely dismissing those 
concerns? It's extremely relevant to support/opposition of EME

> I think you're making an argument against DRM per se and this is not that
> fight.

I'm making an argument against W3C support of DRM via EME (or any 
hypothetical other standard)

that's the primary point of contention in this entire discussion
 
if big content wants to develop DRM I can't stop them, I'll just choose to 
- not use it (DRM = no sale for me and an ever increasing number of people)
- explain loudly every time it comes up why I don't use it (that's right, 
negative word of mouth is what DRM buys you)

BUT when Big Content wants to do that development under the umbrella of the 
'open web' and 'W3C' I'm gonna object, oppose, obstruct and protest as 
strenously as I can. That's just crossing the line, that is NOT ok.

> 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. 

The problem with DRM is the exact same problem as with patents.
The powerbase used is just technological instead of a legal.
But in both cases you're introducing a gatekeeper that needs to actively 
approve/support client implementations (of/with CDM's)

You're introducing a dependency from the client on the longterm goodwill and 
competency of the CDM provider.

Preventing that is an obvious win (for all the same reasons why W3C demands 
a royaltee-free patent grant from standards contributors)

> W3C's absence will surely make all of the user experience,
> security, privacy and accessibility problems that are raised in this
> context worse.

How? Whether you name the black box a plugin or a CDM makes no difference to 
security, rivacy or accesibility concerns.

And W3C has explicitly told everyone that they won't do a thing to 
standarize those CDM's
--
Cheers, Cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)