We expect premium video on the web to continue to shift away from using proprietary plugin technologies to using these new Premium Video Extensions.
Quoting the article:
According to Netflix, Microsoft made this possible by implementing three features in its still-unfinished IE11:
The Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) using Microsoft PlayReady DRM.
Netflix is using some doublespeak here. Yes, Silverlight was a "proprietary plugin", but they've just shifted to using proprietary DRM with proprietary extensions to HTML5. They got rid of the plugin--great! But they've replaced one proprietary experience with another.
In fact, they've replaced one proprietary experience with an even more proprietary one. Silverlight was available on more than one browser and OS; this is Windows-only and IE11-only. I believe Netflix are already using EME on Chromebooks but they have a different, totally incompatible DRM scheme (Google's Widevine).
But even so, the DRM system was not available cross-platform. Something like Moonlight could process the data but could not play back encrypted video using the Microsoft DRM system.
Each platform will offer a different DRM implementation, but there would be only one HTML5 player and would use the same API on all systems.
I assume that they will continue to use Silverlight on Windows prior to IE11.
"Continue to shift away" doesn't mean proprietary steps can't or shouldn't be taken nor does it mean there will never be proprietary parts behind the scenes. The API to these Extensions are trying to become stable and not proprietary [0]; do you have suggestions or time to contribute? If Netflix is made to simply talk to a ratified API, it is a big step forward from a non-standard API exposed by the likes of Silverlight.
You are correct in asserting that the EME should become standardized, and that Netflix is participating in that process. I should not throw stones unless I'm willing to help.
I admit to being conflicted about the philosophical need for such extensions--although I have no pragmatic objections. Netflix makes their coin by selling limited access to an artificially-restricted resource; the resource would probably not exist in its present form without the restrictions.
However, as someone who lived through web development in the 1990s, my brain shut off after reading "away from using proprietary" followed by "Microsoft MarketingTerm".
EME should most certainly NOT become standardized, as the future it will bring is even bleaker than the one we have with Flash and Silverlight as far DRM and compatibility goes. Instead of a few NPAPI-compatible solutions, we'll likely have dozens of proprietary DRM binary blobs that will have even less compatibility on average than Silverlight does at the moment.
This is not the kind of thing that we should be encouraging.
I think your feelings and assertions are valid, but I can't really blame Netflix here, which was my reaction, and I don't really think you meant to paint them in that light. I feel they are hamstrung between staying profitable and trying to court the dinosaurs that are content providers.
It always strikes me as odd that it would appear the "internet crowd" would both like to abolish advertising (re: commercials) _and_ DRM (re: subscriptions). I don't know that Netflix or Steam exists without the later, and I much prefer the "price" I pay for that "burden" over the alternative(s?).
And I have to say, it's hard for me to cast stones at MS for the innovations IE5 brought to market, in the late 90s. It's pretty crummy to subject MS to feelings that only manifested many years later and only because of things they didn't do -- continue supporting and innovating in the browser space. We're just pissed it was so good that people could hold onto it until pried from the cold, dead hands.
A DRM-free subscription service would immediately lead to a ripper tool that would download everything in one month, which would immediately lead to Hollywood studio execs pitching hissy fits.
It's not like having DRM is really stopping piracy, especially in Netflix's case. For example their new original series of House of Cards and season 4 of Arrested Development were both pirated (I assume using some kind of desktop screen recorder?) and posted online within days of their netflix release. So the use of DRM did not stop people from pirating their content, in only prevented potential customers on other systems, like Linux, from legally purchasing their content.
Those responding to shit, pay close attention to my original quip towards dinosaur content-providers and "Hollywood execs" here. What Netflix wants or not is largely irrelevant; I can't say for sure they would ever consider running their service without some sort of DRM or downloading deterrents. It is clear to me they want to provide a more sane service than other offerings, allowing me to watch what I want without being hamstrung by a DVR, multi-month contracts, and holding back episodes to be played one week at a time and having to hold a subscription for 3-4 months to catch the whole season, or only providing the last 5 episodes and being screwed if I start a season when the 7th episode is airing.
With all that MPAA and the like have done to this industry, I can't fathom Netflix getting to serve much content and for very long if they can't guarantee a strong protection over the content. Obviously there are always ways to circumvent the steps taken, so long as the GPU stream is pipeable.
Content publishers tried to get DRM into broadcast television (the "broadcast flag"). They failed, and now they broadcast everything in the clear. In that case, there was a bunch of push-back against DRM. But Netflix and Microsoft aren't pushing back against web DRM; they're just rolling over and implementing it.
So digital broadcast television started with publishers demanding DRM, and then giving up on it (and realizing that it wasn't actually necessary). The exact same thing happened with music. And it's happening with ebooks too. But for some reason, you think that web video is different? And you advocate giving up on it without any real fight.
You may not know what advocate means, but it can take steps to eradicate DRM, as if it is really always a bad thing.
Do I think web video and broadcast TV are different? Absolutely; definitely; unequivocally, yes. Obviously. Maybe not for technical folks; maybe not when usenet or FTP trading was your only option for content not music; but nowadays, torrent software and search is really damn easy and free. Broadcast also comes with a landslide of garbage between 95% shit channels and 33% commercial times; Netflix does not operate this way.
I think ebooks and music are totally different ballgames. You'll pay more for an ebook or mp3 album than you will for a month of Netflix; you think they can service you like that without some guarantees to content providers? I really don't know, but I know some of you are up in arms about Netflix having DRM, when it really isn't harming anyone. If you want to own the content, go do that; Netflix is only offering a non-ownership service.
$8 for 24/7, front-running picture-quality, enormous-catalog of content; it has DRM; it _never_ gets in the way of the service; it frankly works so good that owning the content would provide nigh a worse experience. Can you really explain to me the downsides to how Netflix has implemented DRM? What if they offered an additional cost to be able to download content for offline use, which is about the only thing I can conceivably imagine some might have reservations?
... if you use a supported platform. In other words: It never gets in the way of the service for you
Until recently, running it on Linux at all was not feasible. Even today, it requires running it in Wine or a VM. The only reason this is the case is because the DRM prevents us from using a standard player.
That is the downside of DRM. And for me it's the reason why I won't touch Netflix even if it becomes easier to use it under Linux as long as they keep at the DRM nonsense.
I learned this the hard way with iTunes, and I am not touching DRM'd content again unless I can effortlessly break the DRM (so e.g. I do buy DRM'd books of Amazon, and promptly uses Calibre to secure a DRM free copy; but I've still not made the move to Bluray because it's too much hassle)
In this thread, you've been publicly recommending and supporting the idea of giving up on fighting web DRM.
Web video and broadcast TV are the same in terms of the effect of piracy, and in terms of the need for DRM. A TV show pirated from a broadcast stream is almost exactly the same as a TV show pirated from a web stream. DRM isn't necessary over the air, therefore it isn't necessary on the web.
Requiring DRM for web content but not for broadcast content is like locking one door but leaving another open. The broadcast door has been open for years and Hollywood still hasn't imploded. Web DRM isn't necessary for their business; they're just trying to use it to get more control.
they would bother because it's not easy for rippers to get eg HD video rips before the bluray version of the movie is out. So at the very least, it's making rippers' work much easier, and it brings the date when HD content is available on torrent from "whenever bluray is released" to "whenever it is available for streaming", which we are all crossing finger to become "when it is released in theaters".
I can walk down any number of streets nearby and get approached by people with bags full of professionally pressed DVD's of movies pirated by filming a cinema screen. Or I can install a bittorrent client and get HD content everywhere anyway. Access isn't stopping those who are willing to put in a minimal amount of effort to get the content.
It does, however, stop people like me from subscribing to their service, as I refuse to pay for a service that is hampered by DRM this way, as from long experience as a Linux user, relying on formats that are not open and unencumbered is pretty much guaranteed to cause annoying hassles for me in some way or another with uses that I consider completely reasonable, and that does not include storing copies or distributing the content to others in any way.
It's a nice try from Netflix. Dropping Silverlight is great. But it's not enough.
They will still be rendering the interface and probably the video with standard HTML5 components, in fact even the DRM - Browser mechanism is standardized. It's just that the DRM code itself may be proprietary. So this is still a step forward.
In what way is it a step forward? Okay, they can now use default video codecs in their proprietary plugin, instead of the same codec being used in Flash.
So does that make it anymore cross-platform than Flash was? And now instead of having "one" monolithic proprietary plugin, it's now more "decentralized" and you'll have to use "many" such proprietary plugins from Netflix, from Hulu, from Amazon, and many others, that may or may not be cross-platform.
Why is the news only about IE (11 even). Does it work in Chrome and Firefox, too?
Well, the good news is that as an end-user you'll probably only have one monolithic proprietary chunk of code that's even conveniently integrated into your web browser. The bad news is that you'll have to hope that all the DRMed video sites you're using support the proprietary scheme your particular browser and platform use. In this case, it's Microsoft's PlayReady DRM.
Also, the codec used is actually part of the proprietary blob, and there are no requirements as to which codecs or containers a particular DRM scheme supports, so in theory every DRM scheme could require a different, incompatible proprietary codec and they'd still all be 100% standards compliant.
There is also no reason to think that these binary blobs will be built for platforms that the video providers have not given two shits about in the past. Anyone who is supporting this stuff because they think it will get them Netflix on a GNU/Linux desktop (not ChromeOS or Android) is crazy. That's not what this does, and they don't care about supporting us.
So far, Google's binary DRM blob isn't just restricted to ChromeOS either; it only runs on official Chromebooks running the official Google-provided image that haven't been rooted.
AFAIK it doesn't care if your Chromebook is rooted. My Glacier Snow Chromebook is "rooted" and Netflix (the reason we bought it) continues to work well on it.
ChromeOS runs on a Linux kernel, but the entire experience is very different from what you would normally expect from a Linux distro. I call the more recognizable distros "GNU/Linux" to differentiate.
Theoretically one piece of it is now cross-platform, however the core functionality only works on one platform, and actually seems explicitly engineered to be incompatible with the Ubuntu computer I have hooked up to the TV in my living room.
This is a pretty disappointing move, since I'm pretty sure Netflix will never run on that computer, and Netflix doesn't care.
I think Google has been first in implementing the proposed EME standard in HTML5 video. The ARM Chromebooks have been already using it to see Netflix video since a few months. Netflix can use Silverlight in IE11, but ARM Chromebooks don't have an alternative way of support and don't forget that Youtube doesn't like people easily downloading their videos like they do now.
And I think Chrome nightlies had the web DRM in place but were not enabled by default? Don't quote me on that.
Anyway, I think Firefox will be forced follow Chrome and IE now to implement DRM in HTML5 video. Firefox does not have the market power it once had thanks to Chrome.
Remember how the whole H.264 in HTML5 support thing played out for Firefox? They were on the side of not supporting it, and Google said it would remove it from Chrome, but that never happened, and Mozilla finally got tired of the effects of "Firefox doesn't support this site's video, let me use a browser that does" and added support.
The same thing is pretty much guaranteed to happen with EME as sites start using EME to stream video and IE, Chrome and Safari add support.
