I can't think of a single way where this hurts the consumer:
- I don't own the video, so there's no need to be able to do a backup to multiple places, or to have an un-encrypted copy.
- I get better battery life (although this isn't related to DRM, but if we wanted a native playback in the browser, we'd need this.
- Sounds like WebCrypto will probably do hardware-accelerated encryption/decryption (using AES-NI probably?), which is a win overall on the security side.
Cons:
- I don't get to rip the video anymore.
- I can't just play the video on any device (although it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback)
- I can't look at the back and forth JS-based traffic on this netflix site
Where I get more mad is if I _purchased_ the movie, and it's encrypted and I can't do anything with it.
Rentals? Don't care.
You already listed it, and without even thinking about it described why it's such a serious problem:
> I can't just play the video on any device (although it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback)
Suppose that I want a device I can verify. The reasons for this have nothing to do with movies. I just want to know that the device I'm using for my business doesn't have a backdoor put there e.g. by the Chinese government or any other government or corporation when it was manufactured. I want to know nobody has access to my trade secrets, so I want to be able to verify the device myself, or be secure in the knowledge that someone I trust has verified it and that anyone can who wants to.
This should have nothing to do with movies. I don't care whether or not anybody else wants to watch Batman on their iPad, I just want to look at all the bits I paid for and be able to change them as I please.
But if somebody releases a device I can verify, that device would be incompatible with DRM, because DRM can't withstand transparency. And devices have network effects. Hence why "it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback" -- because having Netflix creates more sales for a device than being approved by neckbeards, so the manufacturers all respond to the market. Anyone who tolerates DRM is making everyone less secure.
And it's even worse than that, because it's not just that you can't verify a device with DRM. You also can't make a device with DRM. If you don't know what's in the black box then you can't reproduce it. The only way a system gets DRM is if Netflix et al will do the work, which they don't do for anything without enough existing market share. And how is a system supposed to get any market share if it can't display any content? This is why Microsoft likes DRM. It destroys the ability of newcomers to enter the market. That's the real consumer harm. Can you imagine what the landscape would have looked like if Microsoft had "provided" DRM for images and web pages in the 90s? No Firefox and no iPhone.
Plus, who actually has the expertise to truly verify that a device has no backdoors? Security Experts? Well they can do the same with these devices (MSE seems to be a W3C standard). How far will you go? Hardware?
Like I said, when I purchase something, I hate when it has DRM applied. I own about 50 books on the Kindle, and they are all DRM-encumbered, and I hate that I can't lend them to other members of my family like I could do easily with a paper book. These are my books. I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with them (including backing them up).
But I read this post about Netflix video rentals and I think "awesome, I can watch a hi-def movie on my laptop without burning my lap." I suppose others just can't get past the fact that this involves DRM.
But these are rentals. I have no such expectations.
DRM is a black box with privileged access to hardware whose purpose is to download encrypted information to your computer and prevent you (the computer's owner) from reading it. It would be more effective at hiding the installation of a rootkit than at its stated purpose.
> Plus, who actually has the expertise to truly verify that a device has no backdoors? Security Experts? Well they can do the same with these devices (MSE seems to be a W3C standard).
Please identify the location where the source code to the black boxes they require can be viewed for auditing by members of the public.
But I absolutely care of the music that I own is encrypted.
What you're saying is that A) doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that B) really does matter quite a lot, and in a way that has nothing to do with downloading vs. streaming.
The ironic thing is that Hollywood is shooting itself in the foot. You want to commoditize your complements.[1] DRM is doing the complete opposite and creating a huge barrier to entry in the markets complementary to streaming video. Look at the book publishers and Amazon -- is that really the position Hollywood wants to be in when negotiating with Apple or Google? Hollywood benefits from more competition in the systems market. Dropping a boat anchor in the form of the inability to display their content on any small timer who tries to compete with one of their powerful third party distributors is masochism. Which is why C) isn't half as implausible as some people seem to think.
[1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html
Conversely, I know of old school internet radio stations (shoutcast/icecast style) that charge for high bandwidth streams. I can play those streams on any player I want, over any network I want.
No-DRM is better in all cases.
The video will have DRM. That's not up for debate.
What's up for debate is whether you need a plugin (which runs in a sandbox) or you can decode using code closer to the metal (browser native).
To be able to play these videos natively in the browser without sandboxed plugin code, you need to still have DRM. Whether you like it or not, this is what the studios want.
The better battery life comes from begin able to decode the video in hardware, because you aren't using a plugin anymore. And you aren't using a plugin anymore because you natively support the DRM.
It really should be.
The music companies couldn't accomplish this. Maybe the studios closely watched and learned from the "failures" of the music industry.
One example of how DRM will hurt the consumer is what I hear about DVDs starting with unskippable ads. The studios have shown nothing but contempt for customers. Don't think I'm advocating for DRM by being excited about this news.
But seriously, in this case, I've just never heard anyone complain about DRM with Netflix or be hampered by it. I don't see how this is anything but a win-win for consumers without adversely affecting the content-watching experience.
Has there been any point in history where it has been easier to make a movie, record a song, or write a story? Has there been any point in history where our culture has been more free? Man it would be a shame if we didn't get to see the latest Hollywood blockbuster, but culture will always continue. There's no way to remove that right within any legal framework.
What you're worried about is that we won't be able to buy a copy of the next superhero movie. Oh well. There's still plenty of free and worthwhile works of media that can never be forced to close.
But, what does Netflix gain from using DRM?
A business. Without DRM their is no way they'd be able to get the content they charge for.
The studios will license them video.
For a company like Netflix it isn't non-DRM HTML5 vs DRM HTML5, it's DRM HTML5 or Flash/Silverlight/other proprietary plugin.
(For any downvoters: this was meant as a compliment.)
http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.h...