Bitcoin Forum

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/04/netflix-coming-to-html5-just-as-soon-as-the-drm-ducks-are-in-a-row/ (http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/04/netflix-coming-to-html5-just-as-soon-as-the-drm-ducks-are-in-a-row/)


What do bitcoiners think?  It's DRM, but the fact that the EME is an open API is reassuring (they do say most or all CDMs are likely to be proprietary, unmodifiable code).  It would be great for bitcoiners to sell selective protective access to video/audio and other media content to be easily viewed through a browser in exchange for bitcoin...

What are they attempting to prevent, exactly?

Apparently, all the major premium video content producers require strong protections on the video stream. Currently Netflix uses Microsoft silverlight browser plugin.  They don't want people copying the raw contents of the compressed video stream (of course you can always screencapure the raw frames of an entire video, but in order to redistriubte the video contents on a torrent for example, it would have to be recompressed so it can download in any reasonable amount of time, which would of course produce many undesirable artifcats.)

That's weird.  I love my bay, but I pay for Netflix, on account of it being so cheap.  Some people just want everything to be free :P

Edit:  At the same time, many regions are blocked from using Netflix, so I can see why torrenting would looking attractive.

There is more to it than not paying.  For Netflix, they are missing out on the market segment that can't run Microsoft Silverlight, namely users who only have linux desktop (although I am able to watch netflix just fine with a special wine emulator hack...on ubuntu: sudo apt-add-repository ppa:ehoover/compholio && sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install netflix-desktop).

http://www.fsf.org/

Sign their anti DRM campaign!

Not a fan of DRM but I don't see it can be stopped.

The corollary to some people want everything to be free is that some companies want everything to be expensive and for anyone and everyone who is exposed to their content in any way to have to pay full price.

DIE DRM DIE!!! KILL IT WITH FIRE!!! BURRRRRRRRN!!!!

I pay for all the movies I watch. Makes sense. Someone had to put up money to make them. And I'd like people to keep making movies.

Same goes for older movies too. Criterion does a fantastic job (while risking money) to find old prints, restore them and distribute them. I'd like them to continue with that. If everyone can get the work Criterion does for free, then Criterion will stop. And so will the flow of restored films.

Remember folks, DRM does not work as intended! It is easily bypassed by software. What computer can decode and display, it can capture and modify. Wait for open-source plugins for firefox that will bypass the DRM or manage the keys for infinite use.

I don't know why people prefer streaming vs torrenting and then watching in better quality. The laziness and trust in centralized service is gaining momentum in two digit IQ computer users.

If Netflix offered a torrenting service, people would torrent all they wanted and then quit the subscription (which is basically what my dad did with his online Playboy subscription.  Downloaded all the images he could find and then cancelled.)  In this case, Netflix would have to offer a one-time pass for, say, $100, which wouldn't make nearly as much money in the long run and would further make it easier for people to throw the files onto TPB, which none of the industry higher-ups would like.

How does one sell a creative, copyable product and still make a living?  It's just not something easily done.  Software devs face the same issue; Photoshop must be the most pirated software ever.  Not to say anyone who is pirating would actually pay otherwise, but, there's no easy way to pull it off.  Not in the system we have, anyhow; the only agreeable way to sell copyable products, without the risk of piracy, is to not charge for the product at all, and instead ask for donation.  I don't personally see the problem with this, but I believe a negative impact would be, "What if people just take my stuff and then never pay me for it?"  Which is entirely possible, but one must first assume people only pay for things if they have to.  In America, I'm fairly certain this is much more likely to happen, as people's cash don't buy them much of anything anymore, so why spend any more than one has to?

Which is why I love Bitcoin.

Exactly. However many users are willing to pay a low monthly fee if they can use a service guaranteeing good quality entertainment. It's not so great when you get a movie off a torrent, and it's subtitles are in russian, and it's a copy made with a camcoder in a public cinema.

So, in essence quality and ease of use + ease of mind in terms of breaking any copyright laws. There will always be piracy however, but selecting which film to see from a nifty menu and immediately have it streamed and watchable is preferrable for many people than download torrents from various sources, and not having any guarantee as to what you get until you actually see it. Then perhaps you have to delete it all and start over finding something new, and 30 mins are wasted.

I hate streaming. Any fluctuation in my internet and it's that "buffering" crap.

I pay large percentage of my monthly income for internet connection. About 25$ for 25 Mbps link both directions. I assume everything to be included in this, from latest version of Photoshop to latest Lady GaGa album and jap scat porn. It makes no sense to pay for inferior product even small subscription fee when TPB and private torrent trackers have any computer file I will ever need.

Paying for outsourced spam, spread and DDoS is another thing. It is paying for work done, not paying for information alone. Information was free and will be free forever! Internet is built upon this principle.This exactly. Having file on your hard drive makes you less dependent on network access and service.