Yeah, being limited to 720p because you run a free software operating system is not my idea of 'not shady' (Netflix is keeping their streams on Firefox and Chrome on 720p as a matter of policy, 1080p requires IE11, Edge, or Safari on a non-free operating system, or their proprietary app on an approved operating system).
The only way this makes sense is if the purpose of this blockade is to push people towards devices and operating systems that are completely locked down with DRM, from the software to the hardware. I can't think of any other reason — if Netflix does serve me 1080p and 4K streams, would that cause a sudden increase in the amount of pirated releases available?
I can already get everything on Netflix, in 1080p, if I really want just by visiting the usual pirate haunts! So what exactly is gained by degrading my viewing experience by only allowing me 720p as long as I choose to run a free operating system instead of a fully locked down platform?
I wish Netflix would give an honest answer on their DRM strategy, because it is driving me away.
I could understand if this was done because of licensing issues, but Netflix has decided on a blanket ban of 1080p and higher for their customers on free operating systems and anyone else who wants to use Chrome or Firefox.
You know that. I know that. Netflix engineering knows that. Hollywood content czars deep in their conservative DRM orthodoxy are having nightmares about it.
According to Wikipedia, Netflix had about 3500 employees in 2015. That's a pretty large company, and I assure you, the content producers pushing Netflix originals are going to a) have been hired out of that conservative Hollywood culture, b) be laterally very far away from the enlightened engineers in the Netflix corporate structure. Also c), the upper management above the engineers and the content producers who could resolve this kind of dispute, probably don't have enough exposure to an issue (1080p and 4k streams of Netflix Originals content to Linux-only customers) which affects a small minority of their customers.
If it was licensing issues, it'd at least be nice if Netflix only lowered quality where required instead of across the board. For crying out loud, why can't I get 1080p streams of Netflix originals on Linux - I've got the stupid Widevine CDM installed, what's the problem?
> Yeah, being limited to 720p because you run a free software operating system is not my idea of 'not shady' (Netflix is keeping their streams on Firefox and Chrome on 720p as a matter of policy, 1080p requires IE11, Edge, or Safari on a non-free operating system, or their proprietary app on an approved operating system)
Wait, really? I did not know that. I'm watching Netflix with Chrome on mac OS and always assumed that they use a poor bitrate for what I thought was 1080p content. This explains a lot. Any workaround on mac other than using Safari?
Speaking about quality on Netflix in general, I find it super annoying that they don't encode content that isn't available in DVD quality. They seem to have bitrates associated with resolutions, and the bitrate for 480p is pretty low. I wish they had another high-bitrate tier for 480p if the source is not available in HD.
From the second to second-last line, they're referring to shady practices in general. In their last, they're arguing that delivering lower-quality streams to Linux-based user agents is comparatively benign.
Strongly assume parent was referring to all those things that are done at other companies... vs the 720p issue at Netflix.
On the other hand, if Netflix has managed to reimplement the NSA's dragnet internally, I'm going to be really impressed by their engineers' productivity.
I totally understand the need for sources in informed discussions, but I also feel like these topics have been so well documented that they have reached a point where asking someone for a source every time they throw out the fact that companies are "Tracking people across the web" is a contrived roadblock at best, and purposely stifling to discussion at worst.
With that said, I don't want to just single you out since this is a common practice, so I went ahead and found sources for you:
I somewhat agree, however in I don't think the parent should have been down voted. If someone doesn't regularly follow tech news then it is completely reasonable for them to have never heard of any of these incidents. In addition, the original comment was ambiguously worded as to whether he/she was talking about Netflix or acts done at other companies.
True, but in this case you could type "tech {text of bullet point}" into google and in every single instance save one, the first link returned would've been a source of the info.
Asking for a source makes sense for controversial, or hard to find information. Not when it's so commonly reported that it's the first link on google on every single topic.
I don't see anything controversial about encrypting media you rent. The whole canard about DRM is that you don't own the media. You're not paying for ownership of Netflix videos. You're paying for access.
I've always thought that streaming services' main goal should be to be more convenient than digital piracy. That's when they win- when the service provides such a clear advantage over piracy that people are happy to pay money for it. At the moment, aside from ethical qualms, it is often more convenient for Linux, FF, and Chrome users to pirate Netflix's content.
It's not more convenient for Linux/FF/Chrome users to pirate. It can be a "better" option for those users to pirate if they absolutely need higher quality, but that's in no way more convenient than using Netflix.
Personally, I would rank convenience in this descending order: 720p Netflix on Chrome (my browser of choice); 1080p Netflix on a supported browser; piracy.
Maybe for the HN power user demographic the current DRM methodology is pushing users away, but for average joe (many of whom don't even know this is a thing) will happily plug along using Netflix.
> streaming services' main goal should be to be more convenient than digital piracy
That's a sensible goal. But Netflix is more convenient and has DRM.
They aren't mutually exclusive. They probably are for purchases of media (in fact... I'd say certainly are) but for streaming it's not.
The big thing with streaming is speed of access to the content and Netflix/et al are much better than piracy at that (it's instant vs waiting, even a short while, for a BT download... once you find it).
Streaming services main downside vs piracy is the catalog - piracy wins there, but by less in practical terms than you might expect.
Also, Netflix's library is incredibly small compared to the amount of shows people actually watch. Netflix now blocks rooted Android devices. Netflix's originals are mostly terrible. So piracy vs $10/month for so much less is just painful. They don't allow anything more than 720p on chrome quite ironic considering the widevine deal.
So yes, it seems Netflix is much more inconvenient than piracy.
While I also strongly disagree that Netflix's originals are "mostly terrible", I also think that awards shows are not as objective a judge of quality as I (and I imagine many others) would like.
That's really the hard part, isn't it? Reputable known reviewers identified at personal discretion? My problems with most award shows is that nominations are essentially purchased.
Awards shows are not real and are ridiculous. I don't like any of them, but the only ones people I know like are the Orange show and the Cards show. And now they are going to make a Death Note movie...
Wow.. really? There are many that are insanely popular.
House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black, as you mentioned but I'm not sure how you've missed their others like...
A Series of Unfortunate Events, Narcos, The Crown, Stranger Things, The OA, Sense8, Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, Grace and Frankie, Santa Clarita Diet, BoJack Horseman...
.. and that's without mentioning their extremely successful original kids programming or co-productions (like Lillyhammer, or the new Degrassi, or Dirk Gently) and of course their continuations (Fuller House, Arrested Development, Trailer Park Boys, Black Mirror.. etc).
Realistically, what's their option here? Take a stance on an issue not everyone agrees upon (and which most people don't care about) which could potentially shut them down in the long run?
It's totally in Netflix's interest to keep DRM and make it harder and more complicated to implement. It creates a huge barrier to entry and keeps the labels and people thinking this is "ok" or even "needed".
What could they do? They could not laud DRM on their blog. They could say they are reluctantly adding it. They could probably have pushed for 1080p in Chrome, etc. They could make their own stuff DRM free and publish piracy/subscription stats to show how much DRM helps.
Their choices aren't just "fully embrace it" or "go out of business".
Right, so we'll make it stupid simple for people to do. A giant, unencrypted library of movies, that can be saved and redistributed. Pirating exists, but if I asked most people how to do it, they still wouldn't know how to download a torrent client, find the torrent, unpack the movie, get a movie player, etc.. You know how locks on your front door keeps the honest thieves out? Same idea. I've never understood the complaints over DRM. At what point in your lives does it provide some type of hindrance? I load up Netflix, I start playing a movie until it's done. I don't give a shit if it was encrypted before I viewed it. All I care about is that I can watch it. What's the issue here?
It hasn't happened with Netflix on any large scale, yet. But it has happened in the past. There are videos games that are single player and can't be played without an active connection back to the publisher. What happens when the publisher doesn't like you or mislabels you as a pirate? What if you just want to play the video game you bought and payed fro without an Internet connection?
There were music stores that only played music through special software after getting decryption keys from an active connection to the Internet, and some of those stores shut down. What happened with the millions of dollars paid into those stores? What about the songs? Did you know that decrypting a song you bought and paid for is a crime?
I would rather get out in front of this entirely artificial problem before I have to support my friends and family who don't understand the nature of this problem.
You're comparing a subscription service to a game that you purchased a license for. The former you're not entitled to a copy of, the latter you are. With or without DRM, companies are also entitled to revoke your licenses regardless. You don't own any of it. DRM would also not exist, if it wasn't for everyone stealing the stuff. Do you really think companies want to pour all of the money and resources into this, if they didn't have to? Should games even have keys without DRM? What if I lose the key, and the company folded years ago. Now I can't play the game because they dared to require a key to play. Is your solution making everything openly available to download, and just relying on the goodness of the human heart to pay for it? Good luck.
I was answering in the general sense about what was wrong with DRM not anything specifically about Netflix, I even prefaced my comment with "It hasn't happened with Netflix on any large scale, yet".
But why can't I use their service on a device of my choosing at a resolution of my choice? Why is my perfectly capable Ubuntu machine limited to 720p and a windows machine isn't?
Having some kind of standardized access where I didn't have to put up with their BS would go a long way towards making that easier for me to deal with.
That's not what I meant. I meant that content owners simply won't deal with Netflix without DRM in place. Whether or not that's a rational approach is irrelevant; it's their stance on the matter.
Blocking virtually all VPNs and VPS IP ranges is not the most pleasant practice. I realize this is likely a Hollywood demand, but absent any kind of other information from them, it sure appears that they are complicit in it.
Further, they make it essentially impossible to to create a local routing rule to bypass the VPN for them alone. You're stuck whitelisting the whole of AWS.
Another example to add for "shady", for a long time Netflix used to push shows you'd watched to the end in your "continue watching" show to prompt you to watch them again, which could easily be mistaken for "the show actually has new episodes".
Maybe not shady, but surely controversial.
[0]: https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/
[1]: https://blog.archive.org/2017/04/18/drm-for-the-web-is-a-bad...
[2]: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/drm-in-web-standards