HD Monitor Causes DRM Issues with Netflix 540
Jeremiah Cornelius points us to Davis Freeberg's blog, where he discusses his "nightmare scenario" of losing access to his DRM-protected purchases by upgrading his PC monitor.
"When I called them they confirmed my worst fears. In order to access the Watch Now service, I had to give Microsoft's DRM sniffing program access to all of the files on my hard drive. If the software found any non-Netflix video files, it would revoke my rights to the content and invalidate the DRM. This means that I would lose all the movies that I've purchased from Amazon's Unbox, just to troubleshoot the issue. Because my computer allows me to send an unrestricted HDTV feed to my monitor, Hollywood has decided to revoke my ability to stream 480 resolution video files from Netflix. In order to fix my problem, Netflix recommended that I downgrade to a lower res VGA setup."
Owned (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Owned (Score:1, Insightful)
Cancelling (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm. What is the problem here? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There are sample videos in the "My Videos" fold (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Owned (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean an OS that won't even stream Netflix content in the first place? That's not freedom either. If you choose to buy/subscribe to DRM'd content then you have the freedom to consume that DRM'd content on Vista with the (IMHO crappy) restrictions that come along with DRM'd content. If you don't want the DRM - and I wouldn't blame you - then don't buy that content.
Re:Owned (Score:5, Insightful)
In my opinion it is your own fault if you purchase DRM content. You don't HAVE to have their content. I know you really want to because its big Hollywood movies but what is difficult to understand. Your making a choice to retain your freedom or your use of Hollywood entertainment. If you know before hand that you could be screwed over while not doing anything wrong as well as not being able to go after the content provider because they did nothing outside of their agreement who's fault is it? It's surely not theirs. You decided to play their game and to pay them for the privilege. You get burned and cry to slashdot. It's very sad that there is good content that is going to be locked in DRM away but thats just bait for suckers.
Re:Why the surprise? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Owned (Score:1, Insightful)
What part of Free OS didn't you understand?
Re:Owned (Score:5, Insightful)
(Unfortunately) More people should get burnt by these DRM schemes so that people will ask twice before signing up for them. As knowledgeable as we (the
We are the people with the (purchasing) power. We have the power to get rid of DRM. We just have to use it wisely.
works as advertised (Score:5, Insightful)
--Sam
Re:Owned (Score:3, Insightful)
Netflix isn't even unique in the ability to allow this stuff to be streamed to a PC or TV.
It probably isn't even that cheap.
It probably isn't even superior to their snal-mail variant and possibly not even much better in terms of delivery speed.
On a certain level, you've got a point but it's a moot one.
Anything Netflix is offering over the web I can also stream around the house if I want to.
Major League Baseball pulled the same thing (non-hoax) on their subscriber. So something like this isn't even interesting anymore even if it is true.
Re:Cancelling (Score:3, Insightful)
That is just a sad fact of the situation.
I'll bite. (Score:2, Insightful)
No, I'd argue that you don't understand the issue. A Free OS doesn't fix the problem.
WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Owned (Score:5, Insightful)
It probably isn't even that cheap.
It's a free add-in to their service. For every buck per month you spend you get an hour of streaming. It may not be cheap, but since their standard mail service is already worth the money I spend, the Watch Now is a pleasant bonus.
It probably isn't even superior to their snal-mail variant and possibly not even much better in terms of delivery speed.
It would be better if the library were more robust, but the speed is fine. It starts in a few seconds.
Anything Netflix is offering over the web I can also stream around the house if I want to.
I don't know what you mean here, but it reminds me of the folks who say "I can just torrent whatever I want." Maybe, but I'm not interested in maintaining multiple gigabytes of video files, and torrents are hideously slow for things that are not widely popular. Netflix trades "free" for excellent service and breadth of offerings. It's like a massive hard drive with high latency. Since movies arrive in a timely fashion I'm rarely waiting for stuff, and on the off chance I want something now now now, and assuming it's offered on Watch Now, that option is available.
I dunno, maybe it's just because I have no vested interest in screwing the MPAA or whatever. The few bucks I give to Netflix every month is more than repaid in the service they provide without any streaming.
Re:Alternative to DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty much all watermarking research assumes that an attacker does not know how the watermarking technique works and does not intelligently attack the watermark. That assumption is hopelessly unrealistic. It's 100% security by obscurity.
Re:Owned (Score:1, Insightful)
its a sound plan too.
offer substandard online video services.
services fail.
look! we tried! it must have failed because of piracy.
we need more laws and more control to protect our monopoly.
win.
Re:DRM display lockout (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that to view some drm'd content* on a digital monitor you need to have a secure pathway from the computer to the monitor. The idea is that if you didn't have a secure pathway then it would be trivially easy to record the content being outputed and bypass the DRM.
So the reason he cant view his files now is that (from TFS)
*note it is the content providers choice whether their drm'd content will require a secure digital pathway from videocard to monitor. The fact that Amazon sets this flag on its SD content is extremely stupid. This kind of DRM was designed to prevent bluray and HDDVD movies from being easily ripped.
Finally I don't agree with any of this DRM crap at all. I think it's all bullshit and will never purchase any DRM'd video files, ever. But I don't like untrue FUD being tossed around even if it is against a MS product. Hell, it's not like the content providers will ever let their crap play on an OS without the ability to use this kind of DRM - what was MS supposed to do, not support the DRM and not even give consumers the option of watching DRM'd files? That's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater (even if in this case the baby is a seriously ugly SOB that few - but some - would want).
Re:I'll bite. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cancelling (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want proof of this, there are videos of Netflix having a working demo of their streaming tech on OS X from back in March, but they still haven't released it for the main site, since they still haven't gotten approval on the DRM from the sudios.
If you're going to protest, your protests should be directed at the MPAA. That may involve a boycott of Netflix as well, but it definitely shouldn't stop there, nor should Netflix be the primary focus.
Re:Owned (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah, they just believe that 95% of the population won't care enough to boycott and most will simply accept their terms and keep on shovelling money at them to view their latest blockbuster. They are probably right. It's likely a wise business move.
Re:Owned (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Owned (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:vista only (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sorry but serves your right (Score:4, Insightful)
But there is another side to it...
This guy is an early-adopter, and he's just been screwed. The next tier of customers frequently don't jump until they've gotten a warm fuzzy feeling from the early adopters. This guy's friends and acquaintances aren't going to get that feeling, and hold off a bit longer.
Originally one of the scary things about DRM was that most of it was going to be turned off - at first. My sinister presumption was that that would let the early adopters have their day - and make their recommendations. By the time they started turning the DRM on they would hopefully have significant market penetration, and assuming they were careful with their staging of turning it on, they'd likely get away with it.
If this is any sign, that plan hasn't come to pass.
This is Good News.
Re:DRM display lockout (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes they should have said stuff it to the studios. Microsoft controls over 90% of the desktops on the planet. For once they could have used their monopoly position to some good.
Re:I'll bite. (Score:5, Insightful)
The primary reason for free software being a good antidote to DRM is that I am voting with my wallet. Buying or staying with XP "instead" of Vista doesn't send Microsoft the message -- they may want you to get Vista, but you are still sending money Microsoft's way. OSX is also a big DRM supporter. So, by not purchasing OSX or Windows it sends the message to Apple & Microsoft that I will not spend money with DRM supporters.
Re:vista only (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only is it cheaper to download it off the net some where (pick your favorite source) the people who rip the content rip out the drm which makes it just easier to use. No worries about licenses , no worries about 2 services destroying each other, no worries about changing hardware and having to repurchase half your library because one service uses it and the other doesn't.
These companies just don't realize that drm is draconian. Multi Os platforms and easy to use video content that will play any where is what the future should hold. instead they try ad put a strangle hold on the content and tell us we can only use it on windows , and maybe if your lucky a mac. Basically telling me what OS and what hardware I should run by placing system requirements on the content , meanwhile on a Linux or Solaris box, I don't need anywhere near those resources to watch a downloaded movie.
Draconian restrictions were also used at the fall of the roman empire. I think we (the US) is really shooting ourselves in the foot with these restrictions.
And Yes I have seen these errors on my wifes Vista computer. God how I'd love to strip out vista and install ubuntu or fedora for her. Im tired of cleaning out windows systems !
Re:article text (Score:3, Insightful)
He tried to play some NetFlix "Watch Now" content. It didn't want to play back, probably due to some issue with the DRM licensing scheme, which might have tied his montor and video card to the playback license. When looking for help, NetFlix just redirected him to run the COPP tool.
What he really needs to do is to delete the NetFlix license and get a new one that maps to his new hardware. Instead of giving him a tool to remove only the NetFlix license, NetFlix took the low road and recommended a utility that is meant to remove all licenses cleanly.
Not only that, but there is a way to back up the licenses he already has so that after COPP removes his licenses, he can reinstate them for the content he already has. He'll need to get a new license for the NetFlix "Watch Now" content, which is really all that he needs to do anyway.
So Netflix recommended a tool that will make life hard on him, but he has a means to backup the licenses, delete the existing ones, and then reload the licenses from the backup, but he doesn't want to do that.
Unless I completely missed something from the article text... (Always possible.)
Re:Owned (Score:2, Insightful)
Lets face it, our power as purchasers is to not purchase that media. People aren't inclined to just go without. If there are alternatives, they may well choose them, if educated - but if all the outlets for this type of media decide to implement DRM in one way or another, what power do we have?
Unless, of course, they piss off enough people....
I've tried telling all my friends about the flaws in DRM, and its implementation in the PS3 and Vista, as examples. So far it has stopped no one from using vista, and isn't the reason people don't buy PS3's.
They figure that someone will just make a crack and they'll be able to do whatever. Never mind they may have their video degraded for using an unsupported video source, or whatever other nonsense is implemented... More people need to get pissed off. Stories like this are good. Stories like this need to happen more often, and publicized in more mainstream media outlets.
it would seem... (Score:2, Insightful)
keep treating us this way, and see what happens!
I have always found services like netflix to be unnecessary. I use a little-known service called bit-torrent to get my movies. the selection is good and the price is great. best of all, no region restrictions, and no DRM! everyone should use it!
Re:I'll bite. (Score:4, Insightful)
That part is not true.
At least on a Free(TM) OS, more Free than Linux currently is, it would not be possible to implement effective DRM, because the user would effectively have control over everything the application has access to. This means that, for instance, you could always run it in a virtual machine, record all traffic in and out of it (including to the pseudo random number generator library), and do a replay attack on it.
That's the more brute-force attack. The fact is, a rootkit should be much easier on Linux. Given the default policy of no root access and the sheer variety of kernels out there, there's simply far less that an app can be sure of about its environment, which makes it much more difficult to tell if that environment is "real" or "trusted". Most games which have been ported to Linux did not bother to port any of the CD-based copy protection, probably because they realized how insanely simple it would be for Linux people to implement an undetectable Daemontools.
With at least the major proprietary OSes, you'll first have to crack the DRM that's built-in to the OS -- convince it that it really is running on bare metal, or convince it to let you do that messing-with-the-IO trick.
So it doesn't completely solve the problem, but I do believe a free system is a lot more hostile, in practice and also in culture, to DRM.
I'm fully aware that Linux itself can have binary kernel modules, at which point, there's really no technological difference. But the cultural difference is important. Anyone switching to Linux is also going to be acutely aware of DRM, partly because things without DRM will work for them, and things with DRM won't (at least for now).
hate to say i told you so... (Score:4, Insightful)
And before I say this and everyone mods me for flamebait, i'm just echoing what I think is right...
STOP BUYING DRM PROTECTED MEDIA. Problem solved. Read a book, peruse Slashdot, talk to your wife... i dunno, but giving the hollywood pigs their chow will not bring about any change.
mod away, sry.
Re:vista only (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly though, there is little to no competition to a fully "pirate" setup.
* XBMC on old Xbox with component video cables (720p max, but that's what my LCD is
* LAMP media server, exports *everything* on simple usr/pwd shares
* movies transcoded from my library
* MP3's transcoded from my library
* BBC shows and other public broadcasting shows I like
No real reason I couldn't add an RSS feed to TPB and autograb shows other than WGHB and BBC stuff (or movies etc.)
According to the **AA my copies of my music/movies are not proper and thus "pirate" etc. and it blows absolutely every other option I've tried out of the water. In theory I could add a myth back-end server and capture off the air/cable with a DVB card or a hauppage + cable box setup, but honestly there is no need.
XBMC is even better than myth in my opinion, and both of them kick the pants off of XP-MCE.
-nB
Re:vista only (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate DRM. No wonder people are turning to piracy.
Oh well, add it to the list of things that Ron Paul will solve within 1 week.
Re:vista only (Score:5, Insightful)
This should be called illegal restraint of trade and monopoly abuse.
It should be also dealt with accordingly.
Why use HDMI? (Score:3, Insightful)
To be honest, I'm fairly skeptical about the claims of superiority of HDMI. Are people being suckered?
Re:vista only (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:vista only (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM has managed to make "pirates" out of people. Sharing music through various means has been a part of human culture since the dawn of time. We sing to each other, play for each other, perform for each other. By natural extension, we loaned or copied sheet music to to each other, we loaned or copied player piano tracks to each other, we loaned or copied records and tapes to each other, and now more recently, we share and copy MP3s to each other.
The industry has taken a human social behavior and have criminalized it for their own profits adding "force of law" to their business model.
This stuff has gotten out of hand long ago and it is taking far too long to set things straight. The best answer is to restore copyright durations to their original time frame. There's no need to extend it to over 100 years as we seem to have it now. In fact, under present law, there is very high risk of losing the public domain entirely as well as losing access to artistic works in the future! Consider the issues we have seen with document formats and the push to get them into open standard formats. The purpose? To avoid having important and public information being lost due to the format no longer being supported while remaining secret. Right now, we're collecting our music in digital formats that are locked away by both technology and law where neither accounts for an "end" of the duration of copyright. It accounts for nothing about what happens when the works are no longer covered under copyright. The works are lost!
Re:vista only (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, the fall of the Roman Empire can be traced directly to restrictive DRM schemes imposed by the media of the day ;) So restrictive were they that it was often easier to just pirate the town criers announcements by listening to friends repeat what he had to say then trying to listen to him directly.
Sorry for the sarcasm, I largely agree with what you had to say up until this. It might have been better to say that corruption played a part in the downfall of Rome -- corruption triggered by people with financial interests to protect. That actually sounds kind of familiar.... :(
What's stopping you? Ironically enough my girlfriend (the artist) is less locked into Windows then I am (the IT person). She needs a PC to be able to surf the web (Firefox), do document production for her graduate courses (Open Office) and read e-mail (any number of free clients). She didn't even notice when I switched her to Firefox and isn't really locked into anything that requires Windows.
I'm screwed, because I need MS Abscess^WAccess for work and the ability to join my PC to our Active Directory. Even on a personal level I'm more locked in then she is, because I'm into gaming and keep all of my finances in Quicken.
Re:vista only (Score:3, Insightful)
Amen! I've been saying for years that I wish they could come up with a DRM scheme that truly is uncrackable. Not only for audio and video media, but for software as well. And I hope that Microsoft, Apple, the MAFIAA, and everyone else uses the hell out of it to lock everything down so tight that no one can get access to anything. Most people look at me like I'm crazy.
The reason, of course, is because right now, DRM is still viewed by a lot of people—even technical people who ought to know better—as a problem limited to software and media "pirates". They've grown accustomed to buying and re-buying the same videos and songs in multiple formats, or being locked into one device to play their stuff for so long, they have no idea that there should be alternatives.
If DRM were locked down so tightly that it affected every aspect of your entertainment as much as those who implement it want it to, everyone from the most technical of gurus down to your average schmoe on the street would finally understand why this issue is so important. They wouldn't be able to ignore it any more. Maybe, just maybe, people would start fighting back for their rights to use the software, watch the video, and listen to the music they rightfully own. Until it's a problem that affects average, normal people in a tangible, impossible-to-ignore way, it will continue to be out there on the fringes of what people get upset about.
Re:Is Piracy a problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:vista only (Score:1, Insightful)
Let's face it