Netflix Avoided Android Because It Didn't Have Enough DRM
from the anti-open dept
Apparently Netflix has not yet been offered up on Android phones because the platform just has too much damn freedom. Netflix admitted in a blog post that the lack of DRM that makes Hollywood happy means that it couldn't offer movie streaming to Android. This seems rather ridiculous. Hollywood's focus on DRM seems like such a huge waste of time, money and resources. Did they learn nothing from the music industry's failed obsession with DRM? DRM doesn't work. It doesn't prevent unauthorized sharing, but does end up pissing off legitimate users -- such as by preventing them from watching Netflix films on their Android-powered devices.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's really sad ... the more I use and enjoy linux, the more I hate people who use linux.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do that many people count as "unpopular" these days?
Caveat: I'm not a Linux afficianado, I can just count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or to put it another way, the incidence of the sun's energy on the earth is, (hmm maths fail), what 1400 W/sq compared to 63300000 W/sq m? About 0.00002% ish? That seems be be faily "popular" for such a small number......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Netflix on the other hand uses Sliverlight, which is Microsoft's half-defunct Flash competitor, which of course doesn't work on Linux. There may be a way to play Silverlight content using Mono, but like most people I don't care enough to bother trying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's what moonlight is for: http://www.mono-project.com/Moonlight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
can i stream 'avatar'? nope. but i get a lot of dr who, i saw 'pillars of the earth' and 'sparticus: blood and sand' a day after they were on TV.
so the library is quite good. patience helps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
however, it's also done mostly through silverlight, which is it's own amusing (and soon to be unsupported) issue.
All netflix is/was, is a legal alternative to simply going out and torrenting the movies. A poor alternative, but one that's not too bad. It's kinda like steam gaming. It's retarded, fails, and all that, but it's the "best of the worst" as humorous as that sounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
I know that I'm a Steam fanboy in some regards but I don't see how they've failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
as a soldier in the us army that has been deployed to afghanistan i hate steam, its the whole lack of internet out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
...while the rest of Netflix's customers stay happy with their service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
LoL
Remember Netflix is a local solution, not a global one, so most people don't care because it is not useful to them.
The industry don't want to make global deals because it cuts profits, they like to charge for each and every region separately but I don't think that will work well in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
Poor sad pandas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
While their streaming catalog has gotten better, they are far from being a streaming company that happens to rent DVDs. They are a DVD company first and foremost. It is their marketing lies I object too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
The studios have even started dictating a lag in physical DVD rentals on services such as Netflix and Blockbuster. Their reasoning is that people interested in the movies will be more likely to purchase them instead.
But, ultimately I think Netflix is a decent service. What cannot be streamed can be to you in a physical shipment in about a day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
And, really, we're not fan boys. You're just wannabe-elite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
Personally, we cut the cord with Netflix streaming alone.
However, just like any product or service, it's not for everyone. That doesn't mean that it's not for anyone. Quit whining about Netflix and go buy DVDs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
Yet, you blame Netflix for this?
Re-read the article again and note WHY Netflix wants DRM on Android. Here's a hint:
"...the lack of DRM that makes Hollywood happy..."
It shouldn't be too hard to figure out why streaming isn't online and it has nothing to do with Netflix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't get it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it!
In gaming, it's not going to stop people from copyright infringement on a title. See also, Securom and it's "legion of followers".
In music, DRM limits the number of times you can put music onto a computer.
In Movies, it's the same concept. Stop people from transferring movies to computer or prevent them from changing a movie around a limited number of times. Hell, I'm fairly sure that if Hollywood got its way, they'd try to dissolve the disc after 100 plays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't get it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't get it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it!
meanwhile, the people who you have put out the DRM to stop in the first place, are cruzing right along without any problems because they just strip the DRM out.
so, again... why use DRM since the only thing it ever accomplishes is to piss off and alienate legit customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it!
Good! Me, too. I like consuming entertainment, and I don't mind paying for it.
But...if you had invested millions in your content you may be a little sensitive to how it is distributed.
Sure, of course. You want to make sure that you get the maximum financial return from your investment. As a paying customer, I totally get that.
I understand that DRM has not been a great solution for music and is definitely not the the be all and end all, but calling the industries efforts a huge waste of time! A little much.
I don't know if you've noticed, but music isn't DRM'd anymore. It caused so many problems that paying customers refused to use it. That was a big bummer for the whole 'maximum return' thing, and the music companies had to get rid of it completely, meaning that it was, in fact, a huge waste of time.
Everyone seems big on doing away with all the barriers to file sharing and distribution AND whine how the price is always to expensive for non-free content.
Actually, this post is about doing away with barriers so that people can purchase content. Price isn't mentioned at all.
About price, though, right now, Android users can easily watch pirated content. What they can't do is watch legally obtained content. You know, the kind that people pay money for? Anyway, it's hard to get to the whole 'maximum return' thing when you refuse to let people purchase your product.
I am not sure, but tv and movie content is a lot more expensive to produce then music.
Yes, that's why they should make sure that as many people as possible can purchase it.
I think a little understanding of the economies here might help make the anti-DRM argument a little stronger.
I'm reasonably sure that the writer of the post has a little understanding of economics... Since he is, in fact, an economist. :)
Nice try, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't get it!
You repeat "maximum return" without considering *long-term* and more important goals; right now, even if having found music DRM ineffective, the media companies are *going around* your view of economics by getting the gov't to *ensure* the effectiveness of DRM in future. And they do not necessarily care about maximizing anything except *people control*. -- Once they have that, rest is easy pickings.
For those who keep saying the world is changing and companies better adjust, you sure fail to notice that the *major* change of the last many years is gov't action. The purpose of gov't is no longer about "letting" people or "free" markets; it's about locking down for corporations.
>>> Guess it's time to again point out that I *don't* favor the media companies -- let alone gov't -- but I'm a realist and can see what's coming. After the last ten years, who dares call me alarmist?
"I'm reasonably sure that the writer of the post has a little understanding of economics... Since he is, in fact, an economist. :)
Nice try, though."
I too am sure he has a *little* understanding of economics, abstract, from an ivory tower, heavily biased against "baristas" and other workers. In any case, since Mike doesn't factor in gov't action (obtained through pressure and bribery), his conclusions are irrelevant.
Condescend to object line by line if you wish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't get it!
Anything besides making more people aware that it can be done, that is?
(not condescending, just asking)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't get it!
No, I didn't. Maximum return is exactly that. :)
...right now, even if having found music DRM ineffective, the media companies are *going around* your view of economics by getting the gov't to *ensure* the effectiveness of DRM in future.
No, they're not.
Oh, wait! You mean that they're putting laws into place to scare people? And you think that's going to work?
Oh, hon. :P
And they do not necessarily care about maximizing anything except *people control*. -- Once they have that, rest is easy pickings.
Yes, it would be 'easy pickings' if they ever happened to get that. Too bad for them, huh? Historically, they have never had a lock-down on content, and they never will. If if they 1984'd the Internet, Sneakernet would still spread content for free. Of course, this post isn't about free. It's about how to allow people to pay you by ditching DRM.
For those who keep saying the world is changing and companies better adjust, you sure fail to notice that the *major* change of the last many years is gov't action.
No, the major change is people not caring about whether or not their file-sharing is illegal. The government's futile attempts to control information through arbitrary laws are laughable and hardly worthy of consideration in an economical context.
The purpose of gov't is no longer about "letting" people or "free" markets; it's about locking down for corporations.
Yes, too bad that it's never worked. You keep speaking of legal controls. You understand that their controls have never lasted longer than a week, right?
I too am sure he has a *little* understanding of economics, abstract, from an ivory tower, heavily biased against "baristas" and other workers.
Yes, because he doesn't make money as an economist and a business-owner. He's just a wet-behind-the-ears grad with no clue on how the world works. Not like you, Anonymous. You really understand how economics and DRM work together with the law, to finally stop people from sharing content.
/sarcasm
In any case, since Mike doesn't factor in gov't action (obtained through pressure and bribery), his conclusions are irrelevant.
In any case, since government action doesn't and isn't going to work, your conclusions are relevant.
Condescend to object line by line if you wish.
Try to scare off honest discussion by criticizing those who disagree with you, if you wish. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get it!
I'll just pick at one crucial misunderstanding on this reply.
"You keep speaking of legal controls." -- NO, I'm worried about ILLEGAL controls when corporations and gov't run amok, the clear trend. I'm afraid that police state incrementalism works. But if you disagree, next time you fly, just tell the nice TSA people that you have rights and won't submit to their illegal, molesting search. You'll effectively be on the no-fly list, at best, because you won't be flying. Similarly, a level of fear can be inculcated to on the one hand prevent file-sharing (the aim of relevant corporations), and simultaneously on other hand, institute a total police state: "terrorists are undermining our economy by file-sharing!" has already been trotted out, somewhere.
***
"Nice try, though." is your condescension to someone else above, clearly with the aim that you accuse me of, besides on my thread: "Remember, folks... Don't feed the troll!" -- Evidently you regard it as okay for *you* to call names with the goal of stifling dissent, so my point was: you're a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get it!
No, they can't and your example doesn't work. In order to fly, you have to physically submit to another person. Even so, it would be fairly easy to get a bomb past the TSA. In order to fileshare, you have to have a computer in the privacy of your own home. Even in a world where the Internet is locked down tight (Which isn't going to happen. See China and Iran for more details.), you can still turn off your Internet, copy that disc, and give it to your neighbor.
It doesn't matter, though, because we're never going to get to a point where the law effectively bars your from sharing files on the Internet. Even the arrest of the Chinese Democracy leaker didn't faze anymore. When we do care, we're either outraged or amused at politicians who get caught up in their own copyright web. (You know, the one that we don't care about.)
"Nice try, though." is your condescension to someone else above, clearly with the aim that you accuse me of...
'Nice try, though.' was me complimenting someone on coming up with a fairly unique argument for DRM. They stated that DRM was going to work this time, not because the tech is so good, but because the government would be able to successfully enforce a ban against it. That's a fairly novel argument, even if I do disagree with it. The only condescension is in your own mind.
...besides on my thread: "Remember, folks... Don't feed the troll!"
Oh, I see. You're commenting here because you're upset that I called you a troll in a lower thread. Wow, man. Wow.
Hey, I'm sorry that I called you a troll. I genuinely believed that you were a troll and, honestly, I'm still not 100% convinced that you're not. (The world would be a better place if you were one, though.)
Evidently you regard it as okay for *you* to call names with the goal of stifling dissent, so my point was: you're a hypocrite.
No, I 'regard it as okay' to point out obvious trolls in order to stifle useless frustration, since trolls don't come here to have a conversation about the post.
So my point is: You're an idiot. Or a troll. Maybe both, I don't know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get it!
I'm doing the same for you here:
right now, even if having found music DRM ineffective, the media companies are *going around* your view of economics by getting the gov't to *ensure* the effectiveness of DRM in future.
No they're not, cause there is *no* way to ensure effectiveness of DRM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it!
It doesn't stop piracy. Doesn't even slow it down.. its a waste of time and resources and only angers legitimate customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm...
Not to give Netflix a pass on this, but I suspect they simply don't care one way or another about DRM, and if their content providers say 'it must have DRM', then they have to provide DRM because they need the content for their overall streaming service.
It would be nice if they could educate the content companies that DRM isn't worth any significant effort, but have you ever tried to change the opinion of ANY corporate exec? It doesn't work well, and if he's the one with the cards, you don't have a lot of options for forcing his opinion to change. You just have to go with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummm...
10 inch tablets (ipad and competitors) maybe owners?
Anyway, if Netflix is selling movies for Iphones, there's probably a market.
But curse those pinko commie anarchists from Google, they are killing music/cinema/whatever, they munch an artist every morning for breakfast. We should support real, serious alternatives, like Iphones and Windows Phone 7, who offer the right artist protection mechanisms (Newspeak for DRM).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
As I've surely said here, soon as they get the hardware and software *all* locked down (effectively so, don't quibble), DRM and their "dinosaur" notions *will* work. All you're saying is that a little freedom is left for now, and boy are they *dumb* for not streaming to devices that aren't locked down. -- Or to people who haven't paid up front.
This is simply outlining the future. It's Android which will change, putting in DRM, because it's the "content" which is valuable, not the brand of phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
For a history of that, put any amount of effort into finding any movie (or music). They are out there. It just takes one person buying the disk (for example), then using the analog whole to copy it and make it available. Then folks who want it bad enough just find it. The DRM did not stop that, and can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
there will always be those smart enough to get around it. they will always share their findings and there will always be people who will use the non-legit methods becuase the leget methods have too many impedences to a smooth inexpensive and easy method to watch/listen/game.
its not technically possible to build a lock that cant be picked and its financially not smart to spend money on new and better locks year after year simpley because of this fact.... its a huge downward spiral that could easily be fixed by giving customers what they want at a fair price rather than forcing down their throat what YOU want.
of course, thats just my personal opinion...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
Let me just ask: IF you ran a significant chance of going to jail for copyright infringement, would you still do it? -- Not unless crazy. -- And yes, they *do* have enough jail cells, and will build more. Police and prisons are one of the few areas growing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
Or, what the hell, if you're really that set on supporting an outdated business model, why not just have the government pay the companies in question the money that would cost in return for giving everything away for free? Even that would be a better use of the (YOUR) money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
So the answer to your question is yes, people will still file share.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
But we don't...we have dead bolts, alarm systems, surveillance systems, etc....despite the fact that any home or building can be broken into, no matter how much security we put on it.
If we applied your logic for DRM, we'd all just leave our front doors wide open.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
The music industry has largely learned this. Most music downloaded through iTunes has no encryption. Eventually the movie industry will learn this as well, but it will probably take another 10 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
/sadface
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
Netflix is printing money by distributing content. That's money that content creators are not getting. They have shown that quality and convenience is able to compete with free. The Content Business has not figured this out yet. Just like they haven't figured out that DRM doesn't make money, it loses money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
So, the goal is to deliberately alienate any customer who uses one of the most widely used smartphone platforms in the world?
Because that's the only thing it's doing. It's not stopping piracy one iota. I doubt piracy was even much of a potential issue in this case - why pirate a low-quality stream, when you can pirate the DVD or Blu-Ray?
Or perhaps it's just a way for Hollywood to force everyone to use DRM. That's possibly their thinking, but I doubt it will work. All that will happen is that rather than watch Netflix, Android users will just get it from The Pirate Bay (or whatever site is up this week).
Or, more likely, users will just "jailbreak" their Androids to bypass the DRM. Things like this are already legal for iPhones, so I don't see it being unlawful for Androids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
DRM Protected Content Storage (using 2.3mb of memory!)
Process: com.sec.android.providers.drm
From what I gather, Netflix is claiming there is "not enough".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
We must quibble cause that just won't happen EVER. I'm still amazed why people seem to think the rest of the world would have to abide by american laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM is all about control, not "protecting" content
To distribute copyrighted video, you need a license from the content owner (or indirectly via a licensed rights holder). If a content owner mandates DRM in all license agreements, then a degree of control can be maintained through the whole distribution process, right up the the point when the video reaches your eyeballs.
Unlike broadcast TV and a lot of cable, Netflix's streams can be encrypted with DRM from end-to-end. If, for example, you wanted to make a DVR to capture and re-purpose Netflix video streams, you'd need to decrypt the streams first. If you did that without permission, then you'd be in violation of anti-circumvention laws like the DMCA.
Of course, DRM doesn't "protect" content. That's not the issue, and I think even arguing about it distracts from far more important topics. DRM can and will be used by incumbent vendors to create and maintain a virtual monopoly by controlling the whole value chain, right up to and including your TV set, or any other video device you might ever own.
Will there ever be DRM on Android? I think it's a certainty. There's just too much money at stake. Google will do whatever it takes to get the content people want on their platform. The way copyright works today gives Hollywood the ability to pretty much dictate the terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Three things...
a) The majority of pirates I know use Windows computers to do their ripping. (usually cracked and pirated versions of Windows at that) I don't know of any Linux users who pirate. (Though I'm sure there are some) So, the idea that just because someone is running no-DRM Linux ensures that they're automatically a pirate is kind of funny to me.
b)I think that some posters are right, this is more about keeping their suppliers happy than anything else. Netflix is a DISTRIBUTOR of content, not a creator of content after all. If they loose their suppliers, then they have a problem because they have no product to distribute.
c) Since Silverlight is going away, they'll probably have to go to Flash to continue to stream content at all, which should solve the problem. That or else they'll have to close the streaming operation entirely. Which will provide a business opportunity for someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess they just fail to see the larger picture or maybe they even refuse to acknowledge it with hopes that it will go away somehow. Who knows? The simple fact of the matter is that media of all type is moving to digital format and away from physical format.
They are rapidly gettting left behind and they are either too ignorant to realize it or too stupid to acknowledge what is happening and adjust accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's wrong with watermarking ?
So if you were trying to reduce the incidence of MP3's being pirated you'd
- watermark each copy sold, tying it to the buyer
- have something google-like to find your content on illegal sharing sites, and identify the buyer whose copy was fed to the sites
- fine the people who allowed their personal copy to be pirated.
Now, REAL pirates could get round this (ie could remove the watermark)
But it addresses the worry that making content too easy to copy would make even amateur pirates share files.
Crucially, it does not in any way impede the use of the content by the innocent.
But it makes distribution a tad more expensive and I suspect some in the industry are just too greedy to put up with that cost increase.
It won't stop me copying something for a mate, but it might stop me uploading my copy so 20,000 people can download it.
And that's surely what they are worried about, isn't it ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's wrong with watermarking ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's wrong with watermarking ?
I'd estimate less than 2 days after this became standard practice there will be 140+ "one click" programmes floating about the internet to remove watermarks.
Of course the "real pirates" (and in that rather ironicly titled group I include anyone who knows what to do with source code) will have got there long before that and will have broken the technology before the standard to implement it was even decided upon and the source code and/or scripts for it will likewise be floating around for anyone who cares to look.
In the mean time, it will turn out that the new "technology" means that the media you just bought doesn't work with whatever you're trying to play it on so you'll have to buy a new [insert whatever media player device or program you have here]. Some will do that, which will be a nice ancillary bonus for those in that space, but each time another iteration is enacted, some people will decide "Why should I buy a new [whatever] to play this that I already bought?" and will either get an "naughty" unprotected version of whatever it is or get the "one click program", and then likely will continue to do so because they find it's so easy to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's wrong with watermarking ?
Watermarking does not have to be to a "standard".
Every publisher can have their own. They can change it daily.
All that matters is
- the publisher's search tool can find and identify rogue content of their own
- the principle is algorithmically strong enough to make a legal case against the identified source of an upload
-- In the mean time, it will turn out that the new "technology" means that the media you just bought doesn't work with whatever you're trying to play it on --
A watermark does not make an MP3 unplayable. It is hidden within the data.
-- Why is it everyone who suggests watermarks things they are the first person to have thought of it
I mrerly asked "why don't they use it ?". Because I genuinely don't understand and thought I'd get an answer here (of anywhere).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's wrong with watermarking ?
A good question actually considering the other ludicrously hopeless things that have been tried. Perhaps the quality thing is the final straw even for a music exec to realise that charging the same or more (to cover development costs) for less quality really will drive peopel to illegal sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's wrong with watermarking ?
- watermark each copy sold, tying it to the buyer
- have something google-like to find your content on illegal sharing sites, and identify the buyer whose copy was fed to the sites
- fine the people who allowed their personal copy to be pirated.
Easier said than done.
1. Watermarking is expensive and decreases the quality of the content.
2. Watermarking is almost always easily removed.
3. How do you deal with situations where someone's laptop is stolen/lost etc and suddenly they get blamed for uploading tons of content they did not.
4. Watermarks often have privacy issues, since they include some sort of identifier in the watermark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously ? If I hide a small encrypted code in 11MB of MP3 it will distort the music ?
-- 2. Watermarking is almost always easily removed. --
There seems to be an assumption here that all watermarking is to some "standard". As a content producer, I could use a different system with every single thing I publish if I wanted. There's certainly no reason to use an open or published standard. A pirate would need to "diff" many legit copies to identify what the watermarked part of the data was.
So a generic tool that would enable a non expert punter to remove the watermark from a single item of media he has paid for before uploading it strikes me as a nearly impossible coding task.
Programs to get around DRM are widely available because lots of end users may want to use them. Code to remove a watermark would be far less in demand because only the uploader would actually care. Furthermore, with DRM circumvention software the punter can tell if it has worked (it plays). With watermark removal software, how can I tell it has really worked ?
The main limitation, as you say, is the expense of generating individual watermarked media on the fly at point of sale so it can be tied to the buyer (or rather, at the point of distribution, as the publisher does not want the retailer running this).
It'd be easier if they had started a while back. Now the genie is out of the bottle (stores up and running selling un DRM'd MP3s are now the norm) the best that the distributor could hope for is a watermark per retailer (so they can at least follow part of the trail).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And I think you underestimate how easy it is to remove watermarks.
I'll leave the final word to Ed Felten and move on to other things:
http://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/how-watermarks-fail
http://freedom-to-tinker.co m/blog/felten/mistrust-based-drm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even in your parallel universe where that might actually be effective in stopping copying (and trust me it's the only place it would) the net effect would be to force the end user price so high to cover those costs that the value vanishes completely and people would simply stop buying.
Meanwhile, in the real world, it'd have to be algorithmically-based to change constantly and that's suceptible to cracking.
Oh and even in "your" universe where "file sharing" stops, all that happens is you get your "friends" to upload a 16,000 songs zip-file direct to the FTP server you just brought up for the purpose then remove after they have or even post you a memory stick. Then how do you check the watermark if it's not online?
See how it works? Every time a new DRM technology is released there's SOME way round it. The phrase you're seaching for is "re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As far as this DRM argument goes: good encryption does not rely on closed platforms. That's a fallacy that Microsoft has propagated for years to support their war on open-source. And Silverlight is a joke.
I guess it's time to reconsider my Netflix subscription. After paying them a lot of money over the years, I feel pretty screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blockbuster did it -- Why can't Netflix?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]