Cannes Bans Netflix Films From Competition Because The Internet Is Bad (Or Something)

from the get-off-my-lawn dept

Cannes this week declared that the long-running festival would be banning streaming services like Netflix from being able to win the Palme d’Or. That said, festival leaders weren't able to offer a coherent reason why. Festival boss Thierry Fremaux apparently tried to offer something vaguely resembling an explanation to a variety of different news outlets, but wasn't particularly successful. Most of the arguments made by Fremaux to the press had something to do with Netflix being different (gasp) from the traditional film industry production and criticism model:

"The Netflix people loved the red carpet and would like to be present with other films. But they understand that the intransigence of their own model is now the opposite of ours,” Thierry Fremaux said."

The heart of the ban appears to be a fusion of protectionist concerns about how streaming could harm the traditional French film industry and brick-and-mortar theaters (aka: fear of competition). France has a cultural exception law that requires a percentage of all box office, TV and streaming revenues be used to finance homegrown and foreign films. That law also forces a very outdated and obnoxious release window: namely a 36-month delay between theatrical release and streaming availability. Streaming providers' disdain for such artificial and arbitrary restrictions has been ruffling feathers for years.

In other words, this is really just the same old story about people making silly decisions because of fear of something new disrupting legacy business models that may not work as well in the modern era. But because Cannes just can't come out and admit that, we instead got a heavy dose of disdain for the internet in general:

"Fremaux said the while new players like Netflix and Amazon are enabling directors to make big budget films, they are creating “hybrids” that aren’t TV and aren't quite film. “Cinema [still] triumphs everywhere even in this golden age of series,” he said. “The history of cinema and the history of the internet are two different things."

It's 2018 and that's not entirely true anymore but who cares, get off my lawn!

Cannes has previously banned made for TV movies to ensure a certain quality bar in competition. The organization appears to be using that ban to justify banning Netflix, despite the fact that Netflix is now spending billions on producing its in-house, award winning fare. Because many of these films only saw limited runs in theaters (or no run at all) doesn't automatically equate to low quality, and banning streaming services from awards isn't likely to magically save an industry unwilling to evolve.

Of course this disdain for all things new isn't solely a French phenomenon. Stephen Spielberg recently stated that Netflix films shouldn't be allowed to win Oscar awards, though here too you'll notice that the justifications are arguably flimsy, with an attempt to equate "streaming" with inevitably low quality:

"Once you commit to a television format, you’re a TV movie,” he told ITV News. “You certainly, if it’s a good show, deserve an Emmy, but not an Oscar. I don’t believe films that are just given token qualifications in a couple of theaters for less than a week should qualify for the Academy Award nomination."

Why not? Who knows! If the content is awful it will get rejected from such competitions anyway. And trying to fend off streaming at this point is like trying to slow the flow of a river with just your hands. The move is pretty clearly an effort by Fremaux to project a certain standard of excellence (he also announced that selfies would be banned at this year's festival), but the message it's actually sending the world is more of the "I'm a Luddite" variety.

Filed Under: cannes, competition, disruption, films, innovation, movies, protectionism, streaming, thierry fremaux
Companies: cannes film festival, netflix

Pablo Escobar's Brother Gives Up His Quest For A Billion Dollar Extortion Of Netflix Over 'Narcos'

from the unsurprising-news dept

You will likely know that we've been following the absurd threats that Roberto Escobar, brother to and former accountant for noted drug kingpin Pablo Escobar, launched at Netflix and the makers of its hit show Narcos. The threats kicked off as something of a publicity rights challenge, with Roberto Escobar demanding one billion dollars over a show in which he does not appear and is not named. Escobar has appeared to believe that his knowledge of the inner workings of the Escobar cartel somehow granted him authority over the show, while pretty much everyone else has agreed that the First Amendment would ultimately torpedo any lawsuit that might actually get filed.

But then things got even stranger. Escobar's lawyers began making noises that indicated the show was about to capitulate to the threats and demands. Meanwhile, the legal team on the other side were at the exact same time pointing out just how absurd and ficticious some of Escobar's claims were, such as that he had been using the term "Narcos" in conjunction with operating a website and providing computer gaming services on a computer network since 1986. For those of you who are too young to remember a time without a widespread internet, there basically was no such thing as a publicly facing website in 1986. Meanwhile, a location scout for the show was murdered in Mexico while scouting for the series' fourth season, with Escobar offering cryptic and coy commentary on the matter that bordered on suggesting he was somehow involved.

All of that had just been happening in the fall, which might make it slightly less surprising that this whole thing will now go away.

The Escobar fam doesn't usually back down from a fight, but it waved the white flag in a showdown with a TV powerhouse ... TMZ has learned. Escobar Inc. -- the company run by Pablo's bro, Roberto -- folded in the battle to cash in on the terms "Narcos" and "Cartel Wars." Both were made famous recently by the popular Netflix show, and the related video game.

According to new legal docs, the company filed an abandonment of its trademark application in November. We broke the story ... lawyers for "Narcos" called BS on Pablo for filing paperwork claiming ownership of "Narcos" in connection with a website.

As TMZ goes on to note, there is no official word if any kind of settlement was reached as a part of the trademark abandonment, but one has to assume that even if there were a settlement that the result would be considerably less than the billion dollars Escobar once dreamed he would receive. The laughably flimsy claims in the threat letters along with the firm protection of the First Amendment in the American court system ought to have precluded Netflix and the show's makers from having any fear over any of this. Indeed, given the sure status of the laws protecting them, I could argue that Escobar's saber-rattling only served as free publicity and advertising for the show.

Regardless, the one-time accountant for his brother's drug mega-operation has not managed to beat down Narcos.

Filed Under: narcos, pablo escobar, publicity rights, roberto escobar
Companies: netflix

Charter, Disney Execs Pledge To Crack Down On Streaming Password Sharing 'Piracy'

from the missing-the-whole-point dept

For years now Netflix and HBO CEOs have stated that they see streaming service password sharing as little more than glorified advertising. These execs have long argued that once users realize they enjoy the product, they'll usually sign up for their own account (something particularly true of kids once they leave home and get a job). Even then, these companies already impose a limit on the number of simultaneous streams their services offer, and already charge more for a greater number of streams -- so it's not like these companies are giving away the farm for free anyway.

But for the last several years incumbent broadcast and cable executives have been engaging in breathless hysteria regarding such password sharing. Charter CEO Tom Rutledge has grown increasingly agitated over the practice, arguing that HBO and Netflix's tolerance of password sharing shows a "complete lack of control and understanding in the space," while going so far as to argue that a "lack of control over the content by content companies and authentication processes has reduced the demand for video because you don’t have to pay for it."

Of course you may have noticed that the "demand for video" is higher than ever before, based on Netflix's now 50 million monthly streaming subscribers and the massive rise in all manner of viewing options. And Netflix CEO Reed Hastings (who understands his own business pretty well at this point) has gone so far as to state he "loves" the practice:

"We love people sharing Netflix," CEO Reed Hastings said Wednesday at the Consumer Electronics Show here in Las Vegas. "That's a positive thing, not a negative thing."...A lot of the time, he said, household sharing leads to new customers because kids subscribe on their own as they start to earn income.

Yet some cable and broadcast executives continue their bizarre assault on a problem that isn't. At recent industry events both Rutledge and Disney exec Justin Connolly lamented what they call a rise in password sharing "piracy," hinting that they intend to crack down on the practice in the near future:

"Tom Rutledge has had enough. The chief executive officer of Charter Communications Inc., which sells cable TV under the Spectrum name, is leading an industrywide effort to crack down on password sharing. It’s a growing problem that could cost pay-TV companies millions of subscribers—and billions of dollars in revenue—when they can least afford it.

“There’s lots of extra streams, there’s lots of extra passwords, there’s lots of people who could get free service,” Rutledge said at an industry conference this month...“It’s piracy,” Connolly said. “It’s people consuming something they haven’t paid for. The more the practice is viewed with a shrug, the more it creates a dynamic where people believe it’s acceptable. And it’s not."

You'd think Rutledge, the highest paid executive in America last year, would have a slightly better grasp on the industry he works in and where it's headed. Again, Netflix and HBO impose simultaneous stream limits, so it's not like they're giving away the store. And again, these executives have clearly stated they see password sharing as advertising, so calling it piracy makes no coherent sense. It's a reflection of the hubris often seen in the traditional cable TV sector, where they believe every natural market evolution is an existential threat.

Of course Rutledge is the same CEO that just spearheaded a completely botched merger with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks that resulted in higher rates, fewer upgrades, and higher prices. Rutledge's company is also currently being sued for failing to deliver advertised broadband speeds and for using hidden fees to covertly jack up service costs. Disney's ESPN properties, meanwhile, were so blinded by the belief they could nurse the traditional cable cash cow forever, they failed to see the cord cutting trend coming and have lost tens of millions of viewers as a result.

In other words, these two execs have plenty of other problems they need to deal with before focusing all of their ire on a problem that isn't. And when looking for advice on the evolving video market, maybe you should steer clear of folks that pretty clearly have little to no understanding of adaptation or where the market is headed.

Filed Under: justin connolly, password sharing, reed hastings, streaming, tom rutledge
Companies: charter, disney, hbo, netflix

Offering Good Legal Options Works: Interest In Netflix Outpaces Pirate Options In Brazil

from the no-kidding dept

If you were to have asked anyone in the film industry or the MPAA about the country of Brazil within the past decade, it's quite likely that they would have thrown their hands into the air and told you what a detestable hotbed of piracy and copyright infringement the nation was. And, hey, they would have been right. The simple fact of the matter is that there are some countries where the downloading and streaming of films and television is more common than others. The obvious next question to ask for any business interested in reversing this trend would be: why? The answer always seemed obvious to me: there is a customer demand that the legitimate options are not fulfilling. Many in film and television instead decried a lack of strict copyright enforcement and everybody wanting everything for free, instead.

Well, with a recent study published by Google, it seems we are getting an answer as to who answered that question correctly, and it wasn't Hollywood. The trend in Brazil, beginning in 2016 when streaming services were expanded in the country, is the stagnation of piracy and the adoption of legitimate streaming services.

While there’s still a long way to go, it’s interesting to hear the progress that’s being made not only in the West but also piracy hotspots further afield. This week, Brazil’s Exame reported on a new study published by Google.

Focused on movies, one of its key findings is that local consumer interest in Netflix is now greater than pirate alternatives including torrents, streaming, and apps. As illustrated in the image below, the tipping point took place early November 2016, when searches for Netflix overtook those for unauthorized platforms.

There's really only one lesson to be learned here. If an industry meets customer demand in a way that is convenient, enjoyable, and in a way that provides good value, the hassle and illegality of piracy are too much of a bother. The best way to defeat piracy is by embracing new business models, and that mantra is exemplified in a company like Netflix, which revolutionized how video content is consumed across the globe. Even if Brazil's appetite for piracy remains steady, as it has, media companies can simply out-compete it in terms of eyeballs by being awesome.

“We’re not lowering piracy but this does show how relevant the [Netflix] brand is when it comes to offering content online,” Google Brazil’s market intelligence chief Sérgio Tejido told Exame.

If an industry views piracy as completely irrelevant other than its use as a market research tool for what the public wants, then all that matters is the success of Netflix and its peers. The pirates are going to pirate, but meanwhile an entire new customer base and revenue stream has been uncovered in a country lamented as a pirate haven. And the popularity of Netflix in the country is on the upswing largely because of how great the service is.

Importantly, nine out of ten users in Brazil said they were “extremely satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the service, up from 79% in the previous year. An impressive 66% of subscribers said that they were “not at all likely to cancel”, a welcome statistics for a company pumping billions into making its own content and increasingly protecting it, in the face of persistent pirate competition.

Make a great product and give it to consumers in the way they want at a good value and suddenly piracy isn't the threat it was made out to be. That's been the Techdirt formula for years. It's great to see it in action.

Filed Under: brazil, copyright, culture, licensed service, piracy
Companies: netflix

Charter CEO Tries To Blame Netflix Password 'Piracy' For Company's Failure To Adapt To Cord Cutting

from the blame-everything-but-yourself dept

Like most pay TV providers, Charter Communications (Spectrum) continues to bleed pay TV subscribers tired of paying an arm and a leg for giant, bloated channel bundles. Also like most pay TV providers, the company isn't willing to really own the fact that their only real "solution" to this problem has been to double down on the same, bad ideas. Charter just got done gobbling up Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks subscribers in a $79 billion deal that resulted in rate hikes as high as 40% and somehow even worse customer service than the historically-awful customer service the sector is known for.

That said, it shouldn't be particularly surprising that Charter lost another 104,000 traditional video subscribers last quarter. Those losses came after losing 90,000 TV subscribers during the second quarter, and another 100,000 during the first quarter of the year. While skyrocketing prices, horrible customer service, and the rise of streaming video competition are the obvious culprits here, Charter CEO tried lay the blame elsewhere. Namely, those troublesome rabblerousers who share streaming service passwords:

“There’s a lot of pressure on the video business,” Rutledge said. “The biggest pressure is price. But the second biggest pressure is that many programmers are distributors, whether they know it or now. And because of password sharing and multiple-stream products … You have 35 million one-person households in the U.S. The multiscreen products sold to those households also them to purchase one product and share it with multiple users.”

This isn't the first time Rutledge has complained about the practice of password sharing. While companies like Netflix and HBO have made it clear they see password sharing as a form of creative marketing, Rutledge has long stated he sees the practice as some sort of nefarious menace:

"The lack of control over the content by content companies and authentication processes has reduced the demand for video because you don’t have to pay for it,” Mr. Rutledge said on the earnings call. “That’s going on in the college market."

That's a pretty stellar misunderstanding of the evolving video market for the highest paid executive in America last year. Netflix and HBO have both stated that such password sharing has no meaningful impact on the industry, and if anything helps sell new subscriptions once users (especially Millennials riding on their parents subscriptions) get hooked on the value proposition. Compare that business plan to Charter, a company that's currently being sued for using hidden fees to jack up rates and for intentionally shortchanging subscribers at every conceivable opportunity.

Cable providers could easily combat streaming video competition by lowering rates and offering more flexible channel bundles, an idea they pay a lot of lip service to, but rarely implement. Instead, execs like Rutledge have tried to downplay the threat of cord cutting in the belief they can nurse the traditional cable TV cash cow indefinitely. They're afraid to offer a cheaper, better product for fear of accelerating the trend. What they often don't seem to understand is this isn't going to be a choice. The days of cable TV wink-wink, nod nod non-price competition are over, and if these companies want to remain in the TV business -- they're going to have to (gasp) seriously compete on price.

Filed Under: cord cutting, password piracy, password sharing, thomas rutledge
Companies: charter, netflix

Dispute Between Roberto Escobar And Netflix Over 'Narcos' Gets Weird: Licensing Talks And A Dead Location Scout

from the even-stranger-things dept

Last year we discussed a dispute between Roberto Escobar, brother of the infamous drug kingpin Pablo Escobar and the Medellin cartel's accountant, and Netflix over the latter's hit show Narcos. It was a strange dispute for any number of reasons, ranging from Roberto Escobar's demand for one billion dollars and the rights to alter content in future episodes to the fact that Escobar's demands didn't lay any actual claim to any intellectual property in dispute, all the way up to the fact that Narcos doesn't actually portray Roberto Escobar at all. Much like the silly dispute between Activision and Manuel Noriega over publicity rights, it was pretty much assumed that this nonsense would be done away with more quickly than a federal informant working on the inside of the cartel.

Sadly, however, this still appears to be a thing, and it's getting quite strange. For starters, Escobar's legal team claims that a capitulation of sorts by the show might be in the works. It all starts as you'd expect, with the legal team for Narcos detailing via a letter how silly Escobar's claims are, as well as how plainly false the applications Escobar subsequently made for trademarks on terms and titles from the show were.

Narcos Productions, LLC (NPL) — the company behind the series and its popular video game spinoff Narcos: Cartel Wars — contend that without NPL's "knowledge or consent, on Aug. 20, 2016, Escobar filed use-based applications to register the marks NARCOS and CARTEL WARS with the [U.S. Patent and Trademark Office] covering a range of goods and services." Those services include everything from "downloadable ring tones" and "sunglasses, decorative magnets" to "temporary tattoos, bookmarks and sheet music," according to the trademark application documents included with the letter. The letter calls the claims "fraudulent."

"For example," writes NPL attorney Jill M. Pietrini, "Escobar claims that it has used NARCOS in connection with things like 'operating a website' and 'game services provided online from a computer network' since Jan. 31, 1986. However, the internet had not been developed for widespread consumer use in 1986, nor was the capability to provide audiovisual works nor game services available at that time."

So basically the lawyers for the show are demonstrating how flimsy Escobar's attempts to setup a legal way to extort the show are. Trademark law is quite clear on the rights it affords to those who are the first to use a trademark in commerce and ought to act as a shield to these attempts. Despite that, emails obtained by THR from Escobar's legal team to Escobar himself seem to indicate that Narcos is considering just paying Escobar to go away anyway.

In a subsequent email correspondence obtained by THR and dated Sept. 1, an attorney for Escobar Inc. at Century City-based Browne George Ross LLP informs his client that he and Pietrini had a productive conversation about the claim.

"I floated the idea of paying you for an assignment or license or release related to your pre-exisiting rights in the trademarks in certain categories," Wesley writes. "She seemed to see the logic of exploring those discussions. She is going to speak with her client and get back to me."

While there is no clear commitment to a licensing deal there, the entertainment industry is notorious for paying people like this to go away, so it's not entirely out of the question. Given the clear legal framework here, however, as well as the personalities involved on the other side, it strikes me as fairly ludicrous that the show's producers would want any part of paying a former member of the cartel for no clear legal reason. Escobar's lawyers are making a lot of noise about how if Escobar chooses not to settle for whatever Narcos might be willing to pay him, then they "own the trademarks", which certainly is not remotely true here in the United States.

Adding to how strange all of this is would be the fact that a location scout for the show, Carlos Munoz Portal, was murdered in Mexico in recent weeks while scouting locations for Narcos' fourth season. While the facts surrounding Portal's death remain unknown at the time of this writing, Escobar has been rather cryptic on the topic.

Speaking Monday to The Hollywood Reporter, Escobar's 71-year-old surviving brother, Roberto De Jesus Escobar Gaviria, suggested the show's producers are not cut out for filming in such cartel-infested locales as Mexico and Colombia, adding that they would benefit from the hiring of "hitmen ... as security."

As for whether or not anyone at Escobar Inc., including Gaviria, currently has any knowledge regarding what happened to slain location scout Portal, Gustafsson would only offer, "No comment on that. But Escobar Inc. cooperates with all law enforcement."

It's as likely as not that Escobar is merely playing coy on this topic to add some gravitas to his threats and demands to Narcos and Netflix, but the comments are chill-inducing considering the source. Regardless, the merits of the trademark claims at hand remain fairly clear. Talks of Narcos capitulating or not, it's difficult to imagine a $1 Billion payday for Escobar coming anytime soon.

Filed Under: narcos, publicity rights, roberto escobar
Companies: netflix

What Netflix's Congenial Trademark 'Threat Letter' Says About Everyone's Tolerance For Trademark Bullying

from the progress dept

Readers of this site will be well-versed in trademark threat letters. With the sorts of trademark stories we cover here, our discussion about threat letters typically take the form of trademark holders going out of their way either to overstate their rights or to act as aggressive and threatening as possible. Or, of course, both of those things at the same time. But not every company goes full bully when sending out trademark cease and desist notices, as exemplified by Netflix this week, when it sent out a notice to a Chicago popup bar called The Upside Down, an obvious reference to Netflix's hit show Stranger Things.

Writing to request an end to the use of its trademark, Netflix did not address the bar's owners in threatening terms or legalistic language. Instead, it appealed to the owners' appreciation of creativity and engaged with their shared appreciation of the Stranger Things brand, inserting references to characters and phrases from the show throughout the letter.

"Look, I don't want you to think I'm a total wastoid, and I love how much you guys love the show", the letter opens, "but unless I'm living in the Upside Down, I don't think we did a deal with you for this pop-up". It continues: "You're obviously creative types, so I'm sure you can appreciate that it's important to us to have a say in how our fans encounter the worlds we build";. Making its point firmly and clearly, but humorously and politely, the letter states: "We're not going to go full Dr Brenner on you, but we ask that you please 1) not extend the pop-up beyond its 6 week run ending September, and 2) reach out to us for permission if you plan to do something like this again."

The letter checked all the right boxes to not come off as bullying. The letter was both humorous as well as transparent in its effort to incorporate the fandom of the show into its language. It didn't promise punishment for any past acts, instead simply asking that the bar not extend its run even further and asking that it seek permission for its name for any future endeavors. Netflix didn't treat its fans as the enemy, but managed to act human while at the same time asserting its trademark rights.

For this, the company not only got the bar to agree to its request, but the letter received praise both in the media and on social media.

Netflix elicited a torrent of internet praise for its handling of the situation. Local news website DNAinfo reported on the "super classy letter", describing it as "adorably nerdy", and emphasizing Saul's lack of hard feelings towards the corporation. There was also positive coverage in the Sydney Morning Heraldand Fox News, while one blog lauded it as "the best cease-and-desist letter you've ever seen".

On social media, where reaction can often be the most negative, the responses similarly lauded Netflix for its enforcement approach. On Reddit, one user commented that the move was "totally reasonable and nice of them", with another calling the move "brilliant", adding: "In the age of Twitter, you don't want to anything to be used against you. Now it makes the pop-up look like bad guys for not reaching out to them."

What is most interesting to me about this story isn't Netflix's letter itself, although it was certainly nice to see a company get this so right. More interesting was both the media's and public's reactions to the letter, which seems to indicate that on some level the media and general public are waking up to trademark bullying and the fact that there are other ways to handle trademark issues beyond being a jerk. While I cover trademark issues all the time, I don't expect the everyman to have an understanding of ways to protect trademarks that goes beyond, "Company X has a trademark, so of course their lawyers sent out a threat." The reaction to this story seems to indicate that the public is beginning to understand that enforcing trademark law doesn't have to equal acting like a jerk. And that's a good thing.

If lawyers finally understand that being an overaggressive jerk can backire, it will make them think twice about using that approach. It will also convince lawyers that being congenial can go viral in ways that a company does want. These are good things that will be propelled by a public starting to understand that not every C&D has to be all threat and nothing but.

Filed Under: cease and desist, fandom, fans, friendly letter, stranger things, the upside down, trademark
Companies: netflix

EFF Resigns From W3C After DRM In HTML Is Approved In Secret Vote

from the disappointing dept

This is not a huge surprise, but it's still disappointing to find out that the W3C has officially approved putting DRM into HTML 5 in the form of Encrypted Media Extensions (EME). Some will insist that EME is not technically DRM, but it is the standardizing of how DRM will work in HTML going forward. As we've covered for years, there was significant concern over this plan, but when it was made clear that the MPAA (a relatively new W3C member) required DRM in HTML, and Netflix backed it up strongly, the W3C made it fairly clear that there was no real debate to be had on the issue. Recognizing that DRM was unavoidable, EFF proposed a fairly straightforward covenant, that those participating agree not to use the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA (DMCA 1201) to go after security researchers, who cracked DRM in EME. The W3C already has similar covenants regarding patents, so this didn't seem like a heavy lift. Unfortunately, this proposal was more or less dismissed by the pro-DRM crowd as being an attempt to relitigate the question of DRM itself (which was not true).

Earlier this year, Tim Berners-Lee, who had the final say on things, officially put his stamp of approval on EME without a covenant, leading the EFF to appeal the decision. That appeal has now failed. Unfortunately, the votes on this were kept entirely secret:

So much for transparency.

In Bryan Lunduke's article about this at Network World, he notes that despite the W3C saying that it had asked members if they wanted their votes to be public, with all declining, Cory Doctorow (representing EFF) says that actually EFF was slapped on the wrist for asking W3C members if they would record their votes publicly:

“The W3C did not, to my knowledge as [Advisory Committee] rep, ask members whether they would be OK with having their votes disclosed in this latest poll, and if they had, EFF would certainly have been happy to have its vote in the public record. We feel that this is a minimal step towards transparency in the standards-setting that affects billions of users and will redound for decades to come.”

“By default, all W3C Advisory Committee votes are ‘member-confidential.’ Previously, EFF has secured permission from members to disclose their votes. We have also been censured by the W3C leadership for disclosing even vague sense of a vote (for example, approximate proportions).”

It was eventually revealed that out of 185 members participating in the vote, 108 voted for DRM, 57 voted against, and 20 abstained.

And while the W3C insisted it couldn't reveal who voted for or against the proposal... it had no problem posting "testimonials" from the MPAA, the RIAA, NBCUniversal, Netflix, Microsoft and a few others talking about just how awesome DRM in HTML will be. Incredibly, Netflix even forgot the bullshit talking point that "EME is not DRM" and directly emphasized how "integration of DRM into web browsers delivers improved performance, battery life, reliability, security and privacy." Right, but during this debate we kept getting yelled at by people who said EME is not DRM. So nice of you to admit that was all a lie.

In response to all of this, Cory Doctorow has authored a scathing letter, having the EFF resign from the W3C. It's worth reading.

The W3C is a body that ostensibly operates on consensus. Nevertheless, as the coalition in support of a DRM compromise grew and grew — and the large corporate members continued to reject any meaningful compromise — the W3C leadership persisted in treating EME as topic that could be decided by one side of the debate. In essence, a core of EME proponents was able to impose its will on the Consortium, over the wishes of a sizeable group of objectors — and every person who uses the web. The Director decided to personally override every single objection raised by the members, articulating several benefits that EME offered over the DRM that HTML5 had made impossible.

But those very benefits (such as improvements to accessibility and privacy) depend on the public being able to exercise rights they lose under DRM law — which meant that without the compromise the Director was overriding, none of those benefits could be realized, either. That rejection prompted the first appeal against the Director in W3C history.

In our campaigning on this issue, we have spoken to many, many members' representatives who privately confided their belief that the EME was a terrible idea (generally they used stronger language) and their sincere desire that their employer wasn't on the wrong side of this issue. This is unsurprising. You have to search long and hard to find an independent technologist who believes that DRM is possible, let alone a good idea. Yet, somewhere along the way, the business values of those outside the web got important enough, and the values of technologists who built it got disposable enough, that even the wise elders who make our standards voted for something they know to be a fool's errand.

We believe they will regret that choice. Today, the W3C bequeaths an legally unauditable attack-surface to browsers used by billions of people. They give media companies the power to sue or intimidate away those who might re-purpose video for people with disabilities. They side against the archivists who are scrambling to preserve the public record of our era. The W3C process has been abused by companies that made their fortunes by upsetting the established order, and now, thanks to EME, they’ll be able to ensure no one ever subjects them to the same innovative pressures.

This is a disappointing day for the web, and a black mark on Tim Berners-Lee's reputation and legacy of stewardship over it.

Filed Under: copyright, cory doctorow, drm, eme, security, tim berners-lee, transparency
Companies: drm, eff, mpaa, nbc universal, netflix, riaa

Netflix Has Narcos Actors Threaten To Shoot The Families Of French People For Pirating The Show

from the bullets-for-you dept

First, let's all just take a moment to drink in that headline above. 2017, people: it's a weird time to be alive. In any case, you likely have heard of Netflix's hit original show, Narcos. The show follows the exploits of Pablo Escobar's drug organization and was once the subject of Escobar's brother demanding a billion dollars from Netflix over the portrayal. Netflix, of course, was the disruptive new streaming service for movies and television that has since decided to go the route of copyright protectionist now that it is producing its own original content. It's a strange look for a company that exploded on a model of convenience over piracy, raking in tons of legit dollars by simply being an option better than or comparable to pirating films and television. Rather than continuing to compete in that arena, the company has begun to go the way of Big Content, firing off all kinds of DMCA notices.

And now threatening to shoot people and their families for pirating Netflix content? Well, not really, of course. I'm sure the folks at Netflix thought it would be funny to have actors from Narcos do so in character in France. But watch the video Netflix put out for yourself.

If you cannot see the video, the TorrentFreak link above has a nice summary of it.

“Hey you, yes you, do you think you’re smart? Do you think we didn’t see you Googling ‘Narcos season 3 download’? Don’t be a fool. Narcos is a business,” Pepe begins.

“If you want your entertainment. If you want your show. You’re gonna pay the Cali Cartel, ‘hijo de puta’,” Pacho adds, using the strong language one expects from a cartel leader.

“Do you think we’re like Hadopi? Do you think we’re going to send you a nice and polite letter first? Please, sir / madam, could you please not illegally download Narcos? We don’t do courtesy letters.”

“There is no please, no por favor, no s’il vous plait,” Pepe adds.

“There’s bullets for you, your family, and all the people you send to watch Narcos on all those shitty websites full of questionable pop-ups,” Gilberto says.

“You know where to find us. Don’t mess around ‘hijo de puta’,” his brother adds.

It's just uncomfortable. Nobody is mistaking Netflix actors for actual hitmen, but it's worth putting this sort of thing in the context of the past decade, in which people really have had their lives ruined in retribution for copyright infringement. The threat letters from copyright trolls really do go out across Europe, looking for all the world like the legal arm of some extortion ring or mob organization. Threats to out people for their pornography of choice really have happened. Within that landscape, to joke around about shooting those who pirate a television show misses the mark on humor entirely, and coming from a company like Netflix it's downright creepy.

Filed Under: advertisement, anti-piracy, france, narcos, threats
Companies: netflix

Disney Pulls Content From Netflix As Users Face An Annoying, Confusing Rise In Streaming Exclusivity Silos

from the drowning-in-monthly-fees dept

On one hand, the increasing number of independent streaming services is certainly a good thing. This increase in competition is finally starting to apply pressure on incumbent cable TV providers to offer greater programming flexibility and to compete on price, even though many cable and broadcast execs falsely believe they can ignore the threat and do the exact opposite. But as everybody and their mother jumps into the streaming game, we're facing a new threat: the rise of fractured exclusivity silos that make consumers hunt and peck to obtain their favorite programs.

Case in point: if you're a fan of a particular program in the modern streaming video age, you first need to check to see if that program or film is available on any of the half-dozen services you may subscribe to, be it Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, CBS All Access, YouTube TV, or any of a myriad of other options. That in and of itself can prove fatiguing on your patience -- and wallet if you're trying to save money over traditional cable. You've then got to see if that content is still actually available, since content licensing results in titles being added and removed in what are often illogical availability windows, adding another layer of confusion.

Now, things are poised to become even more complicated in that regard. Wanting to cut out the middleman, many broadcasters (like CBS, FX or AMC) are busy pursuing their own streaming services, pulling their content from existing available services and forcing users to sign up for yet another monthly subscription. For example, if you want to watch CBS's upcoming new Star Trek: Discovery TV show, your only option will be to sign up for CBS's $7 per month All Access service. Don't want or can't afford another service? Your option is to either go without -- or to pirate the program. Guess which option many choose?

A more recent case in point: Disney announced this week that the company would be pulling its content from Netflix in order to launch its own streaming video service:

CEO Bob Iger told CNBC's Julia Boorstin Disney had a "good relationship" with Netflix, but decided to exercise an option to move its content off the platform. Movies to be removed include Disney as well as Pixar's titles, according to Iger. Netflix said Disney movies will be available through the end of 2018 on its platform. Marvel TV shows will remain. The new platform will be the home for all Disney movies going forward, starting with the 2019 theatrical slate which includes "Toy Story 4," "Frozen 2," and the upcoming live-action "The Lion King." It will also be making a "significant investment" in exclusive movies and television series for the new platform.

On one hand, if you really like Disney content, this may not be a horrible thing for you. On the other hand, if you're only interested in a few Disney titles but already feel you pay for too many streaming services, you could find yourself annoyed. Users are, it goes without saying, cutting the TV cord because they're tired of the poor value proposition traditional cable TV represents. It's not entirely clear you can call it real pricing evolution if you replace one bloated, giant cable bill with an ocean of smaller charges that ultimately cost you the same if not more than your old cable TV subscription.

And while it's not entirely clear how many monthly fees and subscriptions users are willing to tolerate, it is abundantly clear that broadcasters and cable companies intend to push their luck and figure out the answer. Not many seem to realize that should they push too hard and cordon off content into an ocean of annoying exclusivity silos, the end result will drive users back to the simplicity of piracy. And that's a particular shame given all the work it took to wean consumers off of file trading services like BitTorrent and on to "legitimate" monthly streaming subscriptions in the first place.

There's a fine line here as we shift from traditional cable to over the top streaming, and it's precisely the kind of line the traditional cable and broadcast industry loves to trip face-first over.

Filed Under: content, movies, silos, streaming, tv, video
Companies: disney, netflix