Nina Paley passes on Netflix DRM and thousands of dollars(blog.ninapaley.com)
blog.ninapaley.com
Nina Paley passes on Netflix DRM and thousands of dollars
http://blog.ninapaley.com/2010/04/23/turning-down-netflix/
2 comments
I don't see the point in avoiding Netflix's DRM here. It's just on the content stream between Netflix's servers and Netflix's client software. Furthermore, once the stream has arrived at whatever device you're using to play the movie, Netflix then helpfully strips the DRM and decodes the stream to whatever output you want. I can play movies from Netflix on my computer or on my Wii and either will happily use a large variety of unprotected outputs (VGA, S-Video, etc.)
Part of the point was they wouldn't even let her add a credit that had a non-DRM url. So it sounds like she didn't want to perpetuate the myth that DRM is the whole world and the only legitimate distribution venue.
It seems like a strange application of Netflix's "no bumpers" policy. Unless this was only regarding a pre-roll card—perhaps both parties could still come to an agreement if Nina were to add this disclaimer to the credit roll instead?
If they Google the title the site is the number #1 result. Heck, Google indexes "Watch It" on the search page. The second link is: http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/watch.html
That gets back to what Docotrow called the Benevolent Dictatorship of DRM. Here, DRM still represents giving Netflix an inordinate amount of control over the work and how it's licensed and how it's used. Moreover, that argument doesn't explain why Netflix wouldn't allow the artist in this case to put in a statement about finding DRM-free versions.
Because that would encourage people to find the a free, higher quality version of the film outside the Netflix service, which would obviously not be good for them. It would be almost like running an ad for a competitor before playing.
> I don't see the point in avoiding Netflix's DRM here.
It shouldn't be up to the content-provider to say what should and shouldn't have DRM around it. If your using a display that doesn't implement HDCP than you don't see the video, therefore you don't have control of where the stream goes. Netflix determines that for you.
The author doesn't want any DRM on her videos. Netflix is unwilling to do that. Since the stream is just DRM wrapped h264 there is no technical reason why it should be that way. There DRM is as open as Apple's DRM which isn't very open at all.
It shouldn't be up to the content-provider to say what should and shouldn't have DRM around it. If your using a display that doesn't implement HDCP than you don't see the video, therefore you don't have control of where the stream goes. Netflix determines that for you.
The author doesn't want any DRM on her videos. Netflix is unwilling to do that. Since the stream is just DRM wrapped h264 there is no technical reason why it should be that way. There DRM is as open as Apple's DRM which isn't very open at all.
> If your using a display that doesn't implement HDCP than you don't see the video, therefore you don't have control of where the stream goes. Netflix determines that for you.
I've used Netflix over composite and VGA cables with no problem. While DRM can be used to protect things in the way you mention, that doesn't appear to be the case with Netflix.
I've used Netflix over composite and VGA cables with no problem. While DRM can be used to protect things in the way you mention, that doesn't appear to be the case with Netflix.
I never buy video with DRM, but I love Netflix's streaming service. I think the DRM backlash is getting so rabid that people are blinded to an actual, legitimate use for it, which I think in Netflix's case it is.