digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Tell Netflix: No DRM

defectivebydesign.org — The Defective by Design campaign is sending a message (actually, lots of small letters) to Netflix, requesting that they stop imposing DRM on their streaming video service. The catch is: they are asking customers to send the letters in Netflix return envelopes. This is the first step the DBD campaign has taken against video DRM.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • DCstewieG, on 11/06/2007, -11/+64Rental services are the 1 time I accept DRM. I DON'T own this media, so why should I have an unprotected copy? I know, the major problem is that it requires IE. Bitch to them about that instead.
    • aximbigfan, on 10/31/2007, -11/+9You wont like it so much when you dont have time to watch the movie you rented on your tv, and want to watch it on the go on a pmp.
      • AJH16, on 10/31/2007, -4/+6Then complain they aren't using a portable device compatible DRM format. There are lots of mobile devices that can play DRM protected video. If your device manufacturer wasn't willing to include support for some platform, that is your problem in picking the device and/or service that are not compatible. Why can't I listen to radio on my TV, lets bitch about that next.
    • JamesWilson, on 10/31/2007, -5/+4SSHHH I don't want DRM on my linux!!!

      (HUGS TUX TIGHTLY)
    • mourne, on 10/31/2007, -5/+2We use FireFox to stream it. Not sure on the specifics for what plugins are installed, I hate FF, so never use it. Probably the ActiveX crap.

      I completely agree with the rented vs. owned comment.
    • HyperHacker, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2They don't add DRM to the DVDs, do they? Any idiot can rip those. Why should they add it to the streams then?
      • nakke, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1...remember CSS? That's DVD DRM. Just because it's been cracked doesn't mean it'd not be DRM.
      • nakke, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1argh, double post.
    • bootup, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3People don't understand the issues. The DRM (digital restrictions management) is what keeps you from using other programs! It makes no sense to inhibit users freedom when these services can be decrypted without much effort by anyone wanting to retain a copy. 95% of commercial DVD Video discs use another form of DRM too so it is not a problem solely with the streaming service. Commercial DVD video is easy to rip because the DRM has been reverse engineered by people not bound to US jurisdiction. It may not be legal to use these programs though in the US. The problem the FSF has with DRM is it is unethical. I refuse to even use such an even service as it is both crap and unethical. DRM doesn't work and never will- that doesn't mean we should put up with it. Copyright is a privilege that has been given to creators and should be revoked if this unethical behavior is the result.
    • t3st3r, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1If you do not have appropriate rights, then respect owner rights and do not store video.Simple, huh?Enforcing you to do so is strange. Let's assume you own kitchen knife. Sometimes it happens someone is killed using kitchen knife. Is this a good reason to jail all people who owns kitchen knives? DRM answers: YES!

      In a complete ignorance of base law principle that "innocent unless proven guilty" DRM is a violation of a legal rights. "You can(at least theoretically) store video if no DRM" they're saying? Huh! Then let's continue this moron idea a bit. You're own a kitchen knife! And hence you can (theoretically at least) kill someone - hey, you should be jailed ASAP! And then maybe freed sometimes to have a walk for 1-2 hours in jail yard.Of course after ensuring that you do not own any knives!

      DRM ... sounds "democratic" :).Worst dreams of communists and totalitarists are getting implemented in "democratic" countries.Amazing!

      What next?If some moron ass will write the condition that I can't watch video if eating popcorn, should I obey this restriction?And shouldn't the restriction author be punished for breaking into my private life?
  • huashan, on 11/06/2007, -5/+44Why only complain about DRM? The Windows and IE requirements really need to go too.
    • AndrewJC, on 10/28/2007, -2/+9I don't have much of a complaint about the DRM, not nearly as much as I do the fact that I can't use Firefox to watch the video.
      • mourne, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2As I commented above. It works fine for me on FireFox, but the ActiveX plugin is probably installed. Not my computer so I don't know.
    • monospaced, on 10/28/2007, -2/+9Absolutely. As a Mac user, I have to boot into XP and run IE (instead of firefox) just to watch some Netflix crap. I shouldn't have to do that as a subscriber.
    • agildehaus, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1They're working on a Silverlight version of their player, so that should cover OSX quite nicely and Linux too when the Mono project makes a release of Moonlight.

      See this for a demo of their upcoming player:
      http://www.webware.com/8301-1_109-9714005-2.html
    • webdevil, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Here is an article straight from the Netflix Blog were they explain the problems with watch now and how they hope to fix them.
      http://blog.netflix.com/2007/08/instant-watching-o ...
    • HyperHacker, on 10/18/2007, -1/+4If they didn't use DRM, it wouldn't have those requirements.
  • Error601, on 11/06/2007, -8/+52The other option is no streaming media. Sorry kids, they're not going to run a movie theft service for you.
    • spiffytech, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Ummm... Flash? It works for CBS/NBC/Discovery.
  • numb401, on 10/28/2007, -13/+42Defective by design just proved they are retarded.
    • xOpifex, on 10/28/2007, -7/+23Seriously, this is a situation where DRM can be allowed.
      • bootup, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1Allowed? are you working for them or something? this is horrible. The industry violates the ideas behind copyright the American people gave to content owners in the first place. We have already extended the life of copyright indefinitely. At one time in the recent past copyright did expire.
  • madk, on 10/28/2007, -8/+37It totally makes sense to put DRM on streaming rental media. You don't own the media so who cares? Sounds like a lame excuse to steal.
    • bootup, on 10/28/2007, -1/+2It has nothing to do with stealing. It has everything to do with being unethical. If you purchase the steaming video you should not be restricted on how you decide to use it. It is no different from a DVD you might rent. Why should you pay for additional restrictions? This DRM has practical use issues... you can't watch on a plane and Yahoo! says iit fails 50% of the time. That is why it has failed with audio.
    • t3st3r, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2Nobody is guilty unless this fact has been proven in the court.And FYI, false claims that "someone is a thief" can be violation of the law itself.

      According to your logic, if you're own kitchen knife, you should be jailed.Since you CAN use it in manner other than intended by manufacturer.For example you can kill someone (you have hands and knife, and maybe even enemies, duh!).So, you should be JAILED to disallow you to have this option. That's how DRM works.
  • ronaldst, on 10/17/2007, -5/+4Here goes the fanatics again telling people what they should do.
    • bootup, on 10/17/2007, -2/+0Your the one being screwed if your using this service! How the heck is a group coming out in favor of consumers being fanatical? Are we really that anal here?
      • ronaldst, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2Don't want DRM? Don't use it.
        • t3st3r, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1Great.But there is often no choice left.This suxx too much!
  • fodder650, on 10/18/2007, -5/+15Im one of those who says why not? I like having that service when my DVDs are moving back and forth through the mail system. And Im sure putting the letters in the envelopes will help. I mean those people opening them are corporate officers.

    One time I support DRM. Wont happen often but this time Im ok with it
    • bootup, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3While the campaign does seem to fail to target the right individuals there are many reasons 'why not'. The reason Microsoft Windows is such junk is because of DRM and related proprietary software. Why does IE suck? It sucks because it is proprietary and the only people who fix it don't. Compare that to Firefox and other open source software where fixes come out regularly as they are discovered. Users are ignorant and let big companies into their computer with unreliable software that violates a users privacy, is buggy, and crashes the system. Not to mention it hampers the value of the system.
  • turbopro, on 10/28/2007, -5/+14This is a waste of time and the postage netflix gives us for free. They are loaning it to us. The real complaint is the IE only support.
    • noisician, on 10/28/2007, -1/+3obviously the postage is not given to you for free
      it is built into the cost of the service which you pay for
  • flamebot, on 10/28/2007, -11/+8defective by design are a bunch of retards
  • ferrell, on 10/28/2007, -3/+9Dugg Down.

    Because you know, the minimum wage working stiffs tearing open your Netflix DVD envelopes have a lot of sway in regards to Netflix corporate policy.
  • whatsgoodike, on 10/28/2007, -5/+12wait wait, I'm confused.. send letters to stop DRM on streaming video on Netflix... why? I understand you want to steal your streamed movies, and episodes of Heroes, which you are renting, and that's great; good for you, but why would netflix take a step towards letting you do this? Dropping DRM on these videos would invite lawsuits they they don't need. I'm not saying 'don't steal movies!' or anything like that, but this is like asking movie theaters to give you an avi formant of a movie you just finished watching; Sure, it's great for you, but why the hell would they do it?

    It's much easier to steal movies from the discs they send you in the mail anyways.
    Am i missing something?
    • bootup, on 10/28/2007, -2/+1You are missing something big! Netflix is not in a position to stream the video without DRM, however they are one group that influences the industry that demands it (the notes users include are a symbolic protest the executive team will undoubtedly hear about it in the news). The other thing you miss It is it is not about stealing movies! Nobody is asking to steal movies. People assume that those who want to rid the DRM want to steal. This is not the case at all. The FSF is a consumer interest group and not a 'bad hacker' group. Hackers (good or bad) already can break these DRM schemes or will be able to in the near future. The issue is it is a stupid inconvenience to those consumers wanting to play the streams on unsupported operating systems and devices. What they do does nothing for pirates wanting to steal movies as it is easier to download an non-DRM illegal movie than use Netflix already. Not to mention you can rent a DVD and rip it.
    • t3st3r, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1You're missing something big, Luke, For example you've missed that simple fact that law enforcement is not a proper task for netflix. This task is for police and courts. And well, you have missed "innocent unless proven guilty" principle. DRM ignores this principle making you guilty "by default".They saying: "you can be pirate, Luke.You're criminal!We will not allow you to violate terms of use, bastard!Cease your rights now!"

      Thinking that's right?Maybe you also want to move into the jail on your own then?Surely you can do something illegal in future.At least theoretically.You surely own two hands, brain and some knives and lots of people getting killed with knives every month.So, "you can kill someone in future, Luke!You're criminal!Welcome to jail so you're not allowed to use knives!"
  • reknaps, on 10/17/2007, -5/+12This is stupid. Whats wrong with DRM on a video stream?? Its not yours, you dont own it, you're not supposed to be able to save it and share it however you like (why else would they want it removed?). Get a grip. Im burying this story cause of their black or white unrealistic view on DRM (and I hate it just as much as everyone else - where it impedes on my fair use of a product I own)
    *but seriously, open it up to firefox users
    • whatsgoodike, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1ha, 3 of us posted almost the same comment in 3 minutes. it is one of the most ridiculous 'strikes' i've seen in a long time;
      amen on the firefox idea; us Linux peeps have to fall short on that deal..
    • bootup, on 10/28/2007, -0/+3So many problems with DRM it is not funny- even on video streams. Nobody is saying you own it and that doesn't mean they should stream it to you in an encumbered format. You complain about a lack of firefox support and yet you support DRM? That is silly. Users can be informed it is a limited rights situation and be expected to use it under that agreement. Software companies often do it when they sell applications- why shouldn't this industry also have to trust their consumers? Most applications are unencumbered beyond a license key in terms of how many installs are done. That doesn't mean users are legally allowed to install it on multiple computers.
    • t3st3r, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1> (why else would they want it removed?)
      To be able to watch it. I'm neither own IE nor I own Windows. I'm completely fine with Firefox and Kubuntu.I do prefer this system and this browser.So, why some moron assholes should be allowed me to force to use specific OS or fail to watch video?That's not a fair competition and makes MS and their products privileged.Should be subject for antu-trust investigation! :E
  • ingoldsby, on 10/28/2007, -4/+5Burying, simply because I think this is a ridiculous idea. Why should they stream unprotected movies when they are rentals? You don't own them.. so why should you get a complete unrestricted basically DVD quality copy of them? I'm all for getting rid of DRM on music you buy, movies you buy, etc. but I think it's completely fine to use it in a rental situation.
    • bootup, on 10/28/2007, -1/+2They are not saying their should be no limits. They are saying it should not be encumbered by DRM. The difference is that the industry should trust the consumer as has been done many time before with other mediums. VHS tapes were unencumbered by any form of DRM for years. So were cassette tapes and CDs. The streaming video form your cable or atena is also unencumbered. You don't see mass piracy with it- and those that are pirating it are taking it from DRM'd DVD anyway. What they are doing is is just silly and hurts the consumer who wants to use other operating systems and devices. It is creating a monopoly. Supporting DRM supports monopolies.
    • t3st3r, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1> You don't own them.. so why should you get a complete unrestricted basically DVD quality copy of them?
      Nobody enforces you to save it, right?So, do not save it - do not violate terms of service.Enforcing you to do so is like jailing you right NOW immediately just because you can theoretically kill someone IN FUTURE. DRM does exactly same - it applies restrictions before someone has chances to violate law.
  • vwvan, on 10/16/2007, -1/+4NetFlix is the sole outlet for NBC, since their breakup with Apple and iTunes.
    If we don't let NetFlix come from behind and give it to us then we can't watch heroes or the bionic woman.
    I would do anything for the bionic woman, wouldn't you?
    • wonderchemist, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2"I would do anything for the bionic woman, wouldn't you?"

      Yup, I give her an arm and a leg.
    • archer75, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1NBC uses amazon.
    • bootup, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Those without a sense of ethics have lots of choices. You can get the video from unauthorized sources. Allot of shows can be watched online without paying for them. NBC might be streaming it from their site already.
  • quickslvr1287, on 10/28/2007, -4/+10There are two problems with Netflix's streaming video service, and DRM is not one of them.

    1.) IE only
    2.) Very small catalog

    It's a video rental service, you don't own a thing. There's no reason to object to the DRM. Just rip the movies they send you if you absolutely must steal something.
    • bootup, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2IE is a result of the DRM! If you eliminate the DRM you will be able to watch where ever with whatever you want. And they can still hold you to the agreement you made. DRM does not prevent you from violating your agreement. DRM is a broken concept. It doesn't and cat work to enforce rental terms except with those who lack the desire to pirate it in the first place.
  • monkeyrun, on 10/17/2007, -3/+4These people are really defective by design.
    • bootup, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1No, society is ignorant and defective. You just don't understand the problems and what the campaign is trying to do.
  • archer75, on 10/18/2007, -2/+4Ok, sure, the mpaa would love for netflix to stream movies without any DRM so that people can have copies of the movie on their hard drives forever! Stupid.
    As much as I dislike DRM I see no problem with it in this case.
    • bootup, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1They can already do this... this logic simply shows your ignorance and that of the industry. It mainly stops sales to those who refuse to use services that use DRM or to those who don't wish to use IE and other such required applications or operating systems/devices.
    • t3st3r, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1Continuing DRM manufacturers logic to a real life:

      To make policemens happy you all should be jailed. Now! So they can apply proper restrictions and watch on you. So you will be unable to do any sort of crime. Voila, welcome to the world without a crime, buahahahaha. Will be you happy to live in such world?DRM makes you a bit closer to it, duh... :)
  • phantom42, on 10/16/2007, -0/+5fta: "Now, just as we've told music vendors that we will not buy DRM audio, let's tell movie vendors the that we will not buy DRM video."

    the only problem with their little crusade is that they're not BUYING anything.

    if they want to start a campaign against drm dvd's you purchase, i'll join the cause - but they don't have a leg to stand on here.
    • bootup, on 10/28/2007, -2/+2You are buying DRM video. It is a rental, but for that short time you have entered an agreement that entitles you to it. Content owners have been granted a temporary copyright that is not suppose to be forever and has only recently been made effectively indefinite.
  • heathuff23, on 10/28/2007, -1/+4I've been a netflix subscriber for years and love the service, but the catalog of streaming movies is horrible anyway, so why bother
  • jdavid, on 10/28/2007, -3/+5If I buy something it should be DRM free.

    I like others support DRM on my rental media.

    I will not participate in this campaign. I support DRM rental services.

    What i would support is an OPENDRM standard that is available under reasonable terms. I think DRM at this point should fall under some "digital fair trade" rules like if you are renting the service you have to agree to using X drm, and if you are buying the media, they have to agree to provide it in an open and drm free format like mp3, ogg vorbis, etc.
    • brucemagnus, on 10/16/2007, -0/+0opendrm standard is an oxymoron and mp3s are proprietary
  • stan205, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1It seems many are over looking the use of Opera with the streaming service. If DRM was removed and Opera was able to utilize the service all that own Wiis would have instant access to watch movies on their TVs with the Wii Opera browser.
  • BreathofCepheus, on 10/28/2007, -1/+4I'm against DRM on the streams only because I hate DRM in general.. I can see where the producers would like to protect their films, however, if DRM continues here, it just gives it another starting point and it will end up elsewhere as well..

    And this IE thing.. bogus, I use the fox and it makes me mad when this stuff doesn't work for me..
  • mysekurity, on 10/17/2007, -1/+0I'm sorry... I just can't.

    I love the thought behind all these DRM protests, but they're just so poorly thought-out. Do you honestly think the people who receive the returned DVDs are the executives who make those decisions? I saw a report on Netflix, and it's mostly just migrant workers shelling DVDs like peanut husks.

    Honestly, you guys have to think up something clever that is actually meaningful. This kind of half-assed "I'm too lazy to get off my ass, but I'm sure I'm making a difference" ***** has to go.
  • Jakykong, on 10/16/2007, -0/+0DRM, as with any other technology, can be used, and can be misused. Putting DRM on a DVD that I purchase and own is misusing it. Putting a broadcast flag on all broadcast digital TV is a misuse. Putting a rootkit onto every CD purchased by BMG is a misuse.

    Putting DRM onto a video stream on netflix is an appropriate use.

    I am firmly against all of the inappropriate uses I just stated. I am against them for one reason, and one reason only: they stop me from doing what I have a legal right to do. It is already clear that I don't have a legal right to store a copy of a NetFlix broadcast, period. I don't have that right, so NetFlix isn't taking any rights away from me.

    The problem with NetFlix is the KIND of DRM they're using. It only works in IE, so, if I used NetFlix, it would indeed impede on my ability to use the product, and I am against that. But I am not against the DRM itself, only it's implementation.

    Just like on all of the cases in my first paragraph, I'm not against the DRM itself, but the restrictions it places on me unjustly.

    Even hardcore anti-DRM junkies could appreciate that.
    • hackerb9, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3Jakykong,

      You make a good point, that the problem with DRM is not "DRM" itself but the restrictions it places on you unjustly.

      Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a "just" implementation of DRM. The reason is that DRM and Free Software ( http://www.fsf.org/ ) are incompatible. If you have DRM, you can't have the freedom to change your program, because, if you could change your program, you could simply remove the DRM.

      Let's take your case, for example. You believe that this DRM is unjust because it restricts you from using your preferred software. I agree, there's no good reason that a video stream should mandate the brand of software used to view it. But there is no alternative with DRM. DRM requires that every layer of software is trusted to not let data leak out, which means NetFlix *has* to specify what software, down to the version number, that you're allowed to use. You might be saying to yourself, "well, all they have to do is support my favorite browser, FireFox, and I'll be happy with streaming DRM". But then you're limiting your choices in the future. FireFox is Free Software and would never have become popular, and you never would have even tried it, if DRM had been commonplace on the Net when it was introduced.
  • pcrobot, on 10/28/2007, -2/+3There... I dugg it.
  • Samji, on 10/17/2007, -2/+1In this case, DRM is just there to stop you from being able to keep the content. So without it, you could keep the content for as long as you like. If DefectiveByDesign really wants do get rid of it in this case, Netflix will have to charge more for the downloads and offer them as keeps.
  • hertzum, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4DRM is not a good idea on streaming videos. It has nothing to do with how easy it is to steal said videos but about who can access them. Having DRM on streaming videos means you have to have software which may not be available to everybody -- this is quite similar to requiring that you use IE to access a site. Completely unnecessary in order to get things working.

    DRM also doesn't make it harder to copy a movie that is being streamed. There are many ways of doing that regardless of DRM or not -- rendering the stream to a file backend, rather than an on-screen backend completly and utterly defeats ALL DRM technologies, and there just ain't no way around that. Unless of course you force people to use your software, but even then it's not guaranteed that no-one will figure out how to render to a file, by replacing a dll somewhere. Regardles of the success of this, if a company who streams videos wants marginal success with any DRM scheme, they will have to force their users to use their software, which means that not everybody will be able to stream their videos.

    No, I fully support this. I just can't see why anyone would even want to use DRM in the first place. It's just a waste of effort, time and money.
  • hackerb9, on 10/28/2007, -0/+4It took me a little thinking for me to figure it out, but this campaign to wake-up NetFlix is worth supporting, even though DRM is slightly less evil when it's clear that you're renting the media. Before you digg me down, please hear me out.

    I do not support "piracy". I believe that if a company wants to sell streaming movies as a service, that's their business. Streaming is just like watching a movie on TV --- just because the electrons have passed through a device you own, that doesn't mean that you own the movie.

    As you may recall, the media corporations made a huge deal about VCRs when they first came out. Hell, they even tried to stop people from taping music from the radio. But in those cases it was shown that they didn't actually have the legal right to stop people from personally enjoying the stream in whatever way they want -- including recording it for later playback. They can only stop people from actually infringing on their copyright, for example by re-selling the movie.

    DRM is just a new way of trying to do the same thing. Instead of cracking down on the actually illegal activity (redistributing the movies), they're imposing restrictions on the consumers.

    Some people on this forum don't mind DRM on streams because they think it will prevent illegal activity, thus allowing more movies to become available. Unfortunately, DRM on streaming media does NOT do that. Ask any computer programmer -- if the bytes flow through a standard PC, then there's going to be a way to record them onto the hard drive. DRM does not stop "piracy", it just gives the media corporations a feeling that they're in control.

    Actually, let me rephrase that. DRM is more than just a "feel good" move by corporations. Even if it successfully restricted people to what they're legally allowed to do with a stream, this DRM does too much collateral damage. DRM makes your PC buggier and more expensive. DRM restricts your control of the basic workings of your PC. DRM forces you to purchase Microsoft Windows, and to purchase upgrades whenever Microsoft tries to plug a hole in its DRM implementation.

    In short, DRM sucks for consumers, even on streaming media.

    --b9
  • radial, on 10/28/2007, -2/+1I'm with netflix on this one. Defective by design just lost some respect from me.
  • AUDIOMIND, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2Down with DRM in all its forms and manifestations! Accepting DRM in any case is condoning the practice.
  • klydal, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1Seriously, who would want to steal a .flv stream quality video? how many times are you going to watch it? if you like it you'll buy it. If you want to steal a movie, you can copy the DVD's they mail to you. Copying DVD's produce higher quality videos.
    My major beef with DRM is that I use Linux and my web browser is firefox. People who follow the norm use DRM blindly without seeing it for what it truly is. DRM is a tool of monopoly. They want everyone to have windows, use internet explorer and to only watch and listen to multimedia using Windows media player (or itunes of course). You may feel like you have no choice but to follow and be submissive to the proprietary companies, but you do. Do some research and try out other operating systems, try out different media players and different media formats. There are people who come up with new types of formats and software all the time. Don't give up your freedom of choice by supporting companies who use DRM only.
  • t3st3r, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1If you think that DRM is ok, you should also consider that we can extend this logic to last a bit further than to piracy regulation to a general laws.

    Extension is simple:

    To make police happy and stop all crime forever, you all should be JAILED. Now! So, police can effectively apply proper restrictions preventing all crime. Will be you happy to live in such world? That's how DRM works, after all... it declares you pirate and criminal by default. How democratic!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.