Netflix, DRM , Browser shennanigans....and why no BB10 netflix?

Just perused this from the Electronic Frontier Foundation...essentially I gathered that NETFLIX has to inject secret 'drm' code into the browser (proprietary code for its key obfuscation) as a new DRM (Digital Rights Management) standard for W3C browser recommendations.... and so one assumes, it didn't want to for bb10 browser.
Interesting read otherwise about the open-web ,w3c standards and whether 'the open' is now closing with the help of some DRM over-reach. Sure everyone wants to protect Property rights but this article seems to propose something more onerous is at play...for the 'supposed owners' (consumers) of eletronic devices. Certainly worth a ponder.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/1...e-need-do-next

...and yes because of this approach maybe they'd only want to support the largest smartphone os's broswers only (albeit -maybe not too wise on their part). So small market share isn't the sole issue for BB10. How do you secure a broswer if a 3rd party injects unreviewable secret DRM code into it, doing who knows what? leaving who knows what vulnerabilities in the course of doing so.

If you don't like it... don't use NETFLIX.

As for BB10... it's over, at this point it doesn't really matter why.

I dunno what you're getting at with the whole BB10 thing. It's pretty obvious why there was no BB10 version -- they didn't want to develop it. It's why people used the Android version. At this point, it doesn't even matter.

Originally Posted by Dunt Dunt Dunt

If you don't like it... don't use NETFLIX.

As for BB10... it's over, at this point it doesn't really matter why.

Uh....this is a bb10 discussion group...it doesn't matter if it is over or not. If you don't see any point in discussing bb10 in a bb10 discussion group, then perhaps some self-restraint in posting would be in order.....as for NETFLIX, I guess you didn't read the article, or didn't understand the point. The W3C governing body is the reason for interoperability of anything internet related.
As for why BB10 is over, it is very much edifying to see the why's under the hood.

There is more afoot than just bb10's causal demise it would seem. Though I guess maybe you don't see the point of an autopsy either - in mysterious death cases......and since Banaby Jones and Quincy are in re-runs....and I've gone through most of Father Brown mysteries....the cold-phone case of BB10 is a rather interesting one.

Originally Posted by i_plod_an_dr_void

There is more afoot than just bb10's causal demise it would seem.

Only in the upside-down. Not here.

Originally Posted by conite

Only in the upside-down. Not here.

Lol. I get that reference. Just binged both seasons!

Originally Posted by conite

Only in the upside-down. Not here.

I'm thinking more of a "stranger than fiction" angle here....

Originally Posted by i_plod_an_dr_void

Uh....this is a bb10 discussion group...it doesn't matter if it is over or not. If you don't see any point in discussing bb10 in a bb10 discussion group, then perhaps some self-restraint in posting would be in order.....as for NETFLIX, I guess you didn't read the article, or didn't understand the point. The W3C governing body is the reason for interoperability of anything internet related.
As for why BB10 is over, it is very much edifying to see the why's under the hood.

There is more afoot than just bb10's causal demise it would seem. Though I guess maybe you don't see the point of an autopsy either - in mysterious death cases......and since Banaby Jones and Quincy are in re-runs....and I've gone through most of Father Brown mysteries....the cold-phone case of BB10 is a rather interesting one.

I understand both sides here. At this point, the reason is probably low market share mixed with minimal BB10 support on BlackBerry side. BlackBerry just doesn't care and isn't spending any resources it doesn't have too. Netflix, or any other company will protect digital rights like Apple did with original iTunes to protect legally entitled profits. If they go to far, thats what the courts are for.

Originally Posted by i_plod_an_dr_void

There is more afoot than just bb10's causal demise it would seem. Though I guess maybe you don't see the point of an autopsy either - in mysterious death cases......and since Banaby Jones and Quincy are in re-runs....and I've gone through most of Father Brown mysteries....the cold-phone case of BB10 is a rather interesting one.

I get it like.. Dirk Gently. Everything is connected.

Also, while you're busy reading. You should REALLY read the REST of the articles relating to the same thing on the same blog, you know, by the same author. It might help prevent you from pondering so much and actually find some answers, though, I promise, they won't relate to BlackBerry 10.

https://www.eff.org/about/staff/cory-doctorow

Netflix and BlackBerry have a weird history going back to at least the PlayBook.

That being said, I don't know what this has to do with BB10 specifically. Netflix streaming has never worked on the browser (possibly on any mobile platform, I think they just redirect you to the app).

Originally Posted by Chuck Finley69

I understand both sides here. At this point, the reason is probably low market share mixed with minimal BB10 support on BlackBerry side. BlackBerry just doesn't care and isn't spending any resources it doesn't have too. Netflix, or any other company will protect digital rights like Apple did with original iTunes to protect legally entitled profits. If they go to far, thats what the courts are for.

Though I love one of the points of the OP EFF link is that those most doggedly defending the DRM initiative within the W3C and other places one of whom is Apple were initially seemingly the biggest pirates of them all! Apple amassed a fortune moving music content from cd's to it's itunes....to the howls of protest from artists......and the thing is, I can't recollect BlackBerry engaging in any such seemingly content groping or raiding, (Google with digitizing content as well?).....and yet Apple survives? and BlackBerry bb10 dies because it didn't engage in those itune revenue 'iniatives' and reserves? Its interesting to see why Google/Android and iOS with such baked-in blatant flaws (from a user/owner perspective) survive and expand at incredible rates while bb10 didn't.

(Now I do stand to be corrected on the CD thing with Apple, if anyone would care to explain apple's original process for obtaining original artist consent for content to be legally hosted. I don't want to be accused of perpetrating a myth if it is not true)

Originally Posted by i_plod_an_dr_void

Though I love one of the points of the OP EFF link is that those most doggedly defending the DRM initiative within the W3C and other places one of whom is Apple were initially seemingly the biggest pirates of them all! Apple amassed a fortune moving music content from cd's to it's itunes....to the howls of protest from artists......and the thing is, I can't recollect BlackBerry engaging in any such seemingly content groping or raiding, (Google with digitizing content as well?).....and yet Apple survives? and BlackBerry bb10 dies because it didn't engage in those itune revenue 'iniatives' and reserves? Its interesting to see why Google/Android and iOS with such baked-in blatant flaws (from a user/owner perspective) survive and expand at incredible rates while bb10 didn't.

(Now I do stand to be corrected on the CD thing with Apple, if anyone would care to explain apple's original process for obtaining original artist consent for content to be legally hosted. I don't want to be accused of perpetrating a myth if it is not true)

I don't recall artists protesting.... I remember users complaining that iTunes could only play on iPods. Then again, I have probably 100 cassette tape albums, 40-50 cd albums but only total of 35-40 songs in my iTunes account... LOL

Originally Posted by Bla1ze

I get it like.. Dirk Gently. Everything is connected.

Also, while you're busy reading. You should REALLY read the REST of the articles relating to the same thing on the same blog, you know, by the same author. It might help prevent you from pondering so much and actually find some answers, though, I promise, they won't relate to BlackBerry 10.

https://www.eff.org/about/staff/cory-doctorow

EFF guy from Toronto eh? and multi-generational connections to Waterloo....that is hillarious, I didn't look up his profile - just found the article and its take on the DRM law side-effects for consumer device 'owners' autonomy of use, very compelling.

Does the BB10 browser even support the necessary functions to implement this new standard??! The browser hasn’t been updated in a long time.

Why do we need conspiracies to explain the most obvious things? Netflix had to stop mobile viewing a long time ago because of lack of adequate DRM. So they had to direct people to their apps, where they had their own DRM implementation.

Now there is an adequate DRM standard for mobile browsers, and it’s implemented in Chrome and Safari as you would expect.

Why is this difficult to understand, again?

Originally Posted by i_plod_an_dr_void

Its interesting to see why Google/Android and iOS with such baked-in blatant flaws (from a user/owner perspective) survive and expand at incredible rates while bb10 didn't.

Because most consumers don't see this as flaws or don't care. Count me in both.

Originally Posted by co4nd

Because most consumers don't see this as flaws or don't care. Count me in both.

Well that and/or maybe.... don't know enough yet, to know, that they might want to care.

Originally Posted by i_plod_an_dr_void

Well that and/or maybe.... don't know enough yet, to know, that they might want to care.

They just don’t care. I know the differences as well as most people and it is still the iPhone that goes into my pocket 95% of the time. Their stuff just works with no fuss. People like that.

And the Samsung’s and pixels also work pretty well for the people who prefer those. No going on forums to figure out which x.y.z.a version of Uber I was supposed to download from what off brand App Store is to get a ride home tonight.

Originally Posted by i_plod_an_dr_void

(Now I do stand to be corrected on the CD thing with Apple, if anyone would care to explain apple's original process for obtaining original artist consent for content to be legally hosted. I don't want to be accused of perpetrating a myth if it is not true)

You are entirely wrong on this front. Apple legally obtained the rights to sell music through iTunes from the music labels and publishers. If any artists complained, it was because they didn’t like what was in their own contracts. If said artists (or whoever owned the rights) had control over their own music distribution, their songs just didn’t get sold through iTunes. Metallica or the Beatles, for example, were famous holdouts. And a number of artists, such as Garth Brooks, still refuse to distribute their content on any download or streaming service.

Originally Posted by i_plod_an_dr_void

Well that and/or maybe.... don't know enough yet, to know, that they might want to care.

Statistically, don't you have to live back in 1987-1997 technology wise all day long with all your interactions to really avoid the snooping.....??? Really, I'm making a serious comment...

I mean, I live in Tampa, FL suburb. In the city, for about two months recently, serial thrill killer on loose. Four dead. The amount of surveillance video from the neighborhood hunting ground was amazing. In my area, middle class suburban, the amount of surveillance and the quality would be even more.

They're linking and strengthening the case by his location history with phone towers, possible vehicle GPS and other devices that are non-Android/non-IOS related.

While the smartphone can do so much, in this day and time, does using BB10 really make you significantly less visible in the grand scheme? When kids were young, they'd cover themselves in blanket to be invisible as they walked down hall to sneak drinks and snacks. That's what I'm thinking here...

OP, go watch BNN yesterday's Chen's interview will do you a lot of good. The reportor ask Chen about handsets because some big bank (BMO) still using BB.... you should get it from his answer... (BB is in the partner with everybody nowadays... ).

Originally Posted by Elephant_Canyon

You are entirely wrong on this front. Apple legally obtained the rights to sell music through iTunes from the music labels and publishers. If any artists complained, it was because they didn’t like what was in their own contracts. If said artists (or whoever owned the rights) had control over their own music distribution, their songs just didn’t get sold through iTunes. Metallica or the Beatles, for example, were famous holdouts. And a number of artists, such as Garth Brooks, still refuse to distribute their content on any download or streaming service.

Actually, not so fast. I was working from memory (so it could have been faulty), but I knew I wasn't completely wrong on that assertion. Supreme Court Decision...and new suit..
So Apple started by digitizing artists mostly pre-2000. Apple technically dealt with the big studios and ignored the artists objections...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david..._b_846368.html
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/201...beats-lawsuit/

Originally Posted by i_plod_an_dr_void

Apple technically dealt with the big studios and ignored the artists objections...

In virtually all cases, the big studios are the legal copyright owners of the music. Sure, there are a relative handful of exceptions, but who else would Apple have dealt with? Obviously, those artists who owned their own music rights could decide for themselves, but artists whose contracts had the studio owning the rights were out-of-luck if the studio gave Apple permission to stream their music. That's why contracts are important.

It's a separate issue that really has nothing to do with Apple if the studios were mis-characterizing digital sales or streaming as "sales" instead of "licenses" - that's between the artist and the label.

Let's all not forget, though, that prior to iTunes, music sales had plummeted, and Napster (and BearShare and other P2P sharing platforms) were the place that people were going for music - 100% pure piracy. And why was that? It was because the labels had ignored pleas from music buyers for more than a decade to offer digital sales - the labels wanted to continue selling whole albums, and didn't want to sell individual songs. And they continued that stand as their entire market eroded around them.

Something like iTunes was hardly a new idea, but Apple had the market power to actually pull it off, the biggest part being their ability to negotiate with the big labels to get most artists' music on iTunes. That was much better for artists than outright and unfettered piracy, which was the order of the day.

Apple took their cut and passed on the majority to the copyright holders, as they were supposed to. It's not Apple's fault if their label didn't split that money as legally required in the artists' contract.

Originally Posted by Troy Tiscareno

In virtually all cases, the big studios are the legal copyright owners of the music. Sure, there are a relative handful of exceptions, but who else would Apple have dealt with? Obviously, those artists who owned their own music rights could decide for themselves, but artists whose contracts had the studio owning the rights were out-of-luck if the studio gave Apple permission to stream their music. That's why contracts are important.

It's a separate issue that really has nothing to do with Apple if the studios were mis-characterizing digital sales or streaming as "sales" instead of "licenses" - that's between the artist and the label.

Let's all not forget, though, that prior to iTunes, music sales had plummeted, and Napster (and BearShare and other P2P sharing platforms) were the place that people were going for music - 100% pure piracy. And why was that? It was because the labels had ignored pleas from music buyers for more than a decade to offer digital sales - the labels wanted to continue selling whole albums, and didn't want to sell individual songs. And they continued that stand as their entire market eroded around them.

Something like iTunes was hardly a new idea, but Apple had the market power to actually pull it off, the biggest part being their ability to negotiate with the big labels to get most artists' music on iTunes. That was much better for artists than outright and unfettered piracy, which was the order of the day.

Apple took their cut and passed on the majority to the copyright holders, as they were supposed to. It's not Apple's fault if their label didn't split that money as legally required in the artists' contract.

Napster.... If only I had a high speed connection back in those days.... ;)

Your right everyone was doing it... because there was no "legal" way to buy digital songs back then. Even buying a CD, didn't get you music you could use with those early MP3 players or on your phone. The DRM mess they were using on music CD were terrible back then - could freeze up your PC.... I stopped buying CD's because of it.

Originally Posted by Troy Tiscareno

In virtually all cases, the big studios are the legal copyright owners of the music. Sure, there are a relative handful of exceptions, but who else would Apple have dealt with? Obviously, those artists who owned their own music rights could decide for themselves, but artists whose contracts had the studio owning the rights were out-of-luck if the studio gave Apple permission to stream their music. That's why contracts are important.

It's a separate issue that really has nothing to do with Apple if the studios were mis-characterizing digital sales or streaming as "sales" instead of "licenses" - that's between the artist and the label.

Let's all not forget, though, that prior to iTunes, music sales had plummeted, and Napster (and BearShare and other P2P sharing platforms) were the place that people were going for music - 100% pure piracy. And why was that? It was because the labels had ignored pleas from music buyers for more than a decade to offer digital sales - the labels wanted to continue selling whole albums, and didn't want to sell individual songs. And they continued that stand as their entire market eroded around them.

Something like iTunes was hardly a new idea, but Apple had the market power to actually pull it off, the biggest part being their ability to negotiate with the big labels to get most artists' music on iTunes. That was much better for artists than outright and unfettered piracy, which was the order of the day.

Apple took their cut and passed on the majority to the copyright holders, as they were supposed to. It's not Apple's fault if their label didn't split that money as legally required in the artists' contract.

Artists were understandably reticent about digital distribution, because of the massive (theft occuring) easy copying and redistribution potential without paying royalties. Hard to make a living on intellectual property if it just gets stolen. No incentive. Apple essential took over some of the role of the Record LAbel (pressing and distributing product)....overall though, did the artists end up getting squeezed out of their traditional revenue percentages because Apple (and others) inserted itself (ie Apple-Label-Artist vs old Label-Artist). Just wondering did the Label's take a smaller cut because presumably they had less work (physical distribution wise) to do? Grant it some artists were way overcompensated, and some get peanuts compared to the old system of contracts and distributions, factoring in now of course the streamlined easy global distribution system brought about by digitization and the new global marketplace available.

Originally Posted by i_plod_an_dr_void

Artists were understandably reticent about digital distribution, because of the massive (theft occuring) easy copying and redistribution potential without paying royalties.

And, yet, the alternative was far worse: they trained a whole generation to simply pirate music instead of buy it, because it was far easier to get it even with the hassles of having to hunt through pirate sites and apps and try to find good copies of things than it was to deal with the record labels and their insistence on making you buy a whole CD even if you only wanted a single song.

Once Apple created iTunes, they proved that people don't really mind paying if they can get what they want and if the product is high-quality. With iTunes, you got music that was properly organized, tagged, and had album art, and you could download it again if you lost your files, etc. People saw the value and they have purchased billions of songs.

Yes, the artists may get less overall, but artists have never made much from record sales - the labels have always made the bulk of that money, while artists make the bulk of their income from touring, with albums providing customers with music that incentivizes them to see the tours.

And while artists may get less money, the barrier to entry is also lower, so that artists can even self-publish their songs, which means far more artists get a chance. Previously, it was "winner take all" and a lot of artists and bands never got a shot at all.