Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HD Monitor Causes DRM Issues with Netflix

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the new-years-low-resolution dept.

Media 540

Jeremiah Cornelius points us to Davis Freeberg's blog, where he discusses his "nightmare scenario" of losing access to his DRM-protected purchases by upgrading his PC monitor. "When I called them they confirmed my worst fears. In order to access the Watch Now service, I had to give Microsoft's DRM sniffing program access to all of the files on my hard drive. If the software found any non-Netflix video files, it would revoke my rights to the content and invalidate the DRM. This means that I would lose all the movies that I've purchased from Amazon's Unbox, just to troubleshoot the issue. Because my computer allows me to send an unrestricted HDTV feed to my monitor, Hollywood has decided to revoke my ability to stream 480 resolution video files from Netflix. In order to fix my problem, Netflix recommended that I downgrade to a lower res VGA setup."

cancel ×

540 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

vista only (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903180)

Tag this Vista only. I ain't got no problems like that with XP.

Re:vista only (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903216)

nor with Vista. This guy made up the entire story to get some hits on his website. Stuff like this does not happen. Ever. And it never has. It's amazing what people try to come up with to get a link from the slashdot home page...

Re:vista only (5, Informative)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903840)

Hi. I posted this story. The guy is not lying. You should try this yourself, with HDMI sometime.

When he's done being Slashdotted, look at the screen captures of his dialogue boxes.

I watched this technology being demonstrated - as an insider during development. Sheer suckage.

Re:vista only (-1, Flamebait)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903452)

Tag this "Slashdoters Will Believe Anything SoLong As Its Negative Against Microsoft Especially If It Involves Vista"

(tried to make that one word, but the slashdot lameness filter rejected it... yeah, ok, so it's lame)

Re:vista only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903796)

You might want to post some fucking *proof* that this is fake, limpdick.

Slashdotted. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903182)

Slashdotted.

You'll Find This Story... (1)

Trikenstein (571493) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903406)

in the Drama Section.

Owned (5, Insightful)

CJ145 (1110297) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903186)

Yet another reason to pirate all the content you want.

Re:Owned (1, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903210)

And yet another reason to switch to a Free (as in Freedom) operating system.

Re:Owned (2, Insightful)

tshak (173364) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903408)

And yet another reason to switch to a Free (as in Freedom) operating system.


You mean an OS that won't even stream Netflix content in the first place? That's not freedom either. If you choose to buy/subscribe to DRM'd content then you have the freedom to consume that DRM'd content on Vista with the (IMHO crappy) restrictions that come along with DRM'd content. If you don't want the DRM - and I wouldn't blame you - then don't buy that content.

Re:Owned (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903512)

I guess you'd argue that since I'm not in prison, I not really free, since I don't have the freedom to enjoy their nice stripped outfits?

What part of Free OS didn't you understand?

I'll bite. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903712)

I guess you'd argue that since I'm not in prison, I not really free, since I don't have the freedom to enjoy their nice stripped outfits? What part of Free OS didn't you understand?

No, I'd argue that you don't understand the issue. A Free OS doesn't fix the problem.

Re:I'll bite. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903750)

1. Just because Netflix program does not run on Free OS it does not make the OS any less free.
2. You are confusing consumerism with freedom.

Re:Owned (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903662)

Netflix does not have any unique content.

Netflix isn't even unique in the ability to allow this stuff to be streamed to a PC or TV.

It probably isn't even that cheap.

It probably isn't even superior to their snal-mail variant and possibly not even much better in terms of delivery speed.

On a certain level, you've got a point but it's a moot one.

Anything Netflix is offering over the web I can also stream around the house if I want to.

Major League Baseball pulled the same thing (non-hoax) on their subscriber. So something like this isn't even interesting anymore even if it is true.

Re:Owned (4, Insightful)

rho (6063) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903798)

It probably isn't even that cheap.

It's a free add-in to their service. For every buck per month you spend you get an hour of streaming. It may not be cheap, but since their standard mail service is already worth the money I spend, the Watch Now is a pleasant bonus.

It probably isn't even superior to their snal-mail variant and possibly not even much better in terms of delivery speed.

It would be better if the library were more robust, but the speed is fine. It starts in a few seconds.

Anything Netflix is offering over the web I can also stream around the house if I want to.

I don't know what you mean here, but it reminds me of the folks who say "I can just torrent whatever I want." Maybe, but I'm not interested in maintaining multiple gigabytes of video files, and torrents are hideously slow for things that are not widely popular. Netflix trades "free" for excellent service and breadth of offerings. It's like a massive hard drive with high latency. Since movies arrive in a timely fashion I'm rarely waiting for stuff, and on the off chance I want something now now now, and assuming it's offered on Watch Now, that option is available.

I dunno, maybe it's just because I have no vested interest in screwing the MPAA or whatever. The few bucks I give to Netflix every month is more than repaid in the service they provide without any streaming.

Re:Owned (2, Interesting)

shentino (1139071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903884)

Actually according to the article, the author DID use it, and he got access revoked even though HE DID NOTHING WRONG, so it kinda runs counte rto bein gable to consume DRM'ed content in the first place

Whoever did this ripped this guy off big time.

If it weren't for microsoft's screwhappy lawyers and deep pockets, I'd be temped to sue.

Re:Owned (5, Insightful)

packeteer (566398) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903486)

How would that help? They wouldn't even troubleshoot on a system like Linux. He could have refused their scan and kept his freedom.

In my opinion it is your own fault if you purchase DRM content. You don't HAVE to have their content. I know you really want to because its big Hollywood movies but what is difficult to understand. Your making a choice to retain your freedom or your use of Hollywood entertainment. If you know before hand that you could be screwed over while not doing anything wrong as well as not being able to go after the content provider because they did nothing outside of their agreement who's fault is it? It's surely not theirs. You decided to play their game and to pay them for the privilege. You get burned and cry to slashdot. It's very sad that there is good content that is going to be locked in DRM away but thats just bait for suckers.

Re:Owned (5, Insightful)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903598)

Agree.

(Unfortunately) More people should get burnt by these DRM schemes so that people will ask twice before signing up for them. As knowledgeable as we (the /. community) is, we have to get the word out to friends and family when they ask for our recommendations. It doesn't take much. When they ask about bluray or HD-DVD, just mention off the cuff the dueling standards. If they talk about downloadable content, ask them what happens when you change computers or if the service closes down. Mention that the Walmart service (backed by a company bigger than Microsoft) is closing down and the mess it leaves the customers.

We are the people with the (purchasing) power. We have the power to get rid of DRM. We just have to use it wisely.

Re:Owned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903822)

And yet another reason to switch to a Free (as in Freedom) operating system


As soon as anyone starts actually releasing programs compatible with these free OSes, that would sound great.

Re:Owned (1)

fatboyslack (634391) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903262)

It's often like the industry is trying to sabotage itself.

Re:Owned (4, Interesting)

filbranden (1168407) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903748)

It's often like the industry is trying to sabotage itself.

And as much as they try it, they still can't do it effectively!

I find it amazing that people don't boycott this stuff more. I mean, buying DRM content is really stupid.

On the other hand, sometimes boycotting bad products is almost impossible. Until some time ago, it was impossible to buy a notebook without Windows bundled in it. That meant that if you wanted to boycott Microsoft you would have to give up on your notebook. It took several years, but the market is changing and now it's possible to buy notebooks with other OS or no OS even from major vendors.

DRM content, on the other hand, is easier to boycott. You really can live without it. And in some [slashdot.org] cases [slashdot.org] , it seems that the boycott is being effective.

Re:Owned (1)

fatboyslack (634391) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903882)

Interesting. I hadn't heard about the Warner stuff.

Re:Owned (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903838)

they are.

its a sound plan too.

offer substandard online video services.

services fail.

look! we tried! it must have failed because of piracy.

we need more laws and more control to protect our monopoly.

win.

Re:Owned (1)

w1mp (210200) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903344)

A cleverer person could make a VMWare instance to run all their DRM HDTV signals from maybe... I am too lazy not to pirate - I would get very frustrated if I were to encounter a situation like the OP.

Re:Owned (4, Informative)

bigtangringo (800328) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903366)

AnyDVD + Handbrake + VideoLAN

"We work hard, so you don't have to"

Re:Owned (1)

log1385 (1199377) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903844)

I'm against pirating, but only because I like to give artists the money that they deserve for their movies/music. Movie studios and record companies, in my mind, serve as middle men to suck money from consumers and artists. I love buying music straight from indie bands: the money goes from my wallet directly into theirs. I wish there was a way to do the same thing with movies and popular music.

Cancelling (4, Insightful)

Lulfas (1140109) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903212)

Looks like I'll be cancelling my Netflix account for awhile then. Once again, it proves that companies make it easier to just pirate stuff than it is to try and legally pay for it.

Re:Cancelling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903302)

So you like having knee-jerk reactions to unsubstantiated rumours posted on the interweb? Must suck to be you.

Re:Cancelling (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903702)

Even without this situation it's still easier to "pirate" than to "do it right".

That is just a sad fact of the situation.

lol (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903226)

@ Amerikkka

There are sample videos in the "My Videos" folder. (1)

ip_freely_2000 (577249) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903232)

Do I have this right? So the MS DRM sniffer goes and finds MS sample videos added as part of the default XP install and invalidates everything?

Re:There are sample videos in the "My Videos" fold (1)

Idiot with a gun (1081749) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903280)

I highly doubt it. But, it wouldn't surprise me too much.

Re:There are sample videos in the "My Videos" fold (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903312)

I would hope that it bypass the M$ video files that are part of the os / M$ apps and the HDCP DRM system needs vista.

Re:There are sample videos in the "My Videos" fold (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903342)

You're probably a lot less confused than this fellow with the "problems." Either he is completely misunderstanding (and misrepresenting) what is going on, or he made this whole thing up.

Re:There are sample videos in the "My Videos" fold (2, Insightful)

scottrocket (1065416) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903348)

This sounds suspicious. If this story is true, then all the more reason to be extra mistrusting about the pay-for video download sites. For audio (at Amazon), it's dumb simple: click the song you want, & download your mp3(with one-click service). Why shouldn't it be this simple with video (I haven't tried Unbox yet)?

Re:There are sample videos in the "My Videos" fold (3, Interesting)

clem (5683) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903458)

The fact that you can download mp3s from amazon.com is probably due to the fact that computer speakers have become such a low-end commodity that vendors can't convince anyone to "upgrade" to DRM-enabled models.

Re:There are sample videos in the "My Videos" fold (1)

scottrocket (1065416) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903498)

Ah, like 7.1 with DRM upgrade - I see!

Re:There are sample videos in the "My Videos" fold (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903784)

(7.1 + DRM) = (-1 * (infinity))

Re:There are sample videos in the "My Videos" fold (4, Informative)

harrkev (623093) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903554)

The fact that you can download mp3s from amazon.com is probably due to the fact that computer speakers have become such a low-end commodity that vendors can't convince anyone to "upgrade" to DRM-enabled models.
Wanna bet? When I build my "dream" computer 3-1/2 years ago, I got an Audigy 2 sound card. It appears that the digital audio outputs are disabled if you are trying to play some restricted hi-def audio files (not MP3, though). So, if you went high-end and run your computer to an amp with digital inputs, you simply cannot listen to some music. The sad thing is that the people most likely to care about hi-def audio are the ones most likely to switch to an all-digital setup. Yet another reason to stick to analog speakers.

Re:There are sample videos in the "My Videos" fold (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903684)

This should be moderated as +5 Interesting, not because of DRM-digital anecdote, but because somebody actually got Creative drivers to work!

Alternative to DRM (5, Interesting)

maxrate (886773) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903270)

If distributors could invisibly/digitally watermark the video that gets legally downloaded with a user-id/serial number-that could make people think twice about distributing the video freely to others/thereby potentially eliminating the need for DRM. The video would be traceable to the original consumer. I guess it's possible a video file could be 'leaked' accidentally and it could cause a lot of trouble for the consumer/distributor. My guess is that anyone who is willing to pay for a download would likely NOT participate in redistributing the file - but I'm too naive and too much of an optimist at times maybe!

I buy sheet music online - the site only allows you to print to a physical printer NOT a PDF recorder (it also prints my full name on the sheet music). I'm sure there is someone who is smart enough out there to bypass this, I've thought about it (for the technical challenge) but really I'm probably just to lazy to even try.

Re:Alternative to DRM (1)

Eugene (6671) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903352)

just use a scanner to scan the printed sheet music back to the computer if you are technically challenged.

Re:Alternative to DRM (1)

SeePage87 (923251) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903506)

just use a scanner to scan the printed sheet music back to the computer if you are technically challenged.

Sure, these techies make it sound easy, but there's more to it than that. You'll need a bottle of whiteout for your name too.

If they show you it before you print it, I suppose you could always hit the print screen button and paste in into your favorite image editor as well.

RE: Sheet Music - Theres always the analog loop... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903376)

Not that you would or should but you could always take the simple easy way and print your sheet music. Use white out on your name ... and use a scanner to make it digital again! LOL

mfilemon (3, Informative)

DamnStupidElf (649844) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903464)

mfilemon is a printer port driver for Windows 2000/XP (maybe Vista and 2003, ymmv), so the Windows Printer thinks it's an Applescript or generic HP laser printer but it actually just dumps postscript files in a directory of your choosing. You can probably rig up any number of other scenarios where a "real" printer just sends postscript output to a network port somewhere that you can capture, or just turn on print-to-file with a normal printer, depending on how smart the DRM on the application is.

Re:Alternative to DRM (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903482)

they've already tried that, embedding certain customer info into the files- people didn't liek this very much apparently citing privacy concerns...

But if the watermark was invisible... (1)

enoz (1181117) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903666)

how would they track who uploaded it to Youtube?

Re:Alternative to DRM (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903682)

So http://www.blanksheetmusic.net/ [blanksheetmusic.net] isn't what you're looking for? It's a customisable, blank, pdf for sheet music. http://www.google.com/search?q=pdf%20sheet%20music%20blank [google.com] Seems to show a number of places to get a blank music sheet in pdf format.

Re:Alternative to DRM (4, Insightful)

roca (43122) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903826)

That doesn't work because watermarks are incredibly easy to get around. Simple signal processing techniques will eliminate most watermarks without noticeably affecting the output. In many cases you can just add your own watermark over the top and either destroy the existing watermark or no-one knows which one is the original watermark.

Pretty much all watermarking research assumes that an attacker does not know how the watermarking technique works and does not intelligently attack the watermark. That assumption is hopelessly unrealistic. It's 100% security by obscurity.

DRM display lockout (5, Funny)

Paul_Hindt (1129979) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903274)

This was one of those "features" of Vista that I heard about in the earlier days of the hype. There wasn't a clearly defined explanation of how they would indeed tie DRM to your HD monitor but I guess the results are starting to show. Someday maybe all of our hardware will be locked down so that if you don't buy content with appropriate DRM, it simply won't play. Hurray for freedom!

Re:DRM display lockout (1)

kithrup (778358) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903306)

The part that caught my eye was: no non-Netflix videos are allowed?

The site is slashdotted already, so I can't look at it. And I don't use Netflix at all... can someone confirm that? It seems remarkably unlikely. (But, then, so do a lot of things related to DRM :).)

Re:DRM display lockout (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903368)

With Netflix you are renting the videos so this may be in place to stop form useing some kind a of loop back / rerecording of the video files without DRM.

Re:DRM display lockout (1)

GMFTatsujin (239569) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903568)

They're way ahead of you -- they're already to the phase when you *do* buy 'appropriate' DRM media that won't play.

It's like throwing away money in the prettiest way possible.

Re:DRM display lockout (1)

zolf13 (941799) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903706)

SciFi coming true!
But ... I am still waiting for full Secure Hardware Environment [vrinimi.org] .

Re:DRM display lockout (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903872)

There is nothing in Vista (or any operating system) that "ties DRM to your HD monitor". You never heard about this "feature" of Vista. It doesn't exist and is absurd.

The problem is that to view some drm'd content* on a digital monitor you need to have a secure pathway from the computer to the monitor. The idea is that if you didn't have a secure pathway then it would be trivially easy to record the content being outputed and bypass the DRM.

So the reason he cant view his files now is that (from TFS)

his computer allows him to send an unrestricted HDTV feed to his monitor.
It has really nothing to do with a new monitor other than the fact that his new monitor is digital, while his only monitor was analog (VGA), and apparently his video card is too old to support the digital encryption.

*note it is the content providers choice whether their drm'd content will require a secure digital pathway from videocard to monitor. The fact that Amazon sets this flag on its SD content is extremely stupid. This kind of DRM was designed to prevent bluray and HDDVD movies from being easily ripped.

Finally I don't agree with any of this DRM crap at all. I think it's all bullshit and will never purchase any DRM'd video files, ever. But I don't like untrue FUD being tossed around even if it is against a MS product. Hell, it's not like the content providers will ever let their crap play on an OS without the ability to use this kind of DRM - what was MS supposed to do, not support the DRM and not even give consumers the option of watching DRM'd files? That's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater (even if in this case the baby is a seriously ugly SOB that few - but some - would want).

That is awesome! (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903276)

Soon they will sue our eyes and ears.

What do you mean YOUR eyes and ears? (4, Funny)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903444)

Read the F'ing EULA my friend.

And if you don't stop fast-forwarding through those Axe commercials we're going to deactivate your reproductive module.

Hmmm. What is the problem here? (2, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903282)

Do not buy from Netflix. If they are this stupid, then simply quit buying from them. More importantly, let them know why. Once that happens enough, they will quit doing this. Until then, the MPAA (who is really behind this) will continue to do this.

Re:Hmmm. What is the problem here? (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903388)

I would suggest that Netflix isn't the "stupid" ones here.

The guy who bought DRM'd content. (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903766)

He's the stupid one. Now, this isn't to say that Netflix's policies are not evil, but come on! What geek in his right mind would buy into one of these restrictive DRM schemes in the first place? Perhaps he thought that Netflix would wise up and do the right thing by the customer...I just can't understand why one would buy into these schemes and not expect to get burned.

Re:Hmmm. What is the problem here? (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903394)

I circle "concur", cross-out "non-concur", and initial the parents posts.

This will be a self-correcting problem as soon as you vote with your checkbook (and favorite file-sharing technique).

Re:Hmmm. What is the problem here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903430)

Ah remember the good old days of NetFlix + DVDShrink + DVDDecrypter? ... I'm not gonna cry too hard for anyone who actually bought DRM'd media and got burnt by this. But thanks to whomever for being a shining example of why DRM sucks... and now looking back to a few years ago, all those DVDs I ripped and burned from NetFlix, I've watched how many of them more than once? Hmmm I can probably count them on one hand. I wasted more time and money copying the stuff and burning them just cause I could and in hindsight I really think it was a waste.

Re:Hmmm. What is the problem here? (4, Interesting)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903532)

Okay, I won't buy from Netflix, especially since they don't "sell" digital downloads. What they do offer is an online-viewing service that's included "free" (currently) with their standard by-mail service. A service which, I might add, happens to work beautifully if you're running XP. It looks like this guy's problems stem from the fact that he's running Vista and has decided to change his hardware (even if it is only the monitor). We were given plenty of warning that Vista would do this, so we shouldn't be surprised when it happens.

Re:Hmmm. What is the problem here? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903614)

Do not buy from Netflix. If they are this stupid, then simply quit buying from them. More importantly, let them know why. Once that happens enough, they will quit doing this. Until then, the MPAA (who is really behind this) will continue to do this.

Your advice is pointless. From his own perspective, of course he'll stop buying them, since simply he can't play them.

But for this to happen "often enough", the problem has to occur often enough. And with DRM, despite having more edge cases affecting mostly prosumers and advanced users, the masses find their content working in a basic use scenario.

It's a frog-in-a-slowly-boiling-water effect.

DRM sucks (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903284)

This perhaps doesn't directly address the problem mentioned, but this is what I do. I only bother with Netflix DRM because I get it "free" anyway with my subscription.

Anyway, using a script I wrote, I parse the HTML saved from Firefox (pretending to be IE7) and download the highest bandwidth version of a movie. I then cringe and for the only time each month boot Windows and using Mirakagi, FreeUse4Win, WMP and unDRM the file. Then I can play in perpetuity in Linux/MythTV.

The size of the files is normally 1-2GB. Yes, that's less than DVD quality, but pretty acceptable in most cases. You can fetch the keys for 9 hours of movies per month (for the basic subscription), but they round up, so if you do it carefully and get keys for 8.5 hours of movies, you can make the last one a 3 hour epic - about 5-7 movies total.

This is all based upon information I got from here: http://forum.rorta.net/showthread.php?t=1134&page=6 [rorta.net] (link to last page)

Kaffeine didn't play the resulting WMVs very well. mplayer and VLC do a better job.

Simple solution (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903286)

Here's an idea. Don't use Netflix. Just pretend they went bankrupt and no longer exist. Seriously, fuck em!

Onto the next media provider please...

I hate Netflix, but... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903288)

...they are superior to niggers. That's for certain.

And before anyone complains that this is "racism," please check the dictionary for the word. Disliking niggers is not "racist" by any stretch of the imagination.

Re:I hate Netflix, but... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903448)

No no no. Ron Paulbots should be on Digg, not Slashdot.

Vote with your wallet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903298)

Well, the solution is simple. First, pirate the movies you've already bought. Hell, you paid for them, why shouldn't you be allowed to view them in high-res? And secondly, never buy another damn movie from there again, and tell everyone to avoid them for this reason.

Vote with your wallet. The only reason they do this shit is because we let them.

I smell a lawsuit (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903308)

So it won't work even if the previous video is legal? I sure hope their EULA is tight.

Simple Solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903346)

There's a simple solution to this that all NetFlix customers can take: Cancel your netflix account and checkout thepiratebay and isohunt. No DRM to worry about over there.

Why the surprise? (1)

Griffyn (948838) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903374)

DRM promised to do all this to you and more. And yet, you purchased DRM-protected content? Hardly a nightmare, more of a told-you-so. Please, everyone, when content is only available DRM-protected, pirate it instead. This is the only way to discourage these companies from abusing us.

Re:Why the surprise? (1, Insightful)

wasabii (693236) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903494)

Actually how about simply "do not watch it". Pirating is simply an excuse to have laws made that invade your privacy to discovery your piracy. It is not a morally appropiate option to disagreeing with a method of sale.

I call bullshit... (1, Interesting)

Matt Amato (2494) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903420)

Does anyone have a link to the story? Because I use Vista64 with an HDCP capable DVI monitor monitor running at 1900x1200 and have no problem watching Netflix or any other videos. What exactly is this Guy doing that is special? He talks about giving "Access" to his files, which means he's somehow denying it access in the first place. I'll reserve judgment until I can read the post, but it doesn't pass the smell test.

Re:I call bullshit... (4, Informative)

croddy (659025) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903492)

Oh, I wish I'd copied the text while it was still mysterious red. Anyway, he provides screenshots, model numbers, and so forth. There's a "DRM reset" tool that Netflix recommended that they say will nuke anything from other vendors. It's clear that his digital restrictions keystore became corrupted somehow, and Netflix, Amazon, and Microsoft all directed him to each other. In the end he wonders why he bothered paying at all, noting that he could obtain higher-resolution rips for less money using bittorrent.

Re:I call bullshit... (5, Informative)

mariushm (1022195) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903792)

He changed the monitors, which caused Vista to invalidate the DRM, much like a Windows Genuine Advantage. Now his Netflix account is invalid and has to revalidate it and for this the application will scan all his licenses and reset all license it finds (which means he would have to contact Amazon and all the other companies and request to have the licenses activated again). Or something like that.

Workaround? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903426)

Not sure this would work or even be worth the trouble but perhaps putting your non-netflix video on a virtual drive that you can hide when you need to use the netflix DRM crap?

Goodbye Netflix (1)

kemushi88 (1156073) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903434)

My long standing philosophy has been to reward businesses that treat me well with more of by business. When businesses disrespect you, don't reward them by giving them more money. Sadly, I believe that this is lost on most Americans. That aside, I have been using Netflix for about a year now (not for downloading movies, but for the old fashion mail service). I plan on canceling my account as soon as I get home. I would encourage those that are as outraged as I am to do the same.

Nice (1)

ghyd (981064) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903470)

The good news is: people that support Vista and HDMPAAlywood movies are screwed again. Rejoice !

So you reach slashdot... (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903472)

...and yet you were still foolish enough to actually pay for DRM'ed content?

So do you drink out of bottles with a skull and crossbones on them, too?

Make any attempt to verify? (2, Interesting)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903480)

Did Soulskill make any attempt to verify this story before allowing it to be posted? I really don't things are as they appear. For one it sounds like a Microsoft problem not a Netflix problem.

works as advertised (4, Insightful)

osssmkatz (734824) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903620)

A Microsoft problem? No. The feature is implemented correctly. If the monitor does not have the authorization chip that the new drivers in Vista are set to check for (thus closing the analog hole), the DRM will not play. Because VGA is older, the content will play on that. It's a feature of Windows Media, that might be fixed if Microsoft does not implement the monitor check in Silverlight which they are switching to. Since they want to support Macs, and Apple isn't that stupid, hopefully they won't be able to.

--Sam

Re:works as advertised (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903716)

I ALMOST missed the sarcasm in your post. It WAS there wasn't it?

webserver? (3, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903508)

Looks like the webserver had some non-netflix content on it and its DRM got revoked.

Lots of Netflix haters... but why hate Netflix? (5, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903584)

I don't see why all the antipathy against Netflix exists - it's not even Netflix that is distributing the files he would lose, just that the streaming player will not work because of a corruption in the DRM database.

Blame Windows for not having a better handle on backing up that data, sure. Blame UnBox for selling such crippled media - OK then. But Netflix has no other choices because content providers will not accept other solutions. They aren't even storing anything locally, just streaming.

Sorry but serves your right (3, Interesting)

deadmongrel (621467) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903592)

you should have known when you bought DRM tainted video. There is no perpetual access to the data you paid for.In the short term DRM might look harmless but its going to be a pain in the neck for people who actually pay for using it.
Solution: Use your wallet to prove your point. Buy used cds and dvds if you must. Stay away from HDDVD and blueray disks/players. Buy mp3 audio from amazon.com and stop buying DRM stuff.

Mirror (1)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903604)

Slashdotted already. Here's a mirror: http://davisfreeberg.com.nyud.net:8090/2008/01/03/bad-copp-no-netflix/ [nyud.net]

Re:Mirror (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903778)

That mirror is busted too (exceeds CPU usage). Does anyone else have one?

Re:Mirror (2, Funny)

Kaamoss (872616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903846)

The mirror is busted for me too. I love all of the heated comments about the story when the article is inaccessible. Does anyone have a working mirror of this? Is this a fake story? I mean, don't get me wrong, I WANT to hate netflix and all things DRM, but I'd like to have some sort of source to base the hate on....

Upgrade to XP (5, Funny)

CritterNYC (190163) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903646)

This is a bug that only affects Windows Vista (defective DRM is prevalent). Upgrading to Windows XP will solve the problem.

PHP Painful? (1)

slashdot4ever (760080) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903658)

So I go to the site, and it is slashdoted, really no suprise there, but one of their 'tips' for decreasing server load is.

'Using static .html documents instead of painful .php scripts will practically eliminate CPU usage.'

I know using static html is faster, but is php really painful? begin php sucks anyway flamewar!

Re:PHP Painful? (1)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903868)

So I go to the site, and it is slashdoted, really no suprise there, but one of their 'tips' for decreasing server load is.

'Using static .html documents instead of painful .php scripts will practically eliminate CPU usage.'

I know using static html is faster, but is php really painful? begin php sucks anyway flamewar!
No, it's not painful, and finding ways to Cache a PHP generated pages, or parts of pages is fairly easy, with plenty of prewritten code, modules, snippets, or documented techniques available when you need to reduce that load. PHP's only real problem is that it's easy to learn, and anyone can write a php script with about 10 minutes worth of experimenting.... Leading to a host of php based sites that are poorly written....

And then you have the people that have a class of visual basic and / or C# under their belt, and think they can write good code cause "It works, doesn't it?"

OOhhhh Look!! (5, Funny)

jon287 (977520) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903694)

Chickens! Why it seems they've come home to roost!

I always said that as soon as customers started loosing legally purchased media and having real difficulties with brand new hardware that the days or DRM would be over. Could that day be here already?! Happy 2008 all.

Oh no, his DRM has already kicked in! (1)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903744)

It's not allowing me to access his webpage.

(Or maybe his server just melted down from all the /. traffic... ;) )

WTF? (1, Insightful)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903758)

I don't know what's up with this so-called story, but the link provided in the story (along with the entire domain it comes from) is requiring username/password authentication, and in the fist 10 comments someone is alleging that the story is a complete fake to start with. WTF? Someone please take the story down until someone makes sense out of it?

Surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903812)

I tried posting this on the blog but I hit submit and got the too-much-CPU error, so it's addressed to the author of the article.

Why is this even being discussed? If you're surpised this happened to you then you haven't been paying attention. Anyone who knows anything about Vista knows that it is completely loaded down with content protection "features". But you bought the OS anyway. If you didn't know that before you bought the OS, then you should have done a little research about why so many people have negative attitudes towards Vista. Then you bought movies that are similarly encumbered by DRM, because you "like the experience". I don't think the experience you like is the same as the experience the companies you bought the movies from like. Then you're surpised when the DRM-laden OS doesn't do what you want with the DRM-laden content that you purchased. Is this really a surprise to you? Yeah, the only thing that you have a stand at losing are licenses that you purchased legally, but - in case you haven't been paying attention - the only thing DRM has *ever* accomplished is to lock out legitimate users, it doesn't do anything against piracy (they still find a way, for every DRM scheme there are several holes).

I mean, seriously, I just don't have any sympathy for you at all, you paid the money to fund DRM, now you're dealing with it. I haven't bought anything that includes DRM except for the normal copy protection on PC games, and I'm going to be using XP until they release a patch for Vista that removes the content protection schemes. It's not up to my operating system to police what I'm doing, that's my responsibility. If you choose to buy into the DRM industry, then you're going to have to deal with issues like these.

Sounds like an antitrust violation AND fraud (3, Interesting)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903828)

In order to access the Watch Now service, I had to give Microsoft's DRM sniffing program access to all of the files on my hard drive. If the software found any non-Netflix video files, it would revoke my rights to the content and invalidate the DRM.

It will destroy your paid-for content if you have other content from another vendor? Sounds like an antitrust violation AND consumer fraud.

I'd bring this up with the FTC.

And I'd sue Netflix in small claims for everything you've paid so far. B-)

= = = =

Imagine if fifty, just fifty, people a day did that. They might think it's a movement. And that's what it is. The Alice's Restaurant Anti-DRM-masaccree movement. And you can join just by singing it, the next time it comes around on the guitar... B-)

The three R's of Microsoft is now four (3, Funny)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 6 years ago | (#21903854)

It used to be the three R's of running windows;

Reboot the machine

Reload the application

Reinstall the Operating system

Now we can add

Revert to a previous version

Vista has given me a whole new view of windows, Oh and it looks like the site is past it's quota. Slashdot strikes again.

article text (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21903860)

Even though I'm an HDTV fanatic, it wasn't until this past weekend, that I finally made the jump to an HD monitor. While I don't have HDTV tuners on my Media Center, I do have an HD camcorder and it was important for me to be able to edit my high resolution videos.

After doing a little bit of research, I decided to pick up a SyncMasterTM 226BW from Samsung. Between the new monitor and my ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT video card, the resolution looks absolutely stunning. Even my home movies look fantastic in HDTV. I really couldn't have been happier with the upgrade.

Unfortunately, Hollywood isn't quite as thrilled about my new HD Media Dream Machine and they've decided to punish me by revoking my Watch Now privileges from Netflix.

I first found out about the problem on New Year's Eve, when I went to log into my account. When I tried to launch a streaming movie, I was greeted with an error message asking me to "reset" my DRM. Luckily, Netflix's help page on the topic included a link to a DRM reset utility, but when I went to install the program, I stopped dead in my tracks when I saw this warning.

[img]

The minute I saw"this will potentially remove playback licenses from your computer, including those from companies other than Netflix or Microsoft" I knew better than to hit continue. Before nuking my entire digital library, I decided to call Netflix's technical support, to see if I could get to the bottom of my C00D11B1 error message.

When I called them they confirmed my worst fears. In order to access the Watch Now service, I had to give Microsoft's DRM sniffing program access to all of the files on my hard drive. If the software found any non-Netflix video files, it would revoke my rights to the content and invalidate the DRM. This means that I would lose all the movies that I've purchased from Amazon's Unbox, just to troubleshoot the issue.

Technically, there is a way to back up the licenses before doing a DRM reset, but it's a pretty complex process, even by my standards. When I asked Netflix for more details, they referred me to Amazon for assistance.

Perhaps even worse than having to choose between having access to Netflix or giving up my Unbox movies was the realization that my real problems were actually tied to the shiny new monitor that I've already grown fond of.

Netflix's software allows them to look at the video card, cables and the monitor that you are using and when they checked mine out, it was apparently a little too high def to pass their DRM filters.

Because my computer allows me to send an unrestricted HDTV feed to my monitor, Hollywood has decided to revoke my ability to stream 480 resolution video files from Netflix. In order to fix my problem, Netflix recommended that I downgrade to a lower res VGA setup.

As part of their agreement with Hollywood, Netflix uses a program called COPP (Certified Output Protection Protocal). COPP is made by Microsoft and the protocol restricts how you are able to transfer digital files off of your PC. When I ran COPP to identify the error on my machine, it gave me an ominous warning that "the exclusive semaphere is owned by another process."

My Netflix technician told me that he had never heard of this particular error and thought that it was unique to my setup. When I consulted Microsoft, they suggested that I consult the creator of the program. Since Microsoft wrote the COPP software, I wasn't sure who to turn to after that.

The irony in all of this, is that the DRM that Hollywood is so much in love with, is really only harming their paying customers. When you do a DRM reset, it's not your pirated files that get revoked, it's the ones that you already paid for that are at risk. I'm not allowed to watch low res Netflix files, even though I have the capability to download high def torrents? How does this even make sense? It's as if the studios want their digital strategies to fail.

While I understand the need for the studios to protect their content, I believe that these measures go too far. It makes little sense to block my ability to copy low res internet movies, when I can always rip the DVD straight from my Netflix discs instead. By blocking access to my Netflix membership, Hollywood is once again punishing their customers by pushing defective DRM.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>