none
A plea for DRM support in Linux/Moonlight

    Question

  • I thought maybe that the Bugs forum would be better for getting the developers attention, but I thought it wasn't really appropriate, so I'd post it here.

    I am a native linux user, both by choice and out of necessity by work.  I'm excited for the release of Moonlight 2.0 and the support for silverlight 2.0, but saddened to learn that it doesn't include support for DRM, and specifically the ability to play Netflix movies.  The moonlight members mentioned that they are not able to implement DRM themselves, and would need the help of microsoft to push forward.  This is important to me and other linux users.  Considering I maybe go through 2 shipped DVDs over 2-3 weeks and stream about 8 movies in that same time period, Netflix's Watch-It-Now is really the only reason subscribe to their services.  Assuredly, I'm not alone in this opinion.  Without linux support, linux users are limited to only a few options.  One of these, which I've chose, is to use Sun's Virtualbox and an installation of Windows XP.  It works, but it's definitely not the way I want to go, and I know this option isn't available to everyone.

    Saturday, May 9, 2009 1:50 PM

Answers

  • Netflix is forced to use a technology that ensures that their service is not misused for piracy (the alternative would be a VERY expensive service, or no service at all). DRM is the pillarstone of this, and Microsoft is on the contrary getting many customers because they have a really good DRM solution, and their DRM stuff helps them sell their streaming servers.

    Don't get me wrong... I would love to see this shared in Moonlight, but I can also understand why Microsoft is not willing to share something that might compromise their DRM security, or allow others to piggyback on something they probably invested millions on creating. Expecting that Microsoft will give all their core technologies away is pure utopia. My guess is that at the moment they don't know how they can currently support this in Moonlight without the risk of a new DeCSS incident...

    Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:49 PM

All replies

  • Where did you hear that? Last thing I read was that Microsoft is actively supporting the DRM part, by giving novell the DRM stuff they need for moonlight 2.0 (not sure if thats in their first preview though). AFAIK that part wont be open source though, but that shouldn't really matter to the end user.

    Saturday, May 9, 2009 2:02 PM
  •  I read it on one of the developer's blog post on the release of the Moonlight preview.  He said this to someone else in reply to the DRM question (two days ago)

     

    Hello Jack,

    This is still up in the air.

    We are making our case to Microsoft that they should port their DRM to Linux, but this is a complicated issue.

    If we manage to sway Microsoft in this direction it would happen.

    We hope that we convince them of the importance of Silverlight's DRM on Linux, but this is not something we can implement ourselves, they would have to do it, and we would end up licensing the bits for redistribution.

    We need folks to articulate to Microsoft why this is important, it would help more than just my team raising this issue with them

    Posting these articulate caes in blogs, mailing list and the silverlight.net forums is probably a good place to start. Also, convincing the providers that are using Silverlight DRM to ask Microsoft for the feature would probably go a long way.
     

     

    Saturday, May 9, 2009 3:33 PM
  • Hmmm I must be confusing it with something then. But yeah you got my vote. I'm not a linux user (and probably never will be), but I make a living on Silverlight, and the more platforms my products support the better.

    Saturday, May 9, 2009 3:49 PM
  • I third this request. Please port the DRM stack to linux to enable novell's moonlight project to be able to support netflix etc...  
    Saturday, May 9, 2009 9:05 PM
  •  I support this request as well!

    Saturday, May 9, 2009 10:47 PM
  • Hmmm I must be confusing it with something then. But yeah you got my vote. I'm not a linux user (and probably never will be), but I make a living on Silverlight, and the more platforms my products support the better.

    I believe that what was imported from Microsoft were the codec packs and that the DRM has still not been handed over.

    I fully advocate for this. I hope that Microsoft can get it's brain out of it's profit margin and start being a responsible business.

    Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:16 AM
  •  One more vote for DRM support in Linux

    Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:17 PM
  • "I hope that Microsoft can get it's brain out of it's profit margin and start being a responsible business."

    I think most businessmen would argue that making money is the responsible thing to do.

    Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:30 PM
  •  Well, lucrative does not equal responsible. Also, Microsoft is probably not gaining any customers by using DRM. No pure Linux user is going to buy a copy of Windows so that they can use Silverlight. More so, I would say, companies like Netflix are losing those customers.

    Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:40 PM
  • Netflix is forced to use a technology that ensures that their service is not misused for piracy (the alternative would be a VERY expensive service, or no service at all). DRM is the pillarstone of this, and Microsoft is on the contrary getting many customers because they have a really good DRM solution, and their DRM stuff helps them sell their streaming servers.

    Don't get me wrong... I would love to see this shared in Moonlight, but I can also understand why Microsoft is not willing to share something that might compromise their DRM security, or allow others to piggyback on something they probably invested millions on creating. Expecting that Microsoft will give all their core technologies away is pure utopia. My guess is that at the moment they don't know how they can currently support this in Moonlight without the risk of a new DeCSS incident...

    Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:49 PM
  • Here's one more vote for DRM support in Linux/Moonlight.
    Wednesday, May 13, 2009 4:08 PM
  • As a linux user, long time visual basic programmer, and netflix customer, I would be highly disappointed if Microsoft did not support Silverlight on linux. Please do this now, or both you and netflix will be losing customers. Thank you.

    Friday, May 15, 2009 11:03 PM
  •  While I wholly advocate free and open-source software, I also wholly advocate the rights of persons or coporations to restrict their distributions.  I myself would be a happier person if DRM could be ported to Linux or BSD systems, and I believe that both Microsoft and Netflix would find an increasingly widening audience by doing so.  I don't mind paying for software if it signifcantly outperforms free software, and I further would not mind a DRM fee being built into Netflix's (or other Silverlight products) membership for non-Microsoft users.  I do, however, mind its persistent unavailability to those opting for competing systems regardless of their ideals or intent.  I vote for universal DRM porting.

    Monday, May 18, 2009 5:34 PM
  • one more vote

    Sunday, May 24, 2009 12:23 PM
  •  I agree.

    Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:15 PM
  •  And let me add my vote ... Cool

    Sunday, May 31, 2009 5:23 PM
  • SharpGIS: I fail to see how supplying a binary corresponds to MS giving away their core technology.  They licensed it for use on OSX.  Did Adobe give away their core technology by supplying Flash Player and Acrobat Reader for Linux?  Additionally, it seems that the whole business model here is to charge the content providers for the use of the DRM scheme.  Consumers pay for it indirectly through fees from the content provider.  From this standpoint it shouldn't matter which client a consumer uses to view the content as long as they are paying the content provider -- as is the case for Netflix users.  Microsoft will get their cut as long as Netflix keeps using their DRM scheme.  As a Netflix customer I am already paying for this!

    Tuesday, June 2, 2009 2:03 AM
  • Netflix is forced to use a technology that ensures that their service is not misused for piracy (the alternative would be a VERY expensive service, or no service at all).

     

     This doesn't explain why I can watch movies for free at sites like Hulu.  Yes they have commercials, but they offer a cross-platform service, which is worth something to me.

    Tuesday, June 2, 2009 2:41 AM
  • Well, lucrative does not equal responsible. Also, Microsoft is probably not gaining any customers by using DRM. No pure Linux user is going to buy a copy of Windows so that they can use Silverlight. More so, I would say, companies like Netflix are losing those customers.
     

    It does when your responsibilities are to your shareholders.

    As for not gaining customers, I really don't think they care about getting Linux users to switch to Windows, they're looking to get CORPORATE users to pay big bucks to license their DRM technology.  That's where they make their money.  If you really want this to happen, you need to bug companies like Netflix, so that they can bug Microsoft.  They can get requests all day long from end users and it won't make a bit of difference unless the actual companies giving them money request it.

    Thursday, June 4, 2009 2:53 PM
  • I support this purely because I'm having difficulties with Microsoft Tech Support and having Silverlight on Linux would help me prove to them that their "solution" is not a solution.
    Sunday, June 7, 2009 3:42 PM
  • Just saw this post bubble up and wanted to chime in. I agree that it would be ultra cool to support Moonlight with Silverlight DRM for a variety of reasons but primarily so that all users can access the same type and forms of content and vote with their wallets.

    The issue here has been identified properly so I won't dwell but suffice to say we won't see PlayReady on Linux.....ever. Why? It's a REALLY tough situation which I cannot comment on too much more.

    I think for now, Silverlight DRM on Linux won't be a reality.  I imagine we will see OMA or Marlin via Moonlight before we see PlayReady.

    Christopher Levy

    clevy@buydrm.com


    http://www.buydrm.com
    http://www.thedrmblog.com/
    http://www.silverlightdrm.com

     

    Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:40 PM
  • I am for porting DRM.

    Obviously Netflix is the hot item at the moment, but over time we will see more and more services such as this. A standard for DRM must be established and it must be freely distributed so as to allow the free flow of media convergence. At the moment I am currently streaming Netflix via the Rocku, a Linux device. The Linux market share will soon increase exponentially, primarily for embedded and mobile devices, and this will force producers to realize the importance of porting DRM. Welcome to the beginning of the end of personal computers. I run a Linux Server which hosts web applications to my phone, my Wii and my iTouch; desktop computing is a 20th century concept.

    Friday, June 19, 2009 8:29 AM
  • yeah yeah yeah .... and yet the PC is still the dominant platform and PC-connected media leads the pack in revenue. What about the XBox? It does 3X the video sales of iTunes and it will stream to a PC or to a TV.  

    I don't think we will see more movie services. In fact we will see less of them and the ones we do see will be primarly PC with Mac support but no support for Linux? Why? Because that's where the customers are.

    You should go get an OMA License and build your own DRM stack if you are that interested. Maybe Adobe will roll out a DRM solution for Linux. 

     

    Christopher Levy
    clevy@buydrm.com
    http://www.buydrm.com
    http://www.thedrmblog.com
    http://www.silverlightdrm.com

     

     

    Friday, June 19, 2009 11:36 AM
  •  You know, I don't even care any more.  I am paying just as much as customers on another platform yet not receiving the service.  I think I'll vote with my wallet and just discontinue my Netflix service.  I have other options.

    Any ideas on how to cancel my account here?  I have no further use for it.  I looked for a link/button on my profile page and didn't see anything.

    Saturday, June 20, 2009 5:12 AM
  • I think I'll vote with my wallet and just discontinue my Netflix service.  I have other options.

    Make sure you let them know why you're canceling your service, otherwise it will do no good.

    Saturday, June 20, 2009 5:21 AM
  •  I'm a Linux User, and I hope really that Moonlight will permit the same things that Silverlight on Windows.

     

    Soon maybe ;)

    Saturday, June 20, 2009 8:31 AM
  • One thing to point out here, the streaming service is free. I guess that they are looking into Linux support from what I hear though.

    Monday, June 22, 2009 11:15 AM
  • One thing to point out here, the streaming service is free.

     

    No it is not.   If you can figure out a way to watch Netflix instant without paying a monthly fee for the Netflix service, let me know. Wink

     

    As a full time Linux user and paying Netflix member,  I also request for Microsoft to port the DRM stack to linux.

    Monday, June 22, 2009 7:15 PM
  • The Streaming service is free to all customers of the Netflix movie service. It's really straightforward. No you don't get and you shouldn't expect free streaming movies.

     Unfortunately I think your request will fall on deaf ears. Linux is just not a viable consumer platform for desktop computing for the masses. Yes it's a good platform but no don't expect Silverlight DRM on Linux anytime soon.

    Christopher Levy

    clevy@buydrm.com
    http://www.buydrm.com
    http://www.thedrmblog.com/
    http://www.silverlightdrm.com

     

    Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:45 AM
  • Actually, Adobe ALREADY provides a DRM solution for Linux.  It's the reason why shows from  NBC and Hulu are able to be played on Linux is because of the fact that they use the DRM solution provided by Adobe.  Do you really think that anyone would let Hulu run without DRM?  Of course not.  As for a "DeCSS" incedent, as proposed by someone else on this board as the reason why they don't want to support Linux, that's just rediculous.  CSS on DVD relied on preset encryption keys programmed into DVD players.  Once someone in the industry leaked the keys the game was over.  DRM solutions like Adobe, has the client request a key from the server.  The keys can be changed daily, making it impossible to find out what the key is.  I'm sure Silverlight works the same way.  If at any point, any part of the program becomes compromized, that part of the program, on either the client or the server can be updated and patched.  Again making it impossible to have a "DeCSS" incident similar to DVD players.

    Truth is, MS could get this done anytime they wanted to.  The only reason they don't, is to  give people another reason to buy Windows.   Before Adobe's Winter release of AIR, MS had the advantage, and now the tables have turned and Adobe has the clear advantage with built in support for H264 and AAC, giving providors the ability to enode HD content with Dobly II surround sound, utilizing lower bandwidth than a similar setup with Silverlight.  While S3 will be closing those gaps, for right now, Adobe has the advantage AND they already have all the major end users covered.  Linux, MAC and MS.  I wouldn't be surprised if FOX decided to go back to AIR, and I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix decided to drop MS, in favor of Adobe.

    At some point, Microsoft is going to have to decide if they want to make a strategic decision to give end users more reasons to buy Windows, or if they want to give Content providers yet another reason to go with AIR.

    Sunday, July 12, 2009 11:56 PM
  •  Good post. Couple comments though.  The demand for premium content on the Linux platform is very low hence the reason many developers of DRM technology are not targeting Linux. 

    Did you confirm that the Hulu media you were getting on Linux was encrypted with FMRMS 1.0? Do you have one of the files you can post so we can all confirm that? I wasn't aware this was the case.

    You are making some big assumptions about Adobe's direction in the marketplace which frankly, aren't accurate. I cannot clarify them much furthere here but to say Adobe is definitely making moves with their platform and they should be commended for that.

    Did you know Silverlight supports H.264 and AAC ? :) From Scott Guthrie's Blog:

    http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2009/07/10/silverlight-3-released.aspx

    HD Media

    Silverlight 3 now supports hardware graphics acceleration – enabling both video and graphics compositing to be offloaded onto a GPU.  This can dramatically lower CPU usage on a computer, and enables HD video to be played on older low end machines.  You can now deliver and play 1080p HD video experiences over the web.

    Silverlight 3 includes new media codec support for H.264 video, AAC audio and MPEG-4 content.  This enables you to easily play and stream media encoded using these standards.  Silverlight 3 also includes raw bitstream audio/video APIs that enable you to create additional codecs (in any .NET language) that support playing any other media format.  Silverlight 3 also adds a variety of additional media features that enable better logging (for media analytics and ad monetization scenarios), provide the ability to disable screen-savers when playing long-form video content, and enable content protection.

    IIS Media Services is a free server product that complements Silverlight and provides the ability to efficiently stream media over HTTP.  It enables both on-demand and live HD video to be delivered using “smooth streaming” - which is an adaptive streaming algorithm that can deliver video at bitrates optimized for a client’s network conditions and CPU capabilities.  Check out this demo to see a good example of smooth streaming in action with Silverlight.

    The HD support within Silverlight, combined with the Smooth Streaming support of IIS Media Services, enables a dramatically better video experiences on the web.  This past week alone, we’ve had multiple customers broadcast live HD events using Silverlight and smooth streaming (up to 3MBits) including: Wimbledon, the Tour de France, AVP Volleyball, and the Michael Jackson Memorial Service.

     Don't focus on AIR as a component of DRM. Focus on where the money is.  Microsoft and Adobe are going to go where the users are and the content needs to be.

    Christopher Levy

    clevy@buydrm.com
    http://www.buydrm.com
    http://www.thedrmblog.com/
    http://www.silverlightdrm.com

     

    Tuesday, July 14, 2009 12:26 PM
  • I seem to remember this conversation over DVDcss a while back. You can post whatever you like but we will watch netflix content on our desktops eventually regardless of who wants us to or not. I give it till next summer. Netflix/MS can make it legal and profit from it or they can try to block it and we will do it anyway. And saying the watch it now feature of the netflix subscription is free is idiotic. Personally I just bought a Roku box and was done with it but where there is a will there is a way. And Silverlight is broken already anyway, lots of people are working on converting silverlight streams to other formats....I give it a year.

    Tuesday, August 25, 2009 2:07 PM
  • Interesting approach. Sounds like you are not happy. I obviously cannot do anything to change that. I think though, before you go breaking numerous international laws and making threats, you might look at _why_ Microsoft didn't license PlayReady to the Linux community. You assume it's purely because they didn't want to. Maybe that is correct and maybe not. Maybe there wasn't the infrastructure in place to support the license and maybe the lack of a centralized owner org for Linux is another reason they didn't. 

    You do not pay for the "Watch It Now" feature of Netflix. It's a free add-on. It wasn't available when you signed up was it? From their site:

    "The ability to do this is included with your membership for no additional monthly fee and doesn’t impact the number of DVDs you get by mail."

     That seems pretty clear to me. Roku by the way supports playback of content encrypted with Windows Media Rights Manager and I think it may soon support PlayReady playback as well.

    How is Silverlight broken?

    Regards,

    Christopher Levy

    clevy@buydrm.com


    http://www.buydrm.com
    http://www.thedrmblog.com/
    http://www.silverlightdrm.com

     

     

    Wednesday, August 26, 2009 1:04 PM
  • Let me begin by saying that I already own multiple devices for Netflix streaming, including my Blu-ray player and a couple of computers. Nevertheless, as a "computer guru" who has helped several users switch from Windows to Linux, and as a part-time Linux user myself, I would love to see full PlayReady support included in an upcoming version of Moonlight.

    Adobe's revenues continue to rise, despite having provided legal Flash and PDF capabilities to the Linux community. It seems to me that, in the context of Linux, there are two possible explanations for this. One interpretation is that there just aren't enough Linux users out there interested in multimedia content to have a significant negative impact Adobe's revenues. The other possibility is that Adobe makes most of its profits from licensing its technologies to major content providers plus selling content creation/editing software to Windows and Mac users -- with Linux-based content creation/editing software for Adobe formats simply not having a significant negative impact on Adobe's revenues.

    Regardless of which possibility is more accurate, Adobe Flash is thriving in the content delivery arena (YouTube, Hulu, etc) while Microsoft Silverlight has recently suffered some rather high profile and humiliating defeats (e.g. being dumped by Major League Baseball in favor of Flash). Indeed, as shown in this thread, Netflix's use of Silverlight is by far the biggest reason why Linux users want PlayReady support in Moonlight. 

    Lastly, contrast the overall goodwill that Adobe now enjoys in the Linux community (hasn't always been the case) versus the apathetic at best feelings from much of the Linux community towards Microsoft. Indeed, Adobe made a commitment to Linux users and is so far delivering nicely. At least from my admittedly end-user perspective, Microsoft's implementation of its recent promise to cooperate more fully with open source has yielded few results -- and most of those results have been for Office and Windows, not for Linux users.

    In short, especially if open source programmers are willing to do the work, why won't Microsoft simply allow Moonlight to incorporate PlayReady? It can't do much harm, and might set the stage for some feelings of goodwill on both sides down the road.

    Monday, August 31, 2009 8:39 AM
  •  Are you serious? There isn't a Confused big enough in the world for you.

     You seem to be rationalizing the lack of DRM support on Moonlight under the pretense that streaming Netflix is a free service, which it is not, streaming is a service provided to paying Netflix customers.

    The reason Netflix did not raise prices is the result of a business decision which factors in the reduced cost of distributing digital media, limited availability of desirable and popular titles, and exchanging of higher profit margins for greater volume of costumers streaming rather than ordering physical media. Streaming Netflix is not a charity service provided to dirty, hippie Linux liberals who don't want to pay for movies, it is a service provided to the paying customer in the hopes of greater convenience to them (meaning greater patronage), and greater profit margins for Netflix in not having to purchase, distribute and recycle actual physical media.

     I find your implication that a paying customer is "piggybacking" or "leeching" off a paid service arrogant and offensive, as well as your belief that it is ok to limit my choices and restrict my liberties as a consumer to use the platform that I find most convenient. There is absolutely no reason that Microsoft could not distribute a binary blob drm other than their unethical desire to have vendor lock-in and restrict people's choice to run whichever OS they please: This is nothing but a great disservice to their customers, both large companies like Netflix whom license the DRM and their customers who bear the burden of funding this licensing scheme with no direct benefit to them.

    If anything, you could say that Microsoft is "piggybacking" off of the paying customers of Netflix who will never be able to enjoy the service they paid for.

     

    Adobe already provides DRM services for Linux under their Streaming Flash and AIR platforms which has been sufficient to prevent any form of piracy, whether or not it supports one or another obscure and unneccesarily complicated encryption protocols is completely uninteresting unless you can emperically prove that Adobe's lack of embracing these has resulted in even a single case of piracy. Fortunately most of the paid streaming services (Amazon Unbox, Shotime, hulu premium et al.) use Adobe's excellent cross-platform suite; I'm afraid that unless Microsoft lends their sole major streaming partner Netflix a hand, they may not be long for this world.

    Monday, August 31, 2009 12:27 PM
  •  Gobbles,

    Please see my responses to your well-thought out posting below. FYI I do not work for Microsoft nor do I officially speak for them or represent any of their views in the marketplace. That being said, I am a five time Microsoft MVP for Digital Media, a DRM advocate at large and my company is a close partner of Microsoft's in the DRM space as well.

    Let me begin by saying that I already own multiple devices for Netflix streaming, including my Blu-ray player and a couple of computers. Nevertheless, as a "computer guru" who has helped several users switch from Windows to Linux, and as a part-time Linux user myself, I would love to see full PlayReady support included in an upcoming version of Moonlight.

    [CL] I think all of us in this space would also like to see this. If anything it would "complete the picture" for content owners considering a deployment of digital media for consumers as in a B2C offering.

    Adobe's revenues continue to rise, despite having provided legal Flash and PDF capabilities to the Linux community. It seems to me that, in the context of Linux, there are two possible explanations for this. One interpretation is that there just aren't enough Linux users out there interested in multimedia content to have a significant negative impact Adobe's revenues. The other possibility is that Adobe makes most of its profits from licensing its technologies to major content providers plus selling content creation/editing software to Windows and Mac users -- with Linux-based content creation/editing software for Adobe formats simply not having a significant negative impact on Adobe's revenues.

    [CL] Adobe licenses their FMS technology to CDN operators who then resell the technology to content providers. Yes there are a few 1 to 1 licenses out there however the bulk of Adobe's revenue in our space is from recuring, pay as you go, licensing deals with the CDNs. Although PDF's support Flash playback, it's safe to say nobody in our space is widely using PDFs to deliver premium multi-media content.

    Regardless of which possibility is more accurate, Adobe Flash is thriving in the content delivery arena (YouTube, Hulu, etc) while Microsoft Silverlight has recently suffered some rather high profile and humiliating defeats (e.g. being dumped by Major League Baseball in favor of Flash). Indeed, as shown in this thread, Netflix's use of Silverlight is by far the biggest reason why Linux users want PlayReady support in Moonlight. 

    [CL] You might want to look a bit wider in your research. While YouTube and Hulu use Flash, they are hemorrhaging cash doing so. You mention MLB but you left the run of the table Silverlight has had in the past year:

    1. The Championships 2009 At Wimbledon

    2. FIFA Confederations Cup SA 2009

    3. The 2009 French Open

    4. The 2009 Indianapolis 500

    5. The 2008 Summer Olmpics and the upcoming 2010 Winter Olympics

    6. NFL Sunday Night Football Live on NBC this past weekend

    7. UFC 102 Live this past weekend

    These are _substantial_wins for Silverlight. They demonstrate that Silverlight is being widely deployed for premium content throughout the world.

    Lastly, contrast the overall goodwill that Adobe now enjoys in the Linux community (hasn't always been the case) versus the apathetic at best feelings from much of the Linux community towards Microsoft. Indeed, Adobe made a commitment to Linux users and is so far delivering nicely. At least from my admittedly end-user perspective, Microsoft's implementation of its recent promise to cooperate more fully with open source has yielded few results -- and most of those results have been for Office and Windows, not for Linux users.

    In short, especially if open source programmers are willing to do the work, why won't Microsoft simply allow Moonlight to incorporate PlayReady? It can't do much harm, and might set the stage for some feelings of goodwill on both sides down the road.

    [CL] These last paragraphs are somewhat intertwined. Based on my understanding of the situation, here's a potential issue that has popped up. "Who does Microsoft license PlayReady to?" If it's an open source community, what corporate organization is taking legal responsibility for the PlayReady Bits and how they are used, deployed and maintained? Who will provide the signature on the licensing agreements and how will they enforce the provisions of those agreements? I think that's what is holding this back. My 2 cents.

     

    Christopher Levy
    clevy@buydrm.com
    http://www.buydrm.com
    http://www.thedrmblog.com
    http://www.silverlightdrm.com

    Monday, August 31, 2009 12:28 PM
  •  

     Are you serious? There isn't a Confused big enough in the world for you.

    [CL] Or so you say :)

     

     You seem to be rationalizing the lack of DRM support on Moonlight under the pretense that streaming Netflix is a free service, which it is not, streaming is a service provided to paying Netflix customers.

    [CL] You need to go read your agreement with Netflix or call or email them. You are not PAYING for the service. It's free. That's why it says so on the Netflix website. I don't make their policies or write their position statements. That's just a fact in bold print on their website.

    From their site:

    Can I instantly watch movies streamed from Netflix over the Internet to my PC or Mac?

    Yes, you can. The ability to instantly watch movies (some new releases) & TV episodes (including current season) streamed from Netflix to your PC or Mac is included with all plans. Choose from over 17,000 movies & TV episodes. With an Unlimited plan, you can watch as often as you want, anytime you want. This is included with your membership for no additional monthly fee and doesn’t impact the number of DVDs you get by mail.

    The reason Netflix did not raise prices is the result of a business decision which factors in the reduced cost of distributing digital media, limited availability of desirable and popular titles, and exchanging of higher profit margins for greater volume of costumers streaming rather than ordering physical media. Streaming Netflix is not a charity service provided to dirty, hippie Linux liberals who don't want to pay for movies, it is a service provided to the paying customer in the hopes of greater convenience to them (meaning greater patronage), and greater profit margins for Netflix in not having to purchase, distribute and recycle actual physical media.

    [CL] In theory it all sounds dreamy. In reality, NetFlix still ships you the DVD. This is not a replacement service. Maybe you aren't familiar with the how/why here. I would suggest you research a bit more. It's all on their site. You can call them if you have questions. If the stream now feature doesn't work for you, they don't give you your money back. It's a free bonus to existing customers which is not paid for. It's not in lieu of sending you a DVD. You don't PAY for the service.

     

     I find your implication that a paying customer is "piggybacking" or "leeching" off a paid service arrogant and offensive, as well as your belief that it is ok to limit my choices and restrict my liberties as a consumer to use the platform that I find most convenient. There is absolutely no reason that Microsoft could not distribute a binary blob drm other than their unethical desire to have vendor lock-in and restrict people's choice to run whichever OS they please: This is nothing but a great disservice to their customers, both large companies like Netflix whom license the DRM and their customers who bear the burden of funding this licensing scheme with no direct benefit to them.

    If anything, you could say that Microsoft is "piggybacking" off of the paying customers of Netflix who will never be able to enjoy the service they paid for.

    [CL] CRIKEY! you are making a lot of unfounded accusations here without understanding all of the factors at play. Who does Microsoft license this "binary blob DRM" to? Have you ever licensed a DRM technology from Microsoft? Please read my last post on this subject.

     

    Adobe already provides DRM services for Linux under their Streaming Flash and AIR platforms which has been sufficient to prevent any form of piracy, whether or not it supports one or another obscure and unneccesarily complicated encryption protocols is completely uninteresting unless you can emperically prove that Adobe's lack of embracing these has resulted in even a single case of piracy. Fortunately most of the paid streaming services (Amazon Unbox, Shotime, hulu premium et al.) use Adobe's excellent cross-platform suite; I'm afraid that unless Microsoft lends their sole major streaming partner Netflix a hand, they may not be long for this world.

    [CL] Hulu and Showtime aren't paid services. FYI They don't use Adobe's DRM platform either. You are close but not all the way there. FYI Adobe doesn't "provide DRM" services to anyone. They license DRM technology. One more thing to add, Adobe doesn't sell Operating Systems either. Maybe you should do some more research.

     

    Christopher Levy
    clevy@buydrm.com
    http://www.buydrm.com
    http://www.thedrmblog.com
    http://www.silverlightdrm.com

    Monday, August 31, 2009 12:40 PM
  •  I understand you make your money from hawking your ware and evangelizing "the customer is the enemy" mantras, however:

    1. Either you think very little of my mental abilities or your understanding of accounting is absolutely minuscule. Netflix is not a government supported venture, it does not live off of venture capital either and is not ad-supported. I read some of your blog and most of your arguments are very simple-minded tit-for-tat type transacations, like for example, Amazon Unbox (which supports Linux btw) where I pay $1.99 and receive a direct product in exchange.

    Obviously you have trouble understanding the accounting behind subscription based models; Netflix streaming is not free, Netflix is not a free service. Streaming is at "no additional cost" to some of their previous offerings (I must point out now though that Netflix now offers two differently priced streaming options, completely debunking your theory).

     

    2. Unless you can prove that Netflix secretly opened the "Netflix Foundation" to provide all the Linux hippy "freeloaders" you so detest with free movies it is reasonable to beleive by simply applying Occam's razor that the money used to pay for the streaming rights to the movies and the platform they use to stream it comes directly from subscription fees. If you have hard, real proof to the contrary other than "Because I say so" I'd love to see it.

     

    3. Presumably Microsoft could license this binary blob directly to the consumer via an EULA  the same way they do for the binary blob they license on Windows (Silverlight), and the binary blobs known as "Windows" and "Office" which last time I checked are licensed directly to consumers as well. 

     4. I am not opposed to DRM or preventing piracy, and I pay for all of my media. However, as a non-pirate law-abiding consumer, I understand that media providers have a right to protect their content, but their is a limit to how much I'm willing to tolerate and there is a point where it begins to interfere with my rights as a party to a monetary transaction. I draw the line at imposing rules that aren't related to the media itself: i.e platform evangelism.

    5. Netflix doesn't refund your money in general because part of the monetary transaction (Contract) I entered into with Netflix specifies they do not warrant the functionality of their services. However, our agreement (available at http://www.netflix.com/TermsOfUse#instant) does state that "we will give you notice before we institute any additional charges for the watch instantly functionality" which directly implies that there is a charge for the functionality.

    I should also point out that this agreement is not court-tested , it is possible I could win a case against Netflix in court for failure to provide an advertised service, in absence of that though it is safe to assume that Netflix at least acknowledges the existence of the service at a contractual level and the fact that it is a paid service. 

     6. I suspect I'm not the first to tell you this from reading your blog but: It is wholly uninteresting to legitimate consumers what DRM technology is being used to secure a stream so long as it is sufficient to prevent piracy and transparent something Flash/AIR has accomplished and Silverlight/Moonlight has not. Unless some of the technicalities you pointed out are directly relevant to this I remain as such. Even in your own blog you pointed out how adequate Adobe's technologies are to securing media. 

     

    7. "Adobe doesn't make Operating Systems": This is irrelevant and uninteresting, I did not pay for vendor lock-in and this is completely unrelated to the media itself as well as illegal under U.S anti-trust laws. Last time I checked, Microsoft was convicted of this very behavior so I find your condoning of illegal activities, disturbing.

     

     

     

     

    Monday, August 31, 2009 2:56 PM
  • It's clear you are looking for a fight and you won't get it here. Couple parting thoughts from my perspective:

    1. Netflix is not a free service. Netflix's "Watch Instantly" however is. Netflix doesn't charge it's customers for "Watch Instantly" however they do charge them to rent movies and have them deliverd to their house. The "Watch Instantly" feature is a freebie they give away at their cost. This is why it's not unlimited on the basic accounts.

     2. Microsoft doesn't license their technologies to end-users. What's holding up PlayReady in Moonlight is the actual license to the developers of Moonlight to include decryption of encrypted content inside the Moonlight player. For this to happen Microsoft would have to license a DRM SDK to the Moonlight developers. The problem I suspect is that there is nor corporate org for Microsoft to license the DRM SDK to.

    3. Your attacks on me are unwarranted and rude. I am on your side. I want DRM on Linux. I have personally put in 100 hours of my own time trying to make this a reality for end-users like you. Wrong tree.

    4. My Blog is not for end-users. It's for content owners and people that work in the digital media industry. If you find it "wholly uninteresting to legitimate consumers" then don't read it please.

    5. Your approach is indicative of why Microsoft has not and probably won't license DRM to the open source Linux community. If you want to be a part of the solution, act like an adult and think about the business reasons as to why or why not Microsoft should do a license. Not your personal reasons. These efforts require considerable resources and they are only done when there is a compelling business reason to do so and a business with which to proceed with. 

    Regards,

    Christopher Levy
    clevy@buydrm.com
    http://www.buydrm.com
    http://www.thedrmblog.com
    http://www.silverlightdrm.com

     

    Monday, August 31, 2009 3:21 PM
  •  1. Again, this a red herring, whether or not Watch Instantly is a loss leader: it is a product, provided under contract from a monetary transaction and heavily advertised. Netflix's reasoning behind this is fully explained in their Q2 earning report: By providing a loss leader that cuts into their profit margins (their profit margin is currently 10%) they hope to increase subscribers and market penetration. This is completely accounting related though, they make a profit off of me regardless of this "freebie" especially considering that many people (such as myself) never order DVD's and use only the streaming option.
    Additionally, I wouldn't mind paying more if it meant I could have a Linux client, it is the lack of an option that is irksome.

     2. I'm not talking about a developer platform, I'm talking about a client. Not having the DRM SDK on Linux may be annoying but I'd rather at least have the client distributed as a binary (like Flash) so I can use existing, developed content. 

     3. Perhaps now you feel what it's like when you call paying and legitimate costumers "piggybackers" and "freeloaders" it most certainly doesn't feel like you're on "my side" in any of your posts.Your arguments consist entirely of how we have no rights because supposedly we are not paying and are "freeloaders", an understandably unpopular opinion amongst people who do actually pay. 

     4. I actually find your blog very interesting, just not as a media consumer or as a paying costumer. As a developer though it deeply concerns me to see penetration of products whose purpose is not DRM or prevention of piracy but rather vendor lock-in.

     5. The "Open Source Community" is not an entity that can be contracted with, individual end-users and multi-million dollar corporations like Novell, Red Hat and IBM are however. Microsoft already licenses out multiple technologies regarding Silverlight and .NET to Novell, I fail to see how this is different.

    Perhaps you should act like an adult and see the complex business interconnections here. Microsoft's plan is to sell their technologies to content creators, in order for these creators to have a market they must have a desirable platform and clients(end users); even though Linux is a small market, it definitely would help Microsoft's cause in spreading Silverlight especially considering their main competitor does support Linux.

     Now the way I see it Microsoft started out well by spinning off Moonlight as an open source project so that it would be more appealing to Linux users than Flash/AIR but then they stopped short of providing the actual meat leaving Linux users feeling stood up.

     

    Monday, August 31, 2009 4:13 PM
  • StreamOG, thanks for your thoughtful and polite response.

    I'm sure that Adobe makes a lot of money licensing their Flash technology to CDNs. Indeed, the fact that they can do so while supporting playback on Linux is an argument in favor of Microsoft providing some sort of PlayReady capabilities to Linux. But I'd bet that Adobe makes a lot of its money from selling software licenses to content creators (e.g. web developers working from their garages making sites for clients).

    I wasn't trying to talk about flash content in PDFs, I was trying to use PDF as its own "success story" for the business model of letting end-users read/play content with free software -- making revenues through Adobe Acrobat licenses and the like. I imagine that eBook authors who provide content in PDF format appreciate the extra profits generated from sales of their eBooks to Linux users!

    Regarding success of Flash... I admit that my examples of YouTube and Hulu were not the best from a profit standpoint; YouTube loses more than US$1 million per DAY. Anyway, I was mainly attempting to illustrate the pervasiveness of Flash content versus Silverlight content on the web. The four biggest networks in the USA (ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX) and many of their sister networks use Flash for their "Full Episode" and other video clip content. Incidentally, earlier this year, ABC joined NBC Universal and Fox Entertainment as a co-owner of Hulu. I've not seen any data regarding Hulu profitability, but if ABC is willing to buy into it at a loss, that says even more about the ubiquitous nature of Flash on the web.

    Regarding success of Sliverlight... I was not aware of many of the items in your list (I'm not a sports fan). I'll concede that those are some impressive achievements; only time will tell if all those organizations decide to stay with Silverlight for future content deployment. I would love to say that after the difficulties even Windows users had last year accessing the Olympics' Silverlight content, I'm surprised the 2010 Olympics will also be in Silverlight. But since the my home town recently paid the US Olympic Committee a US$50+ Million bribe (at the cost of fire, police, and parks), the Olympics doesn't have a very high standing in my book at the moment. Anyway, back on topic! I stand by my argument that most Linux users who've taken the time to complain publicly about PlayReady have done so because of Netfilx. Regardless, throw in the percentage of "adult" websites which use Flash versus Silverlight to deliver video content to end-users, and it's clear that Sliverlight has a long way to go.

    I'd also like to weigh in regarding some of elgatofilo's comments...

    First of all, I'm sure that rudeness by some in the Linux and open source communities is a big reason why Microsoft is reluctant to provide PlayReady code to Moonlight. But there's been enough nastiness to go around; Steve Ballmer once called Linux "a cancer". In my experience, most nastiness by Linux users comes from "fringe" elements. 

    I do agree with elgatofilo that Watch Instantly in NOT a free Netflix service. Indeed, their "Limited" subscription level only includes 2 hours of streaming to PC or Mac (no steaming to TV, I think). The other subscription levels allow unlimited streaming to any approved device. I also agree with him/her that, as I'm sure you know, Linux users do not equate their free operating system with everything in the world should be free. Take the DVD playback issue as an example. The DVD industry did not address the needs of those in the Linux community who buy all of their DVDs legally (a highly intelligent and lucrative market, I'd think), and the result was a humiliating defeat in court for the DVD industry and highly portable decoding software like VLC. "Platform evangelism" is indeed an excellent way to quickly and reliably anger open source programmers!

    I agree that, in an ideal world, content could be CREATED on any platform. But, at least to me, being able to VIEW on any platform is a given. In your reply to me, you discussed reasons why Microsoft is afraid to give PlayReady to the open source community. My answer to that is they don't have to. Microsoft could simply develop their own PlayReady plug-in for Moonlight -- with separate licensing terms and everything! As it stands now, many Linux users feel that Microsoft is breaking the promise that it made when it helped to create the Moonlight project in the first place.

    Monday, August 31, 2009 4:50 PM
  • Hey Gobbles,

     I am trying to balance my personal time spent here helping people with their DRM strategies and my actual work at BuyDRM deploying those strategies for customers. I also post on other lists about streaming technologies and digital media at large. It's a busy time to say the least.

    Thank you for your well thought out and professional response. Without getting too deep here let me see if I can clarify the main issue that's holding us all back.

    1. For there to be PlayReady functionality in Moonlight, the Moonlight team would need to build that into the player. Microsoft doesn't build plug-ins for 3rd party players. It's more often than not, the other way around.

    2. Since MoonLight is not owned by a corporate entity there is no "body" that Microsoft can license PlayReady to. They can't license it to the open source community.  This is the roadblock.

    3. Somebody reading this should look at building a proprietary Linux Moonlight type player and go license PlayReady. Is this possible? I don't know.  Will be rich and famous? Hard to say.

    I hope this helps. Maybe it will inspire you to take action. :)

    Regards,

    Christopher Levy

    clevy@buydrm.com
    http://www.buydrm.com
    http://www.thedrmblog.com/
    http://www.silverlightdrm.com

     

    Tuesday, September 1, 2009 1:05 PM
  • ...Netflix is not a free service. Netflix's "Watch Instantly" however is. Netflix doesn't charge it's customers for "Watch Instantly" however they do charge them to rent movies and have them deliverd to their house. The "Watch Instantly" feature is a freebie they give away at their cost. This is why it's not unlimited on the basic accounts.

    This is actually a business decision that Netflix uses to save money.  As an example.  I only spend  a few hrs a week watching movies, since I have other things to do.  Since I started watching more of Netflix's Streaming Movies, I end up keeping the DVD's they send me longer (since I don't watch them as often), which ends up saving Netflix on Postage, since I'm only going through a couple of movies a month vs about 6-8 before the streaming service.  Most people have limited time to watch movies and probably do the same.

    ... Microsoft doesn't license their technologies to end-users. What's holding up PlayReady in Moonlight is the actual license to the developers of Moonlight to include decryption of encrypted content inside the Moonlight player. For this to happen Microsoft would have to license a DRM SDK to the Moonlight developers. The problem I suspect is that there is nor corporate org for Microsoft to license the DRM SDK to.

    MS doesn't need to license the technology to the "community" as you've stated, they could simply make a "Plugin" to work with Moonlight, that could provide the necessary DRM functionality. 

    ... Microsoft has not and probably won't license DRM to the open source Linux community .... These efforts require considerable resources and they are only done when there is a compelling business reason to do so and a business with which to proceed with.

    For the same compelling reasons Adobe makes Flash for Linux, there's a user base that wants these features. My belief however is that they will never do it, because MS wants to do everything they can to kill the Linux OS, since they see Linux, not Mac's as the biggest threat to Windows.  Look what happened when Netbooks started getting shipped with Linux, they captured 10% of the Market share, and so now MS brought back XP to deal with that threat well after they said they would no longer sell XP and to top it off, Windows7 was deliberately designed so it could be put in a NetBook as a very lightweight installation.

    Saturday, September 19, 2009 12:43 AM
  • ...Netflix is not a free service. Netflix's "Watch Instantly" however is. Netflix doesn't charge it's customers for "Watch Instantly" however they do charge them to rent movies and have them deliverd to their house. The "Watch Instantly" feature is a freebie they give away at their cost. This is why it's not unlimited on the basic accounts.

    This is actually a business decision that Netflix uses to save money.  As an example.  I only spend  a few hrs a week watching movies, since I have other things to do.  Since I started watching more of Netflix's Streaming Movies, I end up keeping the DVD's they send me longer (since I don't watch them as often), which ends up saving Netflix on Postage, since I'm only going through a couple of movies a month vs about 6-8 before the streaming service.  Most people have limited time to watch movies and probably do the same.

    [streamOG] Possibly and quite possibly not. Until NetFlix makes this info public it's hard to determine why they do it. 

    ... Microsoft doesn't license their technologies to end-users. What's holding up PlayReady in Moonlight is the actual license to the developers of Moonlight to include decryption of encrypted content inside the Moonlight player. For this to happen Microsoft would have to license a DRM SDK to the Moonlight developers. The problem I suspect is that there is nor corporate org for Microsoft to license the DRM SDK to.

    MS doesn't need to license the technology to the "community" as you've stated, they could simply make a "Plugin" to work with Moonlight, that could provide the necessary DRM functionality. 

    [streamOG] You are oversimplifying the issue. Microsoft doesn't make plug-ins for 3rd party media apps. That's the job of the app dev team and their company. In this case, since there's no company to license the PlayReady stack to, it just has not happened.

    ... Microsoft has not and probably won't license DRM to the open source Linux community .... These efforts require considerable resources and they are only done when there is a compelling business reason to do so and a business with which to proceed with.

    For the same compelling reasons Adobe makes Flash for Linux, there's a user base that wants these features. My belief however is that they will never do it, because MS wants to do everything they can to kill the Linux OS, since they see Linux, not Mac's as the biggest threat to Windows.  Look what happened when Netbooks started getting shipped with Linux, they captured 10% of the Market share, and so now MS brought back XP to deal with that threat well after they said they would no longer sell XP and to top it off, Windows7 was deliberately designed so it could be put in a NetBook as a very lightweight installation.

     

    [streamOG] Again hard to say and I am not sure this is related to the thread. Microsoft licensed Silverlight to the Moonlight group for Linux. That alone contradicts your position here.

    Monday, October 5, 2009 1:18 PM
  •  Thanks for your posts. Truly appreciated. I've learned a lot. Hope you succeed in your efforts to provide some DRM solution for Moonlight, but now understand better the challenges.

    Sunday, October 11, 2009 12:05 PM
  • You are very welcome and if anything we have bubbled up the issue in a public forum where hopefully someone and some eyes will take notice. I like you await the day where we can support similar digital media experiences on Linux that we support on Mac and PC. If I hear anything I will update this thread for sure and you do likewise ok?

    Regards,

    Christopher Levy
    clevy@buydrm.com
    http://www.buydrm.com
    http://www.thedrmblog.com
    http://www.silverlightdrm.com

    Wednesday, October 14, 2009 12:28 PM
  •  I use both Windows and Linux, and am a subscriber to Netflix. I frequently watch movies on my work laptop, which is a Linux machine by necessity. I've tried running a VM with Windows and using that for Netflix, but it's not fast enough and stutters a lot.

     I would love to see Moonlight gain support for DRM as it would make the product usefulto me. At the moment, it's not. I don't think I've ever visited a website that uses Silverlight, other than Netflix.

    Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1:22 PM
  • Guys,

    I suspect it's not an issue of Microsoft "providing the DRM stack" to the Moonlight group. The issue is that Moonlight is not a Corporate Entity. It's a project "sponsored by Novell."  I would suggest that someone on this list go ask Novell to form some kind of Corporate Entity for Mono and then license the PlayReady SDK via this Corporate Entity.

    Here is the contact on www.mono-project.com

     Bruce Wayne
    Novell, Inc.
    1800 South Novell Place
    Provo UT 84606
    US
    bwayne@novell.com +1.8018612222 Fax: +1.8018612222

    Regards,

    Christopher Levy
    clevy@buydrm.com
    http://www.buydrm.com
    http://www.smoothdrm.com
    http://www.silverlightdrm.com

    Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:15 PM
  •  Here's one more vote for DRM support in Linux/Moonlight.

    Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:16 AM
  • Yet another vote for DRM support on Moonlight.

    Much thanks,

    Sunday, November 8, 2009 11:02 PM
  • It's great that people continue to post their "votes" here. However, it's going to take ACTION to make a change guys. Please read above and make some moves to make it happen. Posting here isn't going to change anything one bit. It will take some actual WORK to make this happen.
    Monday, November 9, 2009 11:13 AM
  • I would suggest that someone on this list go ask Novell to form some kind of Corporate Entity for Mono and then license the PlayReady SDK via this Corporate Entity.
     

     

    In theory, since Novell is sponsoring the mono project, and therefore Moonlight, Novell could reasonably license the SDK to provide Moonlight-compatible binaries. But it would probably make more sense to create a separate corporate entity for the purpose of liability isolation.

    Thursday, December 10, 2009 7:39 PM
  • These conversations are great.

    I started a blog entry a while back about getting Netflix "Watch Now" running under Ubuntu.

    Needless to say, I never got it working, but I'd like to show the traffic statistics.

    The blog averages between 40-80 hits a day, and more than 50% of those are Ubuntu + Netflix.

     

     

    On a side note, I won't argue the business side of things, its not my specialty, but these pleas are often from people who are already paying a subscription service.  They may also be willing to pay for the DRM support until one becomes freely available. 

    The idea that people who use Linux don't spend money is long gone.  Linux has been very profitable for many companies for a long time.

    I know many who have bought the Roku devices for lack of Linux Netflix support, so I'm certain people are willing to spending money.

    That said, this discussion has been great.  StreamOG, you have offered some good advice.  You may not see these voices as people taking ACTION, but sometimes a voice is all we have to offer.

    -Tres

    Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:59 PM
  • I suspect it's not an issue of Microsoft "providing the DRM stack" to the Moonlight group.
     

    I would suggest that someone on this list go ask Novell to form some kind of Corporate Entity for Mono and then license the PlayReady SDK via this Corporate Entity.

     

    I had meant to come back here and post a follow-up, but I forgot. It took (yet another) post on Slashdot about media center software not supporting Neflix for linux to get me to finish the job. In early December, I contacted Mr. Wayne at Novell, exactly as you suggested. He forwarded my email to <a href="mailto:miguel@novell.com">Miguel de Icaza</a>, also at Novell, who responded to me, and we had a brief email conversation.

    From his first email:

     

        The problem with supporting PlayReady is that Microsoft does not
    currently license PlayReady for desktop use, they only license it for
    embedded systems use.

    Embedded systems are perceived as being more secure and as being
    harder for an attacker to break the DRM. I remain skeptic about this
    point, but those are the rules under which they allow PlayReady to be
    licensed and we are not in a position to license it for the desktop.

    We are aware of some vendors using Linux + Moonlight on embedded
    systems that are engaging Microsoft to license PlayReady DRM and will
    make those combinations work out of the box on an embedded system.
    
    
    
    
    And his second:
     
    > If Microsoft did not license PlayReady for use on non-Windows desktops, 
    > that would seem to contradict the fact that PlayReady is currently
    > available on Macintosh systems. (
    > http://www.microsoft.com/PlayReady/Overview.mspx ) Perhaps the
    > distinction is that Microsoft is actually directly supporting
    > Silverlight for Mac, whereas Linux and BSD users have to use Moonlight.

    Well, they own PlayReady so they get to do whatever they want with it,
    in this case, supporting the Mac.

    In our case, for us to take advantage of it, we would have to license
    it, and they will be happy to license it to us (or anyone else), as long
    as we only make it available under embedded systems.
    > Would you be able to suggest someone to contact at Microsoft to try to 
    > get them to change their minds?
    Well, it gets complicated.   The team that does the PlayReady DRM is
    under the same umbrella as XBox, while all of my contacts are in the
    Server division (where Silverlight comes from).
    A grass roots movement to get them to license PlayReady for Linux
    desktops might be the best we can do.
    Wednesday, January 13, 2010 11:17 AM
  • Yup. My points exactly. Clarification: When he says they do not license it for DeskTop use he means Linux-based Desktops. I have spoken with the PlayReady team several times about this and it's a complex situation which I cannot comment at length about other than to say there remains some lingering issues about the safety of the PlayReady platform on Linux. Sorry and wish I could help more.
    Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:36 PM
  • This is all very interesting. The wikipedia article on PlayReady says that it aims to be platform independent, but obviously it has not fully reached that goal if one cannot, in the forseeable future, readily utilize it on an Ubuntu or Android device or require prior agreements.

    I am completely ignorant of the guts of DRM technology, however, here is where I get confused. If one can readily use a VPN SSL connection on any platform with a web browser and be certified to transmit SSI level information (sensitive but technically unclassified), why can't DRM move in that direction as well? 

    Thursday, January 14, 2010 2:15 PM
  • The wikipedia article on PlayReady says that it aims to be platform independent, but obviously it has not fully reached that goal...
     

    But it has! As is evidenced by the various Blu-Ray players and other devices which run embedded linux and have PlayReady support, PlayReady has achieved the technical goal of platform independence.

    The fact that Microsoft has made a business decision to not allow PlayReady on any desktop platform other than Windows or MacOS has no bearing on the technical achievements.


    Thursday, January 14, 2010 2:34 PM
  • When I think of it being independent from a technical standpoint, I am thinking from a network perspective and the OSI layered model. “Independence” to me does not require any business communication or agreements with any OS companies. Besides, based on the comments so far it seems to be an IT security decision not so much a business one. They are afraid of a hack.

    Perhaps what we need here is some sort of ISO standards for DRM protocols or some sort of solution that "lives" in the browser session. I think Google has the right idea to start pushing things in the cloud direction and make data independent of the OS. Based on my limited understanding of Silverlight, it does seem to be trying to move in that direction of divorcing the platform from the media, but it feels like the spouse is still living in the guest room and asking permission to bring over dates.

     

    Thursday, January 14, 2010 3:03 PM
  • hmmm I am curious where did you see a PlayReady enabled BluRay player?
    Thursday, January 14, 2010 3:38 PM
  • For the record, I'm a heavy Android user and a Netflix subscriber. The only reason I keep my Netflix subscription active is to use the streaming service, I don't even bother with DVDs. So in a way some of my dollars are flowing Bank->Netflix->Microsoft. I primarily use Ubuntu on my laptop and dual boot into the RC version of W7, strictly to fire up Netflix movies (I use my DVI out connection to my TV). If I were forced to buy a version of windows software for my PC or a stand-alone device simply to continue watching streamed movies, I may reconsider my business relationship with Netflix.Also I’m not a big fan of Adobe either, they’ve been dragging their ass on full flash for Android. As a matter of fact I’m weary of DRM in general when it involves rootkits on my PC and lobbying in government to restrict my rights in the name of Big Media (but that’s a whole other conversation not appropriate for this forum).

     

    Thursday, January 14, 2010 3:53 PM
  • It's an LG 370 that we got from BestBuy between Xmas and New Year's on sale.

     A lot of ethernet-enabled Blu-Ray players are advertising built-in support for Netflix. Which means they're running PlayReady-enabled Silverlight stacks.

     And for the record, yes, the LG 370 runs linux. There's a section in the back of the manual listing all of the open source software that went into the firmware (at least, the ones whose license required them to at least publish their copyright notice) and instructions on acquiring the GPL'ed sources from them.

    Friday, January 15, 2010 9:41 AM
  • Hey Melstav, Unfortunately I think your assumption might be wrong. I am not aware of any BluRay players supporting PlayReady OR Silverlight. I just confirmed this with MSFT and let me see if I can clarify what I think is going on here. Typically the way these services work is the Head-end of the Internet Service is actually transcoding the video from Flash to an open H.264/AAC MPG stream using link protection which is then rendered back on the local BluRay device. If you look at the specs on this device: http://www.lge.com/us/tv-audio-video/video/LG-blu-ray-dvd-player-BD370.jsp http://www.lge.com/us/products/documents/lg_he_dav_ss_bd370.pdf there is no mention of supporting Silverlight or Flash or PlayReady. I know it can be confusing. Hope this helps. Regards, Christopher
    Friday, January 15, 2010 11:48 AM
  • Is any progress gonna be at last? :((((
    Friday, May 14, 2010 4:36 PM
  • @streamOG: "2. Since MoonLight is not owned by a corporate entity there is no "body" that Microsoft can license PlayReady to. They can't license it to the open source community. This is the roadblock." That's not true. Moonlight is owned by Novell, so Microsoft can license it to Novell.
    Saturday, May 29, 2010 5:38 PM
  • I just became aware of the fact Novell owns Moonlight. If Novell wanted to do a license for PlayReady, all the need to do is break out their checkbook, sign the license, make the payment and voila. I suspect that like MANY public companies, they chose not to do the license because of the very complex terms contained therein.
    Monday, May 31, 2010 12:23 PM
  • Bring DRM to Linux/Moonlight.

    Wednesday, June 2, 2010 8:49 PM
  • I think at this point it's clear that these requests need to be sent to Novell. They would need to do a license of PlayReady for Moonlight. CL
    Thursday, June 3, 2010 10:33 AM
  •  

    I think at this point it's clear that these requests need to be sent to Novell. They would need to do a license of PlayReady for Moonlight. CL

     

    If you go back and read the history of this thread, you'll notice that I already did that, and was told that the problem was that Microsoft refused to let them have PlayReady.

    Thursday, June 3, 2010 11:01 AM
  • Who exactly at Novell told you this? Please hit me up offline clevy@buydrm.com Let's get to the bottom of this.
    Thursday, June 3, 2010 12:18 PM
  •  There's a Facebook group on the subject of bringing Netflix streaming support to Linux.  Not sure how much help it'll be but it can't hurt.  Join the group if you want to see Netflix support in Linux.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bring-Netflix-To-Linux/128791593812850

    Monday, June 14, 2010 1:36 PM
  •  I joined the facebook group and posted a message.. this is one of the only reasons why I still have Windows on my laptop.. I'd rather use Mint all the time but unfortunately no Netflix on Linux. Sadness ensues. Sad

    Tuesday, June 29, 2010 8:15 PM
  • I stumbled upon this forum thread when I tried to watch something that had DRM "on" it.

    I've read this thread in this "official" (?) Microsoft Silverlight forum. Everybody keeps on guessing why MS does not hand over the DRM stack to Novell for inclusion in Moonlight.

    But no matter what I try, for the life of me, I cannot find an official statement by a Microsoft official (not some user or developer) on why Apple gets it and Novell don't. This has been going on long enough. When will it end?

    Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:29 AM
  • I don't think anyone from MSFT is going to go on the record here. Let's ask the Novell folks what the situation is. If you are referring to NetFlix on the iPad, that's a totally different situation. NetFlix ported PlayReady to the iPad themselves. It's not supported natively on the iPad.

    Saturday, July 17, 2010 11:40 AM
  • Dear StreamOG,

    Thank you for your kind reply. I do not think MS officials are gonna reply in this forum either. What I meant it that I can't seem to find an 'official' reason given directly by Microsof or Novell anywhere on the net.

    I live in Europe so Netflix is not of great interest to me. But every TV station in the country where I live wants to protect its online TV reruns, fragments and live streams with digital rights management (DRM). Which sucks on its own, but hey. They seem to think there is absolutely NO other way than to use Silverlight for this. So I too am stuck with it. I don't know of an alternative either to be honest, but I do not think it would be hard to find a nice non-roprietary open multi-platform alternative. 

    Anyway, some of our TV stations here are paid for by the government (meaning: partly by... me!). They're public. Them using restricted software has given rise to some questions being asked in the parliament. Because: to be able to watch programs (online) of which the broadcasting rights have already been paid for by me (the Olympics!) I must buy MS's operating system (or worse: a Mac/OSX). That means that said broadcasts are in fact NOT exactly public. So this matter must be solved. MS must speak out.

    And I am convinced that a certain to MS very very very well known European Parliament member, called Neelie Smit Kroes, is most probably looking into the matter right now. She's quite well known for this sort of thing you know. ;)

    But before the legal battles begin, could MS or Novell be brave enough to actually be honest about this and tell what's the @#%^$@# problem? I mean: Apple got it too didn't they?

    Saturday, July 17, 2010 12:51 PM
  • Well to comment to some of your points, it makes sense to use DRM on your feeds because a lack of DRM will just enable people outside your country to view the content for free and it will just drive up your overall expenses which will get passed on to your users.

    There is no such thing as a non-proprietary DRM solution. They just don't exist, anywhere.

    You would have to ask Novell why there is no DRM on Moonlight yet. MSFT doesn't comment on those types of things publicly.

    And finally, no Apple didn't get anything. They did not license PlayReady.

    Monday, July 19, 2010 4:15 PM
  • Maybe I just didn't see it while skimming this thread, but after the conversation with Novell about support, is there anyone else left to contact? And if so, who and what is their contact information?

    Saturday, July 31, 2010 7:34 PM
  • I registered just to add my vote and plea to get this on Linux!

    Saturday, August 14, 2010 12:28 PM
  • One more vote!

    Saturday, August 14, 2010 1:18 PM
  • Please bring full Silverlight functionality to Linux. I'll take it under a Linux version of Silverlight or stronger support to Moonlight, just make it happen. If you want to true universal adoption of your standard then you have to make it available for all operating systems, as portable as a web browser.

    Monday, August 16, 2010 3:41 PM
  • Microsoft, please port this to other systems than just windows. This will improve the portability of silverlight applications.

    Thursday, August 19, 2010 10:43 AM
  • Which portable Linux Silverlight applications were you referring to?


    Thanks!


    CL

    Thursday, August 19, 2010 1:11 PM
  • Another vote.

    I really don't know enough about the inner workings of the drm.  I heard that the drm for the roku is on an embedded chip.   What about a hardware card, with binary drivers.  Roku could produce it, provide sufficient protection for the drm stack, we install and everybody smiles.

    Monday, August 23, 2010 3:13 AM
  • If you'll remember your history correctly, DeCSS was developed by Jon Johansen because he wanted to watch the DVD's he owned without needing Windows, but no one would provide a DVD player under Linux.  Had someone provided a DVD player for Linux, he would have already been satisfied and wouldn't have needed to break the encryption.  His intention was never to steal anything, but to get what he paid for without unnecessary restrictions like needing to run a toy OS (Windows 95/98).

    With the low price of Netflix, it's not worth cracking just to steal movies of that quality.  However Windows is a terrible enough OS that a group of people might spend hundreds of hours (or just a few) cracking the DRM just to almost legitimately use their service of choice on their own terms.  Netflix has already been cracked once in 2007.  I personally won't consider Netflix until it plays well with Linux under my terms.

    Saturday, August 28, 2010 4:52 PM
  • well aware of the DeCSS saga. Even bought the T-Shirt from him with the code on it. Good stuff.

    The thing is, the manufacturers of the DVDs did so for the owners of that content. They didn't have a responsibility to provide users a playback device. Clearly Jon could have just bought a DVD player. He didn't. That's ok too. However I don't think that warrants what he did. I wouldn't say that this is a route anyone should condone.

    That being said, you make a couple assumptions about Windows and the DRM NetFlix uses which are kind of overkill. I am not aware of any breach of PlayReady DRM to date. Please provide more info.

    Nobody is going to deny that there's a riff between MSFT and the Linux community. I think it's clear why that riff exists. Without a 100% clear commitment that PlayReady is safe on an open source platform, I don't think we are going to see it there.  It's a complex issue. There are quite a few forms of Linux. Who does MSFT license PlayReady to? How would that work?


    Monday, August 30, 2010 12:33 PM
  • Well, again, then can license it to Novell. Novell implements it in Moonlight et voila. Moonlight works on almost all Linux distro's. Why wouldn't PlayReady be safe on open source? There are a lot of propetiary apps for Linux, and those are safe too. So PlayReady will also be safe and Novell got the power to keep it safe.

    So again, they just need to license it to Novell.

    Friday, September 24, 2010 8:37 AM
  • streamOG...

    I'm interested in your response.. If NetFlix can decide to 'port' PlayReady to the iPad with Apple's chip then they can decide to 'port' it for 32 and 64 intel for linux..no? How is this not all on NetFlix to fix?  Isn't the core problem that Netflix has decided to exclude this linux desktop community either by its technology choice or by it lack of software support? They could publish their own 'closed' binaries like Adobe does. We should stop blaming Novell or even a lack of a licensible entity for the Microsoft totally insane EULA (why I don't use Microsoft software on my personally 'owned' computing devices). This is TOTALLY about Netflix. 

    What 'open' DRM is available?   Did Sun's DREAM go anywhere?  I can't image if there was a way to satisfy the media companies need for DRM without the licensing fees device makers and content delivery companies wouldn't go that way eventually.

    Thanks... nice discussion.

    Sunday, September 26, 2010 12:33 AM
  • yes.Laughing

    Sunday, September 26, 2010 1:40 AM
  • I am also a paying Netflix customer and am not happy that Silverlight does not work on Linux. Please support it ASAP.

    Otherwise Netflix will lose my patronage and I will vote with my wallet. I know that most other Linux users think like that.

    LinuxMCE is the chosen media center solution for me and installing Windows on it is out of the question just for Netflix. As it is, Netflix is on my replace list, meaning that if a competitor comes along (like Hulu or Blockbuster), I will switch over to that competitor. I have been very happy with Netflix, but ignoring your customers and chosing a solution that specificly locks out platforms is a big nono in my book.

    So currently Netflix is on my ejection seat and my hand is on the button.

    As customers, we interested in solutions. Linux is the platform we have settled on. Period. Whoever provides a solution for that, is on, everybody else out.

    But it is typical of large corporations of not caring about individual customers. That is how small startups get grow and huge, because they do care. Maybe Netflix losing all their Linux customers when a competitor will offer a compatible solution will show up in their sales number. As current, they would lose about 1079 customers, as this is the number of people (including me) on the facebook group that wants this to happen.

    And remember: Microsoft would suffer from this too, since every customer switching over to a competitor service (like Hulu) will support their technology and not Silverlight anymore (I indirectly pay Micrsoft for Silverlight through my subscription with Netflix).


    Thursday, September 30, 2010 10:18 PM
  • Wouldn't voting with your wallet be more effective if you stopped paying for the service, instead of promising you could do so someday?

    Microsoft doesn't want to support Linux because they can lock them out of the marketplace, and probably need to because of the free product model.  Microsoft as we know it cannot survive without selling licenses for their expensive OS and their expensive .  Apple isn't as big of deal, because most large corporations are intertwined, and they both operate on the same business model of charging large fees for software that you have to keep buying updates for.  While, I don't know if they own any percentage of Apple, I know they have invested money there in the past.

    Friday, October 1, 2010 12:42 PM
  • I live in an area where TimeWarner Cable is basically my only choice in broadband service.  I'm stuck for now. I could vote with my wallet and move, but that's an expensive vote. As SOON as an alternative is available in my area... I'll try it.  I've told TimeWarner that. Because there is no choice, they don't care. I live with them.

    Netflix has more content than any other video streaming vendor (if I'm wrong there... please advise) so it is similar. If I enjoy content that only Netflix provides via online access (without piracy), than the vote with my wallet means lack of choice. 

    I really doubt we would be asking for DRM support for Moonlight if Netflix did not require it. Who wants DRM besides the media companies? This is all about Netflix instant streaming for me.  They picked a technology that excludes my desires.  I'm not sure what compromises they had to sign up for, but I'm sure Microsoft has made them a happy customer. Good for Microsoft. As SOON as there is another alternative, I'll cancell Netflix, but for now, THEY DON'T CARE.

    <LINUXRANT>
    GOOGLE... MAKE YOUTUBE SUBSCRIPTION BASED AND PROVIDE THE SAME CONTENT AND BOTH MICROSOFT AND NETFLIXS ARE SCREWED.  As much as I might not like Google sometimes, I'd switch in a heartbeat. So would all the the YouTube video bloggers.  Choice will come.. Just not in 2010.  Linux lovers are used to waiting. Just like Netflix doesn't care about me at this point in time, then I guess when they go out of business... I don't care either. Goodbye Netflix... not for now, but I'll dance on your grave because you dance on linux's head right now. Make no mistake... we have VERY long memories and are the ones who fix everyone's PCs!
    </LINUXRANT>

    Can't we get a GPU vendor to step up and do the DRM in hardware/fireware? I'd buy a different graphics card if that would fix it. I load binary drivers for my GPU now. Anyone know of a hardware solution that will work with linux? I like OWNING hardware (not just renting it like I do my cable DVR). That's why I use linux.. because I OWN the hardware with it... not like the Microsoft impossible to comply with EULA.

    Saturday, October 2, 2010 10:03 AM
  • Hi,


    If you don't mind me asking, what flavor of Linux are you using? Who is the OEM?


    Regards,


    Christopher


    Monday, October 4, 2010 10:42 AM
  • I'm using Kubuntu, which is the brother of Ubuntu. Or to better put it: Kubuntu is Ubuntu with a different desktop manager. But the core is the same of both Ubuntu and Kubuntu.
    So the OEM would be Canonical, which is the company behind Ubuntu (like Novell is the one behind openSUSE).
    www.kubuntu.org
    www.canonical.com 

    Monday, October 4, 2010 11:06 AM
  • Ok thanks. So what does Canonical say when you ask them about this? I am very curious as to their response. Without having any other insight into this issue, collecting information is about all I can do. 

    Monday, October 4, 2010 11:12 AM
  • You're welcome :)

    I actually haven't asked Canonical yet. I'm gonna send them an e-mail and let you know what they say about it.
    Thanks for being so helpful btw :)

    Monday, October 4, 2010 11:47 AM
  • I am also very saddened by the lack of DRM support in Moonlight.  C'mon Microsoft.  Don't be greedy.  We're wiling to do most of the work already... 

    Monday, October 4, 2010 5:46 PM
  • Again I would speak to Novell about this and have them post here. It's not something that MSFT is doing per se. I imagine it's about the fact that, for example, they would have to license PlayReady to about 5 different orgs. Moonlight is not an org. Novell is an Org and so is Canonical and basically for every linux distro, MSFT would have to do a license to the owner of that distro that would then have to port PlayReady for Moonlight on that platform.

    These licenses and their implementation are very complex. It's not a simple answer to the over-arching issue.

    BUT to that note, guys, MSFT has already deployed PlayReady on Android and iOS through third parties:


    http://www.thedrmblog.com/?p=113 

    http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=2958049&type=member&item=28390329&qid=537bad09-31e9-46d8-965b-f96d4b51ce74&goback=.gmp_2958049



    Monday, October 4, 2010 5:52 PM
  • Well, actually, Moonlight is developed by Novell, so basically they would have to hand out 1 license if Novell would support PlayReady in Moonlight. Same for Android. They don't have to give licenses to all handset manufacturers. But if Novell doesn't license it, yes, than it has to go per platform. But Novell isn't looking into PlayReady atm, that's why I'm gonna e-mail Canonical as soon as I find their e-mail address. So that users of Ubuntu/Kubuntu (like me) can use it, if Canonical decides to license it. And since Ubuntu is the most popular Linux-distro, then most people would be happy.

    But I still have to find Canonicals e-mail address..

    Tuesday, October 5, 2010 6:00 AM
  • But I still have to find Canonicals e-mail address..


    Canonical Group Limited
    27th Floor, Millbank Tower
    21-24 Millbank
    London SW1P 4QP
    United Kingdom

    Main switchboard number: +44 207 630 2400
    Main fax number: +44 207 630 2401

    Here's a few starter Email address:

    webmaster@canonical.com

    PR@Canonical.com

    All of this information I got from Here http://www.ubuntu.com/contact-us

     you might have a look at that page as there is more info than what I have provided here. It seems to be a good jumping off point.

    Tuesday, October 5, 2010 6:21 AM
  • Yeah, thanks Metalhead.. I already looked there.. webmaster@canonical.com is for questions and ideas for the website, that has nothing to do with DRM. The other e-mail adresses provided there, are requiring me to sign up as a company. I'm not a company, so I can't sign up there.

    And the phone number is nice, but I'm not gonna make an expensive call from The Netherlands to the United Kingdom. Looks I have to write a paper letter to them..

    Tuesday, October 5, 2010 9:14 AM
  • It's impossible to say what the licensing path would be. When Microsoft licensed the PlayReady technology to the Silverlight group, we weren't there to view the terms :)

    In regards to Android, yes and no. You are half right. It depends on how the manufacturer goes to market. Some of them have taken licenses from MSFT to port PlayReady to their platforms.  All the majors have. 

    Now, with companies like Discretix, handset manufacturers can now support PlayReady using software on the handset instead of a dedicated chipset. 

    I have a lot of insight into how all of this is being done as I work with MSFT extensively and my company is in fact a licensee. It's a very fragmented marketplace right now.

    It's safe to say that in regards to Linux, there are too many fragmented versions of the OS in the marketplace and I sense that's what's holding back Novell and companies like them. Keep in mind DRM is heavily heavily covered by IP claims and patents. 


    Tuesday, October 5, 2010 11:09 AM
  • This might not be as easy as it sounds, so don't start thrashing me for sounding unrealistic, but here goes:

    Netflix creates a (for the time being small) dedicated drm server for linux users to connect to via moonlight. This server is used only when a linux machine interacts with the main server and moonlight is detected. Instead of bouncing back the "invalid operating system" page, this server sends back a relay to the dedicated server that allows interaction between moonlight, the drm server, and the main server. This would allow linux users to have access to the netflix instant view without Microsoft having to license the content to someone else. 

    Like I said, it's probably not easy, but it would prevent a large amount of red tape on the part of moonlight users, and it wouldn't force microsoft to license to opensource, which they won't do. It just seems as though it would work, but that's just me.


    Friday, October 8, 2010 4:03 PM
  • :) Iff only it was that simple. Actually this won't work. Moonlight needs to have the PlayReady handshake/decryption module in it such that it can acquire a license for a piece of content and then decrypt and pass it over to the player on the user's machine.  Sorry...

    Monday, October 11, 2010 10:14 AM
  • So is Microsoft witholding DRM because they want linux to fail?


    If the source is closed then why can't it be downloaded just like any other codec and integrated? 

    Why in the world would you have to license DRM when it is just a form of encryption? 

    Thursday, November 4, 2010 12:53 AM
  • streamOG,

    You have repeatedly mentioned that giving out DRM to linux community wont be safe, does that mean DRM is broken or easily breakable. Nevertheless, what stops linux community from trying to crack the mac port for silverlight, I would guess that its not worth the effort and if silverlight is truly a great technology Microsoft should be more than willing to have linux community have a go at it and let them port it.

    Also, I also cannot speak for canonical but the amount of effort they have put into making ubuntu a very refined and well-supported OS for non-technical users speaks volumes about how much they would be willing get onboard with technologies that are widely accepted and used across multiple platforms. 


    Friday, November 5, 2010 9:04 PM
  • I doubt this is the case. Linux is already a success. Linux without PlayReady DRM is still a success.


    1. You have to license PlayReady because as a technology, it's proprietary.

    2. It can be integrated it just has to be licensed.

    Tuesday, November 9, 2010 4:36 PM
  • No it does not mean that. It just means that deploying it on Linux, is unsafe.

    I don't think there's anything that can stop someone from trying to crack and port a platform. I can't stop you. I can tell you though that PlayReady provider's will just find your new Linux app with cracked DRM on our "Blacklisted Applications" list.  :(

    You should ask Ubuntu to go to MSFT and do a PlayReady license !


    Tuesday, November 9, 2010 4:38 PM
  • Microsoft has no intention of allowing Netflex to be available on Android phones amytime soon either, @ least that's what someone inside told me off the cuff.

    It's the same old *** different day.   Microsoft continues to support only their own OS and (Iphones because they had no competitive alternative).  Until someone like Google comes up with competing solution Microsoft will play the FU game to any one else to protect thier Windows OS market share--and believe me this is what they are doing.  Jobs tried this with flash and Android is now outselling the Iphone in part do to just this reason.--now even they are bending on this stance.  Holding on to DMR has no other value or dose it significantly increase revenues for Microsoft.

    It has nothing to do with Linux just that Linux is not Windows just like Android is not.


    Just cut the BS and just call it what is.


    Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:35 PM
  • Your post is filled with mistakes. PlayReady has been deployed on Android since the platform came to market. Windows Media Rights Manager is also deployed on Android. Could be you just don't have enough info to fuel your posts.  MSFT licensed PlaReady to Netflix and they ported it to iOS as well. Get your facts straight before you throw yourself under the bus ok?

    Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:43 PM
  • Well, I'd like to believe you on Android, but why does Netflix then state that there is no proper DRM-support on Android?
    http://www.edibleapple.com/why-theres-still-no-netflix-app-for-android-fragmentation/

    Monday, November 15, 2010 10:55 AM
  • My response should appear on that site within a few mins.

    Monday, November 15, 2010 1:24 PM
  • According to Miguel de Icaza (Mono/Moonlight Developer, Novell employee), it is not possible for Moonlight on Linux to satisfy the PlayReady DRM licensing guidelines at http://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/device_technology.mspx . Is there something he's missing?

    http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2011/Feb-16.html#comment-151543541

    Friday, February 18, 2011 7:08 PM
  • If anyone even bothers to crack their DRM, or otherwise emulate their PlayReady platform, rest assured that no amount of blacklisting is going to do a thing! Even if they find a way to detect the initial unauthorized implementation, they will simply spoof/emulate better. Game over. This stuff is such a waste of time and money it's not even funny! 'Protecting' inferior streamed content like it's gold, what a hoot!

    Friday, March 4, 2011 9:50 PM
  • Yeah, but who's going to do that?  I haven't found a project for it....  Maybe they just haven't completed it and haven't released it yet because of that fact?

    Saturday, March 5, 2011 2:44 PM
  • Or so you say. The PlayReady group has operated this platform for going on 4 years and believe me there's already been quite a bit of what you declare would never happen. Seems like you are making some big predictions here.  Most of the premium content protected with PlayReady is in High Quality or High Definition and it's anything but inferior. Why the beef?

    Sunday, March 6, 2011 3:22 PM
  • "we won't see PlayReady on Linux.....ever"
    "PlayReady has been deployed on Android since the platform came to market"
    So which is it?
    Actualy 95% of Linux users would consider it an insult if it was supported and not use it.

    "we won't see PlayReady on Linux.....ever"

    "PlayReady has been deployed on Android since the platform came to market"

    So which is it?


    Actualy 95% of Linux users would consider it an insult if it was supported and not use it anyway.

    steamOS you don't live in the same universe as os open source computer people.

    You just have a few odd balls over here asking for this thing, the same ones that want to buy things  like 

    Photoshop for Linux. 

    Sunday, March 6, 2011 8:32 PM
  • "we won't see PlayReady on Linux.....ever"
    "PlayReady has been deployed on Android since the platform came to market"
    So which is it?
    Actualy 95% of Linux users would consider it an insult if it was supported and not use it.

    Actualy 95% of Linux users would consider it an insult if it was supported and not use it anyway.

    steamOS you don't live in the same universe as os open source computer people.

    You just have a few odd balls over here asking for this thing, the same ones that want to buy things  like

    Photoshop for Linux.

    Really?  Where did you pull that statistic out of?   My guess is that much fewer linux users would oppose DRM support than you think.   I'd wager that there are a lot of Linux users like me, who have media center boxes running Boxee or XBMC that would love to have playready support so they can watch Netflix.   Heck, Linus Torvalds himself said that there is nothing wrong with DRM in Linux: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/03/04/24/1312231/Linus-on-DRM

    It's exactly this type of open source or nothing attitutde that stagnates Linux instead of opening it up to the world.   I love Linux and open source but I also realize that there is a place for non-free software and that Linux will need to either support it or be lost to obscurity.

    Count me as an odd ball who wants Netflix and Photoshop on Linux.   If you don't like it, you can always use gnewSense like your idol Richard Stallman

    Monday, March 7, 2011 9:00 AM
  • @streamOG, as I stated earlier, this appears to be a MS licensing issue. Is there really no way around it that Novell could develop a royalty-generating Moonlight plugin and give a bunch of Linux users what they want?

    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 1:05 AM
  • Or so you say. The PlayReady group has operated this platform for going on 4 years and believe me there's already been quite a bit of what you declare would never happen. Seems like you are making some big predictions here.  Most of the premium content protected with PlayReady is in High Quality or High Definition and it's anything but inferior. Why the beef?

    @streamOG:  You make excellent rebuttals in this entire thread.  However, there is one terrible truth that even you have missed.  It's not a terrible surprise if you're not on the Linux side of the house, but this is a fairly big no-brainer.  Netflix runs on TiVos right?  (It does, because I have one and it does work there.)  

    TiVos use a modified Linux distribution to run on.  Indeed, it uses it's own media filesystem - but tools exist to manipulate that as well.  So, from a technical perspective, it is indeed possible to run this from Linux.  

    Now, the next argument is why wouldn't Microsoft simply provide the necessary DRM components to Linux distributions?  

    It's not a question of hacking or unsafe behavior.  If it were simply that, give a Linux guy a few weeks or months with a TiVo's OS and he can probably reverse-engineer this already.  Hacking in and of itself is an insufficient and FUD based answer (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt).  It is also typical Microsoft in response.  They always have cast Linux in an uncertain light not because it's unsafe (indeed, it has a faster response time on zero day issues than Microsoft does the great majority of the time).  

    Occam's razor maintains that all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the most correct:  Linux is a threat to Microsoft.  It is not restrained by money like Windows and, to a slightly different (but close enough for comparison) extent, OSX are.  This means that the issue here is not technology.  It's ideaology.  Microsoft simply doesn't want the competition there.

    But, if they continue, it's only a matter of time before someone figures it out (I recently read the article about the Shairport perl script to undo iTunes' DRM for example).  It would make more sense if they simply opened the gate that is inevitably going to open anyway - at least doing so guarantees better public relations and more control for them.  Otherwise, that never-ending see-saw battle of staying ahead of the 'good' hackers is inevitably going to rear it's ugly head and they won't be able to stop it.

    Friday, April 15, 2011 10:58 PM
  • I am a native linux user, both by choice and out of necessity by work.  I'm excited for the release of Moonlight 2.0 and the support for silverlight 2.0, but saddened to learn that it doesn't include support for DRM, and specifically the ability to play Netflix movies.  The moonlight members mentioned that they are not able to implement DRM themselves, and would need the help of microsoft to push forward.  This is important to me and other linux users.  Considering I maybe go through 2 shipped DVDs over 2-3 weeks and stream about 8 movies in that same time period, Netflix's Watch-It-Now is really the only reason subscribe to their services.  Assuredly, I'm not alone in this opinion.  Without linux support, linux users are limited to only a few options.  One of these, which I've chose, is to use Sun's Virtualbox and an installation of Windows XP.  It works, but it's definitely not the way I want to go, and I know this option isn't available to everyone. http://methoo.com

    Tuesday, April 19, 2011 7:14 PM
  • All I have to say is...what we need is a legal position to ask the FTC to step in and force/tickle/push Microsoft to port their DRM to Linux.

    In 1994 Microsoft had something like 42 legal cases against them concerning unfair trade practices.  Also the EU fined Microsoft over 400 million dollars for forcing Media Player into Windows installations.

    It got so bad that at one point, Microsoft literally gave Corel (at that time, the owners of Word Perfect) some $125 million to prop them up so it would not look like they were continuing their unfair practices to wipe Word Perfect off the map - which of course, they had practically done already.  A few years after that, Corel abandoned Word Perfect because there was no demand for it.  Imagine an office suite, which sold for only $125 per copy and which previous to that was the industry leader, simply vaporizing.

    So these lawsuts included verything from marrying IE and Media Player to Windows, and forcing computer manufacturers like Dell to not sell PCs with Linux, and not to offer Word Perfect or other non-Microsoft products on their PCs.  Microsoft developed iron-clad supplier contracts with PC manufacturers which forbade them to offer competative products, or to release the terms of those contracts under penalty of being back-billed millions of dollars.  And all of this is published now and is part of the public record, yet we all sit here buying their junk because they've done such a good job at blocking all competition even from far superior products through these practices, through buying out competitors and then sitting on those developments simply to defeat them from succeeding.  These guys are really, really good at what they do.

    Then Microsoft got religion, and began a very agressive lobbying campain to "arrange" for these cases to "go away".  Over the next three years, every single lawsuit magically disapeared from the Justice Department's dockets.  How interesting - eh?

    It's amazing what a few million dollars can do.

    In this timeframe, Microsoft went from one single lobbyist working out of a Jeep Cherokee with a Motorola flip-phone and no actual office, to being the single largest spender for lobbying of any single corporation in the world.

    That just about says it...once again, we have the best government money can buy.  And this proves it.

    Unless Washington doesn't come to the public's aid and force this issue, I don't think you're going to see Microsoft putting any effort into sharing their DRM with anybody - period.

    And as long as Netflix stays in bed with Redmond, I assure you it's going to be a cold day in hell before there's any movement here.

    Right now, Intuit, Netflix, Autodesk, Adobe and some others all are well-greased by Redmond to keep their top-of-the-line products off the Linux and Unix platforms.  Microsoft knows fully well that these products on ?nix would outperform their Wkindows ports.  And they are very, very scared of the public learning this.  Add that to the idea that Redmond keeps us in FUD about Linux not being anywhere near as vulnerable to viruses simply because it is not as populous as Windows - which is an out-and-out lie if there ever was one is partial proof of how scared they are.  What...Mac's aren't proof enought?  How about the fact that probably 70% of all Web platforms are running on Linux and BSD Unix already.  Shouldn't they be big enough targets for viruses?  Does Google get viruses?  Schools?  What platform do you think Mac runs on?  BSD Unix.  Guys, just take a look at the rest of the world.  Sure Web servers get hacked, but that's not a virus.  That's lazy programmers and systems administrators.

    But I digress.  Sorry about that.

    Microsoft has everything to lose if the very few media vendors (i.e. Netflix) left, move away from Silverlight to vanilla HTML5 which stands to squash their grip.

    Silverlight is not a panacea to streaming anything.  Nay, it's the DRM that they want to force on the industry which guarantees their domination in this area.  And surely the DRM could be ported if separated, and work with HTML5 and any industry standard streaming mechanisms.

    Interestingly, the three major networks and, plus HBO and even HULU have refused to buy into Silverlight.  Why do you think that is?  Simple...the industry wants HTML5 - period.  And that's how it's going to be.  Silverlight is just a tool, invented here, to block competition.  That's the only way Microsoft knows how to win.  They surely don't make the best products.

    Microsoft knows perfectly well that Linux is the only vulnerability to their domination of the desktop.  Linux and BSD Unix already dominate the Web server market.  It's free (and of course, they don't understand that one at all), it's way more simple in all respects, and therefore much faster and robust than Windows, is not encumbered by that stupid, stupid registry which for some reason they keep using even though it is totally unnecessary, bloated, cumbersome and makes all applications running on it at least 100 times more obtuse and difficult to manage and far vulnerable to corruption.  There's no defense for making Windows so horribly complex when surely Linux and Unix have shown for some 30 plus years that less really is more.

    I think I've made some clear points here.

    Monday, March 5, 2012 1:37 AM
  • don't have much to say but i think it would be a great idea for all computer user of whatever operating system you are using even one's that could come out in the future...we as humans have a choice and that choice should  continue i have been using linux for 5 years and what i can say about windows is that it is one of the best...but i prefer linux and linux has done so much...it's just it can be short changed....netflix is a hugh at this  time and it will only make computer users ...of linux well more happy let are linux developers develop...to me anything like netflix would be great..redbox is due to have one ..it's just that it seem linux is always overlooked and being overlooked...we as linux user could do something on just wait for some one else to do it for us...linux users should stay true and be developing are own clients...but we are on the otherside of the computer fence ..gaining..reckonion can't spell..but netflix would be great and needs to happen...but this is like comparing apples to oranges in a computer war that i really ..well do or don't have a opioin on..can't spell..i would say to microsoft please allow this and ....that's it's im sure whatever i could say is up in rhe air...but i would like to have more options

    Friday, April 20, 2012 4:30 AM
  •  I use Linux and my wife has a computer which uses windows 7...My Linus user number is , 517098...  Netflix is losing the game and could go out of business, that's been in the news recently.. Looks like they would try to get some of the millions of linux users on their side to help boost their business...  If DRM support is what it will take, then maybe they could ask Microsoft to do what it takes to use their product.. If money is the only answer for Microsoft, the charge a reasonable fee for Silerlite for Linux.. Problem solved.. several million potential users just lying there to be picked up.. Thanks

    I thought maybe that the Bugs forum would be better for getting the developers attention, but I thought it wasn't really appropriate, so I'd post it here.

    I am a native linux user, both by choice and out of necessity by work.  I'm excited for the release of Moonlight 2.0 and the support for silverlight 2.0, but saddened to learn that it doesn't include support for DRM, and specifically the ability to play Netflix movies.  The moonlight members mentioned that they are not able to implement DRM themselves, and would need the help of microsoft to push forward.  This is important to me and other linux users.  Considering I maybe go through 2 shipped DVDs over 2-3 weeks and stream about 8 movies in that same time period, Netflix's Watch-It-Now is really the only reason subscribe to their services.  Assuredly, I'm not alone in this opinion.  Without linux support, linux users are limited to only a few options.  One of these, which I've chose, is to use Sun's Virtualbox and an installation of Windows XP.  It works, but it's definitely not the way I want to go, and I know this option isn't available to everyone.

    Monday, May 7, 2012 11:45 PM
  • I am here to support the plea for DRM support for linux. I am a web developer and programmer. I use all operating systems including, Windows 7, Ubuntu, and Mac OSX. There is something seriously wrong with limiting your product to specific markets. When I am working I enjoy watching an episode on netflix, (since I am my own boss I'll allow it). Installing a VM just to watch Netflix is pretty retarted. There is no logical reason to limit your product. These sort of descions are the framework by which your products have been branded with a bad name. As they say, "The more you tighten your grip,[Microsoft], the more [customers] will slip through your fingers." 

    I hope you heed our advice.

    Friday, May 18, 2012 6:43 AM
  • Please port the DRM support for linux/moonlight.  or just allow silverlight to run on Linux.

    I know that this may seem to be a step in the wrong direction, but seeing as how many of the MS websites and services use Silverlight, you would be able to reach a whole new audience of (maybe) future Windows users as well as including the Open-source community.(as of now ostricized) 

    Also, if you are serious about making silverlight into a mainstream interface for the web, why would you exclude the millions of *nix users?

    As a developer, I have sworn off silverlight due to the almost non existant cross-platform compatability issues that hinder linux users.  Why would I use silverlight, asp or .NET for my sites when linux users are unable to have a full range of options to experience it?

    This is a feature request and I hope that it doessn't go unanswred!!

    Thanks

    Steve

    Thursday, June 7, 2012 12:49 PM
  • I would like to add my vote for Linux DRM support for Silverlight.  I am having to install a copy of Windows XP in a KVM virtual machine just so I can watch my Netflix streaming.

    I am seriously considering dropping Netflix since I can't use my computers to watch streaming (I only use Linux in my house, no Windows). 

    When I spoke to Netflix they gave me this number for Microsoft to call: 866-234-6020 and ask them to support Linux, but the people answering the phones didn't want to speak with me since I was running Linux. 

    Where can we "Officially" request support for DRM playable content using Silverlight? 

    Friday, June 22, 2012 12:45 PM
  • Hmmm I must be confusing it with something then. But yeah you got my vote. I'm not a linux user (and probably never will be), but I make a living on Silverlight, and the more platforms my products support the better.

    In that case I would give up now cause micky soft is never going to support more than one platform that is why silverlight is just going nowhere. Whilst it is a good technology, it has to be cross platform and it just absolutely is not. MS have never got that. Also it is not just linux, by not providing DRM support for linux, it also disables Android as this is a linux distro. I have a lovefilm account and was up to a while ago able to watch films on demand. I can no longer do this on my phone my laptop or my tablet they all run android and linux. I will be seeking a refund . ... absolutely ludicrous that MS can blackmail lovefilm and netflix users in this way. At the end of the day it is the end user that suffers!!!!

    Thursday, October 11, 2012 5:42 PM
  • It is not just microsoft the film producers are the real problem . They have instructed lovefilm and netflix that they can  no longer allow streaming of films using flash players. I am sooo p...ss   off at this stupid situation. Perhaps it is time there was a law suite again.

    Thursday, October 11, 2012 5:46 PM
  • I would like to cast my vote for silverlight support for Linux/Unix systems. I am setting up a home HTPC using Linux and the lack of Netflix available is rediculous.

    The one question I have is what is stopping Netflix from using a different method to stream the content? All this talk about microsoft, why not netflix choosing to ditch silverlight for a different method of streaming?

    I am seriously considering dropping Netflix since I can't use my computers to watch streaming (I only use Linux in my house, no Windows). 

    I will for sure ditch netflix once my HTPC is up and running because streaming will not be readily available.

    Thursday, October 18, 2012 2:01 AM