Workaround enables Netflix 'Watch Now' titles to be decrypted, saved

Looking for a new way to use FairUse4WM? Have a Netflix account? If so, go on and roll your sleeves up, as a crafty (and acrimonious) fellow has managed to find a workaround that enables you to not only decrypt the DRM-laced "Watch Now" movie files, but save them to your hard drive for future viewing. Admittedly, the process is somewhere between painless and potentially frustrating, but the gist of it involves Windows Media Player 11, FairUse4WM, Notepad, a Netflix account, and a broadband connection. Through a series of hoop jumping, users can now strip the "Watch Now" files free of DRM and watch them at their leisure and on any video-playing device they choose. Granted, there's certainly issues of legality mixed in here, but where there's a will, there's a way. [Warning: Read link language potentially NSFW]

[Via TVSquad]

[Steve @ Aug 8th 2007 7:16AM]

It's really incorrect to call this "Fair Use". To do so really undermines the whole Fair Use movement. No amount of self-denial makes up for the fact that Netflix is a RENTAL site. You don't own the license, you don't own the product. If you don't like the requirements of the "Watch Now" system, rent the DVD or cancel your subscription.

[paloooz @ Aug 8th 2007 11:05AM]

The "saving" part is the gray area. It's fair use because it removes the DRM which locks us into one operating system. What if we want to rent movies on Linux instantly? Why can't we? What do they have against Linux?

I see your point, it's not fair to save them and keep them, but it is fair to strip the movies of their DRM so that they can be watched on any device, player, etc... until the time is up on the rent, that is.

[jason @ Aug 8th 2007 12:40PM]

As usual everyone misses the point of releasing a hack into the wild. As long as the hack is kept quiet the company has no reason to change. Once the hack is public the company stands to lose revenue unless they fix the hack. It's like being on a ship and finding a hole in the hull. Do you tell everyone in hopes it gets fixed, or just keep it to yourself?

The saving forever part is wrong, but the DRM stripping is completely fair use as you can not use this media on Linux with the DRM in place. Unfortunately removing the DRM also removes the self destruct aspect of the media so deleting it is now optional. In all reality this hack Only saves time because you could rent the DVD just as easily and rip it.

People who are going to break the law will break the law not matter what, a lock only keeps an honest person honest. Breaking the law for legitimate reasons, such as fair use, is civil disobedience. Breaking the law for illegitimate reasons, such as piracy, is wrong.

[konaman @ Aug 8th 2007 7:23AM]

I'm seeing too much of the hacks & cracks thing going on in the engadget posts. What gives? It seems as though the group is turning itself over to the control of caffeinated teenage anarchists. Can we post things of substance, which the IT PRO who's actually reading these posts may find interesting??

[Jeff @ Aug 8th 2007 11:54AM]

Where do you see anything that says this site is intended for "IT pros"? It's a site about gadgets. The thing that makes gadgets useful is content. These "hacks" are all about freeing that content so it can be used anywhere.

The morality of this particular use of Fairuse4WM can be debated, but most DRM is just begging to be stripped, and I welcome the posts about doing so.

[yavin @ Aug 8th 2007 7:31AM]

this trick or the hacking of the coins machine won't make me rich...

Tell us for example ... I don't know... How to hijack 100,000 AK47 from US supplies in Iraq?!

[z0iid @ Aug 8th 2007 10:28AM]

you sir, are an idiot. the US does not use the AK47.

[Harry Wagstaff @ Aug 8th 2007 10:34AM]

Maybe, z0iid, but 110,000 AK-47s have basically gone missing from the Iraqi Security Force stores and so the US has essentially provided 110,000 AKs (not to mention 80,000 pistols and over 100,000 items of body armour) to the insurgents it is trying to fight, completely free of charge.

[z0iid @ Aug 8th 2007 12:05PM]

the number is actually closer to 190,000. and if you want to assign blame the the US, fine. but honestly, explain to me how those weapons are our responsibility once we gave them to the Iraqi Security Force? Are you so racist that you are implying that the Iraqi's are of lower intelligence, so they need to be babysat? That they can't handle responsibility? Maybe they can't, but it isn't fair for the US to be held responsible for supplies once they have changed hands.

[James @ Aug 8th 2007 4:37PM]

WTF does an article about hacks/cracks and an online movie rental place have to do with Iraq? Jesus, can you people ever let it rest?

[rudebo @ Aug 8th 2007 7:31AM]

lets face it there is nothing you can't copy using a pc no matter the DRM employed .. even if you loose quality theres still a big chance you'll get within 90-100% quality conversion if you use the right method.

renting is something i think you can't do digitally the same way you do physically - service providers will just have to get over it ... and convince people to care enough about the content that they pay and keep what they rip for themselves.

its like bitching about beeing able to record movies off the TV with a VCR. ZOMG !

[rudebo @ Aug 8th 2007 7:32AM]

sorry about the double post ... but here's a suggestion
if they really wanna be smart and kind to their customers they should let their subscribers download the content also with the content locked for use only by their computer.

[strider_mt2k @ Aug 8th 2007 7:50AM]

Stealing is wrong.

No ifs, ands, or buts.

You can rationalize 'till the cows come home (and some of you will) but it changes nothing.

Stealing is wrong.

[Grant @ Aug 8th 2007 8:16AM]

yeah.... stealing is wrong.... but at least your stealing from someone who won't miss it, even though they claim to.

movie studios gross between a 9 to 11 figure profit off of blockbusters.... and thats AFTER rampant internet stealing of their films, even though i am too lazy to partake and just wait til the DVD is 9.50 at my local walmart, i would feel about 2 seconds of guilt before i enjoyed my free movie... that everyone had already gotten paid to make.

[Grant @ Aug 8th 2007 8:17AM]

just kidding, a 7 and 9 figure profit.... i got carried away there for a bit.

[Ben F @ Aug 9th 2007 9:05AM]

Why is it relevant how much the movie studio makes?

[rudebo @ Aug 8th 2007 7:57AM]

stealing is wrong indeed. sorry my i'm not supporting piracy or saying that stealing is ok.

but please consult your penal code for the deffinition of stealing and compare. i dont want to go on about this ...

again i'm not saying ripping and sharing is ok... i'm just saying ripping ethreal/immaterial content for personal non-commercial use in such a digital renting scheme is ok speciffically because of the nature of the content and service.

[Yon @ Aug 8th 2007 8:03AM]

So, how's that illegal cable box working out?

[TrickyKid @ Aug 8th 2007 9:53AM]

Illegal cable box? Didn't people stop using those in the early to mid 90's?

[rudebo @ Aug 8th 2007 8:10AM]

haha sorry to dissapoint you m8 .. i pay for my cable in full .. HBO included - internet, games and such ... oh and i wouldnt offcourse tamper with gadgets that are loaned to me with legal contract by my cable provider.. now that .. would be illegal.

what i do personally with the TV signal that comes out of their box is my business as long as i keep it personal.

[Netflixer @ Aug 8th 2007 8:12AM]

Really what's the point? Video pirates tend to use IRC and Torrents which is much easier and more painless than this method........or just rip a dvd.

[johnnyg0 @ Aug 8th 2007 8:17AM]

Yet another proof that DRM doesn't work...

.. funny how no one commented on that.

[Grant @ Aug 8th 2007 8:19AM]

"10. The file will be around a gig or two, so pass the time as it downloads by going to the park and masturbating to some dead pigeons (or what have you…). "

funny write up, i don't even use netflix and enjoyed the read.

[Scott Gaertner @ Aug 8th 2007 8:21AM]

This is not theft in any way shape or form -- it is two things:

Circumvention of Technological Measures under the DMCA. (With serious civil and criminal penalties).

Copyright Infringement. The fair use exemption is (possibly) nullified by the home use license agreement at the beginning of the movie. (Minor civil penalties.)

Illegal? Yes -- of course it is. Theft? Not even close.

[Chicksta @ Aug 8th 2007 8:56AM]

I would agree with you about that, unless someone then decides to circumvent the 'pay for Netflix account' part. If people are going to download/keep movies (even under a freebie trial period), then cancel the service, then that does become theft. This hack takes away the entire point of having a Netflix account in the first place, in that it is a subscription service where you can have access to any of their movies as long as you pay for the service. This is the biggest issue w/subscription/rental services; people who have no ethics just want to find ways to smash-and-grab from them.

[NJBeetle @ Aug 8th 2007 8:23AM]

Weird that while reading this, there on the right side is an ad for Netflix. Talk about product placement.

[Chicksta @ Aug 8th 2007 8:41AM]

So Grant, now the rationalization for stealing is 'if someone won't miss it (assumed by you), then it's okay'? So robbing a bank is okay; they have lots of money and won't miss it. As far as everyone 'already getting paid', that's not true. People keep getting paid royalties from sales, and that money goes towards salaries and new projects. Less money from sales = less people get paid = less good new movies that get funded. You socialist/commie types never do seem to understand you're not sticking it to the man, and never will. They won't miss your ten bucks; that's what their stock portfolio and investments are for. You're just reducing the wages of those people in the credits, giving studios more and more excuses to use foreign crew talent (i.e. cheaper), and snuffing out new projects. You're just hurting that retail employee that will get their hours cut because 'sales are down'. You're just hurting the people who work at Netflix who will either have to constantly pay a bunch of developers to try and keep their products secure, or not make enough profit from deploying the service to keep it for the legitimate users. You can try to rationalize that all you like, but your belief that work and effort in creating things is worthless, and that people should not have wealth or profit off of their work, is just wrong.

[rudebo @ Aug 8th 2007 8:48AM]

you get an F.

What makes you think that banks wont miss money - a loss is a loss - even if customers dont loose the money the bank has to make up for the loss somewhere and the money it has been deprived of leads to inflation.

on a different note..
I AM SO FED UP OF PIRACY = LOSS - i know this is not the subject here but .. just because someone pirated your stuff doesnt mean they would have paid for it most of the time or that you indeed lost something. This is something that i hear way too often and its a missappropriation of data.

[Dan K @ Aug 8th 2007 7:44PM]

its kinda like picking flowers in the park imho... it will very slightly financially burden those around you, but no one is robbing a bank... cant we all just get along and go skeet on some pigeons.

[Nick @ Aug 8th 2007 9:03AM]

Id prefer Netflix as a company over Blockbuster anyday. Netflix's "watch now" is a feature that still gives Netflix an edge over Blockbuster now that blockbuster has their online subscription service. But sure why not tell everyone how to get around that bonus feature that Netflix threw in that is to the customer's benefit. This way they'll pull it down or think twice about how their customers are going to abuse any slack given to them.

What a bunch of pathetic thieves you people are. I laugh at those stupid Anti-piracy ads at the start of dvd's now-a-days... but people are getting to be annoying with expecting everything that they want for free. No im not sticking up for the recording/movie industry and companies.. i think its BS that they release an album/dvd and then 3-6 months later they re-release the product with added bonus features that the original customers miss out on. But I support the artists that I like and the things that I like and dont support the ones i dont.

I have plenty of friends who pirate $hit when they dont even like what they are stealing... its like an addiction or competition to see how much they can have.

[Mile @ Aug 8th 2007 9:07AM]

When Notepad is outlawed, only outlaws will have Notepad!

[naters @ Oct 25th 2007 10:51AM]

That should be on a t-shirt :)

[Chicksta @ Aug 8th 2007 9:17AM]

Grant, you're just wrong. Of course a bank would miss the money - that's the point. I'm not the one saying that's it's okay to steal because of a presumed lack of knowledge of the theft. Maybe your mom doesn't miss the $20 you stole from her wallet, but later on when you're buying some crap with it she's realizing she can't eat lunch because she doesn't have the money she earned.
If you want a movie, either pay to rent it or pay to buy it. When you don't, you do cut the sales at the local rental place, because you're not out renting movies. You do cut the staff at the local retailers. You close down businesses and get people laid off. There IS loss. You can be as fed up with the truth as you like, but it doesn't change the truth. Even your own words: 'someone pirated YOUR stuff' show that you know it belongs to someone else. Now, you could argue that it's a stupid business model to be a middleman service provider for someone else's products (i.e., a retailer of intangible goods like music, movie, and/or software downloads) whether subscription-based or pay-for-license. And you can certainly vote w/your wallet that you don't need these services, and restrict media to physical forms. But why would we want to move backwards?

[s0m0ney @ Aug 8th 2007 9:48AM]

Alright MPAA fanboy/girl whichever you are. I'm not advocating piracy here, however I would really like to know what you base your opinions off of. How many jobs in retail centers were lost last year because of piracy? I really want to know. Kind of like how the Big N knew exactly how much they lost with modded consoles. Gee I wonder where that figuter came from? They made it up!

Netflixer: IRC is not a program for downloading anything. IRC is used for communication. Torrents are the actual files that allow you to get the media. But there is a part missing, you have to have a program to d/l the torrent as well. Get informed before you start blasting away. kthnxbye

[TrickyKid @ Aug 8th 2007 10:03AM]

@Somoney
IRC has Files Servers, DCC send and XDCC send capabilities allowing users to get direct downloads. Just wanted to clear that up.

[Chicksta @ Aug 8th 2007 10:40AM]

To answer your question: I don't know about last year. I know about ten people who were cut because of lagging sales in one movie store last year, so heck, lower that and estimate just 5 people either laid off or just not able to be hired per movie rental store or movie buying store. I'll give a super-low estimate of 2000 such stores. The mantra of retail is 'if we don't sell enough, we cut back the staff hours, cut back the staff, and don't hire anyone else'.
But, I do know of about ten years ago. I left the music retail chain I worked for when I saw our customers loading up on Napster. Not long after, that chain closed. That was about 4K people out of work. Some were lucky and got hired quickly (usually into some other retail store, at reduced hours and reduced pay). I got out of retail, since I'd been doing IT and video work on the side for about nine years then, and there was no longer any value in someone knowledgable and passionate about the music industry. Some weren't as lucky as I was. Since then, I've seen about ten other chains, most a lot bigger, completely shut down. I haven't seen an indie music store in about five years; the indie movie stores are either foreign-only titles or adult-only. The staff are undertrained, undermotivated, and constantly jumping ship. Yeah, you'll never truly be able to know how many people it hurts. But why does it matter -how many- people are impacted by stealing, when even one being hurt by it is one too many? I just don't think that the 'amount' of people impacted is any means of justifying it. it's another way to try to reduce people to objects instead of humans for selfish gain. Isn't it ironic that you're just playing the same game that the MPAA is, only you think they're wrong and you're right?
I just look at the money I spend as an investment; an investment in products and services being developed, an investment in jobs in this country, and an investment in my community. If that means I have to spend $4 to rent a movie, not a big deal. A buck for a song I like? Fine. I don't need to waste my precious time in life on bad music or movies, so if it isn't worth those amounts, it isn't worth my time, or I'll get it as part of a subscription service I pay for (sat radio, Fiber TV, Netflix, etc. etc.).

[bkessler @ Aug 8th 2007 9:47AM]

What's up with all the skeleton avatars and the "masturbating to dead squirrels"? What a loser...

[nuggets @ Aug 8th 2007 9:50AM]

isn't the proportion of users who will actually do this very small anyway? and I'm sure most people still rent dvds, I certainly do

[s0m0ney @ Aug 8th 2007 10:26AM]

@TrickyKid, my bad, you're right of course.

I've just found plenty of uses for IRC and using it as a Torrent search engine was not really one of them. But since pirates are Public Enemy # 1! I wouldn't know anything about that. Poor record and movie companies! They might actually have to save up for a couple weeks to get that new yacht. Yeah I feel really sorry for them, don't you?

[chad @ Aug 8th 2007 10:45AM]

Probably because IRC is not a 'torrent search engine'. But rest assured, IRC (next to usenet) is one of the 'founding fathers of piracy' and is a very ACTIVE community, but it sucks for this purpose nowadays unless you're l33t.

I'm curious... what 'other uses' have you found for IRC besides chatting?

[Chicksta @ Aug 8th 2007 11:06AM]

And I know people who use both IRC and usenet for stockpiling ridiculous amounts of stuff just to... have ridiculous amounts of stuff. It is an odd addiction. But I guess it's like the people I knew in jr. high - kleptomaniacs who learned a lesson when they got caught. But if they'd never gotten caught, they wouldn't have stopped. And when I arrested shoplifters, they were all the same. Every single one offered to pay for it, because every single one had the money. It was never about not having the money to pay for it; it was always about wanting to keep the money to get something else too, not having to decide or compromise, not having to work to afford things. It was always their greed and lack of caring about anyone else, their sense of entitlement. Every single one was a tough cookie at first, but then had some sort of sob story when they were being handcuffed.
Please stop with the ridiculous idea that it's okay to steal because media execs make a lot of money. The exec for that toilet paper company does too, but you bought the damn tp. Everything you buy has an overpaid exec behind it. If you want to be a socialist/commie, fine, but be consistent. Media companies also pay for utilities, and all of the people who do waste removal services, cleaning of facilities, internal mail delivery, admin, graphic design, writing, developing, maintenance, sales, distribution, postage, legal, marketing and promotion, coordinating, managing, grunt work, as well as recording studios, equipment, food/catering - you name it, like all big companies do. So call a spade a spade.

[for bunch of smart folks... @ Aug 8th 2007 10:43AM]

its NOT stealing
It copyright infringement
please people lets get it right

walking into a store putting a dvd in your pocket and walking out is stealing

downloading/burning/stripping copy protection is copyright infringement

[Ben F @ Aug 9th 2007 9:05AM]

It's a distinction without a difference. If people want to call it "copyright infringement" so they don't feel guilty about stealing that's one thing. But in most US jurisdictions "stealing" is not a legal term. Theft is, Trespass on Chattels is, but not "Stealing." Either way stealing is "the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent." That sounds just like "copyright infringement" in this context.

[strider_mt2k @ Aug 8th 2007 11:37AM]

Taking something into your possession without permission is stealing.

Candy-coat it how you like, for it is a bitter pill to swallow.

Glass of water?

[Yon @ Aug 8th 2007 11:48AM]

Yes, yes, let's get technical.. come on, it's theft.

Whether it's physical property or intellectual property, you're using the property of another without prior permission or compensation. It's wrong, whether or not it's technically infringement under law. Making the distinction in order to convince yourself that somehow one is ok while the other is not is just silly.

[Dave @ Aug 8th 2007 2:31PM]

No, it is not "theft."
Copyright infringement is a civil matter (a tort) and only in certain circumstances is it a federal crime.

"A copyright infringement is subject to criminal prosecution if infringement
is willful and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial
gain. 17 U.S.C. 506(a). If the offense consists of the reproduction or
distribution, during any 180-day period, of 10 or more copies having a
retail value of more than $2,500, the offense is a felony; otherwise, the
offense is a misdemeanor. 18 U.S.C. 2319."

So, are you downloading that movie to watch at your leisure, or are you making copies and selling them on eBay?
You may have your own ideas of what the rules *should* be, but please do not obfuscate the law with your opinions.

[strider_mt2k @ Aug 8th 2007 7:41PM]

You just keep telling yourself that.

[for bunch of smart folks... @ Aug 9th 2007 10:51AM]

lol
guess what if your caught and prosecuted it wont be for theft or stealing
it will be for copyright infringement or violating the dmca

just telling you how it is, there will be no "theft" or "stealing"

so you can call it what you want ill stick to what the laws and courts will actually charge you with no candy coating involved, no need to convince myself, no need to keep telling myself or others

it is what it is copyright infringement
sorry

[nathan @ Aug 9th 2007 2:47PM]

Stealing and Copyright Infringement are similar but different. The biggest difference is when I steal someone's car, they LOSE their car and I GAIN it. If I rip a Netflix movie off Watch It Now, I GAIN the movie, and they don't loose anything. "Lost Sales!" you say? Who says I would've bought the DVD in the first place? That's not a 1:1 ratio. Most Piracy of copyrighted material wouldn't have been a sale in the first place, though I am not disputing that Piracy hurts video and music sales - it does, but unlike stealing, does not directly implicate a loss on the victimized party.

[DoctaDJones @ Aug 8th 2007 12:15PM]

This would be more of an issue if Netflix actually offered movies made after 1992 in the Watch Now section and if the picture quality wasn't horrible.

If you really want a copy you're much much better off renting the DVD and ripping it, which is also much much easier to do.