4 ms·

They are not the "good guy" - they're merely among the lesser of a few evils. If they were the "good guy", they would deliver content 100% DRM-free and activel

by Endy 10y ago

They are not the "good guy" - they're merely among the lesser of a few evils. If they were the "good guy", they would deliver content 100% DRM-free and actively support the public domain. For me, "Cancel Netflix!" is not merely a call to remove myself from their service, but rather a call to remove a DRM-friendly platform from the face of the Web. Because as it stands, every other DRM jail can point to Netflix and say, "See! They do it and they're the good guy!" - and we need to cut that off at the ankles. They do work with DRM on a regular basis. They are, or work willingly with, the bad guy. Until you remove yourself from them and we work to remove them completely, we will never win.

Silhouette 10y ago
If they were the "good guy", they would deliver content 100% DRM-free and actively support the public domain. And pay the hundreds or thousands of people involved in making a major movie or demanding TV show for months or years of their time with what, sunshine and rainbows? It would be lovely if we could all just contribute our skills and talents for the general improvement of humanity, but the thing about professionals is that their profession is what pays the rent. I've always been pretty down on DRM, more on the basis that it often winds up inadvertently harming legitimate customers than anything else. And yet from personal experience, there are few things more depressing than spending years of your life creating something truly original, offering it without DRM-like protections for a fair price, and then watching as people just openly rip you off anyway. It turns out that if you challenge them, sometimes they freely acknowledge what they were doing, and in a stunning bit of irony, even ask you what you expected if you made your content available without DRMing it. If you want to "win" from your point of view, you'd better start with telling people who actually create content at considerable expense in time and money how to deal with the problem of freeloaders in some other credible way. Otherwise, the only thing your approach would remove is a large amount of the creative work that gets done in the world. As I said, I don't much like DRM myself and typically don't buy DRM'd content unless I'm reasonably confident of my ability to break it should the need ever arise, but that's a long way from calling anyone who employs it in a genuine attempt to protect themselves from illegal behaviour a "bad guy".
- carc 10y ago
  I feel a little disappointed that so far, based on the comments I'm reading, this seems to be the minority opinion.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    Sadly, it is often the minority opinion. There are a lot more people who want to enjoy good content than people who actually spend the time and money creating that content.
- wyager 10y ago
  The false premise behind your question is that DRM does anything to prevent copying.
  - carc 10y ago
    Whether it is effective is irrelvant. The question is: Do they have a right to prevent you from copying? If you purchase something, like a video game, I 100% think that no, sellers do not have that right. In netflix's, I think that they do. Whether it's effective shouldn't factor into the equation.. it's an implementation detail.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    Of course it does something to prevent copying. The idea that DRM doesn't prevent a single copy being made is as absurd as the idea that every single infringing copy made of a work represents a lost sale. In reality, most infringing copies (other than professional pirates) are casual copies made just because someone can, and most works being copied illegally are recent. If DRM avoids even a modest fraction of those infringing copies for even a relatively short time before it's cracked, it probably still leads to increased legitimate sales as a result and has at least partially succeeded.
- Endy 10y ago
  You assume that I have a problem with less media in the world. I don't. If 90% of the new content that we see and hear disappeared tomorrow, I would be just fine with that. As it ism we have an overwhelming amount of content that distracts us from things that matter like actually helping people. We give tons and tons of money to entertainers while hard-working EMTs and fire fighters are woefully underpaid. We willingly individually give $12+ to waste two hours of our lives instead of giving that money to a good cause and seeing the people around us flourish - or giving it to creators who don't paywall their creations. I vehemently make the somewhat radical statement that less corporate-backed media would have a positive impact on the world. The lack of implied paywall is not going to stop the people who have real passion from doing what they love. And anyone who's skilled that it does stop (because they were in it for the money), well, we might mourn the loss. But someone will come along with the passion and skill to replace them. It might slow them, it might change the scope or the distribution, but it won't stop people from doing whatever it is they love. I don't want professional media creators, copywrong, DRM, and corporate-backed media. I want a world of passionate hobbyists who produce beautiful things without the utterly ridiculous need to be "profitable".
digler999 10y ago
> they would deliver content 100% DRM-free Then most of their content would be 60s era public domain garbage. No movie studio would license their content if any high-school freshman with libpcap installed could copy their whole catalog! I'm NOT pro-DRM, all DRM does is get broken and it allows fraudulent business practices (such as the top comment Kindle owner post). But it's "the lesser of a few evils", to use your own words. No "decent" movies would be available if the studios knew the distributor was taking no steps to even try to keep it from being illegally copied. Look, I never in a hundred years imagined I'd be on HN defending DRM, when I have a 24/7 VPN to Croatia for all my pirating needs. But truth is it's more effort to copy files from the NAS to the DLNA server than it is to use Netflix. (To be 100% honest, I dont even like watching TV and I just do it for my roomate). But I digress, if they made no efforts whatsoever to show they do not condone piracy, what studio in their right mind would agree to license their content ? Ok, so they should do all original stuff you say ? Great, your $14/month online streaming service has 12 titles! whoo hoo ! Dont all try to sign-up at once!
- Endy 10y ago
  > But I digress, if they made no efforts whatsoever to show they do not condone piracy, what studio in their right mind would agree to license their content ? What makes you think the studios are in their right mind to begin with?
- makomk 10y ago
  Netflix's catalogue is small enough, the value of re-watching existing content low enough, and pirated copies widely available enough that it's unlikely people could be bothered to do this. Meanwhile the DRM means there are annoying restrictions on what devices you can actually watch i on.
scarface74 10y ago
The whole schtick about DRM is that you don't own the content. When you subscribe to Netflix, it is explicit that you are paying for access not ownership. I have no problem paying for a DRMd Apple Music subscription as a rental model and DRM free music from iTunes music that I own.

by Endy 10y ago

Silhouette 10y ago

If they were the "good guy", they would deliver content 100% DRM-free and actively support the public domain. And pay the hundreds or thousands of people involved in making a major movie or demanding TV show for months or years of their time with what, sunshine and rainbows? It would be lovely if we could all just contribute our skills and talents for the general improvement of humanity, but the thing about professionals is that their profession is what pays the rent. I've always been pretty down on DRM, more on the basis that it often winds up inadvertently harming legitimate customers than anything else. And yet from personal experience, there are few things more depressing than spending years of your life creating something truly original, offering it without DRM-like protections for a fair price, and then watching as people just openly rip you off anyway. It turns out that if you challenge them, sometimes they freely acknowledge what they were doing, and in a stunning bit of irony, even ask you what you expected if you made your content available without DRMing it. If you want to "win" from your point of view, you'd better start with telling people who actually create content at considerable expense in time and money how to deal with the problem of freeloaders in some other credible way. Otherwise, the only thing your approach would remove is a large amount of the creative work that gets done in the world. As I said, I don't much like DRM myself and typically don't buy DRM'd content unless I'm reasonably confident of my ability to break it should the need ever arise, but that's a long way from calling anyone who employs it in a genuine attempt to protect themselves from illegal behaviour a "bad guy".

carc 10y ago
I feel a little disappointed that so far, based on the comments I'm reading, this seems to be the minority opinion.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  Sadly, it is often the minority opinion. There are a lot more people who want to enjoy good content than people who actually spend the time and money creating that content.
wyager 10y ago
The false premise behind your question is that DRM does anything to prevent copying.
- carc 10y ago
  Whether it is effective is irrelvant. The question is: Do they have a right to prevent you from copying? If you purchase something, like a video game, I 100% think that no, sellers do not have that right. In netflix's, I think that they do. Whether it's effective shouldn't factor into the equation.. it's an implementation detail.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  Of course it does something to prevent copying. The idea that DRM doesn't prevent a single copy being made is as absurd as the idea that every single infringing copy made of a work represents a lost sale. In reality, most infringing copies (other than professional pirates) are casual copies made just because someone can, and most works being copied illegally are recent. If DRM avoids even a modest fraction of those infringing copies for even a relatively short time before it's cracked, it probably still leads to increased legitimate sales as a result and has at least partially succeeded.
Endy 10y ago
You assume that I have a problem with less media in the world. I don't. If 90% of the new content that we see and hear disappeared tomorrow, I would be just fine with that. As it ism we have an overwhelming amount of content that distracts us from things that matter like actually helping people. We give tons and tons of money to entertainers while hard-working EMTs and fire fighters are woefully underpaid. We willingly individually give $12+ to waste two hours of our lives instead of giving that money to a good cause and seeing the people around us flourish - or giving it to creators who don't paywall their creations. I vehemently make the somewhat radical statement that less corporate-backed media would have a positive impact on the world. The lack of implied paywall is not going to stop the people who have real passion from doing what they love. And anyone who's skilled that it does stop (because they were in it for the money), well, we might mourn the loss. But someone will come along with the passion and skill to replace them. It might slow them, it might change the scope or the distribution, but it won't stop people from doing whatever it is they love. I don't want professional media creators, copywrong, DRM, and corporate-backed media. I want a world of passionate hobbyists who produce beautiful things without the utterly ridiculous need to be "profitable".

digler999 10y ago

> they would deliver content 100% DRM-free Then most of their content would be 60s era public domain garbage. No movie studio would license their content if any high-school freshman with libpcap installed could copy their whole catalog! I'm NOT pro-DRM, all DRM does is get broken and it allows fraudulent business practices (such as the top comment Kindle owner post). But it's "the lesser of a few evils", to use your own words. No "decent" movies would be available if the studios knew the distributor was taking no steps to even try to keep it from being illegally copied. Look, I never in a hundred years imagined I'd be on HN defending DRM, when I have a 24/7 VPN to Croatia for all my pirating needs. But truth is it's more effort to copy files from the NAS to the DLNA server than it is to use Netflix. (To be 100% honest, I dont even like watching TV and I just do it for my roomate). But I digress, if they made no efforts whatsoever to show they do not condone piracy, what studio in their right mind would agree to license their content ? Ok, so they should do all original stuff you say ? Great, your $14/month online streaming service has 12 titles! whoo hoo ! Dont all try to sign-up at once!

Endy 10y ago
> But I digress, if they made no efforts whatsoever to show they do not condone piracy, what studio in their right mind would agree to license their content ? What makes you think the studios are in their right mind to begin with?
makomk 10y ago
Netflix's catalogue is small enough, the value of re-watching existing content low enough, and pirated copies widely available enough that it's unlikely people could be bothered to do this. Meanwhile the DRM means there are annoying restrictions on what devices you can actually watch i on.

scarface74 10y ago

The whole schtick about DRM is that you don't own the content. When you subscribe to Netflix, it is explicit that you are paying for access not ownership. I have no problem paying for a DRMd Apple Music subscription as a rental model and DRM free music from iTunes music that I own.