4 ms·

> Seriously, I have no words to describe the hoops content providers want us to get trough, so that we can play our "legally owned" (well, it technically is clo

by doikor 10y ago

> Seriously, I have no words to describe the hoops content providers want us to get trough, so that we can play our "legally owned" (well, it technically is closer to a lease nowadays) content. Usually it is the content owner not the provider putting in terms that requires DRM schemes for playing their content on the internet. And once you have the requirement for some content you usually require it for everything so you won't confuse users if they only could play some content.

wolfgke 10y ago
> Usually it is the content owner not the provider putting in terms that requires DRM schemes for playing their content on the internet. But at the end it's the customer who decides. As long as there are people who still subscribe to watching un-movies (DRMed streams), the studios can say to Netflix "see, our requirements for DRM don't hinder customer adaption". If on the other hand people would cancel their Netflix account becuase of DRM (and state the reason) and even began to cancel friendships to people who still subscribe to DRMed services, the whole situation would be quite different: As a first step probably Netflix would probably introduce a Netflex-NoDRM subscription, which only gives access to few, but DRM-free movies and would try to regain the customers who canceled their subscription because of DRM. Now it's a market decision: If lots of people switch to Netflix-NoDRM (despite less movies), Netflix will get very convincing arguments for negotiations with the rights holders (since this will probbaly not happen spontaneously, I suggested to cancel friendships to people as long as they still subscribe to the DRMed subscription to increase the social pressure for NoDRM a lot).
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Well, it's exactly why the situation is what it is. "If only millions of people could each, individually, make a huge personal sacrifice, things would be different" is true, in the sense that if things like that ever happened, we probably wouldn't recognize the resulting society. Humans don't coordinate like this. It's our weak spot. To fight DRM, we need to make DRM-free solutions better than DRMed ones, in the same way piracy is better than copy protection - more convenient, faster, hassle-free. EDIT: To clarify apparent misunderstanding: what I mean is that people don't suddenly, spontaneously coordinate in large groups. It always requires an external influence that will align the default, short-term human thinking with the goals of the group at large. That influence can either push people into coordination (e.g. governments enforcing laws), or pull them (charismatic leaders). But without that influence, coordination generally doesn't happen - it doesn't work "by itself".
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    > Humans don't coordinate like this. I don't think this statement is true. Rather state: "Humans don't coordinate like this by itself". If there is an external event/charismatic leader this can easily happen: For example when Steve Jobs presented a new iGadget, there was a lot coordination between humans. Or when BitKeeper suddently decided to withdraw free use, suddenly there was a mass migration of programmers to develop DVCSs and to move from central ones (in particular SVN) to distributed ones. What is missing in the war against DRM is an external event and/or charismatic leader.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Yeah, "by itself" is what I meant.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    > Humans don't coordinate like this. Except, they do. That's what Unions do in job negotiations, what consumer associations do to fight companies, and why government-enforced consumer protection laws exist.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      No, they don't, as you explained - in all the cases there needs to be a central coordinating authority to make it worth it to change the default behaviour.
      - MayeulC 10y ago
        I wonder if some kind of anti-DRM petition against it could be useful and effective at countering the various lobbies that actively try to pass pro-DRM laws. I have yet to find a pro-DRM consumer; in general, people defend it when it's in their interest. ie, DRM for no one but me.
        wolfgke 10y ago
        > I have yet to find a pro-DRM consumer Every person who buys something that is DRMed is a pro-DRM consumer. Markets don't care about soap-box oratories, but only about money (this also means that if you want to know what someone really stands for, just follow their money trail).

by doikor 10y ago

wolfgke 10y ago

> Usually it is the content owner not the provider putting in terms that requires DRM schemes for playing their content on the internet. But at the end it's the customer who decides. As long as there are people who still subscribe to watching un-movies (DRMed streams), the studios can say to Netflix "see, our requirements for DRM don't hinder customer adaption". If on the other hand people would cancel their Netflix account becuase of DRM (and state the reason) and even began to cancel friendships to people who still subscribe to DRMed services, the whole situation would be quite different: As a first step probably Netflix would probably introduce a Netflex-NoDRM subscription, which only gives access to few, but DRM-free movies and would try to regain the customers who canceled their subscription because of DRM. Now it's a market decision: If lots of people switch to Netflix-NoDRM (despite less movies), Netflix will get very convincing arguments for negotiations with the rights holders (since this will probbaly not happen spontaneously, I suggested to cancel friendships to people as long as they still subscribe to the DRMed subscription to increase the social pressure for NoDRM a lot).

TeMPOraL 10y ago
Well, it's exactly why the situation is what it is. "If only millions of people could each, individually, make a huge personal sacrifice, things would be different" is true, in the sense that if things like that ever happened, we probably wouldn't recognize the resulting society. Humans don't coordinate like this. It's our weak spot. To fight DRM, we need to make DRM-free solutions better than DRMed ones, in the same way piracy is better than copy protection - more convenient, faster, hassle-free. EDIT: To clarify apparent misunderstanding: what I mean is that people don't suddenly, spontaneously coordinate in large groups. It always requires an external influence that will align the default, short-term human thinking with the goals of the group at large. That influence can either push people into coordination (e.g. governments enforcing laws), or pull them (charismatic leaders). But without that influence, coordination generally doesn't happen - it doesn't work "by itself".
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > Humans don't coordinate like this. I don't think this statement is true. Rather state: "Humans don't coordinate like this by itself". If there is an external event/charismatic leader this can easily happen: For example when Steve Jobs presented a new iGadget, there was a lot coordination between humans. Or when BitKeeper suddently decided to withdraw free use, suddenly there was a mass migration of programmers to develop DVCSs and to move from central ones (in particular SVN) to distributed ones. What is missing in the war against DRM is an external event and/or charismatic leader.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Yeah, "by itself" is what I meant.
- kuschku 10y ago
  > Humans don't coordinate like this. Except, they do. That's what Unions do in job negotiations, what consumer associations do to fight companies, and why government-enforced consumer protection laws exist.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    No, they don't, as you explained - in all the cases there needs to be a central coordinating authority to make it worth it to change the default behaviour.
    - MayeulC 10y ago
      I wonder if some kind of anti-DRM petition against it could be useful and effective at countering the various lobbies that actively try to pass pro-DRM laws. I have yet to find a pro-DRM consumer; in general, people defend it when it's in their interest. ie, DRM for no one but me.
      - wolfgke 10y ago
        > I have yet to find a pro-DRM consumer Every person who buys something that is DRMed is a pro-DRM consumer. Markets don't care about soap-box oratories, but only about money (this also means that if you want to know what someone really stands for, just follow their money trail).