7 ms·

>Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Uh, why not? All Netflix series are already getting pirated even with DRM.

by sigmar 10y ago

artursapek 10y ago
Houses get broken into even when they have locks, so why do you keep a lock on your house?
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  This terrible analogy would only be remotely close if your house was copied to millions of people, and a single person breaking in could expose everything inside to everyone on the Internet.
  - artursapek 10y ago
    So it's ok to steal things that are easy to steal?
    - cr0sh 10y ago
      Stealing implies that the theft of the "thing" denies the original owner of possession and use of that same "thing". Digital IP is different - you can make infinite copies of it. A copy I make does not diminish your copy, nor does it deprive you of possession of your copy, or usage of that copy. What it does deny you is the amount of money which you might have made on the sale of that copy (if you are the rights-holder and are selling the digital IP "thing" to others). I haven't, however, stopped you from continuing to sell your digital IP "thing" - you still have it. You just don't have the money. Surely you can see this difference? If it could be called anything, it would be considered theft of opportunity, rather than theft of an object. You have been deprived of making a portion of money. Now - that's very close to - if not almost identical, to me going up to your digital IP (via website, a kiosk, you at a table burning copies onto disc - whatever), looking at it, then saying to you "I would love to have a copy of this, but you know, I just won't, because you are charging money for it". I still haven't deprived you of your IP - you still have it, you still have your copy, etc. What I have done is deprived you of the opportunity of making money. Should I go to jail, or be fined, or be forced to pay you the money in some manner because I didn't buy it? The only real difference between the two? Well - in the first scenario, I have a copy of the digital IP; in very real terms, I have the knowledge of a particular number (because that is what any digital work can be reduced to - just a very large number) - in the second case - I don't. But - what if on the off chance I somehow guess that large number? What if I am able to do that? Since it is a real number, there is that possibility (granted, the probability of being able to do so is vanishingly small). I know have the knowledge of that number, and can use it as I see fit - including decoding it to watch it as a movie, or play it as a piece of music, or whatever. But I didn't copy it from you; in fact, you might not even know that I now know your number! Have I committed a crime? DRM (and the laws which surround it) - in a very real sense - is a system put in place to criminalize and prosecute people for knowledge of particular numbers - nothing more, nothing less. In other words, knowledge of such numbers is considered a crime, unless you have paid money for that knowledge - even possibly if you independently arrive at that knowledge. Agree or disagree - but it's the truth.
      - artursapek 10y ago
        If the very large number took hundreds of people and millions of dollars to come up with, and it brings you pleasure, then yes, merely copying it when it's legally available for rent is wrong. Obviously stealing physical things is different from stealing digital things, but they are both fundamentally wrong because by doing so you're denying the creators the return on their investment. The manufacturing (copying) cost for digital content being 0 doesn't really matter; it just means that the net cost of production is front-loaded. I can invest $30,000,000 in a housing complex with a tangible amount of units, or a Hollywood movie with infinite "units". I still deserve to get a return on my investment.
bisby 10y ago
Because the studios are the ones demanding DRM. I was under the impression that netflix original content is actually far more relaxed on restrictions (I don't recall where I heard this). They don't want DRM necessarily, but if they say "DRM is not an option" then the change of getting major studios on board is 0. And even if you take netflix original content out of the picture, that applies. their "viable business" is "stream other people's content" and "other people" have to agree to that, and won't without DRM.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  Netflix probably also enjoys this, as it presents a barrier to entry. They also don't say anything negative about DRM[1], instead talking about "premium" content. They even go as far as to say: "This is a requirement for any premium subscription video service" -- this is blatantly false, unless you redefine premium to mean "requires DRM", in which case it's circular. Also note the use of "protect" as if it was a positive or good thing. 1: http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.html http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.h...
  - bisby 10y ago
    perhaps "This is a requirement for any premium subscription video service that wants to interact with popular studios because if you don't interact with popular studios people don't view your service as premium." Premium = big name movies Big name movies = big name studios Big name studios = full of corporate bigwigs who dont understand that DRM doesn't stop piracy
- shmerl 10y ago
  > Because the studios are the ones demanding DRM. I was under the impression that netflix original content is actually far more relaxed on restrictions Where can you buy it DRM-free?
  - bisby 10y ago
    I honestly don't remember where I had seen/heard this. Which admittedly makes my claim far less credible. But it was something along the lines of being able to play some netflix content on some player without DRM being applied to it. DRM would be something they use because they want to, not because it's part of their contract with themselves.
astrodust 10y ago
Why not? Shareholder accountability. "We didn't bother protecting our content, and yes, sales are down 25% year over year, but..." Fired.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  Can you explain how this works? If there was no DRM, how would that lower their sales? Last I checked, things on Netflix were easily downloadable via torrents. Are you suggesting that there are many shows on Netflix that someone wants to pirate, but the DRM is preventing them?
  - astrodust 10y ago
    I'm saying that if CEO you do nothing to prevent piracy then you get blamed for all the piracy. If you're using industry standards, like DRM, to protect the content they can't hold you accountable. It's just a cost of doing business. If one day the industry recognizes that DRM is useless and it's no longer demanded by content holders, then as CEO of Netflix you can abandon it. Steve Jobs told the music industry to suck it up and deal, and they did. He was unable to convince the movie/TV industry to do the same.
tptacek 10y ago
Obviously, because if it was as convenient to pirate Netflix videos as it was to view them on Netflix, nobody would subscribe to Netflix, and their business would fail.
- tveita 10y ago
  It already is as convenient to pirate Netflix videos as it is to view them on Netflix. You'll get a better selection, with a better UI, and often higher quality encodes. I still keep a Netflix subscription, because I want to pay for stuff, but it's hard to feel I'm getting value out of it. I hope you realize the movies people 'pirate' have been stripped of the DRM. Even if the original file had DRM, that does not inconvenience downloaders at all.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Really? I'm ready to believe you. What's the URL I enter to get the Netflix viewing experience, in my browser, without a credit card?
    - piracythrowaway 10y ago
      one example: https://solarmovie.sc https://solarmovie.sc
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Wow. This isn't as convenient as Netflix, but I concede that it's a lot more convenient than I thought piracy was at this point, and probably past the threshold where it matters.

>Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Uh, why not? All Netflix series are already getting pirated even with DRM.

by sigmar 10y ago

>Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Uh, why not? All Netflix series are already getting pirated even with DRM.

artursapek 10y ago

Houses get broken into even when they have locks, so why do you keep a lock on your house?

MichaelGG 10y ago
This terrible analogy would only be remotely close if your house was copied to millions of people, and a single person breaking in could expose everything inside to everyone on the Internet.
- artursapek 10y ago
  So it's ok to steal things that are easy to steal?
  - cr0sh 10y ago
    Stealing implies that the theft of the "thing" denies the original owner of possession and use of that same "thing". Digital IP is different - you can make infinite copies of it. A copy I make does not diminish your copy, nor does it deprive you of possession of your copy, or usage of that copy. What it does deny you is the amount of money which you might have made on the sale of that copy (if you are the rights-holder and are selling the digital IP "thing" to others). I haven't, however, stopped you from continuing to sell your digital IP "thing" - you still have it. You just don't have the money. Surely you can see this difference? If it could be called anything, it would be considered theft of opportunity, rather than theft of an object. You have been deprived of making a portion of money. Now - that's very close to - if not almost identical, to me going up to your digital IP (via website, a kiosk, you at a table burning copies onto disc - whatever), looking at it, then saying to you "I would love to have a copy of this, but you know, I just won't, because you are charging money for it". I still haven't deprived you of your IP - you still have it, you still have your copy, etc. What I have done is deprived you of the opportunity of making money. Should I go to jail, or be fined, or be forced to pay you the money in some manner because I didn't buy it? The only real difference between the two? Well - in the first scenario, I have a copy of the digital IP; in very real terms, I have the knowledge of a particular number (because that is what any digital work can be reduced to - just a very large number) - in the second case - I don't. But - what if on the off chance I somehow guess that large number? What if I am able to do that? Since it is a real number, there is that possibility (granted, the probability of being able to do so is vanishingly small). I know have the knowledge of that number, and can use it as I see fit - including decoding it to watch it as a movie, or play it as a piece of music, or whatever. But I didn't copy it from you; in fact, you might not even know that I now know your number! Have I committed a crime? DRM (and the laws which surround it) - in a very real sense - is a system put in place to criminalize and prosecute people for knowledge of particular numbers - nothing more, nothing less. In other words, knowledge of such numbers is considered a crime, unless you have paid money for that knowledge - even possibly if you independently arrive at that knowledge. Agree or disagree - but it's the truth.
    - artursapek 10y ago
      If the very large number took hundreds of people and millions of dollars to come up with, and it brings you pleasure, then yes, merely copying it when it's legally available for rent is wrong. Obviously stealing physical things is different from stealing digital things, but they are both fundamentally wrong because by doing so you're denying the creators the return on their investment. The manufacturing (copying) cost for digital content being 0 doesn't really matter; it just means that the net cost of production is front-loaded. I can invest $30,000,000 in a housing complex with a tangible amount of units, or a Hollywood movie with infinite "units". I still deserve to get a return on my investment.

bisby 10y ago

Because the studios are the ones demanding DRM. I was under the impression that netflix original content is actually far more relaxed on restrictions (I don't recall where I heard this). They don't want DRM necessarily, but if they say "DRM is not an option" then the change of getting major studios on board is 0. And even if you take netflix original content out of the picture, that applies. their "viable business" is "stream other people's content" and "other people" have to agree to that, and won't without DRM.

MichaelGG 10y ago
Netflix probably also enjoys this, as it presents a barrier to entry. They also don't say anything negative about DRM[1], instead talking about "premium" content. They even go as far as to say: "This is a requirement for any premium subscription video service" -- this is blatantly false, unless you redefine premium to mean "requires DRM", in which case it's circular. Also note the use of "protect" as if it was a positive or good thing. 1: http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.html http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.h...
- bisby 10y ago
  perhaps "This is a requirement for any premium subscription video service that wants to interact with popular studios because if you don't interact with popular studios people don't view your service as premium." Premium = big name movies Big name movies = big name studios Big name studios = full of corporate bigwigs who dont understand that DRM doesn't stop piracy
shmerl 10y ago
> Because the studios are the ones demanding DRM. I was under the impression that netflix original content is actually far more relaxed on restrictions Where can you buy it DRM-free?
- bisby 10y ago
  I honestly don't remember where I had seen/heard this. Which admittedly makes my claim far less credible. But it was something along the lines of being able to play some netflix content on some player without DRM being applied to it. DRM would be something they use because they want to, not because it's part of their contract with themselves.

astrodust 10y ago

Why not? Shareholder accountability. "We didn't bother protecting our content, and yes, sales are down 25% year over year, but..." Fired.

MichaelGG 10y ago
Can you explain how this works? If there was no DRM, how would that lower their sales? Last I checked, things on Netflix were easily downloadable via torrents. Are you suggesting that there are many shows on Netflix that someone wants to pirate, but the DRM is preventing them?
- astrodust 10y ago
  I'm saying that if CEO you do nothing to prevent piracy then you get blamed for all the piracy. If you're using industry standards, like DRM, to protect the content they can't hold you accountable. It's just a cost of doing business. If one day the industry recognizes that DRM is useless and it's no longer demanded by content holders, then as CEO of Netflix you can abandon it. Steve Jobs told the music industry to suck it up and deal, and they did. He was unable to convince the movie/TV industry to do the same.

tptacek 10y ago

Obviously, because if it was as convenient to pirate Netflix videos as it was to view them on Netflix, nobody would subscribe to Netflix, and their business would fail.

tveita 10y ago
It already is as convenient to pirate Netflix videos as it is to view them on Netflix. You'll get a better selection, with a better UI, and often higher quality encodes. I still keep a Netflix subscription, because I want to pay for stuff, but it's hard to feel I'm getting value out of it. I hope you realize the movies people 'pirate' have been stripped of the DRM. Even if the original file had DRM, that does not inconvenience downloaders at all.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Really? I'm ready to believe you. What's the URL I enter to get the Netflix viewing experience, in my browser, without a credit card?
  - piracythrowaway 10y ago
    one example: https://solarmovie.sc https://solarmovie.sc
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Wow. This isn't as convenient as Netflix, but I concede that it's a lot more convenient than I thought piracy was at this point, and probably past the threshold where it matters.