3 ms·
It's true but it doesn't make sense IMO for the buck to stop at Netflix. If Netflix could have talked content providers into allowing them to use an open-source
by scythe 10y ago
It's true but it doesn't make sense IMO for the buck to stop at Netflix. If Netflix could have talked content providers into allowing them to use an open-source "DRM" that worked for ordinary users but which could probably be circumvented by someone with programming skills, this wouldn't happen. The problem is that legally Netflix could be on the hook for any copyright infringement that may have been facilitated by their service. Crucially, the definition of "facilitated" can include not taking enough precautions to prevent it, and apparently using an open-source script that imperfectly prevents copying is still enough to expose Netflix to liability.
The laws must be ordered in a way that allows streaming video to be sold to users of open-source software. It's not like the current scheme is entirely resistant to pirates anyway. It's very much like the Drug War in that externalities affecting individuals who have done nothing wrong begin to exceed the damage caused by the "crime".
- nikcub 10y agoThis argument was more true in the early days of the web DRM debate, but the Netflix of today is largely publishing its own content rather than distributing the content of others, so it is setting the terms of how its content will be protected. I don't think it is a coincidence that Netflix's more aggressive anti-piracy actions and rollout of more DRM-enabled platform choices has come at a time that they're distributing more of their own content.
- algesten 10y agoEven if I don't like DRM, I don't believe a closed source DRM is any more perfect than an open source one. There's a strong link to cryptography here, and in that area an open source encryption is no less perfect than a closed one. Whatever DRM was required to please the suffering media conglomerates, it could at least have been open source.