4 ms·

Sorry, but Hollywood has the upper hand here. Hollywood has no desire to enter an open platform. They're completely happy if none of their movies are online,

Sorry, but Hollywood has the upper hand here. Hollywood has no desire to enter an open platform. They're completely happy if none of their movies are online, ever. Really. They already have a massively profitable distribution system in the theaters. The problem is that people want to watch Hollywood movies on their computer, including people that use Linux. So what do you tell those people to do? Tell them run Windows? Have them go watch it in the theater? And they have copyright controls that can force offline sites that host copyrighted content in various countries. So DRM is the tech industry's way to kiss these people ass. It may be flawed or may not work, but it's still ass-kissing. They're the artists, they get to decide what they do with their art. The consumer has no right to an artists creation. Their only choice is to pay up or ignore it. And you'll find that this happens to other art mediums as well. There are many, many art galleries that won't sell certain works of art if they deem your ownership as insufficient. Literally - the customer is wrong.

yuhong 10y ago
I wonder why Hollywood was taken over by lawyers in the first place. Yes, I am going back to before Sony vs Universal.
- ethbro 10y ago
  For the same reason that most fields eventually attract lawyers - Hollywood was making lots and lots of money.
  - yuhong 10y ago
    Which makes me more interested in more details on why.
- pjc50 10y ago
  Hollywood got its start in escaping Edison's patent lawyers (and hired goons); that's part of why it's on the west cost in the first place.
WizzleKake 10y ago
Their only choice is to pay up or ignore it. They can pirate it too, which is often a superior user experience in that the user can keep the file, move it to a different device, watch without arcane restrictions, etc.
technofiend 10y ago
That's true but Hollywood has been dead wrong so many times it's laughable. They've been dragged kicking and screaming from one giant pile of money to the next. Don't forget the former head of the MPAA Jack Valenti's testimony to Congress in 1982: >We are facing a very new and a very troubling assault on our fiscal security, on our very economic life and we are facing it from a thing called the video cassette recorder and its necessary companion called the blank tape. And it is like a great tidal wave just off the shore. This video cassette recorder and the blank tape threaten profoundly the life-sustaining protection, I guess you would call it, on which copyright owners depend, on which film people depend, on which television people depend and it is called copyright. But hey if Hollywood wants to refund every purchase I made adjusting for inflation and with interest of VCRs, LaserDisc Players, DVD Players, BluRay players and all the titles I bought on them over and over then fine let's go back to you can only ever see a movie in a theatre. Yes I realize DVD and BluRay have DRM but there was just as much wailing and gnashing of teeth over those media when introduced and each one was more profitable than the last and remain so even though their DRM is now broken. Contrast that with the failed DIVX platform and you can see what consumers want versus what Hollywood does are very much out of sync.
abecedarius 10y ago
People used to say the same about music before iTunes went DRM-free. In the long run, universal computers have far more value than audiovisual media. And you can explain what Hollywood wants without taking their side.
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  Music is a different animal. I can listen to a piece of music hundreds of times. I'll only watch a movie once, even the most diehard will only watch a movie at most dozens of times. I'm going to notice restrictions on my music way way sooner than I'll notice them on my movies. My only real objection to DRM on movies is philosophical, while my objection to DRM in music is practical, as in, I'll pirate my music if I can't move it around.
JoshTriplett 10y ago
> Sorry, but Hollywood has the upper hand here. Look at Netflix and others who are starting to build alternatives to that ecosystem (in addition to working with it for existing content). If DRM remained second-class, maybe the next such alternative would loosen its stranglehold a bit to gain a broader audience and reduce friction.
- chc 10y ago
  The dominance of a distribution platform is largely determined by the content it offers. If you aren't willing to play ball but the competition is, guess who gets the content?

yuhong 10y ago

I wonder why Hollywood was taken over by lawyers in the first place. Yes, I am going back to before Sony vs Universal.

ethbro 10y ago
For the same reason that most fields eventually attract lawyers - Hollywood was making lots and lots of money.
- yuhong 10y ago
  Which makes me more interested in more details on why.
pjc50 10y ago
Hollywood got its start in escaping Edison's patent lawyers (and hired goons); that's part of why it's on the west cost in the first place.

WizzleKake 10y ago

Their only choice is to pay up or ignore it. They can pirate it too, which is often a superior user experience in that the user can keep the file, move it to a different device, watch without arcane restrictions, etc.

technofiend 10y ago

That's true but Hollywood has been dead wrong so many times it's laughable. They've been dragged kicking and screaming from one giant pile of money to the next. Don't forget the former head of the MPAA Jack Valenti's testimony to Congress in 1982: >We are facing a very new and a very troubling assault on our fiscal security, on our very economic life and we are facing it from a thing called the video cassette recorder and its necessary companion called the blank tape. And it is like a great tidal wave just off the shore. This video cassette recorder and the blank tape threaten profoundly the life-sustaining protection, I guess you would call it, on which copyright owners depend, on which film people depend, on which television people depend and it is called copyright. But hey if Hollywood wants to refund every purchase I made adjusting for inflation and with interest of VCRs, LaserDisc Players, DVD Players, BluRay players and all the titles I bought on them over and over then fine let's go back to you can only ever see a movie in a theatre. Yes I realize DVD and BluRay have DRM but there was just as much wailing and gnashing of teeth over those media when introduced and each one was more profitable than the last and remain so even though their DRM is now broken. Contrast that with the failed DIVX platform and you can see what consumers want versus what Hollywood does are very much out of sync.

abecedarius 10y ago

People used to say the same about music before iTunes went DRM-free. In the long run, universal computers have far more value than audiovisual media. And you can explain what Hollywood wants without taking their side.

vinceguidry 10y ago
Music is a different animal. I can listen to a piece of music hundreds of times. I'll only watch a movie once, even the most diehard will only watch a movie at most dozens of times. I'm going to notice restrictions on my music way way sooner than I'll notice them on my movies. My only real objection to DRM on movies is philosophical, while my objection to DRM in music is practical, as in, I'll pirate my music if I can't move it around.

JoshTriplett 10y ago

> Sorry, but Hollywood has the upper hand here. Look at Netflix and others who are starting to build alternatives to that ecosystem (in addition to working with it for existing content). If DRM remained second-class, maybe the next such alternative would loosen its stranglehold a bit to gain a broader audience and reduce friction.

chc 10y ago
The dominance of a distribution platform is largely determined by the content it offers. If you aren't willing to play ball but the competition is, guess who gets the content?