5 ms·

1. People who have access to the content can usually see it over and over again (when they have a subscription to a service like Netflix). DRM will do nothing h

1. People who have access to the content can usually see it over and over again (when they have a subscription to a service like Netflix). DRM will do nothing here. Sure it will. It will stop people writing a script to download as much as they can get away with in a single month and then cancelling since they have enough content to keep them going for several more months without paying for them. 3. People who want to pirate (illegally distribute) the content have advanced tools and knowledge to circumvent DRM, so DRM is of no use here again. That is a big assumption, and in many cases not a correct one. The major online DRM systems today are fairly robust, and if anyone has a crack for some of them, they're keeping their cards very close to their chests. The leaks of major movies that you find on torrent sites and the like are usually from other sources.

schrodinger 10y ago
There's always the analog loophole. If you can watch it on your screen, you can record it.
- infinite8s 10y ago
  If you discount the cost of your time to zero. Otherwise it's not even worth a minimum wage job.
  - flukus 10y ago
    It only needs to be done by one person, not every viewer. And yes, the value of much of my time is effectively zero. The same is true for most people.
    - MBCook 10y ago
      That's why we have laws to apply negative externalities like very large jail sentences if you're caught distributing a file that you created by taping a movie off-screen.
      - flukus 10y ago
        Local solutions to global problems that don't even work locally. Those large jail sentences also place a lot of externalities on the rest of society.
        MBCook 10y ago
        I agree. My comment was not meant as an endorsement, simply a statement I think that's how they've 'solved' that issue.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  Of course, but typically quality suffers significantly, so what you get isn't as good as the original and that in itself is a deterrent for a lot of people. Also, some modern watermarking techniques can survive conversions like this, so if anyone is making a habit of recording content from a service using watermarking and redistributing it on a scale that justifies taking serious action, it'll be pretty easy to prove who it was when the lawsuit comes up.
  - flukus 10y ago
    > Also, some modern watermarking techniques can survive conversions like this, so if anyone is making a habit of recording content from a service using watermarking and redistributing it on a scale that justifies taking serious action, it'll be pretty easy to prove who it was when the lawsuit comes up. How many compromised netflix accounts do you think are floating around? At some point the bits have to actually go to a display device as well, which can always be tapped.
    - Silhouette 10y ago
      If a compromised account was used, presumably the server logs will show an unusual access pattern on that account, in particular involving the content that has leaked being accessed from an unusual location. And then presumably the person whose account was used will have to make a convincing case that they shouldn't be held responsible for access using their credentials anyway.
      - flukus 10y ago
        Ok, what if a machine is compromised (there are millions of zombie boxes out there)? Someone can gain access, do their stuff and then upload the result. Are they going to start suing grandmas with weak wifi passwords? That worked so well for the RIAA last time.
        Silhouette 10y ago
        Then it'll be up to the person whose account was accessed to provide some evidence that something like this happened and that it wasn't their fault. That's how these things work. You go to court, you make your case and the other side makes theirs, and the court draws its conclusions and acts accordingly. However, you don't just get to conveniently avoid taking any responsibility when there are videos being distributed that are specifically linked to an account you signed up for that clearly said you couldn't redistribute the content you got through it, just because there's some vaguely possible alternative that might have once happened somewhere maybe.
amelius 10y ago
> Sure it will. It will stop people writing a script to download as much as they can But the people who go through the trouble of that are exactly the people who wouldn't mind downloading pirated copies in the first place.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  If you're supplying digital content as a business, then usually that isn't your real problem. They weren't going to give you any more money anyway, and with the legal framework being as it is in most places today, it's frustrating to see your content ripped off but not actually worth doing much about it. Meanwhile, your real problem is probably people who will casually copy and share your content, because even if the multiplication is relatively small, those are potentially still reaching people who would otherwise pay for a legitimate copy.

schrodinger 10y ago

There's always the analog loophole. If you can watch it on your screen, you can record it.

infinite8s 10y ago
If you discount the cost of your time to zero. Otherwise it's not even worth a minimum wage job.
- flukus 10y ago
  It only needs to be done by one person, not every viewer. And yes, the value of much of my time is effectively zero. The same is true for most people.
  - MBCook 10y ago
    That's why we have laws to apply negative externalities like very large jail sentences if you're caught distributing a file that you created by taping a movie off-screen.
    - flukus 10y ago
      Local solutions to global problems that don't even work locally. Those large jail sentences also place a lot of externalities on the rest of society.
      - MBCook 10y ago
        I agree. My comment was not meant as an endorsement, simply a statement I think that's how they've 'solved' that issue.
Silhouette 10y ago
Of course, but typically quality suffers significantly, so what you get isn't as good as the original and that in itself is a deterrent for a lot of people. Also, some modern watermarking techniques can survive conversions like this, so if anyone is making a habit of recording content from a service using watermarking and redistributing it on a scale that justifies taking serious action, it'll be pretty easy to prove who it was when the lawsuit comes up.
- flukus 10y ago
  > Also, some modern watermarking techniques can survive conversions like this, so if anyone is making a habit of recording content from a service using watermarking and redistributing it on a scale that justifies taking serious action, it'll be pretty easy to prove who it was when the lawsuit comes up. How many compromised netflix accounts do you think are floating around? At some point the bits have to actually go to a display device as well, which can always be tapped.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    If a compromised account was used, presumably the server logs will show an unusual access pattern on that account, in particular involving the content that has leaked being accessed from an unusual location. And then presumably the person whose account was used will have to make a convincing case that they shouldn't be held responsible for access using their credentials anyway.
    - flukus 10y ago
      Ok, what if a machine is compromised (there are millions of zombie boxes out there)? Someone can gain access, do their stuff and then upload the result. Are they going to start suing grandmas with weak wifi passwords? That worked so well for the RIAA last time.
      - Silhouette 10y ago
        Then it'll be up to the person whose account was accessed to provide some evidence that something like this happened and that it wasn't their fault. That's how these things work. You go to court, you make your case and the other side makes theirs, and the court draws its conclusions and acts accordingly. However, you don't just get to conveniently avoid taking any responsibility when there are videos being distributed that are specifically linked to an account you signed up for that clearly said you couldn't redistribute the content you got through it, just because there's some vaguely possible alternative that might have once happened somewhere maybe.

amelius 10y ago

> Sure it will. It will stop people writing a script to download as much as they can But the people who go through the trouble of that are exactly the people who wouldn't mind downloading pirated copies in the first place.

Silhouette 10y ago
If you're supplying digital content as a business, then usually that isn't your real problem. They weren't going to give you any more money anyway, and with the legal framework being as it is in most places today, it's frustrating to see your content ripped off but not actually worth doing much about it. Meanwhile, your real problem is probably people who will casually copy and share your content, because even if the multiplication is relatively small, those are potentially still reaching people who would otherwise pay for a legitimate copy.