4 ms·

That's a false dichotomy. They don't have to do either.

scarface74 9y ago
Video has never been DRM free. Even in the days of VHS they had Macrovision. Video right holders have never allowed their content to be delivered without copy protections. But the larger question is, why do you care? You are not paying for ownership of the video. You are paying for access. Why shouldn't your right to access the video be limited to the time you are paying for the subscription?
- dorgo 9y ago
  It's not about the time to access the video. It's about restrictions built into software and hardware. I don't care about video access. I care about beeing in control of my software and hardware.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    You are in control of your software and hardware. They never forced you to choose incompatible software and hardware. They are also in control of their content distribution. Seems fair to me.
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      How am I in control of my software, if I can't use it in they way that I want? That is the opposite of being in control
      - scarface74 9y ago
        Are you not in control of your PS4 software just because it can't run on an Xbox One? In either case the software you bought was not designed to run on your chosen hardware.
        CaptSpify 9y ago
        No, as long as they aren't purposefully trying to block. Incompatibility is an entirely different issue than DRM.
    - josteink 9y ago
      > They never forced you to choose incompatible software and hardware. Until they made it a requirement that my web-browser subverts control from me, the owner of the PC, to Hollywood, in the name of DRM, now a "standard" web-feature. So basically people who wants to be in control of their own computers can't run web-browsers anymore eh? Just because of Netflix? That frankly sounds like a shit deal.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  Your reply is just plain factually incorrect. Video has always been DRM free, if you know where to get it. DRM does not prevent people from pirating. This has been proven endlessly. It only hurts paying customers. Even in the 80s I could get a DRM-free copy of a movie because the DRM had been stripped out. > Video right holders have never allowed their content to be delivered without copy protections. And yet I can still currently download any show/movie I want in a better experience than I get for paying for it. Just because we've always done something one way, doesn't mean that we should continue doing it that way. They may not allow it, but that doesn't stop it from happening. And why do I care? A) It's just inefficient. It's a waste of money, and a waste of time, for both me, and the production companies. B) I should be able to do what I want, with my software. If it's not my software, great, don't give it to me. As soon as it hits my device, though, it becomes my software. Your legalese does not change that. C) I want to support companies that make media that I enjoy. I currently cannot do that. I keep trying to throw money at companies to get the media in a way I want, but they won't accept it. That's a terrible business model.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    Video has always been DRM free, if you know where to get it. DRM does not prevent people from pirating. This has been proven endlessly. It only hurts paying customers. Even in the 80s I could get a DRM-free copy of a movie because the DRM had been stripped out. I never said that video wasn't always available DRM free. I said that the content distributors never distributed the video DRM free. I should be able to do what I want, with my software. If it's not my software, great, don't give it to me. As soon as it hits my device, though, it becomes my software. Your legalese does not change that. It is your software. Just like a PS4 game is your software. When you bought the software you bought it with known compatibility constraints. Why would you expect commercial proprietary software to run on hardware that they don't support any more than you would expect a PS4 game to run on an Xbox One?
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      > Video has never been DRM free is what you said, which is far from the same comment as "the content distributors never distributed the video DRM free." If you meant something else, you might want to adjust that. If something is incompatible, that is one issue, but if something is intentionally blocked from being compatible, that has moved to being an ethical problem. Those are two completely different scenarios. If someone could modify their xbox to run ps4 games, I see no problem with that, and would take issue with someone actively trying to prevent them from doing that.

Video has never been DRM free. Even in the days of VHS they had Macrovision. Video right holders have never allowed their content to be delivered without copy protections. But the larger question is, why do you care? You are not paying for ownership of the video. You are paying for access. Why shouldn't your right to access the video be limited to the time you are paying for the subscription?

dorgo 9y ago
It's not about the time to access the video. It's about restrictions built into software and hardware. I don't care about video access. I care about beeing in control of my software and hardware.
- scarface74 9y ago
  You are in control of your software and hardware. They never forced you to choose incompatible software and hardware. They are also in control of their content distribution. Seems fair to me.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    How am I in control of my software, if I can't use it in they way that I want? That is the opposite of being in control
    - scarface74 9y ago
      Are you not in control of your PS4 software just because it can't run on an Xbox One? In either case the software you bought was not designed to run on your chosen hardware.
      - CaptSpify 9y ago
        No, as long as they aren't purposefully trying to block. Incompatibility is an entirely different issue than DRM.
  - josteink 9y ago
    > They never forced you to choose incompatible software and hardware. Until they made it a requirement that my web-browser subverts control from me, the owner of the PC, to Hollywood, in the name of DRM, now a "standard" web-feature. So basically people who wants to be in control of their own computers can't run web-browsers anymore eh? Just because of Netflix? That frankly sounds like a shit deal.
CaptSpify 9y ago
Your reply is just plain factually incorrect. Video has always been DRM free, if you know where to get it. DRM does not prevent people from pirating. This has been proven endlessly. It only hurts paying customers. Even in the 80s I could get a DRM-free copy of a movie because the DRM had been stripped out. > Video right holders have never allowed their content to be delivered without copy protections. And yet I can still currently download any show/movie I want in a better experience than I get for paying for it. Just because we've always done something one way, doesn't mean that we should continue doing it that way. They may not allow it, but that doesn't stop it from happening. And why do I care? A) It's just inefficient. It's a waste of money, and a waste of time, for both me, and the production companies. B) I should be able to do what I want, with my software. If it's not my software, great, don't give it to me. As soon as it hits my device, though, it becomes my software. Your legalese does not change that. C) I want to support companies that make media that I enjoy. I currently cannot do that. I keep trying to throw money at companies to get the media in a way I want, but they won't accept it. That's a terrible business model.
- scarface74 9y ago
  Video has always been DRM free, if you know where to get it. DRM does not prevent people from pirating. This has been proven endlessly. It only hurts paying customers. Even in the 80s I could get a DRM-free copy of a movie because the DRM had been stripped out. I never said that video wasn't always available DRM free. I said that the content distributors never distributed the video DRM free. I should be able to do what I want, with my software. If it's not my software, great, don't give it to me. As soon as it hits my device, though, it becomes my software. Your legalese does not change that. It is your software. Just like a PS4 game is your software. When you bought the software you bought it with known compatibility constraints. Why would you expect commercial proprietary software to run on hardware that they don't support any more than you would expect a PS4 game to run on an Xbox One?
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    > Video has never been DRM free is what you said, which is far from the same comment as "the content distributors never distributed the video DRM free." If you meant something else, you might want to adjust that. If something is incompatible, that is one issue, but if something is intentionally blocked from being compatible, that has moved to being an ethical problem. Those are two completely different scenarios. If someone could modify their xbox to run ps4 games, I see no problem with that, and would take issue with someone actively trying to prevent them from doing that.