5 ms·

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

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.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    So you missed the part of the post where I said "Video right holders have never allowed their content to be delivered without copy protections."? Netflix was completely incompatible with PC operating systems that didn't run Silverlight. Netflix is nowe incompatible with operating systems that don't support the required DRM -- which is now a greater subset of operating systems.
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      > So you missed the part of the post where I said "Video right holders have never allowed their content to be delivered without copy protections."? No, but I kind of ignored it as that argument is irrelevant. What they've always done has no bearing on the situation. It was illogical then, and it's illogical now. Nothing has changed. Yeah, they are compatible with more systems, but at the cost of screwing up the standard. Just because it's no longer tied to Silverlight is irrelevant. None of that refutes any of my arguments. They could just throw their weight around release the videos DRM free and be done with it, but they choose not to.
      - scarface74 9y ago
        No, but I kind of ignored it as that argument is irrelevant. What they've always done has no bearing on the situation So I might want to adjust my comment even though you admittedly ignored what I said and the context I said it in? Saying it's illogical to put DRM on content because it can be broken is just as illogical as saying it is illogical to lock your car door because a thief can break the window. What "weight" does Netflix have against the entire movie and music industry?

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.
- scarface74 9y ago
  So you missed the part of the post where I said "Video right holders have never allowed their content to be delivered without copy protections."? Netflix was completely incompatible with PC operating systems that didn't run Silverlight. Netflix is nowe incompatible with operating systems that don't support the required DRM -- which is now a greater subset of operating systems.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    > So you missed the part of the post where I said "Video right holders have never allowed their content to be delivered without copy protections."? No, but I kind of ignored it as that argument is irrelevant. What they've always done has no bearing on the situation. It was illogical then, and it's illogical now. Nothing has changed. Yeah, they are compatible with more systems, but at the cost of screwing up the standard. Just because it's no longer tied to Silverlight is irrelevant. None of that refutes any of my arguments. They could just throw their weight around release the videos DRM free and be done with it, but they choose not to.
    - scarface74 9y ago
      No, but I kind of ignored it as that argument is irrelevant. What they've always done has no bearing on the situation So I might want to adjust my comment even though you admittedly ignored what I said and the context I said it in? Saying it's illogical to put DRM on content because it can be broken is just as illogical as saying it is illogical to lock your car door because a thief can break the window. What "weight" does Netflix have against the entire movie and music industry?