7 ms·

How can Netflix survive if you're able to pay $15 and download every video they have?

pmoriarty 9y ago
"If you want to steal shit that's your prerogative, but don't pretend like you have moral high ground." Whether making a copy of a sequence of numbers without depriving the "owner" of those numbers of anything is theft is debatable.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- analognoise 9y ago
  That sequence of 0s and 1s cost money to make.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    But it's free to distribute. So instead of charging customers for distribution, they should be charging customers the up-front cost of production.
    - camhenlin 9y ago
      How do you suggest that they do that?
      - jameskegel 9y ago
        Crowd fund production
      - CaptSpify 9y ago
        That is a good question, and I'm not sure I have a good answer. Kickstarter and Patreon seem to be doing pretty well, but AFAIK they haven't been used to such a scale so they may not work for this. This is a big issue and our economy is largely suffering for it, but old-world thinking about treating digital goods like physical goods is a poor response.
        TruffleMuffin 9y ago
        Veronica Mars movie was made through kickstarter way back when. That was successful, and specifically covered cost of production. I can't remember the donation system, but most tiers got free digital copy of the film.
        shmerl 9y ago
        It was a total failure at release though, since WB didn't make it available DRM-free[1]. It's a counter example of how to do things. The end result was - never trust WB. A proper example would be something like Kung Fury[2]. 1. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140314/23410326583/warner-bros-turns-kickstarter-success-story-into-flaming-mess-with-proprietary-platforms-drm.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140314/23410326583/warne... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fury
    - SapphireSun 9y ago
      I'm not against this, but it goes against the grain of a capitalist economy as it does not maximize overall profits. For this concept to work at scale, we might need to rejigger the whole economy.
      - shmerl 9y ago
        It goes against the concept of commercialized art I'd say. Which is probably a good thing.
      - CaptSpify 9y ago
        and? Just because our economic models are out of date doesn't mean we need to change the way we behave to keep shoe-horning them in. It means we need to change our models to reflect reality.
        SapphireSun 9y ago
        To be clear, I am totally on board with reimagining the economy. Sorry, that didn't come through in my post.
        CaptSpify 9y ago
        My apologies. I feel my response was a bit defensive. I guess I'm just used to people arguing that "it would hurt because of $short_term_economic_issue, so we shouldn't consider it at all!"
dec0dedab0de 9y ago
Because it has the effect of making it difficult for honest users to use their product on platforms they arent developing for. While at the same time pirates have no trouble getting their content.
will_hughes 9y ago
Someone who's going to pirate can readily get all of that content from various sources already. I highly doubt that anyone has been persuaded to buy a Netflix subscription because of Netflix's use of DRM. As for 'shady' -- well, not a word I'd necessarily use, but there's plenty of examples where DRM has blocked access to legitimately purchased content.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- kerbalspacepro 9y ago
  Netflix isn't using DRM for the customers, its using DRM for the content providers. It isn't there job to fix the rest of the Internet
  - shmerl 9y ago
    > Netflix isn't using DRM for the customers, its using DRM for the content providers. That doesn't for their own video. Whom are they using it for in that case? > It isn't there job to fix the rest of the Internet Apparently it's their job to break it though, by pushing this garbage into he standard.
shmerl 9y ago
1. DRM only hurts legitimate users. 2. Netflix claimed it's not their intent to use DRM, but demand comes from film publishers who distribute content through them. 3. Netflix make their own films now, but you can't find them DRM-free (legally). Ergo, it's also their fault DRM was pushed into HTML. Q.E.D.
- jackcnreturns 9y ago
  For whatever reason you seem to be on a puritanical crusade against anything DRM. So tell me again how Netflix subscribers, who are only purchasing the right to be able to stream videos on a limited release cycle, are hurt by Netflix's use of DRM? I followed the massive draconian DRM push by the gaming industry, MPAA and RIAA during the 00s and let me tell you son - this ain't nothing close.
  - shmerl 9y ago
    Not whatever, but quite simple reason of DRM being unethical overreaching preemptive policing methodology, on top of which is built an entire corrupted and undemocratic set of legal mechanisms like DMCA-1201 (anti-circumvention provisions). >So tell me again how Netflix subscribers, who are only purchasing the right to be able to stream videos on a limited release cycle, are hurt by Netflix's use of DRM? Others already brought examples above with this DRM limiting usability of where videos can be watched. But that's a minor damage in comparison with damage done by DRM pushed into HTML standard itself, in which Netflix is complicit. See https://boingboing.net/2017/03/21/we-cant-handle-the-truth.html https://boingboing.net/2017/03/21/we-cant-handle-the-truth.h...
  - flukus 9y ago
    As someone else mentioned, netflix subscribers are hurt because only people using edge can get the 1080p version due to DRM. Non-paying pirates get the good version, paying customers get the low quality one.
    - skybrian 9y ago
      Who are these videophiles who actually care about 1080p? It seems like if the show is any good, you don't need 1080p to enjoy it. Okay, I'm old, but we watched movies on VHS and it was a lot better than broadcast signal in a rural area. DVD's are very clear in comparison. HDTV is just icing on the cake.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

"If you want to steal shit that's your prerogative, but don't pretend like you have moral high ground." Whether making a copy of a sequence of numbers without depriving the "owner" of those numbers of anything is theft is debatable.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
analognoise 9y ago
That sequence of 0s and 1s cost money to make.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  But it's free to distribute. So instead of charging customers for distribution, they should be charging customers the up-front cost of production.
  - camhenlin 9y ago
    How do you suggest that they do that?
    - jameskegel 9y ago
      Crowd fund production
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      That is a good question, and I'm not sure I have a good answer. Kickstarter and Patreon seem to be doing pretty well, but AFAIK they haven't been used to such a scale so they may not work for this. This is a big issue and our economy is largely suffering for it, but old-world thinking about treating digital goods like physical goods is a poor response.
      - TruffleMuffin 9y ago
        Veronica Mars movie was made through kickstarter way back when. That was successful, and specifically covered cost of production. I can't remember the donation system, but most tiers got free digital copy of the film.
        shmerl 9y ago
        It was a total failure at release though, since WB didn't make it available DRM-free[1]. It's a counter example of how to do things. The end result was - never trust WB. A proper example would be something like Kung Fury[2]. 1. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140314/23410326583/warner-bros-turns-kickstarter-success-story-into-flaming-mess-with-proprietary-platforms-drm.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140314/23410326583/warne... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fury
  - SapphireSun 9y ago
    I'm not against this, but it goes against the grain of a capitalist economy as it does not maximize overall profits. For this concept to work at scale, we might need to rejigger the whole economy.
    - shmerl 9y ago
      It goes against the concept of commercialized art I'd say. Which is probably a good thing.
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      and? Just because our economic models are out of date doesn't mean we need to change the way we behave to keep shoe-horning them in. It means we need to change our models to reflect reality.
      - SapphireSun 9y ago
        To be clear, I am totally on board with reimagining the economy. Sorry, that didn't come through in my post.
        CaptSpify 9y ago
        My apologies. I feel my response was a bit defensive. I guess I'm just used to people arguing that "it would hurt because of $short_term_economic_issue, so we shouldn't consider it at all!"

dec0dedab0de 9y ago

Because it has the effect of making it difficult for honest users to use their product on platforms they arent developing for. While at the same time pirates have no trouble getting their content.

will_hughes 9y ago

Someone who's going to pirate can readily get all of that content from various sources already. I highly doubt that anyone has been persuaded to buy a Netflix subscription because of Netflix's use of DRM. As for 'shady' -- well, not a word I'd necessarily use, but there's plenty of examples where DRM has blocked access to legitimately purchased content.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kerbalspacepro 9y ago
Netflix isn't using DRM for the customers, its using DRM for the content providers. It isn't there job to fix the rest of the Internet
- shmerl 9y ago
  > Netflix isn't using DRM for the customers, its using DRM for the content providers. That doesn't for their own video. Whom are they using it for in that case? > It isn't there job to fix the rest of the Internet Apparently it's their job to break it though, by pushing this garbage into he standard.

shmerl 9y ago

1. DRM only hurts legitimate users. 2. Netflix claimed it's not their intent to use DRM, but demand comes from film publishers who distribute content through them. 3. Netflix make their own films now, but you can't find them DRM-free (legally). Ergo, it's also their fault DRM was pushed into HTML. Q.E.D.

jackcnreturns 9y ago
For whatever reason you seem to be on a puritanical crusade against anything DRM. So tell me again how Netflix subscribers, who are only purchasing the right to be able to stream videos on a limited release cycle, are hurt by Netflix's use of DRM? I followed the massive draconian DRM push by the gaming industry, MPAA and RIAA during the 00s and let me tell you son - this ain't nothing close.
- shmerl 9y ago
  Not whatever, but quite simple reason of DRM being unethical overreaching preemptive policing methodology, on top of which is built an entire corrupted and undemocratic set of legal mechanisms like DMCA-1201 (anti-circumvention provisions). >So tell me again how Netflix subscribers, who are only purchasing the right to be able to stream videos on a limited release cycle, are hurt by Netflix's use of DRM? Others already brought examples above with this DRM limiting usability of where videos can be watched. But that's a minor damage in comparison with damage done by DRM pushed into HTML standard itself, in which Netflix is complicit. See https://boingboing.net/2017/03/21/we-cant-handle-the-truth.html https://boingboing.net/2017/03/21/we-cant-handle-the-truth.h...
- flukus 9y ago
  As someone else mentioned, netflix subscribers are hurt because only people using edge can get the 1080p version due to DRM. Non-paying pirates get the good version, paying customers get the low quality one.
  - skybrian 9y ago
    Who are these videophiles who actually care about 1080p? It seems like if the show is any good, you don't need 1080p to enjoy it. Okay, I'm old, but we watched movies on VHS and it was a lot better than broadcast signal in a rural area. DVD's are very clear in comparison. HDTV is just icing on the cake.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]