4 ms·

DRM is just a huge pile of shit. I mean, if it would actually work I would say okay, at least we have a solution that everyone is somehow happy with. But instea

DRM is just a huge pile of shit. I mean, if it would actually work I would say okay, at least we have a solution that everyone is somehow happy with. But instead we consumers just loose. To give a few examples: - When I want to watch movies on Amazon Prime Video, there are some movies I can't watch in HD, even if I paid for HD (so the movie obviously exists in HD; probably dependent on the rights holder). The problem is that I can't see if I can watch the HD version before I buy the movie. - On Netflix, I don't get 1080 at all with my browser, even if I pay for 4k. - Every few weeks, Spotify pushes a broken version of their web player to the website and from one moment to the other, I can't listen to 'my' music anymore until they fix it. The good news is that it seems to happen less frequently lately. Nevertheless, that would not be a problem if I could listen to 'my' music with a normal mp3 player. - A few hours ago, I wanted to play a game, but guess what... Steam had a network problem [1] and didn't even let me enter the offline mode. [1] https://store.steampowered.com/stats/ https://store.steampowered.com/stats/

fratlas 8y ago
The Netflix issue isn't really DRM, it's just a way to minimize bandwidth[1]; they found HQ 720 encodes to be sufficient quality for most consumers. I personally find it lacking. [1]: https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/per-title-encode-optimization-7e99442b62a2 https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/per-title-encode-optimiz...
- monocasa 8y ago
  Nah, it's a DRM thing. You get 4k if you open it in edge with their PlayReady DRM.
  - eMSF 8y ago
    There are (or at least were) some titles which even Edge didn't show in HD, but the Windows Store application does (did). But even then, certain drivers like virtual audio devices might restrict all available methods to lousy SD quality that requires a full reinstall of Windows to reset.
- dre54673 8y ago
  I pay for 4k netflix but can't watch it on my computer because of drm. On Chrome it only streams up to 720p, and I have to use Edge for 1080p. To stream 4k you need to use their microsoft store app, a specific high-end processor or graphics card, and on top of that you also need a monitor that supports hdcp 2.2. I have all of the above (1080ti and hdcp 2.2 compliant monitor) but still can't stream 4k because my second monitor is not hdcp 2.2 compliant. The monitor states that it is but I couldn't get it to work even after extensive research. All of my setup is pretty modern and high-end and I still can't stream 4k netflix because drm hardware keeps evolving. If this is supposed to make me pirate less, it's not very effective.
  - SolarNet 8y ago
    Ah this actually explains something I have been wondering about. My new computer with firefox sometimes hitches and blacks out all the screens when I start/stop watching certain netflix content. I just realized this must be a DRM thing.
  - isatty 8y ago
    I have a 1080ti too, 2x HDCP2.2 (over DP) compatible monitors and a 1 gbps connection and yet I can’t even stream 1080p content on Linux, much less 4K. I guess it’s still me to blame because I pay for it for friends and family who use my account. Anyway check your cable if your monitor states that it’s compatible.
- phire 8y ago
  The blog post you link explicitly mentions that they have 1080p streams (and since then they have added 4k). That post makes no claims about 720p being sufficient for consumers. And if you have the right combination of browser, os, Intel CPU, GPU and monitor to have intact DRM of the required level, Netflix will stream you the 1080p or 4k stream
  - fratlas 8y ago
    It states it depends on bandwidth, sometimes 720 is served. I certainly receive 720p in aus.
x220 8y ago
>- A few hours ago, I wanted to play a game, but guess what... Steam had a network problem [1] and didn't even let me enter the offline mode. I think Steam is a really good (not shitty) DRM enforcer. A very occasional lapse in service is acceptable for entertainment platforms. I use steam because it is actually easier to use their DRM systems than it is to, for example, buy CDs or download individual game installers.
- danShumway 8y ago
  > A very occasional lapse in service is acceptable for entertainment platforms. I would generally agree that this is acceptable, but it's still a step backwards from Itch and GOG, where my library literally never has a lapse in service. Steam is arguably one of the best DRM solutions out there, but even the best solution on the market still has worse uptime and reliability than a store that just provides users with a bunch of DRM free downloads that they can launch offline whenever they want. Of course, platforms like Itch don't have cloud saves. But Steam's DRM isn't essential for cloud saves, or for the community workshop, or for the storefront, or for the library management tools. The DRM part of it doesn't add any value to the consumer. So while Steam is an excellent product, Steam without DRM would still be a better product than it is right now. That's what people mean when they complain about DRM. You can take a great product and add DRM in a way that doesn't completely break it, but it's still pretty much always a strict downgrade in user experience. People look at services like Steam and think, "yeah, this is acceptable. But it could so easily be really great."
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    > "Of course, platforms like Itch don't have cloud saves. But Steam's DRM isn't essential for cloud saves," To this point, GOG supports cloud saves.
- callmeal 8y ago
  >I think Steam is a really good (not shitty) DRM enforcer. It may be a good DRM enforcer, but as a UI it's terrible and intrusive. There's no way to turn off all those popup messages and game related alerts. I had to give up on steam once they started doing that.
Simon_says 8y ago
Makes one wonder why you're still bothering to pay money for something you're not getting...
sonnyblarney 8y ago
I think this is the most important point. Consumers are not going to put up with all sorts of shenanigans regarding browsers, monitor support etc. etc. - it's an ugly mess. If it 'just works' - then I think most people will accept 'paying for content' as a premise. But when the pieces don't fit together because industry players don't see the 'big picture' ... it will just be bad for everyone and ironically encourage piracy.
- Mindwipe 8y ago
  Looking at Netflix's numbers, they are. Bluntly I expect Netflix could stop supporting PCs and browsers entirely and feel very few negative effects.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Actually I think it would be painful. They could get away with it, but not without remorse. There are just tons of people who watch netflix on their laptops and mobile, it's part of the promise I think. It'd be bad.
Lennie 8y ago
Nobody cares about pirating, it's when the masses are able to do the pirating easily and get the content easily that is when things break down. That is what DRM is about preventing. If some knowledgeable people can copy it and put it low-fi on some competitor of Youtube and Google doesn't show in in search results. That isn't that bad. That means the general public won't easily find it.

fratlas 8y ago

The Netflix issue isn't really DRM, it's just a way to minimize bandwidth[1]; they found HQ 720 encodes to be sufficient quality for most consumers. I personally find it lacking. [1]: https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/per-title-encode-optimization-7e99442b62a2 https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/per-title-encode-optimiz...

monocasa 8y ago
Nah, it's a DRM thing. You get 4k if you open it in edge with their PlayReady DRM.
- eMSF 8y ago
  There are (or at least were) some titles which even Edge didn't show in HD, but the Windows Store application does (did). But even then, certain drivers like virtual audio devices might restrict all available methods to lousy SD quality that requires a full reinstall of Windows to reset.
dre54673 8y ago
I pay for 4k netflix but can't watch it on my computer because of drm. On Chrome it only streams up to 720p, and I have to use Edge for 1080p. To stream 4k you need to use their microsoft store app, a specific high-end processor or graphics card, and on top of that you also need a monitor that supports hdcp 2.2. I have all of the above (1080ti and hdcp 2.2 compliant monitor) but still can't stream 4k because my second monitor is not hdcp 2.2 compliant. The monitor states that it is but I couldn't get it to work even after extensive research. All of my setup is pretty modern and high-end and I still can't stream 4k netflix because drm hardware keeps evolving. If this is supposed to make me pirate less, it's not very effective.
- SolarNet 8y ago
  Ah this actually explains something I have been wondering about. My new computer with firefox sometimes hitches and blacks out all the screens when I start/stop watching certain netflix content. I just realized this must be a DRM thing.
- isatty 8y ago
  I have a 1080ti too, 2x HDCP2.2 (over DP) compatible monitors and a 1 gbps connection and yet I can’t even stream 1080p content on Linux, much less 4K. I guess it’s still me to blame because I pay for it for friends and family who use my account. Anyway check your cable if your monitor states that it’s compatible.
phire 8y ago
The blog post you link explicitly mentions that they have 1080p streams (and since then they have added 4k). That post makes no claims about 720p being sufficient for consumers. And if you have the right combination of browser, os, Intel CPU, GPU and monitor to have intact DRM of the required level, Netflix will stream you the 1080p or 4k stream
- fratlas 8y ago
  It states it depends on bandwidth, sometimes 720 is served. I certainly receive 720p in aus.

x220 8y ago

>- A few hours ago, I wanted to play a game, but guess what... Steam had a network problem [1] and didn't even let me enter the offline mode. I think Steam is a really good (not shitty) DRM enforcer. A very occasional lapse in service is acceptable for entertainment platforms. I use steam because it is actually easier to use their DRM systems than it is to, for example, buy CDs or download individual game installers.

danShumway 8y ago
> A very occasional lapse in service is acceptable for entertainment platforms. I would generally agree that this is acceptable, but it's still a step backwards from Itch and GOG, where my library literally never has a lapse in service. Steam is arguably one of the best DRM solutions out there, but even the best solution on the market still has worse uptime and reliability than a store that just provides users with a bunch of DRM free downloads that they can launch offline whenever they want. Of course, platforms like Itch don't have cloud saves. But Steam's DRM isn't essential for cloud saves, or for the community workshop, or for the storefront, or for the library management tools. The DRM part of it doesn't add any value to the consumer. So while Steam is an excellent product, Steam without DRM would still be a better product than it is right now. That's what people mean when they complain about DRM. You can take a great product and add DRM in a way that doesn't completely break it, but it's still pretty much always a strict downgrade in user experience. People look at services like Steam and think, "yeah, this is acceptable. But it could so easily be really great."
- darkpuma 8y ago
  > "Of course, platforms like Itch don't have cloud saves. But Steam's DRM isn't essential for cloud saves," To this point, GOG supports cloud saves.
callmeal 8y ago
>I think Steam is a really good (not shitty) DRM enforcer. It may be a good DRM enforcer, but as a UI it's terrible and intrusive. There's no way to turn off all those popup messages and game related alerts. I had to give up on steam once they started doing that.

Simon_says 8y ago

Makes one wonder why you're still bothering to pay money for something you're not getting...

sonnyblarney 8y ago

I think this is the most important point. Consumers are not going to put up with all sorts of shenanigans regarding browsers, monitor support etc. etc. - it's an ugly mess. If it 'just works' - then I think most people will accept 'paying for content' as a premise. But when the pieces don't fit together because industry players don't see the 'big picture' ... it will just be bad for everyone and ironically encourage piracy.

Mindwipe 8y ago
Looking at Netflix's numbers, they are. Bluntly I expect Netflix could stop supporting PCs and browsers entirely and feel very few negative effects.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Actually I think it would be painful. They could get away with it, but not without remorse. There are just tons of people who watch netflix on their laptops and mobile, it's part of the promise I think. It'd be bad.

Lennie 8y ago

Nobody cares about pirating, it's when the masses are able to do the pirating easily and get the content easily that is when things break down. That is what DRM is about preventing. If some knowledgeable people can copy it and put it low-fi on some competitor of Youtube and Google doesn't show in in search results. That isn't that bad. That means the general public won't easily find it.