4 ms·

I don't see DRM-free options as a mistake though. I suppose it's good that Apple played a role in forcing one DRM obsessed segment into adopting DRM-free approa

by shmerl 8y ago

I don't see DRM-free options as a mistake though. I suppose it's good that Apple played a role in forcing one DRM obsessed segment into adopting DRM-free approach, but video could learn from music industry, which successfully profits despite the absence of DRM, and do the same thing. Streaming doesn't replace DRM-free purchasing, thus the issues in the parent topic itself.

scarface74 8y ago
By the same mistake I meant letting Apple be the dominant force in video like it was in downloadable music. It could dictate terms.
- shmerl 8y ago
  Right, which I guess highlights that DRM is really about the classic urge for control, rather than tool against piracy and etc.
- thirdsun 8y ago
  But how does this relate to DRM or explain the lack thereof? If every platform can offer DRM-free movies, similar to the music I can buy everywhere, how does that put Apple in a dominant position? Sounds more like an equal playing field to me.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    The music industry getting rid of DRM was never about the customer - it was the only way that the music industry could both reduce Apple’s stranglehold on digital music and let competitors sell music that was compatible with Apples dominant devices. The movie industry doesn’t have that issue. Anyone can license and sell video that works on Apple devices via an app an Apple is not dominant in the video delivery devices market like it was in the music market during the iPod era. Apple can’t dictate terms. Getting rid of DRM was suppose to give the music industry back its power (and then Spotify happened). Getting rid of DRM doesn’t do anything for the movie industry. But most studios are happy to be a part of Movies Anywhere that let you sync purchases between Apple/Google/Amazon/Vudu.
    - shmerl 8y ago
      > Getting rid of DRM doesn’t do anything for the movie industry. In the sense of paranoid control, it doesn't. In practice it will increase their profits, since they'll address the market that they currently ignore, switching some users from pirating to buying the same thing legally.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        The number of people who don’t buy movies because of an ethical concern over DRM is minuscule compared to the number of people who would share movies if they could easily. The population of people who wouldn’t buy DRMd video because it was inconvenient or wouldn’t play on their desired device is larger. The answer to that is make your player ubiquitous across all devices - and even Apple is starting to do that. The other answer is to make your purchase shareable across providers. Movies Anywhere is doing that with 4 of the major studios.
        shmerl 8y ago
        Whether it's ethical or pragmatical, this number is not small. Either case, it's not zero, so they are losing profits clearly. While they continue ignoring it, people will continue pirating it. Making DRM ubiquitous if futile. And costs a lot more than simply releasing DRM-free video. So it's the worst way to address the issue, since it doesn't even address it.
        scarface74 8y ago
        Are the number of people who won't buy media because of DRM > the number of lost sales due to casual piracy for people who don't know how to torrent? And if you are looking for something that's not recent and/or popular, trying to find a seeded torrent can be prohibitive. Add to that the number of people who won't pirate because of getting one warning letter and people who don't want to bother trying to figure out how to get a movie to their device. Heck, I know how to do all of that, have a Plex server set up etc. But these days it's not even worth the hassle. I'll just spend the 3-6 bucks on a rental.

by shmerl 8y ago

scarface74 8y ago

By the same mistake I meant letting Apple be the dominant force in video like it was in downloadable music. It could dictate terms.

shmerl 8y ago
Right, which I guess highlights that DRM is really about the classic urge for control, rather than tool against piracy and etc.
thirdsun 8y ago
But how does this relate to DRM or explain the lack thereof? If every platform can offer DRM-free movies, similar to the music I can buy everywhere, how does that put Apple in a dominant position? Sounds more like an equal playing field to me.
- scarface74 8y ago
  The music industry getting rid of DRM was never about the customer - it was the only way that the music industry could both reduce Apple’s stranglehold on digital music and let competitors sell music that was compatible with Apples dominant devices. The movie industry doesn’t have that issue. Anyone can license and sell video that works on Apple devices via an app an Apple is not dominant in the video delivery devices market like it was in the music market during the iPod era. Apple can’t dictate terms. Getting rid of DRM was suppose to give the music industry back its power (and then Spotify happened). Getting rid of DRM doesn’t do anything for the movie industry. But most studios are happy to be a part of Movies Anywhere that let you sync purchases between Apple/Google/Amazon/Vudu.
  - shmerl 8y ago
    > Getting rid of DRM doesn’t do anything for the movie industry. In the sense of paranoid control, it doesn't. In practice it will increase their profits, since they'll address the market that they currently ignore, switching some users from pirating to buying the same thing legally.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      The number of people who don’t buy movies because of an ethical concern over DRM is minuscule compared to the number of people who would share movies if they could easily. The population of people who wouldn’t buy DRMd video because it was inconvenient or wouldn’t play on their desired device is larger. The answer to that is make your player ubiquitous across all devices - and even Apple is starting to do that. The other answer is to make your purchase shareable across providers. Movies Anywhere is doing that with 4 of the major studios.
      - shmerl 8y ago
        Whether it's ethical or pragmatical, this number is not small. Either case, it's not zero, so they are losing profits clearly. While they continue ignoring it, people will continue pirating it. Making DRM ubiquitous if futile. And costs a lot more than simply releasing DRM-free video. So it's the worst way to address the issue, since it doesn't even address it.
        scarface74 8y ago
        Are the number of people who won't buy media because of DRM > the number of lost sales due to casual piracy for people who don't know how to torrent? And if you are looking for something that's not recent and/or popular, trying to find a seeded torrent can be prohibitive. Add to that the number of people who won't pirate because of getting one warning letter and people who don't want to bother trying to figure out how to get a movie to their device. Heck, I know how to do all of that, have a Plex server set up etc. But these days it's not even worth the hassle. I'll just spend the 3-6 bucks on a rental.