3 ms·

How is this any different than the protections for other products that you have to buy? The whole point is you need to pay for it, and the producer needs to ens

How is this any different than the protections for other products that you have to buy? The whole point is you need to pay for it, and the producer needs to ensure you actually did so. I understand the technical issues with DRM which can have a poor UX sometimes, but for the most part it's only a problem if you didn't actually pay for the content. The rise of Netflix and streaming services show that it's working fine for millions. Your arguments seem to be based on the assumption that content should be free. That's the fundamental issue, and I don't agree. I doubt many creators and producers would either, not without some alternative answer to monetization. Do you have a solution for that?

nybble41 6y ago
> I understand the technical issues with DRM which can have a poor UX sometimes, but for the most part it's only a problem if you didn't actually pay for the content. Actually, most of the UX problems only show up if you did pay. The people who download the content for free get the better product: an unrestricted file that they can use pretty much anywhere. Subscribers taking the legal route are stuck dealing with a bunch of different services, each with its own special blend of UX issues on top of the poor UX from the fragmentation itself. > Your arguments seem to be based on the assumption that content should be free. Not content should be free per se but rather content should be freely redistributed. Many people producing new content will still want to be paid for their work, and that's fine. They just need to ensure that they get paid before the content is out in public where anyone can copy it, since they will no longer have a legal monopoly on distribution after that point. Patreon, Kickstarter, and others offer one model for funding the production of creative works for public distribution. Others would include sponsorship and donations. Open source development is another option which can be applied to more than just software—just look at the various Blender open movie projects[1], all of which are distributed to the public for free and were funded with a combination of donations, sponsorship, and volunteer contributions. [1] https://www.blender.org/about/projects/ https://www.blender.org/about/projects/

nybble41 6y ago

> I understand the technical issues with DRM which can have a poor UX sometimes, but for the most part it's only a problem if you didn't actually pay for the content. Actually, most of the UX problems only show up if you did pay. The people who download the content for free get the better product: an unrestricted file that they can use pretty much anywhere. Subscribers taking the legal route are stuck dealing with a bunch of different services, each with its own special blend of UX issues on top of the poor UX from the fragmentation itself. > Your arguments seem to be based on the assumption that content should be free. Not content should be free per se but rather content should be freely redistributed. Many people producing new content will still want to be paid for their work, and that's fine. They just need to ensure that they get paid before the content is out in public where anyone can copy it, since they will no longer have a legal monopoly on distribution after that point. Patreon, Kickstarter, and others offer one model for funding the production of creative works for public distribution. Others would include sponsorship and donations. Open source development is another option which can be applied to more than just software—just look at the various Blender open movie projects[1], all of which are distributed to the public for free and were funded with a combination of donations, sponsorship, and volunteer contributions. [1] https://www.blender.org/about/projects/ https://www.blender.org/about/projects/