8 ms·

If we deleted DRM, streaming services would cease to exist overnight — all their license grants being revoked, leaving them with nothing to serve — and we'd go

If we deleted DRM, streaming services would cease to exist overnight — all their license grants being revoked, leaving them with nothing to serve — and we'd go back to just relying upon the iTunes Music Store / Netflix DVD rental model. Why is that? You can download everything for free. I don't think people use Netflix to access otherwise inaccessible content but rather because it's more convenient than searching for the right torrent link.

tluyben2 4y ago
Exactly. Everything is already available and there are really simple ways to find, download, watch and even stream everything but they all have hurdles; how to know the quality you download, download speed (not everyone has fiber or Starlink etc), riddled with fakes, malware etc. Then streaming services that are illegal: again; finding good quality, porn ads popping up during watching, crypto miners in your browser, application installation attempts etc. It is just far easier to just watch Netflix etc; if it had no drm, the vast majority would not change anything I would think, especially because the GP already said: no-one cares about drm. If they don’t care it doesn’t matter either way for most people (not the handful of Hn readers). It is like privacy; the vast majority of people don’t care; just the few that worry about dystopia.
- herbst 4y ago
  'Illegal' streaming services are legal for private use where I live. In German there is a huge market with many sites featuring basically any movie in different quality settings. I have an adblock, no idea which kind of evil ads they usually use. With Kodi I also have all of that on my TV available just as easy as Netflix. However many if not most people still use Netflix even thought they have no real reason to.
  - frederikb 4y ago
    Just as a heads up: to my knowledge that's not correct in Germany. It's only highly unlikely to get "abgemahnt" in addition to the difficulty of obtaining IP addresses of users in comparison to alternatives such as Torrents. But not getting caught != legal. Streaming from a „offensichtlich rechtswidrige Vorlage“ (§ 53 UrhG.) is not legal. That has been clarified by a decision from the EuGH in 2017. I'm not a lawyer though and this isn't legal advice. Let me know if there have been verdicts and legal proceedings stating the contrary.
    - herbst 4y ago
      I am Swiss. I just use German internet. Should have made this more clear
  - dtx1 4y ago
    > With Kodi I also have all of that on my TV available just as easy as Netflix. As an additional warning, some kodi addons are torrent based and thus potentially risky in germany without using an anonymisation service like a vpn
    - herbst 4y ago
      Most Kodi plugins for the German market are based on direct downloads. I too wouldn't recommend this to user from a more strict country, however it's completely legal to download for private reasons here in Switzerland
  - tluyben2 4y ago
    Many people in NL (my country) also think it's legal, while it's not. Are you sure it is legal and not just a persistent untruth? Anyway; what adblocker? I use adblock plus and it works for most sites, but not these type of sites; they seem to use every trick in the book.
    - thfuran 4y ago
      I'm not sure what they're using but ublock origin is the go to these days.
    - herbst 4y ago
      UBlock + PiHole. Also I am Swiss not German. It's actually legal for private use here.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Yeah, however better protect that router access, as in Germany you are responsible for anyone that accesses the Internet via it. So that private use can quickly become public for those less technically inclined.
    - qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
      https://www.verbraucherzentrale.de/wissen/digitale-welt/mobilfunk-und-festnetz/stoererhaftung-besserer-schutz-fuer-wlanbetreiber-19261 https://www.verbraucherzentrale.de/wissen/digitale-welt/mobi... was removed?
      - pjmlp 4y ago
        I wasn't aware of it. Thanks for pointing it out.
- Zababa 4y ago
  > iddled with fakes, malware I've never had fakes nor malware in ~10 years of downloading stuff.
  - mcv 4y ago
    I haven't either, but it's absolutely true that streaming has taken a massive bite out of my downloading stuff. Ultimately, it should be easy. If using Netflix and Disney+ is easier than using the Pirate Bay, then I gladly pay for Netflix and Disney+. If it becomes harder, more frustrating, fragmented, ad-riddled, or I need additional subscriptions to access the stuff I want, at some point the Pirate Bay becomes more convenient again.
    - Zababa 4y ago
      That's not the case for me, as Netflix and Disney+ don't have what I want to watch.
  - raverbashing 4y ago
    10 years? Downloading stuff off the internet goes way longer than that There are plenty of fakes and mislabelings. some malware (especially on the download software) And before anyone complains, nobody needs a movie to take more than 700MB ;)
- malka 4y ago
  The answer to your first paragraph is "newsgroup" + tooling.
nomel 4y ago
If everyone downloaded, the outcome would be the same. No content would be produced if nobody was compensated for it. Some of us want to support the production studies creating the things we value. Some of us understand that we live in a society.
- zelphirkalt 4y ago
  Production studios could stop making a deal with "the devil", and instead ask directly for funding for a good project. Many great content creators are working on crowdfunding basis already. If people want to support good projects, they can do that. If not enough people support it, I guess that means, that not enough people were interested in that particular project. People could also have subscriptions to support creators regularly. I myself do that for several projects. I would like to see a cultural shift away from the idea, that one must go through some middleman to make and publish anything, towards the idea, that if you have a great project and you put yourself out there and people believe in your idea, they will support you and all of society reaps the benefits. We would become more a society of choice and self-informing, than a society of maximized consumption. At the same time, I think in many areas there is still a long way to go, to achieve that cultural shift.
  - nomel 4y ago
    > some middleman to make and publish anything These middleman, as all, come from a practical need, not cultural one. The people creating the content usually have no interest or skill in making marketing material, setting up meetings with venues, handle IP infringement/lawsuits, and all the other mind numbing boring stuff that these publishing studies handle that takes time away from their actual skill. I think the obvious outcome is that this middleman is automated, and split, but again, that's not a cultural shift, that's a practical one.
- wilsonnb3 4y ago
  > No content would be produced if nobody was compensated for it. This is not true. Many if not most artists create art because they enjoy it. What is true is that middle men like publishers and record labels wouldn’t exist if nobody paid for content. Coincidentally, they are also the ones who push the lie that nobody would make content if they weren’t paid.
derefr 4y ago
IP rights-holders are hyper-pessimistic paranoid control freaks. See also: the 30-year-long campaign by the RIAA to stop any kind of non-DRMed digital high-fidelity consumer recordable media from being marketed. They finally lost it with the advent of the CD-R, but it's the reason that MiniDisc had DRM, Digital Compact Cassette was never "a thing", etc.
JodieBenitez 4y ago
> it's more convenient than searching for the right torrent link. Where I live, you'll be fined if you download a movie torrent.
- Vladimof 4y ago
  Where is that? Is the fine reasonable? (ie: legalizing illicit torrents)
  - JodieBenitez 4y ago
    France. Fine can go up to 1500 euros, depending on infraction. Edit: you don't get fined on the first download, you have to repeat the infraction. First download only gets a warning. Edit again: Here's the warning you receive first: Madame, Monsieur, Vous avez souscrit un abonnement à internet auprès du fournisseur d’accès à internet <insert provider here>. Votre connexion internet a été utilisée pour télécharger et/ou mettre à disposition une ou plusieurs oeuvres protégées par le droit d'auteur : * Date et heure des faits : <insert datetime of infraction here> (Horaire GMT : l’heure de Paris correspond à l’heure GMT +1h en hiver et +2h en été) * Adresse IP: adresse IP <insert IP here>) * Logiciel(s)/protocole(s) : <insert torrent software used here>. Conséquences : Le téléchargement illégal, appelé couramment « piratage », prive les créateurs de leur rétribution et représente un danger pour l’économie du secteur culturel. Il vous expose en outre, vous et votre entourage, a des contenus inappropriés (pornographie, violence...) et/ou malveillants (virus, spams…). En l'absence d'autorisation des détenteurs des droits sur ces œuvres, les faits constatés peuvent constituer une infraction pénale et entraîner des poursuites devant le tribunal de police pour contravention de négligence caractérisée (punie d'une peine maximale de 1500 euros d'amende ou 7500 euros pour les personnes morales). L'utilisation qui est faite d'un accès à internet engageant la responsabilité personnelle du titulaire de l'abonnement, c'est donc vous qui êtes exposé(e) aux sanctions prévues par la loi. Le présent courriel constitue un premier avertissement. Si votre accès à internet est à nouveau utilisé pour des téléchargements illégaux ou des mises en partage d'œuvres protégées, l'Hadopi sera amenée à réexaminer votre dossier en vue de son éventuelle transmission à l'autorité judiciaire. Actions à mener : Je vous engage donc à prendre, sans délai, toute mesure utile pour éviter une nouvelle infraction. Vous pouvez consulter le site internet de l’Hadopi qui vous propose des fiches pratiques et des vidéos pédagogiques qui vous permettront notamment de : * Sécuriser votre accès à internet en paramétrant votre box. Vous pouvez également vous rapprocher de votre fournisseur d’accès à internet sur ce sujet : https://hadopi.fr/outils-usages/parametrer-sa-box https://hadopi.fr/outils-usages/parametrer-sa-box * Désinstaller les logiciels pair à pair de vos équipements : https://hadopi.fr/outils-usages/desinstaller-un-logiciel-pair-pair https://hadopi.fr/outils-usages/desinstaller-un-logiciel-pai... Par ailleurs, il existe sur internet de nombreuses offres légales disponibles. Pour vous aider : * L’Hadopi référence les offres légales labellisées par l’institution et celles apparaissant comme respectueuses des droits de propriété intellectuelle : https://hadopi.fr/outils-usages/rechercher-un-site-ou-un-service https://hadopi.fr/outils-usages/rechercher-un-site-ou-un-ser... * L’Hadopi vous donne également des indices pour identifier les sites illégaux. * Si l'œuvre que vous cherchez n’est pas disponible sur l’un des sites référencés par l’Hadopi, vous pouvez le signaler sur la page dédiée du site de l’Hadopi. L’ensemble de ces actions est disponible sur https://hadopi.fr/outils-usages https://hadopi.fr/outils-usages. Vous avez également la possibilité de formuler des observations et d'obtenir des renseignements, en contactant l’Hadopi : * Par voie électronique, en utilisant le formulaire suivant :https://cpdform.hadopi.fr/ https://cpdform.hadopi.fr/ notamment si vous souhaitez obtenir des précisions sur le titre des œuvres qui ont été téléchargées ou mises à disposition depuis votre connexion à internet ; * Par voie postale: Hadopi - Commission de protection des droits, 4 rue du Texel, 75014 Paris ; * Par téléphone au 09.69.32.90.90 (Appel non surtaxé de 9h à 12h30 et de 13h30 à 17h). Retrouvez toutes les informations utiles sur www.hadopi.fr/outils-usages/reagir-a-la-reception-dune-recommandation.
qalmakka 4y ago
This, exactly. DRM doesn't work, it never did. Piracy was and still is rampant.
microtonal 4y ago
Why is that? You can download everything for free. I don't think people use Netflix to access otherwise inaccessible content but rather because it's more convenient than searching for the right torrent link. Convenient, but also relatively affordable to do things the legal way. Back in the day when torrenting was popular, even among the general population, most new albums would cost 15-20 Euro, getting a movie season was 30-40 Euro. Now you can get as much music is you need for 10 Euro per month. The situation with video streaming is a bit more complex, because the market is fragmented, but regardless you can pick your service and watch quite a lot of material for 10 Euro per month. If you have to spend 50 Euro per month to get fresh music, torrenting looks far more attractive than when it's 10 Euro per month.
JasonFruit 4y ago
It's not just convenience. Some of us would rather stream content legally because it's a straightforward way to make sure the creators of what we watch or listen to get some compensation. I'm getting something I want from them, and their expectation is to get paid; I'd be doing wrong if they didn't get something in return.
- Retric 4y ago
  That’s a reasonable argument for new content, but hardly justifies paying for old content who’s creators are all dead.
  - JasonFruit 4y ago
    I don't think that's what was under discussion, at least as far as I could see. Yes, I agree that it's silly to go on paying forever to see Steamboat Willie, but I'm not going to download a bootleg copy of Infinity War, even though it sucked.
giantg2 4y ago
"Why is that? You can download everything for free. I don't think people use Netflix to access otherwise inaccessible content but rather because it's more convenient than searching for the right torrent link." Some people aren't comfortable doing illegal, potentially immoral, things like torrents of copyrighted works.
- RobertRoberts 4y ago
  Some people think it should be illegal to be able to read a book or watch a movie for free from the Library also. Disney originally wanted VHS tapes to lock so you had to pay them to rewind them. You may be affected by propaganda from very influential copyright holders with massive marketing power.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    You're talking about things that people think should be illegal. Nobody will punish you for visiting a library or rewinding a tape. What we are talking about are things that are actually illegal. You can be prosecuted or sued for copyright infringement by downloading torrents or illegally streaming. The moral/ethical side is more murky depending on how you want to look at things. For example, for me personally there is a big difference between things like libraries (a copy was purchased and allows one showing at a time), a rewind lock (interference with how you use something you purchased), and duplication (streaming included). The previous ones required someone to purchase. Does it cut into sales? Sure. But someone still paid money for a true copy and they copy is a single instance. With duplication the scale is different. It can affect sales drastically and hurt the workers (not just the stars and greedy companies). Some people may feel the latter is unethical/immoral. I tend to buy used stuff. I also just don't buy stuff if I think it's too expensive. I haven run into any issues with Netflix either.
    - RobertRoberts 4y ago
      You are right, it's murky, but I'd argue it's only murky because of powerful IP owners making it that way. There was a presentation by Lawerence Lessig everyone should watch from years ago. There was a time when by default _everything_ was public domain, unless explicitly copyrighted. This has flip-flopped to now where almost nothing is public domain. How did this happen? Money bought enforcement of made up rules and then laws were bought (lobbied?) to take everything out of the public domain. A simple legal test. Can you make a backup copy of your own data? Yes. Of your own movies? (still just data) Yes. But people still seem to think, maybe it's illegal when it is not. Can you give your backup copies of _your_ data to your friend? Yes. Even if it includes your movies? Yes. Why? Because under copyright laws it doesn't cause harm, it's not fraud, etc... I've been to court over copyright infringement, it's a civil issue in almost _every_ single case normal people would be involved in. Here's what it takes to be "criminal" where you are in trouble with the _law_. (Civil is a contract violation between people, _not_ with the government) * Done so for private or commercial financial gain; * Over 180 days, reproduced or distributed 1 or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of over $1,000; or * Released over a publicly accessible computer network material that was intended for commercial distribution [source: https://www.draskovich.com/blog/2019/december/is-copyright-infringement-a-civil-or-criminal-ma/ https://www.draskovich.com/blog/2019/december/is-copyright-i... ] Now, do you even know a _single_ person that has committed a _crime_ of copyright infringement? I would argue very, very likely no. Therefore, you making copies of your movies and giving them to friends (even over the internet) for _fun_ or whatever, constitutes civil copyright infringement, _not_ criminal. If you cross the street without using the crosswalk you are breaking a criminal law. If you drink booze under 21, criminal. If you smoke weed, criminal. If you copy a movie and even share it on the internet, NOT criminal, it's civil offense. This doesn't even get into the issues with consciences objections to insane laws. Last argument: If your core argument is loss of money if copyright was put back to 14 years instead of the bonkers length it is now, I argue patent law proves otherwise. And the rampant file sharing has not hurt any jobs I've heard of so far. (artificial scarcity/supply/demand) /rant

tluyben2 4y ago

Exactly. Everything is already available and there are really simple ways to find, download, watch and even stream everything but they all have hurdles; how to know the quality you download, download speed (not everyone has fiber or Starlink etc), riddled with fakes, malware etc. Then streaming services that are illegal: again; finding good quality, porn ads popping up during watching, crypto miners in your browser, application installation attempts etc. It is just far easier to just watch Netflix etc; if it had no drm, the vast majority would not change anything I would think, especially because the GP already said: no-one cares about drm. If they don’t care it doesn’t matter either way for most people (not the handful of Hn readers). It is like privacy; the vast majority of people don’t care; just the few that worry about dystopia.

herbst 4y ago
'Illegal' streaming services are legal for private use where I live. In German there is a huge market with many sites featuring basically any movie in different quality settings. I have an adblock, no idea which kind of evil ads they usually use. With Kodi I also have all of that on my TV available just as easy as Netflix. However many if not most people still use Netflix even thought they have no real reason to.
- frederikb 4y ago
  Just as a heads up: to my knowledge that's not correct in Germany. It's only highly unlikely to get "abgemahnt" in addition to the difficulty of obtaining IP addresses of users in comparison to alternatives such as Torrents. But not getting caught != legal. Streaming from a „offensichtlich rechtswidrige Vorlage“ (§ 53 UrhG.) is not legal. That has been clarified by a decision from the EuGH in 2017. I'm not a lawyer though and this isn't legal advice. Let me know if there have been verdicts and legal proceedings stating the contrary.
  - herbst 4y ago
    I am Swiss. I just use German internet. Should have made this more clear
- dtx1 4y ago
  > With Kodi I also have all of that on my TV available just as easy as Netflix. As an additional warning, some kodi addons are torrent based and thus potentially risky in germany without using an anonymisation service like a vpn
  - herbst 4y ago
    Most Kodi plugins for the German market are based on direct downloads. I too wouldn't recommend this to user from a more strict country, however it's completely legal to download for private reasons here in Switzerland
- tluyben2 4y ago
  Many people in NL (my country) also think it's legal, while it's not. Are you sure it is legal and not just a persistent untruth? Anyway; what adblocker? I use adblock plus and it works for most sites, but not these type of sites; they seem to use every trick in the book.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    I'm not sure what they're using but ublock origin is the go to these days.
  - herbst 4y ago
    UBlock + PiHole. Also I am Swiss not German. It's actually legal for private use here.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  Yeah, however better protect that router access, as in Germany you are responsible for anyone that accesses the Internet via it. So that private use can quickly become public for those less technically inclined.
  - qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
    https://www.verbraucherzentrale.de/wissen/digitale-welt/mobilfunk-und-festnetz/stoererhaftung-besserer-schutz-fuer-wlanbetreiber-19261 https://www.verbraucherzentrale.de/wissen/digitale-welt/mobi... was removed?
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      I wasn't aware of it. Thanks for pointing it out.
Zababa 4y ago
> iddled with fakes, malware I've never had fakes nor malware in ~10 years of downloading stuff.
- mcv 4y ago
  I haven't either, but it's absolutely true that streaming has taken a massive bite out of my downloading stuff. Ultimately, it should be easy. If using Netflix and Disney+ is easier than using the Pirate Bay, then I gladly pay for Netflix and Disney+. If it becomes harder, more frustrating, fragmented, ad-riddled, or I need additional subscriptions to access the stuff I want, at some point the Pirate Bay becomes more convenient again.
  - Zababa 4y ago
    That's not the case for me, as Netflix and Disney+ don't have what I want to watch.
- raverbashing 4y ago
  10 years? Downloading stuff off the internet goes way longer than that There are plenty of fakes and mislabelings. some malware (especially on the download software) And before anyone complains, nobody needs a movie to take more than 700MB ;)
malka 4y ago
The answer to your first paragraph is "newsgroup" + tooling.

nomel 4y ago

If everyone downloaded, the outcome would be the same. No content would be produced if nobody was compensated for it. Some of us want to support the production studies creating the things we value. Some of us understand that we live in a society.

zelphirkalt 4y ago
Production studios could stop making a deal with "the devil", and instead ask directly for funding for a good project. Many great content creators are working on crowdfunding basis already. If people want to support good projects, they can do that. If not enough people support it, I guess that means, that not enough people were interested in that particular project. People could also have subscriptions to support creators regularly. I myself do that for several projects. I would like to see a cultural shift away from the idea, that one must go through some middleman to make and publish anything, towards the idea, that if you have a great project and you put yourself out there and people believe in your idea, they will support you and all of society reaps the benefits. We would become more a society of choice and self-informing, than a society of maximized consumption. At the same time, I think in many areas there is still a long way to go, to achieve that cultural shift.
- nomel 4y ago
  > some middleman to make and publish anything These middleman, as all, come from a practical need, not cultural one. The people creating the content usually have no interest or skill in making marketing material, setting up meetings with venues, handle IP infringement/lawsuits, and all the other mind numbing boring stuff that these publishing studies handle that takes time away from their actual skill. I think the obvious outcome is that this middleman is automated, and split, but again, that's not a cultural shift, that's a practical one.
wilsonnb3 4y ago
> No content would be produced if nobody was compensated for it. This is not true. Many if not most artists create art because they enjoy it. What is true is that middle men like publishers and record labels wouldn’t exist if nobody paid for content. Coincidentally, they are also the ones who push the lie that nobody would make content if they weren’t paid.

derefr 4y ago

IP rights-holders are hyper-pessimistic paranoid control freaks. See also: the 30-year-long campaign by the RIAA to stop any kind of non-DRMed digital high-fidelity consumer recordable media from being marketed. They finally lost it with the advent of the CD-R, but it's the reason that MiniDisc had DRM, Digital Compact Cassette was never "a thing", etc.

JodieBenitez 4y ago

> it's more convenient than searching for the right torrent link. Where I live, you'll be fined if you download a movie torrent.

Vladimof 4y ago
Where is that? Is the fine reasonable? (ie: legalizing illicit torrents)
- JodieBenitez 4y ago
  France. Fine can go up to 1500 euros, depending on infraction. Edit: you don't get fined on the first download, you have to repeat the infraction. First download only gets a warning. Edit again: Here's the warning you receive first: Madame, Monsieur, Vous avez souscrit un abonnement à internet auprès du fournisseur d’accès à internet <insert provider here>. Votre connexion internet a été utilisée pour télécharger et/ou mettre à disposition une ou plusieurs oeuvres protégées par le droit d'auteur : * Date et heure des faits : <insert datetime of infraction here> (Horaire GMT : l’heure de Paris correspond à l’heure GMT +1h en hiver et +2h en été) * Adresse IP: adresse IP <insert IP here>) * Logiciel(s)/protocole(s) : <insert torrent software used here>. Conséquences : Le téléchargement illégal, appelé couramment « piratage », prive les créateurs de leur rétribution et représente un danger pour l’économie du secteur culturel. Il vous expose en outre, vous et votre entourage, a des contenus inappropriés (pornographie, violence...) et/ou malveillants (virus, spams…). En l'absence d'autorisation des détenteurs des droits sur ces œuvres, les faits constatés peuvent constituer une infraction pénale et entraîner des poursuites devant le tribunal de police pour contravention de négligence caractérisée (punie d'une peine maximale de 1500 euros d'amende ou 7500 euros pour les personnes morales). L'utilisation qui est faite d'un accès à internet engageant la responsabilité personnelle du titulaire de l'abonnement, c'est donc vous qui êtes exposé(e) aux sanctions prévues par la loi. Le présent courriel constitue un premier avertissement. Si votre accès à internet est à nouveau utilisé pour des téléchargements illégaux ou des mises en partage d'œuvres protégées, l'Hadopi sera amenée à réexaminer votre dossier en vue de son éventuelle transmission à l'autorité judiciaire. Actions à mener : Je vous engage donc à prendre, sans délai, toute mesure utile pour éviter une nouvelle infraction. Vous pouvez consulter le site internet de l’Hadopi qui vous propose des fiches pratiques et des vidéos pédagogiques qui vous permettront notamment de : * Sécuriser votre accès à internet en paramétrant votre box. Vous pouvez également vous rapprocher de votre fournisseur d’accès à internet sur ce sujet : https://hadopi.fr/outils-usages/parametrer-sa-box https://hadopi.fr/outils-usages/parametrer-sa-box * Désinstaller les logiciels pair à pair de vos équipements : https://hadopi.fr/outils-usages/desinstaller-un-logiciel-pair-pair https://hadopi.fr/outils-usages/desinstaller-un-logiciel-pai... Par ailleurs, il existe sur internet de nombreuses offres légales disponibles. Pour vous aider : * L’Hadopi référence les offres légales labellisées par l’institution et celles apparaissant comme respectueuses des droits de propriété intellectuelle : https://hadopi.fr/outils-usages/rechercher-un-site-ou-un-service https://hadopi.fr/outils-usages/rechercher-un-site-ou-un-ser... * L’Hadopi vous donne également des indices pour identifier les sites illégaux. * Si l'œuvre que vous cherchez n’est pas disponible sur l’un des sites référencés par l’Hadopi, vous pouvez le signaler sur la page dédiée du site de l’Hadopi. L’ensemble de ces actions est disponible sur https://hadopi.fr/outils-usages https://hadopi.fr/outils-usages. Vous avez également la possibilité de formuler des observations et d'obtenir des renseignements, en contactant l’Hadopi : * Par voie électronique, en utilisant le formulaire suivant :https://cpdform.hadopi.fr/ https://cpdform.hadopi.fr/ notamment si vous souhaitez obtenir des précisions sur le titre des œuvres qui ont été téléchargées ou mises à disposition depuis votre connexion à internet ; * Par voie postale: Hadopi - Commission de protection des droits, 4 rue du Texel, 75014 Paris ; * Par téléphone au 09.69.32.90.90 (Appel non surtaxé de 9h à 12h30 et de 13h30 à 17h). Retrouvez toutes les informations utiles sur www.hadopi.fr/outils-usages/reagir-a-la-reception-dune-recommandation.

qalmakka 4y ago

This, exactly. DRM doesn't work, it never did. Piracy was and still is rampant.

microtonal 4y ago

Why is that? You can download everything for free. I don't think people use Netflix to access otherwise inaccessible content but rather because it's more convenient than searching for the right torrent link. Convenient, but also relatively affordable to do things the legal way. Back in the day when torrenting was popular, even among the general population, most new albums would cost 15-20 Euro, getting a movie season was 30-40 Euro. Now you can get as much music is you need for 10 Euro per month. The situation with video streaming is a bit more complex, because the market is fragmented, but regardless you can pick your service and watch quite a lot of material for 10 Euro per month. If you have to spend 50 Euro per month to get fresh music, torrenting looks far more attractive than when it's 10 Euro per month.

JasonFruit 4y ago

It's not just convenience. Some of us would rather stream content legally because it's a straightforward way to make sure the creators of what we watch or listen to get some compensation. I'm getting something I want from them, and their expectation is to get paid; I'd be doing wrong if they didn't get something in return.

Retric 4y ago
That’s a reasonable argument for new content, but hardly justifies paying for old content who’s creators are all dead.
- JasonFruit 4y ago
  I don't think that's what was under discussion, at least as far as I could see. Yes, I agree that it's silly to go on paying forever to see Steamboat Willie, but I'm not going to download a bootleg copy of Infinity War, even though it sucked.

giantg2 4y ago

"Why is that? You can download everything for free. I don't think people use Netflix to access otherwise inaccessible content but rather because it's more convenient than searching for the right torrent link." Some people aren't comfortable doing illegal, potentially immoral, things like torrents of copyrighted works.

RobertRoberts 4y ago
Some people think it should be illegal to be able to read a book or watch a movie for free from the Library also. Disney originally wanted VHS tapes to lock so you had to pay them to rewind them. You may be affected by propaganda from very influential copyright holders with massive marketing power.
- giantg2 4y ago
  You're talking about things that people think should be illegal. Nobody will punish you for visiting a library or rewinding a tape. What we are talking about are things that are actually illegal. You can be prosecuted or sued for copyright infringement by downloading torrents or illegally streaming. The moral/ethical side is more murky depending on how you want to look at things. For example, for me personally there is a big difference between things like libraries (a copy was purchased and allows one showing at a time), a rewind lock (interference with how you use something you purchased), and duplication (streaming included). The previous ones required someone to purchase. Does it cut into sales? Sure. But someone still paid money for a true copy and they copy is a single instance. With duplication the scale is different. It can affect sales drastically and hurt the workers (not just the stars and greedy companies). Some people may feel the latter is unethical/immoral. I tend to buy used stuff. I also just don't buy stuff if I think it's too expensive. I haven run into any issues with Netflix either.
  - RobertRoberts 4y ago
    You are right, it's murky, but I'd argue it's only murky because of powerful IP owners making it that way. There was a presentation by Lawerence Lessig everyone should watch from years ago. There was a time when by default _everything_ was public domain, unless explicitly copyrighted. This has flip-flopped to now where almost nothing is public domain. How did this happen? Money bought enforcement of made up rules and then laws were bought (lobbied?) to take everything out of the public domain. A simple legal test. Can you make a backup copy of your own data? Yes. Of your own movies? (still just data) Yes. But people still seem to think, maybe it's illegal when it is not. Can you give your backup copies of _your_ data to your friend? Yes. Even if it includes your movies? Yes. Why? Because under copyright laws it doesn't cause harm, it's not fraud, etc... I've been to court over copyright infringement, it's a civil issue in almost _every_ single case normal people would be involved in. Here's what it takes to be "criminal" where you are in trouble with the _law_. (Civil is a contract violation between people, _not_ with the government) * Done so for private or commercial financial gain; * Over 180 days, reproduced or distributed 1 or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of over $1,000; or * Released over a publicly accessible computer network material that was intended for commercial distribution [source: https://www.draskovich.com/blog/2019/december/is-copyright-infringement-a-civil-or-criminal-ma/ https://www.draskovich.com/blog/2019/december/is-copyright-i... ] Now, do you even know a _single_ person that has committed a _crime_ of copyright infringement? I would argue very, very likely no. Therefore, you making copies of your movies and giving them to friends (even over the internet) for _fun_ or whatever, constitutes civil copyright infringement, _not_ criminal. If you cross the street without using the crosswalk you are breaking a criminal law. If you drink booze under 21, criminal. If you smoke weed, criminal. If you copy a movie and even share it on the internet, NOT criminal, it's civil offense. This doesn't even get into the issues with consciences objections to insane laws. Last argument: If your core argument is loss of money if copyright was put back to 14 years instead of the bonkers length it is now, I argue patent law proves otherwise. And the rampant file sharing has not hurt any jobs I've heard of so far. (artificial scarcity/supply/demand) /rant