6 ms·

Netflix doesn’t do it because they want to. They do it because it’s part of the licensing agreements they sign to get content.

Aissen 4y ago
If it was the whole story, they'd put their own content (the rare ones for which they have 100% of the rights) with no DRM and the maximum resolution. But they don't do that. In some cases you might get 720p (Netflix content) instead of 540p (third party) with widevine L3.
- pitaj 4y ago
  It's probably more complexity to exclude certain content than to treat everything the same.
  - koolba 4y ago
    Technical complexity aside, it’d be a business risk to accidentally mislabel a stream as not requiring DRM too.
    - rfoo 4y ago
      Netflix already labels them. They show only their original content to users which are suspected to be behind VPNs. [1] [1] https://www.whats-on-netflix.com/news/why-can-i-only-see-netflix-originals-on-netflix/ https://www.whats-on-netflix.com/news/why-can-i-only-see-net...
      - _ea1k 4y ago
        The consequences of mislabeling it likely vary based on the severity. Mislabeling and presenting without encryption is likely to be a bigger issue with content providers than accidentally allowing it via a VPN.
- heleninboodler 4y ago
  Why would they do this if they've already gone to the trouble to solve the problem for content they don't own? Just to show off by taking on unnecessary risk? The fact that they didn't build this infra specifically to protect their own content doesn't mean they wouldn't enjoy the benefit of the extra protection anyway.
  - depressedpanda 4y ago
    The point is, the extra "protection" is worthless.
    - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
      Not worthless, actively harmful to the user experience, and therefore actively harmful to the bottom line.
      - hunter2_ 4y ago
        But I doubt the harmed people will feel materially less harmed if some tiny fraction of content isn't in harm's way while the rest still is.
        AnthonyMouse 4y ago
        It's in their interest to get rid of all the DRM, so it's a matter of setting an example. If they try to get Hollywood to stop demanding it while they're still doing it themselves, they look like hypocrites and fools. If they stop they can demonstrate the worthlessness of it and the success of their content without it and try to get others to follow.
        WastingMyTime89 4y ago
        > It's in their interest to get rid of all the DRM, so it's a matter of setting an example. Is it? I doubt it's a significant cost center. Plus, right management is viewed favourably by the rest of the entertainment industry. Actively going against the grain would impair their image with their commercial partners. I honestly think they don't care at this point.
- smeagull 4y ago
  Tracking the difference would be annoying and pointless. Why do that when you can wrap it around everything and go home early?
- dathinab 4y ago
  They have likely legal contracts with actors and similar which pay on a per-view basis which could sue Netflix if they would do that. They definitely license music for their original which likely requires requiring DRM. They would make offend influential huge organizations in the background of copyright monetization which could cause them tons of problems.
d4mi3n 4y ago
Bingo. Netflix doesn't own the majority of the content it streams and wouldn't be able to have the catalog they have (which could be better) without providing guarantees to the rights holders of said media. This is also why streaming video catalogs in Netflix and other providers can be anemic at times—even assuming nothing is exclusively licensed elsewhere, it's cost-prohibitive for Netflix to license all the media out there. Instead, they license popular stuff and use the rest of their licensing budget to rotate in/out a selection of less popular content.
Longhanks 4y ago
Of course they want to. Who doesn’t want to protect his or her intellectual property? There are probably millions of people subscribed to Netflix merely because pirating Netflix content is inconvenient enough to make people rather pay. How many would reconsider this if the user experience of pirating was exactly as convenient as a paid Netflix account? Most probably enough so that enacting DRM is the smaller price to pay.
- redeeman 4y ago
  netflix content is pirated the moment it gets released, so them employing DRM changes nothing
  - torified 4y ago
    It was actually interesting to me the latest Chris Rock special which was on Netflix live recently. The first live event I've heard of Netflix doing. It took a day to get onto the torrent sites. So that was the first instance I've seen where buying was better than pirating. I did see comments on the torrent sites from people who were there because their legitimate paid setup was deemed incompatible with live streams by Netflix though... Not a great incentive to keep paying.
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  > There are probably millions of people subscribed to Netflix merely because pirating Netflix content is inconvenient enough to make people rather pay. How many would reconsider this if the user experience of pirating was exactly as convenient as a paid Netflix account? The people extracting the content are people who do subscribe. The user experience of the people who pirate instead of subscribing is completely unaffected by DRM because the DRM is removed by the time it gets to them. All the DRM does is make the experience of piracy better than that of subscribing, by inconveniencing paying customers and not pirates. Notice that the people complaining about DRM are almost never pirates, who have cracked it all already. They're people who want to pay Netflix money so they can watch Netflix on their weird Linux setup or whatever instead of just downloading whatever they want in the Netflix catalog from the piracy sites, which would be much easier.
nemothekid 4y ago
This is the only reason why they do it. It's not just Netflix, everyone in the industry knows it's pointless, but these licensing deals mandate it and no one wants pay lawyers or extra to have it removed.

Aissen 4y ago

If it was the whole story, they'd put their own content (the rare ones for which they have 100% of the rights) with no DRM and the maximum resolution. But they don't do that. In some cases you might get 720p (Netflix content) instead of 540p (third party) with widevine L3.

pitaj 4y ago
It's probably more complexity to exclude certain content than to treat everything the same.
- koolba 4y ago
  Technical complexity aside, it’d be a business risk to accidentally mislabel a stream as not requiring DRM too.
  - rfoo 4y ago
    Netflix already labels them. They show only their original content to users which are suspected to be behind VPNs. [1] [1] https://www.whats-on-netflix.com/news/why-can-i-only-see-netflix-originals-on-netflix/ https://www.whats-on-netflix.com/news/why-can-i-only-see-net...
    - _ea1k 4y ago
      The consequences of mislabeling it likely vary based on the severity. Mislabeling and presenting without encryption is likely to be a bigger issue with content providers than accidentally allowing it via a VPN.
heleninboodler 4y ago
Why would they do this if they've already gone to the trouble to solve the problem for content they don't own? Just to show off by taking on unnecessary risk? The fact that they didn't build this infra specifically to protect their own content doesn't mean they wouldn't enjoy the benefit of the extra protection anyway.
- depressedpanda 4y ago
  The point is, the extra "protection" is worthless.
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    Not worthless, actively harmful to the user experience, and therefore actively harmful to the bottom line.
    - hunter2_ 4y ago
      But I doubt the harmed people will feel materially less harmed if some tiny fraction of content isn't in harm's way while the rest still is.
      - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
        It's in their interest to get rid of all the DRM, so it's a matter of setting an example. If they try to get Hollywood to stop demanding it while they're still doing it themselves, they look like hypocrites and fools. If they stop they can demonstrate the worthlessness of it and the success of their content without it and try to get others to follow.
        WastingMyTime89 4y ago
        > It's in their interest to get rid of all the DRM, so it's a matter of setting an example. Is it? I doubt it's a significant cost center. Plus, right management is viewed favourably by the rest of the entertainment industry. Actively going against the grain would impair their image with their commercial partners. I honestly think they don't care at this point.
smeagull 4y ago
Tracking the difference would be annoying and pointless. Why do that when you can wrap it around everything and go home early?
dathinab 4y ago
They have likely legal contracts with actors and similar which pay on a per-view basis which could sue Netflix if they would do that. They definitely license music for their original which likely requires requiring DRM. They would make offend influential huge organizations in the background of copyright monetization which could cause them tons of problems.

d4mi3n 4y ago

Bingo. Netflix doesn't own the majority of the content it streams and wouldn't be able to have the catalog they have (which could be better) without providing guarantees to the rights holders of said media. This is also why streaming video catalogs in Netflix and other providers can be anemic at times—even assuming nothing is exclusively licensed elsewhere, it's cost-prohibitive for Netflix to license all the media out there. Instead, they license popular stuff and use the rest of their licensing budget to rotate in/out a selection of less popular content.

Longhanks 4y ago

Of course they want to. Who doesn’t want to protect his or her intellectual property? There are probably millions of people subscribed to Netflix merely because pirating Netflix content is inconvenient enough to make people rather pay. How many would reconsider this if the user experience of pirating was exactly as convenient as a paid Netflix account? Most probably enough so that enacting DRM is the smaller price to pay.

redeeman 4y ago
netflix content is pirated the moment it gets released, so them employing DRM changes nothing
- torified 4y ago
  It was actually interesting to me the latest Chris Rock special which was on Netflix live recently. The first live event I've heard of Netflix doing. It took a day to get onto the torrent sites. So that was the first instance I've seen where buying was better than pirating. I did see comments on the torrent sites from people who were there because their legitimate paid setup was deemed incompatible with live streams by Netflix though... Not a great incentive to keep paying.
AnthonyMouse 4y ago
> There are probably millions of people subscribed to Netflix merely because pirating Netflix content is inconvenient enough to make people rather pay. How many would reconsider this if the user experience of pirating was exactly as convenient as a paid Netflix account? The people extracting the content are people who do subscribe. The user experience of the people who pirate instead of subscribing is completely unaffected by DRM because the DRM is removed by the time it gets to them. All the DRM does is make the experience of piracy better than that of subscribing, by inconveniencing paying customers and not pirates. Notice that the people complaining about DRM are almost never pirates, who have cracked it all already. They're people who want to pay Netflix money so they can watch Netflix on their weird Linux setup or whatever instead of just downloading whatever they want in the Netflix catalog from the piracy sites, which would be much easier.

nemothekid 4y ago

This is the only reason why they do it. It's not just Netflix, everyone in the industry knows it's pointless, but these licensing deals mandate it and no one wants pay lawyers or extra to have it removed.