5 ms·
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
by 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 agoIt's probably more complexity to exclude certain content than to treat everything the same.
- koolba 4y agoTechnical complexity aside, it’d be a business risk to accidentally mislabel a stream as not requiring DRM too.
- rfoo 4y agoNetflix 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 agoThe 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 agoWhy 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 agoThe point is, the extra "protection" is worthless.
- AnthonyMouse 4y agoNot worthless, actively harmful to the user experience, and therefore actively harmful to the bottom line.
- hunter2_ 4y agoBut 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 agoIt'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.
- ben174 4y agoIt's not worthless though, because if it didn't exist - some browser extension would appear the next day which adds a nice little download right next to the play button.
- smeagull 4y agoTracking the difference would be annoying and pointless. Why do that when you can wrap it around everything and go home early?
- dathinab 4y agoThey 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.