4 ms·

> It’s not. It’s enough to deter casual piracy. There is some value in that. Casual pirates wouldn't bother right-clicking in the first place unless it's to s

by Zuiii 4y ago

> It’s not. It’s enough to deter casual piracy. There is some value in that. Casual pirates wouldn't bother right-clicking in the first place unless it's to store a local copy that they won't even know how to share effectively (since they're casual). The only thing DRM achieves for netflix is deterring new customers and hurting existing ones.

MBCook 4y ago
I’ve known enough casual pirates like that in my life. People who would sign up for Netflix for one month every three years and immediately download everything and then cancel again. The fact they can’t do that is a benefit.
alwayslikethis 4y ago
Most pirates are not subscribed in the first place. They just download something someone else had removed DRM from, which also makes it a superior experience. It only takes one pirate with a decent computer to encode a good DRM-free copy for it to be shared via BitTorrent. It is pointless to deter casual piracy when one "professional" pirate is enough to free the content.
- MBCook 4y ago
  > It is pointless to deter casual piracy when one "professional" pirate is enough to free the content. For the piracy scene, sure. It’s irrelevant. But for normal people the difference is huge. They may not know how to pirate content, where to go to find it, or be willing risk downloading it and getting in trouble (scary FBI warnings and ISP letters). But once it’s trivial due to the lack of protection it will be all over TikTok and FB and WAY more people will pirate. Those are the people DRM, even light DRM, stop.
  - tcmart14 4y ago
    The way I like to put it is with an phrase your hear sometimes in the lock picking community. Locks actually don't really offer much protection. Their main function is to "keep an honest man honest."
    - MBCook 4y ago
      Perfect saying. For DRM it needs to be effective enough to stop most people, even if that’s very weak in absolute terms.
andsoitis 4y ago
> The only thing DRM achieves for netflix is deterring new customers and hurting existing ones. Out of their more than 231 million subscribing households around the world, I don't think more than 5,000 feel the way you think. Even if 55,000 felt that way it doesn't matter.
- heleninboodler 4y ago
  This. DRM is a courtesy lock on a bathroom door. It makes ripping content enough of a hassle that only people who are willing to put some effort in will bother, and those people are going to find a way around it no matter what. It doesn't have to be unbreakable to have some value to the content owner. If we accept that enabling DRM on some of their content has some value to Netflix, which it obviously does, and we accept that it doesn't impose unacceptable user experience tradeoffs, which it obviously doesn't, then it is rational for them to enable it on all of their content. There is probably a hypothetical cost/benefit break-even point where it actually degrades the user experience a little and thus is only acceptable in cases where it is absolutely needed, but it seems unlikely this is significant enough to even be quantifiable.

by Zuiii 4y ago

MBCook 4y ago

I’ve known enough casual pirates like that in my life. People who would sign up for Netflix for one month every three years and immediately download everything and then cancel again. The fact they can’t do that is a benefit.

alwayslikethis 4y ago

Most pirates are not subscribed in the first place. They just download something someone else had removed DRM from, which also makes it a superior experience. It only takes one pirate with a decent computer to encode a good DRM-free copy for it to be shared via BitTorrent. It is pointless to deter casual piracy when one "professional" pirate is enough to free the content.

MBCook 4y ago
> It is pointless to deter casual piracy when one "professional" pirate is enough to free the content. For the piracy scene, sure. It’s irrelevant. But for normal people the difference is huge. They may not know how to pirate content, where to go to find it, or be willing risk downloading it and getting in trouble (scary FBI warnings and ISP letters). But once it’s trivial due to the lack of protection it will be all over TikTok and FB and WAY more people will pirate. Those are the people DRM, even light DRM, stop.
- tcmart14 4y ago
  The way I like to put it is with an phrase your hear sometimes in the lock picking community. Locks actually don't really offer much protection. Their main function is to "keep an honest man honest."
  - MBCook 4y ago
    Perfect saying. For DRM it needs to be effective enough to stop most people, even if that’s very weak in absolute terms.

andsoitis 4y ago

> The only thing DRM achieves for netflix is deterring new customers and hurting existing ones. Out of their more than 231 million subscribing households around the world, I don't think more than 5,000 feel the way you think. Even if 55,000 felt that way it doesn't matter.

heleninboodler 4y ago
This. DRM is a courtesy lock on a bathroom door. It makes ripping content enough of a hassle that only people who are willing to put some effort in will bother, and those people are going to find a way around it no matter what. It doesn't have to be unbreakable to have some value to the content owner. If we accept that enabling DRM on some of their content has some value to Netflix, which it obviously does, and we accept that it doesn't impose unacceptable user experience tradeoffs, which it obviously doesn't, then it is rational for them to enable it on all of their content. There is probably a hypothetical cost/benefit break-even point where it actually degrades the user experience a little and thus is only acceptable in cases where it is absolutely needed, but it seems unlikely this is significant enough to even be quantifiable.