4 ms·

The entire purpose of putting DRM on media is to retain control of it while allowing access. It's simply infeasible to "buy" anything that's DRM-restricted in a

by advael 3y ago

The entire purpose of putting DRM on media is to retain control of it while allowing access. It's simply infeasible to "buy" anything that's DRM-restricted in any sense we would recognize as "buying". Yes, Amazon engaged in false advertising, but essentially every organization selling anything electronic (including devices) is doing the same right now, and we have to change the law to change that reality I am beating a dead horse here, but the DMCA (and its international equivalents) is one of the most powerful anti-consumer laws ever created

RetroTechie 3y ago
This would be easily addressed: 1) Content could be transferred to a competing service before pulling the plug. Like, consumer then streams content bought through Amazon from say, Netflix servers. Or some service that specializes in 'out of print' movies / series / games / ebooks etc. Granted, how to handle the $$ side of that, is a tough question. 2) Allow download of purchased content (and associated DRM keys) to enduser's local device(s). 3) Offer physical media (like, receive BluRays with that content @ nominal cost of pressing & shipping the discs). Not saying any of the above would be preferred options for enduser or vendor. But it would address the "bought = permanent transfer of some rights" issue. Otherwise, offering "buy" for content is deceiving the customer imho - hence this lawsuit.
- advael 3y ago
  First option makes no sense. It requires a likely expensive dealmaking process with another company, like in your example do the endusers automatically get a free permanent netflix sub to access the content? It's just not workable, and we see that in what should be the obvious case where it should be: Acquisitions. Another recent example of this fuckery was the funimation acquisition by crunchyroll, wherein "bought" content was rendered permanently inaccessible despite users' existing subscriptions rolling over to the new owner. Content licensing to stream is clearly a nightmare Second option is the best, but obviates the whole purpose of the DRM. Without the DRM, it's basically the bandcamp model, which works great so I'm all for it Third option is viable too maybe, but increases distribution costs so it's not a perfect replacement (it's also basically the bandcamp model, as buying physical from them also gives a digital download and streaming access)

by advael 3y ago

RetroTechie 3y ago

This would be easily addressed: 1) Content could be transferred to a competing service before pulling the plug. Like, consumer then streams content bought through Amazon from say, Netflix servers. Or some service that specializes in 'out of print' movies / series / games / ebooks etc. Granted, how to handle the $$ side of that, is a tough question. 2) Allow download of purchased content (and associated DRM keys) to enduser's local device(s). 3) Offer physical media (like, receive BluRays with that content @ nominal cost of pressing & shipping the discs). Not saying any of the above would be preferred options for enduser or vendor. But it would address the "bought = permanent transfer of some rights" issue. Otherwise, offering "buy" for content is deceiving the customer imho - hence this lawsuit.

advael 3y ago
First option makes no sense. It requires a likely expensive dealmaking process with another company, like in your example do the endusers automatically get a free permanent netflix sub to access the content? It's just not workable, and we see that in what should be the obvious case where it should be: Acquisitions. Another recent example of this fuckery was the funimation acquisition by crunchyroll, wherein "bought" content was rendered permanently inaccessible despite users' existing subscriptions rolling over to the new owner. Content licensing to stream is clearly a nightmare Second option is the best, but obviates the whole purpose of the DRM. Without the DRM, it's basically the bandcamp model, which works great so I'm all for it Third option is viable too maybe, but increases distribution costs so it's not a perfect replacement (it's also basically the bandcamp model, as buying physical from them also gives a digital download and streaming access)