5 ms·
I think DRM makes sense sadly because otherwise it'd be as simple as 'right click, save as' and you'd have the contents of a movie. There'd be little incentive
by randall 14y ago
I think DRM makes sense sadly because otherwise it'd be as simple as 'right click, save as' and you'd have the contents of a movie. There'd be little incentive to subscribe to Netflix past a month. Rdio too.
Simple anti-copying provisions that are still defeatable, though through effort, help incentivize the migration of those channels. And that's what I really want. I want Hollywood to feel comfortable using the web, because then more open alternatives will emerge when it's a level playing field. (IE watching TV is watching the web.)
- CamperBob2 14y agoThere'd be little incentive to subscribe to Netflix past a month. Have you actually used Netflix?
- randall 14y agoSure. Could you provide more context to your question?
- CamperBob2 14y agoIt sounded like you were under the impression that it's either possible or desirable to make your own local copy of the entire Netflix library. Why exactly would I want to do that, DRM or no DRM?
- darkchasma 14y agoNo, this doesn't make sense in the slightest. Fact 1. If I want a movie or song without paying for it, I can get it. I don't need any more facts, this "solution" doesn't solve fact 1's problem. It simply breaks the internet. So what part of creating a burden that doesn't solve a problem make sense?
- andylei 14y ago> Fact 1. If I want a movie or song without paying for it, I can get it. this is actually irrelevant. netflix is contractually obligated to distribute all their content through DRM'ed channels. Hollywood knows that DRM isn't going to stop copying, but they would still like to reduce it, and they certainly aren't going to license their content to services that make copying trivial.
- recoiledsnake 14y agoHow does it break the internet anymore than Flash and Silverlight do right now?
- darkchasma 14y agoI have the option to not use flash, or silverlight. When built into a specification, that option is absent.
- takluyver 14y agoThey don't have to make it impossible to get movies/songs without paying. They just have to make it hard enough that Joe Random-User doesn't make copies for all his friends People talk a lot about the analogue hole. Imagine they've got it locked down all the way to a trusted screen and speakers. Now, to make a copy, Joe would need to set up a good camera and microphone in a quiet room, and let the movie play for two hours. All of which is possible, but he won't put that much effort in. Of course, someone somewhere in the world will bother, and it will end up on file sharing sites. That's why they also go after those sites, and pressure search engines not to list them. Again, they'll never stop it entirely, but they want you to hit dead links and slow downloads, to worry about viruses from dodgy Russian websites, and to imagine that the police are tracking your downloads. Sooner or later, it's just easier to cough up for a legitimate service. They don't need the unbreakable system that we rightly point out is impossible. They just need to make free copies unappealing enough that people will pay a bit for legal content.
- rmc 14y agoEverything that's on Netflix is on The Pirate Bay (or other torrent sites) for free. By your logic there'd be little incentive to subscribe to Netflix at all today. So how come Netflix has customers? Either you're wrong or some piece of the puzzle is missing (if so, what?)
- ihsw 14y ago> So how come Netflix has customers? Either you're wrong or some piece of the puzzle is missing (if so, what?) Convenience.
- randall 14y agoPrecisely. It's much more convenient to use Netflix than The Pirate Bay. If Netflix doesn't have content I, as a proverbial user, like to watch, I take the time to inconvenience myself to download it there. DRM provides lowest-common-denominator security.
- anigbrowl 14y agoWell, there's also the part where I want to pay for what I consume instead of just leeching it. This might have something to do with the fact that I've worked in the film industry for a decade and like being paid to work.
- rmc 14y agoI agree. But that advantage may still exists if Netflix has no DRM.
- ihsw 14y agoDRM itself is objectionable for different reasons than the absurdity of their current proposal. They propose to run third-party binary blobs with OS-level hardware access -- all the security nightmares of Flash/Java plug-ins but even worse.
- randallu 14y agoRdio is a great example as they currently don't use any form of DRM (if you use the Chrome UA and don't have flash player installed). So I could download songs from Rdio and save them away, but I've never bothered because I want to listen from wherever I am -- the value of the service isn't just having a bunch of music files, but all the other stuff too. Netflix is probably similar (though I personally use it only infrequently) they provide a huge amount of value via recommendations and having a client on every device (versus downloading the stream, setting up some kind of local server to watch movies on my iPad/TV/whatever, only it'll have a clunkier interface, no recommendations, bad metadata, etc). I guess what I'm saying is that these guys should all be able to keep people honest by offering the best experience -- a better experience than the illegal alternative. As an aside: I work on browsers and I really don't like the idea of having to sign agreements and ship binary modules to have a "working" browser. Chrome started shipping widevine a while ago, though I'm not sure where that gets used. It's a bad road which locks out the little guy (but pragmatically that's the way things go...).
- belorn 14y agoAnything on netflix exist on torrent sites, and yet, netflix get paid subscribers. A lot of people subscribe on netflix for the service. Netflix maintain the hardrives, servers, and catalogs of films. They deal with "downloading" of the new movies when they are released. Even if "right click, save as" was enabled, you still need to download it from a friend or some torrent third party site. You need to know the name of the movie, and deal with software for downloading. You need to know about magenet links and torrent files and seed scores and whatnot. If you just got home from a 10hour work shift, then many people just want to sit down and be entertained for a few hours. Thus there is a need for a service which provides in easy package that will fulfill this need. netflix provides the same service as a DVD stall at the gas station. It just do not compete with torrent sites. People don't by the content, they buy the service.
- pornel 14y agoHixie: DRM is not about piracy, but about control over software providers. https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBYuj2 https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBY... Currently Silverlight and Flash are NPAPI plugins, which means that Chromium and Firefox users can use it, so studios can't force any anti-features on users. But by pushing EME that requires unspecified CDMs without public API the studios will be able to license them only to browser vendors who agree to their wishes and cut off other vendors with DMCA anti-circumvention laws. They can let Chrome-proper with Google Widevine DRM to work, and cut off Chromium users. EME+CDM doesn't enable any broader interoperability than NPAPI does. It's still a binary blob. They still don't care about Linux. Apple still won't let them put plugins in iOS Safari. EME+CDM doesn't give them better browser integration, because the DRM must bypass browser's media stack entirely (otherwise you could modify Firefox or Chromium to dump the video). But EME+CDM kills NPAPI as binary-DRM-blob interface and shifts power from browser vendors to CDM providers.