7 ms·

Why do you equate DRM with subscriptions? It's perfectly possible to have subscriptions to content without DRM.

wmf 13y ago
A DRM-free subscription service would immediately lead to a ripper tool that would download everything in one month, which would immediately lead to Hollywood studio execs pitching hissy fits.
- tbirdz 13y ago
  GOG is a DRM free game distribution service, and they seem to be doing well even despite the ease of pirating a DRM free game.
  - wmf 13y ago
    GOG is not a subscription service where you could download every game for less than $10.
- weavejester 13y ago
  "A DRM-free subscription service would immediately lead to a ripper tool that would download everything in one month" Why would anyone bother doing that when they could just download what they wanted over bittorrent?
  - giovannibajo1 13y ago
    they would bother because it's not easy for rippers to get eg HD video rips before the bluray version of the movie is out. So at the very least, it's making rippers' work much easier, and it brings the date when HD content is available on torrent from "whenever bluray is released" to "whenever it is available for streaming", which we are all crossing finger to become "when it is released in theaters".
    - weavejester 13y ago
      Whatever gives you that idea? HD rips usually show up a few hours after an episode first airs.
      - cdcarter 13y ago
        Movies are a much different story.
        weavejester 13y ago
        Why is a video stream featuring a movie different from a video stream featuring a TV show?
        cdcarter 13y ago
        Early movie rips tend not to be in HD, as many exhibition leaks are still standard definition. It takes longer for an HD rip to appear for movies.
        weavejester 13y ago
        And how does that factor into whether Netflix should use DRM or not?
- tbirdz 13y ago
  It's not like having DRM is really stopping piracy, especially in Netflix's case. For example their new original series of House of Cards and season 4 of Arrested Development were both pirated (I assume using some kind of desktop screen recorder?) and posted online within days of their netflix release. So the use of DRM did not stop people from pirating their content, in only prevented potential customers on other systems, like Linux, from legally purchasing their content.
- thezilch 13y ago
  Those responding to shit, pay close attention to my original quip towards dinosaur content-providers and "Hollywood execs" here. What Netflix wants or not is largely irrelevant; I can't say for sure they would ever consider running their service without some sort of DRM or downloading deterrents. It is clear to me they want to provide a more sane service than other offerings, allowing me to watch what I want without being hamstrung by a DVR, multi-month contracts, and holding back episodes to be played one week at a time and having to hold a subscription for 3-4 months to catch the whole season, or only providing the last 5 episodes and being screwed if I start a season when the 7th episode is airing. With all that MPAA and the like have done to this industry, I can't fathom Netflix getting to serve much content and for very long if they can't guarantee a strong protection over the content. Obviously there are always ways to circumvent the steps taken, so long as the GPU stream is pipeable.
  - surrealize 13y ago
    Content publishers tried to get DRM into broadcast television (the "broadcast flag"). They failed, and now they broadcast everything in the clear. In that case, there was a bunch of push-back against DRM. But Netflix and Microsoft aren't pushing back against web DRM; they're just rolling over and implementing it. So digital broadcast television started with publishers demanding DRM, and then giving up on it (and realizing that it wasn't actually necessary). The exact same thing happened with music. And it's happening with ebooks too. But for some reason, you think that web video is different? And you advocate giving up on it without any real fight.
    - thezilch 13y ago
      You may not know what advocate means, but it can take steps to eradicate DRM, as if it is really always a bad thing. Do I think web video and broadcast TV are different? Absolutely; definitely; unequivocally, yes. Obviously. Maybe not for technical folks; maybe not when usenet or FTP trading was your only option for content not music; but nowadays, torrent software and search is really damn easy and free. Broadcast also comes with a landslide of garbage between 95% shit channels and 33% commercial times; Netflix does not operate this way. I think ebooks and music are totally different ballgames. You'll pay more for an ebook or mp3 album than you will for a month of Netflix; you think they can service you like that without some guarantees to content providers? I really don't know, but I know some of you are up in arms about Netflix having DRM, when it really isn't harming anyone. If you want to own the content, go do that; Netflix is only offering a non-ownership service. $8 for 24/7, front-running picture-quality, enormous-catalog of content; it has DRM; it _never_ gets in the way of the service; it frankly works so good that owning the content would provide nigh a worse experience. Can you really explain to me the downsides to how Netflix has implemented DRM? What if they offered an additional cost to be able to download content for offline use, which is about the only thing I can conceivably imagine some might have reservations?
- vidarh 13y ago
  I can walk down any number of streets nearby and get approached by people with bags full of professionally pressed DVD's of movies pirated by filming a cinema screen. Or I can install a bittorrent client and get HD content everywhere anyway. Access isn't stopping those who are willing to put in a minimal amount of effort to get the content. It does, however, stop people like me from subscribing to their service, as I refuse to pay for a service that is hampered by DRM this way, as from long experience as a Linux user, relying on formats that are not open and unencumbered is pretty much guaranteed to cause annoying hassles for me in some way or another with uses that I consider completely reasonable, and that does not include storing copies or distributing the content to others in any way. It's a nice try from Netflix. Dropping Silverlight is great. But it's not enough.

wmf 13y ago

A DRM-free subscription service would immediately lead to a ripper tool that would download everything in one month, which would immediately lead to Hollywood studio execs pitching hissy fits.

tbirdz 13y ago
GOG is a DRM free game distribution service, and they seem to be doing well even despite the ease of pirating a DRM free game.
- wmf 13y ago
  GOG is not a subscription service where you could download every game for less than $10.
weavejester 13y ago
"A DRM-free subscription service would immediately lead to a ripper tool that would download everything in one month" Why would anyone bother doing that when they could just download what they wanted over bittorrent?
- giovannibajo1 13y ago
  they would bother because it's not easy for rippers to get eg HD video rips before the bluray version of the movie is out. So at the very least, it's making rippers' work much easier, and it brings the date when HD content is available on torrent from "whenever bluray is released" to "whenever it is available for streaming", which we are all crossing finger to become "when it is released in theaters".
  - weavejester 13y ago
    Whatever gives you that idea? HD rips usually show up a few hours after an episode first airs.
    - cdcarter 13y ago
      Movies are a much different story.
      - weavejester 13y ago
        Why is a video stream featuring a movie different from a video stream featuring a TV show?
        cdcarter 13y ago
        Early movie rips tend not to be in HD, as many exhibition leaks are still standard definition. It takes longer for an HD rip to appear for movies.
        weavejester 13y ago
        And how does that factor into whether Netflix should use DRM or not?
tbirdz 13y ago
It's not like having DRM is really stopping piracy, especially in Netflix's case. For example their new original series of House of Cards and season 4 of Arrested Development were both pirated (I assume using some kind of desktop screen recorder?) and posted online within days of their netflix release. So the use of DRM did not stop people from pirating their content, in only prevented potential customers on other systems, like Linux, from legally purchasing their content.
thezilch 13y ago
Those responding to shit, pay close attention to my original quip towards dinosaur content-providers and "Hollywood execs" here. What Netflix wants or not is largely irrelevant; I can't say for sure they would ever consider running their service without some sort of DRM or downloading deterrents. It is clear to me they want to provide a more sane service than other offerings, allowing me to watch what I want without being hamstrung by a DVR, multi-month contracts, and holding back episodes to be played one week at a time and having to hold a subscription for 3-4 months to catch the whole season, or only providing the last 5 episodes and being screwed if I start a season when the 7th episode is airing. With all that MPAA and the like have done to this industry, I can't fathom Netflix getting to serve much content and for very long if they can't guarantee a strong protection over the content. Obviously there are always ways to circumvent the steps taken, so long as the GPU stream is pipeable.
- surrealize 13y ago
  Content publishers tried to get DRM into broadcast television (the "broadcast flag"). They failed, and now they broadcast everything in the clear. In that case, there was a bunch of push-back against DRM. But Netflix and Microsoft aren't pushing back against web DRM; they're just rolling over and implementing it. So digital broadcast television started with publishers demanding DRM, and then giving up on it (and realizing that it wasn't actually necessary). The exact same thing happened with music. And it's happening with ebooks too. But for some reason, you think that web video is different? And you advocate giving up on it without any real fight.
  - thezilch 13y ago
    You may not know what advocate means, but it can take steps to eradicate DRM, as if it is really always a bad thing. Do I think web video and broadcast TV are different? Absolutely; definitely; unequivocally, yes. Obviously. Maybe not for technical folks; maybe not when usenet or FTP trading was your only option for content not music; but nowadays, torrent software and search is really damn easy and free. Broadcast also comes with a landslide of garbage between 95% shit channels and 33% commercial times; Netflix does not operate this way. I think ebooks and music are totally different ballgames. You'll pay more for an ebook or mp3 album than you will for a month of Netflix; you think they can service you like that without some guarantees to content providers? I really don't know, but I know some of you are up in arms about Netflix having DRM, when it really isn't harming anyone. If you want to own the content, go do that; Netflix is only offering a non-ownership service. $8 for 24/7, front-running picture-quality, enormous-catalog of content; it has DRM; it _never_ gets in the way of the service; it frankly works so good that owning the content would provide nigh a worse experience. Can you really explain to me the downsides to how Netflix has implemented DRM? What if they offered an additional cost to be able to download content for offline use, which is about the only thing I can conceivably imagine some might have reservations?
vidarh 13y ago
I can walk down any number of streets nearby and get approached by people with bags full of professionally pressed DVD's of movies pirated by filming a cinema screen. Or I can install a bittorrent client and get HD content everywhere anyway. Access isn't stopping those who are willing to put in a minimal amount of effort to get the content. It does, however, stop people like me from subscribing to their service, as I refuse to pay for a service that is hampered by DRM this way, as from long experience as a Linux user, relying on formats that are not open and unencumbered is pretty much guaranteed to cause annoying hassles for me in some way or another with uses that I consider completely reasonable, and that does not include storing copies or distributing the content to others in any way. It's a nice try from Netflix. Dropping Silverlight is great. But it's not enough.