3 ms·

I don't think most people expect DRM-free content when paying for a subscription model - I know I don't. I'm paying for the right to access that content when I

I don't think most people expect DRM-free content when paying for a subscription model - I know I don't. I'm paying for the right to access that content when I want as long as it's available but I am under no assumption that I assume the right to take that content with me and do with it what I please. That type of content is completely different than what this streaming model represents. Netflix is surely on a better trajectory here than other providers, no?

shmerl 13y ago
It's not better as long as there is DRM in it. Why can't you expect to get the content with you? You can expect paying for titles some one time fee. Not unlike music and games. Streaming is just a way of accessing it from the "cloud" without the need to download it first. But why should it prevent you from downloading if you want to back it up, take it with you somewhere where you have no access to the cloud and so on? There is no good reason for "subscription model" in the digital world which restricts your ability to copy. Buy and use, that's what it's supposed to be.
- smtddr 13y ago
  >But why should it prevent you from downloading if you want to back it up, take it with you somewhere where you have no access to the cloud and so on? That's the real problem; that internet is not accessible & free everywhere. I think DRM is fine as long as I can access my media anytime & anywhere on all my devices. Netflix pretty much fits this requirement aside from the hack of Linux+Netflix. The issue that internet isn't available to every human being or costs a ridiculous amount of money is a problem that needs to be fixed. I want to be able to say "Everyone has internet these days" and really mean it for all people of the world. We need to make it impossible for anyone to make the argument "but what if I don't have internet access?".
  - shmerl 13y ago
    > I think DRM is fine as long as I can access my media anytime & anywhere on all my devices. I think DRM is never OK. Not only because of privacy and ethical issues, but because if you can't fully control the content and the service which issues DRM closes down you would simply lose everything you paid for. It should be a deal breaker. Then pirating that content will be the only option to get it back. This Xkcd applies to video pretty much the same way as to audio for which it was made: http://xkcd.com/488 http://xkcd.com/488
    - smtddr 13y ago
      Unless we're talking about Win8-BIOS-TPM stuff(which I don't clearly understand just yet), I don't think proper(non-remote-controllable) DRM is a privacy concern. I'm not sure how it's an ethical concern either. But, I do think that if the DRM servers and/or media streaming servers are going offline and making the content disappear forever they should allow it to just be downloaded without DRM for free - since turning off the servers implies they're done making money off it(?).
      - shmerl 13y ago
        When Netflix (or any other DRMed code) runs on your machine, it runs as a black box for you. Why isn't that a privacy concern and why should it ever be trusted? It's unethical because it's an overreaching preemptive policing, but it's a long subject. > do think that if the DRM servers and/or media streaming servers are going offline and making the content disappear forever they should allow it to just be downloaded without DRM for free They may be "should" allow it, but they will never do at that point. They have more important problems to care about when they close down. So it's our obligation as responsible users to demand DRM free content from them right away, and avoid those who refuse to sell such.
        smtddr 13y ago
        Okay, I think I see what you're saying about the decryption binary blob. With all this Ed Snowden stuff, it would not be unreasonable to have some suspicion of any network-software that has a wide user base. Netflix-app would be a good place to have a government backdoor... Then how do we deal with piracy? Is piracy even a problem at all? I guess if iTunes is selling music without DRM and not falling apart, then we think TV-shows/movies can do the same?
        shmerl 13y ago
        > Okay, I think I see what you're saying about the decryption binary blob. With all this Ed Snowden stuff, it would not be unreasonable to have some suspicion of any network-software that has a wide user base. Netflix-app would be a good place to have a government backdoor... No need even to go so far. DRM by definition implies that they don't trust you, the user. So, I see no point to trust them in return. It's normal to assume that DRM is always a risk of privacy violation. Surely, it's a good ground for sinister abuses like your example as well. > Then how do we deal with piracy? DRM doesn't deal with piracy. Publishers and distributors don't even hide this fact these days. So what are they using DRM for? Guess yourself, but expect nothing good in there. The recipe for dealing with piracy is ages old - increase quality to be competitive. I.e. some part of piracy which can be affected is caused by the fact that pirated content has higher usability (no DRM, regional restrictions and other such junk). By releasing quality products while being DRM free and delivering them with high level of convenience, distributors can compete with that sector of piracy. The segment of piracy which is caused by people being crooks and getting free stuff won't be affected at all. DRM doesn't affect it either.
- methodin 13y ago
  That's easy, because most people do not care to do that. Having owned a collection of DVDs it was "fun" to buy them when it was the thing to do but totally useless now. I care not to take the baggage of managing hundreds of titles with me just to have the knowledge that I own it. I do not wish to own such things unless I want to - which will be rare and should be on me to purchase that item outright from the provider. This is about simplicity and ease-of-use only, not about ownership. If you insist on ownership there is nothing preventing you from buying the work directly.
  - shmerl 13y ago
    I'm fine with buying the work directly, but can you point to a good store which sells it simply as files with no DRM attached which I can download after buying? I don't need physical DVDs clutter, it's so much last century. Sure, streaming as convenience is good to have. But it doesn't remove the need for personal backup. Network connectivity is not available always and everywhere, as well as you can't rely on the service to be always around. If you don't care to lose your extensive digital library when that service goes bust it's up to you, but it's a normal thing to care about it.

shmerl 13y ago

It's not better as long as there is DRM in it. Why can't you expect to get the content with you? You can expect paying for titles some one time fee. Not unlike music and games. Streaming is just a way of accessing it from the "cloud" without the need to download it first. But why should it prevent you from downloading if you want to back it up, take it with you somewhere where you have no access to the cloud and so on? There is no good reason for "subscription model" in the digital world which restricts your ability to copy. Buy and use, that's what it's supposed to be.

smtddr 13y ago
>But why should it prevent you from downloading if you want to back it up, take it with you somewhere where you have no access to the cloud and so on? That's the real problem; that internet is not accessible & free everywhere. I think DRM is fine as long as I can access my media anytime & anywhere on all my devices. Netflix pretty much fits this requirement aside from the hack of Linux+Netflix. The issue that internet isn't available to every human being or costs a ridiculous amount of money is a problem that needs to be fixed. I want to be able to say "Everyone has internet these days" and really mean it for all people of the world. We need to make it impossible for anyone to make the argument "but what if I don't have internet access?".
- shmerl 13y ago
  > I think DRM is fine as long as I can access my media anytime & anywhere on all my devices. I think DRM is never OK. Not only because of privacy and ethical issues, but because if you can't fully control the content and the service which issues DRM closes down you would simply lose everything you paid for. It should be a deal breaker. Then pirating that content will be the only option to get it back. This Xkcd applies to video pretty much the same way as to audio for which it was made: http://xkcd.com/488 http://xkcd.com/488
  - smtddr 13y ago
    Unless we're talking about Win8-BIOS-TPM stuff(which I don't clearly understand just yet), I don't think proper(non-remote-controllable) DRM is a privacy concern. I'm not sure how it's an ethical concern either. But, I do think that if the DRM servers and/or media streaming servers are going offline and making the content disappear forever they should allow it to just be downloaded without DRM for free - since turning off the servers implies they're done making money off it(?).
    - shmerl 13y ago
      When Netflix (or any other DRMed code) runs on your machine, it runs as a black box for you. Why isn't that a privacy concern and why should it ever be trusted? It's unethical because it's an overreaching preemptive policing, but it's a long subject. > do think that if the DRM servers and/or media streaming servers are going offline and making the content disappear forever they should allow it to just be downloaded without DRM for free They may be "should" allow it, but they will never do at that point. They have more important problems to care about when they close down. So it's our obligation as responsible users to demand DRM free content from them right away, and avoid those who refuse to sell such.
      - smtddr 13y ago
        Okay, I think I see what you're saying about the decryption binary blob. With all this Ed Snowden stuff, it would not be unreasonable to have some suspicion of any network-software that has a wide user base. Netflix-app would be a good place to have a government backdoor... Then how do we deal with piracy? Is piracy even a problem at all? I guess if iTunes is selling music without DRM and not falling apart, then we think TV-shows/movies can do the same?
        shmerl 13y ago
        > Okay, I think I see what you're saying about the decryption binary blob. With all this Ed Snowden stuff, it would not be unreasonable to have some suspicion of any network-software that has a wide user base. Netflix-app would be a good place to have a government backdoor... No need even to go so far. DRM by definition implies that they don't trust you, the user. So, I see no point to trust them in return. It's normal to assume that DRM is always a risk of privacy violation. Surely, it's a good ground for sinister abuses like your example as well. > Then how do we deal with piracy? DRM doesn't deal with piracy. Publishers and distributors don't even hide this fact these days. So what are they using DRM for? Guess yourself, but expect nothing good in there. The recipe for dealing with piracy is ages old - increase quality to be competitive. I.e. some part of piracy which can be affected is caused by the fact that pirated content has higher usability (no DRM, regional restrictions and other such junk). By releasing quality products while being DRM free and delivering them with high level of convenience, distributors can compete with that sector of piracy. The segment of piracy which is caused by people being crooks and getting free stuff won't be affected at all. DRM doesn't affect it either.
methodin 13y ago
That's easy, because most people do not care to do that. Having owned a collection of DVDs it was "fun" to buy them when it was the thing to do but totally useless now. I care not to take the baggage of managing hundreds of titles with me just to have the knowledge that I own it. I do not wish to own such things unless I want to - which will be rare and should be on me to purchase that item outright from the provider. This is about simplicity and ease-of-use only, not about ownership. If you insist on ownership there is nothing preventing you from buying the work directly.
- shmerl 13y ago
  I'm fine with buying the work directly, but can you point to a good store which sells it simply as files with no DRM attached which I can download after buying? I don't need physical DVDs clutter, it's so much last century. Sure, streaming as convenience is good to have. But it doesn't remove the need for personal backup. Network connectivity is not available always and everywhere, as well as you can't rely on the service to be always around. If you don't care to lose your extensive digital library when that service goes bust it's up to you, but it's a normal thing to care about it.