8 ms·

I don't really get the resistance to DRM in the Netflix case. I'm against DRM on any media that is represented as a purchase. But you're not buying movies fro

I don't really get the resistance to DRM in the Netflix case. I'm against DRM on any media that is represented as a purchase. But you're not buying movies from them, you're renting them, and it's never represented as anything else. DRM seems not only acceptable in the rental case, but probably necessary.

shmerl 13y ago
Resistance to DRM should be in each and every case IMHO. Why should Netflix suddenly be excluded? Renting of digital data is a stupid idea to begin with. And using DRM to enforce the renting aspect (since without it, "enforcing" it is not possible) is even more stupid and unethical at the same time. All this comes from some paranoid and unhealthy urge of publishers to restrict copying (even legal copying).
- md224 13y ago
  Do you support the sale of digital content in general? If so, isn't there a moral issue in allowing one person to have for free what another person had to pay for? (Unless you're implementing some kind of "pay what you can afford" system.) Isn't that theoretically "stealing"? What's the solution? > Renting of digital data is a stupid idea to begin with. I don't think it's stupid. I think it allows consumers flexibility; they can pay more and fully own digital content, or they can save money and pay less for temporary access.
  - shmerl 13y ago
    I support sales of digital data. I don't support using unethical methods to prevent violation of renting terms, which always comes out of the mere idea of using rental for digital data. May be you have ideas how to enable renting of digital goods without resorting to unethical preemptive policing? Until anybody comes up with such, renting of digital data will remain a bad idea. To put this in perspective. When you rent physical goods, do you find it acceptable to be tracked while you use them with some hidden surveillance mechanisms? But I honestly consider renting of digital data stupid anyway, since it's pointless. There is a valid reason to have renting for physical goods - it allows reusing of the same object and removes the need to make another one which is costly. So it lowers the price for the user of the object as well. Digital goods have none of these issues at all. They cost nothing to duplicate. So renting them simply has no point whatsoever, and is used to reduce usability and out of paranoid fear of piracy, not because it's making anything cheaper and reusable.
    - kemiller 13y ago
      It certainly is making it cheaper for the user, because the publisher is more inclined to make it available cheaply if there is a time limit. But more than that, neither you nor anyone else has yet made an actual argument for why DRM is unethical per se, in all cases.
      - shmerl 13y ago
        As I said, in case of digital goods this inclination has no valid basis. I already explained multiple times why DRM is unethical per se. In short - it's overreaching preemptive policing, that's why it's unethical. DRM in digital sphere is akin to making a police state to prevent crime. Sure, some desire such stuff, but I find it unethical. That's why massive surveillance and DRM issues always converge.
        kemiller 13y ago
        There is a massive, massive difference between NSA surveillance and Netflix using technological measures to ensure you're not copying their content. You have a real, honest choice whether to do business with Netflix and subject yourself to their tracking. They are not an essential service, and they're not even the only provider of video entertainment. You cannot escape the NSA. And you're STILL not actually making an ethical argument, you're just restating your position in different terms.
        shmerl 13y ago
        > There is a massive, massive difference between NSA surveillance and Netflix using technological measures to ensure you're not copying their content. Massive? I don't see a major difference. You accept running some black box surveillance software which exists because of the mere reason of some publishers considering you a potential criminal (infringer) without any warrant and probable cause, based on them by default not trusting you. Now, why are you suddenly supposed to trust them in return that they aren't going to abuse that?
      - deleted 13y ago
- kemiller 13y ago
  Since nobody has come up with a DRM system that doesn't depend on a central service that can go away or change its terms, all DRM-based content is effectively rented. What is unethical about renting something? If you claim that your customer is "buying" something, that they will then "own", then yes, that's outright fraud. I am absolutely against that. But if it's a service, what's the big deal? You can sign up for the service or not. You don't have a supported platform? I guess you can't do it. Nothing new or surprising there. Find a different service, or find a different way to entertain yourself. If you want to talk about the death of ownership and the rise of rental, and how that might be damaging, that's a fine an interesting topic, but I don't see how it's about ethics.
  - shmerl 13y ago
    What's unethical is not renting, but the DRM part which always comes with it. See my answer below.
  - quadrangle 13y ago
    DRM doesn't hurt people who work around it, it ONLY restricts the people who use the service as offered! It isn't about piracy, it's about abusing customers. http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm_digital_restrictions_management http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm_digital_restric...
  - azakai 13y ago
    > Since nobody has come up with a DRM system that doesn't depend on a central service that can go away or change its terms, all DRM-based content is effectively rented. If we consider anything that works to prevent media from being copied in violation of copyright, then there is one solution that does not have a central service, and is not rent-based: watermarking. Every purchase is watermarked for the specific customer. If they give someone else a copy, it is detectable from who they received it, so legal action is possible. But fair use is never prevented, as copying is always technically possible. (Yes, it is possible to remove watermarks, but it is also possible to get around DRM - all of these schemes are continuously escalating arms races.)
    - 13y ago
- MartinCron 13y ago
  Renting of digital data is a stupid idea to begin with. I think that the millions of happy Netflix customers, including me, are going to respectfully disagree with you on that one. I don't illegally download media, but I don't want to have to commit to purchasing every single show or movie that I watch.
  - shmerl 13y ago
    What would change for you, if Netflix will change the terms from renting to buying? I think you confuse convenience of streaming service with benefits that renting of physical goods provide. Streaming service doesn't have to be equal to renting. See below.
    - MartinCron 13y ago
      I guess I would expect the price to change. Netflix (as it is all streaming and not really "renting") isn't the greatest example. For some things that I can't stream on Netflix, I often rent from the iTunes store. The cost is much less than a purchase from the same store. The only difference is the understanding that the digital media I'm renting will no longer function after a well-understood period of time. I'm an adult, I can make informed consent to that arrangement. I wouldn't be happy with this being the only media option, but I like having that as one of the many options in the media ecosystem.
      - shmerl 13y ago
        I see no valid reason why the expected price should be higher in the case of a purchase for digital data. As was discussed here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6496579 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6496579 the main reason why rent price is lower for physical goods, is because it's based on reusability of the object. The reason to limit the time of using it is pretty straightforward as well - to allow the next user gain an access to the object. All these reasons have completely no application to digital goods. So what's the point in renting them, or making the purchase price any higher? I see none, except someone's potential greed may be. You can say, that renting an object more often produces more profit, in case when one time fee is charged for each renting, so that's the reason for the time limit. But then again, this is only valid when the resource is limited (physical object), and each user prevents others from renting it. In case of the digitial data which costs nothing to duplicate, the resource is unlimited, so this reason doesn't apply. And if we are talking about the same user renting it again and again, then what's the point? Purchase makes more sense again. The bottom line, I think that renting of digital goods is a pointless idea. And since as we see it causes DRM in result - it's a bad idea too.
- yeukhon 13y ago
  Excuse me, I read your response. You seem to misunderstand that people have preferences. If you think you can ay $3.99 for every thing you want to watch on Amazon or Youtube movie channel, go ahead. I don't think it is valid to call it useless because millions of us are happy to pay $7.99 a month to watch multiple movies at any time we want. Your whole arguments abut price and overpay don't make sense. I call your arguments closed-mind and invalid. From a consumer's standpoint, there is nothing cheaper than being able to choose any movie you want to watch, unlimited at a bargin price like $7.99. That being said, I and millions of other users think Netflix should have more movies. More newer movies but that's really impossible because stupid Hollywood movie companies like WarnerBrother won't sell them to any streaming company simply because they want to sell the DVD.
  - shmerl 13y ago
    If the price you are paying for that is your privacy and security (i.e. proliferation of DRM), then the price is not $7.99 a month. You are just fooled to believe it's such. It's the same misleading perception people have, when they say that Facebook is "free". No, they are paying with their personal data for it. So, the argument that it's "cheap" is invalid, and a separate question to ask is, how much do you value your privacy?
    - yeukhon 13y ago
      Are you saying my data is being sold/used by Netflix for millions of dollars? Are you saying that Facebook should run a charity? I can understand and I do think FB should be more respectful (hell to LinkedIn) to user's privacy and security preference, but even average users can understand that true free services don't really exists. You think Github is free? Well, they store your repositories and your issues and your commits. They store a lot about you as a professional. But why do people use it? Because they don't sell your data to corrupted companies out there mining? Well, a lot of search engines are mining repo data. A few startups out there are mining github data to make profits. I am paying $7.99 and I am happy to tell Netflix my preference (my ratings) because doing so do help refine results show up in my dashboard and also gives netflix an idea what people like XYZ. There is an equal opportunity for both users and the service to improve. I am paying $7.99 for unlimited service. I can watch at any time, resume at any point, re-view at any time. I can always watch - downtime is statistically low. The streaming / connection is usually very good even for poor internet access. I am not giving up a lot of personal data to be honest. If I don't want to watch the movie / tv show after 20 mins I am still paying $7.99. I am not charged per movie. I can actually stream with my girlfriend instead of paying another $3.99 on Amazon for us to watch a movie together. Tell me if this is not a bargain. This is a purely a decision people can make. On the other hand, I never said FB isn't exploiting users' privacy to gain more profit. But if the argument is free services comes with a cost, well, "no shxt Sherlock." Let's look at it this way. Do you think free software are truly free? Some people release free software in order to provide a premium version later time. Some people provide free software to build their skills and reputation. Some people provide free software to benefit everyone, and that's cool! Do you think docker.io being an open source project really is free? How much $$ can dotCloud save by open-sourcing it? How many more customers will they get after releasing docker? How many people will now trust dotCloud now? There is a price and a gain, even from a pure altruist view.
bcoates 13y ago
Mostly because it's entirely pointless, technologically. Netflix isn't even a particularly good source of digital video for piracy; the free-love internet video sharers are going to rip from the higher-res, sooner-available, better-library, non-DRMed commercial pirate versions. The only people likely to rip video from Netflix are casual copiers, digital information hoarders, and people with legitimate compatibility/access issues. It's kind of baffling that anyone making money off this business would want to drive these paying customers into the arms of Bittorrent, YouTube, etc.
- fein 13y ago
  DRM isn't even going to prevent netflix ripping. All you need is FRAPS, or some other high quality screencap software running while watching. It's not ideal by any means, however still circumvents any sort of protection.
  - espadrine 13y ago
    Assuming the CDM used by the (possibly open-source) browser is open-source, you can just save all the decoded frames. Someone will do that, big media will be mad, we'll have more laws, browsers will be forced into having a binary blob in by default, avid Netflix watchers will be so happy.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      That's an enormous assumption. Google, Apple, and Microsoft already have closed source, incompatible CDMs.
    - nl 13y ago
      You'd think that, and yet there still isn't a working Spotify ripper around that doesn't involve loopback recoding.

shmerl 13y ago

Resistance to DRM should be in each and every case IMHO. Why should Netflix suddenly be excluded? Renting of digital data is a stupid idea to begin with. And using DRM to enforce the renting aspect (since without it, "enforcing" it is not possible) is even more stupid and unethical at the same time. All this comes from some paranoid and unhealthy urge of publishers to restrict copying (even legal copying).

md224 13y ago
Do you support the sale of digital content in general? If so, isn't there a moral issue in allowing one person to have for free what another person had to pay for? (Unless you're implementing some kind of "pay what you can afford" system.) Isn't that theoretically "stealing"? What's the solution? > Renting of digital data is a stupid idea to begin with. I don't think it's stupid. I think it allows consumers flexibility; they can pay more and fully own digital content, or they can save money and pay less for temporary access.
- shmerl 13y ago
  I support sales of digital data. I don't support using unethical methods to prevent violation of renting terms, which always comes out of the mere idea of using rental for digital data. May be you have ideas how to enable renting of digital goods without resorting to unethical preemptive policing? Until anybody comes up with such, renting of digital data will remain a bad idea. To put this in perspective. When you rent physical goods, do you find it acceptable to be tracked while you use them with some hidden surveillance mechanisms? But I honestly consider renting of digital data stupid anyway, since it's pointless. There is a valid reason to have renting for physical goods - it allows reusing of the same object and removes the need to make another one which is costly. So it lowers the price for the user of the object as well. Digital goods have none of these issues at all. They cost nothing to duplicate. So renting them simply has no point whatsoever, and is used to reduce usability and out of paranoid fear of piracy, not because it's making anything cheaper and reusable.
  - kemiller 13y ago
    It certainly is making it cheaper for the user, because the publisher is more inclined to make it available cheaply if there is a time limit. But more than that, neither you nor anyone else has yet made an actual argument for why DRM is unethical per se, in all cases.
    - shmerl 13y ago
      As I said, in case of digital goods this inclination has no valid basis. I already explained multiple times why DRM is unethical per se. In short - it's overreaching preemptive policing, that's why it's unethical. DRM in digital sphere is akin to making a police state to prevent crime. Sure, some desire such stuff, but I find it unethical. That's why massive surveillance and DRM issues always converge.
      - kemiller 13y ago
        There is a massive, massive difference between NSA surveillance and Netflix using technological measures to ensure you're not copying their content. You have a real, honest choice whether to do business with Netflix and subject yourself to their tracking. They are not an essential service, and they're not even the only provider of video entertainment. You cannot escape the NSA. And you're STILL not actually making an ethical argument, you're just restating your position in different terms.
        shmerl 13y ago
        > There is a massive, massive difference between NSA surveillance and Netflix using technological measures to ensure you're not copying their content. Massive? I don't see a major difference. You accept running some black box surveillance software which exists because of the mere reason of some publishers considering you a potential criminal (infringer) without any warrant and probable cause, based on them by default not trusting you. Now, why are you suddenly supposed to trust them in return that they aren't going to abuse that?
    - deleted 13y ago
kemiller 13y ago
Since nobody has come up with a DRM system that doesn't depend on a central service that can go away or change its terms, all DRM-based content is effectively rented. What is unethical about renting something? If you claim that your customer is "buying" something, that they will then "own", then yes, that's outright fraud. I am absolutely against that. But if it's a service, what's the big deal? You can sign up for the service or not. You don't have a supported platform? I guess you can't do it. Nothing new or surprising there. Find a different service, or find a different way to entertain yourself. If you want to talk about the death of ownership and the rise of rental, and how that might be damaging, that's a fine an interesting topic, but I don't see how it's about ethics.
- shmerl 13y ago
  What's unethical is not renting, but the DRM part which always comes with it. See my answer below.
- quadrangle 13y ago
  DRM doesn't hurt people who work around it, it ONLY restricts the people who use the service as offered! It isn't about piracy, it's about abusing customers. http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm_digital_restrictions_management http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm_digital_restric...
- azakai 13y ago
  > Since nobody has come up with a DRM system that doesn't depend on a central service that can go away or change its terms, all DRM-based content is effectively rented. If we consider anything that works to prevent media from being copied in violation of copyright, then there is one solution that does not have a central service, and is not rent-based: watermarking. Every purchase is watermarked for the specific customer. If they give someone else a copy, it is detectable from who they received it, so legal action is possible. But fair use is never prevented, as copying is always technically possible. (Yes, it is possible to remove watermarks, but it is also possible to get around DRM - all of these schemes are continuously escalating arms races.)
  - 13y ago
MartinCron 13y ago
Renting of digital data is a stupid idea to begin with. I think that the millions of happy Netflix customers, including me, are going to respectfully disagree with you on that one. I don't illegally download media, but I don't want to have to commit to purchasing every single show or movie that I watch.
- shmerl 13y ago
  What would change for you, if Netflix will change the terms from renting to buying? I think you confuse convenience of streaming service with benefits that renting of physical goods provide. Streaming service doesn't have to be equal to renting. See below.
  - MartinCron 13y ago
    I guess I would expect the price to change. Netflix (as it is all streaming and not really "renting") isn't the greatest example. For some things that I can't stream on Netflix, I often rent from the iTunes store. The cost is much less than a purchase from the same store. The only difference is the understanding that the digital media I'm renting will no longer function after a well-understood period of time. I'm an adult, I can make informed consent to that arrangement. I wouldn't be happy with this being the only media option, but I like having that as one of the many options in the media ecosystem.
    - shmerl 13y ago
      I see no valid reason why the expected price should be higher in the case of a purchase for digital data. As was discussed here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6496579 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6496579 the main reason why rent price is lower for physical goods, is because it's based on reusability of the object. The reason to limit the time of using it is pretty straightforward as well - to allow the next user gain an access to the object. All these reasons have completely no application to digital goods. So what's the point in renting them, or making the purchase price any higher? I see none, except someone's potential greed may be. You can say, that renting an object more often produces more profit, in case when one time fee is charged for each renting, so that's the reason for the time limit. But then again, this is only valid when the resource is limited (physical object), and each user prevents others from renting it. In case of the digitial data which costs nothing to duplicate, the resource is unlimited, so this reason doesn't apply. And if we are talking about the same user renting it again and again, then what's the point? Purchase makes more sense again. The bottom line, I think that renting of digital goods is a pointless idea. And since as we see it causes DRM in result - it's a bad idea too.
yeukhon 13y ago
Excuse me, I read your response. You seem to misunderstand that people have preferences. If you think you can ay $3.99 for every thing you want to watch on Amazon or Youtube movie channel, go ahead. I don't think it is valid to call it useless because millions of us are happy to pay $7.99 a month to watch multiple movies at any time we want. Your whole arguments abut price and overpay don't make sense. I call your arguments closed-mind and invalid. From a consumer's standpoint, there is nothing cheaper than being able to choose any movie you want to watch, unlimited at a bargin price like $7.99. That being said, I and millions of other users think Netflix should have more movies. More newer movies but that's really impossible because stupid Hollywood movie companies like WarnerBrother won't sell them to any streaming company simply because they want to sell the DVD.
- shmerl 13y ago
  If the price you are paying for that is your privacy and security (i.e. proliferation of DRM), then the price is not $7.99 a month. You are just fooled to believe it's such. It's the same misleading perception people have, when they say that Facebook is "free". No, they are paying with their personal data for it. So, the argument that it's "cheap" is invalid, and a separate question to ask is, how much do you value your privacy?
  - yeukhon 13y ago
    Are you saying my data is being sold/used by Netflix for millions of dollars? Are you saying that Facebook should run a charity? I can understand and I do think FB should be more respectful (hell to LinkedIn) to user's privacy and security preference, but even average users can understand that true free services don't really exists. You think Github is free? Well, they store your repositories and your issues and your commits. They store a lot about you as a professional. But why do people use it? Because they don't sell your data to corrupted companies out there mining? Well, a lot of search engines are mining repo data. A few startups out there are mining github data to make profits. I am paying $7.99 and I am happy to tell Netflix my preference (my ratings) because doing so do help refine results show up in my dashboard and also gives netflix an idea what people like XYZ. There is an equal opportunity for both users and the service to improve. I am paying $7.99 for unlimited service. I can watch at any time, resume at any point, re-view at any time. I can always watch - downtime is statistically low. The streaming / connection is usually very good even for poor internet access. I am not giving up a lot of personal data to be honest. If I don't want to watch the movie / tv show after 20 mins I am still paying $7.99. I am not charged per movie. I can actually stream with my girlfriend instead of paying another $3.99 on Amazon for us to watch a movie together. Tell me if this is not a bargain. This is a purely a decision people can make. On the other hand, I never said FB isn't exploiting users' privacy to gain more profit. But if the argument is free services comes with a cost, well, "no shxt Sherlock." Let's look at it this way. Do you think free software are truly free? Some people release free software in order to provide a premium version later time. Some people provide free software to build their skills and reputation. Some people provide free software to benefit everyone, and that's cool! Do you think docker.io being an open source project really is free? How much $$ can dotCloud save by open-sourcing it? How many more customers will they get after releasing docker? How many people will now trust dotCloud now? There is a price and a gain, even from a pure altruist view.

bcoates 13y ago

Mostly because it's entirely pointless, technologically. Netflix isn't even a particularly good source of digital video for piracy; the free-love internet video sharers are going to rip from the higher-res, sooner-available, better-library, non-DRMed commercial pirate versions. The only people likely to rip video from Netflix are casual copiers, digital information hoarders, and people with legitimate compatibility/access issues. It's kind of baffling that anyone making money off this business would want to drive these paying customers into the arms of Bittorrent, YouTube, etc.

fein 13y ago
DRM isn't even going to prevent netflix ripping. All you need is FRAPS, or some other high quality screencap software running while watching. It's not ideal by any means, however still circumvents any sort of protection.
- espadrine 13y ago
  Assuming the CDM used by the (possibly open-source) browser is open-source, you can just save all the decoded frames. Someone will do that, big media will be mad, we'll have more laws, browsers will be forced into having a binary blob in by default, avid Netflix watchers will be so happy.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    That's an enormous assumption. Google, Apple, and Microsoft already have closed source, incompatible CDMs.
  - nl 13y ago
    You'd think that, and yet there still isn't a working Spotify ripper around that doesn't involve loopback recoding.