7 ms·

I'm not saying that another business model is impossible, but that's not how the industry works today. DRM for PC games has always been an iffy proposition any

by exelius 12y ago

I'm not saying that another business model is impossible, but that's not how the industry works today. DRM for PC games has always been an iffy proposition anyway. It's just too hard to enforce and too easy to crack since you can just access the program on the stack and remove the DRM checks. This is harder to do on more secure platforms like mobile or consoles; which is where much of the media consumption has headed.

shmerl 12y ago
Ability of breaking it applies all the same to DRM for video, or books and etc. So that doesn't differentiate them.
- exelius 12y ago
  Right; but with streaming media it's less about piracy and more about ensuring that the default option for the intermediaries is to protect the media, not leave it unprotected.
  - shmerl 12y ago
    > with streaming media it's less about piracy and more about ensuring that the default option for the intermediaries is to protect the media, not leave it unprotected. I didn't understand that. What does "protect the media" mean if it's not about piracy?
    - exelius 12y ago
      Ensuring the media can only be played back according to the terms of the business agreement. Netflix pays a certain amount for US distribution rights to Disney movies. If a UK company didn't enforce the geographical restrictions in their contract, they are effectively distributing in the US without paying for it. Netflix would not be happy with that. It's less about people using VPNs or downloading torrents -- you can't stop that as easily. But the legal distribution methods have to make an honest attempt at ensuring the contractual restrictions are honored or else they become meaningless. I'm not arguing that these geographic or windowing restrictions are a good thing -- just that they're a thing and they have value in a contract that companies want to protect. The pirates aren't the issue here -- the competition is.

by exelius 12y ago

shmerl 12y ago

Ability of breaking it applies all the same to DRM for video, or books and etc. So that doesn't differentiate them.

exelius 12y ago
Right; but with streaming media it's less about piracy and more about ensuring that the default option for the intermediaries is to protect the media, not leave it unprotected.
- shmerl 12y ago
  > with streaming media it's less about piracy and more about ensuring that the default option for the intermediaries is to protect the media, not leave it unprotected. I didn't understand that. What does "protect the media" mean if it's not about piracy?
  - exelius 12y ago
    Ensuring the media can only be played back according to the terms of the business agreement. Netflix pays a certain amount for US distribution rights to Disney movies. If a UK company didn't enforce the geographical restrictions in their contract, they are effectively distributing in the US without paying for it. Netflix would not be happy with that. It's less about people using VPNs or downloading torrents -- you can't stop that as easily. But the legal distribution methods have to make an honest attempt at ensuring the contractual restrictions are honored or else they become meaningless. I'm not arguing that these geographic or windowing restrictions are a good thing -- just that they're a thing and they have value in a contract that companies want to protect. The pirates aren't the issue here -- the competition is.