8 ms·

I put this entirely at the fault of the movie industry. I'm happy to pay a subscription fee for a reliable service that lets me stream movies/shows. The issue i

• longlivegnu 12y ago
  I'd also pay to be able to watch these offline and using FOSS software only. I really enjoyed netflix when I had it but I had to do some wonky work around to get it to work on Linux. Then eventually I got another Linux machine and didn't want to do the work around thus I stopped using it and eventually cancelled my subscription (thanks microsoft for helping me be more productive!).
  • StavrosK 12y ago
    It works fine on Chrome on Linux now.
    • rmc 12y ago
      Does it work on Chromium? Because (AFAIK) Google Chrome is not FOSS.
      • StavrosK 12y ago
        I doubt it, it probably relies on some DRM module that Chromium would not have (exactly because it's FOSS). Screw the MPAA.
  • darylfritz 12y ago
    What does Microsoft have to do with Netflix?
    • chimeracoder 12y ago
      The reason Netflix is tricky[0] to run on Linux is due to DRM in Silverlight, which is maintained by Microsoft. Linux can run Silverlight applications in general using Moonlight. (Broadly speaking, Moonlight:Silverlight :: Mono:.NET). However, the DRM is not available on Linux, and was non-trivial to get working under Wine until November 2012, when someone finally published a straightforward way to patch Wine to run Netflix. Nowadays, Netflix has also switched to using HTML5 DRM when possible, so it is possible to watch Netflix on Linux using Chrome (not Chromium). However, it's worth noting that many distributions ship Chromium instead of Chrome by default, as it is proprietary software. It is still not possible to watch Netflix on Firefox, as they have not yet implemented EME (HTML5's DRM). Because of the way HTML5's DRM works, there is no way to produce a fully FOSS browser that can watch Netflix; the DRM extensions have to be purchased uner a proprietary license. OP's wish was to be able to access Netflix or a similar service while using only FOSS software. That is still not possible, and I don't see a way for it to become possible anytime in the near future, at least until the MPAA finally gives up DRM (the way the RIAA did). [0] Not impossible, but definitely a pain.
• watty 12y ago
  Making profit does support creative artists as some of that money goes to them. As a business they want to maximize profits. Why shouldn't they go after sites that cause them to lose profit?
  • aestetix 12y ago
    Tell that to the Beatles.
  • easytiger 12y ago
    Because the people you are clamping down on are also your customers!
  • barking 12y ago
    They ask for piracy with they way they treat their paying customers. If I buy an audiobook I don't want to have to register a device to play it on. I don't want to have to look up account details and go online to register a new device before I can copy my stuff across. These industries have tried to cripple the hardware that I purchase so it would refuse to copy one of their disks. I want to be able to make back ups. I want to be able to lend my property. I want to be able to sell my property. In the unlikely event that they manage to get rid of filesharing I can only imagine how hard they'll squeeze us for ever increasing amounts of loot.
    • watty 12y ago
      The wonderful thing about being a consumer is that you have the right to purchase or refuse to purchase anything you want. If an audio book disallows you from reselling, don't buy the audio book. I disagree with invasive DRM but in no way does it justify piracy.
      • barking 12y ago
        Preventing you from selling your property in this way is illegal in the eu I believe. Does the risk of piracy justify drm if it infringes on my rights?
  • 12y ago
• iamben 12y ago
  This. I pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime. In the UK, I can't watch Amazon Prime on my Roku because (apparently) Sky has a share large enough to stop Roku adding Amazon in favour of Sky's own movie service. I'm happy to pay, just make it easy and stick it all on one platform! This kind of thing really makes you appreciate how great Spotify is.
• IgorPartola 12y ago
  Here's an example from a few years ago I still use. When the Harry Potter movie #6 came out, I wanted to watch movies 1-5 a few days prior. I already owned 1-4 on DVD, but needed #5. I could not find it. iTunes, Netflix, and other streaming services didn't have it. Stores were sold out. I did spend more time than I thought it deserved trying to find a way to pay for this content. Then I gave up and torrented it. The kicker? iTunes removed the movie about a week before this. My other random perspective on torrenting/piracy is this: the industry will often use the price of the digital good * number of downloads as the figure for the loss of profits. However, this gives them way too much credit. They don't have the magic oracle or the distribution system to price each sale individually so as to extract the maximum amount of money from every buyer (Alice thinks the movie is worth $6.82 while Bob thinks it's worth $9.13). I argue that if there is a million downloads of a movie off a torrent site, that does not mean a million lost sales. I imagine it's closer to 0 than 1m. Basically, if most of the people downloading the movie couldn't get it for free, they simply wouldn't pick that particular movie.
  • lmm 12y ago
    Your two paragraphs contradict each other. Which is it - people torrenting would be happy to pay but can't get hold of it at any price, or just going for what's free?
    • IgorPartola 12y ago
      Both are a problem. I believe people would be happy to pay a fair price for good service. Currently, the legitimate channels provide terrible service at a price point that's too high. Given the alternative (free via torrents), why would most people pay too high a price for terrible service?
• StavrosK 12y ago
  I was just saying this to a friend yesterday. I would pay twice the price of Netflix to have all DVD-available movies streamable. Hell, I used to pay around 60 Euros a month to rent around one DVD a day, having all these movies available at a click is even more valuable to me. However, the MPAA doesn't want my money. I'm not going to go buy a DVD player and go down to the store to rent a DVD with unskippable piracy warnings and only be able to watch it on the TV every time I half-fancy a movie. It's not even the price, it's just that the hassle isn't worth it. Therefore, the MPAA can suck it. I feel completely morally justified in downloading a movie when the creator/distributor won't make it available to me, in the same way I think it's fine if someone from a country that doesn't support a payment system I use pirates my software.
  • brandon272 12y ago
    This is something I find frustrating about the Netflix model. Charging me $8.00 a month is nothing. Add a premium plan for "power" users or people who just want to support a model that isn't their cable company. Charge us $19.99 a month or $24.99 a month or $29.99 a month. I will pay for it if it means better licensing deals, better service and more groundbreaking original content!
    • StavrosK 12y ago
      I don't think Neflix doesn't want this, I think it's the MPAA that would just not give them the movies to stream at all costs, or would just up and take the extra money for the same shitty service. I don't believe the Netflix execs haven't thought of this.
• tunula 12y ago
  See it from the industry tzars' perspective. 1) Nobody cares about you, the customer. You are a number. You are one in millions. Nobody cares whether you can get the entertainment you want. The entertainment you want is going to be held hostage, and people as a whole will demonstrably pay the ransom. If you're in charge, there's no problem in sight. 2) Your job and bonuses are tied to keeping numbers high. The industry isn't in a catastrophic tailspin (yet), so the safe thing to do if you want to keep your job is to keep doing what worked before, which is hold tight to content and punish those who "steal" it. Business as usual, and it seems to be working. 3) The law around this is extremely complicated. You need a team of lawyers to navigate the minefield of licensing, and nobody wants to do anything too risky (see point #2). The wrong licensing deal can quickly ruin your multibillion dollar enterprise. Even if you wanted to create an awesome product like the one you propose, it would be a herculean effort to get everyone together for it. Not worth the risk, not worth the effort. The solution seems simple until you look behind the curtains.
• brandon272 12y ago
  This sentiment is amplified if you live outside of the United States. It is amazing how often you will try to watch a video online and see, "This content is not available outside the United States". It is amazing how difficult distributors and copyright holders make it to actually pay for and consume their content. So people turn to alternative methods. Not because they can't afford it, but because it's often the only way that they can even access it.
  • StavrosK 12y ago
    Yep, apparently my Greek money isn't as good as American money, since Netflix isn't available here...
  • Fuxy 12y ago
    As someone who recently bought the Firefly series on Blu-Ray a few weeks ago and attempted to play it on my Arch Linux setup it's very obvious why it gets pirated. On the disc it said I'm not allowed to copy it or RIP it however they put a lot of effort into revoking any decryption key in the wild a free and open source player may use to play the content. After about 6+ hours of trying to get the BD+ virtual machine to work on VLC i gave up and just torrent-ed the damn thing. I own the discs and I could probably RIP them but it's so much easier to just torrent it. DRM is a complete waste of time and the only reason they still insist on having it is so the can control where the content gets played and prevent free solutions from being able to play it. They get to charge you for the content and the company making the players for the right to play Blu-Ray discs the cost ultimately being passed on to you again.
  • digi_owl 12y ago
    This while every damn social site out there is hammering you with ads and whatsnot about the show/movie/etc. If you make something in English these days, and perhaps put it online, you are going to hit a global audience. Long gone are the days of NTSC, PAL and SECAM segmenting the world.
• Vaskivo 12y ago
  "We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable." Gabe Newell http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe...
• moe 12y ago
  I'm happy to pay a subscription fee for a reliable service This, a million times. I have Amazon Prime, a NetFlix subscription and an AppleTV. I'd have happily paid $5-$10 to watch 'Interstellar'. But none of these services offers it in my country. On BitTorrent it was just one click away, so I watched the BitTorrent version. It goes like this for almost all new movies. I really don't understand why they don't want my money.
• __Joker 12y ago
  Most probably, this reasoning would have morally justifiable if the commodity is essential, say, medicinal or may be to lesser extent educational. May be me, you and some others have the benefit of doubt that we will be good Samaritans, we won't resort to piracy unless the payable content is not available. That really doesn't absolve tons of other people who abuse free content through piracy while having alternatives.
• hsod 12y ago
  > I'm happy to pay a subscription fee for a reliable service that lets me stream movies/shows. The issue is, none exist. For example, Netflix used to have an amazing selection before (I imagine) various licensing issues effectively crippled them. There's effectively two models: * The Netflix model, where a large group of people effectively pool a small amount of money each month and buy a big batch of content. You end up paying for some things you don't care about, but you also probably get some stuff you do want for cheaper than you could get it by yourself. * The iTunes model, where each person decides what content they want and pays for it directly. There are no bulk-discounts, so individual content pieces are more expensive. Your argument seems to be that you want the unlimited content selection of the iTunes model, but you want to pay for it like the Netflix model. Which is fine in the "I want a pony" sense, but seems to ignore economic reality.
  • brandon272 12y ago
    Sounds like his argument is that he's willing to pay a larger amount of money for a subscription based service that has excellent selection. How does that ignore economic reality?
    • hsod 12y ago
      That's already an option. He can essentially curate his own Netflix using a la carte services like iTunes or Amazon (non-Prime) Instant Video.