Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

defectivebydesign.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 209 posts

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#181

Post by ecnahc515 »

tluyben2 wrote: post #178
digler999 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Goodness gracious, I cannot think of a single movie I would like to "own". Is it just me? Am I the only one who doesn't like to watch the same 90m video over and over ? Sure I dont represent every consumer, but I think this is why netflix is successful: not overselling the customer. You get to use the content and put it back. I know how Titanic ends, I dont need to see it over and over again. I get no utility from th…

I cannot think of that either. That is basically why I stopped caring about it, for good or for bad. I was a soapbox standing, card carrying anti DRM but it is not an annoyance anymore so I backed off. I cannot stand DRM or whatever it is called on chips for OSs though...

Are you referring to SecureBoot?

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#182

Post by khedoros »

digler999 wrote: post #161
tluyben2 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the DRM-less Netflix can only work if they would sell you the movies; they don't; they rent them. You did not pay $25-30 per item you watched after which you can say you own it; you paid a fraction. So I agree with you; they make it easy for me to watch legal content, something I have been shouting for for years. I would not care about DRM if I could watch everything like I can on Netflix; unless I buy it (on…

Goodness gracious, I cannot think of a single movie I would like to "own". Is it just me? Am I the only one who doesn't like to watch the same 90m video over and over ? Sure I dont represent every consumer, but I think this is why netflix is successful: not overselling the customer. You get to use the content and put it back. I know how Titanic ends, I dont need to see it over and over again. I get no utility from th…

There's a lot that I don't want to see more than once...and Netflix is great for that. There's a lot that I do watch at least several times (spaced out over years, often). If I see something being sold for an amount I'm interested in paying, it at least means that I don't have to track down how to watch it next time that I want to.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#183

Post by khedoros »

slrz wrote: post #170
tluyben2 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the DRM-less Netflix can only work if they would sell you the movies; they don't; they rent them. You did not pay $25-30 per item you watched after which you can say you own it; you paid a fraction. So I agree with you; they make it easy for me to watch legal content, something I have been shouting for for years. I would not care about DRM if I could watch everything like I can on Netflix; unless I buy it (on…

There were times when I could not watch content in Linux because the DRM decoder didn't work in Linux, so even if I paid, I couldn't get the content I paid for. That's another story, but with HTML5 that's all fixed. How? Do you really watch video in the browser on your computer where you can run Google-provided builds of Chrome? Isn't that pretty annoying? What do you do if you have some random small ARM or Atom box…

> What do you do if you have some random small ARM or Atom box running Linux with an UI that's convenient to use on the big TV screen it's connected to and using a remote control?

Myself, I run a small ARM box running (an embedded and completely inaccessible) Linux, designed as a dedicated streaming device (or sometimes a similar device that is included in the workings of my Blu-Ray player). I'm not particularly interested in using a TV as a display for a general-purpose computing device, so this works well for what I want to do.

I have a few ARM boxes that can't play anything DRMed other than what's handled by libdvdcss or libaacs, but those are the devices that I wouldn't use to play video even if I could.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#184

Post by khedoros »

digler999 wrote: post #164
freshhawk wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Netflix is the good guy, they are pioneers in electronic content delivery." The basis for this is that Netflix was a major player in the success of the push for Encrypted Media Extensions in HTML5. The possibilities for abuse here are just unreal. Pissing off their competitors by not being incompetent when it comes to technology isn't enough to make me call them "good guys" even if some of their stuff I happen to li…

> The possibilities for abuse here are just unreal. Serious question/request: please elaborate. I pay $14/month so I can watch 4K content on my TV and share an acct with my dad so he can watch 3 shows a week. My room mate uses it more than I do. I pay the money with the expectation that I can watch video . What about DRM (in this particular case, I'm not saying I support ALL DRM) could be "abused" and prevent me from…

EME requires a binary-blob decryption module. Imagine the scenario where the only browser that provides some function "X" that you use isn't one that a binary-blob is released for.

For most people that don't care about "X", they'll go for the browser that supports EME. As the userbase becomes more widespread, why wouldn't a content owner want to DRM-enshroud their media? Everyone but the mainstream gets squeezed out, choice is reduced, and we're all worse off for it.

Maybe that's a little over-dramatic. But if I want to watch DRM content and HTML5 with EME is the accepted standard for that, then I need a browser and platform that support it. That limits my choices, purely for the benefit of others. That's a reality that I wish I didn't have to deal with.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#185

Post by Silhouette »

wyager wrote: post #157
Silhouette wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were the "good guy", they would deliver content 100% DRM-free and actively support the public domain. And pay the hundreds or thousands of people involved in making a major movie or demanding TV show for months or years of their time with what, sunshine and rainbows? It would be lovely if we could all just contribute our skills and talents for the general improvement of humanity, but the thing about professio…

The false premise behind your question is that DRM does anything to prevent copying.

Of course it does something to prevent copying. The idea that DRM doesn't prevent a single copy being made is as absurd as the idea that every single infringing copy made of a work represents a lost sale.

In reality, most infringing copies (other than professional pirates) are casual copies made just because someone can, and most works being copied illegally are recent. If DRM avoids even a modest fraction of those infringing copies for even a relatively short time before it's cracked, it probably still leads to increased legitimate sales as a result and has at least partially succeeded.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#186

Post by Silhouette »

Endy wrote: post #160
Silhouette wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were the "good guy", they would deliver content 100% DRM-free and actively support the public domain. And pay the hundreds or thousands of people involved in making a major movie or demanding TV show for months or years of their time with what, sunshine and rainbows? It would be lovely if we could all just contribute our skills and talents for the general improvement of humanity, but the thing about professio…

You assume that I have a problem with less media in the world. I don't. If 90% of the new content that we see and hear disappeared tomorrow, I would be just fine with that. As it ism we have an overwhelming amount of content that distracts us from things that matter like actually helping people. We give tons and tons of money to entertainers while hard-working EMTs and fire fighters are woefully underpaid. We willing…

You assume that I have a problem with less media in the world. I don't.

Then you're welcome to ignore anything DRM'd. No-one is forcing you to watch it, listen to it, play it or run it. What you're not welcome to do is dictate to many millions of other people who do enjoy that content and/or find it useful how they must live their lives or what must matter to them.

The lack of implied paywall is not going to stop the people who have real passion from doing what they love.

Perhaps not, but lack of funds to buy food or pay the rent certainly will.

And anyone who's skilled that it does stop (because they were in it for the money), well, we might mourn the loss. But someone will come along with the passion and skill to replace them.

Unfortunately, the world does not work like that. Producing the best work is often a full-time job for many people for an extended period. Few of us are lucky enough to be financially secure without working for a living, and that includes those with the talent and and skills and creativity to produce amazing work.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#187

Post by Silhouette »

carc wrote: post #156
Silhouette wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were the "good guy", they would deliver content 100% DRM-free and actively support the public domain. And pay the hundreds or thousands of people involved in making a major movie or demanding TV show for months or years of their time with what, sunshine and rainbows? It would be lovely if we could all just contribute our skills and talents for the general improvement of humanity, but the thing about professio…

I feel a little disappointed that so far, based on the comments I'm reading, this seems to be the minority opinion.

Sadly, it is often the minority opinion. There are a lot more people who want to enjoy good content than people who actually spend the time and money creating that content.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#188

Post by kazinator »

digler999 wrote: post #161
tluyben2 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the DRM-less Netflix can only work if they would sell you the movies; they don't; they rent them. You did not pay $25-30 per item you watched after which you can say you own it; you paid a fraction. So I agree with you; they make it easy for me to watch legal content, something I have been shouting for for years. I would not care about DRM if I could watch everything like I can on Netflix; unless I buy it (on…

Goodness gracious, I cannot think of a single movie I would like to "own". Is it just me? Am I the only one who doesn't like to watch the same 90m video over and over ? Sure I dont represent every consumer, but I think this is why netflix is successful: not overselling the customer. You get to use the content and put it back. I know how Titanic ends, I dont need to see it over and over again. I get no utility from th…

> Goodness gracious, I cannot think of a single movie I would like to "own".

Aww, c'mon. Not even this?

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/dvd-smokey-and-the-bandit-th...

Ah wait, you said single movie. Wink! Gotcha.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#189

Post by digler999 »

mistercow wrote: post #180
digler999 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can the average grandma use "torrent sites" (and figure out how to show the content on a TV) ? Can the average grandma use netflix ?

What a strange reply. You're the one who brought up "torrent sites" in the first place.

The argument is way more nuanced than whether something is on torrent or not. Which is why it appears that I'm arguing against myself. I'm not.

I originally brought up that without DRM, someone could rip netflix's entire catalog and publish it straight to bittorrent. Thats a concern to IP stakeholders and likely a big reason they require DRM from Netflix.

He's saying "they're on torrent already, so why should netflix use DRM?". I'm countering that argument with the fact that just because something is available DRM-free on torrent doesn't mean it's as easy to access as Netflix, which requires DRM.

The broader point is that DRM can be technically ineffective, as in it can be circumvented, but it can still be "functional", as in fulfilling its originally intended function. DeCSS was published in '99, yet it's still not easy for an average user (grandma) to duplicate a DVD.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#190

Post by Silhouette »

khedoros wrote: post #184
digler999 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The possibilities for abuse here are just unreal. Serious question/request: please elaborate. I pay $14/month so I can watch 4K content on my TV and share an acct with my dad so he can watch 3 shows a week. My room mate uses it more than I do. I pay the money with the expectation that I can watch video . What about DRM (in this particular case, I'm not saying I support ALL DRM) could be "abused" and prevent me from…

EME requires a binary-blob decryption module. Imagine the scenario where the only browser that provides some function "X" that you use isn't one that a binary-blob is released for. For most people that don't care about "X", they'll go for the browser that supports EME. As the userbase becomes more widespread, why wouldn't a content owner want to DRM-enshroud their media? Everyone but the mainstream gets squeezed out,…

Everyone but the mainstream gets squeezed out, choice is reduced, and we're all worse off for it.

But we're not all worse off for it. In fact, only a small minority who choose to be outside the mainstream are worse off for it. Making unusual choices sometimes means you don't enjoy the same opportunities as those who go with the flow, even as you perhaps enjoy advantages in other respects, and as unfortunate as it might be, that's life.

In cases where we're talking about something important or even essential to living an otherwise normal life, there are arguments for regulatory intervention, public services, and so on to protect those who choose to follow a different path, and indeed those who have no choice.

But here we're talking about being able to enjoy certain entertainment via one particular channel. If that doesn't suit you, you can enjoy the same entertainment by various other means, such as watching a movie in a theatre or buying it on a disc, and there is a whole world of other entertainment you can enjoy instead if none of the alternatives suits you.

But if I want to watch DRM content and HTML5 with EME is the accepted standard for that, then I need a browser and platform that support it. That limits my choices, purely for the benefit of others.

That is true, but it limits you no more than not having that content available online at all.

Post reply on HN