What's the biggest title any developer has released direct (or "recent") to Gog without DRM?
Biggest in the sense of sales, size of the game or development budget? GOG don't really publish their sales numbers, and budgets are often relatively private too, unless it's a crowdfunded project. But I'd guess it's probably The Witcher 3 which is quite a big game in many senses. From the recently released, Shadow Warrior 2 is also pretty big. I wouldn't call the above mentioned TToN a small game either.
Yes, the world was better when Flash and Silverlight were the media of choice for delivering video.
The problem is DRM has been used for more than digital rights management. We've seen it used to surveill the user and collect information - and restrict actions on the users' computer when it thinks you're doing something illicit (not allowing you to burn things to disc, restricting the ability to screenshot videos, uninstalling/deleting programs, adding rootkits, etc). Far outside the scope of providing authorized a…
From a purely consumerist standpoint, by far the biggest problem with DRM used to be how it was falsely advertised as selling copies, when it was in fact just temporary access that could end any day, even tomorrow (company/server shutdown, hardware token malfunction/loss, general incompatibility with new stuff). Now that "buying" has mostly been replaced by streaming subscriptions, this problem has disappeared: it is perfectly obvious to even the most naive user that access to the content will be gone if they cancel Netflix (or if Netflix disappears) and as a bonus, it has become just as obvious that the streaming provider knows what you stream, open, "natural" surveillance instead of hidden, deliberate. Now it is more like the cashier knows what you buy at the supermarket (how else could they do their job?), whereas before it was a bit like the loyalty card backend knows (ignoring the massive difference in centralisation between cashier and loyalty card).
Netflix would not have the option anymore to use plugins now. They are gone, and browser would not bring them back just for Netflix.
In which case Netflix would simply make available a "native" application for Windows and OS X, like Slack does, and everybody loses (except Netflix). Proof: this is exactly what Amazon does with Kindle content.
Netflix already have a Native Windows app. I don't know if it's still the case, but it was the only way to get 5.1 audio on PC.
The app and Edge are the only two PC 4k viewing options. And both require a Kaby Lake CPU.
Sorry, but as someone who spent nearly a decade founding and building a premium content VOD service, and 6 of those years fighting fiercely against DRM and making great content available without DRM, I have both the knowledge and moral authority to say that you're living in a fantasy world. You might as well say that anyone who is not living an RMS-sanctioned ascetic technology lifestyle is hurting the cause of free…
People have been recording the things they watch since the invention of the VCR. DRM will not have any impact on that. Someone will come along, and make a video-grabbing utility that bypasses the DRM. Also, many of the content is already available via bittorrent. DRM is pointless. But perhaps you are right about "browser vendors refusing to cooperate" not being the best possible approach. However, do you know what is…
This is like saying door locks are pointless because you can break a window and climb through.
Protecting media copyright isn't a black or white thing like crypto. It's about compromises to drive behavior and consumer spending with convenience.
Why is reasonable DRM a problem in the first place? I'm paying Netflix $8 a month to watch thousands of movies whenever I want. Being constrained to a large number of devices that take some steps to prevent someone from ripping the movies is a fair tradeoff. It works flawlessly on my computer, on my phone, and on my xbox. The DRM hasn't bothered me once.
Because I'm going to immediately argue with you that there is no reasonable DRM. It comes from two ideological positions. One believes that content creators need complete systemic control of what they make - at all costs (that the creator maintains full control no matter how the content is interacted with) - and the other is that content shouldn't be controlled (or that I, as a buyer of content, should control the co…
> or that I, as a buyer of content, should control the content I bought
your never bought content. you only rented it.
this is especially true on netflix & co
> Distribute industry content with DRM, distribute their own content without, and see what the results are. The industry content will show up on the Pirate Bay, and Netflix original content will show up on the Pirate Bay. Were you expecting another outcome?
..which would indicate that the marginal value delivered by the DRM is zero?
Unfortunately, the cost for DRM is also zero for the content providers, as long as they are not distributors themselves.
The thing is that there is (for all intents and purposes) no difference between ECE and plugins. Actually, ECE is a plugin. The only difference is that it helps web-designers switch plugin providers. That's it. No more security. No more standardization. As a user, you still depend on the goodwill of the ECE provider throw you a bone. If you use a slightly niche OS (say, OpenBSD on ARM), you're out of luck. If Adobe d…
I completely understand and sympathize with your point, however this: "If you use a slightly niche OS (say, OpenBSD on ARM)" Is rather hilarious - calling OpenBSD on ARM a 'slightly niche' OS in the context of 'operating systems people use to watch video on the web' is rather ambitious, don't you think? OpenBSD on ARM would have to increase it's user base in this arena by a couple orders of magnitude to elevate itsel…
isn't the Nintendo Switch based on either OpenBSD or FreeBSD and uses ARM? woudn't that be a good reason to have a plugin for that?
>Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Uh, why not? All Netflix series are already getting pirated even with DRM.
Obviously, because if it was as convenient to pirate Netflix videos as it was to view them on Netflix, nobody would subscribe to Netflix, and their business would fail.
It already is as convenient to pirate Netflix videos as it is to view them on Netflix. You'll get a better selection, with a better UI, and often higher quality encodes. I still keep a Netflix subscription, because I want to pay for stuff, but it's hard to feel I'm getting value out of it.
I hope you realize the movies people 'pirate' have been stripped of the DRM. Even if the original file had DRM, that does not inconvenience downloaders at all.
I think we lost the ability to make fun of RMS once the Snowden revelations come out. Regardless... >> It is a techno-centric fantasy to think that browser makers have even a modicum of leverage here You realize the world's largest browser vendors are Google, Apple, and Microsoft... right? >> EME is a ideological compromise, sure, but it's a net benefit to the open web since its scope is small and it maintains the ov…
Google and Apple have very little leverage. If even one major studio withdrew all their content from Apple and only made it available on Netflix, Apple could potentially lose millions of subscribers. People want to watch what they want to watch.
> People want to watch what they want to watch.
You keep using this phrase. Doesn't that also suggest that, if given enough trouble, they will just pirate that content instead? DRM has shown to do very little to stop that, so why continue pretending that it does.