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

DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users

#51

Post by josephlord »

rayiner wrote: post #6
shmerl wrote: post #4

> . We face a choice between a feature our users want and the degree to which that feature can be built to embody user control and privacy. It can't be said for all users. I don't want it. No DRM junk in the browser please. I understand that she probably means some estimated majority, which is unfortunate (i.e. majority accepting unethical practice like DRM). > Firefox users would need to use another browser every ti…

> majority accepting unethical practice like DRM Are you kidding? DRM is great. I love being able to just pay money to Netflix in return for content. DRM enables that nice, clear-cut transaction. What's the alternative? Judging by the rest of the web, it involves tracking your internet activity and throwing advertising in your face.

What about Netflix requires DRM? I know that the studios currently require it but what benefit does it actually serve? How much of the content on Netflix is not available to pirate if so inclined?

Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users

#52

Post by tkfu »

rayiner wrote: post #13
shmerl wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DRM is never great. Show me one user who actually appreciates DRM itself. What you meant above is that users like the service. They could like it even more if it hadn't DRM garbage attached to it. I.e. DRM has nothing to do with what users like - it always degrades the quality of the service and the digital goods it delivers.

That's like saying nobody likes the turnstile on the subway. Of course not, but it enables the service to exist in the form it does. I'd much rather go through the turnstile, as awkward as it can be if you've got a suitcase, etc, than be forced to watch advertisements during my subway ride...

The turnstile is actually a great analogy for DRM, including all of its flaws. And the turnstile isn't what allows subway service to exist.

A turnstile isn't very hard to jump over. If the turnstile is the only enforcement mechanism, anyone who wants a free subway ride just has to vault over (or perhaps also glance around to see if there are cops nearby, google whether there are monitored cameras, or pull a hoodie over their face).

There's an alternative, though: most places in Europe, there are no turnstiles, and nothing preventing you from getting on public transit without paying. It's a "trust but verify" system: you are required to validate your ticket before you get on the train, and occasionally someone comes around the train to check if you have a valid ticket, and issues a fine if you don't have one.

With this method, the users aren't inconvenienced, enforcement costs are reduced, and everyone's happy. With the turnstile, you get massive queues at busy stations during rush hour, and by making this one mechanical device your sole point of enforcement, you've actually made it more likely that people who don't want to pay will cheat the system.

Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users

#53

Post by shmerl »

josephlord wrote: post #51
rayiner wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> majority accepting unethical practice like DRM Are you kidding? DRM is great. I love being able to just pay money to Netflix in return for content. DRM enables that nice, clear-cut transaction. What's the alternative? Judging by the rest of the web, it involves tracking your internet activity and throwing advertising in your face.

What about Netflix requires DRM? I know that the studios currently require it but what benefit does it actually serve? How much of the content on Netflix is not available to pirate if so inclined?

It all is about obliging the insanity of movie publishers. And why they require it? No valid reason.

Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users

#54

Post by rayiner »

tkfu wrote: post #52
rayiner wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying nobody likes the turnstile on the subway. Of course not, but it enables the service to exist in the form it does. I'd much rather go through the turnstile, as awkward as it can be if you've got a suitcase, etc, than be forced to watch advertisements during my subway ride...

The turnstile is actually a great analogy for DRM, including all of its flaws. And the turnstile isn't what allows subway service to exist. A turnstile isn't very hard to jump over. If the turnstile is the only enforcement mechanism, anyone who wants a free subway ride just has to vault over (or perhaps also glance around to see if there are cops nearby, google whether there are monitored cameras, or pull a hoodie ov…

Many of those countries also have criminal penalties for fare evasion.

Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users

#55

Post by mconley_ »

davexunit wrote: post #38

Mozilla should have done the right thing and stood by their beliefs that DRM is harmful to the free web. Instead, they folded to the media corporations and implemented EME. I understand the tremendous pressure they must have been under, but it was the wrong decision. Mozilla is not serving the users by allowing Netflix, Amazon, and others to trample their freedom for the sake of watching TV shows. Mozilla, please rem…

Mozilla can't serve it's mission, or it's users, by dying valiantly on a hill somewhere.

Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users

#56

Post by sp332 »

rayiner wrote: post #33
shmerl wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume that DRM has no effect on piracy (it doesn't) and it always degrades usability (it does). Which means scraping it off always has no financial impact except for improving usability of the service and reducing costs of using DRM itself. Better usability + more user friendliness = more satisfied users + more new users = more profit.

I don't think it's a reasonable assumption to make that DRM has no effect on piracy. It won't stop sophisticated pirates, but I do think it stops people from releasing an easy-to-use app that lets your grandma store Netflix movies locally.

Grandma doesn't need to store Netflix movies locally. She can head to the Pirate Bay (with adblock lol) and download the video that a "sophisticated pirate" kindly ripped earlier. She never has to deal with the DRM at all.

Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users

#57

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #33
shmerl wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume that DRM has no effect on piracy (it doesn't) and it always degrades usability (it does). Which means scraping it off always has no financial impact except for improving usability of the service and reducing costs of using DRM itself. Better usability + more user friendliness = more satisfied users + more new users = more profit.

I don't think it's a reasonable assumption to make that DRM has no effect on piracy. It won't stop sophisticated pirates, but I do think it stops people from releasing an easy-to-use app that lets your grandma store Netflix movies locally.

[deleted]

Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users

#58

Post by selmnoo »

rayiner wrote: post #33
shmerl wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume that DRM has no effect on piracy (it doesn't) and it always degrades usability (it does). Which means scraping it off always has no financial impact except for improving usability of the service and reducing costs of using DRM itself. Better usability + more user friendliness = more satisfied users + more new users = more profit.

I don't think it's a reasonable assumption to make that DRM has no effect on piracy. It won't stop sophisticated pirates, but I do think it stops people from releasing an easy-to-use app that lets your grandma store Netflix movies locally.

Reminder to everyone: use downvote only for poor behavior, not disagreements. Appreciate that rayiner often provides intellectually honest contrarian viewpoints to many arguments. If people like him weren't here, this place would just be a big and disgusting circlej erk round the clock.

Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users

#59

Post by tzs »

shmerl wrote: post #23
rayiner wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Netflix, Amazon Video, etc, which don't show advertisements, could exist economically without DRM.

Amazon sells music perfectly without any DRM. It doesn't just exist - it brings them tons of profit. GOG sells games without DRM - and having growing profits. And etc. and etc. Your point disproved.

I believe he's talking about (1) movies, not music, and (2) streaming rental, not download sales.

Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users

#60

Post by aqme28 »

sp332 wrote: post #9
rayiner wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> majority accepting unethical practice like DRM Are you kidding? DRM is great. I love being able to just pay money to Netflix in return for content. DRM enables that nice, clear-cut transaction. What's the alternative? Judging by the rest of the web, it involves tracking your internet activity and throwing advertising in your face.

Movie rentals existed before Netflix. It's always been technically possible to make illegal copies of movies. But most people would rather have a legal option. Otherwise everyone would skip Netflix and just use the Pirate Bay. Edit: To be clear, I'm saying that people will pay for a legal streaming service even if they could rip it off for free.

And just like movie rentals, it's still possible to rip off DRM'd content.

It isn't hard to screen-record, and it never will be. As long as that exists, what's the point of DRM anyway?

Post reply on HN