61–70 of 276 posts
This article is clickbait. The headline makes a bold claim, and then the article goes on to say: The purpose of DRM isn't to prevent copying, it's to prevent unlicensed reproduction. That is, it says 'copying' in different words, by trying to talk about things adjacent to copying, like forcing ads to play. Yes, content owners want to enforce all kinds of other things with DRM, but the fundamental thing is control of…
Why the conspiracy theory? It works very well to stop piracy (since it's a hassle to have to pick a bottorrent program, install it, deal with it's annoying popups and ads (because you're a normal user and chose a popular bittorrent client), avoid the popups on the pirate bay, know what a magnet link it, find a player for .mkv files. It's easier to pay $15 to buy the show on Amazon. Anyone who disagrees hasn't tried t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My dad is elderly and has figured out how to watch online movies for free. He goes to [1] and it is just like netflix point and click no skill needed. 1 https://flixtor.to/home
I have no doubt that one, or even thousand of seniors are pirating the latest movies. I’m not saying that people don’t pirate stuff. But Netflix has 213 million users. If pirating was really so much easier and DRM made legal options unusable, they wouldn’t. DRM sucks, but Netflix isn’t going out of business any time soon
Nitpicking, but Netflix has 213 millions subscribers, not users.
We don't know how many of them are active or how many people are using them.
We simply know they paid one time.
This article is clickbait. The headline makes a bold claim, and then the article goes on to say: The purpose of DRM isn't to prevent copying, it's to prevent unlicensed reproduction. That is, it says 'copying' in different words, by trying to talk about things adjacent to copying, like forcing ads to play. Yes, content owners want to enforce all kinds of other things with DRM, but the fundamental thing is control of…
Early in it makes a strong and specific claim :
"The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices."
This is explicitly stated and I believe a meaningful hypothesis to explore and base an article around. It frames the argument instead of just "creator vs pirates" as "one industry vs another" which is a sufficiently different ballgame. I found it quite in line with title.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no doubt that one, or even thousand of seniors are pirating the latest movies. I’m not saying that people don’t pirate stuff. But Netflix has 213 million users. If pirating was really so much easier and DRM made legal options unusable, they wouldn’t. DRM sucks, but Netflix isn’t going out of business any time soon
> But Netflix has 213 million users Nitpicking, but Netflix has 213 millions subscribers, not users. We don't know how many of them are active or how many people are using them. We simply know they paid one time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They hate piracy because it does cost them. https://torrentfreak.com/eu-piracy-report-suppression-raises... > “In general, the results do not show robust statistical evidence of displacement of sales by online copyright infringements,”
Read the next sentence too. > That does not necessarily mean that piracy has no effect but only that the statistical analysis does not prove with sufficient reliability that there is an effect. Absence of evidence != evidence of absence.
Instead of the usual hypocrisy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But Netflix has 213 million users Nitpicking, but Netflix has 213 millions subscribers, not users. We don't know how many of them are active or how many people are using them. We simply know they paid one time.
I’ll phrase it another way: in 2020, some number of people collectively decided it was easier to send Netflix 25 billion dollars instead of pirating movies.
Pirating skyrocketed as well during 2020
The two things are not adversaries as much as one might think
Theatrical releases on streaming services have helped piracy, now you can download a movie mere days after it came out and the quality is gonna be perfect.
> More people are pirating movies during the coronavirus lockdown During the last seven days of March, there was a 43% spike in Americans visiting sites that pirate movies compared with the last seven days of February. Italy, which went under lockdown orders on March 9, saw visits to piracy sites spike 66%
This article is clickbait. The headline makes a bold claim, and then the article goes on to say: The purpose of DRM isn't to prevent copying, it's to prevent unlicensed reproduction. That is, it says 'copying' in different words, by trying to talk about things adjacent to copying, like forcing ads to play. Yes, content owners want to enforce all kinds of other things with DRM, but the fundamental thing is control of…
Yeah. It's even arguing against itself. If I interpret it correctly,
* The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations. (Implied to mean: Ensure exactly 0 copies exist online).
* The purpose of DRM is to prevent copyright violations. (Implied to mean: by our paying customers)
So tonight I watched a 1080p pirated copy of Spiderman: Far From Home. And I gotta say, it was kinda crap. The sound would randomly cut out, and the compression was absolute ass (it was the perfect artifact to show people when explaining “not all 1080p’s are created equal”, especially when they’re fighting the water elemental) I really do think that DRM has won folks. We have seen the 4K HDR future, and what we find…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If pirate sites were allowed to flourish, they'd surely end up feeling as good as Netflix or better.
Popcorn time was/is pretty much the pinnacle of it so I'd say they got pretty close to being better than the streaming services.