I don't see DRM-free options as a mistake though. I suppose it's good that Apple played a role in forcing one DRM obsessed segment into adopting DRM-free approach, but video could learn from music industry, which successfully profits despite the absence of DRM, and do the same thing.
Streaming doesn't replace DRM-free purchasing, thus the issues in the parent topic itself.
But how does this relate to DRM or explain the lack thereof? If every platform can offer DRM-free movies, similar to the music I can buy everywhere, how does that put Apple in a dominant position? Sounds more like an equal playing field to me.
The music industry getting rid of DRM was never about the customer - it was the only way that the music industry could both reduce Apple’s stranglehold on digital music and let competitors sell music that was compatible with Apples dominant devices.
The movie industry doesn’t have that issue. Anyone can license and sell video that works on Apple devices via an app an Apple is not dominant in the video delivery devices market like it was in the music market during the iPod era. Apple can’t dictate terms.
Getting rid of DRM was suppose to give the music industry back its power (and then Spotify happened). Getting rid of DRM doesn’t do anything for the movie industry. But most studios are happy to be a part of Movies Anywhere that let you sync purchases between Apple/Google/Amazon/Vudu.
> Getting rid of DRM doesn’t do anything for the movie industry.
In the sense of paranoid control, it doesn't. In practice it will increase their profits, since they'll address the market that they currently ignore, switching some users from pirating to buying the same thing legally.
The number of people who don’t buy movies because of an ethical concern over DRM is minuscule compared to the number of people who would share movies if they could easily.
The population of people who wouldn’t buy DRMd video because it was inconvenient or wouldn’t play on their desired device is larger. The answer to that is make your player ubiquitous across all devices - and even Apple is starting to do that.
The other answer is to make your purchase shareable across providers. Movies Anywhere is doing that with 4 of the major studios.
Whether it's ethical or pragmatical, this number is not small. Either case, it's not zero, so they are losing profits clearly. While they continue ignoring it, people will continue pirating it.
Making DRM ubiquitous if futile. And costs a lot more than simply releasing DRM-free video. So it's the worst way to address the issue, since it doesn't even address it.
Are the number of people who won't buy media because of DRM > the number of lost sales due to casual piracy for people who don't know how to torrent?
And if you are looking for something that's not recent and/or popular, trying to find a seeded torrent can be prohibitive.
Add to that the number of people who won't pirate because of getting one warning letter and people who don't want to bother trying to figure out how to get a movie to their device.
Heck, I know how to do all of that, have a Plex server set up etc. But these days it's not even worth the hassle. I'll just spend the 3-6 bucks on a rental.
I'd say number of those who can't torrent is negligent in comparison to those who can. I.e. what you call "casual piracy" is simply a rounding error. Those who can't, also quite easily can find those who can, and "casually" copy it from them without torrents. So DRM does nothing there, while only costs money to those who use it.
Overall, some sizable amount of those who do pirate would rather buy, if there were DRM-free options available. Games use case demonstrated it quite clearly.
Warnings and whac-a-mole types of methods are completely pointless, it was proven over and over. They don't do anything besides wasting resources. So DRM proponents should unstick their heads from their backwards mentality, and should start selling DRM-free video. That's the only positive thing they can do about it.
You really think that people would spend $10-$20 on a digital movie if they didn’t have to?
So the entire movie industry worth billions of dollars a year should take advice from a few random posters on HN?
These are the probably the same people who declared in 2001 on Slashdot that no one would buy the iPod - “Less space than the Nomad. No Wireless Lame” and that poo poo’d Dropbox (the only YC company that has gone public) right here on HN saying they could do the same thing with a few shell scripts...
Ask those who buy games on GOG, and stopped pirating games once DRM-free stores became available. That's commonplace. Someone should learn from good examples.
Film industry for the most part is extremely backwards thinking, driven by all kind of crooked business practices and often simply stubborn stupidity of those who are in charge. It's the same industry which for years was proclaiming that cord cutting isn't a thing, until they were literally forced to admit that it's inevitable. Same thing with DRM. They'll be stuck up until who knows when, while DRM-free market won't be addressed with legal options.
So I won't take its size for the indicator of anything positive apriory. It's just a legacy behemoth, scared to admit obvious falsehoods it's sticking to.
GOG is successful and their financial status is good and is indicating their investment in their growth (instead of lining their pockets while doing nothing). I doubt Kotaku has more info than their own shareholders.
How is a company doing well that laid off 10% of its workforce?
One person who was laid off from GOG last week offered a different perspective, saying that laid-off staff were told that this was a move made by a company in dire straits. That person estimated that the layoffs had hit 10% of GOG’s staff.
Streaming doesn't replace DRM-free purchasing, thus the issues in the parent topic itself.