Without DRM, someone will write a script to suck down all new Netflix videos and immediately post them to e.g. Popcorn Time. Then Netflix will drop Linux support.
It's a shame that so many people in the OSS community have such an asymmetric and hypocritical view about paying people for their work and respecting creators' licensing intents. If I take a GPLed GitHub repo, clone it, incorporate it into my commercial closed-source app, and release without source or credit to the author in violation of the GPL, everyone gets bent out of shape. But apparently quite a few people in the community don't extend that kind of respect to non-programmers. Only developers have rights -- artists, musicians, etc. can go suck it.
Just commenting on why the industry refuses to give up DRM despite the fact that it's complicated, costly, limiting, and users hate it. Want DRM to go away? Start showing the same respect to all creators that you show to others in your own field.
(Not directed at anyone in particular, but to prevalent attitudes and behaviors in the community.)
Marginally more effort makes a huge difference. Linux on the desktop takes marginally more effort to use than Windows or Mac. What difference does that make in popularity?
Effort also introduces time lag. If the next episode of Walking Dead takes 24 hours longer to show up on TPB, I'll probably see a bump in legitimate streaming and rentals.
I'm not arguing that DRM works, especially in the CS sense that it really makes things "uncopyable." (That's impossible.) I'm attempting to explain why people keep doubling down on it and what behaviors drive that. If DRM leads to 5% more sales and costs less than what they get in revenue from 5% more sales, they'll use DRM.
These companies spend just as much time staring at their spreadsheets as they do in any other industry. If DRM does not correlate with increased sales, now the bean counters ask "why are we spending this money to license this DRM technology?" It becomes a red cell on the spreadsheet, not a black one.
It's also about changing customer habits. Napster, TPB, etc. mainstreamed industrial-scale piracy and taught users that this is easier and cheaper than buying content. The studios and record labels and such were definitely asleep at the switch for the rise of the Internet (understandable as they are not in tech), but now they've woken up and created channels that make it just as easy to buy. Now if they make it harder to pirate too...
> Effort also introduces time lag. If the next episode of Walking Dead takes 24 hours longer to show up on TPB, I'll probably see a bump in legitimate streaming and rentals.
Popular TV shows are available on TPB within minutes, not hours or days.
OTOH, I don't think appeasing Hollywood will help anyone but Hollywood. Their thinking is grounded in ideology not economics; if their content is pirated they think the DRM isn't working so they demand stronger DRM. If their content isn't being pirated they think the DRM must be working so it should be maintained or strengthened.
I used to think this way until I met more people in music, art, entertainment, etc., and generally learned more about how the world actually works.
These people aren't dumb, and they pay a lot of attention to customer behavior just like marketing professionals do in any industry.
They also don't necessarily like DRM for intrinsic reasons. It's actually cumbersome. There are some interests in the industry that like it -- such as DRM vendors themselves and various hardware/console/software interests -- but the actual content producers are largely indifferent to it in itself.
All they want is for people to actually pay for their content. At the biz level they don't care how or why.
If users paid and refrained from engaging in bulk, industrial-scale piracy without DRM, then DRM would wither and die. There'd just be no value proposition to it -- it would add a layer of complexity, cost, and inconvenience to no benefit. You think these guys want to license an expensive proprietary DRM platform if their data shows it makes no difference in their sales numbers?
You've seen this happen within one or two semi-closed ecosystems. iTunes no longer uses DRM because data showed that users of iTunes who purchased music on iTunes were no more likely to pirate it without DRM than with it. But my guess is that users of iTunes who also purchase on iTunes are people who are generally in the habit of purchasing their music/movies and like the convenience of being able to do it with one click. These results from that specific user group do not necessarily translate out to the entire general public on all platforms.
I've also heard that Amazon has made DRM optional on Kindle and that many publishers don't check that box, but I've never published on Kindle so I'm not sure.
But I guarantee you that if Netflix allowed HTML5 video with no DRM mechanism you'd have a direct scripted cron-jobbed pipeline from Netflix to Popcorn Time and similar industrial-scale piracy ecosystems. I know it, and they know it, and that's why you're not gonna see DRM-free open Netflix or Hulu until people stop behaving in this way.
I mean come on people. It's cheap. A movie rental on iTunes (much more expensive than Netflix) costs what a freaking latte costs at Starbucks. Netflix is like 1/10th the cost of cable. Grow up. People have to eat and art must be a viable profession (with you know benefits, 401ks, etc.) or you're not going to get much of it beyond garage quality.
Yeah, record companies and movie studios can be jerks just like VCs and such, but all you're accomplishing is to bust the bottom out of the industry. When that happens, scarcity-driven thinking takes over and people act like even bigger jerks and everyone gets squeezed even more. You're not empowering the artist -- you're moving the artist even further down the totem pole while reducing the amount of money that's even available to trickle down to them.
VCs might be jerks sometimes but think about what would happen to the software industry if they disappeared or were no longer able to raise funds? What do you think programmer salaries would do over time? What would happen to innovation? What would happen to VC behavior if they were squeezed even more?
The stupid thing is I've actually seen people pay more to pirate via HideMyAss-type VPNs and torrenting VPSes (e.g. Digital Ocean nodes) than it would have cost them to just buy the damn feed. Now there's an ideology for you. (Not talking about people who use VPSes to watch outside the U.S.... that's a different issue. I'm talking about people here in America spending over $15/month to chug and seed pirated torrents instead of getting a Netflix account.)
(Again not aimed at anyone in particular in this thread, but at prevalent behaviors in the community.)
> But I guarantee you that if Netflix allowed HTML5 video with no DRM mechanism you'd have a direct scripted cron-jobbed pipeline from Netflix to Popcorn Time
It's a shame that so many people in the OSS community have such an asymmetric and hypocritical view about paying people for their work and respecting creators' licensing intents. If I take a GPLed GitHub repo, clone it, incorporate it into my commercial closed-source app, and release without source or credit to the author in violation of the GPL, everyone gets bent out of shape. But apparently quite a few people in the community don't extend that kind of respect to non-programmers. Only developers have rights -- artists, musicians, etc. can go suck it.
Just commenting on why the industry refuses to give up DRM despite the fact that it's complicated, costly, limiting, and users hate it. Want DRM to go away? Start showing the same respect to all creators that you show to others in your own field.
(Not directed at anyone in particular, but to prevalent attitudes and behaviors in the community.)