Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

You may not know what advocate means, but it can take steps to eradicate DRM, as if it is really always a bad thing.

Do I think web video and broadcast TV are different? Absolutely; definitely; unequivocally, yes. Obviously. Maybe not for technical folks; maybe not when usenet or FTP trading was your only option for content not music; but nowadays, torrent software and search is really damn easy and free. Broadcast also comes with a landslide of garbage between 95% shit channels and 33% commercial times; Netflix does not operate this way.

I think ebooks and music are totally different ballgames. You'll pay more for an ebook or mp3 album than you will for a month of Netflix; you think they can service you like that without some guarantees to content providers? I really don't know, but I know some of you are up in arms about Netflix having DRM, when it really isn't harming anyone. If you want to own the content, go do that; Netflix is only offering a non-ownership service.

$8 for 24/7, front-running picture-quality, enormous-catalog of content; it has DRM; it _never_ gets in the way of the service; it frankly works so good that owning the content would provide nigh a worse experience. Can you really explain to me the downsides to how Netflix has implemented DRM? What if they offered an additional cost to be able to download content for offline use, which is about the only thing I can conceivably imagine some might have reservations?




> it _never_ gets in the way of the service

... if you use a supported platform. In other words: It never gets in the way of the service for you

Until recently, running it on Linux at all was not feasible. Even today, it requires running it in Wine or a VM. The only reason this is the case is because the DRM prevents us from using a standard player.

That is the downside of DRM. And for me it's the reason why I won't touch Netflix even if it becomes easier to use it under Linux as long as they keep at the DRM nonsense.

I learned this the hard way with iTunes, and I am not touching DRM'd content again unless I can effortlessly break the DRM (so e.g. I do buy DRM'd books of Amazon, and promptly uses Calibre to secure a DRM free copy; but I've still not made the move to Bluray because it's too much hassle)


> You may not know what advocate means

?

advocate, verb: publicly recommend or support.

In this thread, you've been publicly recommending and supporting the idea of giving up on fighting web DRM.

Web video and broadcast TV are the same in terms of the effect of piracy, and in terms of the need for DRM. A TV show pirated from a broadcast stream is almost exactly the same as a TV show pirated from a web stream. DRM isn't necessary over the air, therefore it isn't necessary on the web.

Requiring DRM for web content but not for broadcast content is like locking one door but leaving another open. The broadcast door has been open for years and Hollywood still hasn't imploded. Web DRM isn't necessary for their business; they're just trying to use it to get more control.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: