I don't think most people expect DRM-free content when paying for a subscription model - I know I don't. I'm paying for the right to access that content when I want as long as it's available but I am under no assumption that I assume the right to take that content with me and do with it what I please. That type of content is completely different than what this streaming model represents. Netflix is surely on a better trajectory here than other providers, no?
It's not better as long as there is DRM in it. Why can't you expect to get the content with you? You can expect paying for titles some one time fee. Not unlike music and games. Streaming is just a way of accessing it from the "cloud" without the need to download it first. But why should it prevent you from downloading if you want to back it up, take it with you somewhere where you have no access to the cloud and so on? There is no good reason for "subscription model" in the digital world which restricts your ability to copy. Buy and use, that's what it's supposed to be.
>But why should it prevent you from downloading if you want to back it up, take it with you somewhere where you have no access to the cloud and so on?
That's the real problem; that internet is not accessible & free everywhere. I think DRM is fine as long as I can access my media anytime & anywhere on all my devices. Netflix pretty much fits this requirement aside from the hack of Linux+Netflix. The issue that internet isn't available to every human being or costs a ridiculous amount of money is a problem that needs to be fixed. I want to be able to say "Everyone has internet these days" and really mean it for all people of the world. We need to make it impossible for anyone to make the argument "but what if I don't have internet access?".
> I think DRM is fine as long as I can access my media anytime & anywhere on all my devices.
I think DRM is never OK. Not only because of privacy and ethical issues, but because if you can't fully control the content and the service which issues DRM closes down you would simply lose everything you paid for. It should be a deal breaker. Then pirating that content will be the only option to get it back. This Xkcd applies to video pretty much the same way as to audio for which it was made: http://xkcd.com/488
Unless we're talking about Win8-BIOS-TPM stuff(which I don't clearly understand just yet), I don't think proper(non-remote-controllable) DRM is a privacy concern. I'm not sure how it's an ethical concern either. But, I do think that if the DRM servers and/or media streaming servers are going offline and making the content disappear forever they should allow it to just be downloaded without DRM for free - since turning off the servers implies they're done making money off it(?).
When Netflix (or any other DRMed code) runs on your machine, it runs as a black box for you. Why isn't that a privacy concern and why should it ever be trusted? It's unethical because it's an overreaching preemptive policing, but it's a long subject.
> do think that if the DRM servers and/or media streaming servers are going offline and making the content disappear forever they should allow it to just be downloaded without DRM for free
They may be "should" allow it, but they will never do at that point. They have more important problems to care about when they close down. So it's our obligation as responsible users to demand DRM free content from them right away, and avoid those who refuse to sell such.
Okay, I think I see what you're saying about the decryption binary blob. With all this Ed Snowden stuff, it would not be unreasonable to have some suspicion of any network-software that has a wide user base. Netflix-app would be a good place to have a government backdoor...
Then how do we deal with piracy? Is piracy even a problem at all? I guess if iTunes is selling music without DRM and not falling apart, then we think TV-shows/movies can do the same?
> Okay, I think I see what you're saying about the decryption binary blob. With all this Ed Snowden stuff, it would not be unreasonable to have some suspicion of any network-software that has a wide user base. Netflix-app would be a good place to have a government backdoor...
No need even to go so far. DRM by definition implies that they don't trust you, the user. So, I see no point to trust them in return. It's normal to assume that DRM is always a risk of privacy violation. Surely, it's a good ground for sinister abuses like your example as well.
> Then how do we deal with piracy?
DRM doesn't deal with piracy. Publishers and distributors don't even hide this fact these days. So what are they using DRM for? Guess yourself, but expect nothing good in there.
The recipe for dealing with piracy is ages old - increase quality to be competitive. I.e. some part of piracy which can be affected is caused by the fact that pirated content has higher usability (no DRM, regional restrictions and other such junk). By releasing quality products while being DRM free and delivering them with high level of convenience, distributors can compete with that sector of piracy. The segment of piracy which is caused by people being crooks and getting free stuff won't be affected at all. DRM doesn't affect it either.
I agree with you in principle on a LOT of the points, but the real issue is that most content producers (publishers are a different issue...) would LOVE to be able to do this:
"The recipe for dealing with piracy is ages old - increase quality to be competitive"
But realistically it's fucking HARD. Mainly because increasing quality to be competitive with piracy would generally require breaking tax and import laws everywhere.
Even if it doesn't require breaking those laws to be competitive, you have to at least pay enough people to be aware of them, for each and every country you want to be able to distribute your content in.
So decent* DRM isn't about stopping piracy, really. It's about slowing it down just enough that it's still worthwhile to jump through the hoops required to bring that content legally to other regions.
*: It's actually fairly hard to hit this goal on the head, and often I feel companies buy too far into their own bullshit and sense of entitlement with DRM. A lot of shoddy executives with poor understanding of software misuse DRM to the extent that it drastically lowers the value of the content (see: always on DRM) Please continue to bash them, they deserve it.
> Mainly because increasing quality to be competitive with piracy would generally require breaking tax and import laws everywhere.
I'm not exactly sure why so? Take for example gaming. GOG sells DRM free games worldwide, without regional restrictions and no inflated pricing for countries like Australia for example. Why can't video be sold on similar terms?
>So decent DRM isn't about stopping piracy, really. It's about slowing it down just enough that it's still worthwhile to jump through the hoops required to bring that content legally to other regions.
In my view it never pays off. The downside of reduced usability is always worse than any potential gain in slowing down piracy on the period between some new DRM scheme is introduced until it's broken. Usually that period is small, and ever since that DRM becomes obsolete, while usability stays crippled for legitimate users. All those involved in production and distribution should always keep in mind that DRM means their voluntary reduction of quality for practically absent gain of shortly slowed down piracy. How are they planning to compete, when instead of increasing quality, they cripple their own products?
You are not paying for the content in this model - only the ability to access the content through the provider. It's the same as all free and/or pay-for-web-services. You have no control but that is the sacrifice you make for having the ability to access it from the internet, and not your device.
> You are not paying for the content in this model - only the ability to access the content through the provider.
Which I think is not something that should even exist IMHO. Since paying for content itself is easier, can work with the same convenience of streaming, while not preventing the backup. Everyone wins, since piracy will exist even when some service attempts to prevent copying.
Speak for yourself. I'd much rather pay $7.99 a month for a subscription that provides me streaming access to everything rather than $20-$30 buying new music every month.
That's easy, because most people do not care to do that. Having owned a collection of DVDs it was "fun" to buy them when it was the thing to do but totally useless now. I care not to take the baggage of managing hundreds of titles with me just to have the knowledge that I own it. I do not wish to own such things unless I want to - which will be rare and should be on me to purchase that item outright from the provider.
This is about simplicity and ease-of-use only, not about ownership. If you insist on ownership there is nothing preventing you from buying the work directly.
I'm fine with buying the work directly, but can you point to a good store which sells it simply as files with no DRM attached which I can download after buying? I don't need physical DVDs clutter, it's so much last century.
Sure, streaming as convenience is good to have. But it doesn't remove the need for personal backup. Network connectivity is not available always and everywhere, as well as you can't rely on the service to be always around. If you don't care to lose your extensive digital library when that service goes bust it's up to you, but it's a normal thing to care about it.
