Video has never been DRM free. Even in the days of VHS they had Macrovision. Video right holders have never allowed their content to be delivered without copy protections.
But the larger question is, why do you care? You are not paying for ownership of the video. You are paying for access. Why shouldn't your right to access the video be limited to the time you are paying for the subscription?
It's not about the time to access the video. It's about restrictions built into software and hardware. I don't care about video access. I care about beeing in control of my software and hardware.
> They never forced you to choose incompatible software and hardware.
Until they made it a requirement that my web-browser subverts control from me, the owner of the PC, to Hollywood, in the name of DRM, now a "standard" web-feature.
So basically people who wants to be in control of their own computers can't run web-browsers anymore eh? Just because of Netflix?
Are you not in control of your PS4 software just because it can't run on an Xbox One? In either case the software you bought was not designed to run on your chosen hardware.
Video has always been DRM free, if you know where to get it. DRM does not prevent people from pirating. This has been proven endlessly. It only hurts paying customers. Even in the 80s I could get a DRM-free copy of a movie because the DRM had been stripped out.
> Video right holders have never allowed their content to be delivered without copy protections.
And yet I can still currently download any show/movie I want in a better experience than I get for paying for it. Just because we've always done something one way, doesn't mean that we should continue doing it that way. They may not allow it, but that doesn't stop it from happening.
And why do I care?
A) It's just inefficient. It's a waste of money, and a waste of time, for both me, and the production companies.
B) I should be able to do what I want, with my software. If it's not my software, great, don't give it to me. As soon as it hits my device, though, it becomes my software. Your legalese does not change that.
C) I want to support companies that make media that I enjoy. I currently cannot do that. I keep trying to throw money at companies to get the media in a way I want, but they won't accept it. That's a terrible business model.
Video has always been DRM free, if you know where to get it. DRM does not prevent people from pirating. This has been proven endlessly. It only hurts paying customers. Even in the 80s I could get a DRM-free copy of a movie because the DRM had been stripped out.
I never said that video wasn't always available DRM free. I said that the content distributors never distributed the video DRM free.
I should be able to do what I want, with my software. If it's not my software, great, don't give it to me. As soon as it hits my device, though, it becomes my software. Your legalese does not change that.
It is your software. Just like a PS4 game is your software. When you bought the software you bought it with known compatibility constraints. Why would you expect commercial proprietary software to run on hardware that they don't support any more than you would expect a PS4 game to run on an Xbox One?
is what you said, which is far from the same comment as "the content distributors never distributed the video DRM free." If you meant something else, you might want to adjust that.
If something is incompatible, that is one issue, but if something is intentionally blocked from being compatible, that has moved to being an ethical problem. Those are two completely different scenarios.
If someone could modify their xbox to run ps4 games, I see no problem with that, and would take issue with someone actively trying to prevent them from doing that.
So you missed the part of the post where I said "Video right holders have never allowed their content to be delivered without copy protections."?
Netflix was completely incompatible with PC operating systems that didn't run Silverlight. Netflix is nowe incompatible with operating systems that don't support the required DRM -- which is now a greater subset of operating systems.
> Netflix was completely incompatible with PC operating systems that didn't run Silverlight. Netflix is nowe incompatible with operating systems that don't support the required DRM
Meanwhile HTML has moved from being a completely open specification implementable by anyone and everyone who wanted to, to being closed.
Now it's reduced to being available only on that tiny subset you mentioned. Only companies and platforms blessed by Hollywood can implement a fully compliant HTML engine.
The open web enabled alternate OSes like Linux, Mac, iOS and Android. This change effectively means there won't be any new alternate OSes in future. The innovation ends here.
That's a huge fucking loss. And Netflix is not worth that loss.
They can make an app like everyone fucking else. Like they already do for all platforms not PC. I fail to see what the big problem is.
HTML may have been an open standard, but if Netflix did decide to use a DRM format, what format would they use more than likely? h.264. A video format that can't be used in an open source browser because of patent issues.
> So you missed the part of the post where I said "Video right holders have never allowed their content to be delivered without copy protections."?
No, but I kind of ignored it as that argument is irrelevant. What they've always done has no bearing on the situation. It was illogical then, and it's illogical now. Nothing has changed.
Yeah, they are compatible with more systems, but at the cost of screwing up the standard. Just because it's no longer tied to Silverlight is irrelevant. None of that refutes any of my arguments. They could just throw their weight around release the videos DRM free and be done with it, but they choose not to.
No, but I kind of ignored it as that argument is irrelevant. What they've always done has no bearing on the situation
So I might want to adjust my comment even though you admittedly ignored what I said and the context I said it in?
Saying it's illogical to put DRM on content because it can be broken is just as illogical as saying it is illogical to lock your car door because a thief can break the window.
What "weight" does Netflix have against the entire movie and music industry?
But the larger question is, why do you care? You are not paying for ownership of the video. You are paying for access. Why shouldn't your right to access the video be limited to the time you are paying for the subscription?