How DRM would kill the next Netflix

[Fogbert]

@enso

It is called “torrents.”

I can find any movie that has been released (and many that haven’t) in under 60 seconds and have them in under 30.

Fair enough. I should have been more specific to say that the solution should avoid theft.

[enso]

@Fogbert

Fair enough. I should have been more specific to say that the solution should avoid theft.

Theft is depriving someone of their property. There are strong arguments made that “illicit copying of files outside of agreements” is not the same as “theft.”

When people provide a good enough system, most people quit “stealing” files. Various music services proved that.

[daneel]

But yeah…

[anon75430791]

I am not sure how incorporating DRM into HTML5 will prevent the next Netflix from occurring.

Netflix right now mandates some DRM on its apps (HDCP) to prevent ripping of streamed movies. I am sure many content providers (like it or not) require that feature in order to license their content.

@Jorpho

It seems to me that the alternative to making DRM part of HTML5 would just be for a company to make its own independent closed-source non-portable solution that will probably be rife with its own security bugs forever, and that doesn’t sound better.

i.e. Crappy web plugins, which themselves have been a stumbling block for Netflix-like competitors. In no small way did Netflix’s existing popularity get past the stumbling block of nobody having Silverlight installed by default.

TFA actually contains a better summation of why this built in DRM would be problematic:

To implement an EME-capable browser, you must have a “Content Decryption
Module.” These modules are all presently implemented in closed,
proprietary code. This isn’t unusual: many core technologies begin life
as proprietary blobs, and the normal course pursued by free software
advocates is to reverse-engineer that proprietary software and make
free, open implementations.

Really, though, it’s the same shit different day as with the DRM on DVD’s–only a real deterrent to casual pirates, which aren’t the core problem to begin with. A DRM module in HTML5 won’t stop the tide of theater cams, Blu-ray/DVD rips, and MPEG captures. It will only serve to prevent the “Next Netflix” from being on Linux and other open platforms, meaning all those people will just go out and pirate the media instead of paying for it.

Just like happened with Netflix this generation, because Silverlight wasn’t available on a variety of platforms. The Silverlight comparison is relevant, though, since reversing Silverlight wasn’t illegal this generation due to the DMCA (AFAIK), and so there was a reverse engineered version for Linux after while.

All this is to say: I don’t think it’s the end of the world, it will just be slightly annoying.

[enso]

@anon75430791

I don’t think it’s the end of the world, it will just be slightly annoying.

Don’t tell Cory.

[Fogbert]

@enso

There are strong arguments made that “illicit copying of files outside of agreements” is not the same as “theft.”

Whatever your political views might be, my political views hold that withholding payment from people when they are legitimately due payment is stealing.

[enso]

This isn’t “politics.”

Who decides when it is legitimately due? If I watch something on my TV that I paid for and now I want to watch the same thing on my laptop, should I be required to pay a second time? Many rights holders say “Of course! And if you want to watch it on your phone too!”

Normal people say “No” and then vote with their feet.

You can call it “theft” all you want but theft is when I steal your car and you can’t use it anymore. It isn’t when I make a copy of a digital file while leaving the original there. It is something else, no matter how much you want to put your fingers in your ears and spout propaganda fed by the RIAA and others to people.

I’m glad you own not a single pirated mp3 file or movie. Of course, you have the rights to all images on your hard drive from the creators too, right? Every PDF you’ve ever grabbed, you got permission? Never photocopied a page of a text book for school either, right?

[Fogbert]

@enso

Who decides when it is legitimately due?

Lawyers. You may not agree with their arguments or with the laws in effect in whatever country you may reside in, but that’s what the law is for. If you don’t like the law, fight to change it.

[hello_friends]

subject to intellectual property law and FCC rules.

This and an “entrepreneurial disruption” surplus are the dispositive issues.

[hello_friends]

Spoken like a true socialist.

[enso]

@Fogbert

Lawyers. You may not agree with their arguments or with the laws in effect in whatever country you may reside in, but that’s what the law is for. If you don’t like the law, fight to change it.

I’m sorry but I thought we were discussing ethics or the idea of “theft” here. Just because something is the law doesn’t mean it is or is not ethical.

Can you quit trotting out tired arguments from 2006?

[Fogbert]

@enso

I’m sorry but I thought we were discussing ethics or the idea of “theft” here. Just because something is the law doesn’t mean it is or is not ethical.

Can you quit trotting out tired arguments from 2006?

Actually, we were discussing whether a legitimate business model exists to allow content to be easily place- and time-shifted.

By the way, you don’t even know what my opinion is because you haven’t asked and I haven’t offered it.

(I’ll quit trotting out tired axioms like “the law”, when you quit trotting out the equally tired “things should be free because I wish them to be.”)

[enso]

@Fogbert

By the way, you don’t even know what my opinion is because you haven’t asked and I haven’t offered it.

Sure you did:

1. Copying is theft
2. Lawyers determine when we’re allowed to copy and how much we have to pay for this privilege.

Those sure look like opinions to me.

@Fogbert

(I’ll quit trotting out tired axioms like “the law”, when you quit trotting out the equally tired “things should be free because I wish them to be.”)

and things aren’t free because I “wish them to be.” They’re free because they’re…free. Do peruse your favorite torrent site. My “wish” has nothing to do with the fact that, as it turns out, content is available. People have made a decision and this has been happening for most of 20 years now.

[Fogbert]

@enso

Sure you did:

Copying is theft
Lawyers determine when we’re allowed to copy and how much we have to pay for this privilege.

Those sure look like opinions to me.

That’s not opinion, that’s fact.

Since you still haven’t asked, here’s my opinion. If I buy a movie, I believe that I should be able to watch it anywhere I want, whenever I want. I bought the rights to view it. I should be able to view it at my leisure.

That it’s my opinion doesn’t make it legal, or legitimate. Nor does it make the law just.

[enso]

I’m sorry but “copying is theft” is an opinion, not a fact. It can be debated and discussed. It isn’t simply some truth you can trot out.

As it turns out, you can watch your movie wherever you want. That is a fact.

[Fogbert]

What constitutes fair use: Stanford University Summary of Fair Use

That you don’t agree does not make it so. We can debate whether the interpretation of the law is just–and I’d enjoy the argument even though I suspect we’re at least partially on the same side–but until the law is changed, it’s fact.

[daneel]

Copyright infringement is illegal, but it is not theft. That is not a fact.

Dowling v. United States

[enso]

Still an opinion, not a “fact.”

The word “law” is not synonymous with “fact” either.

You can say “This law exists, that is a fact” but that’s not what you said. You said that copying being theft was a “fact” and it isn’t, it is an opinion.

[enso]

@daneel

Copyright infringement is illegal, but it is not theft. That is not a fact.

He seems confused as to what facts are versus opinions.

[Fogbert]

@enso

He seems confused as to what facts are versus opinions.

What he is, is weary of a useless pissing contest.