Hacker News Reader

Comment by pdeuchler | Hacker News Reader

I think we lost the ability to make fun of RMS once the Snowden revelations come out. Regardless...

>> It is a techno-centric fantasy to think that browser makers have even a modicum of leverage here

You realize the world's largest browser vendors are Google, Apple, and Microsoft... right?

>> EME is a ideological compromise, sure, but it's a net benefit to the open web since its scope is small and it maintains the overall schema of web standards.

Ahhh yes, the classic "compromise some of my morals to save the rest of them". Works every time.

View on HN

Google and Apple have very little leverage. If even one major studio withdrew all their content from Apple and only made it available on Netflix, Apple could potentially lose millions of subscribers. People want to watch what they want to watch.

I do not buy this for several reasons:

1) Content production is rapidly moving to an "in house" model, where subscribers are more heavily influenced by original and exclusive content

2) I doubt there would be large transfers of subscribers, more a slight depression across the board and large increases in piracy, as we saw rather distinctly with the early days of music providers (like before itunes early days)

3) Google and Apple each by themselves are worth the entirety of Hollywood many times over. I think it's less them having little leverage, and more them playing a longer game and not caring about DRM battles in the short term.

Content is indeed moving in house, and all the companies that are doing in-house production in any meaningful way DRM their content. So what does this matter?

> People want to watch what they want to watch.

You keep using this phrase. Doesn't that also suggest that, if given enough trouble, they will just pirate that content instead? DRM has shown to do very little to stop that, so why continue pretending that it does.

> > People want to watch what they want to watch.

> You keep using this phrase. Doesn't that also suggest that, if given enough trouble, they will just pirate that content instead?

Not to point any fingers, but I can confirm that this happens, a lot.

But regardless of my personal views of DRM and its efficiency, kudos to Netflix for targeting Linux as a platform, even if they do it for their own pockets' sake.

> You keep using this phrase. Doesn't that also suggest that, if given enough trouble, they will just pirate that content instead? DRM has shown to do very little to stop that, so why continue pretending that it does.

Yes, but, in general, trouble has been decreasing, and so has the need to pirate. I would argue that there are only three kinds of people who pirate anymore:

1. People who want a local copy of the content that can't be taken away (e.g. Netflix pulling a title, or just canceling one's Netflix account).

2. Content that is so long-tail that it's not available for streaming from one of the major players that have decent device/playback support.

3. People who are so far in the "openness"/ownership camp that they would refuse to buy into a service like Netflix unless they provided #1 (DRM-free, of course).

The fourth kind of person is mostly gone: the person who doesn't need 1-3, but finds the options for playing content legally to be too cumbersome, or who can't find a legal player for their chosen viewing device. (Essentially, they've been "given enough trouble".)

If Netflix were to drop all browser support, and release native apps for Windows and macOS, there would be an increase of that fourth kind of person (Linux users, mainly, though I wouldn't put it past Netflix to release a Linux client too), but that wouldn't change the situation for the 1-3 type people, who are the bulk of pirating community.

I really think, for the vast majority of viewers, having a native Windows/MacOS app, plus native apps for Android/iOS, is plenty. Taking away browser support isn't going to increase piracy by any measurable amount.

You missed be largest category for pirating: people who want to watch new releases before they are available on Netflix, but cannot afford $20 to see it in theaters, or $15-20 to buy it digitally before it becomes available on Netflix. The window before a movie is in theaters until it becomes available on Netflix can be huge, and many people don't want to wait that long. I usually prefer watching movies in theaters (I like the experience) and if I miss it in theaters I will gladly buy it through iTunes, and even then I usually have to wait 3+ months before a movie I missed in theaters is available for purchase. I don't pirate because I wouldn't even know where to start but I can say I've been tempted to look into it just so I can watch a movie today rather than 3 months from now (and I would gladly buy it even after pirating it).

4 is still a thing because of exclusives and regional restrictions meaning that you need a growing number of subscriptions to access a chosen subset of content, and it might not be available at all in your region

Reply on news.ycombinator.com