Without even looking at the article, I would guess so simply because what Netflix purports to do is what they actually do and how they make money, so there's no ethical shell game being played against starry-eyed junior developers.
Netflix has some shady stuff like DRM going on, while pretending it's not their fault it was pushed into HTML standard.
Whether making a copy of a sequence of numbers without depriving the "owner" of those numbers of anything is theft is debatable.
This is a big issue and our economy is largely suffering for it, but old-world thinking about treating digital goods like physical goods is a poor response.
A proper example would be something like Kung Fury[2].
1. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140314/23410326583/warne...
Just because our economic models are out of date doesn't mean we need to change the way we behave to keep shoe-horning them in. It means we need to change our models to reflect reality.
I highly doubt that anyone has been persuaded to buy a Netflix subscription because of Netflix's use of DRM.
As for 'shady' -- well, not a word I'd necessarily use, but there's plenty of examples where DRM has blocked access to legitimately purchased content.
That doesn't for their own video. Whom are they using it for in that case?
> It isn't there job to fix the rest of the Internet
Apparently it's their job to break it though, by pushing this garbage into he standard.
2. Netflix claimed it's not their intent to use DRM, but demand comes from film publishers who distribute content through them.
3. Netflix make their own films now, but you can't find them DRM-free (legally).
Ergo, it's also their fault DRM was pushed into HTML. Q.E.D.
So tell me again how Netflix subscribers, who are only purchasing the right to be able to stream videos on a limited release cycle, are hurt by Netflix's use of DRM? I followed the massive draconian DRM push by the gaming industry, MPAA and RIAA during the 00s and let me tell you son - this ain't nothing close.
>So tell me again how Netflix subscribers, who are only purchasing the right to be able to stream videos on a limited release cycle, are hurt by Netflix's use of DRM?
Others already brought examples above with this DRM limiting usability of where videos can be watched. But that's a minor damage in comparison with damage done by DRM pushed into HTML standard itself, in which Netflix is complicit.
See https://boingboing.net/2017/03/21/we-cant-handle-the-truth.h...
Okay, I'm old, but we watched movies on VHS and it was a lot better than broadcast signal in a rural area. DVD's are very clear in comparison. HDTV is just icing on the cake.
/sarcasm
Two other areas I find it really critical are sports (not a favorite topic around these parts), watching the silky smooth world cup stream in 1080p a few years was breathtaking, another one is animated shows. It seems unintuitive and I have no idea why, but something like futurama is much better in 1080p.
https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/html5-video-at-netflix-7...
And this claim is a pile of trash:
> This is a requirement for any premium subscription video service.
DRM isn't a requirement. It's pushed by paranoid media execs, and Netflix should have control over it for their own video.
Where can we get their own films and shows DRM-free?
Music sells just fine DRM-free on Bandcamp. Games sell fine DRM-free on GOG. So I don't see any reason for films to be different. Lack of DRM-free video has nothing to do with lack of demand, but more with paranoia and backwards thinking of some legacy media execs.
See https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree...
> sadly once we released DRM Free for The Banner Saga we saw our game get pirated like wildfire. Which is something we're keen to avoid as much possible. We haven't given it much thought at this point to be honest when it comes to GoG.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/281640/discussions/0/39218452...
Until you provide a single source you're not saying anything worth responding to.
But piracy is naturally increased by limiting legal sources for buying something. Other developers commented on this very issue, saying that existing DRM increased piracy.
It was also not bought by people who see this obtrusive nonsense which drains CPU resources and degrades performance as something to avoid. In the end, they only lost sales. I wouldn't call Ubisoft or any other legacy publisher rational. Rather irrational control freaks.
Besides, Ubisoft's DRM will be broken, same as all others.
It's boring that you support anti-user methodology like DRM and try to justify it. It's been debunked multiple times.
There was a time when you couldn't find most games in a physical store, and sketchy cracked versions on PirateBay or your favorite tracker were the alternative. Of course, I have orders of magnitude more disposable income now than I used to, as well.
Some do it for sport, especially DRMed ones. I.e. they see DRM as something to break. So the mere presence of DRM is an incentive to pirate for them.
In any case, DRM is one of those things that I don't see going away. It might change its form. People have gotten used to the convenience of not owning digital goods and merely renting them, and companies have gotten used to making money off of keeping users running on their subscription treadmill.
The easiest way to combat DRM is to start gofundme / indie gogo campaigns, where the developer gets paid upfront, and that way they don't care about DRM since they already made money.
My point is, that releasing for more people = more profit. And the opposite - not serving the demand = lost sales. It's pretty straightforward. DRM-free markets show there is demand. And those who refuse to release DRM-free show they don't do it not because of money, but for some side, shady reasons.
Not sure what your EMI example shows. They offered with DRM and without DRM, and then just with DRM, but it sounds like they didn't address the audience right. I.e. they should offer in all stores, not in one place exclusively.
> The easiest way to combat DRM is to start gofundme / indie gogo campaigns, where the developer gets paid upfront, and that way they don't care about DRM since they already made money.
DRM is not about money, it's about control (i.e. power). A different kind of urge some have. That's why using rational business arguments often doesn't work with such people. Control freaks don't care about lost profits, if in the end they feel "we are in charge".
> In any case, DRM is one of those things that I don't see going away.
It was broken through for music and games. Film industry is the one most plagued by it. And I agree - I see no sign of progress in it. It's too backwards thinking.
Want a happy life? Stay out of any sort of video or music related business. It just isn't worth the trouble.