Hacker News Reader

Yes but that's not the same thing. You're arguing in the "physical/digital" debate and I believe evryone will agree that digital is better in most cases. Physically owning something is nice for the memorabilia and for those who still have DVD/CD players but that's not the biggest use case.

The topic here is DRM vs non-DRM'd media. It's orthogonal to the topic of physicality: you can have DRM'd physical media (think Google Nest) and you can have non-DRM'd digital media.

Switching back to the convenience of using digital instead of physical is a disservice to the discussion because it switches the focus on something that is totally unrelated and makes people believe that those who prefer non-DRM'd media are somehow reluctant to adopting streaming platform. I definitely see the convenience of it: I barely have any music files on my computer, I stream it all from Youtube or Soundcloud or Bandcamp. And like you I have spent MUCH more money on artists now that I can stream them than when I bought CDs. But when I want to get the files for offline use I know I'm in good hands because those platforms allow me to do it and have files I can use forever without ever reconnecting to the mothership.

So, to come back the initial point: yes we got scammed, because we didn't read the fine print. We didn't understand that DRM'd media is never bought, it's always rented. We switched from buy-it-for-life to subscribe-until-the-platform-dies

I think the point is it’s not a scam because these businesses are of value to you overall. That they decided they needed DRM to make sustainable business is unfortunate but doesn’t make it a scam. The words may be scammy in this case, but digital media is better than physical media and you get the good with the bad.

You have an interesting definition of scam. For me "selling" you something by misrepresenting what it is, is pretty much the definition of a scam to me. It does not matter if it had some convenience to me. E.g. If I was sold a new iPhone online (maybe when it was currently not available on the apple store) and I later found out it was used (and I e.g. can't get warranty) I would say I have been scammed, even though it was convenient for me to buy it from some vendor online and I didn't have to wait for it to be back in stock at apple.

> I believe evryone will agree that digital is better in most cases

If you include modern piracy in with "digital", sure. If you only include legal offerings, absolutely not.

Even DRM'd physical media that doesn't use the network in any way to authenticate is way better than DRM'd digital media, which you can never truly own, and which exists at the folly of the service operator.

GP was talking about the format of digital media, not the usual protections put in place on what is currently offered legally.

You're back to conflating the two.

> If you only include legal offerings, absolutely not.

I have plenty of ebooks from Baen and Tor, and plenty of music I've bought from a variety of places, all in digital format, all without any DRM. It's not the "digital" part that's bad, it's the DRM part.

And there are some unsung heros out there breaking those DRM schemes. I feel way more comfortable creating a DRM-free copy of Blu-rays I own, and I don't feel I stole anything from anyone or did anything morally wrong

The OP he's replying to was arguing that "physical media" doesn't suffer from the drawbacks of "DRM media" implying that physical media has no DRM (obviously false).

I used to be somewhat skeptical of the convenience claim. A former colleague argued that the attraction of Napster was more about convenience than price which I didn't really buy.

But if we look at the popularity of streaming services today versus owning even DRM-free music, that would seem to support the convenience theory. (It hasn't taken off for books to the same degree but I'd guess that's in part because the vast majority of people just don't consume enough to make an all you can eat offering work.)

As perhaps both cause and effect, there's probably also something of a generational shift in which ownership of stuff you can put your hands on may just not be as appealing to many younger people, especially if they're urban dwellers without a lot of space.

Owning music is made much more difficult now that the ability to use it has been greatly diminished. Many new cars don't even come with CD players. Sure, there are work arounds, but I think that moves us beyond a measure of "convenience".

>>the ability to use it has been greatly diminished

Really? I have tons of music ripped from CDs on my iPhone and I can trivially play that in my car. I have CD players in my car (which I never use) and attached to my stereo (which I rarely use). It's not that the ability to play CDs (or rip them and play them) has been diminished but a lot of people prefer to just use a streaming service.

I'll grant that many people don't have a CD player even on their computer any longer but you can buy one for not much money online and have it in a couple days if you want one.

> I have tons of music ripped from CDs

Are you suggesting that it's a simple and convenient thing to do for the public?

That supports ghaff’s original point. It’s far more convenient to stream music than deal with CDs period.

Automakers didn’t remove CD players despite people wanting them. They did it because enough customers were not willing to pay a premium to have the CD player. I would rather have a larger screen for CarPlay, and I’m betting most people who use streaming apps/MP3s would too.

> I would rather have a larger screen for CarPlay, and I’m betting most people who use streaming apps/MP3s would too.

CarPlay and touch screens generally are one of the worst 'innovations' that have happened in cars in recent decades, as far as road safety goes.

In the past, I would have a CD that had 5-10 albums on it, and could easily flip between them without taking my eyes off the road. I could glance up at the sleeve on my sun shade to find a different CD to switch to, and easily switch the CDs around and navigate the rest of the process by feel alone.

Now I have to pull over to change albums in a reliable (siri is unreliable and doesn't work with all apps) and safe manner.

It's an improvement as far as how much total music I have access to on any given journey. Does that convenience justify even one additional life lost as a result of a distracted driver? As a society, we have very loudly screamed ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY, which, like GP notes, is a real fucking shame.

Yeah? Didn't we all burn mixed CDs to trade as kids? Most cars have an aux plug, and there are still standalone mp3 players with a drag and drop interface

Shoot, almost ten years ago I ripped my dad's CDs and put them all on a SanDisk mp3 player. He's almost certainly just using it as is.. I'd have to ask, but his music taste has been set for thirty years; he doesn't need to put anything new on it, ever.

All he needs to know how to do is unplug it from the stereo and plug it into the jack in the car.

What's hard here?

Streaming is more convenient for most people. Ripping is as simple as it was 20 years ago when much of the general public had no trouble doing so. It’s just that there are simpler alternatives that weren’t available then.

Yes...all you had to do with iTunes was insert a disc and click a button. After a couple of minutes, the tracks would all be in your library with metadata pulled from the internet. Everyone I knew who had a computer used to duplicate CDs for their car and make mixes.

looks at laptop

Hmmm...

looks at old laptop

Hmmm...

looks at ipad, iphone

Hmm...Oh, I know!

looks at gaming PC

Nope. I don't have a disk drive on a computer and haven't for several years now. Sure, I could get one, but optical drives have been optional equipment for a while now.

It's optional because you, like many, don't rip/play CDs/DVDs any longer. You'd have one if you had a use for it. I'm guessing you have peripherals attached to one or more of your computers that I consider optional.

But ripping CDs is not the only way of "owning" the media.

As another commenter said [0], you can buy and own media without ever touching a physical medium or waiting for the post service to deliver it.

I seem to remember at one point Apple was offering DRM-free music. This is pretty convenient for everybody. Yes, you have to buy it ahead of time and store it, as opposed to just streaming right away.

But it does seem quite easy to me. Go to the iTunes store, click buy, done. It may even sync automatically to your iPhone, so you can play it in your car, just as you would Spotify.

---

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26914754

They still do, Apple's MP3s are DRM-free, and you can download them with the iTunes desktop client. Another super handy way: Amazon.

Amazon's MP3 download store is DRM-free, but also, Amazon has an "Auto-Rip" feature that means often when you buy the physical music CD, they immediately give you the ability to download the MP3s for free. You get the real purchase of physical media, and the convenience of instant access.

If you bought Apple's MP3's when they had DRM, you can't get them without it. (Maybe if you re-purchase it?). At least I can't access DRM free music that I purchased initially with DRM.

Yeah, that sounds like some contractual nonsense. Similar to how Play Family Sharing only applies to apps bought after they rolled it out.

Are you suggesting that it's not? Maybe I'm out of touch with both the state of technology and the general public (guilty on both counts), but last I checked major operating systems all came with CD ripping software included. Do people really not have CD drives any more or something?

A fair number of people probably don't have CD drives any longer given you generally don't need them to install software. But you can buy one on Amazon for < $20 so that's certainly not a huge barrier for people who want to.

It seems like a lot more people have laptops only these days and most new laptops don’t have a CD drive. Neither my 2013 MBP or the desktop I built in 2018 have a CD drive and I’ve never needed one with the desktop and haven’t used one with the laptop since a year or two after I bought it. They are basically phased out for computing purposes it seems.

Shoot, in the late 90’s I feel like everyone was ripping and burning CDs not just the savvy ones.

What device are you using that allows you to stream music but can't play from audio files you bought? I don't find the difference between spotify and MP3s that large.

Alternatively you could just download everything you wanted to listen to for the last 30 years.

I have Netflix, Prime, Hulu, Spotify, sometimes Youtube TV, OTA via TIVO. Trust me, TPB is much more convenient.

I can be streaming just about anything purchased/rented a la carte from Amazon in a couple of minutes. It costs more but I don't see how that's less convenient than TPB.

The primary challenge with today's streaming services is determining which platform the content is on, and what tier you need to have to consume the content.

In that way, Amazon Video is one of the most convenient platforms as it has more content than many other platforms, though you may need to pay a rental fee.

When it comes to convenience, for me unified access to the most content trumps most other issues.

I have to add that I do have one other streaming service I did not list and that is Formula 1 TV.

And I think this is an incredible example of value that can be added to television. During an event you can watch live video footage from the main feed, any of the 20 cars on the track, or the pit straights. You can listen to team radios, commentary, or just engine audio.

Assuming it's on Amazon...

What do you do when the show you want to watch is not on there? What do you do when it's a Hulu Exclusive? Or a Netflix show?

You know what I do? Search for 'movie/show name' + 'torrent' and I pull down the rip at 10MB/sec, and have it in a few minutes. Faster than signing up for another service, installing the app on all of my devices, connecting that app up to my account, adding my credit card, then paying for it. Then having to discontinue that subscription later when I decide there's nothing else on that service I want to watch. Then you realize, you paid for 1 month of service, just to watch one show... ridiculous.

Streaming is only convenient when you are already subscribed to the service. Otherwise piracy is much easier. Plus I don't get my fucking videos downsampled to 720p because I choose to watch in a web browser on a Linux box.

I'm not really concerned about cost.

I like to be able to use my laptop to locate content and then watch it on a television. So my habits mostly include YouTube or TPB. With youtube I can queue a number of items into a playlist. For TPB, I just press the magnet and it appears on my television a short while later.

I mean I intend to continue paying for these services since I like the offerings. I just don't like using them. They're all ugly and annoying, and they each have their quirks I need to learn. Discovery sucks and searching is always slow and painful. I just don't care to deal with it.

Plus, every time someone mentions a show you have to have this extra little conversation about what streaming service it's available on. It's annoying and I really don't want to care.

I think it depends on your viewing habits. If you decide what content you want to watch and then seek it out, you might have a tougher time finding what you want with all the streaming services segregating content.

But if you start by opening a streaming service and browse from there I don’t really think there’s any contest between the high-quality exploration and experience of eg Netflix vs the glorified spreadsheet browsing that is TPB and all the gotchas that go along with downloading random torrents...

If you think TPB is the holy grail of convenience, then you haven't tried a service like real-debr1d with kodi. I've been a pirate for many years, nothing beats this combination if the objective is to stream whatever movie/show your heart desires on demand.

Your opinion on convenience is not relevant to this case.

Fine, but selling convenience is DIFFERENT from selling possession.

Alan may want convenience of streaming a large library for a low price.

Barbara may want the conveniece of having physical media she can bring on her travels and play without an internet connection, or the ability to play it 20 years from now and give to her kids.

That is all fine, they are two different things

The scam is selling the rental of transient streaming service rental as if it had the attributes of buying physical media.

Apple and others are exploiting the familiarity and positive connotations of "buying a movie/album" to sell something that clearly lacks the same attributes. It is a linguistic sleight-of-hand, and it is a scam.

Try opening a book from the Microsoft eBook store. It will fail because they closed down the DRM servers. The books stopped working. PlayStation 3 store? Wii store? Same story. You can no longer access your purchases.

Well that is service vs non service model. For example lets say you buy a ebook from Amazon. You expect the book to stay with you forever. It costs Amazon next to nothing to transfer the 5mb of book data I need to read the book. Compare that with subscription to Kindle unlimited. You get some books you can read but lose access to them once you unsubscribe.

You are not being lied to in the subscription model but it seems the digital buying isn't quite honest.

Yeah, I think that's why I object much less to Netflix's DRM than to iTunes DRM on movies that I've "bought". Netflix, HBO+, Disney+ never give you the illusion that anything involving them is permanent.

They are leveraging the connotation of "buy" to get you to give them money. If they used the words lease, rent, or borrow or explicitly stated the purchase may be for a limited time then consumers' brow would furl as they pulled away from the action button. That is bad for conversion. This is classic anti-market behavior.

Remember when we could buy mp3s on the iTunes store? Why can't we buy our movies as mp4s on the Apple Movies store?

I would have convenience (more convenience than I have now, I argue). They could still have a cloud offering that only lasts as long as they feel like it.

That would be enough to make this lawsuit go away. So, no, it isn't that we are now buying convenience so we must bend our backs to their spying and control. We had both freedom and control in the digital music ecosystem for more than ten years.

I've been buying some DVDs off Amazon lately because the movies I want to watch, some of which aren't even that old, haven't been on any streaming service at any price.

Pretty inconvenient.

If we live in a world without physical media, some things will simply disappear forever.

> I pay for convenience which is a service rather than tangible good.

Piracy is often more convenient than going through the hurdles of a legal purchase.

Bollocks more like.

A fraudulent contract is not a contract.

The convenience argument is such bullshit.

We have been seduced into selling our rights down the river because we will sacrifice anything to this most pathetic of gods, Convenience.

I have been fighting in this war (anti-DRM/copyleft/etc) for decades, and peoples' susceptibility to convenience has always effectively thwarted any kind of counter argument.

We are fucking lazy and we should be ashamed of it.

Yes I am bitter, we could have had a world of power, control, and ownership at our fingers... a cornucopia of content on our terms... computers that well and truly serve us and not some wanterpreneurial, rent-seeking master... but it wouldn't have been as convenient.

And now zoomers, seduced by corporate sponsorships and the cozy fiefdoms of communities like YouTube or TikTok, have almost no concept of files or their utility, of the value of owning something detached from a profiteering cloud. They have no problem enriching those who seek to exploit them.

It is all complete, utter horseshit. We fought for a better world that nobody wanted because it wasn't as convenient

> And now zoomers, seduced by corporate sponsorships and the cozy fiefdoms of communities like YouTube or TikTok, have almost no concept of files or their utility, of the value of owning something detached from a profiteering cloud. They have no problem enriching those who seek to exploit them.

You’re blaming gen z for the world they were raised in? The oldest “zoomers” are about 25. You think they ran these companies for the last 20 years and made the decisions that got us here?

They have no problem enriching those who seek to exploit them because there is no other choice. Nobody actually wants this.

I'm not blaming them, they are a victim of circumstance. But they are now the demographic that marketeers fawn over, and the demographic that shapes the immediate future. And they just don't care.

>You’re blaming gen z for the world they were raised in?

I read it as complaining that the work done defending the concept of digital ownership and absolute control of one's own digital space was for nought. The people coming of age in today's digital landscape were basically raised as prisoners inside of the rent/data-extracting walled gardens we have today.

It's because it's 99% just entertainment, and not that important to most people. Sorry to burst your bubble. Even your use of the word "content" gives the game away.

Arguably when you had to search for content (either by ripping CDs or DVDs or browsing limewire, etc) you put effort into obtaining it, and so it felt worthwhile to put effort into maintaining it.

Now it's easy gained, easy lost and so people don't care.

I feel your pain, exactly as you describe it. It's all horrible and wrong. And I'm 22.

I get where you are coming from but I don’t really care what you buy movies for and I don’t really understand what that has to do with this topic. This isn’t a wishy washy political or abstract technical topic. Its a legal interpretation.

Did you really need to reiterate yourself three times? Are you even really trying to participate in the conversation here are you trying to derail?