Hacker News Reader

Comment by derefr | Hacker News Reader

> All your streaming services -- Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc -- are using DRM and no one even fights this any more.

Well, yeah. Streaming services wouldn't exist without DRM. The existence of infinite accessible libraries of content for flat-fee monthly-subscription prices, is built upon IP licenses which were granted conditional to the consumer's inability to leverage that access into piracy. If we deleted DRM, streaming services would cease to exist overnight — all their license grants being revoked, leaving them with nothing to serve — and we'd go back to just relying upon the iTunes Music Store / Netflix DVD rental model. (Which, to be clear, has still also existed alongside streaming this whole time.)

> But, guess what? increasingly all of that is in a cloud data center where your control is ... limited.

But with almost every stack deployed to those data centers just using one or another portable open standard (Terraform, Docker, Kubernetes, etc.) for deployment, commodifying the IaaS provider, such that the moment the IaaS provider attempts to assert any constraints developers aren't uncomfortable with, the developer can just move away in an instant.

(IaaS providers try their best to offer technologies with actual lock-in, but either no significant fraction of users takes them up on them; or a new open-standard abstraction layer is created that re-commodifies the offering by making it something portable to other IaaS providers + open implementations. The "S3-compatible" object-storage API is one good example of such re-commodification.)

View on HN

If we deleted DRM, streaming services would cease to exist overnight — all their license grants being revoked, leaving them with nothing to serve — and we'd go back to just relying upon the iTunes Music Store / Netflix DVD rental model.

Why is that? You can download everything for free. I don't think people use Netflix to access otherwise inaccessible content but rather because it's more convenient than searching for the right torrent link.

Exactly. Everything is already available and there are really simple ways to find, download, watch and even stream everything but they all have hurdles; how to know the quality you download, download speed (not everyone has fiber or Starlink etc), riddled with fakes, malware etc. Then streaming services that are illegal: again; finding good quality, porn ads popping up during watching, crypto miners in your browser, application installation attempts etc.

It is just far easier to just watch Netflix etc; if it had no drm, the vast majority would not change anything I would think, especially because the GP already said: no-one cares about drm. If they don’t care it doesn’t matter either way for most people (not the handful of Hn readers). It is like privacy; the vast majority of people don’t care; just the few that worry about dystopia.

'Illegal' streaming services are legal for private use where I live. In German there is a huge market with many sites featuring basically any movie in different quality settings. I have an adblock, no idea which kind of evil ads they usually use. With Kodi I also have all of that on my TV available just as easy as Netflix.

However many if not most people still use Netflix even thought they have no real reason to.

Just as a heads up: to my knowledge that's not correct in Germany. It's only highly unlikely to get "abgemahnt" in addition to the difficulty of obtaining IP addresses of users in comparison to alternatives such as Torrents. But not getting caught != legal.

Streaming from a „offensichtlich rechtswidrige Vorlage“ (§ 53 UrhG.) is not legal. That has been clarified by a decision from the EuGH in 2017.

I'm not a lawyer though and this isn't legal advice. Let me know if there have been verdicts and legal proceedings stating the contrary.

I am Swiss. I just use German internet. Should have made this more clear

> With Kodi I also have all of that on my TV available just as easy as Netflix.

As an additional warning, some kodi addons are torrent based and thus potentially risky in germany without using an anonymisation service like a vpn

Most Kodi plugins for the German market are based on direct downloads. I too wouldn't recommend this to user from a more strict country, however it's completely legal to download for private reasons here in Switzerland

Many people in NL (my country) also think it's legal, while it's not. Are you sure it is legal and not just a persistent untruth?

Anyway; what adblocker? I use adblock plus and it works for most sites, but not these type of sites; they seem to use every trick in the book.

I'm not sure what they're using but ublock origin is the go to these days.

UBlock + PiHole. Also I am Swiss not German. It's actually legal for private use here.

Yeah, however better protect that router access, as in Germany you are responsible for anyone that accesses the Internet via it.

So that private use can quickly become public for those less technically inclined.

https://www.verbraucherzentrale.de/wissen/digitale-welt/mobi...

was removed?

I wasn't aware of it. Thanks for pointing it out.

> iddled with fakes, malware

I've never had fakes nor malware in ~10 years of downloading stuff.

I haven't either, but it's absolutely true that streaming has taken a massive bite out of my downloading stuff.

Ultimately, it should be easy. If using Netflix and Disney+ is easier than using the Pirate Bay, then I gladly pay for Netflix and Disney+. If it becomes harder, more frustrating, fragmented, ad-riddled, or I need additional subscriptions to access the stuff I want, at some point the Pirate Bay becomes more convenient again.

That's not the case for me, as Netflix and Disney+ don't have what I want to watch.

10 years? Downloading stuff off the internet goes way longer than that

There are plenty of fakes and mislabelings. some malware (especially on the download software)

And before anyone complains, nobody needs a movie to take more than 700MB ;)

The answer to your first paragraph is "newsgroup" + tooling.

If everyone downloaded, the outcome would be the same. No content would be produced if nobody was compensated for it. Some of us want to support the production studies creating the things we value. Some of us understand that we live in a society.

Production studios could stop making a deal with "the devil", and instead ask directly for funding for a good project. Many great content creators are working on crowdfunding basis already. If people want to support good projects, they can do that. If not enough people support it, I guess that means, that not enough people were interested in that particular project. People could also have subscriptions to support creators regularly. I myself do that for several projects.

I would like to see a cultural shift away from the idea, that one must go through some middleman to make and publish anything, towards the idea, that if you have a great project and you put yourself out there and people believe in your idea, they will support you and all of society reaps the benefits. We would become more a society of choice and self-informing, than a society of maximized consumption.

At the same time, I think in many areas there is still a long way to go, to achieve that cultural shift.

> some middleman to make and publish anything

These middleman, as all, come from a practical need, not cultural one. The people creating the content usually have no interest or skill in making marketing material, setting up meetings with venues, handle IP infringement/lawsuits, and all the other mind numbing boring stuff that these publishing studies handle that takes time away from their actual skill. I think the obvious outcome is that this middleman is automated, and split, but again, that's not a cultural shift, that's a practical one.

> No content would be produced if nobody was compensated for it.

This is not true. Many if not most artists create art because they enjoy it.

What is true is that middle men like publishers and record labels wouldn’t exist if nobody paid for content. Coincidentally, they are also the ones who push the lie that nobody would make content if they weren’t paid.

>Many if not most artists create art because they enjoy it.

Why is it so common to assume that no artist who is compensated for their work creates art because they enjoy it? You're presenting a false dichotomy.

Quality content takes time, effort and money, even when you love what you're doing. Every creative industry is littered with the corpses of the careers of brilliant, passionate artists who couldn't afford to live on goodwill alone. Compensation is what allows artists the freedom and capability to do what they love.

You are shifting the goalpoasts. The assertion was that "No content would be produced if nobody was compensated for it." which is undeniably false since there has always been content produced without compensation.

I don't think many people will deny that compensation encourages more creation. That is in fact the basis for copyright (at least in the US) - to romote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. But that does not mean that the current copyright scheme is the best way of achieving more creation. In many ways it stifles creation as much as it encourages it.

Yes, we need to make it so that those who create can afford to live. But why do we need to so heavily restrict everyone elses rights to share and then throw public funds into enforcement of that insanity in order to achieve that? Really, we should make it so that everyone can affort to live instead and encourage creation via public and community funding or private patronage directly instead of doing this copyright dance where middlemen profit off our shared culture.

Maybe we could have some crowdfunding to remunerate authors and then have everyone enjoy the creation.

Fundraising and publishing are specialised skills that artists don't necessarily have. Also, lots of people, including many artists, like the stability of a steady pay check and employment rights, which means companies or co-ops.

The sci-fi author Charlie Stross has a series of blog posts on their site about all the work that goes into publishing a book and how much of it is done by employees of the publisher (and how that is not work that Stross can do / would like to do).

So? You don't think crowdfunding campaigns can be managed by third parties? You think how the artists gets the funds is intrinsically tied to what parts of the work they can or cannot outsource?

> Also, lots of people, including many artists, like the stability of a steady pay check

I'm sure many plumbers would like recurring royalties from their work too. That doesn't mean that that is a good way for society to function. Any discussion of copyright that just looks at the needs of the creators without considering the effects on everyone else is fundamentally flawed.

> No content would be produced if nobody was compensated for it.

History shows otherwise but even if that was true: Free (re)distribution does not inherently mean that the creator is not compensated in some way.

IP rights-holders are hyper-pessimistic paranoid control freaks.

See also: the 30-year-long campaign by the RIAA to stop any kind of non-DRMed digital high-fidelity consumer recordable media from being marketed. They finally lost it with the advent of the CD-R, but it's the reason that MiniDisc had DRM, Digital Compact Cassette was never "a thing", etc.

> it's more convenient than searching for the right torrent link.

Where I live, you'll be fined if you download a movie torrent.

Where is that? Is the fine reasonable? (ie: legalizing illicit torrents)

France. Fine can go up to 1500 euros, depending on infraction.

Edit: you don't get fined on the first download, you have to repeat the infraction. First download only gets a warning.

Edit again: Here's the warning you receive first:

Madame, Monsieur,

Vous avez souscrit un abonnement à internet auprès du fournisseur d’accès à internet <insert provider here>.

Votre connexion internet a été utilisée pour télécharger et/ou mettre à disposition une ou plusieurs oeuvres protégées par le droit d'auteur : * Date et heure des faits : <insert datetime of infraction here> (Horaire GMT : l’heure de Paris correspond à l’heure GMT +1h en hiver et +2h en été) * Adresse IP: adresse IP <insert IP here>) * Logiciel(s)/protocole(s) : <insert torrent software used here>. Conséquences :

Le téléchargement illégal, appelé couramment « piratage », prive les créateurs de leur rétribution et représente un danger pour l’économie du secteur culturel. Il vous expose en outre, vous et votre entourage, a des contenus inappropriés (pornographie, violence...) et/ou malveillants (virus, spams…).

En l'absence d'autorisation des détenteurs des droits sur ces œuvres, les faits constatés peuvent constituer une infraction pénale et entraîner des poursuites devant le tribunal de police pour contravention de négligence caractérisée (punie d'une peine maximale de 1500 euros d'amende ou 7500 euros pour les personnes morales).

L'utilisation qui est faite d'un accès à internet engageant la responsabilité personnelle du titulaire de l'abonnement, c'est donc vous qui êtes exposé(e) aux sanctions prévues par la loi.

Le présent courriel constitue un premier avertissement.

Si votre accès à internet est à nouveau utilisé pour des téléchargements illégaux ou des mises en partage d'œuvres protégées, l'Hadopi sera amenée à réexaminer votre dossier en vue de son éventuelle transmission à l'autorité judiciaire.

Actions à mener :

Je vous engage donc à prendre, sans délai, toute mesure utile pour éviter une nouvelle infraction. Vous pouvez consulter le site internet de l’Hadopi qui vous propose des fiches pratiques et des vidéos pédagogiques qui vous permettront notamment de :

* Sécuriser votre accès à internet en paramétrant votre box. Vous pouvez également vous rapprocher de votre fournisseur d’accès à internet sur ce sujet : https://hadopi.fr/outils-usages/parametrer-sa-box * Désinstaller les logiciels pair à pair de vos équipements : https://hadopi.fr/outils-usages/desinstaller-un-logiciel-pai... Par ailleurs, il existe sur internet de nombreuses offres légales disponibles. Pour vous aider :

* L’Hadopi référence les offres légales labellisées par l’institution et celles apparaissant comme respectueuses des droits de propriété intellectuelle : https://hadopi.fr/outils-usages/rechercher-un-site-ou-un-ser... * L’Hadopi vous donne également des indices pour identifier les sites illégaux. * Si l'œuvre que vous cherchez n’est pas disponible sur l’un des sites référencés par l’Hadopi, vous pouvez le signaler sur la page dédiée du site de l’Hadopi. L’ensemble de ces actions est disponible sur https://hadopi.fr/outils-usages. Vous avez également la possibilité de formuler des observations et d'obtenir des renseignements, en contactant l’Hadopi :

* Par voie électronique, en utilisant le formulaire suivant :https://cpdform.hadopi.fr/ notamment si vous souhaitez obtenir des précisions sur le titre des œuvres qui ont été téléchargées ou mises à disposition depuis votre connexion à internet ; * Par voie postale: Hadopi - Commission de protection des droits, 4 rue du Texel, 75014 Paris ; * Par téléphone au 09.69.32.90.90 (Appel non surtaxé de 9h à 12h30 et de 13h30 à 17h). Retrouvez toutes les informations utiles sur www.hadopi.fr/outils-usages/reagir-a-la-reception-dune-recommandation.

> 7500 euros pour les personnes morales

For anyone else wondering what a "personne morale" is:

En droit français, une personne morale est un groupement doté de la personnalité juridique. Généralement une personne morale se compose d'un groupe de personnes physiques réunies pour accomplir quelque chose en commun. Ce groupe peut aussi réunir des personnes physiques et des personnes morales. Il peut aussi n'être constitué que d'un seul élément.

La personnalité juridique donne à la personne morale des droits et des devoirs. Le droit français distingue :

    les personnes morales de droit public : l'État, les collectivités territoriales, les établissements publics... ;
    les personnes morales de droit privé : les plus courantes étant les sociétés privées, les sociétés civiles, les groupements d'intérêt économique, les associations. Certaines personnes morales de droit privé sont chargées de la gestion d'un service public.

In plain English, that would be a "legal person", where "legal person" can also refer to a group of private individuals that act (commit crimes) as a group, but otherwise do not have/operate a business entity?

There are public and private "personnes morales"... they appear to include the State, local authorities, public establishments, private companies, economic interest groups, associations and "civil companies", not really sure if that is a correct translation...

Oh hey, Hadopi is still a thing? Did anyone ever actually get fined through it?

Hadopi had been abandoned, for all intents and purposes, and there is no longer any enforcement of it. And there was hardly any enforcement to begin with.

Wrong, I received this in 2022.

Is Torrent over Tor a thing?

Use I2P for that.

This, exactly. DRM doesn't work, it never did. Piracy was and still is rampant.

Convenient, but also relatively affordable to do things the legal way. Back in the day when torrenting was popular, even among the general population, most new albums would cost 15-20 Euro, getting a movie season was 30-40 Euro. Now you can get as much music is you need for 10 Euro per month. The situation with video streaming is a bit more complex, because the market is fragmented, but regardless you can pick your service and watch quite a lot of material for 10 Euro per month.

If you have to spend 50 Euro per month to get fresh music, torrenting looks far more attractive than when it's 10 Euro per month.

It's not just convenience. Some of us would rather stream content legally because it's a straightforward way to make sure the creators of what we watch or listen to get some compensation. I'm getting something I want from them, and their expectation is to get paid; I'd be doing wrong if they didn't get something in return.

That’s a reasonable argument for new content, but hardly justifies paying for old content who’s creators are all dead.

I don't think that's what was under discussion, at least as far as I could see. Yes, I agree that it's silly to go on paying forever to see Steamboat Willie, but I'm not going to download a bootleg copy of Infinity War, even though it sucked.

"Why is that? You can download everything for free. I don't think people use Netflix to access otherwise inaccessible content but rather because it's more convenient than searching for the right torrent link."

Some people aren't comfortable doing illegal, potentially immoral, things like torrents of copyrighted works.

Some people think it should be illegal to be able to read a book or watch a movie for free from the Library also.

Disney originally wanted VHS tapes to lock so you had to pay them to rewind them.

You may be affected by propaganda from very influential copyright holders with massive marketing power.

You're talking about things that people think should be illegal. Nobody will punish you for visiting a library or rewinding a tape. What we are talking about are things that are actually illegal. You can be prosecuted or sued for copyright infringement by downloading torrents or illegally streaming.

The moral/ethical side is more murky depending on how you want to look at things. For example, for me personally there is a big difference between things like libraries (a copy was purchased and allows one showing at a time), a rewind lock (interference with how you use something you purchased), and duplication (streaming included). The previous ones required someone to purchase. Does it cut into sales? Sure. But someone still paid money for a true copy and they copy is a single instance. With duplication the scale is different. It can affect sales drastically and hurt the workers (not just the stars and greedy companies). Some people may feel the latter is unethical/immoral. I tend to buy used stuff. I also just don't buy stuff if I think it's too expensive. I haven run into any issues with Netflix either.

You are right, it's murky, but I'd argue it's only murky because of powerful IP owners making it that way.

There was a presentation by Lawerence Lessig everyone should watch from years ago. There was a time when by default _everything_ was public domain, unless explicitly copyrighted.

This has flip-flopped to now where almost nothing is public domain. How did this happen? Money bought enforcement of made up rules and then laws were bought (lobbied?) to take everything out of the public domain.

A simple legal test. Can you make a backup copy of your own data? Yes. Of your own movies? (still just data) Yes. But people still seem to think, maybe it's illegal when it is not.

Can you give your backup copies of _your_ data to your friend? Yes. Even if it includes your movies? Yes.

Why? Because under copyright laws it doesn't cause harm, it's not fraud, etc... I've been to court over copyright infringement, it's a civil issue in almost _every_ single case normal people would be involved in.

Here's what it takes to be "criminal" where you are in trouble with the _law_. (Civil is a contract violation between people, _not_ with the government)

* Done so for private or commercial financial gain;

* Over 180 days, reproduced or distributed 1 or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of over $1,000; or

* Released over a publicly accessible computer network material that was intended for commercial distribution

[source: https://www.draskovich.com/blog/2019/december/is-copyright-i... ]

Now, do you even know a _single_ person that has committed a _crime_ of copyright infringement? I would argue very, very likely no.

Therefore, you making copies of your movies and giving them to friends (even over the internet) for _fun_ or whatever, constitutes civil copyright infringement, _not_ criminal.

If you cross the street without using the crosswalk you are breaking a criminal law. If you drink booze under 21, criminal. If you smoke weed, criminal.

If you copy a movie and even share it on the internet, NOT criminal, it's civil offense.

This doesn't even get into the issues with consciences objections to insane laws.

Last argument: If your core argument is loss of money if copyright was put back to 14 years instead of the bonkers length it is now, I argue patent law proves otherwise. And the rampant file sharing has not hurt any jobs I've heard of so far. (artificial scarcity/supply/demand)

/rant

Generally agree, with some caveats.

"There was a time when by default _everything_ was public domain, unless explicitly copyrighted."

That wouldn't really change rhis issue because the producers would still copyright.

"Now, do you even know a _single_ person that has committed a _crime_ of copyright infringement?"

Given this:

"Released over a publically accessible computer network material that was intended for commercial distribution"

Yes, a fair amount. The reason they focus on the civil side is that the company can recover damages that way. They likely could go after many individuals criminally if people are distributing over publiclly accessible torrents or download a lot of new movies (not released on DVD digital) in 180 days. Either civilly or criminally, it can be a terrible time, and many people don't want to risk that.

"If you copy a movie and even share it on the internet, NOT criminal, it's civil offense."

As long as the movie is not theaters-only.

"If you cross the street without using the crosswalk you are breaking a criminal law."

Not quite. Jaywalking also requires that you impede the travel of a vehicle.

"If your core argument is loss of money if copyright was put back to 14 years instead of the bonkers length it is now"

I'd be fine with shorter lengths. I believe Disney was one that lobbied for the longer length. That doesn't really address people circumventing copyright during that 14 years.

> That doesn't really address people circumventing copyright during that 14 years.

This is really the crux. How many lawsuits have there been where someone used a patent for personal use, shared their use on the internet and was sued for millions of dollars and lost in court? (even 1?)

I feel it's an absurdity that I can spend _millions_ making a widget and after 15 (or 14?) years anyone can use my design for free, and somehow people support this limitation for patents but not for copyrights. (and we still have a vibrant economy based on patents)

> Disney originally wanted VHS tapes to lock so you had to pay them to rewind them.

Huh. Now that's an interesting claim I have never heard before. Google doesn't seem to turn up anything on it. Do you have any supporting info? If there's really anything to the claim, I'd love to read more.

Huh, it used to be easy to find via Google. It's amazing how much search has changed over the years. If I had more time, I'd dig into the source and post it here. I guess I can't back this up right now.

Some people think DRM is the potentially immoral thing.

Depending on the exact implementation and situation, maybe. Do you have a real life example?

Found an interesting one: https://www.zdnet.com/article/another-real-world-example-of-...

Also, a favorite: https://gizmodo.com/amazon-secretly-removes-1984-from-the-ki...

Oh, yeah. Those are pretty bad. Basically you bought content and then they removed it. DRM in general shouldn't be immoral, but it can be if it's abused like that.

The entire purpose of DRM is to keep controlling something after selling it to you. I'd consider that immoral.

That depends. A legitimate use in my view is to prevent distribution of duplicates. This is pretty common with things like software licensing.

I think the point is a rejection that software should presume to have that power, and also that prevention of duplicates is against the four freedoms (eg, yeah, bad software licensing causes issues because it opens the slippery slope door to control of a users device against thier wishes).

If we deleted DRM now, we'd probably have a longer gap between cinema and streaming releases, but that's about it. Old distribution models are gone beyond revival. Everyone would turn to piracy and rights-holders know this, so they'd have to give in. They're extremely risk-averse, yes, but they still prefer making money over not making money.

As for the cloud point, "in an instant" is definitely not how I'd describe the process of moving between cloud providers. There wouldn't be whole series of blog posts coming out every month or so talking about how some company moved from provider X to Y, spending 100s of engineer hours just to find themselves in another semi-closed ecosystem, but for half the price.

> If we deleted DRM now, we'd probably have a longer gap between cinema and streaming releases

Why? You can always rip a video stream.

> Well, yeah. Streaming services wouldn't exist without DRM. [...]

> [...] If we deleted DRM, streaming services would cease to exist overnight

And yet GOG exists and sells games all DRM free. To disprove a theory, one only needs to provide 1 counter example.

Maybe some streaming services would cease to exist. Maybe some of them are not needed. I highly doubt though, that it is an impossibility to have streaming services without DRM. I don't see how DRM helps at all. If I were a Netflix user, which I am not because of DRM and because it is shitty built to not work on Firefox on GNU/Linux and without installing shit on my machine, I could simply record my screen copying the content. Even if there was some software limiting this ability, I could use a hardware before the monitor to grab the video signal. DRM doesn't protect anything properly.

It's there because the MAFIA insists, not because it makes sense. It doesn't prevent webrips, which exist. It drives away potential FOSS-using customers toward said webrips, lol.

So true. It's embarrassing how netflix still refuses to play high quality streams on linux. So I'll just head over to my favorite torrent site and grab it there, instead.

I think your priorities may be skewed. To me, supporting content creators (even though, yes, intermediaries take too big a cut) and respecting laws is more important than conveniently consuming entertainment on one's favorite operating system.

But is it right that I be forced to first support the makers of a closed operating system before I can support those content creators?

My priority is living my best life, not padding the pockets of others. I'll happily pay for stuff if I feel it's fair. But it's not.

Are you using some ethical framework to decide what's "fair" in this case, or are you just going with your gut?

I cannot remember a single instance where DRM stopped me from pirating but it certainly stopped me from buying. Mostly it was just the tip of the iceberg because I maybe don't care enough, but there are quite a few examples over the years. I am a buy and think later type for media. Positive side is that anything cultural is very cheap.

doesn't prevent web-dls either for that matter.

> And yet GOG exists and sells games all DRM free.

It is worth noting that GOG exists only because CDPR want it to and subsidise its costs from their other businesses due to their political beliefs.

As a standalone entity GOG would have ceased to exist overnight a long time ago. It's lack of DRM is definitely an argument to why it loses so much money.

Why would its primary defining feature be a definite argument why it loses money? Its lack of DRM is the only reason why I go there.

GOG isn’t a streaming model, it’s an iTMS model. The streaming model is where each title has no marginal cost after you pay the subscription fee, so you can just download the whole catalog.

The closer analogy would be to Xbox Game Pass, which has no marginal costs per title, but indeed does have DRM.

>Well, yeah. Streaming services wouldn't exist without DRM. The existence of infinite accessible libraries of content for flat-fee monthly-subscription prices, is built upon IP licenses which were granted conditional to the consumer's inability to leverage that access into piracy. If we deleted DRM, streaming services would cease to exist overnight — all their license grants being revoked, leaving them with nothing to serve — and we'd go back to just relying upon the iTunes Music Store / Netflix DVD rental model. (Which, to be clear, has still also existed alongside streaming this whole time.)

Then why there is a ton of Netflix and Amazon Prime owned content on the torrents? It seems the content is very pirateable, DRM or not.

Technically, they're not pirating the content itself; the original, full-fidelity content remains DRMed. Instead, what these torrents are, are re-encodings of the decoded video stream produced by playing the content. (I.e., they're what comes down the HDMI cable out of the streaming box, minus the HDCP.)

This process loses a lot — for example, this signal is very likely post-HDR-color-processing, and so the result won't look very good on any other screen than the one it was originally told it was going to be played on.

Most people won't care, and will just watch the torrent anyway; but the fact that there's this very slight loss of fidelity, makes the IP rights-holders feel warm and happy inside that they still have this "perfect fidelity master copy" that they can show in theatres that nobody else has access to.

Take that away from them, and they really do withdraw their licenses. (See also: Apple being able to license effectively-perfect-fidelity 256kbit AAC versions of songs from certain parties, but being unable to convince those same parties to license Apple Lossless encodings of those songs.)

This does not match my experience, I have never encountered such a rip. I downloaded a few when Prime and Netflix would be fussy, and the quality is consistently higher than the 1080p (?) low-bitrate I get on auto in firefox.

Netflix is so bloatet that it consistently has streaming issues on my likely underpowered 4k TV. Rips that use a more standard caching play well in whatever quality.

For me personally quality outside of Netflix is usually always better. Likely because of DRM

As the others have answered... I don't have a TV but I've got a projector with a gigantic diagonal. I posted here several times that I don't understand why streaming from Netflix gives a worse picture than playing a torrent. The DRM itself may be the reason apparently (maybe the computer I use to stream from Netflix ain't powerful enough? No clue).

I'll just say this: sailing the high seas (well, kinda: I only pirate the movie which I have access to anyway and I'm subscribed to Netflix/Disney+/Amazon Prime Video/etc. + 140 channels as part of my Internet subscription) gives a better picture than streaming.

People underestimate the quality of streaming movies locally and playing FLAC files locally vs streaming.

If you're not using a setup that plays nicely with Widevine, Netflix will cap your quality at 720p [0], precisely because your free-as-in-freedom stack doesn't lack the capability to record the stream, if you so choose.

I don't know anything about the other services firsthand because I jus-- uh, actually, never mind

[0] https://www.vdocipher.com/blog/widevine-drm-hollywood-video/...

> I don't understand why streaming from Netflix gives a worse picture than playing a torrent

Because Netflix is conserving bandwidth by sending you a lower-bitrate stream, while the pirated copy is — for movies at least — very likely a pirated copy of some offline release, e.g. BluRay, which comes with higher bitrate.

> This process loses a lot — for example, this signal is very likely post-HDR-color-processing, and so the result won't look very good on any other screen than the one it was originally told it was going to be played on.

Is this really true? I would expect the post-processing to happen in the TV.

Insiders working at studios and media companies who provide the content directly to warez groups.

Blessed be those saints.

> Streaming services wouldn't exist without DRM.

Why? Is DRM stopping piracy? Like what do you think would happen if DRM didn't exist, would the pirate bay be even bigger?

People don't pay for netflix because it's hard to pirate stuff, they pay for netflix because it's easier to do so than to pirate stuff, and it would be the same even if the laws of the universe changed one night and all DRM ceased to function.

> The existence of infinite accessible libraries of content

If only that were true, I'd be actually be happy to subscribe to them. I've realized that streaming services are only useful if your problem is "I need entertainment, find me something nice to watch", but mostly useless if you have a specific title to watch. Majority of the time there is no streaming service that offers the titles I want to watch.

Exactly my experience.

Always start with a conversation...

"you have never seen that movie ? let's play it"

"wait I don't see it on netflix, neither on prime or disney or...I should have bought the vhs/DVD/blueray at the time."

Not sure if you can find most +2y old movies on torrent platforms, last time I checked I couldn't find what I was looking for. I lament the death of local videoclubs where you could rent movies from any decade.

It depends on where you live. In German countries we have plenty of streaming sites (usually not torrents but semi direct downloads) of the 10 sites I visit regularly they all have a WAY bigger library than Netflix and Disney combined.

In fact I am always disappointed how small they libraries actually are as I am used to something else.

In Germany, scummy lawyers spy on your internet traffic with the help of your ISP and send you letters with fines on behalf of small creators like Disney, Warner Bros, BMG, Sony, Universal, etc. if you torrent any of their IP.

Not exactly a model I wish to be followed by other countries.

The fine structure is different for piracy where you download vs piracy where you upload. You'll practically never get in trouble for the former, because the return on investment is not worth the cost of labor.

> Not sure if you can find most +2y old movies on torrent platforms, last time I checked I couldn't find what I was looking for

You absolutely can. Just maybe not on the public trackers.

I have a netflix subscription, as well as a showmax subscription (local streaming service which has a lot of local stuff, as well as a bunch of international stuff including almost all of HBO's stuff) if there's something that's not on one of those, then I just torrent it. I don't give a crap. If people don't want to make their stuff accessible then I will immediately torrent it and they can lose out on the revenue. (I'm not gonna subscribe to every streaming service there is)

I can find torrents for anything I like, it's really easy. I guess if you don't do it often, you don't know where to look. But piratebay is still up and a good start.

> Streaming services wouldn't exist without DRM.

It's not like radio or TV have any DRM. I used to copy to tape movies and songs I liked all the time. Later we had TiVo &c to automate the process. The push for DRM just makes piracy stronger.

Or as a contemporary example, Steam's DRM is about as effective as a sticky note saying "please do not copy", lots of games on the platform don't even have any DRM. Some of the most financially successful games launched without DRM, e.g. Sekiro and Elden Ring. Stores like itch.io, humble bundle, gog don't have DRM either.

The only ones actually profiting from DRM are the DRM makers.

> Well, yeah. Streaming services wouldn't exist without DRM.

Why? Libraries loan you books and paper does not have any DRM. Works fine. The only difference is you might get some rate limit, e.g. 30 movies per month, or more watermarks instead of digital restrictions.

On the flip side getting Netflix in high quality has annoying hoops because of DRM (No, nobody wants to use Edge, thank you very much).

> If we deleted DRM, streaming services would cease to exist overnight — all their license grants being revoked, leaving them with nothing to serve

No, only if single stores do that. If lots of stores do that, you simply get the same content but without DRM. That literally happened for music, so you would at least need to argue why not here as well.

> Why? Libraries loan you books and paper does not have any DRM. Works fine.

Because books are physical objects, copying them is expensive. Digital data doesn't have that problem.

Anyone with a scanner and a day of time can produce infinite digital copies of a book. You don't have to throw money at it like Google and do some crazy AI driven OCR, a boring afternoon in front of a scanner, flipping through pages is more than enough. Source: I wasted way too much time to scan the notes I took as student just so I could throw the hard copies out.

I should have said "expensive compared to digital stuff", you're right that it doesn't cost an individual millions to copy a book. But compared to copying a mp3, it takes a lot of time.

If you are not sentimental you can cut the book and just feed it. Many libraries have those fancy copying machines.

I have never tried it my self for anything other than A4 compendia books though.

> I wasted way too much time to scan the notes I took

you answered yourself why the scan approach is impractical.

There are many groups dedicated to the translation and typesetting of manga that have no official english release. This also counts as piracy and the amount of effort that goes into it dwarfs copying pages one by one significantly. Impracticality doesn't matter as long as you have a hand full of people willing to do it.

Have you never used a digital library to check out an e-book? They use DRM.

And even then, libraries have a different rights model, involving the fact that they legally own each copy they lend out as a distinct purchase of an IP license, placing a distribution concurrency limit on each work of “however many copies they’ve purchased”. They aren’t legally allowed to just make more copies to serve more users; they have to buy those additional copies.

And yes, this applies to both physical books and e-books lent out by libraries. (It also applied to the DVDs Netflix used to be about loaning out.)

> If we deleted DRM, streaming services would cease to exist overnight

I don't think that's true. But assuming it is true, then yeah, I'm in! I'm sure people would find other enjoyable activities that would be DRM-free, we would be fine.

There would not be this social pressure / expectation to use or subscribe to these DRM encumbered platforms (or that you, at least, have access to all movies or series at any time) when you invite people over.

> Streaming services wouldn't exist without DRM.

That's completely false... People can already download for free drm-free content that is available on Netflix, etc, yet, they still subscribe.

> Streaming services wouldn't exist without DRM.

Legally I'm sure that's true since content creators wouldn't agree to it, but in practice that's probably wrong. People would pay for the convenience of a it-just-works streaming service.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com