Hacker News Reader

Comment by fixxer | Hacker News Reader

Relatively speaking, Netflix is like a chorus of angels when all you've known is Comcast.

Can anyone outline the argument against Netflix, Spotify, etc.? I don't follow. Is he suggesting the content should be free?

View on HN

No, both the FSF and rms have repeatedly said that charging for software (or content) is perfectly fine. His issue is with the licensing and DRM.

Here is one of the FSF's sites about DRM: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/

Personally I do use Netflix and I don't think that the company or its users are unethical, but ultimately if there were a reasonably priced service that offered DRM-free content and didn't rely on closed-source plugins and apps, I would switch in a heartbeat.

My guess is that Netflix couldn't negotiate agreements for a lot of the content that makes the service attractive without relenting on DRM. We'll know when Netflix turns evil, because it will force you to sit through commercials and previews before showing you the content you want and paid to see.

I think you are absolutely right. It's not content providers that are pushing for DRM, it's content producers. There's absolutely no way a rightsholder would let Netflix show their content if, god forbid, there was any remote possibility that a user could download and use their content outside of a controlled environment.

In some ways it parallels internet piracy. ISPs for the most part are sick of policing their users and sending out C&D letters for copyright infringement, but they more or less have to due to pressure from major studios.

Then check to see if DRM is needed to see Netflix "original" content.

It would be asinine of them to use different players/plugins for different content.

It's like these rights holders don't understand that anything that can be displayed on a screen can be reproduced. Fraps, etc

Reply on news.ycombinator.com