Hacker News Reader

Comment by FeepingCreature | Hacker News Reader

Note that it's easy to get a false dichotomy here, to think it's just between "paying" and "not paying" - if forced, people also have the simple option to "not watch".

I think what's needed is something like Steam or GOG, but for Movies. Preferably with un-DRM downloads because fuck if I'm watching movies in Flash. (Same goes for Silverlight - mplayer or fuck you. Torrents let me watch with mplayer. On finicky graphics drivers who occasionally fail at vsync, choice of player matters.)

Why is it that in 2015, I can't go to a site, give them money, and get a high-quality mkv download - but I can go to a site, not give anyone money, and get that download anyways? Movie industry, why do you not want my money? Hell, set up an "indemnity service"! Select a movie, pay them, and they promise to not sue you. Zero distribution infrastructure required.

View on HN

>> "Why is it that in 2015, I can't go to a site, give them money, and get a high-quality mkv download"

Because it's costly and unnecessary for a business to cater to every specific need. How many people even know what an MKV file is? And if they did how many people have the bandwidth to download one?

There are so many options available to people now (theatres, DVD, Bluray, iTunes, Amazon, Netflix) that people are resorting to insanely specific demands (MKV files, availability while in theatres, all I can watch for $5 per month, the technology used to stream the content must be one I like) in order to justify their piracy.

I don't see anything unreasonable about asking the studios to provide their product in a particular format. What if you wanted to purchase a movie, and the studios only offered it on Betamax?

Relying on Flash or Silverlight is similar. I use Linux, and Flash is officially unsupported on Linux. Silverlight has never been officially supported on Linux. If these are the options, then I cannot watch the movie out of the box, I have to find a flash installer (I had better hope one's in my package repositories), or I have to install wine and build Silverlight into my browser or some such.

I think it is totally reasonable that you would ask the studios to provide content in a manner that you can actually watch. Let's not even get in to the Blu-Ray encryption snafu and how that affected those of us who use non-commercial operating systems.

I don't like to recommend it but google chrome works with Netflix out of the box these days

It's also totally reasonable for them to not provide their product in a form that only a tiny percentage of people actually need. Might as well complain that they no longer sell VHS tapes because "all I have is a VCR and I just want content in a form I can watch". At some point you have to recognize that you need to meet them halfway. I mean heck, you even recognize that Flash isn't supported on Linux. How hard is it to replace the word "Flash" in that sentence with "Hulu"?

My point is that they should at least try to compete with piracy as far as user experience goes. I can download a movie and play it on Linux. But apparently providing a legitimate means for me to do so isn't worth their time.

Well if they provided a MKV file for sale then anyone could use it on their devices how they see fit. Similarly to how people can download mp3 files and play them on any device they want.

The current situation is that I have to watch TV shows via EME within Chrome or Flash or Silverlight (non of which I would otherwise have near my computer) or not be able to pay the content producers any money (which I like doing because I want new content created). It is as if I had to own a sony TV to tune into certain channels and a panasonic TV to watch others.

If they want to prevent piracy then simply watermark the MKV files individually, register the sales and sue the buyers who's MKVs end up being torrented.

I don't see anything unreasonable about asking the studios to provide their product in a particular format.

So if I hand built my own codec I could then ask Netflix to provide videos to me using it?

Of course, that's an extreme example. But they're not obliged to cater to your every whim - they're a business that makes business decisions, like losing X% of customers because they don't want to support Y codec/platform/whatever.

>> What if you wanted to purchase a movie, and the studios only offered it on Betamax? >> I use Linux

So it's more like a betamax owner complaining that movies are only issued on VHS :)

Hey, man, inconvenience through obscurity is a real problem causing suffering to literally dozens of people.

> There are so many options available to people now (theatres, DVD, Bluray, iTunes, Amazon, Netflix) that people are resorting to insanely specific demands

All of your options fail either for (a) not working in my country and (b) are physical and non-digital.

"Digital content I can watch right away" is not a instanely specific demand.

Regarding (a) I mentioned in my earlier comment that I understood not all of these services were available in all countries. However they are available in a lot of them now. Netflix and iTunes are both available in over 50 countries (I believe it's much higher for iTunes but I can't find the specific figure right now).

As for (b) I don't think that's an insanely specific demand and don't believe I said it was. In fact I listed a few of the demands in my comment. However it's also not a good justification for piracy imo. The content is still available to you with (for most people) very little effort.

Is there a single legal way of buying movies without DRM?

Yes, but it depends on your definition of movie. A lot of indie stuff? Documentaries? Probably.

> what's needed is something like Steam or GOG, but for Movies. Preferably with un-DRM

Steam games have Steam DRM, it's just not as annoying as other DRM options. Agreed, GOG is great however (0 DRM).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com