undefined | Better HN

0 pointsvlad00312y ago0 comments

It is the concern of the middle men, though. If content providers aren't willing to provide content, then the middle men will have no reason to exist. You can't have Netflix without any movies or shows on it.

0 comments

chinpokomon12y ago

If content owners want to leave money on the table, that is their prerogative. Assuming there was no Netflix, et al., it would just drive more gray market piracy. That isn't something content providers want. As it happens, DRM or not, piracy happens. I don't see this standard changing that. You are also assuming that there would be no available content without DRM, but if traditional content providers couldn't sell their product to consumers anymore, I think it is more likely that non-traditional content providers, those that agree to distribute content that isn't encumbered with DRM restrictions, would become more successful. It is a shift from having content force feed to us by corporations, to a system where independent creators have greater exposure. I don't need their content and I'm less likely to consume it if they insist on locking it up. I do believe in paying for the content I receive, and I would continue to do so if the stream didn't have DRM.

parasubvert12y ago

You assume they're leaving money on the table by rejecting DRM, i.e. that there is more money in avoiding it than in supporting it to some degree. I'm not so sure.

You're also assuming that consumers give a crap about DRM. They generally don't, if they get the content they want is available at a good price (i.e. mostly free w/ advertising if it's low-engagement, or at cost if it's high-engagement), and good a user experience (i.e. I can consume it on my chosen device platform, in my chosen setting, without having to stand on my head).

DRM became a detractor for consumers in the music industry because they went to war with their own customers. Music has a multi-decade long culture of sharing and trading. Then the industry retroactively tries to state that all of this is illegal. You couldn't easily copy purchased files across devices due to their paranoia. Even iPods could only be sync'd to one library at a time (part of their settlement with Apple in the early 00's). They even tried to claim CD ripping was illegal (that didn't fly). This is why Apple advocated to get DRM removed altogether from iTunes and eventually won - it was just a crappy experience all around.

The TV/movie industry thus far has avoided the fate of the music industry through a mix of low-barrier access to content within the US (Hulu, iTunes, Netflix TV station websites, etc.) and DRM to erect some exclusionary barriers to the content. DRM in this sector is more like a horse race that doesn't quell piracy but keeps it at least somewhat inconvenient. They also didn't go to war with their customers, and were more selective of how they chose to use legal avenues.

I don't foresee death in their future, just winner-take-all competition if they don't keep up with what their customers want.

Ultimately, the nature of most information goods being non-excludable is changing the game in ALL industries that make and sell information from one of distributing the information to a hybrid market-gift-economy. You can have previews, clips, etc. to experience my stuff, perhaps even stream it for free for a limited time, but to get the best overall experience, they'll gate the access... i.e. you can't have my stuff unless you line up and pay a ticket. This is even how RedHat works (you need to pay to get into RHN, or their cloud... which are the best experiences of maintaining a RedHat server, even though the software itself is free).

Or they focus on something that is excludable: a consumer's time and attention... i.e. free TV streaming, or Facebook surfing time. And make money on the content with advertising.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse