That's like saying nobody likes the turnstile on the subway. Of course not, but it enables the service to exist in the form it does. I'd much rather go through the turnstile, as awkward as it can be if you've got a suitcase, etc, than be forced to watch advertisements during my subway ride...
> I'd much rather go through the turnstile, as awkward as it can be if you've got a suitcase, etc, than be forced to watch advertisements during my subway ride...
That's quite a false dichotomy, since the service clearly can exist independently of DRM (both technically and economically).
Furthermore, this dichotomy doesn't work either in your analogy (there are ads on the subway, and yet I still have to pay) or in the real case we're talking about (Hulu+ is paid service locked down by DRM, and it still shows advertisements).
Amazon sells music perfectly without any DRM. It doesn't just exist - it brings them tons of profit. GOG sells games without DRM - and having growing profits. And etc. and etc. Your point disproved.
I assume that DRM has no effect on piracy (it doesn't) and it always degrades usability (it does). Which means scraping it off always has no financial impact except for improving usability of the service and reducing costs of using DRM itself. Better usability + more user friendliness = more satisfied users + more new users = more profit.
I don't think it's a reasonable assumption to make that DRM has no effect on piracy. It won't stop sophisticated pirates, but I do think it stops people from releasing an easy-to-use app that lets your grandma store Netflix movies locally.
Reminder to everyone: use downvote only for poor behavior, not disagreements. Appreciate that rayiner often provides intellectually honest contrarian viewpoints to many arguments. If people like him weren't here, this place would just be a big and disgusting circlej erk round the clock.
Grandma doesn't need to store Netflix movies locally. She can head to the Pirate Bay (with adblock lol) and download the video that a "sophisticated pirate" kindly ripped earlier. She never has to deal with the DRM at all.
Why bother with letting grandma store Netflix movies locally in a hypothetical DRM-free world when you can just use BitTorrent to download them now?
There's no reason a BitTorrent movie downloader couldn't be made just as easy to use as a Netflix downloader. If one doesn't already exist, it's not because DRM is somehow stopping it.
> I don't think it's a reasonable assumption to make that DRM has no effect on piracy.
It's not just reasonable, it's easily demonstrated in practice, when goods released with DRM are pirated almost right away (with DRM being scraped off). Sophisticated pirates are needed to break DRM. Unsophisticated ones get it from them without any hassle. Which means that DRM has no effect altogether except on legitimate users!
I.e. the vast majority of pirates never deal with any DRM, and experience of legitimate users is always degraded by it. It's pure common sense that removing DRM would always improve any service. And the fact that it's not happening is caused by other reasons (see above).
No, DRM does not enable the service because it's not an essential part of it. The service could work without DRM all the same while being ethical and more user friendly at the same time. DRM is like a sickness attached to an otherwise healthy product. It only becomes better when you remove it.
That's like saying the subway turnstile isn't an essential part of the subway. It's only true if you define "essential" in a narrow technical way that ignores the realities of having to monetize the use of products and services.
> realities of having to monetize the use of products and services.
Essential means technically and financially essential. I.e. without it the service can't work or can't bring profit. DRM is neither of that. Those who require DRM [publishers] have no technical or financial reasons to justify it. No valid ones at least (all reasons they usually voice are false, and their true reasons they usually don't voice).
1. Monopolistic lock-in. DRM is more than often used to control the market. It happened with Apple in the past, and was one of the key reasons that music publishers realized that being DRM-free is actually better for them.
This reason also includes DRM derivatives like DMCA-1201 and the like. It's all about control (over the markets, over users and etc.).
2. Covering one's incompetence. DRM is used to justify failing sales (i.e. when execs are questioned about why the product performs poorly, they say "Pirates! But worry not - we put more DRM in place").
3. Ignorance and / or stupidity (many execs have no clue and might believe that DRM actually provides some benefit). This type can be called DRM Lysenkoism.
None of these reasons are valid, all of them are crooked and anti-user, but they are often present in various combinations.
It's not always the publisher. It can benefit some middle parties which implement DRM. Or for example mobile carriers which use DRM to prevent users from switching. Or whatever other monopolistic lock-in scenario.
When publishers realize that monopoly falls to some other hands, they quickly become sober and find common sense. When monopoly remains theirs, they pretend that DRM is needed for other reasons.
The turnstile is actually a great analogy for DRM, including all of its flaws. And the turnstile isn't what allows subway service to exist.
A turnstile isn't very hard to jump over. If the turnstile is the only enforcement mechanism, anyone who wants a free subway ride just has to vault over (or perhaps also glance around to see if there are cops nearby, google whether there are monitored cameras, or pull a hoodie over their face).
There's an alternative, though: most places in Europe, there are no turnstiles, and nothing preventing you from getting on public transit without paying. It's a "trust but verify" system: you are required to validate your ticket before you get on the train, and occasionally someone comes around the train to check if you have a valid ticket, and issues a fine if you don't have one.
With this method, the users aren't inconvenienced, enforcement costs are reduced, and everyone's happy. With the turnstile, you get massive queues at busy stations during rush hour, and by making this one mechanical device your sole point of enforcement, you've actually made it more likely that people who don't want to pay will cheat the system.
Some places don't use turnstiles. Instead, you voluntarily validate your ticket with a machine. To ensure compliance, random checks are performed, with a large penalty if you don't have a valid ticket. It's a pretty nice system.
Similarly, some places don't use DRM. I don't think it's made it into the video space yet, but legitimate DRM-free music is common. It seems to work pretty well.
To say that DRM enables the service to exist only works if there's no other, better way. But there is, and the only reason we don't get to have it is because of customer-hostile policies from media companies.
What is happening here with the reply links? Apparently you two can still post but nobody else can (at least I cannot). Is that the new policy from a while ago?
You can answer, but first you might need to click the "link" link. I'm not sure why it's needed sometimes. May be when discussion happens too rapidly, the site assumes it can be some spam bot or whatever. So it puts some roadblocks.
As it happens, a lot of subways don't have turnstiles or ads, but instead periodically check for tickets after you're on board. I don't think that's terribly relevant here, though.
