[izacus]

> Probably not Netflix's choice.

Oh come on, this apologising needs to stop. Netflix joined the major DRM pushers as soon as they started producing their own content. They were the major proponents of HTML DRM. They happily apply that DRM and geoblocking to the series they produce and even more happily geoblock them as well. They've joined the other major publishers in behaviour.

This net neutrality backpedal is just another in the line of their anti-consumer move - now that preventing others from joining the market makes them profit, they'll happily throw neutrality under the bus. It was just popular as long as they were the ones screwed by the cable operators.

[scarface74]

As far as DRM, isn't the usual spiel that when you have DRM you don't own the content you're buying? In the case of Netflix, you're explicitly not paying for content ownership, you are paying for access while you're subscribing.

I have no issues with DRM for subscription based services. For instance, I have no problem with Apple using DRM for Apple Music (subscription) and then selling music on iTunes as DRM free.

I will pay for DRMd movie rentals from Apple/Amazon but I would never pay to "own" a movie from either service.

[izacus]

Except of the tiny detail that you're not allowed to watch rented movies on devices that aren't completely locked down. The issue of DRM isn't just owning, it's forcing you to use a certain software stack and then disabling your paid access if the kernel/drivers/whatever differ from the few software stacks they tested.

For example Netflix video is limited to low resolutions on Linux in free browsers. You're not allowed to watch rented content on Android you modified. And more.

The added problem is that they threw a lot of money into standardization of DRM services. This now means that more and more services - even those with free and ad supported content - now stop working on systems that aren't whitelisted by Widewine or whatever DRM stack they use. With the speed of DRM adoption on the web, soon, you won't be able to watch most of streaming content on anything but fully locked down devices running a few whitelisted un-modified OSes.

And that's a problem. Losing access to most modern video content (more and more modern western culture isn't available on anything but streaming services) just because I want night mode on my phone is excessive don't you think? Why would you let your stupid show provider dictate if you can add a driver to make the devices display more pleasant for your eyes?

(And yes, I'm aware that not all restrictions are in place on all platforms yet, but take a look at BluRay AACS 2.0 DRM standard and new Android OS limitations for the directions they want to take you.)

[scarface74]

Except of the tiny detail that you're not allowed to watch rented movies on devices that aren't completely locked down. The issue of DRM isn't just owning, it's forcing you to use a certain software stack and then disabling your paid access if the kernel/drivers/whatever differ from the few software stacks they tested.

And before, you weren't allowed to watch Netflix at all on any PC based stack that wasn't supported for MS Silverlight. Web based DRM actually gave you more choices, not fewer.

For example Netflix video is limited to low resolutions on Linux in free browsers. You're not allowed to watch rented content on Android you modified.

And that has nothing to do with web based DRM. Netflix has always run on custom clients on non-PC platforms. If they didn't have Web based DRM, what do you think is more likely? That they would make a custom app for the most popular platforms (like Sling TV) or that they would release DRM free video?

And more. The added problem is that they threw a lot of money into standardization of DRM services. This now means that more and more services - even those with free and ad supported content - now stop working on systems that aren't whitelisted by Widewine or whatever DRM stack they use. With the speed of DRM adoption on the web, soon, you won't be able to watch most of streaming content on anything but fully locked down devices running a few whitelisted un-modified OSes.

Video on the "open web" is not a priority for most video producers. If they wanted to DRM their content, the lack of a standard was never the issue -- they would just release apps for all of the platforms they cared about. There are plenty of DRM solutions for video on the web.

And that's a problem. Losing access to most modern video content (more and more modern western culture isn't available on anything but streaming services) just because I want night mode on my phone is excessive don't you think? Why would you let your stupid show provider dictate if you can add a driver to make the devices display more pleasant for your eyes? (And yes, I'm aware that not all restrictions are in place on all platforms yet, but take a look at BluRay AACS 2.0 DRM standard and new Android OS limitations for the directions they want to take you.)

Every company decides what consumers they want to serve. It is a free market -- they decide which consumers are worth serving and consumers decide which content they are willing to pay for and what tradeoffs they are willing to make.

[audi100quattro]

Your argument is self-defeating. If you're wondering why there are no, not even one (unless you want to count gog.com/movies), drm-free video buying sites, well, you have your answer. If people are ok with DRM while-renting, well, they will be ok when buying too.

The opposite is true for games on GOG/Humble Bundle/Steam and music almost everywhere, the less DRM, the more cultural and economic value is unlocked. There is a reason why movies aren't as good as they used to be, why make better content when you can resell the same content on Netflix and Netflix 4K (let's not forget the different 4K plan).

Region locking via VPN banning, is basically another form of DRM, regardless of them doing it for their content or others.

[audi100quattro]

If Netflix used fingerprinting instead of DRM, as is used in Books and probably MP3s, it would be better overall. Fair use does still exist when you're renting.

[wand3r]

Good point. I hate DRM but I couldn't articulate why I didn't have much issue with this. It's a rental, you don't own it. I bought a book that was DRM and I can't read it. It was Barnes and Noble and they cancelled the app and I don't remember the logon to the site or even exists still.

Netflix is protecting it's service. I am not a dogmatic absoltist, they are renting the content and you are leasing the service from them. If you really want a copy I would just full screen it and screen cap it with quicktime. There are probably easier ways. Point is, with Netflix you are unlikely to do it because for $9 (or whatever it costs) the value prop is higher than the opportunity cost of piracy.

[snuxoll]

> I will pay for DRMd movie rentals from Apple/Amazon but I would never pay to "own" a movie from either service.

I made the mistake of purchasing content from Amazon, I regret it every day since there's absolutely no way to get that content offline in a format I can use on any device I want.

Ironically, movies and tv shows I purchase off the iTunes Store are super easy to do this with - there's plenty of great tools out there that can strip the FairPlay DRM right off video content so I can use it as I please.

[paublyrne]

As far as geoblocking their own content ... I'll be waiting a little longer to get access to the new House of Cards season as usual but I have always assumed this is because of delays with doing the translation work. Is it not the case that all the Netflix content appears everywhere, once this extra work is complete?

[audi100quattro]

They blocked VPNs around the same time as their global expansion, and when VPNs were becoming increasingly popular, in addition to becoming a new major content creator.

I don't care about it enough to think more, you might be more right, but it's all just adding to their DRM regime.