[hfktifjrn]

Because they want to access the content, which might not be available otherwise.

Netflix seems to be quite popular, and it's users don't seem to be bothered by the DRM - try taking a screenshot of it on the desktop, you'll get a black picture.

[rbecker]

> might not be available otherwise.

Like how they stopped showing movies on TV once VCRs entered the market, or stopped playing music on the radio once home taping killed it. If only we had had DRM on radios and TVs back then, perhaps there would still be some entertainment industry left.

[hfktifjrn]

You are avoiding my point.

Where is the user outrage over Netflix using DRM and blocking their rights to fair use.

And if you don't like it, don't subscribe. Are you against companies being able to choose if to use DRM or not? Do you want to ban DRM? What about encryption, do you want to ban that too?

[rbecker]

> You are avoiding my point.

I addressed your point directly. You claimed content might not be available otherwise (and that this is the reason consumers want DRM), I gave examples that showed that to be obviously false. And DRM is much more than just not banned - it's illegal to circumvent, thanks to DMCA.

> And if you don't like it, don't subscribe.

I don't. But you're still not happy - I guess you'd also like me to shut up about how bad DRM is for consumers, and allow you to spread your false claims how Netflix wouldn't exist without it, unchallenged?

> Are you against companies being able to choose if to use DRM or not? Do you want to ban DRM? What about encryption, do you want to ban that too?

So you agree that DRM is bad for consumers and society, you're just not sure how to fix it? Because that is the only reason you'd want to skip directly to arguing what should be done about it... unless you were hoping to make it seem like DRM is good by proposing some overreaching "solution", and make it look bad by association with an encryption ban. But that would be an incredibly dishonest and slimy way of arguing, so I'm sure that's not what you were going for!

For the record, no, I don't want to ban encryption. But if DRM continues to infringe upon people's rights (such as fair use, or even regular property rights, like when Amazon remotely deleted an e-book, or Sony disabled OtherOS on PS3, or HP disabled "unauthorized" ink with an update to already sold printers), a DRM ban could be warranted. Many types of contracts are already banned, but you think consumers should just bow their heads and take it while corporations lock away their rights behind DRM?

Do you believe the only choice consumers should have is whether to buy a product or not? They shouldn't advocate for consumer-protection legislation? They shouldn't even complain about anti-consumer practices, judging by how much my complaints bother you?

[hfktifjrn]

What bothers me is the constant hypocrisy of HN.

Encryption is good, private companies should be allowed to use encryption however they want, but them using encryption for DRM or SecureBoot is bad.

The market is right, except when it chooses DRM products or big slim smartphones with unchangeable battery and no headphone jack. Then it's bad.

What's the consumer damage done by Netflix having DRM? Where are the damaged consumers hiding?

BTW, circumventing encryption used in Signal is also illegal.

[summm]

It's all about the attacker model. "Legitimate"encryption is for protecting all involved parties against 3rd parties. DRM is, in contrast, hostile against the owner of the device. Where is the hypocrisy?

[ryukafalz]

Personally, though I don’t like DRM, I don’t think we can ban it generally (though I could probably think of a few more specific cases where we should). I would like breaking DRM to not be a felony, though.