The future should be DRM-free. Netflix are not going in the right direction. GOG try to break that wall on the other hand.
See https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree...
See https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree...
As soon as rights-holders can be convinced that DRM is unnecessary, then we'll see the internet streamers like Netflix drop it. I'd bet that by the time we see A-List movies on GOG, we'll be seeing them on Netflix too.
Where is their own content DRM-free?
> As soon as rights-holders can be convinced that DRM is unnecessary, then we'll see the internet streamers like Netflix drop it.
Without someone pushing for it, it will never happen. Netflix clearly don't care to push for it in the least. So kudos to GOG for actually trying.
What does Netflix gain at this point for instrumenting DRM free streaming for a small subset of their content rather than just piggybacking off their current infrastructure? Why add even more to the cost of in-house content for DRM?
> Without someone pushing for it, it will never happen.
That someone is consumers, not Netflix. And given that the overwhelming majority of consumers don't care about DRM, Netflix has little incentive to care about it also - they have enough to worry about with their content well drying up, and I doubt they are keen on exacerbating that problem by telling their partners to license their content DRM free. Short of either the government stepping in and mandating the end of DRM, I don't think will ever see DRM go away (not to say it won't be hopelessly broken).
All that still doesn't change the fact if Netflix could, they would most likely drop DRM, if not for all the technical reasons - it would allow them to distribute on Linux and most likely simplify parts of the content delivery chain. For Netflix they have no reason to be against DRM free content, but a ton of reasons to not be actively against DRM.
They gain more trust by showing that it's not their intention to use DRM. Since they don't, they are viewed as liars when they claim that they don't want to use it. And they very well can be liars. Let them prove their intentions with actions rather than with empty words.
> That someone is consumers, not Netflix.
No, that's false logic. Users of course should push for it too. But you can't compare the scale. Individuals voting with their wallets are less visible to publishers than distributors voting with theirs. GOG already demonstrated it. And that actually feeds the cycle. Once some distributor breaks the wall of stupidity by making some DRM-free deals with publishers, then more users start supporting them from those who care about buying it DRM-free.
The bottom line, Neflix are not interesting in fighting that fight. They oblige insane publishers willingly and their claims that they "have no choice" don't sound sincere.
> Netflix has little incentive to care about it also
That's exactly the point. So they can't claim that they don't like it. In the best case they don't care, and in the worst they prefer using it even for their own content and push for that garbage into HTML standard. Incentive for caring about it should not come from estimating how many users care about it.
> ll that still doesn't change the fact if Netflix could, they would most likely drop DRM, if not for all the technical reasons
That's what they say, but no one is inclined to believe them when they don't do it for their own content as above. There is no technical reason for them to use DRM where publishers don't demand it. And when they are the publishers themselves it means they demand it themselves too.
Because there is no good reason to use DRM. Ever.
> But for streaming video I'm merely renting.
You mix up the concept of streaming with renting. A common mistake that for some reason a lot of people make.
Streaming is simply a convenience. An ability to watch something from the cloud without downloading it first. Who said it has to be equal to renting? You can perfectly buy something and have it stored in the cloud to stream it while being able to save it for local backup at the same time. That's exactly what GOG offer for their DRM-free video.
Now with streaming misunderstanding out of the way let's take a look at renting. First of all using DRM for renting is pointless. If it's intended to prevent potential abuse of renting terms, then it's worthless same way it's worthless to prevent any piracy in general since those who want can access all the same content through piracy sources at any time. So any kind of enforcement of renting with DRM is futile and only reduces usability of the product for nothing.
Now let's also review the concept of renting itself. It doesn't really make any sense for digital goods in general. For physical merchandise renting allows reusability, which allows in term using lower price for renting in comparison with selling since there is no repeated cost of production. For digital goods this problem is non existent because cost of reproduction is practically non existent (digital copying). So there is no good reason to make the price of selling any higher than the price of renting. Or in other words, the whole concept of renting is nonsensical for digital goods. It wouldn't hurt to always allow the user to back up their data if they want to (i.e. complete purchase, not a rent).
Now with renting out of the way let's take a look at Netflix. Essentially their novelty is not in the renting aspect, but in an interesting way of organizing the service. Instead of selling film per price, they give access to anything for a monthly fee. This can perfectly be done without falling into renting approach (which can push one to entertain the thought of DRM which is nonsensical anyway as above). Some say, that if you remove DRM from Netflix what would stop users from downloading the whole catalog within the monthly period? The answer to that is that DRM is still not needed, Netflix should just make terms of usage more realistic and use other, non DRM methods to prevent such abuse. I.e. instead of saying "watch what you want in any amount by paying N money a month" they can say "watch / download up to M films by paying N money a month. If you want more - pay extra". That would keep basically similar approach but would prevent potential "download it all" abuse, while at the same time remain DRM-free. And there is no need to turn it into renting. I.e. those M films can be made perfectly downloadable and backupable. Since the main expense for Netflix is the streaming (it eats bandwidth / server activity resources), letting users back video up is perfectly fine - it will only reduce costs by reducing load if users will decide to watch their local backups next time.
The bottom line, Netflix can offer a DRM-free streaming service which allows downloads at the same time and uses their approach of "watch what you want for a monthly fee" except with an addition of "not more than M videos per month. If you want more - pay an additional fee".
Netflix main expense is not bandwidth it is content.
But yes, if netflix started selling tv shows and movies like you suggest, drm free would be something consumers should demand.
It is now. My point is that there is no reason for it to be a rental service. I explained above why.
> If you are paying a recurring fee, and you only have access to the product as long as you pay the fee you are renting.
Did you read what I wrote above? Even if you pay a recurring monthly fee, there is no reason to make it a rent rather than a purchase of up to any M titles of your choice per month for that very monthly fee. Rental is nonsense for digital goods.