Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
from the tough-decision dept
Sita Sings the Blues has a few Endorsed DVD distributors. In addition to QuestionCopyright.org and myself, there’s FilmKaravan, a distribution collective that handles “downstream” deals with VistaIndia and IndiePix. Their distributions are on amazon.com (I get a much smaller percentage from those than from my DVDs, but they reach a much wider market) and Netflix.
In addition to physical DVD rentals, Netflix offers subscribers instant electronic delivery: streaming movies over the Internet to Mac, PC, Wii, PS3 and Xbox players. Many subscribers conveniently find new titles through this service. It’s just the sort of distribution channel that benefits a small film like Sita. They also pay producers, and don’t demand exclusivity. It’s a good deal all around, except for one problem: DRM.
DRM, or Digital Restrictions Management, is technology “to control use of digital media by preventing access, copying or conversion to other formats by end users.” At best DRM reduces the functionality of computers; at worst it invades privacy and adds surveillance and malware. DRM End User License Agreements (EULAs) force users to surrender rights well beyond what copyright restricts.
In the last few years DRM has grown increasingly pervasive, with little-to-no press coverage. Consumers passively accept it, as proven by Apple’s new “everything-DRM” device, the iPad.
Creators, too, are accepting DRM as a fact of media distribution; offered no alternatives, they lose their ability to even imagine alternatives. DRM, like rights monopolies, is said to be made for creators. But like copyright, DRM is designed to benefit Big Media conglomerates, not artists.
If this type of invasion of privacy were coming from any other source, it would not be tolerated. That it is the media and technology companies leading the way, does not make it benign. (link)
A few weeks ago a content aggregator called Victory Multimedia contacted FilmKaravan:
Netflix has shown interest in carrying your title “Sita Sings the Blues” for Electronic Delivery. For a 12 month license period they are offering $4,620.00. You would received $2310.00 no later than 60 days after the Netflix title release date and the balance of $2310.00 will be paid 6 months after the initial payment.
First I asked (FilmKaravan to ask the aggregator to ask Netflix) if Netflix could make a DRM exception for Sita. Unfortunately no such option currently exists in Netflix’s electronic delivery system. Possibly no other filmmakers have even asked for such an option. iTunes used to offer only DRM music, but eventually enough people – including savvy “content providers”? - demanded DRM-free channels that they now offer DRM-free music for sale along with Defective options (all iTunes movies carry DRM). Filmmakers lag far behind musicians in understanding the Internet, so it may be a while before Netflix, Amazon, iTunes, and other online distributors allow our “content” in their channels without adding malware and spyware to our films.
I still wanted Sita to be in Netflix’s on-demand system. I want as many people to see Sita as possible; surely many viewers now rely on such a convenient delivery system to explore new films. Anyone who became a fan of Sita this way might still find the film’s web site, and learn how to download a free copy for themselves. Although Sita’s site states:
You are not free to copy-restrict (”copyright”) or attach Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) to Sita Sings the Blues or its derivative works.
I could still grant special permission to Netflix to add DRM to Sita. I asked if I could add a card to the front of the movie stating simply:
Download and share this film from:
sitasingstheblues.com
The aggregator responded that this was not possible, due to a Netflix “no bumpers” policy.
Looking back, I was conflicted because it was hard for me to see the DRM on Netflix’s streaming service as problematic. It’s not as though Netflix is telling anyone they’re “buying” the movies they stream; they’re just “renting” them. “Rental” already implies restrictions and limited use terms. They’re just trying to make the Internet work like the physical world, imposing artificial scarcities to resemble the natural scarcities of physical DVD rentals. We can accept natural scarcities; why not accept artificial ones?
I was so conflicted, I asked my “Facebook friends” for advice. Responses were pretty split. Only a few knew what DRM was, but understood I could be compromising my principles by endorsing its use. Was that compromise significant? Was it time to “rise above my principles”?
Facebook, being a walled garden whose “business model is spying,” is problematic itself; obviously I use it anyway, although I don’t expect it to be around in a few years unless it opens up. Two of my moral guidestars don’t use it out of principle, and I emailed them for advice. Richard Stallman wrote,
I faced the same sort of question today: whether to approve release of my biography with DRM for the iBad. I said no, because the fight against DRM is my cause, and the iBad is the most extreme attack against computer users’ freedom today.
It is self-defeating to try to promote a cause by supporting a direct attack against it. Lesser forms of participation in things that you hope to eliminate can be overlooked, but Netflix is something we must specifically fight. The example you would set by giving in would undermine everything….
We launched an action against Netflix. We tell people, “Don’t be customers of Netflix.”
So I learned Netflix DRM was “real” DRM, rental or not. DefectiveByDesign.org asks people who rent physical DVDs from Netflix, to protest their DRM-laden electronic delivery service.
It was John Gilmore’s email that hit me where I live:
Don’t post your film via a DRM service.
Insist that Netflix is free to release it without DRM, but they cannot release it with DRM.
Creators keep knuckling under to these media middlemen who push DRM onto end users for their own lock-in reasons. Like Apple. Like CDbaby.
It will take pushback from creators to change this. Be the change that you want to see….
I’ve been the “change I want to see” in regards to copyright monopolies. People told me I’d lose everything by copylefting Sita, including all hope of professional distribution. But in fact, some professional distributors became willing to distribute Sita without claiming monopolies over it, and we’re all fine.
I’d still love Sita to be offered through Netflix’s online channels; if they ever offer DRM-free video-on-demand, I hope they remember Sita Sings the Blues.
For now, people will just have to obtain Sita by visiting the vast Internet outside of Netflix. Most of the Internet still isn’t enclosed by Netflix, or Amazon, or iTunes. Most of the Internet is still Free; I’m doing what little I can to keep it that way. I’m sad to lose the potential viewers who may have found Sita through Netflix’s electronic delivery. But maybe some of those Netflix subscribers will discover the rest of the Internet because of my tiny act of resisting DRM.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
DRM-free is the way to be...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM-free is the way to be...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The DRM is in this case infringing on the right of the creator to determine who does what with their content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You don't believe in "the right of the creator to determine who does what with their content."
And, you see your resisting of DRM as a kind of "restriction against restrictions".
You say, "...there should be no "right" to restrict."
But Nina, Isn't a restriction against restrictions... restrictive? If you don't believe in the right of the creator to determine who does what with their content, then how can you, as the creator, attempt to determine what Netflix does with your content, including restrict it?
Netflix is, in essence saying "We want to allow people to see your content, and we will pay you for the privilege" and you are saying "I not only want you to allow people to see it, but I want you to act as a *distributor* of the content, and include that as part of your paid license."
I assume you are willing to take the $4.6k for giving Netflix the right to show your work, but you would want to deny the same machine that outputs $$ to you, the input of $$ that makes the output to you possible? Hmm. Struggling with that I am.
In effect, you are expecting Netflix to act as a delivery mechanism, although you already have one which is unrestricted, as you claim to like.
I like your work, and I like Stallman's, and I respect you both very much, but I'm leaning toward wanting you to revise your statement, because I think you *do* believe in "the right of the creator to determine who does what with their content." as evidenced by your open desire to determine that Netflix not use DRM on Sita. And I'm *not* saying you're wrong; I believe you should have some control, for a limited amount of time... but to claim that you "wish there were no restrictions at all..." seems counter-intuitive to me.
Am I missing something?
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Netflix saying they refuse to remove DRM for users who receive it through their service is a revoking of something she views as their inherent ability. Supporting a service that actively enforces DRM irrespective of what is seen to her as a users right is counter productive to what she believes and how Sita is subsequently being distributed.
Not supporting a service trying to control a work that is deliberately made to not be controlled is perfectly in line with her beliefs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Imagine then if someone with "some ideals" comes along and says that you could use their works however you want except that you couldn't forbid younger siblings from participating and you would have to give up rights to their resulting works. These people are trying to fight through legal mechanisms what they view as a bad law.
It is true that people are picking one set of principles and beliefs to follow over others, but there is nothing wrong with that.
There is no paradox in saying you are against restrictions, *except* restrictions to prevent a large class of other (in your opinion: worse) restrictions from being executed.
The GPL makes it clear you have many freedoms except for the stated restriction on restrictions. People that speak of "freedom" wrt the GPL do so as a short-cut instead of saying a longer phrase "freedom except to restrict others' freedom in this way".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you're against the status quo of copyright because it limits the freedom of people to share content, but you're able to use copyright to enhance that freedom, where is the conflict? I'm not in favour of violence yet I practice martial arts to ensure an ability to defend against violence. Rage Against The Machine are on a major label because they decided getting their message out was more important than being independent. If the Big Four didn't abuse their position in the first place then there would be no disadvantage to being independent.
In a copyright free world DRM would not be a likely problem for Nina anyway because file sharing would be as legitimate a channel of distribution as Netflix, rather than a some anti mainstream niche due to the stigma of 'piracy'. Also there would be no obligation for Netflix to use DRM in the first place and it would likely benefit their business model not to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words,
1.) Its better for your work to get out there, by whatever means possible, even if it means somebody has to pay for it or use DRM. Obscurity will always be a bigger problem than abuse.
2.) People will learn better by example than by force. Allowing Netflix to distribute the film will teach them to remove it better than a boycott. Some people will never learn, but that is another issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You sound like a spoiled brat who wants everything their own way. If I write a song or direct a movie and want to put it out for free, I'm sure you would agree with that.
But should I choose to be compensated for my work, you'd take issue with that. This is called cognitive dissonance and this is why nobody should listen to a word you say.
DRM is bad, but your arguement is shit. It;s almost 3 years later, but hey, fuck you anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I wanted to pirate the content that I get through Netflix, I could, without Netflix. Easily. Even with the DRM, I could still easily pirate content from Netflix. So why I am still being punished? What is the point of DRM?
Why do I still have to download software from a company that I don't trust and agree to a EULA that I don't understand to use the service that I pay for?
Think about that. Does DRM seem so logical and reasonable now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think the key point here is that although DRM is a selling point for Netflix to many content providers, if it wasn't for the content providers insisting on DRM then it would make little sense for Netflix to use DRM. All DRM does for Netflix is stop them getting sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
* If they let content providers select between DRM/DRM free, how could it still not be the same for those beloved DRM loving content providers.
* If it wasn't for the content providers insisting on DRM then it would make little sense for Netflix to use DRM.
As if we know for sure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless you can explain why Netflix might want DRM themselves or how having DRM free as an option would effect the other content providers then those assumptions seem reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Principals
We come into the world with nothing; we leave with nothing; and they can take every physical thing away from us while we're here. But you have your self respect, Nina. And they can't take that from you.
Bravo! You've inspired a lot of people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks Nina.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here we go...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here we go...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here we go...
This isn't just between Nina Paley and Netflix, like it's a totally private deal that doesn't affect anyone but them, you know. This affects Nina Paley, Netflix, and all of the consumers out there.
With your attitude, we'd still have DRM on mp3s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
You want to "demand" Netflix capitulate to accepting Nina's movie under her very specific terms, despite her already saying that the reason she decided against allowing her film on Netflix was due to buisness policies that had little to nothing to do with her film.
Why not write a letter to Nina demanding that she allow her work on Netflix? She's the one building an artificial barrier between her and her costumers over an ideological issue that holds no direct connection to the acceptance and distribution of this film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
You claim that she knows nothing about you from one short paragraph, yet you manage to write a longer paragraph on how her short sentence was a personal attack. Don't ask me for a point, I just thought that was mildly amusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
Additionally: It is a rental system. Their is no pretense of ownership at the onset.
This is not the same as buying a physical album and discovering it has copy protection built into place preventing you from making a legal backup. It's not the same as buying music online and discovering it only works with specific hardware. It's not the same as actually buying something.
Again: Netflix=Rental.
There's something to be said for picking your fights wisely. Netflix hardly seems like the enemy here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
To stream to my computer (which was the only option I had until very recently), I had to download a program from a company that I don't trust, and then agree to a EULA that I didn't understand.
That's the DRM. That's just bad. :) So I am picking this fight wisely, I think, in hopes that I can one day uninstall Silverlight from my computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
I agree. Particularly as those concerned with DRM issues can sidestep the entire issue by using any number of devices engineered to allow streaming Netflix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
Saying that installing Silverlight to watch Netflix is DRM is the same as saying that installing Flash to watch Youtube is DRM. Netflix could just as easily have implemented their streaming in Flash, at which point you would undoubtedly have seen no need to install anything additional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
Yes. You are.
Any Mouse: "no matter how slight their DRM is, it is still DRM."
There's zero DRM on streaming if you use any number of devices designed to facilitate streaming. So a DRM free option obviously exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here we go...
While I would say that customer demand is a strong force, I don't think that's what you meant. Writing them a letter doesn't force them to do anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
That matters how? You're not writing poetry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
In other words, the use of the word "force" was hyperbole. You're taking it literally and dissecting the statement unnecessarily.
It goes without saying that one letter does not equal force. You seem like a smart person. No doubt you already know this. So the hyperbole should have been self-evident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
Well there's some logic, of course I knew it.. you're complaining that I pointed it out! You're just annoyed because without the hyperbole what you said would look as silly as it should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
Furthermore, you seem to have missed the actual introduction of the hyperbolic argument, that set the tone and dictated my contextual response: "*rolls up her sleeves and begins letter to Netflix, demanding Sita on Instant Streaming...*"
Demands = Hyperbole. My response was in the spirit set by the person I was responding to (incidentally, that was not you). So of course if you take my response and dissect it out of context it will look silly. that's absolutely true of everything.
Score one for you in the ability to miss the obvious department.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
No, they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
Since when have Netflix offered DRM free streaming?
"Demands = Hyperbole. My response was in the spirit set by the person I was responding to (incidentally, that was not you). So of course if you take my response and dissect it out of context it will look silly. that's absolutely true of everything."
No, a strongly worded letter is literally a demand and thus not hyperbole. Considering you brought the word up, it is funny that you don't seem to know what it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
Gee. I've only mentioned this three or four times now. Again: I stream videos through my Xbox. Where is the DRM?
"No, a strongly worded letter is literally a demand and thus not hyperbole. Considering you brought the word up, it is funny that you don't seem to know what it means."
Is she going to give up her service if her demands are not met? Will there be some kind of reprisal? Does she have some form of authority to make said demands, as in an inherent right? No?
Then it's a request and calling it a "demand" is hyperbole.
Contextually speaking (you seem to have trouble with context) she is "demanding". Not issuing a list of demands. There is a difference. As you claim to "literally" know what "a demand" is, it is funny that you don't seem to know what it actually means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
Afaik Xbox supports all Microsoft DRM, which Netflix uses. Unless you installed Linux on your Xbox then I cannot see your point.
"Contextually speaking (you seem to have trouble with context) she is "demanding". Not issuing a list of demands. There is a difference. As you claim to "literally" know what "a demand" is, it is funny that you don't seem to know what it actually means."
Perhaps you need a new dictionary: Demand - verb 1) ask authoritatively or brusquely. 2) insist on having. 3) require; need.
If it helps, a verb is a 'doing' word, e.g. 'demanding'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
There is a difference between a verb used with an object and a verb used without. I know this might shock you, but there is more to a verb than adding "ing" at the end. Once again, context matters.
And I do use a different dictionary. One that classifies "demand = question" as an archaic meaning. Because it is.
Regardless, let's look at the definitions you present:
1: She did not ask with any inherent right, and judging by her general civil tone, I would not presume she was brusque.
2: Unless her insistence was qualified with a "or I will" result, it's still hyperbole.
3: It's not a need. It's a desire. There is a difference. And it's only a requirement or a need for her continued service if she intends on discontinuing service if that requirement or need is not met.
Hyperbole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
Ask Netflix or Microsoft, not me. I'm sure the Moonlight development team would like to know too.
"In what specific way are my rights to this rental service restricted when I stream through my Xbox or DVD player or any number of devices?"
Your example is pretty irrelevant unless you're saying 'I'm all right Jack'. Plenty of people who aren't you have trouble with DRM, perhaps most notably those who use Linux. Afaik though, the only rights violations are in the US DMCA restrictions on hacking DRM.
"There is a difference between a verb used with an object and a verb used without. I know this might shock you, but there is more to a verb than adding "ing" at the end. Once again, context matters."
Err, both demand and demanding are verbs, demanding being the present participle of demand. I never suggested adding 'ing' to the end made it a verb. The reference to 'doing' words was a mockery.
"And I do use a different dictionary. One that classifies "demand = question" as an archaic meaning. Because it is."
Question? My quoted definition didn't even mention questions.
"She did not ask with any inherent right, and judging by her general civil tone, I would not presume she was brusque."
Authoritatively doesn't necessarily describe genuine authoritativeness, it can merely refer to someone's manner.
She used 'demanding' to refer to the content of her letter, your presumption about her manner ignores this. You seem to say that if she is being civil now then she can't possibly write a brusque letter. She may have meant to explicitly state her brusque manner by using the word demanding, however unlikely it may be given her civil manner here.
"2: Unless her insistence was qualified with a "or I will" result, it's still hyperbole."
No, insisting on having something doesn't require an statement of consequences. An accurate statement is never hyperbole.
"3: It's not a need. It's a desire. There is a difference. And it's only a requirement or a need for her continued service if she intends on discontinuing service if that requirement or need is not met."
I would not have suggested that definition might have applied here anyway.
Come on! Keep going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
It seems not to exist. Certainly there are no restrictions placed on my technology in these instances. For example, the installation of DRM laden software on a personal computer limits the users ability to use their computer as it was designed. This is not the case with the other devices.
Now, either you can counter this and point to the specific interference that said DRM causes. Or you can't. You say that Netflix does not offer any DRM free streaming service. If you know that as fact, then you should be able to support your argument. In the context of Nina's issues with DRM as it is applied to a rental service, where is the DRM? Specifically how does this DRM affect the consumer?
The rest: Hyperbole. That's really all there is to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
I've already told you that the only rights issue that I'm aware of is the US DMCA restrictions on circumventing DRM. If you don't agree with that, fine, but that is the answer. As to 'where is the DRM in these instances?', are you asking for a technical explanation? I only know there is DRM through the fact that Netflix explicitly state there is DRM and many people have reported problems resulting from the DRM. If the DRM does not effect you, that does not mean it isn't there.
"It seems not to exist. Certainly there are no restrictions placed on my technology in these instances. For example, the installation of DRM laden software on a personal computer limits the users ability to use their computer as it was designed. This is not the case with the other devices. "
Perhaps Netflix should stop telling people that they use DRM then. No one is arguing that your experience with their services hasn't been positive.
"Now, either you can counter this and point to the specific interference that said DRM causes. Or you can't. You say that Netflix does not offer any DRM free streaming service. If you know that as fact, then you should be able to support your argument. In the context of Nina's issues with DRM as it is applied to a rental service, where is the DRM? Specifically how does this DRM affect the consumer?"
I've already pointed out that DRM is the reason people can't use Netflix on Linux, frankly that's reason enough for me. There are plenty of other problems caused by Netflix's DRM.
As you've already started going around in circles, I'll leave it there. Have fun if you reply anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
You're still talking specifically about the personal computer experience. It's rather sad that I have to repeatedly spell out for you that I was always referring to Netflix Streaming outside of personal computing.
As I said: Netflix offers DRM free streaming through any number of devices. If you didn't actually have a legitimate counter argument to that, you should not have challenged the statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
Please don't lie. Only 5 of the 10 articles I linked were about problems related to Silverlight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
I'll admit, I missed some of your links because of the odd grouping you used. But seriously, you've just gotten pathetic here. Not a single link you posted deals with the modern functions of many DVD players or video game systems. Not one. Anywhere.
And hey... congratulations on only posting five links to Silverlight when Silverlight was never the topic between us. So you're admitting that a full half of your links were automatically irrelevant. Well, actually all ten were irrelevant. But at least you admit to half.
And from what I saw, it seems that a full NINE of the links were dealing with the personal computing experience, regardless of Silverlight. That leaves one that deals with blu-ray players. And that link is two years old and not applicable to modern devices.
I have clearly stated repeatedly that I am talking about Netflix offering DRM free streaming through devices NOT connected to a PC. And your inability to provide a single shred of evidence against this is compelling support for my argument.
It seems you've got nothing here. I'm guessing you've had nothing from the start. You're either a fool or a troll or both. Congratulations on that.
But please... carry on. Dig yourself in deeper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the good fight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the good fight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the good fight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the good fight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why let facts get in the way of an anti-Stallman narrative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
... and you don't get published if you don't want DRM.
Ignorance is really a bliss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which you seem to flout with every post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What gain does Mike possibly have in writing "There's a lot of things you don't get, TAM." anonymously into his own company's blog?
Seriously, with hundreds of thousands of people reading Techdirt, you really think the odds are that Mike Masnick wrote that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Netflix is a streaming service. They want to pay for the license to stream the movie to their customers. Why do they want to do this for a movie that is freely available? They want to provide more value by having a wider selection.
No rights are being infringed. The Netflix users make a conscious decision to pay for the service because they think it's a fair value. Having Netflix access to the movie in no way prevents them from acquiring it through the website and sharing it. It's just another way for the movie to be seen.
The content creator can make a conscious decision to either accept or decline Netflix's offer. To be honest, I don't quite understand the decision to reject Netflix based on their use of DRM. If they don't demand exclusivity, no one is losing access to the work. Their DRM isn't installing backdoors and preventing users from getting their money's worth. In fact, as loof said, it's nearly invisible.
I'm confused by the relentless push towards totally free content. I understand all of the problems and bullshit that DRM has caused in the past few years, and I agree that most implementations are terrible. However, does anyone really believe that if *every* player in the industry abandons *any* semblance of control over content...that they'll all somehow still be viable businesses? Or that for some reason, we don't want them to be?
I download music, yet I also support my favorite artists financially by going to concerts and buying deluxe fan packages. I spend more than I probably should, too...but that's my choice. I don't buy DRM'ed music. That's also my choice, as is my Netflix subscription. I know that I can download movies for free, but I choose to pay for what I believe is a good service.
I guess what I'm trying to say is this: I can appreciate the "information wants to be free" argument. But in this case, the information is ALREADY FREE. The company isn't asking to take the rights to the movie, bundle it up with DRM, and never let it see the light of day. They seem to be very reasonable and are asking just for a license to stream the movie to their customers. The movie is still free for whomever wants it, and the content creator gets paid!
Isn't that what we want, Internet? Haven't we been trying and trying to find ways for content creators to get paid while still having their work be freely available? How can we pretend to be righteously indignant when someone finally does something that makes sense?
PS: Right before I submitted this, I refreshed the page to see Nina's comment. Ignoring the obvious differences between my thoughts and those of the actual content creator, I stand by my point of view. I completely disagree with the idea that content creators should have no control over their work in any way, shape or form. That doesn't make sense to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Read more Techdirt articles, namely the ones linked to the right on the front page ("Most Popular Articles"),
Also see:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosoph y/reevaluating-copyright.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I appreciate your Stallman links. I must admit that I have only glanced at them as of this moment, though I will proceed to fully read each one shortly. I am not as familiar with his ideas as I should be, considering he crashed in my friend's dorm room at one point.
I do want to point out, however, that copyright issues are only marginally relevant to most of my argument. You can ignore the last paragraph for now, while I read a bit more and solidify my position.
As for this article: I feel like the continued availability of the content for free (in both respects) would supersede the "negative" aspects of Netflix DRM. I'm not sure what is being lost, and by which party...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are actually 2 aspects to this:
Netflix doesn't remove DRM, even in instances where a work is freely allowed to be copied and distributed
Netflix won't allow "bumpers", which limits here promoting the fact the work is freely distributable and where it can be gained.
What's being lost is that Netlfix users are being restricted, in a way that's not compatible with Nina's beliefs. Many Netflix users may not know of the film and its website where the information is. Even as it is able to be gained from other places, netflix users may not have knowledge of this, and people who gain it from Netflix are being restricted.
This undermines the freedom that Nina is expressly granting and trying to maintain. In the same way that freedom of speech is thought of as an inalienable right that should not or can't ever be revoked even if there may be other avenues, regardless of time or situation, so too does the same view apply here. Even for a only a certain group of people or at a certain time, it is an undermining of their right to do something that is expressly being granted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, never, and never.
DRM is not a reasonable solution. DRM will never be a reasonable solution. Saying that almost-invisible DRM is okay is like saying, 'Well, we have cockroaches in the walls, but we're not going to worry about them because they don't really bother us and we can't really see them.'. See? Not reasonable.
You know, if it's reason we're reaching for, then let's go all the way. What's the point of the DRM on Netflix?
If I wanted to pirate the content that I get through Netflix, I could, without Netflix. Easily. Even with the DRM, I could still easily pirate content from Netflix. So why I am still being punished? What is the point of DRM?
To beat this horse: I pay for the content that I stream from Netflix, so I really don't understand why I have to download special software and deal with their DRM to watch the content that I paid for.
I'm obviously not an illegal downloader, and if I were, this almost-invisible DRM wouldn't stop me. Yet they make me use it anyway. Where's the logic and reason in that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...really? When would we be reaching for anything but reason?
If you're being punished, it's for your own lack of free will. If you don't like Netflix, then don't use it! Pirate all of the content. I don't give a shit. No one is forcing you to use a DRM-based provider for anything.
Likewise, if I accept the (MINIMAL) amount of DRM that Netflix 'angrily forces down my defenseless little throat' and I don't have any problems with it, that is my right. You cannot force me to not use a service with DRM. Please stop trying.
Everyone on here is real into rights and liberties, but only when it's his or her own viewpoint. You don't want to be "forced" to use DRM services, but you want to force content distributors not to provide them. Talk about double standards.
If Netflix's DRM bothered me, I wouldn't pay nine bucks a month for the service. I would probably just torrent movies until something better came along. And you know what? If some non-DRM streaming service starts up, maybe I'll pay for that instead. But only if it doesn't suck.
That's freedom for both business and consumer. I'm not a free-market psycho, but it does exist for a reason. It's a pretty decent system for an imperfect world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You yourself say that it isn't the DRM that keeps you on NetFlix - it is the quality of the service they provide.
Any engineering effort Netflix expend on their DRM system is engineering effort that could have been better spent providing you with an improved experience, thus making you even less likely to leave. DRM doesn't work at a fundamental level, because the very people you're trying to keep from accessing the content are the ones who have paid you money in order to access the content!
Regardless, in this case, Nina is merely taking the opposite stand from the major studios. They say "you can't use our content unless you place DRM on it". Nina is saying "you can't use my content unless you turn the DRM off or let me tell viewers where they can get it for free".
Since the NetFlix system apparently doesn't allow for DRM-free streams, and the "no bumper" policy rules out the second option, her answer currently means NetFlix simply won't have the movie.
That's her choice, and the one she feels best fits her principles (although the whole point of the article is whether allowing it crossed the line or not wasn't all that clear even to her - our innate senses of justice really aren't well adapted to dealing with the abundance resulting from non-destructive perfect duplication).
As you are free as a consumer to accept the NetFlix DRM, so Nina as a provider is free to reject it as an acceptable distribution mechanism. There are still plenty of DRM free ways to obtain it.
On a more general note, we're in a time of competing business models. The old guard (which includes NetFlix as an enabler) want to enforce DRM in the digital world so the scarcity based models continue to work. The up and comers (which include Nina and Techdirt) want to build models that take the proliferation of free copies as a starting assumption and figure out ways to personally prosper anyway.
The degree to which you see that competition as a moral conflict (in terms of rights to access information), as opposed to a mere recognition of the underlying technical reality, will affect the way you answer questions such as the one Nina wrote about in the article. The pragmatic answer (which I would give) would be to say "Sure, let NetFlix distribute it. It will make you a bit more money, and the inexorable decline of the old guard is unlikely to be either slowed nor hastened by it." On the other hand, you may, as Nina has, take the more principled view that says that there are ways that doing this may actually slow the decline of the old guard (such as being seen as legitimising the use of DRM) and hence feel it is better to disallow it.
The fact that I would personally have made a different decision in this case doesn't prevent me from respecting the views that lead to Nina making the decision she did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Roflmao. Boycotting isn't the only, or even the best, solution to problems like these. Think about it. Which comment would have more weight with a company?
1. I am a current and long-time customer, and I would like to see these changes.
2. I am not a customer, and will not be until I see these changes. In the meantime, I will pirate your content.
You cannot force me to not use a service with DRM. Please stop trying.
Nobody is trying to force you to do anything. Further, I never said that I was into 'rights and liberties'. And speaking of rights and liberties in this context is silly.
Companies like Netflix want to make money. I want to buy things. Everything in the middle is a negotiation. I'm placing quality, convenience, and lack of DRM on the table. So far, they've only responded with quality and convenience. So far.
If it's perfectly fine to lay quality and convenience on the negotiating table, why is it not okay go to ask ask to be rid of a program from a company that I don't trust and to not to have to agree to a EULA that I don't understand? The answer: It is perfectly acceptable.
That's freedom for both business and consumer. I'm not a free-market psycho, but it does exists for a reason. It's a pretty decent system for an imperfect world.
I do not think that word means what you think it means...
The free market is about letting consumers, like myself, negotiate with producers/providers/sellers, like Netflix, without government intervention. I haven't seen anyone call for a government restriction on DRM. Not in the post, and not in the comment that you're responding to.
So while I absolutely agree with the statement in bold, I don't think it has anything to do with this discussion, as it stands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Content distributors have no use for DRM outside of selling their service to rights holders who want DRM. It is hardly asking them to be non profit by requesting that they at least offer rights holders the choice.
"Netflix is a streaming service. They want to pay for the license to stream the movie to their customers. Why do they want to do this for a movie that is freely available? They want to provide more value by having a wider selection."
Why wouldn't they want to do this for a movie that is freely available? You admit yourself that they provide more value by having a wider selection.
"No rights are being infringed. The Netflix users make a conscious decision to pay for the service because they think it's a fair value. Having Netflix access to the movie in no way prevents them from acquiring it through the website and sharing it. It's just another way for the movie to be seen."
If you believe in the quaint old concept of liberty then DRM that comes attached to laws telling people they can't circumvent it is a rights violation.
"The content creator can make a conscious decision to either accept or decline Netflix's offer. To be honest, I don't quite understand the decision to reject Netflix based on their use of DRM. If they don't demand exclusivity, no one is losing access to the work. Their DRM isn't installing backdoors and preventing users from getting their money's worth. In fact, as loof said, it's nearly invisible."
The content creator did make a concious decision to decline Netflix's offer, that you don't understand her decision is odd considering the length at which she has explained it. My summary would be that Nina does not seem to want to support a service that does not put the consumer, her fans, first.
"I'm confused by the relentless push towards totally free content. I understand all of the problems and bullshit that DRM has caused in the past few years, and I agree that most implementations are terrible. However, does anyone really believe that if *every* player in the industry abandons *any* semblance of control over content...that they'll all somehow still be viable businesses? Or that for some reason, we don't want them to be?"
One of the problems with DRM is that the majority effected are those who want legitimate access to content. If the industry gave up all the control they currently claim over content then I would certainly hope the market would change dramatically, even if there were some casualties. As someone who's already been driven out of the mainstream market I would hardly notice if the whole thing collapsed and just left forward thinking artists like Nina.
"I download music, yet I also support my favorite artists financially by going to concerts and buying deluxe fan packages. I spend more than I probably should, too...but that's my choice. I don't buy DRM'ed music. That's also my choice, as is my Netflix subscription. I know that I can download movies for free, but I choose to pay for what I believe is a good service."
Ah, so you're the special person who supports artists even though you don't have to. What makes you different to the rest of the world? Is there some 'chronic freeloader syndrome' to which you are immune? Or are you just presuming the worst of everyone else?
"I guess what I'm trying to say is this: I can appreciate the "information wants to be free" argument. But in this case, the information is ALREADY FREE. The company isn't asking to take the rights to the movie, bundle it up with DRM, and never let it see the light of day. They seem to be very reasonable and are asking just for a license to stream the movie to their customers. The movie is still free for whomever wants it, and the content creator gets paid! "
You're conflating issues. This isn't about 'information wants to be free', it's about a content creator making the choice not to support a business model she doesn't agree with, regardless of whether it makes her some money. I often hear the argument from people who are anti infringement that file sharers should boycott rather than infringe. In this case Nina is not only boycotting but potentially giving up the immediate prospect of money to do so. I don't get what your issue with that is.
"Isn't that what we want, Internet? Haven't we been trying and trying to find ways for content creators to get paid while still having their work be freely available? How can we pretend to be righteously indignant when someone finally does something that makes sense?"
Just because I hate your tone in this paragraph I shall point out that "righteously indignant" is a tautology. Stop saying we when you are talking about something you never subscribed to. I won't even attempt to find a point to address in that.
"Right before I submitted this, I refreshed the page to see Nina's comment. Ignoring the obvious differences between my thoughts and those of the actual content creator, I stand by my point of view. I completely disagree with the idea that content creators should have no control over their work in any way, shape or form. That doesn't make sense to me."
Perhaps you can follow up with why you think it makes sense for creators to have extra control over their work, over that which is inherent from their abilities as the creator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd just like to quickly point out a few things:
Regarding this retort...
Go back and read my comment again, please. Try saying it out loud if that helps. It was a rhetorical question, hence the reason I answered it immediately after.
Anyway, how about this gem:
So, the point of my original paragraph was to show that I also make decisions to support artists and reject DRM when I think it makes sense. I'm not saying it's a black and white issue, and I'm not a copyright hawk or something.
But I guess you could ignore what I said and be an asshole for no reason. Talk about hating someone's tone...
Oh yeah, you did:
I'm going to (actually, "I shall" because I too feel the need to sound like a huge douche) point out that "righteously indignant" is a common phrase. Just like "affected" is a common word that you probably shouldn't have screwed up. Oh no, you made a mistake, somehow that makes a difference in your argument, right? No, it doesn't. Tool.
And yes, I realize that I'm throwing in a lot of personal attacks. That's why I wrote this comment in the first place. There wasn't a whole lot in the logic department to which I wanted to respond.
This is probably my last post even remotely concerning this entire spectrum of issues forever, so feel free to celebrate.
My feelings can be summed up into the following list:
* Pragmatic approaches are better than idealistic ones.
* Stallmanism serves an idealistic purpose, but is not helpful in the real world
and finally
* You're a dick.
Have fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Gino on Apr 23rd, 2010 @ 7:19pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No bumpers on netflix?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is the thing though: I don't have to live with your decision. You do. If it really bothers you that much to have any kind of DRM attached to your work, then I would say kudos to you for standing by your principles in the face of a cash offer. It has become very difficult to find such actions in today's society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But how does it work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(and by the way, I have been a techdirt reader for a couple of years...I just don't normally post)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to go about DRM free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to go about DRM free
Download and share this film from:
sitasingstheblues.com
The aggregator responded that this was not possible, due to a Netflix “no bumpers” policy.
So at least telling people that it was freely available was acceptable to Nina, but not to Netflix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How to go about DRM free
Please stop editorializing so much. I understand that you're very convinced of your views, as you must be to subscribe to techdirt, but please try to be somewhat objective. Netflix didn't say "you can't tell people it's free!", they have a general "no bumpers" policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How to go about DRM free
To put it objectively: if you have a no bumpers policy you are effectively saying 'you can't tell people it's free'. Subjectively: get off your high horse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How to go about DRM free
Further, it obviously wasn't acceptable to Netflix, or they would have accepted it. I didn't say why. I didn't lambaste Netflix. I simply answered Sydney's questions with the facts, including a quote from the post, which is kind of the opposite of editorializing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Information in the description of the film
I don't know if Nina suggested another way of getting her message out instead of a bumper, but Netflix does have a fairly robust set of rollovers that provide synopsis and information about a rental movie.
Did Nina suggest that the download information be included in all the descriptions of her movie? (I realize she is not going to answer me here.)
Given her column, I think not.
But if she had, I would be furious at Netflix if they had said "No." Because then their real reason for rejecting the bumper would be obvious. They just don't want to publicize the non-DRM nature of the movie.
But I suspect they might have said "Yes."
Did Nina know about these descriptions?
Did she think of this idea and reject it as not forceful enough?
Did Netflix not be imaginative enough to think of this idea?
Did they reject it as being too dangerous to their business?
Last night I discovered that a documentary that I rented from iTunes is available from Netflix. This makes the movie cost a fraction of what I paid Apple, plus I can effectively watch it for weeks and months instead of the 24-hour period to which Apple restricts me.
If there had been a sentence directing me to a download of the movie, I would have also been happy.
I would be more inclined to view my subscription to Netflix as a way to find out about movies and sample them. If I liked them, I could then download those that are DRM-free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Information in the description of the film
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Information in the description of the film
Ahh, the aggregator.
A middle-woman who only causes confusion by not understanding what two experts do.
Too bad you couldn't speak to Netflix directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Information in the description of the film
To Nina,
I'm still intrigued by the very existence of the 'Netflix' question. What exactly do your work, and you stand for? Is the choice of CC-SA just a hot buzz word from internet, or the real reason is the principles behind those words? Everything in this capitalistic society has a price. The question is always simple, are you willing to pay that price (which may not only be money!)?
Is the money and widespread audience Netflix can provide over weighs your faith in the principle of sharing it 'freely'? How far and for how long you want it to be free? Your take on copyleft licenses is a bit disheartening. Copyleft approaches like CC-SA, GNU-GPL etc. are not just an attempt to make the work free. You can make it free by releasing it in public domain, which some if not many consider extreme form of liberal take on copyright. But is it? How can you ensure that all the derivatives will also be 'free', the same 'freedom' you gave to your work. Is it not our responsibility to ensure that this 'freedom' is not curbed in coming future? By copyleft approach we are not trying to restrict 'freedom to misuse', we are ensuring the 'freedom to remain free'.
Back to the original problem with Netflix. I think, that accepting DRMed distribution is defeat of principles of free distribution. Here 'principles' are the price. No matter what Stallman or Gilmore, me or any dude in the crowd has to say, it will always be you who will have to weigh things.
Shouldn't we try to solve the problem rather than just circumventing it? In this case Netflix certainly has one.
PS: Too much going in comments, didn't read most of them, so this might be bit over the top. Sorry for that. :)
PS2: May be, I'm just too much talk. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to go about DRM free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I pay for the convenience and simplicity that is Netflix. I am fully aware that the content is not accessible to me outside of their streaming client. I am okay with this.
I'm pretty sure that everyone else in the world who uses Netflix understands this as well.
I have a right to waive my rights. In certain situations, I may feel that I benefit by doing so.
This isn't exactly a case of personal freedom being trampled. I accept the terms of the service, because I don't care about downloading and sharing the content. I just want to access it, and usually only once.
So the alternative is for those users to have no access to (or awareness of) the content whatsoever. That's better, I guess...
If anyone who saw the film wanted to download it, doing ANY research whatsoever would point them to the website.
Bonus annoying argument:
I want to watch this movie on Netflix. Now I can't. Don't I have a right to do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except you're not. You get little genuine benefit from getting it through Netflix over getting it from the site, torrent, Youtube or other means, unless you consider not being able to copy, remix/reuse or distribute it a benefit.
No you don't. Netflix is a non essential service that provides a convenience, not a right. Sometimes rights create what may be inconvenient circumstances for some, but are more important to protect in the long run.
Not being able to watch on Netflix may be an inconvenience, but pales in comparison to the ability to copy, distribute and use the film as you please. Granting and protecting that is the fundamental principle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instant streaming is far better than torrenting. (For watching a movie. Which is what 95% of the world does with movies. I don't want to copy, remix, or distribute very many movies that I see.)
Instant streaming is also far better than Youtube for watching movies, because, well, you can't really do that on Youtube.
Also, I was talking generally, not specifically about this movie. So no "getting it from the site" for most. Although even if all movies were available on their respective websites, I would still find some small value in having instant access to a collection all in one place.
These are things that I value. To each his own.
Second point:
Netflix is not the reason we can't all "copy, distribute and use the film as [we] please"...the copyright holders are. Netflix's compliance with their wishes is not, no matter how much you would like to think it is, a major contributor to the continuation of this trend. Don't shoot the messenger. It's a shame that they won't change for Nina or any other person's copyleft, but you have to remember that these content creators are so far in the minority that it's not important enough for them to try. Their entire infrastructure is built around the DRM streaming. More content creators must open their licenses before Netflix can justify a change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're especially right that 95% of the world (probably more) has no interest in copying, remixing, or distributing movies they see - they just want to watch them. Which is why DRM is not essential to selling streaming services.
As many have said, the DRM is on Netflix's service because the studios demanded it, not because it's essential to Netflix's business model. And now here I am, a teeny-weeny micro-studio, "demanding" (not that I have any power) a non-DRM option. Maybe they'll offer it some day!
Meanwhile, let me be explicit: I like Netflix. I'm very glad they carry my physical DVDs. I'm not trying to launch a protest against Netflix. Protest DRM, sure, but remember Netflix still offers real, physical DVDs for rent - and when you rent "Sita," you can do whatever you want with that DVD, because there's no encryption on it. Just return it in good condition when you're done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM != BAD in all situations
While DRM is absolutely untenable for purchased media and should simply go away, DRM for *rented* media is acceptable as long as the DRM is not be too onerous on the consumer. Only requiring a common browser plugin, as Netflix does, is reasonable. I'd like to see it available for alternate OSes, but it is still reasonable.
Personally, I refuse to *purchase* any media which is laden with DRM. As I said it is unreasonable and untenable for media companies to expect to control how I consume my *purchased* media.
At the same time, it is perfectly reasonable to allow for DRM on *rented* media. If their streaming media were DRM-free, it would be extremely tempting to pay for a couple months of Netflix and just download all the movies I wanted. Perhaps once a year pay for a month and download all the new movies I want, for $9. Yes, I understand that it is possible to rip the Netflix streams. But it is not easy to do and requires software from untrusted sources.
I am perfectly happy to pay Netflix a monthly fee to access streaming movies, even though they have DRM. With the exception of not being able to access the movies in Linux [at this time], Netflix has been very good about making sure their streaming movies are accessible from a large variety of devices. I can watch them through my Xbox360, through my PS3, through my Wii, through any of my dual-boot computers, and soon I expect to be able to watch them through my phone. I can watch ANY movie which Netflix streams at ANY time, as many times as I want. I go into this with a full understanding that I am *renting* access to a large and increasing library of movies and that if I stop paying, I cease to have access.
I am also happy to pay Rhapsody a monthly fee for access to their vast library of music, even though that music is restricted with DRM. I can listen to any of the millions of songs on Rhapsody from ANY computer with a web browser, even in Linux. I can copy my rented music to my mp3 player and only have to sync it once every two weeks. I can stream any of those millions of songs to my phone, anywhere theres a Wi-Fi, 3G or Edge network. Soon I'll even be able to store that music on my phone to listen even if there is no signal.
On the few occasions I choose to purchase digital media, I have never paid money for a DRM encumbered copy, and I never will. But I could never afford to purchase all the music I like to listen to, or all the movies I'd like to watch. It would cost me hundreds of dollars a month. Paying $15/mo (Rhapsody) and $9/mo (Netflix) for access to almost any music or movie I could ever want is a killer deal, and I'm willing to accept the DRM in this case.
Yes, I would PREFER if these companies would provide the same services without DRM. And I think they SHOULD allow content creators to have the ability choose not to have any DRM on their creations. But I also understand the added technical overhead of adding another path in their process. Hopefully if enough content creators request this, they will start allowing it. Since Netflix has a strict "no banner" policy [which is fine as they seem to be enforcing it consistently], perhaps for your next film you can put at the end [or beginning] of the credits a message telling viewers where they can obtain a free copy of your movie.
Obviously this movie is your creation, and you are perfectly free to choose not to accept a particular distribution path. But the rabid anti-DRM stance some people have is simply an extreme reaction which ignores the reality of business, and like it or not, media is big business.
You are also perfectly free to start your own streaming media rental company which doesn't use DRM in any situation.
I'm glad you are providing free access to your film, and I hope more content creators start to choose the path you have chosen. But I personally would be more likely to end up watching it if it were available via the methods I've chosen to consume media [Netflix streaming in this case]. As it is, even though I want to watch your film, and even though I've known for a long time that it is available for free, I have not yet seen it. It is simply not convenient for me to track down the site you have it available, download it, and convert it to a DVD, or transfer it to my media sharing in order to watch it as I typically watch movies. If I had to individually track down each movie I want to watch, and deal with whatever codec each movie was distributed in, I'd watch a lot fewer films.
If it were available via Netflix streaming, it would fall within my daily routine of adding movies to my queue to watch. As a bonus, you'd actually get paid for it. I know I can add it to my physical DVD queue [and probably will eventually], but I'm an 'instant gratification' kind of guy. :) At this point probably 95% of my Netflix viewing is of streamed movies. In the last year I've only gone through about 4 physical DVDs from Netflix.
I know this is just anecdotal 'data' from one person. But my point is that reducing the avenues by which your film is available goes against what I presume is your reason for making the film in the first place; having people watch it.
Sorry this ended up a LOT longer than I originally intended. Hopefully you understand the point I'm trying to make. Instead of avoiding all DRM at all costs, try to take into account what might be a reasonable reason for allowing DRM when making your decisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM != BAD in all situations
If it were available via Netflix streaming, it would fall within my daily routine of adding movies to my queue to watch. As a bonus, you'd actually get paid for it. I know I can add it to my physical DVD queue [and probably will eventually], but I'm an 'instant gratification' kind of guy. :) At this point probably 95% of my Netflix viewing is of streamed movies. In the last year I've only gone through about 4 physical DVDs from Netflix.
Doubletwist, your paragraph above sums up why this decision was so difficult for me. I wouldn't fault anyone for deciding the other way, including myself. This was one of the least clear dilemmas I've faced around "Sita." I desperately want "Sita" to be as conveniently accessible as possible. Netflix's VOD would have been so good, if not for the DRM.
I should add that I wasn't really tempted by the money. The $4,620 was offered to the distributor, FilmKaravan; I would have only received half of that, $2310. That's nice, but what I really wanted was the eyeballs Netflix would have offered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DRM != BAD in all situations
I know the money is not your primary goal, but do you deny that it would be nice to make some money as long as it doesn't conflict with your other, higher-priority goals?
I have great respect for you in all of this. I'm glad you're making your film available as widely as possible. Given that this is [or appears to be to me] your primary goal, I'm sure it's a difficult decision to chose to eliminate a potential viewing opportunity for people.
On the one hand I understand a dislike for DRM, and your decision CAN be a tool to help pressure companies to provide non-DRM options for content creators, which would certainly be a good thing.
At the same time, if a large number of consumers are happy with a specific technical limitation, does it make sense to avoid providing your works via the delivery path they have chosen?
It's a choice I'm glad I don't have to make, and I don't envy you in that respect.
Thus far it appears that you've been dealing with Netflix through at least two layers of intermediaries. Hopefully someone from Netflix will see this article, recognize the dilemma you are facing and can contact you directly to help work towards providing a DRM free option for you and other filmmakers. I will be sending Netflix some feedback on my account regarding this. It may not make as strong a statement as cancelling my account, but even without that "threat", enough feedback should hopefully make it clear to them that this is something consumers want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This has a major influence onthe profitabiltiy directly from the film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://blog.ninapaley.com/2009/12/07/correction-again/
In fact "Sita"'s Free license has made the film MORE profitable for me.
Commerce good. Monopolies bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Convenience is a huge benefit, one that I pay $20 a month for to Netflix. They don't offer anything that I can't download for free, yet I still pay them... You might disagree, but I think that conveneince is a genuine benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, the better option is the third one. The one that you ignored.
Offer it without DRM. The DRM is pointless and annoying, anyway. Now isn't that a better option than the other two?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The point of this article is that there are many options available, and Netflix is choosing not to utilize the ones that are best for consumers like myself, and some content producers like herself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is Netflix, not AT&T
Furthermore, the main motivation for having this content be DRM free is only on a device that allows for recording. Pretty much the only device where this would be relevant would be a desktop PC. In that case, the alternatives are legion. Everything from HTTP to BitTorrent is an option.
One simply does not need to fixate on Netflix.
Most Netflix devices have no means of accomodating the DRM-free option to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It seems to me you would pay for the convenience and simplicity of a streaming service that doesn't have DRM. Nina has just given those service providers a "tiny" boost.
Convenience is how rights erode.
Eventually, there is no hardware and advanced software support out there that is free of DRM because those that supported DRM-free were outdone by the giant convenience factories.
Eventually, though they could retool and remove DRM, there is no cost to keeping it (because of past investments and improved hardware) and a cost to retooling, so Netflix and others say, "no, sorry, too much trouble."
Eventually, people will be even less inclined to question monopolies and the "rights" of the elite.
Eventually, the free access channels will grow old and become costly to access if possible at all. This will hurt all open source, open X development, models, and support.
Remember that if everyone is forced to be open (and respect our social context and peers), then it becomes easier to make money with open businesses, more great works will arise (pushed forward by random collaboration and reuse), and the open business models will become more accepted and sophisticated. The world is not composed of a few geniuses that build everything by themselves and lemmings. Some people simply need a little bit of a handicap to get their creativity to flow and impress. We are not all born into nurturing and encouraging environments. We don't all have connections and money in order to have today a sophisticated production backing us.
You can't put a price on everything. A world with much more access will have a lot of value to everyone in many ways even when individuals don't monetize them. Access is the foundation of a strong individual and society.
DRM gives too much control to the owner of the DRM. Tomorrow their terms get more aggressive and they use their access to do even the illegal or at least to abuse the liberal terms of services. You can't watch over them or audit them because of the power of the encryption, etc.
Support companies that value your rights. Streaming without DRM is likely supported by many open source streaming server software and groups. Help promote the messages of these groups (and their businesses) by helping to grow their services.
The GPL says: in a world where copyright can be very restrictive and hurtful to the rights of individuals of society to grow more easily and share, a restriction on restrictions helps even the playing field a little so that those more greedy don't just copy everything we do and then lock it up. Force greedy people to make a choice: open up or lose business.
Just like Google is about to start pressuring the monopolists with their city-wide broadband experiment, so must we leverage and fight to show open access of all sorts brings superior value to people. What is holding up this entire effort by those that favor restrictions is laws that do not respect the Constitution.
[BTW, I think patent law is worse than copyright when aimed at information. While idea-restricting "derivative works" rules, a zillion years of copyright effect, and some degree of MAD checks and balances in the patent world means bad copyright is not that much worse than patents, copyright does enjoy copyleft licenses and its growing support.] I have never taken too strong of a position against DRM because it seems that future is still not upon us.. I'll certainly pay more attention now.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/watch.html
http://www.thirteen.org/sites/reel13/blog/watch-sit a-sings-the-blues-online/347/
The only convenience Netflix provides is suggesting the film to an audience already looking for movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But remember: Netflix has created the scarce good: the community. If they do a better job of it than Ms. Paley's site, then they deserve to reap all the rewards.
Who else wants to restrict an aggregator and community builder from redistributing their work? Oh right, Rupert Murdoch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Commerce good. Monopolies bad. I'm pro-commerce, people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who cares, only people still giving money to people who don't deserve it. I don't care about netflix.
Open a channel on youtube, blip.tv or another place. Let the games begin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every single item that Netflix streams can be acquired by another means, whether it is to physically get a disc, or go to a website and stream the content for free (possibly with ads), or even fully download it for free, as in this case.
Personally, I think the Netflix system is done right, and the thought of it being DRM never even crossed my mind until I read this article. It is invisible to the user, does not hinder the user in any way (unless their internet connection fails, or they attempt to access content simultaneously on more than 5 machines), and is really an added bonus to a service that existed before streaming was implemented.
I suppose this means my morals are compromised more because I would accept this situation and think it's a good thing for everyone involved. The content is still available for free to anyone who has half an ounce of desire to know so, and a whole new audience who never heard of the movie, and who never cared to know, suddenly get it in their face to decide whether or not they want to see it... and it's available to them for absolutely no additional cost to what they're already paying. I think you're turning down a good deal to take some imaginary highroad that really does nothing but hinder you and your audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I wanted to pirate the content that I get through Netflix, I could, without Netflix. Easily. Even with the DRM, I could still easily pirate content from Netflix. So why I am still being punished? What is the point of DRM?
Why do I still have to download software from a company that I don't trust and agree to a EULA that I don't understand to use the service that I pay for?
Think about that. Does DRM seem so logical and reasonable now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As an artist ("content creator") I was given an unusual opportunity to endorse or refuse DRM'ed distribution of "Sita." You're not in that situation at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think your decision not to accept DRM was heroic, but I'm not sure I follow you here. How do you distinguish between an endorsement of creation tools (Mac / Flash) and an endorsement of distribution tools (Netflix with DRM)?
Aren't you making a statement as an artist and a creatorand not just a consumerin terms of what tools you endorse or refuse in creating your art? Why is it only distribution that poses a challenge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I wanted to pirate the content that I get through Netflix, I could, without Netflix. Easily. Even with the DRM, I could still easily pirate content from Netflix. So why I am still being punished? What is the point of DRM?
Why do I still have to download software from a company that I don't trust and agree to a EULA that I don't understand to use the service that I pay for?
Think about that. Does DRM seem so logical and reasonable now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you might be hypocritical in this case
I'm not sure there's a big difference between a movie theatre showing the film and charging admission and Netflix showing the film and charging a subscription fee as far as permissions go. If I screen the film in a theatre, I'm not giving everyone in the theatre their own free copy, I'm not required to tell them how to get it for free at your website, and I'm not required to share any of those ticket sales with you.
It seems like Netflix should also be able to stream the movie without paying you anything (except payments for the copyrighted music). Offering to pay for the non-exclusive right to transmit your work should be considered a compliment much in the same way as a theatre offering to share their profits for an exhibition. So it boils down to this: Is Netflix just a giant movie theatre, or is it more like a television broadcast, which can be recorded and copied on a computer or DVR?
This is from sitasingstheblues.com:
"People often ask "Are TV rights available?", "Are theatrical rights available?", etc. The answer is yes, yes, and yes. You already have those rights. Sita Sings the Blues uses a yes-based distribution model. It is not part of the permission culture, it is part of the yes culture. So if you'd like hold a screening, don't ask first — just do it. (And see here for how to add it to this page). See the license page for more information about Sita Sings the Blues' permissive licensing."
"You are free to duplicate and even sell DVDs of Sita Sings the Blues."
"Are exhibitors required to share money with you?
No, but I'd love it if you sent me a donation. You are free to share or not share. You can also screen Sita Sings the Blues to raise money for another cause. Showing the film to others benefits me indirectly, even when there's no direct financial gain."
I applaud the stand against DRM, but that is not how you have presented your work to the world. And to stand on another principle - right now Netflix is one of the good guys in this whole copyright mess. They are offering films and using DRM exactly the way it should be done, and they are the best option among many far worse options. There will come a day when people can click to download their own personal copy of a movie from Netflix and then you can offer it for free or argue about DRM, but that's not the business they're running right now. Yes, the DRM is there to prevent people from copying the films, but it doesn't prevent anyone from copying your film - they just can't copy it from Netflix. Nobody subscribing to Netflix expects to copy it from Netflix.
As for letting people know the film can be downloaded for free at your website, that's what Netflix's movie description space is for. The no bumper policy rocks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you might be hypocritical in this case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you might be hypocritical in this case
I can tell my friends it's free to download, but most of them aren't going to bother. I tell them it's streaming on Netflix, and they might give it a try. I know it sounds crazy, but people just aren't used to downloading movies. It's an extra level of commitment.
I can also go to a friends, login with Netflix, and watch it there - no waiting for the download.
And a no time does the Netflix DRM prevent me the consumer from doing anything I want to do. It might be different if Netflix were a free service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: you might be hypocritical in this case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you might be hypocritical in this case
Saying that almost-invisible DRM is okay is like saying, 'Well, we have cockroaches in the walls, but we're not going to worry about them because they don't really bother us and we can't really see them.'.
If I wanted to pirate the content that I get through Netflix, I could, without Netflix. Easily. Even with the DRM, I could still easily pirate content from Netflix. So why I am still being punished? What is the point of DRM?
Why do I still have to download software from a company that I don't trust and agree to a EULA that I don't understand to use the service that I pay for?
Think about that. The only good kind of DRM is no DRM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you might be hypocritical in this case
If you want to watch movies on your computer you have to download software, even if it's just a browser, or Flash, or Linux, or VLC player, or even if you're pirating the film. Computers don't work without software. If you're complaining about having to download software you may as well just turn the computer off and buy the DVD. It would be a different story if the software didn't work well or did things you didn't want it to do, but Netflix's software works great.
It would also be different if I expected to own the movie from Netflix. The problem with the Kindle is you expect to own the book, but you don't fully own it. With iTunes, you expect to own the movie but you don't fully own it. I have songs I naively bought from itunes in the DRM days that I can't copy to my ipod because it's been copied too many times simply because I backed it up and I've gone through two computers since then. That's not what I thought I was paying for.
DRM is wrong when it doesn't give you what you paid for. With Netflix I expect to simply login and watch the movie, and it lets me do exactly what I want. When I'm done watching, I can watch it again. No strings attached. That's why I don't own a Kindle or an iPad or buy movies from iTunes, but I use Netflix and I don't demand "No DRM or else." DRM is not the problem.
Movie piracy is a joke. The quickest way to end piracy is to make everything streamable through Netflix and all other competing services. Why would I pirate anything when I can just login and click "Play"? The only reason would be to save $10 a month, and honestly Hollywood is never going to get much money from people who can't even pay $10 a month so there's no point in trying to stop them from pirating.
All that said, Netflix should provide a free or even paid download option if the filmmaker's want it, and offer it without DRM. Her film isn't the only film that's freely available. Just check out www.freedocumentaries.org to see who could benefit from that service. It's a nice website, but doesn't work nearly as well as Netflix, and also doesn't offer free downloads - only streaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: you might be hypocritical in this case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: you might be hypocritical in this case
Avoiding encryption (eg, DRM) makes it possible to cache the data. This promotes speedups and other efficiencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: you might be hypocritical in this case
[I think you can implement DRM on an open source platform in a way were most of your files on the computer are not accessible to it, but, without taking precautions, closed source software can do almost anything with your files.]
Another problem is that without the threat of noDRM, tomorrow we can find that $10/month becomes $79/month; doesn't include access to the many "special feature videos"; comes with bandwidth charges; prevents you from recording or transferring the information you built up while using the service (eg, favorites, watched movies, notes and comments, online friends, etc); has limits on the number of viewings; entails extra charges for use from multiple devices; has extra fees for using certain protocols; has extra fees for having access to different service features; has extra fees for using devices with multiple processors; etc.
Besides rising costs, DRM facilitates all sorts of spying which, among other things, facilitates consumer manipulation [There is plenty of this possible in normal Internet surfing, but at least you can use an open source browser that could let you know everything that is happening (eg, with javascript) and disallow what you don't want.]
DRM discourages or essentially prevents uncontrolled creativity. Forget about remixing. Fair use can become very difficult. The system encourages those with artistic skills to participate in this closed system so as to try to keep all interesting content under lock and key.
It's important to encourage the growth of derivative works (as has been done with open source software development) so that enough volume and quality exists to eventually be able to keep the "professional" monopolies in check. These companies want to use patents and anything else to make it difficult for people to use open tools and processes that allow them to collaborate to build large impressive works. They want people not to give consideration to copying and modifying. They want people to feel guilty and to reject participating. They don't want fertile grounds to exist parallel to their controlled worlds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you might be hypocritical in this case
As far as my understanding of CC-SA is, Netflix with their DRM-only policy *can't* distribute Nina's work. Their distribution (with DRM) will be against the license of Nina's work.
About your theatre analogy: like Netflix can't/won't let those who want to copy, to make a copy; Theatres can't call the cops for anyone camcoding Sita, just like Netflix they will be violating Sita's license (I mean the movie, not the Goddess!).
Why is everyone calling next-to-worst solution, the best solution. Can't they see other solutions any more?
I see the hypocrisy when people are saying 'DRM is bad', but if it's not my a** in the line of fire, it's good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you might be hypocritical in this case
Netflix is more of a movie theatre experience. You can watch the film, but you can't copy the film. Share-alike doesn't apply in that situation any more than I'd expect my free copy of Sita after paying to watch it at the local cinema. It seems like all Nina wants from Netflix is to be able to tell people where they can download it. I say put it in the film's description - problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nina, maybe you want to consider putting a special message at the beginning (end, middle, every 20th frame, whatever...) of Sita Sings the Blues that says it will be removed from Netflix in 1 year if Netflix does not add a DRM free option or when 10,000,000 fans register at some site.
Also, speaking of helping to set positive examples. Such an example may help convince others that are already on Netflix to leave.
At the end of one year, you may want to leave anyway and leverage open services. You can thus use Netflix to help these other services. Let competitors know they have one year to woe you.
But if you do state you would stay and if they come through, then that publicity and accomplishment will also help a lot. Although try asking for more than that they simply offer the noDRM option. Eg, ask that Netflix support it equally for years to come.
And speaking of free access and distribution channels...
I think there is a great opportunity being missed perhaps to have SStB be put on Linux repositories. Some distros might want to promote it specially (because of the message).
Of course, what would really clinch it would be the source code to SStB. That would also really attract a lot of people to it (since they could customize their own and in the process use the motivation to do this to learn how to use open source product X or Y).
Nina, it's about time you stop playing around and get serious about having your own custom version of a Linux Live distro in order to facilitate spreading the message (and business).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Free as in beer.
VODO
Blip.tv
Youtube channels
roosterteeth
webserials
archive.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Netflix = $8.99/month - watch as many movies as you want
Youtube = $0.99-$19.99/video - Even if every movie you want to watch is priced at $0.99 [highly unlikely], you can only watch 9 movies before you're spending more money. Most movies are probably in the $1.99-5.99 range. So you might get 3-4 movies in, if you're lucky.
Sorry, they just don't compare. It's great that it's available as another option, I don't want a monopoly in this area. But as it stands now, Youtube does not provide a similar feature set.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Linux distro and noDRM streaming business
Make an announcement, and I think you will get lots of offers for help. The main project would be to make a Linux Live distro, perhaps to feature your work or some other theme (eg, like the questioncopyright message). There could be related projects.
I suggest for starting off that you focus on a theme but include your works easily accessible. You can design the distro's desktop, menus, graphics, defaults, application details, etc. A big red button on the desktop might be used to query about new works or new campaigns (eg, questioncopyright). Eg, you can easily enter into an available campaign: essentially a new virtual desktop is used up and is set up to feature links useful for that campaign (eg, one link opens an email app all set with the proper headers and what not). [A virtual desktop is just a computer "desktop", but the user would preserve his/her existing setup sort of in the background.]
As a related project/business, you can even set up a server for streaming strictly through nonDRM mechanisms (plan out the costs ahead of time, btw). People can subscribe to support the service (eg, a monthly fee for types of unlimited access) or leave donations. Also, people that provide their products can state a per copyrighted work fee and you get a cut. If you support all types of licenses, then the fee works as with typical (eg) mp3 however that mp3 is otherwise copyright restricted. Alternatively, you can support only copyleft works (or whatever), in which case it's understood that the streaming can be captured and shared with others. Of course, those that leverage that service to distribute may want to include special material only through that service to motivate others to stream (or to download from you). As another example, you may end up with regular contributors that post very frequently, perhaps giving their subscribers one-week early access to the product (as compared to availability on their website) for a yearly fee.
A related project can be to document any relevant open business(es).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Linux distro and noDRM streaming business
This has immediate payback to the user. It's an educational environment based on something they like and empowered in ways they are unlikely to find except by spending big bucks. As an added bonus, they would know they could get their hands on CC/open source type works to use as a foundation for their own projects.
As an example basis for such a distro, I know blender.org has produced a few 3d movies which I eventually want to set up in this fashion. The user would learn how to use various tools, and at the end of the learning s/he can also eat the cake by leveraging these open source 3d animations to customize his/her own version.
[I have not had time to spend on this project.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That would compromise the quality of the film. And I'm not interested in trying to "strong-arm" Netflix: I like Netflix, and I have weak arms. I just want a non-DRM streaming option. Netflix good, DRM bad.
It's possible Netflix is open to offering non-DRM options, but that the aggregator did not give me access to sympathetic parties because she had no interest in solving the problem. If you're reading this, Netflix problem-solvers, please contact me! I come in peace! Take me to your leader!
Of course, what would really clinch it would be the source code to SStB.
"Source files" are here:
http://www.archive.org/details/Sita_Sings_the_Blues_Files
We need community help to make these source files more accessible:
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/save_sita_sings_blues_flash_format_can_you_ convert_fla
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CC needs more teeth
CC also needs a -sa for source code version. Alternatively, the GPL might(?) want to adjust its definition to cover well other matter besides software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CC needs more teeth
I just read up, and I think this specific example is prevented by the cc by-sa; however, I don't think it protects against leveraging patents via third parties in order to control markets while benefiting under certain scenarios from effectively exclusive access (or very favored access) to cc by-sa works created by others. Eg, a patent holder adopts a preferred partner where that partner is in the business of leveraging CC share-alike works. The partner gets an exclusive license or else very advantages terms. In this way a group of people working together effectively leverage all of cc by-sa while using patents to prevent or else to significantly disadvantage the competitors to follow behind.
How serious a problem this could become depends on what is allowed to be patented. To return to the movie theater example. A group that patents say a "3D-plus" technology (I just made this up but let's assume is a new superior method of viewing movies in the theater) and refuses to license to others can then dominate this market and do so while leveraging all the work others created using even cc by-sa. The person takes what everyone created yet refuses to allow competitors in what could be a very lucrative market. And the works used are from people that specifically wanted all to be able to leverage the work maximally.
The GPLv3 improved the patent protection of the GPLv2 to prevent a type of abuse related to this scenario. Once the cc by-sa market becomes very competitive, some corporations will seek the same sort of legal maneuvers to defeat the spirit of the license. [The software patent problem is worse because a software patent would apply to all uses of software rather than simply a category of uses (like the theater example).]
The big problem is patents, but carefully written copyright licenses can help balance the playing field.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM does more to cause illegal downloading than prevent it
Incorrect. DRM, or Digital RIGHTS Management.
I personally call it Digital Rights Manglement as it interferes with both fair use of owned media as well as the right to make a backup copy of owned media.
The general effect of DRM is to make the customer feel they are being treated as a criminal. I personally believe that this distrustful and disrespectful attitude toward customers has itself catalyzed the illegal downloading of copyrighted media. If DRM had never happened, illegal downloading would IMHO have been far less a problem in the current era. IOW the RIAA and MPAA have helped create the problem they've sought to prevent through the use of DRM. Supreme irony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM does more to cause illegal downloading than prevent it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re(2): DRM does more to cause illegal downloading than prevent it
Obviously I see nothing wrong with satirizing the meaning of 'DRM'. However, it is IMHO required in public discourse to also provide the actual meaning when conversing with those who are not in on the joke. Most people would have no idea from what was written that the stated meaning of the abbreviation DRM was not real, thereby propagating misunderstanding and ignorance. Stating the actual meaning as well as the reinterpreted, satirical meaning takes nothing away from the message, while helping the reader to understand the issue.
Having said that, I entirely agree that DRM is about restrictions, not rights. DRM tramples the rights of the media purchaser/owner. Sadly, this disrespect for the customer is pervasive in the current era. I call it the 'Marketing Moron Movement', not unlike someone taking a dump on your head, treating the customer as an annoying inconvenience apart from their ability to fork over cash. This method of marketing is terrific for destroying a company's reputation, as has been proven in the cases of the recording and film corporations. Any reasonable Marketing 101 class makes clear the relationship between company and customer. And yet these days we have MBA graduates making customer-phobic, self-destructive decisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re(2): DRM does more to cause illegal downloading than prevent it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Youtube your new rental store online LoL
Also there is MIRO that offer a lot of channels I can't watch everything I download from there all free as in beer and DRM free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://cybersurge.org/2008/08/12/netflix-warning-users-of-arccos-copy-protected-discs/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cause you know
same with other things we SHOULD BUY THEN OWN
in my world regardless of your world and its laws
i buy it i will do what the fuck i want
YOU can bite me after i buy it
if i make something these days
I GIVE IT AWAY FREE
cause its feels good and i know people are getting screwed just about every which way these days
and here's a question for the gpl guru's
WOULD the gpl need to even exist if not for patents and insane copyright?
I think it would not. After all 1000 hackers got together to help Linus with donating there code.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM = Digital RIGHTS Management
its not digital restrictions management
despite the propaganda
nice try hollywood
YOU ARE restricting MY end user rights in some fashion and we the people say FUCK YOU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
enter the so called matrix
"The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options."
when in reality a shortened to the point without need to try and confound and confuse laymens would suffice.
translation of the above...
while i think i know what im talking about i really don't cause two things are being discussed , the GPL and DRM
both which you either have OR have not. Which i'd like to try and confuse you know and make you wander 99999 posts so you can't read interesting things on a subject and get insight that would be intelligent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and about that GPL
so in a way they are
ANTI-RESTRICTIONS
a protection for a distributor and end user to ensure they get the source with the software ( in most cases aka your publically distributing said software you are required to give source)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
p.s.( GPL)
It ( GPLv3 ) will also make you play nice with things you own in using other peoples works ( GPLv3 patent sections , if you sue someone with a patent while using a gplv3 product you cannot then use ....)
lots a lil tidbits to make the big boys and jerks play nice in the sand box and its done adhoc by lawyers to make sure there are fewer loopholes ( TIVO ) then GPLv2 had
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@78
You claim to practice a defensive art in preparing for a violent act upon you , instead of the thought that you should be striving to make the world a less violent place, thus you could spend more time on more meaningful things instead of a defensive art ( sound like the patent scene yet ).Think Gandhi like ideal.Freeing you up to spend you money on other pursuits that allow you to do more and enjoy life should be the goal not worry about getting jumped in some alley way....
Do you think if they cap , throttle , UUB ( user based billing ) and ACTA , 3 strikes the kids that they will stay online as much, where will they go and what will they spend the cash on....parties which entail what.....trouble maybe? Maybe they will join a gang and hang out and commit some more crimes? I'd rather have the kids dling tv and movies and games then out in the street committing real violent acts.....
The "Big Four" were destined to have this happen and the signs were there far far in the past with beta max and cassettes. The fact is that technology should be making things cheaper,safer , easier, and one day totally free.
If robots could kick soccer balls around 5 years ago where could we go from there in 50 years when one can do all the work a man can do?
WHO will pay your copyright then?
Gene Roddenberry , has seen the future of a few things. PEOPLE will create art because they want to expand there minds and see what they can do with themselves, they will do it for the good reasons not the greedy ones.
What happens when the oil runs out in 50-75 years?
What will power the toys you use now?
Capitalism breeds monopolies and they always stop just short of causing a revolution so that they an wrest as much of the economic control of society. Eventually as the oil and tech gets to a point where man is not needed to make hte work and ONLY art is left, the shift will begin to drop copyright.
OBAMAWOOD is trying ot prevent that, or delay it, with treaty of ACTA and the lobby money ( while they still have it ) THEY have spent the last 15-20 years infiltrating and corrupting democracy, and the damage they have done to it will take decades if ever it is fixed non violently.
Ironic for example that GM gets over 9 billion in loans and pays them all off in ONE year, 5 years ahead a schedule after the unions and those workers all took drops in pay and pensions and benefits....
in the past distribution was via a truck, or train and all that and they came ot a store and you went there after driving to it and picked up after being handed it by a person who was paid. All this had to be tracked and looked after by an office on paper and those people had to be paid....
NOW that, that is not needed( all the above can be replaced by computer software and technology -why does anyone need a label SERIOUSLY) SO MUCH MONEY is saved that they quickly saw sheer oodles a cash and thought they could pass me and you a 29.95 future shop cdr in 2005 without consequences.
With insane 150 or so year copyright avg in the USA this means tons a lawyers will be needed and that just adds layers to the costs too.
ALL this crap is not needed. As people say it is acting like a 10-20% tax on technology. THIS is to slow it down so you dont get that star trek society....before they find some other new ways to exploit us and continue the yacht building programs the suits love.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @78
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @78
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't get it...
Netflix is DRM by default because the vast majority of their catalog is copyrighted. It would be unreasonable for the company to develop DRM and non-DRMed versions of it's streaming system simply to satisfy the handful of over-principled film-makers. Their player imposes no real burden on subscribers. In fact the only burden that is imposed on subscribers in this scenario is that of having to hunt down this film-makers movie instead of having it readily available to them in the Netflix catalog.
I hate DRM as much as the next, but give me the content first, then worry about giving it to me DRM-free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Change control & Testing.
Potentially p*ss off 99.99% of their customers and trash their own reputation permanently for a negligible and disputable bit of gain.
I understand that Netflix is a RENTAL service. Even if the disks that Netflix sends me had no copy protection whatsoever, I still realize that it would be wrong for me to copy and keep everything. That's simply not the bargain.
I never paid them for the right to keep anything. I never "bought" anything.
DRM does not violate the terms of the transaction in this case. It isn't just nearly invisible. It is infact completely invisible.
Platform support is more relevant here than "what freedom I gave up to accept DRM".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't get it...
Netflix is DRM by default because the vast majority of their catalog is copyrighted. It would be unreasonable for the company to develop DRM and non-DRMed versions of it's streaming system simply to satisfy the handful of over-principled film-makers. Their player imposes no real burden on subscribers. In fact the only burden that is imposed on subscribers in this scenario is that of having to hunt down this film-makers movie instead of having it readily available to them in the Netflix catalog.
I hate DRM as much as the next, but give me the content first, then worry about giving it to me DRM-free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it...
If I wanted to pirate the content that I get through Netflix, I could, without Netflix. Easily. Even with the DRM, I could still easily pirate content from Netflix. So why I am still being punished? What is the point of DRM?
Why do I still have to download software from a company that I don't trust and agree to a EULA that I don't understand to use the service that I pay for?
Arguing against that isn't moral masturbation. It's pretty reasonable, in fact. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it...
That's nonsense (the "unreasonable" part). nonDRM is easier to get working -- just look at the last 3+ decades. To build a framework that only leverages DRM is an intentional act.
The main beneficiaries or no DRM are content consumers: fans and other artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donation made
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If copyright were reformed and reasonable I guess creative people wouldn't have to do it so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you want her to modify Sita for a commercial for your business? Do you want her to create characters and scenes for you?
Do you want her to design some t-shirts for you?
Do you want her to tutor you in using the tools of her trade?
Are you looking someone to give you ideas for stories?
Do you want to leverage what she creates as a CC by-sa artists (with a team) and in the process pay her to ensure she can keep creating new stuff?
Are you offering more CC by-sa she can use to speed up her next feature?
As an aside, Sita will likely become much larger than a single feature. It's important for society to have fresh characters and stories not under the iron fist of Disney or the many other owners. Everyone should be free to have their shot at developing the next Mickey.. I mean Sita story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, Nina, you mention lat that putting a special message at some point (even at the beginning or end) would compromise the quality of the film... Isn't that what a bumper would do?
I haven't seen your film, and it's good to know that I can easily enough (even if not on Netflix!), but I would imagine as some end credits roll, assuming you have them, a thought must have crossed your mind to provide a link to the website. If not, I would hope that you could easily enough add one in and have Netflix stream that version.
I have no ill wishes against you, and personally I would have disagreed with your stance on this issue. To me, DRM done right is a first logical step towards No DRM. While it can be argued that this would let people get complacent and just accept it, I almost wonder if that would be a bad thing. If the consumer isn't harmed, there are viable alternatives for free media, and the content creators still get the money they deserve, it sounds pretty ideal to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It seems it is a small number of content owners and friends (the savvy traders, not the generally less business savvy content creators) that are maximally benefiting from the monopoly laws.
Many artists lose control over the work and its potential evolution as a condition to getting "the money they deserve".
The monopolists have the leverage against all future artists.
A system that pushes against sharing hurts all of society in numerous ways. Artists are hurt (except a small minority). Fans are hurt (and even artists are fans). The winners are those that end up "owning" the bulk of the monopoly "IP".
>> While it can be argued that this would let people get complacent and just accept it, I almost wonder if that would be a bad thing.
Well, who is being rewarded with $$? Whoever gets the $$ has more leverage in writing the rules.
>> If the consumer isn't harmed, there are viable alternatives for free media
The consumer is harmed when a closed system is established (it's initially given away for cheap) and it becomes difficult then to enable competition by more open systems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm generally against those things, even though I'm not doing anything illegal. That's what my uproar is about. :)
If I were doing anything illegal, the DRM wouldn't stop me. Netflix DRM is a joke as far as 'copy protection' goes. So it's more a problem for me as a legal consumer than it would be if I were an illegal copier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go Nina!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More creepy than you seeming to think they feel that? Never mind, reading the rest of your comment I feel that you're probably trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm generally against those things, even though I'm not doing anything illegal. That's what my uproar is about. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The EULAs give these groups rights to modify "your" data without telling you and to otherwise control it as they see fit. Thanks but no thanks. I want to own something, too.
DRM, once firmly in place at a large scale, will strengthen their hand very much. They will be able to do a lot more with many fewer being able to catch them.
DRM is also more likely to result in data being lost forever.
Pushed far enough, it will be impossible to even have archieves of anything on the Internet.
If you don't see the potential here for serious abuses and violations of the law (and being able to get away scott free), then you aren't thinking very hard.
DRM and other monopoly supporting instruments make it easier for power, wealth, etc, to lie in the hands of a diminishing number of people.
And talk about being at the mercy of these groups. Even when they are nice, many will have monopoly ownership of whatever you create while working under their DRM channels. As I said, I want to own something, too.
If a law is bad.. if the people in control do not have your best interests in mind.. then it is foolish to give them more powerful tools to help them carry out their agenda. If this is true when applied to a government "of, by, for" the people, just imagine when applied to a private entity of very large size beholden only to its major shareholders.
A major check on corporate DRM abuse is open source software (the Internet was built thanks to open source software and collaboration among a diverse group of people). DRM embedded deeply can be used to neutralize open source. Without open source, it can become essentially impossible to audit these groups and to have any sort of control and awareness about the integrity of "your" data or anything else you consider of value when using an electronic device.
Will the government take your side and try to regulate DRM (eg, consumer rights), will it join in, or will it just fail miserably to have any real impact?
Do you want to own things?
>> dont buy from companies you dont trust nobody is forcing you. you sound like you feel you are being forced.
Antisocial monopoly laws combined with powerful instruments will largely mean a small number of entities will in time end up owning most things about most people (as we more further into a digital world), and it will be that much more difficult to place any sort of check on them.
I think it is smart to encourage the spread of laws, models, ideas, technology, etc, that promote and enable sharing and user control rather than to encourage what hampers sharing and promotes instead strict control by owners.
Most people are not business people. We should anticipate that we will on average do less than average in terms of maintaining control over things we own. Most people are debtors in fact. Would you like for a bankruptcy or a repossession to mean that you lose total access to the vast majority of things you had created because in fact you signed away those rights in order to gain access to the technology.
>> you can live without a movie or a video game. really.
But can you live without every video game and movie and song that you like?
Can you live without the majority of things you created?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now, imagine if you were only able to afford copying or viewing a very small fraction of it.
Imagine if right in the middle of your studying or entertainment, you had all your copies legally deleted on your behalf.
Imagine if all notes you took pertaining to those things also disappeared (legally).
Imagine if works you started creating on the side (to practice your skills, etc) also disappeared (again, legally).
Imagine if correspondence you had had with people, in part, pertaining to these things you keep on your computer, also disappeared.
Imagine that everything you ever created when using your computer suddenly became legally inaccessible forever because you violated certain terms of your EULA and the company finally decided to enforce it's rights (according to those terms).
DRM is an enabler to people that want to preserve their position of power. It makes it easier for the only legal valuable things in an increasingly digital society to be those things produced and/or eventually owned by a small group of (business savvy) people.
Hey, that thing you thought you created all by yourself, even using paper and pencil is a derivative work of assets owned by 12 other groups. It's too bad that your whole mind (from birth) is composed of ideas and imagery that belongs to someone else. Any "creativity" from you is bound to infringe.
And you know the penalty for infringing, don't you?
..in 2165 the American (English) alphabet officially came into private hands, making what was the only (almost useless) safe haven for most Americans who could read and write, fully and bona fide useless by law.
A world of helpless lemmings.. We mortgaged and lost, not just our lands and properties, but our minds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's not true. EULAs are long and complicated because the companies want to limit the rights that the law gives you automatically. I blame the companies for that, because the companies are at fault for that.
Further, when you are bound by an agreement that you can't see and don't know exists until after you purchase the item, you are being forced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the meantime, DRM is at least an obstacle to sharing and to control by the majority of society.
The puppeteers have much more control when the puppets are attached to strings that are difficult to undo. "Sshhh.. don't scare the puppets being fitted."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nina thinks she is more important than she actually is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nina thinks she is more important than she actually is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nina thinks she is more important than she actually is
Reviews say otherwise pal. Opinions aren't facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM
Netflix probably won't remove the DRM because there system isn't designed for it and it would probably cost them over $100k to add and test a system that supports both.
What it comes down to, is any media that doesn't require DRM, you can get it some other way since it's "free" already. It's not Netflix' responsibility to make sure that any free media get a free ride on their services at their own cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM
I don't think I have to start my own competing service to end this practice. Or that I should have to start my own competing service to end this practice. Competing isn't the only way, or even the best way, to stop these practices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NetHippies \m/
to be serious, your step takes lots of balls and i really admire you for what you have done, because those 4500 USD wld have meant a lot for an indi creator like yourself and more the fact that the movie is copy left, i just love you for those two things.
See, i am an artist myself(even if just to boost my ego)(or maybe so i think, but anyways), not good enough to sell things but anyways, if I did anything i'd love it to be used by anyone for anything as long as i get the credit, i am credit hungry , really, money is always good but credit is better.
and i believe that if one is good at something, money will eventually follow.
so, i am just another person who loves you for what you did and just want to tell you that it def. is the beginning for the better world, if not all , some artists will always be anti-DRm and most of them are one going to say no to this crap these big guns put them and their fans through.
Wishing you good luck for your future endeavours, bye :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perfect Decision
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah yes, calling someone a "troll" instead of arguing their points is the sign of a truly superior debater.
I can't figure out which is worse, people who troll or people who cry troll in order to derail arguments so they don't have to actually address them. Why not just shout "look behind you it's bigfoot!!" and then run when the person turns to look?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Points? You only had one point and that was buried below all the ridicule for those whom you disagree with. I won't address your point, but I will address your method.
"Eh, there is no real uproar over DRM. It's just something certain people like to rattle their sabers over. Which is fine, but some folks seem to feel that the "oppression" of DRM is on the same level as slavery or the holocaust and that's when things get creepy"
Here you attribute threats and views to unspecified people whom you imply are the only ones expressing concern about DRM. Lets see, appeal to ridicule? Check. Hasty generalisation? Check. Straw man? Check.
"While I don't necessarily like rights protection that hurts the actual product (such as video games that become unplayable) I think the world will keep spinning with DRM firmly in place."
Presuming hyperbole, how does this help your argument?
"DRM's only real purpose seems to be to give tech bloggers something to discuss and aspiring artists something to use to attract attention to their work, like the woman who inspired this article."
You introduce an accusation that has no relevance to the issue at hand. An argumentum ad hominem with a pinch of red herring.
"But on the whole, DRM really affects nothing and no one."
Given your earlier admission that you dislike DRM that hurts the actual product, why do you now say that it effects nothing and no one?
"It's been more successful as a tool to elevate people's careers than it ever has as a means of protecting content. It's a tool that's just as beneficial to the people "fighting" it as it to the people using it."
Yawn, I can't even be bothered at this point. Come back with some examples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i am a long time netflix subscriber and the streaming service is why. i cancelled my cable, bout a roku box and use it to watch streaming video on my television.
at no point in the netflix que -> roku box -> television does the DRM affect me at all. it is there, but it has little affect on me or my watching experience. this is how DRM should work.
the difference between netflix and itunes is simple. I am not buying anything at netflix. anything. i am renting. i have to send the DVD's back in the mail, and I cannot keep the streaming movies. that is what netflix is, that is what i am paying for.
iTunes DRM was a crock, it was a scam. in that case i was 'buying' something that would never be mine. in this case DRM is bad. In this case the purpose, purchasing, is never acheived because of DRM.
the MMO analogy is good i think. i have a client that connects to the server which sends data down to me that i interact with. in this model "encryption" is probably better than "DRM". while sematics mostly, the point is simple: you have to have our client (and pay the fee) to use the content.
so let's review: DRM bad, netflix streaming great!
oh and why did that statement about the downloads need to be added? why wasn't it already on the movie itself? in the credits? at the very end? in the opening scene?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But that wouldn't get Nina all this lovely free press, would it. This isn't even about her movie, which as far as I can tell is somewhat old now and wasn't even all that well received. This is a PR campaign for Ms. Paley herself; a chance to boost her street cred and position herself as a champion of free speech, etc. I'm guessing this has far more to do with her NEXT project than her previous one. She's setting herself up as a David against Goliath and she's gonna use any amount of hyperbole to get the job done. The sad part is it'll probably work, because everyone wants to back the little guy- even if that little guy is totally, utterly fabricated. This is a PR stunt for the person, not the product. Anyone with the tiniest bit of savvy should be able to see that. Don't let people like Nina Paley do your thinking for you. She doesn't have your best interest at heart anymore than Netflix does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gino vs Rose
The true skill lies in being able to give views other than your own a fair shake and openly consider the weaknesses or even fallacies present in your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competition
I hope other competitors to Netflix, iTunes, etc. come forward to stress the value of their DRM-free services. This is how competition is supposed to work. If it's clear there is demand for DRM-free VOD, ultimately even the "big guys" will see it's in their interest to offer it too. But first audiences need to know what DRM is, and that DRM-free alternatives exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM by another name
For someone willing to stand up on a soapbox and scream about DRM, it's really quite a let down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lost here: Turning your back on Apple and a publisher seems like a recipie for disaster
You mention that an email you recieved from a "John Gilmore" supposedably "hit you where you live"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nina, I'm a little lost here
You mention that an email you recieved from a "John Gilmore" that supposedably "hit you where you live"
John said:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks Nina! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM Free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money does grow on trees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM alternatives
It is important to know that alternatives do exist and that at UbicMedia (a french start-up)people have worked hard to build a revolutionary system called the "PUMit system" which reliesand markets a revolutionary Internet content protection and distribution technology called the “PUMit system. It relies on its new and patented self secured Internet object called the “nomadic file”, or PUM file, which removes content from constraints pertaining to any specific distribution channel and users from any registration processes. Content can be copied across all media (Internet servers, Hard Disk, usb keys, memory cards, luggage devices) without compromising the rights holders copyrights and monetization potential. The principle is simple: a protected "PUM" file (the quick protection process can be handled directly by the rights holder)is a modified version from which 0.5% has been altered or removed. So the file can be copied or moved to other media without risk. When played it will look for the missing data on machines aministered directly by the right holders, thus making each play subject to the conditions set by himself. Visit www.ubicmedia.com for more infos or email me at olivier.pfeiffer@ubicmedia.com.
Current partners and clients include “l’Académie des CESARS”, Côté Cinéma online (promotion of “Alice in Wonderland” for Disney, Memento Distribution), Europa Distribution, Avalanche Productions, Peopleforcinema.com (“Brothers” for Wild Bunch/Lionsgate). UbicMedia is in discussions with major rights holders, ISPs, telecom operators and hardware manufacturers in the USA and Europa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM alternatives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DRM alternatives
Most software also encourages users to "register" which does include personal data beyond the normal transaction. This is generally not required, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DRM alternatives
Microsoft's EULAs give them wide leeway.
Closed source software is untrustworthy. And something as large and enabling as Window is that much more of an unaditable black box.
The operating system can do anything. It "enables" malware and rootkits. A self-updatable OS can change itself to capture data periodically, process, store it, and eventually let it get scooped up in pieces by a trigger from the Internet. The behavior-modifying OS update can be downloaded intermittently an using encryption and obfuscation. The update can clean up after itself and wipe itself out if necessary. And best of all. It can accomplish all of these things "by accident", as a "bug" that simply manages to "leak" mangled data onto the Internet but data which can be deciphered to deduce a lot of information about you. The OS can fudge your files. The OS almost surely already stores a ton of metadata on how it is being used (info on what is being done, how, when, by whom, and in relation to what other events).
And DRM simply makes it harder for anyone to figure any of this out, even if they analyze for days the millions of instructions running every second.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM alternatives
A system like PUMit, which gives to the right holder a mean to dynamically adapt his offers to consumers expectations or constraints, is a really innovative way to monetize films while using low-cost Internet distributions channels such as peer-to-peer.
Just try it :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because it always take away functionality and options and never ever works.
DRM is a exclusion mechanism and it will always be abused.
Netflix DRM is no different, it doesn't work if you don't use windows and IE 8, so it forces you to use whatever the provider of that service wants you too, that is bad. With that control they can stiffle competition and let only friendly companies on their premises, would you like your children to have access to netflix trhough PS3, Wii, your TV set with internet enabled? only if they paid for the privilege and those companies trying to implement the functionality will also have to deal with the providers of the mechanism netflix uses(microsoft, adobe and others). So the DRM is invisble to the customer but the effects of it are not and the end result for customers will be, less competition on the market, higher prices and less service quality, want to see the future? Look how well those types of mechanisms worked wonders for broadband in the U.S. the laughing stop of the world, further security measures like QPK are only possible on fiber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VLC, X and a lot of others opensource software can stream video and audio onto the internet that is not a problem at all. What are the cost to offering DRM free versions?
Next to nill from the software perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://pcquest.ciol.com/content/linux/103040302.asp
http://oav.net/mirrors/video-strea ming-servers.html
Those people talking about cost are idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Collect dust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]