I 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 services that I pay for, because of DRM. As a consumer, I'm pretty much against that. So I'm against 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.
I'm affected. I 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 services that I pay for.
I'm generally against those things, even though I'm not doing anything illegal. That's what my uproar is about. :)
I'm affected. I 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 services that I pay for.
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.
DRM doesn't help copyrighted works any more than it helps non-copyrighted works. The supposed point of DRM is to stop free from making illegal copies. But it doesn't work...
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. :)
They are offering films and using DRM exactly the way it should be done...
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.
That's not true. For myself, ut is much more convenient to access Netflix via Wii than it would be to try to navigate to the Sita site on my Wii, and then have it stop every few seconds to buffer. That is a problem that I frequently have on YouTube via Wii, but not on Netflix via Wii.
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.
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.
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.
Back at ya? I understand that you're very convinced of your views, which has nothing to do with what blogs you read, but please try to be fairer to other posters. It's not your job to decide who posts too much or in what ways. In fact, complaining about anything other than the content of our posts just kinda makes you seem lame.
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.
Of course the option exists. Netflix has simply taken it off of the table, just as Nina Paley took a different option off of the table. It's really strange to critisize her for limiting the options, but not Netflix.
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.
I don't expect you to. You might not realize it if you don't post much, but alot of people just check back to look for responses to their own comments, as opposed to reading the whole thing over and over. So it makes more sense to copy and paste than it is to figure out ten different ways to answer the same comment. It's like having the same conversation with ten different people at the same time. You're going to make the same points over and over and over... :)
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. Does DRM seem so logical and reasonable now?
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. Does DRM seem so logical and reasonable now?
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. Does DRM seem so logical and reasonable now?
Is there some sort of internet-wide zero-tolerance policy on DRM? When did we stop demanding reasonable solutions and start asking content distributors to become nonprofits?
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?
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
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.
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Re:
I'm generally against those things, even though I'm not doing anything illegal. That's what my uproar is about. :)
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
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.
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
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. :)
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
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.
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
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.
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
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.
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
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.
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
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.
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Re:
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
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?
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
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?
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
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?
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
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?
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
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.
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
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?
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Re:
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Re:
Next >>