739
DVDs are dying right as streaming has made them appealing again
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
739 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
57226 readers
3929 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Sensible to who?
For all the reality of "streaming rights are a shitshow", what percentage of the population do you think is willing to buy physical movies?
Because I don't think it's all that high.
Someone go make Steam for videos and I'll pay for media again. My stipulations are:
Steam isn't DRM free, though. Most games use Steamworks DRM.
Yeah I don’t think DRM-free is really a requirement for most people.
So then we have iTunes. The only one it does not cover is the permanent ownership. Companies have yanked stuff from iTunes libraries before.
See also https://us.7digital.com/; there are a number of places you can buy and download CD-quality music files. I believe iTunes actually lets you download music you buy as normal audio files as well.
ITunes sells videos as well, which I believe they were referring to.
Oh yeah you’re right, I mixed up what conversation I was in.
That’s why you download it. Luckily iTunes m4a files are high quality and unlocked so I can instantly play them in anything, even my Synology apps.
Video isn’t the same though. That’s all still encrypted.
Steamworks DRM is not a requirement though.
I know, I modified it to make more sense for video.
Companies see that as a mistake. They want you on a subscription for life that they can arbitrarily change at any time.
Profits not increasing enough for this quarter? Better cut content, increase prices, increase the number of ads.
Profits increased amazingly this quarter? Better cut content, increase prices, increase the number of ads.
Profits down? Better cut content, increase prices, increase the number of ads, and start adding extra paywalls to some content
They want you to own nothing. Oh you unsubscribed? Sorry even the content you paid extra to unlock was only available while your subscription continued, you will need to start your subscription again and then pay to unlock the content again.
A show isn't popular enough? Better write it off, pull it from all distribution so you can claim it as a tax write off
Yarrrrrrrr
Yarrrrrr indeed
I wouldn't even mind the subscription if all the content was there reliably, and I only needed one.
I subscribe to a music service, because all the music is there and it's easier than swiping it.
If I had to subscribe to four different ones to get access to all the artists I listen to, then I'd still be pirating that.
Steam satisfies only your third point, though. Otherwise, no. You don't actually own your Steam library, Steam itself is DRM, and it doesn't have everything.
I know. I changed the terms. Pray I don’t change them further.
Pay so I don’t change them further.
FTFY
More like
I was pissed when suddenly I could no longer play any of my purchased steam games on my Windows 7 desktop that had all worked perfectly before. Eventually all your steam games are going to be unplayable on your current OS, and any game that is no longer profitable to support on the latest OS will be permanently unplayable. That's why I always prefer to buy games on GOG over steam. When you buy a game on GOG you really do own the game forever.
I honestly don't mind copy protections, I just don't like online DRM. If the service is good enough, I'll look past that particular portion.
I won't. "Copy protection" is much more about restricting and potentially even removing your access to something you've paid for than it is about preventing copying. I am not willing to buy something that can be revoked when alternatives are available.
Offline copy protection, like the copy protection in DVDs and Bluray, can't be revoked, they're literally designed to be static. It's really not an issue since, given time, it'll be cracked (and both are, I literally just finished ripping my collection). I'm fine with that form of copy protection, I'm not fine with online-only DRM because that's totally revokable.
Disagree. In order to keep those keys secure they can’t publish them, so they’ll have to license some sort of decryption chip. That just pushes the price up as some manufacturer ends up taking a cut from every player sale.
Also means you can’t do what you want with it. You probably can’t play it on an open source device. Etc etc.
Sure, I'd need specific hardware to access the media, but after I rip it, I can access it anywhere. The benefit to me of something like a Bluray isn't the disk itself, but being able to legally buy media and rip it to a digital format at home. That's a legally gray area since breaking copy protection measures is technically a copyright violation, but there's also legal protection for backing up media for personal use, so it's a bit of a gray area.
Given that there are no other legal or mostly legal alternatives, I'm satisfied with that as an option. Media companies rarely, if ever, go after people who rip media for personal use (probably because it's not worth their time and it's a legal gray area), so I'm okay with that status quo. If there were a legal option to get DRM-free media for offline use, I'd totally go for that. I tried that with streaming services, but the apps I used (Netflix and Disney+) failed when I actually needed them (my downloaded files "expired" on a trip when I didn't have internet access), so that's not going to work for me.
If this legally gray area goes away and I can't easily rip media into a DRM-free format for personal use, I'll go back to the alternatives I used when I couldn't afford physical media and Netfilx wasn't yet a thing.
Yeah I’m not paying for something and it still be illegal. I’d rather stick to piracy. I get your point and if it works for you that’s cool. But it’s not for me.
A good usenet setup with the Arr stack can automatically download basically anything you want and costs tens of dollars per year to run with very little, if any risk. (have there been any prosecutions for people downloading from usenet?)
With a little bit of work and an old computer for a server you can basically run your own automated piracy streaming service.
DRM = copy protection
Not necessarily. DVDs and Blurays have copy protections, but they don't require access to any servers. Online DRM sucks because if your internet goes out, their servers are having troubles, or they just shut down the servers for whatever reason, you cannot use your media.
So I'm mostly fine with offline copy protections (someone will crack it eventually), I'm not okay with DRM that requires online access.
Yeah, this is basically what we need.
FYI Steam had videos a few years ago, new purchases are discontinued but one can still playback their existing library.