> ... the usual "fair use" things that DRM usually inhibits does not do so in the context of streaming.
Sure they do. Video rentals were based on the first-sale doctrine[1]; the video store bought the movie, the video store rented their copy to you, and you could play it on any device that was technologically capable.
There was no end-to-end control over the production, distribution, and viewing pipeline:
- Anyone could run a video rental store.
- Anyone could develop and sell a VCR.
- Consumers could watch the movies in any way they wanted, with any device they wanted, rented or purchased from any store their wanted.
With DRM, that healthy competitive market has been collapsed down into:
- Content distributors must license the media specifically for digital distribution, granting full control to the content owners (and increasingly are the content owners)
- Only playback devices that are approved by the content distributors may be used.
If you think Netflix is your friend because they support net neutrality, consider what it means when the distribution mechanisms for the content you might like to consume over that internet (apps, games, music, movies) are far from "neutral".
Netflix — and other companies — don't simply want to be the pipes, any more than Comcast wants to be a commodity pipe. If they fight for net neutrality, that's a happy accident of their own commercial interests, but we'll have even less choice and competition than when we started if the Netflixs simply replace the Comcasts.
That's just it though. A video rental represents a physical object, a stream does not. There is no first sale doctrine on OD streaming content.
Are you arguing that selling access to an ephemeral thing shouldn't be allowed? The physical copy of a movie and a stream of a movie are two different items, with the second one having far less value due to its nature.
Here's where we diverge. If I go buy a movie, then as the first sale doctrine and common sense implies, I should be able to digitize it, format/time shift, etc.
Rentals confer none of those rights, either legally or morally. You are paying for temporary access to a thing under the limited terms offered you by some third party. If you want more rights, buy instead of rent. This is not a new or troubling development!
As to whatever you perceive Netflix's ambitions to be, I prefer to castigate them if/when they start abusing their position and become enemies to a free internet. They have shown zero evidence that they are doing this, quite the opposite in fact.
Sure they do. Video rentals were based on the first-sale doctrine[1]; the video store bought the movie, the video store rented their copy to you, and you could play it on any device that was technologically capable.
There was no end-to-end control over the production, distribution, and viewing pipeline:
- Anyone could run a video rental store.
- Anyone could develop and sell a VCR.
- Consumers could watch the movies in any way they wanted, with any device they wanted, rented or purchased from any store their wanted.
With DRM, that healthy competitive market has been collapsed down into:
- Content distributors must license the media specifically for digital distribution, granting full control to the content owners (and increasingly are the content owners)
- Only playback devices that are approved by the content distributors may be used.
If you think Netflix is your friend because they support net neutrality, consider what it means when the distribution mechanisms for the content you might like to consume over that internet (apps, games, music, movies) are far from "neutral".
Netflix — and other companies — don't simply want to be the pipes, any more than Comcast wants to be a commodity pipe. If they fight for net neutrality, that's a happy accident of their own commercial interests, but we'll have even less choice and competition than when we started if the Netflixs simply replace the Comcasts.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine