INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Dear John, (Netflix)  (Read 10942 times)

MrC

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 10462
  • Your life is short. Give me your money.
Logged
The opinions I express represent my own folly.

imugli

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1598
Re: Dear John,
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2014, 10:37:40 pm »

http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/13/netflix-api-instantwatcher-feedfliks/

Netflix closing down API completely :-(

In all honesty I think it's been coming for a while now. I think Netflix are really starting to flex the muscle that comes with their market dominance.

6233638

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 5353
Re: Dear John,
« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2014, 10:52:58 pm »

As Netflix continues to grow internationally, the emphasis of our engineering efforts is to satisfy a growing member base and a growing number of devices.  To better focus our efforts and to align them with the needs of our global member base, we will be retiring the public API program.  Effective on November 14, 2014, public API developers will no longer be able to access Netflix content.  All requests to the public API will return 404 errors.
"To support a growing list of devices, we will stop letting people access our content on their devices."
 
Makes perfect sense. ::)
Logged

Frobozz

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 641
  • There is a small mailbox here.
Re: Dear John,
« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2014, 12:26:13 am »

This is why I've never subscribed to a streaming service, like Netflix or Spotify, and never will.

Either I get the music or video I want in a local file that I can do what I want with and play with any media player I want or I don't bother with the content.  If someone else is controlling the content you want then you can't count on being able to listen to or watch or listen to what you want when you want in the way you want.
Logged

nwboater

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1346
Re: Dear John,
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2014, 02:04:58 pm »

"To support a growing list of devices, we will stop letting people access our content on their devices."
 
Makes perfect sense. ::)

Great response! It kind of sounds like 'government speak' to me!

I'm really disappointed to hear this. Even though the Netflix Theater View Interface has only been partially usable for some time (due to Netflix, not JR) it has been quite usable for us. We load up our Que and delete movies we have seen using our browser on the small screen.

We cut the cable a few months ago. We mostly watch movies and Netflix has saved us a lot of money compared to our cable sub charges.

Not sure what we will do once they finally shut down the API. It has been nice to have it all within MC. Using the browser on our 55" screen from the couch is not very appealing

Cheers,
Rod
Logged

Castius

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
Re: Dear John, (Netflix)
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2014, 02:59:48 am »

Have you tried kylo? http://kylo.tv/
I kind of wish jriver browser would use this or make something that matches it.
Logged

connersw

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
Re: Dear John, (Netflix)
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2014, 07:23:37 am »

I wish Kylo development was still on going.  There hasn't been a new release in 2-years.  It is OK as is, but there are a lot of things that could be done to make it awesome.
Logged

AoXoMoXoA

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1551
  • I am a kangaroo . . . . no, really!
Re: Dear John, (Netflix)
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2014, 08:04:10 am »

First they announce they are raising the monthly fee, now this . . . .

Looks like they will be losing my business soon.
Logged
. . . the game is rigged

imugli

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1598
Re: Dear John, (Netflix)
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2014, 09:26:03 am »

I think some perspective is needed here... The price rise is $1 / month and existing users won't be affected for quite some time. Additionally, there are other, albeit less integrated, ways to access Netflix from MC.

6233638

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 5353
Re: Dear John, (Netflix)
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2014, 09:50:47 am »

Let's not forget that they are also responsible for DRM being pushed into HTML5 Video too.
Doesn't seem like a company I want to support with my money.
Logged

jgreen

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
Re: Dear John, (Netflix)
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2014, 12:31:08 pm »

At peak hours, 30% of internet traffic in North America is Netflix.  I doubt these guys just voted themselves out of business.
Logged

muzicman0

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1239
Re: Dear John, (Netflix)
« Reply #11 on: June 17, 2014, 12:17:34 pm »

I just use QuickWMC for netflix.  I created a new Netflix menu item that launches QuickWMC with an argument of Netflix, it launches straight into WMC Netflix, and then when I use the back key on my remote, it closes WMC Netflix and goes back to JRiver.  That way I can still use my remote, etc.  I did have to set up EventGhost for the remote so there is no conflict with WMC and JRiver. 

I would be happy to share my EventGhost files if anyone wants them.

mm0
Logged

weirdo12

  • Junior Woodchuck
  • **
  • Posts: 63
Re: Dear John,
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2014, 09:59:20 pm »

This is why I've never subscribed to a streaming service, like Netflix or Spotify, and never will.

Huh? You don't subscribe to Netflix because you were concerned that some day they might cut off access to the "public API [that] was originally developed to let third-party sites and services search Netflix's catalog of movies, TV shows, and vast trove of metadata. It could also pull up information from a subscriber queue (now called "my list") and let people make changes outside of Netflix's site, or from of its apps" (from The Verge).

If you don't like streaming services fair enough but seriously what's that have to do with this thread?
Logged

JohnAV

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Dear John,
« Reply #13 on: June 20, 2014, 03:10:41 pm »

This is why I've never subscribed to a streaming service, like Netflix or Spotify, and never will.

Either I get the music or video I want in a local file that I can do what I want with and play with any media player I want or I don't bother with the content.  If someone else is controlling the content you want then you can't count on being able to listen to or watch or listen to what you want when you want in the way you want.
Just to follow up on the previous response, you acquire a local file in what manner?   The reason I bring this up is because ripping videos is still not 100% legal, yes music files you can readily acquire through number of sites or convert content off of media, but with video the industry is just anti archiving based, unless the video is in the public domain.  Digital copy is not without its restrictions either, still DRM, and subject to technology evolving to make you collection irrelevant.  ;D

BTW IMHO I find Netflix to offer in a lot of situations superior video and sound quality compared to so so cable broadcasts, but not a fly's chance in hell in comparison to blu-rays for example against PQ and AQ.  :)
Logged

Frobozz

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 641
  • There is a small mailbox here.
Re: Dear John,
« Reply #14 on: June 20, 2014, 07:36:25 pm »

Huh? You don't subscribe to Netflix because you were concerned that some day they might cut off access to the "public API [that] was originally developed to let third-party sites and services search Netflix's catalog of movies, TV shows, and vast trove of metadata. It could also pull up information from a subscriber queue (now called "my list") and let people make changes outside of Netflix's site, or from of its apps" (from The Verge).

If you don't like streaming services fair enough but seriously what's that have to do with this thread?

The issue is if someone else is managing and controlling the media along with how you can search it, organize it, and integrate it with other solutions then you can't rely on being able to access it or make use of it in ways you are now.  The people making those sorts of decisions for you can't be trusted to make decisions to your benefit.  You may have a solution working great today and come back in a week and find it is no longer working.

In this case it is only a loss of access to a public API that not many projects were making use of.  On its own not a big hit.  The big hit comes in that few companies are going to take risks to develop better solutions that rely on integrating with streaming services if the API or other services needed can suddenly and unilaterally disappear.  It creates a chilling effect where companies and individuals are not willing to take a risk to implement new ideas and push innovation if important parts of those ideas rely on something like a public API from Netflix.

Streaming media is OK for content that is transitory, like a weather report.  Not so good for content that you want to be able to return to in a year or 5 or 10.

I use MC to manage a collection of local music and other media files.  The files are local.  I have control.  I get to manage them in ways that suit me.  I'll still be able to access my collection in 20 years.
Logged

Frobozz

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 641
  • There is a small mailbox here.
Re: Dear John,
« Reply #15 on: June 20, 2014, 08:07:17 pm »

Just to follow up on the previous response, you acquire a local file in what manner?   The reason I bring this up is because ripping videos is still not 100% legal, yes music files you can readily acquire through number of sites or convert content off of media, but with video the industry is just anti archiving based, unless the video is in the public domain.  Digital copy is not without its restrictions either, still DRM, and subject to technology evolving to make you collection irrelevant.  ;D

BTW IMHO I find Netflix to offer in a lot of situations superior video and sound quality compared to so so cable broadcasts, but not a fly's chance in hell in comparison to blu-rays for example against PQ and AQ.  :)

My local files are primarily from CD, some from lossless downloads (of the legal sort), and some from DVD.  The vast majority is from CD that I've ripped.  A lot of CDs.  I also have some LPs and continue to buy some of the music I want on vinyl.

The state of video is a PITA and always has been.  Legal limbo for DVD ripping.  Even moreso for BD.  Fortunately some of the DVDs I have that come as extras as part of a CD album do not have CSS, so technically I do have a few legal DVD rips.  I've avoided BD as much as possible.

Fortunately my interests is in music and not video.  My interest in video is primarily if it contains music or live performances I want.  And my music interest is 2-channel.
Logged

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Re: Dear John, (Netflix)
« Reply #16 on: June 21, 2014, 08:49:25 am »

It is exceedingly likely that, despite what the DMCA says, if the studios were ever dumb enough to go after a regular consumer ripping DVDs or BD for their own use, that the courts would rule that it qualifies as Fair Use (and gut the DMCA).

It isn't about going after end-users.  It is about going after the tools producers.  That's also dumb, and ineffective.  However, consumers not doing anything otherwise illicit have very little to fear from the DMCA.

The MPAA is dumb, but they're not that stupid.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

mwillems

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 5233
  • "Linux Merit Badge" Recipient
Re: Dear John, (Netflix)
« Reply #17 on: June 21, 2014, 09:59:03 am »

It is exceedingly likely that, despite what the DMCA says, if the studios were ever dumb enough to go after a regular consumer ripping DVDs or BD for their own use, that the courts would rule that it qualifies as Fair Use (and gut the DMCA).

It isn't about going after end-users.  It is about going after the tools producers.  That's also dumb, and ineffective.  However, consumers not doing anything otherwise illicit have very little to fear from the DMCA.

The MPAA is dumb, but they're not that stupid.

I wouldn't count on the courts creating a fair use exemption to the anti-circumvetnion provisions as the trend in the case law has been pointing in the other direction (several courts have held the opposite, although obviously not in a home use context, because DRM circumvention need not involve copyright infringment, so fair use may be entirely inapplicable).  See, e.g. http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1297/9WJLTA105.pdf?sequence=4

But even so, there are a lot of problems with a hypothetical lawsuit against a private citizen circumventing DRM for personal use without more.  Criminal prosecution is probably off the table because the criminal penalties of the DMCA typically only apply when the circumvention is willful and for commercial or personal financial gain.  So you're left with a civil case.

Two huge problems with such a civil case:  

1) First if you're doing it at home and not sharing the files, there's a problem of proof.  How on earth would such circumvention come to the MPAA's attention, and having come to their attention, how would they prove it?  If your use really is confined to your home, they'd need to sue you and subpoena all of your equipment to even establish proof of their claim.   That would result in a lot of bad press, and would probably be unlikely for a couple reasons, for instance:

2) How would they establish damages?  If you bought a DVD and ripped it for personal use, what are the actual damages sustained by the rightsholder?  You purchased the DVD, it's hard to imagine what more the rightsholder could expect in terms of income.  That calculus changes a lot if you've shared it obviously.

Actual damages aren't the only thing they can recover though.  The DMCA provides for minimum statutory damages ($200 to $2500 per offense) as well as recovery of attorneys fees, so you could still easily lose your shirt if they brought the case. But that kind of money is chump change to the MPAA, and the ACt allows judges to reduce damages in certain circumstances, so there's no guarantee they'd even get that. The point is there's no financial incentive for them to come after a private user, unless they were trying to make an example, and we all saw how well that worked for the RIAA in the past.

Bottom line: I wouldn't count on the courts carving out a fair use exception to the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions anytime soon (although it's certainly possible), but there are real problems of proof and motivation that make it very unlikely the MCAA is coming after anybody for ripped dvds that are truly for home use.

I should make it clear that I am not advocating or endorsing any illegal act, including the circumvention of DRM for personal use or otherwise.  The above is offered solely for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.  Individual situations and jurisdictions are unique and if you need legal advice on these issues you should retain an attorney in your area.

In other words, YMMV, etc.
Logged

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Re: Dear John, (Netflix)
« Reply #18 on: June 21, 2014, 11:54:24 am »

Bottom line: I wouldn't count on the courts carving out a fair use exception to the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions anytime soon (although it's certainly possible), but there are real problems of proof and motivation that make it very unlikely the MCAA is coming after anybody for ripped dvds that are truly for home use.

That was basically my point.  Two things.  Right now, there is an exception to the DMCA Anti-Circumvention rules for movies that applies to educational use, criticism, and normal home use under certain circumstances (for disability related reasons):

http://dearauthor.com/ebooks/dmca-exceptions-for-2012-through-2015/

That's not from the courts, though, that's from the US Copyright Office.  And, it is designed to really "head off" the most obvious First Amendment challenges to the rule.  You can't get grounds to sue, if they're not preventing you from exercising your first amendment rights.  You have to wait for them to sue you, to have standing to challenge the law.

The courts won't carve out an explicit exception because this can only happen in response to a lawsuit from the relevant copyright owners.  The studios wouldn't be dumb enough to go after anyone for whom the courts would be likely to grant such an exception.  If it really is for personal use, you aren't re-distributing them, and of discs you own, and they were stupid enough to take the ongoing PR disaster of attacking you, the media companies would almost certainly (eventually) lose such a case.

They want to maintain the illusion in public that doing so would be ruled illegal, even though it almost certainly would not be, in practice.  In other words, the DMCA law, as written, would probably be ruled unconstitutional if applied in this narrow case (because Fair Use), just like Betamax.

But they wouldn't, because they don't want to make that case law.  They don't want the public to "think" they have this right, and want it kept murky.  And, of course, as you pointed out, how would they ever find out?
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

mwillems

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 5233
  • "Linux Merit Badge" Recipient
Re: Dear John, (Netflix)
« Reply #19 on: June 21, 2014, 06:09:32 pm »

You make some excellent points; replies below:

That was basically my point.  Two things.  Right now, there is an exception to the DMCA Anti-Circumvention rules for movies that applies to educational use, criticism, and normal home use under certain circumstances (for disability related reasons)

That's not from the courts, though, that's from the US Copyright Office.  And, it is designed to really "head off" the most obvious First Amendment challenges to the rule.  
The LoC exceptions process was built into the DMCA because it was believed (at the time) that traditional fair use protections would not apply to the anti-circumvention provisions of the Act, and Congress wanted to provide a regulatory process to provide fair-use-type exemptions (rather than leaving it up to the more usual judicial process).  And that's exactly what the courts have mostly held: that traditional fair use does not apply to the anti-circumvention provisions of the act.  

Essentially, the existence of those regulatory exceptions has been read by the courts as an argument that fair use doesn't apply to circumvention of DRM; the courts tend to say that you get the exceptions the the Library of Congress approves, no more, no less.  That hasn't been universal (you see some lingering disagreement in the educational context), but it's the trend.

Quote
The courts won't carve out an explicit exception because this can only happen in response to a lawsuit from the relevant copyright owners.  The studios wouldn't be dumb enough to go after anyone for whom the courts would be likely to grant such an exception.  If it really is for personal use, you aren't re-distributing them, and of discs you own, and they were stupid enough to take the ongoing PR disaster of attacking you, the media companies would almost certainly (eventually) lose such a case.

I don't think the media companies would necessarily lose.  I agree that they probably wouldn't bother to begin with, and of course, if they don't bring the case, it never gets resolved in court.  

But if they brought the suit, I think they'd be likely to win based on the current state of the case law (see below for why).

Quote
They want to maintain the illusion in public that doing so would be ruled illegal, even though it almost certainly would not be, in practice.  In other words, the DMCA law, as written, would probably be ruled unconstitutional if applied in this narrow case (because Fair Use), just like Betamax.

Actually, the Betamax case is a great example of how this situation is different.  

In Betamax the rightsholders were suing a company (Sony) that was making a device that allowed copying of copyrighted media.  Sony was selling that copying device for commercial gain.  Sony won that case because the court held that the copying device had lawful fair uses (time-shifting, etc.).

In the DRM/DMCA context, commercial companies that create software or devices that bypass copy protection (i.e. people or companies in the position that Sony was in in the Betamax case) have also been sued by rightsholders.  The difference is that they have mostly lost their cases, because the courts have held that it's a different ball game, and there is no traditional "fair use" exemption to DRM circumvention.   For example, RealDVD lost a DMCA case even though the court found that the RealDVD software had lawful fair uses.

Long story short: thinking about the DMCA in the traditional copyright context is kind of dangerous because recent cases have shown that the courts are really heading in a different direction on this.  You may be right that a court might react completely differently to a private person breaking copyright protection for private use, but the state of the law right now is not encouraging.

---------------------

Bracketing out whether the MPAA would win in our hypothetical-highly-unlikely lawsuit, I think we agree that the rightsholders probably like the current atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, and recognize that such a lawsuit would, at minimum, be unprofitable and a PR disaster.  And there is certainly a risk that they might lose the lawsuit into the bargain (whether due to a failure of proof, or because of the court recoiling in horror).  

Which is why they are unlikely to bring one anytime soon, even if they knew they had grounds to sue someone in particular.  

But I wouldn't bet the farm that they couldn't win one if they were motivated.  

Again, the above is for informational purposes and not legal advice.

P.S.- I always enjoy talking to you, Glynor  ;D
Logged

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Re: Dear John, (Netflix)
« Reply #20 on: June 22, 2014, 09:25:54 am »

Actually, the Betamax case is a great example of how this situation is different.  

In Betamax the rightsholders were suing a company (Sony) that was making a device that allowed copying of copyrighted media.  Sony was selling that copying device for commercial gain.  Sony won that case because the court held that the copying device had lawful fair uses (time-shifting, etc.).

In the DRM/DMCA context, commercial companies that create software or devices that bypass copy protection (i.e. people or companies in the position that Sony was in in the Betamax case) have also been sued by rightsholders.  The difference is that they have mostly lost their cases, because the courts have held that it's a different ball game, and there is no traditional "fair use" exemption to DRM circumvention.   For example, RealDVD lost a DMCA case even though the court found that the RealDVD software had lawful fair uses.

Long story short: thinking about the DMCA in the traditional copyright context is kind of dangerous because recent cases have shown that the courts are really heading in a different direction on this.  You may be right that a court might react completely differently to a private person breaking copyright protection for private use, but the state of the law right now is not encouraging.

I think there is a large difference between the two things, when it comes to how the law has been tested.  I agree completely (both that they've found and, honestly, that it is right) that the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA don't infringe the fair use rights of companies making the tools (like RealDVD).

And, yes, that is the primary way it has been used, thus far, and was really the point of the law.

And, it is very difficult (of course) to predict a court outcome.  However, I strongly suspect that the Supreme Court would take a dim view of a copyright holder suing a consumer directly for infringement over use of one of these tools.  In other words: It may be illegal to make one of the tools (if you are in a covered jurisdiction).  However, I think a case exploring use of the tools for a purpose that is non-infringing is an entirely different ball of wax.

But, as we both agree, it'll never happen, for a variety of reasons.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Re: Dear John, (Netflix)
« Reply #21 on: June 22, 2014, 09:51:18 am »

and Congress wanted to provide a regulatory process to provide fair-use-type exemptions (rather than leaving it up to the more usual judicial process).

I wanted to fix this line for you.  ;)

The Lobbyists who wrote the bill had to provide a regulatory process to provide fair-use-type exemptions because otherwise it would be left up to the courts (because the EFF and ACLU would have immediately sued on behalf of consumers).

You can think of the DMCA as the "Lessons Learned from Betamax" law from the media conglomerates.

Unfortunately, they learned the wrong lessons.  What they should have learned is that disruption by technology is inevitable and typically good for an industry.  In the end, because they lost Betamax, they ended up making more money in the Rentals and Home Purchase market.  What they still seem unable to understand is that the fact that VHS and Betamax had flexible uses (yes, including doing infringing things like rigging up two decks and duplicating commercial movies for friends) is what helped to guarantee that the standard became a platform.  That's part of why they were everywhere.

Once they were everywhere, you had a platform upon which you could sell commercial content.  And, the truth is, most consumers are lazy, and won't rig up two decks together and will just buy the easily available copy legitimately.  They bought the deck so they could record their soap operas or baseball games or whatever, and play some home movies, but they used it to watch movies rented from Blockbuster and purchased from Walmart.

You'd think the industry would see this and go "oh crap, that worked and we didn't think it would."  They should remove the DRM, because it only hurts platform adoption because it makes it difficult to do things that their customers want to do with their product (make a copy of a BluRay for their iPad or laptop for a trip, for example).  It is hostile to the very people you want to buy your product.  Like making a car that can only drive on a certain brand of street, or a hammer that only works on certain nails.  That would be a bad car and a bad hammer, and they'd fail in the market (especially when competing with better products).  Doing so, would not hurt BluRay sales, it would help them.

But they're too stupid to see it, and they're instead slowly killing their own industry.  Because consumers will move on to something else.  They already are, largely, and the movie industry in particular is competing in an environment with (now) massive competition for our time (this thing called the Interwebs).
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

mwillems

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 5233
  • "Linux Merit Badge" Recipient
Re: Dear John, (Netflix)
« Reply #22 on: June 22, 2014, 09:59:18 am »

And, it is very difficult (of course) to predict a court outcome.  However, I strongly suspect that the Supreme Court would take a dim view of a copyright holder suing a consumer directly for infringement over use of one of these tools.  In other words: It may be illegal to make one of the tools (if you are in a covered jurisdiction).  However, I think a case exploring use of the tools for a purpose that is non-infringing is an entirely different ball of wax.

But, as we both agree, it'll never happen, for a variety of reasons.

Yeah, I think we're basically on the same page here.  Even when the law seems clear, it is very hard to to predict what the Supreme Court will do in a situation where the application of a law seems unjust or counterintuitive. Sometimes the Court will cheerfully enforce the law, and sometimes they'll balk and dismantle the whole thing.  It's very hard to know (even for lawyers who follow the court assiduously) which one you'll get in any particular case.  Sometimes you might get two opposite results on almost identical cases a decade apart because the composition of the court changed  ::)

Which is one of many reasons why any sane lawyer would tell them to never, ever bring a suit like that unless there were some really unusual circumstances.  

I wanted to fix this line for you.  ;)

The Lobbyists who wrote the bill had to provide a regulatory process to provide fair-use-type exemptions because otherwise it would be left up to the courts (because the EFF and ACLU would have immediately sued on behalf of consumers).

You can think of the DMCA as the "Lessons Learned from Betamax" law from the media conglomerates.

Yes, exactly;  I agree completely. It's just customary in my line of work to talk about Cognressional intent when describing laws, rather than lobbyist intent  ;D (even when the facts point to the contrary).  I agree that the process was clearly conceived as a way to shut out the normal judicial exceptions process, and reflected an attempt to do an end run around betamax.  And, for good or ill, so far it has worked.

Quote
Unfortunately, they learned the wrong lessons.  What they should have learned is that disruption by technology is inevitable and typically good for an industry.  In the end, because they lost Betamax, they ended up making more money in the Rentals and Home Purchase market.  What they still seem unable to understand is that the fact that VHS and Betamax had flexible uses (yes, including doing infringing things like rigging up two decks and duplicating commercial movies for friends) is what helped to guarantee that the standard became a platform.  That's part of why they were everywhere.

Once they were everywhere, you had a platform upon which you could sell commercial content.  And, the truth is, most consumers are lazy, and won't rig up two decks together and will just buy the easily available copy legitimately.  They bought the deck so they could record their soap operas or baseball games or whatever, and play some home movies, but they used it to watch movies rented from Blockbuster and purchased from Walmart.

You'd think the industry would see this and go "oh crap, that worked and we didn't think it would."  They should remove the DRM, because it only hurts platform adoption because it makes it difficult to do things that their customers want to do with their product (make a copy of a BluRay for their iPad or laptop for a trip, for example).  It is hostile to the very people you want to buy your product.  Like making a car that can only drive on a certain brand of street, or a hammer that only works on certain nails.  That would be a bad car and a bad hammer, and they'd fail in the market (especially when competing with better products).  Doing so, would not hurt BluRay sales, it would help them.

But they're too stupid to see it, and they're instead slowly killing their own industry.  Because consumers will move on to something else.  They already are, largely, and the movie industry in particular is competing in an environment with (now) massive competition for our time (this thing called the Interwebs).

I agree with all this completely.
Logged

phusis

  • World Citizen
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
  • Multum in parvo
Re: Dear John,
« Reply #23 on: June 23, 2014, 01:32:17 am »

The issue is if someone else is managing and controlling the media along with how you can search it, organize it, and integrate it with other solutions then you can't rely on being able to access it or make use of it in ways you are now.  The people making those sorts of decisions for you can't be trusted to make decisions to your benefit.  You may have a solution working great today and come back in a week and find it is no longer working.

In this case it is only a loss of access to a public API that not many projects were making use of.  On its own not a big hit.  The big hit comes in that few companies are going to take risks to develop better solutions that rely on integrating with streaming services if the API or other services needed can suddenly and unilaterally disappear.  It creates a chilling effect where companies and individuals are not willing to take a risk to implement new ideas and push innovation if important parts of those ideas rely on something like a public API from Netflix.

Streaming media is OK for content that is transitory, like a weather report.  Not so good for content that you want to be able to return to in a year or 5 or 10.

I use MC to manage a collection of local music and other media files.  The files are local.  I have control.  I get to manage them in ways that suit me.  I'll still be able to access my collection in 20 years.


+ 1
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up