> "The reasonable thing to do was just limit the streams to SD resolution – 720x480. That is slightly lower than I would have chosen if the need for a secure execution environment weren't an issue, but not too much"
Looks like the need for a "secure execution environment" led to the limitation.
And yet all HD content is still easily available for pirating.
When will content producers learn that they're losing money because of terrible distribution strategies and not because it's technically possible to pirate?
Content Producers everywhere pretty much realize DRM is a non starter. The reason its still in there is:
1.) There are old 5, 10, 15 year contracts that still stipulate that the content needs to delivered over some reasonably secure DRM system, and no one wants hire lawyers to renegotiate those contracts.
2.) For new contracts, content producers just reuse old contracts, and the side that wants to eschew DRM isn't usually the content producers. That said, when the other side brings up "how about we remove the DRM clause", the producers are pretty much "sure, for $100,000 more bucks". So its become a negotiating point the studios now hold to extort money from any platform that wants DRM-less content.
You could wonder "why don't producers care about the UX" - for most big studios digital revenues are still nothing compared to physical sales and syndication rights - so they have no incentive to care.
Um, no. I just spent the last eight years of my life building a streaming service and fighting against DRM, and the last two years negotiating terms with several major studios and finally having to capitulate to DRM. They are most definitely not "just reusing old contracts" and you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
I wasn't talking out of my ass. Maybe my information is little dated - but from talking to actual legal teams at Turner & Warner Bros., this is what I was told.
Admittedly it was 2 years ago when I last talked to them - but given that it took you 8+2 years to finally get rid of DRM, there is some truth to what I was saying. It'd be helpful if you actually provided some counter reasons as to why content producers are actually holding onto DRM, and enlightening the rest of us, especially the poster who asked the question, rather than just saying "You're wrong because I spent 10 years in the industry".
> for most big studios digital revenues are still nothing compared to physical sales and syndication rights
This begs the question. The revenues are nothing compared to physical sales and syndication because in many cases watching the content legally online is not an option at all.
Actually, the harsh reality is that we do not yet have a digital content ecosystem that makes consuming any digital media easy for the vast majority of the population (US or otherwise). This is why netflix can do what they do: they have a walled garden where the entire experience is driven purely by their interface and delivery mechanisms (see also: Steam in the PC games space).
I've written specs for studio approved DRM schemes and done pre-dvd content on in-flight entertainment systems. Please believe me when I say that it is a nightmare even if you DO know what you're doing with all the tech involved, but even if it weren't a legal problem there's a good example that is pretty damning as a foundational assumption: we still don't know how to share a file.
I mean that sincerely: try to get your average non-tech worker to send a file to your grandmother on their own. I can not overstate this enough. This does not work.
We have a lot of distance to cover before the digital content world cares about our niche whims.
You are describing turn-key solutions. They are services that provide complete end-to-end consumption methods, like Netflix. In the scenarios of content consumption (be it articles, movies/tv, or even games) even recent history has shown that it isn't the availability of content that is the limiting factor, it is the accessibility of content. What I mean by that is not that you have authorization to consume the content, but that you have the capability of enacting your end of the transaction (in this case, pressing play).
The reason VHS and DVD sales are better than digital is because it is still vastly easier to put a thing in a magic box hooked up to the TV and press play on the remote. Even this is frought with danger (How do I hook it up, how do I get to the right input, where exactly is the button to play the movie on this DVD menu?) This is also why you hear those complaints near constantly.
There's other factors as well (like people not feeling like they own a file, but a DVD is theirs), but again the barrier to entry for consumers on computers is getting past having to think of any of the moving parts. This is true in a lot of places, like automatic transmissions and ATMs (read up on the history of ATM interfaces, it's fascinating if you're into that).
Currently on a PC if you download a file that is a piece of media to consume, you have several important barriers for most people:
- I have to put the file somewhere, and I don't understand filesystems
- I have to have software that uses the file format, that works on my machine
- I have to know how to use that software
- I have to know how to purchase the file, whatever that is supposed to mean
- I have to like how it's being displayed
- I have to know how to get it from the machine I downloaded it on to my TV or whatever
There's probably others in some scenarios, but you probably see the point. A lot of things we tech users take for granted is that these things are very, very hard for most people, and they always have been (again, physical tech like cars or elevators follow this). Even giving someone a link is barely beginning to scratch the surface of this process. So this is, bar none, the reason digital is going to have problems until netflix or youtube or whatever can just play everything.
This is also, as a related aside, why a web browser and mobile apps win in breaking down those barriers. Everyone already has them and it's the "click icon to do thing" model, where icon might be a bookmark or typing a simple address, but the point is the same. No installs, no understanding of local mechanics and difference. It's also why Apple products are viewed by the consumers as more user friendly. There's very little to understand about your machine on a Macbook. You don't have to take my word for it here. Watch your average user use a mac. Or read their user interface guides.
I disagree. Without DRM it would be as simple as generating a temporary signed link to S3 upon clicking 'Buy'. I could implement it myself in an hour. Even grandma would be able to use it no problem (click buy -> double click file -> watch movie).
Looks like the need for a "secure execution environment" led to the limitation.