this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024

1 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59587 readers

3117 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

DVDs are dying right as streaming has made them appealing again (arstechnica.com)

submitted 4 months ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

213 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It's sensible for businesses to shift from physical media sales. Per CNBC's calculations, DVD sales fell over 86 percent between 2008 and 2019. Research from the Motion Picture Association in 2021 found that physical media represented 8 percent of the home/mobile entertainment market in the US, falling behind digital (80 percent) and theatrical (12 percent).

But as physical media gets less lucrative and the shuttering of businesses makes optical discs harder to find, the streaming services that largely replaced them are getting aggravating and unreliable. And with the streaming industry becoming more competitive and profit-hungry than ever, you never know if the movie/show that most attracted you to a streaming service will still be available when you finally get a chance to sit down and watch. Even paid-for online libraries that were marketed as available "forever" have been ripped away from customers.

When someone buys or rents a DVD, they know exactly what content they're paying for and for how long they'll have it (assuming they take care of the physical media). They can also watch the content if the Internet goes out and be certain that they're getting uncompressed 4K resolution. DVD viewers are also less likely to be bombarded with ads whenever they pause and can get around an ad-riddled smart TV home screen (nothing's perfect; some DVDs have unskippable commercials).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] dan@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Someone go make Steam for videos and I'll pay for media again. My stipulations are:

Once I buy it, it's mine forever (otherwise piracy is better)
The file is high quality, DRM free, and in a selection of standard formats (otherwise piracy is better)
I can redownload it from the service at any time (otherwise piracy is better)
I can get everything I want to watch (otherwise piracy is better)

[–] SGG@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yarrrrrrrr

[–] SGG@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Yarrrrrr indeed

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 0 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] mrvictory1@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

FYI Steam had videos a few years ago, new purchases are discontinued but one can still playback their existing library.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Steam isn't DRM free, though. Most games use Steamworks DRM.

[–] explore_broaden@midwest.social 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I don’t think DRM-free is really a requirement for most people.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

So then we have iTunes. The only one it does not cover is the permanent ownership. Companies have yanked stuff from iTunes libraries before.

[–] explore_broaden@midwest.social 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

ITunes sells videos as well, which I believe they were referring to.

[–] explore_broaden@midwest.social 0 points 4 months ago

Oh yeah you’re right, I mixed up what conversation I was in.

[–] thejml@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] Tywele@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago

Steamworks DRM is not a requirement though.

[–] dan@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago

I know, I modified it to make more sense for video.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dan@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I know. I changed the terms. Pray I don’t change them further.

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Pay so I don’t change them further.

FTFY

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago

More like

Pay so I can change them further.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] dan@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dan@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

DRM = copy protection

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.