One can get HDCP bypass solutions no money at all, but the technology should never have existed in the first place.

Worse yet, despite failing so horribly, development is still going into it, with major players like Netflix pushing it as well.

Ever since the mid-2000s through to today there's a load of TVs, displays, etc on the market that claimed to be DP and HDMI compatible but failed on the edge-cases (e.g. pumping 4K@60Hz down a DisplayPort 1.2 pipe). In my experience the gear that was HDCP compliant tended to perform better (but by no means perfectly cough Philips...).

Compare that to the mess of compliance and functionality with SCART connectors in the 1990s. I had a TV with a true RGB SCART input and a bunch of devices claimed to offer RGB SCART output, yet didn't actually support it (I assume because few consumers knew how to take advantage of RGB SCART, given the default was Composite-over-SCART and at SDTV it looks good enough).

In reality, HDCP causes issues with DisplayPort and HDMI link by being one of the weakest links (HDCP signalling is usually the problem in long or cheap cables). Any issue makes HDCP kill the connection and renegotiate content protection, which takes time where there is no content.

We still to this day have trouble with SCART-like features. It's just now called HDMI-CEC, and is very much a hit-or-miss scenario, even within the same brand. Case-in-point: I have an older Philips Android TV, where CEC in my setup works fine. The same setup does not work at all on a slightly newer iteration of Android TVs from Philips, despite both running a similar Android Oreo build.

----

Also note: The default for SCART was composite, with optional S-Video and RGB support, and very rarely, component (which quality-wise would be somewhere around RGB). S-Video was the common "quality" setting that "just worked", which is close enough to component (and thus RGB) in quality for the material of the time.

Plus, getting suboptimal image is not as bad as getting no image at all, or missing features. HDCP and CEC is arguably a huge downgrade from SCART in that regard.

... this comment is longer than I intended ...

There are certain adapters that do other things, but can also be used to strip HDCP.

It's often used as part of a setup to capture the HDMI output from Macs, since those sometimes have HDCP as well.

* one service to pay for

* what they want to watch

* on the device they choose

* on their schedule

* at their location.

Content holders want: to restrict, distinguish, and control every one of those.

And frankly, just having an easy accessible way to rent any motion picture if it's not on a streaming platform. There's no reason for digital copies to be so inaccessible. Some things are literally only available on dvd/blue-ray or pirated.

Wouldn't whatever this "easy accessible way" is be the one service you're skeptical people want? I don't think anyone saying "I want one service" means "I hope to be locked in to one provider", but rather "I want one easy interface, and not to have to worry about surveying and paying for lots of siloed libraries."

It's a thin line, is what I'm warning.

> I want one easy interface

Definitely this.

We have various non-standardized interfaces currently for home entertainment with machines running their own enterprise software. The playstations, xboxes, apple TV, smart tvs, etc have their own mediocre ways of cobbling things and allowing you to rent / buy / stream.

Perhaps an open-source alternative is what's needed, but that's often so late to the game.

My Spotify subscription is £9.99 and gives me access to unlimited music from all artists (within reason - it’s very unlikely I find something not on there).

I’m willing to pay more for a video subscription that gives me access to unlimited tv and movies.

But to get everything on streaming I have to buy: - Amazon Subscription - Netflix Subscription - Apple TV subscription - Disney+ Subscription - Now TV - TV licence (iPlayer)

And after I have subscribed to all of these, there are still loads of movies and TV shows not covered.

I would pay for one subscription that had the content mixed in. It would be better to have a single £25 contract and get everything rather than this crazy fragmentation where you pay for 80% of the content 4 times and have to get an additional subscription if there is one series you want to watch on a different service.

The problem is that the software part of it is comparatively easy; a perfect platform from the point of view of code, robustness, and useability means nothing unless you can get the rights-holders to agree to make their content available on it.

Right, that's sort of what I mean—accessing it isn't the point. Once you've paid for and subscribed to every different streaming service today, and checked that there aren't a few more that have sprouted up overnight, then access is a solved problem, in the browser or prettified on the desktop. The hard part, and what I think people mean when they speak of wanting one service, is not having to curate, seek out, and pay for all those different streaming services in the first place.

Of course it's way better if you steal without consequence, but this is not a scalable approach.

Which music streaming service is that?

[Not snarky, genuinely interested.]

Not all. There are many songs I had on CD that I can't play anymore.

Businesses are in the game of enticing customers. If your homeware store is so bad that double-digit percentages of the population choose to steal glasses and cutlery from local bars rather than shop at your store, you need to take a long hard look at your business and figure out what the fuck you're doing so wrong.

You can bitch and moan about how it's wrong for people to steal from the bars if you want, but that's reality denial. It will not get you more customers.

Any other way you look at it digital media distribution should be a couple of dollars and an http (or torrent if they want to skip the bandwidth costs) file transfer away.

Why do you feel so indignant about something that doesn't effect you? If you want to pay for a dozen different streaming services, nobody is stopping you.

I am a little bit indignant because it does affect me. When a small number of people abuse the system it means the rest of us can't have nice things.

If there were not rampant piracy, I would not have to know what is DRM and all of its associated inconvenience, because it wouldn't have to be a thing.

Not that the current solution isn't broken -- I do pay for (nearly) a dozen different streaming services. But I can't help feeling that I'm subsidising your lawless, anti-social approach, and it doesn't seem exactly fair that you get the better experience.

You have to acknowledge that if everyone did like you, then the whole thing wouldn't be able to sustain itself. It only works because most people take the hit and play by the rules.

Except there's no data proving that people pirating movies/music/... are not also paying the industry.

Anecdotally, the persons I know in the habit of pirating entertainments are also some of the biggest spenders I know on the same things.

So, it's entirely possible that if everyone did like him, the whole thing would sustain itself. And if you have something tending to prove the contrary, I'm quite curious.

I still have a large list of games that I have legally bought but can't play because some manner of native drm or protection - having to practice piracy is the only way I can play those games.

Denuvo, the Sony rootkit, the finite number of installs that was a thing for a while, the list goes on.

Why would DRM be a thing even if piracy weren't? Because the companies that employ it are control freaks who, among other things, would like to sell people the same product numerous times.

> I do pay for (nearly) a dozen different streaming services.

This truly is a 'You' problem. Getting upset with other people because you choose to do that is senseless. It's doubly senseless to be upset about this since dozens of streaming services would be a thing even if piracy weren't. Dozens of streaming services are a thing because these companies are control freaks that want to reinvent Netflix rather than license their content to Netflix. They want complete control over how their media is promoted and distributed, they don't like delegating any of that control to another company. Bittorrent really has jackshit to do with dozens of streaming services existing. If anybody is to blame, it's the clueless pliant consumers that reward media companies for creating netflix clones.

I rarely pay for a movie bar a few cinema trips and blu-rays for something I really wanted to support . The reasons:

I want a well encoded DRM free file.

I don't want to be ripped off, or at least the "Steam Sale" model should be there so you can get it at a reasonable price a few months later.

I absolutely want the high quality download option. Steaming is fine for music. I'm confident I could find my Spotify playlists fairly easily elsewhere if I needed too (legally or otherwise). Maybe they are 500GB max.

I wouldn't be confident I could replace terabytes of my favorite movies quickly. I want those archived for myself without DRM.

I will pay when the product is better than a torrent site, it is possible when the lawyers and execs allow it to happen.

Consumers want convenience. I have convenience in the cinema so I pay for movies there quite often.

As for digital distribution, I don't feel confident in any platform. You basically pay to be severely inconvenienced. Plus what happens if you want to load up 10-20 movies on your laptop and go camping? Tough luck.

The movie industry should stop trying to sell us the same thing several times. If I paid for a cinema ticket once I should have the right to download that movie and have it stored offline forever.

Almost nobody who pirated movies (of those I spoke with) did so out of being cheap or poor. Almost everybody told me "I can't even figure out how I can download the movie I paid for" and just opted for torrenting.

Sure some people will do anything and everything to pirate. But I argue they are much less compared to those who are unhappy with the current streaming offerings.

No, you're subsidizing rich CEOs and their shareholders.

yeah thanks bro