B) No, this would clearly fall under fair use to use a screen grab to use as a visual aid in the written article.

I think that bypassing DRM would violate DMCA even if it is for fair use.

Oh lawdy! Netflix has promoted these programs. There are all sorts of content floating around on the interwebs released by the producers for the specific purpose of letting people see the content. Even the Netflix interface will show you something that will demonstrate the discussion. Hell, there's probably trailers for content on YouTube.

Z) Not every piece of content needs to be accessible to every person that might stumble across it.

If you don’t already have a feeling for what this “Netflix look” is, maybe the article just isn’t written for you?

But making an effort to increase accessibility is valid, right?

There’s a limit, of course, you expect the reader to be alphabetized, have watched a couple of Netflix movies, etc. but this one may have gone a bit too far on the reader’s assumptions.

Yes, not having a reference image for people to compare what you are directly talking about in today's multimedia world is just really being lazy. Like, supadupaüberlazy. There's really not an excuse for it.

The article is clearly not for you. I understood what he was talking about from the first paragraph and do not have netflix.

I didn't even read the article, so there's that. Still not an excuse for being lazy.

Also, I have a background in camera department, post production color grading, etc, so I'm assuming I am the target audience. I also knew what the "netflix look" looked like in my head just from the title. You kind of have to be in the industry to properly know what "look" means. Like when everyone talks about that "Cooke look", you just know what they mean.

> I didn't even read the article, so there's that. Still not an excuse for being lazy.

Lol, the irony in that sentence did make me chuckle. I mean if you have a background in film (production, etc...) and didn't read the article Im not sure why you commented in the first place? HN was always a place for good discussion, usually about the posted article and (to me which doesnt really matter) the article was very clear. But in the same breathe every article is never meant for every person so maybe its just that.

Because I've read articles like this multiple times. These things pop up from time to time, just like common articles/themes pop up here on HN.

From the discussions on how Ozark is blue, the battle scene in GoT (yes, it's HBO) was too dark, the action movie with one of the Chrises was orange, etc. It's all just a giving of an opinion on someone else's art. Why in the world did Van Gogh make Starry Night blue? Why is there a wedge shape in DaVinci's Last Supper. It's a level of bloviating.

Which is a fair assumption but makes for poor discussion on a site that tries to have meaningful discussion. We're not reddit.

Honestly, I think that my contribution stating that having imagery as example of what is being discussed directly within the article is much more relevant than someone trying to play content police on this site.

We all like different things, so you do you

> We all like different things, so you do you

I 100% agree which is why I started with that article probably isn't for you. Especially since you didn't read it but posted as if you had. I get it, no one is the seer of all things I just thought the article was accurate, easy to read and explained the point well. Absolutely to each their own.