That's the real problem; that internet is not accessible & free everywhere. I think DRM is fine as long as I can access my media anytime & anywhere on all my devices. Netflix pretty much fits this requirement aside from the hack of Linux+Netflix. The issue that internet isn't available to every human being or costs a ridiculous amount of money is a problem that needs to be fixed. I want to be able to say "Everyone has internet these days" and really mean it for all people of the world. We need to make it impossible for anyone to make the argument "but what if I don't have internet access?".

I think DRM is never OK. Not only because of privacy and ethical issues, but because if you can't fully control the content and the service which issues DRM closes down you would simply lose everything you paid for. It should be a deal breaker. Then pirating that content will be the only option to get it back. This Xkcd applies to video pretty much the same way as to audio for which it was made: http://xkcd.com/488

> do think that if the DRM servers and/or media streaming servers are going offline and making the content disappear forever they should allow it to just be downloaded without DRM for free

They may be "should" allow it, but they will never do at that point. They have more important problems to care about when they close down. So it's our obligation as responsible users to demand DRM free content from them right away, and avoid those who refuse to sell such.

Then how do we deal with piracy? Is piracy even a problem at all? I guess if iTunes is selling music without DRM and not falling apart, then we think TV-shows/movies can do the same?

No need even to go so far. DRM by definition implies that they don't trust you, the user. So, I see no point to trust them in return. It's normal to assume that DRM is always a risk of privacy violation. Surely, it's a good ground for sinister abuses like your example as well.

> Then how do we deal with piracy?

DRM doesn't deal with piracy. Publishers and distributors don't even hide this fact these days. So what are they using DRM for? Guess yourself, but expect nothing good in there.

The recipe for dealing with piracy is ages old - increase quality to be competitive. I.e. some part of piracy which can be affected is caused by the fact that pirated content has higher usability (no DRM, regional restrictions and other such junk). By releasing quality products while being DRM free and delivering them with high level of convenience, distributors can compete with that sector of piracy. The segment of piracy which is caused by people being crooks and getting free stuff won't be affected at all. DRM doesn't affect it either.

I agree with you in principle on a LOT of the points, but the real issue is that most content producers (publishers are a different issue...) would LOVE to be able to do this:

"The recipe for dealing with piracy is ages old - increase quality to be competitive"

But realistically it's fucking HARD. Mainly because increasing quality to be competitive with piracy would generally require breaking tax and import laws everywhere.

Even if it doesn't require breaking those laws to be competitive, you have to at least pay enough people to be aware of them, for each and every country you want to be able to distribute your content in.

So decent* DRM isn't about stopping piracy, really. It's about slowing it down just enough that it's still worthwhile to jump through the hoops required to bring that content legally to other regions.

*: It's actually fairly hard to hit this goal on the head, and often I feel companies buy too far into their own bullshit and sense of entitlement with DRM. A lot of shoddy executives with poor understanding of software misuse DRM to the extent that it drastically lowers the value of the content (see: always on DRM) Please continue to bash them, they deserve it.

I'm not exactly sure why so? Take for example gaming. GOG sells DRM free games worldwide, without regional restrictions and no inflated pricing for countries like Australia for example. Why can't video be sold on similar terms?

>So decent DRM isn't about stopping piracy, really. It's about slowing it down just enough that it's still worthwhile to jump through the hoops required to bring that content legally to other regions.

In my view it never pays off. The downside of reduced usability is always worse than any potential gain in slowing down piracy on the period between some new DRM scheme is introduced until it's broken. Usually that period is small, and ever since that DRM becomes obsolete, while usability stays crippled for legitimate users. All those involved in production and distribution should always keep in mind that DRM means their voluntary reduction of quality for practically absent gain of shortly slowed down piracy. How are they planning to compete, when instead of increasing quality, they cripple their own products?

Which I think is not something that should even exist IMHO. Since paying for content itself is easier, can work with the same convenience of streaming, while not preventing the backup. Everyone wins, since piracy will exist even when some service attempts to prevent copying.

This is about simplicity and ease-of-use only, not about ownership. If you insist on ownership there is nothing preventing you from buying the work directly.

Sure, streaming as convenience is good to have. But it doesn't remove the need for personal backup. Network connectivity is not available always and everywhere, as well as you can't rely on the service to be always around. If you don't care to lose your extensive digital library when that service goes bust it's up to you, but it's a normal thing to care about it.

Simply put, there is no motivation for DRM streaming and DRM still remains a way for studios to keep control on who and when is licensing their content. Talking to some media execs, I was surprised to learn the reason most DRM is implemented is because for some content deal, the contract stated (which was written 6-8 years ago), said the player must have DRM. Now that the content landscape is getting even more fierce (with networks like CBS cancelling service to TimeWarner) no one wants to risk renegotiating anything.

Now what motivation does Netflix have to remove their DRM? They want you on their platform, so they can collect your data. The next Netflix that even has a chance of running it legal will probably incorporate ads into their monthly pay product like Hulu does, which isn't at all surprising considering a huge chunk of revenue for these guys comes from advertising.

I'm not hopeful about DRM-free streaming. The tv/film industry is much different from the music industry. From a consumer POV, the biggest difference is streaming wins over downloading. There is less of a demand for DRM free content because people simply aren't looking to copy their mp3s to their iPod/Zune/MP3 Player of choice. The Film industry has a much tighter control on how the content is delivered.

If they don't even hide their intentions in abusing DRM to violate their users' privacy, it should only strengthen the reasons to avoid Netfilx like services. I'm hopeful for DRM free digital video. It will take one distributor to break this sick trend. Netflix isn't the one with guts to do it.

Maybe this will help: https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later

It was a comment on "regular" people. I.e. their acceptance of Facebook's disrespect to their privacy often comes from them being clueless. Same thing with acceptance of DRM which you brought above. People don't think.

> What does an informed person have against DRM

Informed person doesn't trust DRM, and doesn't proliferate it by supporting distributors who push it on people. See the whole discussion above. No point to repeat the explanations.

I'd compare Steam to Netflix, yes. Both are widely used, and both cause damage to the industry by DRM proliferation.