2017-10-11, 04:30
While I can understand the desire to have some way to interact with DRM-crippled streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime in the Kodi interface to have all your media in one place, I would ask the devs to keep in mind that DRM is by its very nature an infringement on consumer rights and a way of circumventing the first sale doctrine and turn what was once a sale into a mere rental so that you no longer own what you thought you owned. Not to mention that DRM always, always fails because no mater the form or complexity, it is always cracked sooner or later. Even Denuvo, what was once thought as the long-sought killer of software piracy, has been neutralized, and games that use it are now cracked within mere hours. What I would like also to be kept in mind is that the reasons for infringement are not always as black and white as it may seem. Many are in fact underserved customers who may have no legal way to get the content they want due to the entertainment industry's continued obsession with outdated georestrictions and release windows. Also, many of the legal services put out by the legacy entertainment industry are loaded with caveats and restrictions and other difficulties as well as a limited library of content and in general tend to be much more difficult and costly to use than the infringement route.
What should also be remembered is the mountains of independent research that point out that infringement in actuality has little if any negative effect on sales and more often than not has a positive one, as it acts as a form of free advertising. Something you may not know is that it's also been demonstrated time and again that those who infringe often spend more on media than those who don't. This is because they often use it as a try before you buy approach - if they don't like something, they delete the download, if they do, they not only buy it but also encourage others to do so as well because they want to support the creators whose work they like and respect. Another common reason for infringement is for having a backup of media that's already been bought. Or often a digital copy that works better and plays with less hassle than the official or disc copy, because with official digital copies you often have to jump through a number of hoops to get it and it is not always at the same video and audio quality as the disc copy.
My point is merely that the issue shouldn't be seen as black and white as it often is, because it's more complex than that. I understand that Kodi has to be neutral about it and that's fine, I know they have a tightrope to walk. I just feel that to be neutral is to not only not openly support it but also not condemn it either. Merely be neutral and aware of the actual facts of the issue and not just what legacy companies that are absolutely terrified of change and any loss of control would like you to believe. There's a very good reason iTunes ditched DRM on music years ago. You might also want to keep in mind the many instances where people have bought media and then the company they bought it from tanked and access to the servers the media was on went with it, thus people lost media they had paid for and had no recourse, all thanks to DRM. Or the times companies like Amazon have retroactively removed ebooks people had already paid for from their accounts, including 1984. Which again was made possible only by DRM, whcih was used by the companies in all these instances.
What should also be remembered is the mountains of independent research that point out that infringement in actuality has little if any negative effect on sales and more often than not has a positive one, as it acts as a form of free advertising. Something you may not know is that it's also been demonstrated time and again that those who infringe often spend more on media than those who don't. This is because they often use it as a try before you buy approach - if they don't like something, they delete the download, if they do, they not only buy it but also encourage others to do so as well because they want to support the creators whose work they like and respect. Another common reason for infringement is for having a backup of media that's already been bought. Or often a digital copy that works better and plays with less hassle than the official or disc copy, because with official digital copies you often have to jump through a number of hoops to get it and it is not always at the same video and audio quality as the disc copy.
My point is merely that the issue shouldn't be seen as black and white as it often is, because it's more complex than that. I understand that Kodi has to be neutral about it and that's fine, I know they have a tightrope to walk. I just feel that to be neutral is to not only not openly support it but also not condemn it either. Merely be neutral and aware of the actual facts of the issue and not just what legacy companies that are absolutely terrified of change and any loss of control would like you to believe. There's a very good reason iTunes ditched DRM on music years ago. You might also want to keep in mind the many instances where people have bought media and then the company they bought it from tanked and access to the servers the media was on went with it, thus people lost media they had paid for and had no recourse, all thanks to DRM. Or the times companies like Amazon have retroactively removed ebooks people had already paid for from their accounts, including 1984. Which again was made possible only by DRM, whcih was used by the companies in all these instances.
