> I've never been to a supermarket without some degree of security
And I've never seen a video streaming site that just gave you links to download the videos. They all have some degree of security, but no supermarket ever tied my hands behind my back on entry.
> Are you suggesting that if tomorrow YouTube removed all their DRM and turned into a paid for only service, that content would not be freely distributed to non-paying individuals?
No, I'm suggesting that not everyone would steal it, in te same way that not everyone shoplifts now. In fact, I will go so far as to say that the convenience of Netflix over torrents is so great for the average person, that they'd keep paying even if there was no DRM on Netflix, because
> Hell, content with DRM is getting torrented all the time.
> And I've never seen a video streaming site that just gave you links to download the videos. They all have some degree of security, but no supermarket ever tied my hands behind my back on entry.
What security measures can YouTube employ which are compatible with FOSS? How can they prevent users copying the content if the content is DRM free and has an open license?
> no supermarket ever tied my hands behind my back on entry.
Again, I don't follow this analogy. The overwhelming majority of people are quite happy consuming content with DRM and heavily restricted license agreements, it adds no friction to their experience.
DRM and license restrictions only matter when you want to break their terms, which is analogous to the point in a shop when someone tries to steal something. It's only at that point does the DRM feel restrictive, in the same way that you would expect your hands to be tied behind your back in a shop if you steal something.
> No, I'm suggesting that not everyone would steal it, in te same way that not everyone shoplifts now. In fact, I will go so far as to say that the convenience of Netflix over torrents is so great for the average person, that they'd keep paying even if there was no DRM on Netflix, because
I did not suggest everyone would 'steal it' (whatever stealing means with open licensing) but enough would for it to significantly materially impact their business. As it stands, licensing and DRM protections mean that none of the big players will touch hosting another's content, YouTube's legal team would be would be all over them like a ton of bricks. If they removed the restrictions though, why not give it a go? Twitch could host say the top 10% of gaming content off YouTube and earn ad revenue off it, or include it as part of Twitch Prime ad free.
It's really interesting you bring up netflix because it probably demonstrates this problem more clearly. If netflix removed their license restrictions, that means a big player could host their content and pretty much only pay the bandwidth costs. I appreciate that's no small feet, but it's certainly easier than making the content in the first place and paying the bandwidth fees. YouTube is certainly at the scale that they could trivially host all of Netflix's content and their business would be gone overnight.
The only reason people keep paying for netflix is because piracy has friction. That friction only exists because of the restrictive licensing and DRM.
And I've never seen a video streaming site that just gave you links to download the videos. They all have some degree of security, but no supermarket ever tied my hands behind my back on entry.
> Are you suggesting that if tomorrow YouTube removed all their DRM and turned into a paid for only service, that content would not be freely distributed to non-paying individuals?
No, I'm suggesting that not everyone would steal it, in te same way that not everyone shoplifts now. In fact, I will go so far as to say that the convenience of Netflix over torrents is so great for the average person, that they'd keep paying even if there was no DRM on Netflix, because
> Hell, content with DRM is getting torrented all the time.