Repeat after me: DRM is not about piracy. Casual sharing is not piracy: http://www.idealog.com/blog/drm-may-not-prevent-piracy-but-it-might-still-protect-sales/ … Hixie empiricism:http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-engineer-drm-has-nothing-to-do-with-piracy/ …
It just ultimately makes it nearly impossible to make roku or Chromecast, but who is benefiting?
-
-
Your question answers itself!
-
Except that Roku and Chromecast aren't the ones adding the DRM. Content providers should want it to be easier to make players, no?
-
I could believe the content providers are being hoodwinked by platforms who know better but want to maintain their barrier to entry.
-
Content providers & gatekeepers also want barriers to other content providers entering/routing-around gates. Loose combos do restrain trade.
-
I'd think the barriers to new content providers are much lower than new platforms, meaning content has more to gain by more platforms.
-
Barriers lower than ever. But path-dependent winners have power. HBO => GoT, Netflix a studio now. YouTubers farmed via ads. Not same scale.
-
There are youtubers who make a lot via sponsorships. Geek and Sundry is a brand on Twitch. Same scale? No. But barriers low.
-
Not only different in degree but kind. No tall head winner yet can do it w/o own platform. Could happen; unlikely. Netflix counterexample.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.