Yeah, I think Netflix has like a few thousand movies and a couple thousand TV shows, and some of us here have similarly sized Jellyfin libraries. On the other hand, YouTube has billions of videos. It seems DRM would be a significantly more difficult and costly problem for YouTube.
Your new monitor likely has DRM features built in that are already being utilized by Netflix and others. Youtube is next on the line
melfie@lemy.lol 2 weeks ago
DFX4509B_2@lemmy.org 2 weeks ago
Whatever the latest version of HDCP is, sure.
REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 weeks ago
I was actually thinking of DisplayPort since I haven’t used HDMI for quite some time now, but pretty mich the same thing, except for name - DPCP, but supposedly DP also supports HDCP.
yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
DRM is expensive. Very expensive in fact because it is basically non-trivial encryption.
A website with as much traffic as YouTube cannot afford to DRM every single video stream. There just isn’t enough processing power and electricity available.
Netflix et al. have a tiny fraction of YouTube’s traffic with more income per user due to subscriptions.
Plus YouTube’s storage demands are many orders of magnitude larger. A maximum upper bound for Netflix is 1 PB I’d imagine. Archiveteam alone has selectively downloaded more than 3 PB. YouTube has, I’d imagine, a double digit exabyte amount of data stored + backups.
REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 weeks ago
And yet, youtube uses resource intensive compression methods for said exabytes
yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
Do we know this?
I suspect they usually compress videos at most a couple times (for each resolution) and then keep the results cached somewhere. At least for popular videos that combined take up 99% of bandwidth. For 0 views videos I’d imagine they only store the highest resolution and compress it further down on demand.
I’d argue DRMing all those popular videos would take up so much computing power it cannot be offset by ads.