this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2025
880 points (95.3% liked)
Technology
75458 readers
2455 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Your new monitor likely has DRM features built in that are already being utilized by Netflix and others. Youtube is next on the line
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.
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.
And yet, youtube uses resource intensive compression methods for said exabytes
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.
Whatever the latest version of HDCP is, sure. HDCP is a core feature of the HDMI spec.
I was actually thinking of DisplayPort since I haven't used HDMI for quite some time now, but pretty much the same thing, except for name - DPCP, but supposedly DP also supports HDCP.