@jalcine @clacke DRM isn't about asking people to pay. Copyright law already does that, and DRM is copyright vigilantism. DRM is about restricting what people can do with stuff they already paid for, to make sure that they can't treat it like something they own. DRM is about treating your clients as your enemies. It's inherently adversarial.
@alcinnz @JordiGH @clacke if they don't pay, will they still be able to access said episode? To be honest, I'd be more in favor of a model that allows one to recoup costs of the episode and then not charge once that number is met. That's allowing people who can afford to pay to make it more accessible to others. I'm also in favor of allowing people to pay within their means (a sliding scale).
@jalcine @JordiGH @clacke Also I think charging for what you have not yet published/finished making is the stronger model, it's difficult to subvert without relying on infringing our software freedom.
But I do like the idea of making the first viewings extra special to recoup costs: that's the basic idea of the cinema.
A Mastodon instance for maths people. The kind of people who make \(\pi z^2 \times a\) jokes.
\) for inline LaTeX, and
\] for display mode.