251–260 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cryptogtaphically speaking, Honestly, this might be why people aren't on the same wavelength. They're not cryptographically speaking.
Cryptography allows Alice to share a secret with Bob without Carol listening in. In DRM, Alice and Carol are the same person .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the author of such a plugin would be at considerable legal risk.
If they where in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Mozilla ended up accepting EME in 2014, because otherwise it would have become "the browser where you cannot see videos" Rather: "the browser where you cannot see DRM-infected video" - which is an active protection of the user against malware.
...and which no-one will download. To be clear: if DRM is not implemented in browsers, Netflix and the like will just make native apps, which are far larger vectors of malware attack than the locked down EME standard is. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but "people should just not watch DRMed video" is not an actual answer to the problem at hand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they do that? Are you assuming these companies will want to block Linux users out of some random, malicious spite?
But don't get me wrong, I'd love to see your optimism come true here.
I'm assuming you are? And trying to foment a revolution? If I'm wrong see the first sentence.
Shame, shame, shame. We're losing the internet day by day, if we haven't done so already. I've seen people and posts here and there calling for attention on these issues, but imho it's all too subtle. We should start using harsher terminology for what's actually happening. This is flat out CORRUPTION, and I'm not seeing anyone express it as such. It's probably too late already, and unfortunately, this is merely a ref…
Do you have any evidence or reason to believe there is actual corruption on the committee (aside from them making a decision you disagree with)? I suspect I agree with you on DRM but this style of debate, where there is no attempt to argue or explain the issue, and the first line of argument is personal attacks or denigrating anyone with an opposing viewpoint, is depressing. Consider that accusing climate scientists…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they didn't fold, they'd just lose more users to other browsers. Sometimes it's wise to retreat or lose a battle to stay in the fight.
> If they didn't fold, they'd just lose more users to other browsers. They rather lost a unique selling point. Not implementing EME/DRM is a form of protection of the user against malware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me it's the other way around. Netflix is on the other side? Cancel 'em.
If you want a text-only web, with no major content producers on it, you already have that. Just disable your browser's multimedia plugins. Or use Lynx, or some other browser of the 90s. The open parts of the web will still work. Anyways, Netflix, Google, Apple, and Microsoft (probably - they aren't making their votes public) support this, so this is a great time to cancel your subscriptions and stop using their produ…
And that (the web as it is) is exactly what I want. And I want that the media companies who cannot accept that the web is free of DRM to stay away from it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They were the only browser to represent the users in this fight. They were folding, too.
If they didn't fold, they'd just lose more users to other browsers. Sometimes it's wise to retreat or lose a battle to stay in the fight.
"Firefox downloads and enables the Google Widevine CDM on demand, with user permission, to give users a smooth experience on sites that require DRM. The CDM runs in a separate container called a sandbox and you will be notified when a CDM is in use. You can also disable a CDM and opt out of future updates by following the steps below. Once you disable a CDM, however, sites using this type of DRM may not operate properly."