61–70 of 632 posts
let's address the elephant in the room. Google got the authority from everyone here who accepted chrome and IE DRM by default, to the point that even Firefox was forced to give in, so you all could be sedated by Netflix and other DRMed content.
Truth hurts. Is it too late to open up the web? I've already switched to Firefox.
So google won't let you use there DRM. Firefox doesn't support this. Don't allow DRM sources hulu/netflix otherwise make a deal with each company. Your problem is with the video providers not a third party who has a solution you want to use.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm
"Firefox for desktop supports the Google Widevine CDM for playing DRM-controlled content. Firefox downloads and enables the Google Widevine CDM by default to give users a smooth experience on sites that require DRM."
Is the Chrome web browser buildable from sources? If yes, what's the difference which allows Chrome to work with DRM and doesn't allow another code to do that? I don't think I understand the problem. What does it mean "won't allow DRM" - you can always write code which you like, right?
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/chromium#Widevine_Conte...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The blame for this sits squarely on the w3c for their efforts in trying to replace flash by letting the content companies dictate standards for encrypted playback. The blame for this sits squarely on the users for their tolerance of malware (which DRM is) in the browsers that they use.
I disagree; good DRM is transparent and unnoticeable, and if that is the case then users do not care. Who does care about DRM is pirates and content creators whose content is shown without them earning off of it. Yes I am aware of fair use exceptions, but fair use should exempt a user from getting sued over using a fragment of copyrighted content; it does NOT force a content creator from offering their content open f…
Yeah, until it isn't.
I can't start GTA V for days since the "Rockstar Social Club" won't connect and glibly informs me that "I need to be on-line"
I would have agreed with you until then. But not being able to play a game for which I paid full price and not being able to get meaningful support to resolve the issue rapidly changed my stance on DRM.
It fucking sucks!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The blame for this sits squarely on the w3c for their efforts in trying to replace flash by letting the content companies dictate standards for encrypted playback. The blame for this sits squarely on the users for their tolerance of malware (which DRM is) in the browsers that they use.
I disagree; good DRM is transparent and unnoticeable, and if that is the case then users do not care. Who does care about DRM is pirates and content creators whose content is shown without them earning off of it. Yes I am aware of fair use exceptions, but fair use should exempt a user from getting sued over using a fragment of copyrighted content; it does NOT force a content creator from offering their content open f…
Then there's no such thing as good DRM, since many users will want to make use of the content they've paid for (either monetarily, or perhaps indirectly via ads) in flexible and open ways that a proprietary DRM system will not allow. Fair use is part of this, but not the only issue.
Is the Chrome web browser buildable from sources? If yes, what's the difference which allows Chrome to work with DRM and doesn't allow another code to do that? I don't think I understand the problem. What does it mean "won't allow DRM" - you can always write code which you like, right?
Chrome browser (which is based on Chromium, plus various Google proprietary features on top of it) is not.
How does firefox manage to play drm content? Maybe OP could use firefox's approach? Someone mentioned below that redistributing is not allowed, but downloading at runtime is ok. Not sure about it, but if anyone knows about this, please explain it to the rest of us.