251–260 of 632 posts
So he tried to create a chromium based browser which sync the DRM protected video playback with other peer and blocked by Google. He totally deserved it. He was just wasting time to build software on top of evil DRM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It requires a license to actually use. And it looks like they verify your binary's signature in the licensed version.
I'm not sure I understand. Can't you have Chromium browser work with that software? And modified Chromium browser, e.g. Firefox? I don't remember I accept licenses at least as a user.
(Firefox is not a chromium derivative.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, if the Director had overridden the majority of the membership, the browser vendors would've shipped something anyway, and the YouTubes and Netflixes of the world would be using it anyway.
> No, if the Director had overridden the majority of the membership, the browser vendors would've shipped something anyway That's fine. It's better that the burden for maintaining non-standard plugins be put on the sites and browsers that choose to do that, rather than be placed on everyone else.
If W3C chose not to help write the DRM standard, the browser vendors could easily create a new organization and write a standard anyway (as happened with WHATWG).
Browser vendors and website authors could then read that document just as easily as anything published on the W3C website, so there is no "burden" for them. There would be no difference to the end user. The only burden we're talking about is the inconvenience of setting up an organization to do the writing. It's a minor speedbump at best.
The upshot is that there is no way to prevent browser vendors from standardizing anything they want. It only gets blocked if they disagree.
Right, thats the whole thing that sucks about DRM and these video providers in general. Not only do they want to protect their content from unauthorized viewers, they want to control how it is consumed. Which to me is especially outrageous because netflix and youtube are the only two with a good user experience. (I used to count Hulu, but at some point they really fell off) I would think that Amazon would lead the ch…
The world doesn't rotate around netflix and co. You do not need to consume them if you don't want to. There is also no right from yourside to how you wish you like to consume it. I would prefer to have NO DRM of course don't get me wrong. But still in this case, it is not your decision and apparently most people really don't care for that at all. They wanna see netflix in there browser. Thats why google and co did it…
I would want someone to correct me on a fundamental grammar mistake in Spanish, so I felt it would be useful to correct you here.
"Circumventing" is much more broadly defined than it should be.
It's not just illegal to redistribute copyrighted material. That's the point of copyright and has been the case for a long time. It's also illegal to watch/consume content yourself in any way that the copyright-holder didn't explicitly enable, even if you have a general right to watch/consume that content. You're not allowed to create a browser that can watch DRM-protected Netflix content. And if someone does create such a browser, it's illegal for you to use it, even if you pay for a Netflix subscription.
That's pretty new (circa 1996 or so).
In 2002 I went to see Lawrence Lessig argue the Supreme Court challenge of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which introduced these anti-circumvention concepts. Here are my notes: https://allafrica.com/staff/kwindla/eldred.txt
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just from creating a browser with a reasonable feature set, like, say, the ability to play non-obscure videos.
Everyone has the ability to play non-obscure videos i.e. all of YouTube. (Including Premium originals!) How did "DRM video player" become part of the "reasonable feature set"?? Don't most people use dedicated apps for Netflix anyway?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All Netflix movies are on PirateBay already, in spite of their DRM. I’ve seen movies pop up on PirateBay the day they are released. They wouldn’t leave any money on the table. People paying for Netflix are paying for convenience. That wouldn’t change in absence of DRM.
I think you're greatly underestimating how much more cumbersome torrenting is even compared to a plugin, especially for "normal" users who are not necessarily tech-savvy.
But back to the point, if Netflix wouldn’t use DRM, it would change absolutely nothing since copyright infringement is still illegal and those DRM protections are completely useless.
> ...the creators of the open source browser Chrome, ... This assumption is a mistake the author is making. Chrome is, for all practical purposes, closed-source and proprietary. It's Chromium that is open-source. So far as I know, Chromium does not have Widevine included by default.