Can someone explain to me why this project requires a DRM?
From my understanding the DRM is used to block people from taking the content itself, but if this has public/private/offline abilities what is the point of a DRM? it is supposed to be between peers.
I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me
551–560 of 632 posts
Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me
#552Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, even if there wasn't a DRM-standard, he still wouldn't be able to build his application, because there would still be DRM.
that's the important point. DRM is the price one must pay to consume BIG MEDIA content. there's no getting around it. if you want it you have to play by their rules.
While that's true at the moment, I had hoped that the web being such a big market, it would entice content producers to deploy without DRM for fear of losing market share to other content providers who do.
But with the introduction of DRM into the standard, this is no longer possible.
Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me
#553Earlier quoted context omitted.
The saddest part is it doesn't even seem to accomplish anything. What would-be pirates are actually being foiled by this? Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime use EME, but all their exclusive content is still readily available on torrent sites. Does it raise the difficulty bar? It's hard to imagine anyone who knows how to rip video from their browser doesn't know how to torrent something.
It almost seams entirely to please management. The local TV stations use eme and yet youtube-dl still works fine on them.
Can you provide examples? Some local stations in Australia have switched on DRM and I can't save anything. Over the air is still unencrypted though.
Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me
#554Boy howdy, this is one subject where I loathe saying "I told you so", but... I sure told you so.[1] HTML DRM is antithetical to the Open Web itself. It was built on a sham of "plugin-free" media playback, but all we did was change Flash and Silverlight for a whole range of closed black boxes, which in turn are effectively all controlled by Big Media ( to make it crystal clear: EME was built with third-party decryptio…
Surprisingly to me the author of "down and out in the magic kingdom" and the maintainer of BOINGBOING supports web DRM and he's part of the W3C committee. he's a great author and a good person with an anti-authoritarian bent I don't understand his position on this.
That is exactly backwards. Doctorow was the EFF representative on the committee, and the EFF resigned from the W3C as a result of them approving DRM. https://www.zdnet.com/article/eff-resigns-from-w3c-in-wake-o...
Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me
#555Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's the important point. DRM is the price one must pay to consume BIG MEDIA content. there's no getting around it. if you want it you have to play by their rules.
While that's true at the moment, I had hoped that the web being such a big market, it would entice content producers to deploy without DRM for fear of losing market share to other content providers who do. But with the introduction of DRM into the standard, this is no longer possible.
There are still plenty of providers who don't use DRM.
You just want the DRM users content but you want it without DRM.
So what really happened is the content producers enticed the users into DRM with their content. It's the other way around, and the consumers voted with their wallet (and clicks)
Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me
#556Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, in my experience there seem to be a lot more people frustrated with ads than scared of the government. Someone who wants privacy/anonymity is likely to not want ads, but I think those who don't want ads is actually a larger group.
Why would a browser or extension client side not be better? Adding an intermediary would add latency needlessly...
Because blocking at the cloent edge node already has had the bandwidth consumed from the carriers end provided, no?
Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me
#557Earlier quoted context omitted.
It almost seams entirely to please management. The local TV stations use eme and yet youtube-dl still works fine on them.
Can you provide examples? Some local stations in Australia have switched on DRM and I can't save anything. Over the air is still unencrypted though.
Iview is the one I'm talking about. YouTube DL basically downloads the unencrypted video direct from the server but the website doesn't work until you enable drm
Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me
#558Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll bite. How do you propose I know which sites not to visit without visiting them?
How do you know a site will have content you want? Surely there's room for a bit of uncertainty.
when a site identifies my ad blocker and specifically asks that i disable it, then i have to decide either to momentarily disable my ad blocker and view the content, or leave the site.
the Big Media people don't want to be so upfront about their restrictions. "if they don't know about the restrictions, they won't get angry."
Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me
#559Boy howdy, this is one subject where I loathe saying "I told you so", but... I sure told you so.[1] HTML DRM is antithetical to the Open Web itself. It was built on a sham of "plugin-free" media playback, but all we did was change Flash and Silverlight for a whole range of closed black boxes, which in turn are effectively all controlled by Big Media ( to make it crystal clear: EME was built with third-party decryptio…
The whole discussion revolves around video. You can't imagine a browser today that is "just a reader" (Mosaic? hahaha), no one would use a browser without video support.
Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me
#560DRM never really works.
The best implemented DRM makes it hardly any more inconvenient for people to use it, and people accept it most of the time, Steam for example. It always puts some people off, who end up pirating it when they wouldn't otherwise have, though.
Even the best DRM is always cracked by those that want to. There is no DRM system that has ever been created that will not be defeated, because it is trying to achieve the impossible. You have to give legal consumers access to the content to consume it, so they always have access to copy it. It will never work. If DRM didn't exist, piracy would be a lot less common.
Most people stopped pirating music when it became easily available without DRM.
Ultimately, all DRM gets cracked, and this is the only real response to it.
Annoyingly, DRM only doesn't hit sales harder because it is defeated. If it was impossible to defeat a particular piece of DRM, it would harm sales of content using it much more, but the harm to the content sellers is limited by the fact that it is always cracked early on and made available to consumers they have cut off. For example, I have a Netflix subscription, which I use in an otherwise open source browser, using the widevine plugin ripped out of Chrome. If this wasn't relatively easy, I would just not use Netflix. Netflix is only getting money from me because the DRM they use is easy to defeat illegally. If the DRM worked, I'd stop paying for Netflix, because I wouldn't be able to use it and it'd be much easier to watch the same content by downloading it from Usenet.