221–230 of 266 posts
How can we create a video platform with high-quality discovery, personalization, subscriptions, comments, voting, and more — while also making it technically incapable of being evil and closed? Are there technologies that we can use to allow network effects to accumulate to software that isn't controlled by a single, rent-extracting, and private entity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just wish something could be done about it all.
Use linux? My next PC I am making the switch.
On its own that may not seem like much, but the screws are being turned (albeit slowly). We'll reach a point where the only way to access any proprietary content on the web will also require running proprietary operating systems on DRM enabled hardware using secure boot. Banking sites won't work, video playback won't work, even access to textual content will eventually be restricted. This is because the browser vendors, the OS vendors, and the content distribution platforms are all colluding to create this future.
Linux on the desktop doesn't have enough users to push back in a meaningful way against this trend at this point (and I say that as a Linux user). 10 years ago, maybe, but now it's simply too late. Sure you'll still be able to run open source software on your Linux PC, and write your own code and run it, but you'll be prevented from accessing huge chunks of the Internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there really not a audio only version of the podcasts your interested in. i.e. the classic rss feed of audio files. It's such a shame what has happened to podcasts
You can download only the audio using youtube-dl.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
fingerprinting can survive both of those
While someone is busy tracing that fingerprint, everyone has already copied and watched the video.
if you want a real world example of this in practice: search for the EURIon constellation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While someone is busy tracing that fingerprint, everyone has already copied and watched the video.
the fingerprint disables the camera (or puts it into some sort of crappy mode) if you want a real world example of this in practice: search for the EURIon constellation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the fingerprint disables the camera (or puts it into some sort of crappy mode) if you want a real world example of this in practice: search for the EURIon constellation
Use an old camera.
it's not really something you can win as an individual on an infinite timescale
(unless you plan to keep your VHS around for the next few hundred years)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if that becomes the only avenue to rip a movie wide spread distribution of said movie with out permission will die The idea that you would have lots of people getting up camera's and monitors to record a movie for distribution on the internet is laughable, and it would be a cam quality today so you would just end up with the early releases capture via someone setting in a theater which are generally poor quality
I think software can create a good version of a video taken from a middle-tier camera. My 8-year-old DSLR, Nikon D750, can take 4k video at 60fps. Its sensor has more dynamic range than even high-end screens can produce. When I take a picture of my TV I can see individual pixels. That camera can capture every bit of info my screen is putting out. I bet from a 4k/60fps video from my camera you can process it to produc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're not being a little too cute. If you are supposed to be able to access YouTube from Firefox or Chrome, then you are also supposed to be able to access it via youtube-dl, given all of those are HTTP clients. Saying otherwise would be setting a dangerous precedent of trying to legislate which HTTP clients are allowed and which are disallowed.
Surely things like Widevine show that that precedent has already been set? There are many online things that cannot be consumed by unblessed clients.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're not being a little too cute. If you are supposed to be able to access YouTube from Firefox or Chrome, then you are also supposed to be able to access it via youtube-dl, given all of those are HTTP clients. Saying otherwise would be setting a dangerous precedent of trying to legislate which HTTP clients are allowed and which are disallowed.
I can go to an all you can eat restaurant with my empty stomach. I can’t go to an all you can eat restaurant with an empty garbage bag to fill up with food for later.
If we step away from analogies for a bit, are you actually arguing that we shouldn't have the ability to modify the markup and the code before we display it on our computers?
If you insist on making a cute physical analogy, a more apt one would be of a tyrant buying out all the stores and allowing free entry on the condition that people's eyelids are forcibly taped open before they enter. After some reasonable people start removing the tape from their eyelids, the tyrant throws a tantrum and attempts to legislate away removing eyelid tape.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know you can pay YouTube like $10 a month and never see an ad again, right?
I can also pay YouTube $0 a month and never see an ad again. I do pay money for Nebula, because they seem like their hearts are in the right place. I pay about $60, 70 a month to various podcast and video creators directly. I don't use adblock, vanced, and sponsorblock because I'm cheap. It's because I don't like what YouTube as a whole is doing with incentivising clickbait and maximising revenue above just being an…
If the cost of a product exceeds its value to you, you just don’t buy it. It doesn’t mean you should get it for free.