201–210 of 632 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most YouTube videos (including the one you linked) don't use DRM, that's why 1080p works on Linux. Netflix only works with up to 720p on Linux.
I'm pretty sure YouTube doesn't support DRM at all . Premium originals (e.g. Mind Field) play in 4K for me on FreeBSD (for which no one has ever compiled Widevine or anything like that)
(Burning some karma...) So he built an app that is a thin layer over someone else’s app, to play someone else’s content, and he’s upset he cannot get for free the nice things someone else paid for (in development time). My heart bleeds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't those proprietary binaries be used in another browser? Is the API known?
It requires a license to actually use. And it looks like they verify your binary's signature in the licensed version.
Basically it's possible to download Google Chrome and extract it: https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/?h=chromium-wide... Basically Arch Linux Downloads Google Chrome, Extracts the *.so file and puts it into the chromium lib directory. (This could've been done in his own browser aswell.
There is no such package 'chromium-widevine' in the Arch Linux repository. sudo pacman -S chromium-widevine error: target not found: chromium-widevine
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blame Google and Microsoft. They were the people who created the specification, and pushed for it, when Netflix came begging for a solution to their DRM conundrum. Even if the W3C hadn't approved it, that's two of the big four browser vendors who are committing to implementing it anyways, which is enough to guarantee a de facto standard anyways.
"when Netflix came begging for a solution to their DRM conundrum" Does Netflix DRM even "work"? I've never personally seriously looked around for how to break it, but I note there are still plenty of people who seem to manage to review Netflix-based shows on YouTube with video clips of sufficient quality [1], and at least some of the reviewers in question I am fairly confident aren't getting any sort of privileged ba…
The browser has to decrypt it somewhere along the line to play. Always was interested in tinkering around with it.
For a starting point I'd be going through chromium and checking out how they implement widevine.
For a while now there's been rumors in the torrent scene that a few people have broken it, but keep coy in case it gets patched. Then again it's trivial to screenrecord at the cost of time. Who knows?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, blame the movie studios, record labels etc. They're the one which require asinine DRM support for web browsers. Google/Microsoft/Apple/Adobe want to support media content, but to do so requires towing the line with the media companies otherwise they refuse to license the content (at least in HD+). Having worked with various DRM teams I know that they have to treat their code as if its the most secret code in the…
I'm pretty sure some method Netflix uses is broken anyway. People don't seem to have trouble uploading 4k rips to Usenet. (Though I haven't actually checked recently.) We were sold DRM as "the evil legacy studios are evil and make us use DRM". Well, now that Netflix produces their own content and it's still DRM'd... I guess that isn't really the reasoning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree; good DRM is transparent and unnoticeable 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…
Plus the horror stories you hear of people losing thousands of dollars worth of games on a Steam account for one reason or another. You never truly own anything that has DRM, you're just licensing it.
The thing that I hate is that the marketing either explicitly says "you own it", or does it implicitly or indirectly, or in a way to make you think that you do.
They never, ever put in big bold letters "License this game for $69.95, today!"; not even when you actually "purchase" does it say "license". In fact, you see the words "purchase" or "buy" or similar; words that have always connotated "ownership".
Now granted, all software, and media in general, has always been a "license" - but there was always something physical around; that if the company or entity that licensed it to you disappeared tomorrow, you could still - theoretically - continue to use the license you had and enjoy the media as intended.
That all really changed with license keys. One would think that the whole DIVX debacle would have made this abundantly clear, but I guess it didn't (makes me wonder if the DivX media format or whatever it was actually wasn't created purposefully to muddy the waters; but that's just conspiracy theory on my part).
I don't even think people will "get it" if tomorrow everybody who "bought music" from iTunes or whatnot lost their licenses with no recourse. I really don't think there'd be anything done, except for some bawling at most.
If everything we have seen over the years, including the various massive data breaches that have occurred recently, hasn't woken anybody up to force reforms and changes that benefit the citizens and consumers, well - nothing will.
Society has basically said "we don't care if we or our children get slaughtered" - where that last word takes on a wide variety of meanings - up to and including its literal meaning.
Those of us out here being force down the chute screaming about the injustice, the wrongness, the reasons why, etc - we are all just so much noise that nobody cares about anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think most users even know what drm is, or that it's being run?
I tell it to my acquaintances all the time. Nearly all of them are not interested in this information.
Software is arcane, so thinking about how it affects society probably seems irrelevant to them. Even if they do care, power dynamics make defeatism a logical and realistic mindset.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, blame the movie studios, record labels etc. They're the one which require asinine DRM support for web browsers. Google/Microsoft/Apple/Adobe want to support media content, but to do so requires towing the line with the media companies otherwise they refuse to license the content (at least in HD+). Let's say Google, Microsoft and Apple announce that they will be removing any DRM from their browsers on 2020-01-01…
Simple: You'd have to install a plugin or a separate special app to watch video, like the bad old days of RealPlayer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but it doesn't seem like much of a mystery why non-techies don't know about the specific details of why they can't save a streamed movie to watch it offline, or in a non-approved open source video player. That glib attitude of captive audiences is exactly what DRM vendors prey upon. They know exactly how much they can get away with at this point.
> I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but it doesn't seem like much of a mystery why non-techies don't know about the specific details of why they can't save a streamed movie to watch it offline, or in a non-approved open source video player. To me, the mystery is not that the people don't know about these details (these details are indeed somewhat complicated - I agree), but how much they don't care .