221–230 of 242 posts
You didn't truly believe this was about UBI did you? We solved that one ages ago with bank accounts and KYC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The software version of widevine would be so thoroughly broken in a very short time that it would be bypassed by any one-click downloader addon. Nothing would change for users and YouTube would have the overhead for widevine. Using the hardware based version could cause a lot of problems with unsupported devices.
While that sounds reasonable, is there any evidence that this is the actual reason? Widevine is also used by other ubiquitous services such as Netflix, Prime, Hulu, etc.. and yet WV still remains an insurmountable barrier for most people, even in its weakest form (L3).
For professional content, there is simply not much demand to develop a user-friendly way to break L3 widevine, as the market is already served by reasonably convenient illegal streaming sites and torrents that allow for higher quality video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The software version of widevine would be so thoroughly broken in a very short time that it would be bypassed by any one-click downloader addon. Nothing would change for users and YouTube would have the overhead for widevine. Using the hardware based version could cause a lot of problems with unsupported devices.
As another commentor pointed out, Widevine is already in use on many streaming sites. Where are the one-click downloader addons for those? If they exist, I have not been able to find them. (My use case is not so much in downloading a video, I just want to be able to my Amazon Prime videos on my Linux computer at a better resolution than 720p.)
There are relatively easy ways to download L3 content, but they are not as common because higher resolutions are available on illegal streaming sites and torrents. These sites break hardware Widevine or use other attacks to get the material.
I always wondered How YouTube distribute videos l, it's the smoothest video platform, even on when I had crappy internet it worked fine also not all.platform works well in south America.The closest to YouTube it's Netflix but lacks behinds a lot.
They have cache servers deployed into the ISP networks close to your home. The ISPs allow them to do this because they also benefit from it: Their bottleneck is the connection from their own network into the wider internet backbone, and having cache servers for the big CDNs takes a huge chunk of load away from that bottleneck. Here's documentation about a similar setup for Netflix: https://openconnect.netflix.com/
1. Majority of ISPs do not host any cache for Google content
2. Credible ISPs do not have bottlenecks at the transit or peering level
3. Netflix makes use of much more local caching but their model works very differently to Youtubes
4. The concept of "internet backbone" does not really translate to reality. Peering is significantly more mesh-like than that, and transit more diverse.
Source: I have owned multiple ISPs, and still do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey thanks I didn't know about this tool. Interestingly since I have the older download from ~3 weeks ago I just ran mediainfo on it, and the new download from today. Then I just switch tabs in terminal so I can easily see what changes. Old / New vp09 / vp09 filesize 488 mb / 391 mb OVerall bitrate 3274 kb/s / 2620 kb/s Bits/(Pixel\*Frame) 0.036 / 0.028 I don't see anything else significant. It seems to me in recent…
I have noticed that Youtube often re-encodes videos, replacing the data for a certain stream type/number with a new encode.
I'll remember that even two+ days after the initial upload, there may still be reencoding. I thought this was only few hours after the creator uploads.
So the smaller filesize also is not necessarily a sign of lower quality. In this case it's because it gets a quick first encoding like zip with fast compression, and then it gets reencoded presumably by something much more CPU intensive.
That said from 500mb to 400mb is a bit dodgy but what do I know maybe VP9 is that good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On a sidenote am I imagining things or do videos actually look a tiny bit better in YouTube? I'm not [ADVERTISEMENT] sure, because my YouTube viewing [ADVERTISEMENT] experience nowadays is so [ADVERTISEMENT] [ADVERTISEMENT] frequently interrupted with ads that it [ADVERTISEMENT] breaks my focus. #pleaselikeandsubscribeandclickonthenotificationbell
Youtube without Premium is unbearable for me. I rather pay a few € than submit my family to the advertising terror, and even the creators get more (6x, any yt creator here that can chime in?) revenue from a Premium view. Imagine we could have Internet Premium and never see ads again.
For a while I didn´t consider the "full" Premium because I was always shown the 17 € version - which is for family.
Now suddenly I'm being shown there is a 12 € option which is for single person.
Still for someone like me who doesnt care about music or movies, I'll stick to the Lite version.
In the endgame you will have to pay in WorldCoin to keep watching your screen, and you can only earn that untradable WorldCoin by viewing the ads, monitored through the mini Orb embedded in the screen. You didn't truly believe this was about UBI did you? We solved that one ages ago with bank accounts and KYC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you're using a PC with a Nvidia GPU, run `nvidia-smi dmon -s u` and start playing a random Youtube video in Chrome. You'll notice how dec% moves from 0% to at least 2%. Pause, and start playing Widevine protected video and notice how dec% stays at 0% because decoding is happening on the CPU. It's because Widevine have embedded decoder into its lib and its using CPU instructions but from user perspective it's not…
> but from user perspective it's not a huge change on modern CPUs as most have specialized instructions to handle decoding of H264 There are no "instructions to decode H264", there is dedicated hardware acceleration like Intel QSV and AMD VCN, but these gets bypassed just like Nvidia's decoding acceleration from my previous example. All of this is trivially observable, playing back DRM-protected video wastes an obsce…
For L3 you are just using SIMD/vector instructions compiled for specific platform, so they are specialized CPU instructions (not general use) that help with decoding. And L3 is mostly now 720p and 1080p low bitrate on majority of streaming services that people use, you would need to have VERY old hardware to not be able to use it. I've been watching 720p/1080p h264 videos 15 years ago with only CPU decoding without ANY issues, most of the world did. So that's just not an issue. If we are talking about L1 then you have hardware acceleration so your point is invalid in that case.
> From user perspective you'll notice stuttering, unusually high CPU usage, dropped frames and more, especially once you try to play multiple videos at once.
Yeah because 99% of people are playing multiple widevine videos at once on their 20 years old hardware... come on.
> That's exactly what I meant. Being pedantic over my choice of words isn't very productive.
Im not being pedantic, you are not bypassing a lock in a door with a key, don't you? "Hey honey lets bypass our neighbour door lock using his key so we can enter his house" No one says things like that. If you meant what I meant then you just used wrong words to describe that. Your choice of words have different meaning which isn't very productive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Introduces a decryption step, which is slow It's not slow, after you decrypt the AES key, then you are using hardware AES instruction set supported by most CPUs currently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES_instruction_set
Relatively speaking. You might not notice it when playing back a single video, but I promise you that you're not going to have a good time if you try to play back multiple high bitrate videos on slightly older hardware (think HTPC).
So like 99.99% of use cases?
> but I promise you that you're not going to have a good time if you try to play back multiple high bitrate videos on slightly older hardware (think HTPC).
That could be the case, not disagreeing here, if you use old hardware, have multiple high bitrate videos and multiple streams at once but this is specialized niche example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does that work with certificate pinning?
It doesn't, you'd have to unpin certificates in whatever application you're using. Browsers generally don't do certificate pinning though, they'll (correctly) respect your installed certificates, which would include the mitmproxy one.