And yet 4K webrips of recent Netflix shows are readily available on torrent sites.
I don't understand who these higher levels of DRM are trying to target. They obviously don't stop the serious pirates from ripping and sharing the content with everyone. Yet the lower levels are "good enough" to stop average users from trivially downloading and keeping the file, like you might do with an plain, embedded MP4 file.
The DRM industry has yet to learn this lesson. Thankfully.
I would think DRM stops trivial tools like a Chrome extension that adds a "Download" button on anything you're watching on Netflix.com.
Which is good enough. Because piracy is confusing to most people. Piracy sites are scummy and require tech-savyness just to navigate them and download the right thing.
For example, my girlfriend knows "The Pirate Bay" by name though a torrent client is still confusing to her. First google result for that is https://thepiratebays3.com.
It has a scary and scummy banner at the top: "Official The Pirate Bay Warning. Do NOT download torrent files without hiding your IP! With a VPN you can Hide your IP & stay anonymous, avoid fines and lawsuits, especially in USA. <Link to NordVPN affiliate link>". And searching anything doesn't work for me.
So, I think the war against piracy is more or less won due to how relegated it is to a tiny part of the population that's capable of navigating it.
Of course you have to play the movie/serie in mirror on the TV, but he can record HD (not sure about 4k) movies of whatever plays on the TV. The cherry on top is that he bought 3 IR mirrors (well, it was just aluminum sheets) that he placed strategically to be able to control the IR stuff of the TV from his bedroom.
He was a but uneasy when he showed that to me, but I didn't mock him, I was genuinely fascinated by that setup. For someone who has near zero technical knowledge, this was very good.
I don't really have a point, I just thought of it when you mentioned your girlfriend fear of the pirate bay.
If they went entirely DRMless, you'd just be able to copy the content to a thumb drive, and share with friends. Instead, you have to mess around with other software (or in your friends case hardware), that does sometimes "breaks", or is otherwise inconvenient.
It's the same as DRMless games; people absolutely go crazy making copies (even back in floppy disk days). As much as the pirate community likes to pretend they're in it for moral reasons, some of the DRMless games by smaller developers became the most pirated games out there.
It is a very minor deterrent, for people that are too lazy. That's one area where streaming has prevailed over pirating. People can be extremely lazy, and having a convient streaming platform with decent content, is enough for some people not to bother.
I still remember days when I was kid, smuggling c64 under car seat into Slovenia (former Yugoslavian republic). All the sofware was sold on flee markets by known pirats. No internet, no manual. But still we were more than capable to grasp software usage, learn to develop in basic, even asm (after getting some book from Austria, german and translated line by line with help of dictionary - I was 12).
It comes down that resourcefullness is coming from lack of something. But today everything is available and no one tries to be resourceful. Probably the decadent part of human evolution.
Anyway, piratebay is part of known torrent scene, but there is also less known part, at least to the public: https://wiki.installgentoo.com/index.php/Private_trackers#Wh...
r/datahoarder lives in torrent ecosystem (there are a lot more things there besides linux ISOs)
internet archive is also big with torrent files that have nothing to do with streaming.
Piracy can't be stopped but thats not what they want to hear.
Piracy can be greatly reduced by distributing the content via Netflix but thats not what they want to hear.
It can be stopped. All they have to do is destroy the computing and internet freedom we all enjoy today. Can't do subversive things like copy a file if they don't let us run our software. Governments around the world are also trying to erode these same freedoms by pushing encryption regulation.
DRM in the browser was step one. No Widevine, or whatever crapware is needed, no Netflix. Next came the limit on higher resolutions. You want Full HD? Stop using a free operating system. You want 4k? Get Internet Explorer, or better yet, get our app on one of the approved operating systems.
The next step is probably to diminish the browser experience even further until enough users have switched to the 'app'. The only reason is control.
It won't drive us away from a personal computer running whatever modern OS we want, but it is slowly creating a majority of people for whom computing exclusively means a managed device with a pre-approved operating system running vetted proprietary applications.
There was a brilliant moment where entertainment was all going to converge. You'd have your PC with terabytes of storage, stick a tuner card and an Ethernet cable in the back, run the sound out to your thousand-watt 20-channel amplifer, and display it all on your 70-inch flat screen. Broadcast TV, Netflix, Disney Plus, etc, would all just be desktop icons, right next to Steam and Excel. We were hurtling down that road in the mid-2000s (remember WinXP Media Centre Edition?) and suddenly it all jumped the track.
Seemed to happen pretty close to when Digital TV stumbled its way into the US market, or roughly the perfect time for it to really take hold (the classic "record a show on VHS" paradigm was suddenly killed off, and the ever-mutating subchannel lineups makes a smarter electronic program guide and recording functionality more appealing). I sort of blame the cable industry-- apparently it was virtually impossible to get a digital-cable-compatible tuner card for many years-- you had to buy from a narrow band of prebuilt PCs with the cards preinstalled, and even now the companies will scream blue murder over having to supply CableCards (if they even do anymore).
The PC is a do-anything device. Eventually, given the media industry's tastes, it will be the 'do anything except watch name-brand entertainment products' device. I don't think they can undermine general-purpose computing as a concept- there's too many other business cases that rely on being able to run random unsigned software or connect to arbitrary weird hardware.
Instead, Disney and Sony will push hard for various consumption-first or -only devices-- smart TVs, consoles, locked down phones/tablets. I'm sort of surprised they aren't already going for the subsidy model-- get a "free" PS5/Xbox 3π/"smart" television if you'll sign up for years of a content subscription service to feed it.
People will end up having both and being annoyed that they can't converge things.
That's one of those "good luck" scenarios. Building your own homebrew computer, or your own OS is a hobby for many. If you push the people behind them, and make a market for them, you'll make them popular.
The internet itself is complex, but not so complex that determined actors cannot build their own mesh networks.
And whilst governments are trying to erode encryption everywhere, it won't work in the end. They may be able to take secure encryption out of the hands of civilians, maybe. But they can't take it from the pirates.
And as for the incoming "no one would be that determined" argument, cracking chips to let consoles play pirated games have existed for a long time, and the average person did actually seek them out... And found them everywhere. If you make people build the infrastructure... They will.
In the context of visual/audio (re: the topic), no. Even disallowing encryption will not save companies from simple steganography.
>Piracy can be greatly reduced by distributing the content via Netflix
Aren't you guys saying different things? One is saying people already pirate on netflix, and the other is saying netflix removes the need for piracy.
If you're saying the same thing, I would interpret it to mean that piracy is greatly reduced on netflix, but not entirely eliminated. But if that be the case, would that not be evidence of netflix' anti-piracy measures working?
Statement 2: If your content is available on a reasonably priced and performant streaming platform or is otherwise “low friction” the number of people who will choose to consume the pirated content instead of paying drops off dramatically.
The problem for publishers is that there’s so many different knobs that finding what brings in the most revenue is pretty much a crapshoot.
If you look at the cost of downloading a full, original quality Blu-Ray rip, then burning that to a dual-layer BD-R disc, you're looking at an hour to torrent plus up to $10 for a dual-layer recordable disc. Compare that to a store-bought copy that's $7.88 and comes with both Blu-Ray and DVD copies, and it's no contest.
Make that store-bought copy $49.95 (thanks, Marvel) and it makes piracy attractive. Add terrible DRM on top and you GUARANTEE piracy, because you're being hostile to people that have actually bought your movie.
If DRM had never been invented, piracy would only be about 5% worse, and your paying customers wouldn't be cursing your existence... but the media companies are too stupid to realize that.
The media companies do not care whether their paying customers love them or hate them. What they do care about, though, is when there is 5% less of them.
Remember, big corporations do not just want money - they want all the money (and more).
Netflix is a convenient enough service that makes it easy for people to watch what they want to watch. Most people will just pay for it without thinking twice. It's easy enough that most people won't even consider infringing. Netflix's value isn't just in the content it serves, it's also in the fact it frees people from the non-trivial effort required to "pirate". Private torrent trackers have an economy of their own.
Making it impossible to infringe is extremely difficult. Movies and music are really just information. Extremely big numbers. It's trivial to make copies of this stuff and send those copies over the network. In previous centuries, you needed to be a major industry player and own big machines like printing presses in order to infringe on someone's copyright at scale. In the 21st century it's as easy as copy paste or forgetting to close the torrent client. People might not even realize they are doing it.
This is why a fragmented streaming market will push people towards copyright infringement. Instead of pooling their intellectual property and creating one single perfect streaming service with all the content, they are making it difficult and expensive for the consumer by competing with each other. At some point, people are going to wonder if there's a better way. That's when they'll find "piracy".
No. It's evidence that just having the content available on Netflix will reduce piracy. It is a bit less effective than it could be because Netflix doesn't run on literally everything, mostly because of anti-piracy protections, but it does run on nearly everything, so it's effective.
It's inconvenient to free up 50 GB of hard disk space to torrent of a 4k netflix rip you found off some shady torrent site. It's much more convenient to just give netflix a few bucks a month. That inconvenience comes from law enforcement action against pirate sites and many users having trouble managing their hard drive space. Not from DRM.
Anything that is on Netflix I watch. I can’t watch amazon prime on my Apple TV because their region system is broken (yes, if an amazon employee is reading this, please fix having prime in multiple countries) so battlestar galactica and other shows in their catalogue aren’t available come from other sources.
Are there scenarios where typical consumers turn to piracy? Sure, aboslutely. They generally do that when a convenient legal way isn't an option (e.g. region locks screwing them over.)
my wife - a non-tech person, really - falls in to this camp. she's turned to torrenting things because the experience of streaming is just... slow. and bad. and stuttery. oh, and we still get ads on things (hulu, for one). She figured out how to find free streams for soccer matches - when we paid for "real" streams, they still had ads taking up 20% of the screen. And still somewhat jittery/stuttery (but - those 2 minute car ads at the start of the stream were never jittery).
yeah, the 'free' stuff experience isn't always great, but when the paid experiences are still kinda crappy, what's the point of paying?
What's truly sad is how so many people find this preferable to paying for the official services. It speaks volumes to the quality of their streaming services. A huge number of people don't even have the choice to pay for the content to begin with: many of the of companies that complain about copyright infringement don't even offer their services outside of the United States. They ignore entire markets and complain when people find a way via unofficial means. It's really hard to feel any sympathy for the copyright industry.
If they were better at their jobs, better at delivering to consumers what consumers want, they wouldn't have to worry about DRM, piracy, control of consumer behavior or any of this nonsense.
I was even pirating shows I had access for free on Amazon prime... that just tells you how bad the platforms are, it's not about money.
I just rented Spiderman on Amazon streaming for like $6, about the same as I remember video rental used to be. I'm certain I could have pirated it if Amazon streaming had not worked on Linux. It was slightly easier and slightly more ethical feeling to rent it from Amazon, so I did.
I have seen a bit of a pattern where content distributors start out by cranking the DRM to 11 and then year over year get less and less worried about it. I guess they realize over time that the DRM isn't stopping anything, who knows, maybe they're using it to provide a PR argument that they're trying their best to push some other agenda.
But I think they know that it's the distribution method rather than the encryption that influences buying decisions unless they magically stop all casual piracy. Be at least as easy as casual piracy?
Some of their back-catalogue is available for free on-line, such as David Weber's Empire from the Ashes. Complete trilogy:
Every time you find a problem with capitalism, stop and look again: you will find state intervention in the market, which is the opposite of capitalism. (Free trade between the involved parties, without the intervention of others.)
In this case, the problem starts at the root: copyright is by definition a state intervention in the market. It cannot exist in a free market, because it mandates that someone prevents you from using your own resources as you see fit (namely, copying a DVD you own on a computer you own, using electricity you're paying for).
Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property" is probably the best resource point out the contradiction between Imaginary Property and the free market.
Of course, if one entity has a monopoly over the legitimate use of force in an area, you're in trouble.
However, for a couple of years after 1990 we actually had quite a lot of security companies that were competing peacefully in the same areas (Romanian police being absolutely irrelevant at a local level, with the reorganization of the state that was taking place). Of course, once the state got re-established "properly" that was quickly ended.
Basically the foundations upon which capitalism stands are cracked and have always been craked.
Regulation is what usually fills out those cracks to prevent the entire thing from crumbling.
Any victory against copyright infringement will come from competing directly against it. The copyright holders are too busy competing with each other and fragmenting the market instead of building something that's actually equal to or better than "piracy". It's pretty sad how a bunch of "pirates" manage to provide a better product than corporations valued at tens of billions of dollars.
Anyway, anecdotal story, take with (many) grains of salt.
Yes. Contrary to popular opinion among the geek crowd who tend to be very hostile to DRM, the people using it are not in fact completely ignorant and stupid. I write this as someone who used to believe similar things myself in my younger days, but who has now seen both sides of the coin and has moderated some of those views in light of that experience.
One thing that a lot of people don't seem to realise is that piracy often isn't about the price, but rather the convenience. If it's easier to find a ripped copy of something online, for example because it's not available in a certain region from legal sources, then people who want that content will go looking and they'll find the illegal sources. If it is available from legal sources, then to some extent DRM doesn't have to stop someone from being able to find a pirate copy, it just has to make it more inconvenient than finding a legitimate one. Given that any pirate content found online comes with a certain degree of risk, from malicious payloads pretending to be something else, poor quality or incomplete content that frustrates the person who gets it, and in some cases from honey traps that can result in legal action, this isn't entirely unrealistic.
One specific but very important instance of this, briefly mentioned already elsewhere in this discussion, is that if DRM can delay the widespread availability of some popular new work via pirate channels for a few weeks or even just a few days, that can make a huge difference to profitability. There have been AAA games where the DRM has been cracked but not for several months, and that might have saved the developers and legitimate distributors many millions of dollars.
At the other end of the spectrum, there is lots of content that is going to be many orders of magnitude less profitable even with a good run, simply because it's aimed at relatively small markets: niche music genres, software for running some specific type of shop or leisure facility, a documentary programme about an obscure interest, and so on. There is much less desire from the kinds of people who would be able to crack substantial DRM schemes to spend time on these things, so even simple measures can be quite effective in preventing that content from being trivially findable online, thus preserving the limited market for these kinds of products.
And finally, there is the simple but still relevant issue that some people genuinely don't realise piracy isn't legal or that what they're doing is piracy. "If it's on the Internet, it's free, right?" Even the most basic DRM schemes mean people probably have to do something that is clearly not the intended way of getting hold of the content, and that itself can be a useful deterrent for the "unwillfully ignorant" crowd.
That's not necessarily true. I agree with the DVD example, but for example, I've almost never had any issues with Netflix's DRM. I can even pre-load videos on phone/tablet, and for the most part it works as expected. Same thing with Steam, it's fairly transparent to the user.
Yes there are bad DRMs out there, but there can be a balance when done right where it doesn't hurt the customer and provides more value than pirating (like Steam).
Obligatory IT Crowd reference:
Media companies aren't stupid. They know exactly how much DRM and piracy impact their bottom line. That's why DRM-free distribution is a non-starter for virtually every media company, because it saves them money.
Like all things dealing with bad actors, DRM isn't about stopping behavior. It's about slowing it down and making it more cumbersome
The music industry largely went no-DRM (and streaming) and they were totally unscathed. A good quality mp3 or flac file is what, tens of megabytes at most? Really easy to pirate. A good quality 4k rip is going to be tens of gigabytes. Pirating something that large is a hassle for me but inconceivable for some of my friends or family members. Pirating movies and TV shows has always been more niche than pirating music. And the formats easiest to pirate (720p, low bitrate, etc) are the formats being given the lightest DRM.
I wager there are some very human emotions involved in the decision making, namely pride and possessiveness. "We made this so we get to control it." The effectiveness of the DRM takes a backseat.
I'd wager I know more people pirating films/tv than I do music.
And why do they use those shady pirate streaming sites, instead of pirate torrents of higher quality? It's because many of them struggle to find even 8GB of free space. I know some users who view deleting files to free up space to save new files as part of their daily routine. It doesn't need to be this way, but that's the way it currently seems to be.
Why is it saving them money a bad thing?
There is a plot twist here: DRM does help stopping piracy, but only for smaller businesses producing the contents that appeals enough to be copied but not enough to be paid for. I'm pretty fine with Steam DRM for that reason, without that indie games will have much harder time. For Disney+, I cannot understand their reasoning at all.
(To be clear, I do think DRM---so-called---is very bad in general. I accept DRMs for indie games only because DRMs have been already existed for games.)
Here’s an old article claiming to be a big revelation, but it’s pretty much common sense and has been fairly well recognized for much longer than that:
Not entirely, actually, thanks to the Internet Archive!!!
17 USC §1201 (A)(1)(a): "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
No one is interested in perfect because the actual DRM is only a tiny sliver of the protection. The bulk of it is the threat of having to pay a huge settlement because you don't want to get the piss beaten out of you in court.
I don't find that argument convincing. I can't think of any famous cases of copyright holders or law enforcement going after rippers/encoders (the people who break the DRM and make it available for others to copy), but plenty of cases of them going after people who downloaded the content.
If what you're saying is true, you'd expect the minimum reasonable measures to suffice. No need to invest in new methods. Yet they do. I'm sure lots of people would be interested in "perfect", if you had that product to give them; you could be a millionaire, the problem is that it's impossible, as far as we know.
"Yes it was pirated, but we spent maximum cash on the very best DRM... what else could we have done?"
One member of my family does the torrenting for a dozen others in my family, and I know plenty of others that work like that.
I personally do a mix of paying for content and pirating. I’m 100% happy to pay for content if I can, but with geoblocking and platform restrictions and all the other bullshittery, it’s legitimately impossible for me to legally buy half (or more) of the content I’m actually interested in, so I pirate it, and I don’t feel bad for doing so in the slightest.
I also regularly have to pirate things I already own thanks to DRM that doesn’t work on my devices, missing subtitles, etc.
The entire industry is broken and it’s their own fault.
This website, it's not Disney specific, but that sucks. It would mostly be the convenient solution to this problem. If you have a movie on iTunes or Play, it unlocks in the other, and vice-versa.
With some interesting exceptions, luckily. You can watch Star Trek: Discovery on Netflix in 32 countries, including most of Europe, but not in the US (there it's an exclusive on CBS or something like that).
I can have russian voiceover from 4-5 studios on the next day after popular TV series aired. They even go this far, as to put full time commercials of not so legal online casino web sites.
I dont even need to torrent, to watch any tv show next day after air. There is android apps that will allow to watch any show via http or torrent. There is pirate websites with payed and free access. And as I said earlier fulltime commercials of online casinos, that sponsor pirate translations.
This situation is very bad for any commercial tv show services in ex USSR territory. No low regional prices can battle 0 price.
Then just put enough of DRM for that not to happens. The fact that it's working through an app is more than enough. Most people have trouble even getting videos out of Youtube and doesn't know you can find apps to do that.
People share password much more than they share video files too.
Now, why the major players also pour money into this stuff is just baffling.
They target device manufacturers. If you want to sell a computer/tablet/phone/TV that will play Disney+/Netflix/etc, then you must submit to their demands, pay their licensing fees, and hope you don't anger them. They want to be the gatekeepers to who can make a commercially-viable product.
¹ For example: http://bits-please.blogspot.com/2016/04/exploring-qualcomms-...
I know at one point they were using Roku TVs or Fire TVs which allowed an older DRM standard. Now apparently there's a crack for Windows that's kept underground in the scene groups doing releases.
I think that's why most players now have no extra ports besides the HDMI as it was easy to bypass the HDMI protection...if you can call it that.
HDCP up to 2.2 is completely broken, so even perfect software DRM has a huge gaping hardware hole, but most people don't have the tools needed to circumvent this.
One person breaking the DRM can make a torrent for all torrenters, but if say 1/4 the population can break the DRM, then people will copy things for friends.
The closest current day equivalent is probably many people sharing a Netflix password.
DRM is only to create the illusion of security, to deter the average person, not the determined pirate or developer. Once you've sent the content to the client, you've lost all practical ways to avoid these torrents.
(Edit: to be more precise, they must invest in tech that maximizes the extraction of (future) value from that IP).
Isn't Android the biggest OS on the planet by # of users?
Wouldn't the impact be huge?
As far as I can tell they are a very expensive security blanket for those too tech illiterate to realize that trying to circumvent the analog hole for serial formats is barking madness or as an ass-cover.
It brings to mind the use of polygraphs as similar outright instituional superstitions whose true function is blame deflection.
Which is why my family, my girlfriend's family, and all our friends just use my Plex server
For a decade now, Plex runs on any Windows / Mac / Linux device. It'll run on a Raspberry Pi. NVIDIA Shield. Western Digital's My Cloud NAS products (from $139 w/ 2TB). QNAP. Synology.
The main obstacle for "average" people is just knowing that Plex exists.
Knowing that Plex exists is certainly one thing. But you still need to run it somewhere.
I think you underestimate people a bit too much.
"You use your remote to choose the show you want to watch, and you watch it" is worth $10-15 a month to people when it's compared to "You buy a server, plug it in and leave it on all the time, maybe be responsible for software updates on a regular basis, and also set up some kind of torrenting system to request the shows you want in advance".
Running Plex with whatever computer they've got isn't a stretch.
It gets them out of any contractual or common law minimum level-of-service complaints.
WEBRIP (capture) are worse quality than WEB/WEB-DL (hacked DRM)
So actually you prove their point, they are winning.
The scene can do some WEB, they keep it secret, they even have servers for crew member to use without telling them how.
WEB is probably using old TV software with weaker DRM, hence why 4k is rare.
This reminds me of my very short foray into streaming services. I purchased a month of Netflix, or rather I got their 1 month trial, and opened the website to watch something. First it didn't open on Firefox, and they told me to install Chrom(ium). I didn't like it, but went away and `apt install`ed Chromium. Then it blocked my account because I was using a VPN. I liked this even less (I gave it a credit card number, so they know I'm not a bot or something using a VPN to hide traffic), but I still disabled my VPN. Mind that these two steps already cost me 45 minutes of browsing through FAQs and forums to figure out.
Then I finally open something, after installing proprietary software, a new browser, and disabling my privacy-protecting VPN. I'm presented with a video playing in glorious 1280x720 resolution. I just laughed to myself, closed the tab, and opened thepiratebay.org.
So let me get this straight. I'm paying for a service and I get headaches, restrictions upon restrictions, and mandatory malware, all for the privilege of watching gimped resolution content? Whereas if I went on piratebay I could get a 4K mkv file I can watch anywhere I want, no internet and no software required? You can fuck right off.
Strikes me as odd how anyone can describing paying for a shit service as "a balance between DRM and usability".
The problem is piracy isnt geo-blocked, so if someone here pirates a movie and shares it, it's also available to someone in the US.
I'm not sure why they keep pushing these technical restrictions, when really the issue is they don't allow people to buy their content in the first place.
You can't support every use case sadly, whatever happens, some people won't be supported because of specific needs. It's sad for sure that not every market is big enough to be supported, but such is life.
At least it was during a trial and he didn't pay anything.
Now ask how many Linux users running Firefox without the Widevine CDM installed over a VPN there are likely to be and how much revenue that brings in compared to the legal risks of not being able to check those boxes.
Look, if there are indeed issues with actual ChromeOS (and not the Chromium variants — but the full mostly-proprietary Google procured ChromeOS), I fully expect that to be fixed — you might not get 4K support (but there are what, 3 Chromebooks with 4K screens? Plus, most streaming services do not support 4K on web browsers period - even Netflix only offers it on Windows. Mac users with 5K screens have to use Boot Camp (and even that isn’t a guarantee) to watch 4K in the browser) — but if Chromebooks are an issue, I fully expect that to be fixed.
As odious as DRM is, I just can’t bring myself to be surprised or overwrought by its existence. Yes, it is largely more about appearances than actually solving piracy — but those appearances matter. The big thing that has pulled people away from piracy is convenience. And with the exception of Linux on the desktop users (a population that is small and only getting smaller, as the main distros don’t even care about the desktop or non-server users anymore), Disney+ seems to offer that. The people that pirate because of DRM would have pirated anyway. I pay and subscribe to more content than 99.99% of the population — but I also download whatever I can’t get from an online service and I feel zero guilt and make zero justifications for my choices. And that’ll remain true for Disney+ — even if there wasn’t a DRM scheme at all (which just isn’t ever going to happen).
DRM sucks, sure, but are we really surprised? And I’m sorry, but I’m not ready to boycott a streaming service with tons of content because it doesn’t support Linux in the desktop.
"No Linux support" == "no customer"
Cost of building and maintaining a Linux client > Potential revenue from Linux users.
Ever heard the phrase "piracy is a better service", Disney?
Edit: Cost should be negligible. You should build for web/browser standards, not the OS.
Understandably, they've chosen an alternative.
If Oauth2 is a standard without defining how authentication servers are implemented and requiring the implementation be disclosed, it's hard to claim EME is not also a standard in the same sense. A standard we don't like isn't propaganda.
> A standard we don't like isn't propaganda.
A "standard" that doesn't even attempt to fulfil the purpose of a standard is not a standard.
It doesn't indicate how decryption must happen, but OAuth2 doesn't indicate what standard an authorization server should use to authorize that a client matches a resource owner either.
Here you are:
> The point of standards is to facilitate interoperability.
> but OAuth2
isn't the topic.
And please stop spamming your OAuth2 nonsense, it's off topic.
Similarly, encryption restricts usage of resources in ways users are not supposed to use them (including having not paid for the privilege).
It's not "counter to interoperability" that Google Drive won't fork over your documents to anyone who requests them without the right token.
Your frustration isn't the technology, it's what it's used for. If you want to claim EME isn't a standard, clarify how it differs from OAuth2.
Oh, sorry. I thought you actually knew what DRM is.
> Your frustration isn't the technology, it's what it's used for.
Stop trying to read my mind, it's a violation of privacy and physics.
> If you want to claim EME isn't a standard, clarify how it differs from OAuth2.
If there is no relevant difference, then OAuth2 isn't a standard either. Happy now?
In the sense that you've reached the conclusion that your definition of "standard" isn't sufficiently universal to discuss the topic because you've excluded what is generally accepted to be a widely-accepted authorization standard that lacked the controversy over socioeconomic control that the EME standard does, yes.
Trying to short-circuit debate by bullying the field of definitions and declaring the other viewpoint "propaganda" isn't constructive.
Isn’t ChromeOS Linux under the hood?
Wouldn't surprise me if a lot of kids have Chromebooks too, which would be Disney's target. There's some decent models that are cheap and probably more secure than just giving them a Windows Laptop.
Also recently they added official support for Linux apps themselves, that's in beta called Crostini. They run inside of a container. But before then no Linux apps could be installed even though it's Linux under the hood, but I know there was some unofficial ways.
I was apart of the CR-48 beta where they sent out free laptops to test with. Surprised they did that in the first place, but it just sits in the closet now and very slow, no longer gets updates but used to use it alot more when it was new and feeling special since part of the beta program. So with Linux support, part of me wants to buy a newer one. Could run Node and VSCode on a Chromebook!
Given how many schools want kids to have portables and Chromebooks have become the cheap choice, this is going to be a problem.
> Disney+ OTOH seems to have the drm features kranked up to maximum draconian settings
But on the other hand, I suspect that they have run the numbers, and there is so little potential value supporting Linux that it isn't worth the hassle. DRM might just be a convenient excuse.
What other option is there for people to watch the streaming services? Directly on their computers? I doubt many people will even think about that.
November 12 in US, CA, NL. More countries on the 19th.
The conviction in this statement gave me a bit of a chuckle. I think most of us commenting here don't share this view.
Then "most of us" are part of the problem. Maybe the admins should rename this site to "Geeky/Techie/Science-ish News Stuff", because the "hacker ethos" seems to be disappearing from here.
I happily pirate content now.
a = /CrOS/.test(a.userAgent);
this.Fma = this.Aw = q.Gu.PV;
this.Qm = [x.$l.nV];
this.oo = [x.V.vA, x.V.wA];
a && this.oo.push(x.V.TH);
Both Prime and Netflix are fully capable of streaming their highest quality under Linux - if you have the driver support.
Unfortunately they have a bunch of hacky stuff trying to prevent it, rather than allowing the user's browser is to make the decision.
If you don’t believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it.
And interestingly the 3rd highest comment on that video currently is about Disney+.
I really hope whatever they’re making is not based on what they are doing currently.
The only thing about the UI that I miss is that it does not respond to keyboard shortcuts (like pressing spacebar to start and stop the playback).
But overall, I've been very happy and impressed with the service.
In all seriousness though, how are you able to enjoy Disney+ currently? It has yet to launch. According to the Disney+ website it launches in just under 23 days from now.
We will probably stay subscribed though so it's not all that terrible.
They are cultural not wired any other way, and cannot be mollified. They are a horrible company.
I don't understand the point of this type of thinking. Video DRM isn't like Denuvo where it can actually get you a few days or even weeks before any pirated versions exist on the web. If it can be watched by a human pirates will copy it, even if they have to rip it straight from the display controller of their monitors. I have never once had the slightest difficulty or delay in finding pirated versions of video content on Day 1 or even before, and at the highest-produced quality and resolution. Why do providers think making life hard only on paying customers is a good thing?
Netflix is forced to play ball with them.
Your next question is usually, "Why doesn't the Netflix original content not have these shenanigans then?".
The answer is that most Netflix content is still made by Hollywood studios, so they have the same restrictions. Netflix is only a distributor in most cases, not the content creator.
The other answer is that it is a lot more complicated in the software and for testing to say "can this content be played at 4K based on the publisher?" than to just say, "DRM level 1 means no 4K".
It's design by committee, it's bikeshedding, it's weird clauses in complex contracts etc... From the right's holder point of view your reasoning doesn't make sense, instead it goes the other way: if people buy our product anyway when we do it that way, why change it? Do you think that when NBC licenses The Office to Netflix they care about Linux users not being able to stream it in 1080p? Do you think Netflix is willing to spend time and money to fight for the tiny portion of the user base who both watches Netflix on Linux and cares for high-def?
That being said, is it possible for the user to have their Desktop Linux support L1 somehow? Android is a Linux that clearly support L1 and can show these formats (I imagine), so can that be accomplished on another Linux?
But Chrome on Windows also supports Level 3, and Disney+ works in Chrome, there, so the article isn't correct.
This is the same reason that only some Android devices support higher levels of Widevine; Samsung will add code to their OS that allows video/audio to be processed through inaccessible areas of the processor/GPU. If you try to take a screenshot it will just show up as a black screen (same on Windows with the Nextflix app IIRC). Cheapo Chinese Androids and even cheap Androids that you can buy in the US will not do this so they can't play high-res video on Netflix, even if they have a high-res screen.
On Linux this special path is not implemented; anything can see what's going on with the graphics or audio pipeline and record from it.
Probably wouldn't get merged into mainline Linux tho due to all the DRM opposition
As long as their solution provides less value than pirating, or is a bigger pain in the ass than pirating, they will lose.
Unfortunately for them, pirating has become so easy, that unless they become like iTunes, they are dead. Just a matter of time.
I do for example. I don't own a TV, my beamer is directly connected to my PC. Just because your use case is covered doesn't mean everyones is.
> Your TV will support it natively if not right away just buy a Chromecast or Roku and be done with it.
"If it doesn't work for you, just buy new hardware." - I'd call that entitled.
I prefer to just don't subscribe to a service forcing me to buy additional hardware due to customer unfriendly DRM.
Widevine on Linux only supports L3, which means that there's no guarantee that any processing is done inside the CPU's trusted execution environment. Which, uh, reads as "no security guarantee" to me.
BitTorrented video has no security guarantee either.
In practice, the HDCP master key was leaked years ago and it's pretty straight forward to get an HDCP stripper device and a capture card.
All the code that runs on your secure enclave is other people's code.
But as for whatever is rejecting Linux but allowing Windows/macOS, that has to be completely in-software. I think you are right--this could be bypassed by changing a register value somewhere. This sounds like a fun project.
Yeah that's more of what i was referring to.