W3C approves DRM

>>61319900
Doesn't really come as a surprise to me. W3C or any organization for that matter goes where money flows. MPAA or the fucking EFF, you tell me.

>>61319900
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPfdOOiuOHI

>>61319900
This is actually a good thing. Why don't you actually research it before bashing it?

>>61320282
DRM is never a good thing.

>>61320291
You are genuinely retarded.

>>61320282
How is it a good thing?

>>61320282
>This is actually a good thing
How? Big companies will definitely use this all the time to provide content using DRM only. You'll never be able to buy an actual copy and own something on the internet again.

>>61320304
you are the fucking retard here. Getting fucked in the ass by large corporations, fucking swine

>>61320387
>big company's are not allowed to protect their IPs
>big companies are not allowed to sell their product how they want

???

File: 1493235987425.jpg (48KB, 253x229px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 253x229px

ac_add_options --disable-drm

drm.enabled = false

>>61320529
The point is that having it standardized as a part of the web will lead to a future where everything is only accessible through drm.
Even 4chan could make you unable to right click save any picture on here.

File: image.jpg (203KB, 424x550px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 424x550px

>Implying I won't resort back to my pdf-anime library and cut off the internet when the corporate finally fucks the life out of the internet.

File: OY VEY.gif (343KB, 656x623px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 656x623px

>>61320529
IP was a mistake.

File: legoqualitybait.jpg (99KB, 726x592px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 726x592px

>>61320282

>>61320407

The only people who have this mentality are self-entitled NEET-tards who are too lazy to work for anything.

>BUH BUH PEOPLE SHOULDNT GET PAID TO MAKE SOFTWARE
>BUH PEOPLE SHOULD MAKE SOFTWARE
>NO I DONT REALIZE IT TAKES A SHIT LOAD OF TIME AND EFFORT TO WRITE SOFTWARE BECAUSE IVE NEVER DONE ANYTHING THAT REQUIRES ACTUAL WORK IN MY LIFE.

kys.

>>61320888
DRM doesn't really work as a way to prevent people from accessing content unless the purpose is staving off pirates for a few weeks/months depending on the strength of the DRM measures or interest in the product (Which for certain products is entirely sufficient to be fair). Cracking it may become a legal issue due to DMCA etc but ultimately the rightful consumer of content is the one who gets fucked over as opposed to the one who consumes the content from a DRM free source. The other issue is that DRM may protect something from being used legitimately when laws would permit it such as is the case with fair use.

This is the worst mistake they have ever made.

The internet doesn't forget.

>he just found out W3C supported DRM
>he didnt know they are the ones responsible for adding DRM to netflix/amazonvid/hulu/android/chrome/FF

they are fueld by lobbyists, hollywood, abd cable to enact remote control over our systems

DRM is essentially a sandboxed evironment on your device that they have access to

this allows them to encrypt the tunnel
and their excuse is piracy and screen recording

TV is failing and the industry needs its strangle hold back

Honestly, it's sad but let them. It's impossible to protect your IP with DRM on the internet, the only thing it will do is inconvenience the paying customers and make them pirate the stuff because it's more convenient for them.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 2650x1491px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2650x1491px

>>61321025
>go to cinema
>oy vey goyim i charged you 30 bucks for the movie+popcorn+soda but it isn't enough so here is some ads for you to watch for 15 minutes.

>pay for cable
>oy vey goyim it isn't enough, here are some ads that cuts in the middle of climax in your show. don't forget to watch it through.

>pay for internet
>oy vey goyim i told you it was unlimited but you actually take advantage of my scam business so i am cancelling your subscription or charging you double

>pay for phone
>oy vey goyim the $900 you paid for your phone isn't enough here is a contract that prevents you from suing me so i can do whatever i want (this includes selling your most private data to third parties but you resigned from your rights, remember?)

Fuck corporations, fucking parasites don't deserves any sympathy, let alone any money.

>>61321212
The thing is even if you would somehow get someone on /g/ rich and create a pro-consumer alternative, people just wouldn't care and still use the shitty services. Just look at linux or gog for example

>>61321212
This

how do we fight back

RIP youtube-dl

>>61321212
this

>>61319900
DRM is weasel-word. It's really Copy Protection.

>>61321297
>implying /g/ can actually get anything meaningful done
this isn't /pol/

>>61321297
Assassinate Tim Burners Lee

Does drm stop me from capturing my screen?

File: 1469253982368.jpg (67KB, 539x684px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 539x684px

>>61321397
N-no...

>>61321397
No, but doing so is now illegal.

>>61321332
outdated interpretation. usually there is more to it. if you give them access to your computers ressources to do "secret" stuff it could be used for encryption and copy-protection but usually since it's not known they'll do what ever they please and usually it's another dick out of nowhere in your mouth.

>>61320805
>webmasters cannot have control over the content they host

>>61320858
>owning your inventions were a mistake

???

>>61319900
Great. Now we can also have a standardized way to break it.

>>61320782
Awesome, now you can't browse websites or watch videos that require the DRM, internet is becoming a walled garden where only 5 browsers are available.

Good. Maybe after 4chan gets shut the fuck down by DRM lawsuits we'll see a better world, not run by closet otaku shut-in antisocialist probably somewhere in the spectrum of autism hikimorio pieces of shit.

>>61319900

Normies don't care. They already pay for Netflix.

>>61321212
this

>>61321500
Dubs of truth
Let them spend their money, while we enjoy stuff for free. Once a pirate always a pirate!

>>61321212
this is why we need communism

>>61321397
at least normies. It won't stop anyone from /g/ as you can just run the DRM in a VM and then you can capture the screen again

>>61320052
eff is against ths meme

>>61321474
Well, since almost every browser today is based on chromium anyway this doesn't matter

>>61321661
idiot

File: IMG20170711WA0008.jpg (12KB, 306x293px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 306x293px

>>61321229
I would use gog if they support my currency like stream does :c

>>61321463
>any change the Invisible Hand™ pushed for is a good one

>i don't like open standards

???

>>61321102
reminder: the location that is used for DRM is obfuscated so we can only speculate what they are doing

they say they are only using it for media rights but they could just as easily utilize your hardware for spying

by design its non auditable

You wouldn't pirate a website

>>61320888
This DRM isn't even supposed to protect software. You're the one who's retarded here.

I guess you enjoy running botnets in your browser to even watch a fucking video.

>>61322105
>You should control webmasters content on their own site

???

Ho boy I LOVE running proprietary unknown binaries!

>>61322311
>webmasters should be able to control what i do with data that has entered my computer

>webmasters should be able to tell me what i can and cannot do with my own hardware

???

>>61322311
It isn't running on their site. It's running on your computer.

corporation shill surely is working hard

>>61322311
In case you hadn't realised by now, the majority of freetards have severe fetishes about control and get off on forcing people to do as they please, for free.

>>61322358
>if you don't want me controlling you, you're trying to control me!!!

spoken like a true tyrant

Wait, they're going to distribute these encryption modules as binaries? I hope it will be easy to disable support for them altogether.

File: 4312423156.jpg (10KB, 379x245px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 379x245px

>>61320282
(You)

Why do companies spend money developing this stuff? Is there a single recorded instance of DRM ever preventing a piece of software or media from being pirated?

>>61322435
Steam somewhat culls pirating.
Some /v/ermin even prefer Steam to DRM-free because muh trading cards and achievements.

>>61319900
>all those shills in the comments

>muh silverlight
i've never even seen this thing, what the fuck are people on about
>muh flash
flash is almost finally gone but now they are wanting to replace it? what kind of cucks...

>>61322474
Yeah but it isn't the DRM preventing people from pirating, it's the service offering a better, more convenient alternative.

>>61322474
Steam culls pirating because it's fairly pleasant to use. Steam has a lot of fucking problems but it's users are for the most part happy, and find using Steam to be convenient.

>>61322518
>>61322534
Well with video games again, Denuvo.
Its designed to bring in first week/month sales and accomplishes it mostly.
Non-video games,Pro Tools

>>61322483
>all those shills in the comments
Jesus Christ, you weren't kidding.

>>61322337
>>61322344

>you should have control over what companies put into their products like browsers

>>61322681
>the browser isn't their product

checkmate

>>61322681
Companies have always been free to add whatever they want to their own browsers.

>>61319900
So YouTube could become subscription only anyday now. Judging by the fail of YouTube Red that should happen.

>>61322955
>the creator of the browser has no right to add whatever functionality he wishes

???

>>61323590
>i'm going to conflate webmasters and content creators with the developers of browsers

gambit rejected. try a little harder next time, brainlet

>>61322222
stark

>>61321212
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1H3S7jPdEE

>specification that allows JavaScript applications to interact with DRM modules to handle things like encryption keys and decrypting the protected data

What stops a savvy user from opening a console and using these exact same modules to decrypt the content?

>>61323768
>all three are not implicated in the discussion, and all three should not have the right to implement what they please

???

>>61323901
>he thinks that i think that writing certain kinds of code should be illegal

???

>>61321728
You thinking that I'd part of the problem. There is w3m, links and its clones, qutebrowser, and probably some I haven't even heard of. We don't want them to die off.

>>61320820
This. Data hoarding for the day it all goes down. Don't forget to get a libreboot compatible machine as well. X220 should be getting support soon.

>>61319900
I'll just pirate more and pay less, then
If the paid solution cannot provide a better or at least equivalent product I have no reason to pay for any of it

>>61324066
T420 soon too, perhaps?
No reason to upgrade yet, wonder how long I can keep it as my primary laptop.

>>61322474
Steam isn't really DRM per definition. Developers themselves decide what level of integration they want inside their games. Little integration means games can be run without Steam.

>>61323871
Can't decrypt shit without keys.

>>61321229
I use GOG primarily desu. And also buy DRM-free games from humblebundle. Though, I also use Linux.

>>61322056
Make a PayPal account or whatever else they support.

>>61322222
Quints dont lie

>>61322222
>>61324328
5 > 3

>>61324250
It's gonna have to get decrypted at some point. What stops people from capturing it then?

>>61324397
what the fuck is stopping a pirate from just turning on screen capture on full screen mode and ripping it like that

why do companies spend money on DRM? why do they throw money away on a form of software that has a perfect 0% success rate?

>>61324397
By having the stream fingerprinted where a specific user can be considered guilty of distributing content illegally?

>>61321726
That's what he was saying. The MPAA/RIAA can just bankroll policy via corruption. The EFF has very little to spend in comparison.

>>61322056
>i only pay in memecoins, because i can't afford a bank account, credit card or even fucking psc

explain what this shit is for me

>>61324448
browsers are now supposed to hide encrypted data from the user.

>>61324429
i can fire up qstalledmeme right now and type in the search box any show or mive that i want into the built in search neginge and have it within minutes, even shows behind DRM walls like netflix exclusives

how is this form of DRM going to succeed where all others have failed? how is it going to, for the first time in human history, actually prevent a piece of media from being copied illegally?

>>61321212
Unironic this.

>>61324472
what does that mean

>>61324554
It means that it is now possible for legal spyware to infect your PC whenever you go ahead and say watch a movie on netflix. Or to open up a tab on any major news sites, and they don't want you to copy their article for furture readings.

>>61324621
All through the use of your browser. Which if you break it, you will be breaking the law.

>>61324554
You have no control over what's happening on your browser and, by extension, your PC/phone.
Your privacy and freedom are even more non-existent.
You will soon have to pay to visit sites.

This is just the first step towards destroying the internet. It will soon become a fully totalitarian pile of shit.

>>61324660
can't you just install another webbrowser?

>>61324554
it standardizes a system that manages access to content. for example nowadays you can buy mp3's on amazon and you get a copy that you can download, because it's much easier like that.
On the other side there are services like Spotify, where you never really download a copy of the mp3, you just get access to it through spotify.

The standard defines a standardized way to do what Spotify does for any kind of content that you could offer on the web (video, pictures, music, ...)
Once it is established as a standard, more and more services will use it, and eventually you'll only be able to get access to content through platforms like Spotify.

>>61324660
>You will soon have to pay to visit sites.
No way the public is going to agree to that, right?

>>61324682
Sites will prevent you from visiting them unless you enable DRM features, or just won't work properly. You can use any browser you like but this is embedded into HTML5 itself. You'd be limiting yourself to one of these:
>use an outdated browser. Sites will be broken.
>use an up to date browser without support for newest HTML5. Sites will be broken.

>>61324714
>public
Yeah. That's why GNUnet, I2P and Tor are so popular! Public will be deeply discouraged to fight against this. You can't go against the power of corrupt media when the dumb majority will always believe them. Look at 9/11 and what happened there.
>you want us to invade your privacy for your own good, even though it won't help combat the terrorism at all? Remember, you're helping your country by saying yes, young redneck patriot.
>sure!

>>61324711
So it's like buying mp3 files but I can only use them online?

I don't think it's the end of pirating.


>Can't wait for the browser add-on that injects itself as a universal EME sink interface and just decrypts everything regardless of licensing status

That's exactly what's going to happen. And if Mozilla weren't full of SJW cucks, FF would ship with that by default.

>>61324444
Checked.

Good bye open web.
All you shills here can pat yourselves on the back, you asked for this.

>>61324784
>I don't think it's the end of pirating.
Exactly. Pirating will simply grow because more DRM = more pirating

>>61319900
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPfdOOiuOHI

>>61324776
exactly, but it would be possible to do it for more than just mp3's.
web devs could restrict your access to pictures on their shitty website for example, such that you can't even right click -> save picture anymore and only look at it through their website.

>>61324444
Cute digits anon. And a nice sentiment as well.

>>61320888
Pajeet plz. Being proud slave is your thing, not ours.

>>61324848
>the web is free
I have some bad news kiddo...

>>61324722
So don't go to those sites?

>>61320282
Proofs?

>>61325203
The standard will make it more and more commonplace. If it gets adopted well enough, it will be just an extension to html that any web company can choose to use.

>>61325203
Any site that gets updated will use newer HTML5 standards. Therefore, even if you try to avoid those sites the number of sites you'll have to avoid will exponentially increase over time.

>>61325343
OK?

I don't see why web devs should not have options, but that does not mean I'm forced to use their websites, and indeed I won't, and have not.

Nobodys freedom is being limited here.

>>61325382
And?

I already avoid the majority of internet sites. So should you.

>>61324472
Any idea if this crap blocks in-browser screen recording like what WebRtc (web botnet) allows?

>>61321421

>screenshoting is now illegal
The Jews have won again.

Normally, security oriented browsers like Iridium and Brave should keep this feature out. I wonder how they'll react.

>>61325437
This includes 4chan :^)

>>61325787
>brave
>keeping this out

>>61325390
I don't think it's about freedom. From a consumer's perspective a service with drm just isn't a nice way to get the content they want.
I wouldn't want a web with heavy drm protection everywhere.

>>61324768
>implying tor isn't popular among normies

>>61326543
They already do a much better job than firefox protecting your privacy and security you fucking imbecile.

But i guess you are one of those retards so nvm.

with chrome having a headless mode and making it easier to scrape things, i think google is trying to force people into adopting this shit too. we are fucked. we're gonna need to spend a lot more resources to download things now

>>61327301
Excellent name calling Brave shill XD. Call me when they let me install uBlock Origin and actually block ads and malicious scripts instead of using a shitty integrated adblock plus which can't handle over 1000 domain blocks before making the browser lag.
And when they get rid of screen tearing.

Firefox is objectively better already.
Brave is garbage on desktops. Garbage.

>>61327579
By default Firefox loads Google and Adobe DRM plugins, they also allow third-party cookies by default. Brave doesn't.

Brave is in beta so of course their native extension is not as good as uBlock Origin, they are aware of this and are contantly adding things to make it better.

So no, Firefox is not objectively better and you are stupid retard who spouts misinformed garbage.

>>61327678
>pulling Google as an argument
Brave uses chromium as a base and Blink as their engine. Both are made by Google and both WILL be kept up to date with web standards. Which means Brave will be one of the first browsers to go with the new HTML5 standards. Since they actually do allow most ads I seriously doubt they'd block DRM features.

>complaining about defaults
You can "fix" all your autistic complaints about firefox in less than 20 seconds.

Here's your (you), kid.

>>61327920
Is moving the goalpost all you can do?

>Open source technologies like Blink and Chromium are comparable to Google's Widevine DRM

Just kill yourself

Also, I would like to remind you that my initial post was about how out of box Firefox compares to Brave.

Replying to retards like you is a waste of time.

>>61328147
>implying anyone gives a single fuck about out of the box options
Anyone who actually gives a shit about their privacy ALWAYS checks the default settings and disables shit they want disabled. So firefox checking malicious sites on Google's servers means absolutely nothing when it's there to disable without even going to about:config. Same goes for 3rd party cookies and DRM.

Also
>initial post was how brave was ootb

>post 1
>brave will keep us safe!
>post 2
>brave is better than firefox, YOU IMBECILE!

Yeah, no. Your arguments are shit and all sound like coming from a 12 year-old, which I believe is the case.
So I guess you are the
R E T A R D
E
T
A
R
D

>>61328239
The vast majority of people never bothers with changing the default settings, which is exactly why As I mentioned in my original post Brave already does a much better job than Firefox in protecting your privacy and security. Braves comes with Adblock, HTTPS everywhere, NoScript, Fingerprint Protection, etc. enabled and working out of the box. Firefox doesn't.

Those are the facts, you can keep moving the goalpost all you want.

>>61328302
who gives a shit about what the majority of retards do, you autist? i care about how i use the browser, and brave is shit

File: 1289277831513.png (496KB, 537x555px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 537x555px

>>61319900
DRM is always a good thing. It stops you idiots from driving up prices, laying off jobs and killing startups.

>>61328315
>who gives a shit about what the majority of retards do, you autist?

I do because that's what I am discussing with you, that's the statement I made in my original post in this thread and what you replied to with all your misinformed bullshit.

Btw, the guy who mentions Iridium is not me, the post after that calling you a fucking imbecile, that's me.

>>61328350
Good goy.

File: baitNotEven.jpg (33KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 625x626px

>>61328350
>driving up prices
>laying off jobs
>killing startups
>implying DRM prevents that

>>61321212
holy shit, will corporate fags ever recover from this?

>>61328302
>vast majority
Vast majority could care less about their privacy, as seen how the vast majority uses windows as their OS and Chrome as their browser.
>moving goalposts
Nobody gives a shit about your imaginary argument and nobody is moving goalposts. Firefox is better right now. Firefox lets me use uBlockO. And all the addons you've mentioned.
You've said it yourself, Brave is beta software. So it is definitely and objectively worse than Firefox.

If you really do give a shit about your privacy why would you shill Brave which willingly allows ads to be displayed?

>>61328379
Okay so explain your reasoning. Brave, which is known for not blocking everything it should will suddenly block a new standard of HTML5 even though they've done nothing so far but made an HTML5 rendered UI for Chrome and integrated a few addons? Even though breaking compatibility with new standards will make their browser misbehave? Then when a person says they doubt Brave will do shit you call them an imbecile and provide shitty arguments and cover them with "you're retarded, you're stupid, you're imbecile". Do you seriously think you can tell other people they're misinformed and have no arguments?

You literally killed your own argument here by agreeing brave is not as good as firefox since it's in early beta >>61327678
You literally make shit up here by saying your initial post was about default configuration >>61328147, when it wasn't. Your inital post was "hurr u'r imbeceel".

nobody gives a shit about your utopian vision of Brave in the future. We're talking about how it's shit now and hasn't done anything when it comes to privacy. At least nothing you can't achieve in Firefox in a minute or two. And Firefox does it better. "Muh defaults" aren't a valid argument. The fact that you're too autistic to spend ten seconds in the settings is your problem. Don't assume everyone else is too.

>>61328644
That fact that you are too stupid to understand how an optional security feature that is used by less than 10% of your consumer base makes your product inferior in terms of security and privacy really exposes you as the huge retards you are. I don't know in where other words I can put it for you. Same with the behaviors Firefox has in terms of exposing your browsing behaviors to third party publishers or using giving your data to Google.

>Brave, which is known for not blocking everything it should

Notice the ambiguity of this comment, those who want to spread disinformation never use a clear language.

I am not wasting my time anymore responding to your FUD. You claimed all Brave offered was a shitty Adlbock Plus >>61327579 which is false.

You also claimed that it allow most ads >>61327920 which is false.

Every time you talk about Brave, you lie. You clearly like to talk about software you never used and I would be an idiot if I continue replying to you.

Bye.

>>61328901
>this is false
>this is false
You're retarded. Stop spreading misinformation. It does use a shitty adblock plus. It performs MUCH worse than uBlock Origin. So much worse that opening the browser with identical filters make brave load 10 times slower while firefox opens just as fast as it would without ublock installed.
Go to 4chan with brave. You will see ads.
Go to a YouTube video on the Linux version. You will see screen tearing.

>you lie
Fuck off shill. You're the one who's lying. Stop shilling your shit browser.

>ambiguous
Okay. IT DOESN'T BLOCK ALL ADS. IT ALLOWS ADS TO BE SHOWN BECAUSE THEY'RE "NOT INTRUSIVE". IT DOESN'T HAVE THE EQUALLY GOOD BLOCKING OF UBLOCK ORIGIN, UMATRIX AND OTHER TOOLS AVAILABLE ON FIREFOX.
Is this clear enough?

>>61329036
>not intrusive
more like
>payed the developer of AdBlock+ enough shekels

Now that movies, television, comic books, video games and internet videos have all been ruined by Hollywood, where do we turn when they strangle the internet as well?

>>61320805
>Even 4chan could make you unable to right click save any picture on here
lol you do not understand things. If it can be displayed on your monitor for your eyeballs to see, and you control the hardware, it can be saved. This is a fact.

File: 1485596876724.png (285KB, 704x2250px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 704x2250px

>>61319900
Fake picture. DRM doesn't give a reach around.

>>61320304
Nice try, State Department.

>>61327920
>Since they actually do allow most ads I seriously doubt they'd block DRM features.
Read some history. Brendan Eich was opposed to W3C's DRM plans. The muh gay marriage thing was cover for getting rid of him so that a (((Hollywood))) puppet could take his place and return Mozilla to its AOL womb.

File: Gas.png (532KB, 745x782px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 745x782px

>>61321661
Die bolshevist kike!

>>61319900
Stop complaining. This will be cracked within a fortnight.

>>61321661
I agree. communism when ??

In a way I'm glad browser DRM is finally being standardized, hopefully it'll put a stop to shit like Netflix only allowing 1080p+ when you use MS Edge
Still pretty gay tho

>>61321871
None is so cucked as he who imagines himself the bull.

>>61321661
Unironically this.

>>61331392
>hopefully it'll put a stop to shit like Netflix only allowing 1080p+ when you use MS Edge
Doubtful. Nothing in standardized DRM prevents companies from making special deals """"""for"""""" their users. In fact, it only helps enforce them.

>>61319900
https://youtu.be/DUGsQqM2wZM

The only people who benefit from DRM are the corporations. Regular users are fucked when this shit is enabled. Look at literally any type of DRM and think about how much nicer it would be to use if it were unencumbered, from games to music to movies.

>>61323224
I would subscribe to a bunch of websites if they got rid of their ads. Fucking malware-ridden pieces of shit.

>>61321463
>make up shitty specs for generic data transfer trough the cable
>others send data trough cable
>sue them
>profit
Yeah goyim, IP is for the greater good