Why are Linux users against DRM?

>>61808721
Most people are fine paying money in exchange for some entertainment, unless they're poorfags/entitled and just want everything for free. The idea people don't like is spending $500 on your Steam library of 250+ games only to get banned by Valve and lose access to all of it. That's why people don't like DRM. Normally it means your payment is for "access" to the product and the company reserves the right to limit that access however they see fit.

"Anti-DRM" is not "pro-piracy." Being against DRM does not contradict supporting artists by paying for movies, for example.

>>61808769
Alright I understand this issue for games, but for HTML5? I mean, this feature will mostly be used for streaming videos. If the video site doesn't provide the videos I want, terminate the subscription and let the money speak.
On the other hand, movies are a one-time thing, mostly. While I do rewatch movies from time to time, most of the time I watch a movie once and be done with it. So it's not like they can erase the movie from my brain once I've watched it (like you could do in a software - restrict access to the files you've created).

If you however pay for movies (in a system such as Google Movies), where you don't actually get access to the movie but trust the company that it will grant you access to the movie - that's on your stupidity, not a problem of DRM. Trusting companies that they will always have your movies available is likely to end up badly.

>>61808721

DRM cedes control over part of your device to a corporation that may decide to revoke your access to content at a moment's notice just because it can. If a DRM server goes down, all that content you paid to license out for your device becomes worthless. And DRM is ultimately ineffective because once a form of DRM is broken once, it is broken forever, and no DRM is unbreakable.

You can believe in supporting artists without also believing in the placebo that is DRM. It does nothing but make everything worse. Fuck DRM and fuck anyone who creates, implements, or supports it.

>>61808840
This, I refuse to use DRM platforms if I can avoid them and I try my best to support musicians by buying their music through non-drm channels, or through channels that have easily crackable DRM.

>>61808840
yeah, but I don't get the reason for anti-drm? Without protection in some form, people don't make money. I'd love to live in a happy rainbow world where people pay willingly for a movie if they have the chance to see it for free. But that won't happen - if people have access to something for free, maybe like 2% of them will maybe think of the creator, the rest will just rip the movie for free if they have the chance. And you can't make a living from that so that's why we have DRM.

If anti-DRM is not pro-piracy, then what is it? Yes it does not contradict paying for movies, but many people don't do it if they aren't forced to.

>>61809029

>Without protection in some form, people don't make money.

Bullshit.

>>61809029
>Without protection in some form, people don't make money.
https://www.patreon.com/davidrevoy
All of this man's works are completely DRM-free, and even permit unlimited copying and redistribution, even commercially (i.e. printing off the comics wholesale and selling them). He makes $3,253 per month. Absolutely no one is forced to give him a penny, but he still makes quite a hefty sum. Your argument is completely invalid.
>And you can't make a living from that so that's why we have DRM.
Suppose for a moment that you are a movie reviewer. You see a blatantly racist scene in a movie that you want to point out in your review. You try to take a screenshot, but the DRM prohibits you. You are LEGALLY PERMITTED to take that screenshot for the purpose of the review, but the DRM doesn't care.
Another example is a cinematography teacher who sees an amazing example of audio mixing done perfectly. If they try to rip just that scene so that they can play it in their classroom, the DRM prevents them. Again, a LEGALLY PERMITTED action being blocked by DRM.
These aren't niche things that only complete weirdos would need to do, these are common, everyday things.

>>61809004
> revoke your access to content at a moment's notice just because it can

yeah, but then just leave the website if the DRM server goes down. Just cancel your subscription.

Digital libraries like Google Movies (ex.) are cancer anyways because they tie you to one provider. But that's achieved even without DRM.

Yeah DRM is breakable, as well as current systems. I agree with paying artists directly, or ordering a physical copy without DRM.

What I don't get is why people are suddenly up in arms against DRM in HTML, but Steam, login-to-view-content, etc. is apparently OK. It's nothing else than DRM! Just server-side, not client-side.

And I doubt that "companies taking control of your device" is a problem. What's the worst they could do, pause the video?

>>61809175
>What's the worst they could do, pause the video?
lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal

>>61808721
>be pythagoras
>a^2 + b^2 = c^2
>> but why pythagoras?
>it is true, it has been working for years
>> oh okay
[and allwas right in the world and mathematics; and thus the future]

>>61809175

>yeah, but then just leave the website if the DRM server goes down. Just cancel your subscription.

So my choices are to never watch content or to watch content while giving partial control of my device to a company that may use that control to revoke access to said content for literally no reason at all.

FUCK. YOU.

>What I don't get is why people are suddenly up in arms against DRM in HTML

Because every browser will have that DRM standard built into it because they all have to keep up with modern HTML standards. Because it means giving control over part of the browser you use on a daily basis to someone else, which makes your browser far less secure, which opens you up to all kinds of attacks and tracking and other bullshit beyond a company deciding to revoke your access to content because you visited /tv/.

It's just stupid. It's going to completely fail at "protecting content" before it's even introduced. Keep in mind you can always create an analog recording of anything.

>>61809175
>what's the worst they could do

https://twitter.com/TheWack0lian/status/779397840762245124/

Never understimate the retardation of "copyright holders" and the lines they're willing to cross to protect their little files

>>61809130
> patreon

Yeah I'd love to see a whole movie company just living off of patreon money and donations. That's not going to happen. It may work for single people, but not for larger companies.

> screenshot

HTML5 DRM does not prevent you to take screenshots or make a video. I am talking about Encrypted Media Extensions. They simply encrypt the video on the server, give you a key if you have paid for the content, and then your browser decrypts it using the key.

Nothing prevents you from taking a screenshot or even recording the video. Which makes this form of DRM kinda pointless because the movie is going to end up on pirate bay anyway.

>>61809319

>I'd love to see a whole movie company just living off of patreon money and donations.

And I'd love to see you prove why DRM is absolutely necessary for major corporations to make money.

>Nothing prevents you from taking a screenshot or even recording the video.

Can you guarantee that your statement will always hold true, forever and ever? No? Then go fuck Tim Berners-Lee.

>>61809319
>this much backpedaling
You said:
>Without protection in some form, people don't make money.
I gave a counterexample that proves that statement completely false. If, instead, you wanted to say:
>Without protection in some form, big media companies who have a lot of clout and marketing budgets don't make money
then you'd still be false, but it'd be harder for me to find an example if one exists at this point in time.
>does not prevent you to take screenshots or make a video.
DRM is designed to prevent people from taking anything from the media in any form, including screenshots, video clips, audio samples, etc. Just because this one is shit (and therefore by your own admission worthless) doesn't mean that this isn't its goal.

>>61809313
> You are not authorized to view this tweet.

What does it say?

>>61809313
That's in software products. You are literally allowing other people to run non-open source software on your computer. You are trusting them that it's not malware. HTML video != games. HTML video does not need to load any code from an external company, that code is already on your computer.

This is different in a browser, where the access of what companies can do is much more restricted.

>>61809262
I agree that it's pointless. But that doesn't explain why people get so mad a DRM

>>61809214
you don't need to install anything for HTML5 DRM. It can't modify your OS. You'd have to compromise the browser (i.e. Firefox, etc.) first in order to install a rootkit. And if you use a non-botnet browser, that's not going to happen.

>>61809261
so if you are logging in to any service, let's say crunchyroll. What are you doing right now? Crunchyroll can revoke you access to the content for no reason at all. It's the same thing.

>>61808721
> I personally think it's OK to support artists by paying for movies, for example. I mean, I don't break into a cinema, I pay for a regular ticket.

I have no problem paying for movies, I just won't pay for movies that are in a DRM'd format.

However, please remember that buying a movie actually doesn't pay the artists that made the movie (they were all paid salaries while the movie was being made). There is an argument to be made for economic incentives and so on, but "why don't you want to pay artists" is a bullshit emotional play created *by the movie industry* to get people to increase their profits. And don't get me started on authors and musicians, those poor motherfuckers get shafted daily.

> It's not like they are forcing you to use it .. if you dislike DRM, just don't sign up for Spotify or Netflix. It's that simple.

Except that now that DRM is a web standard, it's going to be much easier for people to use DRM in websites (it's free and supported by browsers). If nobody complains about this issue today, then in 20 years when the vast majority of popular websites use DRM there'll be nothing we can do.

> I'd much rather trust a browsers built-in DRM than Flash.

I'd prefer if we had neither, and people just used the existing HTML5 media playback functionality present in all modern browsers. DRM doesn't work, why are we wasting our time creating systems that will get programmers jailed?

> So in the long run, built-in DRM might make browsing more secure.

TIL that downloading a binary from some random web-server and running it on your machine without any verification is "secure". Not even the very-nicely-worded working group document was that optimistic about EME.

> If people don't support artists, artists go bankrupt. I know that it is incredibly hard to pay your bills as an independent artist. So this is why I am against piracy.

I'm also against the pillaging of ships.

>>61809492

>Crunchyroll can revoke you access to the content for no reason at all. It's the same thing.

Server-side, yes. Not client-side. DRM would allow Crunchyroll to take at least partial control of my browser from their end. FUCK THAT SHIT.

>>61809492
> HTML video does not need to load any code from an external company, that code is already on your computer.

That's not true for EME. EME specifically defines how your browser should download and execute arbitrary code from the internet in the browser's context to decrypt the media. That's the whole point of EME.

Normal HTML5 video is perfectly sane (and a brilliant improvement to what we had before).

>>61809523

In fairness, stabbing yourself in the genitals is a brilliant improvement over Flash.

>>61809523
Note that the code is not JavaScript, it's a binary executable. Note that this means you probably won't be able to play EME-style DRM on GNU/Linux simply because of the marketshare.

>>61809492
Here's your thread title:
>Why are Linux [sic] users against DRM?
Not:
>Why are Linux [sic] users against DRM in HTML?
You're asking about DRM, not DRM in HTML5.
As well, here is the entire line you said:
>And I doubt that "companies taking control of your device" is a problem. What's the worst they could do, pause the video?

>if you dislike DRM, just don't sign up for
Spotify or Netflix

And that's just what I did you mongoloid, nobody but you is making a big deal out of DRM on stupid services like netflix.
Go watch your gay tv-over-the-internet

>>61809492
>you don't need to install anything for HTML5 DRM. It can't modify your OS. You'd have to compromise the browser (i.e. Firefox, etc.) first in order to install a rootkit.

a) EME does download binaries from the internet and runs them on your machine (in a sandbox sure, but it's not built-in to your browser).

b) Sony's rootkit *was* an exploit, it wasn't a voluntary installation -- which is why everyone got so pissed and they got sued over it. They exploited a bug in Windows that was then used to create a rootkit.

>I know that it is incredibly hard to pay your bills as an independent artist.
>independent artist
>netflix

>built-in DRM might make browsing more secure

So the whole post was a joke all along.

I disagree with OP except on the point that DRM does increase sales if its effective. Denuvo coincided with increased PC sales when the only common factor with those games was Denuvo.

Pirates aren't insignificant and many of them are perfectly capable of buying games. The same is probably true of other mediums.

>>61808721
>Age of VHS tapes
>Infinitely copiable

>Age of DRM
>Backdoored blu-ray player deletes your encryption keys because you didn't pay your ransom. Now none of your discs play, and its clearly because you're not a good boy by paying your monthly disc decryption service fee like everyone else.

If you accept DRM, you leave the door open for ransomware, and capitalism has zero problems with ransomware.

>>61808721
That's the logo for Digital Radio Mondiale, the European digital short-wave radio broadcast standard.

>>61809710

>If you accept DRM, you leave the door open for ransomware, and capitalism has zero problems with ransomware.

/thread

>>61808721
Because it more or less necessarily involves run black box code I can't inspect to protect somebody else's shit. I don't care nearly as much about the safety of your shit as I do about my right to know what's running on my machine.

test

>>61809523
CDM cannot be downloaded automatically (I think). CDM (the "possibly malicious code" part) can be distributed:

Bundle a CDM with the browser.
Distribute a CDM separately.
Build a CDM into the operating system.
Include a CDM in firmware.
Embed a CDM in hardware.

Which means, it's similar to Flash - you need to install possible malware if the DRM method is not Clear Key.

So at the time you want to watch a video, you must have a Content Decryption Module already installed. Which means that you have to trust the provider of said module, same as you have to trust Adobe if you install Flash.

That said, I am sharing your opinion on HTML5 video. I also kind of don't see the point of client-side DRM - sever-side DRM is fine with me.

>>61809684
I thought it was the opposite, but I don't remember reading a source for that. Do you have one?

>>61808721
>More specifically, what does DRM (esp. DRM in HTML5) wrong?

>buy something on google music
>"you have 2 downloads left"

>be 2000s buy a CD/DVD
>can't rip it for your use because DRM

You can support artists thru DRM-free platforms, ever heard of Bandcamp? Humble?

>what can possibly go wrong with DRM?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SecuROM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarForce

>>61809481
Some guy reverse-engineered a Capcom driver designed to prevent people from tampering with game files. It had a call that disabled some operating system protection, executed a function of your choosing and then turned it back on. To say it introduced a massive privilege escalation attack vector into the operating system doesn't quite do the whole thing justice. It was essentially a "give anyone who asks memory-tampering privileges" driver.

Mercifully they killed it with an update pretty soon after.

It's security by obscurity, it forces users to run code that they cannot audit.
Now if you trust the source, say, GOYMEDIA LTD, since it's to give you media access, but DRM is self-signed. There's no security on code you run.
DRM is basically an all access pass for attackers to attack you with ransomware.

>>61808721
You're asking this in a place full of entitled shitskins who think they have the right to everything.

>>61808721
Because DRM limits freedoms and exclusively fucks with paying customers while being unable to stop unathorized distribution at all.

I buy DRM free music because I can copy it to anywhere and play it on anything, not just (((authorized devices))) or a few cherrypicked browsers running on 1-2 OS.
Need I remind you of a relatively new DRM fuckery that only works from Edge (so LITERALLY only windows 10) with the latest Intel processors.

>>61808721
Yes. Roughly 2.5% of all desktop users are responsible for all the unpaid viewing of copyrighted material. They manage to do this on an operating system they like to customize and play with as a thing unto itself. I'm sure you pay for all your porn with your credit card.

Bad fud. Try harder next tiem.

>>61808721
>have a grill over
>"lets watch a movie. don't worry anon we can watch it on my amazon prime"
>ok
>"you need microsoft silverlight to use instant video"
>what is ms silverlight
>felt like i just knowingly installed nsa on my system
>finally get it to work
>"your monitor connection is untrusted so hd is disabled"
thanks drm
You always have the worse experience when you go the legal path