1. 40
  1.  

  2. 31

    I’ve also asked the Widevine team about FreeBSD support, and got a similarly dismissive response.

    FreeBSD is not a supported platform, we have no plans or demands from content provider partners. Please consider reaching out to your streaming provider to request client support which will eventually get to us.

    This is one of the scenarios I envisaged while - unsuccessfully - arguing against the W3Cs efforts to incorporate DRM into Web standards.

    1. 14

      You’re not the only one, and I’m still fuming at how badly the W3C betrayed us all on this issue.

      1. 8

        The W3C hasn’t represented our interests for some time; rather, they are now a “standards smokescreen” for a few large industry players.

        I would characterise the adoption of EME not as betrayal, but as denouement.

        The real betrayal here was from Tim Berners-Lee. It’s trite, but he should know better.

      2. 1

        you can’t save people who care about paying DRM pushers. you can only save yourself.

      3. 14

        This is a good thing, right? DRM is bad, so a browser that can’t include it is better than one that does. I think there’s a certain irony in complaining that you aren’t free to make an unfree browser.

        1. 7

          This isn’t quite true. Firefox, for instance, sandboxes widevine out of the host system. Although it’s shitty that DRM is now standard, there are ways to avoid it becoming a mess.

          As the web continues to be so focused on video, this requirement will continue to be more and more pervasively fighting against peoples’ ability to make a free browser.

          This is standard now, so even a free browser requires it.

          1. 16

            This is standard now, so even a free browser requires it.

            Yes. Unfortunately. Because we have DRM/EME, the Dutch Public TV organization, NPO, thought it was acceptable to turn on DRM for all their content. Because the technology is there, they decided to use it. Had Firefox not supported EME/DRM it would have been easier to argue against them enabling it, or they may even have decided not to do that… Now that ship has sailed I afraid and people using “obscure” platforms or plain don’t want to enable the DRM plugin in their browser are just out of luck… This really sucks.

            1. 6

              Some context: NPO/Uitzending gemist has been trying to hide/“poor man DRM” their content for years. I maintained a NPO download script for years and they’ve been using they’ve been using some JavaScript-fu for as long as I recall. It was always trivial to circumvent.

              It’s also been against their ToS for as long as I know, although I’ve always felt their ToS were against Dutch law, since it states that public television should be available to as much of the population as possible according to the mediawet.

              Fun fact: trying to use the old (obfuscated but non-DRM) method will result in downloading a clip from the Office Space film.

              Also find it somewhat funny that people are saying “DRM doesn’t work” here, while others are complaining they can no longer download stuff :-)

              1. 1

                Fun fact: trying to use the old (obfuscated but non-DRM) method will result in downloading a clip from the Office Space film.

                I wonder if they got copyright clearance to distribute that clip …

              2. 5

                I did some more digging, and it seems to be against the law

                Artikel 2.1

                1 Er is een publieke mediaopdracht die bestaat uit:

                a. het op landelijk, regionaal en lokaal niveau verzorgen van publieke mediadiensten door het aanbieden van media-aanbod dat tot doel heeft een breed en divers publiek te voorzien van informatie, cultuur en educatie, via alle beschikbare aanbodkanalen;

                b. het verzorgen van publieke mediadiensten waarvan het media-aanbod bestemd is voor Nederlanders die buiten de landsgrenzen verblijven; en

                [..]

                2 Publieke mediadiensten zijn in overeenstemming met publieke waarden, waarbij zij voorzien in democratische, sociale en culturele behoeften van de Nederlandse samenleving. Zij verzorgen daartoe media-aanbod dat:

                [..]

                f. voor iedereen toegankelijk is.

                Summary for non-Dutch: the law governing the public broadcast system states it should be “accessible for everyone” and states that “public media services should be available for citizens outside of the Dutch borders”. So for me, a Dutch citizen residing in New Zealand, I have no option to use cable, and no option to use the website unless I stick to a limited set of Google-prescribed platforms, which is a rather narrow definition of “everyone”.

                Unfortunately, the petition misses this point.

                I think the only way to reverse this is either to find a sympathetic MP to ask questions (kamervragen stellen), or take legal action.

                1. 2

                  Firefox pushed hard to argue against DRM and it didn’t work out. The implication here that Firefox had an option isn’t really fair.

                  Edit: Wait…. How did we end up talking about some random news agency?

                  1. 2

                    Edit: Wait…. How did we end up talking about some random news agency?

                    It’s not a random news agency, it’s the Dutch public television (i.e. Dutch BBC). They’ve made their broadcasting available online for many years (like BBC iPlayer); first using Windows Media Player plugins, then Silverlight, then HTML5, and now HTML5+EME DRM.

                    fkooman’s argument is that now DRM is widely available, people will start using it because “why not?” The pre-HTML5 versions were obscure/annoying, but not DRM protected, so you could still download it for platforms that didn’t support DRM.

                    Especially for public broadcast systems this is rather objectionable, since it’s not easily available through other means (e.g. DVDs). In my opinion, it’s even against the Dutch law (see other comment).

                    1. 1

                      tbh I don’t have a problem with DRM aside from the fact that it requires closed source software. If someone is using it because “why not?”, it’s most likely due to bigger issues in their decision making.

                      Maybe they just want to be the distributor for their own content? This is probably not a popular opinion, but I think that is a right that a lot of people should have the choice to make.

                      1. 2

                        I suspect the chief motivation is that they want to display ads, which aren’t “baked in” but added with a different system (like YouTube).

                        My general attitude towards DRM is fairly relaxed, especially for streaming content (see my other comments on this page), but in this case it’s a bit different as it’s public television with critical content that is not easily available elsewhere, such as political debates for example. This is why the Dutch law explicitly states that the broadcasts “should be accessible for everyone”.

                        1. 1

                          I guarantee you that nobody cares even the slightest bit whether you copy and share someone’s ads. That’s only free marketing. Ads are absolutely not going to necessitate DRM.

                          It’s more likely that they moved to a new video service that does DRM by default.

                          1. 1

                            No, the problems is you don’t get to see the ads, as they’re not part of the video itself but a separate played beforehand (like YouTube does).

                            1. 1

                              Ah. Well, lucky you then I’d you get the videos and not their ads. :)

                              A lot of video providers that ads are distributed on video providers that do DRM. I still feel like we’re neck deep in a tangent here, though. 🤷🏻‍♀️

                  2. 1

                    FWIW, the same happened at their southern neighbors. vrtnu requires it as well.

                2. 4

                  But is DRM worse than restricting people’s choice of browser and operating system?

                  The fact of life is that DRM is required for most mainstream content services. I agree this is not a good thing, but I also don’t think it’s going away any time soon. Dealing with it in the best possible way is (e.g. a truly open standard) is better than not dealing with it.

                  1. 5

                    But is DRM worse than restricting people’s choice of browser and operating system?

                    yes, it is. it is a random binary blob doing unknown things.

                    The fact of life is that DRM is required for most mainstream content services. I agree this is not a good thing, but I also don’t think it’s going away any time soon. Dealing with it in the best possible way is (e.g. a truly open standard) is better than not dealing with it.

                    DRM doesn’t even work, it never did. it has no value other than comforting decision makers and lawyers who have no idea about how technology works.

                    1. 15

                      DRM doesn’t even work

                      It does. I have no idea how to save a video from Netflix. Perhaps it can be done, but it doesn’t seem trivial (like regular HTML5 in browser, or using youtube-dl). This is like saying your front door “doesn’t work” because it can be lock-picked, or the window can be thrown in. Just because it’s not 100% fool-proof doesn’t mean it “doesn’t work”.

                      I think this kind of inflexible position is exactly why we’re stuck to the whims of Google now.

                      it is a random binary blob doing unknown things.

                      I’m sorry, but almost no one cares. Proof: popularity of Windows, macOS, a number of binary Linux applications (Spotify, Steam, etc.) And it’s not a kernel module, so can be isolated reasonably easily (Firefox already does this, I believe).

                      And if you don’t want to use it: no problem, your choice. But please don’t take away my option to make a different choice.

                      1. 4

                        just like almost no one cares about any browser other than chrome. wanting a nonfree alternative browser is just as niche as wanting a free alternative browser. more so, in fact.

                        1. 7

                          We could have said the same thing about Internet Explorer not too long ago, yet here we are.

                          In any case, it’s not a comparable situation at all. The problem with Widevine is that new browsers will have an extra catch-22 hurdle to pass. To be considered by the Widevine/Google gatekeepers they must achieve some popularity, but to achieve this popularity they must work well with all major sites – including DRM-protected ones.

                          So if I have a whizbang new idea for a browser – like the Metastream thing from the OP – then I must first convince my major competitor to allow me to enter the market. This is, crudely put, all sorts of fucked up.

                          1. 2

                            your argument in favor of binary blobs was that “almost nobody cares.” if you think that argument applies to the free software question, why doesn’t it apply to the DRM for all question?

                            if google was nice and let you integrate their malware into your application, we still have a situation where developing a maximally compatible browser requires running a competitor’s code which could be doing god knows what. i don’t claim that people care about it, but i feel it’s more intolerable than restricted distribution of digital restrictions.

                            1. 3

                              I am not in “favour” of binary blobs in browsers; I said that it’s better to at least have the option, rather than not having it, which was in reply to tedu’s comment that “a browser that can’t include it is better than one that does”.

                              developing a maximally compatible browser requires running a competitor’s code which could be doing god knows what. i feel that this is more intolerable.

                              As I understand it, Widevine is implemented as a decryption module for the EME standard. I don’t think that can do “god knows what” since at a glance it seems to have a clear API and, as mentioned before, Firefox already sandboxes this code. Not all binary blobs are the same.

                              1. 2

                                in principle developers would have marginally more freedom for the time being if DRM were easier to include. but in practice, enabling the use of DRM enables more money to flow to companies that have a stake in DRM, and accelerates the process of closing down the web. resisting this requires that we draw a line in the sand and create our own alternatives that do not depend on the consent of our enemies.

                                1. 2

                                  I don’t share your “enemies”. This also shows the problem with the entire DRM debate, because you end up in a “we must radically change the way society works”-kind of debates real fast. This is not a battleground for massive social change as far as I’m concerned; I just want to use Netflix on my OpenBSD laptop.

                                  1. 2

                                    There is a hint right there: You can’t use Netflix on your OpenBSD laptop right now, and it is unlikely you will ever be able to. To use Netflix on your OpenBSD laptop, society needs to radically change. Or, OpenBSD people can implement (resurrect?) Linux system call emulation and you can run emulated Linux binary.

                                    1. 2

                                      Or we can just change the tech so it can run on all platforms. There are a few concerns, but it’s all doable if we’d try.

                                      What is Google, Widevine, w3c, or any other party interested in making a DRM system that works well to do with comments like yours? “lol”, shrug, and ignore. Unfortunately far too much “community feedback” consist of non-constructive and off-topic noise like yours.

                                      I wonder what would have happened if we had fought for an as open DRM system as possible, instead of just an inflexible and unrealistic “#NeverDRM (and oh btw, down with capitalism)” attitude. I think we’d have a system that would be a whole lot better than what we have now.

                                      1. 1

                                        Or we can just change the tech so it can run on all platforms. There are a few concerns, but it’s all doable if we’d try.

                                        I am very interested in your concrete proposal for this, because it seems to me it’s not very doable, or, even if doable not clearly superior to Linux system call emulation on OpenBSD.

                                        1. 1

                                          An open source solution would be ideal. I realize that open source DRM is tricky as allowing modification of the code allows you to do, well, anything that DRM is supposed to stop you from doing. One possible solution to that might be to create a system that verifies that the binary was compiled from the unmodified source. I’m not sure if something like this exist already; anti-cheating systems for games are probably something to start investigating for this.

                                          Another possibility would be a “mostly open” solution with a platform-independent closed part. The current EME is kind of already that, except without the platform-independent part.

                                          Like I said, there are a few concerns, and it’s not something we can just pick up from the shelf today. But I’m reasonably confident it’s possible.

                                    2. 0

                                      so all you care about is using openbsd? would it bother you if your facebook and reddit and twitter started depending on DRM? your email? online vendors? banking website?

                                      1. 7

                                        We are not talking about DRM on Facebook, banking, or email. This is a pretty disingenuous “argument”.

                                        I believe I have stated my position clear enough, but to summarize: like it or not, copyright holders want DRM for streaming media. I have little hope in changing that any time soon, and they will add it one way or the other. I am merely concerned in making sure this DRM is done well so it’s available on a wide range of browsers, operating systems, and other platforms, so maximize consumers freedom in choosing their platform of choice, instead of being locked to a limited set of software.

                                        This is not an endorsement of DRM. It’s just accepting that you can’t always have your way, and that it’s usually best to work within the confines of what’s achievable.

                                        If you want to convince people that we don’t need DRM: go for it. But in the meanwhile, let’s use some DRM that doesn’t completely suck.

                                        1. 0

                                          how do you propose we control the scope of DRM in a browser? if we’re fine with DRM for some aspects of the web, where do we draw the line so that we as users won’t accept a browser with DRM for other things? if you’re not okay with DRM for uses other than streaming video or music, you will eventually have to argue against the idea of “let’s just get this working on OpenBSD so I can at least check my bank account”

                                          or do you not think this issue will arise? surveillance companies will stop pushing for more control over our computing?

                                          1. 1

                                            Can you use Widevine to “DRM your bank”? No. So it’s already “scoped”. What would “DRM for banks” even look like?

                                            This entire preposition is unrelated to what we’re discussing and hypothetical. Show me someone actually making a case for “DRM for banks” and we can continue. Until that time, I will dismiss that argument as a non-argument.

                                            If that’s really the best argument you can make then you have only re-affirmed my thinking that DRM for streaming content is, at least in principle, not all that bad.

                                            1. 1

                                              it is in the interest of companies to have fuller control over how we interact with them, including being able to show us ads and measure our response. if you don’t want to consider the possibility that a company would pursue its interest, so be it.

                                              if i thought the consolidation of capital and the closing of the digital systems we use would stop on its own accord, i would not be concerned about this either.

                          2. 5

                            I have no idea how to save a video from Netflix

                            That’s irrelevant. Enough people do know how to do that that their stuff is all over the torrent sites. A bunch of potential customers now go there. For the onss that went there anyway nothing changed. So DRM doesn’t achieve anything, except make it more annoying for paying customers and excluding some other customers.

                            1. 2

                              DRM does achieve the result that you have to use BitTorrent to save a video. This is inconvenient enough to motivate DRM pushers to push it. “DRM doesn’t achieve anything” is wrong.

                              1. 1

                                Having to pay actual money is arguably less convenient than using BitTorrent :)

                                1. 4

                                  Depends on how much money you have. The ones with zero disposable income were never going to be Netflix’s customers anyway.

                                2. 1

                                  DRM does achieve the result that you have to use BitTorrent to save a video. Without DRM those that wanted to view the content without being subscribed go to torrent sites as well.

                                  Even if my neighbour, Joe Random, could easily record a Netflix film from his account, I wouldn’t inconvenience him to copy a whole series of episodes he wasn’t interested in. I would just go to a torrent site. ‘Personal’ ‘direct’ sharing also doesn’t scale. [1]

                                  This is inconvenient enough to motivate DRM pushers to push it.

                                  That may be what DRM pushers argue, and perhaps actually believe, but per the previous point it is actually false.

                                  [1] This is hypothetical: I’m actually a paying Netflix customer

                                  1. 1

                                    Don’t move the goalpost. You claimed DRM doesn’t achieve anything. I gave an example of what DRM achieves. You backtrack and claim DRM doesn’t really achieve what DRM pushers want, which is a different statement.

                                    1. 1

                                      What?! You’re the one moving goalposts by making it about what DRM pushers claim it achieves, what they would like to achieve, instead of what it actually achieves. It doesn’t achieve what the DRM pushers want, because it achieves nothing.

                                      It’s really very simple: if DRM achieved something, there would be less pirating, less unauthorized sharing. There isn’t less pirating or less unauthorized sharing due to DRM. Pirated content is as easily accessible and as widely available as it was five years ago.

                                      There’s vastly less pirating and unauthorized sharing for one simple reason: the affordability and convenience of Spotify, Netflix and other streaming services.

                                3. 1

                                  Copyright holders will respond to that by saying that torrent sites are illegal, and that something should be done about that, and they are doing something about it, with varying degrees of success. Also see my comment from last week regarding torrent sites.

                                  DRM doesn’t achieve anything, except make it more annoying for paying customers

                                  I think that for a lot of people DRM for streaming media doesn’t affect them all that much (it’s a bit different for purchased media).

                                  1. 1

                                    I view that response by content providers as burying their heads in the sand. Torrent sites will still be here a decade from now.

                                    I think that for a lot of people DRM for streaming media doesn’t affect them all that much

                                    When it works flawlessly that is true. When it sometimes prevents them from using the service due to location, device or some other detail…

                                4. 3

                                  As an aside you can simply take a capture card, hook it to the output of your video, record. It’s borderline trivial to bypass the whole point of DRM. A digital watermark would be more effective at accomplishing the goals and aims you set out to achieve.

                                  1. 3

                                    simply take a capture card, hook it to the output of your video, record

                                    None of this is simple; it requires specialised equipment, knowledge, time.

                                    “I can ‘simply’ throw a brick through your window and steal your laptop. It’s borderline trivial to bypass the whole point of your front door.”

                                    A digital watermark would be more effective at accomplishing the goals and aims you set out to achieve.

                                    They’re not my goals; they’re the content holders’ goals. I’m just trying to be pragmatical and make sucky things suck a bit less, rather than refuse to any cooperation because it sucks (which, thus far, has been spectacularly ineffective, and probably counter-productive).

                                    As for watermark, sure I guess? But I’m not the one you need to convince.

                                    1. 2

                                      Actually it’s uh extremely simple, you can get an external capture card and it’s basically plug in and press record. A VCR recorder by this definition is also “special equipment”. If you tried to act on the analogy of throwing a brick through a window you might understand what the differences are, and why a watermark might actually help you achieve your content holder’s goals. If you threw a brick through my window, my security system would go off, my neighbors might call the cops, I might be armed and waiting. If you record a video there won’t be any security system, or neighbors, or firearms. There’s nothing you the content holder can do short of a panopticon surveillance state to prevent me from recording the video. Instead you should focus on the thing you can better control which is the sharing of recorded video.

                                      1. 2

                                        err, HDCP is supposed to prevent any random capture card from recording DRM’d video. Devices that can break HDCP are a bit more “special” than regular capture cards.

                                        1. 2

                                          I mean sure I guess but any analog output can be recorded anyway so it’s somewhat moot. HDCP has been cracked since 2012 as well, so it’s mostly just “Security through obscurity”. I think it’s reasonable to infer through the repeated failure both economically and technologically that it’s a big sham to trick shareholders.

                                          1. 1

                                            analog output

                                            DRM players won’t output high quality video to your analog output. Low resolution versions of videos are usually not protected by DRM anyway. (I think Netflix does <=720p without DRM?)

                                          2. 1

                                            there are some rather cheap devices now to capture HDMI signals >720p, non shady reference: https://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/2019/02/14/adventures-in-netflix/

                                    2. 1

                                      No one cares until it becomes a national security issue and then everyone cares.

                                      1. -1

                                        It does. I have no idea how to save a video from Netflix. Perhaps it can be done, but it doesn’t seem trivial (like regular HTML5 in browser, or using youtube-dl). This is like saying your front door “doesn’t work” because it can be lock-picked, or the window can be thrown in. Just because it’s not 100% fool-proof doesn’t mean it “doesn’t work”.

                                        Confusion wrote it good, DRM is useless as soon as a single user can circumvent it.

                                        DRM and the lock on my front door have the same purpose: keeping lawyers / insurance companies happy. someone who wants to steal my property will just knock in a window. if my door was locked the insurance pays. DRM is more a peace of conscience thing for decision makers.

                                        I’m sorry, but almost no one cares. Proof: popularity of Windows, macOS, a number of binary Linux applications (Spotify, Steam, etc.) And it’s not a kernel module, so can be isolated reasonably easily (Firefox already does this, I believe).

                                        ah, the good old “no one cares”. “no one cares” is the blight of our culture. but hey, as long as one can netflix and chill..

                                        And if you don’t want to use it: no problem, your choice. But please don’t take away my option to make a different choice.

                                        i’m not sure who takes anything from you, but google and drm?

                                        1. [Comment removed by author]

                                          1. 4

                                            DRM is an economic tool, not a technical one. And as such, it doesn’t need to “work” in the technical sense to have succeeded at the goals to which it was set.

                                            1. 2

                                              Please maintain a basic standard of civility by not assuming I’m a complete idiot. Thank you.

                                              Capturing a full movie (never mind entire TV show!) sounds very labour intensive. You need to get the angle just right, make sure there’s no screen glare, make sure there are no vibrations in the room, etc. Never mind it takes at least the duration of what you want to capture (1h30m for a film, possibly days for an entire series). You will also always induce a quality loss.

                                              It doesn’t sound very practical to me.

                                              1. [Comment removed by author]

                                                1. 2

                                                  DRM is a terrible idea; a net loss to society. We’re in agreement there.

                                                  How long will it be until a free app on Google Play can replace your DVR?

                                                  It definitely can’t today.

                                                  My vision isn’t perfect by any means, but there’s one hell of a difference between an 4k master from a bluray and a smartphone video, and trying to draw an equality between them appears either disingenuous or ill-informed.

                                                  Backing up a strong argument with a weak one makes both appear weak.

                                                  1. 2

                                                    Perhaps it will be possible one day, but right now it’s not. And it still sounds like a lot of effort to me.

                                                    I realize that it’s fundamentally impossible to make DRM “unbreakable”, but that’s not all that important. It’s also not possible to create an “unbreakable” front door or bicycle lock. It’s all about increasing the effort people need to put in to breaking it.

                                                    People are saying “DRM doesn’t work, it can always be broken”, but also “I can no longer download it due to DRM”. It seems to me that this is rather conflicting.

                                                    To argue for DRM

                                                    As I’ve said in my other comments, I’m not “for DRM”, I just don’t see it happening that major content providers will want to distribute their content without DRM, so we’d better deal with it in the sanest way possible, rather than letting Google dictate how we should deal with it (which is the current situation).

                                            2. 5

                                              DRM totally works. Saying DRM doesn’t work is like saying security hardening doesn’t work. It’s all about increasing cost.

                                              1. 3

                                                DRM totally works, but I don’t think it works in the way it’s presented. It’s completely ineffectual at stopping copyright violation, but it opens up new revenue streams to selling patented technologies, signed keys and other DRM implementing technology to vendors of playback devices.

                                                1. 2

                                                  If something costs more that the revenue it nets you I think it’s safe to say it doesn’t work. If you want to know why the content provider purposely takes a loss here it’s to pull wool over the eyes of the shareholders. DRM doesn’t work, it’s a genuine risk to national security, and possibly more importantly it puts pain on the honest consumer and none on those who are breaking the law. DRM can’t meaningfully work as long as someone still needs to record new content, because those recording tools can simply record existing content.

                                                  1. 2

                                                    Something can be unprofitable and working. As a technology, DRM totally works. Whether DRM is net gain or net loss to content providers is a separate question with unclear answers.

                                                    1. 1

                                                      DRM can be defeated trivially with a capture card 100% of the time as I stated in a previous comment. Any technology that relies on projecting a sensory experience is completely unprotected from technologies that record sensory experience. If I can perceive it, I can use a device that records it. There actually have been many impartial studies that have evidenced pretty firmly that it is a net loss to content providers, however I’m at work and I really can’t afford to enumerate them right now. If someone is feeling particularly generous maybe they’ll link some here. One of the studies I can grab offhand suggests that DRM actually increases the rate of infringement due to the undue pain it puts on legitimate consumers.

                                                      http://static.arstechnica.net/2011/10/11/mksc.1110.0668-1.pdf

                                                      1. 3

                                                        Something can be defeated and working. ASLR comes to mind.

                                              2. 1

                                                Practically speaking, Widevine team does need to draw the line somewhere. It does sound reasonable to me that Widevine should support FreeBSD, but what about Haiku? If supporting FreeBSD and not supporting Haiku is okay, how is that different from supporting Linux and not supporting FreeBSD?

                                                1. 11

                                                  Ideally the Widevine team shouldn’t have to draw any lines; the technology should be built in such a way that FreeBSD and Haiku can make their own ports/implementations, as can browser vendors.

                                            3. 7

                                              It’s strange to me that we live in a world where there are people who celebrate or support a technology that infringes on the rights of its users, harms the artists, and loses money for shareholders all while doing nothing to mitigate the crimes it hopes to stop. What drives this blind lose/lose philosophy?

                                              1. 4

                                                Probably missing something here, but I think you may be able to continue development if you trick widevine until thinking that you’re Firefox.

                                                1. 4

                                                  First of all, this was entirely predictable. Chromium doesn’t have Widevine support and it’s Google’s own open source project. Google is not interested in (and probably couldn’t if they wanted to) releasing an open source version of Widevine.

                                                  And the author lost any remaining sympathy I may have had by claiming he’s “creating a browser”. Electron is a browser. At best he’s writing a chromium skin, and it’s not nearly as impressive as he’s makes it out to be.

                                                  1. 3

                                                    There’s something cursed in the essence of video as a medium. Television, Hollywood, DRMs, file formats patents, Betamax and Blu-ray; video bloggers on Instagram causing decorative cosmetics and anorexia craze, Youtube comments being worse than 4chan, Twitch causing gaming industry to spawn abominations such as Fortnite. Moving pictures ruin everything.

                                                    And now many web companies (and even just content creators) think that video is better than text just because it became available later in history. But it’s more like abandoning ancient technology of writing and going back to oral communication and knowledge management.

                                                    1. 4

                                                      rely on nonfree software for your project, get fucked.

                                                      if the author really believes “free as in beer is not enough,” why does he reject possibility of making it free as in freedom?

                                                      that he’s considering restricting distribution to the Chrome Store belies his claim that google’s practice is “unacceptable.” he’s clearly open to accepting it and rewarding google for its practices.

                                                      1. 3

                                                        It’s not really in his hands though. He doesn’t transmit any audio or video. He’s making an open source application using open source tools.

                                                        rely on nonfree software for your project, get fucked.

                                                        So should Firefox “get fucked” too, since it needs a DRM component in order to let people watch Netflix, Hulu, etc? Are you seriously suggesting that every browser vendor “get fucked” because their users want to watch TV?

                                                        1. 2

                                                          no he seems to be making a nonfree application from what i can tell. he’s insisting on using this DRM blob. he can’t choose not to?

                                                          So should Firefox “get fucked” too, since it needs a DRM component in order to let people watch Netflix, Hulu, etc? Are you seriously suggesting that every browser vendor “get fucked” because their users want to watch TV?

                                                          no you can easily watch TV without a DRM browser. but at any rate Firefox stays afloat because it gets funds from Google.

                                                      2. 1

                                                        Can I just say this tool could be fantastically useful for long distance relationships, where you can curl up separately with a movie or episode.

                                                        The alternative is to say Ping and having the other person say Pong, going back and forth to establish the rhythm of the lag, thus being able to time video starts well.