6 ms·

They really needed DRM to survive. It's great that they can run a sandbox in my computer so I can watch videos, something which wasn't possible with the open we

They really needed DRM to survive. It's great that they can run a sandbox in my computer so I can watch videos, something which wasn't possible with the open web standards. By the way, here's the list of titles which weren't pirated thanks to DRM: .

davexunit 10y ago
If they need DRM in "open" web standards then they deserve to go out of business.
- TallGuyShort 10y ago
  Who are you saying deserves to go out of business? Netflix? Because I can assure you Linux users that insist on Firefox support instead of just Chrome will not be the difference between them being in business or not. They themselves tend to be pretty understanding of the whole anti-DRM thing and contribute to FOSS technology more than most companies, but they cooperate with DRM content because that actually is the difference between them being in business and not. I get that we don't like DRM, but I've seen speakers who work for Netflix get yelled at on stage at open-source tech conferences over it. Not helping. The same is true if you meant Mozilla deserves to go out of business. This attitude of "anyone who isn't 100% in line with my principles should be removed from society" is just getting taken too far. It's stupid.
  - ailideex 10y ago
    > They themselves tend to be pretty understanding of the whole anti-DRM thing and contribute to FOSS technology more than most companies, but they cooperate with DRM content because that actually is the difference between them being in business and not. Is it really though ? I mean ... their content still get pirated. Everybody's content gets pirated, yet most of them are still in business.
    - TallGuyShort 10y ago
      My main point is that they're in business because they can get licensed to distribute the content because they'll accept DRM. Try being a DRM-free alternative to Netflix that I think is worth $8 a month. Good luck. It's not that DRM changes a ton with consumers, it's all about getting the producers onboard. For better or worse, most of the best content producers (at least the management) are insisting on DRM. Anecdotally, I do see a whole lot less piracy than I did 10 years ago. I think things like Spotify and Netflix / Hulu provide enough of what people want with the right business model and enough freedom that the peasants aren't willing to revolt. Which can be a good thing - fewer computers get AIDS from Kazaa. It's analagous to most governments. Some people want 100% anarchy. But almost no one's trying to overthrow the government because 60% freedom is good enough for most people and not worth war. But maybe I'm just less hip than I used to be.
      - ailideex 10y ago
        Fair enough.
clishem 10y ago
I don't get it. I can still make a recording of my screen can't I?
- egeozcan 10y ago
  There are quite many ways "pirates" capture a video. Recording the screen is probably the last resort and makes you end up with a very low quality copy. But yes, until they also build in the technology they have in PlayStations (Cinavia) to video cameras, that is the most obvious leak.
  - voidlogic 10y ago
    I would think you could hook into X11 to do this quite nicely.
    - algesten 10y ago
      Problem is that grabbing the last frame buffer would mean you're doing it post decompression. To distribute something you grabbed like that you'd need to recompress it and then have a generation degradation of lossy compression.
      - braveo 10y ago
        That's not how that works. It's one thing if you're converting from one compressed format to another, or recompressing an already compressed file. It's another to simply grab the pixels off of screen and compress those. You won't get as good of a shot because of the original decompression, but your description of why is inaccurate.
        jshmrsn 10y ago
        algesten's comment seems entirely accurate to me. He's not claiming that the captured frame buffer will be of lower quality, but that in order to distribute it afterwords, you would need to recompress the captured frames. That recompression is where the quality reduction would occur. Everything I just said is rephrasing what is already in algesten's comment.

davexunit 10y ago

If they need DRM in "open" web standards then they deserve to go out of business.

TallGuyShort 10y ago
Who are you saying deserves to go out of business? Netflix? Because I can assure you Linux users that insist on Firefox support instead of just Chrome will not be the difference between them being in business or not. They themselves tend to be pretty understanding of the whole anti-DRM thing and contribute to FOSS technology more than most companies, but they cooperate with DRM content because that actually is the difference between them being in business and not. I get that we don't like DRM, but I've seen speakers who work for Netflix get yelled at on stage at open-source tech conferences over it. Not helping. The same is true if you meant Mozilla deserves to go out of business. This attitude of "anyone who isn't 100% in line with my principles should be removed from society" is just getting taken too far. It's stupid.
- ailideex 10y ago
  > They themselves tend to be pretty understanding of the whole anti-DRM thing and contribute to FOSS technology more than most companies, but they cooperate with DRM content because that actually is the difference between them being in business and not. Is it really though ? I mean ... their content still get pirated. Everybody's content gets pirated, yet most of them are still in business.
  - TallGuyShort 10y ago
    My main point is that they're in business because they can get licensed to distribute the content because they'll accept DRM. Try being a DRM-free alternative to Netflix that I think is worth $8 a month. Good luck. It's not that DRM changes a ton with consumers, it's all about getting the producers onboard. For better or worse, most of the best content producers (at least the management) are insisting on DRM. Anecdotally, I do see a whole lot less piracy than I did 10 years ago. I think things like Spotify and Netflix / Hulu provide enough of what people want with the right business model and enough freedom that the peasants aren't willing to revolt. Which can be a good thing - fewer computers get AIDS from Kazaa. It's analagous to most governments. Some people want 100% anarchy. But almost no one's trying to overthrow the government because 60% freedom is good enough for most people and not worth war. But maybe I'm just less hip than I used to be.
    - ailideex 10y ago
      Fair enough.

clishem 10y ago

I don't get it. I can still make a recording of my screen can't I?

egeozcan 10y ago
There are quite many ways "pirates" capture a video. Recording the screen is probably the last resort and makes you end up with a very low quality copy. But yes, until they also build in the technology they have in PlayStations (Cinavia) to video cameras, that is the most obvious leak.
- voidlogic 10y ago
  I would think you could hook into X11 to do this quite nicely.
  - algesten 10y ago
    Problem is that grabbing the last frame buffer would mean you're doing it post decompression. To distribute something you grabbed like that you'd need to recompress it and then have a generation degradation of lossy compression.
    - braveo 10y ago
      That's not how that works. It's one thing if you're converting from one compressed format to another, or recompressing an already compressed file. It's another to simply grab the pixels off of screen and compress those. You won't get as good of a shot because of the original decompression, but your description of why is inaccurate.
      - jshmrsn 10y ago
        algesten's comment seems entirely accurate to me. He's not claiming that the captured frame buffer will be of lower quality, but that in order to distribute it afterwords, you would need to recompress the captured frames. That recompression is where the quality reduction would occur. Everything I just said is rephrasing what is already in algesten's comment.