6 ms·
Cost of building a Linux client should be zero. It's not because they want to have their proprietary DRM/spyware restricting what you can do. Ever heard the ph
by cameronbrown 7y ago
Cost of building a Linux client should be zero. It's not because they want to have their proprietary DRM/spyware restricting what you can do.
Ever heard the phrase "piracy is a better service", Disney?
Edit: Cost should be negligible. You should build for web/browser standards, not the OS.
- debaserab2 7y agoWhy would the cost of supporting an additional platform ever be zero?
- cameronbrown 7y agoSee edit.
- yk 7y agoThey just need to not develop drm.
- shadowgovt 7y agoThat implies they could not offer the service due to the legal entanglements of offering films owned by multiple parties without copyright protection, so it's equivalent to saying "They just need to not exist." Understandably, they've chosen an alternative.
- jcranmer 7y agoIt's worth pointing out that we're talking about Disney here, who owns likely all of the copyright of their content in full without any legal encumbrances. They're the ones who are insisting on distributing content only with hefty copyright protection guarantees, and they could snap their fingers and cancel that insistence at their sole choosing, unlike (say) Netflix.
- mindcrime 7y agoAnd yet Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon Prime all work on my Linux desktop just fine...
- gbear605 7y agoWhen the platform is the web browser, not an OS. If I write a website today, it works just as well on Linux, Windows, macOS, or any other modern platform. Other than DRM, there is nothing needed for Disney+ that isn’t common across all desktop OSes.
- addandsubtract 7y agoOh sweet summer child...
- ohazi 7y agoLinux users are already used to zero support, and in this case there isn't a cost to developing a custom client... it's literally just a matter of flipping the "fuck Linux users" switch to "off."
- catalogia 7y agoTurn off the DRM and the youtube-dl community will happily donate their time and effort to provide support to linux users. Disney needn't pay them a cent.
- shadowgovt 7y agoDRM encryption is a browser standard.
- jachee 7y agoAren't "proprietary" and "standard" mutually exclusive?
- saagarjha 7y agoNope. You can have standardized proprietary technology: you may not be able to implement it, but a group of companies might.
- shadowgovt 7y agoExample; Z-Wave protocol.
- anoncake 7y agoPlease stop repeating that propaganda. The point of standards is to facilitate interoperability. DRM does the opposite so it can never be standardized, no matter what capitalist-run "standards" organizations say
- shadowgovt 7y agoYou can call it "propaganda," but it's documented right here. [https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/]. If Oauth2 is a standard without defining how authentication servers are implemented and requiring the implementation be disclosed, it's hard to claim EME is not also a standard in the same sense. A standard we don't like isn't propaganda.
- anoncake 7y agoHaving the EME specification distributed by the W3C appears to be a very effective method of propaganda. > A standard we don't like isn't propaganda. A "standard" that doesn't even attempt to fulfil the purpose of a standard is not a standard.