4 ms·
Widevine (google property) is just a technology and does not include the concept of Fair Use. This is where DRM really means Digital Restriction Management, not
by pipo234 3y ago
Widevine (google property) is just a technology and does not include the concept of Fair Use. This is where DRM really means Digital Restriction Management, not Digital Rights Management. The aim of Widevine (or Microsoft PlayReady, Apple Fairplay) is to "fail closed": nothing works unless it works in exactly the way it's intended to work. And the intention is to limit what a user can do to the bare minimum, in the DRM model the user is essentially the enemy.
DRM aims to accomplish this by all means. Hardware, anti-tampering software, law (DMCA), hoarding telemetry and private data (Widevine DRM probably serves as a super-cookie for google).
...Now that does not mean you cannot make a screenshot. Just use a camera to take a picture of your screen! :-)
- p0w3n3d 3y agoyeah, great, the camera photo of my screen will be of an excellent quality... showing all those subpixels and my reflection in the screen glare :D
- pipo234 3y agoWhat I meant to say is that there's always the analog hole, that DRM can't close. With a modest contemporary phone it works surprisingly well, especially since streaming media are rarely of high fidelity. And if you insist on a digital copy, plug an HDMI cable into a capture device. Attempts like HDCP have attempted to close this one, but I doubt DRM software would attempt relying on that.
- p0w3n3d 3y agoWhat I mean is that "there's always a loophole" statement is dangerous, because allows corps to squeeze and squeeze loopholes, unless there will be an unnecessarily expensive equipment required to exercise my law to screenshot
- yawpitch 3y agoIt’s still Digital _Rights_ Management… the rights in this case belong to the copyright holder, not to the consumer… they’re literally failing towards protecting rights that exist over rights that are only imaginary.
- pipo234 3y agoLaw isn't absolute, that's why we have courts, judges, juries. Unlike source code, laws are dynamic and subject to interpretation. It's a restriction because it's attempting to protect the copyright, while violating the rights granted to the user under fair use policy. Similarly, it could be violating privacy rights or open back doors that violate cybersecurity laws. If laws change (copyright laws, for instance), DRM won't magically adjust. [EDIT] In summary: it's a balance, where different conflicting interests ought to be weighed. But we have DRM trying to close every door except the one intended by the copyright holder; versus: the user expecting stuff to work somewhat coherently and finding ways to circumvent the restrictions (often, though certainly not always, with benign intentions).
- yawpitch 3y agoSure, laws are open to interpretation… by judges, and judges will quite happily tell you that there are no rights “granted” under the fair use doctrine, and that no violation of those imaginary rights can possibly exist. The only legal right in play is copyright and the legitimate copyright holder has that right, exclusively, and can sue anyone they believe is infringing on their copyright… what the fair use doctrine carves out is an affirmative defense for particular kinds of transformative infringement, but it grants no right to infringe to the infringer, any more than successfully asserting self defense grants the self defender the right to murder. Each doctrine excuses from consequence what remains an unlawful act.