you're wrong there. the app maker writes a client, think of it like a browser (maybe with adblocker included). The content provider has the server. the user accesses the server with the client. the content provider can choose to require some kind of login and maybe even authorization of the app, by using some accesscodes. as long as the publisher freely allows access, the user can use the app to access it.
as long as the api does not enforce the acceptance of the TOS (i.e. by being only usable with a account, and you need to accept TOS to create an account), you are not bound by TOS.
they should win. What right does google have to enforce its TOS? If they provide a service with some API (and if its only HTTP with html which can be retrivied and parsed to extract video urls), everyone can access it and use it. The same thing, as website owner cannot forbid userscripts or adblocking. They choose what they provide with what interface, i choose which client i use, and how it should display the content.
what? I do not think you understood the problem. When i have the content, either as some content or as encrypted content + decryption keys + opensource-decryption-method, then i can save the content. The publishers do not want me to be able to save their streams.
the web is the subset of strongly interlinked freely available content. DRM content can be provided as part of the internet, but does not belong to the web.
And very well suited for this type of rhetoric question like in the article... because the author doesn't provide any arguments, he is convinced of, so he puts a question in the title instead of a hypothesis (without questionmark)
nope. because part of html5 means, no NS-plugin-interface anymore, but each browser needs to implement it. But the real DRM module implementing the encryption cannot be opensource, so goodbye firefox, chromium, etc.
a standard won't mean any benefit to you. The DRM module is still closed source, missing important updates and not available for every os, maybe not even for every browser.
if it would be implemented that way, the attackers would steal passwd, shadow AND honeywd. Nothing gained. It will only gain something, as long as the honeyword-response is done by a blackbox, which can start an alarm when its asked for a honeyword.
wrong end. they want to block the entry nodes. and this is a known attack, elsewhere other people are already trying this, and there is a solution: bridge nodes. tor is build to enable you to connect to it, even when somebody wants to stop you. so good luck, guys.
Slashdot Mirror
Mint? Maybe LMDE? Or siduction?
as far as i understood, they did not use the dev tools, but they are scraping the website. so its like a powerful youtube-only-browser.
jup. so using the app may be illegal, but distributing it is not.
and yet, most of the cheaper dvd players ignore region codes.
> my intention is not to request that you eat an Apple
a comma would have helped there.
when did ms agree to them?
you're wrong there. the app maker writes a client, think of it like a browser (maybe with adblocker included). The content provider has the server. the user accesses the server with the client. the content provider can choose to require some kind of login and maybe even authorization of the app, by using some accesscodes. as long as the publisher freely allows access, the user can use the app to access it.
as long as the api does not enforce the acceptance of the TOS (i.e. by being only usable with a account, and you need to accept TOS to create an account), you are not bound by TOS.
they should win. What right does google have to enforce its TOS? If they provide a service with some API (and if its only HTTP with html which can be retrivied and parsed to extract video urls), everyone can access it and use it. The same thing, as website owner cannot forbid userscripts or adblocking. They choose what they provide with what interface, i choose which client i use, and how it should display the content.
to remove it from market is their right. But if i installed the app, they should have no right in the world to remove it without my consent!
what? I do not think you understood the problem. When i have the content, either as some content or as encrypted content + decryption keys + opensource-decryption-method, then i can save the content. The publishers do not want me to be able to save their streams.
the web is the subset of strongly interlinked freely available content. DRM content can be provided as part of the internet, but does not belong to the web.
And very well suited for this type of rhetoric question like in the article ... because the author doesn't provide any arguments, he is convinced of, so he puts a question in the title instead of a hypothesis (without questionmark)
nope. because part of html5 means, no NS-plugin-interface anymore, but each browser needs to implement it. But the real DRM module implementing the encryption cannot be opensource, so goodbye firefox, chromium, etc.
a standard won't mean any benefit to you. The DRM module is still closed source, missing important updates and not available for every os, maybe not even for every browser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
So no
use English;
if it would be implemented that way, the attackers would steal passwd, shadow AND honeywd. Nothing gained.
It will only gain something, as long as the honeyword-response is done by a blackbox, which can start an alarm when its asked for a honeyword.
Yes. Companies won't publish their products without DRM. you want to consume the products. So there is a good reason.
yeah, but better than nothing.
maybe somebody wants to fork prism and make it run with current xulrunner? It cannot be a big deal, as long as you need no new features.
wrong end. they want to block the entry nodes. and this is a known attack, elsewhere other people are already trying this, and there is a solution: bridge nodes. tor is build to enable you to connect to it, even when somebody wants to stop you. so good luck, guys.
you can try chromium --app for that ... but i liked the mozilla version.
sad, mozilla stopped developing prism ... facebook is such a good usecase for it.
Aurora Borealis? In your kitchen?!
Why is heise.de no hyperlink, slashdot?