I present the summary as my citation. This asshole says we have to accept it or they will take their ball and go home. I say don't let the door hit you where the FSM split you.
That is what they said about music. Look what happened there.
If you want to sell things to less tech inclined folks I matter a lot. They ask me what service is the best, or product. You had better believe I steer them towards things that avoid this sort of BS. MP3s without DRM from amazon for instance.
If we let them make DRM a normal part of the web it will go even faster.
At least we can fight them on this. Someone will take a no DRM movie release risk and profit from it. That will be that. We already see this with things like comedians releasing their works this way.
Because the protected path will shut itself off if you load a driver not blessed by MS. So unless you have signing keys forget about that. This is one of the ways windows protects media from the PC owner.
Recording off the HDMI would not cause any quality loss.
A binary blob for Linux would mean copying the media would be as simple as capturing the output or using tee.
I am not being snarky at all. I never said it was MS only. The GP said that.
He is right in that this will work on Chrome and eventually OSX. The funny part to me is that this means there is no change in what is supported. So that makes this mighty pointless.
I think the issue is GNU/Linux can't have that infrastructure, how would it even work?
Go ahead and see how long a kernel module to enforce that kind of thing lasts before it just ends up being lobotomized enough to lie to the DRM server.
The closed system, like windows, can provide a trusted content path. This means the media will only be output to HDCP supporting devices and that no unsigned drivers are loaded at the time content is being played. Since a driver could pretend to be a video device and record the output. It will also prevent screen grabs from being used.
On an open system you cannot have such a thing, since no one would use it. If I can play it on linux, I can record it. This means the DRM is only going to restrict me to recording in real time worst case.
The reality is you can't have a standardized DRM scheme if you want to keep FOSS alive. They are incompatible. Any FOSS browser that supported this DRM could trivially be made to output to a file, unless it just passed the data to the OS. Which just means now you can't have FOSS OSes anymore.
What would stop people from modifying open source browsers to simply write the video out to a file?
You can't have netflix on linux, if you could you very well can't have DRM. With firefox + linux there would be nothing stopping you from simply recording the video or hell writing it directly to a file.
Slashdot Mirror
I present the summary as my citation.
This asshole says we have to accept it or they will take their ball and go home. I say don't let the door hit you where the FSM split you.
The Blasphemy and pornography are the best parts!
Never trust anyone who does not drink.
That is what they said about music. Look what happened there.
If you want to sell things to less tech inclined folks I matter a lot. They ask me what service is the best, or product. You had better believe I steer them towards things that avoid this sort of BS. MP3s without DRM from amazon for instance.
No, it means they want to embrace DRM. They want us to be happy about it. They want to support it and make it normal.
Flash at least does not demand your OS have a content protected path and actively fight your ownership.
You hit the nail on the head.
The real fear is now that DRM free content is slowly coming it challenges the old guard. They have to stop that now or they will never be able to.
If we let them make DRM a normal part of the web it will go even faster.
At least we can fight them on this. Someone will take a no DRM movie release risk and profit from it. That will be that. We already see this with things like comedians releasing their works this way.
I agree, Jeff Jaffe needs to get a pink slip.
This should simply be viewed as treason.
The problem is it cannot be unobtrusive and work with an OS I want to use.
Sure I can tolerate it on my ps3, but not on a real computer.
DRM on music is now dead, books are next, then movies.
The fuss is they don't like what they can't control. They also think for some damn reason we should be happy to chain ourselves up.
Good, let them wall themselves off.
Why would you post that?
I say this from the bottom of my black heart, fuck off scumbag.
Because the protected path will shut itself off if you load a driver not blessed by MS. So unless you have signing keys forget about that. This is one of the ways windows protects media from the PC owner.
Recording off the HDMI would not cause any quality loss.
A binary blob for Linux would mean copying the media would be as simple as capturing the output or using tee.
Since when?
You do know that they have not closed the strip clubs right?
I am not being snarky at all. I never said it was MS only. The GP said that.
He is right in that this will work on Chrome and eventually OSX. The funny part to me is that this means there is no change in what is supported. So that makes this mighty pointless.
I think the issue is GNU/Linux can't have that infrastructure, how would it even work?
Go ahead and see how long a kernel module to enforce that kind of thing lasts before it just ends up being lobotomized enough to lie to the DRM server.
The closed system, like windows, can provide a trusted content path. This means the media will only be output to HDCP supporting devices and that no unsigned drivers are loaded at the time content is being played. Since a driver could pretend to be a video device and record the output.
It will also prevent screen grabs from being used.
On an open system you cannot have such a thing, since no one would use it. If I can play it on linux, I can record it. This means the DRM is only going to restrict me to recording in real time worst case.
Let me be more clear.
MS has a desktop monopoly, now they refuse to sell their CDM to other people operating in that space. Is that kosher or not?
I meant Microsoft not licensing their tech out for use on desktops.
Well then why have DRM at all?
Considering these folks buy one way airplane tickets, I highly doubt they are that flush.
People with decent money to spend have better things to do with their lives than this.
Obviously.
The point is without something not normally found in a web browser this does not work.
HTML should never have tags for things like this. Even acknowledging their existence is moving in the wrong direction.
Take a deep breath, I did not think about that difference.
Believe it or not, I had assumed TV and movies had the same rules applied. I am now confused as to why they do not.
The reality is you can't have a standardized DRM scheme if you want to keep FOSS alive. They are incompatible. Any FOSS browser that supported this DRM could trivially be made to output to a file, unless it just passed the data to the OS. Which just means now you can't have FOSS OSes anymore.
HTML5 can't have DRM in it. It would never work.
What would stop people from modifying open source browsers to simply write the video out to a file?
You can't have netflix on linux, if you could you very well can't have DRM. With firefox + linux there would be nothing stopping you from simply recording the video or hell writing it directly to a file.
We can't bake DRM into HTML5.
If you put DRM in an open source browser how would you stop anyone from simply making the changes to nueter the DRM?
Your stupid idea simply cannot work.