doctorow at March 6th, 2014 23:03 — #1
namenotreserved at March 6th, 2014 23:40 — #2
And this is exactly why you should never give money to the MAFIAA.
uwe_keim at March 6th, 2014 23:57 — #3
gwwar at March 7th, 2014 00:05 — #4
Oh great, they discovered something more annoying than disabling right click. Please don't let this catch on. What a big
Oh, but hey here's a bookmarklet that gets around this:
tknarr at March 7th, 2014 00:09 — #5
fuzzyfungus at March 7th, 2014 05:20 — #6
The HTML5/DRM nonsense is a total disaster as well, don't get me wrong; but it's a disaster that's designed to smuggle the darkest days of platform-specific browser plugins back in, now blessed as Shiny and Standard! With an even remotely competent implementation of the EME, the dev console won't tell you a thing, other than that a CDM is sitting in the middle of the page doing something unknowable.
lumbercartel at March 7th, 2014 07:02 — #7
I wonder how this works if you compile Chrome yourself? Because users with source could obviously disable this "attack."
cowicide at March 7th, 2014 07:58 — #8
And they wonder why so many choose to pirate movies and avoid the hassles in the first place. Total mystery, it is.
cowicide at March 7th, 2014 08:10 — #9
Right, if paying for films helps to support those who will continue to make most Web browsing less secure (by forcing DRM in html5, etc.), then it's far more ethical to pirate films instead.
I don't want other people to suffer an inherent loss of security in thier browsers because I selfishly pay for movies that funnels money to a cartel that attacks everyone's security in the name of greed.
Do the right thing. Pirate movies.
technogeekagain at March 7th, 2014 08:36 — #10
Uhm. You do realize that, if they weren't asking the browsers to give them an enclosed sandbox to run this code in, they'd be insisting that you download a targeted plugin to run their videos which would impose similar controls, right?
Maybe that would be preferable. It would certainly let them protect their content better, and could prevent the suggested bypasses by using the sort of timestamped encryption that Lucifer pioneered decades ago.
I have much less objection to DRM -- especially of this specific type, where the admittedly fragile distinction between streaming and download is what enables a one-time-use market that otherwise could not exist -- than to DRM done poorly.
howaboutthis at March 7th, 2014 08:46 — #11
Exactly. In business, as in politics, heavy-handed control freaks create the very type of people that they fear the most.
cowicide at March 7th, 2014 08:54 — #12
technogeekagain at March 7th, 2014 09:12 — #13
I agree it doesn't belong in the W3C standards. If it's to be standardized, it needs to be its own standard.
newliminted at March 8th, 2014 10:38 — #14
I'll just wait here for a link to instructions to get around it. Not that I ever wanted to use the developer console while watching a movie on Netflix, I just want to be able to do it.
doctorow at March 12th, 2014 00:03 — #15
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.