this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
1476 points (99.1% liked)
Firefox
18050 readers
202 users here now
A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm still salty that they implemented video DRM (for Netflix, Amazon, etc.), but at least they're standing against this bullshit.
I think we need to try to get Firefox's user base up fast (and the user base for other browsers that are ultimately controlled by non-profits) - if non-commercial browsers dominate or even have 30+% market share, if they say no to something bad for users and the open web, it doesn't happen. While non-commercial browsers are a small minority, if they say no, services that work everywhere else follow Google / Apple and consider breaking Firefox acceptable collateral damage, and then Firefox etc... becomes an ever smaller minority, so they get forced into things like this.
The trouble is FAANG get advantage by posing an insidious threat - they treat users well when they are trying to gain market share, and invest heavily and maybe briefly offer a superior user respecting product. But when they get the market share to give them the leverage, the switch part of bait-and-switch comes out, and we see them try to take down the open web to cement their position against the non-profits, and make their browsers inferior for users to bump up revenue (enshitification, to borrow a term from Cory Doctorow).
Alright you have convinced this internet stranger to switch
Without video DRM those services don't work at all. It was necessary to keep users.
(x)
I think they meant it as a "necessary evil" because companies could start implementing their own drm and make everything more difficult to crack. Also without it, companies would not trust it without drm due to the greed.
and
are very different assertions.
I think you're (rightfully!) doubting the latter, but the person you replied to meant the former.
I am a pirate myself but they have to implement video DRM since the content is technically their's and you are just allowed to view it as long as you are subscribed to them, and they don't want their content to be stolen (which they can't stop btw).
The content's copyright is technically owned by the copyright holders, not Google.
Copying isn't theft. Nothing is removed from the servers; YouTube still has its copy. Calling it "stealing" is biased loaded language.
Strictly speaking copyright also means that the copyright holder is the only one that is allowed to either copy the content or grant permissions to copy it, thus any of us making copies of things to be sure we don't lose access to it are truly breaking that. But I would be a lot more conflicted about it if the system wasn't like it currently is and it wasn't almost only big corporations that seem to benefit.
If I create art, then copyright states that you cannot copy (and redistribute) the art I created.
I'd be bummed out and it would feel like you just stole from me. Now the people I might have sold my art aren't interested, as they already got it for free. It feels like the work I did was wasted, and I also lost some profits, the amount of which is naturally hard to guess, but still.
Story time's over. So your 2nd point is shit, and I wish people stopped making that. It's not biased or loaded because there are actual monetary losses to whomever it is you are illegally copying stuff from, instead of paying.
Anyway, I just pirate because I really just will not pay for 10 different subs to get the content I want. Never. Spotify is great, but as long as movie/tv streaming is fragmented, Piracy will never dwindle.
Just stop fucking justifying yourselves with shit arguments.
Words have meanings. You are factually incorrect, and frankly, I don't give a shit how you "feel" about it.
Funny how webrips still exist literally everywhere. They built a 10 foot wall, so someone else just built an 11 foot ladder.
That is sir, the beauty of piracy.