this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2023
869 points (97.4% liked)

linuxmemes

21213 readers
73 users here now

Hint: :q!


Sister communities:


Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
  • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
  • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

  • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] [email protected] 13 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    This restriction is meant to protect high definition content from being ripped by pirates. Open systems don't offer the same DRM guarantees as the locked ones.

    [–] [email protected] 24 points 11 months ago

    Ironically means that everything I watch on my Linux machine will definitely be pirated.

    [–] [email protected] 23 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

    Which is bullshit because DRM doesn't effectively prevent ripping (source: you can find pirated hd content). So it's literally only harmful to the customer.

    I'll give you a quick demo of how DRM is literally useless at protecting content:

    • You need:
      • a machine with any Nvidia GPU series 600 or newer running Windows, a browser with DRM support (e.g. chrome), and optionally sunshine. This is not an uncommon setup
      • any other machine that can run moonlight (even a phone).\
    • Services often use widevine as DRM provider, so using the Nvidia machine visit this test page and make sure DRM is working
    • Normally the DRM api ensure that the decrypted content of that video can never in any form get out of a special GPU buffer, not even the browser can access it
    • enable sunshine on the machine
    • Connect from the second machine to the using moonlight and notice that the video is not being shared. DRM seems to be working correctly.
    • Now disable sunshine and enable Nvidia gamestream from GeForce experience, and set it up to share the whole desktop
    • connect from the second machine to the first using moonlight
    • now the video is being shared to the second machine, and DRM is circumvented. There is literally nothing preventing you from recording the screen on the second machine

    Now, this is a terrible way of ripping content, it causes at least one reencoding, which reduces quality (a lot of people won't even notice it), but it is a stupidly simple working demo of DRM circumvention.

    Btw, that procedure is not the result of some study, reverse engineering, or any clever stuff. I was literally playing a game in streaming and I went "hmm, I wonder what would happen if I streamed widevine" and it just worked.

    [–] d3Xt3r 10 points 11 months ago

    it is a stupidly simple working demo of DRM circumvention

    A much more simpler method is to just use Streamfab. No need for nVidia, a second PC etc.

    [–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

    What do you know, I have that kind of setup. I kinda want to try that now. I ain't gonna subscribe to Netflix just to test this for myself tho.

    [–] FuglyDuck 23 points 11 months ago (1 children)

    locked ones don't provide DRM guarantees either. it takes a script kiddie five minutes to break DRM whenever some new scheme comes out.

    [–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

    It's probably contractual obligations from shitty media companies.

    [–] FuglyDuck 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

    quite probably. Ironically it does nothing helpful because pirates are gonna pirate.

    [–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

    If anything, it's does the opposite by driving would-be legitimate buyers (well... Subscribers) into piracy.

    You won't provide it to me even if I pay you, because you don't like the system I use? Fine, I'll keep my money and pirate it instead.

    [–] FuglyDuck 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

    the Dutch East India Company were the bad guys. Just saying.

    [–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

    ...ok?

    TF does that have to do with modern media piracy?

    [–] FuglyDuck 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

    If the monopoly is the bad guys… the pirates are the good guys, right?

    [–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago

    Ah, I see.

    If purchasing isn't owning, then pirating can't be stealing.