Can you give me more background on how to set this switch?
Digital Rights Management (DRM) Content
Play DRM-controlled content
Learn more = https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm
The learn-more URL says
"Firefox downloads and enables the Google Widevine CDM by default
to give users a smooth experience on sites that require DRM."
I don't understand this Google "Widevine" stuff. Do you?
Can you provide some elucidating background on what's going on here?
Can you give me more background on how to set this switch?
Digital Rights Management (DRM) Content
Play DRM-controlled content
Learn more = https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm
The learn-more URL says
"Firefox downloads and enables the Google Widevine CDM by default
to give users a smooth experience on sites that require DRM."
I don't understand this Google "Widevine" stuff. Do you?
Can you provide some elucidating background on what's going on here?
On 08/27/2023 10:59, Wolf Greenblatt wrote:
Can you give me more background on how to set this switch?
Digital Rights Management (DRM) Content
Play DRM-controlled content
Learn more = https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm
The learn-more URL says
"Firefox downloads and enables the Google Widevine CDM by default
to give users a smooth experience on sites that require DRM."
I don't understand this Google "Widevine" stuff. Do you?
Can you provide some elucidating background on what's going on here?
DRM is how entities like Netflix protect their content against piracy. Widevine is a method that Firefox supports. If you don't need or want
to access content protected by it go to Tools >Settings>Digital Rights Management (DRM) Content and make sure the checkbox next to "Play DRM-controlled content is not checked. That's supposed to uninstall Widevine. Checking the box is supposed to install it again. I don't do
DRM so I can't say for sure but I have no reason to believe this isn't
how it works.
Widevine is the DRM module used for streaming. If you
don't stream videos in your browser, you can disable it.
I don't understand this Google "Widevine" stuff. Do you?
Can you provide some elucidating background on what's going on here?
It seems to be part of the usual corporate paranoia, that assumes you're
a thief.
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 13:56:33 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:
It seems to be part of the usual corporate paranoia, that assumes you're
a thief.
What makes a thief?
. . .
Widevine is the DRM module used for streaming. If you
don't stream videos in your browser, you can disable it.
What does it actually do? Does it prevent the stream from being downloaded? Scan for screen recorders?
-----------------------------------
user is generated from /dev/urandom
And, there's an enclave now, to "seal the deal". With the analog
hole closed, the digital needed handcuffs, and the enclave does
that bit.
Using WideVine costs money. The equipment or program preparing
the crypto stream, is a good place for gatekeeping. There would be
a "per-view" fee as well, so the WideVine framework likely has
a counter for this.
. . .
A thief in this case is someone who distributes copyrighted
material without rights to do so, or who steals a copy they're
expected to pay for. If you buy a book it's legal. If you resell
that book it's legal. If you distribute copies, it's not legal. If
you steal the book it's not legal.
There's also a gray area here. What about Youtube, for
example? Google is giving away those files for free. If you
stream them then you might see ads. If you use software to
simply download the file then you won't see ads. Some would
say it's stealing to download the file, but Google has put the
file on their server and advertised the download link!
. . .
There's also a gray area here. What about Youtube, for
example? Google is giving away those files for free. If you
stream them then you might see ads. If you use software to
simply download the file then you won't see ads. Some would
say it's stealing to download the file, but Google has put the
file on their server and advertised the download link!
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
. . .Stealing a physical copy isn't copyright violation, so that's not what's being discussed here.
A thief in this case is someone who distributes copyrighted
material without rights to do so, or who steals a copy they're
expected to pay for. If you buy a book it's legal. If you resell
that book it's legal. If you distribute copies, it's not legal. If
you steal the book it's not legal.
"Patrick" <patrick@oleary.com> wrote
| What makes a thief?
| Specifically, What makes content DRM versus the same content not DRM?
|
DRM stands for digital restriction management. (Later
cast, with Orwellian flair, as digital rights management.)
As Paul explained, it's a library to handle encryption, so
that you never have access to the actual digital file.
A thief in this case is someone who distributes copyrighted
material without rights to do so, or who steals a copy they're
expected to pay for. If you buy a book it's legal. If you resell
that book it's legal. If you distribute copies, it's not legal. If
you steal the book it's not legal.
There's also a gray area here. What about Youtube, for
example? Google is giving away those files for free. If you
stream them then you might see ads. If you use software to
simply download the file then you won't see ads. Some would
say it's stealing to download the file, but Google has put the
file on their server and advertised the download link! It's similar
with "passive hassle" approaches by websites who want you
to "register" or pay for a subscription. If they put the actual
webpage online then you're free to take it. If you block ads,
they can try to stop you, but they offered the webpage content
to the public. If you read an article at WashPo, for example,
they can't legally force you to also visit Google/Doubleclick
or other ad/spyware companies. They can only try to trick
you into it.
In the case of streaming movies it's different. The content is
not offered freely online. You'd have to hack the encryption to get
the movie file. So in that case you're deliberately breaking in.
(Though a locked down Web is in the works. Many webpages now
are not HTML at all. The entire content is obfuscated script, which
retrieves the page content from the server while also inviting multiple tracking scripts from other companies. If you don't let them
commandeer your browser with script then you don't get the
webpage. Microsoft is one company that's pioneering that technique.)
| Whatever that turns out to be, if Firefox downloads a program called
| Widevine, what do the other browsers do? Same program? Different one?
|
Firefox doesn't download it. If you want to stream something like
Netflix in a browser, then the browser has to have Widevine built in.
It's the industry standard. At one point I was streaming Netflix on
a Raspberry Pi and had to use Chromium with a special update that
someone had created privately to install Widevine, because Widevine
wasn't yet in browsers on ARM CPUs. Aside from dedicated software,
I'm not aware of non-Widevine options. I'd guess that Roku or Sling
or whatever the devices are that let you stream are probably also
using Widevine.
| So confusing.
|
Nothing very confusing for the average end-user. With most existing browsers you can stream movies. That's the default arrangement. But
you'll have a hard time copying movies you stream. On the other hand, companies are charging about $10/month for unlimited streaming. So
there's not much incentive to steal.
A less obvious issue is the potential side racket of personal data wholesaling. Privacy is my main reason for using a browser. If I
connect my TV to the Internet then I'll likely be spied on by multiple entities. If I download a dedicated "app", that gives them much more
ability to collect data because they're running software on my machine. (That's why so many entities want you to "download the app". It
helps them to collect saleable personal data, which is also a major income stream for cellphone software makers. People won't pay money, so
they either show ads or sell you out.)
With a browser it's pretty much just Netflix knowing that I watched
a movie. Though I had an interesting experience recently. I decided to subscribe to Starz, to provide a bigger selection of movies. It worked
fine for a few weeks and then suddenly I couldn't log in. It just kept looping. I finally figured out that Starz was letting several other spying companies come along for the ride, and if I blocked those via NoScript
then they weren't going to let me log in! So I cancelled. Now they keep sending me spam, offering 3 months for $3. But they won't offer
honesty and common decency. I don't mind paying their $10 fee. I
do mind the sleaze.
The heyday, for me, was Netflix DVDs. I was paying $1-2 each for virtually any movie made. Now each studio is trying to keep their
movies limited, so that you have to pay for streaming services. I
watched Tar at a friend's house on Amazon. It was $20! Twice what
it would have cost in the theater. Netflix is cheap, but it's now
mostly 3rd-rate junk movies and junk TV shows that they make
themselves. I recently saw Oppenheimer in a theater. I get more DVDs
from my local library than I watch on Netflix. The library has a better selection. Streaming services are becoming like TV stations. You need
several to see what you want to watch. But each one is charging
$10-15/month. That all adds up. And Amazon's video prices are nuts.
It's not the fault of Netflix. Warner, Disney, Paramount, Apple and so
on won't let them show their stuff, because they want to sell their own streaming service. There are actually movies that you won't be able
to see for any price unless you buy AppleTV or some such.
If we didn't have libraries then I'm sure they'd be banned by a
consortium of greedy media companies. My local library can buy
a copy of a movie and loan it out, which is perfectly legal with
copyrighted material. Unfortunately, most of the US doesn't have
good local libraries that can afford to stock a wide selection
of DVDS. But even libraries have limitations. Some studios, like
AppleTV, won't allow libraries to buy their stuff. On the bright
side, AppleTV is mostly junk with the likes of Jennifer Anniston
and Reese Witherspoon starring, so we're not missing much. :)
downloading is a violation
of the terms of service, although it's highly unlikely that anyone will
be caught doing that.
downloading is a violation
of the terms of service, although it's highly unlikely that anyone will
be caught doing that.
Everything you said is correct - with the very important clarification that you can easily download youtube material WITHOUT violating ANY YouTube TOS.
You just have to use a program (of which there are many, almost all FOSS,
so Google knows EXACTLY how they work) that uses only the site public API.
If we didn't have libraries then I'm sure they'd be banned by a
consortium of greedy media companies. My local library can buy
a copy of a movie and loan it out, which is perfectly legal with
copyrighted material. Unfortunately, most of the US doesn't have
good local libraries that can afford to stock a wide selection
of DVDS.
BUT some/many/most/all local libraries can request materials from other libraries. It may take a while, but it's possible. Our library loans
passes to State Parks, hotspots, chromebooks, e-books and other stuff
that I don't know about in addition to books, DVDs and CDs.
On 8/28/23 9:15 AM, Newyana2 wrote:
If we didn't have libraries then I'm sure they'd be banned by a
consortium of greedy media companies. My local library can buy
a copy of a movie and loan it out, which is perfectly legal with
copyrighted material. Unfortunately, most of the US doesn't have
good local libraries that can afford to stock a wide selection
of DVDS.
Everything you said is correct - with the very important clarification that >> you can easily download youtube material WITHOUT violating ANY YouTube TOS.
false.
You just have to use a program (of which there are many, almost all FOSS,
so Google knows EXACTLY how they work) that uses only the site public API.
that doesn't change anything.
Everything you said is correct - with the very important clarification that
you can easily download youtube material WITHOUT violating ANY YouTube TOS.
false.
*Every consumer OS _except for iOS_ has a GUI to legally download videos.*
In article <ucj1gb$265g3$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Wally J ><walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
Everything you said is correct - with the very important clarification that
you can easily download youtube material WITHOUT violating ANY YouTube TOS.
false.
*Every consumer OS _except for iOS_ has a GUI to legally download videos.*
very much false, arlen, and your attempt to move the goalpost to a
generic 'download videos' is not going to fly.
it's a tos violation to download youtube videos on any platform. full
stop.
<https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms>
The following restrictions apply to your use of the Service. You are
not allowed to:
access, reproduce, download, distribute, transmit, broadcast,
display, sell, license, alter, modify or otherwise use any part of
the Service or any Content except: (a) as expressly authorized by
the Service; or (b) with prior written permission from YouTube and,
if applicable, the respective rights holders;
...
access the Service using any automated means (such as robots,
botnets or scrapers) except (a) in the case of public search
engines, in accordance with YouTube
note that it doesn't exempt or allow any particular os. all users are >prohibited from download videos.
Why do you think it's always only iOS that can't graphically download
youtube videos
Google sees the source code - if they thought it was illegal - they have lawyers who could ask for an injunction on these products in a heartbeat.
note that it doesn't exempt or allow any particular os. all users are prohibited from download videos.
granted, the chances of being caught and prosecuted are almost nil, but
that doesn't change anything.
and as for ios, there are gui options to download youtube videos and
other content, as has been explained to you many times before.
you
refuse to acknowledge it because it destroys your trolling.
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
There's also a gray area here. What about Youtube, for
example? Google is giving away those files for free. If you
stream them then you might see ads. If you use software to
simply download the file then you won't see ads. Some would
say it's stealing to download the file, but Google has put the
file on their server and advertised the download link!
no. youtube provides a streaming link.
there isn't an actual file to download. it's actually many segments
which must be stitched together. regardless, downloading is a violation
of the terms of service, although it's highly unlikely that anyone will
be caught doing that.
youtube is *constantly* changing their back end to prevent downloading, >causing the various download utilities to continually release updates
to keep up with the changes.
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote
A thief in this case is someone who distributes copyrighted
material without rights to do so, or who steals a copy they're
expected to pay for. If you buy a book it's legal. If you resell
that book it's legal. If you distribute copies, it's not legal. If
you steal the book it's not legal.
Stealing a physical copy isn't copyright violation, so that's not what's >>being discussed here.
I said it's illegal. You can twist the facts to justify
what you think you deserve, but stealing a book,
or distributing copies, is illegal.
On 8/28/23 12:19 PM, Nic wrote:to books, DVDs and CDs.
On 8/28/23 9:15 AM, Newyana2 wrote:
  If we didn't have libraries then I'm sure they'd be banned by a
consortium of greedy media companies. My local library can buy
a copy of a movie and loan it out, which is perfectly legal with
copyrighted material. Unfortunately, most of the US doesn't have
good local libraries that can afford to stock a wide selection
of DVDS.
BUT some/many/most/all local libraries can request materials from other libraries. It may take a while, but it's possible. Our library loans passes to State Parks, hotspots, chromebooks, e-books and other stuff that I don't know about in addition
There is also the world-renown free public Internet library, whose goal, based on what they write, it to make every book possible available to you.
https://openlibrary.org/
note that it doesn't exempt or allow any particular os. all users are
prohibited from download videos.
Why do you think it's always only iOS that can't graphically download
youtube videos
it can, but just like with *every* *other* *os*, it's a violation of
the terms of service.
Google sees the source code - if they thought it was illegal - they have
lawyers who could ask for an injunction on these products in a heartbeat.
the source code is not what's illegal.
"NewPipe works by fetching the required data from the official API
(e.g. PeerTube) of the service you're using. If the official API is
What's always the case with you iNuts, nospam, is you can't stand that it's only iOS that can't do thousands of useful things every other OS does.
I've never seen YT terms of service. The whole idea is absurd.
I can put a TOS on my own website that says you have to send
me $20 to look at a webpage, but the webpages are right there,
free for the taking!
People don't understand how the Internet works.
Which reminds me, reading this post costs $100. Will that be
check or charge?
What's always the case with you iNuts, nospam, is you can't stand that it's >> only iOS that can't do thousands of useful things every other OS does.
it's *you* who can't do those things.
others can, and even told you how they can be done, which you ignore so
you can troll.
"NewPipe works by fetching the required data from the official API
(e.g. PeerTube) of the service you're using. If the official API is
citing newpipe isn't the claim you think it is, given that it's not
allowed on the play store.
On 28 Aug 2023 at 9:15:48 PM, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
If we didn't have libraries then I'm sure they'd be banned by a
consortium of greedy media companies. My local library can buy
a copy of a movie and loan it out, which is perfectly legal with
copyrighted material. Unfortunately, most of the US doesn't have
good local libraries that can afford to stock a wide selection
of DVDS.
BUT some/many/most/all local libraries can request materials from other
libraries. It may take a while, but it's possible. Our library loans
passes to State Parks, hotspots, chromebooks, e-books and other stuff
that I don't know about in addition to books, DVDs and CDs.
There is also the world-renown free public Internet library, whose goal, >based on what they write, it to make every book possible available to you.
https://openlibrary.org/
On 8/28/2023 4:15 PM, The Real Bev wrote:to books, DVDs and CDs.
On 8/28/23 12:19 PM, Nic wrote:
On 8/28/23 9:15 AM, Newyana2 wrote:
  If we didn't have libraries then I'm sure they'd be banned by a
consortium of greedy media companies. My local library can buy
a copy of a movie and loan it out, which is perfectly legal with
copyrighted material. Unfortunately, most of the US doesn't have
good local libraries that can afford to stock a wide selection
of DVDS.
BUT some/many/most/all local libraries can request materials from other libraries. It may take a while, but it's possible. Our library loans passes to State Parks, hotspots, chromebooks, e-books and other stuff that I don't know about in addition
That's an inter-library loan.
You couldn't run a technical library without that,
because it would be "too expensive". That saves the
library system a lot of money.
A few FOSS youtube downloaders that come to mind offhand are yt-dlp (Windows CLI), ClipGrab (yt-dlp GUI) and NewPipe (Android GUI) - all of which are continually updated so they work despite Google site changes.
As usual, there are no GUIs on iOS that do what Windows & Android do;
but if you jump through insane clusterfuck hoops, the yt-dlp will work
on iOS.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
There is also the world-renown free public Internet library, whose
goal, based on what they write, it to make every book possible
available to you.
https://openlibrary.org/
--
Cheers, Quellen
A few FOSS youtube downloaders that come to mind offhand are yt-dlp (Windows CLI), ClipGrab (yt-dlp GUI) and NewPipe (Android GUI) - all of which are continually updated so they work despite Google site changes.
Technically, youtube-dl was sued a bit ago. I don't remember if they won or not.
But where do you get your information about youtube-dl being sued?
(Of course a software program can't be sued, but presumably you mean
the developer.) This is the first I've heard of that. I thought that youtube-dl stopped being maintained -- stopped being updated to
If we ever decide to close our libraries we're all doomed.
https://techradar.com/pro/youtube-ripping-site-finally-goes-dark-following-court-ordered-ban
Still, none of this seems to be about 'yt-dlp.exe', which is what has
long ago superseded the deprecated 'youtube.dl.exe' executable as far as
I know.
Yes, but it's a bit worrying they are starting to take legal action..
| And, I didn't even know there was a "web site" called youtube-dl.com (or
| whatever the domain extension was); so I suspect this is a copycat site.
|
It's a legit site that had been operating but outdated for
a long time. I don't know about the case. Maybe it's a case
from 3 years ago that finally got a ruling. Maybe the RIAA are
going after whoever they can, as a PR move. Microsoft now
owns github, so that connection won't be so easy to block.
I never got yt-dlp working properly. I had to keep restarting
it. Recently I found 3dyd, thanks to someone in these groups,
and it even works on my XP box. Now, that's software! :)
3dyd seems to fail with at least some music, so maybe they're
trying to work with the RIAA. Which is fine with me.
I'm not
generally interested in Taylor Swift's latest bubble-gum-pop.
I'm usually looking for academic lectures, car repair videos, and
the like. On the other hand, why would the RIAA go after youtube
downloaders, rather than Google? Why do they allow music on
a publicly accesible website at all? Why not issue takedown
orders to Google?
It's possible that the RIAA are in bed with Google,
on a PR campaign to do battle against basic http protocols.
There's a general move to turn the Internet into a subscription
service for interactive cable TV and services.
That's at odds with
the original design and intention of the Internet as an open,
transparent communications medium. If the Hamburg ruling is
legit it implies that their courts have been duped into believing
that "difficult access" to a webpage or online file constitutes
a purchase contract. That could clear the way for news sites,
for example, who claim no one has a right to load their webpages
without also being sent to a half dozen ad/spying domains and allowing
the news website to control their browser via script.
As it stands now, many of the popular sites I visit don't work
without script. They cover the page with an opaque DIV. They bury
the page text in javascript. Crazy stuff. It used to be that the idea
was to make pages work in any browser. That's now reversed: Use
the latest Chrome, enable script and turn off ad blockers, or we'll
stop you accessing content.
The other day I was reading an article at Atlantic. I don't normally
allow script. Atlantic works fine, except that their pages are designed
for cellphones, so I need to either read giant, serif text or turn off CSS. With both JS and CSS disabled I get an ugly but very readable webpage.
A friend was having trouble getting the full article, so I revisited with script enabled. I got a page with a picture of 2 hardhat workers that
said they're having problems! I toggled JS on and off, cconfirming that
this was a lying webpage intended to block visitors without admitting
that they're doing so. Crazy. I'm guessing that JS allowed them
to figure out that not all files/ads were being loaded, probably due
to my HOSTS file. (I don't actually use an ad blocker.) So they sent
me a "broken page" page instead. And it's not a 404. Someone actually designed the page and illustration and they're swapping it in at that
URL.
With rulings that claim it's illegal to download a file in one piece
from a publicly accessible server, we're one step closer to making
http a closed protocol and having a legal basis to make web browsers
conform to a DRM model, with no settings, no saving of pages, and no
ability to view source code. Restriction via hassle could become
legal precedent.
In many cases they seem to require script in order to block
you out. I've never been blocked or restricted at NYT or Atlantic.
But each case is different. I was interested in articles that Bari
Weiss was writing (she quit the NYT in protest over their wokist
censorship).
In many cases they seem to require script in order to block
you out. I've never been blocked or restricted at NYT or Atlantic.
But each case is different. I was interested in articles that Bari
Weiss was writing (she quit the NYT in protest over their wokist
censorship). She and some friends seemed to be writing interesting
stuff on substack. But then they set up their own website at https://www.thefp.com/ The Free Press, I think it stands for.
The articles provide a first paragraph and then require a
subscription.
In that case the "read more" doesn't just point
to hidden content. It's actually some different URL which is only
accessed by subscription. So why don't I subscribe? Because I don't
know that it will be consistently worth reading. Bari Weiss seems
to have gone missing. And I don't like to give a credit card to an
online company.
I don't see online subscription journalism being
a thing. It's too much of a privacy and security risk. And for the
most part I just don't find truly thoughtful writing. The Atlantic
is the most consistently interesting, but even then it's an
occasional thing.
| But I do agree with you that they are all about blocking IPs, which is
| where some of the useful domain blockers seem to work well such as
| https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
|
| Someday I'm going to install the Acrylic host blocker which uses
wildcards!
| https://mayakron.altervista.org/support/acrylic/Home.htm
|
I use both Acrylic and Unbound, on different machines. The latter
lacks documentation and is difficult to set up. But both have a
HOSTS option with wildcards. Very nice. I haven't seen ads to
speak of for decades, yet I probably have only about 300 entries
in HOSTS. The ad/spying/data collection industry is very centralized,
with Google/Doubleclick running most of it. I also block
google-analytics, google fonts, googletagmanager, etc. If
you don't put those things in HOSTS then you're being followed
everywhere. Facebook is also widespread.
It's very odd that so few people know about HOSTS and
yet it's arguably the easiest, most efficient privacy tool,
especially with a DNS resolver that provides wildcard entries.
But I suppose that UBlock Origin is a good option for people
who simply don't deal with tech. That will block a few things
even if you never configure it.
This is another case where Android excels because you don't have to use the Google Play Store to install the best apps (many of which aren't on it).
[https://netguard.me/]
But I suppose that UBlock Origin is a good option for people
who simply don't deal with tech. That will block a few things
even if you never configure it.
What's most amazing is people complaining about ads who don't use
adblock plus. How could they NOT know?
The NetGuard ad blocking works "like a hosts file" as explained here.
[https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/master/ADBLOCKING.md]
And I don't like to give a credit card to an| > online company.
"The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
And I don't like to give a credit card to an| > online company.
|
| I stopped worrying about that long ago, at least for what seem to be
| respectable companies. Citi will give you a virtual credit card number
| with a daily limit and expieration date you set. I'd rather have had a
| total amount, but this is OK. I used it to buy my Keepgo SIM.
|
| A friend's trust account was drained by one of the trust company
| employees who simply forged a signature. Took a year to restore the
| account. Nothing is safe.
|
For me there's both a privacy and security problem. No one
takes responsibility for their online-connected databases. They
sell personal data wholesale. The general digitizing of the
process is a big problem. We have a NYT subscription. (Not my idea.)
I sometimes find interesting articles and a newspaper is a nice
way to wake up my head in the morning. But online? Even though
I can have that subscription for free it's a spyware mess. They
want to monitor everything I read in order to customize ads and
probably to sell me out to data resellers -- even though I've
already paid for the paper. The paper doesn't have cameras
embedded in the page to check how long I look at the full
page ad of the listless jewelry company model.
It has no way
to monitor when/where I read the paper. NYT actually design the
newspaper version now to be only a partial product despite the
high price: "Go online to read this exclusive story!" But the claim
of needing pargetted ads is merely a greed scam. Remember
Google's early search engine with contextual, text-based ads?
They were a massive success before they started spying.
I'm increasingly using cash and avoiding cards due to the
runaway spying. Everyone wants private info. The drugstore
wants me to join their club and donate to... what exactly? It's
nuts.
The other day I saw a piece at 404media.co, which I'd never
heard of. They were talking about how one can enter a credit
card number at the NYC subway website to get a record of
when/where that person got on the subway. Huh?! They describe
it as a service. They're maintaining records, enabled by the use
of electronic payment. What gives them that right? The article ended
with this interesting paragraph:
"404 Media found that MTA’s trip history feature still works even when the user pays with Apple Pay. Apple told 404 Media it does not store or have access to the used card numbers, and does not provide these to merchants, including transit systems. Apple did not respond when asked to clarify how the MTA website feature works when a rider uses Apple Pay."
| What's most amazing is people complaining about ads who don't use
| adblock plus. How could they NOT know?
|
I've never used any adblocker. I've never needed to because
I block domains.
But I sympathize with the majority. It's just too complicated
to figure these things out, and it keeps getting worse.
Also, an increasing number of sites try to sniff out adblockers.
I depend on NoScript, but most people can't use it. It
just requires too much understanding of how the Internet
works. When a page doesn't work and there are 8 script
sources, ballooning to 14, how many of those do you need
to make the page work? It's out of control.
There was a brief time when it all made sense. ActiveX
and Java in webpages was being phased out. 10-15% of
people were blocking script. It was widely agreed that
any website using script shouldn't depend on it... Then Google
started with the targetted ads and designed their search
engine to prioritize commercial sites. It's been downhill since
then.
The other day I saw a piece at 404media.co, which I'd never
heard of. They were talking about how one can enter a credit
card number at the NYC subway website to get a record of
when/where that person got on the subway. Huh?! They describe
it as a service. They're maintaining records, enabled by the use
of electronic payment. What gives them that right? The article ended
with this interesting paragraph:
"404 Media found that MTA?s trip history feature still works even when the user pays with Apple Pay. Apple told 404 Media it does not store or have access to the used card numbers, and does not provide these to merchants, including transit systems. Apple did not respond when asked to clarify how the MTA website feature works when a rider uses Apple Pay."
On 8/30/2023 5:56 PM, candycane wrote:
https://techradar.com/pro/youtube-ripping-site-finally-goes-dark-following-court-ordered-ban
Thanks for that article, which starts off with this quote.
"Youtube-dl site no longer loads & cannot even be accessed using a VPN"
Two things potentially confusing with that quote are that Stan Brown (and
the rest of us) know that the youtube-dl.exe has been long deprecated.
And, I didn't even know there was a "web site" called youtube-dl.com (or whatever the domain extension was); so I suspect this is a copycat site.
Another sentence which seems to explain what's going on is this one.
"Despite GitHub being the platform hosting the open-source YouTube
downloader, Uberspace was held legally liable because it linked
to the developer platform."
So it seems, perhaps, a rogue site (which is what's been taken down) was calling the (long deprecated) youtube-dl.exe (presumably from GitHub).
Quick update update on the subject: as we expected it, YouTube
didn't proceed further with their legal action threat.
If anything new comes by, we'll keep you informed, no matter what.
"...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote
|
| Weiss was(maybe still is) a talented writer at least up until 7 years
| ago(2016) - since then her writings leaned, regrettably toward dogmatic
| missives,
| One of those missive was her ~20 paragraph resignation/reason for
| leaving the NYT.
|
| She was a much better book review editor than op-ed. Accurate, inviting,
| and concise without undue repetitive content.
|
| Weiss resigned ~3 yrs ago(2020)
|
| From my perspective, the minimum subscription(her Free Press) of $8
| month isn't worth the effort.
|
Nor for me. And few, if any, articles seem to be written by her.
What originally brought her to my attention was this:
https://www.thefp.com/p/how-journalism-abandoned-the-working
"...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote
| > https://www.thefp.com/p/how-journalism-abandoned-the-working
|
| :) Another missive filling up extra space.
|
You're very cryptic and guarded, Winston. I get that you
don't think much of Weiss, but to dismiss an analysis as
drivel with no argument is not making any point.
I see that a lot on Reddit, which I discovered fairly late
but now find useful for finding/sharing various info. People
will make pronouncements as though their opinion alone
carried weight, merely by it's property of being an opinion.
Did Bari leave you for her wife? Is she a Mac user? A Linux
nut? What's so unspeakable? OT enquiring minds want to
know. :)
"...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote
| Don't misterpret the word 'missive'
| - which by definition is supposed as written to convey a message
| message(sometimes important), yet too often like many writers op'eds
| nothing more than a repetitive attempt to make the same point.
|
So you thought that piece was good, but only a rehashing
of things she's written before? Tough crowd. :)
I hadn't seen such insight into the matter before I read that.
I rarely see anyone who even has the courage to question
wokism. Weiss, Chappelle, Rowling, McWhorther... That seems
to be about it in terms of mainstream media. But I confess
that I also hadn't followed Weiss before I saw that piece.
"...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote
| Don't misterpret the word 'missive'
| - which by definition is supposed as written to convey a message
| message(sometimes important), yet too often like many writers op'eds
| nothing more than a repetitive attempt to make the same point.
|
So you thought that piece was good, but only a rehashing
of things she's written before? Tough crowd. :)
I hadn't seen such insight into the matter before I read that.
I rarely see anyone who even has the courage to question
wokism. Weiss, Chappelle, Rowling, McWhorther... That seems
to be about it in terms of mainstream media. But I confess
that I also hadn't followed Weiss before I saw that piece.
On 9/1/23 1:34 PM, Newyana2 wrote:
The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
I often wonder: At what point are the ads blocked? Before they hit >>>firefox or before they hit my screen?
It depends. I once wrote a mime filter for IE. I'm guessing
that FF allows a similar functionality. The IE version installed
as an ActiveX component. One Registry setting would set it
up as a kind of hook, getting access to files before IE gets
them. So I could filter out script or anything else before IE
gets the page. Adblock extensions probably do similar, filtering
based on domain, image size, HTML, etc. For instance if there's
an image from a remote source named "ad-top" then that would
be a candidate. A lot of web designers share the same code
snippets, so that method works pretty well. I've done similar
to disappear cookie permission popups. So the extension probably
blocks it before it gets to FF, while filters in something like >>userContent.css would be applied by FF.
If you have a HOSTS file filter then it doesn't get that far.
FF calls DNS to find out the IP address of ads.doubleclick.net
and DNS says that's your own computer. So there's no place
for FF to go to get the ad. That's especially good because it
blocks trackers well.
Excellent. Now I wonder if the ad-deliverers get paid for the delivery
even if it doesn't actually make it to the viewer.
"The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
I often wonder: At what point are the ads blocked? Before they hit
firefox or before they hit my screen?
It depends. I once wrote a mime filter for IE. I'm guessing
that FF allows a similar functionality. The IE version installed
as an ActiveX component. One Registry setting would set it
up as a kind of hook, getting access to files before IE gets
them. So I could filter out script or anything else before IE
gets the page. Adblock extensions probably do similar, filtering
based on domain, image size, HTML, etc. For instance if there's
an image from a remote source named "ad-top" then that would
be a candidate. A lot of web designers share the same code
snippets, so that method works pretty well. I've done similar
to disappear cookie permission popups. So the extension probably
blocks it before it gets to FF, while filters in something like userContent.css would be applied by FF.
If you have a HOSTS file filter then it doesn't get that far.
FF calls DNS to find out the IP address of ads.doubleclick.net
and DNS says that's your own computer. So there's no place
for FF to go to get the ad. That's especially good because it
blocks trackers well.
It seems Truth no longer stands a chance of survival these days.
As for repetitiveness, or rehashing, it seems to me the lefttards have >surpassed even Goebbels' achievement at retelling the big lie.
The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/1/23 1:34 PM, Newyana2 wrote:
The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
I often wonder: At what point are the ads blocked? Before they hit >>>>firefox or before they hit my screen?
It depends. I once wrote a mime filter for IE. I'm guessing
that FF allows a similar functionality. The IE version installed
as an ActiveX component. One Registry setting would set it
up as a kind of hook, getting access to files before IE gets
them. So I could filter out script or anything else before IE
gets the page. Adblock extensions probably do similar, filtering
based on domain, image size, HTML, etc. For instance if there's
an image from a remote source named "ad-top" then that would
be a candidate. A lot of web designers share the same code
snippets, so that method works pretty well. I've done similar
to disappear cookie permission popups. So the extension probably
blocks it before it gets to FF, while filters in something like >>>userContent.css would be applied by FF.
If you have a HOSTS file filter then it doesn't get that far.
FF calls DNS to find out the IP address of ads.doubleclick.net
and DNS says that's your own computer. So there's no place
for FF to go to get the ad. That's especially good because it
blocks trackers well.
Excellent. Now I wonder if the ad-deliverers get paid for the delivery >>even if it doesn't actually make it to the viewer.
I'm sure your suspicion is correct, that there is no useful measurement
of ad delivery and that advertisers are paying for views that never
occurred.
It's like directory listings on the Internet now that there's no such
thing as a telephone directory that somebody actually maintained with somewhat adequate quality control. There is a negative incentive to fail
to remove outdated listings and bad listings. A hit is a hit. They are measuring hits, not usefulness.
"Patrick" <patrick@oleary.com> wrote
| What makes a thief?
| Specifically, What makes content DRM versus the same content not DRM?
|
DRM stands for digital restriction management. (Later
cast, with Orwellian flair, as digital rights management.)
As Paul explained, it's a library to handle encryption, so
that you never have access to the actual digital file.
You did say it's illegal, but "theft" rather changes the discussion to a >criminal act. I certainly do not agree that someone who has violated >copyright is a "thief", nor do I agree that large-scale copyright
violation is an act of piracy.
BUT some/many/most/all local libraries can request materials from other >libraries. It may take a while, but it's possible. Our library loans
passes to State Parks, hotspots, chromebooks, e-books and other stuff
that I don't know about in addition to books, DVDs and CDs.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:24:57 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
You did say it's illegal, but "theft" rather changes the discussion to a
criminal act. I certainly do not agree that someone who has violated
copyright is a "thief", nor do I agree that large-scale copyright
violation is an act of piracy.
OK - there are entire binary newsgroups dealing with books and
audio/visual works (radio, TV shows, movies etc) - by your previous
comment you're saying that's NOT piracy. Yes? No?
On 19.03.24 03:44, The Horny Goat wrote:
Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:24:57 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
You did say it's illegal, but "theft" rather changes the discussion to a >>>criminal act. I certainly do not agree that someone who has violated >>>copyright is a "thief", nor do I agree that large-scale copyright >>>violation is an act of piracy.
OK - there are entire binary newsgroups dealing with books and
audio/visual works (radio, TV shows, movies etc) - by your previous
comment you're saying that's NOT piracy. Yes? No?
You are answering in cold thread.
BTW do you think anyone is answering to a person with such a ridiculous >identity?
On 19.03.24 03:44, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:24:57 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
You did say it's illegal, but "theft" rather changes the discussion to a >>> criminal act. I certainly do not agree that someone who has violated
copyright is a "thief", nor do I agree that large-scale copyright
violation is an act of piracy.
OK - there are entire binary newsgroups dealing with books and
audio/visual works (radio, TV shows, movies etc) - by your previous
comment you're saying that's NOT piracy. Yes? No?
You are answering in cold thread.
BTW do you think anyone is answering to a person with such a ridiculous identity?
On 19.03.24 18:01, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
On 19.03.24 03:44, The Horny Goat wrote:So why do you respond????????
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:24:57 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
You did say it's illegal, but "theft" rather changes the discussion
to a
criminal act. I certainly do not agree that someone who has violated
copyright is a "thief", nor do I agree that large-scale copyright
violation is an act of piracy.
OK - there are entire binary newsgroups dealing with books and
audio/visual works (radio, TV shows, movies etc) - by your previous
comment you're saying that's NOT piracy. Yes? No?
You are answering in cold thread.
BTW do you think anyone is answering to a person with such a ridiculous
identity?
You are answering in cold thread.
BTW do you think anyone is answering to a person with such a ridiculous >>identity?
Settle down, please. He's explained the origin of his pseudonym plenty
of times.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 01:46:14 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,487 |