I am startled, and also glad, that record labels haven't put the screws to youtube enough to get them to implement widevine for music videos on youtube.
Probably unworkable for the time being.
Probably unworkable for the time being.
The reason why EME didn't lead to a catastrophic downfall of freedom on the Web is purely a function of DRM being expensive to license. Netflix can afford it but not YouTube, and YouTube creators generally don't want it[0].
Related note: if YouTube starts putting DRM on videos then every creator that's ever used Kevin Macleod music is now violating the Creative Commons anti-DRM clause. YouTube actually added a feature to mark your video as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, so they'd be at least marginally aware of this clause, so they'd have to at least make DRM opt-in.
[0] To be clear, this is moreso that what YouTubers are actually worried about is reuploading content back to YouTube and monetizing it. They don't care so much if you have a stream-ripped copy on your computer that you just watch on your own. But things like Content ID actually work way better for preventing reuploading.
Freedom for the people instead of companies! That's why I prefer the EU over the US.
More like Telegram (non E2EE modes)<---->Discord<---->Guilded and Signal<---->Telegram (E2EE modes)<---->WhatsApp.
Take a few minutes to think about how it would have to be implemented on a technical level.
Integrating either Signal or WhatsApp clients with Telegram would to tantamount to a backdoor, or would require a redesign of Telegram so drastic that would upset its users. A perfect analogy is integrating WhatsApp and Twitter because Telegram is actually more similar to Twitter than it is to WhatsApp.
But even integrating Signal and WhatsApp which now share a similar encryption scheme and user ID isn't a good idea: Most Signal users don't want any interaction either directly or indirectly with WhatsApp. The two programs have completely different group implementations: WhatsApp keeps all the metadata server side, whereas Signal handles all of that client side with the server acting as a dumb router of opaque messages that wrap the group state updates. How would those two systems be reconciled? Would Signal have to accept WhatsApp users joining its group and then just leak all of the group metadata to WhatsApp servers for compatibility? Would WhatsApp have to re-write its entire service to be compatible with Signal's group semantics and see to it that all billion users are fully upgraded or kick them off the service?
These issues go on and on and on, and they increase exponentially the more messaging systems you try to add. The whole idea is just ridiculous.
This was why XMPP failed. The UX was terrible because different clients didn't support the same features broadly and it was a big mess. And everyone just went with centralized services where everything works as expected.
I'd love to get back to the halcyon days of the late 90's where I could use whatever client I wanted to talk to people.
The reason they don't work with each other is there's a line in the terms of service that says you can't use anything but their official software to interact with their servers. WhatsApp will literally ban your number forevef if it detects this. That's the root cause of the shittiness of apps. They very much want you locked in and forced to use their shitty proprietary software. If society makes such terms illegal and unenforceable, free software clients will start showing up and other companies will start integrating with their competitors whether they like it or not. This will also fix all other apps of any kind, including social media apps. It will kill things like remote attestation and web environment integrity. It will just fix everything.
If Apple can make their software (i.e. Final Cut or Logic) exclusive to Apple devices, so can Google.
That's a non-negligible market segment. And an affluent one.
But the biggest danger is that videos and channels can get removed by any, all, or no reason.
-Copyright middlemen/parasites
-Trolls
-Shifts in what’s politically or advertiser acceptable (see: https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/14ddlng/unalived/)
-Massive data loss (see myspace)
-And especially the capricious whims of the channel owner.
A few years ago I realized an old playlist of mine was basically swiss cheese due to how many videos had been removed.
If you value it, save it now, because it will be gone sooner than you are prepared for.
There are many ways to handle automated saving of channels, including some gui frontends, but offhand the one I use and modify is: https://github.com/TheFrenchGhosty/TheFrenchGhostys-Ultimate...
One thing to note, is that the artist/label retain full control of what music is present, and as such can be removed at any time, even ones you paid for. See: https://get.bandcamp.help/hc/en-us/articles/4406122372119-Wh...
I use https://github.com/easlice/bandcamp-downloader to immediately archive flac files to my NAS after a purchase, then convert to those to a lossy for space saving format for mobile playback/family sharing as desired with a playlist. This way I have my archive, and the artists I like get their support.
artist decided to revise their own back catalog narrative so to speak, and I get it but holy crap the horses already left the stable.
So it is not for sale. I might find it on soulseek (thanks for the suggestion someone else ITT). the album meant a lot to me, as these things can when they're literally top playcounts for the year - clearly it does.
and it was, you know... super-indie, mom's basement kind of soundcloud & distrokid released production.
wonderful and now gone. Had I bought this on iTunes it would have gone into my offline library. it was for sale, and is no more.
my takeaway has been to get very defensive about any hyper-indie releases that I want to hang onto.
They might still have it around and be happy to provide it. :)
Are they really though? It's my impression that even mass produced pressed CDs have a reputation for rotting on the order of 20-30 years. Vinyl lasts a century or more if you don't physically abuse it. CDs are certainly easier to rip though, so probably still worth it.
If you play a vinyl record enough to wear it out, at least you listened to it a lot before it wore out. With CDs, you might never listen to the music even once and come back years later to find it has destroyed itself.