Why can't we screenshot frames from DRM-protected video on Apple devices?
daringfireball.net
daringfireball.net
This is incorrect. The DRM on Windows varies based on the browser. Trying playing Netflix in Edge vs Chrome and take screenshots. The video will be black on Edge but visible on Chrome. If you use Ctrl-Alt-Shift-D on Edge or Chrome to bring up the stats or view their test videos at https://www.netflix.com/watch/80164785, you can see that Edge plays 4k HDR but Chrome only plays 1080p SDR. Netflix allows 1080p with weak DRM but requires strong DRM for 4k.
There are similar restrictions for mobile devices, VR headsets, etc. where the resolution is limited on certain devices and browsers because of their DRM configuration.
Fly that black flag high!
> We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem.
[1] https://www.escapistmagazine.com/Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Pir...
Unfortunately, the corporations that own the copyright thinks the price is zero for piracy, when it in actual fact, isn't "truly" zero. The fact of the matter is, these copyright owning entities want to extract the maximum amount of profit, rather than provide the lowest price, maximum service for the least cost.
I'm glad there's piracy as a floor to how bad streaming can get.
It’s fine if you don’t think there’s anything worth watching on Netflix. Worth knowing that more than 300 million people around the world disagree: https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/netflix-subscribers-300-mil...
I own a bunch of UHD-Blurays, but the friction to get up from the couch there is also quite large and you can't just decide to watch them on vacation.
Also Netflix bitrate for UHD is abysimal and rarely has any third party stuff.
Amazon bitrates are also good, but I lost a lot of trust in their mid/long term commitment to user needs.
Meh. You could practically say the same about junk food. Just because it's convenient doesn't mean it's the best thing available.
Is it really the capitalism, or is it the monopolism of exclusively owning the copyright and making the money out of it? Who'd fund the widely expensive shows, the CCP? Guess what the quality of the TV shows was during Socialism (and the level of creative freedom they had)?
The capitalism gave the pirates the way to cheaply reap, host and distribute by providing the means to do so for a fraction of the price. If you don't like the service, you don't pay, netflix shares go down and they end up like Blockbuster. If they succeed that means there are enough people who pay gladly.
Copyright system is flawed, but it's not because of capitalism per se (private ownership of the means of production), but because of the over regulation coerced from the government by the copyright owners. But that's bad governance, not the capitalism itself.
Don't know if I notice these things much personally but if someone already cares about 1080p vs 4K they probably would.
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/30081
This Netflix support page shows that 4K streaming is only available in the Edge web browser on Windows devices and in the Safari web browser on Mac devices.
If you use Chrome or Firefox you get locked in to a lower resolution when using Netflix even if you are paying for 4K streaming.
(Of course I suspect DRM will then get extended deeper into the GPU.)
Netflix probably uses PlayReady for 1080p+ content, but I don't have a Netflix account to test so I can't confirm
They just never learn this lesson. Remember the meme joking about all the unskippable bullshit people had to watch on a DVD, when they could just download a pirated copy and press play :)
Well that's an improvement from when some browsers on Windows got 720p. Apparently that changed about six months ago.
But it's still 720p for most browsers on Linux. Huh.
Though in some cases a VM can enforce HDCP.
We had a loooooong time to bury this argument in the ground. I think the iPhone is a monopoly, but until the DOJ agrees it's all a bunch of hot air. Truly, their stance is that you should buy a different phone if you disagree. FOMO proprietors like Apple delight in that answer, Hacker News acts like it's pulling teeth.
What if you need to use a screen reader or magnifier for the text at the beginning of star wars. You would be pretty pissed if it was blocked by DRM. Hopefully pissed enough to sue under the ADA.
If you want movies to be “accessible”, you should argue for that. Being able to screenshot a movie doesn’t help make them accessible in the first place.
Again, do not extrapolate your use case or experience to all users.
Maybe I’m a college student that wants to take a screen grab for purposes covered under fair use.
Maybe I’m a customer that needs to show a picture defect to customer support.
Maybe there’s a use case that I haven’t thought of yet.
The point is that disallowing screen shots prevents a lot of behaviors that are good for this world.
The way to make it accessible is to allow users to do what the want with the content on their computer.
Accessible isn't binary, it is a spectrum of options. The point of many accessibility features in the real world and the digital is to increase possibilities and modalities of use. DRM that blocks screenshots is the opposite of that.
I encourage you to learn more about the disabled and their needs before you keep firing off these quips. It isn't adding to the conversation, and the faults in your reasoning have already been explained thoroughly.
The accessibility was just one of many arguments put forth for perfectly valid reasons you might want to take a screenshot of a video player. You said: "The reality is nobody cares. I don’t think I’ve ever tried to take a screenshot of a movie and I’m sure most people haven’t either."
I'm just pointing out that there are people that DO care, and that there are compelling practical, moral, and legal reasons to care even if those reasons don't affect you right now. There are plenty of things that exist in this world that matter a great deal to people, that will never matter to you.
And you may care about being able to take a screenshot for other reasons, but my entire point was that 98% of people don’t, it hasn’t even crossed their minds.
If you really need that screenshot, you can take a picture with your phone.
"Accessible" to me means I get to use the media how I want to use it.
And when that is actually the deal I am happy to pay.
When it isn't? Let's just say I am not happy to pay.
A frame capture to see a detail, or discuss it with a friend is a perfectly ordinary thing to do. Same goes for audio.
People like to use media in many ways.
And these people have general purpose computing devices that do all sorts of things as they were designed to do.
What if people want to talk production? WHY does it look or sound like it does?
I believe what you meant to say was YOU think it is silly because YOU would NEVER stop your movie.
And that is OK! My wife would strongly agree with you.
My point simply is far more people than you may currently expect consider actually using something as a meaningful part of access.
It is kind of silly to separate the two in this context.
However ill advised I may consider it to be, you get to do that.
Access to media without use does not make much sense. "Here, hold this DVD for me."
Thanks?
I was asking the other commenter (what) why he felt free to dismiss your definition on accessibility as a revision, while at the same time asking us to abide by his arbitrarily decided definition as the one true definition.
I fully think that accessibility is impossible without freedom to use all possible functionality.
I noted that, but did not ask as you did.
It's coming off a little desperate and like you have an agenda to push, if you're curious.
And you making an account to say this comes off as even more desperate and agenda pushy.
They do it because they feel like it. Why should they need a better reason than that?
* sharing glaring continuity errors ...
* finding real world shoot location via crowd sourcing and comparing screen and original to identifiy CGI addins.
* reasonable use screenshot for a fan wiki.
* send to a relative showing your face in crowd scene as an extra.
* ...
Why shouldn't people be able to take screenshots?
https://thevirtuosi.blogspot.com/2012/03/moving-pi-ctures.ht...
There's even a case where high resolution shots would be useful, to properly see little numbers written on a wall in the background.
Ohhhh, you're trolling :D
Old school, I can respect that.
Yeah, I too cannot imagine why anyone would want the freedom to decide how they use their computer, rather than yielding that to a corporation ;)
It's my understanding this limits the quality of content streamers permit to run on Linux:
https://linuxcommunity.io/t/drm-the-final-barrier-to-linux-d...
This is going to inevitably turn into a mac/windows vs linux flamewar, so I'm going to acknowledge this but refuse to continue the discussion.
>If everyone refused this Faustian bargain, then the services would be forced to adapt.
Like getting people to use dedicated set-top boxes, like with cable TV? Amazon's fire stick is basically that. Moreover I think you're overestimating how much people care about "freedom to tinker" or whatever. They just want their shit to work.
>When the jar fills up, find yourself a torrent client and spend the jar on whatever you want - it's free :)
It's only "free" if you value your time at $0/hr.
Checking the OS version, browser version, HDMI cable reference and screen reference to pray that the DRM works isn't really easy nor instantaneous either.
I'd say it's even more annoying than torrenting
The smart TV and set top box ecosystem work fine, and that's where the users are.
And then if that's the case, it's either piracy or buying a new TV if you want the best quality.
DRM doesn't care that you're on the latest patch level with all CVEs patched, only that your system is vaguely "secure" (ie. has a TEE, even if it's full of holes). The netflix app works on phones with Android 5 from over a decade ago, so similarly old smart TVs are probably fine as well. Failing that, they can buy an up-to-date roku/fire stick for $25.
Which might include streaming at appropriate qualities and being able to take a simple bloody screenshot of what you paid to watch.
I think you underestimate people.
With FOSS I don't have to spend time trying to figure out how to remove the latest unwanted crap from my start menu or taskbar. I don't have to spend time figuring out how to remove the telemetry crap. I don't have to set my default browser back to Firefox after every major update. I don't have to click through popups about new features they want to promote or telling me how I can waste even more money by subscribing to their cloud services. I don't have to lose work because it decided I didn't update often enough and just forces a reboot without my approval. No, I can just work on it and it will just do what I want, not what Microsoft wants. That saves me a lot of time.
>I don't have to spend time figuring out how to remove the telemetry crap. => Use Rufus writing Win Iso., choose no telemetry option, 0,5 min.
>I don't have to set my default browser back to Firefox after every major update => Just not true, 0 min.
>I don't have to click through popups about new features they want to promote or telling me how I can waste even more money by subscribing to their cloud services. => Use Windows Pro Version, no Popups, 0 min.
In total: 5,5 min.
Learn using Linux: > 3yrs.
That's quite dishonest in the context of general usage scenario.
So you pay for the product and then need to download some unofficial shady East European software to remove unwanted features? Ridiculous.
Also I did some experimenting with firewalling telemetry and I doubt thatshady software blocks all of it. I don't believe it.
Actually turning it all off requires very deep modification of the OS.
Get your facts straight. A quick check of wikipedia will reveal it's open source and written by Pete Batard from Ireland, not "some unofficial shady East European software".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rufus_(software)
Meanwhile "linux" incorporates software from overworked volunteers that willingly handed over control to some shady threat actor that successfully backdoored it.
But yeah to each their own. I don't like windows very much either because I can't really customise how it works. While on Linux I can change everything. I can choose a radically different window manager/desktop environment for example. Like i3/sway.
And Linux and BSD (I don't use much Linux, I use BSD on my desktop) are very natural to me because I've been working with Unixes for decades. Like Minix and HP-UX in the 90s before Linux even existed. This is really where preference comes into play.
I still use windows too, on my gaming desktop mostly. And I have Windows 10 LTSC on a little NUC I use for video recording. LTSC is not as bad (even though it still has telemetry :( ). But they should really make it available to everyone.
In fairness to apple, linux apparently runs fine on arm macbooks.
Legally, public screenshots accompanied by text/audio/video commentary are fair use. When shared on social media, reviews, or fan sites with influencer commentary, they are unpaid marketing for video creators.
Censorship of free advertising is against the economic interest of rightsholders. Is this checkbox compliance theatre, e.g. does everyone in the distribution chain mindlessly click a DRM button? Can Apple differentiate between DRM screen recording and DRM screenshots? Can Apple differentiate between 30-second promotional clips and longer recordings, or rate limit N captures per M wallclock time? Can rightsholders add metadata to enable screenshots on a per-title basis?
If one studio can demonstrate marketing success with authorized screen excerpts, other studios may follow.
This was literally the first time I saw this "feature". I was watching something on Netflix and wanted to share a screenshot with someone. I realized that it didn't work. Ok, I guess you don't get my top-quality word-of-mouth marketing and to allow paying subscribers to enhance their enjoyment by chatting about the show. It is just a lose-lose scenario.
Is it though? In the old days they needed people to recommend you see a movie or listen to a song or whatever today it's hyper-personalized algorithms and if that's not enough almost every major tech company sells targeted advertising to show your <thing> ahead of the rest.
Facebook and Google may want more advertising, but that's not Apple's core business. TikTok has BookTok, FilmTok and MovieTok communities, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BookTok
> #BookTok had been viewed over 200 billion times on TikTok with about 60 billion videos.. There are many articles that discuss how BookTok has changed reading for younger people and impacted the publishing landscape.. Another popular aspect of the community culture in BookTok is the open discussion and the idea that users are reading the books together
And the most common way to "skip" the algorithm is paying TikTok to advertise your video and Meta and Twitter to promote your link.
DRM implementers can barely scrape together a DRM implementation that works as intended, as evidenced by all the 4K rips that are available on torrent sites. What makes you think they're competent enough to implement all the stuff you're suggesting, for marginal gains? As much as people like to dream up hypotheticals why screenshots provide "free PR" or whatever, I seriously doubt whether it's something studios care about.
See Nvidia GPU licensing and market segmentation of features, enforced by GPU firmware, which yields them 50% operating margins.
See the enterprise browser market (e.g. Talon, Island), which has granular policy and security controls for web content.
DRM is typically rooted in some kind of secure enclave, designed for granular policy enforcement.
Disabling features, possibly at the hardware level with e-fuses is far more straightforward than trying to allow one sort framebuffer capture (screenshots) but not another (video recording).
>See the enterprise browser market (e.g. Talon, Island), which has granular policy and security controls for web content.
How secure are they though? It's one thing to make a chromium fork with "if is_porn_site(url): block()", it's whole different thing to implement a cryptographic system that can withstand physical attacks.
They have a common hardware architecture configured by software (Ada), https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/riscvsummit2024/fe/Key...
> How secure are they though
Good question. That depends on whether enterprise insiders have more or less economic incentives than media pirates. One of the enterprise browser vendors exited for ~600M USD to Palo Alto, so perhaps the security bar is only at the level of corporate firewall rather than gaming console.
I can write a book and publish it. Then, one day, for no reason, I can take that book off the market and tell everyone, sorry, it's not for sale anymore. I enjoyed making my money but I am done now.
There is no legal requirement to do the logical right thing.
This actually reminds me of Flappy Bird. The creator took it down despite being a viral hit that could have made him massively wealthy.
Meanwhile watching these shows the legal way on unsupported DRM chain gives you 720p SDR with worse audio.
Even if making 3M screenshots to extract the video isn't a viable ripping strategy, it's still less work to block all capture APIs than it is to figure out which methods you want to block, and make sure that implementation is airtight.
That anti-screenshot mechanism does also exist on Windows, but it's only enforced by stronger forms of DRM like Widevine L1. Typically streaming services mandate L1 or equivalent to watch HD/4K streams, so you can't easily screenshot those, only the lower resolution versions with weaker protection. Workarounds like disabling hardware acceleration are really just disabling strong DRM support so you get served a weakly protected low res stream instead.
I guess Apple applies the same restrictions to all DRM protected content, even if the service only demands a weak form of DRM.
DRM isn't always the reason for video not being capturable, though. Efficiency optimizations can also get in the way, such as hardware video overlays. Back when overlays were first introduced, attempting to capture the screen would often omit the video because it would only capture the chroma key in the primary surface. Even today, the DWM has to undo multi-plane optimizations and specifically composite the screen when screen capture is requested.
(In theory the hardware could provide a rate limited interface to allow copying it, letting you take one screenshot every few seconds or something, but that would create additional "risk")
I'm not defending Apple here, but -- yes they definitely would? And then they'd get sound on a second pass at regular speed.
If pirates couldn't access the underlying Netflix etc. bitstream like they've figured out, they'd absolutely be reading the desktop video buffer, which is all a screenshot is.
I'm just pointing out that one of Gruber's points doesn't really hold water.
DRM is a panic reaction to VHS, designed to making copying so inconvenient that casual users won't bother anymore.
Getting a Blu-ray rip to a point where the average Pirate Bay user would be willing to wait for the download takes quite a bit of transcoding work. Not many are interested in maintaining 1:1 50 gigabyte source copies of every film out there.
Not that this matters in the 'downloading' versus 'download then deleting' (streaming) debate. There the amount of data is the same and not having to re-download obviously makes not-streaming the winner.
Tangential: when I signed up in 2013 I actually had unlimited data transfer and paid $78/mo. Now in 2025 for the same plan and speeds I pay $113/mo and I have a data cap with fees. Comcast just decided on a whim they would not provide what I signed up for but since they're a megacorp they can. I have filed 2 FCC complaints about this but the FCC doesn't care. I'd switch but Comcast has been given a monopoly on local pole infrastructure and there are literally no other wired options (telco says 3 blocks from the switching center downtown is too far for dsl).
We can look at game recording tools to try to understand what a world without DRM might have looked like. Those are able to easily record and encode video at 1080p or 4K on consumer hardware. Uploading that to YouTube or sharing that with friends isn't an issue either.
And compared to the not-fully-compatible 99 minute CD-Rs, they only get an extra 50% space. Not a very impressive format there when burnable DVDs were already out and would obviously drop in price over time. Plus you could get another 14% by using mode 2 with reduced error correction...
Absolutely not. Have you watched modern streaming services lately?
I recall when hdtvtest (Vincent) on YouTube tested Apple's 4K quality against 4K Ultra Blu-Rays via Apple TV (formerly iTunes Movies). IIRC the bitrate was about half (~25 Mbps vs 50Mbps) and the difference in visual quality was very difficult to see. Esssentially, he concluded that a high-quality streaming service or online digital movie purchase is pretty much just as good as a 4K Blu-ray.
There is absolutely no way you get something anywhere equivalent to a recent Severance episode (4K Dolby Vision Dolby Atmos) that Apple is streaming to you at ~25Mbps onto a DVD.
It's also important to note that the average US broadband speed is now quite a lot more respectable than it was back when we were all begging for US home Internet infrastructure to improve. I believe the average home connection is something like 100 Mbps if not better, and streaming services really have no trouble delivering Blu-ray quality 4K video to the average US consumer.
Now, obviously, you don't need that level of quality to enjoy the movie, but if that's what piracy is up against you will definitely need a lot of storage to compete with those streaming services that cost a couple of Starbucks coffees per month.
I think this is actually a bigger barrier than a lot of people assume. I have personally considered the idea of my own media server but keep getting put off by the fact that I really will need a very large NAS-grade HDD for it. The total hardware cost to get going is roughly equivalent to a multiple years of streaming service fees.
Well first off, what percentage of viewing hours are in 4K?
Second, a DVD could store a 54 minute episode at 20Mbps. That's close. And if I found the hdtvtest video you're talking about the bitrate was "between 15 and 25" so it would likely fit as-is. Also, that comparison was seven years ago with Apple using h.265, and today they could use AV1 to get the same quality with 20% fewer bits. Maybe h.266 to be even smaller or better.
(If you're interpreting their comment as "with actual DVD encoding", I think you're misreading them. I don't think they're suggesting streaming services are on par with low-noise 480p. And it doesn't fit with the CD comment.)
Of course I have - a typical Netflix movie is between 3-6GB.
Apple TV is the only one offering higher bitrates (which is why I use it, even though we're an Android/Linux only household, with iTunes running in a VM to buy movies from Apple TV).
> There is absolutely no way you get something anywhere equivalent to a recent Severance episode (4K Dolby Vision Dolby Atmos) that Apple is streaming to you at ~25Mbps onto a DVD.
Severance episodes, in 2160p with Dolby Vision and DD+/Atmos audio, are 8.3GB-8.7GB each. While you're technically correct, the point remains.
> I believe the average home connection is something like 100 Mbps if not better, and streaming services really have no trouble delivering Blu-ray quality 4K video to the average US consumer.
A typical 4K UHD bluray has a bandwidth of 95Mbps-120Mbps. A far cry even from the 25Mbps offered by Apple TV, let alone the 6-10Mbps offered by Netflix.
> I think this is actually a bigger barrier than a lot of people assume. I have personally considered the idea of my own media server but keep getting put off by the fact that I really will need a very large NAS-grade HDD for it.
I have a blu-ray collection, I do not have a blu-ray player. I watch my movies by ripping them to my NAS and playing them from my NVIDIA Shield TV.
If you don't do any transcoding on the NAS, you can use an old ThinkCentre or HP Microserver (about $60-$100). If you just rip your own movies from blu-ray, you don't need any redundancy, so you can buy a single 12TB drive for $200.
That's about $250-$300 for enough storage for 450 1080p blu-rays or 160 4K UHD blu-rays.
The only remaining cost is the content, but usually you don't just watch new releases. Used blu-rays are available at e.g. worldofbooks or rebuy for $5-$15 each.
But you still are talking about $300 up-front investment plus untold amount of unpaid time spent learning how to set up and operate such a thing. Plus cost of content.
This is competing with streaming services that, like it or not, are competing with Blu-ray quality at least close enough.
You are also not correct about Netflix's bitrates, they max out at above 17500kbps as of 2023, almost double your claim: https://netflixtechblog.com/all-of-netflixs-hdr-video-stream...
That's great, but I haven't ever seen anything close to that in real-world measurements. Not even with shows like Altered Carbon.
That said, even at 17.5Mbps, that'd still fit on a DVD and would be a far cry from the 90-120Mbps seen on blu-rays.
> But you still are talking about $300 up-front investment plus untold amount of unpaid time spent learning how to set up and operate such a thing. Plus cost of content.
Oh I absolutely agree that it's expensive and annoying today. I was arguing that in a world without DRM, recording your own media would be popular and affordable.
I was only referring to current-day technology to show that the tech exists. In a world without DRM, with an actual market for it, recording your own media would likely be as common, affordable and popular as VHS had been.
In a world without DRM, streaming would be even more attractive.
Just look at music as a real example. There wasn't any DRM for the majority of the digital music purchasing era (only a brief window of AAC protection from iTunes, but Apple took it DRM-free afterward and for the majority of the iPod era).
We already had completely DRM-free media with the iPod that was far smaller in file size and less cumbersome to store and manage than video.
Despite that ease and convenience, locally stored digital music was eaten completely alive by streaming subscriptions because the convenience was so much better. [1]
Nothing about losing DRM makes managing terabytes of media simple for the average person.
Let's say I wanted to store my favorite show, which for the purpose of this argument is Seinfeld. I need to be able to pick any episode at any time and just play it with no waiting. It's in really nice HD quality (thanks film!), so I store it at 10 Mbps.
I will need 297GB of storage to store the entire show.
That's just one show!!
It's also somewhat of a misnomer that VHS was affordable, at least not in the same sense as streaming. VHS tapes started out very expensive and were initially only practical for recording and re-using since each tape cost double digits of dollars. Video rental stores became popular especially because owning home video in the beginning was somewhat expensive. The technology really only became cost-practical for read-only media in its last 10 years. You would buy a movie once for ~$20-25 and that's it, you'd have your single copy of one movie. That costs more before inflation than a digital movie purchase today! VHS as you describe it is a recording technology (home movies, recording your own content, etc). As a consumption medium, streaming would demolish it, just like it demolished the digital purchase market for movies, TV, and music.
Again, use digital music as your practical example: in a world without DRM, recording your own media suffocates under the convenience and pricing pressure of streaming.
[1] https://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2023-Year-En...
Pirates can bypass it easily, and even event venues and universities keep cheap chinese HDMI splitters on hand to avoid issues during lectures or presentations. These $10 devices just rip the HDCP off the incoming video stream.
This is most useful because Mac OS keeps applications around even without a window, and as long as e.g. Spotify is still there, it'll force HDCP on the HDMI out.
Capturing HDMI also used to be costly, China solved that too few years ago. Compressed 2K capture dongles are $9 apiece.
I wouldn't describe those as "tiny" barriers, though, it just wasn't up to faceless Chinese silicon gurus circa 2010.
This cracks me up. This is like saying “If our enemy didn’t have missiles, as we are well aware they do, well, they definitely would be buying forks at Walmart and using them to poke us, or at least wave them menacingly. We must therefore place heavy restrictions on the sale of cutlery.”
Netflix has a mobile-only plan in emerging markets that is cheaper than the "SD" plan.
That's DRM for ya
They are shooting themselves in the foot for no gain I can see and huge amount of downside. People are screenshotting (or even recording a 5sec clip) to _share your content_. These methods clearly have zero effect on piracy so all they do is make legitimate user’s lives more difficult.
It _might_ make sense if every streaming platform had built-in tools to share a clip or a screenshot, but they don’t. It completely baffles me.
I need to dust off my plans for a simple Plex gif-maker tool. A web-based tool I can load and is queued up to wherever I am in the show I’m watching with grabbers on a video timeline to select the start/end of the clip. Then export to mp4/gif, maybe simple subtitle support or text overlays.
It’s because the video is being rendered on a different framebuffer for performance reasons.
Helpful for DRM too.
The XP era is when we depended on fixed-function hardware overlays to scale video and handle yuv translation, and yes in that case you'd just get a magenta or blue background instead of the video. That era sucked, and hardware got better since then.
The florist in the article can still grab her phone and take a photo.
I think the problem with not allowing single screenshots is that once you allow access to the video stream a software on the machine can sinply capture ALL frames and recreate a video out of it. Anyway, until there will be one not protected distribution channel the torrents source file will be collected there.
You said yourself, you can trivially bypass the protection using 3rd party hardware like "recording on a cell phone." This doesn't seem like it does anything to reduce actual piracy, while severely harming the Fair Use right to take a quick screenshot for personal reference.
The GPU is the thing decoding the video stream and putting it directly on the display (via hardware planes). It doesn't need to send it back (aka copy) to the main CPU. Screenshots can't see what's there because the CPU has no knowledge of whats there.
Rather than the GPU decoding the video, sending it back to the CPU which then will send the frame back to the GPU as part of composition, and wasting power.
WindowServer ultimately still needs to get access to the framebuffer somehow though, so there must be some private API somewhere to bridge kernel and userspace part. I suspect if you could bypass SIP or just write a kext to access video memory directly then it'd be possible to defeat this protection.
Well, since physically you still own your device you can send direct assembly instructions to your processing units, or even just take HDMI signal, intercept and record it fully. Technically if one bothers to reverse engineer the instructions browsers send, they can be studied and reversed. There are tools for that, as well as high-level languages which make it possible to execute low-level assembly code.
I wanted to stream Crunchyroll on my TV from my iPad 9 via the Lightning to HDMI dongle. Apparently an iOS update 2 years ago broke that functionality for DRM content [1].
[1] https://9to5mac.com/2023/01/04/ios-16-break-drm-content-hdmi...
Maybe there are holes or the browsers aren’t doing it properly or it only applies to the MS proprietary DRM.
And frankly, the “buy 4K, but we will serve you 1080p in most cases” sounds like a class action lawsuit in the making anyway. So, if anything, this DRM scheme will cost them more than just wasted engineer time.
This is like saying "putting padlocks cost money. We have to make sure we research about locks, buy the right one, give right people the keys. It is easier to just .. keep the door unlocked"
Every solution has its costs. The question is whether those costs outweight the benefits it seemingly brings. In this particular case, Apple has decided the DRM implementation costs outweight the benefits.
To claim that they did. That’s the quality of work you get when you’re forced to comply to get a certificate or pass a check or something of that nature.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/07/court...
Yeah what's the point?
If anything it's yet another reason to just download pirated content. You can screenshot that just fine. You can save it where you want without expiring, play it on every device you want, you're not bothered by trailers or ads or have to use a specific player app or a device with a particular wildvine level or whatever. It doesn't constantly monitor what you watch and when.
It's just so much better, and many of these restrictions are only for the benefit of the publisher. Doing that makes sense if users have nowhere else to go but now they're shooting themselves in the foot.
Especially with the latest 'pay more or watch ads' fad with the streaming services, do they really expect piracy not to massively increase?
I feel like this is the kind of gripe that would be waved away as no big deal or "well actually…" if someone outside the Apple fandom made it.