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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually turning it all off requires very deep modification of the OS.
That's quite dishonest in the context of general usage scenario.
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.
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.
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...
In fairness to apple, linux apparently runs fine on arm macbooks.
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 ;)
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.