YouTube DRM added on ALL videos with TV (TVHTML5) clients
github.com
github.com
To be more specific:
- what is an innertube client?
- what is a `tv` innertube client?
- what is TVHTML5?
- what are "DRM formats"?
- what does it mean for them to be "available"?
- and finally, why is it of interest if they're only available to tv innertube clients?
To respond to your specific questions:
- innertube is the name for private YouTube APIs. (Here's a library that talks to innertube https://github.com/tombulled/innertube/, although yt-dlp has its own separate client code.) These APIs are intended for consumption by the various types of YouTube client software.
- The "tv" client is one of the types of client (see other examples here: https://github.com/tombulled/innertube/blob/main/innertube/c...)
- TVHTML5 is the specific client (as opposed to e.g. TVLITE or TVANDROID)... presumably different TVs run different specific TV clients, with consumption of different specific TV APIs.
- When yt-dlp downloads a video, it roughly performs this sequence of steps: pretend to be one of the types of clients supported by innertube; download the top-level video object; parse out the list of possible formats. These formats are like "MP4, 1080p, with AAC audio" or "Ogg, audio only". (The original issue report shows a better example in the verbose output dump.) By default, yt-dlp just grabs the best quality audio and best quality video stream, downloads them, and muxes them together into a single file, but you can configure this behavior. DRM formats are formats that are protected by (presumably) Widevine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widevine, the decryption of which yt-dlp has stated will not be supported.
- Available means they're an option for our yt-dlp client to download. Videos don't necessarily have all formats for all clients; for instance, a video might not have a 4K option, because it was never uploaded in 4K. Or it might have a 4K upload, but YouTube won't show 4K options to a client that doesn't support 4K decoding.
- In this case, it means this specific internal client type can't download the video, because when yt-dlp reaches out, it gets ONLY formats that are DRM-locked. This is of note, I think, because the TV client is a way to get high-quality video from the YouTube API without having to pass it a valid YouTube login token (further down the issue, the reporter says providing a token allows the "web" innertube client to work).
Are you talking about the "1080p premium" quality tier that you normally have to pay to get?
As somewhat related know that there's also a higher bitrate OPUS codec that's only available to premium cookies, it would then be the default YouTube music codec.
(maybe they've all been killed by now, I haven't been paying too much attention...)
Lets assume 2 billion people stream. Thats 2.000.000.000 * 1095 = 2.190.000.000.000
Thats 2.190.000 tons of unnecessary carbondioxide. Piracy is one time, piracy is green, save the planet.
You'll need to provide credible sources to support that claim. That assertion seems highly unrealistic.
Hey! I've just had the thought of doing this myself the other day. Do you mind sharing what tools you're using, besides yt-dlp? For example, what are you using to host and generate the rss feed (if that's what you're doing)?
https://github.com/arabcoders/ytptube
i personally use it to drive my entire YouTube related tasks.
Assuming non-evil motivations on the G executives part, I do wonder if AI was the final straw here. In order to build their "moat" on Gemini they need to make it so data collectors can't get to Youtube videos. Only "real" way to ensure that is to DRM things. X/Twitter, Reddit, Stack Overflow, and many others have taken steps as well for similar reasons. I'm sure it's something they wanted to do anyway so maybe AI is more an excuse than a reason, but it's surely not nothing.
There are also some pretty good third party YT clients like GrayJay https://grayjay.app/
These let you follow creators across various video platforms in one app. Bad for YT lock-in that Google wants.
We're like frogs that have been stoking the fuel of our own pot.
It used to be that DRM was considered to be in conflict with the browser, because it was not acting on behalf of the user. If you must have DRM, then it is on the platform to shoehorn it in through an external plugin, like Silverlight.
When Firefox adopted EME extensions, I knew it was the beginning of the end; they were rolling out the red carpet for DRM. If we make DRM a switch that can simply be thrown, then it will become the norm, not the exception. And there have been proposals for years to DRM fonts and other absurdities. If a company insists on using DRM, then they should have to shoulder the burden of doing something that a browser was never support to support.
The nightmare that we're racing toward is you will only be permitted to cache a trickle of video at a time and your TPM attestation hardware must include a token in every HTTP request. Your browser will just be a software cablebox.
They aren't happy about URLs either and would love to require that if you want to share a reference to something, you have to do it on their terms, like generating a url in their app with a hash that expires and limited in how many times it can be viewed. I'm sure influencers will still have the privilege of unlimited sharing.
They've been slowly rolling this infrastructure out for the last decade. These are not isolated inconveniences, these are coffin nails.
The alternative is that people complain "netflix doesn't work on firefox", switch to chrome instead, which is even worse.
So what if users complain? How is it better for Firefox to do something bad just because Google is doing something bad?
Firefox is supposed to provide an alternative to what's out there. Firefox also didn't support some popular proprietary Internet Explorer features, and they never attempted to. For a time, much of MySpace didn't work as well in Firefox. But I'm glad that Firefox didn't cave, even if some users complained that they couldn't make the scrollbars neon green or make music autoplay.
Not letting Microsoft or Google dictate how they implement a web browser worked out really well for them. Chasing proprietary platforms has ruined them.
At the time EME was adopted Firefox was much more popular, I think 20% back in 2012. Video platforms were using Silverlight for DRM. There's a good chance that EME would not have gotten off the ground if Mozilla didn't embrace it, or at least not as quickly.
Mozilla should have taken a stand and refused to support EME when they had the chance. They would be better off than they are now. And there's a good chance Netflix would not have thrown away a double digit percentage of subscribers.
Instead they embraced DRM and now they have nothing.
This started a couple of months ago and I didn't really think anything about it. However, it appears as if this behavior might have been a precursor to this new DRM initiative.
Every day, YouTube gives me more reasons to avoid it completely.
There are many ways to tighten a noose...
Too bad that some of us will never have an account (just like some of us will not use any DRM system). We will have to find a way to access the wealth indirectly.
Among other things, that would very likely be the end of yt-dlp being hosted on Github and maybe even being distributed via apt repositories, pip, homebrew etc.
---
Also I suppose you make a reference to software DRM like Widevine L3 vs L1 (same thing for PlayReady SL2000 vs SL3000) which is not exactly Firefox vs Chrome. Firefox has even be known to work on the availability of hardware DRM on windows right now, (through the Media Foundation API I think?).
In the worst scenarios seen right now for example seen on services like Netflix, would be to only have lower qualities (e.g. 480p max) on browsers with only Software DRM available (like firefox) and encrypt better qualities with keys only available when there is hardware DRM available. Though I'm not sure YouTube would go that far for now? Netflix, Amazon and such have contracts with right-holders stating those protections as a requirement, but YouTube does not have (IMO thankfully) the same kind of relation and contract with "Youtubers".
I think that what YouTube wants to do for now is to greatly lower the amount of people not watching contents through its website/app (and thus not seeing ads). I would even think that this is mostly not about yt-dlp users, but more the huge amount of people relying on some Youtube-to-mp3 website or similar accessible tools. Here enforcing software DRM would be enough to at least temporarily break all those tools and force those users to go back on the platform I guess, and maybe you can also sue some tools' developers once there is an "encryption breaking"-mechanism embedded in it (IANAL)?
It does with the music labels, which is why said labels sued various YouTube downloaders for bypassing a technical protection measure in regards to the existing rolling cypher (but reading between the lines I suspect the labels intention was actually to lose that case, and then take that judgement to YouTube to show that they were in breach of the contract that required them to include some form of technical protection measure and hence adopt Widevine on all music streams).
However, I'd guess quite a few folks use yt-dlp for archiving (or watching on an airplane) because YT Premium is not a "we promise this video will still be available next month"
I suppose someone more sycophantic to the wishes of trillion-dollar corporations could argue that I'm not entitled to do this for free, and that YouTube offers an offline download option as part of its $13.99/mo Premium offering. To them, I'd say "you're right, also go pound sand lol."
If you watch anything from a decade or so ago, you'd be forgiven for thinking that video content just didn't look very good back then, but no, it's largely down to YouTube compressing them to death since the original upload.
Little bit of everything. Archiving creators that sometimes just vanish or get enough false DMCA claims to have their channels go offline. Downloading audio/video for sampling, cutting, & remixing (ie. Vaporwave Music/Video production). Sometimes you just need to snag a bit of video/audio to make a meme for your friends. For example we saw a funny old PSA from the 1980's someone uploaded and downloaded it to recut the video into a meme.
Offline use is a big part of it. When on road trips I like to catch up and listen along to DnD streams from Twitch/Youtube and the easiest way is to just rip the VODs from one or the other so when I'm on a road in the middle of no where I don't have to depend on rural cell networks.
Sometimes just for fun, I had yt-dlp running on a G4 Mac Mini so that I could rip content & convert it to something playable on old ass computers when I tried living on a G4 mini for a few months last year as an experiment. I've got friends in more unfortunate circumstances surviving off of computers from the 2000's that greatly appreciate anything people come up with to keep their machines useable in a modern world.
There's no way to pay for Youtube Premium anonymously - and I'm sure as hell not comfortable with providing Google (an American company, mind you) with any more information than they already have on me.
> Such clients use a lot of bandwidth
How many AI companies are there really? Realistically, we're talking about a handful of additional downloads per video here at most.
> don't generate ad revenue
That's the real problem: Youtube is in the business of selling ads or Youtube Premium to humans. Anything that lets humans bypass both is going to be at odds with their goals.
But impressions by LLMs aren't (yet?) useful to advertisers, so it wouldn't make any difference either.
The tech they're using to steadily lock down Youtube isn't new, so what's changed? The obvious answer would be AI.
> The tech they're using to steadily lock down Youtube isn't new, so what's changed?
Time has passed and DRM is more ubiquitous on the web these days, and I suspect that the number of people using ad blockers might also be rising, the more ads Youtube is getting.
I don’t doubt that AI might have some effect on it, but I’d be surprised if that was the primary motivation.
https://github.com/nozzlegear/dotfiles/blob/master/fish-func...
I also use yt-dlp to download meme videos to share from other social media. That way, people don't have to create accounts everywhere to look at a silly 20 second clip.
You can sort your video by name, by date, by other criteria, all on the fly, build into your file manager. You can rename them, surprisingly useful sometimes. You can put them into folders, you can tag them, all according to your own weird criteria. You can do operation on multiple videos, at the same time. Power users can automate those things.
Youtube's subscription website has exact two options for videos from your subscriptions: You can display them in a list and you can display them in a grid.
I also use it to archive videos of personal significance.
Finally, I sometimes use resource-constrained computers (say, in my shop). The native video players are much more responsive than the official website.
Watch them on whatever device I choose when I choose, regardless of network connectivity/lack
There are cases where people who got suspended because they used their account with yt-dlp.
It's BS, but I would bet that's their legal position.
Best load up while you still can, I guess.
But usually the reason they want their videos to be free is that they have a message they want to communicate!
If you want people to watch your video you don't have a choice but to upload it to YouTube and let Google make money off your work :(
and enjoy the free hosting and streaming architecture youtube provides.
Free hosting is not completely irrelevant because it's a huge factor in the cause-&-effect of attaining the monopoly of user attention.
Counterexample is Vimeo which actually started 3 months in 2004 before Youtube existed. Vimeo had more restrictions on uploads and also charged content creators to host their videos. Those financial penalties are hostile to unknown content creators with no money and prevents a monopoly of user attention.
Zero-cost hosting is intertwined with accumulating a global monopoly of the audience because it affects the decisions of content creators on _where_ to upload videos. More content creators in the ecosystem --> more videos --> more users ... creates a flywheel and virtuous feedback loop.
Youtube will be as concerned about people leaving over this as they would be if a segment of creators didn't want them to use vp9 for any transcodes, or for their videos not to be viewable through Chrome. They will apologize to the half-dozen people that close their channels, and suggest that they try Rumble or whatever.
The door is closing slowly. Great timing with the whole manifest v3 switchover...
They will need a fallback, but reducing the resolution significantly on said fallback would solve that.
But now it's milking time. Eventually they'll push it too far and they might start losing viewers, but not before a few people get very rich. I feel like we're entering a dark period. YouTube showed us what it could be like, but we need to organise ourselves and host videos in a peer to peer fashion if we want to get it back and keep it.
To what service? Video hosting is famously super-duper expensive. And most creators are uploading for a monetary benefit ($) and ads are part of that equation.
Is it? Many of us have been doing it from our home ISPs for as long as YouTube has been around. Centralised video hosting might be expensive (but probably not as expensive as you think), but who says it has to be centralised?
- YouTube as you describe
- Discord which did basically the same thing: was the best chat platform ever with no bullshit, then once it became used by everyone, is now turning into shit
- Facebook, Twitter…
- Countless others I don’t remember off the top of my head
Any service like this that’s actually good and is owned by a company is just a timebomb to either becoming shit or shutting down
Will this restrict iframe embedded video playback?
https://old.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/1dasxoa/sign_in_to...
I HYPOTHETICALLY have over 400 Blu-ray movies, and about 40 complete series. I HYPOTHETICALLY painstakingly ripped all of them, broke their DRM, and watch it with my Jellyfin server. I don't put these videos on ThePirateBay, and the Blu-rays are all legit copies. I've gotten conflicting information about whether or not what I'm doing is legal, but I certainly don't think what I'm doing there is unethical.
But now, how exactly do I get DRM-free movies while also paying for them? They aren't really producing Blu-rays for every movie anymore, if I want to buy a movie I have to get it from Amazon or something and stream it, with the corporation reserving the right to take it away at any time.
Is the only way of getting and preserving media piracy now? I genuinely don't know of a way to get DRM-free media anymore without stealing it.
Unfortunately it seems like legislation will have to be used to fix the problems we both face, but the likelihood is slim. Perhaps a wholesale collapse of the Federal Government would free states to experiment with new approaches. Thanks for sharing and I really wish I had an answer as well.
I find it highly doubtful that legislation will save us with this. It seems like congress, at least in the US, has worked hard to make copyrights longer and longer and worse and terrible. I would love it if they prove me wrong, and made copyright in the US much better, but I think corporations are too intermingled with politics to make that likely.
I was all about high-quality MP3 in like the early '00s, but now? FLAC's fine, music's not going to be the reason I run out of disk space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format_shifting
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/quashing-of-private-copyi...
Probably due to the following, but can't find it from a quick Google:
R (British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors and others) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] EWHC 1723
> But now, how exactly do I get DRM-free movies while also paying for them?
"That's the neat thing -- you don't."
Part of the point of copyright is that the copyright owner solely determines whether and how their work gets distributed or exhibited. If they want to make it available exclusively through streaming, so be it. If they want never to release a movie again (see: Song of the South), so be it. You don't have the right to have your own copy of a movie, nor even to see it more than once. You can do these things only inasmuch as the copyright owners allow you to.
Legally, they do not. They can control the _first sale_ and no others.
On a cursory search, I believe while you can resell, lend, or give away your copy, ripping it is problematic because you need to break the DRM involved, which explicitly goes against the DMCA (you'd be "accessing its content in an unauthorized way").
I didn't know the legal situation around the topic was this dire over there, I'm a bit surprised to be honest. I thought personal use was okay, but after an extensive discussion with my lawyer (gpt4o), seems to me that the parent comment is unfortunately correct.
> Want a workaround? Rip it on Linux. The DMCA applies to software made for circumvention, so some folks argue that Linux tools like libaacs just “don’t implement” the DRM, so they’re not technically circumventing—it’s a stretch, but that’s how VLC and others justify it.
I actually do run Linux everywhere, I don’t even own a Mac or Windows PC anymore. So maybe I would be covered, if I provided my own certificate file extracted from a blu-ray player or something.
According to our lawyer, the "effectively controls access" bit in the DMCA is meant to be interpreted as whether it provides a "speedbump" or not, not in the sense whether there's a published method for cracking it, or if there are layman-accessible tools for doing so (unsure about the commonality of the practice aspect). But in the aforementioned case, there's no speedbump. The way that AACS idea is presented, it suggests to me that given the right circumstances this should be true for AACS as well, although I'd be surprised if that's a thing. I thought VLC and others rely on the keystores that ship with CPU microcode updates.
Edit: how long does ripping usually take for you? Maybe it's not a straight dumping process (where the AACS protection is actually circumvented) but a decrypt (using your CPU's keystores) and reencode? This would explain things pretty well. You'd also be magically in the legally green again :)
Edit #2: apparently not, not sure why I thought that CPU microcode was relevant here, apparently they don't ship keystores of any kind. Upon further interrogation, it just seems that the method of operation is different: libaacs will simply expect to be provided the decryption keys, and then how you got those keys becomes the problem (in the United States at least).
This is in contrast with my PS1/PS2 example, where a PC disc drive reads the disc as normal, and you access all the content needed from it as normal. The DRM scheme doesn't participate in the interaction whatsoever, it's inert (hence, ineffective).
According to what I've learned from gpt4o and the legal texts anyways (not a lawyer).
I admit I don't shed many tears for the poor movie publishers, but even setting piracy completely aside, these laws are anti-consumer garbage. One wonders aloud if there are limits to the insanity copyright owners are entitled to inflict on their customers. How about surreptitiously installing malware on people's machines to make sure they play nice?[0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
Yeeeeah, about that...
International treaties are de facto legally binding only for non-U.S. countries, surely we can all agree. The U.S. must be free to break any treaty whenever it sees fit, which is the price of being the leader of the free world... or something.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/07/court...
I don’t think it’s completely clear.
I suppose for legal reasons I should point out that I was of course speaking entirely hypothetically, if that was not obvious.
Mickey Mouse from 1928 is back in our hands. In whatever year Song of the South goes into public domain, Disney cannot stop its distribution.
Pedantic I know, but it’s important to remember that copyright isn’t an inalienable right. It’s one that we decided to give authors and then decided to give to businesses.
[1] Most theatrically-run movies
[2] Specifically movies, not TV Shows
[3] Which has issues with rot, failure, misprints, and inferior encodes compared to some streaming services (particularly where content is available in 4K HDR streaming, but only gets a poorly tonemapped SDR Blu-Ray release)
[4] The site is known to speculate on potential releases of content and is not a definitive source of what is, has been, or will be available for retail purchase.
Just clearing those points up as a preservationist myself. Years ago, the scales tipped very clearly in favor of piracy as preservation, since most streaming content just doesn't get a retail package anymore.
Obviously that's not necessarily reflective of commercial movies or TV shows, but it does signal to me that Sony is planning on winding it down.
The content and the flexibility of use is the point, not the medium. It's why DRM is antithetical to consumer use, as its function isn't to stop piracy so much as to promote difficulty of use (and therefore drive revenue).
Switching to subjective preferences, I'd much rather be able to buy DRM-free 4K HDR encodes with my customer ID invisibly watermarked into the content to combat piracy, rather than yet another DRM-enabled service. It's how music sales generally work (sans the watermarking), and the industry seems perfectly fine with their post-DRM reality.
(Nor did it help that, whereas CD and DVD drives were popular as players for prerecorded media, BR drives weren't. Support for playing BR movies on home computers was heavily limited by DRM, and streaming services cut out a lot of the demand.)
Playing blu-rays on computers has always been irritating, particularly on Linux. I'm actually not sure that there's a fully legal way to watch a blu-ray on Linux; it's not hard to do it, but I'm not sure that it's legal. I don't think PowerDVD with Blu-ray support is on Linux.
Their patents on blu-ray are going to wind down pretty soon as well.
I think this is extremely overblown. I have DVDs that are 25 years old that spent 10 of those years in an attic and have no issues whatsoever. I ripped all of them, plus Blu-rays ranging from “new” to 15 years old just a few years ago. Several hundred discs, zero issues.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/03/they-curdle-like-mil...
Rip them while they're still good, and store them on a RAID hard drive cluster with proper error correction, and I think that as long as I'm a little vigilant with scrubbing and replacing drives when they fail, it should last quite awhile.
Much less of an issue than with download links for purely digital distribution.
In both cases you should make your own backups.
> inferior encodes compared to some streaming services (particularly where content is available in 4K HDR streaming, but only gets a poorly tonemapped SDR Blu-Ray release)
This is a much bigger problem with earlier shows that have only gotten DVD releases but have non-interlaced masters or professionally de-interlaced streams available for streaming.
I can find new-to-me awesome stuff in just about any medium, even if they'd stopped making anything new at the turn of the millennium. Hardly matters to me.
In the meantime my jellyfin server grows, with lots of old shows courtesy of archive.org. I figure more than a lifetime of great content has already been produced, not much sense in wanting for whatever 100 million dollar blockbuster Apple is cooking up next.
Reading before bed is a good habit, when I'm in a book I like, I look forward to turning everything off and settling in for the night, instead of my old habit (occasionally relapsed) of flipping through YouTube procrastinating sleep.
I really do think that it is, and if I’m correct then it’s far from unethical.
Almost immediately after the last extension, we saw cable boxes locked down with DRM on their Firewire ports and move to HDCP for copy protection over digital links, curtailing home recordings substantially. Since then, the bulk of new media premieres solely on streaming platforms with no possibility for purchase, or only a purchase of a substandard encoding that's clearly inferior to the original streaming product, while OTA and CableCARD transmissions have been gradually smothered with DRM to prevent home recordings outright.
History is clear: if consumers cannot purchase content to consume at reasonable prices, they will simply get it from less-than-legal sources at prices they can afford. Piracy is not a problem of enforcement, it is a problem of consumer cost.
Is that an issue that the Electronic Frontier Foundation would need to be involved in?
I am not a lawyer, so I'm not really sure how to interpret this stuff, but I don't know how tested the DRM parts of the DMCA have been tested .
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/07/court...
Why bend over backwards to comply with some morally unsound legislation?
Edit: Still can't find it, but did find this EFF article covering a bunch of people who apparently settled for some amount. Haven't followed up on the people who took things to court yet. https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later
Edit 1: I think it might have just been a high-profile case or two that escaped paying, it seems there were oodles of people who did pay based on the EFF article.
It's right there in the comment he was responding to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985...
Piracy is illegal and unethical. You are stealing the property of the rightful owners of the content when you pirate. Yes, copying IS theft - you are depriving the owner of the content from having you not having the content. If the only way to preserve something is to pirate it, then the ethical and legal action is to let it disappear. You do not have the right to choose what happens with movies, music, etc., only the rightful owner can do that.
Combating piracy requires enormous resources on the part of the IP owners, which is taken from budgets that could be otherwise allocated to creating more art. When you pirate, you are stealing not just from the rightful owner, you are stealing from all of society by depriving us of art that would have been created if money didn't have to be spent fighting piracy!
Now our corporate overlords own everything they produce, even after you buy (sorry, I mean rent) it.
I disagree.
Every copy of Nosferatu was ordered to be destroyed. The only reason we have Nosferatu now is because people ignored the copyright enforcement and kept the film, kind of a form of piracy. Maybe you think that would be a better world, but I do not.
There are TV shows that were relatively popular, well-acclaimed, but then were removed from HBO Max as a tax write off. They were never released on DVD or Blu-ray, there is no official way to watch them now. If there wasn't piracy, these shows would be lost media. Again, you're free to think that, but I think that's wrong.
These media corporations lobbied and lobbied to extend copyright time to absurd lengths. Forgive me for not crying for them.
https://insider-gaming.com/rockstar-games-caught-selling-cra...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_Rainbow_Six:_Ve...
https://www.eurogamer.net/did-nintendo-download-a-mario-rom-...
> Piracy is like bacteria. A lot of it is bad, but some is necessary.
Especially if you talk about abandoned media. Do you really think not selling old TV shows on dvd is a way to finance new art?
That's a very bad excuse for an argument. To make the case that any damage is being done by piracy two things need to be true:
(1) that people who pirate would have paid if piracy wasn't an option/harder; (2) that piracy doesn't have other positive externalities for that outweigh the first point.
The publisher paying to fight piracy is purely out of spite if it doesn't have a meaningful impact on (1) or if (2) is true, which it might be:
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/09/eu-study-finds-piracy...
It is a cultural construct based on an objective to "promote the progress of science and useful arts". Due to the creeping length of protection, it is coming close to violating that objective.
Why do I not have a natural right to remix or create derivative works from the stories or music I experienced while growing up?
Copyright duration should be culled back to 14 years, maximum. I might also support an exponentially increasing renewal fee.
What does this even mean?
Or at least that's how I read it.
If this is the lengths to which an argument against must go, then I feel safe saying piracy (in this context) is justified.
Would you be happy that you lost nothing - and someone else can be driving now too? No. This is too kind and humane.
You would be griefing that you lost something you didn't even have in the first place - potential profit.
How is this more annoying? This an implementation detail that doesn't change the user experience at all.
A cryptic DRM error message pops up on the screen and you have to do things like
- restart your device
- reinstall an app
- unplug the HDMI cable and plug it back in
- factory reset your device
- email support (of the device vendor or the app developer? who is responsible?)
This absolutely does affect the user experience. Only a six-figure salary in DRM implementation would make me think otherwise.
yt-dlp -f315 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqz-KE-bpKQ'
[download] 100% of 1.27GiB in 00:00:52 at 24.85MiB/s
I don't know if this perhaps affects web browsers playing on non-HDCP displays.
> We are getting reports of YouTube rolling out an experiment to some accounts where normal videos only have DRM formats available on the tv (TVHTML5) Innertube client.
What is a Innertube client? What is a TV format?
`TV` is a player client. The player clients emulate client applications and provide different video/subtitle formats.