47
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
47 points (98.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
58590 readers
353 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
🏴☠️ Other communities
Torrenting:
- !seedboxes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !trackers@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !qbittorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !libretorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Gaming:
- !steamdeckpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !newyuzupiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !switchpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !3dspiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !retropirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
💰 Please help cover server costs.
![]() |
![]() |
---|---|
Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That means only "authorized" clients equipped with "correct" DRM module can ever plays those video. If I have to guess, it would be Widevine L3 for browsers.
Is it just me that thinks this is a slippery slope into Google working towards locking everyone who uses/watches YT into Chrome only?
There's a chance google has to divest from Chrome, but we won't know until September at the earliest. The process the DOJ brought against it is in progress. Binding YouTube to chrome now might jot be a smart move if google loses the process.
There is a good chance in my mind that google will win against the Department Of Justice simply because of the current administration in the US.
Anti Commercial-AI license
There is no locking into Chrome needed, because all big browsers have interfaces for DRM content implemented.