Why are video downloader add-ons so popular?
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
enrico.weigelt at gr13.net
Fri Jun 19 21:12:23 UTC 2015
On 19.06.2015 13:51, Richard Z wrote:
> while pornhub etc are important, a large majority of government and e-commerce
> sites can work without DRM with little or no loss of functionality.
Actually, I've only heared about _one_ site which requires DRM: netflix.
Never used it, never seen anybody actually using it, just some rumors
from the wide, wide web. If netflix would close down tomorrow, the
effect on my personal environment (including all my friends, family,
collegues) would be practically zero - the only tiny impact would be
some news article popping up in some rss feeds.
And for goverment sites, I don't know a single one, which uses DRM.
Our so called "tax office" (also an private company, just like the IRS)
tried to force people to use some old and totally broken / insecure JRE
plugin, so they could roll out their spyware. But nobody really needs
to use that crap (which doesn't even work properly, anyways)
> Those sites should also be interested in offering *safe* service with
> the least necessary amount of crappy plugins and exploits and actively
> promote a browser that offers this.
Exactly. And if they dont - ban them.
> So if those streaming websites want users to use something else than
> Firefox we should encourage it: it is not advisable to use the same
> browser for banking and porn streaming.
_Very_ good point.
Maybe we should offer them an ready-to-use package for that. Including
an separate computer, which they can directly plug onto their TV set.
Oh, wait, I can't claim the IPR for that idea ... certain large
streaming providers (which happen to be major ISPs over here) are
already doing that, for over a decade now.
Maybe, the whole point is that netflix+friends just dont wanna spend
the about 30 bucks for the extra device (a tiny raspi can easily do
> What many streaming websites really want anyway is to install rootkits
> on the target computer like
And that's exactly the point, why we should never ever open pandorras
boxes like EME. These corporations are criminal by nature (well, the
whole concept of corporations is completely anti-natural, anyways, but
that's a different discussion). That's why we should not cooperate with
them, dont feed the trolls, ban them, let them starve and die alone.
> is anyone listening? I see a crazy arms race between advertisement and
> tracking/fingerprinting industry on the one side and desperate Firefox users with
> NoScript,AddBlock+RandomAgentChooser,CookieDestructor on the other
Time for headbanging ... the clans are marching in for war ...
> Unfortunately, at this moment even the most technically savvy users
> are loosing this race hands down.
It's not so much a technical problem, more a workforce problem.
I've got a different idea - take the classical spamfilter approach,
extend DNSBL+friends for ad sites.
And if some of them are big enough for having their own AS ... somebody
might get funny ideas ...
> Why is it that Firefox makes it so hard to minimise the impact of
> tracking and fingerprinting? Is it possibly that there are more
> features than can be safely supported?
More information about the firefox-dev