Comment

Comment on DRM-Free OnlyFans Downloads See Widevine Project Nuked From GitHub

HyperfocusSurfer@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

Baseless (and also wrong) assumption that piracy is responsible for by any means significant monetary losses aside, there are other reasons for bypassing that DRM bullshit. Like, off the top of my head:

archiving – when you don’t have a local copy of a piece of content, it can be changed or deleted at any time;
ability to access stuff on a wider range of devices – I want to be able watch my favorite coomtent creator in full resolution on my phone that has only L3 and quite outdated version of widevine without installing proprietary crapp, so what;
bypassing bullshit restrictions – not sure if onlyfans in particular does that, but we have Netflix, for example, that would tell you to fuck off when you’re not watching from home be it VPN or an actually different location when traveling.

source

Sort:hotnew top

rottingleaf@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
They know all that. They want you to be able to only consume content the exact they they publish it.

That simplifies market analysis, removes the dilemma of supporting or not supporting some other way users want, and ideally selling the same thing a few times.

source
- doodledup@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  
  They want you to be able to only consume content the exact they they publish it.
  
  And they have every right to do so. If you like it or not. You don’t own and have not created the protected content. On what basis are you deciding it should not be DRM protected?
  
  source
  - sibachian@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    And they have every right to do so.
    
    morally, no. cartoon mouse says, yes.
    
    source
  - WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    On what basis are you deciding it should not be DRM protected?
    
    they have literally given 3 of such bases
    
    source
  - WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    On what basis are you deciding it should not be DRM protected?
    
    they have literally given 3 of such bases
    
    source
  - rottingleaf@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    On the basis of having bought it. If they haven’t sold it but made such an impression, then they’ve committed a crime.
    
    When you are buying a cure against all problems with miniscule text saying it’s just a metaphor, the seller is committing a crime. It’s the same here.
    
    Morally. Regardless of how courts interpret this right now. That feature that courts and practice officially do not equal morality and thus we can decide differently this time, if we can provide an explanation, is the main advantage of English legal system and those descended from it over others.
    
    source
doodledup@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Also baseless assumptions.

source
- HyperfocusSurfer@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  Agreed to disagree then. IMO, if a company thinks it’s OK to throw me over the dick hiding behind being afraid of shadows, deny me access to legally obtained content on my devices, walk back on previous deals, and so on, then I have no problem with getting unrestricted access to stuff they decided I don’t technically own. Fuck the fucker, simple as that.
  
  source