Can you give me more background on how to set this switch?
Digital Rights Management (DRM) Content
Play DRM-controlled content
Learn more = https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm

The learn-more URL says
"Firefox downloads and enables the Google Widevine CDM by default
to give users a smooth experience on sites that require DRM."

I don't understand this Google "Widevine" stuff. Do you?
Can you provide some elucidating background on what's going on here?

On 08/27/2023 10:59, Wolf Greenblatt wrote:
> Can you give me more background on how to set this switch?
> Digital Rights Management (DRM) Content
> Play DRM-controlled content
> Learn more = https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm
>
> The learn-more URL says
> "Firefox downloads and enables the Google Widevine CDM by default
> to give users a smooth experience on sites that require DRM."
>
> I don't understand this Google "Widevine" stuff. Do you?
> Can you provide some elucidating background on what's going on here?

DRM is how entities like Netflix protect their content against piracy.
Widevine is a method that Firefox supports. If you don't need or want
to access content protected by it go to Tools >Settings>Digital Rights
Management (DRM) Content and make sure the checkbox next to "Play
DRM-controlled content is not checked. That's supposed to uninstall
Widevine. Checking the box is supposed to install it again. I don't do
DRM so I can't say for sure but I have no reason to believe this isn't
how it works.

On 8/27/23 10:59, Wolf Greenblatt wrote:
> Can you give me more background on how to set this switch?
> Digital Rights Management (DRM) Content
> Play DRM-controlled content
> Learn more = https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm
>
> The learn-more URL says
> "Firefox downloads and enables the Google Widevine CDM by default
> to give users a smooth experience on sites that require DRM."
>
> I don't understand this Google "Widevine" stuff. Do you?
> Can you provide some elucidating background on what's going on here?

It seems to be part of the usual corporate paranoia, that assumes you're
a thief.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Illegal Error. You are not allowed to get this error, next time you
will be punished."

"Wolf Greenblatt" <wolf@greenblatt.net> wrote

| Can you give me more background on how to set this switch?
| Digital Rights Management (DRM) Content
| Play DRM-controlled content
| Learn more = https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm
|

Widevine is the DRM module used for streaming. If you
don't stream videos in your browser, you can disable it.
I stream Netflix through FF and it won't work without
Widevine, but I like that method because it's the least
intrusive. I don't want my TV going online and I don't want
to install proprietary software.

On 8/27/23 9:34 AM, None wrote:
> On 08/27/2023 10:59, Wolf Greenblatt wrote:
>> Can you give me more background on how to set this switch?
>> Digital Rights Management (DRM) Content
>> Play DRM-controlled content
>> Learn more = https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm
>>
>> The learn-more URL says
>> "Firefox downloads and enables the Google Widevine CDM by default
>> to give users a smooth experience on sites that require DRM."
>>
>> I don't understand this Google "Widevine" stuff. Do you?
>> Can you provide some elucidating background on what's going on here?
>
> DRM is how entities like Netflix protect their content against piracy.
> Widevine is a method that Firefox supports. If you don't need or want
> to access content protected by it go to Tools >Settings>Digital Rights
> Management (DRM) Content and make sure the checkbox next to "Play
> DRM-controlled content is not checked. That's supposed to uninstall
> Widevine. Checking the box is supposed to install it again. I don't do
> DRM so I can't say for sure but I have no reason to believe this isn't
> how it works.

Why would one deliberately choose to NOT do something that you might
want to do by accident or design at a later date? Is there a cost?

--
Cheers, Bev
Warning -- Driver carries less than $20 worth of ammunition

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 13:56:33 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> I don't understand this Google "Widevine" stuff. Do you?
>> Can you provide some elucidating background on what's going on here?
>
> It seems to be part of the usual corporate paranoia, that assumes you're
> a thief.

What makes a thief?
Specifically, What makes content DRM versus the same content not DRM?

Whatever that turns out to be, if Firefox downloads a program called
Widevine, what do the other browsers do? Same program? Different one?

What do other streaming players (like Netflix apps and VLC video players
perhaps) do to play DRM content? Do they also download Widevine?

Does each prog that streams DRM content download a different decoder?

And what specifically makes a stream protected by DRM?
A password? A special PGP key? A series of commands?

So confusing.

Ne> Widevine is the DRM module used for streaming. If you
Ne> don't stream videos in your browser, you can disable it.

What does it actually do? Does it prevent the stream from being downloaded?
Scan for screen recorders?

-----------------------------------
user is generated from /dev/urandom

Patrick <patrick@oleary.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 13:56:33 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>>It seems to be part of the usual corporate paranoia, that assumes you're
>>a thief.

>What makes a thief?

Someone who makes a copy and transfers it without authorization to a
third party.

Someone who makes a copy for is own purpose WITHOUT transferring it
isn't in violation of copyright law. DRM doesn't know shit about the
law.

>. . .

On 8/27/2023 1:35 AM, candycane wrote:
> Ne> Widevine is the DRM module used for streaming. If you
> Ne> don't stream videos in your browser, you can disable it.
>
> What does it actually do? Does it prevent the stream from being downloaded?
> Scan for screen recorders?
>
> -----------------------------------
> user is generated from /dev/urandom
>

Think of it as a wrapper having crypto.

The streamed video, is encrypted. Widevine carries
out the protocol for key management or whatever.

Widevine is a commercial grade DRM, considered
"safe enough to carry Hollywood content, with
zero chance of theft". It means, no plaintext
copy of the video, should be sitting in a memory
area or disk area, that the user could snarf.

The only thing sitting on disk, is the encrypted
version, which looks like "electrical noise".
Go ahead, put it in your hex editor. It looks like
a random number generator made it. That's crypto for you.

NVidia, already has an "enclave" for video decoding.
This is an area that the user cannot access. In addition,
the HDCP used on HDMI and DisplayPort, means the display
information is encrypted on the wire too. This means
Nvidia has provided a "secure" path, from the point that
plaintext video enters the video card (via DMA transfers perhaps).

What WideVine needs to do then, is find a similar
enclave on the NVidia card, so it too cannot leave
any plaintext that the user can get at.

This is what the industry has been working on, while
you've been asleep. They removed the analog DIN connector
with the YPrPb output. That would have been *perfect* for
Hollywood content theft. Notice they removed the VGA connector
on the new video cards. The VGA connector would have
been *perfect* for video copying. The analog hole has
been removed from video cards. Job done. The only protection
analog had, was MacroVision (as an example).

And, there's an enclave now, to "seal the deal". With the analog
hole closed, the digital needed handcuffs, and the enclave does
that bit.

Then, you leave some sort of interface WideVine can use.
I don't know what that interface is, but you'd have to
research the details. A researcher cannot tell you what
the mechanism is, because they would be charged under
DMCA legislation.

Are you seeing how the world works yet ?

Any questions ???

Remember, it's not your computer. It's a McDonalds fries machine,
and it serves commercial french fries, even when you'd rather
not eat them.

Using WideVine costs money. The equipment or program preparing
the crypto stream, is a good place for gatekeeping. There would be
a "per-view" fee as well, so the WideVine framework likely has
a counter for this.

Paul

Pa> And, there's an enclave now, to "seal the deal". With the analog
Pa> hole closed, the digital needed handcuffs, and the enclave does
Pa> that bit.

Technically, you could still use a camera, or remote desktop. Can't wait for
them to find a way to block that too..

Pa> Using WideVine costs money. The equipment or program preparing
Pa> the crypto stream, is a good place for gatekeeping. There would be
Pa> a "per-view" fee as well, so the WideVine framework likely has
Pa> a counter for this.

That seems insane.. and something they would try to push.

-----------------------------------
user is generated from /dev/urandom

"Patrick" <patrick@oleary.com> wrote

| What makes a thief?
| Specifically, What makes content DRM versus the same content not DRM?
|

DRM stands for digital restriction management. (Later
cast, with Orwellian flair, as digital rights management.)
As Paul explained, it's a library to handle encryption, so
that you never have access to the actual digital file.

A thief in this case is someone who distributes copyrighted
material without rights to do so, or who steals a copy they're
expected to pay for. If you buy a book it's legal. If you resell
that book it's legal. If you distribute copies, it's not legal. If
you steal the book it's not legal.

There's also a gray area here. What about Youtube, for
example? Google is giving away those files for free. If you
stream them then you might see ads. If you use software to
simply download the file then you won't see ads. Some would
say it's stealing to download the file, but Google has put the
file on their server and advertised the download link! It's similar
with "passive hassle" approaches by websites who want you
to "register" or pay for a subscription. If they put the actual
webpage online then you're free to take it. If you block ads,
they can try to stop you, but they offered the webpage content
to the public. If you read an article at WashPo, for example,
they can't legally force you to also visit Google/Doubleclick
or other ad/spyware companies. They can only try to trick
you into it.

In the case of streaming movies it's different. The content is
not offered freely online. You'd have to hack the encryption to get
the movie file. So in that case you're deliberately breaking in.

(Though a locked down Web is in the works. Many webpages now
are not HTML at all. The entire content is obfuscated script, which
retrieves the page content from the server while also inviting multiple
tracking scripts from other companies. If you don't let them
commandeer your browser with script then you don't get the
webpage. Microsoft is one company that's pioneering that technique.)

| Whatever that turns out to be, if Firefox downloads a program called
| Widevine, what do the other browsers do? Same program? Different one?
|

Firefox doesn't download it. If you want to stream something like
Netflix in a browser, then the browser has to have Widevine built in.
It's the industry standard. At one point I was streaming Netflix on
a Raspberry Pi and had to use Chromium with a special update that
someone had created privately to install Widevine, because Widevine
wasn't yet in browsers on ARM CPUs. Aside from dedicated software,
I'm not aware of non-Widevine options. I'd guess that Roku or Sling
or whatever the devices are that let you stream are probably also
using Widevine.

| So confusing.
|

Nothing very confusing for the average end-user. With most existing
browsers you can stream movies. That's the default arrangement. But
you'll have a hard time copying movies you stream. On the other hand,
companies are charging about $10/month for unlimited streaming. So
there's not much incentive to steal.

A less obvious issue is the potential side racket of personal data
wholesaling. Privacy is my main reason for using a browser. If I
connect my TV to the Internet then I'll likely be spied on by multiple
entities. If I download a dedicated "app", that gives them much more
ability to collect data because they're running software on my machine.
(That's why so many entities want you to "download the app". It
helps them to collect saleable personal data, which is also a major income
stream for cellphone software makers. People won't pay money, so
they either show ads or sell you out.)

With a browser it's pretty much just Netflix knowing that I watched
a movie. Though I had an interesting experience recently. I decided to
subscribe to Starz, to provide a bigger selection of movies. It worked
fine for a few weeks and then suddenly I couldn't log in. It just kept
looping. I finally figured out that Starz was letting several other spying
companies come along for the ride, and if I blocked those via NoScript
then they weren't going to let me log in! So I cancelled. Now they keep
sending me spam, offering 3 months for $3. But they won't offer
honesty and common decency. I don't mind paying their $10 fee. I
do mind the sleaze.

The heyday, for me, was Netflix DVDs. I was paying $1-2 each for
virtually any movie made. Now each studio is trying to keep their
movies limited, so that you have to pay for streaming services. I
watched Tar at a friend's house on Amazon. It was $20! Twice what
it would have cost in the theater. Netflix is cheap, but it's now
mostly 3rd-rate junk movies and junk TV shows that they make
themselves. I recently saw Oppenheimer in a theater. I get more DVDs
from my local library than I watch on Netflix. The library has a better
selection. Streaming services are becoming like TV stations. You need
several to see what you want to watch. But each one is charging
$10-15/month. That all adds up. And Amazon's video prices are nuts.
It's not the fault of Netflix. Warner, Disney, Paramount, Apple and so
on won't let them show their stuff, because they want to sell their own
streaming service. There are actually movies that you won't be able
to see for any price unless you buy AppleTV or some such.

If we didn't have libraries then I'm sure they'd be banned by a
consortium of greedy media companies. My local library can buy
a copy of a movie and loan it out, which is perfectly legal with
copyrighted material. Unfortunately, most of the US doesn't have
good local libraries that can afford to stock a wide selection
of DVDS. But even libraries have limitations. Some studios, like
AppleTV, won't allow libraries to buy their stuff. On the bright
side, AppleTV is mostly junk with the likes of Jennifer Anniston
and Reese Witherspoon starring, so we're not missing much. :)

Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>. . .

> A thief in this case is someone who distributes copyrighted
>material without rights to do so, or who steals a copy they're
>expected to pay for. If you buy a book it's legal. If you resell
>that book it's legal. If you distribute copies, it's not legal. If
>you steal the book it's not legal.

Stealing a physical copy isn't copyright violation, so that's not what's
being discussed here.

> There's also a gray area here. What about Youtube, for
>example? Google is giving away those files for free. If you
>stream them then you might see ads. If you use software to
>simply download the file then you won't see ads. Some would
>say it's stealing to download the file, but Google has put the
>file on their server and advertised the download link!

Some who would say that don't know what the hell they are talking about.

A television viewer isn't contractually obligated to watch ads, let
alone download ads. Also those ads aren't being given away for free, so
by NOT watching them, no copyright violation has taken place!

>. . .

"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote

| > A thief in this case is someone who distributes copyrighted
| >material without rights to do so, or who steals a copy they're
| >expected to pay for. If you buy a book it's legal. If you resell
| >that book it's legal. If you distribute copies, it's not legal. If
| >you steal the book it's not legal.
| | Stealing a physical copy isn't copyright violation, so that's not what's
| being discussed here.
|

I said it's illegal. You can twist the facts to justify
what you think you deserve, but stealing a book,
or distributing copies, is illegal.

On 28/08/2023 15:57, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>> . . .
>> A thief in this case is someone who distributes copyrighted
>> material without rights to do so, or who steals a copy they're
>> expected to pay for. If you buy a book it's legal. If you resell
>> that book it's legal. If you distribute copies, it's not legal. If
>> you steal the book it's not legal.
> Stealing a physical copy isn't copyright violation, so that's not what's
> being discussed here.
>
>

That's NOT what he said. He actually said:

"A thief in this case is someone who distributes copyrighted
material without rights to do so, or who steals a copy they're
expected to pay for."

Notice the word "OR". This word changes everything what he meant to say.
He actually said:

"or who steals a copy they're
expected to pay for."

This means if you go to your local bookshop and walk away with a book
without paying then you are a thief.

Does this help you now? You need to learn how conjunctions are used in a
sentence.

In article <uci6ml$23mp1$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Newyana2
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> There's also a gray area here. What about Youtube, for
> example? Google is giving away those files for free. If you
> stream them then you might see ads. If you use software to
> simply download the file then you won't see ads. Some would
> say it's stealing to download the file, but Google has put the
> file on their server and advertised the download link!

no. youtube provides a streaming link.

there isn't an actual file to download. it's actually many segments
which must be stitched together. regardless, downloading is a violation
of the terms of service, although it's highly unlikely that anyone will
be caught doing that.

youtube is *constantly* changing their back end to prevent downloading,
causing the various download utilities to continually release updates
to keep up with the changes.

On 8/28/23 9:15 AM, Newyana2 wrote:
> "Patrick" <patrick@oleary.com> wrote
>
> | What makes a thief?
> | Specifically, What makes content DRM versus the same content not DRM?
> |
>
> DRM stands for digital restriction management. (Later
> cast, with Orwellian flair, as digital rights management.)
> As Paul explained, it's a library to handle encryption, so
> that you never have access to the actual digital file.
>
> A thief in this case is someone who distributes copyrighted
> material without rights to do so, or who steals a copy they're
> expected to pay for. If you buy a book it's legal. If you resell
> that book it's legal. If you distribute copies, it's not legal. If
> you steal the book it's not legal.
>
> There's also a gray area here. What about Youtube, for
> example? Google is giving away those files for free. If you
> stream them then you might see ads. If you use software to
> simply download the file then you won't see ads. Some would
> say it's stealing to download the file, but Google has put the
> file on their server and advertised the download link! It's similar
> with "passive hassle" approaches by websites who want you
> to "register" or pay for a subscription. If they put the actual
> webpage online then you're free to take it. If you block ads,
> they can try to stop you, but they offered the webpage content
> to the public. If you read an article at WashPo, for example,
> they can't legally force you to also visit Google/Doubleclick
> or other ad/spyware companies. They can only try to trick
> you into it.
>
> In the case of streaming movies it's different. The content is
> not offered freely online. You'd have to hack the encryption to get
> the movie file. So in that case you're deliberately breaking in.
>
> (Though a locked down Web is in the works. Many webpages now
> are not HTML at all. The entire content is obfuscated script, which
> retrieves the page content from the server while also inviting multiple
> tracking scripts from other companies. If you don't let them
> commandeer your browser with script then you don't get the
> webpage. Microsoft is one company that's pioneering that technique.)
>
> | Whatever that turns out to be, if Firefox downloads a program called
> | Widevine, what do the other browsers do? Same program? Different one?
> |
>
> Firefox doesn't download it. If you want to stream something like
> Netflix in a browser, then the browser has to have Widevine built in.
> It's the industry standard. At one point I was streaming Netflix on
> a Raspberry Pi and had to use Chromium with a special update that
> someone had created privately to install Widevine, because Widevine
> wasn't yet in browsers on ARM CPUs. Aside from dedicated software,
> I'm not aware of non-Widevine options. I'd guess that Roku or Sling
> or whatever the devices are that let you stream are probably also
> using Widevine.
>
> | So confusing.
> |
>
> Nothing very confusing for the average end-user. With most existing
> browsers you can stream movies. That's the default arrangement. But
> you'll have a hard time copying movies you stream. On the other hand,
> companies are charging about $10/month for unlimited streaming. So
> there's not much incentive to steal.
>
> A less obvious issue is the potential side racket of personal data
> wholesaling. Privacy is my main reason for using a browser. If I
> connect my TV to the Internet then I'll likely be spied on by multiple
> entities. If I download a dedicated "app", that gives them much more
> ability to collect data because they're running software on my machine.
> (That's why so many entities want you to "download the app". It
> helps them to collect saleable personal data, which is also a major income
> stream for cellphone software makers. People won't pay money, so
> they either show ads or sell you out.)
>
> With a browser it's pretty much just Netflix knowing that I watched
> a movie. Though I had an interesting experience recently. I decided to
> subscribe to Starz, to provide a bigger selection of movies. It worked
> fine for a few weeks and then suddenly I couldn't log in. It just kept
> looping. I finally figured out that Starz was letting several other spying
> companies come along for the ride, and if I blocked those via NoScript
> then they weren't going to let me log in! So I cancelled. Now they keep
> sending me spam, offering 3 months for $3. But they won't offer
> honesty and common decency. I don't mind paying their $10 fee. I
> do mind the sleaze.
>
> The heyday, for me, was Netflix DVDs. I was paying $1-2 each for
> virtually any movie made. Now each studio is trying to keep their
> movies limited, so that you have to pay for streaming services. I
> watched Tar at a friend's house on Amazon. It was $20! Twice what
> it would have cost in the theater. Netflix is cheap, but it's now
> mostly 3rd-rate junk movies and junk TV shows that they make
> themselves. I recently saw Oppenheimer in a theater. I get more DVDs
> from my local library than I watch on Netflix. The library has a better
> selection. Streaming services are becoming like TV stations. You need
> several to see what you want to watch. But each one is charging
> $10-15/month. That all adds up. And Amazon's video prices are nuts.
> It's not the fault of Netflix. Warner, Disney, Paramount, Apple and so
> on won't let them show their stuff, because they want to sell their own
> streaming service. There are actually movies that you won't be able
> to see for any price unless you buy AppleTV or some such.
>
> If we didn't have libraries then I'm sure they'd be banned by a
> consortium of greedy media companies. My local library can buy
> a copy of a movie and loan it out, which is perfectly legal with
> copyrighted material. Unfortunately, most of the US doesn't have
> good local libraries that can afford to stock a wide selection
> of DVDS. But even libraries have limitations. Some studios, like
> AppleTV, won't allow libraries to buy their stuff. On the bright
> side, AppleTV is mostly junk with the likes of Jennifer Anniston
> and Reese Witherspoon starring, so we're not missing much. :)
>
>
Thanks for the excellent commentary.

On 8/28/23 12:19 PM, Nic wrote:
> On 8/28/23 9:15 AM, Newyana2 wrote:

>> If we didn't have libraries then I'm sure they'd be banned by a
>> consortium of greedy media companies. My local library can buy
>> a copy of a movie and loan it out, which is perfectly legal with
>> copyrighted material. Unfortunately, most of the US doesn't have
>> good local libraries that can afford to stock a wide selection
>> of DVDS.

BUT some/many/most/all local libraries can request materials from other
libraries. It may take a while, but it's possible. Our library loans
passes to State Parks, hotspots, chromebooks, e-books and other stuff
that I don't know about in addition to books, DVDs and CDs.

--
Cheers, Bev
Nothing is so stupid that you can't find somebody who
did it at least once if you look hard enough.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote

> downloading is a violation
> of the terms of service, although it's highly unlikely that anyone will
> be caught doing that.

Everything you said is correct - with the very important clarification that
you can easily download youtube material WITHOUT violating ANY YouTube TOS.

You just have to use a program (of which there are many, almost all FOSS,
so Google knows EXACTLY how they work) that uses only the site public API.

A few FOSS youtube downloaders that come to mind offhand are yt-dlp
(Windows CLI), ClipGrab (yt-dlp GUI) and NewPipe (Android GUI) - all of
which are continually updated so they work despite Google site changes.

As usual, there are no GUIs on iOS that do what Windows & Android do; but
if you jump through insane clusterfuck hoops, the yt-dlp will work on iOS.

In article <ucivnn$2609b$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Wally J
<walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> > downloading is a violation
> > of the terms of service, although it's highly unlikely that anyone will
> > be caught doing that.
>
> Everything you said is correct - with the very important clarification that
> you can easily download youtube material WITHOUT violating ANY YouTube TOS.

false.

> You just have to use a program (of which there are many, almost all FOSS,
> so Google knows EXACTLY how they work) that uses only the site public API.

that doesn't change anything.

On 28 Aug 2023 at 9:15:48 PM, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> If we didn't have libraries then I'm sure they'd be banned by a
>>> consortium of greedy media companies. My local library can buy
>>> a copy of a movie and loan it out, which is perfectly legal with
>>> copyrighted material. Unfortunately, most of the US doesn't have
>>> good local libraries that can afford to stock a wide selection
>>> of DVDS.
>
> BUT some/many/most/all local libraries can request materials from other
> libraries. It may take a while, but it's possible. Our library loans
> passes to State Parks, hotspots, chromebooks, e-books and other stuff
> that I don't know about in addition to books, DVDs and CDs.

There is also the world-renown free public Internet library, whose goal,
based on what they write, it to make every book possible available to you.
https://openlibrary.org/
--
Cheers, Quellen

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote

>> Everything you said is correct - with the very important clarification that
>> you can easily download youtube material WITHOUT violating ANY YouTube TOS.
>
> false.

*Every consumer OS _except for iOS_ has a GUI to legally download videos.*

We've had this discussion before where you always come up with a different
excuse for the thousands of things that Apple iOS products just can't do.

Thousands of useful functionalities are on all operating systems - except
iOS where an ability to graphically legally download YouTube videos is one.

>> You just have to use a program (of which there are many, almost all FOSS,
>> so Google knows EXACTLY how they work) that uses only the site public API.
>
> that doesn't change anything.

Every other operating system does torrents, for example, except Apple iOS.
You claim all torrents are illegal and that's why only iOS can't torrent.

When you are desperate for excuses for why only iOS can't have the privacy
of the Guardian Tor Browser - you claim everyone on Tor is being illegal.

For each of the thousands of useful functionalities that every other common
consumer operating system easily does _except for iOS_ you make excuses.

Just like you're doing now for the lack of a YouTube download GUI on iOS.

*Every consumer OS _except for iOS_ has a GUI to legally download videos.*
--
We're talking these GUIs are well known to Google as they're all FOSS, and
there are no advertisements whatsoever, nor any limitations on their use.

In article <ucj1gb$265g3$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Wally J
<walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> >> Everything you said is correct - with the very important clarification that
> >> you can easily download youtube material WITHOUT violating ANY YouTube TOS.
> >
> > false.
>
> *Every consumer OS _except for iOS_ has a GUI to legally download videos.*

very much false, arlen, and your attempt to move the goalpost to a
generic 'download videos' is not going to fly.

it's a tos violation to download youtube videos on any platform. full
stop.

<https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms>
The following restrictions apply to your use of the Service. You are
not allowed to:

access, reproduce, download, distribute, transmit, broadcast,
display, sell, license, alter, modify or otherwise use any part of
the Service or any Content except: (a) as expressly authorized by
the Service; or (b) with prior written permission from YouTube and,
if applicable, the respective rights holders;
....
access the Service using any automated means (such as robots,
botnets or scrapers) except (a) in the case of public search
engines, in accordance with YouTube

note that it doesn't exempt or allow any particular os. all users are
prohibited from download videos.

granted, the chances of being caught and prosecuted are almost nil, but
that doesn't change anything.

and as for ios, there are gui options to download youtube videos and
other content, as has been explained to you many times before. you
refuse to acknowledge it because it destroys your trolling.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote

> note that it doesn't exempt or allow any particular os. all users are
> prohibited from download videos.

Why do you think it's always only iOS that can't graphically download
youtube videos - just like it's only iOS that can't torrent - just like
it's only iOS that can't have anywhere near the Guardian's Tor privacy?

> granted, the chances of being caught and prosecuted are almost nil, but
> that doesn't change anything.

Google sees the source code - if they thought it was illegal - they have
lawyers who could ask for an injunction on these products in a heartbeat.

> and as for ios, there are gui options to download youtube videos and
> other content, as has been explained to you many times before.

You're so desperate to claim iOS can do what clearly iOS can't do that
you're constantly brazenly fabricating imaginary iOS functionality nospam.
a. The proof is you can't name an iOS app that does what NewPipe does.
b. You can't name a single iOS app that does what the ClipGrab GUI does.
c. You can't name a single browser that has the privacy of the Tor browser.

*All you ever do is desperately fabricate imaginary iOS functionality*

> you
> refuse to acknowledge it because it destroys your trolling.

You call every fact about iOS trolling because it's only iOS that can't
do thousands of functional things *that every other OS _easily_ does*.

In article <ucj3ie$26bia$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Wally J
<walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> Why do you think it's always only iOS that can't graphically download
> youtube videos

it very definitely can.

the problem is *you* are unable to do so, despite explanations how.

>
> Google sees the source code - if they thought it was illegal - they have
> lawyers who could ask for an injunction on these products in a heartbeat.

the source code isn't what's illegal.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 17:10:42 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <ucj1gb$265g3$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Wally J
><walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>>
>> >> Everything you said is correct - with the very important clarification that
>> >> you can easily download youtube material WITHOUT violating ANY YouTube TOS.
>> >
>> > false.
>>
>> *Every consumer OS _except for iOS_ has a GUI to legally download videos.*
>
>very much false, arlen, and your attempt to move the goalpost to a
>generic 'download videos' is not going to fly.
>
>it's a tos violation to download youtube videos on any platform. full
>stop.
>
><https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms>
> The following restrictions apply to your use of the Service. You are
> not allowed to:
>
> access, reproduce, download, distribute, transmit, broadcast,
> display, sell, license, alter, modify or otherwise use any part of
> the Service or any Content except: (a) as expressly authorized by
> the Service; or (b) with prior written permission from YouTube and,
> if applicable, the respective rights holders;
>...
> access the Service using any automated means (such as robots,
> botnets or scrapers) except (a) in the case of public search
> engines, in accordance with YouTube
>
>note that it doesn't exempt or allow any particular os. all users are
>prohibited from download videos.

<snip>

I would point out that the Android Youtube app has a "Download video" menu item
under each video. Since it's the official Youtube app, I assume they make an
exception for downloading that way.