Firefox 49 To Offer Linux Widevine Support, Firefox Also Working On WebP Support

[Tomin]

Read the Mozilla bug thread that I posted above and that will give you the full picture of why it isn't a done deal. It's not as simple as "Use VDPAU!" or "Use dis here media playa!". Acceleration needs to work in the browser - external players are a mess, especially with forks - and the foundation just isn't there yet.

I've read it before and I read it again now, it's not news to me. I was trying to say that there is a single API that can be used for hardware video acceleration and that the situation is not (anymore) that we have many of them that all must be supported. Yes, I understand that it's not enough. I don't know enough of Windows' media APIs to know what they do better and why they can be supported better than Linux counterparts. There are other things mentioned in the bug report that are implemented in Windows but not on Linux and that are required for good support of hardware acceleration, but that doesn't explain why Linux is harder, it just tells that there hasn't been time to make the missing stuff for Linux.

I never meant to say that media players were similar to browsers. I just said that video playback itself works just fine, so that shouldn't be the problem. It must be elsewhere, again, AFAIK. I can be wrong. To me that discussion looks like the only thing we are really waiting for is FX's OpenGL compositor and after that it's already much easier to do video decoding hardware acceleration, because VA-API and VDPAU can render to OpenGL surfaces (textures or whatever it is rendering to).

Anyway, Mozilla folks, take your time. I can wait.

[Gusar]

But, here is where it gets goofy. Copywrite infringement in America means that you took someone's copyrighted material and used it in some fashion that made a profit.

I don't think profit is a necessary component. Jamie Thomas-Rasset and Joel Tenenbaum didn't make any profit, both simply shared some stuff. It makes a difference between civil or criminal offense, that's for sure.

Watching video's for your own personal entertainment is not infringement.

Yes, but torrenting by the very design of it includes distribution, that's where the infringement happens.

[duby229]

I don't think profit is a necessary component. Jamie Thomas-Rasset and Joel Tenenbaum didn't make any profit, both simply shared some stuff. It makes a difference between civil or criminal offense, that's for sure.


Yes, but torrenting by the very design of it includes distribution, that's where the infringement happens.

I'm not so sure about that. In the end so many people torrent there is no possible way to enforce copywrite infringement on them. Governments may be able to enforce the worst cases, but that's exactly what tyranny is, selectively enforcing otherwise unenforceable law. The problem is not filesharing, the problem is copywrite law.

[starshipeleven]

It's exactly because the "property" (the use of quotes is deliberate) is not physical that the rules are different.

Huh? A book written on paper is not the same as a ebook? Aren't them the same words written by the same person?
(the same applies to other media).
The ownership isn't in the medium, but in the information, as the only thing that constitutes something wort anything is the information, not the medium.

Well yes, if we were talking about stealing, there wouldn't be much to talk about. But we're not talking about stealing, we're talking about copyright infringement.

Which is still stealing, because the property protected by copyright is not of the physical copy, but of the information stored in it.

You do know that the EU rejected ACTA, don't you? It's right there in your link! "On 4 July 2012, the European Parliament declined its consent, effectively rejecting it, 478 votes to 39, with 165 abstentions."

Read the map (or other sources). 22 member states of EU signed it on their own.
Germany is the only big EU nation that didn't ratify it (plus a bunch of other smaller nations that don't really matter).

Also, no, peer-to-peer filesharing is *not* criminal in the US, it's a matter of civil law.

That's a implementation detail because otherwise they would be basically forced to shut down everything by force at the slight order of copyright holders, and this would help too much also small-sized copyright holders, and this cannot happen, only big companies with $$$ must be protected, so that cannot happen.
When big companies hide behind law it's bad and we must fight it by stealing shit, but when you hide behind law to steal shit is good. Double standards detected.

[starshipeleven]

But, here is where it gets goofy. Copywrite infringement in America means that you took someone's copyrighted material and used it in some fashion that made a profit. Watching video's for your own personal entertainment is not infringement.

Uhm, no. Just downloading it is a crime and can be fined. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html

[starshipeleven]

EDIT: Actually there is an older law called the Fair Use Act that specifically covers entertainment. It was written in a time before computers, so the terminology in the law requires some interpretation to make it work with modern concepts. But it is all there.

Fair Use covers PARTIAL use of a work for educational or similar purposes.
Watching a full media for entertainment does not and never did fall under that.

[starshipeleven]

I'm not so sure about that. In the end so many people torrent there is no possible way to enforce copywrite infringement on them. Governments may be able to enforce the worst cases, but that's exactly what tyranny is, selectively enforcing otherwise unenforceable law. The problem is not filesharing, the problem is copywrite law.

FYI: torrent protocol does not hide your IP, so yeah, they can track down everyone at any time they want (and in the US every now and then they actually do so), it's not like it's hard.

Please note that while your public IP is dynamic, your ISP knows very well who's using what IP right now and for a while, so they track down your ISP contract, and then you pretty easily.

That said, even if something is not enforceable it does not mean it is right to let it happen, or that ALL unenforceable things are automatically tyranny.

[duby229]

Uhm, no. Just downloading it is a crime and can be fined. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html

Ok, bring it on then. Fine me and then 250 million other people. Good luck.

[duby229]

FYI: torrent protocol does not hide your IP, so yeah, they can track down everyone at any time they want (and in the US every now and then they actually do so), it's not like it's hard.

Please note that while your public IP is dynamic, your ISP knows very well who's using what IP right now and for a while, so they track down your ISP contract, and then you pretty easily.

That said, even if something is not enforceable it does not mean it is right to let it happen, or that ALL unenforceable things are automatically tyranny.

Which is totally beside the point. I don't have to be anonymous. I personally don't care about anonymity. I'll keep doing exactly what I know full well is the right choice in the open. Download it, stream it, share it, whatever it takes.

[Gusar]

Huh? A book written on paper is not the same as a ebook?

Of course it isn't. One is available in infinite supply. The other isn't.

The ownership isn't in the medium, but in the information, as the only thing that constitutes something wort anything is the information, not the medium.

Err, the medium is very much worth something. Or does the paper the info is printed on (and the printing press itself for that matter) appear out of thin air?

Which is still stealing, because the property protected by copyright is not of the physical copy, but of the information stored in it.

You still don't get what stealing actually is. It's depriving the original owner of the use of what was stolen. If I download an ebook, the author and/or publisher still has the information (the "property") and can still use it. But if I take a book from a store, they are deprived of the use of it, they can't sell it anymore.

Read the map (or other sources). 22 member states of EU signed it on their own.
Germany is the only big EU nation that didn't ratify it (plus a bunch of other smaller nations that don't really matter).

Nope, you got that wrong. Germany didn't even sign it. 22 countries did, but after the rejection by the Parliament, they did not ratify it. Even that is in your very link: "many countries in Europe that have signed the treaty have set aside ratification in response to public outcry, effectively hampering the ratification and implementation of the treaty."

That's a implementation detail

No, that's the whole effin' point! *You* brought up crime. You can't backtrack now with "that's an unimportant detail".

When big companies hide behind law it's bad and we must fight it by stealing shit, but when you hide behind law to steal shit is good. Double standards detected.

We're not stealing shit, so your argument is invalid.