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

[GizmoChicken]

Anyone got Netflix to actually work with it yet?

I'm running Firefox Nightly with Widevine installed.

Try spoofing your user agent to windows running firefox. If that works, kindly report back.

For me, spoofing a reasonably new version of Chrome for Linux allows for watching Netflix using Firefox 49 beta4. You'll need to confirm that Widevine is installed and activated. (It wasn't installed/activated by default for me.)

[carewolf]

Hello? Making copies without consent of the owner is a blatant violation of fucking private property. I understand that being digital data it's harder to understand as it's not physical.
But if they were books or physical disks (that are also copies of a master, but in a physical form) there would not be much to talk about.

In US it is, in EU it is, in most other civilized places on the planet it is

US maybe, EU no, nope nope nope. It is not a crime in any civilized country.

[carewolf]

Since when does Linux lack video acceleration? It's been working perfectly for many years now.

Well in browsers it is for some reason absent. Chrome and Chromium even have the logic, but they only enable it when build for Android or ChromeOS, so the normal Linux builds doesn't get it.

[duby229]

Which is what I just said in my post ("I can do so many evil things legally that it's not a good indication of what is right or wrong").

No, the problem here is that some kiddies like to play Rebel Alliance and Stick It To The Man^TM by doing things that are CLEARLY counterproductive to their cause, and also morally wrong.

Seriously, the fact that it is so damn easy isn't already a dead giveaway that they aren't even trying to stop it? It's an obvious trap for kiddies.

At least 250 million other people disagree with you. Fortunately.

[Gusar]

However, that doesn't make it OK.

That's debatable. It's against the law, but like duby229 said, morality and law often don't stand on the same side. Laws are also not set in stone. So whether this behavior is OK or not isn't definite and is not determined solely by the unlawfulness of it.

99% of people who say they're breaking the law out of "civil disobedience" are just attempting to justify their behavior to themselves. It's not civil disobedience, it's you wanting to take something and not pay for it.

Do not presume to know people's motivations. For sure there's those who just want free stuff, but claiming that's all there is to it is very shortsighted.

[Gusar]

Huh? Storage space is still in finite suppy too, just bigger supply. Do you want to put some lines down here in the sand?

Let me put it this way:

How many dead-tree versions (paper books) of a particular work can Amazon sell? As many as they have in storage. A sale decreases the amount of available items. When the storage is empty, Amazon has to acquire a new batch to put in their storage. If a new batch exists. If it doesn't, the sale is over.
How many ebook versions of the same particular work can Amazon sell? There is no limit. A sale does not decrease the amount of available items, so the storage will never be empty. The sale will never be over. Well, unless Amazon decides to remove the work form their offering for reasons other than supply.

no limit to the amount of items that can be sold = supply is infinite

You think ebooks appear magically out of thin air and teleport to your PC at the snap of your fingers?

Right-click -> copy, right-click -> paste. No magic involved, but quite close to snapping ones fingers. And voila, a new ebook has appeared. Making such copies through p2p is a bit more involved, there's that whole internet thing, but nevertheless everyone can easily create new items. Not so much with paper books. That's the point here - the medium matters.

They have costs too (translation, servers, advertising), less than physical but there still are, and can't be ignored.

Translation costs exist regardless of medium, so adding it in there with the others makes no sense. Servers and advertising (at least one form of advertising), are something specific to ebooks, that's true, but you yourself admit these costs are different from the costs of a paper book. Which goes directly against your argument that there's no worth in the medium.

And that is still ignoring the elephant in the room, the poor fucker that spent a long time writing the stuff and took the large risk of simply not going on sale (so wasting all the work), does get a share too (usually not that fair with physical copies).

This "elephant" exist regardless of medium. So it has no relevance when talking about the worth of the medium.

No, it is taking something without asking the owner's permission. You should not care if you deprive them or not, that stuff is NOT yours so it is NOT your call on what you should do with it or what is right or wrong with it.

It's not my call, but it is yours? Yeah, right. It's neither of ours actually. And to those who do make the call, the concept of depriving matters very much.

Also, regardless of whose call it is, it's actually very easy to demonstrate the concept of depriving in the context of stealing vs. copyright infringement. And yeah, regardless of your "call", these two remain two very different and distinct concepts.

Otherwise it's all the same bs again you can hear from thieves of physical stuff, "oh, but they have insurance" "oh, but they are throwing this away anyway", "oh, but they have so much of this that they won't notice" and so on.

Umm, no, it's far from "the same". My arguments are not *nearly* similar to the stuff you're listing here.

Stealing is taking something that is NOT yours, period.

Let's take this at face value (and ignore the concept of depriving): I didn't actually take anything, I made a copy. And before you try to dismiss this point as an unimportant detail, that's actually a fundamental difference! Copyright is quite what it says - the right to copy. It is this part that I'm violating, I'm making a copy even though I don't have the right.

Yes you are, my argument is still valid.

See above - I'm not stealing, I'm making unauthorized copies. You only see your argument as valid because you're ignoring this fundamental difference. But that doesn't actually make your argument valid, it's quite the opposite.

[starshipeleven]

You are just so wrong. Law doesn't have anything to do with morality. In fact I'd say more laws are immoral than laws that are moral.

Which is what I just said in my post ("I can do so many evil things legally that it's not a good indication of what is right or wrong").

Like I already said, the problem isn't filesharing, the problem is copywrite law.

No, the problem here is that some kiddies like to play Rebel Alliance and Stick It To The Man^TM by doing things that are CLEARLY counterproductive to their cause, and also morally wrong.

Seriously, the fact that it is so damn easy isn't already a dead giveaway that they aren't even trying to stop it? It's an obvious trap for kiddies.

[duby229]

Yeah, I'm talking mostly on a moral sense, where it's pretty close.
If we go by the laws I can do so much totally evil things and still be 100% ok that it isn't a terribly good system to decide what is right or wrong.


Yeah, I'd be more sympathetic with someone with this attitude https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/f...e-me-money-2#/ than them.
At least he is honest, lol.

You are just so wrong. Law doesn't have anything to do with morality. In fact I'd say more laws are immoral than laws that are moral. Like I already said, the problem isn't filesharing, the problem is copywrite law.

[starshipeleven]

[QUOTE=smitty3268;n891400Copyright infringement is NOT equal to theft. They are two totally distinct legal terms describing different types of crimes. However, that doesn't make it OK.[/QUOTE]Yeah, I'm talking mostly on a moral sense, where it's pretty close.
If we go by the laws I can do so much totally evil things and still be 100% ok that it isn't a terribly good system to decide what is right or wrong.

99% of people who say they're breaking the law out of "civil disobedience" are just attempting to justify their behavior to themselves. It's not civil disobedience, it's you wanting to take something and not pay for it.
...but people who try to make excuses and pretend to be morally superior because they're fighting the power are really annoying. And encouraging people to pirate all they can definitely falls into that camp.

Yeah, I'd be more sympathetic with someone with this attitude https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/f...e-me-money-2#/ than them.
At least he is honest, lol.

[starshipeleven]

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.

Yeah, I know that you have the moral values and wisdom of the average 3yo, I'm mostly trying to warn others.

Piracy isn't just wrong, it also drives legit sales, as already explained above. Which is why I said if you want to damage them you must boycott and push alternatives, not just steal it.

Because in case you did not notice, you are being allowed to continue now that you are a minority and still beneficial to them, but they have the tools to crack down on internet-based piracy pretty easily, and don't worry they will do so if needed.