Widevine Dump: scripts to download from Netflix, Disney+, Amazon and other services


@Ya as far as your argument makes sense, there is still a significant problem in practice.

After thinking twice about it, it actually makes sense that a service selling access to media instead of the media itself shouldn’t have to have all of its media copied for half the price of a movie.

However, what are the alternatives for people who want unrestricted media and want to be able to keep a DRM-free copy of the movie they purchased?

Yes, you can buy the film directly at retail price from any online store as long as we pay the appropriate price.

You can also purchase physical storage media with the media on it.

However, in practice, the problem is that you still get restricted media with DRM even when you pay the correct sale price.

So either you pay a low price for the restricted media or you pay more money for the exact same restricted media which offers no justification to pay for the movie individually instead of ripping off the streaming platforms.

Whichever path you take, you need to remove the DRM anyway, so why pay the more expensive of the two for the same restrictions that need to be removed in both cases?

Whether DVD, Blu-Ray or digital media, everything is limited.

Copying a Blu-Ray disc is beyond the reach of people like us, as it requires a more experienced person to “empty” the decryption key and share it online.

Only then can people like us who have paid for the Blu-Ray copy it to a Matroska video file.

Also, another problem:
In theory, I agree with you about Netflix’s billing plan, so we shouldn’t copy all of their movies at once.

But this sets a precedent:
Do you have the right to disclose information to someone and then later decide that the person you provided information to forget it?

Do you have the right to say something to people then if you don’t want them to know it, and then make them forget it?

In theory, what Netflix wants to do is done in good faith, but such a system would be ripe for abuse.

How would you react if Microsoft, for example, released new software used by millions of people around the world.

Now Microsoft doesn’t want to allow people to use it anymore.

So they remove it from all their sites.
So far I got it, no problem.

But now they’re pushing a Windows update that removes it from the computers of everyone who had the software installed before.

How would he react?

Again, I want to mention that I agree with your argument in theory, but not in practice.

In practice the logic would lend itself to abuse since it poses a very important problem.

What if this logic seeps into everything?

Do you have the right to give information to someone and later decide that this person will no longer be authorized to know this information?

The concerns expressed here seem delusional right now, but knowing how fast technology is changing exponentially, in 2080 we could have access to technology though delusional dreams right now.

Back then, if you had told people that we will have televisions, if you had told the medieval empire that the future would have smartphones with touch screens that can put you in touch with anyone where in the world you would have been considered a delusional freak too.

And it does not go unnoticed that our legislators who built the backbone of our legal system were surely not considered monsters.

In fact, they were so narrow-minded that they designed a legal system that only suited their own time.

The legal system, for example, would surely have benefited from the suggestion of freaks like me at the time to make it more sustainable.

Too many laws are critically dated, as if they were crafted specifically for the 1900 era, for example.

And even today, these laws of an era that did not care about the possible technological advances of the future stand in the way of an innovation that would be truly appreciated by all.

Thus, we must always consider the impacts and precedents created by our actions with their consequences for the future.

You can’t protect the future if you let everything happen without safeguards right now, and you can’t future-proof our current systems without freaks like me.

Without guarantees, we are doomed.
Without our freaks (I prefer to call them visionaries but who cares) our current systems will be obsolete and unsuitable for future generations and they will have to deal with all the dated mess we have created.

Oh, and by the way, the “stream of consciousness” guy should really stop trying to look for “stream of consciousness” everywhere.

The more you delve into the rabbit hole stuff of the “magical world,” the more you see “magical streams of consciousness” popping up all over Martin Brinkmann’s gHacks news articles.

Seriously, there are innocuous and at worst funny delusions and then there are harmful delusions.

Seeing “streams of consciousness” in what random people write on gHacks and thinking it’s recurring magic word patterns is really bad for you.

Meanwhile, there are freaks like me whose delusions are actually harmless, sometimes useful, at worst just useless but harmless.
Contrary to seeing the “stream of consciousness” comments on gHacks news articles.


Comments are closed.