DRM-Free OnlyFans Downloads See Widevine Project Nuked From GitHub
DRM-Free OnlyFans Downloads See Widevine Project Nuked From GitHub
torrentfreak.com
DRM-Free OnlyFans Downloads See Widevine Project Nuked From GitHub * TorrentFreak
103 comments
-
The mentioned repositories enable and encourage criminal behavior. And it's quiet intentional. It's because of piracy that we have DRM in the first place. The audacity now of pirates to wine about them not getting what they want like the entire world revolves just around them.
-
Your whole series of posts in this thread are seriously unhinged. Are you trying to cosplay a corpo bootlicker or something?
It's either that or you've been born wealthy enough to never have to think about the money you spend.
-
You're working for the same corpos and you're getting payed. You're part of the system and you're profiting off it. We get rid of DRM tomorrow but you get a 20% salary reduction. Would you do it? I think you wouldn't. So why would they? You guys are pretentious and can't think past the simplest complexities of an economic system.
-
The only jobs I've ever had were teaching and nursing, both paid by the country I live in, not some private entity. I don't even own a car or a TV, nor do I live in the US for that matter.
Get your head out of your ass and realise there's more to life than fucking money. I was born poor and will die poor, but I don't give a shit because I at least know I helped some people along the way.
Jfc, the bubble some live in. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I guess you're not even capable of that, are ya?
-
-
-
Bypassing DRM isn't criminal behaviour.
-
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-- I want to be able watch my favorite coomtent creator in full resolution on my phone that has only L3 and quite outdated version of widevine without installing proprietary crapp, so what;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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
On what basis are you deciding it should not be DRM protected?
they have literally given 3 of such bases
-
And they have every right to do so.
morally, no. cartoon mouse says, yes.
-
-
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.
-
On what basis are you deciding it should not be DRM protected?
they have literally given 3 of such bases
-
-
-
Also baseless assumptions.
Btw, you don't need to use whatever service you don't own if you disagree with their practices. DRM is shit. But you're not in any position to elevate yourself above that. You don't own the services and you have not contributed in creating the protected content. You have no right to decide anything.
-
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.
-
By subscribing you agree to a contract. The company is doing no shitty practice since everything is black and white in the contract. You just don't like the contract. But the consequence should be to not sign it.
-
Yeah, right. Because those contracts are set in stone, and our corporate overlords won't ever take away the advertised ability to download books you've paid for, not to mention those very contracts being written in human-readable format and not lawyer speak. \s
-
The contract states you don't own it and they can take it away any time. So why are you stupid to sign it?
-
-
Even buying physical media, they claim you still don't own the content, are only leasing it. It's all bullshit to charge more and give us less. Stop defending this practice of eroding consumer rights
-
Nobody is eroding consumer rights. The consumer rights haven't changed. Maybe it's time to change that. Change legislation and stop pirating like monkeys.
-
Accessing content I paid for isn't pirating. And corporations have been working in eroding our ownership of the things we pay for years now. You can stop pretending they haven't
-
You payed for accessing the content the way it's described in the ToS. I expect you haven't read the ToS. It's a contract. Violating that contract is piracy. There is no argueing about that. If you think piracy is morally okey then that's your thing and your opinion that I respect. But it's definitely piracy.
-
-
-
-
The company is doing no shitty practice since everything is black and white in the contract.
Unconscionability says otherwise.
-
Yea you're above the law and everyone else. I've hear this plenty of times.
-
You are the one who elevates random terms of service above the law just because both parties "agreed" to them, not me.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Format-shifting and time-shifting your legally acquired and licensed media is not illegal. If the DRM is preventing someone from doing that then it is within their rights to remove the DRM. Recall that not everyone lives in a country subject to the draconian DMCA law.
-
Are you serious right now? You can't actually believe ordinary people will go out of their way to visit some random Github repository just to remove the DRM for their convenience. I guarantee you that 100% of contributers and users of that repo are doing piracy.
-
oh you're very confidently wrong, I very much will, you corporate bootlicker
-
-
Because that was the intended use case for this repository.
-
Don't people buy stuff on OF, more than just a sub? Is it easily available for download in a common file format or is access stuck on the website even though you bought it?
I agree that straight piracy of content is bad. Piracy is primarily a service problem, TV and movie piracy was down in the mid 2010s until all the streaming services divided. Music piracy is basically gone thanks to early iTunes and even more so with today's streaming services. OF piracy will always be a thing because people want their free porn and the parasocial relationship they don't get on the regular free sites.
If corporations refuse to just sell us the file and can randomly revoke access or change the content (like Amazon's been doing with book), then the community will find ways to strip out the DRM and other protections just to preserve the content they bought.
I don't have a problem with github removing of projects that aim to circumvent purchasing content, but projects that simply "unlock" purchased content should be allowed to thrive.
Edit: I should add, if corporations can't be bothered to respect what the word buy means, why I should I bother to provide them money? morality is a two way street, if one side is dishonest and shady, do they really have a right to whine when others steal from them?
Edit 2: in case it wasn't clear the "dishonest and shady" one is the corporations. Its to the point were I pretty much only pay creators directly (patreon, etc) where I know good chunk of my money goes to the artist not the publisher/middle man. If I'm buying a movie or something its either a DVD or getting screen caped on the first watch for archival purposes.
-
Edit: I should add, if corporations can’t be bothered to respect what the word buy means, why I should I bother to provide them money? morality is a two way street, if one side is dishonest and shady, do they really have a right to whine when others steal from them?
Ah, yes, remember all that tone of honesty and seriousness from companies in the 00s against bad, bad pirates, and also scorn at FOSS, like those amateur toys, we make better things? And now from time to time those "serious professional" programs from then are found to contain GPL violations. Or how Sony put a virus on music CDs.
TBH, there was a time when things were better with actually buying software and music and such. And probably the surge of piracy was first.
But somehow that doesn't hurt Steam. Quoting GN - because piracy is a service problem. People generally pirate what they can't comfortably buy. There were games I've never seen in stores in my childhood (no official localization, and by the time I got interested in them people selling bootleg discs in subway road crossings were coming out of fashion here). Piracy was the way I got them.
-
Piracy will always be a problem, someone is always looking for the free route. The paid routes used to be guarantees of availability, malware free, and a quality copy. Now its almost the opposite, a pirated file is always available, usually malware free and higher resolution than whatever the data mining services feel like feeding you.
-
It's very simple, one should legally target what's advertised as selling when it's not really selling. Heavily. Like fraud. Like obvious crime.
That will improve the situation.
-
-
-
-
-
Pirates breathe air, therefore oxygen is enabling copyright infringement
-
Right. Let's legalize nukes and bio-weapons for the average Joe. I'm sure someone is going to find a legitimate use for them that doesn't involve using them as a weapon. There is always someone who uses them in a fair way. So it's perfectly justified to allow them as they basically compare to oxygen now.
Logic checks out?
-
-
Don't forget to wipe your nose. You got a little shit there stuck there from all the corporate ass licking.
-
-
-
103 comments