> I think Windows still offers easy screenshotting of frames from DRM video not because the streaming services somehow don’t care about what Windows users do
This is incorrect. The DRM on Windows varies based on the browser. Trying playing Netflix in Edge vs Chrome and take screenshots. The video will be black on Edge but visible on Chrome. If you use Ctrl-Alt-Shift-D on Edge or Chrome to bring up the stats or view their test videos at https://www.netflix.com/watch/80164785, you can see that Edge plays 4k HDR but Chrome only plays 1080p SDR. Netflix allows 1080p with weak DRM but requires strong DRM for 4k.
There are similar restrictions for mobile devices, VR headsets, etc. where the resolution is limited on certain devices and browsers because of their DRM configuration.
Coincidentally, this kind of thing is why you'll get 4K streaming on some browser/platform combinations but not the others. For example, Netflix will only give you 4K on Windows if you're using Edge or their own app.
This Netflix support page shows that 4K streaming is only available in the Edge web browser on Windows devices and in the Safari web browser on Mac devices.
If you use Chrome or Firefox you get locked in to a lower resolution when using Netflix even if you are paying for 4K streaming.
Because you don't own the device, and the real device owner (Apple) is not working in your best interests. If you resent this kind of thing, put a penny in a jar every time software that you've paid for makes your life worse; when the jar is full, find a copy of Linux and install it. Spend the jar on whatever you want - it's free :)
Your suggestion for not being able to screenshot movies is to install linux, which doesn't support DRM (or does, but only at the lowest qualities)? Sounds like a pyrrhic victory to me.
More accurate statement would be that you don't own the content that streaming services provide. Apple (or for that matter any platform company) will have to implement DRM if they want their users to be able to watch such content. If you are against DRM then don't buy the subscriptions of such streaming services.
Yup, case closed. If enough people cared about this then they wouldn't buy iPhones anymore. The market is speaking, and Apple is listening with rapt attention.
> imposes a massive (and for most people, confusing and frustrating) hindrance on honest people simply trying to easily capture high-quality (as opposed to, say, using their damn phone to take a photograph of their reflective laptop display) screenshots of the shows and movies they’re watching.
Legally, public screenshots accompanied by text/audio/video commentary are fair use. When shared on social media, reviews, or fan sites with influencer commentary, they are unpaid marketing for video creators.
Censorship of free advertising is against the economic interest of rightsholders. Is this checkbox compliance theatre, e.g. does everyone in the distribution chain mindlessly click a DRM button? Can Apple differentiate between DRM screen recording and DRM screenshots? Can Apple differentiate between 30-second promotional clips and longer recordings, or rate limit N captures per M wallclock time? Can rightsholders add metadata to enable screenshots on a per-title basis?
If one studio can demonstrate marketing success with authorized screen excerpts, other studios may follow.
> Censorship of free advertising is against the economic interest of rightsholders
This was literally the first time I saw this "feature". I was watching something on Netflix and wanted to share a screenshot with someone. I realized that it didn't work. Ok, I guess you don't get my top-quality word-of-mouth marketing and to allow paying subscribers to enhance their enjoyment by chatting about the show. It is just a lose-lose scenario.
>Can Apple differentiate between DRM screen recording and DRM screenshots? Can Apple differentiate between 30-second promotional clips and longer recordings, or rate limit N captures per M wallclock time? Can rightsholders add metadata to enable screenshots on a per-title basis?
DRM implementers can barely scrape together a DRM implementation that works as intended, as evidenced by all the 4K rips that are available on torrent sites. What makes you think they're competent enough to implement all the stuff you're suggesting, for marginal gains? As much as people like to dream up hypotheticals why screenshots provide "free PR" or whatever, I seriously doubt whether it's something studios care about.
It's not really that I disagree with your argument, but rightsholders do not have an obligation to maximize revenue or customer goodwill from their works.
I can write a book and publish it. Then, one day, for no reason, I can take that book off the market and tell everyone, sorry, it's not for sale anymore. I enjoyed making my money but I am done now.
There is no legal requirement to do the logical right thing.
This actually reminds me of Flappy Bird. The creator took it down despite being a viral hit that could have made him massively wealthy.
> Censorship of free advertising is against the economic interest of rightsholders.
Is it though? In the old days they needed people to recommend you see a movie or listen to a song or whatever today it's hyper-personalized algorithms and if that's not enough almost every major tech company sells targeted advertising to show your <thing> ahead of the rest.
This irony already existed in the good old DVD age. If you bought one legally you had to sit through several unskippable videos, usually also one about piracy, before the movie starts. If you had pirated that same movie would play immediately, so the user experience was better.
They don't even need to deal with screen recording which this DRM is trying to protect against either. Just find a device that supports the highest playback resolution and steal the data right off the bus.
not even hours later in most cases. these anti-theft measures will block the random individual who wants to make a clip out of a movie but won't stop anyone actively pirating.
That's why I pirate everything. Originally I tried purchasing music files (iTunes) with the hope of it supporting musicians I liked. When it was a lesser, hindered experience, I switched back to pirating everything, still do, and always will.
> I think Windows still offers easy screenshotting of frames from DRM video not because the streaming services somehow don’t care about what Windows users do (which, when you think about it, would be a weird thing not to care about, given Windows’s market share), but because Windows uses a less sophisticated imaging pipeline.
That anti-screenshot mechanism does also exist on Windows, but it's only enforced by stronger forms of DRM like Widevine L1. Typically streaming services mandate L1 or equivalent to watch HD/4K streams, so you can't easily screenshot those, only the lower resolution versions with weaker protection. Workarounds like disabling hardware acceleration are really just disabling strong DRM support so you get served a weakly protected low res stream instead.
I guess Apple applies the same restrictions to all DRM protected content, even if the service only demands a weak form of DRM.
It's simple to enable on Windows, any surface with DXGI_SWAP_CHAIN_FLAG_DISPLAY_ONLY set will get excluded from screen capture APIs. No DRM is required.
DRM isn't always the reason for video not being capturable, though. Efficiency optimizations can also get in the way, such as hardware video overlays. Back when overlays were first introduced, attempting to capture the screen would often omit the video because it would only capture the chroma key in the primary surface. Even today, the DWM has to undo multi-plane optimizations and specifically composite the screen when screen capture is requested.
I wrote about some of this earlier this year: https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/70954.html?thread=2203178 - the short version is that it has nothing to do with screenshotting, screenshotting is just a victim of it. If you have decoded video content in video RAM a separate app can just read it back out and reencode it, stripping DRM for minimal loss in quality.
(In theory the hardware could provide a rate limited interface to allow copying it, letting you take one screenshot every few seconds or something, but that would create additional "risk")
> No one is going to create bootleg copies of DRM-protected video one screenshotted still frame at a time — and even if they tried, they’d be capturing only the images, not the sound.
I'm not defending Apple here, but -- yes they definitely would? And then they'd get sound on a second pass at regular speed.
If pirates couldn't access the underlying Netflix etc. bitstream like they've figured out, they'd absolutely be reading the desktop video buffer, which is all a screenshot is.
I get that DRM is important for content providers but it really sucks to not be able to grab individual frames for things like running them through google translate or google image search. There have been a few times I've wished to grab a frame for something like a meme, but mostly it's accessibility things being blocked for no real reason. They don't stop piracy, they just prevent people from doing things like translation.
Apparently the same DRM is also enforced in the Apple Vision Pro as MrWhoseTheBoss discovered in his review. Except in that case, Apple's DRM pipeline extends all the way up to your eyeballs instead of your HDMI TV. That realization about what our dystopian future might hold for us seemed to hit him pretty hard :
It's also blacked out when screen sharing, but there is no way for other apps (eg. bank apps) to ask for the section of the app that contains the user's credit and debit card numbers to be blacked out when screen sharing.
This is one of the more boneheaded moves of DRM IMHO.
They are shooting themselves in the foot for no gain I can see and huge amount of downside. People are screenshotting (or even recording a 5sec clip) to _share your content_. These methods clearly have zero effect on piracy so all they do is make legitimate user’s lives more difficult.
It _might_ make sense if every streaming platform had built-in tools to share a clip or a screenshot, but they don’t. It completely baffles me.
I need to dust off my plans for a simple Plex gif-maker tool. A web-based tool I can load and is queued up to wherever I am in the show I’m watching with grabbers on a video timeline to select the start/end of the clip. Then export to mp4/gif, maybe simple subtitle support or text overlays.
Apple’s GIF search feature in Messages (#images, like Giphy) is almost entirely content from TV shows and movies. It seems hypocritical for Apple to promote this as a way to express yourself, while prohibiting users from making such content themselves on Apple devices.
A friend of mine who was taking a few Udemy courses last year ran into this issue when he needed to take screenshots for important things he was learning in the course. Ended up working around it by disabling GPU acceleration in chrome.
I'll do the devil's advocate:
(not because I'm on Apple side, just to see all points of view).
The florist in the article can still grab her phone and take a photo.
I think the problem with not allowing single screenshots is that once you allow access to the video stream a software on the machine can sinply capture ALL frames and recreate a video out of it.
Anyway, until there will be one not protected distribution channel the torrents source file will be collected there.
Earlier this year I bought a bunch of moon-shaped LED lamps that are controlled with an IR remote, and made an ambilight app for my computer that constantly screenshots the screen, finds the predominant color and sends a signal to change the color in all of them. Only to find that watching a TV show would just leave all black...
Doesn't macOS also use this for power savings, rather than only DRM? This is something that Linux is also starting to pick up, and is probably one of the biggest reasons for Apple Silicon Macs having superior battery life.
The GPU is the thing decoding the video stream and putting it directly on the display (via hardware planes). It doesn't need to send it back (aka copy) to the main CPU. Screenshots can't see what's there because the CPU has no knowledge of whats there.
Rather than the GPU decoding the video, sending it back to the CPU which then will send the frame back to the GPU as part of composition, and wasting power.
Video RAM is accessible to the OS, if you render into it it can be read back. In this case it's deliberately rendered into a separate protected area of RAM the OS can't read, and composited at scanout time.
[+] [-] sxp|1 year ago|reply
This is incorrect. The DRM on Windows varies based on the browser. Trying playing Netflix in Edge vs Chrome and take screenshots. The video will be black on Edge but visible on Chrome. If you use Ctrl-Alt-Shift-D on Edge or Chrome to bring up the stats or view their test videos at https://www.netflix.com/watch/80164785, you can see that Edge plays 4k HDR but Chrome only plays 1080p SDR. Netflix allows 1080p with weak DRM but requires strong DRM for 4k.
There are similar restrictions for mobile devices, VR headsets, etc. where the resolution is limited on certain devices and browsers because of their DRM configuration.
[+] [-] Dylan16807|1 year ago|reply
Well that's an improvement from when some browsers on Windows got 720p. Apparently that changed about six months ago.
But it's still 720p for most browsers on Linux. Huh.
[+] [-] int_19h|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] perching_aix|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] ViktorRay|1 year ago|reply
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/30081
This Netflix support page shows that 4K streaming is only available in the Edge web browser on Windows devices and in the Safari web browser on Mac devices.
If you use Chrome or Firefox you get locked in to a lower resolution when using Netflix even if you are paying for 4K streaming.
[+] [-] ForTheKidz|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] dTal|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] gruez|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] kingo55|1 year ago|reply
It's my understanding this limits the quality of content streamers permit to run on Linux:
https://linuxcommunity.io/t/drm-the-final-barrier-to-linux-d...
[+] [-] hedora|1 year ago|reply
In fairness to apple, linux apparently runs fine on arm macbooks.
[+] [-] ankurdhama|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bobobobo2|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] what|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] bigyabai|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] walterbell|1 year ago|reply
Legally, public screenshots accompanied by text/audio/video commentary are fair use. When shared on social media, reviews, or fan sites with influencer commentary, they are unpaid marketing for video creators.
Censorship of free advertising is against the economic interest of rightsholders. Is this checkbox compliance theatre, e.g. does everyone in the distribution chain mindlessly click a DRM button? Can Apple differentiate between DRM screen recording and DRM screenshots? Can Apple differentiate between 30-second promotional clips and longer recordings, or rate limit N captures per M wallclock time? Can rightsholders add metadata to enable screenshots on a per-title basis?
If one studio can demonstrate marketing success with authorized screen excerpts, other studios may follow.
[+] [-] kevincox|1 year ago|reply
This was literally the first time I saw this "feature". I was watching something on Netflix and wanted to share a screenshot with someone. I realized that it didn't work. Ok, I guess you don't get my top-quality word-of-mouth marketing and to allow paying subscribers to enhance their enjoyment by chatting about the show. It is just a lose-lose scenario.
[+] [-] gruez|1 year ago|reply
DRM implementers can barely scrape together a DRM implementation that works as intended, as evidenced by all the 4K rips that are available on torrent sites. What makes you think they're competent enough to implement all the stuff you're suggesting, for marginal gains? As much as people like to dream up hypotheticals why screenshots provide "free PR" or whatever, I seriously doubt whether it's something studios care about.
[+] [-] dangus|1 year ago|reply
I can write a book and publish it. Then, one day, for no reason, I can take that book off the market and tell everyone, sorry, it's not for sale anymore. I enjoyed making my money but I am done now.
There is no legal requirement to do the logical right thing.
This actually reminds me of Flappy Bird. The creator took it down despite being a viral hit that could have made him massively wealthy.
[+] [-] benoau|1 year ago|reply
Is it though? In the old days they needed people to recommend you see a movie or listen to a song or whatever today it's hyper-personalized algorithms and if that's not enough almost every major tech company sells targeted advertising to show your <thing> ahead of the rest.
[+] [-] hapticmonkey|1 year ago|reply
Meanwhile watching these shows the legal way on unsupported DRM chain gives you 720p SDR with worse audio.
[+] [-] t0mas88|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] vanchor3|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] kyriakos|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] hackernoops|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jsheard|1 year ago|reply
That anti-screenshot mechanism does also exist on Windows, but it's only enforced by stronger forms of DRM like Widevine L1. Typically streaming services mandate L1 or equivalent to watch HD/4K streams, so you can't easily screenshot those, only the lower resolution versions with weaker protection. Workarounds like disabling hardware acceleration are really just disabling strong DRM support so you get served a weakly protected low res stream instead.
I guess Apple applies the same restrictions to all DRM protected content, even if the service only demands a weak form of DRM.
[+] [-] ack_complete|1 year ago|reply
DRM isn't always the reason for video not being capturable, though. Efficiency optimizations can also get in the way, such as hardware video overlays. Back when overlays were first introduced, attempting to capture the screen would often omit the video because it would only capture the chroma key in the primary surface. Even today, the DWM has to undo multi-plane optimizations and specifically composite the screen when screen capture is requested.
[+] [-] mjg59|1 year ago|reply
(In theory the hardware could provide a rate limited interface to allow copying it, letting you take one screenshot every few seconds or something, but that would create additional "risk")
[+] [-] crazygringo|1 year ago|reply
I'm not defending Apple here, but -- yes they definitely would? And then they'd get sound on a second pass at regular speed.
If pirates couldn't access the underlying Netflix etc. bitstream like they've figured out, they'd absolutely be reading the desktop video buffer, which is all a screenshot is.
[+] [-] kuschku|1 year ago|reply
DRM is a panic reaction to VHS, designed to making copying so inconvenient that casual users won't bother anymore.
[+] [-] Suppafly|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] mozball|1 year ago|reply
https://youtu.be/5MhRZp2uunc?feature=shared&t=861
[+] [-] bilalq|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Marsymars|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] sureIy|1 year ago|reply
Netflix has a mobile-only plan in emerging markets that is cheaper than the "SD" plan.
That's DRM for ya
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] diebeforei485|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] joshstrange|1 year ago|reply
They are shooting themselves in the foot for no gain I can see and huge amount of downside. People are screenshotting (or even recording a 5sec clip) to _share your content_. These methods clearly have zero effect on piracy so all they do is make legitimate user’s lives more difficult.
It _might_ make sense if every streaming platform had built-in tools to share a clip or a screenshot, but they don’t. It completely baffles me.
I need to dust off my plans for a simple Plex gif-maker tool. A web-based tool I can load and is queued up to wherever I am in the show I’m watching with grabbers on a video timeline to select the start/end of the clip. Then export to mp4/gif, maybe simple subtitle support or text overlays.
[+] [-] rgovostes|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] nimish|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] tabony|1 year ago|reply
It’s because the video is being rendered on a different framebuffer for performance reasons.
Helpful for DRM too.
[+] [-] busymom0|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] giorgioz|1 year ago|reply
The florist in the article can still grab her phone and take a photo.
I think the problem with not allowing single screenshots is that once you allow access to the video stream a software on the machine can sinply capture ALL frames and recreate a video out of it. Anyway, until there will be one not protected distribution channel the torrents source file will be collected there.
[+] [-] AraceliHarker|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] manbitesdog|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] ChocolateGod|1 year ago|reply
The GPU is the thing decoding the video stream and putting it directly on the display (via hardware planes). It doesn't need to send it back (aka copy) to the main CPU. Screenshots can't see what's there because the CPU has no knowledge of whats there.
Rather than the GPU decoding the video, sending it back to the CPU which then will send the frame back to the GPU as part of composition, and wasting power.
[+] [-] walterbell|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] bigyabai|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] mjg59|1 year ago|reply