any media that requires a permission from an external party to play can and will eventually be taken from you. at least qobuz seems to be drm-free (i don’t use the service, so don’t quote me on that) so you should be able to make a copy of what you listen to. at least before they enshittify.
still, i’d personally not feel comfortable entrusting a streaming service with being the gatekeeper of the media i want long-term access to.
technically it can, but not for free. if you have a subscription to access the media, the site is supported and drm-free, and you have a way to pass the account credentials to yt-dlp, it will download. if it plays inside a browser with drm disabled, yt-dlp can likely get it for you. you could download stuff from crunchyroll that way before they added drm. if it does have drm, you can still download the encrypted stream and decrypt it later with something like gpac if you have the keys, but that’s a bit besides the point.
however there’s very little supported sites now that have paid subscriptions and no drm. and in neither case is yt-dlp circumventing anything, it cannot access something you had no access to in the first place.
“it’s impossible to ensure that no one pisses in the pool, therefore we’re allowing pissing into the pool now”
“we can’t 100% enforce that studenst don’t cheat on exams, so it’s not worth to take a stand against cheating”
honestly i think it’d be nice to have a full p2p video directory instead. something like peertube but without instances, resembling a torrent tracker like nyaa, aimed generally for educational stuff, entertainment, music, etc. basically youtube but as a torrent tracker, to reduce the storage requirement. you’d be able to seed your favorite media and the fact that people would not want to waste their storage on seeding worthless stuff and the technical hurdle of p2p would keep the mindless slop out.
i mean… blocking lists are universal, but the other features ublock offers are not - i’m making heavy use of ublock’s dynamic filtering panel and per-site switches. one important thing i use ublock for is to whitelist which sites get javascript permissions and to get rid of remote fonts to make pages more readable. those features need manifest v2.
if firefox drops manifest v2 and you’re relying purely on those inbuilt blocking lists then you might as well use the manifest v3 version of ublock without seeing a difference, right?
the standard price expectation is how it tricks the customer, if you open a webpage and go pay for something then you expect that the price you’re paying from the same vendor is set the same for everyone (or at least constant for your geographic location to accomodate for purchasing power). pretty much no customer would expect opening the page in another session to offer a better price, which is why they did it this way.
if people knew there’s a better price available, they’d not take the worse deal. and people in general don’t like having tricks pulled on them, especially if they’re meant to gauge how much they can get away with charging you.
some investors think it sounds cool so you get a short-term profit before the whole idea falls apart. or something like that.
my entire /usr directory is just a bit above 4 gigabytes. you can put a fully featured modern operating system into that size, or you can have google’s slop machine that no one asked for
ublock origin lite sadly does only a fraction of what the normal ublock origin does. no javascript blocking, no remote fonts blocking, no large media element blocking, no granular dynamic filtering in that popup panel. i guess it’s still decent to block ads though, but so very crippled compared to the real deal
your clock is off because you have resistfingerprinting turned on, so it puts you into utc+0 to prevent tracking.
and you have to explicitly allow to save cookies for specific domains to not get logged out (check out the padlock icon in the status bar, there’s an option to keep data for the domain you’re on)
when all the videos get put behind login walls and drm, perhaps someone will.
the devs like to pretend that it is and say how only a small part of it is proprietary, but it’s a deceptive PR stunt because they’re counting the whole chromium source into that statistic. if we don’t consider the chromium source they didn’t write, their own vivaldi code is largely proprietary.
regardless, a program consisting of 99.9% free code and 0.1% proprietary code is proprietary as a whole - you can’t audit, modify or redistribute copies of it as long as any non-free code is present.