Mindwipe

Netflix only serves 720p (or below) video to any platform that does not encrypt the video path that prevents OBS or anything else from screen recording.

No it wouldn't.

Anything that's had an official YouTube app for the past nine years does, because it's been a hard requirement for a YouTube port that long.

It's much more likely YouTube just doesn't want to mess with it's caching apparatus unless it really has to. And I think they will eventually, but the numbers just don't quite add up yet.

Primarily because they contractually promised the music industry they'd do everything they can to prevent tools that allow the downloading of copyrighted music from the service.

This is a really rough UI update to ship out of Apple.

I don't want to use "the worst UI thing they've ever done" lightly, but it is hard to think of something that feels this unfinished and hard to use. Why are none of the corner radii consistent? This is literally the sort of thing Apple's entire reputation is built on getting right! It's like an amateur hour Linux skin.

Even if you are confident of that, your infrastructure and advertising partners may not be and may cut you off. A court judgement demonstrating it is definitely not enforceable in the US certainly has value.

It would also be more likely to cause other businesses to adopt the same tactic, which would drown Ofcom's resources to cause further trouble.

That's already pretty rare internationally and the odds of it still being the case in five years are zero.

That's not really going to fix anything here.

The reason a big company can do this is because they can absorb big liability risk and insure it appropriately.

A standard can't do that.

So, now there will be a single kill switch where a malicious government can legally compel Google to annihilate apps not of their liking.

I find it hard to state how contemptible this is. How stupid. Everyone who worked on this has blood on their hands.

If Apple launches an attestation API that has key material that they control on the hardware co-processor that it authenticates with Apple servers and passes the result back to the game server, then there's no mechanism to intercept it.

It rather depends on if you have a specific hardware target.

It's the sort of thing I think Valve will do with the Steam Deck eventually.

People are going to to be upset when it happens but it is absolutely inevitable at some point Steam ships a Steam Deck with hardware based attestation of the OS being a signed version of SteamOS, feeding back to a Steam API, that can be used as the basis of an anti-cheat solution.

That's not really true if the exploit requires soldering on to RAM pins and executing on a second, independent machine.

You can just turn on "dumb mode" on a Sony Google TV.

In Germany they would be.

Hmm. New account, no history before this thread. Not at all suspicious.

So, DSIT, Age Verification Industry Association or Molly Rose astroturfer?

Steam already blocks games sufficiently for Australian law in some cases about ratings and drug use, as it does in many territories.

FWIW Mastercard are simply lying, as anyone who has ever had to touch adult payment processing will tell you.

There's even a (non-public) list of keyword banned terms.

The only way you'd ever get found out is if the affected MP was lying to the public and the identity documents do indeed get retained...

Always tells me an MP can't be found despite multiple attempts.

Nsfw includes subreddits that discuss beer.

To be honest if you are doing client side watermarking outside of a secure hardware enclave I'm not sure you expect any genuine robustness, because you obviously don't have any.

> It seems like it would be legal for them to post a full guide for UK users on how to access their site using a VPN service.

It isn't, the Ofcom OSA act codes explicitly say that the site cannot explicitly tell people how to get past it's verification methods.

> There's literally "Best VPNs For Accessing Porn in the UK" articles, they'll be fine.

They're on journalism sites that are explicitly exempted from the law, so they aren't advocating for getting around that specific site's methods.

It will be interesting to see how this works on any social platform though. To my reading of the guidance Ofcom require Reddit, BlueSky/Twitter etc to block any posts discussing using a VPN to get around it, or at least require age verification to access those posts too.

But I think that contradicts other parts of the legislation, and Ofcom have got themselves into quite a predictable mess.

The law does require sites to not explicitly advocate a specific method for bypassing the checks (or to allow third parties to do so on it's platform, so it'll be interesting to see how that works for Reddit).

But I doubt this is specific enough to hit that bar - it is more of a factual note about what the law is for UK users rather than a specific call of "don't use our verification methods, use a VPN instead."

MasterCard have a specific restricted list that bans an awful lot of things in any adult context.

Some of how to interpret that is left up to the processor, but it is broadly under MCs and to a lesser extent Visa's control.

> If you manufacture an office chair and license a patented swivel mechanism, the license you acquire cannot require you to break purchasers' chairs after the license expires, nor even to go around their homes swapping out the mechanism (which analogously may still be permitted for games).

Yes it can.

Fairly notably quite a lot of publishers sell their physical books and newspapers and require retailer unsold copies to be destroyed - but they were sold to the retailer.

> Moreover if the rightsholder for that patent had been licensing only under the terms that the purchased chair is destroyed after 5 years but then a change in consumer protection law prevents that practice, they'd need to license it out under more reasonable terms (like you can only sell the chairs with the mechanism for 5 years, but there's no limit on how long people can use the mechanism in their purchased chairs) - otherwise they'd get no business.

They quite possibly already have an alternative business of licensing the component for non-game offerings that they won't jeopardise.

And which are not owned by the developer or available to be perpetually licensed.

There is no first sale doctrine in Europe, and nor does the US one apply to digitally distributed content.

So if they strip the libraries out and the server cannot run id that okay?

USB-C is trademarked, but USB isn't, nor is the USB logo, so they can't stop either of those.