DRM means authenticating through a server (someplace), correct?

DMCA defines a "technological measure which limits access" (what we informally refer to as "DRM") in 1201(a)(3)(b) as

a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

Authenticating through a server is one way to implement DRM, but there are many other methods, where DMCA is every bit as applicable.

the DMCA is a thing... but can they do anything if they don't know about you copying/transcoding files to your phone or tablet or whatever?

Generally no, and especially with offline DRM schemes like what DVDs use, the copyright holder can't detect when you read the DVD, so right, you won't get caught. But of course the worst part of DMCA is not that it just prohibits doing things, but prohibits trafficking in tools for doing things. So the software for working with DVD DRM is illegal to create, distribute, sell, etc which means I-know-nothing-about-computers grandma would have to go off the mainstream.

If grandma is a punk rock computer user, no problem. But most people these days apparently want to go to a centralized authority (probably within their own legal jurisdiction) and just click to install things, and any centralized authority is going to be at least somewhat vulnerable to trafficking charges. Or if they solve that problem by being outside US jurisdiction, they might have payment processing issues.

Again, you're not wrong that you can do these things with DVDs (I see how being able to watch them on an unconnected-to-internet bus definitely helps, compared to proprietary streaming) but there are barriers keeping it from being a general solution for everyone. Media without DRM lacks this problem.

DVDs use DRM? Then, how do they work on an offline DVD player?

Yes, they use DRM. It's described here .. though the rest of your post suggests you already knew the basics.

And yes, you can play, transcode, backup, etc the data. You're right about that. But unfortunately, you're also right about this:

They fall under the DMCA, that's it.

And that's what causes many of the activities you describe, to be illegal unless you get authorization from the copyright holder.

I point this out not because I'm some kind of Law Zealot, but because many people have inhibitions about violating the law, and while it's extremely unlikely you'll get caught, it nevertheless does come with some slight risk.

Offering DVDs as an example of "they can't take it away," like I said, is technically correct, but DVDs are nevertheless a poor example, since so many routine tasks involving them, are illegal. Illegality tends to be a barrier to mainstream acceptance, and hampers utility in other ways.

Matroska files would be a better, more consumer-friendly example of "they can't take it away", since working with them doesn't come with as many legal difficulties (since there's no DRM, so DMCA doesn't apply).

Yeah, I was trying to sell some fake patents to Harcourt Fenton Mudd's mother, and she reminded me that unless I presented a fraudulent offer, I might not make a sale to her at all.

Like books, once you own a DVD it's yours. No one can take it away, alter it, or prevent you from watching when you want. It's always yours.

While that is technically correct ("the best kind...") it's legally incorrect.

DVDs use DRM. So, at any time, the copyright holder can revoke your authorization to watch them, even if there's no technical means to prevent you. (That's assuming they ever granted authorization to watch them in the first place, which is actually pretty unclear. Nowhere on a DVD or its case or paperwork have I seen any text suggesting that the copyright holder has granted permission to watch the DVD. I guess it's just sort of implied.)

DMCA makes it illegal to decrypt DRMed content without authorization from the copyright holder. Authorization is not something you buy (check your receipt; do you see it there?), so it's one of those things which can be given and taken away, at will. And (see above) that can be done without any communication or the consumer's knowledge. What you did legally a week ago might be illegal today, without any communication given to you.

Since you own and physically possess the DVD, you can still do it, but it might be illegal.

DMCA needs to be repealed before there will be any coherent policies that consumers will be able to make unambiguous sense of. So I think even for situations where the content isn't licensed, it's probably best to avoid the word "buy" if there's any DRM.

I just wanted to remind everyone: you agree to my terms.

I'm told that a few of you supposedly didn't realize that you agree to my terms, so I'm just reminding you.

It's easy to forget how utterly fucked up things have become, compared to how a few decades ago, we(? well, at least I) thought things would evolve, and one of those has to do with dedicated services for secure communications.

The thing that defies my predictions, is that dedicated services for secure communications, exist at all.

When you wanted to secure email, you didn't use a "secure email" service; you (the user!) just added security onto your insecure email service. Send a PGP/MIME message and the email provider doesn't give a damn that it's encrypted, it just cares about SMTP.

But these days (could I call it the "Age of Lack of Standards"?), everyone is trying to manipulate you into depending on their software and services (inextricably linked; you can't use their software without their service, or their service without their software), so you can't just replace the service or easily "tunnel" security through their presumably-insecure (perhaps even mandated insecure) service. Whatever security they offer, is all you can reasonably get (pretty much the opposite of the classic email situation).

Why do I bring this up? Because the regulations are all about services! Not protocols. Not software. Services. (emphasis mine in all below quotes)

Here's the beginning of The UK Online Safety Act (1)(1)(a):

imposes duties which, in broad terms, require providers of services regulated by this Act to identify, mitigate and manage the risks of harm

Here's good 'ol CALEA (US Code title 47 Section 1002 (a):

Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section and sections 1007(a) and 1008(b) and (d) of this title, a telecommunications carrier shall ensure that ...

CALEA even mentions encryption:

A telecommunications carrier shall not be responsible for decrypting, or ensuring the government’s ability to decrypt, any communication encrypted by a subscriber or customer, unless the encryption was provided by the carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication.

I haven't dived into the details of EU's DSA, but I see a hopeful sign right there at the very beginning of Article 1:

The aim of this Regulation is to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market for intermediary services by setting out harmonised rules...

Look at all those references to services! Not the code you run; the services you use.

What does it mean? I think it might mean that even in the UK(!) you might be perfectly fine and legal using secure software. You just can't have it rely on some coercible corporation's secure services. Send your encrypted blobs over generic protocols and un-dedicated services, and the law won't apply to your situation. I'm not necessarily saying "Make PGP/MIME Great Again" but I do think following in its spirit is a really great idea.

If you run a service, what you want to be able to tell the government (whether it's US or UK or France/Germany) is "we don't provide any encryption, though some of our customers supply their own."

Stop asking for secure services. Worse is better. Ask for secure software (which assumes that all services are completely hostile) decoupled from any particular service.

You mean they're not yellow?

That's the color teeth are supposed to be.

I'm not sure if this is true, but I saw a stat recently: no civilization - and we are a global civilization at this point - has ever recovered culturally once their population replacement rate has dropped beneath 1.8.

That's sobering, regardless. We've got many developed populations rapidly approaching low 1.x ratios, while continuing to import (predominantly, young, male, illiterate) immigrants from what could best be described as "the developing world".

That's not a situation that works out well for anyone, in the end.

Python is kind of the modern Visual Basic in that it makes it easier for non-experts to create applications to accomplish their specific tasks. While this is probably overall a good thing, it does mean that there is lots of poorly written Python code out there. Even Python code written by professional software developers can be bad. I dealt with some Python scripts once that took 30 seconds to print help usage because of how many imports they were doing.

As far as GUIs, PyQt is useful for creating Qt GUIs. Qt generally uses native platform widgets and themes so they blend well on various platforms. Unfortunately, it is one of those batteries that is not included. Though I just checked and the `PyQt5` module was installed on my local Linux machine, so YMMV.

Jupyter notebooks are a web based Python interface that can help visualize results from Python functions, but again that is a separate package, and may not be what you are looking for.

This has happened many times over the decades. Osmosis (mostly!) results in the better changes trickling back into mainstream linux distributions.

My least/most favorite example of this is Stormix Linux.

It was based on Debian, back in 1999. It was geared towards a simplified desktop experience and introduced a lot of new things, at the time: graphical installer that detected hardware (and had a broad set of hardware support not found elsewhere); GUI apt manager; and a number of other really clean add ons that made the desktop more usable. It was head and shoulders above all other options at the time.

When Stormix the company failed, and the distro died, the resulting community/developer effort became the Progeny Debian distribution for a short while, and a Progeny package repository. I used that for years.

Arguably, if it wasn't for Stormix, Ubuntu wouldn't have become what it is today, as those efforts were later channeled into Ubuntu.

As with most things in life, it's 2 steps forward and one step back...

That's not a purpose, aka a focus, it's a method.

So the big news here is that all the cool media players spy on their users.

But does mpv? Users are obviously demanding this feature, or else these stats wouldn't be available. How hard is it, to add code to betray the user and tell someone else how fast they watch videos? Free Software just doesn't keep up. All it does it work perfectly, time after time, until the user dies of boredom from the lack of drama.

I know some on the right decided to make up some ludicrous definition at one point that right vs left was "freedom vs tyranny" and it looks like you've bought into that

Uhr? No, to me, the essence is slow, careful changes vs fast, possibly-not-thought-out, experimental changes. If I had to do it in 4 words, they would be "degree of risk aversion."

That is how Trump appears to be the furthest-left president in US history, and how even FDR (and LBJ, etc) look relatively right-wing compared to him. Comrade Trump is breaking things which had good, proven track records. No conservative (or even centrist or lightly-left) person would do that.

Well, if your government is a shitshow, it just means your people need to vo--

Sigh. Why, yes, I am an American. Why do you a--

[hangs head in shame] Ok, fair enough. I'll shut the fuck up now.

When I hired people (as developers), the last question of the interview was "How many gas stations are there in the United States?"

The answer I wanted to hear was a quick, succinct, "I don't know".

IMHO "Hmm.. let me think about how to estimate that" would also be a great [start to] an answer. (Though now that I think of, we have The Internet now, so "lemme google that" might also be a pretty good answer.)