Webm Support
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
I have been trying to find websites where you can watch videos using html5 AND webm.
I know Trisquel's Abrowser supports html5 in other formats, and I also know that using viewtube and such addons, we can watch videos on virtually any website, but:
1. H264, MP3, MOV, and other video formats/codecs are proprietary. People who don't want to use proprietary software would be interested in avoiding those.
2. Tor Browser won't load those formats, due to security/privacy issues. In many websites the html5 player loads alright, but the file is then unreadable. So, people who want to protect their privacy while watching a video (let it be a political video, an hacktivist video, a sexual oriented video, a documentary video, any video that might somehow get you in trouble) will need to use websites that provide not only html5 player but also deal with webm/theora formats, because firefox can actually open those and so does Tor Browser.
So, as of now, I have found:
Youtube (it works in every video, if it says "this video needs flash" you just replace "watch?v=" with "embed/" and it will load the video)
Internet Archive (not sure how it does, and if it works for everyvideo, but I suppose because they convert their files to ogg/ogv, the html5 player can actually load those and play without using plugins)
mediagoblin (never heard of that until I searched for this)
engagemedia (same as mediagoblin)
Vimeo won't work, and from what I have seen dailymotion won't work either.
Does anyone knows anymore websites that provide webm videos?
Also, if you want to use free software only, you could (and probably should) setup your browser to play html5/webm whenever possible. =)
> 1. H264, MP3, MOV, and other video formats/codecs are proprietary. People who
> don't want to use proprietary software would be interested in avoiding those.
This statement is false. The software Trisquel uses to play these formats is free software. The formats are *patented*, not "proprietary".
It sucks that some websites only provide h.264 videos the same way it would have sucked for websites to only provide GIFs back when the GIF format was still patent-encumbered, but there's nothing wrong with viewing these videos in Trisquel.
Indeed. In its default install, Trisquel actually ships free software codecs for those patented formats. That is why Totem (for instance) plays almost any video you throw at it.
Mozilla does not want to take the risk to be into costly patent litigations. That is why its Web browser (and Abrowser, which is based on it) cannot read patented formats. However, Mozilla is working on using system codecs (rather than developing its own) to read patented videos from the browser. In Firefox 22, it works on Windows Vista, 7 and 8. GNU/Linux should come very soon (months).
For the moment, there are extensions to the Web browser that allow to read videos from many popular sites. I personally use ViewTube and UnPlug (which is not listed in the Trisquel manual I linked to). They are great.
HUm.... Ok, I realize I had the wrong term there, those formats are patented no proprietary. I know Trisquel uses free software to play mp3.
HOWEVER: due to patents on software formats/codecs, I still believe we should use open/free formats/codecs instead of patented ones. Why?
1. You want a digital device to listen audio. Because mp3 is the most common audio format, all devices need to support it if they want to have any chance in the market. What happens? They have to pay a royalty and it increases the price of the device. I would BUY a device that could read ONLY free formats (Xvid, ogg, flac, x264, webm, etc). So should everyone who supports free software.
2. Youtube was to stick with only flash and h264. Suddenly, they had to pay royalties for each. They would start to charge the user to view videos, so they could keep up with the costs. If there are no alternatives in place already, when that happens, video sharing would almost become illegal.
3. Using other software installed in your computer to decode videos through the web will make it useless that you are running Tor Browser. That is why they don't have flash activated.
So, I appreciate the correction about proprietary/patented, but I still say that we should make an effort to use free/open formats instead of closed/patented/whatever ones.
So, does anyone knows of more websites that have html5 working with webm, ogg, etc?
What you write is true. However, in my opinion, there is even a better reason to prefer patent-unemcumbered formats: the risk to not be able to play your files in the future using free software. Indeed, patent holders can sue the developers of the free software and force them to stop distributing their codecs. The patents do not even need to be valid: the cost of patent litigations are so high that even companies cannot afford to pay them and informally settle the issue paying a "tax" to the patent holder. In the end, software patent holders are like mafias ("if you do not pay us, your house may burn").
Yes, another reason adding to the 3 reasons I already gave.
So, for example, I have been testing how much I can use the web without flash, gnash, etclash. and without any addons on the browser. Just good html5 running native. It's very very smooth. Of course, with Tor Broswer it's not the same, but t each his own.
Anyway, there it is: fight against closed standards, fight pro open standards. While I apreciate the fact that we can play mp3 files, we should stop supporting them (by using them) and use ogg. This goes for office documents too. Why was OpenOffice mistreated when it had troubles opening MSOffice files, while MSOffice couldn't open AT ALL OO files? ;)
Yes, I am crazy. =P anyone knows webm sites????
In your introduction thread, you mentioned not wanting to be an "free only extremist".
Now you're saying all the time: only using free software is not enough, we should even abandon every patented format.
Of course we should reject patent encumbered formats; but I think your opinion is a bit contradictory.
Thanks for taking the time to read my introduction post =)
Like I said, I have a very personal and different opinion, and yes, it sometimes is a little bit.... contradictory. Or at least some people think so, I belive it is not.
Mainly, I am not against producing proprietary software, because the end user should be free to choose and because the creator should also be free to choose, but when it comes to each one of us as end users, we should be smart and choose what is better for us, which in this case is open standards.
Hope it made sense to you =)
Anyway, I can see that no one has anymore sites with html5/webm support =(
Youtube and Archive already give us a lot of content anyway, so HOORAYYY ^_^
By the way, if it was to become illegal to use a video format (like mp4/h264) I wouldn't use it, so of course I try to promote open standards.
> I have a very personal and different opinion
You're repeating this all the time, but I don't know why.
Different to whose opinion? The normal user?
You seem to be very proud of a "exceptional" and great opinion, but to me, it seems simply inconsistent.
And I don't think this is because my mind "can't reach far enough", but perhaps I misunderstood you.
In my opinion, people should be realistic and don't claim to be "extraordinary different", because there billions of people on earth, and so this seems to me rather ridiculous.
> Mainly, I am not against producing proprietary software, because the end user should be free to choose and because the creator should also be free to choose
Well, then we're talking about a different issue: the development of proprietary software.
Because according to your latest post, people should be free to use proprietary software, but they shouldn't do it, if they are clever.
Or did I get it wrong?
Anyway, I think most people don't know about the harmful effects of proprietary software, and they should be protected.
So it's justified to take away the freedom to develop and distribute proprietary software just like it's justified to forbid the sell of drugs.
Ok, first... I won't get into an argument with you. I never said I was clever than anyone else, so that could be avoided, don't you think? My opinion is personal because it came from my personal experiences, I never said it was better. Not that I was hoping people to understand, but at least don't attack me. I merely said my opinions were different from most peope in this forum, and they were personal. Never said I was better or anything....
And as for your question, you are right. Developing proprietary software should be treated as a right, as much as producing free software. And using either one should be in the end, the choice of the user. What I do, and what I think most of us should do, is to promote the fact that using free software is better (security, freedom, morals, you name it) and help people don't use proprietary software. So, I am not against proprietary software, but I believe everyone should move away from it. Even if it is a right to produce and use it.
As for your last statments, I TOTALLY disagre! No, i won't take freedom away from people to protect them from proprietary software, just as I won't take freedom away by spying on everyone to search for criminals (which is EXACTLY what the NSA does!). If you put freedom first, respect other's freedom.
> No, i won't take freedom away from people to protect them from proprietary software, just as I won't take freedom away by spying on everyone to search for criminals (which is EXACTLY what the NSA does!). If you put freedom first, respect other's freedom.
First, total freedom for everyone in a society is not possible, since
the freedom of person A can get in conflict with freedom from person B.
You can't walk in the garden of you neighbor without his permission, and
though a restriction of your freedom, this is good, because it respects
the freedom of your neighbor and his rights.
The NSA tried to collect a huge dossier of almost everyone without any
reason; this is not searching for criminals or protecting anyone. This
is a massive attack on our freedom.
Is it bad to take away the freedom to do so from the NSA? Shouldn't they
be free to do what ever they want?
The answer is clearly no.
Any other answer will end up in absurdities.
With your argument, nobody should be forbidden to do anything.
Cheater who trick old people in a immoral contract? If you take your
argument for real, they should be allowed to do so, it's their freedom!
The old people should be free to hurt themselves, though they better
don't if they are clever.
> My opinion is personal because it came from my personal experiences
Yeah, but this is true for most persons.
> Never said I was better or anything....
Ok. Just the repeat of the sentence "i have a very personal and
different opinion" is a statement I personally don't like.
It creates the impression I wrote. Never mind if this isn't true.
I encountered so much people who thought their opinion is different or
somehow special. Everyone has his opinion, and since there is a wide
spread of different opinions, I don't think it's good to call his own
opinion "different" by default, since you don't know the others.
> Not that I was hoping people to understand, but at least don't
attack me
Well, a discussion isn't and shouldn't be just agreement and harmony.
What's wrong with a polite attack?
I didn't insult you and I don't see any reason not to state my opinion.
Let's be clear here: I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH WHAT NSA DID!
Just to make sure you understand. That is why I won't allow them to take people freedom away by spying on people. Same way, I won't take people freedom away by forbiding them of using proprietary software. I will let them know that it is dangerous and bad (believe, I hate when people don't get it about PRISM), but still won't forbid.
For a better idea (not complete however, lol) of my thoughts on matters of free software, you can read comment nº12 in this thread
The whole thread has some interesting posts actually.
GNUser, if you're watching videos on YouTube YOU'RE RUNNING PROPRIETARY JAVASCRIPT! That's why i don't use YouTube and similar websites. I don't use JavaScript, Flash, Java, etc
https://gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
Unfortunately, i don't know of a program that allows the user to download YouTube videos ANONYMOUSLY (preferably in free formats).
ViewTube (a Greasemonkey script) and UnPlug (a Firefox extension) don't require you to identify yourself, and they're free.
Thanks a lot for helping me. I tried UnPlug on YouTube and it worked! But maybe i should have been more specific. I only browse with Tor (i'll try I2P and others later) and don't know if UnPlug or ViewTube can compromise things:
https://www.torproject.org/download/download-easy.html.en#warning - specifically topics:
a)
b)
d) Although this one is more about "documents", maybe it's safer to open the videos on a disconnected computer independently of their format, as a rule of thumb.
Anyway, i'm not going to keep the files that have copyright issues. I would love to watch them on the fly online. Unfortunately YouTube and other websites mistreat their users.
I will as much as i can download free formats instead of patent-encumbered ones.
But all of this, only if the downloading proves to be anonymous.
WRT D, that's specifically a warning about certain document formats (particularly Microsoft Word's old format and certain kinds of PDFs) which might load extra stuff from a server. No video format has that capability (it's a capability that wouldn't make any sense).
I have considered closing some ports on ufw firewall to prevent those documents from connecting to an external server. Do you happen to know which ports could be used by those? And also, would it work, closing the ports?
Hey there.
I have been experimenting with Tor for quite some time now, and I have read and watched a lot of presentations by the Tor team.
Some information you might find useful:
1. Viewtube won't work (viewtube loads plugins from your OS, that could not respect your proxy settings, so Tor Browser blocks that from happening).
2. Installing ANYTHING in Tor Browser is dangerous, because it makes it easy for your browser to be fingerprinted and followed around on the web, even using Tor. Don't do so, if you need strong anonymity.
3. I believe you might find useful and interesting some presentations about Tor. here are some links, the first one was amazing, others were very revealing too!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GanD_lCqLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwMr8Xl7JMQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4vEeiV1r9s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHoJ9pQ0cn8
Some of this stuff is available on internet archive (you can try to find them there, if you can't or don't want to use youtube).
Anyway, I don't think we should use Tor as a way to watch copyrighted material anyway.... Tor was meant to protect people privacy freedom and rights. By taking for free what someone expected to get money from, you are harming that person's right of work and freedom of choice. It also gives bad image to Tor and makes it harder to fight for changes in Public Domain laws.
Please, I am not saying you are a bad person for watching copyrighted material, I am just saying that it actually harms you own cause more than it helps. You could try to think about it and maybe find alternatives =) I would be happy to help, since I did so myself some time ago.
As for keeping your copy of Tor Browser safe and secure, from time to time delete the folder, clean cache and history, and extract Tor again from the TAR file. It's a good policy to do so =)
I had read that article before but had forgotten about it to be honest. So thanks for bringing that to the table.
My opinion is this: if the javascript (or some other stuff, but for now lets focus on javascript) is not obfuscated, it can be analyzed and it is proven to respect the user AS A USER, which means that it only does what is supposed to do and has no malicious features etc, but is under a license that say "you can use but you can't modify" for example.... I don't see harm in that. You can say "the harm is that if they decide to put malicious features or to just not develop it anymore, the people will be in danger of those features and the world will lose the knowledge because you can't change it". Well, if they give you the code and you can see that there is a malicious feature... don't use it. That's your choice. That's your right. Google actually has the right to spy on me when I am using their service, in a way, because it's their bussiness and their money, but I as a user am not forced to accept it, I have the choice to move on to another service. This is an example, and I belive you understand what I mean: you should be free to create and you should be free to use, or not use. What I believe is the most important thing about javascript is that its code is easy to analyze and has no malicious features.
It might be the case with youtube, I am not sure. And if that is the case, that is something that we, as a group of users, should try to make Youtube change, by talking to them and saying (am meaning it, lol) that we will stop using their service if they don't try to listen to us.
Not using proprietary software was the reason why I came to Trisquel. But that is because I understand that free software is the best chance I have to have SECURITY, PRIVACY, FREEDOM. In that order. Security first, because I don't have privacy without security. Privacy because without it I have no freedom. Freedom because that's the only way to live my own life and be who I am without fear. But I don't look to a license to know if a software is harmfull. I look at the code.
By the way, you don't need flash to open webm videos on youtube. HTML5 will do that, and by using Tor Browser for example will make you anonymous AND provide some javascript security (Tor team has made some changes in their firefox). Might not be perfect, but its the best solution so far.
Also, if you want me to stop using Youtube.... I would love that! Really. that's why I made this thread, I want to know websites that have html5/webm. Maybe we can use some that has no proprietary javascript. I am all for it =)
Internet archive has a grat content collection and it also uses open standards, maybe you could give it a try =)
Again, thanks for your reply and hope i made my points valid and clear for you =)
On 20/07/13 13:55, name at domain wrote:
> By the way, if it was to become illegal to use a video format (like
> mp4/h264) I wouldn't use it, so of course I try to promote open standards.
http://www.librevideo.org/blog/2010/06/14/mpeg-la-answers-some-questions-about-avch-264-licensing/
My summery from my memory:
That's not the problem.
If I understand correctly, the problem is by using mpeg-al formats _NOW_
that you are setting a unknown nasty time bomb were mpeg-al tell you
want you can and can't do and run you dry/control you with a nasty fees
£££££. I guess things like use drm or pay more.
Well, I would not refuse to read proprietary formats but I always choose patent-unemcumbered formats when available. As for distributing the files to other people (e-mail attachments, web site, etc.), I feel it is essential to propose a patent-unemcumbered format... but, to me, it looks even better to *additionally* propose more popular formats even if patented. For instance, I think it is a good idea to distribute a podcast in Ogg Vorbis. It definitely is a better idea than only proposing MP3. However, proposing both looks the best to me: you do not help the patented formats to be popular but people with players that do not "understand" Ogg Vorbis can still listen to it.
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios