Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mozilla Firefox Enables VP9 Video Codec By Default

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic Mozilla Firefox Enables VP9 Video Codec By Default

    Mozilla Firefox Enables VP9 Video Codec By Default

    Phoronix: Mozilla Firefox Enables VP9 Video Codec By Default

    As of yesterday there's now mainline support for using Google's VP9 video codec within the Firefox web-browser...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTUzODA

  • Luke
    replied
    Youtube monetized videos pay small amounts to POSTER of video

    Originally posted by erendorn View Post
    I mostly agree, but I don't know if the activist gets any money from youtube (I don't think so, at least). I think it is youtube that monetize the content, which is fair, as they are the cost bearer.
    A "monetized" video on Youtube is one where the poster links the Youtube account to some form of financial information, then agrees to allow additional advertising (prerolls or overlays) in addition to Youtube's OWN advertising." It is USER monetization that triggers Youtube interference in downloading (that can be defeated by screen recording), and triggers the issue of hypocrisy if the video in question is an anticapitalist one. Hell, advertisers agree with that last point, and Ustream had to give Occupy DC an ad-free channel for a while because the content (like mine) was not "ad-safe."

    I would never link any online account of mine to any form of ID, financial information, or any form of verifiable personal information because of who I am. I close all accounts that attempt to demand that I "add a phone" and throw up barriers to refusal. In addition, it would be hypocrisy for me to sell ads on a video condemning some of the advertisers. If I am looking for videos like my own posted by others, I regard monetized results showing up in search as spam because I prefer not to use them and they pollute the search field of the true activist videos that are NOT monetized.

    No adserver will ever be welcome on any server or web page that I operate or administer. My purpose is elsewhere. Compare what I do to a gaming industry fed up with a walled-garden Windows 9 to such an extent that the gaming authors subsidize something like Phoronix for the sole purpose of helping make free software performance competitive so their people can get away from Windoze 9. The gaming execs don't need to make money on the Linux forums or on the research and may spend buckets on hardware. The benefit for them is getting out from under MS control, so they are in better shape later. OK, some people write games, others write political theories for real-world application in "meatspace." Think of Windows as a microcosm of capitalism, and Linux as a microcosm of a direct competitor to capitalism. Free software has proven (as has the majority of human history that was tribal) that economies based on mutual cooperation by those with common interests can function.

    Now let's consider a sucessor to the Internet as a larger microcosm of economics: No phone companies, only distributed mesh networks by wifi hooked together by a decendant of amateur radio (the Tunisian Revolution model), and no corporate servers, only local and distributed servers. Bandwidth is controlled by hardware and the physical limits of RF spectrum, local nets needing more can be wired with coax between houses. Each user is allowed to use the same amount of bandwidth they contribute, to control leechers and spammers. Hell, the NSA will help bring this about, by forcing the growth of darknets beyond their control.

    Back on subject, it would be great if VP9 et all could get in on the ground floor and squeeze out H265. If nothing else, this would be insurance against the TPP and TTIP trade deals that could extend software patents to many places in Europe and Asia where they are not now recognized. We will always have sanctuary countries that do not sign the deals to host from, but better to take the patented shit out of play entirely while we still can. We got stuck with H264 but its patents will expire, let's NOT let an H265 patent evergreen this like the Nexium patent!

    Leave a comment:


  • erendorn
    replied
    Originally posted by Luke View Post
    What I am complaining about is the internal inconsistancy of those few who put pro-capitalist ads on anti-capitalist videos like the ones I publish. If I were to run ads for oil companies on a video featuring Earth First! storming a tars sands lobbyist's office, that would be like Phoronix running ads for Windows 8 trash talking the free software Phoronix is all about. It's one thing for Youtube/Liveleak/etc to put their own ads on a video site, entirely another for the owner of the videos to sell additional ads that may be in contradiction to the message of the videos. Poster is responsible for own behavior, not host's behavior.

    Also, if I am trying to find a noncommercial activist video of an event I missed for redistribution, commercial/monetized/copyrighted videos become SPAM that slow downs my search for freely redistributable content-and no video streaming site I know of offers a filter to exclude them. Broken playback under HTML5 could be used as an improvised filter by turning Flash off, the subject of my original post here. Hell, just not having to bypass Youtube's efforts to block downloading monetized content can save half an hour or more.

    Again, Phoronix content is not in outright contradiction to the content of most ads with the exception of any ads for Windows, iOS, etc that might get sent by an adserver. No activist videographer can say the same. In other words, if I run ads on my political videos, that is hypocrisy, if I made a porn video and sold ads on it that would not be, because the porn would not be carrying a message in opposition to that of the advertisers and my politics have never opposed the self-employed portion of the sex industry. Since it is ads on activist video or 3ed party video of activist events I am discussing, NOT Phoronix's own ads, it is not hypocritical to discuss them here, any more than it would be for Phoronix to give a bad review to an Nvidia product with an AMD ad running on the same page.
    I mostly agree, but I don't know if the activist gets any money from youtube (I don't think so, at least). I think it is youtube that monetize the content, which is fair, as they are the cost bearer.


    Originally posted by Luke View Post
    As for "people and corporations," I am VERY opposed to the land being owned by the few, to foreclosures and evictions, to drug patents that kill people. to fracking and tar sands that poison land and water hundreds of miles from the extraction sites, to sacrificing liveable climate an the altar of progress, the works! I am quite opposed to runaway capitalism. If you are for it, you should support software patents, ressurecting SOPA, and all those IP-enforcing trade deals and the WTO.
    Come on, that's the "If you support piracy you support terrorists/pedophiles" argument

    Leave a comment:


  • TheBlackCat
    replied
    Originally posted by Luke View Post
    What I am complaining about is the internal inconsistancy of those few who put pro-capitalist ads on anti-capitalist videos like the ones I publish. If I were to run ads for oil companies on a video featuring Earth First! storming a tars sands lobbyist's office, that would be like Phoronix running ads for Windows 8 trash talking the free software Phoronix is all about. It's one thing for Youtube/Liveleak/etc to put their own ads on a video site, entirely another for the owner of the videos to sell additional ads that may be in contradiction to the message of the videos. Poster is responsible for own behavior, not host's behavior.
    Uh, are you kidding? This is how this sort of advertising works. Something is mentioned a lot, therefore the ad programs make ads about that. They can't tell whether it is mentioned positively or negatively. You really think ad providers have real humans dedicated to checking whether the automated ad programs might be giving ads against the message of the website? For example anti-alternative medicine websites gets lots of ads for alternative medicine because the website talks about alternative medicine a lot. Of course the ad programs notice that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke
    replied
    Context is the key to hypocrisy

    Originally posted by erendorn View Post
    Why are you opposed to people and corporations offering goods and servicing against retribution? If you friend does not want adds on his videos, he can maintain his own video streaming server.
    Also, complaining about add-supported content on phoronix can be considered hypocrisy too.
    What I am complaining about is the internal inconsistancy of those few who put pro-capitalist ads on anti-capitalist videos like the ones I publish. If I were to run ads for oil companies on a video featuring Earth First! storming a tars sands lobbyist's office, that would be like Phoronix running ads for Windows 8 trash talking the free software Phoronix is all about. It's one thing for Youtube/Liveleak/etc to put their own ads on a video site, entirely another for the owner of the videos to sell additional ads that may be in contradiction to the message of the videos. Poster is responsible for own behavior, not host's behavior.

    Also, if I am trying to find a noncommercial activist video of an event I missed for redistribution, commercial/monetized/copyrighted videos become SPAM that slow downs my search for freely redistributable content-and no video streaming site I know of offers a filter to exclude them. Broken playback under HTML5 could be used as an improvised filter by turning Flash off, the subject of my original post here. Hell, just not having to bypass Youtube's efforts to block downloading monetized content can save half an hour or more.

    Again, Phoronix content is not in outright contradiction to the content of most ads with the exception of any ads for Windows, iOS, etc that might get sent by an adserver. No activist videographer can say the same. In other words, if I run ads on my political videos, that is hypocrisy, if I made a porn video and sold ads on it that would not be, because the porn would not be carrying a message in opposition to that of the advertisers and my politics have never opposed the self-employed portion of the sex industry. Since it is ads on activist video or 3ed party video of activist events I am discussing, NOT Phoronix's own ads, it is not hypocritical to discuss them here, any more than it would be for Phoronix to give a bad review to an Nvidia product with an AMD ad running on the same page.

    As for "people and corporations," I am VERY opposed to the land being owned by the few, to foreclosures and evictions, to drug patents that kill people. to fracking and tar sands that poison land and water hundreds of miles from the extraction sites, to sacrificing liveable climate an the altar of progress, the works! I am quite opposed to runaway capitalism. If you are for it, you should support software patents, ressurecting SOPA, and all those IP-enforcing trade deals and the WTO.

    Leave a comment:


  • erendorn
    replied
    Originally posted by Luke View Post
    Generally, if I encounter any video with ads on ANY site, I either close the window or hit the back button-fast. I actually get agitated from Flash ads and I also resent the hypocrisy when people who say they are anticapitalists, filming anticapitalist protests, monetize their work selling ads for big corporations. On the other hand, it was really funny when Ustream had to ban ads from an Occupy ustream because advertisers were whining about the content. They got a totally ad-free channel as a result!

    Monetized video (by poster) implies that the author is after money and that's the only reason the video was posted. Monetized on Youtube over 3ed party content is an affront to the original poster, the threat of this was one reason I abandoned an old Youtube account. The other was that the degree of scanning they use to resist the formation of backup accounts (against "strikes) implies browser fingerprinting, which I consider a malicious attack and a threat to all viewers.

    One of my friends had to preroll his videos with a notice that any advertising added by Youtube was over his objection. Youtube does NOT offer an option to veto 3ed-party monetization and delete the video of their scanners detect 3ed party music. Only Youtube does this, uner the DCMA they could take no action w/o a DCMA takedown notice, but Google is so big they feared Congre$$ would change the law.
    Why are you opposed to people and corporations offering goods and servicing against retribution? If you friend does not want adds on his videos, he can maintain his own video streaming server.
    Also, complaining about add-supported content on phoronix can be considered hypocrisy too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke
    replied
    I would prefer that monteized video not be supported at all

    Originally posted by erendorn View Post
    What you describe suggest that you do want to watch monetized videos, but do not want to participate in the monetization itself, which is entirely different.
    Generally, if I encounter any video with ads on ANY site, I either close the window or hit the back button-fast. I actually get agitated from Flash ads and I also resent the hypocrisy when people who say they are anticapitalists, filming anticapitalist protests, monetize their work selling ads for big corporations. On the other hand, it was really funny when Ustream had to ban ads from an Occupy ustream because advertisers were whining about the content. They got a totally ad-free channel as a result!

    Monetized video (by poster) implies that the author is after money and that's the only reason the video was posted. Monetized on Youtube over 3ed party content is an affront to the original poster, the threat of this was one reason I abandoned an old Youtube account. The other was that the degree of scanning they use to resist the formation of backup accounts (against "strikes) implies browser fingerprinting, which I consider a malicious attack and a threat to all viewers.

    One of my friends had to preroll his videos with a notice that any advertising added by Youtube was over his objection. Youtube does NOT offer an option to veto 3ed-party monetization and delete the video of their scanners detect 3ed party music. Only Youtube does this, uner the DCMA they could take no action w/o a DCMA takedown notice, but Google is so big they feared Congre$$ would change the law.

    Leave a comment:


  • erendorn
    replied
    Originally posted by Luke View Post
    I do not monetize my videos, and I do not want to watch monetized videos posted by others.
    What you describe suggest that you do want to watch monetized videos, but do not want to participate in the monetization itself, which is entirely different.

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke
    replied
    Could this be used to block monetized videos?

    Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
    While vp9 is new we have vp8 for quite some time and noone has been giving a fuck about it. Remind me if google used its power (ie youtube) to promote webm and give it more presence.

    Monetized videos sometimes play but its probably because someone forgets to flip a switch preventing to do so or they are testing something. Soon after they finish what they do you get the This needs flash message.
    As a rule I refuse to watch videos with preroll or overlay advertising. To me, an implementaton that automatcally breaks and prevents monetized content from loading is a bandwidth saver. I only connect to youtube via Torbrowser (from a special Youtube-only directory install used for nothing else) as I deeply distrust Google and all their tracking, I look forward to Torbrowser reaching the point that they use a new enough version of Firefox to use gstreamer for H264 so flash (dangerous in Tor) can be uninstalled from my machines entirely.

    I do not monetize my videos, and I do not want to watch monetized videos posted by others.

    Leave a comment:


  • Annabel
    replied
    Originally posted by Kivada View Post
    Tried that and a dozen others, they don't do anything.
    Works for me

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X