Net non-neutrality is bigger threat than DRM on pay content
It appears that what Mozilla is doing is trying to stay ahead of Hulu, Amazon, and Netflix moving from Flash and Silverlight to HTML5, which by no longer using closed proprietary video players breaks their DRM on open browsers. Mozilla has tried to use this to force them to abandon DRM but failed, now they have to worry about Hollywood being able to kill Firefox. So long as the "CDM" module remains a separate plugin, you can of course refuse to install it or even 127.0.0.1 out the server it comes from. If you are like me and do not care about TV and movie content you can ignore it, and I don't see services like Archive.org and Liveleak going to DRM on their video streaming. Bitorrent sure as hell not if you want movies...
The bigger threat is that the providers of that paid DRM video will be permitted to buy extra bandwidth from the Big Telcos, obtained by taking it away from everyone else. Imagine being told that unless you can get Hulu or Netflix to sell your video and wrap it in DRM, people will have to torrent it all night at dial-up speeds to watch your 5 minute video of anarchists defeating neo-Nazis in a street battle!
I will never distribute my videos with DRM, I would host them on my own box before I would tolerate that. If the bandwidth is gone, however, I then have to distribute them on flash drives or DVD's the way battle videos are distributed in places like rural Pakistan. In environments like Occupy camps mesh networks would sprout if the Internet has been cannibalized for paid content, allowing direct computer-to computer tranmission of news coverage. This is what was done in Tunisia when the former regime tried to shut down the Internet, and there is talk in places like Anonymous of preparing for a future in which mesh networks replace the Big Telcos by necessity, not by choice. Peer to Peer online communication can in fact bypass any Internet that gets redesigned to support only a paid server-client, movie studio and passive movie watcher model.
Originally posted by b15hop
View Post
The bigger threat is that the providers of that paid DRM video will be permitted to buy extra bandwidth from the Big Telcos, obtained by taking it away from everyone else. Imagine being told that unless you can get Hulu or Netflix to sell your video and wrap it in DRM, people will have to torrent it all night at dial-up speeds to watch your 5 minute video of anarchists defeating neo-Nazis in a street battle!
I will never distribute my videos with DRM, I would host them on my own box before I would tolerate that. If the bandwidth is gone, however, I then have to distribute them on flash drives or DVD's the way battle videos are distributed in places like rural Pakistan. In environments like Occupy camps mesh networks would sprout if the Internet has been cannibalized for paid content, allowing direct computer-to computer tranmission of news coverage. This is what was done in Tunisia when the former regime tried to shut down the Internet, and there is talk in places like Anonymous of preparing for a future in which mesh networks replace the Big Telcos by necessity, not by choice. Peer to Peer online communication can in fact bypass any Internet that gets redesigned to support only a paid server-client, movie studio and passive movie watcher model.
Comment