Re: Mozilla blog: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users

On 2014-05-16 14:55 David Singer wrote:
> * for content owners, DRM adds significantly to the costs and complexity of
> operation; but they perceive the alternative to be widespread copying and
> lost revenue 

uhuh... 

not this myth again, we've been over this:

it's patently obvious that DRM does not stop piracy, as it only needs to be 
circumvented once, and there always seems to be someone that manages it

the reason content owners want DRM is not because it stops copying, it clearly 
doesn't

they want DRM because in concert with laws like the DMCA it gives them the 
leverage to force the (legal) distribution channels into idiotic things like 
region locks and non-skippable adds for 'soon in a theater near you' (years 
after that statement was true)

It lets them keep their old stranglehold prices in a world where the cost-
barriers for creators that led to their stranglehold on both distribution and 
creation of content are disappearing more completely with every passing year 

> * for distribution partners, DRM adds significantly to the costs and
> complexity of operation; but the alternative is to be unable to carry and
> offer a lot of content 

the alternative would be to actively search out and promote non-hollywood 
content that doesn't come with those restrictions 

widespread support and buy-in from the distribution channels is the only thing 
that makes hollywood content into mainstream content 

the distribution channels *do* have the power to change that

(e.g apple has the deep pockets to do translations  of and bring to the west 
the content of the nigerian, chinese and indian film industries. All 3 are now 
producing more films yearly then hollywood, and all 3 no doubt have plenty of 
good content whose producers would gladly forgo DRM for main-streamed access 
to western markets)

> * for end-user system makers, DRM adds cost and
> complexity; but the alternative is to stop their users from being
> able to view a lot of content 

the alternative would be to say to the DRM-imposing parties: 
"you want DRM, you get to do your own dirty work, we won't carry that cost for 
you"

DRM would be gone tomorrow if the content owners imposing it had to carry the 
end user support costs and convince users one at a time to do the 
installation/configuration of needed apps

with the dead of NPAPI plugins the content owners where _finally_ going to have 
to carry that cost and make that choice

... and then comes along the EME fiasco where first the W3C and now Mozilla are 
caving to content owner demands and choosing to do the work and carry that 
cost.

> * for end-users, DRM adds restrictions and
> impediments; but the alternative is not to watch the content at all

incorrect, the non-social suicide end-user alternative is to go to pirate
(culture is shared context, no-one feels bad about pirating)

I read that the streaming bittorrent app popcorn got resurrected, 
I should probably go take a look at it, and see about advocating that over 
mainstream options, it's looking like the sanest option at the moment

> About the only people who maybe *like* DRM are small ones that specialize in
> key-exchange and code obfuscation. Otherwise, it’s the least bad choice
> they can see.

if you don't like it, then support it with your deeds, 
don't go 'but they made us, we really didn't want to'

that is a copout, it is the kind of stockholm syndrome that allowed every 
abuse in history that was perpetrated by a small minority

Personally, I'll go pirate before I go DRM, 
and I'll advocate that choice to everyone I know.
-- 
Cheers

Received on Friday, 16 May 2014 15:08:35 UTC