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

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:08 AM, cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote:

> 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)
>

​EME, at least, doesn't support either of these things, so I don't think
your contention is correct for the technology we are considering here.

You will be able to look at Mozilla's open-source sandbox to verify that
the CDM does not have access to geographic information. Nor does the CDM
have the power to block the operation of the controls on the <video>
element. You will also be able to verify this in Mozilla's implementation.

Region restrictions for streamed content have nothing to do with DRM and
would still exist if DRM did not.

I do hope, though, that there will eventually be distributors with
sufficient scale to make global licensing worthwhile and that global
content licenses will become more available. They are rare for existing
content, since exclusive region-specific rights have often already been
sold, precluding future sale of global rights at least until those
exclusive region-specific rights expire.


>
> 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
>
>