Youtube has had content recognition for ages. Try to upload a commercial song and you'll soon be slapped with either ads (with the proceeds going to the copyright holder) or blocked depending what options the copyright holder has set.

Um, HTML5 video doesn't have anything to do with P2P. If you want to create an HTML5 video streaming site you still need the heavyweight backend and bandwidth that Youtube has, the only difference is you wouldn't be using Flash.

For this use case wouldn't it be a lot more appropriate to stream raw data from the robot to software running on a desktop machine to represent it visually? Surely it's a waste of CPU effort drawing a GUI on the robot itself?

Flexible Funding makes it very suspicious as they can just pocket all the money people donate even if they don't reach their funding goal. This is probably a scam and will never go anywhere.

I understand the difference from a narrow ideological argument, but can you see that the current system is worse for internet freedom than the system they are proposing?

After installing Firefox as soon as you start browsing video sites you are actively prompted to download and install a dangerous, closed source proprietary plugin that has complete access to your local system resources. Firefox has always supported this, and never tried to prevent this from happening.

The new system removes any need for that plugin, instead any proprietary component is reduced to the bare minimum and run in a sandbox.

It just makes no sense to denounce Mozilla for offering an extremely limited video decoding API while ignoring the fact they actively support monstrosities like Flash.

They already actively support DRM through binary plugins, so what's the difference? If you've been using Firefox you've already voted for the communist party, so why complain now?

The bad things started when Flash added encrypted video. This is making things a bit better than before.

... which is placed is a sandbox environment so it can't do any of the damage that current proprietary closed source, restrictive DRM plugins like Flash do right now.

So from a sample size of 1 you've decided all streaming services are bad?

How will a limited DRM plugin API destory the web more than broad, leaky, proprietary binary plugins like Flash, Java and Silverlight?

So what's the difference between Firefox offering an insecure binary plugin API for proprietary plugins like Flash, Silverlight and Java, and Firefox offering a sandboxed plugin API for DRM decoding modules?

How is this any more "including closed source, liberty restricting software" than allowing plugins like Flash and Silverlight to be installed?

Bullshit. Current content distributors are more proprietary than the proposed DRM system. Right now you have things like Youtube and Netflix that not only "force" people to view content through their "proprietary" web interface, but also force users to view some or all videos through poorly written proprietary binary plugins like Flash and Silverlight.

Either that or they require entire proprietary binary apps to view content.

The proposed system is to move as much of that as possible into open web standards, and keep the proprietary plugin part to an absolute minimum, sandboxed so it can only access the stream and nothing else.

That is more open than the current system and gives users more choice over what browser they access content with.

Nice strawmen there. This new DRM plugin is just as option as Flash and Silverlight currently are, did anyone come round your house and hold a gun to your head to force you to install them? No? Well I guess you can choose to not install any DRM plugins then.