Wowza vs. Adobe Flash Streaming Server [Archive]

Dark Shikari

22nd September 2008, 21:06

How do you rip streaming Flash?The same way you rip any other streaming video; capture the stream as it comes in. It requires a bit more effort than ripping progressive download, obviously, but its easy for anyone experienced in the matter.

So if using streaming does stop people from ripping your content, what it really means is that nobody thought your content was worth ripping ;)

Personally I dislike sites that try to stop you from downloading their videos, since I like being able to download videos that I like and keep copies of them. I see no reason to try to stop people from doing that unless you have a legal obligation to do so (such as in the case of copyrighted movies/music/etc).

beyondthegrave

23rd September 2008, 15:40

Yes, this project is for showing original training material, and the authors would like it protected and not showing up on YouTube. Protection is not evil.
Why does every modern Internet user think they have the divine right to own a copy of everything they like on the Internet?

Dark Shikari

23rd September 2008, 17:37

Yes, this project is for showing original training material, and the authors would like it protected and not showing up on YouTube. Protection is not evil."Protection" from what, your own viewers? Its rather insulting to treat your customers as if they were criminals.Why does every modern Internet user think they have the divine right to own a copy of everything they like on the Internet?Why does every modern content provider think that they have a divine right to attempt to deny their customers' lawful right to fair use using the thinly veiled excuse of "stopping piracy"?

Perhaps you have forgotten which forum you are posting on; you will not get much support in your attempt to implement such "protection" schemes on a website dedicated to breaking them.

Ranguvar

23rd September 2008, 18:17

Why does every modern Internet user think they have the divine right to own a copy of everything they like on the Internet?

Why does every modern media company think they have the divine right to create culture or information, and then restrict it so that they can funnel the most capital they can from it? And then criticize the user for making you lose money, since they can now spread that bit of culture or information you have created, and can enrich others lives with it? Furthermore, they want to be pitied; the user doesn't pay them enough? Give up. Sometimes, it's just not worth it to use every trick in the book to make sure users keep on paying and paying. Accept it.

The whole thing is just business - if removing all fair use rights from your users makes them just use other means to have their rights, find a new way to do business. It's not stealing, it's fair resistance by the consumer to poor business practices.

beyondthegrave

23rd September 2008, 19:06

"Protection" from what, your own viewers? Its rather insulting to treat your customers as if they were criminals.Why does every modern content provider think that they have a divine right to attempt to deny their customers' lawful right to fair use using the thinly veiled excuse of "stopping piracy"?

Perhaps you have forgotten which forum you are posting on; you will not get much support in your attempt to implement such "protection" schemes on a website dedicated to breaking them.
Let's not confuse this with DRM.
In my case, we have training materials that people can subscribe to gain timed access to for one year. This has nothing to do with fair use.

We plan to have DRM on the downloadable videos, and a streaming server to "protect" the stream, so this stuff doesn't end up on YouTube, or at least is less likely to.

beyondthegrave

23rd September 2008, 19:12

Why does every modern media company think they have the divine right to create culture or information, and then restrict it so that they can funnel the most capital they can from it?
Why? Because the content creator should determine how their works are used and distributed, subject to the law. They work hard to provide great content, why must it be given away for free? If you expect everyone to do that, then guess what, nobody has the motivation (or money) to produce this great material that you enjoy, so you end up with much less of this great content.

Everyone has bills to pay. We're not all huge corporations sitting on billions. The small companies feel the hit a lot more, and the difference is not whether the CEO gets to buy a Bentley or has to downgrade to a BMW 5-Series, it's the difference between whether a new innovative product continues and provides a great service to its customers, or it dies because it can't turn a decent profit.

I've made my case: Content creators use their talents and skills to create something new, so they deserve to control how it is used, and to be able to reap the fruits of their labour.

Please answer this question: Why do end-users deserve to be able to download this unique content for free? What have they done to deserve it?
NOTE: We're not talking about DRM on music CD's; I'm against that too. We're talking about new unique training program where users pay for an annual subscription and have a license to use the content only during that annual term.

Shinigami-Sama

23rd September 2008, 22:45

when a restaurant looses touch with its customers it dies a slow quite death and another replaces it

yet when a content provider looses touch with its customers they to kick and scream and have special laws made to protect them
sounds really smart doesn't it?

mikeytown2

23rd September 2008, 23:51

If I was very concerned about people stealing my vids, I would make my own flash player that decrypts my encrypted flv file. If you use whats commercially out there, then someone will have made a workaround for it most likely.

Starting points
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XOR_cipher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_cipher

The main issue is you want your flv file to play with your flash player, and not anywhere else. So you put the simple decryption algorithm in flash, in your own player. Simple is key because swf isn't that fast to begin with. This will prevent most people from using the vids outside of your website... only thing is all they need to do is download the swf player and they can then play the flash file locally. To prevent that you get into authentication and odd ball stuff like WGA.

Long story short, if they can play it, in the end, they can use it however they wish. Putting up a couple of hurdles will prevent most people from downloading it; then again this hit c-net's top 10 a couple of months ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_Downloader

There is no foolproof way to do this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_download_managers#Protocol_Support

Sharktooth

24th September 2008, 01:36

LoRd_MuldeR

24th September 2008, 01:45

if it can be watched it can be copied...
there is no way out. you can implement whatever you want, but there will always be a method to copy it.
if you're scared your training videos could get copied, dont distribute them.

Very true :)

beyondthegrave, the whole idea of Internet is the free distribution of information - and that means copying. I can recommend this movie to you:
http://www.stealthisfilm.com/Part2/download.php

zambelli

24th September 2008, 04:51

Perhaps you have forgotten which forum you are posting on; you will not get much support in your attempt to implement such "protection" schemes on a website dedicated to breaking them.
I think that's a very myopic, or at the very least outdated view of Doom9. It's a particularly strange view coming from you, considering this site is the largest x264 and Avisynth community on the web.

fibbingbear

24th September 2008, 05:19

If someone scanned a copy of a textbook and put it online, would this be okay? I think most people on this forum would say no --- the person who wrote the textbook deserves money for their work and effort.

If someone bought a textbook, and it said in the front cover, "you are not allowed to re-sell this book to anyone, you only bought the rights to read this," would this be okay? I think most people on this forum would say no --- you bought the book, you have the right to do what you want with it, despite the fact that the book informed you of this before buying.

What does this mean? We have a very weird situation. When we form contracts with others, there are very few limits on what can and can't go in them. Wanting a business model where content is licensed for a short period of time is perfectly valid. Likewise, there's no reason someone couldn't sell you a license to a book that forbids you from re-selling it (perhaps they can even give you a cheaper price for it). However, it is so counterintuitive to what we're used to, it feels "wrong" at some level (whether it is actually wrong or not is another story).

Although there have been a lot of negative opinions here in this thread, they can be used to your advantage. Just realize that no matter how much protection you put it, it will always be circumvented. You can certainly put in deterrents, but realize they only go so far. If you're worried about them showing on Youtube (which is a very real possibility), you should devote some time to searching youtube daily/weekly/etc (or setup a script to do that), identify which videos are copies of yours, and contact Youtube. They are apparently pretty good about taking down copyright video when notified.

LoRd_MuldeR

24th September 2008, 05:27

zambelli

24th September 2008, 06:07

If somebody puts a video on his public web-site, he obviously wants people to see that video! So he cannot forbid those people to store the video on their own local machine to re-watch it at a later time! In fact a copy of that video will exist on your local machine anyway at the moment you watch the video. Even if the web-player doesn't download the entire video, it will buffer all parts of it consecutively on your machine! Keeping a backup copy of that data in order to save bandwidth (and to protect against server "failure") is the only logical consequence. You can't deny those facts...
Media is only stored locally when progressively downloaded from a web server. Streamed media typically doesn't get cached locally, at least not by most streaming players. RTSP, for example, is a UDP-based protocol, which means that it doesn't even guarantee receipt of the transmitted data.

I think the analogy between streamed video and a textbook is not the most appropriate. Most content owners tend to look at streamed video more like a cinema experience: you're only paying to watch the video, but the price of admission doesn't include the right to own it, copy or distribute it.

The question of fair use is often just a question of setting appropriate expectations. For example, most people who pay $10 for a movie theater admission ticket don't expect that entitles them to record the film with a camcorder and take it home. However, most people who pay $10 for a DVD expect to be able to watch that video in any format, on any medium, in any place. Why is that? Clearly it's not the money that makes the difference, so what is it that sets these different expectations?

fibbingbear

24th September 2008, 06:23

And if somebody gives a text-book to you for free and one year after that he suddenly knocks on your door and he wants to have it back, what would you say ???

I think there is a misunderstanding here. There is a difference between making something public and then trying to retract it, versus licensing it.

I agree with you that if someone gave me a book, and then (a year later) asked for it back, it'd be at my discretion (not theirs) to give it back.

However, if someone said, "I'll lend you this book, but I want it back after year," it'd be wrong of me to keep it. Likewise if someone says, "I'll lend you this book, I want it back after year, and don't make copies of it," and I agreed to those terms and then, later, made a copy, I think most people would agree I'm in the wrong (or at the very least, violated the agreement).

Zambelli, you are right that the book analogy is not 100% perfect. It is about expectations and fair use. But I have seen people apply the same technique to books. For example, Professor Hickey from Caltech was writing a book on the programming language Ocaml. He released a pre-print PDF about 3 years before the publication date, and told people they could download it on the condition that they stopped using it once the book was actually published.

Ajax_Undone

24th September 2008, 06:33

slavickas

24th September 2008, 13:38

Media is only stored locally when progressively downloaded from a web server. Streamed media typically doesn't get cached locally, at least not by most streaming players. RTSP, for example, is a UDP-based protocol, which means that it doesn't even guarantee receipt of the transmitted data.

OT: but seems you need read up what RTSP is ;)

beyondthegrave

24th September 2008, 15:46

I like my dad am a carpenter by trade... If I build a counter top for the Hilton hotel I can only charge once for its construction... Oh how I would love to get Money for every tom dick and harry that used it in that hotel but the steaming fact is I can't.. 8 hours out of my day equals about 280USD pendent on location less tax.. One dipstick puts all of 2 hours into making a music album and for ever gains from its sale... This is is piracy in its truest form.

If you want to discuss ethics here you might want to bring something better to the table and pay for a seat cause I wont allow you to sit on any one of my 105,983 chairs I have made with out paying for copy protection and user rights... This also applies to the table...

If you wanted to charge the Hilton a royalty for each person who sits on your chairs, it's within your legal rights to do so, as long as the Hilton agrees. But they'd simply find someone else who would build it under regular royalty-free agreements. Nevertheless, if you wanted to run your business in this way, it's within your rights, and more power to you.

If your chairs were ridiculously cool and ingenious so the Hilton wouldn't be able to find something comparable, they might actually agree to royalties, if it's logistically possible to keep proper count. Since it's not, they won't.

But as for online content, we offer something unique and not found anywhere else, and it's logistically possible and feasible to keep track of users, so it makes sense for our business model to use this subscription-based system. We already have 100 organizations signed up for this service last year, and have had plenty of excellent feedback. I'm sure we'll have plenty more this year.

This model works, it's our legal right to use this model, and we have the right to protect how our creative content is used.

I think Zambelli's analogy of the cinema experience is spot-on. In our case, it's a one-year cinema experience, unlimited views in the cinema but you can't bring a camcorder and take a copy home. If you don't like this arrangement, you can find an alternative. Just don't sign up and feel you have the right to sneak a camcorder in.

beyondthegrave

24th September 2008, 15:54

I believe any company should be able to license content under any crazy license agreement they want (subject to what the law allows). If they want to restrict it to watching only on Mondays between 5:00pm and 5:05pm, and Sundays at 1:00am-1:10am, and then alternating Saturdays during Leap Years, they're fine to do so. They state the license, the user chooses whether or not they like it, and either agrees, or walks away and finds an alternative.

LoRd_MuldeR

24th September 2008, 16:35

The question of fair use is often just a question of setting appropriate expectations. For example, most people who pay $10 for a movie theater admission ticket don't expect that entitles them to record the film with a camcorder and take it home. However, most people who pay $10 for a DVD expect to be able to watch that video in any format, on any medium, in any place. Why is that? Clearly it's not the money that makes the difference, so what is it that sets these different expectations?

Because going to cinema is like going to a theater or to a concert. It's a one time event and everybody knows that from the very beginning.
At the same time buying a DVD is like buying a book - a permanent media. And nobody would say that I'm not allowed to ready my book while sitting in the train.
But I'm not allowed to convert my DVD in order to watch it on my mobile player while sitting in the train??? Nonsense...

I believe any company should be able to license content under any crazy license agreement they want (subject to what the law allows). If they want to restrict it to watching only on Mondays between 5:00pm and 5:05pm, and Sundays at 1:00am-1:10am, and then alternating Saturdays during Leap Years, they're fine to do so. They state the license, the user chooses whether or not they like it, and either agrees, or walks away and finds an alternative.

And what's next? The Newspaper is released under a license that allows the "company" to revoke, reverse or change any News article (the "content") whenever they want and nobody is allowed (or able) to keep a backup copy of the original News article? You are crossing a dangerous border here. Don't you see it ???

http://bp1.blogger.com/_oRrOZC9jH_c/R15hDjyTJSI/AAAAAAAAA04/yC-DbJyORUc/s400/bigbrother.JPG

BTW: "subject to what the law allows" -- Who makes the law? Right, it's the lobbyists (and thus the "companies") who make the law :rolleyes:

kosmonaut

24th September 2008, 20:01

But as for online content, we offer something unique and not found anywhere else, and it's logistically possible and feasible to keep track of users, so it makes sense for our business model to use this subscription-based system. We already have 100 organizations signed up for this service last year, and have had plenty of excellent feedback. I'm sure we'll have plenty more this year.

This model works, it's our legal right to use this model, and we have the right to protect how our creative content is used.

Um, no. The model does not "work" if it depends on DRM to enforce it. No DRM scheme is foolproof (as many here have already shown you) and that is particularly true of Flash based systems.

You are more than welcome to try whatever you like, but if people want to, the video will "end up on YouTube" no matter what you try.

However, my guess is that even if the stuff ends up being distributed in ways you don't approve, it won't really matter. If what you offer is compelling, people will pay to support it If it is not compelling, it won't matter anyway.

RunningSkittle

24th September 2008, 20:12

Im not sure why your so concerned with your content ending up on youtube. Of course corporate secrets should be protected, but if that's not your concern what is? People receiving your material for free? There are better options to ensure that your business model thrives: Offering a superior product, better quality videos, customer support etc.

If anything getting your material on youtube promotes your business for free.

beyondthegrave

24th September 2008, 21:06

beyondthegrave

24th September 2008, 21:09

Um, no. The model does not "work" if it depends on DRM to enforce it. No DRM scheme is foolproof (as many here have already shown you) and that is particularly true of Flash based systems.

You are more than welcome to try whatever you like, but if people want to, the video will "end up on YouTube" no matter what you try.

However, my guess is that even if the stuff ends up being distributed in ways you don't approve, it won't really matter. If what you offer is compelling, people will pay to support it If it is not compelling, it won't matter anyway.
I'm fine with the fact that no protection is fool-proof. We'll deal with it and move on. I'm more bothered by the attitudes of people who are totally against the idea of protection and don't think content creators deserve the right to impose limits on their created works.

If somehow a perfect protection scheme was invented, all of these people would be crying foul, and I don't think they'd have the right to.

fibbingbear

24th September 2008, 22:34

Hey Beyondthegrave. To answer a few points you raise:

If your main concern is people not subscribing next year and downloading the videos, there is really nothing you can do about that. At best, you can put in some deterrents for non-tech-savvy people, or hope that people will honor their agreement with you and just not download them. For the few that do rip them and post them on Youtube, your only course of action is legal pressure.

If you make it clear that you're providing a rental service, then people shouldn't make copies of it. I think many people would agree with this statement. However, whether people copy it or not is really beyond your control.

Shinigami-Sama

24th September 2008, 22:38

Actually, our problem isn't so much about distribution on YouTube, it's more that existing clients will keep the videos, and not subscribe next year.

then you've offered nothing worth the extra subscription
you can only make people buy the exact same product so many times

mikeytown2

24th September 2008, 23:19

Actually, our problem isn't so much about distribution on YouTube, it's more that existing clients will keep the videos, and not subscribe next year.

Ok then this is what I would do.

Run Videos Through Darwin Streaming Server. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_streaming_media_systems
Use XOR Encryption and every week re-encrypt the flv files.
Have 2 swf files. First file downloads the player (swf) through DSS. Player has the decryption key for that week.
Player phones home to check it's encryption key is the same as the one on the server (MD5), if not then it will not play.

Pro's
Going this route means they need to use a stream ripper to get the player and video. If they manage to get both the flv file and the swf file, it will only work for a week because it phones home.

Con's
Breaking XOR is not that hard.
Spoofing your MD5 server.
Cost/Complexity.

If this doesn't work, then I suggest sending out mission impossible tapes that self destruct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission:_Impossible#Tape_scene) after viewing them. Or having your own movie theater, where you fly your clients in to watch your vid.

Ajax_Undone

25th September 2008, 07:01

we offer something unique and not found anywhere else, and it's logistically possible and feasible to keep track of users

Sniker*** sorry but I believe you said something to the effect that you didn't want them on youtube... Once Somebody gets to your website and decides he/she wants what you got and feels that some one else wants what you got... Youtube anyone! Logistics count for nothing in this world. I could realistically count how many times people sit on my chair... Using a simple pad button of some sort. The fact is I can't differentiate between some one sitting and getting off to pull the wedge out of their butt and sitting back down to another person taking a seat...

The same goes with you and you failed ploy for your videos...

To watch one of your videos you have to download bits of info to a computer and in that simple uniform transaction any computer could just be data mining those bits to a file... You can't ever be sure at any given second that your content is safe from people with other then noble things in mind...

SO the whole DRM thing is use less... Look I am Sally in this game you are George and Bill is bad... I purchase your content subscription and thoroughly enjoy it so I tell my friend Bill about it. Him being much smarter goes pays and downloads all the videos and using know or unknown hacks kills all copy protection from them...

Then with his ingenious he uploads a hash to a bit torrent tracker and off like a flash your content goes around the world...

Me being a very money wise person always looking for a good deal I find all the videos I am currently paying for on this site and decide to fallow a few simple instructions and download the content.. (not knowing that it was illegal to do so..)

Then all of the sudden I get this http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/not-for-publica.html about 2 inches away from total bankruptcy loss of job and my husband has left do to the fact he cant handle stress...

Do you see where this world of control ends for the people at the other end... (Or do you care only how much money you make in the cross hairs)

I Hate all types of DRM.. All it is, Is a way to classify all customers as potential crooks lairs and thieves... There is nothing more despicable then a recording label. I personally view them as the devil in sheep's clothing...

Now I know making money is a must to survive, but just as natural an instinct it is to provide for your own. Sharing is just as necessary of an instinct...

You want to sell stuff. make new videos with updated content every week keep it consistently updated and you will keep people coming... Don't play the rock band solo cut one record and go home rich.. Have some self respect and earn your piece the way all of use have...

HARD WORK***

smok3

25th September 2008, 10:00

well, so far i haven't see an 'internet' video i would want to steal (and i do watch a lot of tutorials), why would i have all that stuff on my hd anyway? what i'am saying is that 'content providers' do appreciate their work mucho more than it is usually worth.

beyondthegrave

25th September 2008, 17:14

then you've offered nothing worth the extra subscription
you can only make people buy the exact same product so many times
We are producing a host of new videos each year to get returning customers. The problem is the smaller budget clients then have a choice:
(1) Subscribe again and benefit from the training features and new content, or
(2) Don't get the benefits of the training system, but rip and watch the old videos and pay $0.00

beyondthegrave

25th September 2008, 17:18

Have some self respect and earn your piece the way all of use have...

HARD WORK***
How ironic. You want to gain access to everything for free. Where's the hard work in that?

Work hard, earn money, then rightfully pay for the products/services you consume, or choose cheaper/free and legal/ethical alternatives. That's how it should be. Please find the flaw in that.

beyondthegrave

25th September 2008, 17:25

Look I am Sally in this game you are George and Bill is bad... I purchase your content subscription and thoroughly enjoy it so I tell my friend Bill about it. Him being much smarter goes pays and downloads all the videos and using know or unknown hacks kills all copy protection from them...

Then with his ingenious he uploads a hash to a bit torrent tracker and off like a flash your content goes around the world...

Me being a very money wise person always looking for a good deal I find all the videos I am currently paying for on this site and decide to fallow a few simple instructions and download the content.. (not knowing that it was illegal to do so..)

Then all of the sudden I get this http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/not-for-publica.html about 2 inches away from total bankruptcy loss of job and my husband has left do to the fact he cant handle stress...

Do you see where this world of control ends for the people at the other end... (Or do you care only how much money you make in the cross hairs)
You're saying this woman is innocent? Sure she didn't commit murder, but she illegally distributed copyrighted materials.

The problem is Napster has messed up our ethics. People have gotten accustomed to being able to download copyrighted materials for free for so long and are now spoiled beyond repair. So now simply making things available on Kazaa is commonplace, while in principle it's still as wrong as it was before the Internet, it's new viewed as nothing because everyone's doing it. It's still morally wrong, and should be punished.

Did they go overboard in charging her for over $200,000, yes. Would I ever do that? No. Most companies wouldn't; it's just a desperate music industry grasping for a solution to mass piracy that is hitting them HARD. Nevertheless, illegal distribution should have its consequences. In the meantime, people need to start viewing this as morally wrong and not being surprised when, gasp, there's a consequence to illegal activity.

beyondthegrave

25th September 2008, 17:29

If mass piracy didn't exist, DRM wouldn't exist. If we were back in the old days of cassette tapes, and lower-quality duplicates that never lived up to the original, there would be no annoying DRM. DRM is a natural result of mass piracy, even if it's not the best solution. Mass piracy is the problem, DRM is a not-great solution, but DRM will go away if mass piracy goes away because profits won't be hit as hard as they are now.

I think the record industry should keep charging people, but not for insane amounts that will ruin people's lives. The punishment should fit the crime, and also be an effective deterrent to stop this illegal and immoral behavior.

CruNcher

25th September 2008, 17:34

@beyondthegrave
just think for a second where people with your Moral attitude brought us into over the centuries :) i mean look outside don't you see the crash in front of you :D (but yeah it's much easier not to think about what my actions cause then to just commit them and only think about myself)

If mass piracy didn't exist, DRM wouldn't exist. If we were back in the old days of cassette tapes, and lower-quality duplicates that never lived up to the original, there would be no annoying DRM. DRM is a natural result of mass piracy, even if it's not the best solution. Mass piracy is the problem, DRM is a not-great solution, but DRM will go away if mass piracy goes away because profits won't be hit as hard as they are now.

I think the record industry should keep charging people, but not for insane amounts that will ruin people's lives. The punishment should fit the crime, and also be an effective deterrent to stop this illegal and immoral behavior.

you really don't think about anything you say BALANCE is the most important thing in our current Capitalistic life if you crush it you crush our societies, people with your attitude starting wars or provocate revolutions.

RunningSkittle

25th September 2008, 23:39

We are producing a host of new videos each year to get returning customers. The problem is the smaller budget clients then have a choice:
(1) Subscribe again and benefit from the training features and new content, or
(2) Don't get the benefits of the training system, but rip and watch the old videos and pay $0.00

So essentially what your saying is that your business might fail in attracting returning customers? Think about that for a second.

If your content is 'new and improved' and will benefit the client enough, you should have no problems convincing your clients that choice #1 is a good one (and well worth the money to subscribe again). However if your clients are considering choice #2 then maybe your new and improved content wasnt really all that 'new and improved' after all.

zambelli

26th September 2008, 01:24

Because going to cinema is like going to a theater or to a concert.
Actually, no, it's nothing like going to a theater or concert. A theater or concert performance is a UNIQUE live event. Even if a band plays exactly the same setlist every night, their performance is still different every night. That is what you're paying for, in fact!

A movie, on the other hand, is identical every night, every show, every theater. The only variable is the technical quality of the projection and sound reproduction. But the content is identical, and will likely remain the same even when released on DVD or BluRay. Only the technical quality changes.

At the same time buying a DVD is like buying a book - a permanent media. And nobody would say that I'm not allowed to ready my book while sitting in the train.
But I'm not allowed to convert my DVD in order to watch it on my mobile player while sitting in the train??? Nonsense...
You're allowed to watch your DVD on a train too. Most laptops have DVD drives, you know. ;)

I'm not an advocate of copy protection that prohibits transcoding, so in my opinion, yes, you should also be able to transcode your DVD to a different technical format for viewing on a different device because you're still only just viewing the content. But I don't think simply paying $10 for a DVD gives you unrestricted rights to do whatever you want with it.

If you want to go with the book analogy, let's try this:
Does buying a book give you the right to re-type it and publish it online?

zambelli

26th September 2008, 01:29

I Hate all types of DRM.. All it is, Is a way to classify all customers as potential crooks lairs and thieves...
That's not the technology's fault, but the fault of those who use it.

Do you also hate PGP? That's a type of digital rights management too. By encrypting an e-mail or document with PGP you're effectively controlling who gets to see your content and when.

LoRd_MuldeR

26th September 2008, 01:48

You're allowed to watch your DVD on a train too. Most laptops have DVD drives, you know. ;)

I want to watch my DVD (or whatever media I bought) the way I want to watch it, not the way the "company" wants me to watch it. If I want to use my mobile player for that purpose (maybe not everybody has a laptop, did you think about that ???), then it's my legitimate right to do that. Bamm!

If you want to go with the book analogy, let's try this:
Does buying a book give you the right to re-type it and publish it online?

You reversed my words! Why do you insinuate piracy all the time? Re-typing the book and publishing it (wherever) would be breaking copy-right. We can even argue about copy-right, but that was never the topic here! The correct analogy would be: Re-type the book in order to read it from my PDA in the train for my own personal usage, so I don't need to carry the book around. And that's legitimate and will remain legitimate, independent from the type of media. DRM tries to take away that right from me. And that definitely sucks...

And you still ignore the most dangerous point:
The "company" (or regime) is able to revoke or alter information after making them public. And nobody is able to keep a backup copy of the original information !!!

As short a time ago as February, the Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise (a 'categorical pledge' were the official words) that there would be no reduction of the chocolate ration during 1984. Actually, as Winston was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grammes to twenty at the end of the present week. All that was needed was to substitute for the original promise a warning that it would probably be necessary to reduce the ration at some time in April.

fibbingbear

26th September 2008, 02:11

Mulder, I agree with you --- even though people may not be legally allowed to make any copies of any copyright material, doing so for personal use is perfectly acceptable --- and it's ridiculous that the user should be expected to "buy another copy" if something happens to the original, especially if making a backup is easy! Or to have to buy it another form, to have it on a different media (I find it crazy how you can buy an mp3 for $1, but the same ringtone for a cell phone can be $3... I'm just glad I can upload mp3s to my phone :)

However, I think the point is being missed. Wouldn't you agree that if you had a Netflix (or other rental) subscription, that doesn't give you the right to make backups of all DVDs sent to you? You are explicitly paying a cheaper price and explicitly not the owner of the video at the end of the day.

I think that's the argument of Beyondthegrave. He's trying to offer a rental service here.

LoRd_MuldeR

26th September 2008, 02:19

Certain people will always abuse services, like that "rental" service. So what? Taking away legitimate rights form faithful users makes it any better?

No. The opposite will happen! The faithful users will be pissed and they will search for ways to circumvent the limitations that were forced on them. We all know where this leads...

With the same logic you could shoot all people that wear a beard, just because some freaky terrorist wore a beard :rolleyes:

zambelli

26th September 2008, 02:37

I want to watch my DVD (or whatever media I bought) the way I want to watch it, not the way the "company" wants me to watch it. If I want to use my mobile player for that purpose (maybe not everybody has a laptop, did you think about that ???), then it's my legitimate right to do that. Bamm!
My question was tongue-in-cheek and you clearly missed the next sentence that followed:
"I'm not an advocate of copy protection that prohibits transcoding, so in my opinion, yes, you should also be able to transcode your DVD to a different technical format for viewing on a different device because you're still only just viewing the content."

LoRd_MuldeR

26th September 2008, 02:41

My question was tongue-in-cheek and you clearly missed the next sentence that followed:
"I'm not an advocate of copy protection that prohibits transcoding, so in my opinion, yes, you should also be able to transcode your DVD to a different technical format for viewing on a different device because you're still only just viewing the content."

touché.

smok3

26th September 2008, 09:06

back to topic:
streaming is usefull simply as a 'jump to any point in time' mechanizem, and this is the real value over progressive download.

p.s. yes, the animal farm is a good book, i have to remember to read it at least every few years (no, i'am not gonna work more, i'am not a horse)

beyondthegrave

26th September 2008, 19:03

Certain people will always abuse services, like that "rental" service. So what? Taking away legitimate rights form faithful users makes it any better?
In the case of streaming media, this does not apply. It's not generally assumed and expected that simply being allowed to watch streaming media in a browser should also come with the right to hold your own copy on your hard drive to view offline. So legitimate users won't expect that, whereas legitimate users buying music CDs would reasonably expect to be able to transfer it to an MP3 player.

So trying to protect the stream is not imposing limitations against the user's fair use, while DRM on music CDs is.

Ajax_Undone

27th September 2008, 05:31

:devil:How ironic. You want to gain access to everything for free. Where's the hard work in that?

Work hard, earn money, then rightfully pay for the products/services you consume, or choose cheaper/free and legal/ethical alternatives. That's how it should be. Please find the flaw in that.

learning how:devil:

Wow sounds like I stuck a cord... I do work hard! I bust my butt day in and day out building stuff for people who believe that they need the best of the best... Don't treat us like criminals with the DRM and we will be less likely to fallow the stereotype...

Basic psychology 101 (One I am majoring in at the local university) "You will fit in to the environment in which you are bread... A child that is raised in a home of perceived villains will become one eventually. A child raised in a home of perceived heroes will become hero. Ergo the way you act is derived from the way you treated...

Besides that all DRM does is spend a load of your money with piss poor results. The only people it truly harms is the paying consumer and not the people who already know how to get it illegitimately...

mikeytown2

27th September 2008, 07:01

Interesting Read
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/27/0038259

To boost download speeds, Adobe dropped a stringent security feature that protects the connection between the Adobe software and its players.

LoRd_MuldeR

27th September 2008, 10:59

So trying to protect the stream is not imposing limitations against the user's fair use, while DRM on music CDs is.

I think I already made my position pretty clear. No need to further comment on this :rolleyes:

Ajax_Undone

28th September 2008, 04:23

I think I already made my position pretty clear. No need to further comment on this :rolleyes:

I agree Nuff said!!!:rolleyes:

Ajax_Undone

28th September 2008, 08:13

That's not the technology's fault, but the fault of those who use it.

Do you also hate PGP? That's a type of digital rights management too. By encrypting an e-mail or document with PGP you're effectively controlling who gets to see your content and when.

Just one question! You wouldn't go out side with out your clothes would you?? (:thanks: Me hopping your a good looking if you would)

Ajax_Undone

28th September 2008, 08:28

You're saying this woman is innocent? Sure she didn't commit murder, but she illegally distributed copyrighted materials.

The problem is Napster has messed up our ethics. People have gotten accustomed to being able to download copyrighted materials for free for so long and are now spoiled beyond repair. So now simply making things available on Kazaa is commonplace, while in principle it's still as wrong as it was before the Internet, it's new viewed as nothing because everyone's doing it. It's still morally wrong, and should be punished.

Did they go overboard in charging her for over $200,000, yes. Would I ever do that? No. Most companies wouldn't; it's just a desperate music industry grasping for a solution to mass piracy that is hitting them HARD. Nevertheless, illegal distribution should have its consequences. In the meantime, people need to start viewing this as morally wrong and not being surprised when, gasp, there's a consequence to illegal activity.

I just had to add this as a point of interest!!! Before the internet people made mix tapes before that people learned how to play instruments and put on plays before that people sung songs that other people made up before that people through rocks at each other...

The point is capitalist pigs are the resin the ethics are shot not napster...

Ask you grand mother if she had to pay for the right to use the lyrics of yankie doodle or B.I.N.G.O or Ashes...

Yes the woman broke the law but she did not know it existed...

Every day of your life I want you to make sure you are 100% ethical on every level...

Maybe you will speed one day (and get away with it){OH NO}

Maybe you will be talking to somebody inside a market and put a pack of gum you were carring into to your pocket and for get to pay for it... {some body better bring the tanks out we have a big time felon}

Don't try to play the saint card no one is innocent everybody slips up one time or another... It is BS to think otherwise...:p

Atak_Snajpera

28th September 2008, 12:25

How do you rip streaming Flash?
I use DownloadHelper plugin for FireFox. :) :) :) Peace of cake !

Wilbert

28th September 2008, 14:13

In the case of streaming media, this does not apply. It's not generally assumed and expected that simply being allowed to watch streaming media in a browser should also come with the right to hold your own copy on your hard drive to view offline. So legitimate users won't expect that, whereas legitimate users buying music CDs would reasonably expect to be able to transfer it to an MP3 player.

So trying to protect the stream is not imposing limitations against the user's fair use
This is a very faulty argumentation. Do you have any evidence what legitimate users expect or don't expect with respect to streaming media?

It's as faulty as your other statement:
The problem is Napster has messed up our ethics. People have gotten accustomed to being able to download copyrighted materials for free for so long and are now spoiled beyond repair. So now simply making things available on Kazaa is commonplace, while in principle it's still as wrong as it was before the Internet, it's new viewed as nothing because everyone's doing it. It's still morally wrong, and should be punished.

You are deciding here what is morally right and wrong for all of us. Surely people have different ethics, and you can't force your own ethics to the rest of us.

beyondthegrave

29th September 2008, 15:18

You are deciding here what is morally right and wrong for all of us. Surely people have different ethics, and you can't force your own ethics to the rest of us.
Okay. I'll stop preaching that random acts of murder are wrong. I wouldn't want to impose any absolutes or anything.

Please raise your hand if you believe it's neither unethical nor immoral to distribute copyrighted materials (which people have worked hard to produce) to other people, simply because they don't want to pay for it, and it's not a life-or-death situation where a terrorist is pointing a gun to your head to do it.

Please explain your case.

Wilbert

29th September 2008, 23:42

Okay. I'll stop preaching that random acts of murder are wrong. I wouldn't want to impose any absolutes or anything.
We are not talking about murder here.

Please raise your hand if you believe it's neither unethical nor immoral to distribute copyrighted materials (which people have worked hard to produce) to other people, simply because they don't want to pay for it, and it's not a life-or-death situation where a terrorist is pointing a gun to your head to do it.
I've raised my hand, as I don't see why it's immoral. Of course when i try to make money out of it, it becomes a different story. Till recently it was even allowed here in the Netherlands.

But my opinion above doesn't change the fact that something being moral or immoral is entirely subjective.

beyondthegrave

30th September 2008, 15:15

I've raised my hand, as I don't see why it's immoral. Of course when i try to make money out of it, it becomes a different story. Till recently it was even allowed here in the Netherlands.
It's immoral because you're gaining access to, and benefiting from, someone's private works who didn't grant you access. When they make it available for sale, you're not allowed the freedom to acquire it without paying. The creator should have control over his works, and doesn't authorize its distribution in the form of piracy. Doesn't a content creator have rights?

The old excuse of "oh, well I'm not selling it and making money from it!" is tired and weak. It's just like saying that you smoke weed, but "at least I'm not a dealer!". Unauthorized use isn't as bad as selling it, nevertheless it's still unethical, just to a less severe degree.

If it's not wrong for you to do, then it's not wrong for 100% of people to do, and when 100% of people acquire the content without paying, you end up with very few people creating content as a means of making a living, and thus you get much less, and lower quality as well.

It's a societally destructive practice and it's taking its toll.

beyondthegrave

30th September 2008, 15:16

On the flipside, if you were a content creator of some kind, would you be okay with people pirating your content? Especially if it's what pays your bills?

CruNcher

30th September 2008, 15:55

beyondthegrave

30th September 2008, 22:00

Sorry but you're case wasn't about Pirating @ all your main concern was that the user wouldn't come back @ your product because he already was in possession of a older version of it that still makes him happy and you try to make him unhappy so he is forced to get the new version that is highly manipulative my friend only trying to gain profits easily without providing any value on your site.
Actually you trying to undermine the users free will here and take away his decision if its good for him or not to get a new version from you
Actually that's not quite the case. We clearly stated that usage of the video is licensed only to be used during that time frame, so they are no longer legally allowed to view the materials even if they download a copy. Users are well aware of that. They know that if they continue to use it, they're using it illegally, and if we chose to we could prosecute them.

It differs from your Windows XP example because the user is allowed to use XP as long as they live, once they have a legit license. So Microsoft doesn't have the legal/moral right to force users to switch to Vista. But in our case, users DON'T have the legal right to continue usage of our videos. So while Microsoft must convince its users to switch, we don't have to. The user's option is to discontinue use, or subscribe for the new year.

Everyone keeps pointing and simply saying "just provide more value, and people will continue paying instead of pirating". While that is good advice (and we are enhancing it each year to add more value), that will get the majority to sign on again, there will still be some who, due to budget cuts or whatnot, cannot afford to continue, or would simply be satisfied with our existing materials for free, instead of a new, better package to pay for.

I don't see why people keep defending piracy. Piracy is unethical, and there's no rational defense for it. Nobody has even attempted to answer my question:

Why do users deserve the right to get access to restricted copyrighted materials without paying for it?

Ajax_Undone

1st October 2008, 05:06

Yankee doodle went to town riding on a pony stuck a feather in his hat and called it macaroni... Yankee doodle keep it up Yankee doodle dandie Yankee doodle keep it up and let the girls be handy...

Point made bro. I pay you money for your product. That money still exist long after I pay you if you decide to spend it that's your problem... I should be able to keep what I pay Money for. Rationalization is masturbation so stop doing it...

Why don't I pay Adobe for their 30 day trial of Photo Shop pro...

Shinigami-Sama

1st October 2008, 06:15

I don't see why people keep defending piracy. Piracy is unethical, and there's no rational defense for it. Nobody has even attempted to answer my question:

its just like gay marriage: there is no 'right' answer only people's opinions, when enough people get fed up with copyright it will be taken down just the way the its happening with the churchs right now
kicking and screaming and crying like little girls...

Inventive Software

1st October 2008, 11:33

Why don't I pay Adobe for their 30 day trial of Photo Shop pro...

It is a trial version for a commercial product, and not quite in the same context as the content being discussed here.

beyondthegrave

1st October 2008, 15:15

Point made bro. I pay you money for your product. That money still exist long after I pay you if you decide to spend it that's your problem... I should be able to keep what I pay Money for.
If you accept the example of the movie rental, then your point breaks down. You rent a movie, you get to use it for however many days, and then you must return it and not retain a copy, yet the rental store keeps your money forever. Are rental stores crooks for taking the video back?

grumpy

1st October 2008, 21:17

If you accept the example of the movie rental, then your point breaks down. You rent a movie, you get to use it for however many days, and then you must return it and not retain a copy, yet the rental store keeps your money forever. Are rental stores crooks for taking the video back?

I think the thing is that he doesn't seem to accept the rental model, even if the official stance of the board puts assisting in breaking restrictions specifically on rental agreements out of bounds. There is a wide rang of rationalization. I personally believe if you call it rental than you can put any crazy protection scheme or restrictions you want(short of loading permanently running non removable protection software), that's your right, but if you call it a sale then I own it and will do whatever I please with it for my personal use no matter what way the legal winds may be blowing this week. Putting restrictions on something I own(not rent), treating me as a thief from the beginning, is my rationalized threshold for teaching myself about copy protection circumvention.

When you put restrictions that seem unreasonable, and knowing what is unreasonable can be hard because everyone's execution of reason is a little different, some will use unreasonable restriction to rationalize the rejection of any restriction outright(the few that are arguing with you here especially so). It is a lot easier for people to believe things that work the way they think they should no matter what reasons you give that they don't. It is really a matter of knowing your customers acceptance threshold. No amount of rational talk will make the non rational(to you) become rational. Everyone draws their own ethical line in the sand on this,at least here they seem to. This is a board that generally seems to try to stay a technical forum only, there is no philosophy section on this board.

As far as I can tell from what you've said your restrictions should be acceptable to your particular customers so I don't know why you would have to much of a problem, although if this training is time sensitive or if it doesn't include sensitive info (secret stuff that can not get out) you may want to consider less restriction rather than more because that would give more value, ie not locking it down would allow them to use your videos anywhere, where a lot of protection would limit there use lowering the value to them without giving absolute protection(any protection is breakable enough if they really want to break it badly enough, regardless of technical ability. If video quality isn't an issue anyone can point a camera at a monitor) and you risk possibly passing past your users threshold of acceptance of your set of limitations of which communities like this are born. ultimately you have to do what you think you must, regardless of what the people not dependent on making money on this kind of stuff may say.

By the way, to get kinda on topic, did you decide on Wowza or flash or something else? What was your determining factors for your choice? What is your experience with the program? This is first and foremost a technical board that caters to a large variety of subjects within the digital video umbrella. Your threads seem to have become a target for hijacking for people who want to vent. Don't let it get to you, and if you want results try not to feed the trolls:). There are people here, some of them really smart(not me but I like trying to follow along), who would be more than happy to help you if they can, especially if it means increasing their own knowledge in the process.

beyondthegrave

1st October 2008, 21:31

I think the thing is that he doesn't seem to accept the rental model, even if the official stance of the board puts assisting in breaking restrictions specifically on rental agreements out of bounds. There is a wide rang of rationalization. I personally believe if you call it rental than you can put any crazy protection scheme or restrictions you want(short of loading permanently running non removable protection software), that's your right, but if you call it a sale then I own it and will do whatever I please with it for my personal use no matter what way the legal winds may be blowing this week. Putting restrictions on something I own(not rent), treating me as a thief from the beginning, is my rationalized threshold for teaching myself about copy protection circumvention.

When you put restrictions that seem unreasonable, and knowing what is unreasonable can be hard because everyone's execution of reason is a little different, some will use unreasonable restriction to rationalize the rejection of any restriction outright(the few that are arguing with you here especially so). It is a lot easier for people to believe things that work the way they think they should no matter what reasons you give that they don't. It is really a matter of knowing your customers acceptance threshold. No amount of rational talk will make the non rational(to you) become rational. Everyone draws their own ethical line in the sand on this,at least here they seem to. This is a board that generally seems to try to stay a technical forum only, there is no philosophy section on this board.

As far as I can tell from what you've said your restrictions should be acceptable to your particular customers so I don't know why you would have to much of a problem, although if this training is time sensitive or if it doesn't include sensitive info (secret stuff that can not get out) you may want to consider less restriction rather than more because that would give more value, ie not locking it down would allow them to use your videos anywhere, where a lot of protection would limit there use lowering the value to them without giving absolute protection(any protection is breakable enough if they really want to break it badly enough, regardless of technical ability. If video quality isn't an issue anyone can point a camera at a monitor) and you risk possibly passing past your users threshold of acceptance of your set of limitations of which communities like this are born. ultimately you have to do what you think you must, regardless of what the people not dependent on making money on this kind of stuff may say.

By the way, to get kinda on topic, did you decide on Wowza or flash or something else? What was your determining factors for your choice? What is your experience with the program? This is first and foremost a technical board that caters to a large variety of subjects within the digital video umbrella. Your threads seem to have become a target for hijacking for people who want to vent. Don't let it get to you, and if you want results try not to feed the trolls:). There are people here, some of them really smart(not me but I like trying to follow along), who would be more than happy to help you if they can, especially if it means increasing their own knowledge in the process.
A very sensible post.
I ended up going with Wowza because it had a wider feature set at the same cost ($995 USD) instead of Adobe Flash Server. Wowza seems to have a great reputation so I see no need to jump onto the big brand name in Adobe to feel safe.

Thanks.

mikeytown2

3rd November 2008, 11:23

heads up... Sliverlight is being used for Netflix (they like MS DRM), maybe it can be used for your content.
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/03/0241254

twolfe18

3rd November 2008, 19:37

i think most of you guys are arguing based on a flawed idea: that the rules of paying for content are based on morality. it doesnt matter if pirating movies is illegal, i can do it and that is all that matters.

the people who create media have to realize this and give up on any pathetic hopes of creating a DRM systems that works because it will never happen. from there, they need to decide what they want to create in light of the fact that they will not be able to make money on any of the sales after the first copy.

once you accept this, you can focus on creating media/software/anything that can be digitally distributed that is beneficial to everyone, which is what we all want. i don't want to sound like an idealist here, but the digital era has redefined the rules and people need to begin to accept this.

talking about media as a service is a whole other topic, but if you want to argue about media being a service, it actually has to be a service. for example, a movie i see in theaters is not a service. it was not made for me and its utility to me is the same as its utility to someone else (with similar tastes in movies of course). and i can copy it just like the people who own the movie copy it. for a media to be a service it has to be made for someone specifically and it must have unique value to them, otherwise it is just a regular good.