Wowza vs. Adobe Flash Streaming Server

[mikeytown2]

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]

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]

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

I agree Nuff said!!!:rolleyes:

[Ajax_Undone]

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]

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]

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

[Wilbert]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, sure in certain areas this is useful when it has to do with security or life threatening situations but even then you should make the individual aware of that and only if his actions threatens other individuals life's you should take actions, that is not the case in your situation @ all you made your profit so if you cant provide anything to him that's worth it then leave him alone with his decision and don't try to force anything from him only for your own good.

See Microsoft Vista as the best example for a strategy to change the users mind to update, they don't shutoff every XP installation in the world and force users to upgrade they use Marketing and "Improvements" to do so though everyone has the choice to update or not. :)

[beyondthegrave]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Ajax_Undone]

heads up... Sliverlight is being used for Netflix (they like MS DRM)

Well thats just about the size of it... Figures.:rolleyes: