Wowza vs. Adobe Flash Streaming Server

[beyondthegrave]

I need to stream FLV video, and I just need a basic solution. My website already handles all of the authentication, etc, so I simply need a FLV server to stream the video so people can't rip the video. And I need more than 10 simultaneous connections.

Both are priced at $995 USD for a single server license.

Which is easier to use, Wowza or Adobe Flash Streaming Server?
I've already tried Wowza and it's pretty easy to set up. Has anyone tried Adobe's Flash Server?


Thanks for any help you can offer.

[Ranguvar]

How about this?

http://osflash.org/red5

[Dark Shikari]

I need to stream FLV video, and I just need a basic solution. My website already handles all of the authentication, etc, so I simply need a FLV server to stream the video so people can't rip the video.Ripping streaming flash video is trivial; you cannot stop people from doing so; the most you can do is force them to put forward a small amount of effort.

[beyondthegrave]

How do you rip streaming Flash?

[beyondthegrave]

I've looked into Red5 but there seems to be so little good documentation on it that I don't know where to begin. Wowza on the other hand was easy, I had it running in a few hours. Red5 sounds like it requires a solid amount of development just to get simple Flash streaming.

[Dark Shikari]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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 ???

We are not talking about distributing stuff you don't have the copyright for. We talk about the right to use the stuff that you bought (or that was given to you for free) - whenever you like and as long as you like!

If the author gets the right and the power to revoke information after making them public, then welcome to 1984 !!! :scared:

[zambelli]

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]

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]

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...

Really put DRM and Copy Protection in a whole new light...

By the way I will use the money I gain from the copy right fund to illegally search you home to make sure you didn't use my design (you know the whole four legs and table top and everything therein that makes up the table and the chairs of course)... By the time I am done you will think you were in China...

[slavickas]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[beyondthegrave]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

: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...