Quicktime Alternative problem

[iron2000]

Quicktime Alternative does not play the embedded movie here:
http://www.tv-asahi.co.jp/trick1/mov_title_h.html
but it plays the embedded movie here:
http://www.mitsubishicars.com/mitsubishistreet/performance/religion_qt_high.html


If you do a view source, the one that cannot be played is inserted using the embed tag while the one that plays is inseryed using the PARAM tag.

So Quicktime Alternative doesn't play those in embed tags?

[Sirber]

6) No warez, cracks, serials or illegally obtained copyrighted content! Links to content of a questionable nature, asking for, offering, or asking for help/helping to process such content in any way or form is not tolerated.
Install Quicktime.

[Sharktooth]

Quicktime Alternative is a perfectly "legal" software.

[Sirber]

Illegal copyrighted codecs distribution, I don't call that "legal" :)

[Sharktooth]

It's as "illegal" as the original QT is...
however:

Originally posted by iron2000
Quicktime Alternative does not play the embedded movie here:
http://www.tv-asahi.co.jp/trick1/mov_title_h.html
but it plays the embedded movie here:
http://www.mitsubishicars.com/mitsubishistreet/performance/religion_qt_high.html


If you do a view source, the one that cannot be played is inserted using the embed tag while the one that plays is inseryed using the PARAM tag.

So Quicktime Alternative doesn't play those in embed tags?
Mine works without problems. Try updating it with a newer version.

[Sirber]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
It's as "illegal" as the original QT is...
How? Codecs are own by Apple and distributed by Apple. How can they be "illegal"? Quicktime Alternative is not distributed by Apple, so they are illegal.

[Paulcat]

You know, if Quicktime would actually uninstall properly instead of leaving crap all over my system, I'd consider the original. As it stands, half of it remains behind, so I'd rather use an 'alternative'.

Besides...quicktime is free, it's not as if Apple is losing any money...

[Sirber]

I know, but doesn't make it legal.

[Elias]

Originally posted by Sirber
I know, but doesn't make it legal. Source? Link?

[Bathrone]

Sirber is correct. Apple is the IP owner, and patent holder. You cant steal other peoples property and redistribute it into another app.

Its the same with Real Alternative. The same with other media players that have reverse engineered copyrighted works and then seen fit to distribute them via third parties.

As well, much of the technology is licenced under various patent pools for which these alternatives have no licence.

Because you dont want to believe it, dont be so ignorant to think it doesnt exist.

I hate real media's player and all the hogging and nags it does. Same with quicktime. I want simple, clean directshow type filters I can play through my one chosen media player. Business doesnt see it that way and they have the legal muscle........not you.

[bond]

quicktime alternative = quicktime + directshow wrapper for quicktime codecs

nothing really fancy...

[Soulhunter]

I hate real media's player and all the hogging and nags it does. Same with quicktime. I want simple, clean directshow type filters I can play through my one chosen media player...
Amen!


Bye

[videomixer9]

You must understand that apple wants to show Windows users how much better their own OS is by spreading the worlds slowest media player around, all they do though is make people buy faster PCs rather than Macs ... btw. I hate people that run around and play the rule enforcer, imagine a world where everyone plays police ...

[Bathrone]

Thats interesting VM9, such a liberal attitude when I recall most recently you were off spreading hate about intel users enforcing your opinion the world should be AMD only and that intel users were idiots.....I suspect its far more likely that anarchy suits you when it advanatges you, and not when it doesnt.

No I dont like the situation with software patents and software licencing, but the reality is that it is there.

It is against the law to go and supply copyrighted codecs owned by other parties and distribute them into other applications without licence, and to use copyrighted works in other fashions such as offering alternatives to quicktime and real media. It is also against the law to not withold licences for these elements from the patent pools that withold the rights to use.

Sirber was right to quote the Doom9 rules.

Fine people will do it anyway, but atleast dont pretend to be innocent in these cases.

[GodofaGap]

Mind you that this has nothing to do with software patents. It is a simple copyright violation to redistribute software without consent of the copyright holder.

It would be better if the quicktime format was boycotted altogether though. :p

[AVIL]

Hi all,

I'm not a lawyer. I know that quicktime is a registered trademark and protected by laws. But, at first is only a container not a codec. After demux mov files the result is (in my case) mp4 video and muLaw audio. I know at least four methods to view/process mov files appart from quicktime (official or alternative) codecs.

But i suspect that Apple isn't worried about the method to decompress his files. I suspect that his main interest is spread gadgets that compress in mov container (i.e. kodak photo cameras). With easy decompressing, customers buy mov-related machines easily.

I don't feel that using alternative methodes to official (and free) method harms to Apple. With my photo-camera, I have paid his royalties. No new revenues Apple have lost.

Then it explains that Apple don't prosecute Quicktime alternative authors and, if Apple dont prosecute him, I think the rest of the world don't must do also.

But in this type of cases, discretion is a value also. Frequent or innecesary public discussions must be avoided by mods and re-directed to private ones. But productive ones must be allowed.

And another important value : politeness. All ideas are respectables, but must respect the other's ones.

[GodofaGap]

I don't feel that using alternative methodes to official (and free) method harms to Apple. With my photo-camera, I have paid his royalties. No new revenues Apple have lost..
Not directly, but if you look at the Quicktime download page you will see it is one big advertisement for iTunes, movies and other things.

I don't think Apple will be too pleased with a lot of people not visiting their page.

[SeeMoreDigital]

As far as I'm aware, QuickTime Alternative uses a Cyberlink filter to decode Sorenson SVQ1 and SVQ3 video with QDM2 audio..... So I very much doubt they have permission to distribute it.

By the way, FFdshow's filters are much improved at decoding most of the A/V stream variants that can be found in QuickTime's .MOV container ;)

[bill_baroud]

Yes that's true, just wanted to watch a 864x468 h264 mov file yesterday, and i couldn't with quicktime, could without sound with ffdshow and could with aac audio and CoreAVC :D

and afaik, when you install quicktime alternative, you got a free Quicktime Pro key (or at least i got one once)... Not sure if Apple is really happy about that.

[SeeMoreDigital]

At the end of the day I can't see why simply installing QuickTime basic presents such a problem to some people!

Especially when you can use it in conjunction with MediaPlayer Classic to watch any of the possible A/V stream variants that can be found in QuickTime's .MOV container... at full screen!

[foxyshadis]

Because quicktime installs a crapload of system hooks that take a fair bit of effort to wipe out and leave just the decoders. One solution is to install, copy over the dlls, and uninstall, but even that screws up some associations.

(Personal pet peeve: I have a client who uses itunes and uses special viewer/printer software for tiffs in IE. Everytime itunes starts, it reassociates tiff with the useless quicktime plugin. I'm considering finding the registry hook and disallowing modification.)

[videomixer9]

Very easy, just don't work as admin all the time!

[SeeMoreDigital]

Because quicktime installs a crapload of system hooks that take a fair bit of effort to wipe out and leave just the decoders. One solution is to install, copy over the dlls, and uninstall, but even that screws up some associations.

(Personal pet peeve: I have a client who uses itunes and uses special viewer/printer software for tiffs in IE. Everytime itunes starts, it reassociates tiff with the useless quicktime plugin. I'm considering finding the registry hook and disallowing modification.)Well my personal philosophy when installing any application is to de-select any/all "associations"... And then selecting them manually.... QuickTime player is no exception!

So I can honestly say my QuickTime7 installation does not get in the way of anything else ;)

But, if you want to know which "associations" I currently have selected, look here: -

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/9195/qtassociations7am.png


Cheers

[foxyshadis]

It's associated with nothing but aac and mp3 on his machine, but it reassociates others at random, and doesn't show them on that screen. Running as non-admin would probably fix it, if I could get all the crap specialized software on his computer to co-operate. (Some of which require full permissions on system folders to run at all.) Anyway, way off topic, sorry.

[videomixer9]

Any software that requires full permissions on system folders must be utter crap and should be removed or replaced. There is nothing that would need this for any real purpose. I'd claim this as the typical stupid excuse everyone gives. Visual Studio, Cubase, Reason, Audition, Photoshop, 3dsmax, Autocad, Office, all common browsers, mail clients, torrent clients, media players, mathlab, tex, mathematica, maple, svn, apache all don't require such rights, that's pretty much used apps and whatever specialized software may be, it's probably nothing that cannot be replaced with something better if it doesn't work without admin rights. Even defragmentation tools can nowadays be controlled in regular usermode, Nero e.g. comes with burnrights that can allow burning via group management or others. People should stop being so lazy, besides most virii and spyware doesn't work automatically via this, can save you lot of performance wasted on useless antivirus and anti spyware tools.

Other than that registry also knows permissions, you can anytime disallow writing to certain values in HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT. Of course stupid apps should just stop with this association war.

[Sharktooth]

Hey, don't forget you're talking about CrapTime(tm)...

[Henrikx]

Quicktime/Real Alternative
Legal or illegally,we have the same discussion.
I ask the firms Real and Apple.(Probably in bad English)
http://forum.gleitz.info/showpost.php?p=315535&postcount=18
If an answer will come,then I write it here..

[Pookie]

Henrikx - Maybe an ugly solution, but download the .reg files that you need and apply them during every Windows startup.

http://www.dougknox.com/xp/file_assoc.htm


Regedit /s regfile.reg

[pandy]

My 2 cents - seems that Apple don't think that QT Alt is illegal. at this moment Apple "official" instaler do the same mess with Windows as RealPlayer - so many people avoid to use them due stability problem - i believe that Microsoft, Apple, Real should cooperate and improve this. QT Alt is typical reaction for poorly designed concept of instalation - claims that QT Alt or Real Alt steal something are untrue...

[Henrikx]

@pandy
Because we wanted a clarification in German Forum, I wrote in the name of Forum Gleitz (german doom9) to..
1.Apple - No confirmation of my mail, no answer.
2.Real - Confirmation of my mail,No one felt responsibly, each answer referred me to another Emailaddress, I wrote to all, no answer.
3.I wrote to the German Cumputer magazine CT (http://www.heise.de/ct/) , They answered - they will research !!
We will see....I will publish the answer here

[pandy]

@Henrikx simply i doubt (due this that i know how work a big companies such a Apple or similar) that somebody will give You answer other than "No, these distro are illegal" - but i doubt also that claiming that Alternative distribution is illegal, is valid from law point of view... If someone think that You are a thief then they should go to the court and should proof that You are thief.

[Henrikx]

@pandy
A firm says the product xyz is illegal !
I ask: Where that stands written ?
Counts the statements of the firm worldwide,or only in America or Europe or Asia?
I want to hear facts of the firm !
Example : Faktem that agree with the German jurisdiction
They can give no answer that binding, then they should be quiet , all other only hot air.

Current example : iTunes is now illegal in some parts of Europe ?
That is also current contracts are illegal in some parts of Europe ? The people must accustom themselves to ask precise to demand and an one-to-one answer that with the legal position agrees.
The firm offers its product in Germany,it is to be cleared the task of the legal department of all question binding previously.
What they want or wish is perfectly equal,only facts are relevant!