PDA

View Full Version : Hulu titles slowly becomoing unrecordable, just me?



flvrec0r3r
02-05-2009, 07:55 AM
Is it just me, or is Hulu slowly making recording undoable. Most new movies can't be recorded.
No Comedy Central recording of any type today. CC worked OK last night.
Life today only VP6, no more AVC H.264, i.e., no more Hi-Def Life.

I know the reason why RMC may not work. Just wanting to verify if this behavior is seen by others.

micromedia
02-05-2009, 10:20 AM
you are not mistaken.
Try crackle.com that is if you haven't already. Its like Hulu:)

Wolfeman0101
02-05-2009, 06:34 PM
you are not mistaken.
Try crackle.com that is if you haven't already. Its like Hulu:)
How is that site anything like Hulu expect for the fact they play videos?

Any idea if or when this will get fixed for CC on Hulu?

HomeVideoGuy
02-06-2009, 07:59 AM
No. It is not just you. That's why I was checking here. Things were normal 2/4/09. 2/5/09 I could not record the 480p streams. It is now having trouble recording anything.

For me, it is acting like a site would before we got a patch. It sees the stream and tries to record but fails. They are obviously changing things.

It sure did not take long. I understand the reason why, so ... I guess it's over. :(

Johnzo
02-06-2009, 09:57 PM
Did your plugin_zrtmp.dll get updated? The new one won't allow recording secure flash streams.

tiredofspam
02-06-2009, 10:20 PM
Can't believe that EVERY site updated Adobe's crap at virtually the same time...what gives? I went on vacation and when I returned NOTHING (except 360p Hulu) will capture.

Applian - you said that you weren't going to touch EXISTING installations. Why did this stop working EVERYWHERE at the SAME TIME? Logically, this situation implies that something was done to our installed software in order for it to fail everywhere at once.

You may not want to reply but we've paid for this software (I bought the entire suite) and it isn't working as advertised. How about some answers (besides the FAQ)?

(Why don't you just open-source it if you're not going to try to circumvent Adobe and let someone else do it?)

sadsac
02-07-2009, 01:03 AM
Applian didn't change anything. Adobe did.

Applian didn't change plugin_zrtmp.dll for anyone who had it installed already.

But Adobe knew that no more rtmpe updates would be coming, so they made a simple change that stops the plugin_zrtmp.dll version that was working.

Note that the Applian is now sending a different version plugin_zrtmp.dll for new installations, but the previous version plugin_zrtmp.dll doesn't work either - so it really doesn't matter.

Also, Applian didn't change the version number of plugin_zrtmp.dll, even though they are sending a different file for new installations. It is still 5.2.6.9. They probably kept the same version number so that the rtmpe version would not be overwritten.

The way to tell the old and new versions apart is that the old plugin_zrtmp.dll (that supported rtmpe) is around 94k, the new version is around 74k. But again, both don't work on most rtmpe like hulu 480p.

It is sad the Applian was threatened to remove rtmpe support, as they are the only ones who had it. I'm sure Applian received legal advice and decided in their best interest, even considering that this will likely ruin sales of RMC.

The only hope now for rtmpe is if someone out of the legal reach of Adobe comes up with something.

RMC was really great while it lasted.

AnotherBuyer
02-07-2009, 03:45 AM
Hi everybody,

I'm writing here first of all hoping that this comment will not be deleted and second maybe this will help also the replay people which are obviously good software engineers.

I am part of a team that is running a protected pay per view content site, with Flash Media Server. We have also good software engineers.
Of course we know about replay.
That is why we also bought replay media catcher.

So currently our content can't be captured due to a protocol between the custom player and swf file.

So every time replay comes up with a new solution we just change in a few minutes the handshake custom protocol that can be anything, anytime due the playback and replay just can't give the right answer. I think it's so much work like cracking a linux root password that will change again in a few minutes.

Our system just updates the replay plugin and if it can capture files from our server it changes the swf with a new one.

People... I think it's needless to say how much damage you do with this capturing.... and how many people from small artists to small producers to small distributors that fight for a start-up or a life have to suffer today.
People who fight to get to big producers that collect small money in to big amounts to finance huge mechanisms to pay again the small people.

So just think a minute if this is worth all the effort...

MatthewC1000
02-07-2009, 05:14 AM
Hi everybody,

I'm writing here first of all hoping that this comment will not be deleted...

I see no reason to have this comment removed...:cool:

Kind Regards.


:)

flvrec0r3r
02-08-2009, 09:51 AM
Hi everybody, Our system just updates the replay plugin and if it can capture files from our server it changes the swf with a new one.Yes, we forum members have discussed this before (https://forum.applian.com/showthread.php?p=2702) (scroll up) and agree as you say it is not difficult to change the replay plugin and it is not difficult to research how. Would take each of us minutes as described to undo each other's actions.
People... I think it's needless to say how much damage you do with this capturing.... and how many people from small artists to small producers to small distributors that fight for a start-up or a life have to suffer today.I would like to hear more of this. Please share the true costs from a true performer. We can probably help mend a fractured business model or quadruple your income in half the time that you've already been working at what you're doing.

We can't however refund the ginormous costs associated with setting up a dysfunctional delivery infrastructure nor can we retrieve good money thrown at bad decisions.

From the Monty Python troupe giving away unrestricted content (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090123-nobody-expects-the-spanish-inquisitionto-make-on-youtube.html) to Jonathan Coulton (http://www.jonathancoulton.com/primer/info) becoming a Rock Star on the Internet for Cheap (http://www.popsci.com/node/31681) both ends of the entertainment spectrum, superstar to startup, are successful today without restricting content and inconveniencing or litigating against their audience.

HomeVideoGuy
02-09-2009, 07:24 AM
AnotherBuyer - I understand and fully support your point of view. Watching/recording TV shows and collecting them is a hobby of mine. I record these same shows I am ripping with my DVD recorder every week; which, thanks to the Betamax case is still legal.

I knew it would only be a matter of time before these sites would change their handshake. In fact, I was surprised the software engineers were able to keep up with these changes prior to these developments.

As a fan and collector, I often download these same shows from iTunes or buy the better quality DVDs when they come out. This "hobby" of mine has caused me to watch more TV than I would have and be exposed to more shows, commercials, purchase more products and TV shows than I ever did.

I am not whining that this has been taken away. Other than say, Big Bang Theory that the producers are intentionally keeping off of the market, there is nothing I can't purchase elsewhere should I chose to. But I won't be watching as many shows, be exposed to as many product commercials or be purchasing as much now that I can't rip what I watch.


Hi everybody,

I'm writing here first of all hoping that this comment will not be deleted and second maybe this will help also the replay people which are obviously good software engineers.

I am part of a team that is running a protected pay per view content site, with Flash Media Server. We have also good software engineers.
Of course we know about replay.
That is why we also bought replay media catcher.

So currently our content can't be captured due to a protocol between the custom player and swf file.

So every time replay comes up with a new solution we just change in a few minutes the handshake custom protocol that can be anything, anytime due the playback and replay just can't give the right answer. I think it's so much work like cracking a linux root password that will change again in a few minutes.

Our system just updates the replay plugin and if it can capture files from our server it changes the swf with a new one.

People... I think it's needless to say how much damage you do with this capturing.... and how many people from small artists to small producers to small distributors that fight for a start-up or a life have to suffer today.
People who fight to get to big producers that collect small money in to big amounts to finance huge mechanisms to pay again the small people.

So just think a minute if this is worth all the effort...

flvrec0r3r
02-09-2009, 05:33 PM
I knew it would only be a matter of time before these sites would change their handshake. In fact, I was surprised the software engineers were able to keep up with these changes prior to these developments.

This "hobby" of mine has caused me to watch more TV than I would have and be exposed to more shows, commercials, purchase more products and TV shows than I ever did.Me too. I might be alone in one thing: I just realized that everything I watch is recorded. It's been that way for years.

A couple of years before enough bandwidth became available for me to watch, download, or record Internet video larger than a postage stamp, I began using the TV VCR. I didn't do much record-one-thing-while-watching-another bit. But I did either record and watch at the same time, or watch what I had pre-recorded.

A few years ago, a Cable TV DVR became availble to me. It always records what I'm watching. That's the nature of cable and sattelite DVR's. I think I can be trusted when I say everything I watched for at least a half dozen years has been recorded. It's actually been like a dozen years.

In the middle came the Internet video. And I recorded that. I remember the free ASF Recorder someone released. And I remember some thing that recorded both Real Player format and ASF. It scolled through everything it was doing in a status window. It was downloading ASX files from these horrendously long URL's and waiting and retrying and handshaking and then trying again and then *poof* it would get the stream. They got shut down. The program would no loger work because it didn't pass the check for registration at startup.

I might have recorded a pay per view. But I truly don't think so. I'm probably too frugal to ever watch a pay-per-view. If it's good, chances are it'll be on sale somewhere someday. I never uploaded anything to anywhere. I just collected CD's with stuff I'll never watch again. Got a big box of VCR tapes too.

I just expect to record everything I watch. I like pause. I like rewind. I like FF. I don't like buffering. The media industry trained me. No one forced me to go to the video store. The cable guy didn't knock the door down, tie me up, and install the DVR. Microsoft and Dell did not break-in in the middle of the night and install a Media Center PC.

So to Hulu and Adobe and AnotherBuyer, it's a little late to cry foul. You've fallen for or perpetrated the Internet video lie (http://blogmaverick.com/2009/01/27/the-great-internet-video-lie/). I'm just being practical and following conventional wisdom.

The three flvrec0r3r truths:

For Internet video to survive on a large scale it must be cached locally.
You cannot protect a bucket of bits in a way that I can unprotect locally and at the same time prevent me from making an unprotected copy locally.
Anyone who convinces you otherwise has some of your money.

HomeVideoGuy
02-10-2009, 07:47 AM
flvrec0r3r-You and I and a minority of others are the obsessed fans of these shows that are actually supporting them through our efforts.

While RMC is my first foray into Internet recording, I only used it to support my home recording. I would often find myself catching up on shows long after episodes expired on Hulu. Shows that needed to be kept up with to continue watching the storyline; otherwise I would have tuned out.

I have spent hundreds of dollars on electronics (often from the same companies that produce this media i.e. Sony) and would turn around and support the shows by purchasing them on iTunes, Amazon and DVD/BluRay; sometimes just to ensure that they are released to the public by the demand I am creating.

I am sure RVC would be a viable alternative to "capture" the pixels I am watching on my screen but I could not get the trial version to work with my audio card. That and the inconvenience and poorer quality of most sites (ABC) will have me just waiting for better quality downloads or DVDs to come out. A lot of money will be lost on advertising while I wait to see what I even feel like buying; and probably miss out on some of the good shows I have come across because I was "looking" for something to watch/record.

clbrown
02-10-2009, 07:24 PM
Hi everybody,


People... I think it's needless to say how much damage you do with this capturing.... and how many people from small artists to small producers to small distributors that fight for a start-up or a life have to suffer today.
People who fight to get to big producers that collect small money in to big amounts to finance huge mechanisms to pay again the small people.

So just think a minute if this is worth all the effort...


I think it's bold of you to say that my capturing is causing damage. I live out in the sticks, so I barely have an internet connection let alone anything that can be called high speed. The only way I can watch streaming video is to capture it with a program like RMC so it will play back without pausing every several seconds. Plus, I may want to watch it on something other than my computer!

Needless to say, I will never be watching video from your site so by preventing me, you are causing damage to yourself.

Generally, streaming video over the internet sucks as it was never designed for that. Programs like RMC make it worth while.

So you keep doing your thing, and people on the receiving end will just keep doing theirs...

flvrec0r3r
02-12-2009, 12:12 PM
flvrec0r3r-You and I and a minority of others are the obsessed fans of these shows that are actually supporting them through our efforts.Indirectly of course.

I disagree on a minor nit. Fans can no longer support a "show" in the traditional sense. If it were possible, then the adage "content is King" would be true. Delivery is King. Wal-mart and iTunes are Kings.

How content makes it's delivery the last mile is King, Sometimes whoever can get paid to store and forward and deliver over the last few inches, the device to eyes and ears, is King. That means the PVR, DVR, the set top box, Applian via the hard disk, the tuner, the video player, the silver screen, the concert stage, the mailman, and the store are King(s).

I think we support the delivery method. We can only directly support the busker.

AnotherBuyer
02-15-2009, 12:30 AM
I apologize to anyone that felt offended.
I'm sorry I did not explain exactly how capturing is causing damage.

As long as it is for home use it is obviously the same like using a Tivo or similar.
But our material ends up on sites that have the purpose to distribute free downloads to get Google Ads.
So we are loosing money that should end up paying for the content.

If replay media catcher would have been used only for home purposes nobody would protect anything.
But as long as some buy it to distribute the materials on file sharing sites it is causing damage.

I know that anyone can sustain his own point of view but from my position I see so much damage that the home use is insignificant.
We distribute also IP-TV and nobody has a problem wit content buffering inside the STB.

flvrec0r3r
02-15-2009, 08:11 PM
...our material ends up on sites that have the purpose to distribute free downloads to get Google Ads. So we are loosing money that should end up paying for the content.Then you have a problem with those sites. Identify those site owners by tracking to whom Google pays. I think Google has your money. Go get it.
If replay media catcher would have been used only for home purposes nobody would protect anything. But as long as some buy it to distribute the materials on file sharing sites it is causing damage.I know that anyone can sustain his own point of view but from my position I see so much damage that the home use is insignificant.To restate. You have no trouble with home use. Home use is insignificant. By definition home users have paid for your content. So... your paid subscribers are insignificant.

There is your problem.

I suggest you focus on those who already pay for your content and treat them well. Elsewise, you are trying to bottle smoke.

HomeVideoGuy
02-16-2009, 11:51 AM
I apologize to anyone that felt offended.
...
But our material ends up on sites that have the purpose to distribute free downloads to get Google Ads.
So we are loosing money that should end up paying for the content.
...
If replay media catcher would have been used only for home purposes nobody would protect anything.
...
I know that anyone can sustain his own point of view but from my position I see so much damage that the home use is insignificant.
...


I was not offended and I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately, I agree with flvrec0r3r that things are being protected the easy way. How about going after the pirates?

But I do understand that it is this same protection that has the copyright holders willing to release the shows on the internet. But I think they are not only protecting ad revenue but also sales of their shows. Everything I watch is on TV or available on iTunes. I may even still catch an episode online for free and, if I like the show, buy the season pass on iTunes. So long commercials, advertising $$$ and my support.

But I already knew that myself and others like me were to small to be a significant share of their viewership. I can complain all I want but I have to take it like they want to give it to me. Unfortunately, since I can't have it like I want, they won't get my support.

AnotherBuyer
02-16-2009, 02:06 PM
Then you have a problem with those sites. Identify those site owners by tracking to whom Google pays. I think Google has your money. Go get it.To restate. You have no trouble with home use. Home use is insignificant. By definition home users have paid for your content. So... your paid subscribers are insignificant.

There is your problem.

I suggest you focus on those who already pay for your content and treat them well. Elsewise, you are trying to bottle smoke.

I think you make a very simple mix of arguments that do not line up straight.
You do not pay for content that is on free to air TV stations and sites like hulu.com so you capture content that you have not payed for.
Google Ads has nothing to do with this and the money pirates earn with google Ads is so simple earned and small that it does not fit in any business model. The last one to blame would be Google.
Also I don't think it makes any sense to start a long story about licensing content and how to make money with it.
hulu.com is a model that will work like free to air TV stations.
So it is important for them to concentrate viewers in single place to distribute commercials to pay for the content.

You don't want your work cannibalized buy anyone and the same is with our content.
If you like it or not, replay media catcher is a tool that makes piracy easier than before.
As long as you use it to capture content that you are not watching in a context where people can justify expenses through commercials, rent fees or other kinds of revenue, its simply piracy.
You may have payed for TV but you have only payed to view the content once in a certain context. If you want to own the content, laws say (and who makes them is not necessary a dictator) you need to buy your copy and not invent reasons to own it and watch it when and how many times you want.
And as long as you share it with others you make people loose money by making them loose opportunities.
We can debate on this subject hundreds of pages. It's just a matter of common sense.
So if you don't like that other consider your estate world common estate and invent reasons to miss-use it you should not line up artificial arguments to use content anyway and anywhere you want.
I'm pretty sure you already know all this...
If our content would be smoke in a bottle people would not make the effort paying for replay media capture, then capturing and building sites where others would pay so many visits that Google Ads pays the money for the whole effort of one pirat.

tiredofspam
02-16-2009, 03:05 PM
You may have payed for TV but you have only payed to view the content once in a certain context. If you want to own the content, laws say (and who makes them is not necessary a dictator) you need to buy your copy and not invent reasons to own it and watch it when and how many times you want.


Baloney. I can DVR anything (and dump it to a computer or directly to a DVD) and have the legal right to do so. I can skip/eliminate commercials quite easily (and I do).

I don't sell/upload any media content that I was able to capture and I don't go to PPV sites so I'm not capturing anything that YOU'RE selling - you ain't losing revenue from me because I don't WANT whatever it is you are selling.

I timeshift, pure and simple, in order to watch what I want to watch WHEN I WANT TO WATCH IT.

Since everything that I captured from Hulu, CBS, etc. was free to view, tell me how I'm taking money out of YOUR (or anyone else's pocket), again taking into account that I wouldn't watch the commercials, anyway. (Not to mention the fact that Hulu 480p is certainly WATCHABLE on my plasma set, it isn't BluRay 1080p. Note, also, content that I want to keep, I purchase on DVD or BluRay. Most Hulu stuff is viewed once and deleted.)

flvrec0r3r
02-16-2009, 04:45 PM
I think you make a very simple mix of arguments that do not line up straight.
You do not pay for content that is on free to air TV stations and sites like hulu.com so you capture content that you have not payed for.This is capturing content no one has paid for. I mean you say it is free yourself in this same post
hulu.com is a model that will work like free to air TV stations.

Google Ads has nothing to do with this and the money pirates earn with google Ads is so simple earned and small that it does not fit in any business model. The last one to blame would be Google.But AnotherBuyer, you claimed this pirated pittance was an instrumental reason for seeking RMC's demise when you stated:
But our material ends up on sites that have the purpose to distribute free downloads to get Google Ads. So we are loosing money that should end up paying for the content.It will be difficult for you to gather any credibility when you contradict yourself in the span of two posts.
So it is important for (Hulu) to concentrate viewers in single place to distribute commercials to pay for the content.Now there is the gut of another real problem and why we are all here.

Behind the facade, the reason a software vendor got huffy was singular: Hulu can't sell embedded ads. Hulu is dependent on pre-roll and post-roll ads that are not part of the media stream. Hulu made a very poor technology choice, built a huge infrastructure around it, threw a mass gross of cash at a worsening problem and then... well we know what then.
You don't want your work cannibalized buy anyone and the same is with our content. If you like it or not, replay media catcher is a tool that makes piracy easier than before. As long as you use it to capture content that you are not watching in a context where people can justify expenses through commercials, rent fees or other kinds of revenue, its simply piracy. You may have payed for TV but you have only payed to view the content once in a certain context. If you want to own the content, laws say (and who makes them is not necessary a dictator) you need to buy your copy and not invent reasons to own it and watch it when and how many times you want.Not by the well established doctrine of fair use where I live. You can try to rewrite laws as you post, but they still won't be correct or enforceable . People who have some of your money have convinced you of a falsehood. I'm serious. Pay me a moment's attention please. I have nothing to gain or lose from this exchange. I don't purchase your content. I don't visit Hulu.com anymore. I will never do either.

The US residents here know you aren't being factual. Nether the recording for personal use, nor the ownership of devices that record for personal use, are banned or considered piracy or tools of pirates. Really, this has been well defined and unassailed since 1976.

And as long as you share it with others you make people loose money by making them loose opportunities.OK, I see where you misunderstand.

When I said you couldn't hand me a protected bucket of bits then allow me to unprotect that bucket of bits locally and prohibit me from making a copy, I didn't mean it as a challenge or cry of a defiant pirate. I meant it as a truth of computing. I mean whoever said you could sell pay per view that couldn't be copied was lying to you. I cannot be more clear or binary in my statement.

Counting those lost income opportunities is like bottling smoke (and trying to sell it). You have made yourself mad with greed counting pennies that aren't there.

You aren't alone making that same mistake. The Business Software Alliance and the RIAA and others assert that those who pirate a product surely would buy it. They won't. They are pirates. They will pirate something else, and something else again. They will not buy your product or anyone else's competing product. They are pirates. That is how pirates behave.

But believing that an effective method of stopping piracy is by banning recording software or devices is lunacy. I did tell you where the pirates were and how to stop them: take their money. Plunder their Google booty and lock them up. That will work. And it will cost you less than what you are doing now. And you will profit more in the end. On this one, take the slow dime.

AnotherBuyer
02-16-2009, 11:13 PM
OK.
This is the debate that I was trying to avoid.
Do whatever you want to do for as many reasons you want. It's not my business.
There are always people that try to proof the opposite just not to be like the majority.
Others invent their own rights. From your point of view I put smoke in bottles and you blow it on your own.
So it makes no sense to discuss anymore.
I just tried to tell you how a well going business went down and people got hurt.
I wonder what people from the replay team feel when they see their software cracked and posted.
Basically I'm just another software developer that got hurt badly by the CETE team.
My job is to distribute other peoples content and inevitably I hear about their problems and business models and how they struggle to avoid loosing money.
We have a saying down here that badly translated would sound like: "trying to get yourself drunk with cold water"
So do whatever you want to do. I'm not here to tell you what's right or wrong.
I was just naive to think that simple and obvious reasons maybe reasonable enough to be told.
Take away other peoples property because they are mean and stupid and do not know how to run their business.
Mine runs quiet well. I just provide a secured streaming service.
I live in a former communist country and I've seen enough of these arguments 20 years before and 20 after.
So just do whatever you do for whatever self-invented reason you want to.
Finally its you and your reasons and replay media catcher that makes my service needed...

tiredofspam
02-17-2009, 10:12 AM
OK.
I live in a former communist country and I've seen enough of these arguments 20 years before and 20 after.


And which "former communist country" do you live in? The reason I'm asking is that almost all of the rampant pirating, identity theft, viruses, etc. originate in current or "former" communist countries so it is ironic (and somewhat laughable) that YOU would complain about someone making money off of YOUR efforts. I'll remember that the next time I receive an email from my "bank" (in Russia or Romania) telling me that I've got to log in to my account and update my information or my access will be terminated.

Pot...meet kettle.

And what type of content do you stream? Since you haven't come out and said what you do, I have to assume that you're operating on the shady side of the web...

AnotherBuyer
02-17-2009, 11:56 PM
And which "former communist country" do you live in? The reason I'm asking is that almost all of the rampant pirating, identity theft, viruses, etc. originate in current or "former" communist countries so it is ironic (and somewhat laughable) that YOU would complain about someone making money off of YOUR efforts. I'll remember that the next time I receive an email from my "bank" (in Russia or Romania) telling me that I've got to log in to my account and update my information or my access will be terminated.

Pot...meet kettle.

And what type of content do you stream? Since you haven't come out and said what you do, I have to assume that you're operating on the shady side of the web...

hahahaha ... I love this attitude... hahahaha we're back in Disneys Tarzan again...

it's not porn
We stream VOD for most national TV stations that try to make S-VOD or Ad based VOD and local music.

btw ... CETE and thepiratebay.org are in Sweden...

flvrec0r3r
02-18-2009, 11:07 AM
OK.
I just tried to tell you how a well going business went down and people got hurt.

My job is to distribute other peoples content and inevitably I hear about their problems and business models and how they struggle to avoid loosing money.

And I was trying to tell you how those businesses can stop going down. I was trying to tell you how they can struggle and make money for their efforts.

After the 20 years before and 20 years after hearing these arguements, a reasonable person might listen.


Finally its you and your reasons and replay media catcher that makes my service needed...

Then you have been instrumental in the failed struggle, ill-conceived business models, lost revenue, and people getting hurt. Not I.

dragonfang196
02-18-2009, 12:20 PM
please explain the argument. interesting but confusing.

AnotherBuyer
02-18-2009, 02:45 PM
please explain the argument. interesting but confusing.

First of all I'm sorry for my bad English that may make simple things sound complicated.

I was trying to explain the idea that any rule (call it a law) has always people that agree with it and others that invent arguments to disagree.
The worst are the ones that search for particular exceptions where it does not apply.

But like Ocams Razor says, with a little common sense, you see that the simple explanation is the right one.

So when we had communism, so called "smart people" were finding complicated explanations for simple rules that would outline how wrong everything is and why we all have to fight for our freedom (Please don't start now a discussion on the subject that I might miss communism. I DON'T!!! ).
Right after 1990 it's the same people, with the same twisted thinking that talk about how wrong everything is today... the only problem is ... against who are we fighting now ? :)

Finally I have the simple feeling that it's all about being different by being against anything and any rule. Even if it's about a simple feeling, generated by simple common sense, that a 3 years old kid feels by instinct:
Don't take another kids toy because it's not yours and you might first ask for it.

So for me it's so simple like saying hello and goodbye:
- People work hard to produce content.
- Others work hard to find business models.

And finally the whole thing does not function because somebody, with a twisted excuse, just gives it around like it would be for free.
And others around just take it and say: Why not? If it would not be for free... it would not be in this or that context with the following n complicated arguments ?
Just like Nabster , Kaza, dc++, EMule, EDonkey and so on and so on.
Each of the obove context has tons of smart excuses... but finally they just take away something that was worked for and should be somehow payed back by each one who uses or enjoys it each time (In case the owner does not say: from now on it's yours. Do whatever you want with it BUT don't clone it).

So it's the complicated way of lining up arguments to justify anything that I heard 20 years before and 20 after communism.
What is so funny finally is that the pattern is the same. :)

To add a personal opinion.
The most impressive thing I heard in my childhood in a communist school, when we had history classes about the US constitution was:
- You may do anything as long as it does not disturb anyone around you.
To add my personal common sense: You might not use anything as long as it is not produced in anyway by you OR as long as you did not purchase the rights to do so.
So to hear from somebody (I guess) that lives in the US such arguments... just makes me smile about the fact that people are the same anywhere.
All use gravity to walk and if something is "a grab" away they reach for it and then invent some complicated arguments :)

Maybe if you listen to the Russian/ Romanian bank-pirates arguments you get into the same debate like the one about the rights to capture.

Some funny exaggerated story would be like:
I walked into a bank... I had a gun in my hand... I have a license to carry a gun... and I ended up in a room where a lot of money was piled up and I just took it and walked away... I don't know why everyone around me would stand with the hands up in the air and point me to the money ...

flvrec0r3r
02-18-2009, 04:56 PM
So for me it's so simple like saying hello and goodbye:
- People work hard to produce content.
- Others work hard to find business models.

And finally the whole thing does not function because somebody, with a twisted excuse, just gives it around like it would be for free.
No. The thing does not function because its flawed business model is based on selling the digital each (http://cryptome.org/dmitry-bruce.htm).

Selling the each requires impossible technology to protect the each. Selling the each requires impossible technology to protect every each because just one unprotected each becomes an infinite number of perfect copies of the each. Moreover, those copies can be made and distributed at no cost.

Whether it is a camera pointed at the movie screen or a promotional DVD swiped by an intern, that one tiny leak of an unprotected each breaks the business model.

Your involvement seems to be one of realizing early that success does not require inventing technology to protect every each. Success just requires selling technology that appears to protect some each. There is another technology vendor waiting in the lobby to protect some other each.

Knowing neither technlogy is effective and that all will be shown eventually to be ineffective does not matter. That business model is based on to lengthening the time between the former and the latter and maximising sales (and profit) during the interim.

This is called selling snake oil. Nothing more. You might be fooling some in here. But not me.

dragonfang196
02-18-2009, 05:31 PM
Non-related topic.


will RMC will work with USA and FOX network's online episodes? trying to capture those.

AnotherBuyer
02-18-2009, 11:20 PM
No. The thing does not function because its flawed business model is based on selling the digital each (http://cryptome.org/dmitry-bruce.htm).

Selling the each requires impossible technology to protect the each. Selling the each requires impossible technology to protect every each because just one unprotected each becomes an infinite number of perfect copies of the each. Moreover, those copies can be made and distributed at no cost.

Whether it is a camera pointed at the movie screen or a promotional DVD swiped by an intern, that one tiny leak of an unprotected each breaks the business model.

Your involvement seems to be one of realizing early that success does not require inventing technology to protect every each. Success just requires selling technology that appears to protect some each. There is another technology vendor waiting in the lobby to protect some other each.

Knowing neither technlogy is effective and that all will be shown eventually to be ineffective does not matter. That business model is based on to lengthening the time between the former and the latter and maximising sales (and profit) during the interim.

This is called selling snake oil. Nothing more. You might be fooling some in here. But not me.

Wonderful.... just wonderful... I need to meet all my clients today that have deals with Disney, HBO, Discovery and so on to tell them about your arguments.
We will go back to shut down the business and have a beer.
Thank you for enlighten me... Oh happy day!!!

HomeVideoGuy
02-19-2009, 02:24 PM
Whether it is a camera pointed at the movie screen or a promotional DVD swiped by an intern, that one tiny leak of an unprotected each breaks the business model.

He actually makes a point here. Pirating has been going on in some form or another for decades. It is the distribution of these materials that is illegal. So why not trace this distribution and crack down on the pirating?

I don't see anyone trying to crack down on Applians' own RVC product which could, conceivably, give the same end result as RMC; a pixel perfect reproduction of a web video. In fact, I could hook up my PC to my DVD recorder and get a similar result. I guess I just don't understand the paranoia about DVRing things. How about instead of completely blocking it, putting in mechanisms that trace the distribution of recordings to thwart the piracy?

Maybe Adobe is helping copyright holders protect their assets. But only for the resale of those assets themselves. As far as Hulu, CBS.com etc, at least I won't be going to their sites, viewing their advertising and purchasing those products any longer just like I did when ABC switched their player to one that did not work with RMC.

I am not arguing that one has a right to protect their copyrights. Just that in the long run, I will just purchase the shows I want to see from iTunes where I can watch when I want w/o commercials w/o being exposed to a lot of other possibly good shows. Then, these commercial sites will loose viewership and the downward spiral begins.

HomeVideoGuy
02-19-2009, 02:28 PM
Non-related topic.


will RMC will work with USA and FOX network's online episodes? trying to capture those.


RMC never worked with FOX.com. I am not sure it did with USA.com either. However, those same shows should be on HULU.com; which did work with RMC; or at least still does with the 360p videos.

dragonfang196
02-19-2009, 03:32 PM
Darn. because their hi-def versions own hulu's 360p version. but i'll take what i can get.

agent_squirrel
02-19-2009, 10:04 PM
Applian posted a tutorial on YouTube yesterday showing how you can use RMC to capture Hulu videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rNmD88Sbgo. I was a bit surprised to see that considering you can't really use the software to do this
anymore.

I've been following this tread since last week when I too couldn't capture something. I see all the sides to the arguments but have to say that those who are trying to protect their content need to come up with something better. I have a TiVo so I can easily skip through commercials. I also have the desktop software from TiVO (free and legal) that lets me download just about everything I record to my computer. Some programs are copy protected and you can't download them if you have a newer TiVo (still works fine on the one I have from a few years ago). There are a few different - and legal - software packages out there that will let me take my TiVo file and edit it. I can cut out commercials, clip off parts of the show I don't want, burn it to DVD or even put it on my iPod. And yes, I can also take those same clips and post them on any website, though TiVo makes it clear that you shouln't do that.

The reason I said that those who are trying to protect their content need to come up with a better argument is because the technology is always going to be there for users to download, steal, copy, whatever word you want to use. None us can have it both ways. Those who post content on their sites want the money from the advertising. Though users of RMC don't pay for the content, we've paid for the software. Someone is always making money. It just isn't always the site that host the video.

Someone here already made the point about those who profit from taking copy protected work and distributing it, will continue to do so. Microsoft can keep trying to come up with ways to stop copies of their OS from being burned to disc and sold throughout the world. But someone else will find a way around it. Those who profit from using the media they obtain off the web will be back in business before most of us are able to fully read through all of the messages being posted. The rest of us will have to wait. In the meantime, other sites will become better known to view media content on the web.

I do believe that copying content does SOMETIMES take away from those creating the media. But I, like HomeVideoGuy, have been exposed to a lot of media BECAUSE I have been able to download things and watch/listen to them later. This was true back in the Napster days. I can't even count the number of artist that I listen to regularly now that I didn't even know existed before Napster. Often I would find someone who had a lot of music I liked. Since the person's music collection contained a lot that I was interested in already, I often took a listen to some stuff I had never heard of before. I've spent a lot in concerts, CD's, and even merchandise on artists that I would never have been exposed to before. While the RIAA talks about how many people got "free music", nobody ever really took time to find out how much money was made because the first taste someone got was by downloading it for free. I'm not saying that Napster should be brought back. It went too far. But at the same time, there are always two sides to every argument.

Though many people would like to, you can't stop technology. If you are going to make videos available to people, they are going to find ways to download them. If RMC doesn't work anymore, another software product is right around the corner. Adobe can keep trying to find ways to secure flash videos but any new system will only be in place for a short time.

Finally, since most of this talk is related to Hulu content, I wonder what direction Hulu is actually heading in. Today they pulled all their content off of TV.com. If I recall correctly, they pulled their content from another site a couple of weeks ago. Like many other sites, they might be getting too big to care about the audience anymore. I have a feeling something else is going to take off soon that might be bigger. Who knows?

FairUse
05-02-2009, 11:01 AM
Bump.

You know what Applian should do?

They should look into selling Replay Media Catcher to Slysoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slysoft).

Slysoft is located in the island nation of Antigua and Barbuda.

They have purchased applications in the past which had to be discontinued due to legal issues.

Since Replay Media Catcher is basically not going to be of much use any more the way it is now, they could work out a deal which will net them a nice profit that they could use toward developing some of their other applications.