Hulu titles slowly becomoing unrecordable, just me?

[flvrec0r3r]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

please explain the argument. interesting but confusing.

[AnotherBuyer]

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]

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.

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]

Non-related topic.


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

[AnotherBuyer]

No. The thing does not function because its flawed business model is based on selling the digital each.

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!!!