Hulu titles slowly becomoing unrecordable, just me?

[HomeVideoGuy]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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.)