A change for the industry. TUBE SITES/Macromedia Target.
 

Aliens Assessment of The New Age of content Piracy.
The Death Nail to Flash Based Video Content.

To review where I am going here one must read some of the basics.
http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/view...nalId=tn_18990

In essence where I am going with this. Macromedia/Adobe are perpetuating the the theft of
copyrighted works.

Bare with me that many streaming based codec's are enabled with DRM.
Why has not Sorenson nor Adobe/Macromedia done anything for DRM? In my opinion this opens them to much liability in the theft of
Flash based video content on the web that is stolen/pirated.

One must think why was this Flash Video playbaCK not enabled earlier than the last year or two?

Acaccia. Thats why.
Macromedia bided its time to see where Video streaming went AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A VALID PATENT.
Of course that ended in the smack down of Accacia and we are all good and happy with that decision.

Shortly after the fall of Accacia the birth of Video embedded flash occured and soon following this Video tube sites sky rocketed on the internet attracting millions of visitors.

Without a doubt video based tube sites are indeed the number 1 traffic generator today and each one of these tube sites are empowered with flash based video playback.
Adobe/Macromedia are responsible for this media atrocity enabling our content to be stolen ripped and encoded for playback in Flash based video players.

So lets ask now why has not Adobe/Macromedia had any participation in DRM protected content?

Adobe/Macromedia are stepping into the realm of Napster, BearShare by enabling outright theft of content via the Flash Media Pluggin.

Solutions.
File a Class action Suit on Adobe/Macromedia.
Work with Adobe/Macromedia to enable DRM on Copyrighted materials.

Develop a copyright database, update current versions of the media Flash Pluggin that respects DRM.
A system that enables Copyright holders to allow or disallow playback of DRM based Flash video content based on URL.

The flash pluggin itself will communicate to Systems at Adobe/Macromedia to verify Stolen content and not play back for end users.

This is the answer to many copyright woe's that are killing the mainstream and adult entertainment industry at this very moment.
this solution is a big solution to a big problem and the modern way for Copyright holders to protect themselves.
In my opinion it is the only way.

The solution can give rise to new found ways of Income generation, Ecommerce solutions along with a new wave of conducting business with Content providers, and Tube site operators on large scales.
At the end of the day it is a win win for all.

Imagine that all tube sites request users of tube sites to buy time on the materials they want to watch.

With the advent of Flash Based video content something needs to be done as it is the prime enabler for taking prime time to a new level on the internet.
Copyright holders and providers need a drastic solution and the only way to insure the future of copyrighted materials is through DRM within the Flash Pluggin and flash based Codec's.

Now get to work guys.:thumbsup

There's a reason you're a failure dude.

Its not that far fetched kid.

Yes, and right afterwards we'll be suing Microsoft for making the OS that Adobe runs on on my computer. Or maybe suing Apache for making the web server that hosts the flash that streams the video followed closely by the law suit against Hydro BC, who harnasses the water and creates the electricity that's sold to the United States and pumped to California and powers the datacenter that hosts the box that streams the video that ....

Again stick to what you're good at which is, erhm, doh.

I stopped reading after that.

Thanks for the laugh though.

Microsoft has enabled DRM protection.

In your little broke world maybe this is far fetched but the powers with real money can form up a class action on Adobe/Macromedia to create a DRM based solution for the Flash Media pluggin.

I have been asked by many to think about this problem and this is my answer.
Maybe you do not know exactly what I am about...

But people that matter do.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Jesus, at least he's trying to come up with something. Granted this is a dead end, but still.

Ehh you people will be singing right along with everyoen else once the concept takes off and gets rolling and you will forget all about me putting it on the table.

I can not be upset that every dumb person in the world still has a right to an opinion, the above is truly 1 solution to a real problem that can take major dent out of content piracy.

But Alien, Flash is not the problem. Many tube sites stream WMV, which as far as I understand CAN be DRM protected, and still hasn't been.

So the the fact that even if Adome made DRM available for flash, there's no evidence the industry would or could use it anyway, sort of deflates your whole silly argument. Really a few minutes of thought should have lead you to the same conclusions.

If you had any clue about DRM you would know that the way WMV did it was ass fucking backwards.

Authorise by URL dumbass not by End user verification.

That makes about as much sense as blaming computer makers for computer crimes.

Okay so now Adobe is responsible for making DRM, only better DRM, and hoping everyone uses it or risking being liable?

It's no wonder you've never ownder anything, you're seriously mixed up. Good luck on the job hunt.

DRM has FAILED and will not work.
DRM is on it's way out as ALL it's done has cost tons of cash and pissed off actual customers, in the music , movie and porn industry it's been proven a failure.


Good call though :1orglaugh

Well you have to look at the reasons why Napster was forced to comply with Copyrights and understand the goings on.

Now the Flash Pluggin is operating in much the same.

Napster was merely a "pluggin" by concept for p2p.

I am not talking about P2P in this topic.
I am talking about regulating and enforcing copyright on URLS that use Flash Based video's.

Like i said dumb people are entitled to an opinion, thats the sad truth of today. Maybe my idea is dumb to you, yet perhaps it will catch on to people that actually are able to do something about this problem.

It is a very real problem right now and this concept is merely a piece to a complex problem that is causing much money lost on the part of copyright holders.

I am not saying go after the consumer with authorization, I am saying go after the site operator by URL in scheme that helps Content companies to realise a URL verify a URL and ultimatly halt play back on an end user who's Flash Pluggin Verifies whether or not a given URL has the right to transmit the video being requested.

Adobe/Macromedia are no different, sure the neame sounds intimidating however they are hte ones that put there hands in the copyright fish bowl.

It must be corrected. Maybe my use of the term DRM is firghtening, but what I am talking about is not exactly DRM.

WOW thats a real hard thing to prove. If that was true it should be easy to civily sue a gun or car manufacture for wrongful death.

So if I download the .wmv from any member's area, and upload it to a tube site that then encodes it to flash, you expect that Adobe can in some way detect that's not legit? It doesn't even make sense. Adobe are not the internet movie police, nor should they be.

Why wouldnt it make sense when the Pluggin is in the End user's machine that does the Validation on the fly without inturruption unless of course the URL is not authorised to transit the video?

All the end user machine must do is request whether or not a Given URL has the right to transmist the video information? Its not a privacy issue as what content being viewed it is still anonymous. Its not an unprecidented thought to have a pluggin communicatr with a system that allows or dissallows a function. It is rather simple.

Look I understand that you may have no programming education or experience but these things are designed with intention and for Pluggins to be updated especially Flash is not a tall order whats so ever.

Trying to stop a phenomenon like tube sites is a major undertaking, once they are well established. There are only two ways to deal with tube sites, in my opinion. One; disrupt the system from within. For example, studios that went after napster started loading the system with bogus content that either was no good or played for a little while and then went to shit. This filtered out the casual users, who then went to other file sharing sites. Second way, is to sue them into oblivion. And we all know the end result is, if you put enough money into the suit. I believe in the first is a better idea. It will eventually ruin the reliability of the content to the end user. Since most of the content on these tube sites aren’t handpicked, and need their search engine to display the desired content. Fill it with junk that matches the search terms for your content or put in content that you normally would give away in tours, with the right search terms. Thus, knocking down the position of the pirated versions in the search results. It’s a lot of work but, it’s cheaper than a lawyer. Believe me I speak from experience about the costs of a good lawyer.

Thats good one but it will lead to traffic seeing out the least interrupted, and in Flash Video people are not waiting for the download to view a file.

No tube site operator is going willingly seed his site with bullshit clips that are fake, it's not possible. Don't get me wrong though I thought about this same line of thought for a while.

Look at the function from the simplist of procedure's the mechanic's and it more or less dispoils to the thoughts I have presented here.

why would people ask specifically you??

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I was wondering the same exact thing.

If you actually new me, and what I have actually accomplished and not just go by what you read on board crap, then you would know.

The fuck, I can give 2 shits about 98% of you.
You do not fucking matter.

This thread was not made for little people but to extend a concept to people that do matter. Didnt I already explaine that? Wait it's GFY I goto repeat myself alot around here.

If you can see it, you can save it. There is no solution.

Ehh not exactly, besides...
Most surfers got no idea how to save anything more than a photo.
But then to take a file and put it on the web on a server is a different matter.

We are talking the broadcasting of Copyrighted materials, not the saving to disc kind of piracy.

You people are really not focused for this line of work...

It's sad, back in the day only smart guys worked this business.
Hell even the occasional retard made big bucks as long as he was able to listen...

Blah blah blah blah.. can't believe in all of this everyone is ignorant of the fact that Adobe have been working on DRM for flash for the better part of a year. Not only that but it's possible to secure flash video fairly well yourself anyhow. That tubesites don't is a factor of the overall lack of security built into any of them.
Google is your friend.

You read the entire line... I got to "Aliens" and moved it on down :) :helpme

Try saving a XML webpage and see the source on that...

Care to try again?

Well at least one of you do read.
But still, where is the Flash DRM?

It was discussed in 2006. Still nothing.

First of all, as many have pointed out, your position is ridiculous.

Adobe is under no obligation to develop software with DRM or that prevents copyright infringement. The only exception is in the DMCA where a device or program that could be used for infringement also has no significant non-infringing use. And it can be easily argued that Flash has significant non-infringing use.

But you obviously don't have much experience with Flash. It can be DRM enabled if you use Flash Media Server. In fact, its DRM is beyond comparison:

-it allows for true streaming (you can jump to any part of the video)
-it uses a proprietary streaming protocol that is impenetrable to stream rippers
-the video is stored in a memory buffer and never recorded to the hard drive, so there is never a flash video file in the temporary internet files

LOL, you must own a tube site.

If if, uhh uh... Streaming Flash video surver uhh uh.. yeah...

Oh and its non infringing! Uh uh.. DMCA it does not break uh uh...
My ass...

Pahlease.

Case and point how many tube sites with Stolen content actually use the Flash Streaming media server? Surely you must know.

"Adobe is under no obligation to develop software with DRM or that prevents copyright infringement."

Uhmmm uhh
OK why not? Others have been forced and do.

http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashmed...rotection.html

Show me how this really protects Copyright holders who's content has been stolen and placed in a Flash File.

Again Flash is the inherent problem. I think most of you are looking at this from a DRM point of view, not end user experience or a copyright violators experience.

Copyright holders need to be able to approve a URL while an End user Flash Pluggin Player verifies whether or not a URL has the right to show the FLash file.

This is 100% BS.

DRM on Flash video files only work on FMS (Flash Media Server) streaming and NOT on file based streaming using a FLV player.

I really don't understand the hectic about tube sites, but okay just my 2 :2 cents: