• 0

Saving Streaming Media

Asked by Premgenius,

 Share

Question

40 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Enthusiast

blowdart

Posted
Posted

They exist. They're not nice.

My company runs streaming servers, a lot of them. Morons who try to rip streams open up multiple connections to a streaming server then stream backwards and fowards, sucking bandwidth that other viewers should be using in order to rip off the people that are providing the content, and the people that are hosting it.

A lot of the stuff we host for the music industry only available as streams for good reason, it's easy on bandwidth, better controlled and it may well not be licensed for download, but of course, like the Kazza users, no-one actually cares. Except this time, when you're stream ripping, you're ruining it for other people as they can't connect while you're using up 5+ connections. We had one moron from a Citibank IP address try to rip a 5Mb stream. By the time he had finished his connections had used well over 100Mb of bandwidth.

So don't. Please.

  • 0
Proficient

trad

Posted
Posted

sorry blowdart to hear your story.

yes it is possible, well there are two options:

a) a mms, rstp download manager

(streaming protocol)

b) what you see on screen is what you save

(some software, do some searching)

by the way, saveing the clip will save both parties bandwidth, agreed?

  • 0
Enthusiast

blowdart

Posted
Posted
by the way, saveing the clip will save both parties bandwidth, agreed?

No, look at my example. Most, if not all, stream rippers work by opening multiple connections and rewinding after each frame to make sure they haven't dropped any audio, or any video. By the time you have ripped you've probably taken the same bandwidth that you would have taken up by watching/listening 5 times (not to mention the fact that you've kept other people from connecting and you're not "legally" supposed to have a copy).

Hell the worst bunch I ever saw were fans of a heavy metal group who broadcast live a charity concert. About 40 idiots trying to save a live stream of a free concert where a DVD would be available and the proceeds going to charity. Each of those rippers was opening 5+ connections, so that's 200 connections gone already. Now on a basic media server you tend to run out of network bandwidth at around 1000 connections. For live video it's even sooner, so these asshats basically took over a whole server, and watching the official fan site at the time of broadcast it was full of "I can't connect" messages. Why not? Because your little thieving buddies beat you to it and are using up a lot of bandwidth.

I take great pleasure in dropping ripping connections from my media servers. it is possible to spot them automatically.

but of course end users don't actually care, you just want your own local copy, just like kazza users want something for nothing :rolleyes:

  • 0
Enthusiast

blowdart

Posted
Posted
Alternativele, if you save the stream as you mention (blowdart) it saves people watching it 5 or more times?

Saves people watching it again? Errr, if you're not going to watch it again, why the hell are you saving it in the first place?

(I know very few people will ever listen to the arguements I present, the free music mindset is too engrained, but as more stuff gets stolen from streams less streams will be made available, and I'm noticing now that customers want DRMed streams (and stream rippers will rip the protected stream, so you're screwed). You only have yourself to blame people.)

  • 0
Proficient

Zombie9920

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well blowdart. People wouldn't need to use tools to save the stuff to their hard drive if people like you didn't embed the location of the file(s) in a flash applet(making it impossible to view the source of the file). IT would save you all bandwidth if you would just let people download the video file(s) so it doesn't need to be streamed everytime a person wants to watch it.

Something for nothing? Do those videos actually cost you guys any money? I doubt it.

Edited by Zombie9920
  • 0
Proficient

trad

Posted
Posted
Alternativele, if you save the stream as you mention (blowdart) it saves people watching it 5 or more times?

finally someone agree with me

i dont save stream in multi thread, i use single thread, haha

we need to educate people

those dl manager like DAP maximise dl rate by multi connection :)

you can always block multi stream and limit the bandwidth, i saw many site do that

  • 0
Enthusiast

blowdart

Posted
Posted
Well blowdart. People wouldn't need to use tools to save the stuff to their hard drive if people like you didn't embed the location of the file(s) in a flash applet(making it impossible to view the source of the file). IT would save you all bandwidth if you would just let people download the video files as a whole so it doesn't need to be streamed everytime a person wants to watch it.

Why do you believe you have the RIGHT to keep a copy? Where exactly does it say "I'm connected to the internet, I can copy whatever the heck I want?" in your ISP's signup agreement?

People don't watch or listen that often, the content owners don't WANT or LEGALLY CANNOT place copies for download, but no, everyone feels they are entitled to keep local copies and damn the consquences.

Would you go into a movie theatre with a video camera and tape the film you're watching? Do you believe you're entitled to do that? No? Then why do you think you're entitled to rip streams?

  • 0
Grand Master

+Nik Louch Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted

Never said I had any rights, plus also you read my post wrongly.

1) If i want to watch it 10 times, should I stream it 10 times or save it once. Tell me this - your arguements are mostly bandwidth related - which uses most, seeing as I have just saved a media file with one stream?

2) I never claimed to have any right, but I do have the ability.

3) Video cam in a movie? Nope, just get a pirate from Thailand.

Don't preach about piracy etc. We know it's wrong, but to be honest. I don't care. And lets face it, who really does?

  • 0
Proficient

Zombie9920

Posted
Posted

How much do those media files actually cost you guys to obtain? Probably nothing(because they are distributed for promotional reasons). How is viewing it for free and having a copy of what you can freely view on your drive for free any different? There is no difference as the content it is publicly available for free to begin with. It isn't illegal to record a movie or show you watch on TV as it is freely available to the public. It is illegal to rent a movie and record it because it isn't freely viewable to the public(you have to rent or purchase the movie to view it).

If copying what is freely viewable was illegal and wrong things like TiVo wouldn't exist. ;P

  • 0
Enthusiast

blowdart

Posted
Posted
Never said I had any rights, plus also you read my post wrongly.

1) If i want to watch it 10 times, should I stream it 10 times or save it once. Tell me this - your arguements are mostly bandwidth related - which uses most, seeing as I have just saved a media file with one stream?

2) I never claimed to have any right, but I do have the ability.

3) Video cam in a movie? Nope, just get a pirate from Thailand.

Don't preach about piracy etc. We know it's wrong, but to be honest. I don't care. And lets face it, who really does?

Bandwidth saved? depends on how you rip it. And while you're ripping you're ruining the experience for others, but that doesn't matter does it, stream ripping, like file shopping is a selfish act. Of course by bursting the bandwidth you're probably costing the company more in your bursts than streaming it seperately 10 times.

As for no-one cares about piracy, obviously I do. When you hear people whinge about how DRM limits your rights, I laugh, you have no-one to blame but yourself.

  • 0
Proficient

Zombie9920

Posted
Posted (edited)

It isn't piracy. Copying what is free to the public is not piracy. Copying what isn't free is piracy. DRM is intended to protect digital media that isn't free to the public.

The reason why people like blowdart want people to stream for every view is because they want all of the extra hits. Most streaming servers have ad banners that pay them per hit. IT is all about them making more money(for free content). Sure bandwidth and hosting isn't free, but the more bandwidth you use the more $$$ it costs.If a person hits your site 1 time to download the video that hit pays for his/her one time visit.

Edited by Zombie9920
  • 0
Enthusiast

blowdart

Posted
Posted
How much do those media files actually cost you guys to obtain? Probably nothing(because they are distributed for promotional reasons). How is viewing it for free and having a copy of what you can freely view on your drive for free any different? There is no difference as the content it is publicly available for free to begin with. It isn't illegal to record a movie or show you watch on TV as it is freely available to the public. It is illegal to rent a movie and record it because it isn't freely viewable to the public(you have to rent or purchase the movie to view it).

Doesn't cost me anything to get them, my customers pay my company to host them. They make the decisions on how they are shown, they have a tick box that says download or stream. However you are confusing freely available with *free*. It costs them money to serve them, it costs me bandwidth to serve them and hosting costs. Just because something is on the internet, just because you can save it doesn't mean its free (and please don't pull the information wants to be free arguement, if you believe that, post your credit card number here, it's only information).

On the sites that serve the streams there is almost always terms and conditions, and if you don't agree to those you shouldn't be watching (not that anyone reads them). That acts like the UK TV license. TV isn't free, you're either paying a license, a cable/sky fee or you're watching the adverts, none of those make it free.

As for taping TV and radio, that was legal due to a "time shifting" arguement. Doesn't apply to streams as they're pretty much "on-demand", you can play them from the source when you want

  • 0

Guest Quick Reply

Posted
Posted

Hey blowdart, do you mind if we save a copy locally if we only use one and only one connection to the server and then view the local copy multiple times? :huh: I would think that although you won't have control of the media the second time I watch it, it would save bandwidth and active connections for the next time I would of streamed it

  • 0
Enthusiast

blowdart

Posted
Posted
Blame for what? Your arguement is totally flawed. I have no-one to blame? I really don't see what you mean.

DRM? What about it? It can be cracked! Big deal!

And yeah I am selfish. So is the industry, so fair's fair!

DRM can be cracked? Hmm, 2 years so far and the latest MS DRM is still untouched :D

No-one to blame? OK. There is a lot of outcry right now about copy protected CDs, Windows Media DRM and the DRM stuff coming in Longhorn. Everyone says "It's not fair! Whaaaa! I want to do what I want". Well tough, if people weren't ripping stuff off, there would be no need for DRM.

P2P and Napster set music on internet back 5 years.

  • 0
Grand Master

+Nik Louch Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted

Hey Blowdart, I agree that what we are doing IS piracy. Just because it is on the web doesn't mean it is free from copyright. I know that, I get it OK. That arguement would folow through to "Because the mona lisa is displayed to the public, we can take it home." I know it doesn't work that way.

However the media industry is one of the most corrupt out there. I have over 3000 PURCHASED cds in my collection. Since I have been downloading MP3s my CD spending has gone up. I am exposed to bands I would have never heard of. And yet I am the villain. This whole crap about MP3 downloaders killing the industry is a total lie. Single sales have dropped, true. But album sales have soared!

Now, I understand your hosting issues, I really do. I also have hosted (on a professional basis) streamed content, and realise the strain it places on servers. But, if you undertake any venture of this ilk, you HAVE to factor in that people will try and download the content, place undue stress on your server.

If you do not factor such items into the costing, your models are 100% flawed. It's like not taking redundancy into account. If you chose to host this stuff, be aware that others will chose to leech it. You may not like it, you may take any steps to stop it, but you will have to live with it.

  • 0
Enthusiast

blowdart

Posted
Posted
It isn't piracy. Copying what is free to the public is not piracy. Copying what isn't free is piracy. DRM is intended to protect digital media that isn't free to the public.

The reason why people like blowdart want people to stream for every view is because they want all of the extra hits. Most streaming servers have ad banners that pay them per hit. IT is all about them making more money(for free content). Sure bandwidth and hosting isn't free, but the more bandwidth you use the more $$$ it costs.If a person hits your site 1 time to download the video that hit pays for his/her one time visit.

Sorry, there are no adverts on any of the streams I serve, nor does our system host any ads. It's up to the web sites that use the streams to insert ads if they want, but they won't be doing it through my content management system.

And of course I want the extra hits, each hit gives a batter idea of how popular streams are and encourages customers to put more content up.

  • 0
Grand Master

+Nik Louch Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted

DRM can't be cracked! You reckon? Ok on a technical level, I have not tried, and wouldn't try to crack DRM. However, I download music both legally and illegally. Legally I get it from a source that protects the file with DRM. I cannot copy it to another machine, apparently. Ok so when I convert it to WAV, then back to MP3 and all DRM issues are lost, works for me!

There is a lot of outcry, yes. And protected CDs are junk that is easily worked around! I have yet to find one that stops the pirate. Many just stand in the way of the legal user (Sony CDs not working on CD-rom drives - example).

Napster set Internet music back 5 years? Whatever pal! It gave the industries a kick up the a$$ and showed them that to compete online, not EVERYTHING was chargable. In my honest opinion, without Naptser we would never have seen bands releasing 1 or 2 free downloads, pre-release clips or anything non-chargeable!

  • 0
Enthusiast

blowdart

Posted
Posted
Hey Blowdart, I agree that what we are doing IS piracy. Just because it is on the web doesn't mean it is free from copyright. I know that, I get it OK. That arguement would folow through to "Because the mona lisa is displayed to the public, we can take it home." I know it doesn't work that way.

However the media industry is one of the most corrupt out there. I have over 3000 PURCHASED cds in my collection. Since I have been downloading MP3s my CD spending has gone up. I am exposed to bands I would have never heard of. And yet I am the villain. This whole crap about MP3 downloaders killing the industry is a total lie. Single sales have dropped, true. But album sales have soared!

Now, I understand your hosting issues, I really do. I also have hosted (on a professional basis) streamed content, and realise the strain it places on servers. But, if you undertake any venture of this ilk, you HAVE to factor in that people will try and download the content, place undue stress on your server.

If you do not factor such items into the costing, your models are 100% flawed. It's like not taking redundancy into account. If you chose to host this stuff, be aware that others will chose to leech it. You may not like it, you may take any steps to stop it, but you will have to live with it.

Actually album sales have gone down, but then the labels haven't released as many albums.

I admit I'm horribly biased. I'm working on a site right now for a large band which will have their new content available for purchase and download before the physical product ships, but the amount of convincing that took was unbelievable. And why was it such an arguement? Kazza and Napster. The amount of free content frightens the crap out of the labels, so the content that is legit on line is usually crippled, either by encoding bitrate, or by DRM because napster proved users cannot be trusted :)

As for server strain, it's factored in, I've got lovely large streaming clusters, scattered around the UK and Europe. Of course that drives the cost up, and that gets passed to the customer. The more ripping, the more the cost goes up and the less content will be put on line.

Pah, I know I'm not going to convince anyway here anyway :unsure:

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to question listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.