Saving Streaming Media

[Premgenius]

Is there any software that will allow me to save online streaming media onto my computer for offline viewing of WMP files and any other software for REAL?

[blowdart]

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!

Everything can be cracked, it's just a matter of not yet. The labels know this, I keep saying to them "DRM keeps honest people honest", the people that crack it aren't a lost sale, they wouldn't have bought it in the first place.

Protected CDs annoy the crap out of me, I can't rip them and put them on my Zen (so I cheat, I usually have an encoded copy somewhere in the office, where have quite a few terabytes of music we encoded for clients and is available on line).

I'd argue napster did set everything back, it frightened labels off the idea of downloadable music and pushed DRM into their minds, but that's just my point of view.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

Dude, I don't need convincing, and I'm not in TOTAL disagreement with you. I just enjoy this discussion.

I fail to see that having the album released digitally before physically has much of an effect. Either way it could get ripped and put online. Just releasing digitally makes it one small step simpler for the user that does it?

And in your statement "that gets passed to the customer". Bingo there's the big problem. The cost has always been passed onto the customer. In this case I agree with you, it should be, as we are now caught in a catch 22. But there has long been a feeling of resent to the media industry for always hiking up costs and never putting the user first. CDs are overpriced. Casettes were overpriced to make CDs more price-acceptable, and so on and so forth. And this was long before MP3 and online piracy.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

I take onboard your DRM issue. It is kinda a double edged sword I guess.

And yeah, the legit people tend to stay legit, and those who pirate heavily would never have spent the money.

Here's my personal standpoint:

I buy LOTS of albums, DVDs, singles.

I download about 3 albums and 20 random (obsure stuff) MP3s each week.

I have tried tobuy music online (digitally) and had a stream of problems. Not with the actual files downloaded, but the delivery methods failing (O2D) or not having anything even slightly non-mainstream (once again O2D).

I do copy CDs for my own use (car MP3 player), and very occaisionally for friends. Not that I am anti-copying for friends, they just don't like my music.

I have found that musch of what populates the charts is not worth ?3 for a CD. Yet I still buy about 5 singles a week.

I agree my copying, downloading and ripping is wrong, illegal etc etc. However, I also feel that the industry does everything it can to rip-off it's audience.

[blowdart]

Dude, I don't need convincing, and I'm not in TOTAL disagreement with you. I just enjoy this discussion.

I fail to see that having the album released digitally before physically has much of an effect. Either way it could get ripped and put online. Just releasing digitally makes it one small step simpler for the user that does it?

And in your statement "that gets passed to the customer". Bingo there's the big problem. The cost has always been passed onto the customer. In this case I agree with you, it should be, as we are now caught in a catch 22. But there has long been a feeling of resent to the media industry for always hiking up costs and never putting the user first. CDs are overpriced. Casettes were overpriced to make CDs more price-acceptable, and so on and so forth. And this was long before MP3 and online piracy.

Releasing it digitally first was a major step for this bunch, and the band. It's still not a sure thing (it might be on the same day, but from midnight as opposed to store opening hours). It's been a struggle to sell it to them.

People find it easy to villify the music industry, they're faceless (well to most people, I get to meet them, they are faces to me). Same with Microsoft. Unfortunetly no-one cares much about the people that depend on those faceless corporations and apply the same ethos to the small producers too *shrug*

[blowdart]

I take onboard your DRM issue. It is kinda a double edged sword I guess.

And yeah, the legit people tend to stay legit, and those who pirate heavily would never have spent the money.

Here's my personal standpoint:

I buy LOTS of albums, DVDs, singles.

I download about 3 albums and 20 random (obsure stuff) MP3s each week.

I have tried tobuy music online (digitally) and had a stream of problems. Not with the actual files downloaded, but the delivery methods failing (O2D) or not having anything even slightly non-mainstream (once again O2D).

I do copy CDs for my own use (car MP3 player), and very occaisionally for friends. Not that I am anti-copying for friends, they just don't like my music.

I have found that musch of what populates the charts is not worth ?3 for a CD. Yet I still buy about 5 singles a week.

I agree my copying, downloading and ripping is wrong, illegal etc etc. However, I also feel that the industry does everything it can to rip-off it's audience.

Hehe, OD2? No comment. Myself, I tend to buy 3 CDs a month (how often do Sigur Ros release new stuff :blink:), but a shed load of DVDs.

I've written a personal tirade on how make on-line music sucessful (in my opinion), it's just a matter, for me, to bash it into my customers' heads. Easier said than done.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

Ah, but I also have interracted with the industry, working on a website that hosts the homepages of many prominent DJs. And I know from the discussions they wanted to charge for anything, they wanted details of everyone. Any piece of marketable information, they wanted. Any way of getting someone to part with cash (even through false suggestions of certain content) they would push forward.

The smaller producers, i have found, are a lot more willing to see themselves as part of the audience.

Lets face it - it is easy to cillify the music industry, as morals, quality and originality have been replaced with the desire to make a quick profit.

[trad]

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.

this is how we use technology, man

if there is illegal, why such software exists

if you dont people dl, then dont serve

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

Just because software exists, it doesn't make it legal dude. The software is written by people for illegal purposes.

And to be fair, it is served in a format that most don't know how to download and store. It's not served in a way that is "easy" to store, kinda why it is streamed!

[blowdart]

this is how we use technology, man

if there is illegal, why such software exists

if you dont people dl, then dont serve

Thats a pathetic argument. The technology exists to copy your credit card and spend your money. Are you saying that's ok because the "software exists"?

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

Blowdart: Seconded!!!

[Premgenius]

thanks...

[trad]

this is how we use technology, man

if there is illegal, why such software exists

if you dont people dl, then dont serve

Thats a pathetic argument. The technology exists to copy your credit card and spend your money. Are you saying that's ok because the "software exists"?

although i dont own a CC, but such software is illegal, i know

save streamed media files is illegal, :huh:

i should say such software is not ehtical

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

Not only is it not ethical, I dare say it is illegal, as they must have reverse engineered either MS or REAL code.

Part of your license agreement states you will not do this.

[.Kompressor]

Net Transport can pretty much capture all types of streams.

[Jish]

I always save a stream locally. It really ruins the experince of watching a video and having it lag while it tries to download the next chunk. It becomes really annoying when trying to rewind to a specific point, for it has to buffer the stream for about 10-20 seconds. I can see blowdart's point, but there are times when saving it locally will provide a better experince, even with my broadband connection. Most the time I delete my saved copy after viewing anyway.

Question, is "StreamBox VCR" single-stream or multi-stream?