video file

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

04-23-2006, 08:26 PM
djr33

Quote:

A few students were charged in court a few months ago for putting up MP3 songs on their website that were easily downloadable.

Duh. That's because they were illegally hosting them. The files weren't theirs and they were illegally distributing them. Also, even if you did stop people from SAVING them, you would STILL be distributing them... same legal result.

Quote:

I am not a web designer, merely a fan who wishes to share online the selected clips of the taiwanese opera actress' past 20 years performances that other senior fans have contributed.
I have never studied/attended a computer course before and thus my computer knowledge is very very limited. All my knowledge comes from consulting professionals like you on the net and also through trials and errors.

However, we ARE web designers... at least Twey is... I'm still very much learning this complex art. We've been over this countless times... I know it seems like there should be a way, but there isn't, and that's not an accident... 1- the web is supposed to be open source, as Twey says, and 2- there are people out there called "hackers"... that's what they do. Now, there are some "hackers" who hack banks. There are other "hackers" who get around disabled right click scripts. The point being... you can't stop someone from what they want to do if they're dedicated enough.
Try and err all you want, but, believe me, there is no secure way to do this. As I said above, even the big companies aren't able to only let people do certain things with their files. We'd all love that, but it's just not possible. And for good reason. Google comes the closest, but there are STILL ways around this.
For one thing, just like with images, video screencaptures could get around almost any security measures you have. Even if it just streams, it'll still go around it.
Plus, you may say that there are things like video memory that doesn't get screen captured, but then I'll point out, as something I checked out last time, that's only a PC thing. Macs will screencap anything, as far as I can tell.
Frame by frame screencaps could work, even. Then record outputted audio. You're done.

Quote:

(will be deleted soon)

grrr.... what's the issue with this? you post a link, and I check later that day, and I can't view it. how can we help if you won't let us see that stuff? A number of other links in the thread have gone down too. Your choice, but we can't do anything with the page that no longer exists.

What the heck is this "JPG video" anyway? I'm totally lost. I thought it was a Codec. Now its a file format? .jpg as a video? What? Please do put up an example.
Plus... it can be hacked. We'll show you. Fun game, really.

Again, just go with embedding the file in the page. Then people can't just save, can't just right click, can't just download. They need to find the url for themselves and find a way to save that link to their disc. If they do that, then there's pretty good chance they can also get around more secure measures. Really. It'll save you time to.

This is WHY copyright laws exist.
04-23-2006, 09:18 PM
Twey

Quote:

What the heck is this "JPG video" anyway? I'm totally lost. I thought it was a Codec. Now its a file format? .jpg as a video? What? Please do put up an example.

It's actually a WMV version 7 video; s/he's just changed the extension and, inadvertantly, the MIME type it's served with.

Quote:

However, we ARE web designers... at least Twey is...

Just an amateur of professional standard. :) Well, considerably above professional standard, actually, seeing some of the excuses for "professionally designed" sites out there.

Quote:

2- there are people out there called "hackers"... that's what they do. Now, there are some "hackers" who hack banks. There are other "hackers" who get around disabled right click scripts.

Actually, the correct term for somebody who makes a habit of bypassing security -- for whatever reason, though it tends to imply a nefarious purpose -- is "cracker." A "hacker" is merely somebody who enjoys playing with what goes on inside systems, although the former does tend to blur into the latter.

Quote:

As I said above, even the big companies aren't able to only let people do certain things with their files. We'd all love that, but it's just not possible.

No, we wouldn't. TCPA is the latest scheme to do this (disregarding Sony's rootkit, which gave me a few laughs [the moreso because it only worked on Windows systems, and not even those if the users bothered to actually look at the contents of the CD rather than just autoplaying it]).
04-23-2006, 11:49 PM
djr33

Quote:

It's actually a WMV version 7 video; s/he's just changed the extension and, inadvertantly, the MIME type it's served with.

Ew. Bad plan, as you said above. Heh. But... still... what IS JPG video. I mean... it's been talked about from the beginning. Surely it's more than just messing with the file extension.... or is this "format" we've been talking about just a mask?

Quote:

Just an amateur of professional standard. Well, considerably above professional standard, actually, seeing some of the excuses for "professionally designed" sites out there.

Heh. And some of them come here for advice on the sites their being paid to design. ^_^

Hacker/Cracker, sure. Good to know.

Quote:

No, we wouldn't.

Well.... what I meant was that I'm sure we'd all love the option to control our sites/content more without annoying the viewer. In many cases, less 'security' is much better. In others, it would be nice to have some more control over stuff. But... yeah... I'm not pushing for a more restrictive format.
Just saying that from the creator's viewpoint, more control is good. From the viewers, it's bad. Therefore, it's not worth it unless I'm the only one who has it or whatever, which would be stupid anyway.... if you get what I mean.

Anyway... yeah.

And... for jpg video.... what's the plan for delivering it to the viewer? Once you 'decode' your complex 'naming it incorrectly' system, it's still just a normal wmv. Yeah?
04-24-2006, 05:30 AM
Twey

Quote:

But... still... what IS JPG video.

There is no "JPG video." It's just WMV with a different extension.

Quote:

And... for jpg video.... what's the plan for delivering it to the viewer?

Embedding it. However, it'll fail in standards-compliant browsers, which will accept the server's image/jpeg MIME-type. Only IE will try to make judgements on the nature of the file, against standards, meaning that it will only work in IE.

Quote:

Once you 'decode' your complex 'naming it incorrectly' system, it's still just a normal wmv. Yeah?

Right.
04-24-2006, 06:18 AM
djr33

Quote:

There is no "JPG video." It's just WMV with a different extension.

He said he was using "JPG video" earlier in the thread. He just meant a wrong extension on WMV? I thought it was actually a format. Nevermind, I guess. Weird idea... bad idea.. as you've said.
Anyway....
yeah.... don't do it.
You can just save after it's renamed correctly. Or get it from temp. int. files.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page