Download from Hulu
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: Testing
Next: Kitty: I Use The Library
From: H-Man on 17 Mar 2010 09:26 On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:17:15 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: > H-Man wrote: > >> Thank you for your explanation. I was completely aware of what you are >> saying and I most certainly did not want to start a flame war. My point was >> simply that we often discuss freeware and terms of use policies and how >> this often defines freeware and it's suitability for discussion here. As >> Hulu has clearly stated their wishes regarding the use of their provided >> content, it seems to contradict the spirit of this group. If I'm wrong here >> then fine, no offense taken here, and feel free to discuss this under the >> "fair use" clause. It does just seem a bit contradictory to me, that's all. >> Not to suggest that either you or BB have suggested otherwise, just the >> general spirit of the group, that's all. >> >> Again, feel free to do what you want, it wasn't intended as alarmist, but >> simply as a counterpoint. > > Since most if not all of the content channeled through Hulu services is not > Hulu's property (i.e., they are providing copyrighted content but it isn't > THEIR content), I suspect much of their policy is to prevent someone from > cloning their service. Hulu cannot enforce the ownership rights of the > copyright owner of the content that Hulu provides through their service. I > wrongly brought up the issue of copyright because I later realized that the > content they provide isn't their property. If Hulu had to buy all those > videos they channel through their service, they wouldn't exist as a free > service. > > Their policy is written, if taken literally and isolated from reality, to > punish everyone that uses their service. I really doubt they care about > someone that uses stream capture to eliminate jerky playback or timeshift > the viewing. What probably concerns them is the elimination of the ad > content included with the movie and duplication or redistribution of their > service. Why Hulu chose to use separate separate streams is a technological > restriction that doesn't exist but instead how they chose to structure their > service. They want the ads to rotate through different content and which > change over time as their contracts with ad sources change, but that does > not bar them from an on-the-fly merge of the multiple streams when presented > to the user at a particular "showing" of the movie. You think the ads you > see today in yet another umpteenth showing of an episode of Star Wars on > television are the same as when the movie was televised a decade ago? Yet > you get one stream for the televised showing of the movie and ads. Hulu can > do the same thing and much easier to provide you with one stream by merging > the sources on-the-fly. They already defined where are the splice points in > the movie to insert the ads. Rather than show separate streams, they give > you one stream. Tommorow when you view the same movie, the ads will be > different in that one stream that you view or capture. Hulu has legally > complied with the contracts it has made with its advertisers to show their > due diligence in providing that ad content to the viewers. > > Online movies are sometimes convenient and enjoyable and that they are free > is nice but I'm not some child that thinks the world revolves around their > wants and thinks some daddy billionaire is wasting their money on an > altruistic venture. There is a cost to you for their free service: ads. > They're in business to stay in business. If they go out of business, we all > lose. Ad revenue sustains their business. They're getting paid by their > advertisers to show that content so it seems incumbent upon them to ensure > that ad content is included with their primary product (the movie). So > instead of using the technology correctly by merging the ad and movie > streams, Hulu is trying to compensate by pushing a policy but which is an > agreement and not law. They need to assuage their advertisers that they are > really trying to ensure the viewers are seeing those ads. > > They aren't worried about someone stealing content nor can they do anything > should they discover someone is stealing content. It wasn't Hulu's content > in the first place. The ads that they show belong to someone else. The > movies they show belong to someone else. They can't do anything regarding > copyright infringment because they're not the owners of that content, > anymore than some television broadcaster can sue their viewers for > redistributing a movie that was shown through that service provider. So > Hulu is interested in their survivability due to the real possibility of > duplication or redistribution of their service and of viewers not seeing the > ads that keeps the Hulu service alive. Hulu has to show due diligence that > the ads they are paid to show will be seen. So instead of doing it right by > merging the streams, they push out a policy which looks good to the > advertisers but is a joke in reality regarding having any teeth to enforce. > If Hulu were to properly satisfy the contracts with their advertisers, they > would push out one stream for a movie. I get it, thanks. I do think my point has been missed, but that's okay. Your point is clear and I accept you viewpoint valid as such. -- HK
From: H-Man on 17 Mar 2010 09:42 On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:05:16 GMT, Bear Bottoms wrote: > H-Man <Spam(a)bites.fs> wrote in > news:4b9f88a0$0$65858$892e0abb(a)auth.newsreader.octanews.com: > >> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:56:59 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> Get real. It's a policy. It's not law. >> >> Thank you for your explanation. I was completely aware of what you are >> saying and I most certainly did not want to start a flame war. My >> point was simply that we often discuss freeware and terms of use >> policies and how this often defines freeware and it's suitability for >> discussion here. As Hulu has clearly stated their wishes regarding the >> use of their provided content, it seems to contradict the spirit of >> this group. If I'm wrong here then fine, no offense taken here, and >> feel free to discuss this under the "fair use" clause. It does just >> seem a bit contradictory to me, that's all. Not to suggest that either >> you or BB have suggested otherwise, just the general spirit of the >> group, that's all. >> >> Again, feel free to do what you want, it wasn't intended as alarmist, >> but simply as a counterpoint. >> > > There is no right or wrong regarding this issue, only your own perception > and how you evaluate the meaning as applied to yourself. Wrong would be > trying to apply that to others. I personally will not give up my right to > copy anything fed to my computer for my own personal use. Clearly there's no right or wrong in this group, and my intent was never to project any viewpoint onto anyone in the group. It wasn't even so much as my viewpoint as a simple question gotten complicated. For sure you are free to do as you wish, far be it from me to pass any judgment on that. My suggestion was fact, the action is contrary to their TOU policy. Whether or not the TOU policy is enforceable or not, again was not intended as part of my question. The question was is this suitable for discussion in this group. Your opinion is that yes it is. That's fair enough an I thank you for making your position on this clear. If at any time I sounded like I was accusing anyone of wrong doing, then I do apologize. It feels wrong to me, but that's just me, and my intent was never to project my values onto anyone else. Sorry if I did. On a side not, it has become almost impossible for anyone to offer a contrary opinion without getting shot at. Too bad, civil and open discussion can accomplish so much. -- HK
From: Bear Bottoms on 17 Mar 2010 10:38 On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:42:48 -0600, H-Man <Spam(a)bites.fs> said: > On a side not, it has become almost impossible for anyone to offer a > contrary opinion without getting shot at. Too bad, civil and open > discussion can accomplish so much. Aw, it's just a post, not a bullet :) -- BearBottoms
From: za kAT on 17 Mar 2010 10:45 On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:38:30 -0500, Bear Bottoms wrote: > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:42:48 -0600, H-Man <Spam(a)bites.fs> said: >> On a side not, it has become almost impossible for anyone to offer a >> contrary opinion without getting shot at. Too bad, civil and open >> discussion can accomplish so much. > > Aw, it's just a post, not a bullet :) OK, so I found this and this and this here: http://androidcommunity.com/forums/members/bearbottoms-71403.html and dat there: http://moourl.com/LotsaBearBottoms Sorry, I want definitive, absolute proof that the Bear Bottoms mentioned in all those links and lives in Southern Louisiana is the Bear Bottoms who posts here and lives in Southern Louisiana. Because they post and talk alike means nothing to me. There are thousands of Bear Bottoms in Southern Louisiana, Gordon. I bet. You do all the work, I'll stay safe, head buried into the sand. Otherwise, you're a liar like Ari. Btw, don't type too fast, things fly right by me thousands a time a year. I also invoke the Secret Squirrel for things that are far too sophisticated for me to imagine much less understand. -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - www.zakATsKopterChat.com
From: H-Man on 17 Mar 2010 11:44
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:38:30 -0500, Bear Bottoms wrote: > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:42:48 -0600, H-Man <Spam(a)bites.fs> said: >> On a side not, it has become almost impossible for anyone to offer a >> contrary opinion without getting shot at. Too bad, civil and open >> discussion can accomplish so much. > > Aw, it's just a post, not a bullet :) Yeah, I know. I wasn't necessarily pointing you out as it was a side note. And I suppose getting shot at was a bit of a reaction, but still, the overall climate of the group is less than friendly. Either way, as long as I can still find good freeware here then the rest can fire away. -- HK |