"The immense popularity of sites like YouTube has unexpectedly turned Flash Video into one of the de facto standards for Internet video. The proliferation of sites using FLV has been a boon for remix culture, as creators made their own versions of posted videos. And thus far there has been no widespread DRM standard for Flash or Flash Video formats; indeed, most sites that use these formats simply serve standalone, unencrypted files via ordinary web servers. Now Adobe, which controls Flash and Flash Video, is trying to change that with the introduction of DRM restrictions in version 9 of its Flash Player and version 3 of its Flash Media Server software."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-15
Member since:2006-10-12
Member since:2005-11-09
Member since:2006-09-30
They use whatever player is installed in the user's machine by using the EMBED tag correctly, that is pointing to the file instead of the app they want to use.
There is absolutely no reason to use flash for that usage.
Even totem in Linux is able to play videos in well done pages in moz, I was actually surprised to see unexpectedly.
One more reason not to use flash.
I'm gonna remove it again from my XP install I think. It eats up the cpu (so the battery too) on the laptop with those stupid I-put-4-times-the-same-ad-in-flash websites anyway.
Member since:2005-06-30
I think instead Youtube will be happy to embrace this DRM feature for selected content.
Even if it will be broken soon after release, it'd still give Old Media comforting assurances about the security of their content.
Especially when paired with a resolution increase in Youtube video.
Member since:2007-02-07
"Even if it will be broken soon after release, it'd still give Old Media comforting assurances about the security of their content."
In one way you are right, media companies and content owners can be relatively sure about the quality of content that they submit to Youtube and more of them might embrace content distribution on Youtube.
On the other hand, user submitted content is still not protected and that is the problem content owners have with Youtube.
Content providers want more of a TheyTube than YouTube, hence, DRM is not the answer they're looking for.
Edited 2008-02-24 23:05 UTC
Member since:
2005-11-21
Me thinks YouTube should wrap the H.264 content in another kind of container than Flash.