OSNews

Nope, because you can already save Flash videos to disk easily already. There are any number of sites, apps and extensions to do this. The answer is but a Google away.

What HTML5 video might do is wake up content providers to the idea that jumping through DRM hoops not only doesn't work, but is actually a detriment to them, their brand, and their product. Just giving people the video straight will do them many favours.

Yea, but it still takes somewhat more effort than just a simple "Save as...". Not every site is as easy as YouTube to get the files from (where you can even find them in the browser cache). Some sites keep switching streaming methods, and new tricks to mislead the video saving tools are certainly still invented. What's more, there is (AFAICT) not one free, well known video saving app and/or extension that works perfectly for all sites, so while it's not impossible to save the content to disk, it sometimes requires some effort on part of the user, so the pseudo-protection probably achieves its goals.
I also guess that e.g. TV stations are under the pressure to do their best to protect third parties' contents, e.g. if MTV.com shows music videos, the record labels would not want to see their DVD sales decrease because everyone watches them in good quality on MTV.com and saves them to disk. Also, the ad partners of MTV.com (who show their ads directly before the actual music videos) certainly want to be sure that it's not ridiculously easy to by-pass their ads by saving the video permanently to disk. Similar requirements might also apply from the part of performance rights organisations, such as GEMA in Germany.
So however crappy and useless such protection measures might be, I believe the content providers often have no choice but to apply them.

But it doesn't prevent. In fact, there are several programs that allow one to save "Flash" videos to disk. Basically it's just a matter of complexity how to save data that arrived at the client can be stored permanently in a file, because the data does arive.

I've often heared that "Flash" is the preferred means for interactive content. In reality, it is used where animated GIFs have been used in the past: To gain attention by moving, jumping and dancing banners, but with "Flash" you can make them singing, peeping and screaming, too. This method seems to be used very often by "professional web designers". In the result, it's use makes websites sometimes even inaccessible. Without the proper plugin (requires a narrow range of operating systems and a specific program version), you see nothing on the page, which is "ideal" for blind users who don't even know if they are on the correct web page. Let me emphasize this: I don't have problems with "Flash" as long as it is used properly (embedded in valid HTML) and doesn't bring down a web page's usability to zero because of no reason.



That's correct. Any "postprocessing" is done by a separate plugin. But imagine: Can "Flash" be considered any standard if it forcedly requires a proprietary plugin? Can you imagine to download plugins for your browser in order to see PNG images, to see text formatted in paragraph mode, or to follow a link? Of course not, because such things are considered standards today - they come with the browser. If "Flash" would be part of the browser - platform independant, free, open - and if you furthermore would be able to switch it off (just like you can switch off CSS formatting or the displaying of images in a web page), the web would be a bit more usable.



And an extra amount of bloat and slowlyness would have the change to go aaway.

I realize you are just taking a pragmatic view on this, and there is no doubt there is truth to your statement. But while you may consider this a barrier to adoption, I see it as a feature and a _benefit_ - it is just a matter of time before the majority of users see it that way as well. And users are what matter, not content producers...

The video tag is useful for many different reasons, one _specific_ reason is that it does _not_ support any method of DRM or other such nonsense. It doesn't hide things. In fact any implementation that included any form of DRM or source masking would be by definition non-conforming.

It has been said thousands of times by many different people, but I will again state the boringly obvious: Any programmatic endeavor to keep people from using data that you have given them in any way they see fit is futile. If you give someone something there is simply no credible way to keep them from doing what they want with it - no matter how much you obfusticate things in the end they still have it, and as long as they have it it is just a matter of time. This has been demonstrated over and over and over and over again. You simply cannot give people access to a video on the internet without in reality giving them the video.

The point is as soon as all these low-brow users you speak of realize how utterly simple it is to just download the video by right clicking and hitting save-as, they will actually want to take the videos with them and will _demand_ things to work that way. If you are a content distributer, and you want use the internet to do so, you need to accept the fact that this will happen. If you don't like it don't distribute your content. My hope is that there is enough content available this way that one day in the not too distant future when some Everyday Joe right-clicks on his video and sees "About Adobe Flash Player x.0" instead of "Save As..." he will just go somewhere else.

Of course the content producers matter, they're the ones who will ultimately decide what formats/methods they'll use to provide content to users. I'd say it's one of those "it takes two to tango" situations.

I agree, sadly - but for different reasons (the lack of standardization on a single format/codec).



I don't think that's the chief reason people have for using Flash video, however. It may not be trivially-easy to save Flash video, but it's still easier than it was with WMV/ASX, MOV, and Real Video (or at least with some of the methods used to embed those formats in webpages). Yet most still switched to Flash and away from those formats.