Silverlight is a multimedia extension, including controls, serverside streaming (the player software runs on the server, not the client).

Yet this requires permission, for instance to use IFRAME. many blogs do not allow IFRAME.

alternatively, Microsoft is also offering an interface to store movies on their servers, and give a direct link to .WMV file.

all media files are converted to WMV, which is a compact format, and it can be played by many software products, including most OEM DVD software players.

So if you do not want Windows Media Player (mine always has the hickups, i can not figure out why), simply try to drop WMV on your DVD replay software.

Also the Standard Nero can play WMV, and the free Irfanview never has any MP3 hickups.

 

I have no clue what's causing these gitches, maybe some freaks created bogus components, because they do not like Windows Media Player.

I have new computer, but replaying MP3 causes unaceptable glitches. this also occured on my older computer, and i even changed the soundcard.

 

For instance, i do not have the Nero Video editor on my own computer, but there is a 3rd  party computer which has this software installed.

You see it is not obscure i want to save the WMV i get back from Microsoft Silverlight, and replay it on my own computer using DVD software!

 

But here some links, first my POPFLY page: http://www.popfly.com/users/tetsu-jp

and here a HTML page i've created to replay the movies, it is using standard Media player gadget: http://mtfujitown.info/javascript_moviepage.htm

 

My position is that people should be able to download everything.

Companies being obscure about low-quality MP3, tiny movies in low resolution, well you know what.

It is a free market after all.

 

On the other hand, people are not allowed to distribute full quality .WAV from CDs.

They must buy the CDs in a shop.

 

And people are not allowed to distribute DVDs on the internet.

Yet it is permissible to film off an excerpt from the screen using a digital camera, and add it to YOUTUBE.

it is not allowed officially, but it is tolerated in many cases, because it is not for the reason to get the movie for free.

It is "fair use", for the purpose to discuss the content, and to promote it "fan materials".

Fair use normally is a few minutes, maybe even only 50 seconds, in low resolution.

 

For instance old TV commercials from VHS tapes can be found on YOUTUBE in large numbers.

I think if people do buy DVDs and CDs, they do not have to accept any DRM (Digital Rights Management).

It helps no one.

 

People without money simply will not buy music, because they can not do it.

And normal people who work, who have some money available will simply want to go to a shop and buy some DVDs.

Yet it is obscure to stream DVD (5 GB), or even Blue-Ray and HD via the internet.

No one would be interested to get, let say, 5 movies that way.

Right now, some people are "sharing" slices of a few 100 mbytes each.

 

This is somply not professional, and maybe 5 to 10 percent of all people would be willing even to try such techniques.

So DRM helps no one, these 5 percent "have nots" will not buy anything, and will always break copyright.

 

Yet i think copyright mechanism on DVD does not matter, i mean, i do not really want to store movies on hard drives,

it is OK to play disc-jockey...

But it is thinkable to copy them to the hard-drive.

Yet i understand the industry wants to be sure people pay money correctly...

Take a look SONY's CD copy protection...it simply failed.

People do not want to be treated like idiots or LINUX students, and to have to install a 300MB rootkit just to listen to low-quality mp3.

 

But yet this is reality for instance my MINIDISC player. It has USB interface, but it can not record, and transfer the data to my PC.

Why not? I have purchased recording software for soundcard, a while ago, and now lost the license key.

So i can only record on MINIDISC, but i can not transfer the data to the PC.

It can also record files from PC to MINIDISC!

Yet there is a large and complicated software, with a graphical user interface.

 

It is not too bad because i do not use recording professionally.

Most of my MP3 content is not available on commercial CDs, or it is 20 years old from YOUTUBE.

so i do not understand the problems. I understand there is music in the media markets, and that it is content i would not listen to it

just one minute. And yet people (teenagers) will copy the mp3 and do not pay money.

For this reason, there is no free recording software, and even MINIDISC is sort of restricted.

 

I think the future is not DRM, and it will not belong to companies who try to work out more schemes, such as people can not save anything from the internet anymore (yet, they still can grab FLASH objects if they really wanted to).

It will simply be seen unethical to have unlicensed movies, for instance, when friends visit, they can see the DVD cases on display, personally i have more than 50 DVDs. It will only be a few special population groups who override the copy protection meachanism, and have it for free!

It is like having a crystal plastic box at the work place, and have real money notes inside it.

If money disappears, you simply have to fire people!

If you can not trust people that way, DRM will only create more paranoia, and it will produce distraction to people who pay for media.

I mean, who is really uploading .WAV tracks to the internet? 50 megabyte each? i have not seen any.

MP3 is fair usage already, the lower quality downend.

For instance, i have some CDs, and have extracted the WAV files to my hard drive.

I do not want to play discjockey all the time.

It is an obscure idea to upload 600 megabtes of music tracks to the internet, and yet, at 500kbps, it would be a terrific act.

 

I think companies like Microsoft will simply give a certain amount of storage to people, right now 10GB, and do not care anymore about the copyright of the content.

Yet, after a while, maybe they will get some VIACOM detectives scanning for samples from new rock music, means, which is found in shops, and some groups do not want their fans to create unpaid excerpts.

 

Do you think, if it becomes possible, everyone would stop buying music and movies, and download it from the internet "for free"?

Maybe in Indonesia, and Phillipines, and also areas of China, this would be the case. They do not always have money.

They have a problem with "pirate" copies. but this is unrelated to DRM. Or is it related? Maybe these people are more willing to use unlicensed content.

One site i know is http://multiply.com

Recently, they changed the way of handling MP3. people without premium account can still upload, and their visitors can listen to the tracks.

but they can not download anymore.

Only members with premium accounts can keep the original files.

Yet, MULTIPLY can do great things:

 

-GRAB your complete FLICKR stream, and import it

-SAVE copies from YOUTUBE movies

-UPLOAD mp3, and share it (they monitor the usage so you can not add unlimited number of tracks)

 

do not think i just write something i have invented myself and it is only based on my own home.

i know maybe 20 internet communites, if you subtract the one's i do not visit anymore!

so the real number is even higher. I try to "know" the population on the internet, including generation younger than myself.

And i would say, there are people who think it is OK to have music and movies for free, based on rock and punk music attitudes "sort of rebellious attitudes", means it is OK to bypass the "rich".

Yet they do not see many of their bands are rich themselves.

And there are other people who want to buy entertainment, like DVDs, commercially. they know, if the producers get revenue, means money, they can create more, high quality content.

 

So that's what the recording and entertainment industry is maybe missing to see:

there are different population groups.

and people want to copy digitally for different reasons.

Personally i have no problem with let say, two tiny clips filmed off the screen, maybe a minute each, and 50 DVDs.

Also, they are from movies which are 15 years old, and have been exploited commercially for a long time already.

I mean, i do not feel doing something wrong. And yet, they have not been removed by Youtube.

I know i have compulsory right to maintain such excerpts on the internet, even if they are only filmed off from the screen, not digital copies.

So people could always sample from the analog back end, and nowadays, that's more than good quality.

For this reason, DRM does not really matter, the people who are after the content will always find ways to bypass it.

Yet it creates an athmosphere of paranoia, and criminalization of everyone, like on wikipedia, where you either illegally re-license stuff under the GDFL, or you are asked to get out. Be it tiny bitmaps from a public domain source, or photographies you created yourself, or scans from musem pieces photographies.

They do not care about the real life situation, they care about their policies, and literally, it can criminalize people quiete easily.

 

I want to write more of my ideas about copyright on the internet, for instance "fair usage" of bitmap graphics.

I think it is allowed in many cases, similar companies are allowed to send paper leaflets to people's homes, even if this is not asked for.

For instance illustrations which are decades old, and which are not subject of current commercial exploitation.