[whatwg] More YouTube response
svartman95 at gmail.com
Mon Jul 5 16:53:14 PDT 2010
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010, Marques Johansson <marques at displague.com> wrote:
> The company I work for, VOD.com (sfw) (aka Hotmovies .com and clips .com -
> nsfw (spaces added)), offer video on demand services to thousands of
> studios. Our sites are central locations for customers who want to watch
> something - this is a service in itself. We handle encoding and content
> distribution and streaming sales for these studios without any cost to them.
> They send us video content and we send them a monthly check. Without
> services like the ones we provide many of these studios (some are mom and
> pop shops) wouldn't otherwise have the ability to sell their content online
> in this fashion.
If I understand correctly, you are content distributors and video encoders.
> Customers can watch movies by purchasing packages of time or paying for DRM
> protected rentals or for some of our sites and videos they can pay for
> unprotected video. The protected content (rentals) comes in the form of WMV
> or DivX files using either DivX's service of Windows Media Server.
So you sell copies for money and a promise to delete the copy after
it's use. That's like selling a book, printing "Burn after reading"
on it and calling yourself a library. Also the book shall not be used
for "unauthorized uses", e.g. put under a table foot, lent to a friend
or read repeatedly. The latter two cases may be solved by going to the
"library" and buying another copy, other can't.
Many people see DRM as an hybrid between a lock and a automagical fire
> For the content that is not protected the download or stream is metered so
> the client can be charged only for the time they spent watching the content.
> We error on the customer's side for things like buffering and misreported
> play segments.
This seems like a saner alternative.
> I think the discussion that DRM is irrelevant has its merits, but the
> contracts and services at play have a real value regardless of how
> distribution is restricted.
> For my purposes I am interested in application-controlled video delivery. I
> want to be able to deliver unprotected mp4, webm, or ogv content in a
> metered way. If the user has payed to watch the entire video once and has
> managed to work around HTTP no-cache and the other constraints that a normal
> browser viewed experience would have, then they will have succeeding in
> downloading a copy of the video - a task which they could have accomplished
> with a VM session or through other means regardless of DRM. If we need
> additionally protection we can add watermarking to legally go after content
> thieves since we know the IP and username of the viewer in most cases.
Once a user has bought a copy, the copy has been bought and how
(often) he uses said copy isn't your probem. You've successfully
distributed and charged for the content. Job's done. A technical user
will probably be able to copy the video to permanent storage whatever
you do. Multi-pricing can also be achieved by other means, such as by
resolution crippling. Watermarking to aid with tracking down grand scale
pirates seems to be an OK thing to do.
> My requests have focused on things like "<video minbuffer=100k
> maxbuffer=200k>" which could also apply to a source element. I want to make
> sure that the browser always uses "Range: bytes x-y" in requests (since I
> have no other way to require that a browser use ranges or use ranges with an
> upper bound). I can use this tool to make sure UAs do not download more
> content than the user has watched (which costs them money in some way).
> I've also been suggesting HTTP changes that would permit this UA behavior
> (a 4xx for Ranges Required, a 4xx for Range too large, or explicitly
> defining that a 206 response can include less bytes than requested and the
> UA should follow-up with additional ranged requests).
> While an HTML5 solution is easy to make possible as their is no legacy to
> worry about and the spec is still floating about, an HTTP solution would
> allow me to provide metered content flow without leaving HTTP sessions open
> (throttling) and without the need for a video element - permitting users to
> use their native http streaming players.
> These requests can be seen as generally allowing servers to reduce load for
> video or large file downloads. Since a client may be able to download 5
> minutes of video in under a minute I would like to see the client disconnect
> from the server and reconnect in 5 minutes to get the additional content. I
> would like to see the server have the ability to enforce this (through HTTP
> errors) or at least suggest it (through HTML5 attributes or additional HTTP
Server load can also be reduced by e.g. P2P, though users may want the
price to drop in proportion to their uploads.
More information about the whatwg