All:

I know there are many apps that enable the capture of streaming video,
e.g., from YouTube, Google Videos, etc. My question is, how do these
work at a technical level? Do the application set up an HTTP proxy and
capture the video stream? Install a network stack sniffer? Use some
sort of DirectX (on Windows) app/code?

I am fascinated how these might work...

Thanks,
John

"jpuopolo" wrote ...
I suspect the answer is "all of the above" and likely
even more. The people who want to protect their IP
are pretty tricky, and the people who want to steal it
at the other end must stay nimble and ingenious to try
to keep up.

There are likely other forums where this is more a main-
stream topic of conversation. I suspect there are even
"secret" forums where pirates discuss how they are
cracking the latest protection scheme. Arrrrgh. :-)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:6798ndF2nnrh1U1@mid.individual.net...
People who protect their IP by posting it on YouTube can't be
all that tricky. And as for "stealing", if you (I mean that as a
generic "you") voluntarily send data to my computer over the
internet, don't turn around and whine when I handle that data as
I see fit.

This battle is not between content providers and pirates, it's
between a tiny group of greedy bastards who're doing whatever
they can to eliminate the control people have over their own
computers, and the rest of us. Any company who implements
half-baked schemes toward that first goal (e.g. Microsoft and
their WPA, or Adobe etc) should be punished and, if they don't
wake the fuck up, eventually be put out of business. It is
absolutely critical that people fight back against this kind of
corporate fascism, because if we don't, one of the greatest
technological advances in communication history will be lost
in a cesspool of unchecked greed. The same way cable TV,
broadcast radio etc etc were turned into commercial cesspools.

nospam wrote:
I bet you didn't know, that even screen capturing the elements
of a program displayed on your computer, is illegal :-) Which is
why, even a person making a training film, by recording the
screen as a program is used, could be violating the law. So the
concept extends further than movies. (Something to do with
copyright perhaps ?)

That being said, devices like Intensity Pro, or even an analog
capture card, would allow recording anything that appears on a
screen. Intensity Pro was designed to discourage that, by only
supporting certain formats, from devices feeding it. But it
would be something I'd want to investigate, if wanting to
record the output of the computer screen.

For intercepting playback content, the easiest way would be
to intercept the frame buffer, as the image is rendered. Whether
it is a data block in main memory, which is being copied to an
overlay buffer in the video card. Or reaching into the video card
and getting the image that way. That avoids the hassle of dealing
with a variety of formats as sent "over the wire" - they could be
encrypted for example.

An example is FRAPS, a program used to record video gaming action.
This is intended for 3D content, and not for copying Youtube, but
it illustrates the basic concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraps

Fraps lit up my antivirus software like a Christmas tree :-)
I never heard so much beeping, as when I tried to install it.
Presumably similar software for handling movies, isn't quite
as bad.

HTH,
Paul

"nospam" wrote ...
If you voluntarily give me keys to the car I rented, don't
turn around and whine if I don't return the keys (or the car).

Is that the theory? Just want to make sure I've got it right.

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:679tofF2or4jqU1@mid.individual.net...
Your analogy is completely bogus. The corrected version is:
if you ask my permission to park your car inside my garage,
and I agree, that doesn't mean I give up ownership of my
garage.

"nospam" <nospam@comcast.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:9uydnV-cD89jUJLVnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com...
But apparently you want to keep the car, also.

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:67a271F2n6a03U1@mid.individual.net...
Nope, and that's a ridiculous leap of logic. If you don't want
your car in my garage, you're entirely free to not put it there.
But if you do put it there, don't turn around and start dictating
what I am and am not allowed to do inside my own garage.

"nospam" wrote ...
So do you reject the civilized notion of property rights altogether?
Or just the notion of intellectual property rights?

Have you ever been on the other side of the counter where
YOU were the IP producer/owner?

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:67a4t2F2nthdkU1@mid.individual.net...
Neither. I support reasonable (I'd even settle for rational) copyright
laws. Not the current insanity, where someone can write one book
or scream into a microphone one time and expect to make millions
of dollars for 50+ years afterward. As a result of these laws we
have critical shortages of doctors and teachers but we're up to our
eyeballs in hip hop criminals and boy bands.

In Britain, even before invention of the printing press, when distribution
of written works took decades, copyright protection extended for only
two years. IMO that's still an entirely reasonable period of protection.
And in my view there's even less justification for protecting music for
longer than two years. It's the same eight notes for chrissakes, and
every song ever recorded is based more or less on something that
was done before by at least one other person, and usually many
other people.

Yes.