So what would I need to do so people could watch a Video File?
Can’t I just place that in my Document Root and link to it like a picture?
(Again, I have no clue how to do videos online.)
And no, streaming would not protect them from being downloaded and copied. For a video to be displayed all the necessary bits of data need to make it to the client’s side. These bits are easily captured and reassembled into a complete file.
Now, not to start any rumors here, but just out of curiosity, then how do porn sites prevent people from copying all of their movies?
I mean, Ralph may be correct in that nobody would want to steal my “Debbie on Incorporating Your Business”, but other content (e.g. porn) would definitely get stolen even if it was streamed.
My point being, there certainly must be Technologies and Techniques that make it extremely difficult to capture videos online. Whether you are the Playboy Channel or NetFlicks or VH1 it would seem that they are ahead of the copyright infringers. (And I would think that the pron companies would be way ahead of the bad guys when it comes to protecting their content.)
So, if there is anyone out there that runs a porn network, how do you/they protect their online videos??
Sometimes, or use Flash/Silverlight to act as a middle-man.
[B]
Now, not to start any rumors here,
[/B]
but just out of curiosity, then how do porn sites prevent people from copying all of their movies?..
DRM and encryption, both of which must be supported by the server software, and client system along with the player (Flash/Silverlight) thus you won’t see “porn” sites use HTML5 for video content. HTML5 has no DRM support.
Know of any helpful tutorials to put videos on a website?
DRM and encryption, both of which must be supported by the server software, and client system along with the player (Flash/Silverlight) thus you won’t see “porn” sites use HTML5 for video content. HTML5 has no DRM support.
DRM = Digital Rights Media?
Is that how the Apple Store and iTunes works?
You need a key on your computer or something to be able to access content?
I’ve not yet come across any online video content that I couldn’t copy with a simple screen recording program I have, which captures the video and audio beautifully. With the click of a button, I can copy anything, from videos to movies, and with another click save them in a format ready to upload to YouTube or whatever. Not that I do this often, mind you … but the point is that it’s easy. I have this software for making screencasts on my computer, but it’s really handy for other things, too. I can record family Skype conversations, TV shows and all sorts of stuff to keep filed away.
I’m just pointing out that once something is on your screen, it’s utterly trivial to copy it.
A while back I was exploring copyright protection of PDFs, and discovered that you can sign up to Adobe and set some kind of key on each PDF so that the purchaser has to be registered with Adobe to view the PDF and it is restricted to one computer. But then I discovered that this costs tens of thousands of dollars per year! Gulp. That was the end of that idea. And then I discovered that a lot of people are turning away from DRM (digital rights management) anyway … because it punishes honest people and, in the end, is never failsafe anyway.
Perhaps instead of making these videos free to view online, charge people to view and/or download them. And if you have the time, prepare a copy for them that displays their email address at the bottom (or maybe their credit card number … … if that’s legal, but I suspect it isn’t) to discourage them from passing it around.
In the end, though, you have to ask yourself if all this protection is worth it. It costs you a lot of time and money … when probably you are better off just creating more great content and keeping ahead of the pack. As some who have turned against DRM maintain, having your work passed around freely is good advertising … so as long as the videos have your branding all over them, the worst that would happen is your advertising costs are reduced to nothing!
I’d be curious to know what program(s) you are using.
And if they are freeware or pay-ware?!
Anything freeware I have tried in the past certainly could not copy everything. And more advanced sites like the Wall Street Journal or some mdeia sites were very hard if not impossible to copy.
I’m just pointing out that once something is on your screen, it’s utterly trivial to copy it.
Okay.
A while back I was exploring copyright protection of PDFs, and discovered that you can sign up to Adobe and set some kind of key on each PDF so that the purchaser has to be registered with Adobe to view the PDF and it is restricted to one computer. But then I discovered that this costs tens of thousands of dollars per year! Gulp. That was the end of that idea. And then I discovered that a lot of people are turning away from DRM (digital rights management) anyway … because it punishes honest people and, in the end, is never failsafe anyway.
Okay.
Perhaps instead of making these videos free to view online, charge people to view and/or download them. And if you have the time, prepare a copy for them that displays their email address at the bottom (or maybe their credit card number … … if that’s legal, but I suspect it isn’t) to discourage them from passing it around.
Well, that could be another thread in and of itself.
I have had a really hard time even getting visitors to my website and my clients’ websites.
The reason I am thinking of spending a lot of money on videos and podcasts is to GET VISITORS (and hopefully Customers).
So that is probably why I am so protective of my future materials…
If people had to pay to watch my videos and listen to my Podcasts I would be out of business. (Some days I don’t think if I paid people they would even come to my site?!)
In the end, though, you have to ask yourself if all this protection is worth it. It costs you a lot of time and money … when probably you are better off just creating more great content and keeping ahead of the pack. As some who have turned against DRM maintain, having your work passed around freely is good advertising … so as long as the videos have your branding all over them, the worst that would happen is your advertising costs are reduced to nothing!
All valid points, Ralph.
I’m just worried because everything I have tried so far has failed.
I didn’t do a good job helping my clients make money online, and now I am suffering myself. I spent A LOT of money on radio advertising that yielded virtually no visitors to my site, and I am fearful of even putting up good copy and images for fear some bigger competitor (or even a small scavenger) will come along, steal my content and ideas, and leave me in the dust…
Yeah, if I plaster my videos and Podcasts with my company name and URL, I suppose it is pretty useless to others, except they can still use it for ideas and then copy my content in an even worse way.
Yes, but that won’t bring them to the site in the first place, because they won’t know about it.
I spent A LOT of money on radio advertising that yielded virtually no visitors to my site
Indeed. And that’s partly why people re-using your videos can be free advertizing for you … and why it’s worth considering posting videos on YouTube etc.
When Cory Doctorow—who is a novelist and passionate campaigner against DRM—made the digital editions of his novels available for free, his book sales reportedly skyrocketed … which he attributes to the free advertising he got through people passing around the digital versions.
Yes, well, apparently the two most recession-proof products worldwide are cosmetics and beer, so you may be on a winner there.
True, but it may keep them there and inspire them to tell their friends about my site.
Indeed. And that’s partly why people re-using your videos can be free advertizing for you … and why it’s worth considering posting videos on YouTube etc.
But doesn’t using YouTube look unprofessional?
I mean, do you go to Citibank or Target or Sony or BMW and then end up being transferred to watch company or product videos on YouTube?!
When Cory Doctorow—who is a novelist and passionate campaigner against DRM—made the digital editions of his novels available for free, his book sales reportedly skyrocketed … which he attributes to the free advertising he got through people passing around the digital versions.
I’ll have to read up on him…
Yes, well, apparently the two most recession-proof products worldwide are cosmetics and beer, so you may be on a winner there.
You really know how to make a girl feel better, Ralph…
Speaking for myself, I’d say no. I’m fine with companies displaying their video on their site but pulling it from YouTube (or Vimeo, or whatever). It’s just practical these days. And don’t forget that if you show a YouTube video on your site, it doesn’t take the user to YouTube at all, but pulls it in from YouTube. Sure, users can then head off to YouTube to watch more … but if that happens, you probably just need to work on your content a bit more to keep them on your site. But having the video on YouTube also means it’s very findable, which is a big plus, and is far more likely to bring people to your site than take them away (on average, anyhow).
I’m glad we are on the same schedules even though at different times of the day. (You’re my night-time chat buddy!)
Sorry for all of the dumb questions, but I’m really clueless on this topic.
Can you provide me some “corporate” links where you are on the Corporate Website but watching a video on YouTube or Vimeo?
I am not following how that works.
And what is YouTube getting out of this relationship?
Why would they pay for the bandwidth to host my videos?
BTW, what are the alternatives to YouTube, since I think they are just another mega-evil-US-corporation…
And don’t forget that if you show a YouTube video on your site, it doesn’t take the user to YouTube at all, but pulls it in from YouTube. Sure, users can then head off to YouTube to watch more … but if that happens, you probably just need to work on your content a bit more to keep them on your site. But having the video on YouTube also means it’s very findable, which is a big plus, and is far more likely to bring people to your site than take them away (on average, anyhow).
If I did this, then what happens if I no longer want my content on YouTube or whatever?
Am I surrendering my rights?
And back to my Original Post…
If I don’t stream the videos, then how can i have videos on my website without using YouTube?
It’s very common. When you view a video on YouTube, there is a Share button below the video that provides you with code that you can paste into your website to display that video on your site. Takes about ten seconds to set up.
And what is YouTube getting out of this relationship? Why would they pay for the bandwidth to host my videos?
YouTube is owned by Google, and as you know, Google is our great, good and kindly Overlord, from whom all goodness and generosity cometh. What more do you need to know?
what are the alternatives to YouTube
There are quite a few, some free and some not, such as
Vimeo
Blip TV
Fliqz
Ooyala
Brightcove
Influxis
Maxcast
…
If I did this, then what happens if I no longer want my content on YouTube or whatever? Am I surrendering my rights?
No, just pull the video down again. You see that all the time on YouTube.
Do you know of any corporations that have that on their websites that I could see in action? Links?
So I would need a YouTube account and then have to incorporate YouTube’s code into my webpage?
What file format(s) would I need to use?
YouTube is owned by Google, and as you know, Google is our great, good and kindly Overlord, from whom all goodness and generosity cometh. What more do you need to know?
Yeah, right!!
There are quite a few, some free and some not, such as
Vimeo
Blip TV
Fliqz
Ooyala
Brightcove
Influxis
Maxcast
Go to youtube.Use a google account to signup.Upload your video.After uploading click on the embed button and you will see a bunch of iframe code in a box copy it and paste in your website or forum.Enjoy streaming.
For screen capturing it, Jing is a free one. It let’s you specify an area of your screen to record. Makes it a cinch to rip even the most well protected video. For not as well protected videos, you have programs like Video Download Helper, also free.
Honestly, you are wasting your time. =p
Like everyone else has said, watermark your video and stick it on YouTube. Tons of other companies do it that way and they do just fine. If you are really against using YouTube, a video hosting company like Fliqz is your next best bet. To properly stream video you need much better hardware than a typical web server runs on. Even for a few videos, it’s prohibitively costly (even for the company I work for which pays 5-digits in server costs a month).
Looks that way. (Guess I haven’t caught up with the times…}
Like everyone else has said, watermark your video and stick it on YouTube. Tons of other companies do it that way and they do just fine.
So back to my question to Ralph… What is YouTube getting out of hosting my videos for me? Traffic for Advertising?
Don’t you think some day they’ll pull the plug and charge everyone $200/year to host videos. (I mean if hosting video is SO EXPENSIVE as you keep saying, then why would a company do it for strangers for free?!)
If you are really against using YouTube, a video hosting company like Fliqz is your next best bet.
I just went to Fliqz, clicked on “Packages” and got this…
Server Error in ‘/’ Application.
The resource cannot be found.
Description: HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly.
Requested URL: /VBOSS/aspx/packages.aspx
Guess Fliqz is out as an option!!
To properly stream video you need much better hardware than a typical web server runs on. Even for a few videos, it’s prohibitively costly (even for the company I work for which pays 5-digits in server costs a month).
Wow!
Has it always been that way?
And since Fliqz is out in my mind, what would be the Pros and Cons of going with other You Tube-espque hosts?
If I went with one of these…
Vimeo
Blip TV
Fliqz
Ooyala
Brightcove
Influxis
Maxcast
…would I get the same service and results as YouTube??
Weird that happened with Fliqz. We’ve been using them for several months with no problems. =p
Fliqz is part of that list. We also looked at Brightcove, though they were pretty expensive.
Any of those would be a pretty decent server.
As for YouTube… there is no way they’ll suddenly pull the plug. Yes, it’s expensive, but those ads pay a lot. It’s the same reason Google is completely free for the end-user, but they are a multi-billion dollar company. =p
So other than a hatred of YouTube, why would someone want to use one of those other services or PAY for those other services?
It sounds like your company has chosen to pay for something they could get for free…
And how does using a non-You Tube provider affect “Searchability”, “Social Media”, “SEO”, and so on?
I mean one of the big things that has been communicated in this thread is “If you use You Tube - which is also FREE - you are more likely to be Found, Watched, Shared, and you’ll in essence get FREED ADVERTISING…”
Does the same apply to the other companies mentioned?
Thanks,
Debbie
P.S.
[ot][b]My “aversion” to YouTube is a social one…
For several years You Tube has been hosting what I would label as “borderline Child Pornography” for FREE and then they turn around and MAKE ADVERTISING $$$ FROM IT?![/b] :mad: :mad: :mad:
How can any company host videos of pubescent and pre-pubescent girls showing their breasts and who-ha’s online and not go to jail??
If an individual had ONE PIC on their personal computer of a minor naked or even semi-clothed they would be thrown in jail and labeld a “Sex Offender” for life, and yet You Tube allows minors to uploads Sexually Explicit photos and videos of themselves and at best takes its sweet time removing them… Why the double-standard?!
This has been in the news and is plastered over the Internet. And if people want to tackle Child Porn, Child Molestation, and screwing up an entire generation of kids, then Corporate America cannot continue to be allowed to profit off of something that is not only ILLEGAL, but MORAL DESPICABLE?! :mad:
People try to justify this bad behavior, but guess what?! If someone uploaded a questionable photo here on SitePoint it would be gone in hours!!! Then again, SitePoint is more about “community” and less about “profits”…
Google and You Tube have the ability to stop perpetuating the exploitation of young girls, and yet they have done very little over the last decade…
If society wants to reduce the growing “Under-World” of Child Porn and Child Exploitation, then companies like Google and You Tube need to take ownership of the issue and stop dragging their feet as their pockets continue to fill with $$$$…
THAT IS MY PROBLEM WITH YOU TUBE!!! (for what it is worth)[/ot]
We used a paid site because the videos we have our private, so we can’t have them on Youtube. Aside from that reason, the only other is people are overly concerned about controlling the chrome (the look) of the video player.
As far as SEO with non-Youtube… it’s tricky. You basically have to have the meta data on your page for the video in some way that Google can easily recognize. There isn’t a 100% surefire format to do this in. The perk of using YouTube is it’s owned by Google, so of course they’ve made their search engine be able to use it really well.
