On 10/21/23 4:33 PM, micky wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 21 Oct 2023 10:10:18 -0700, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10/21/23 6:24 AM, micky wrote:
>>
>>> Wow, I don't go to enough movies. I didnt' even hear about Galaxy Quest
>>> and it seems pretty funny.
>>
>>See it. You won't be disappointed.
>
> Well, it's on youtube, $4 to rent and 15 to buy.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KzpIbSVZs&pp=ygUNIEdhbGF4eSBRdWVzdA%3D%3D
>
> It's not the case here but sometimes there is a version to rent/buy, and
> another version that's free. The free version doesn't look like someone
> set up a camera pointing at the TV, so where does the poster get it?
>
> I presume, but am not quite certain, that it's stolen and I would be an
> accessory if I watch it instead of the paid version, is that not right?

Let your conscience be your guide.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Johnston [Island] was the home of a U.S. chemical weapons disposal
facility for 10 years before operations ended in November 2000.
The island was turned into a wildlife preserve."
© 2002 The Associated Press

On 10/21/23 6:34 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> A 1 hour 48 minute movie of Equalizer 3
> took a little under 3 minutes to capture, but it's all in Italian, and
> no subtitles, so no reason to keep it.

There's a website from which you can download subtitles. Can't remember
its name, but it's probably obvious.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Johnston [Island] was the home of a U.S. chemical weapons disposal
facility for 10 years before operations ended in November 2000.
The island was turned into a wildlife preserve."
© 2002 The Associated Press

In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 21 Oct 2023 21:59:24 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/21/23 4:33 PM, micky wrote:
>> In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 21 Oct 2023 10:10:18 -0700, The Real Bev
>> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 10/21/23 6:24 AM, micky wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wow, I don't go to enough movies. I didnt' even hear about Galaxy Quest
>>>> and it seems pretty funny.
>>>
>>>See it. You won't be disappointed.
>>
>> Well, it's on youtube, $4 to rent and 15 to buy.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KzpIbSVZs&pp=ygUNIEdhbGF4eSBRdWVzdA%3D%3D
>>
>> It's not the case here but sometimes there is a version to rent/buy, and
>> another version that's free. The free version doesn't look like someone
>> set up a camera pointing at the TV, so where does the poster get it?
>>
>> I presume, but am not quite certain, that it's stolen and I would be an
>> accessory if I watch it instead of the paid version, is that not right?
>
>Let your conscience be your guide.

But I'm asking if the free ones are a violation of copyright?

I can't use my conscience if I don't know if the free one is legit or
not.

It's conceivable that the movies are public domain but yet someone is
charging anyhow, just because they can and people will pay. Or maybe
they have a better quality print somehow so that's why they charge, or
maybe they could charge because when they posted it, no one else had
yet. But that the other that is free is fully legit. Does that happen?

There are (wanted) trackers... & there are _unwanted trackers_.

*For those _unwanted_ trackers, Android has a native alert*
<https://i.postimg.cc/597JNDVR/unknowntracker01.jpg>

*Unknown tracker alerts currently work with Apple AirTags*
<https://support.google.com/android/answer/13658562>

How unknown trackers work:

An unknown tracker alert is sent when someone else's tracker device
is separated from them and detected to be traveling with you
(and out of Bluetooth range from the owner).

The notification alerts you to the tracker and tells you how
to find it and what to do next.

Bluetooth trackers, also called tags, are small devices that you
can attach to items, like keys or a backpack, to help you locate
them if they get lost.

However, in some cases, these devices can be misused to track
others without their knowledge or consent.

You can identify, find, and remove trackers that have been placed
near you or in your belongings without your knowledge or consent.

I didn't even open this thread but I knew it was here; then, while
researching new real-time google play protect scanning features
for Vanguard, I ran into this (which I made a one-tap shortcut to).
<https://i.postimg.cc/597JNDVR/unknowntracker01.jpg>

Notice the tracker alert requires both Bluetooth & Location.

URI=intent:#Intent;package=com.google.android.gms;component=com.google.android.gms/com.google.android.personalsafety.settings.BleTagSettingsActivity;end
ACTION=android.intent.action.VIEW
COMPONENT=com.google.android.gms/com.google.android.personalsafety.settings.BleTagSettingsActivity
PACKAGE=com.google.android.gms
LABEL=Unknown tracker alerts
NAME=com.google.android.personalsafety.settings.BleTagSettingsActivity
PACKAGE=com.google.android.gms

If you want to start this Android activity from Windows, use this:
C:\> adb shell cmd activity start --user 0 -a android.intent.action.VIEW -n com.google.android.gms/com.google.android.personalsafety.settings.BleTagSettingsActivity -f 0 com.google.android.gms

In summary, this post is about _unknown trackers_ and how to turn
the Android native unknown-tracker alert on or off to see if there
are any of Apple's airtags tracking you.

If you know more, please add value so that everyone learns from you.
--
The whole point of Usenet is to find people who know more than you do.
And to contribute to the overall tribal knowledge value of the newsgroup.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-10-21 05:36, VanguardLH wrote:
> > Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
[...]

> > Because I, nor anyone here, so far, knows what is the battery drain
> > under various scenarios of connection protocols, no one has yet to give
> > info on just how much drain is caused by the always-running FindMy (iOS)
> > or Find My Device (Android) services which obviously must be using the
> > BT radio whether a constant on-state or by a short BT poll initiated by
> > the services.
>
> I know from personal experience how much the Android Tile App takes: 1%.
> I don't suppose other apps will be much different.

He doesn't want to hear about experience. Not about personal, not
about that of hundreds of thousands, not about that of hundreds of
millions. We have data ranging from 0.5% to 1% and his fiction about
battery "drain". If I was an Apple user, I would disable Find My quick
smart. Can't have 0.5% battery "drain", can we now!?

> >>> Scenario 3: BT radio is on. BT LE device detected. Connection
> >>> established. FindMy service is always running. Report is
> >>> sent via Internet (cellular data or wifi) to Apple. Does
> >>> the cellular radio consume any more power to send the data?
> >>
> >> Sigh! Are you serious!? Yes, but it's also negligible. The normal
> >> phone to/from tower polling uses *way* more power than the few seconds
> >> (if that much) needed to exchange the data.
> >
> > I wouldn't thought the FindMy or Find My Device services would use texts
> > since those require less initial (setup) power to establish a connection
> > to a cell tower than the initial burst of power to establish a call.
> >
> > This is something else that I've not found noted: how the reporting
> > service connects to the server collecting the data (cellular call,
> > cellular data, wifi). Could be I just have not yet happened upon the
> > technical details on what method reporting uses, but I've not seen
> > anyone here yet offer their opinion or surmise. Could be it tries a
> > call, upon failing that tries texting, upon failing that tries cellular
> > data for an Internet connection, but if the phone has a wifi connection
> > then try that first for an Internet connection.
>
> Just Internet. Why complicate things?

Indeed! "use texts"? "establish a call"? The mind boggles!

On 2023-10-22 08:01, micky wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 21 Oct 2023 21:59:24 -0700, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/23 4:33 PM, micky wrote:
>>> In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 21 Oct 2023 10:10:18 -0700, The Real Bev
>>> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/21/23 6:24 AM, micky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wow, I don't go to enough movies. I didnt' even hear about Galaxy Quest
>>>>> and it seems pretty funny.
>>>>
>>>> See it. You won't be disappointed.
>>>
>>> Well, it's on youtube, $4 to rent and 15 to buy.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KzpIbSVZs&pp=ygUNIEdhbGF4eSBRdWVzdA%3D%3D
>>>
>>> It's not the case here but sometimes there is a version to rent/buy, and
>>> another version that's free. The free version doesn't look like someone
>>> set up a camera pointing at the TV, so where does the poster get it?
>>>
>>> I presume, but am not quite certain, that it's stolen and I would be an
>>> accessory if I watch it instead of the paid version, is that not right?
>>
>> Let your conscience be your guide.
>
> But I'm asking if the free ones are a violation of copyright?
>
> I can't use my conscience if I don't know if the free one is legit or
> not.

It depends on the country. Here, downloading is legal as far as I
remember, but sharing is not.

>
> It's conceivable that the movies are public domain but yet someone is
> charging anyhow, just because they can and people will pay. Or maybe
> they have a better quality print somehow so that's why they charge, or
> maybe they could charge because when they posted it, no one else had
> yet. But that the other that is free is fully legit. Does that happen?

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 21 Oct 2023 21:59:24 -0700, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/23 4:33 PM, micky wrote:
>>> In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 21 Oct 2023 10:10:18 -0700, The Real Bev
>>> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/21/23 6:24 AM, micky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wow, I don't go to enough movies. I didnt' even hear about Galaxy Quest
>>>>> and it seems pretty funny.
>>>>
>>>> See it. You won't be disappointed.
>>>
>>> Well, it's on youtube, $4 to rent and 15 to buy.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KzpIbSVZs&pp=ygUNIEdhbGF4eSBRdWVzdA%3D%3D
>>>
>>> It's not the case here but sometimes there is a version to rent/buy, and
>>> another version that's free. The free version doesn't look like someone
>>> set up a camera pointing at the TV, so where does the poster get it?
>>>
>>> I presume, but am not quite certain, that it's stolen and I would be an
>>> accessory if I watch it instead of the paid version, is that not right?
>>
>> Let your conscience be your guide.
>
> But I'm asking if the free ones are a violation of copyright?

They are. Most jurisdictions are turning a blind eye to downloads and some
have even put it into law.

However, anyone uploading copyrighted material can be prosecuted.

> I can't use my conscience if I don't know if the free one is legit or
> not.
>
> It's conceivable that the movies are public domain

Copyright for films is 50 years (in many countries) supposedly but the
studios still claim other rights in order to restrict the availability in
the public domain. Disney is a classic example as all their early work
should be in the public domain by now.
https://screenrant.com/characters-public-domain-disney-copyright-lobby/

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 21 Oct 2023 21:59:24 -0700, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/23 4:33 PM, micky wrote:
>>> In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 21 Oct 2023 10:10:18 -0700, The Real Bev
>>> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/21/23 6:24 AM, micky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wow, I don't go to enough movies. I didnt' even hear about Galaxy Quest
>>>>> and it seems pretty funny.
>>>>
>>>> See it. You won't be disappointed.
>>>
>>> Well, it's on youtube, $4 to rent and 15 to buy.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KzpIbSVZs&pp=ygUNIEdhbGF4eSBRdWVzdA%3D%3D
>>>
>>> It's not the case here but sometimes there is a version to rent/buy, and
>>> another version that's free. The free version doesn't look like someone
>>> set up a camera pointing at the TV, so where does the poster get it?
>>>
>>> I presume, but am not quite certain, that it's stolen and I would be an
>>> accessory if I watch it instead of the paid version, is that not right?
>>
>> Let your conscience be your guide.
>
> But I'm asking if the free ones are a violation of copyright?

They are. Most jurisdictions are turning a blind eye to downloads and some
have even put it into law.

However, anyone uploading copyrighted material can be prosecuted.

> I can't use my conscience if I don't know if the free one is legit or
> not.
>
> It's conceivable that the movies are public domain

Copyright for films is 50 years (in many countries) supposedly but the
studios still claim other rights in order to restrict the availability in
the public domain. Disney is a classic example as all their early work
should be in the public domain by now.
https://screenrant.com/characters-public-domain-disney-copyright-lobby/

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

>> But I'm asking if the free ones are a violation of copyright?
>>
>> I can't use my conscience if I don't know if the free one is legit or
>> not.
>
> It depends on the country. Here, downloading is legal as far as I
> remember, but sharing is not.

Copyright law is such that there are about a dozen clauses which _all_ have
to be met for it to be infringing, just as fraud requires 3 to 5 clauses,
again, _all_ of which have to be met (criminal versus civil differing a
bit).

To show you how hard it is to meet _all_ the clauses for torrent files,
there has never been a successful court case against someone who tormented
who contested that torrent (Malibu being the exception for a while until
the lawyers were disbarred because they seeded their torrents and then sued
the people who downloaded them - for which they were disbarred).

Now plenty of people paid up without fighting the charges.
But nobody lost a case yet.

I repeat.

You can't find a _single_ successful US court case of movies torrented
where the defendant fought the charges - simply because all clauses must be
met.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote

>> But I'm asking if the free ones are a violation of copyright?
>
> They are.

That's a ridiculously wrong answer, Chris.
*Look up _Fair Use_ for example.*

Remember, _every single clause_ has to be met for it to be considered
infringement - where you don't know of anything but a single clause.

Incredibly stupid people like Chris bother me, not because they're stupid
(as I said, most people are stupid) but because they don't know they're
stupid.

So they make stupid remarks that are completely wrong like what Chris did.
And they think they're right.

Look up "fair use" before responding...
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fair+use+copyright+laws>

In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 22 Oct 2023 16:31:55 -0000 (UTC), Chris
<ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

>micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>> In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 21 Oct 2023 21:59:24 -0700, The Real Bev
>> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/21/23 4:33 PM, micky wrote:
>>>> In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 21 Oct 2023 10:10:18 -0700, The Real Bev
>>>> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/21/23 6:24 AM, micky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow, I don't go to enough movies. I didnt' even hear about Galaxy Quest
>>>>>> and it seems pretty funny.
>>>>>
>>>>> See it. You won't be disappointed.
>>>>
>>>> Well, it's on youtube, $4 to rent and 15 to buy.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KzpIbSVZs&pp=ygUNIEdhbGF4eSBRdWVzdA%3D%3D
>>>>
>>>> It's not the case here but sometimes there is a version to rent/buy, and
>>>> another version that's free. The free version doesn't look like someone
>>>> set up a camera pointing at the TV, so where does the poster get it?
>>>>
>>>> I presume, but am not quite certain, that it's stolen and I would be an
>>>> accessory if I watch it instead of the paid version, is that not right?
>>>
>>> Let your conscience be your guide.
>>
>> But I'm asking if the free ones are a violation of copyright?
>
>They are. Most jurisdictions are turning a blind eye to downloads and some
>have even put it into law.

Wow. That's like making a law that receiving stolen goods is legal.
(there was something in law school called BPV, bona fide puchaser for
value, but clearly I never understood where that applied.
>
>However, anyone uploading copyrighted material can be prosecuted.
And yet they're so blatant, and that's what got me thinking it was
really legal.
>
>> I can't use my conscience if I don't know if the free one is legit or
>> not.
>>
>> It's conceivable that the movies are public domain
>
>Copyright for films is 50 years (in many countries) supposedly but the
>studios still claim other rights in order to restrict the availability in
>the public domain. Disney is a classic example as all their early work
>should be in the public domain by now.
>https://screenrant.com/characters-public-domain-disney-copyright-lobby/

I wouldn't want just anyone uploading Snow White.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote

> However, anyone uploading copyrighted material can be prosecuted.

While every case is different, there has never been a successful movie
torrenting case in the USA to my knowledge (we covered this in gory detail
in the past) for an individual such as we are who fought the charges.

There was only the Malibu case where, in the end, the lawyers were
disbarred because it eventually turned out _they_ were torrenting it!

Other than that, find a _single_ successful USA court case where an
individual was charged with torrenting movies and who lost that case in
court.

Having said that, you likely _will_ get a notice if you don't use a VPN but
getting a notice and being sued are completely different beasts in the US.

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 22 Oct 2023 16:31:55 -0000 (UTC), Chris
> <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>>> In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 21 Oct 2023 21:59:24 -0700, The Real Bev
>>> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/21/23 4:33 PM, micky wrote:
>>>>> In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 21 Oct 2023 10:10:18 -0700, The Real Bev
>>>>> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/21/23 6:24 AM, micky wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wow, I don't go to enough movies. I didnt' even hear about Galaxy Quest
>>>>>>> and it seems pretty funny.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See it. You won't be disappointed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it's on youtube, $4 to rent and 15 to buy.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KzpIbSVZs&pp=ygUNIEdhbGF4eSBRdWVzdA%3D%3D
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not the case here but sometimes there is a version to rent/buy, and
>>>>> another version that's free. The free version doesn't look like someone
>>>>> set up a camera pointing at the TV, so where does the poster get it?
>>>>>
>>>>> I presume, but am not quite certain, that it's stolen and I would be an
>>>>> accessory if I watch it instead of the paid version, is that not right?
>>>>
>>>> Let your conscience be your guide.
>>>
>>> But I'm asking if the free ones are a violation of copyright?
>>
>> They are. Most jurisdictions are turning a blind eye to downloads and some
>> have even put it into law.
>
> Wow. That's like making a law that receiving stolen goods is legal.
> (there was something in law school called BPV, bona fide puchaser for
> value, but clearly I never understood where that applied.

It was more about acknowledging that it was unenforceable and putting some
boundaries down.

>> However, anyone uploading copyrighted material can be prosecuted.
>
> And yet they're so blatant, and that's what got me thinking it was
> really legal.
>>
>>> I can't use my conscience if I don't know if the free one is legit or
>>> not.
>>>
>>> It's conceivable that the movies are public domain
>>
>> Copyright for films is 50 years (in many countries) supposedly but the
>> studios still claim other rights in order to restrict the availability in
>> the public domain. Disney is a classic example as all their early work
>> should be in the public domain by now.
>> https://screenrant.com/characters-public-domain-disney-copyright-lobby/
>
> I wouldn't want just anyone uploading Snow White.

Why not? It should be in the public domain. Like Shakespeare or Dickens.
Anyone can print and sell a copy of the books so why not a film?

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote

>> Wow. That's like making a law that receiving stolen goods is legal.
>> (there was something in law school called BPV, bona fide puchaser for
>> value, but clearly I never understood where that applied.
>
> It was more about acknowledging that it was unenforceable and putting some
> boundaries down.

Look up "fair use" before responding...
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fair+use+copyright+laws>

The problem isn't that the law is unenforceable since there have been
_many_ court cases on copyright infringement, including for Google Books.
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=google+books+copyright+case+dismissed>

The problem is most people are stupid who make blanket claims like micky
and Chris did (both of whom are bona fide stupid people in all respects).
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=torrent+movie+copyright+case+dismissed>

Copyright law is complex - it's not just a single component has to be met.
All the components _must_ be met for it to be considered infringement.
*You can't sue torrent users just for the hell of it, judge rules*
<https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/contra-piracy-bittorrent-lawsuit-movie/>

Unfortunately, 990 out of 1000 people are as stupid as Chris & micky are.
They "think" they understand copyright law - but clearly they simply can't.

*Legal issues with BitTorrent*
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_with_BitTorrent>

In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 21 Oct 2023 20:34:07 -0500, VanguardLH
<V@nguard.LH> wrote:

>micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>
>> In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 21 Oct 2023 10:10:18 -0700, The Real Bev
>> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 10/21/23 6:24 AM, micky wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wow, I don't go to enough movies. I didnt' even hear about Galaxy Quest
>>>> and it seems pretty funny.
>>>
>>>See it. You won't be disappointed.
>>
>> Well, it's on youtube, $4 to rent and 15 to buy.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KzpIbSVZs&pp=ygUNIEdhbGF4eSBRdWVzdA%3D%3D
>>
>> It's not the case here but sometimes there is a version to rent/buy, and
>> another version that's free. The free version doesn't look like someone
>> set up a camera pointing at the TV, so where does the poster get it?
>>
>> I presume, but am not quite certain, that it's stolen and I would be an
>> accessory if I watch it instead of the paid version, is that not right?
>
>https://www.lookmovie2.to
>They don't want webcrawlers or webbots to download all their content
>consuming bandwidth for days on end. You may get a CAPTCHA to use.
>
>Do a search on a movie, say, equalizer and notice you can get v3 of the
>movie series. Find something interesting in your cable provider's
>channel lineup, but it's a premium channel (HBO, MAX, SHO)? Try here to
>watch or get a copy. To reduce bandwidth, they probably reduce
>resolution compare to what you could rent/buy.

It sounds like you are giving me ways to avoid paying for video, but you
don't say whether the website above is playing pirated videos or not .

My question related to Youtube, when it has two versions of the same
video, one for $4 and one for free. If the one for free is stolen,
pirated, offered in violation of the copyright. But the same question
applies if the paid version is on Youtube and a free version is on the
website aboeve.
>
>If you don't want to keep re-watching through a web site, get a
>streaming capture program. Some folks use web browser add-ons. I use
>jaksta's Media Recorder that operates as a web proxy, doesn't make we
>wait to capture until the video is done playing, download rate is as
>fast as the server will deliver, starts the download without even
>needing the web browser still loaded, etc. It is not a screen capture
>proxy. It captures the audio/video stream. It's not free ($50).
>
>Once you start playing a video stream, jaksta will discover where is the
>source, and continue the download. You don't have to watch the movie,
>and probably better to stop the one playing in the web browser to reduce
>bandwidth to stream 2 copies. Often you don't have to even leave the
>web browser running, but I've hit sites where exiting the web browser
>aborts the streaming to jaksta. I stop the video, leave the web browser
>open, and wait until jaksta gets the video which is usually a lot faster
>than having to watch the video. A 1 hour 48 minute movie of Equalizer 3
>took a little under 3 minutes to capture, but it's all in Italian, and
>no subtitles, so no reason to keep it.
>
>Some movies will play in a foreign language. You may have to find a
>movie dubbed in your language, but too often the dubs are poorly done by
>the voice actors. Subtitles (closed captioning) will not be captured as
>that is a separate stream from the video stream.
>
>Although RTMPe (encrypted RTMP) was not intended to be a DRM enforcement
>scheme, lots of sites use it that way. Jaksta will not record RTMPe to
>prevent illegal recording of encrypted streams. You have to use another
>tool to capture RTMPe streams, and those tools tend to move around where
>hosted to avoid the law.
>
>Also, there are sites that use Javascripted web apps to view videos.
>The encoding is in the player, so only that player at the time of
>download (a different key is inserted) can be used to play the video.