gioyury athaley benjamin
Marketta Carucci
From my understanding, Streaming media services such as Amazon instant video, Netflix, and others do all decryption client side. What I do not understand is that if this is true, and the videos ever exist in a decrypted state, what prevents users from harvesting them en masse?
I've always been curious how streaming streaming media providers circumvent this issue. I know some streaming providers (free ones like youtube) simply acknowledge that it is possible to save the videos, and don't do much to prevent it, but I would imagine that it is core to the business model of companies like netflix to make it neigh impossible to save a movie once you've rented it.
Just to make that this question doesn't seem too broad, I want to clarify that a direct answer to this question would show me how streaming media providers prevent users from trivially downloading their videos (via obfuscation / cpu features perhaps?)
I doubt cryptography is ever involved, it's mostly a matter of obfuscation; if the attacker can break the obfuscation and reverse engineer their player applet, then they will do the same to get the key if crypto is involved, so why bother ?
Content providers used to use some garbage called Flash to create an applet capable of talking to their server over RTMP and get the video stream from there. Note that the video is only streamed, never downloaded to disk, so the only place the decrypted/deobfuscated frames ever exist is in the computer's memory for a short period of time; that limits the "exposure" to a level they deem acceptable (or rather, a level Hollywood is forced to accept because it's either that or not selling their movies on the Internet at all).
Now content providers are aware of the decline of Flash's popularity and are starting to use HTML5 Encrypted Media Extensions, a plugin interface allowing a browser to communicate with the site's proprietary and obfuscated software that will be decrypting/deobfuscating the video frames before sending them back to the browser's media player which would play them; essentially the same thing as Flash except the proprietary applet now only does decryption instead of being the actual video player.
first off, it's quite hard and time consuming (but never impossible) to reverse engineer the Flash or EME applet and most people won't bother, they will either accept the restrictions or go somewhere else (unfortunately what they don't understand is that "somewhere else" also means "some pirate site" and they're loosing even more money by not letting honest users save the content they bought)
the content isn't downloaded in advance but streamed in real time, this allows some control over how much content can potentially be saved, as their server won't accept to stream more than one file (or a few if they're lenient) simultaneously per account, which means the pirates wouldn't be too efficient at ripping content from the site and will look for other sources, ie. physical DVDs or Blu-Ray discs which are rippable more efficiently and as a bonus offer more quality than streaming, so web-rips (as they call them) are often done only for content not yet available on physical media, as a way for pirate teams to be more popular by leaking the content before it's physically released
I'm in the market to buy 3 streaming devices and I'd like to buy something that has storage for downloading movies and shows for offline viewing. My 3 TVs are in a camper and it gets used in rural areas with limited to no internet signal sometimes. Do any Roku devices have the ability to store movies and shows for offline viewing, and if so, what should I look for when purchasing?
To my knowledge there is no streaming player that offers the ability to download content for later viewing. Some service providers, such as Prime Video and Netflix do offer an ability to download content for offline viewing, but that is only available on devices such as a computer, phone or tablet. No streaming player has the internal storage capability to support downloading content. That simply isn't what they are designed for.
Some Roku players support connecting an external storage via USB and playing content from that storage, but the Roku itself cannot put anything on that storage device. The Roku Ultra has a USB port, while the Roku Express 4K+ supports using an adapter cable to connect a USB storage device to the power connection port (which is a mini-USB port). Such a cable is not included with the Roku.
A word of caution about playing media from an attached storage device. Roku players only support a handful of media types. Anything you want to play from the storage device must be compatible with the Roku. This means the MP4, MKV, MOV or TS/M2TS container, H.264/H.265/H.262 video and AAC, AC3, or PCM audio. This page provides more detail. The only way to play unsupported content is to use a media server running on a separate computer and the two being connected via a network. That would be difficult to accomplish in a trailer. Not impossible, but not really practical for most users.
I see a lot of excuses in that reply. Devices have had the ability to not only use MicroSD cards for quite some time, but the ability to have large amounts of internal storage. Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks there's merit to devices, like Roku sticks, offering one or both of these options. People should be able to (and strongly encouraged to) download entire seasons or series of shows, as well as music playlists, for offline use. Not only are internet speed slow in many areas, requiring all users stream their videos as they're watching them makes the situation much worse (because you get the entire block streaming at the same time every day, thus slowing down the internet for others), when they could have downloaded non-live shows and movies in the middle of the night automatically if companies like Roku implemented this relatively basic features. Offline viewing and listing has been around elsewhere for years and there's no legit reason your company, and companies like yours, couldn't "design" devices that do operate that way. Just because you haven't "designed" or "manufacturered" such a product yet, doesn't mean it's not the better idea. I was selling DVRs with large internal storage drives, capable of storing a ton of footage, back in the early 2000's. Why everyone these days seems to think streaming everything is the greatest idea since sliced bread should take a few more computer classes and realize that in most cases, offline data storage has many huge advantages over streaming. Not least of which is freeing up bandwidth so that other in your household, as well as others in your neighborhood, can do things that actually require streaming (especially during peak hours), like gaming, video conferencing, and watching live TV. Requiring that everyone streams everything only drives up internet prices (because of higher demand for faster speeds), but often times completely surely screwes up incredibly important video calls between family and/or friends world-wide because you're not offering solutions that are half as efficient as they should be. Not only should the norm be that you can download media offline (music and video) but that you can download it to a network storage drive where you can everything stored on it to any of your devices at any time. The only reason it's is not the must-have tech device of the year this holiday season is because companies like yours refuse to make it, for no good reason!
Sure, the ability is probably there within the operating system. But memory costs money, and since streaming players are designed for real time download and playback, and pricing is highly competitive, why add something that increases the cost that might benefit a handful of users? It's the same with a Roku or Fire TV player not supporting lossless audio bitstreaming, the vast majority of users would never make use of such functionality, so why pay the licensing fees?
That's not an excuse, it's a business decision. If you want offline playback, then you use a device that is designed for such use, like a laptop or tablet. Providers like Netflix and Prime video permit download for offline viewing on things like an iPad or Android tablet.
And don't forget, the providers have to allow such functionality, and many (most?) simply don't. It might be due to licensing agreements with the content owners, or it again might simply be a business decision on their end.
You can still get DVRs, and Blu Rays for that matter, and I believe some DVRs and many Blu Ray players can stream. And many computers can do all the above and more. On the other hand, Roku appears to like to design rather simple/minimalist devices aimed at the broadest/fairly basic streaming market. It also seems to me that Roku is focusing more on ad revenue these days, and old stored ads are probably worth less to them.
Well, no one in this thread works for Roku, but if you think you have a must-have idea - go for it! I used to work in a group that thought we had a killer device in this space, and everyone loved our technology demos, but we had trouble figuring out the business model and it was dropped. I'd be happy to see someone else take it on though.
@Vik5 I don't think a drive that size will work on that Roku player. You're talking a Terabyte, and drives that size didn't exist when the Roku 3 was developed, at least at a price a general user could afford. If you want that much storage space to be available for your Roku, I suggest instead a NAS (Network Attached Storage) device. It plugs into your network and acts as a file server for your network. Virtually all of them also offer some sort of DLNA server in their operating system, and your Roku can play them using Roku Media Player (the same app that plays from an attached storage device).
The advantage to a NAS is that it makes your media available to any device on your home network, not just the Roku you connect the storage device to. Another advantage is you won't be dependent on the Roku 3 if it finally decides to give it up. There are two versions of the Roku 3 (4200 and 4230). The early one is now over ten years old, and the newer one is almost nine. That is getting pretty old for electronic devices. When the time comes to replace your Roku, you have more options available if your media is on a NAS device.
90f70e40cf