Printable View
I have some .mov files compiled into a .m3u8 file but I cannot get them to play in my Safari native browser from a web page. What is the secret?
<video controls poster="https://dwichannel.com/posters/wvtm-0001.png">
<source src="test.m3u8" type="application/x-mpegURL">
Your browser does not support the video tag.
</video>
and test.m3u8 is
#EXTM3U
#EXTINF:34, track 1
https://dwichannel.com/videos/wvtm-0010.mov
#EXTINF:76, track 2
https://dwichannel.com/videos/wvtm-0009.mov
Incorrect media format
https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_video.asp
What is the correct video format? I try this with .mp4 clips and it still does not work.
I don't know if mov is officially supported, but this worked for me (with Firefox and Edge):
Code:<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<body>
<video controls>
<source src="https://dwichannel.com/videos/wvtm-0010.mov" type="video/mp4">
Your browser does not support the video tag.
</video>
</body>
</html>
Ok. Apart from the video format this appears to be a issue with your html programming. There is no such thing as a 'default player' unless the video is actually downloaded. Your original .mov file would download and play.
Your site has many links but they always go to the embedded player on the actual site not on your site. There's a difference between a default player (offline) to an embedded player (online)
You might also wish to provide the actual url that includes this playlist just to confirm the above.
Actually, I took another look.
There is a player on your webpage and these videos are locally stored.
But they do not automatically play. They load and then one has to press the play button.
BTW storing videos for local playback on a non-dedicated video server is a bad idea since you will not have sufficient bandwidth foe smooth playback. The videos I tested are not smooth.
Well, everybody, I found an answer on stackoverflow and it actually works. It is on the home page at https://DWIChannel.com with full credit to somebody I could not answer, with my insufficient reputation score on stackoverflow.
Other solutions are good only for one video. This is for numerous videos to play one after another without somebody having to click each time. It works on my Mac with Safari. On my "to do" list will be having the next video load whilst the first plays; and looping. If traffic increases I may need a dedicated video server, as DB83 says.
The solution I have allows for the video to exist on the server once and get included in different playlists. A high school edition might do better with videos where high school students were involved. Videos impress a point much better than statistics.
You never said that all you really wanted was to automatically play a list of videos one after another.
Really need to see a webpage with this playlist 'running'
At present these .movs on your homepage do not play in my browsers Chrome, IE and Firefox and all support the video tag. Yet as I already stated, if one accepts the info that .mov is not an accepted video format (IE and Firefox would play the audio). And bear in mind that .mp4 is not a format. It is a container and typically video requires to be encoded in common codecs such as AVC. I have not tested jagabo's suggestion but have no reason to dispute his findings although it appears to 'fool' the player in to thinking that an .mp4 is being played.
Another thing. To merely state that this works in Safari is short-sightness. If you are to publish a website it must work in ALL the major browsers (and maybe minor ones too). Of course I might have jumped the gun here and you are working on that but if not.......
What about the .ts files? I have three sample .ts files in a similar embed at http://dwichannel.com/test.html and the playlist works on Safari on my Mac.
I captured the .ts files from the TV station's website and compiled them with cat *.ts >filename.ts and if they work on all browsers, then all I need to do is figure out how to add title labels to the front ends in .ts file also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWIChannel
here's what i see on the test.html. the video won't play.
[Attachment 54227 - Click to enlarge]
IE reported "Unsupported video type"
Firefox reported "No video with supported format or MIME type found"
Chrome just has an empty player screen
I do not have a clue why these should work in Safari.
Maybe this is a Win7 issue but a webpage should always run correctly both in recognised OS and browser.
And AGAIN do you not understand the supported file formats ?
One other thing I noticed is that you have a player to the right of those links. But click on any of the links left side and a new browser window opens rather than the same window with video, if it would play, in the original player.
The mov files were playing in Firefox earlier. But the TS file that's at the start of the list now doesn't play. Why don't you just remux all your videos into a supported container? Here's a batch file to remux to mp4 with ffmpeg (drag/drop a video onto it):
An mp4 with the same base name will be created in the same folder as the original video.Code:ffmpeg" -fflags +genpts -i "%~1" -c copy "%~dpn1.mp4"
And just to prove a point I took your original code, which is by no means complete since it does not have any header info or doc type, replaced your video with one of my own and that played via a localhost server which I use to test my own webpages.
The is also a browser incompatability issue when one uses autoplay. It works for certain browsers but not in Chrome unless you set it as 'autoplay muted'. Yes the sound is then off until you click the speaker icon in the controls.
So for consistency across supported browsers you might consider not using autoplay.
Wow. HTML pages are so compatible one OS/browser to another but video not so. I tried Silk and the .ts files do not play, the autoplayer plays the title page only and then stops, and the video files work but they enlarge bigger than full screen and the end-user has to shrink the video player down to watch.
The TS container is not supported by HTML5. Technically, MOV isn't either. But it's similar enough to MP4 that some browsers can deal with it. You need to remux (or reencode if the codecs aren't supported) to a supported container. MP4 with AVC video and AAC audio is probably your best option.
I used iMovie to make a .mp4 clip. I also used the one downloaded from the link above, koco-0001.mp4. They are in https://dwichannel.com/test.html and they work. Now I know that the videos need to be .mp4 to be more compatible. Thanks.
The links on the home page point to an html page on my site that encourages end-users to enjoy the content on the TV station's website. They should visit the cached story on my site and the cached video only if the content is not available on the TV station's website. This is to be fair to the TV station, since it is their content. A lengthy playlist, of course, must be served on my site but if a headline catches their interest they should view the TV station's copy. I figure, the more fair I am to the TV stations the longer they will let me get away with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DB83
^^ In practice, people are lazy.
Even with your best intentions, anyone who 'stumbles' across your website will play the first source they find i.e. your 'cached' copy. The link to the original source then acts, as it should, to the original creator. But do bear in mind that tv stations can be fickle with 'borrowed' content. What they might show in real time, or repeat broadcasts, might still upset the families of the victims and they might not wish to encourage that. So do not be surprised should you get some even polite requests to remove such content.
From a mere viewing perspective people will not wish to view a long playlist. Even if it 'rams' home an important message, repetition leads to disinterest and a more softer approach by simply having these videos play one at a time could be more informative.
One other thing. This appears to be a niche interest - even my own websites are somewhat 'niche' yet I do provide some personal background as to why I created them. If your motivation in the creation was born from a personal tragedy you get more sympathy by stating the motivation in their creation than a 'lecture' that your text comes over to this reader.
that's the worst web hosting i've ever run across. it took 30 minutes to buffer/play, pause, repeat endlessly to get 2 minutes of video. unwatchable trash. no one will stick around long enough to complete a video.
The OP has exceed his quota and is being severely bandwidth limited now.
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/398188-mp4-file-grows-to-giant-size#post2590177
By the way, if you're going to use mp4 you should use the web optimization option. That puts the moov atom (which has all the information like frame size, frame rate, etc, needed to play the video) near the start of the video rather than at the end. In Handbrake the option is called "Web Optimized". In ffmpeg use the "-movflags +faststart" option.
As DB83 stated, you're on shaky ground hosting the videos only on your site. If you hosted them on YouTube, they'd likely be quickly taken down for copyright violation. Read up on Fair Use, especially the section below. Just saying to go to the original source if the article is still there doesn't cover you. The article and video are belong to the news station and the right to refuse have their images shown or not are the right of the people who appear in the video.
"Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Under this factor, courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. If the use includes a large portion of the copyrighted work, fair use is less likely to be found; if the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material, fair use is more likely. That said, some courts have found use of an entire work to be fair under certain circumstances. And in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair because the selection was an important part—or the “heart”—of the work.
Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread."
I just read what little of your own text you have on your site. I can't believe you have the audacity to make the following statement:
"Television news professionals are highly skilled at presenting a story in a manner that captivates the viewer’s attention and leaves a lasting impact. The webmaster is harnessing their talents to spread the word about impaired driving. The videos are used without permission. This might qualify as fair use, but even if it does not, no television station in the world would be wicked enough to take action, especially since this website provides continued exposure to their otherwise dormant material."
I hope others here join me in informing the non-wicked TV stations of the appropriation of THEIR material!
CBSNews.com Terms of Service:
"You are only permitted to access and view the Content for personal, non-commercial purposes in accordance with these Terms, and may not build a business or other enterprise utilizing any of the Content, whether for profit or not. Except as provided in Section 4(a) or otherwise expressly authorized by us in writing, you may not either directly or through the use of any software, device, internet site, web-based service or other means download, stream capture, store in a database, archive or otherwise copy any part of the Services or Content; upload, sell, rent, lease, lend, broadcast, transmit or otherwise disseminate, distribute, display or perform any part of the Services or Content; license or sublicense any part of the Services or Content; or in any way exploit any part of the Services or Content. In addition, except as provided in Section 4(a) or otherwise expressly authorized by us in writing, you are strictly prohibited from modifying Content; creating, distributing or advertising an index of any significant portion of the Content; or otherwise creating derivative works or materials that otherwise are derived from or based in any way on the Content, including mash-ups and similar videos, montages, translations, desktop themes, fonts, icons, wallpaper, greeting cards, and merchandise. This prohibition from creating derivative works is applicable even if you intend to give away the derivative material free of charge."
https://www.kfyrtv.com/terms-of-service/
"3. Intellectual Property Rights: All text, images, photographs, graphics, logos, trade, product or program names, titles, packaging, user interfaces, audio and/or video content and any other content provided on or through the Services by GTI, Stations, third-party licensors (including UGC), vendors and suppliers that provide internal support to our Services (collectively “Operational Service Providers”), and advertisers, sponsors or promotional partners (collectively, “Advertisers”), including the selection, coordination, and arrangement of any such content (collectively, “GTI Content”), are owned by or licensed to GTI, Stations, Advertisers, Operational Service Providers and/or our third-party licensors. GTI Content is protected under U.S. and/or international copyright, trademark, patent, or other relevant intellectual property laws. Nothing stated or implied on the Services confers on you any additional license or right under any copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of GTI or any third party unless explicitly provided in this TOU.
Unless such use is expressly prohibited by GTI, you may view, reproduce, transmit, link, cache GTI Content for your own personal and non-commercial use, including posting on your personal Facebook page or other personal social networking platforms, provided you do not delete, change or obscure any of the GTI Content (including any copyright, trademark or proprietary notices), and do not misrepresent that GTI Content is your own. You may not (and you may not permit or encourage anyone else to) make derivative works, publicly perform, reproduce, distribute, transmit or link to GTI Content in or on any other third party website, digital service or via any vehicle in any manner that is likely or intended to cause confusion about the owner or origin of GTI Content, or is misleading, disparaging, harmful, or a detriment to GTI in our sole discretion. Except where permitted by law or expressly authorized by GTI, GTI Content may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, linked, cached or otherwise used for any commercial purposes unless you have the prior written permission of GTI. You may only use our Services and our GTI Content as expressly permitted in this TOU and for no other purpose. We may revoke permission to use GTI Content at any time and for any reason. GTI, Stations, Advertisers, Operational Service Providers and/or licensors retain exclusive rights in any GTI Content that are not expressly provided in this TOU."
https://www.hearst.com/-/tv-terms-of-use
Intellectual and Other Proprietary Rights
"Your access and use of the Digital Services and Content is for personal and noncommercial purposes only.
As between Hearst and you, Hearst owns all right, title and interest in and to the copyrights, trademarks, service marks, trade names, patents and all other intellectual and proprietary rights throughout the world associated with the Digital Services and Content except, if applicable, with respect to your User Content.
You may not build a business, in whole or in part, resell, redistribute, recirculate or make any other commercial use of, or create derivative works or materials utilizing any portion of the Digital Services (including any code used in any software) or Content, whether or not for profit."
And on and on... Mods please lock this thread and block out the OP's website.
This may serve as a wake-up call to the OP. It is not as if he was not warned days ago (and before his ISP, quite quickly, intervened)
There are many issues and each one could be an ultimate hurdle.
1. He has now realised that he can not host the videos on his own web space (unless he gets zero visits so then no purpose in having a web site)
2. Not being the original creator could well also be against the TOC of specialised video hosting services.
3. He seeks direct permission from the original creator for EVERY single video he hosts. But he then makes each creator aware of the site.
4. He can not revise his code simply to link the player back to the original host since that is 'bandwidth theft'.
5. Even if he can get over all these hurdles he really needs a dedicated player AND multiple versions of EVERY video both in format and size/compression to ensure smooth playback on all browsers and devices. So his simple html now becomes a whole lot more complex.
At first I thought the site was getting so much traffic that the server was slowing down. Actually, the web host restricted resources because the files were so big. I deleted 3+ gigabytes of .mp4 files and now it seems to be back to normal, but with .mov files for Safari on Mac.Quote:
Originally Posted by aedipuss
In order to seek permission, the first step is to show the TV stations just how their clips will be used. Obviously, if traffic grows the TV stations will discover the site anyway.
It's plainly obvious that you neither want or need any of the advice given in this topic. But since I have 'wasted' many words I will waste some more.
By some strange quirk, the video on your home page now autoplays (in Chrome atleast - IE still reports an Unsupported Video Type). And it is a quirk because Chrome should not autoplay.
As previously mentioned, clicking on one of the leftside options takes one to a new page. But this is a 'win some, lose some experience' for me. Some will load and play not in the parameters you specified but what the original video was - the desired 640*360 became, for example, 720p. Others threatened to load but tended to stall at 4 seconds and go no further.
Now just consider any tv station even wanting to cooperate with you. If this happens with them they are hardly going to view their own website are they. And be even less willing to cooperate on something 'unseen'.
But for me there is an even greater annoyance. After viewing the video (if you can) on the individual page you navigate back to the home page. And the video that, assumedly, you have already viewed will autoplay AGAIN.
It would be relatively easy to have ALL clips options on each page and even the text you consider essential to direct the user back to the original source. Then only the video you want to view will play (or a playlist since you even consider that to be a good idea)
An even more elegant solution is an option|select box so that the list does not scroll in the browser window.
Edit: Comment removed due to the need for another.
I fixed the autoplay issue on the home page. True, if they return to the home page from an individual story page, the autoplay should not start again.
I also fixed the individual story pages so they do not show the cached video, only a text link to it.
I have also begun reaching out to the TV stations about getting permission, instead of waiting for them to reach out to me. Once I get deals worked out I can start getting serious. I cannot exactly monetize the clips until then.
You can not exactly monetize the clips under ANY circumstances.
If this was your plan all along I regret even contributing. So now I really will leave.
LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by DB83
I was going to comment on the OP's confession of his/her true intent too. MONETIZE?!!! Hope it's more than the tens of thousands of dollars PER COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT you'll be hit with. Especially since big money Hearst is one the companies you're still stealing (you still have cached versions of some of your videos) from!
Normally, I'd leave too. but the OP is too much. Report me for harassing you if you want, but as far as I know, I'm speaking and preserving the TRUTH and FACTS about your illegal activities, just as you're preserving the TRUTH and FACTS about DWI reports on your site!
Edit: BTW, with rare exceptions, despite the desire and need for TV channels to report the news, SURPRISE! they're commercial, money making shows for the TV stations, just as any other programming and every link that doesn't go directly to them is stealing revenue!
A point about responsibility. Are you ready and willing to provide updates to these news stories which may correct the facts and/or exonerate the accused in the original stories? Reporting errors happen and as a person archiving those news stories, your responsibility is to relay those corrections as made. Not a lawyer, just someone with a good sense of what's right and what's fair!
More "Not a lawyer..." about monetizing news articles that aren't yours. My apologies to the other members, but the OP really gets my goat with his "Ignorance of the law IS an excuse!"
https://copyrightalliance.org/ca_post/fair-use-fox-news-v-tveyes/
"Here is why the Court concluded that TVEyes overstepped the boundaries of fair use.
1. Potential Market Harm and Displacement of a Copyright Owner’s Market is the Single Most Important Fair Use Factor
Though the Court thoroughly analyzed and balanced all four factors in its fair use analysis, it undeniably regarded the fourth factor concerning potential market harm as the “single most important element of fair use” and weighed it in favor of Fox. The Court recognized the value of the clip viewing, clipping, and sharing functions in TVEyes’ service as analyzed and stated under the transformative prong of the first factor, but it also realized that this should not undermine the basic tenet of copyright law that copyright owners are entitled to a meaningful ability to exploit their work in the market.
The Court first noted that when evaluating this factor, it looks at how the secondary use will “’impact on potential licensing revenues for traditional, reasonable, or likely to be developed’” for the original copyrighted work. It was clear that Fox had a potential licensing market in licensing clips of its programming, since “TVEyes business model demonstrates that deep-pocketed consumers are willing to pay well” for a clip-viewing service, a market that “is worth millions of dollars in the aggregate.” Because the potential market existed, and Fox was not being paid, the Court found that TVEyes displaced Fox’s revenues it should have earned on its work.
Instead of properly licensing from Fox, TVEyes decided to distribute and provide access to Fox’s content without licensing, depriving Fox of the opportunity to get properly paid for its works—again, undermining the basic rule of copyright law that a copyright owner is entitled to control how to license, if at all, to those who want to use the work. The Court stated that since “the ability to re-distribute Fox’s content in the manner that TVEyes does is clearly of value to TVEyes, it (or a similar service) should be willing to pay Fox for the right to offer the content.” The Court concluded by noting that “TVEyes ha[d] usurped a function for which Fox is entitled to demand compensation under a licensing agreement” and weighed this factor in favor of Fox."
https://www.whoishostingthis.com/resources/copyright-guide/
My bold/italics
"Quoting All or Most of a News Story
Quoting a few lines of a news story in order to provide some context to a link is just fine, but what about copying the whole thing? That’s infringement.
So where’s the line between infringement and Fair Use in a case like this? Can you post half the story? Ten percent of it?
There isn’t an obvious line. It isn’t as if there’s a specific word limit or article percentage that makes the difference.
The best question to ask yourself in a case like this is whether your post will realistically function to send traffic to the original post, or if it is substantial enough to act as a replacement for it. If your post effectively replaces the original, then it isn’t Fair Use — it’s infringement.
Oh Tom (OP), you're even more laughable than I thought. From your other website, which I won't link to since I don't want to give you free traffic:
<Redacted to conform to Forum Rules as the OP's quote from his campaign website may be construed as a political statement>
Edit: To be clear, I'm not laughing at the OP's choice of political choices, rather i find it unbelievable that someone running for <Redated - political office> would so willingly use and [has] now acknowledged using he is using copyrighted material without permission. In addition, he has now admitted to planning to monetize that material:
Edit: Wrong quote above, this is his admission of wanting/planning to monetize his stolen material:Quote:
Originally Posted by DWIChannelAt first I thought the site was getting so much traffic that the server was slowing down. Actually, the web host restricted resources because the files were so big. I deleted 3+ gigabytes of .mp4 files and now it seems to be back to normal, but with .mov files for Safari on Mac.Quote:
Originally Posted by aedipuss
In order to seek permission, the first step is to show the TV stations just how their clips will be used. Obviously, if traffic grows the TV stations will discover the site anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWIChannel
BTW, I found his campaign website because it's linked from his main page listed on his email address on his dwichannel site.
Edit: Mods, I've made changes to my post. Hopefully this conforms to Forum Rules
Well due to my regular visits to the forum, I get to read to un-redacted (is there such a word ? :) ) version of the post(s)
Of course political comment is against forum rules but I now have another suspicion of the OP's rationale in creating this site. Now I have already been critical of the 'amateurish' look and feel of this site yet the other site of the OP looks quite polished. And he even describes his occupation as 'webmaster'. So I do wonder if he has dumbed this down deliberately only to go in full mode at some later date.
And what if his motivation really is to make a political comment (apart from the admission of wishing to make a fast buck or two) ? If that is the case then this topic has no place in these forums. And neither has the OP.
I wondered about his motives too. But oddly, he doesn't link to this website on his campaign page, though he does link others that he claims to be the creator of. He's obviously clueless about website creation as he claims " ...all the campaign websites, which cost almost nothing to produce.", ignoring that professional webmasters, campaign managers and publicists are extremely costly. :o:D
Edit: Sorry I messed up my original post because mixed up the editing of this post while posting to a new thread the OP started.Quote:
Originally Posted by DWIChannel
I've been monitoring this idio...err....clow...err...person's 'planned to be bigger than the Weather Channel's' website and his latest update is beyond anything I've ever seen before!
He claims to have gotten permission to use clips from a single news channel, but for the past month or so, all the clips linked to and hosted on his site have been 404.
His latest update now has HTML code that you have to: "To include more videos, copy the code below and paste it into a blank TextEdit (Mac) or Notepad (Windows) and save the file as playlist.html and then play it on your browser.
I haven't figured out how to make the playlist skip absent videos, or loop yet."
And includes the disclaimer "You put this HTML page on your computer. You are responsible for copyright compliance. Now play the video playlist, streaming the videos from their owners’ websites."
Get's better! On the homepage he writes to the TV Stations:
"TV Stations:
Of course, there are things you can do on your end to prevent your server from delivering the videos in the above playlist, if you want to be like that. Just remember that the teenager who is told to watch the playlist before borrowing the car on prom night could crash into somebody you like. Your TV station can pay with bandwidth or innocent persons can pay with blood. You decide.
If you don’t want to pay for the bandwidth then give me permission to host your video on https://dwichannel.com <email link deleted>" :adminfinger::onfire:
Too much fun!!!:D:stupid:
Edit: To be clear. I agree that drunk driving is menace and crime that deserves attention. But there are right ways to do things, beginning with getting proper permission to link to and host news clips and not seek to monetize other's pain, suffering and loss.
Well, I made some more changes. The vast majority of the TV stations refrained from replying. I cannot show their videos on The DWI Channel but end-users can put the playlist on their computer. They can copy and paste the code (Which has the left angle brackets "<" converted to HTML code, & lt ; ) into TextEdit and save it as an HTML page. To see how it works, the High School Edition is more brief. End-users can also select clips from https://dwichannel.com/playlist.txt
I still need some help. The first order of business is to have a playlist the end-user can copy and paste that skips absent videos instead of crashing. The second priority is to make the playlist loop. Sadly, there is no shortage of horror stories but eventually the player reaches the end.
The playlist would still have to be copyable.
When TEGNA provided a licensing request form, it mentioned that they wouldn't license anything with one of their employees in it. Since that is critical to the mission of The DWI Channel I asked, what if the employee gave permission, and I got this explanation:
We are unable to allow use of any TEGNA employees including anchors or reporters from the station. While I certainly appreciate that this material adds context to the narrative of your project, it simply isn’t something that is possible to license. Our news stations and news employees must maintain the highest level of journalistic integrity. They select and produce news stories from a standpoint of public good and viewer advocacy. To take material produced in that vein and use it in a commercial setting changes the dynamic of the content in a way that doesn’t feel right. I have no doubt that your project has nothing but the best of intentions. News media outlets have found themselves in an odd place these days. The entire industry has an image problem. Here at TEGNA media we have the ethical responsibility to stick to our standards despite what the rest of the industry is doing.
Benjamin Langbauer
| TEGNA Media
So I guess that means, if The DWI Channel goes viral, reporters might start saying, "Let's make this sound more boring, so it won't get selected by The DWI Channel." or "Let's make this sound more shocking, so maybe it will get selected by The DWI Channel."