I have been able to get as far as the .m3u8 file. A lot of TV news websites, it is easy: I open Safari, option command U to reveal source, click NETWORK and launch the video on the web page, and then watch the .ts files reveal. Then it is easy: I download all the .ts files and cat *.ts >video.ts I usually write a Python script that downloads all the .ts files, typically 20 or so of them. The .ts files work by themselves. I don't need special software, only a Mac running Safari and optional Python. The problem arises with videos hosted on uplynk.com and I would like to avoid installing new software to download them. The .ts files display but they do not work.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12
Be aware that the OP is hosting unauthorized copyrighted news articles on his website.
Edit: From the OP's website (my emphasis):
"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 present a powerful message about driving while impaired. For now, the videos are used without permission. Before going big, the webmaster needs to work out a deal with the television stations. The lives they save could include their own."
In addition, he has admitted to planning to monetize the material on his website:
BTW, if you follow his email link, you'll find he's running of a national political office!
Please don't help him.
Last edited by lingyi; 2nd Aug 2020 at 21:08.
If they would actually READ and UNDERSTAND what I said, I said I have to get deals worked out before I can monetize the clips (or monetize the site). The clips are there only for demonstrating how they will be used if permission is granted. BTW the response rate is low. I suspect some employees figure, Well, I don't have authority to give permission, but the infringement does no harm to the company and it is a decent cause, so I simply won't say anything which of course I cannot work with. One network says a video can be embedded without further permission; but that only applies while the video is hosted on their site and I cannot host a copy of it. One media company has a policy that they will not license clips with their anchor or reporter in them. In ten years, when The DWI Channel is bigger than The Weather Channel, maybe they will change their minds.
Even if "the dwi channel is bigger than the weather channel", that would NOT change their minds - it would be an even bigger incentive for them to be charging you for copyright infringement. AND that "if" is never gonna happen.
But what's your objective? - you never say, either here or on your very boring & confusing website.
To expose DWIs? - they've already been exposed by the news channels.
To expose DWIs where the perp got away with it? - that's a legal decision best left to the courts (assuming they aren't corrupt, and if they are then really your gripe is about corruption).
To shame the perps? (Similar to sex offender registry) - whatever shame they might get would have been gotten locally, and there could be little benefit for a remote party to deny a perp something that might be infringing on his/her rights. The laws haven't got the same reach in this instance because the infraction doesn't have the same clout/impact.
To promote awareness? - pretty sure people already are aware of DWIs. Better to work on getting improved/thorough legislation. I don't see this helping at all.
To "monetize"? - people may have some purient interests, but this is a rare one, and laughably sick.
But you keep on doing what you are doing, as I am sure you will ignore this. You'll just end up on the wrong side of a court case, just like DWI offenders.
You want to host dwi stuff on your site, host your OWN handmade stuff, or public domain stuff, or license other stuff the proper way (and expect to be required to set up a commercial site). That's it. Any other avenue is going to get you in hot water.
Last edited by Cornucopia; 3rd Aug 2020 at 09:59.
One network says a video can be embedded without further permission; but that only applies while the video is hosted on their site and I cannot host a copy of it. One media company has a policy that they will not license clips with their anchor or reporter in them.
In ten years, when The DWI Channel is bigger than The Weather Channel, maybe they will change their minds.
BTW, why don't you list this channel on your political website? I'm sure your supporters are interested in ALL your views and work.
Last edited by lingyi; 3rd Aug 2020 at 13:36.
You haven't addressed posting follow up stories that correct information and possibly exonerate the accused. That's the least bit of responsibility on your part.
In addition, how are you planning to monetize your channel which contains material that you've already been denied use of. Are you planning to continue to steal and host these unauthorized and copyrighted materials for ten years?
Do you have any plans to compensate the victims and wrongfully accused with the monies you receive from your Bigger than Weather Channel (what a strange comparison!) website. Or are you planning to keep everything you receive from the exploitation of their suffering and misfortune for yourself?
Edit: And now you're asking for help to steal material that's purposely hidden and encrypted to prevent downloads. Why not ask permission to get a copy? Oh, that's right, they've already said you can't host it, only link to their sites.
Last edited by lingyi; 3rd Aug 2020 at 13:23.
They limit viewing to three minute chips, but all of the clips can be watched in succession in order to watch all of the content.
You may say that archive.org is not monetized. Well, not through advertising, but they have major semi-annual fund drives in which they solicit direct monetary donations.
Archive.org is sued a lot. While they have been sued for the news clip stuff, they sometimes reach agreements but they don't have them for all of the channels that they currently capture. They are currently involved in a suit for their "lending" program. See here and here.
So, if you're going to get all lathered up about DWIChannel's lame low-traffic site, you should be equally worked-up about the big players.
If DWIChannel is indeed the political candidate, there is some irony in his use of private property without express permission. Libertarians sacralize property rights. It shows that unassailable ideology never really holds up in practice. But maybe he is not the same person, I don't know. The political guy seems to want the minimum drinking age reduced or eliminated, but that doesn't seem to come across on the DWI site.
The founders of youtube were a nervous wreck during the first couple of years. They couldn't wait to sell it off to google so that google could deal with all of the lawsuits and eventually reach agreements with the content providers and copyright holders. Innovation is messy. If the founders of youtube had stuck to the rules from the beginning, it never would have got off the ground. There are hundreds of other similar examples in history.
The difference between the companies you listed is that they didn't come here asking how to host and download copyrighted material. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse.
As for the OP being the political candidate. If he's not, then someone must have hacked into this personal website and added a direct link this campaign site. Something he has not claimed happened despite my bringing it to the attention of those on this thread as the OP's other thread. Hmmm...I see the OP has changed the link on his website so it's no longer to his personal website's domain. Have something to hide??? Maybe copyright violations??????
You know, T. Alciere, now webmaster@dwichannel.***I believe you're right. News should he shared and preserved. The truth must be preserved! A Google search on T. Alciere brings up some interesting news articles about you!
I especially like your prior attempt to monetize information:
"Alciere said restrictions on acquiring the list vary from state to state. Some release the records for political use only, while others will only provide the list to registered voters. Ohio publishes the data on the state website.
Alciere maintains voter sites for eight states that have no restrictions, but said there are countless ways people can access the data online.
"Other websites are making use of the same information, but they're charging subscriptions and a charging money for it. I'm making the money off the commercial advertising," he said.
Alciere said he's simply trying to make a living, but has received plenty of pushback from people angry about what he's posting.
When asked whether he believes the voter information ought to be public, he said he preferred to stay out of the conversation."
Not you??? Oh well, can't burn the old news can we???
Last edited by lingyi; 4th Aug 2020 at 00:24. Reason: grammar
The discussion about Archive.org is interesting.
I started a little, very niche, website some years ago and appr. 50% of the visual content (all photos) was obtained from libraries and other institutions (some of which I obtained by purchase). In each and every case I obtained permission for their third-party use and every single photo has acknowledgement of its source.
Some time later, I was approached by The National Library of Wales, since they were working in conjunction with other libraries etc. to create an online archive of sites deemed important for the reasons of heritage etc. Before I gave them permission to archive my site I, again, sought permission from the original content holders.
I was then to discover that Archive.org had also 'captured' my site. Did they seek my permission for this ? Hell no. I guess I could contact them to desist but certainly could not afford to do that in a way that involves lawyers. But since not all the site is 'captured' and, I guess (probably wrongly) that people would hardly stumble upon the site from this source - there are no web-search links back to it (all web-search results show the original) - and if they did they could, and should, check out the original for those pages not 'captured'.
So, in this context, I guess that Archive.org is performing a valuable service to save sites that may disappear in the future for whatever reason. An argument that is not appropriate for the activities of the OP.