Adobe Refutes Reuters’ Flawed Flash Story
A dramatic Reuters report about a supposed flaw in Flash video delivery that allows users to download Amazon movies and TV shows for free is being refuted by Adobe. The software maker appears to be blaming the problem on Amazon for neglecting to properly use its content protection tools. Here’s the emailed statement:
“A recent article incorrectly states that a security flaw exists in Adobe Flash Media Server software. Adobe acknowledges that not all customers using Adobe Flash Media Server software are aware they must utilize RTMPe or RTMPte (tunneled version) combined with SWF verification to provide maximum content protection.”
The ability to rip the unpaid-for videos arose because, in order to offer a smooth viewing experience, Amazon loads video in the background before a viewer pays for it. A certain video recording software Reuters seized on — Replay Media Catcher, which costs $39 to fully use — allows users to save those videos. It also allows users to save Hulu videos separately from the advertising they are streamed with. The article claims these actions are possible because Adobe “dropped a stringent security feature” to “boost download speeds.”
Reuters might be shocked to learn that video recording, DVD ripping, ad blocking and even peer-to-peer file-sharing software is widely available.
Popular
Recent
- Super Bowl XLIV Stats: Game Day Rocks Twitter, Ad Sites
- Super Bowl 2010 Highlights For the Web Video World
- Where to Watch Super Bowl 2010 Commercials Online
- Seagate’s BlackArmor NAS 110: Not Very Media-Friendly
- Watching the iPlayer Around The World: BBC, Meet VPN
- 10 More Sites for Free and Legal Torrents
Network
- Apple Grabs a Quarter of U.S. Smartphone Market [TheAppleBlog]
- Linux.conf.au Raises $33K for Charity [OStatic]
- Flickr Co-founder’s New Startup Finds a Glitch [GigaOM]
- Smartphone Share — Google Grows While RIM Slows, Palm Reverses [jkOnTheRun]
- ClientShow: Smoother Pitches [WebWorkerDaily]
- Toyota Troubles: Lessons in How (Not) to Handle a Green Halo [Earth2Tech]
© 2010 The GigaOM Network. Marketing consulting by ACS.
Hi Liz, thanks for your title… I think “refutes” is more accurate than the “deny” from paidcontent.org which got recopied into the Washington Post.
It’s hard to say something can “never” be cracked, but when I read that Reuters article I wondered just what, if anything, was new from the previous year’s worth of client-authentication stories. Kevin’s post said that the Flash Media Server team investigated and found there was nothing new, save for the effective PR placement.
But meanwhile lots of reporters have earned lots of ad revenue with headlines about “Flash Holes!”. Assuming Appian/Reuters has no further info which just didn’t make it into their story, I think that reporters who earned revenue by retyping a Reuters piece, with no meaningful original content, should donate those revenues to charity. Flash’s reputation takes hits from bad reporting, and that’s not recoverable, but if people profited from negligent speech, then it’d be better if they made compensation somehow.
Donate ad revenue from bad reporting to charity. Seem reasonable to you…?
tx, jd/adobe