Videos that cant be saved (Downloaded)

  • Thread starter Thread starter casey.o
  • Start date Start date
C

casey.o

Because of my dialup at home, I go to WIFI spots, and using "Download
Helper" for Firefox (or Seamonkey), I just download the videos to my
computer, so I can watch them at home. For some reason, certain videos
refuse to save. When I click the DOWNLOAD button in "Download Helper",
I just get a zero length file and the download quits. I can retry over
and over and the same thing happens. This seems mostly to occur for
songs (Music Files). This leads me to believe they intentionally block
these files fom being saved, yet they can be viewed on the spot
(directly).

Anyone know of a means to bypass this "block"????

Is there possibly another downloader add-on that will?

I always use "Download Helper", and have for years, after trying several
others which were really lousy. But there are a lot more available now,
so maybe there is another one that works better these days. Although
"Download Helper" works just great, except for these certain files.
 
Yes, I have noticed this with youtube for a month or two now; my guess
is that it has to do with copyrighted content. There was a thread on
alt.comp.freeware (title: Youtube downloads broken?) two months ago
discussing this.

There are some download agents that will work, but mine (still) do not.

Jon
Click to expand...

I've seen this before a couple months ago, but not as often as lately.
I was trying to download a bunch of songs and a fewl full albums from
one particular band, and ALL the full albums would not download, and
only about 1 in 10 of the single songs would download.

I'll have to go to that newsgroup....

If I had fast internet at home, I could still save them audio, by
playing the video. and use "Total Recorder". But when I'm at a wifi
spot, this is a hassle to do.

If you find a download agent that DOES work, please let me know. I'll
do the same!

By the way, I disabled Java Script in Firefox, thinking that might
correct this problem, but it did not work. That DOES work on websites
that wont allow a .JPG to be saved. Whenever any website pops up a
message saying "you can not save this". Just disable java script and
you CAN save it.
 
Because of my dialup at home, I go to WIFI spots, and using "Download
Helper" for Firefox (or Seamonkey), I just download the videos to my
computer, so I can watch them at home. For some reason, certain videos
refuse to save. When I click the DOWNLOAD button in "Download Helper",
I just get a zero length file and the download quits. I can retry over
and over and the same thing happens. This seems mostly to occur for
songs (Music Files). This leads me to believe they intentionally block
these files fom being saved, yet they can be viewed on the spot
(directly).

Anyone know of a means to bypass this "block"????

Is there possibly another downloader add-on that will?

I always use "Download Helper", and have for years, after trying several
others which were really lousy. But there are a lot more available now,
so maybe there is another one that works better these days. Although
"Download Helper" works just great, except for these certain files.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have noticed this with youtube for a month or two now; my guess
is that it has to do with copyrighted content. There was a thread on
alt.comp.freeware (title: Youtube downloads broken?) two months ago
discussing this.

There are some download agents that will work, but mine (still) do not.

Jon
 
I've seen this before a couple months ago, but not as often as lately.
I was trying to download a bunch of songs and a fewl full albums from
one particular band, and ALL the full albums would not download, and
only about 1 in 10 of the single songs would download.

I'll have to go to that newsgroup....

If I had fast internet at home, I could still save them audio, by
playing the video. and use "Total Recorder". But when I'm at a wifi
spot, this is a hassle to do.

If you find a download agent that DOES work, please let me know. I'll
do the same!
Click to expand...

You can browse the thread here; there were a couple of suggestions that
were reported to work:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl...3F/alt.comp.freeware/727fTU5NT7Y/kIWJW8M17KIJ

Jon
 
Two thoughts, though I don't know if either
will help:

1) I've noticed that in some cases with DownloadHelper
I have to reload the page before I can download.

2) In the past I've had trouble a couple of times,
which was then fixed by updating DownloadHelper.
That inclines me to think there may be a sort of
arms race going on between Google and the authors
of download programs, with Google occasionally
coming up with some new obfuscation trick, which
the extension authors then have to figure out.
 
Two thoughts, though I don't know if either
will help:

1) I've noticed that in some cases with DownloadHelper
I have to reload the page before I can download.
Click to expand...
I noticed that too. If I open a page on youtube and (at home on dialup)
wait for other videos to stop downloading, which may be a few hours,
when I click on the page I opened a few hours earlier, it wont allow me
to save the video withoyut reloading the page. Why this occurs, makes
no sense to me, but that's what happens.....
2) In the past I've had trouble a couple of times,
which was then fixed by updating DownloadHelper.
That inclines me to think there may be a sort of
arms race going on between Google and the authors
of download programs, with Google occasionally
coming up with some new obfuscation trick, which
the extension authors then have to figure out.
Click to expand...
I am using the latest version of DownloadHelper. Over the years, I have
found that older versions just stop working, but upgrading it, fixes the
problem. I agree about the "arms race". It's all a bunch of bullshit.
If they put the stuff on youtube, then us users should be able to view
it however we want. I'm not selling the videos, I just cant view them
at home on dialup, so I have to download them first. Then I save the
ones I like to view them again later, and delete the junk. Not everyone
has high speed internet, and even if I did, I'd hate to have to bookmark
every video that I like and be forced to be connected to the internet
just to show them to a friend. If I like a video, I'll put it on my
laptop and take the laptop to a friends house to show it to them. Many
of them dont have internet, or even a computer....

That's one of my biggest complaints about computers these days. When I
first used conmputers, You had programs thatr you would buy or download
and could use them whenever you wanted. Now, it seems that everyone
needs to be connected to the internet at all times. Being fairly new to
using XP, I find one of the biggest annoyances in XP is to constantly
try to get me on the internet. If I click on a file extension which XP
dont understand, I get the "Do you want to connect to the internet"
crap, and some windows operations even opens a browser. For crying out
loud, you'd think the programmers would have added someting in the OS to
FIRST CHECK TO SEE IF THERE IS AN INTERNET CONNECTION. (Which in my
case, there is not).

Additionally, most of my WIFI use occurs while I'm siting in my car.
The local restaurant dont have outlets, so when my battery dies in my
laptop, I have no other way to use the computer except to park close to
the building and use a power inverter in my car. This is fine in decent
weather, but in winter, it's too damn cold to actually watch a movie. I
can download a 2 hour movie on youtube in 20 minutes or less, and watch
it later at home where I have heat. (Not to mention I've had the police
pester me numerous times for using WIFI in my car, as if it's some sort
of crime). Fortunately this dont happen in my own town, because I know
the cops and I told them what I'm doing, and they know my car and dont
bother me. Most of the police issues have occurred in big cities. That
makes me appreciate living in a rural area. City people are so damn
paranoid!
 
| That's one of my biggest complaints about computers these days. When I
| first used conmputers, You had programs thatr you would buy or download
| and could use them whenever you wanted. Now, it seems that everyone
| needs to be connected to the internet at all times. Being fairly new to
| using XP, I find one of the biggest annoyances in XP is to constantly
| try to get me on the internet.

XP is clean compared to Win7, which is clean
compared to cellphones. There's been a steady,
deliberate move toward online connection. People
are being trained to leave behind the notion that
they're working on their own device. The more their
software goes online, the easier it is to transition
people to services. Much of it is in the perception.
Youtube videos appear to be broadcasts, so people
don't complain that they can't download them. Most
people don't realize that they *are* downloaded files
but that the streaming software is hiding the files from
them. (Most people don't realize that a webpage is a set
of files rendered grpahically on their computer. It seems
natural to think we're "going to a website".)

Yesterday I saw a story on Slashdot about an Android
keyboard app that logs GPS location every 24 seconds.
http://beta.slashdot.org/story/201577
Many of the commenters speculated that it was probably
"just" a bug. It amazes me that even techy people have
come to think it normal that a basically anonymous piece
of software even has the possibility of tracking your
location, much less justification.

The latest version of Photoshop is rental "service"
software. It's ludicrous. One can't use such intensive
software over the Internet. And in fact one doesn't.
It connects online for permission and requires that you
let Adobe have free rein with your Internet connection,
but actually the software is installed and running on the
local machine, just like it always did. You just pay by the
month instead of buying it outright. And presumably you're
also allowing them to spy on you for marketing purposes
and/or to sell your personal information to advertisers.
People can hardly complain about that if they've already
accepted Adobe's bogus premise that they're renting a
web service.

All of this stuff is presented with seemingly logical
reasons: Photoshop now gives you online storage.
GPS tracking is needed to get local resaurant advice.
Software justifies going online because it supposedly
needs to check for updates. (That used to be known
as beta software.)
I don't allow anything to go online without direct
permission, but it's not easy to achieve that.
 
The latest version of Photoshop is rental "service"
software. It's ludicrous. One can't use such intensive
software over the Internet. And in fact one doesn't.
It connects online for permission and requires that you
let Adobe have free rein with your Internet connection,
but actually the software is installed and running on the
local machine, just like it always did. You just pay by the
month instead of buying it outright. And presumably you're
also allowing them to spy on you for marketing purposes
and/or to sell your personal information to advertisers.
People can hardly complain about that if they've already
accepted Adobe's bogus premise that they're renting a
web service.
Click to expand...

That's ok, Adobe can keep their excessively bloated junkware. I do my
best to avoid their software, along with Symentec. The only Adobe stuff
i have is Flash, because it's needed and they have a monopoly on it.
(Which was originally made by Macromedia), till Adobe bought the
company. I dumped their *SLOW* PDF reader long ago. I do own a legal
copy of Photoshop 5.0, which I bought at a rummage sale for $1. I think
that version dates back to around 1996 to 98. Even back then, the
program was too bloated and hard to use, and I just started to use Paint
Shop Pro, which is easy to use and simple. I have (several) older
versions of PSP installed. That's all I need.

I actually see myself eventually disconnecting my Win98 computer from
the internet, and just using my old (and enjoyed) software for graphic
editing, sound file modification, and office type stuff. I will soon
have a 3GB motherboard and CPU running Win98, and will probably replace
my dualbooted Win2000 with XP on that same computer.

If I can ever get XP to connect to the internet, I'll have that on a
different computer, which will be ONLY for internet use, to eliminate
virus related issues, and to keep my "work" system away from the
internet. Now, if I can find a way to stop XP from trying to connect to
the internet constantly (when there is no internet connection), I'll be
real happy. I might even see if I can get some form of Linux to connect
to the internet. I might just use linux to go online. That seems to be
the safest way to go as far a malware. But I'll admit, I could never
use linux as my "all around" OS. I find it too hard to learn and
understand. But it does run Firefox, Seamonkey, and Thunderbird. I
know those programs, so if all I use are those programs, I can go online
and do everything I do now. I'll just have to learn to use the
newsgroup newsreader built into Seamonkey, because there is no linux
Forte Agent.

Just because MS has us on this constant upgrade slope, dont mean we MUST
follow them. I can do anything using Win98 or XP that I could do on
newer OSs and programs. (except having a decent web browser). Everyone
could edit or create graphics, modify sound files, and do all the office
type programs using Win98, up to XP. Except for the web, nothing has
really changed. It's just more and more bloat and unneeded crap being
added. If it wasn't for the goddamn HTML5, and excessive use of
scripts, the old web browsers would still work fine too. And in my
opinion, all that new fangled crap on websites serves no real purpose
either. All it does is add bloat, add more advertising, cuts down on
our privacy, and makes web pages load slower. that's NOT progress......
In all honesty, the older websites had much more useful content,
especially the news media sites.

The funny thing is that the web was supposed to become the link to the
world news, and eliminate newspapers. In the last couple years, I have
gone back to newspapers, and watch the tv news rather than my computer.
I'm just not willing to cope with all the gyrations on their websites,
and wait for all their crap to load. I believe the term for that is
"Backwards Progress".....
 
| Now, if I can find a way to stop XP from trying to connect to
| the internet constantly (when there is no internet connection)

The prompts to look online for drivers or information
about a file type are not actually attempts to go online.

In general, Windows and software will check for a
connection before trying to go online. I've noticed
that with software installs. A lot of software now
tries to go online during install, without telling me. I
find that if I just block them with the firewall they
get stuck, apparently waiting for a connection timeout.
But if I actually unplug there's no such problem, leaving
me to conclude that the software is first testing for
a connection before trying to go out. What really bugs
me is that I'm never informed about any of this.

You can set up XP to control going online if you use
a firewall, but for XP itself that also means disabling
services like Windows Update, Windows Time, etc.
Many Windows services run through svchost, so if
you want to block them you need to block svchost
itself. I don't want most of those services anyway.
I found the only service I wanted that needed to go
online was DHCP. By using a fixed IP address I can
also disable that and that allows me to block svchost
at the firewall. Without blocking svchost it's not easy
to know what's going online.


| I might even see if I can get some form of Linux to connect
| to the internet. I might just use linux to go online. That seems to be
| the safest way to go as far a malware.

I don't remember if you were in the recent discussion
with Todd, the Linux salesman. It was either here or
in the Win7 group. I told him that one of the things
stopping me from serious Linux usage (in addition to
console tedium, lack of software, pointless file restrictions,
and the rest of my shopping list) is the lack of even
one dependable firewall that's simple, easy to use,
and can block outgoing on a per-executable basis,
including control of ports. He says he write Linux firewalls
for a living and said there are plenty of good Linux firewalls,
but he never did come up with the name of one program
fitting my requirements. There are numerous such programs
for windows and there have been such programs for 15
years.

On the other hand, you could take the AppleSeed approach:
Buy a wildly overpriced Mac. Then buy a $300 Windows Pro
DVD. Install Windows on Mac. Then install your Windows software.
That should give you a bit of extra malware protection, afforded
by the Mac wrapper. Then you can hang around Mac forums
and celebrate how you've left behind the useless Windows OS. :)
 
| Now, if I can find a way to stop XP from trying to connect to
| the internet constantly (when there is no internet connection)

The prompts to look online for drivers or information
about a file type are not actually attempts to go online.

In general, Windows and software will check for a
connection before trying to go online. I've noticed
that with software installs. A lot of software now
tries to go online during install, without telling me. I
find that if I just block them with the firewall they
get stuck, apparently waiting for a connection timeout.
But if I actually unplug there's no such problem, leaving
me to conclude that the software is first testing for
a connection before trying to go out. What really bugs
me is that I'm never informed about any of this.

You can set up XP to control going online if you use
a firewall, but for XP itself that also means disabling
services like Windows Update, Windows Time, etc.
Many Windows services run through svchost, so if
you want to block them you need to block svchost
itself. I don't want most of those services anyway.
I found the only service I wanted that needed to go
online was DHCP. By using a fixed IP address I can
also disable that and that allows me to block svchost
at the firewall. Without blocking svchost it's not easy
to know what's going online.


| I might even see if I can get some form of Linux to connect
| to the internet. I might just use linux to go online. That seems to be
| the safest way to go as far a malware.

I don't remember if you were in the recent discussion
with Todd, the Linux salesman. It was either here or
in the Win7 group. I told him that one of the things
stopping me from serious Linux usage (in addition to
console tedium, lack of software, pointless file restrictions,
and the rest of my shopping list) is the lack of even
one dependable firewall that's simple, easy to use,
and can block outgoing on a per-executable basis,
including control of ports. He says he write Linux firewalls
for a living and said there are plenty of good Linux firewalls,
but he never did come up with the name of one program
fitting my requirements. There are numerous such programs
for windows and there have been such programs for 15
years.

On the other hand, you could take the AppleSeed approach:
Buy a wildly overpriced Mac. Then buy a $300 Windows Pro
DVD. Install Windows on Mac. Then install your Windows software.
That should give you a bit of extra malware protection, afforded
by the Mac wrapper. Then you can hang around Mac forums
and celebrate how you've left behind the useless Windows OS. :)
Click to expand...
I've never used a firewall. I tried one some years ago in Win98, and it
annoyed me to no end with endless "do you want to" questions. I do a
pretty good job of blocking adware sites, sites that annoy me, and
everything having to do with Facebook, by using a HOSTS file.

When I install XP, the first thing I do is disable the firewall.
Honestly, I know little about how they work, but I refuse to have some
program constantly annoy me. It's bad enough that windows asks too damn
many "do you really want to" questions. I dont need a firewall making
it worse. I'll tolerate that for 10 minutes before I shut off the
computer.

I dont know why my XP keeps trying to go online. I dont even have a
modem connected to it. You'd think that MS would have put in some
setting to disable that feature universally.

No, I dont recall that linux discussion on here. But like I said, I
dont much care for linux, but I think I could learn to live with using
it JUST for the internet. Particularly because I can use familiar
software like Firefox, Thunderbird, and SeaMonkey. My hardest change
would be to use a different newsreader. I've used Agent for years. But
I also know that Wine can be used to run Windows programs. If all I
used linux for was to go online, I could live with it, just as long as I
dont have to get into the linux command line crap.

I once hated linux, but I can see where it's greatly improved. At least
the GUI part can be setup fairly essily without having to go into that
dreaded command line.
 
Back
Top