[WeThePeople]

Here is something that is already in eMule mostly.

If you open to the content tab on any file,
and you have even a portion of the first block,
it will clearly tell you it can never be played.

I know of no one that would ever accept a DRM license from any website,
and I'd gladly put anyone stupid enough to accept one out of their misery...


So I must ask why we all have to be the ones doing this operation manually ?

As example, eMule has a "Pause When Preview Available" feature now,
so I'm not willing to accept this feature would be that difficult to implement.



An auto-delete feature that uses the already available information to cancel downloads early on
to stop the complete waste of bandwidth by these Micro$haft whore files that will never play.

This has gone on for years and must be stopped.



Perhaps there is a "Mod" already out that address this ?



.

This post has been edited by WeThePeople: 17 August 2011 - 06:38 PM

[James R. Bath]

Haven't heard of such a mod feature. The feature would be better called "Auto-Cancel DRM" or "Auto-Cancel Unexpected Formats" for videos that turn out to be MP3 or ZIP. It might be possible to do this in a less precise way via the search if the codec search option allowed you to exclude DRM capable codecs. I won't even recommend the codec search option because its neither reliable nor efficient.

To those about to answer, why not add NOT wmv NOT asf to exclude DRM extensions?: Entities that really want to send you DRM rename the extensions. Excluding extensions also miss, though relatively rare, good files from users who aren't trying to trick anybody. There are definitely cases out there where the only good copy of a file available is in a format and extension that most DRM also use.

To those about to answer anything else, try it first before you suggest it. For example, repeating every search for every non-DRM codec isn't user friendly or network overhead friendly.

[WeThePeople]

Yes, those are things I am aware of too,
but felt those reading this accepted them as obvious.

But I am in a forum, and subject to darn near anything, heheh...

I did spend some time with the many search ideas,
and rampant file misnaming isn't just within the format,
the endless documents that are whore's trojan executables,
and video's marked with music or archive extensions, etc.

But if I could block anyone, it would be the spammers out there
that take a search term and spit out a few hundred variaions,
completely diluting our real files we share ebtween ourselves !

Thanks for you reply on this and the first/last chunk issues I posted.

This post has been edited by WeThePeople: 23 August 2011 - 06:01 AM

[Meuh6879]

non-european emule member use Microsoft format file in many case and WMV (too) with successfull sharing on eMule.

Japan, for example ... on ... well...on "media" files.
and WMV doesn't contain DRM plug in this situation.

Korean member with "small but great" media content do the same thing.
Perhaps because, they use DV camera and Mediamaker simple tool include in WinXP...

popular file use more "exotic" container like MKV or MP4 with a little complicated codecs.
but, it's ok...Mediacoder tools is a great aid.

[WeThePeople]

Yes Meuh,
that is why I am trying to stray away from any method
that goes by the file extension or embedded format.

There is also no search method that allows omission
of search result hits known to be encrypted with DRM.

I get many good science vids in the .WMV/.ASF format as example,
but when you preview the information in other downloads catagories
(after the first block has DL'd completely)
you can clearly see on the "Content" tab that eMule KNOWS it has DRM.

So the information to automaticly delete offending encrypted vids is there.

There is also an existing feature to stop the download
upon having enough to preview it too, so, again,
most of the pieces needed to perform the task
are already coded into the product IMHO...

Thank you for your input too.



This is much more than an inconvenience to people,
the whole purpose is to steer people to infected websites,
that launch numerous explot hacks and drive-by download installs.

After you have opened the file and been redirected to get the DRM "Certificate",
your already all done now, because you IP has been added to that servers list
to be pummeled continuously until some exploit works and "Owns" your OS/PC...

.

This post has been edited by WeThePeople: 23 August 2011 - 05:56 AM

[xilolee]

WeThePeople, on 23 August 2011 - 07:48 AM, said:

There is also no search method that allows omission
of search result hits known to be encrypted with DRM.

There is... For example the following string permits to show results without wmv and wma extensions, without wmv2,wmv3,wmaudio2,wmaudio3 codecs, with bitrate greater than 20 and length greater than 20 (seconds):

keyword1 keyword2 @ext=!wma,!wmv -@cod=wmv2 -@cod=wmv3 -@cod=wmaudio2 -@cod=wmaudio3 @bit>20 @len>20

PS: If you have a bad serverlist, this won't save you from bad results! (if you are using global(servers) method when connected to any server, or (local)server or automatic methods when connected to a false server)

This post has been edited by xilolee: 23 August 2011 - 02:49 PM

[starko]

xilolee, on 23 August 2011 - 03:27 PM, said:

WeThePeople, on 23 August 2011 - 07:48 AM, said:

There is also no search method that allows omission
of search result hits known to be encrypted with DRM.

There is... For example the following ....

No, there is not any. Your example is a great academical exercise but it has very little to do with what the poster was writing about - namely filtering out of WMV files with DRM. Not filtering out of all WMV files etc.

@WeThePeople.
Indeed there are a few things one could do with the first block to stop terabytes of unwanted content being daily up/downloaded only to be discarded. Most obvious is an option to abort or at least pause both down- and up-load of files that have known DRM or with file headers that don't match their extension. ("video's marked with music or archive extensions" etc)

This issue affects us all in many ways:
- obvious emotional aggravation
- waste of personal time
- local computer resources and electricity are wasted on something you will not need
- network bandwidth is constantly wasted in huge amounts
- KAD puts a limit on number of sources/files one can share. These downloads reduce the number of files you do want to share

There are probably more reasons...

The problem is that the developers, when they even think about it, are very "cautious". I have started a similar (if not identical) thread more than a year ago - Fixing Incorrect Extension Issue. In that thread Some Support could only commit himself to an icon that would highlight that kind of downloads in the next version of eMule.
Maybe this time he will be more generous and give us three options: 1. icon only, 2. icon & pause, 3. immediate and complete abort. (I will be using the 3rd one)


PS. Is there a list of issues that developers (how many of them are there?) are planning to fix before the next release?

This post has been edited by starko: 25 August 2011 - 07:00 PM

[WeThePeople]

xilolee, once again, thank you for trying to be helpful,
but like like your answer in another thread, it missed.

The offending files used to be those real small ones,
and your method of parsing was good for those situations.

But today they are hundreds of megabytes large,
and have moved on from the buffered file trick too.

Worse yet, many experimentor/science/humourous vids
from places like YouTube, etc., would be omitted too.

Nice idea for others to learn from though, thanks.



starko, I couldn't agree with you more on all points,
and thanks for indicating the inherent cautious nature
concerning inclusion of any new features/patches/tools
by the developers per se, I see their viewpoint on that.

I'd settle for the token "Red circle with the diagonal red line through it" icon,
as long as the icon is NOT placed there by the public's hands, but by emule itself.
(Utilizing the same proceedure that informs me on the file info's "Content" tab)

As long as people are the one's allowed to mark files as DRM-crippled,
hoards of companies/trolls/idiots will swarm to marked every file DRM...

The three-step choice you postulate sounds fair enough,
and an inclusion to pause/cancel improper extension's too
would stop almost all of my network bandwidth waste for sure.

Not to mention the hours of wasted time and the attached aggrevation,
only to delete a useless huge file making all that bandwidth a waste too.

Nice.

I'll read those dozen posts in your older thread later too, thanks.



I share a little over 3000 vid's/doc's/pdf's of an energy-related/ZPE nature,
a lot of them I recoded to be practical and viable on machines without codec-packs.

You indicated a limit on the KAD share count, what is that please ?

[starko]

WeThePeople, on 26 August 2011 - 11:58 PM, said:

The three-step choice you postulate sounds fair enough, and an inclusion to pause/cancel improper extension's too would stop almost all of my network bandwidth waste for sure.

Not to mention the hours of wasted time and the attached aggrevation, only to delete a useless huge file making all that bandwidth a waste too.

Now multiply all that by a hundred of thousand per day (and i think i am being conservative here). By liberating my upload queue and bandwidth, this feature alone will allow me to share more of useful content and let others download stuff they request faster. Multiply that times 100.000

WeThePeople, on 26 August 2011 - 11:58 PM, said:

thanks for indicating the inherent cautious nature concerning inclusion of any new features/patches/tools by the developers per se, I see their viewpoint on that.

developers have put lots of effort to optimize the traffic by optimizing upload/download mechanisms. Further optimization on that level will bring diminishing returns - save a couple of odd bits here and there. Now it's time to go to the next abstraction level - separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. That will liberate terabytes and terabytes of bandwidth and hard disk space. And probably will get rid the network of millions of junk files.

I am not sure about the reason for their reluctance to work on this idea. I doubt it's their "inherent cautious nature" as you gently put it. Probably lack of resources combined with lack of vision/ambition (when choosing priorities). Of course this kind of statements is counter productive, so it might be my fault

WeThePeople, on 26 August 2011 - 11:58 PM, said:

I share a little over 3000 vid's/doc's/pdf's of an energy-related/ZPE nature, a lot of them I recoded to be practical and viable on machines without codec-packs.

You indicated a limit on the KAD share count, what is that please ?

My answer will not be exactly right, but from what i understand, at any given moment, not all of your shares are available for download or returned as search results. Maybe only a 1000 or so. I am not sure about the mechanism, maybe others will provide you with exact explanation.
My speculation (based on nothing, so please correct me of i am wrong) is that all your current downloads take precedence over your local shares. So for every junk file you download (as long as you download), there is one good file that does not get shared (or even seen on the network)

This post has been edited by starko: 28 August 2011 - 11:35 AM