Enforcing the Download Restrictions

[Free Lancer]

From what I've read so far my understandig is that AnyStream need to get each download approved by the "Token Bucket" from the RedFox server first.

What will happen if the RedFox server is not available or not reachable for some reasons?
Will AnyStream work at all then?

I am not happy with the idea of depending on a 'control' server which might not be available when I need it.

Why not hardcoding the download limits into the application itself without the need to access a 'control' server first?

 

[coopervid]

You should be happy with the software and restrictions are needed because some people get too greedy and abuse the normal use to excessive downloads of all and everything 24/7. That's not "intended use". I asked Pete to write the "rules of engagement" but he answered that he is too busy right now.

 

[Free Lancer]

You should be happy with the software and restrictions are needed ...

I am totally happy with the software and I fully support those restrictions to prevent the abuse of that great software.
If you read my post again you might recognize that my concerns are not about the actual restrictions but about the way they are enforced.

Why not hardcoding the download limits into the application itself without the need to access a 'control' server first?

What will happen if the RedFox server is not available or not reachable for some reasons?
Will AnyStream work at all then?

 

[coopervid]

Only the devs can answer this but I'm sure they wanted to prevent that someone is running various copies of the software on various PCs simultaneously etc. to maximize downloads to the extreme. Again - I still hope that @Pete might come up with the answer and the "rules of engagement".

 

[Free Lancer]

Well I am curious if one of the developers might comment on those questions.

 

[Prospere]

@Free Lancer Hardcoding the limit is less secure. Besides, AnyStream needs to "call home" in order to validate the license anyway. While I understand your concern, I can't say whether there will or will not be any change to this. Our goal is to prevent the abuse of the software while not causing any discomfort to our customers. The method in question works best for now. Will we find a better methodology, we will surely implement it. Again, while this works, we have some other urgent things to take care of. Since the application is in its cradle, we do need to, so to say, "change its diapers from time to time".

 

[Octavean]

There is a cogent argument for some common sense limitations so no argument there. Cheers,...

However, what is considered abuse might not be so clear. The reason I say this is because when I read some of the responses here its not clear to me if people are referring to abuse of the "AnyStream" software itself or the services the AnyStream software accesses. It may seem like a distinction without a difference but there may be some daylight between the two.

So for example:

Service provider1 has no knowledge of the usage statistics of service provider2 and vice versa so why then the need of aggregate limit of downloads shared between the the two service providers? Rather then a limit for service provider1 downloads and a limit for service provider2 downloads, both equal in number but independent? One does not take from the other.

If protection of the AnyStream software itself is the concern then it makes sense to have an aggregate limit between all services (current and future services). I'm not fully behind the argument that AnyStream software itself can be abused though. The software itself does nothing of any real use to the end user without the service providers.