Craniac (/m7):

How to do it varies from browser to browser. The one I'm using
now (a Mozilla derivative, probably all work similarly) has a
Page Info window with a media tab. From that you can click on
images or flash files in the page and 'Save As...'

AlexB (/m9): "Once SVG becomes dominant" I hope that never comes
to pass.

This is not the place to point out the hows of the application in question (there's a forum on the site now for that) however a sad fact is that most people associate Flash with ads while associating related technologies such as SVG with true innovation. While flash is mainly used for advertisements, this has little relevance to the actual capabilities of the platform. Once SVG becomes dominant then it too will be used mainly for ads (and pr0n, obviously) but with the added feature of not being able to turn it off as it will be too integrated with the content of the viewed page.
SWF, the format, supports the creation of small-footprint vector images, dynamic vector images, a powerful platform programming language capable of communicating with browser components and extensive server connectivity mechanisms.
So what the advantages of an XML representation of such a format? Because yes, there is a learning curve. In short, SWF creation, editing, recovery, version control, compression, asset extraction and management, internationalisation, localisation, mapping, charting, conversion, format translation... These are the advantages the SVG community have been screaming about for years and may only become obvious when SVG truly hits the desktop. The flexibility of an open representation of any document format enables uses previously unimagined.

I ran something through this last night, and got the expected gigantic XML file, but is there any way to extract the multimedia elements as usable files?

So, how does one capture, say, an online flash ad? Is it stored in a /tmp directory somewhere?

The sad thing is, not a single flash advertisement comes to mind when I write this, or one interesting enough to parody.

Firstly, I suppose, to put a bit of context on my arguments I should mention that I am the author of the software in question.
I agree totally with the comments expressed thus far. Again, as a developer, I am aware of the time, effort and creativity that goes into the creation of many intellectual works, be they software applications, music, or movies. KineticFusion itself is distributed as an obfuscated application to make the process of retrieving valuable IP more difficult(does that qualify as irony?). The intention of KineticFusion is to allow SWF or SVG creators to author SWF using an XML-centric processing model, possibly in conjunction with a visual authoring tool, rather than exclusively depending on visual tools. In order to do this, it is essential that SWF be converted to XML in order to be able to perform proper integration, and also to verify that generated SWF movies were created correctly.
The debate over such decompilers/recompilers will follow the lines of that of that of music-ripping software. The existence of such software is essential to provide for the legitimate uses to which it may be used. But it can also be used to steal concepts and IP that the author wishes to protect.
Flash movies do include a Protect switch inside each movie should the author wish to use it however this switch is purely used as an advisory field and can be removed by any knowledgable user, making it worse than useless (since it conveys the provision of protection while providing none).

Well what a healthy debate surrounding issues brought by new technology.
A couple thoughts:
1) When something is downloaded from the net to my computer, who really owns it? While I may not have the right to redistribute it, while it is in my possession I should have the freedom to do what I want with it. (So long as it does not harm someone else.) Obviously this issue is up for debate as large interests have attempted to claim ownership of things on our hardrives.
2) There has been some inexpensive software available for some time that has a "duel" purpose in that it works pretty well for decompiling Flash. I have used this feature a few times out of curiosity.
3) I think more folks should leave the source open on Flash, as that is what has accelerated web development. However, there are instances when it is fair to discourage someone ripping your hardwork. There are those in this world who lack scruples.

Wouldn't a decompiler be more akin to taking apart some device you bought from the store?
You have the code on your property, you just look at it a diffrent way.
The mp3 makers dont like it when people take those devices apart and insert larger hard-drivers, but that doesnt mean people should stop doing it.

Thanks, B. Mindful: that was exactly the kind of insight I'd hoped for when I clicked through.

I haven't tried this one, but I downloaded one a couple of years ago in hopes of recreating one I'd built but lost the fla file for... I was able to recover the graphics and stuff, but it split all the tweened items into individual frames and IIRC all the layers were merged into one... Actionscript was stripped, too.

Edited by author 07-17-2003 05:09 PM
Hmmmm, This is really a tricky one. I've seen other software to do this for flash, but the debate over the benefits or inappropriateness of decompilers has been going for some years in the C and Java worlds (among others).

As a creator and a user here is my take. Unlike building for a platform based upon transparency such as html and javascript, flash, like any compiled code is considered a black-box by it's coders. A private machine they are ready to let others use but not necessarily become open-source.

I am a big proponent of open-source and Some-Rights-Reserved trade marking, but both of these allow for the creator, not the user to determine what the rights usage should be. Decompilers allow the user to decide what is now private domain, which isn't the most ethical thing. A similar example could be opening someone's mail. Just because we can open it, doesn't mean we have any right to do so.

In the end I know I still have Decafe (a Java decompiler) around as a utility. I'll fire it up to undo some code a coworker wrote. I'll use it rarely for looking under the hood of some non-commercial software whose creator has implied a shared use. And many years back I've used it to look at commercial products to see the code that was worth paying for, but now I strongly feel that I was taking from that coder as if I went into their hard drive and stole it.

So I imagine the same debates will grow in the Flash realms. Decompilers are a great learning tool, but should be treated with great respect. Each little flash .swf file is a mini invention, some of which are ground breaking, and unless explicitly stated, no one has the right to take at will, just like you can't open a letter or spy thru someone window.

My 2 pennies,

B. Mindful