4 ms·

The editor can upload the video and make it private. In the mean time it is being rendered. Then the creator can review the video. If good, they can publish it

The editor can upload the video and make it private. In the mean time it is being rendered. Then the creator can review the video. If good, they can publish it to YouTube. --- But the YouTuber will probably still need that original file back if they have an archival solution for their past content with local backups and remote backups.

itsDhruvv 3y ago
>The editor can upload the video and make it private. But this would mean youtuber would have to give access to editor of his channel. What am I missing here?
- jessenaser 3y ago
  If giving access is the problem, then you can (instead of making a platform), make a script for a Digital Ocean droplet, for example. 1. Setup 5 or 6 dollar droplet. 2. Editor uploads to the droplet. It is processed and validated by script. Code script that only allows X uploads in X hours. 3. Script can keep the video in the queue and give the creator a link to view the video to the droplet (VLC remote link) OR/AND Script uploads to YouTube and sets the uploads to unpublished (defaulting to private). (https://developers.google.com/youtube/v3/guides/uploading_a_video https://developers.google.com/youtube/v3/guides/uploading_a_...) 4. The script sends the creator or gives back a link to the editor to the video and the creator can review that video while on YouTube and while it is being encoded for all resolutions. 5. If a creator likes the video, then they themselves can schedule the publish date, and publish to YouTube. 6. Allow script to be updated over time for changes in API. Editor only needs to upload once to server. Creator downloads nothing. Also this server can auto backup the video for an archival solution to wherever else (but that is a story for another time).
  - itsDhruvv 3y ago
    My thinking here is a good UI might be beneficial? Even the backup solution would be cool enough if there is a good UI to do all this interaction. In future, if we get good traction we want to leverage the fact that lots of editors would have signed up on the platform and make some sort of community around them so that they can find work easily via market place.

itsDhruvv 3y ago

>The editor can upload the video and make it private. But this would mean youtuber would have to give access to editor of his channel. What am I missing here?

jessenaser 3y ago
If giving access is the problem, then you can (instead of making a platform), make a script for a Digital Ocean droplet, for example. 1. Setup 5 or 6 dollar droplet. 2. Editor uploads to the droplet. It is processed and validated by script. Code script that only allows X uploads in X hours. 3. Script can keep the video in the queue and give the creator a link to view the video to the droplet (VLC remote link) OR/AND Script uploads to YouTube and sets the uploads to unpublished (defaulting to private). (https://developers.google.com/youtube/v3/guides/uploading_a_video https://developers.google.com/youtube/v3/guides/uploading_a_...) 4. The script sends the creator or gives back a link to the editor to the video and the creator can review that video while on YouTube and while it is being encoded for all resolutions. 5. If a creator likes the video, then they themselves can schedule the publish date, and publish to YouTube. 6. Allow script to be updated over time for changes in API. Editor only needs to upload once to server. Creator downloads nothing. Also this server can auto backup the video for an archival solution to wherever else (but that is a story for another time).
- itsDhruvv 3y ago
  My thinking here is a good UI might be beneficial? Even the backup solution would be cool enough if there is a good UI to do all this interaction. In future, if we get good traction we want to leverage the fact that lots of editors would have signed up on the platform and make some sort of community around them so that they can find work easily via market place.