5 ms·
Definitely ridiculous. But this creates a case for hosting your own stream, instead of relying on a capricious 3rd party who is too scared of media cartels to
by acabal 14y ago
Definitely ridiculous. But this creates a case for hosting your own stream, instead of relying on a capricious 3rd party who is too scared of media cartels to serve its customers properly. It might be a little more work to set up, but that's the price you pay in today's hyper-litigious copyright-mad world.
- lambada 14y agoYes, it is more work but also in terms of the bandwidth to serve these awards via their own service it would be far more expensive (not to mention hard to maintain reliability of service). Yes, I suspect most of us could pull a basic stream together pretty quickly, but that stream would likely not be up to the standard that would be expected of such a prestigious ceremony.
- windle 14y agoExactly why we need Bittorrent Live to take off. P2P live video streaming can help bypass shoddy bots.
- rabidsnail 14y agoHate to rain on your parade, but ISP-level NAT is coming (it's already here on mobile) and it breaks P2P. Hole-punching doesn't work, you can't manually open ports, and they don't support UPnP. If everyone is behind a nat who is left to tunnel through? Why, a central platform! Skype already went down this road.
- jordanthoms 14y agoHopefully ISPs will be smart enough to provide native ipv6 before they start doing NAT on their ipv4 addresses.
- rabidsnail 14y agoGiven that they're all also cable tv providers, I'm not sure how smart providing ipv6 would be.
- btbuilder 14y agoWhy would UDP holepunching be affected?
- vidarh 14y agoI'm reasonably confident it won't take much to beat the standards set by having copyright enforcement bots taking the thing offline.
- kitsune_ 14y agoI don't get it... you will always end up using infrastructure that belongs to someone else when streaming.
- rorrr 14y agoIf it's your own server, the best they can do is send you a DMCA claim.
- rmc 14y agoDMCA only (?) applies to user submitted content, ie where you don't review everything first. And I think you can ignore DMCA takedowns if you're willing to give up safe harbour protection (which you wouldnt need in this case). Or host your stream in a non-USA country, where you may be able to ignore the DMCA
- rabidsnail 14y agoThey'll send your ISP a DMCA claim. Even if you're your own ISP, unless you're a tier 1 they can DMCA your transit provider. Now that CloudFront has transparent pricing there's no reason not to use CDN if you can afford it.
- keithwinstein 14y agoNo, the DMCA/OCILLA's safe harbor for transit providers doesn't require them to honor something like a takedown notice to be eligible. Only ISPs who store material at the direction of their users, on systems controlled by the ISP, and who want to take advantage of that safe harbor, have to honor takedown notices.
- mikeash 14y agoSure... for now. It appears to be a de-facto requirement for these large media distributors to have automated copyright enforcement on them these days. This would have been completely ridiculous a decade ago, but now it's all over the place, and no doubt will continue to grow. How long until it becomes a de-facto requirement for large hosting providers to have automated copyright enforcement on all outgoing streams from their data centers? How long until it becomes a de-facto requirement for ISPs to have automated copyright enforcement on all incoming streams, or GPUs to do it on content while it's playing, or...? I'm afraid it's likely to cause negative knee-jerk reactions just bringing it up, but I have to say that The Right to Read is becoming less ridiculous all the time: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
- rabidsnail 14y agoHow to do it using Amazon (scales automatically): http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/LiveStreamingAdobeFMS4.5.html http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/De...