Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media Your Rights Online

Up Next... Skypecasting 190

Posted by CmdrTaco from the information-routes-around-problems dept.
Davis Freeberg submitted linkage to a short story talking about Skypecasting Television. Essentially using Skype and Yahoo Messenger to rebroadcast video to the internet. While it isn't a PVR, it circumvents the regionally oriented programming that prevents the UK from watching our "Football" or us from getting Dr Who. It also raises yet another battlefront the content owners will need to contend with in the upcoming years.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Up Next... Skypecasting More

Up Next... Skypecasting

Comments Filter:

  • This Ain't Yer Gran's PVR (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Thursday December 15, 2005 @05:44PM (#14267667) Homepage Journal

    While it isn't a PVR, it circumvents the regionally oriented programming that prevents the UK from watching our "Football" or us from getting Dr Who.

    You can already get football from a variety of sites, at least one is hosted in China, no idea where the others are, you just have to put up with the commentary. Further, by Fox Soccer Channel and PPV you have access to more matches than you do in the UK, where IIRC 4 matches are televised out of the EPL schedule each match day. If you're wishing to watch Everton v Sunderland, or some other low end of the table match, you are out of luck.

    It also raises yet another battlefront the content owners will need to contend with in the upcoming years.

    Oh, yes. Expect all digital signals to have some encoded regionality which is intended to put the content owner in command. The major problem with these methods is they effectively kill foreign markets, because there's usually no distributor or the distributor asks too high a cost for content, which ultimately drives piracy.

    Maybe some day they'll learn that you can maximize profit by maximizing access.

    • Re:This Ain't Yer Gran's PVR (Score:4, Informative)

      by Krach42 ( 227798 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @05:49PM (#14267701) Homepage Journal
      No no no no... he means AMERICAN football in the UK.

      • Re:This Ain't Yer Gran's PVR (Score:5, Funny)

        by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Thursday December 15, 2005 @05:58PM (#14267797) Homepage Journal
        No no no no... he means AMERICAN football in the UK.

        Sod. Who would watch that when you have Chelsea at Arsenal this Sunday?

        funny that american football is called that, the ball rarely makes contact with the foot.

        • funny that american football is called that, the ball rarely makes contact with the foot.

          Funny that Billiards is called that, when the game rarely involves the paying of bills.
          Funny that Rugby is called that, when the game rarely involves a rug.
          Funny that Golf is called that, when the game rarely involves German cars.
          Funny that Hockey is called that, when there is little hocking.

          You get my point, I trust?
          • Funny that Rugby is called that, when the game rarely involves a rug.

            That's because Rugby Football is named after the place it was first played. Ditto with American Football and Australian Rules Football.
            "Rugby" is an abbreviation. In the same way that "Soccer" is an abbreviation of "Association Football", the "Football Association" having been created to draw up a uniform set of rules. This was required since it became possible, in the 19th century, for sports teams and spectators to travel large distanc
        • Go blues! Cheers, and good like at Highbury! (I'll burn some karma at the Gunner's expense) --
    • Everton v Sunderland

      Are these college football teams?

      Oh, you mean soccer!

    • Expect all digital signals to have some encoded regionality which is intended to put the content owner in command.

      But probably about as effective as DVD region codes.

      The major problem with these methods is they effectively kill foreign markets, because there's usually no distributor or the distributor asks too high a cost for content, which ultimately drives piracy.

      The other factor involved is that people are not prepared to wait whilst the companies involved get their acts together. Especially when m

  • I've been doing this for a while... (Score:4, Informative)

    by ZackSchil ( 560462 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @05:48PM (#14267691)
    I had a system set up two years using Applescripts, PHP, iChat AV, and a TV tuner to broadcast TV over the internet to any iChat or AIM-equipped machine. It used a php script to change channels, etc. It was pretty great but now that I'm at college rather than boarding school, it's much easier to just use the cable in my room here.

  • Who is the author of these Web 2.0 acronyms? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lost+Found ( 844289 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @05:48PM (#14267693)
    I'd like to arrange for their prompt and bloody assassination.
    • I'd like to arrange for their prompt and bloody assassination.

      Latecomers.

      See, you and I are old crusty curmudgeons who remember the good old days of NNTP, ftp, email before spam, telnet sessions, etc. It was a good time because pundits rarely got into our realm due to the technical barrier. Now, just about anyone can and they're all seeing things for the first time and giving out the stupid names, acronyms, etc. I think some of what I read in Doonesbury is about the most pathetic as Alex, Mike's daug

    • So I take it (Score:4, Funny)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @06:07PM (#14267858) Homepage Journal
      you find neoblogisms offensive?

      • Re:So I take it (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        You sir, deserve a pat on the back for being clever, and a sound beating for sharing your cleverness.

  • Advertisers wont care (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Realistic_Dragon ( 655151 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @05:50PM (#14267707) Homepage
    Thanks to new UK legislation that is threatening to allow product placement advertisers will be getting their crap pushed and 'content' creators will be getting their 20 pieces of silver no matter how you rebroadcast space cadets 97: the final farce... so why should they care?

    • Re:Advertisers wont care (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Krach42 ( 227798 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @05:53PM (#14267733) Homepage Journal
      Because, same as I would be willing to watch German ads on TV just to get German TV, there is little point for the advertisers to advertise something that I can't buy here in the US. I mean, it works fine for big companies that sell under the same name there and here, like Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, and T-Mobile, but what about Beer commercials?

      And what about standards of decency? I saw naked boobies on a German television program... WON'T YOU THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!
    • Thanks to new UK legislation that is threatening to allow product placement advertisers will be getting their crap pushed and 'content' creators will be getting their 20 pieces of silver no matter how you rebroadcast space cadets 97: the final farce... so why should they care?

      eBay to insert subliminal messages into your skypecasting?

      eBay: facilitating redistribution of the worlds junk since 1995

  • overhyped? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 15, 2005 @05:50PM (#14267710)
    Bah, give it six months and it'll just be lots of fat, sweaty nerds talking about other fat, sweaty nerds.

    So, no different from podcasting then.

    / zing
  • You know, im from Ecuador and now im studying in Germany. But it piss me off, that german tv and german cable sucks. At my home i have espn and i can watch mostly all the games in want to watch and with the commentators i want to hear. Now, should i pay again the tv rights here in Germany AGAIN when i am already paying there in Ecuador?? It is true that not many people are in my position and tv channels and corporations will have to redesign their business (how can in example be narutos rights of tv lucrati

  • Not another one! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 77Punker ( 673758 ) <(ude.tniophgih) (ta) (40rcneps)> on Thursday December 15, 2005 @05:54PM (#14267751)
    Podcasting, Skypecasting, ummmm... blogcasting? Seriously, it's just a media stream, not something new. Please invent words responsibly.

  • Wonderful (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MoneyT ( 548795 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @05:54PM (#14267755) Journal
    Let's give a catchy buzzword to a non existant problem so that we can attract the masses of clueless people to the concept who will inevitably post questions all about the net in an attempt to gain access to this "Skypecasting" which will lead to the creation of one or two small skypecasting applications which will inevitably draw the attention of the media companies who will see it as a massive problem plaguing their business and inevitably bring about lawsuits and laws which serve to do nothing other than make life more difficult and suckier for the common man.
  • Oh man, I just start to drool whenever I read something like this that I know will piss the MPAA off!

    OTOH, these technological advances just fuel the argument for removing end-to-end internet access, which is what the big boys are starting to push for.

    Power to the people!!!

  • Internet PVR (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Buzz_Litebeer ( 539463 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @05:56PM (#14267775) Journal
    What I would like is someone to make a simple interface like media portal but for the internet.

    Whatever the media application is playing, regardless of how it is playing it, it will send the image and sound data over the net to some application.

    ALso allowing to change channels etc... essentially just a nice little web front end. I have a TV card at home and I want to view it over the internet. I figured out how to do it with windows media encoder but the process is a tad combersome.

    • Evil Sony (Score:3, Funny)

      by oGMo ( 379 )

      The big, bad, evil Sony has something like that [sony.com]. And it even streams TV to those useless PSPs everyone seems to hate. Apparently, you can change the channel, and stream TV from anyone (not just your own device).

  • Wrong (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @06:00PM (#14267812)

    t circumvents the regionally oriented programming that prevents the UK from watching our "Football"

    I think you'll find that it's good taste that prevents the UK from watching American football :). It's not a real sport if you have to stop for a rest every few seconds, and it must be a game for girly men if you need to wear armour! It's basically rubgy with padding and resting, isn't it?

    • It's not a real sport if you have to stop for a rest every few seconds, and it must be a game for girly men if you need to wear armour!

      I say, It's just not cricket! *cough*

    • Re:Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)

      by LithiumX ( 717017 )
      I think you'll find that it's good taste that prevents the UK from watching American football :). It's not a real sport if you have to stop for a rest every few seconds, and it must be a game for girly men if you need to wear armour! It's basically rubgy with padding and resting, isn't it?

      ...And players who are large enough to turn your average rugby player into something like red paste.

      Serious injury is common on the football field (and I mean Football, North American style), and that's WITH armor.

    • Re:Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)

      by anothy ( 83176 )
      oh, you're just asking for it, aren't you? :-)

      never mind the fact that you're right. American Football's a fun game - i used to play it after church on sundays with my mates at the school next door - but a sport? please. i've timed games to compare time spent doing something vs. time spent doing nothing; the ratio in the last two superbowls, supposedly the hight of the season, was about 1:7.5. that's just lame.

      and you're going to get all the guys talking about how (american) football players are so much l
      • the injuries are largely because of the armor (added weight), not in spite of it

        I call BS. If this had even a grain of accuracy, the NFL Player's Union would be screaming to reduce protective gear requirements -- way too many players stand to lose way too much money from injuries as it is. Anything that would improve their odds of another 7-figure paycheck would be promoted out the wazoo.

        • Re:Wrong (Score:2)

          by mpe ( 36238 )
          If this had even a grain of accuracy, the NFL Player's Union would be screaming to reduce protective gear requirements -- way too many players stand to lose way too much money from injuries as it is.

          Before you could even consider reducing the amount of protective clothing the rules would need changing to make the game less dangerous. The problem with adding more armour is that it does not make the game less intrically dangerous, since players will try and compensate for the armour.
        • but adding the battle armor makes the game more spectacular for the TV-watching audience. all that metal and banging gets people excited. which is good for the business. which is why the paychecks are 7-figures in the first place.
      • The weight of football "armor" is insignificant compared to the power of the force.

        Er, I mean, to the weight of a 340-lb linebacker. Or, for that matter, compared to a 220-lb quarterback.

        • different materials. even if i drop my shoulder and plow into your head, it's going to be a damn sight less intense than getting hit with a metal helmet or the rigid guards. the weight's significant, but the materials are more important.
      • i've timed games to compare time spent doing something vs. time spent doing nothing; the ratio in the last two superbowls, supposedly the hight of the season, was about 1:7.5. that's just lame.

        *cough baseball cough*
        • that's a good point. baseball, however, is intended differently. baseball is a game to play on a lazy sunday. it's about a day in the park. it's supposed to be slow and laid back. so, yeah, the stats for baseball are much worse, but at least it's honest about what it is. american football plays itself up as a big action game despite the facts.

          also, note that baseball is largely derived from (simplified from, and thank god; i can understand baseball) cricket, where it's mostly okay for the pitcher (or whate

  • Now Gomez, who is very bright, seemed to not see this as an issue that mattered to Skype, but he was just on the job. But, you see, I've been in the streaming media world longer than I've been in the VoIP world...

    What a patronising twat. If Skype video is anything like Skype audio, then video conferences will be limited to a very small number of people - not exactly useful for mass one-to-many broadcast of TV.

    This type of thing may indeed be an issue, but I don't see what role Skype will play in it,

  • grr.. "zomg casting!" (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jigjigga ( 903943 )
    This is not new, I did it nearly 10 years ago with an old tv tuner and windows netmeeting. I set the tuner to the capture card, sound to the input, and boom I could broadcast video.
    • This is not new, I did it nearly 10 years ago with an old tv tuner and windows netmeeting. I set the tuner to the capture card, sound to the input, and boom I could broadcast video.
      At 3.5 kB/s too !

      I thinki the term is "slide show".


  • I knew the good Commander had excellent taste...

    Although the need to Skypecast for the last season won't be as great since the DVD box set is being released on R1 DVD format for USA/Canada on Valentine's Day. Although it'll clock in at $99 US MSRP.

  • Just use ORB (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drsmack1 ( 698392 ) * on Thursday December 15, 2005 @06:18PM (#14267943)
    I already have someone in Germany (I am in the US) watching ball games and other TV programs live from my computer using Orb [orb.com]

    And yes, you can watch using linux...
    • Website says windows XP nothing about linux...
      • You can *watch* using Linux. They do plan on having both a MAc and Linux server at some point in the future.
        • So in order to get access to television shows you have to set up an XP server which you can then view with linux? I'm not against this, but I didn't see the information listed anywhere there and I don't have the patience to dig through their website looking for information... Can you post a url to the information, I'd love to be able to open a small window to watch some of my channels while I am away from home. I'm looking for this type of solution, but so far all I have found is Windows based prog

  • Names (Score:4, Funny)

    by sloths ( 909607 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @06:23PM (#14267977)
    Fishing channel=Rodcasting
    Fitness channel=Bodcasting
    Religious channel=Godcasting
    Grass channel=Sodcasting
    Plumbing channel=Pipecasting
    Dental channel=Bitecasting
    • Pointless news articles = slashcasting.

      Doing this through skype is retarted - it's a 1:1 VOIP protocol. Setup a website with streaming media for the live stuff, and itunes already supports video podcasting for the non-live stuff.
    • I've invented a totally new way to get information out! What I do see, is I take two soup cans, punch a hole in them, then I put some string into the holes, and then tie them off... now, hold the two cans so that the string become taut...

      VIOLA! You're now cancasting!
    • Secretary channel=Typecasting

    • Re:Names (Score:2, Funny)

      by deetsay ( 703600 )
      Wizardry channel=Spellcasting Astonishment channel=Flabbercasting Chicks' channel=Broadcasting Manufacturing channel=Diecasting Weather channel=Forecasting Stitching channel=Overcasting Mafia channel=Feet-in-concretecasting B-movie channel=Badcasting
  • I've often wondered why the production companies don't market direct to a world wide audience. The technology is in place and there is an audience for the most minortity interest.
    • I've often wondered why the production companies don't market direct to a world wide audience. The technology is in place and there is an audience for the most minortity interest.

      Where's the upfront money going to come from?

      It's the distribution rights that the creator, say, Joss Whedon's 'Mutant Enemy Productions," 'sells' to, say, Fox, for, say, an 8th Season of Buffy. They haggle over a fee, which reflects MEP's production costs attenuated by whatever rights MEP decides to retain (if MEP can sell the se
  • I did this to watch the Calgary Flames play their way to the Stanley Cup final using iChat and a pair of iSights. I had recently move to San Diego and didn't have a television. My family back in Calgary put a laptop on a chair and aimed an iSight at the TV and I watched several games this way sitting on my patio - WiFi on both ends. Here's my record of the event [skipandmadge.com]
  • I fail to see why encryption provides significant anonymity for someone with this intention.

    It seems nearly all forms of copyright infringement that the media companies pursue would not be affected by the type of encryption that Skype has. If packets were encrypted on BitTorrent or Kazaa, they would still be decrypted when an **AA agent connected to the network or uploading user. Since encryption would only prevent people from tapping the content, it wouldn't increase anonymity since content in the pipe i

  • "content owners" be damned (Score:3, Funny)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @07:20PM (#14268422) Homepage Journal
    They need to get over it. Information wants to be freeeeeeeee!

  • Radio Free Sci-Fi (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Verszou ( 790017 )
    Must say I don't see the football angle here, since our TV system offers plenty of both kinds, domestic, british and american.

    But what I see as more important in this regard is that we might finally get access to the sci-fi and fantasy that other civilized countries get. I grew up in the seventies when our socialist government decided that that kind of TV probably wasn't good for you, and it' kind of stuck ever since. So this kind of tech would enable us to finally get at things that we never see like Farsc

  • What amazes me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kamiza Ikioi ( 893310 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @08:09PM (#14268694)
    What really amazes me is that every day, users are finding new ways to stream content over just about any protocol or program. And yet, these companies that are supposed to be shaking in their boots over lose of control over their programs are still working on streaming TV over the Internet. Sure, they are looking for a Pay-Per-View option, so as to not stream completely free, but I pose this to them.

    Do: First, with commercial television, just stream it as is in very high quality (HD if available) over existing channels. I know they have local affiliate licensing issues, but they need to start new shows that are net-only. Try the ones that the networks won't pick up or aren't running anymore. AOL is doing exactly that, and all should follow suit.

    Why: Because you make money on the advertising. If you restrict it to current channels, the redistributed pirated versions will strip away your advertising, and you gain nothing. The best way to compete with the pirates is to mimic their channels, but improve the service. Just look at Shoutcast TV. So many of those pirate channels are always maxed out. If you provide a 600Kbps+ streams that are always available and never full, nobody will bother with those cheap imitators. And guess what, your advertisers will LOVE you! Why? Because as a streamer, you have automatic statistics on how many viewers, time of day, and length of watching.

    Do: Utilize a channel like Skype for your own pay-per-view/commercial-free television.

    Why: Because you could set up your own payment scheme with Skype (who already has a system to pay for phone calls), and charge viewers just like a phone call. $1 per month per channel. That's competitive with cable television. I, for one, would gladly pay you to watch Discovery, Comedy Central (Daily Show/Colbert Report), History Channel, CNN, and Sci-Fi online anytime I want. Better yet, add $0.25 per channel for on demand show watching. As it is now, I've done away with a huge $30 a month package (rape) charged by my cable company. But, I and others are more than willing to pay for online a la carte programming.

    So, you see, it's pretty simple really. They don't even have to restructure any of their operations, only the mode of transfer. Unfortunately, none of this will happen anytime soon. The grasp of the technology still escapes people who think that Survivor is quality programming, that Gigli was a brilliant idea for a movie, and that 14yr old girls who download Happy_Birthday.mp3 are the scourge of the music industry.

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close