Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Holmes Wilson Interviewed About Open-Source TV

Posted by timothy on from the turn-key-to-the-kingdom dept.

flippy writes "Videoblogger Steve Garfield has a new interview with Holmes Wilson of Downhill Battle and Participatory Culture Foundation, talking about the F/OSS internet TV platform that Participatory Culture is developing and their recently released video publishing package, Broadcast Machine. Their RSS / BitTorrent / VLC application ("TiVo for the Internet") is expected to be released for Mac and Windows by the end of this month."

9 of 37 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What would the MPAA say? by hubang · · Score: 5, Funny

    Come on. If the MPAA wasn't supposed to be a conspiritorial monopoly, then there would be laws against conspiracy and monopolies.

    You see how your logic falls apart, and they're really "fighting terrorism?"

  2. Wow, only 3 comments in 10 minutes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Everyone must still be on the Apple thread.

    So I wonder whether the remote possibility that we'll ever get useful IP multicast for video streams is going to be forgotten now that we have Bittorrent. I mean, at least BT is here and useful now.

    1. Re:Wow, only 3 comments in 10 minutes. by m50d · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, it's just everyone trying to post a comment is getting 503'd. I think slashdot finally bit off more than it can chew in terms of visitors, the millions of rabid apple fanboys have managed to slashdot slashdot itself.

      --
      I am trolling
  3. Redundant, no one likes subject lines. by Kwirl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I love slashdot. comparing this service to video.google.com or whatever...there should be a time-delay before posting is allowed.


    The first and obvious benefit of this service is that it lays a very solid groundwork for any future public defense of the bit torrent protocol. However, my initial happy world is crushed as I wonder what limits will be used to prevent us from basically hijacking cable programming to rebroadcast to the world free of charge?


    Quick, name the organization that is going to join the *IAA fight against piracy!

  4. Intranet only? by Dare+nMc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am tempted to setup their Broadcast Machine on the company intranet, for the videos we share internally (I am at a remote location, with a T1 connection to the most viewers, who are all interconnected 100MB links)

    My question is, with the now torrentless operation of azures, protecting just the torrent file on the intranet, does the video immediatly become world accessable with the first viewing by any client, even if that is inside our VPN (with internet access)

  5. Re:What would the MPAA say? by ShaniaTwain · · Score: 3, Informative

    You dont need the MPAA when you've got clueless hosting companies

    --
    Starsucks
  6. Open Source TV = an evolution of Public Access TV? by jason718 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    In the US, Public Access stations, for a number of years, have been giving people a voice within their own neighborhoods.

    Taking this model to the Internet, using technologies such as that mentioned in the article, will definitely enable much broader distribution channels (but not necessarily larger audiences).

    Now, of course, technology is just part of the solution. The real meat is in the content (same applies to podcasting, of course).

    One final thought - how long before we see Nielsen ratings for online programming? (as well as Arbitron ratings for podcasts?)

  7. A little advice. by Zangief · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do not call it "Open TV". Call it something else, even "Open Video Broadcasting System, that is in no way similar to TV".

    Because if they claim they have a TV system, soon the FCC will get regulation rights over it. It has just happened ot the guys of IP telephony...

    My 2 cents.

  8. The problem is content, not distribution. by Animats · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Distribution is not the problem. Crappy content is the problem. There just isn't that much good amateur video around. In SF, you can go see this stuff at film festivals, and most of it is awful. Bay Aree Video Coalition and Artists Television Access have been providing facilities for making and editing video for decades now, and most of it still sucks. It is not a technology problem. It's a creative problem.

    There are already sites that will host your video for free, and cheap commercial hosting services that don't charge for bandwidth. If your stuff has any merit at all, it's not hard to get it hosted. Unless it's porno, you probably won't get that many viewers. The Internet Archive has vast amounts of video, but few people watch it.

    Bittorrent only works well because many of the users are pirating the same stuff, yielding economies of scale.