Slashdot Mirror
The Mayweather-McGregor Fight Shows It's Impossible to Stop Social Media Streaming of Big Events (vice.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Nearly 3 million viewers are estimated to have watched the fight this weekend via online streams, according to Irdeto, a digital security firm. Though many of these were slick, traditional streaming websites, there was also a new surge in social streams. Between Periscope, Instagram live, Facebook live, YouTube, Twitch, and smaller platforms like Kodi, Irdeto identified 239 streams of the fight over the weekend. And with the option to have private, share-with-just-your-friends streams (like private Facebook Live feeds), it's likely there are many more streams of the fight that were running than Irdeto wasn't able to track. Social media livestreaming has exploded in recent years, creating a whole new avenue for illegal sharing. In 2015, when Mayweather squared off against Manny Pacquiao in another much-anticipated fight, Periscope was only two months' old. Facebook and Instagram's live feed functions were still a year away. Now, they're as ubiquitous as the platforms that host them. Plus, with every smartphone now equipped with a high definition camera, most homes connected to high-speed internet, and the ease of streamable services on already-familiar social media sites, it's no wonder there was such a torrent of pirated feeds.
They took down a few streams but I had 6 queued up so no problem.
Only an idiot would pay 100 bucks for a boxing match.
There is something disappointing that punching someone earns 2 people $175 million dollars. Shame we dont have as much enthusiasm for Nobel laureates as we do for sports and the oscars.
Why must reporters be so completely incompetent? Kodi is a media player. It is not a "social streaming service" by any stretch of the imagination. It is best compared to a *web browser*. Are people blaming Chrome and Firefox for online streaming? I don't think they are. Do some fucking research!
Charge$100 for the PPV and this is what you get. Charge 10x for a business to do so and they won't pay. Instead of licensing it to a sports channel, allowing them to charge other channels around the world to view it. Take in the advertising dollars, nope PPV $100 for a lackluster fight with a pathetic ending.
That's what these events are. They are a place for the wealthy, the well to do, and the well connected to show off. This is conspicuous consumption writ large. If you are the person putting this boxing match together, you want people to show up and show that they're present because that's how you get people to go the next time.
Used to be you'd have to have the camera swing over the stands and maybe send a few people with a mic down to interview a few choice people who agreed to ahead of time. Now? Now, they do it all for you. Maybe you have to send a few official invites out, maybe comp a few tickets but otherwise, social media doing all of this is the stuff of dreams for promoters.
The only people who hate the steaming are those who haven't figured out a way to profit off of it yet.
No, this is a "Motherboard" (Vice) reporter. They are humorless and very unfunny. The fact that you even suggest they made a pun is somehow sexist and insensitive. WTF is wrong with you? I hope you are proud of yourself.
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
There is something disappointing that punching someone earns 2 people $175 million dollars. Shame we dont have as much enthusiasm for Nobel laureates as we do for sports and the oscars.
It would probably end up like novel writing.
Also that non multi-cast streaming sucks.
Shame we dont have as much enthusiasm for Nobel laureates as we do for sports and the oscars.
Well, people do pay large sums of money for the privilege of attending their classes, regurgitating what they said, and working with them. Yes, there's certification at the end of it, but the value of that degree comes in part from the reputation of said collection of intellectuals.
Once again the topic of piracy and an article's implied reasoning that each illegal stream took directly away from revenue. It's been discussed for well over a decade now, and I'm still convinced that true fans and people who can pay for some form of entertainment do so, even considering illegal alternatives.
Likewise, those with merely a passing interest in a form of entertainment and only participate in that form of entertainment if they can do so free, would not pay ever, even if there were no other way to participate. They would just go without because they don't care enough.
Digital piracy is not a 1 to 1 loss. Not even close.
How is that any different than having a few friends to sit in front of a screen?
Nobel prizes? Much, much harder to understand.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and at least 1 billion did not watched the fight and maybe 0.25 million knew about the fight only because it was streamed.
Although it's not sourced, they should know the publicity of the fight is pretty limited to their region (USA). If not for the streaming network, a lot of people wouldn't even know they exist.
I am very surprised this wasn't free.
Remember kids, Panem Et Circenses.
Those who dont study history are doomed to repeat it (no, thats not the translation, for those who cannot be bothered thinking..)