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.

13 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. 175 million to punch someone by blahbooboo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:175 million to punch someone by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Two people punching each other has some entertainment value. I'm not sure what, but apparently plenty of people are willing to pay $100 to watch that. How much entertainment for these people is there to be had from science? Maybe a robot fight or a SpaceX launch. Nothing worth $100. Nothing to enthuse over by the water cooler the next day. It's not about what we value more, or about whom we should reward for a certain service, but about how much money the public will pay for watching you do your stuff. You do something, anything, that makes millions of people fork over $100 for a stream or god knows how much for a ringside seat, and you too can earn that kind of money. And I bet that even in an anti-idiocracy, people still wouldn't pay for live chess matches or quantum physics lecture battles.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:175 million to punch someone by Yaztromo · · Score: 2

      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.

      You get two Nobel laureates in the ring for a no-holds-barred punch-up, and I'm sure you'll find lots of people willing to pay to watch :D.

      Yaz

    3. Re:175 million to punch someone by war4peace · · Score: 2

      Before I was married I found my girls in metal clubs. I rarely drink and never did drugs.
      Now that I'm married and have kids, even metal clubs are a thing of the past.

      But married or not, I never was able to enjoy that kind of weird combination of things you mentioned. I think I'm just a hippie who had the misfortune of being born 3 decades too late.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    4. Re:175 million to punch someone by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Paying to watch something for entertainment is not the same as valueing it. I value science more than many other things, and if the IRS let me pick what to spend a portion of my taxes on, I'd pick science. I'd pay a researcher to do his research... but I wouldn't necessarily pay to watch him do it, or even be interested enough to watch it for free.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  2. Kodi is not a streaming platform by hackel · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!

    1. Re: Kodi is not a streaming platform by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Kodi might be the 'browser' of choice for streaming video, true, but that doesn't make it a platform for piracy. The only streaming I've done with Kodi has been the YouTube add on.

    2. Re: Kodi is not a streaming platform by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Firefox and Chrome have many other common legitimate uses. Kodi is generally used for piracy and serves no purpose other than streaming. There's a big difference no matter how butthurt you trolls get about it.

      Butthurt or not, what you said was stupid. The typical Kodi user probably has never even used it to stream even once. There are plugins to allow that, but Kodi is pretty damn nice for just playing video files.

      1. YHBT.

      2. I'd like to see the numbers on that. I would not be surprised if the inadvertent Kodi users who simply purchased a magic black box on the internets or at a flea market now outnumber the intentional ones who want to play legimate format-shifted copies of media to which they have a license.

      You probably ought to try out more pirating. Once you do, you'll quickly start to think of streaming as a niche case. "Sports" might be the only thing where you'd ever be willing to forgo the nicer performance of playing local files.

      Most people are able to appreciate high-resolution video, but most people also seem to be willing to put up with low-resolution video. Even 480p carries a stunning amount of detail compared to the VHS crap that we had for years. Once you get up to 1080p, the benefits begin to diminish sharply for most people because of their viewing arrangement. And in plenty of cases, the poor bitrates of streaming media take little away from the content. Not everyone is watching science fiction epics (or anime, I guess) with loads of color and contrast. Lots of people are watching mundane stuff without a lot of fast motion which is mostly in natural tones and shades of grey, and they'll be fine streaming. Even more people don't want to pay for anything better, which is why they're trying not to pay for content.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. $100 by Thundercat007 · · Score: 2

    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.

  4. Why would you want to? by H3lldr0p · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  5. Also that non muilt-cast streming sucks by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Also that non multi-cast streaming sucks.

  6. ... and very few would have payed even without by millertym · · Score: 2

    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.

  7. Re:Watched on Twitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    only an idiot watches 2 men beat each other up for money