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.

Comments

175 million to punch someone

[blahbooboo]

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.

Re:175 million to punch someone

[JaredOfEuropa]

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.

Kodi is not a streaming platform

[hackel]

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!

Re: Kodi is not a streaming platform

[Mr D from 63]

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.

Why would you want to?

[H3lldr0p]

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.