Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Peercasting Ready for Primetime?

Hemos posted more than 9 years ago | from the bit-torrent-for-the-rest-of-the-world dept.

The Internet 220

ZephyrXero writes "Have you ever wanted to run your own internet radio or TV station, but thought the bandwidth would cost too much? While Wired thinks Peer-to-peer broadcasting, or "peercasting", will be the future of the internet (previously posted); Peercast.org says it's already here today. Peercast's software is available for Linux, Windows, and Mac. You can broadcast both audio and video without needing a whole lot of bandwidth since each audience member also uploads back to the network. The Xiph Foundation is also working on a similar project called "IceShare," but it's still in planning. Peercast, still in beta seems to already be fully functional and ready for an audience (even you dial-up guys)."

cancel ×

220 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310487)

fp?

Re:fp? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310524)

How will this affect my ability to download music, movies and software to sell in my home country?

Li

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

NoTitleLater (743786) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310491)

First ever too

Re:First Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310519)

Unlucky - I beat you to it :o)

Yes, but... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310495)

does it support MBONE? frist spot

Re:Yes, but... (1)

tdemark (512406) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310715)

More, importantly, does this mean we can get a live feed from the MacWorld Keynote [marketwatch.com] tomorrow?

=)

- Tony

Hmm. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310501)

How is this any different from the normal Bittorrent clients? Simply more user-friendly, and easier to setup trackers and such?

Re:Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310518)

I have one word for you: streaming

Re:Hmm. (3, Insightful)

stupidfoo (836212) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310533)

Because this is designed to allow you to listen to the music that someone else is broadcasting and then help them broadcast as well. The idea here is not to simply download copyrighted material. Think of it as Peer to Peer Shoutcasting, I guess. This solution seems to slightly more legal (although it is probably still illegal, at least in the US) than standard bittorrent.

Re:Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310546)

Ah, I see your point. More like Shoutcast than Bittorrent (one or two t's?), except w/o the bandwidth woes of streaming from Shoutcast.

Re:Hmm. (2, Insightful)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310637)

There is nothing inherently illegal about this. And it is not illegal in the US. In fact, I can imagine some radio stations and companies using this. In the case of companies, the otherday I listened (with slides) to a scheduled live webcast that was probably viewed by a couple thousand other people. If the company could set up a client that would let the viewers watch the webcast and help upload at the same time it would significantly reduce their bandwidth expenses. There are some companies that are going to love this technology if they can implement it and have it work.

Nasa streams NASA TV over the internet too. They could use this to reduce their costs as well.

Re:Hmm. (2, Informative)

mmkkbb (816035) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310825)

This is legal in the US, but you have to pay license fees per song and per listener, unless you play stuff that's not covered by ASCAP or BMI or SoundExchange. There are also restrictions on what songs you can play, and when you can announce them. This goes for mirrors of on-the-ar broadcasts as well.

Re:Hmm. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310850)

There is nothing inherently illegal about this. And it is not illegal in the US. In fact, I can imagine some radio stations and companies using this.

You're right that it's not illegal, but there could be contractual problems. IIRC, webcast licencing requires the radio stations pay per listener. If this allows the station to track users, then it's not a problem, but otherwise the licencing will need to be reworked.

Re:Hmm. (1)

hkroger (666340) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310896)

Simply more user-friendly, and easier to setup trackers and such?

Well, in my opinion that makes a difference, because I've never found torrent server side setup as easy as it could (and should) be.

Re:Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11311020)

Not everything in this universe with the word peer in it is designed for you to share your music and porn, moron.

YAMP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310503)

Yet Another Multimedia Package?

Winamp, windows media player, real audio/video, quicktime, divx, xvid, itunes, etc etc.

Why am I not excited to install yet another multimedia package on my pc?

Re:YAMP? (3, Insightful)

m50d (797211) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310538)

This is something genuinely different. If, and it's a big if, they have actually got it working, it will be for media streaming what bittorrent was for file downloading. You wouldn't call BT "yet another download accelerator", would you?

Re:YAMP? (it's about using what you've got) (2, Interesting)

turnstyle (588788) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310704)

"Winamp, windows media player, real audio/video, quicktime, divx, xvid, itunes, etc etc."

I don't know Peercast (which seems oriented toward "radio" type uses), but I can comment about my app, Andromeda [turnstyle.com] .

Essentially, the question is: you've got your collection of files, now what?

As for Andromeda, it turns your collection into a browsable, streaming Web site (mostly used with MP3s, though you can use it with OGG, Real, etc.)

(You need a PHP or ASP capable Web server)

It's more of an "on-demand" approach (rather than "radio") -- you decide what you want to play. And since it's Web based, you don't have to bother toting physical stuff around or installing special client apps -- it all happens over the network (Internet or LAN).

When it comes to personal collections, those are generally kept to private use, but "sharable" works (ie, Creative Commons, or if you're the author) can be put on public sites.

In other words, it's not about YAMP, it's about what you do with what you've got.

legal issues? (2, Interesting)

tmilam (825889) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310505)

So if I do this, will the FCC come knocking on my door?

Re:legal issues? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310522)

No, but the RIAA will.

Re:legal issues? (1)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310624)

Actually, BMI will come knocking.

Yup. ASCAP (3, Informative)

sterno (16320) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310821)

ASCAP will be knocking on your door. Shortly after I graduated from College I was running a little radio station on the Internet. It was a 28Kbps RealAudio stream and I had maybe 4 listeners at my peak. None the less, AASCAP sent me a letter demanding that I cease broadcasting, or license my broadcast through them.

For a non-profit station they had a flat rate of something like $250/year. I suppose that's not that terrible, but since I wasn't making any money at all on the venture ~$20/month seemed a little steep to me. If you have any sort of revenue, they will charge you more based on your revenue.

If you want to do audio casting, I'd recommend Live365 instead. Because they volume license, the rates that you ultimately pay to ASCAP are lower than you'd end up paying on your own. One argument for using them, bandwidth considerations, seems to be fading, but it's definitely worth it just to avoid the legal hassle if your a hobbyist.

Re:Yup. ASCAP (2, Interesting)

Thomas Shaddack (709926) | more than 9 years ago | (#11311017)

...but it's definitely worth it just to avoid the legal hassle if your a hobbyist.

This brings an interesting question: how to anonymize the stream source, the initial node. How to make impractically difficult to trace down the originator of the stream. Once this is solved, no more paperwork for hobbyists.

Bureaucracy is a form of terrorism.

Mercora (2, Informative)

dknj (441802) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310512)

One may also want to check out Mercora [mercora.com]

-dk

Re:Mercora (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310717)

...but there's no Linux or Mac version...

Re:Mercora (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310732)

no but there is wine, vmware and virtualpc!

Video on Demand (2, Interesting)

madfgurtbn (321041) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310513)

We're all t.v. networks now.

If I were a major media executive I would be seriously worried about my businiess model.

Re:Video on Demand (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310702)

We're all television networks, now. If I were a media executive, I would be seriously worried about my business model.

-- The Open-Source Copyeditor

Re:Video on Demand (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310851)

I wouldn't.

You're not producing any TV shows with actors, sets, or sufficiently large budgets any time soon, are you?

Unless of course you refer to it in terms of taking the works produced by the major media executive's company and distributing it without authorization, which he can then use to try and put you under his thumb with new (bad) laws.

Re:Video on Demand (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Writer (746272) | more than 9 years ago | (#11311003)

You're not producing any TV shows with actors, sets, or sufficiently large budgets any time soon, are you?

The popularity of "reality TV" could cross over into peercasting. The major media outlet business model for that genre could be affected.

Re:Video on Demand (3, Insightful)

madfgurtbn (321041) | more than 9 years ago | (#11311014)

You're not producing any TV shows with actors, sets, or sufficiently large budgets any time soon, are you?

There's a movie called Tarnation that could win an Oscar this year. It was made for something like $200 on a Mac.

The cost of producing high quality content has dropped to an infinitesimal fraction of what it was only a decade ago.

The cost of disseminating high quality content world-wide, with peer-casting type technology like this, has now taken yet another enormous drop in cost.

Let's say some highly newsworthy event occurs in my backyard. I could hook up a camera to my computer and with my $40/month DSL connection, I could broadcast it live to millions of users.

Re:Video on Demand (1)

Skidge (316075) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310982)

I'm not sure I'd be seriously worried quite yet. There are plenty of people who have no qualms about and even look forward to plopping down on the couch after dinner and veging out for the primetime hours while they turn their brains off for network TV. It will be a while be a while before great numbers of people will give up their sitcom/reality show routines. I've had trouble convincing people of the benefits of a TiVo; anything more complicated than that will take some time to get much traction.

Re:Video on Demand (1)

madfgurtbn (321041) | more than 9 years ago | (#11311078)

I've had trouble convincing people of the benefits of a TiVo; anything more complicated than that will take some time to get much traction.

Of course it will take time. I didn't say it will happen tomorrow, but it will certainly happen,don't you agree?

Quick guess.. (4, Insightful)

SirFozzie (442268) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310527)

I would guess that the TV networks would try to stomp this and hard.

Why?

Protection of an already diluted market.

Over the last 10 years, they've been hammered by Cable, Sattelite TV, and now BitTorrent. Appointment TV is dying.

Now comes another technology designed to possibly make it so you can watch any show at any time. The more who watch, the more who are able to watch.

The TV Networks SHOULD be the ones leading this charge.

But they won't, because they can't imagine anything outside of the current "Must See TV" trap that's locked them in over the past decades.

Re:Quick guess.. (3, Informative)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310623)

One of my clients is a television network... public television, but a television network nonetheless. He said they've been working within their own group and with a couple of other, larger, non-public networks to deliver television content via web. They see it as competition for the market.

During the day, you've got soaps, kids programming, and infomercials. What if you could simultaneously offer content for everyone else (not that I couldn't spend my days watching Days of Our Lives and Dora the Explorer, but I choose not to)? Or always having educational programs for schools available?

I'd love the ability to pull up my favorite show (which I missed because I was [on the road|working|watching something else|whatever]) at anytime. Without needing a PVR and without worrying about some broadcast flag...

Re:Quick guess.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310642)

"But they won't, because they can't imagine anything outside of the current "Must See TV" trap that's locked them in over the past decades."

well yah. as a business model, a monopoly on distribution is a tried and true revenue model.

the problem isn't industry, they're representing their shareholders as they are legally obliged to do. the problem is that government is also respresents the industry and nobody (at least not with power to affect change) is representing public interest.

Re:Quick guess.. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310730)

I would guess that the television networks would try to stomp this out, and hard.

Why?

Protection of an already diluted market. Over the last ten years, they've been hammered by cable, satellite, and now BitTorrent. Now comes another technology designed to let you watch any show, anytime.

Appointment TV is dying. The networks should be the ones leading the charge--but they won't, because they can't imagine anything outside the "Must See TV" trap that's locked them in for the past few decades.

-- Your Friendly Open-Source Copyeditor

Bittorrent like? (3, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310532)

Is this the protocol posted on /. a few weeks ago, that was like bittorrent, but let you transfer thing sequentially, so you could watch/seek in movies as they're transferring?

As for revolutionizing the world, I think TFA is getting ahead of itself. I don't care about Jimbo Q Nobody's online diary (I don't use the b word because it sounds retarded), and I can safely say I don't care to listen to his CD collection.

Too bad copyright law WRT radio and television broadcasts is such a mess. How cool would it be if every online TiVo was/had a P2P client? Forgot to tape Simpsons? Download it from the tivo-net.

Oh well, fuckit. Peercasting is DOA, there's no worthwhile content.

Re:Bittorrent like? (1)

stupidfoo (836212) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310554)

How cool would it be if every online TiVo was/had a P2P client? Forgot to tape Simpsons? Download it from the tivo-net.

And this, of course, would be a logical thing for the media companies to support. Pay $15-$20 a month and we get to pick and choose the shows we want to download. And, since we're spreading the files using our own bandwidth, there's little cost to the media companies.

I'd love to be legal, if the media companies would just give me what I want.

Re:Bittorrent like? (1)

secolactico (519805) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310874)

And this, of course, would be a logical thing for the media companies to support. Pay $15-$20 a month and we get to pick and choose the shows we want to download. And, since we're spreading the files using our own bandwidth, there's little cost to the media companies.

From the point of view of the publisher the problem is that what is going to stop you from taking the shows you paid for and re-distribute them in another medium (edonkey, bittorrent,e tc)?

What could they do? Some form of DRM? That's not so hard to overcome, as iTunes found out.

Re:Bittorrent like? (2, Insightful)

krbvroc1 (725200) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310931)

From the point of view of the publisher the problem is that what is going to stop you from taking the shows you paid for and re-distribute them in another medium (edonkey, bittorrent,e tc)?

Nothing. But by offering the majority of folks this option the paying users are enough to write off the 'losses'. There will always be cheats and no system will protect against that. The best method in my opinion is to offer an affordable unencumbered way of doing this. They can embrace the new environment we are in or they can perish.

Re:Bittorrent like? (2, Informative)

nkh (750837) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310627)

I've discovered Peercast almost two years ago, it's nothing new at all. It's very buggy at the moment but when it works, you have access to a lot of good radios (sometimes real radios are streamed) which are different from the usual american music you can hear on Shoutcast (not that I dislike US music, but you won't listen to a real japanese radio on Shoutcast).

Of course, the choice is very limited, but it will grow up I'm sure of it!

Re:Bittorrent like? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310728)

"Peercasting is DOA, there's no worthwhile content."
Well if they can work out the details it could have some worth while contents.
Think college radio station. But maybe with music videos thrown in. Any highshchool or college could have there one PBS style station with out having to spend huge amounts on a transmiter. That small college without any type of TV deal could also broadcast their sports events.

Re:Bittorrent like? (2, Interesting)

FunkyRat (36011) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310736)

Oh well, fuckit. Peercasting is DOA, there's no worthwhile content.

You know... You don't have to rely on the large media conglomerates for content. Almost anybody can learn to play music. Almost anybody can learn how to use a video camera and software to make TV shows or movies. You can too.

Wait... What's that I hear? You don't want to listen to the kids down the street who can barely play their instruments and their crappy garage band? You don't want to watch the fat guy across the way with the digicam and delusions of being an auteur? OK. Fine with me. You're free to enjoy Britney Spear's latest opus. Just don't declare everyone else's content as being not worthwhile just because you don't like it.

Oh, and if you want to hear some amateurs doing really terriffic radio then check out Transom [transom.org] . It is possible for non-mainstream media to produce "worthwhile" content.

great (0, Troll)

crow_t_robot (528562) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310535)

more trash on the internet...like this site.

yes ! (1)

mirko (198274) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310539)

My web galerie contains loads of music that people are often reluctant to downlaod and try, I guess I'll soon be running such a "radio" so that anybody might try these audio works easily.

Re:yes ! (1)

crow_t_robot (528562) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310548)

yeah, and you will get fucking sued for not paying royalties...

Re:yes ! (1)

mirko (198274) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310563)

Royalties to whom ?
All of the GNUArt music [gnuart.net] is royalty-free !

Re:yes ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310641)

Why don't you just look at his site and see what he's talking about, ya tool. He has a license to broadcast the works in question.

Again, you're a tool.

OS X Installer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310552)

Funny.. the site says the OS X version requires no installation.. but somehow the download starts an installer and even requires me to reboot. Uhhu

Ian Clarke's new project (1)

John_Allen_Mohammed (811050) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310557)

How does peercasting compare to something like Dijjer [sf.net] . Anybody try it out lately, i remember it being mentioned on slashdot sometime ago but haven't heard much about it lately.

Ready for primetime? (2, Funny)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310569)

I'm trying to use peercast right now.

Every "station" has 0 listeners and 0 relayers, save two or three japanese ones.

Yeah, sound's like the next big thing for bloggers. Another way to "express yourself" without anyone ever seeing or hearing.

Re:Ready for primetime? (1)

chrome (3506) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310804)

Or even caring. Ha ha.

A niche for parasites (3, Interesting)

Lonesome Squash (676652) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310573)

At the moment these systems rely on the social contract to make sure they aren't abused by people who download without contributing upload bandwidth. This creates an opportunity for those who wish to push out content at little-to-no cost to simply turn their upload bandwidth to zero, or play games with firewalls to prevent uploads.

If the paradigm really pays off, the upload bandwidth for heavy users may become significant. The reward for defecting from the contract will increase. Remember that at one time no one would think of sponging off the Internet to mass mail a commercial message (Horrors!) and the first ones to do so were roundly excoriated.

The advantage here is that there may be valuable mitigating strategies (For example, blessed client binaries with authentication keys built in, with a checkbox to only upload to authorized clients is one possibility). The question in my mind is, will parasitism be an inconvenience(like email spam), a pain in the ass (like worms/trojans requiring active efforts to suppress), or virtually debilitating (as it is on Usenet)?

It will depend on a lot of factors, including the growth and shape of the torrent-style community (how many uploaders/downloaders/freeloaders), the cost of the upload streams for those that will end up having to pay for extra bandwidth, etc.

Re:A niche for parasites (4, Informative)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310955)

At the moment these systems rely on the social contract to make sure they aren't abused by people who download without contributing upload bandwidth.


As I understand it, BitTorrent (and by extension, IceCase which is layered on top of BitTorrent) solves this problem at the peer level using a tit-for-tat algorithm: people who aren't uploading packets don't get many download packets either. This seems like a much more robust solution than "blessed binaries" (which will be hacked anyway, and prevent people from developing their own clients)

Not only for streams (4, Interesting)

art6217 (757847) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310579)

A community could also run sites like Slashdot with everybody sharing the bandwidth. That might mean no ads, no dependency on a single corporation, everybody can participate in selecting stories, setting "locality" - browsing stories scored by an interest group a reader belongs to, by a group close geographically, or with the score averaged globally.

Re:Not only for streams (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310993)

Insightful? Mods on crack as usual.
Audio/video can be streamed this way because it's a /stream/, to begin with... slashdot looks different to everybody who logs in, and even to those who don't, they request different files/urls at different times. It's completely unlike streaming audio/video.

Internet bandwidth (4, Interesting)

asliarun (636603) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310607)

I'm curious to know how "peercasting" and peer-to-peer softwares change the network bandwidth usage for a country or across geos.

Currently, even though the internet is supposed to be a decentralized network, it's still built with old network usage patterns in mind. Bandwidth is allocated accordingly as well.

I think that along with P2P network usage, wireless usage (WiMax, for example) will also change the bandwidth usage pattern.

Although i'm not a network designer by any means, i would still be very interested to know how the network designs of the future would look like, and the kinds of bottlenecks one would face in the future, if still connected to the older networks.

Media BLOGs? (4, Insightful)

TheLoneCabbage (323135) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310608)

While I'm sure everyone is ready to scream "it's the age of the one man TV Station!", we may not be entirely there just yet.

Media distribution is a technological problem, and there for inenvitably solvable.

But content is not. It still takes Talent, Money and Training (or 2 of the 3:) to produce content on the level that people expect. You can look to modern day BLOGs as a paradime. Everybody and his brother has a BLOG, but how many of them have regular readers? Only a few people have the tallent to write anything that the rest of us care to read.

The situation is made worse with a peercast network because:
1) you need the tallent
2) You need a host of OTHER people with tallent (say actors)
3) You need people to watch it. Lot's of people, a traditional BLOG doesn't require ramp up, to scale. But you need a following to get a following. Chicken and the egg.

Until problems like "Bad Actors" get solved it may be some time before peercasts acomplish anything more than syndicating otherpeoples (read comercial/stolen/porn) media.

Re:Media BLOGs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310651)

Do you write MAC, as in the computer, in all caps, too?

Re:Media BLOGs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310671)

"Inevitably." "Talent.""Paradigm." "Talent." "Talent." "Lots." Semicolon. Strike comma. Space. Apostrophe. "Commercial."

Re:Media BLOGs? (1)

utexaspunk (527541) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310879)

I just figured he was illustrating his point. :)

Re:Media BLOGs? (0, Flamebait)

thenefariousone (710805) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310768)

Definitely, As the saying goes: Content is King.

It's the same reason that there are no Open Source computer games that compare to commercial games.

It's not because of the lack of technical skill.
There are plenty of people on slashdot who can create a 3d engine. And if you want a commercially successful one, there's a couple lying around here [idsoftware.com] .

but the Art - the content is locked up tight.

That's where the true value is.

One less barrier (2, Insightful)

spud603 (832173) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310878)

You're right. Content is more than just a technological challenge. As you said, "it still takes Talent, Money and Training (or 2 of the 3:)".

But you can think of P2P broadcasting as a way of eliminating, or at least minimizing, the "money" requirement. It has the potential to lower (though probably not destroy) the barriers to entry into the media.

Your point about blogs is a good one. 90% of them are really not worth reading, and most of the rest are just barely interesting. But the .01% that are really extraordinary only came about because there is almost no barrier to entry. "Everybody and his brother" can get a blog. Those truly extraordinary bloggers would probably never have been heard if it weren't for that fact.

So my point is that while talent and training still take money (as demonstrated with the usually horrible graphics in open-source games), any way to ease the difficulty of producing and distributing media will allow that many more unforeseen and creative bits of content get through. Even if only a few quality streams come out of this technology, it will be a few more than we have right now.

Re:Media BLOGs? (1)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310897)

Yes, if it's one thing that Hollywood gets right, it's fixing that bad actor problem.

Re:Media BLOGs? (2, Insightful)

TRACK-YOUR-POSITION (553878) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310983)

It's silly to expect this to replace what we now come to know and expect from Television broadcasting (except through piracy), but I don't think that's the point. The web hasn't replaced books, and blogs haven't replaced the newspaper. But the web and blogs are still very interesting things that have developed content more suited to their specific strengths.

I don't expect to see nightly news webcasts equivalent to television news, but I expect to see live video broadcasts from protests and other mass events--with blogs rebroadcasting interesting highlights from those.

I don't expect to see the equivalent of Super Law and Order: Super Turbo Extreme broadcast from a bunch of kids on the internet, but I expect to see a lot of short skits and experimental film videos appealing to audiences too limited for broadcast television. The new universal law of content is that stuff that's meant to appeal to everyone will actually appeal to fewer and fewer people as time goes on.

I also expect that reality television will soon be watched only by people too old to understand the internet--expecially since reality shows are missing at least two of the requirements for content you list, if not all three.

Indeed, the reality shows only exist because the TV networks are ALREADY losing viewers, and they can't afford to pay actors and writers anymore. You don't have to duplicate something in order to replace it--TV is already losing viewers to the internet, to video games, and to the vast recorded library of all already existing television and movies (whether by DVD or bittorrent), so streaming video on the internet is just one more thing for people to do that doesn't involve watching broadcast television.

Re:Media BLOGs? (2, Insightful)

Spy Hunter (317220) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310991)

Maybe peercasting will be used for something other than traditional content with actors. For example, people who take interesting video of newsworthy events with their camcorders or phones or whatever will be able to broadcast it themselves, hopefully without fear of getting Slashdotted to death.

hmm (1)

donutface (847957) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310617)

Its great that this technology exists, i had the same idea about 2 years ago and wanted to develop it but i never had enough C++ knowledge.
Atleast now i can start my own TV station :)

Asymetric Links? (1)

human bean (222811) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310619)

So, I download on my 1.45Mbps stream, and my outgoing is set to 128KBps. The guy who gets connected to me is going to be really hosed....

Re:Asymetric Links? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310760)

way to not understand anything about sharing or peer 2 peer.

you get multiple streams that make up one set to be played.

It will be ready for primetime... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310620)

...when they have compelling content. Its all about the content, nothing about technology.

peercast for macworld... (1)

djocyko (214429) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310630)

If they aren't webcasting the macworld keynote due to extra expense, maybe they should consider a peercast of it. Save on lots of bandwidth, still get the free advertising. I see it as a win-win situation.

Honestly, I don't think someone is going to go to macworld simply because they can't see a live stream of the keynote, so I don't believe the argument that they got rid of streaming to increase attendance...

Re:peercast for macworld... (1)

Gob Blesh It (847837) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310985)

Offtopic, but isn't Apple's reason for axing the broadcast pretty obvious? Whatever Steve's unveiling at the keynote, it's not going to live up to the expectations the rumor mill's been churning up.

If they were concerned about bandwidth, you'd think they could at least broadcast to Apple stores.

slashdotted (2, Funny)

Mr. McGibby (41471) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310665)

Maybe they should p2p their web site. It's already down.

this 1s goatsewx (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310670)

over a quality qbut it's not a be in a scene and yoU to join the

Umm ready for prime time?? (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310676)

I just downloaded the client accepted the mime to use peercast://x. I get a system tray icon that keeps a list of the stations I click on. When I select play (on XPSP2) it opens my dvd playing software with an attempt to run "Aspi.log" in my root dir. Just for the fun of it I tried to let it run and nothing happens...

Seemed like a straight forward install all went well according to the app, will try again!

But seriously I have a funny feeling that this is gonna get really big, especially when it gets to video.

Good, Free, Content (4, Interesting)

Thunderstruck (210399) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310677)

Software like this raises an interesting question, where is the talent?

I'm running Firefox, a free browser created from donated talent on the internet,(and occasionally funded & used as a testing ground for new stuff by corporations.)

I read my email with Thunderbird, a free client created from donated talent on the internet,(and occasionally funded & used as a testing ground for new stuff by corporations.)

I write documents with OpenOffice.org, a free office sutie created from donated talent on the internet (and occasionally funded & used as a testing ground for new stuff by corporations.)

Why is there so little entertainment produced this way? There are people out there with free time and talent. There are media companies with spare cash who don't want to spend jillions hyping a sitcom with a theme that will flop. Or is it just a matter of time?

Re:Good, Free, Content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310808)

Cool actors don't hang out with nerd coders. Have you seen a bunch of coders acting out their D&D characters lately?

Not exactly what I'd call entertainment talent.

Re:Good, Free, Content (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310870)

There are media companies with spare cash who don't want to spend jillions hyping a sitcom with a theme that will flop.

I believe, sir, that you have just answered your own question.

Re:Good, Free, Content (3, Informative)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310921)

There's plenty of entertainment produced this way.

It's not from Hollywood, so you won't see it on Entertainment Tonight or the E! Channel, and it won't be picked up by your local Fox affiliate, but it's out there on the 'net.

Every year thousands of film students graduate, and they create plenty of good indy films, full length and shorts. They're generally mocked by the public at large as artsy-fartsy nonsense, but there are plenty of good ones.

The Blair Witch project is a good example of a student project that made it in the "real world".

South Park is another good example. Years before the show, there was the "Spirit of Christmas" short. For every show that lives on or gets picked up like South Park, there thousands that dont.

Then there's internet-only stuff like Homestar Runner, and millions of other flash based toons.

There's a ton of "free" entertainment online, you have to find it yourself, since there's no billion dollar marketing engine behind it.

Re:Good, Free, Content (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310979)

Schlock mercenary [schlockmercenary.com]
Sluggy Freelance [sluggy.com]
Megatokyo [megatokyo.com]
PvP online [pvponline.com]
8-bit theater [nuklearpower.com]
Red vs. Blue [redvsblue.com]

A lot of content is produced that way. Some of it even good one. Just beacause it's not video doesn't mean it doesn't count.

And let's face it, most of us would rather read a comic with a pile of crap fighting psycho-bears [schlockmercenary.com] than see some bald guy [schlockmercenary.com] parading in front of a camerafor half an hour, no matter what he actually did.

Re:Good, Free, Content (1)

TRACK-YOUR-POSITION (553878) | more than 9 years ago | (#11311066)

Seriously, there's an INSANE amount of entertainment content produced for free--text, comics, music, cartoons, short videos. Occasionally corporations purchase some small portion of it and bring it to the mainstream. Sure, some it is really crappy, but some open source software is really crappy too. And some commercial software and A WHOLE LOT of commercial entertainment is really crappy as well.

Television is dead... (1)

sokoban (142301) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310680)

Netcraft [netcraft.com] confirms it.

Streamdist (3, Interesting)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310691)

``"Have you ever wanted to run your own internet radio or TV station, but thought the bandwidth would cost too much?''

Yes. That's why I started to write streamdist [nyud.net] . One person starts serving a stream, then everyone who connects distributes it to the next person. I made it work for Ogg Vorbis files, but then I lost interest and moved on. I guess peercast is similar.

Re:Streamdist (1)

phlyingpenguin (466669) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310833)

Latency? I haven't gotten to read all about peercast, but I think you get your stream from a swarm instead of the next person so that every next stream isn't X number of seconds behind the broadcaster. That protects me from some kid who only has a dialup to serve the stream to me as well. Otherwise we might have to setup peercasting timezones for those who are behind the crowd lol.

Great - another reason for the *AA to hate P2P (2, Informative)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310694)

Y'know, they're pretty picky about net broadcast fees [usatoday.com] . Exactly how are they going to bill people? And exactly who will be billed?

I'm all for this, don't get me wrong. But like any good idea that promotes the *AA's products, moron music execs will be all over it since it bypasses one of their revenue models.

Enjoy it for now, because it's probably going away soon.

Too Late (1)

mr_beanz (677482) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310705)

These guys [chaincast.com] already patented it... ages ago.

YUO FAIL IT!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310712)

vary for diiferent be any fucking represents the bloc in order to as to which *BSD a >fact: FreeBSD a relatively

Practical use (1)

HeghmoH (13204) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310723)

Anybody feel like setting up a peercast of the MacWorld keynote tomorrow? You will be my God if you do....

Perhaps for small-time, but... (0)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310750)

Bandwidth is incredibly cheap - I'm not sure how necessary this is. Bought in bulk (20, 50, 100mbps) from a hosting facility, bandwidth is cheap enough for all but the most amateur of users to send a single stream up to the hosted server and distribute from there... perhaps to multiple boxes that then split the stream further.

I think this is a technology in search of a purpose rather than real-world problem solving.

Is this patented? (1)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310800)

Does anyone know whether this is patented? This sounds like the kind of thing that Peercast or some other company probably attempted to slap a stupid software patent on. Obviously we in the geek community could name plenty of prior art based on non media data replication, but this sounds like something the proprietary software scumbags of the world would have rushed to grab a patent on.

HERE'S ANOTHER CLUE FOR YOU ALL (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310803)

Most Internet radio that makes money on its ads SUCKS. But still pays for its bandwidth.

I don't want to listen to suck.

So if you think that you're good enough that you should add another channel to the thousands available, go for it, and make it pay for itself.

If it doesn't, that's a clue that it SUCKS SO BAD that you really shouldn't bother.

(btw, the walrus was paul; dig it)

Inferior to Bittorrent (0, Troll)

Yartrebo (690383) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310839)

Unless the event must be live and not delayed by even an few hours, bittorrent is far superior in my view. It uses the same bandwidth but allows you to watch the stuff when you want to and you get a copy on your computer.

Broadcasting is a relic from when technology made on demand downloading impractical. The internet can just as easily do on demand as broadcast, so why cripple yourself?

Shoutcast (1)

Reignking (832642) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310857)

I was doing this years ago so that I could listen to my favorite talk show out of DC wherever I went, with Shoutcast. Limiting it to three connections helped :)

Amateur Pr0n (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11310902)

Of course, one of the big potential uses for this is in the amateur ("I've got a webcam and will perform in front of it") sexual video arena. Though at the moment the software looks like it is probably aimed at single broadcast/multiple watchers, if it became a true peer-to-peer network it could be a Very Big Thing Indeed since it does not rely on a single entity (corporation) hosting a central (such as yahoo or webcamnow or camarades) server.

Let the ("heh, heh, heh") games begin!

Well, if multicasting was actually rolled out... (3, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310925)

The whole *point* of IP multicasting is to allow the network to perform data replication, etc, so that an individual can send data to n receivers without having to transmit n copies of the stream. Too bad, much like IPv6, no one seems to want to support it.

Multicast = bandwidth solution (3, Insightful)

tji (74570) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310952)

This sounds like an interesting use of P2P networking. But, it makes your broadcast very non-deterministic. Listeners will get a decent experience iff several factors are correct.

Multicasting would be a much better solution for IP broadcasting, and it has been around for a long time. But, it has never really hit prime time. With multicasting, you need only enough bandwidth for your stream. It is passed through the internet as needed - as users connect to the broadcast & subscribe to the multicast stream, the data is mirrored onto the necessary links. But, any link should have a maximum of one instance of the stream.

In theory multicasting sounds great, and there have been some very interesting implementations, particularly on Internet2. But, it never seems to hit critical mass.

Pretty good (1)

blueday4 (569939) | more than 9 years ago | (#11310959)

I used this program many months ago to broadcast live concerts. It works pretty good, and the algorithm it uses to distributed load seems to work out decently most the time, unless its just random, then Im using it to, pick lotto numbers

Bad news for people with "needy" friends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11311008)

Aw, man, I already read your blog just to shut you up, now I have to listen to your favorite songs (which are lame, fyi) just to validate your existence? Wouldn't it be easier if you just called yr mom and dad and told them you need more attention?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>