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!

Skypecasting - P2P File Sharing

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the hello-can-you-hear-my-warez? dept.

Networking 140

shashark writes "Technologically savvy users are merging these technologies to "Skypecast", using Skype's service to distribute recordings across the internet for free. This allows expert users to run their own mini-radio stations, which can be accessed by any Skype user. Skype does not actively support these uses, but encourages its users to find new applications for their service. Other possibilities discussed by Skypecasters at Unbound Spiral or Moodle are to turn an MP3 player into a radio station for any of Skype's 29 million registered users to dial up using their Skype line. Instructions also are available on how to record a personal soap opera and use Skype to distribute it en masse. Even more ominously, some Skypecasters record Skype calls and post them on the Internet."

cancel ×

140 comments

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

RIAA? (5, Insightful)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194058)

I sure hope the RIAA doesn't ask the Federal Govnerment for wiretapping rights to see if VoIP calls are really U2 songs. [shivvers in corner]

They already have wiretapping rights (3, Insightful)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194187)

I sure hope the RIAA doesn't ask the Federal Govnerment for wiretapping rights to see if VoIP calls are really U2 songs.

Didn't the government already rule that wiretapping applies to internet communications?

And having a phone would only stregnthen that argument for requiring ISP companies to have technology which allows for wiretaps.

But I don't see how VoIP will help P2P, it is just between 2 people, not like Napster was, or BitTorrent where one person shares, and anyone can d/l.

Re:They already have wiretapping rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194829)

"Didn't the government already rule that wiretapping applies to internet communications?"

He's talking about the RIAA having the right to engage in wiretapping for the specific purpose of detecting file-sharing.

This is quite different from the usual wiretapping scheme, where conversations between humans are what is eavesdropped on.

"But I don't see how VoIP will help P2P, it is just between 2 people, not like Napster was, or BitTorrent where one person shares, and anyone can d/l."

I guess you and your friend(s) have small music collections which contain the same songs already ?

Re:They already have wiretapping rights (3, Interesting)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 9 years ago | (#12195871)

VOIP will help P2P because VOIP programs such as Skype support conference calls.

You have a conference call where everyone listens into some song being played and they make their own recording of it.

Bad Link (5, Informative)

fwice (841569) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194068)

That link should be .html, not .htm


click [henshall.com]

Link does work, what are you talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194117)

It is .html, not .htm.

Blame Game. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194084)

" Even more ominously, some Skypecasters record Skype calls and post them on the Internet.""

Remember: Blame the users, not the technology.

Re:Blame Game. (1)

OverkillTASF (670675) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194222)

Spend some time discussing the 2nd ammendment with either side of the argument, and you'll see that a fairly large section of our government and our society would much rather blame the technology. After our, people are absolutely helpless and need someone else to protect and guide them.

Remember, Skype doesn't record people, people record people.

Re:Blame Game. (2, Interesting)

assassinator42 (844848) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194776)

What recording laws apply to talking on skype? Federally, only one person needs to be informed of the recording. So does that law apply to state-to-state calls? What if I skype someone else in Michigan? Would I have to inform them before recording? I would normally, so I think I would have to.

Re:Blame Game. (2, Interesting)

macguys (472025) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194879)

I don't think that it's "omnious" to record Skype calls. I use Skype in the production of my daily Mac OS podcast for interviews, announcements, and listener comments. My recordings are full disclosure prior to the event.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194092)

bitches

Wiretapping (4, Interesting)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194100)

Even more ominously, some Skypecasters record Skype calls and post them on the Internet.

Wonder if the various wiretapping rules will eventually come into play. And if not, why not?

Re:Wiretapping (1)

getling (114602) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194247)

In a lot of states, simply recording the call without the other party's consent is illegal, running afoul of existing wiretapping laws. And if your "friend" is in another state? You might be running afoul of federal laws then....Just stop recording your conversations!

Disclaimer: IANAL

Re:Wiretapping (2, Informative)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194348)

Exactly. This site [rcfp.org] has a good discourse on the various state laws and possible federal entanglements.

For instance, New Hampshire [rcfp.org] (just picked at random).
'N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 570-A:2: It is a felony to intercept, or disclose the contents of, any telecommunication or oral communication without the consent of all parties.'

Re:Wiretapping (2, Insightful)

Motherfucking Shit (636021) | more than 9 years ago | (#12195856)

'N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 570-A:2: It is a
felony to intercept, or disclose the contents of, any telecommunication or oral communication without the consent of all parties.'
Now wait just a minute here. My friend Bill tells me that he just got a new job. (For effect, let's say that he told me this during a phone conversation.) I tell my friend Joe that our mutual friend Bill got a new job. Bill never gave me consent to "disclose the contents of" our "oral communication." If I live in New Hampshire, I'm now guilty of a felony??

Quoting further from the link you posted:
However, it is a misdemeanor for a party to a communication, or anyone who has the consent of only one of the parties, to intercept a telecommunication or oral communication.
So let's say I'm a party to a phone conversation with my friend Bill, who was telling me all about his new job. Seeing as how I'm on the other end of the line, how is it not possible for me to "intercept" the oral communication? This could be interpreted such that anyone engaging in a telephone call is guilty of a misdemeanor!

How in the name of all that is holy do such vague and ambiguous laws get passed?

Re:Wiretapping (1)

Felgerkarb (695336) | more than 9 years ago | (#12195016)

What's more interesting is that there are already laws applying to the surreptitious recording of conversations. I think most states require that both parties must know a conversation is being recorded (whether on the phone or not), while some states only require one user to know. So, I agree, blame the user. If they post your conversation without permission, they are already breaking the law.

What's the point? (2, Informative)

iantri (687643) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194109)

What advantage does this provide over running something like a Shoutcast station?

It's not even difficult to setup -- there is a Winamp plugin -- pick it and hit "Play" and you have a radio station.

Doing it this way requires to to plug a physical device (MP3 player, radio) into your soundcard..

Re:What's the point? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194115)

Cuz not everyone has the bandwidth to support more than a couple of users? Skype is free bandwidth, which is the point you miss.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194229)

Cuz not everyone has the bandwidth to support more than a couple of users? Skype is free bandwidth, which is the point you miss
What are you talking about? Skype uses bandwidth the same way everything else does.

Re:What's the point? (0)

NetNifty (796376) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194295)

Never used Skype, but maybe with Skype your machine uploads the outgoing audio data to the Skype servers and the other users download it from there, meaning you're uploading one stream no matter how many users are listening to it (and the Skype servers deal with the bandwidth to the other users). With shoutcast, users connect directly to you, so you have to upload the same stream to each user meaning more bandwidth is used.

Re:What's the point? (2, Insightful)

iantri (687643) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194313)

According to Skype's website, Skype is P2P (of course it's fucking P2P -- Computer A contacts Computer B to make a phone call.. buzzword nonsense), and nothing goes through their servers.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194377)

Skpye only supports 4 users in a conference call (and it's not free bandwidth as you say either, it is P2P). Shoutcasters can surely do that.

Re:What's the point? (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194526)

On my 40k up I can support approximatly 260 users.

-1, Completely uninformed (1)

Sanity (1431) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194554)

Cuz not everyone has the bandwidth to support more than a couple of users? Skype is free bandwidth, which is the point you miss.
What on earth are you talking about? Skype uses your bandwidth in exactly the same way as Icecast or any other internet application.

Re:-1, Completely uninformed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12195752)

Completeley incorrect.

Skype is peer to peer, so it's quite possible for you to be broadcasting to listener A, while listener B is getting his audio from Listener A's bandwidth, not yours.

I presume you HAVE heard the term "peer to peer" before, right?

Next time, think things through before deciding to play Mr. Arrogant.

Its simple (5, Funny)

Sanity (1431) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194194)

What advantage does this provide over running something like a Shoutcast station?
The advantage is that this has "Skype" in the name, which is great if you happen to work in Skype's marketing department.

Aww... (1)

Motherfucking Shit (636021) | more than 9 years ago | (#12195887)

You're just jealous that Freenet doesn't support realtime audio streaming.

Yet. :)

Slashapple (4, Funny)

lordsilence (682367) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194113)

Bringing you a friendly message from the Apple-zealot: In the name of the great Apple. We were first, and it's called PodCasting. Not mp3-streaming, internet-radio, skypecasting or anyother non apple-related term.

Re:Slashapple (3, Funny)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194352)

Not mp3-streaming, internet-radio, skypecasting or anyother non apple-related term.
Settle down, they're just HypeCasting.

Re:Slashapple (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194538)

Um I hope you're joking shoutcasting has been around for about 8-9 years.

Re:Slashapple (1)

mizhi (186984) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194694)

Shhhh! Don't destroy the Appler's delusions of innovation. :-)

Big Deal (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194747)

Um I hope you're joking shoutcasting has been around for about 8-9 years.

Big deal. Flycasting [letsflyfish.com] has your Shoutcasting beat by decades.

Come to think of it, so does Plaster Casting [google.com] (no, I'm not going to link to that, you smutty-minded Slashdotters).

redirects? (2, Informative)

Emugamer (143719) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194120)

why is it that two of the urls have dw.com.com redirects? smells fishy to me

Re:redirects? (1)

sH4RD (749216) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194190)

"com.com" is owned by CNet. I don't think they have any link commision programs. No, someone probably just copied from an article and screwed up.

Re:redirects? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194220)

It looks a bit weird yes. I mean, what's the purpose of it?

Out of curiosity I went to dw.com.com with Firefox, and "view source" gave me what seemed to be a part of a / a malformed GIF header?? Visiting the same site in IE gave me 403: access denied.

Re:redirects? (4, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194367)

dw.com.com is SPYWARE [iss.net] .

Re:redirects? (4, Informative)

Evan Meakyl (762695) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194413)

MOD THE PARENTS UP!

The correct links are:
Ubund Spirals:
http://www.henshall.com/blog/archives/001056.html [henshall.com]
Moddle:
http://moodle.org/login/index.php [moodle.org]

Fuck yankdot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194129)

Slimy shits

RIAA and the options left -- (5, Interesting)

shashark (836922) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194134)

Skype calls are encrypted end-end. Even if RIAA gets the wiretapping rights to see if VoIP calls are really U2 songs, it'll be hard for them to snoop in. And skype is just a beginning.
With ever increasing options of sharing digital media, RIAA really has only two options left-
* Get the govt to ban *any* kind of peer-peer activity. Might be a possibilty, esp given those money bags involved. Don't underestimate your govt. yet.
* Embrace the change. Move out of media-brokerage business and let the artists provide their creations on whatever media they choose. Change Happens.
--
All your music are belong to us.

Re:RIAA and the options left -- (1)

stubear (130454) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194250)

This really shows how little your average slashbot understands about the music industry in general and the RIAA specifically. The RIAA does not choose how music is distributed though they were responsible for getting the industry to agree on certain standards like the CD. If Sony wants to release their entire catalog on P2P they are more than welcome to and the RIAA can do nothing, short of kicking them out of the industry trade organization though I doubt they would do that.

What really annoys me is this "embrace change" mantra so many slashbots keep chanting. If you believe touring and concerts are the way for musicians to make money you have never been on tour or worked on the road for any length of time. Also, how long do you think it will be before bootleg concert recordings make the P2P rounds? The entire world does not need to follow a service based economy and in fact this would be a very bad thing to happen. Services are a very hard thing to compete on and the turnover rate for these companies providing services would be astronomical, screwing customers in the end. Look at the recent Voom No More [slashdot.org] to see what happens to service based companies in this day and age.

Wishing Veil. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194328)

"This really shows how little your average slashbot understands about the music industry in general and the RIAA specifically."

Well if all the advice I've seen over the years is any indication? They don't understand business (any business), economics, law, women, etc. They can't even understand themselves.

That's why I say: Slashdot is to the Internet, what Tabloids are to journalism.

Re:RIAA and the options left -- (1)

maxpublic (450413) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194623)

So what should we do? Embrace stagnation? With arguments like that Ford would've been shut down right from the get-go and buggy whip manufacturers would be making a killing even today.

Max

Re:RIAA and the options left -- (1)

stubear (130454) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194737)

Ford didn't grab the horse buggies from the horse buggy manufacturers, slap engines in them and sell them to horse buggy customers. You are welcome to start your own label and distribute music however you choose. Why is this concept so difficult to understand? The RIAA does not automatically own all music the instant it's recorded. Make your own music and prove the business model of P2P works then the world will follow. When you fail at your endeavor, and I'll give you 1,000,000 to 1 odds because you will fail, explain to me why you think the world should follow your footsteps and fail too?

Re:RIAA and the options left -- (1)

maxpublic (450413) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194788)

Make your own music and prove the business model of P2P works then the world will follow. When you fail at your endeavor, and I'll give you 1,000,000 to 1 odds because you will fail, explain to me why you think the world should follow your footsteps and fail too?

You might want to clue in Apple on the fact that they're about to fail with their downloadable music model.

Max

Re:RIAA and the options left -- (1)

stubear (130454) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194811)

pay for music is not P2P. I never said online music distribution would fail, I merely said distribution solely through P2P and falling back on services (concernts and merchandise) would fail. Nice try though.

RIAA and the faith-based options left (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12195107)

There's another fault with his argument. The dependency on an Internet connection (and more practically a broadband connection).

A requirement that forces a choice upon people. Those that don't have, for physical, or economic reasons are left out of this "New Business model", and those that don't want the "New Business Model" are likewise left out. The present "Old Business Model" doesn't require the internet, and doesn't penalize those who don't desire such a thing.

Likewise his "New Business Model" penalizes those customers who for whatever reason, can't or will not travel to were the artist is, but does penalize the artist who can't travel all over the world, or sell out on all his merchandice.*

Which in general reenforces the "Faith" that people have for technological solutions (Specifically the internet) to all problems on Slashdot.

*The barriers to the "Starving Artist" state are much lowered, while the "Old Business model" takes out some of the risk of being an artist.

Re:RIAA and the options left -- (4, Interesting)

acb (2797) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194886)

There is a lot of pressure to "update" the IPv6 specification to establish a stratified internet of servers (which could be licensed and regulated) and clients (which would have low upstream bandwidth and be unable to act as servers), in the interest of protecting the content industry's business models.

Re:RIAA and the options left -- (1)

Saeger (456549) | more than 9 years ago | (#12195916)

Greedy control-freaks of the world, rejoice!
Egalitarian people of the world, *sob*

It's too bad that the control-freaks actually own much of both the wire & media; they actually have a chance to subvert - "for our own good" - the open end-to-end net with their master/serf model. All part of the plan... [fourmilab.ch]

Re:RIAA and the options left -- (2, Interesting)

grazzy (56382) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194937)

Also, how long do you think it will be before bootleg concert recordings make the P2P rounds?


What am I missing here, they already are? By a very small fraction of really devoted fans that goes to their concerts too. Because they love music and are fans all the way.

Someone fanatic about a group enough to listen to a bootleg would surely own all the groups released material.

And do you know what, I have yet to see ANY britney spears or christina aguilera bootleg shared...

Re:RIAA and the options left -- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194371)

Skype calls are encrypted end-end

And you verified this how?

Re:RIAA and the options left -- (3, Insightful)

latroM (652152) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194943)

Skype calls are encrypted end-end. Even if RIAA gets the wiretapping rights to see if VoIP calls are really U2 songs, it'll be hard for them to snoop in. And skype is just a beginning.

It's not Free software, how do you know? The intelligence agencies probably have their own back doors built in. I wish that skype will die and that it will be replaced by some open and free standard. Like the gnomemeeting guys said, skype is hype [gnomemeeting.org]

RMSland:Unfunniest place on earth. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12195166)

"I wish that skype will die and that it will be replaced by some open and free standard."

Ah, yes. Capitalism must die so that RMSland can be built.

Re:RIAA and the options left -- (4, Interesting)

arodland (127775) | more than 9 years ago | (#12195737)

No, some people (who, by the way, work for Skype) told you that Skype conversations are encrypted end-to-end. But because the source isn't available, and the Skype developers believe that obscurity is the best security, you have no way of knowing that. For all anyone knows, it could be that there's no real encryption at all, but that the data is just whitened by a PRNG so it looks encrypted. It could be that there is real crypto going on, but the key-exchange is boobytrapped so that Skype and/or the appropriate TLAs have snooping power. It could be that any one of a number of flaws makes what was intended to be an effective algorithm vulnerable. We don't know any of these things, but the fact that the people who wrote the encryption software in the first place don't trust it to remain unbroken in the face of public scrutiny means that you shouldn't trust it either.

Lawsuit pending (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194140)

I fucked your dad

Indie potential? (2, Interesting)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194146)

"Technologically savvy users are merging these technologies to "Skypecast", using Skype's service to distribute recordings across the internet for free. This allows expert users to run their own mini-radio stations, which can be accessed by any Skype user.
Does anybody think that this has potential for indie artists promoting their music through this?

Re:Indie potential? (1)

wocket44 (867087) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194592)

yes, and this has been happening for a while with user created "podcasts" which are basically home recorded radio shows that are distributed for download via websites like ipodder [ipodder.org]

Re:Indie potential? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194834)

It wasn't too long ago when we used to give out cassette tapes of my band. Being able to do this on the internet, for free (basically, except ISP costs) is very useful.

bitrate? (3, Informative)

radarsat1 (786772) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194156)

i don't use skype so i don't know... but i assume, it being a telephone-oriented service, that it has a hard-limited bitrate?

usually telephone conversations only need 8 KHz recordings, in mono. If converted to mp3, this would result in FAR inferior-sounding recordings for music than CD-quality.

but, like i said, maybe this is not a limit.. i don't really know.

in any case, why do people always have to take a decent service and twist it into something the authorities will find "questionable"? It's like they are trying to help discourage VOIP or something by exposing its potential for misuse. Use it for what it was intended -- telephone conversations -- and no one will care. I imagine the current P2P technologies are better adapted for spreading music anyways.. but i guess the rule is, if there's a crack, someone will always fill it. humans are weird.

Small Correction (1, Informative)

fbartho (840012) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194296)

Quick little blurb about skype... its an application for your computer, created by Sharman Networks, the people who brought you Kazaa in all its glory and shame. Its P2P software that encrypts and tunnels voice conversations generally at better quality than normal phone conversations. I first found skype about a year and a half ago... and have been using it since to make calls accross the US, and around the world. During this bit of time they built themselves a network and suddenly provided the service of allowing you to call normal phones from your computer... the price for using SkypeOut to call most locations on the globe is .02 Euro~dollars per minute. Very recently they came out with SkypeIn where you can have a phone number routed to your computer and a list of secondary locations... at will. Haven't used that one personally.

The only times where rate limiting degrades the performance to below same-room communication is when you add normal phone lines to the mix.

http://skype.net

Re:Small Correction (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194337)

They aren't related to Sharman Networks. I suggest you do research next time.

Yes it was made by the people who made Kazaa, but Sharman Networks did not make Kazaa believe it or not.

Re:bitrate? (1)

conteXXt (249905) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194435)

If we had stopped at the wheel:

no gears = no machines

no wagon wheels (the marshmallow kind)

It's necessary to test the boundaries of new technologies.

Sigh (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194157)

Never underestimate the open sauce hippie's desparity to get something for free.

Re:Sigh (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194196)

Fuck you.

Things that make you go Hmmmm (1, Interesting)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194158)

Motorola is developing cellphones capable of making calls via Wi-Fi networks. They have plans to add internet telephony software via a partnership with Skype. With these phones, Skype customers can call each other at no cost (for most cases). This causes a great concern to the cell phone industry because the calls would now be diverted from the cellular networks hence affecting usage income.

Anything that threatens the big Telcom companies will get shut down by government. The companies will find some excuse, they can be used by terrorists, they will collapse an industry, they will cook your brians. The telcom companies have enough lawyers and lobbyists to thing of something.

I just hope they don't kill this technology because they use the argumet "It is for P2P and illegal file sharing".

I wonder how this will all work. It sounds promising. But if someone has an open wi-fi port, say near a university, how much bandwith will 10 people take up making phone calls? 100 people?

I call bullshit (5, Insightful)

Sanity (1431) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194172)

What is the point of this? Skype's codec is optomised for voice, not audio. There are perfectly good open source tools like Icecast which have been around for years and which work with codecs designed for music. I also doubt Skype will scale up to be able to support more than a small number of listeners at a time.

This sounds like some marketing droid at Skype trying to invent a phenomenon by pretending that it already exists.

Re:I call bullshit (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194318)

"There are perfectly good open source tools like Icecast which have been around for years and which work with codecs designed for music."

Maybe the average user does not know anything about Icecast? Maybe they'd find it hard to use (I don't know, I have to admit I've never tried Icecast myself, though I do use Skype). But yeah, the quality would worry me, too. Still an interesting thing.

"I also doubt Skype will scale up to be able to support more than a small number of listeners at a time."

Could be. But the arcticle says this: "Skype's peer-to-peer infrastructure--similar in construct to Kazaa, Morpheus and other file-swapping programs--makes it well-suited for turning Net phones into a broadcasting system".

So, maybe the infrastructure is smart enough to handle multiple simultaneus users (because Skype supports conference calls, for example)? Does anyone have more information about this?

Re:I call bullshit (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194408)

4 users per conference call (max).

Re:I call bullshit (1)

Sanity (1431) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194534)

Maybe the average user does not know anything about Icecast?
Have you seen their instructions for doing this? It is far from straightfoward for the average user. In contrast, I believe this is trivially easy to do with WinAmp.
Could be. But the arcticle says this: "Skype's peer-to-peer infrastructure--similar in construct to Kazaa, Morpheus and other file-swapping programs--makes it well-suited for turning Net phones into a broadcasting system".
That is completely wrong, either a wilful lie or this person doesn't know what they are talking about. I know a bit about how Skype works, and it is very poorly suited to broadcasting. Every listener requires that the transmitter sends a new stream across their Internet connection.

Re:I call bullshit (2, Informative)

Psychic Burrito (611532) | more than 9 years ago | (#12195333)

very poorly suited to broadcasting. Every listener requires that the transmitter sends a new stream across their Internet connection.

Wrong. [slashdot.org] In a multi-person conference, one computer is elected as the "central hub", that relies all communication to the other parties. If you're not the central hub, you only have to send your stuff once and receive it once. Interestingly, the central hub is always determined by comparing the upload and download bandwiths of all parties.

So, in a way, Skype is indeed a broadcasting system more efficient than pure P2P connections.

Re:I call bullshit (1)

Sanity (1431) | more than 9 years ago | (#12195367)

Wrong. In a multi-person conference, one computer is elected as the "central hub", that relies all communication to the other parties
Yes, and the "central hub" is the transmitter. All you are saying is that rather than the broadcaster using all their bandwidth, they offload this work onto one of their unsuspecting listeners. It doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it to some other poor sap.

The point remains that Skype is extremely unsuited to broadcasting.

Re:I call bullshit (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194952)

So what if the codec is sub-optimal? If you're an Icecast broadcaster who streams at 24bps, switching to Skype will actually improve your sound quality.

Did you miss the part where Skype doesn't support this, except to encourage its users to experiment? It was inevitable that those experiments would include attempts at broadcasting. It may well be that Skype isn't the right way to do that -- but some people won't be convinced until they try it themselves.

Links? (1)

gsasha (550394) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194177)

Ok then, I'm interested. Any links to Skypecasts or sites indexing them?

In soviet russia... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194179)

...you don't 0wn your base, your base are belong to us!

OMG (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194238)

GNAA R0x0rz my s0x0rz!

Oh great! (0, Offtopic)

OverkillTASF (670675) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194241)

So how long before I recieve a call in the middle of dinner asking me if I'd like to buy the following new hit single:

[music]Oh tell me baby, how was I supposed to know, that somethin' wasn't right yeah...[/music]
I really don't want to be telemarketed to by Britney Spears, some indie artist, or, god forbid, some Indian guy getting paid to do his best to present the work to me.

Re:Oh great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194454)

[...] or, god forbid, some Indian guy getting paid to do his best to present the work to me.

I'd listen to that just for the humor value of it. Then laugh at him and hang up.

ShoutSkype Bridge? (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194245)

Is there a way to fit an MP3 client backend to a Skype server frontend? Then that middleware could put existing Shoutcast (Icecast, etc) servers onto the Skype network: instant content for those 29M Skype consumers. An easy way to improve one's up/download ratios - quantitywise, at least.

Skypecasting? What? (0, Redundant)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194261)

I don't get this 'skypecasting'. A search on google tells me it's about recording conversations that raises concerns. Other results tell me it's about relaying audio blogs.

I seem to be lacking information on what skypecasting is exactly, and how one listens in or creates such a system.

So far from my understanding from what I got on google, it seems to me that people are recording convos on skype, and posting it on a site for downloading.

Re:Skypecasting? What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194557)

How about reading the article summary? Jezus Christ! I propose a new acronym to accompany RTFA for this newly emerging phenomenon: RTFS.

p2p not client server is the point of all this? (2, Informative)

Cryofan (194126) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194310)

A lot of people here are questioning the worth and/or validity of skypecasting, citing out technologies that will do the same thing, same as, I believe, Winamp, and other players that will allow you to stream your audio to some other person on the net.

But skype is p2p, so that instead of you streaming directly to your audience, listeners may stream from you AND some other listeners, obviously minimizing the bandwidth required of the originator. The other alternative software packages are client-server, one to one, correct?

Also, one thing that makes this worthwhile as a slashdot topic is that there is already an established base of about 30 million skype users. So, this could serve as a jumpstart, just as napster did bittorrent, even though napster, like skype is proprietary....

Re:p2p not client server is the point of all this? (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194355)

That's right, skype is p2p, and when you're in a conference, one person hosts the communication in between all computers connected, aka, using that one person's bandwith. I'm sorry but I don't understand how one exactly saves bandwith in this matter.

-1, Completely uninformed (3, Interesting)

Sanity (1431) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194593)

But skype is p2p, so that instead of you streaming directly to your audience, listeners may stream from you AND some other listeners, obviously minimizing the bandwidth required of the originator.
I know how Skype works, and it does not do this. It may be P2P in the way that it finds when users are online, but conference calls are one-to-many, just like Icecast. This is why, last time I checked, Skype must limit conference calls to at most 4 participants.

PeerCast [peercast.org] does try to do what you describe, but last time I checked it didn't do a very good job of it.

Peercast (1)

Dracil (732975) | more than 9 years ago | (#12195629)

http://www.peercast.org does this. As the other poster says, Skypecast doesn't.

This just in (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194323)

Humans come equipped with aural input devices, called ears. These devices are NOT protected against copyright infringement activities! Looks like we need to get into the brain and change the bios around a bit to fix that.....

Spypimps (4, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194349)

Why did shashark [slashdot.org] ebmed the links to Unbound Spiral [henshall.com] and Moodle [moodle.org] (defanged here) in dw.com.com SPYWARE [iss.net] links? Is this the sleaziest submission scam yet, which actually forces us to install spyware to follow a frontpage Slashdot link? Are all those jokes about soulsucking NYT registrations really true about shashark? This should be the abuse that finally forces Slashdot editors to check the links on submissions.

"dw.com.com is advertising-oriented spyware (adware) that downloads and displays new advertisements in a popup window while a user is browsing the Web. dw.com.com is difficult to remove, as it does not provide an uninstaller."

Re:Spypimps (4, Informative)

shashark (836922) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194683)

My mistake. I copied the links 'as is' from here

http://news.com.com/VoIP+calls+get+podcast+treatme nt/2100-7352_3-5645776. (Read last paragraphs)

Re:Spypimps (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194732)

An easy mistake to make. I hope you take my rant at face value: a question on why you did that, and taking Slashdot's editors to task for not "editing" to weed out spyware from publication to hundreds of thousands of Slashdotters. The sleazebags at news.com.com.com.com.com are really primarily responsible, but they're not part of Slashdot, so there's little we can do about them.

Re:Spypimps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12195109)

No one reads TFA anyways.

Holy sheite (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12194363)

for a good time, go to http://smoke.rotten.com/bird/ [rotten.com]

RIAA sues Skype (1)

$exyNerdie (683214) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194428)

Lets hope that such a great telephony application doesnt become an illegal file trading application and get shut down by RIAA

Simple question (1)

bitspotter (455598) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194662)

What happens to Skype when The Aussies sue Sharman into oblivion?

Skype isn't Kazaa (1)

evanwolf (190119) | more than 9 years ago | (#12195483)

While they share some of the same founders, Skype uses a different network with the same technology. See JoltID [joltid.com] about the network. See the Skype Developer Zone [skype.com] for more on the APIs.

What crap! (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194844)

Zonk apparently posted the story without checking any of the three links. The first is just a very brief summary of another story [com.com] . The second contains a stupid typo in the URL. The third is to a page that requires a Moodle registration to access -- not bad in itself, but there has to be an appropriate warning next to the link.

We're getting way too much of this crap. Are Slashdot editors too busy playing The Sims to do their jobs, or what?

It's official... (2, Insightful)

Jack Johnson (836341) | more than 9 years ago | (#12194913)

*cast has overtaken 'cyber', 'my' and even 'i' as the new king of overused technology *fixes.

Re:It's official... (1)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 9 years ago | (#12195945)

The etymology of broadcast in a medium sense was in the first radio broadcasts; they were called broadcasts because they, like the farmers they had back then just like today, would "broad cast" the seeds from the tractor, to plant a harvest -- the seeds would originate from the tractor in any random pattern outwards, not knowing really where they would land. When this model was brand new, no one could figure out why broadcasting -- literally a communication to no one essentially -- would be useful. The telephone company had the first stab at broadcast radio, and the first model they chose was to use something similar to the telephone model. They let people rent out time slots to send their message to the people. This model obviously didnt work out, and the next model, making their own content, and selling sliecs of advertising space in between, is the same model we use going on 100 years later. The cast suffix has been integrated into many other technologies online since ...

Remember the old days? (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 9 years ago | (#12195047)

When you loaded your programs of casette tapes? A lot of beeps and bleeps. Then some radio stations would broadcast a "program", you could record it and then later load it in your computer. How nifty ;)

My attempt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12195153)

Interestingly enough, I experiemented with this last week for a school assignment. I tried calling some people in Nepal and Kyrgyzstan, but the connection quality was terrible...

Eventually, I settled on Iraq. With the audio out plugged into my minidisc recorder, and a microphone jacked into the soundcard.

http://ohjon.com/p/JRN112.Iraqi.Interview.mp3 [ohjon.com]

Due to a technical problem, their audio was recorded while mine was not. I had to re-record my voice so in that sense, it's not a real journalistic effort but rather some sort of "Reality Fiction" type thing.

Anyway, I thought it was interesting. Let me know what you think.

- Jon
http://ohjon.com [ohjon.com]

Legal status of internet radio? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12195747)

Does anyone know how legitimate internet radio in North America really is?

Radio stations pay a fee to broadcast music. The companies that broadcast the music you hear in stores pay the same fee. Churches pay a fee so that people can play and sing music. What makes internet radio different? There is an established system where you must pay to broadcast other people's music in public.

I'll probably get modded as a troll but it is a serious question.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>