211–220 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube was THE online video site back then. Twitch is pretty much unheard of these days by the general public other than people following the PC gaming scene.
In 2006 it was competing with DailyMotion and Vimeo at least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you have to use copyrighted background music for streaming of a game?
what kind of a question is that? Are you a human being?
why do you expect to be able to broadcast copyrighted music for your own enrichment without paying the copyright holder?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...a publicly traded company like Google is not going to comment on acquisition rumors, for many, many reasons. Variety normally has good sources - if they're reporting it, a deal is almost certainly being discussed. Maybe it won't complete, but this isn't some random posting on Secret here.
Your comment made me wonder. Is there any site where people (users or editors) track and check up on predictions like this made by various media outlets? I'd find it really helpful if I could point to a database showing that Variety or WSJ had a 90%+ accuracy in predictions like this, whereas another site might have a 50% accuracy.
From a 3rd party summary: "...Kenneth Ahern at the University of Southern California and Denis Sosyura at the University of Michigan, reviewed 2,142 articles written about 501 rumors between 2000 and 2011. Of those rumors, only 167 were followed by a public bid for the company. The Wall Street Journal was the most prolific publisher of such articles, with 158 during the time period. It was followed by Dow Jones Newswires with 67 and the New York Times with 38.
“The rumors published in the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones News Service are also more accurate than the average rumor, with accuracy rates of about 39%, compared to 33% for the average rumor,” wrote the researchers. “In contrast, the Los Angeles Times and NYT Blogs have accuracy rates less than 20%.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you have to use copyrighted background music for streaming of a game?
Because 90% of all music enjoyed by most people is under copyright and searching for music not under copyright that you can listen to and genuinely enjoy is not anybody's idea of a good time. Nobody wants to worry about this stuff. As long as the purpose of the stream is not just streaming music i don't see the problem however I'm certain the MPAA and RIAA would not agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On a back of the napkin calculation, how much outgoing throughput would one need to be able to stream to ten clients directly on say 720p (~30 frames per second)? I was wondering if it would be possible to create a set up where people can stream from home without any third party in between. Is that even possible for larger audiences?
You'd want to do something like HLS which can use standard HTTP but not directly to someone's home. You'd need some sort of CDN or cloud intermediary to handle the load. Or some sort of peer-to-peer Popcorn time style (Bittorrent Live?[1]) that can distribute the load across all viewers. Hmm... "Twitch-Time" may be an interesting way to resurrect that service. [1] http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/15/5414430/bittorrent-…
It inherently increases latency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As time goes on the non-gamer generations die off. The gamers grow richer and their willingness to pay increase. The new generations will probably also game.
You're forgetting that people grow out of gaming. Once you have a job and a family, gaming just isn't as fun anymore.
Semi-related question... Do you know who came up with an idea of allowing companies to own other companies (and when)?
Surely this is a massive competition concern and should be blocked on such grounds?!
I'm not saying I could build a streaming site in my closet this weekend, but it's not impossible for competitors to enter the space (or existing competitors to grow in the space) so long as Google/YT doesn't too anything too anti-competitive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because 90% of all music enjoyed by most people is under copyright and searching for music not under copyright that you can listen to and genuinely enjoy is not anybody's idea of a good time. Nobody wants to worry about this stuff. As long as the purpose of the stream is not just streaming music i don't see the problem however I'm certain the MPAA and RIAA would not agree.
Why don't people just play the music they want in the background when watching these videos?
Beside if you always play the usual 200 songs you listen to when are you going to find new songs to listen to.
Listening to music is a group activity a lot of the times and you find new songs by doing it.
There's only 3 ways to find new songs and 2 of them suck
1. Listening to top hits in hopes that a few match your taste
2. Using recommendation algorithms on Spotify and other streaming sites
3. And the on that give you the best results hanging out with like minded people in real life or on the internet and seeing what their listening to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are going to use the music to entertain your customers, pay for it like you're supposed to.
How? Reaching contracts with all major copyright owners in order to stream your out-of-garage hobby? Buying music (I assume that is what you meant), will not let streamers use it, thus there is no meaningful solution as of yet.
Legally using copyrighted music is not exactly an impossible task. I mean, it's basically the entire business of some radio stations, and some stations are quite small.
Now, is it worth the effort and cost for a Twitch stream? It depends on how much value the music brings. There's also CC or royalty-free music, if a streamer just wants some music playing.