November 29, 2004
 Three Questions About BitTorrent and RSS
* Could BitTorrent / RSS be a winning combination for cable companies
(providing both TV and Internet) and Bells, in order to give them
significant advantage over satellite TV distributors?
Links: Fortune
article by
Frank Rose (similar article just appeared in December issue of Wired),
set:TOP of
DV Guide ...
* Does BitTorrent/RSs combination makes sense in the context of cell
phone IP based networks? Mentioned DV Guide could be adapted to carry
and distribute small 30 seconds clips via BT/RSS to mobile
phones. Which are built almost as ready made set:TOP boxes nowadays
...
* Is there any torrent search engine that can crawl and search by
media file hash signature? Or alternatively, is there any procedure or
sketch of a standard to encrypt ENCLOSURE tag from RSS toward a
specific recipient(s)? Search engine could provide effective tool to
document number of downloads, while encrypting part of RSS feed could
enable targeted distribution toward subscribers ...
UPDATE: 11/30/2004:
Yesterday I've asked some
questions about BitTorrent and RSS. To refresh the discussion,
today I post a diagram of potential target customers ...
Posted by drazen at 10:26 PM
1. YES!!!!!! If you already have a large audience, this makes digital distribution much easier. Of course, the cable companies already have the copper. A large audience following a small under-budget is ideal.
2. Hrmm... *maybe* ... BT is meant for big files (> 1 meg, or honestly, >10 megs, downloaded by more that 4 people at a time)
3. RSS Categories could provide targetting. Dave Winer has recently unveiled a draft BT enclosure format for RSS 2.0 ... GUID of a feed item could be the info_hash of a .torrent, but a good consensus on rss-dev on yahoo was that a GUID is a "globally unique identifier" while a hash (SHA-1) just makes sure that things are *different* ... not that they are same in *some* way... like a different encoding of the same media. That would make a different hash, but you may or may not want that media to have the same GUID.
A little more, you could use a double-key-escrow system to handle your targetting as well. Yes, that's PPV w/ billing. BUT, you need to know each subscribers' public keys. They have your public key... you'll need to encrypt everything to their systems with their public key, but honestly, once they decrypt.
The question is if the net is being built for P2P-applications. I would argue that it's not at the moment.
In fact, i wrote a longer piece on it on my blog, just last night:
Dude, where's my upload:
http://jturn.qem.se/archives/2004/12/dude_wheres_my.shtml
Thanks - really interesting post. Agreed fully on the importance of
upstream. In an earlier article I called that Conceptual Digital Divide. My argument was that early marketing Internet paradigm was building on existing TV model:
href=http://www.open4all.info/wiki/drazen/Conceptual_Digital_Divide
But, situation being as it is, BitTorrent is probably the best we
have. Now question is: can we make a viable and honest business on that
infrastructure, building video networks bottom up, using BitTorrent,
RSS and blogs? I certainly think yes ...
|
unmediated.av:
The Weekly Show

drawing from extrastruggle.
We've been having a back channel conversation amongst the trackers at unmediated about how/whether to update the way in which we aggregate, present, and make useable the content on the site, in light of all the various aggregators, digg and its clones, and role model group blog sites that we all consume/use/hate/love. Since we all primarily support open media movements and the freedom of bits and so forth, and with all of us being busy with our primary projects, we are looking for ways to make getting content on the site easier and more streamlined, while making it obvious that we are presenting other sources content. With the availability of open API's for just about any type of media aggegration literally getting past the saturation point, and mashups taking every possible form, we are wondering, is it time to take a step back, or a step forward with how/what we do at umediated? In the course of my surfing today, i found this new site, Boxxet Which just might be the straw that breaks the camel's back in how we all perceive the current mix and match nature of the web as it now stands. What's different about Boxxet from other aggregators and mashups like the newest entry popurls, (which aggregates digg, slashdot, reddit, newsvine, tailrank, and flickr) is that Boxxet is a Website generator. Thats right, just pop in all the urls u want to aggregate (and WHAT from them) choose how u want to format it, plug in the url that u want it to be accessed at... and whammo: Your own site with everyone elses content, and all thats left to do is decide whether googleplex or yahooza is going to be the source of your linklove revenue. And if u have on older domain that u plug this into...well, we all know how the pageranking with search engines work by now. It used to be that u had to have a bit of code knowledge to make all this stuff work. Eyebeam's Re-blog engine which powers this site was not a simple undertaking at the time that Michael Frumin and Michael Migurski put it all together... a half a year before Marc Broadband-mechanicked the term Reblog as his latest buzzword before casting his attention on the ourmedia-meme. (kudo's, kudo's) But now, with the cut and paste mentality of webculture that we at unmediated have helped create, the pace at which people are remixing and repurposing code is accelerating at a rate similar to the curve that we saw with pro-sumer desktop video... almost anyone can do it. I have this sinking feeling in my gut that we will arrive sooner than later at the same existential threshold that the film studios and record labels are squirming under to our joyful cries of "die, dinosaurs, die!". What i am wondering, is how long until my hero of the open-information movement, Cory Doctorow, and the rest of our pals at BB will tolerate re-aggregation and repurposing of his content, (now that he is investing so much more time at the site) before he (or any of one us) screams, "FOUL!" Stewart Butterfield over at Flickr is dealing with this beast at the moment...and i have to admire the dryness with which he states, "I loaded the FlickrCentral pool and firefox got up to using 240mb of ram before dying. So that's not a great user experience, but it's really terrible for Flickr. If it catches on and you don't limit it, we'll have to cut you off :\" Sure, Stewart, blame it on the user experience and firefox. ;) I admire your candor, and personal attention/approach to what has become one of the hottest new BRANDS in Web 2.0 ...that u still have time to be personal and all flickr-fuzzy even after being acquired, but I am sure that your jeans feel like they're fitting a bit tighter all of a sudden. Pretty soon, I expect, a lot of us bell-bottomed infornistas are going to wake up in a similar pair of Jordaches. I'm curious which of us will cut the inseams and sew in another totally different material to keep our style,and which of us will claim that now that we're wearing skintight jeans ("they're really really comfortable...REALLY! You think i should get a pair of Reeboks to go with 'em?"), that the manufacture of bell-bottoms should be forbidden. I point this all out in good humour only to illustrate a point: The times, they are('nt) a changin'>, and Cory just might wake up one day soon in his magic kingdom, and say "Hey, man, where'd all my whuffie go? And he's going to have no choice but to join Walt's pinstripesuits in pushing for copyright extension. It's a pill i hope he (and we) never have to swallow. So i pose the question to our community readers: How do you see unmediated-Are we crossing the boundaries in how we repurpose content? Would you like to see more editorializing? Narrower/Broader scope? Are we a repository of information that you come back to use, or just part of your daily information addiction? Let us know... I, for one, would like to have an idea about what pair of jeans to wear this year ;) michael
Featured Project
Berkeley Conference: Online Video and the Future of Television - Friday, September 30, 2005
This one-day conference brings together archivists, educators, technologists, entrepreneurs, producers, legal experts, and investors to explore the enormous promise offered by the availability of online video and television content. Demonstrations and interactive panel discussions will highlight new video technologies, services, legal issues, and economic models. Participants from diverse – and until now, largely disconnected – specialties will be especially encouraged to interact.
del.icio.us/tag/unmediated
[+]
About unmediated
unmediated is a group blog that tracks the tools, processes,
and ideas being used to decentralize media production and distribution.
|
flickr/tag/
citizenmedia
[+]
|
1. YES!!!!!! If you already have a large audience, this makes digital distribution much easier. Of course, the cable companies already have the copper. A large audience following a small under-budget is ideal.
2. Hrmm... *maybe* ... BT is meant for big files (> 1 meg, or honestly, >10 megs, downloaded by more that 4 people at a time)
3. RSS Categories could provide targetting. Dave Winer has recently unveiled a draft BT enclosure format for RSS 2.0 ... GUID of a feed item could be the info_hash of a .torrent, but a good consensus on rss-dev on yahoo was that a GUID is a "globally unique identifier" while a hash (SHA-1) just makes sure that things are *different* ... not that they are same in *some* way... like a different encoding of the same media. That would make a different hash, but you may or may not want that media to have the same GUID.
A little more, you could use a double-key-escrow system to handle your targetting as well. Yes, that's PPV w/ billing. BUT, you need to know each subscribers' public keys. They have your public key... you'll need to encrypt everything to their systems with their public key, but honestly, once they decrypt.
Posted by: Thomas Winningham at November 30, 2004 01:28 AM