Don't buy TV's offering archive.org streams

ok, everyone ... forget stream's. period. Stop selling ur tv's. Cuz ya kno what Dana, this guy here isn't the only one selling stream's he doesn't own. EVERYONE who is selling tv's are doing it. Not a single damn one of them own the stream they're selling, or the movie. What they DO have the right to sell is the time it took to sell the tv they made, the list of stream's THEY took the time to compile to make life easier for sl resident's. Maybe sum ppl don't feel like going through archive.org themselve's, so now they have a different way to view stream's. BUT, cuz you didn't think of it first, he's evil ... EVIL I SAY! EVIIIILLLL!


Dana, I hope to god u ain't selling anything with texture's u didn't create urself Yea yea yea, I kno, there's alot of site's with texture's freely available for use .. but if u didn't create it, it's not ur's to sell... same thing right? I mean, all he's selling is a different way to view a freely available stream, sumthing HE took the time to create.

One thing I've learned about SL ... there's alot of idiot's who claim to be adult's. Grow up

That is not anyone's argument. The problem is that he has taken a library of streams from a third party without permission, and incorporated them in to his television. That library of streams is being hosted at great cost to Archive.org, and they're not being compensated in any way for the bandwidth which these televisions are consuming, as Archive.org is denied the opportunity to solicit donations from viewers of the streams, as they normal would, and as Archive.org does not, as of writing, receive any payment for the television.

Your analogy is flawed. No one is arguing that these televisions should be banned because "real life tv stations broadcast their sign free of charge" but rather because these streams are/were being leached from the legitimate site without permission from the owners and operators of that site. Just because the streams are available for public display does not mean that you can take that content and use it in whatever way you wish, nor does it mean that the owners of that stream are obligated to subsidize your Second Life by providing you with free bandwidth.

NOT true.

GNU GPL and Selling:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Pretty easy solution to all this.

Somebody just start giving one away for free. Or, let the builder give away a basic one for nothing, with a message to consider donating to him and/or archive.org, and a higher end one, with all kinds of gewgaw features, that he sells. I'd be surprised if people didn't buy the higher end one quite frequently. I'd also say that if, say, 2 dollars of every 10 was sent to archive, all would be well. I'm sure they'd be ecstatic to get regular donations in this fashion.

No rule against that, and it seems it would make the archive.org people happy to know that they have extended their reach into the digital gaming world, and that their spirit of freeness is being maintained.

Regarding free airwaves, consider what would happen to PBS if everybody watched for free and nobody donated. So long Sesame Street...and no more Mystery! (agh!). The other airwaves make money off of advertising and selling their empty space. Archive.org does not have these means.

I would argue the receiver thing by saying that there is no required investment on the part of the builder in any way other than time (and these things are easy to make, like, very), and that without Archive.org, the builder would not be selling the in-game devices. Aside from the minimally required 9.99 SL fee, which is not a cost purely associated with the receiver, the builder is using a service that is supported by donations and selling a receiver for profit that cost nothing to build. It would seem the only service actually being provided is building a box that makes the streams visible in SL. One may as well build a box that receives NPR and sell it (I do stream in NPR and never even considered selling devices that do so...cuz NPR is free for the masses!).

So go the winzip/smartftp/numerous other successful software model; give away a basic one that does nothing but serve basic streams, and sell one that does (who knows) random channel switching, accepts programming and voice commands, explodes on request, or whatever.

This isn't just in the interests of archive.org and the SL populace. It's in the interests of the builders of the receiver, since the first class that shows people how easy it is to stream in a publicly available URL and throw it on a prim will put you out of business.

easy to make a prim? sure...easy to program the features he has into his tv? not for me, buddy. I cant script yet no clue how to do that.

So, all you complainers have to do, is make an equal or better tv, and give it away. Do it, or STFU. If its so dam easy, make a good one instead of one that barely functions and has no real capabilities other than me having to alter the script for each input. Cuz I cant (yet).

Come on Dana! Put up or Shut Up!

Dana Unsung is the self-confessed alt of one of the biggest Ubertrolls in SL's history (admitted on SLUniverse's forums, but sadly deleted).

She's crashed memorial services in-world for dead residents, claiming the thing was an elaborate hoax

She's outright stolen intellectual property from her business partners, and never paid a dime.

She periodically melts down and attacks everything in her way.

She's maliciously attacked dozens of people on the forums.

If her and today's "trolls" (Hi Prok and Alts) got into the ring together, she would demolish, dismember, and devour every last one of them.

And, oddly enough, her main account is in the television business... has been since 1.0. Her content? Lifted porn straight from videos she's downloaded. Violating copyright, indeed.

She's certainly no angel . More like a Lev.... well. I won't go that far.

LF

I can't believe that you would do this man!

Umm..you mean she was never perma-banned? I thought that's why we hadn't heard a word out of her in a long time..


I'm a bit shocked...

If there was ever a person to suspect as being a Linden alt...or else having compromising pictures of Philip...

It all makes sense now. Thanks Lordfly.

Always 3 sides to ever story... Side A, Side B, and the Truth.

I only wish Lordfly was engaging in hyperbole. Alas, he isn't.

I wish Grimmy were here

The truth is that archive.org advertises on their own site that this is free for anyone to use. It doesn't say anything about restrictions against playing their archive within another media, such as SL. Nobody is doing anything wrong, except of course the originator of this thread.
Do us a favor and ignore her, and put ur tv's back for sale. I'll buy one just to piss her off And I hope it does rofl. More likely she's just getting her jollies by causing hate and dissent, as most small minded people are inclined to do.
You made a good product. You invested time, effort, and your skills into doing so. Sell it!

The problem is that if 100 people buy televisions, that's 100 people constantly sucking bandwidth from archive.org. If 1000 people buy televisions... der n der. SL is like the Slashdot effect on a continual basis.

LF

Well, not quite. It's only using bandwidth if someone is watching it, right?

True, but I reckon that not too many people watch movies by themselves in SL.

30 people times 200 meg movies = 6000 MB, or 6 gigs of traffic in an hour's period.

I've got a fairly cheap hosting plan, and even that's 6 dollars an hour.

LF

I'd say the problem isn''t people using the bandwidth. Hey if you tell somebody at a college about the site, suddenly there could be thousands more people using it. I'm sure archive.org doesn't care about that per say.

The problem the way I see it is that in no way shape or form are donations being solicited by the SL TV makers on behalf of archive.org. As far as I've seen, none of these people are aware of the fact that archive.org is a donation driven service. The forums don't do it. It needs to be part of the actual TV device.

And, are the creators of the TVs, who are making money off of this, donating regularly to ensure that the service that put them in business thrives? Like, are they putting up 2 of every 10? Now that would be good and fair business.

If they're not communicating this to the users (and not in the forums), and they're not kicking back to archive.org, I'd say yes, they are taking advantage of the situation and not ensuring that all things are equitable.

Imagine if you sold a TV that streamed PBS, and somehow, you managed to strip ALL the requests for donations that they weave into their programming. Nobody would know. The TV makers would be cackling away as they made 10 bucks a pop, and PBS, which enabled the whole thing, gets nada. Enough people do that and guess what...so long PBS.

Be fair and kick back to archive.org. Report the kickback to the users, and make sure users know they are donating by buying the unit. Then nobody has any issues, everybody gets a piece of the pie. archive stays in business, and you can feel good about selling the TVs and tell any detractors to stfu.

They most likely get a way better deal than that and you pay too much for hosting. I get 120GB of bandwidth a month for under $10 retail. And if you got in on the dreamhost deal like a lot of us did, it was $7.77 for the whole year.

Also, I think that the person kind of mentioned earlier has a new product line coming out. Check the shopping forum.

This whole thing is a witch hunt by a competitor and you all fell for it. For shame! Who's next to fall before the weight of the inflamed forum masses? Will it be you?

EDIT: And why hasn't this stupid thing been locked yet?

Figured I would correct this...

AFAIK, Quicktime *does* do streaming and has for a while.

Also, the quality is much higher. Noticeably higher.

RealVideo is fast but who wants to watch pixelated blurs??? (however fast they may be)

Of course it does

Also, as I recall, most of the tools necessary for streaming are available at no charge. However, it seems to be more common to find QT used for downloadable content rather than for streaming. Even Apple's movie trailers site isn't streaming.

Who would want to use Quicktime or Real? They're both immature formats with bloated Windows clients.

Well the answer to that is who the heck would want to use windows at all?

You are right about that, still very small market share for QT.
And i think the cost of the bandwidth and the connections issues are why they dont stream the trailers.

All the more reason to donate some of the cost of those TVs to the content provider though.

Another difference with radios is that the content is also "commercial" to an extent. There are advertisements sometimes and the station announces itself and tells you where to go on the web to find out more etc. They "get something" out of you offering that free stream to users or they simply would not do it.

I have not seen the content being discussed here but I am betting that less of this kind of advertising is done on a *.org site if at all. If the host is not even getting site referrals or advert revenue then this is truly theft.

(And illogical since it will ultimately kill that goose)