2009/1/20 Ian Forrester <[email protected]>: > > The reason why we would like to Tar the files together is because of things > like subtitles, artwork, cuts of music, > other metadata pieces, etc. We're not just talking a collection of video > files.
What does Tar add to the ability to organise files in a set into a hierarchy, that a directory tree in the Torrent doesn't? Except stopping people from downloading only the files that they want from that set? > I guess we're also thinking about the 5% of the audience who would actually > do a remix with the raw project files. Good :-) > This would be on going rather that a one off, so we > need the ability to handle everything from low rez 3gp files to > ultra high rez animations at stupid frame rates So you'd have a torrent for each of the broad use-cases (download files to keep on mobile, medium quality compression for desktop watching, high quality compression for casual remixing, and original files for hardcore remixing - say) with all the files needed for each one, and a note saying where the others are if the user feels they might want a file but its not in what they have. > how we pass footage around internally and the answer was via hard drives. > There was some thought in the past about having drop off points in > major cities where you can get all the footage in one go > by bringing your 1TB drive for example. Sneakernet, or what ever > they now call it. That would be cool, although, costly? Sounds like a haxor playground to me ;p > I think we'll use something like CC-BY-NC (although I > totally understand the arguments against NC, Dave) > CC-BY-NC-SA is tempting CC-BY-SA > CC-BY > CC-BY-NC-SA > CC-BY-NC For an entertaining TV show, I think non-commercial restrictions are merely annoying rather than wrong, and copyleft (even weak copyleft like CC-*-SA) is preferable because it defends the commons. > I do wonder how we keep the licence in tack even when the > assets are broken up and reused? Since licensing is legal, not technical, the ultimate answer is to make sure the license is very clear to people downloading the stuff first. AFAIK licensing metadata tech - like ccRel and XMP, both been submitted to W3C so supporting them would be good - is not yet widely supported in a way that makes it useful to people. While discussing the W3C EOT (Web Font DRM) stuff, Tom Lord came up with "MAME" - a way to provide such notices on the web - http://basiscraft.com/web-font-issue/mame.xml - which I hope might get some further development... :-) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
