Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
I am really looking forward to this Ian. I have remixed real data... ie music and video, all my life. Having some from the BBC will be absolutely wonderful. Best wishes RichE P.S. Not really in the same world as the BBC - yet Digidesign have over the last couple of years moved to the following improvements it is now possible to share files internally with other users using Digidelivery and recently they have changed the system so that multiple Protools systems can be used in sync. This means that work can be shared very easily now, whilst still being governed by the software. I know that this isn't exactly free yet worth noting when one thinks of projects done using Avid and Protools. Hence it is becoming very easy to exchange data which includes a clear working method. R On 20 Jan 2009, at 17:21, Ian Forrester wrote: Wow thanks guys. I don't want to get into a discussion about the footage per-se because that's not the important thing. So to answer the points about the packaging. I didn't know Tar was just a way to pack together files with no compression. Now tar.gz makes sense to me :) 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. I guess we're also thinking about the 5% of the audience who would actually do a remix with the raw project files. 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 Delivery, Seems BitTorrent, P2Pnext (tribler) and the internet archive are the best solutions by a long way. I did speak to people about 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. Licensing, 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 due to the nature of the content. I do wonder how we keep the licence in tack even when the assets are broken up and reused? Maybe we should be looking into watermarking or some adobe xmp type system? This would also be useful for figuring out reach. Lots to think about... But once I got the footage cleared and sorted you guys will be first to know. We're planning to be as open as possible about the whole experience. Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [] private; [x] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)2080083965 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk ] On Behalf Of Jim Tonge Sent: 19 January 2009 23:59 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute +1 BitTorrent +1 MP4 - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
On 19/01/2009 18:36, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Say, we had a ton of media assets from a BBC programme which we owned all the rights to and wanted to distribute widely. Not just video, but images, sound, subtitles, metadata about the programme scripts, etc. How would you 1. Package it? We were considering MXF - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MXF but it looks difficult and time consuming to build, however the BBC did help build it so we could get help. Matroska, Nut and QuickTime are also look worthy. The point of view of an MXF advocate ... MXF is widely used at the professional end and capable of your requirements ... and the reasons why it is not easy to engage with straight out of the box is the shopping list that kicked off the standard. For example, efficient bit streams for file exchange between broadcast kit was more of a priority than human-readable XML. Also, MXF understands video frames and interleaves all the content so you can watch or listen to the streams as they transfer ... no waiting to unpack the package after transfer only to find out if it is the right one. As it is a media-specific standard, you can represent edit decision lists and metadata from the material essence ... could be a great way to do collaborative editing? You can distribute the large source clips once and then transfer lightweight EDLs around. MXF is an open standard and free to implement. The downside ... you need specialist tooling/APIs to get at the content. I was surprised to find that no Java API existing for MXF and its sister standard AAF, so I'm in the process of writing one (in development). http://majapi.sourceforge.net/ More complete C-based APIs are available here ... http://aaf.sourceforge.net/ http://www.freemxf.org/ In addition, a new XML format is now defined for MXF metadata which could be used in a tar or zip container, sidestepping the need for quite so much specialist (though free) tooling. Cheers, Richard -- Dr Richard Cartwright media systems architect portability4media.com rich...@portability4media.com mobile +44 (0)7792 799930 - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
2009/1/20 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk Wow thanks guys. I don't want to get into a discussion about the footage per-se because that's not the important thing. So to answer the points about the packaging. I didn't know Tar was just a way to pack together files with no compression. Now tar.gz makes sense to me :) It would only be worth using gzip (or any form of lossless compression) if the original data is of the type that can take it. It is also worth pointing out that is you pointlessly use a compression like gzip on a very large file where there is no usable compression that you simply slow down the process of getting to the data as you have to run the whole thing though unzip which at the very least needs 2 x the disk space. I am very much against using the tape-archive format for files in torrents. Most BitTorreent clients allow you to select and prioritise on a file-by-file basis using the format based on th .torrent file filesystem header. If you have just one .tar file, you can't select which bit to download, your only option it to get the lot and then throw away what you don't want. If you want to use lossless data compression, the best place to use it would be in the BitTorrent client when they do piece exchange? 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. I guess we're also thinking about the 5% of the audience who would actually do a remix with the raw project files. 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 What is wrong with a file system structure? What is the point of using a foreign (Unix tape archive) system? Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [] private; [x] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)2080083965 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Jim Tonge Sent: 19 January 2009 23:59 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute +1 BitTorrent +1 MP4 - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
RE: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
Ok so from what I've read so far... 1. Looks like we should use the native power of Bit Torrent to do the bundling whenever possible 2. We should distribute over Bit Torrent and P2Pnext, but also have some way to see the footage ahead of time. Oh quick note about footage, this whole project is about trying new things and seeing what could work in the future. So don't expect us to be distributing RAW DV or anything silly like that. :) Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [x] private; [] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)1612444063 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 21 January 2009 10:01 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute 2009/1/20 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk Wow thanks guys. I don't want to get into a discussion about the footage per-se because that's not the important thing. So to answer the points about the packaging. I didn't know Tar was just a way to pack together files with no compression. Now tar.gz makes sense to me :) It would only be worth using gzip (or any form of lossless compression) if the original data is of the type that can take it. It is also worth pointing out that is you pointlessly use a compression like gzip on a very large file where there is no usable compression that you simply slow down the process of getting to the data as you have to run the whole thing though unzip which at the very least needs 2 x the disk space. I am very much against using the tape-archive format for files in torrents. Most BitTorreent clients allow you to select and prioritise on a file-by-file basis using the format based on th .torrent file filesystem header. If you have just one .tar file, you can't select which bit to download, your only option it to get the lot and then throw away what you don't want. If you want to use lossless data compression, the best place to use it would be in the BitTorrent client when they do piece exchange? 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. I guess we're also thinking about the 5% of the audience who would actually do a remix with the raw project files. 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 What is wrong with a file system structure? What is the point of using a foreign (Unix tape archive) system? Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [] private; [x] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)2080083965 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Jim Tonge Sent: 19 January 2009 23:59 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute +1 BitTorrent +1 MP4 - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
If you have digital material you can release for remixing purpose - then I would contend that along with distributing it via some channel or another, you should also consider hosting the content on a BBC server and make tools available which would (1) allow people to remix online and (2) facilitate them in publishing this new content to any other platform(s). In effect this would allow the BBC to be a Online Public Service Developer, Producer and Publisher/Broadcaster. -- Michael Walsh Mobile: +44-(0)771-2524200 Mobile: +353-(0)85-1278212 Email: michael.wa...@digitalrightsmanifesto.com Web: http://www.digitalrightsmanifesto.com Blog: http://digitalrightsmanifesto.wordpress.com
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Michael Walsh michael.wa...@digitalrightsmanifesto.com wrote: If you have digital material you can release for remixing purpose - then I would contend that along with distributing it via some channel or another, you should also consider hosting the content on a BBC server and make tools available which would (1) allow people to remix online and (2) facilitate them in publishing this new content to any other platform(s). In effect this would allow the BBC to be a Online Public Service Developer, Producer and Publisher/Broadcaster. And ensuring that the results can be used by commercial organizations (by not making it NC) would help defuse any competition concerns. - Rob. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
2009/1/21 Michael Walsh michael.wa...@digitalrightsmanifesto.com: If you have digital material you can release for remixing purpose - then I would contend that along with distributing it via some channel or another, you should also consider hosting the content on a BBC server and make tools available which would (1) allow people to remix online Like http://corp.kaltura.com/ ? - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
I'm not totally convinced about that way of doing things. If you apply that to data on Backstage, we would have to build something like or better that Yahoo Pipes to allow people to remix our data. The tools offline are better that online, also the backstage community is made up of people who are technically advanced, so really we should just be putting the data/media out and allow people to use what fits them. Who knows what you guys might do to the data/media Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [x] private; [] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)1612444063 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Michael Walsh Sent: 21 January 2009 15:28 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute If you have digital material you can release for remixing purpose - then I would contend that along with distributing it via some channel or another, you should also consider hosting the content on a BBC server and make tools available which would (1) allow people to remix online and (2) facilitate them in publishing this new content to any other platform(s). In effect this would allow the BBC to be a Online Public Service Developer, Producer and Publisher/Broadcaster. -- Michael Walsh Mobile: +44-(0)771-2524200 Mobile: +353-(0)85-1278212 Email: michael.wa...@digitalrightsmanifesto.com Web: http://www.digitalrightsmanifesto.com Blog: http://digitalrightsmanifesto.wordpress.com
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
2009/1/21 Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org: And ensuring that the results can be used by commercial organizations (by not making it NC) would help defuse any competition concerns. And boost Wikipedia et al :-) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com wrote: 2009/1/21 Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org: And ensuring that the results can be used by commercial organizations (by not making it NC) would help defuse any competition concerns. And boost Wikipedia et al :-) Yes, and then Wikipedia and Flickr etc. can provide exposure for the BBC content and blahblahblah network effects blahblahblah leverage blahblahblah. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update Ugh. Dual licencing. ;-) - Rob. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
2009/1/21 Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update Ugh. Dual licencing. ;-) Not for long, I expect. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
Well without giving too much away, the techies are in control on this one. On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 20:34 -0800, Steve Jolly wrote: Ian Forrester wrote: Say, we had a ton of media assets from a BBC programme which we owned all the rights to and wanted to distribute widely. Not just video, but images, sound, subtitles, metadata about the programme scripts, etc. How would you 1. Package it? Artists and techies will probably have somewhat divergent opinions on this one... S - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
Wow thanks guys. I don't want to get into a discussion about the footage per-se because that's not the important thing. So to answer the points about the packaging. I didn't know Tar was just a way to pack together files with no compression. Now tar.gz makes sense to me :) 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. I guess we're also thinking about the 5% of the audience who would actually do a remix with the raw project files. 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 Delivery, Seems BitTorrent, P2Pnext (tribler) and the internet archive are the best solutions by a long way. I did speak to people about 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. Licensing, 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 due to the nature of the content. I do wonder how we keep the licence in tack even when the assets are broken up and reused? Maybe we should be looking into watermarking or some adobe xmp type system? This would also be useful for figuring out reach. Lots to think about... But once I got the footage cleared and sorted you guys will be first to know. We're planning to be as open as possible about the whole experience. Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [] private; [x] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)2080083965 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Jim Tonge Sent: 19 January 2009 23:59 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute +1 BitTorrent +1 MP4 - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
Hey Ian - just stick it on a terabyte USB external hard drive, invest in some bubble wrap and a strong cardboard box, and organise a mailing loop... Then folk can copy what they want and post it onto the next user Bit lo-tech, I know, but given broadband speeds in some parts of the country, probably quicker than Bit Torrenting it. :-) Cheers, Rich the Luddite (Or have I missed the point?) On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Wow thanks guys. I don't want to get into a discussion about the footage per-se because that's not the important thing. So to answer the points about the packaging. I didn't know Tar was just a way to pack together files with no compression. Now tar.gz makes sense to me :) 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. I guess we're also thinking about the 5% of the audience who would actually do a remix with the raw project files. 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 Delivery, Seems BitTorrent, P2Pnext (tribler) and the internet archive are the best solutions by a long way. I did speak to people about 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. Licensing, 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 due to the nature of the content. I do wonder how we keep the licence in tack even when the assets are broken up and reused? Maybe we should be looking into watermarking or some adobe xmp type system? This would also be useful for figuring out reach. Lots to think about... But once I got the footage cleared and sorted you guys will be first to know. We're planning to be as open as possible about the whole experience. Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [] private; [x] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)2080083965 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Jim Tonge Sent: 19 January 2009 23:59 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute +1 BitTorrent +1 MP4 - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
2009/1/20 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk: Seems BitTorrent, P2Pnext (tribler) and the internet archive are the best solutions by a long way. I did speak to people about 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. Sneakernet is a very good idea (and reminds me of the old Tanenbaum networking book). Downloading half a terabyte of data is quite a challenge on a domestic connection. Paul. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
2009/1/20 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk: 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Licensing, 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 due to the nature of the content. Could you explain the nature of the content and why NC is tempting for it? BY(-SA) includes non-endorsement now, like the Creative Archive licence, and explicitly asserts the moral rights of paternity and integrity. SA can be a sufficient disincentive to economic exploitation of work. So depending on what the concerns are these may be addressable without resorting to NC. I do wonder how we keep the licence in tack even when the assets are broken up and reused? Maybe we should be looking into watermarking or some adobe xmp type system? This would also be useful for figuring out reach. Yes use XMP. CC have done a lot of work on metadata and have tools for working with it. - Rob. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com wrote at 16:50 on 2009-01-20: 2009/1/20 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk: 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? It limits the number of file descriptors the torrent client has to deal with. I know this has been a problem for some torrent clients in the past but I'm not sure if it still afflicts current clients. It'll certainly end up being a solved problem as domestic connectiosn gets faster and torrent sizes grow, but I suspect this problem brought about the common (if really, really irritating) habit of packaging torrents in archive formats. S - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
I didn't know Tar was just a way to pack together files with no compression. Now tar.gz makes sense to me :) You know that zip has an option to not compress which would make it work in the same way as a tar file. While I prefer tar (and agree with other comments that tar/zip'ing stops you picking files to download) I believe zip is a bit more supported in Windows environments :-p Dan - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
2009/1/20 Steffan Davies st...@steff.name: Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com wrote at 16:50 on 2009-01-20: 2009/1/20 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk: 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? It limits the number of file descriptors the torrent client has to deal with. I know this has been a problem for some torrent clients in the past I think Backstage should be pushing the envelope so this isn't persuasive for me :-) -- Regards, Dave - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.ukwrote: 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. I guess we're also thinking about the 5% of the audience who would actually do a remix with the raw project files. 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 For reach, I'd look at which formats can be quickly and easily imported into some of the popular and free/cheapish video editors (iMove, Windows Movie Maker, Final Cut Express, Adobe Premier Elements). For a lot of people, who just want to have a play (myself include) - ultra high resolutions aren't required, and will just make working with the footage a bit harder. I'd look at using resolutions more or less equivalent to standard definition digital TV, or perhaps 720p, with h.264 encoding. One really important thing is seperated audio - so that dialogue, ADR, sound effects, wild tracks, music and so on can all be edited seperately. This was one of my frustrations with the original Creative Archive project. It'd also be really fun to include audio tracks that aren't mixed into the final edit - such as directors shouting instructions. Delivery, Seems BitTorrent, P2Pnext (tribler) and the internet archive are the best solutions by a long way. I did speak to people about 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. BitTorrent is great, but there really should be a way to download the component files (especially the smaller ones) via HTTP too. More importantly, you should be able to preview audio and video online via embedded media players - that way people know what they're downloading. Licensing, 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 due to the nature of the content. I do wonder how we keep the licence in tack even when the assets are broken up and reused? Maybe we should be looking into watermarking or some adobe xmp type system? This would also be useful for figuring out reach. Would be nice if the BBC could help people figure out an appropriate way of crediting people. Say you mix up some BBC footage with (similarly CC-licenced) footage from anywhere between 5-100 other people, what's the best way of crediting them all? Scrolling end-credits is fine for feature-length movies (or even short films), but a bit of an overkill for 2-3 minute videos. What about audio? Is it good practice (or even required) to list URLs with all the credits, or are names ok? Do the credits have to be directly embedded within the published media file, or can they just be on a webpage where the file is embedded? Tricky questions... The BBC doesn't have to provide a definitive answer, but if you can help people to do 'the right thing', then it's more likely they will. Lots to think about... But once I got the footage cleared and sorted you guys will be first to know. We're planning to be as open as possible about the whole experience. Good luck. As someone who followed the Creative Archive project closely (see the interview I did: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Interview_with_BBC_Creative_Archive_project_leader), I'm excited to hear that plans may be afoot to do something again! Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
Ian Forrester wrote: Say, we had a ton of media assets from a BBC programme which we owned all the rights to and wanted to distribute widely. Not just video, but images, sound, subtitles, metadata about the programme scripts, etc. How would you 1. Package it? Artists and techies will probably have somewhat divergent opinions on this one... S - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
I've been a little quiet recently but I'm still reading all the conversations. Anyway, I wanted to ask the backstage community a challenging question. Say, we had a ton of media assets from a BBC programme which we owned all the rights to and wanted to distribute widely. Not just video, but images, sound, subtitles, metadata about the programme scripts, etc. How would you 1. Package it? 2. Distribute it? 3. Licence it? (this isn't such a worry) As far as I know this is still new territory some exploring. Nine Inch Nails (not exactly my taste in music) uploaded 405 Gig of Live HD footage online the other day - http://newteevee.com/2009/01/09/nins-newest-game-changer-hd-concert-footage-via-bittorrent/ They packaged everything it would seem in a zip/tar and included a README files, some further notes about the footage, which was conveniently formatted for easy editing and even a Final Cut Pro sequences with the footage pre-organized for editing. Distribution was of course done on Bit Torrent using there own Tracker. Some thoughts I wonder how long it took to actually build the zip files and upload them? We were considering MXF - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MXF but it looks difficult and time consuming to build, however the BBC did help build it so we could get help. Matroska, Nut and QuickTime are also look worthy. Distribution wise, Bit Torrent, P2Pnext, Edonkey2k, Usenet, Archive.org, Blip.tv, rapidshare (joking!) who knows, but YouTube isn't going to cut it. What do you guys think? Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [x] private; [] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)2080083965 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
I'd go for some along the lines on what done at www.thetvdb.com, details of what's available is held in a set xml structure that people can use to pick/choose what parts of the content they want. D -- From: Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 6:36 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute I've been a little quiet recently but I'm still reading all the conversations. Anyway, I wanted to ask the backstage community a challenging question. Say, we had a ton of media assets from a BBC programme which we owned all the rights to and wanted to distribute widely. Not just video, but images, sound, subtitles, metadata about the programme scripts, etc. How would you 1. Package it? 2. Distribute it? 3. Licence it? (this isn't such a worry) As far as I know this is still new territory some exploring. Nine Inch Nails (not exactly my taste in music) uploaded 405 Gig of Live HD footage online the other day - http://newteevee.com/2009/01/09/nins-newest-game-changer-hd-concert-footage-via-bittorrent/ They packaged everything it would seem in a zip/tar and included a README files, some further notes about the footage, which was conveniently formatted for easy editing and even a Final Cut Pro sequences with the footage pre-organized for editing. Distribution was of course done on Bit Torrent using there own Tracker. Some thoughts I wonder how long it took to actually build the zip files and upload them? We were considering MXF - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MXF but it looks difficult and time consuming to build, however the BBC did help build it so we could get help. Matroska, Nut and QuickTime are also look worthy. Distribution wise, Bit Torrent, P2Pnext, Edonkey2k, Usenet, Archive.org, Blip.tv, rapidshare (joking!) who knows, but YouTube isn't going to cut it. What do you guys think? Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [x] private; [] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)2080083965 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
Say, we had a ton of media assets from a BBC programme which we owned all the rights to and wanted to distribute widely. Not just video, but images, sound, subtitles, metadata about the programme scripts, etc. How would you 1. Package it? 2. Distribute it? 3. Licence it? (this isn't such a worry) Given the current state of play, there's two options. 1) HTTP host on bbc.co.uk somewhere. (Prepare for a bandwidth bill you can also use to prop your office door open with) 2) P2P with BitTorrent. If the licence permits, Archive.org is exceptionally feasible... I would choose the latter. Have some superseeds on the BBC network so that ISP's customers can use more lcoal peers... Package up a selection of various torrents with combinations of files. Avoid MXF like the plague, even if the corp did have a hand in its inception. At the moment there seem to be so many incompatible variants that it's pointless. Also if you're going to be distributing direct to joe public some kind of intermediary format like MXF is just asking for trouble. Keep It Simple Stupid. Of course, if you want to offer an expert-mode torrent which has all the various metadata files as well, go for it. :) ZIPs I find somewhat pointless unless they're collecting a group of relevant and related files; BitTorrent has its own CRC and error checking built in to the protocol, no need to zip up files and then torrent the zip, just torrent the files direct (like NIN did). Various user advantages to that approach. Licensing... CC non commercial attribute sharealike would work wouldn't it? Finally, what's the subject matter of the content? ;) - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
2009/1/19 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk: Say, we had a ton of media assets from a BBC programme which we owned all the rights to and wanted to distribute widely. Not just video, but images, sound, subtitles, metadata about the programme scripts, etc. A ton? Assuming you mean metric tonne (1000kg) and you are using Seagate 1.5TB disks[0] that would be over 2 Peta Bytes of data. :D How would you 1. Package it? Something Open and Standardised obviously. If you just want to get the files to someone's machine then tar should be fine. Compression can be done with Gzip or Bzip but Media files don't compress very well! If you intend to update the files maybe some kind of Rsync or CVS, SVN (but these work best with isolated changes to the files). 2. Distribute it? Almost certainly BitTorrent. Works on any platform. 3. Licence it? (this isn't such a worry) Public Domain or something like CC-by-SA or GFDL (GPL for software). I wonder how long it took to actually build the zip files and upload them? Depends on what kind of compression is used. Tar uses no compression (unless you Bzip or Gzip it) so should go about as fast as your Hard Drive can manage. If you really want to compress and you are worried about time, run command before you leave work, it should be done by the next morning easily. We were considering MXF - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MXF but it looks difficult and time consuming to build, however the BBC did help build it so we could get help. Matroska, Nut and QuickTime are also look worthy. Never heard of it. You have to pay to rent the standard (the EULA is very clear about it being leased not sold). Also have to surrrender rights to an unamed Arbitrator and submit to sole US jurisdiction. Not going to do that so I can't read the standard so can't say how good it is. It certainly has a lot more hoops to jump through just to read the thing. I can read RFCs so much easier (if it's not very knew I have it on my HD, ah bulk download). Distribution wise, Bit Torrent, P2Pnext, Edonkey2k, Usenet, Archive.org, Blip.tv, rapidshare (joking!) who knows, but YouTube isn't going to cut it. BitTorrent or Archive.org (preferably both). What do you guys think? Are you sure you want to know what I think about? ;) Andy [0] http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/ds_barracuda_7200_11.pdf -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
Were we reading from the same crib sheet Andy? ;) - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
Hey, BitTorrent would be the way forward considering all the arguments the ISPs would kick up if you tried to unicast it from BBC servers - like when iPlayer traffic started up I guess. It being legit content, might open up more to the idea of BitTorrent distribution? ZIPping large video content is a large negative - just wastes time. Processing power to even lightly try and compress already compressed files as you know is silly, and takes a long time and a lot of PC churning. If it's uncompressed however, compress away. But then we're talking niche... anyway - yeh as mentioned in a previous reply, TARring together some bits and pieces is efficient, compressing isn't. I guess if it was to be rolled out conventionally, partnering with someone that has a huge edge network - Google, Akamai, etc... would do the trick nicely. Or BitTorrent with content edge pushed to the ISPs. Packaging should be done in a viable format - as in useable... or popular, that's the right word? Some would say use the most free, some would say use the most popular - is there one that fits into both categories? Of course we can do subtitles on WMV, but that's locking in somewhat - but packaging the subtitle file then causes audience to narrow to those that know how to use it. What's the audience? If it's technical or editing people, then use some open, good quality format that can convert to many others. Then package the subtitles in a nice non-cryptic standard - you could have an XML base for the metadata. Is there any meta format that the big editing suites share? Preferably an XML style one - so the small guys can compete too and still use the information. Just throwing some ideas around... :) --Matt On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Christopher Woods chris...@infinitus.co.uk wrote: Were we reading from the same crib sheet Andy? ;) - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
2009/1/19 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk: 1. Package it? File formats: Packaging: None. Direct files on... 2. Distribute it? BitTorrent clients are now wide spread enough for a mass market audience. But I would sadly still expect that even in 2009 a BBC programme which we owned all the rights to means some minor specialist audience, so that isn't a bonus. And if you are dealing with a lot of files (405 Gig of Live HD footage online the other day could be a lot of files, but since its HD video, it is probably some very large files...) which I suppose is the case when dealing with an ongoing series, rather than a one off programme, as you mention, then BitTorrent on its own is a bit sparse. You'd want keyword searching, content recommendations based on collaborative filtering, donation of upload capacity to spike recommendations to friends also on the tracker, that kind of thing. So, good thing the BBC has been paying for the development of Tribler already, then. 3. Licence it? (this isn't such a worry) I cuss the non-commercial restrictions. They packaged everything it would seem in a zip/tar Pointless. and included a README files, some further notes about the footage, +1 conveniently formatted for easy editing Please support free formats. and even a Final Cut Pro sequences with the footage pre-organized for editing. Shame on them for supporting Apple. Doing that for Cinelerra/etc and including a copy, would be good though. I wonder how long it took to actually build the zip files and upload them? Upload them means what for BitTorrent? We were considering MXF It looks proprietary to me, so that was a mistake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MXF but it looks difficult and time consuming to build Oh good :-) however the BBC did help build it Did they ensure it was a free standard? Cheers, Dave - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
2009/1/19 Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com: 2009/1/19 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk: 1. Package it? File formats: File formats: Whatever is closest to original. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
2009/1/19 Matt Barber m...@progressive.org.uk: Packaging should be done in a viable format - as in useable... or popular, that's the right word? Some would say use the most free, some would say use the most popular - is there one that fits into both categories? The closest you're going to get is probably MPEG4, not entirely free due to Patents in some countries. Ogg Theora is more Free but less popular (although it can be played on most PC Platforms, but less popular on portable devices). Of course we can do subtitles on WMV, but that's locking in somewhat I think Ogg also does subtitles. What's the audience? If it's technical or editing people, then use some open, good quality format that can convert to many others. Then package the subtitles in a nice non-cryptic standard - you could have an XML base for the metadata. Is there any meta format that the big editing suites share? I'm not sure about the big editing studios but Wikipedia has a list of common subtitle formats[0]. MPlayer also has a list of formats it supports[1], VLC also has a list[2]. Andy [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtitle_(captioning)#For_software_video_players [1] http://www.mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/HTML/en/subosd.html [2] http://www.videolan.org/vlc/features.html -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
+1 BitTorrent +1 MP4 - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
