Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

13

You need to understand that in order for the human user to view the content, the browser (or some other software) need to download it. And when the content has been downloaded to the user's computer, you no longer control the access to it. So-called "streaming" is just a download-mode where the standard viewer is programmed to automatically delete the ...


4

What is the best format to save these videos in? YouTube and Vimeo both currently recommend H264 (MPEG-4 AVC) video compression and AAC audio at 24, 25, or 30fps. You can find compression how-tos from YouTube and from Vimeo. If you are planning to serve the video yourself (instead of from a third-party service such as YouTube), you will likely have to ...


3

The only option I know that is resistant to header snooping (DownloadHelper, Live HTTP headers, etc) is by using RTMP streams, which is a true stream rather then a play-as-you-download stream. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Time_Messaging_Protocol I don't have any experience in deploying rtmp myself, but I know there are multiple solutions out there for ...


3

If you're looking for absolute security, then no. Everything that can be seen can be downloaded. You can just make it harder. Screengrabbing will always work.


2

The codec you choose should not be a problem at all regarding web streaming, just use whatever format suits you for storing backup, high-quality copies of your videos. When you upload them to services like Youtube or Vimeo, they are converted to a format that is compatible with most browsers anyway. You should definitely use a third party service if you do ...


2

If the music is protected by copyright, then you need to get permission from the owners to use it, whether you are streaming it or hosting it for download. If you don't, then you are violating someone's copyright. (A lot of those sites are semi-legal). Disclaimer: I am not a layer, but keep in mind that, with something like copyright, it is better to seek ...


2

It really depends on what you're doing with video as to which choice you make, you may need to use both technologies to make the most efficient use of your bandwidth and streamline user experience. e.g. streaming may be more appropriate for longer videos, progressive for shorter ones. The main advantage of progressive is that you only need a conventional ...


2

A better way would be to stream to a web server which then streams it to everyone. You can then use any home connection and have a wide variety of web hosts available.


1

As James mentionned, one of the most important thing thing is to see how fast they can answer you, and how accurate are their answer, my personnal method is to write to the support/tech department a question about sales, do not write to sales directly! That way you will have your answer, you will see how fast they can transfer you if you are in the wrong ...


1

Some good choices would be: UStream Justin.tv That said, I have never used either of these, but I've heard really good things about UStream and I can confirm that you can embed the players on your site.


1

Apache out of the box Apache2 does not support streaming out of the box however nowadays most browsers do, that means if you have correctly setup your MIME applications browsers will decide what course of action to take based on MIME type. That means things like Mp4 will work using a compatible codec installed on the users machine, often things like VLC can ...


1

If you host videos on on a server, there is no way you can stream those videos from that server without using the bandwidth of that server. However, here are some way that you can try to reduce the bandwidth utilisation: Cache the streamed portions of the video on the client browser. This way, the receiver can replay it without streaming it again, and ...


1

Watermark it. There is no way to stop someone from saving locally anything they see because once it is seen, it is on their machine, even if not all at once. The best way to protect your content is to transform it into an advertisement for your site. A number of sites do this and every few seconds you see scrolling text that says Video produced by ...


1

It very well may be a problem on both sides but downloading a large file over a slow connection (which is what a straight link is) can result in a timeout from either side. You say above that it's not a streaming issue but you aren't actually streaming anything at this point. I can think of two things that might help. The first (and most likely best) ...


1

Not if someone really wants the content, no. But to defeat casual users, you can try the following: host your video on amazon s3 + cloudfront use signed urls so the url can only be requested from a certain ip for a certain amount of time keep the signed url generating page (say php) behind a login, and only let them login from a certain number of ip ...


1

Host your videos on Rackspace or AWS (both of them provide streaming links). Share this content on your site using a HTML based player like videojs.com


1

In the US, there are statutory licenses that enable people who are doing broadcasting or streaming, to pay a flat fee for all the music they play. This is so they can avoid individual agreements with the thousands of musical artists they might want to air or stream. The Library of Congress set the minimum rate, under law, that you have to pay in the US for a ...


1

It somewhat depends on how "new" the music is we're talking about. You can legally license music through agencies such as BMI, ASCAP, and HFA. That's one way to doing it without going directly to the artist. Another is working with the labels. Quite a few of the legit music streaming sites over the years have actually been created by the labels in order to ...


1

What about oculu.com on the cheap side or brightcove.com on the high side?


1

As DennisJaamann suggested; http://www.wowza.com/forums/content.php?3-quick-start-guide. Basically - recorded video content needs to be uploaded to your server, FTP or SCP should do the job nicely. If you are streaming live - then you will require a live encoder. If your On-Demand content is not encoded using the h264 codec, then you will also require an ...


1

It depends on what you would like to stress? Some examples we like to use (that are specific to Webmasters, as opposed to the kind of solutions you would find on ServerFault, where the question is also posted) are: stability under truly random RED conditions, consider everyone else's Internet is broken and dropping packets concurrent users behind ...


1

I'm afraid this is not a question easily answered. I would seriously think about talking to some CDN service (like Akamai). They usually have good solutions to streaming live TV to larger audiences, but that will come with a price. Another client of mine was streaming a very low quality TV stream at 320kbps for approx. 200-500 (peak) viewers and even with a ...


1

720p H.264 video is usually between 4Mbps to 15Mbps. iTunes's 720p videos are just over 4Mbps. Whether you want to host the channel yourself or have someone else host it depends on a few factors. Are you streaming live video? What kind of bandwidth does the company have? What's the userbase like? Is 1000 the peak concurrent user count or the average or the ...


1

You fail to let us know the speed of their fiber-optic line - however Hosting elsewhere while it has a cost - would yield a better result if they do not have enough bandwidth. Let's say there are 1000 people watching a full HD signal. A 1080HD signal via Roku can take up to 8mbps - so using that as a standard - let's say it was 8000mbps 1024mbps is a ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible