> Content creators could create shows and make them available over a decentralized platform instantly – no need to go pitch a studio or try to get Netflix to put you on their system. No more gatekeepers that have to approve your content.
When you go to a network, or Amazon, or Netflix, part of what you get is distribution. But that's not what you go to them for. You go to them for MONEY, since producing high-end media content is expensive. And in exchange for their money, you agree to only distribute that content on their network.
But without the money to produce the content, the rest is meaningless.
I found them quiet enjoyable, like 'the guild', but a lot of people struggle with the idea of watching something so short. I had to twist arms to get people to watch it. once they did, they enjoyed it a lot, but were still unwilling to watch content of that length. unfortunately, I think short works much better for independent content producers.
I agree, that size video is great for independent producers. But there will always be demand for large spectacle productions, and for the foreseeable future, those will cost large amounts of money. Simpler distribution won't—can't—help with that.
Reminds me of the old Slashdot meme: 1) Blockchain 2) ??? 3) Profit!
I'm guessing Netflix will be fine, especially if the rumors of them being bought out by Apple are true.
It seems like people randomly generate an article title from buzzword soup, write it up and call it a day.
What a time to be alive.
It doesn't have blockchain to be precise, which won't hurt IMO because discovery becomes more problematic with time. But the rest of stuff is here.
Let me know if i am thinking of this right. i think we all could use a little more clarification on how this changes things over existing techs
There was a long discusion about what happens when blockchain contains some piece of information That Is Forbidden To Possess. You could probably claim you didn't have the intent. But with Pirate Blockchain you sure do.
This isn't bittorrent. It's not blockchain. It's kind of a weird hybrid of the two.
It's actually a really brilliant idea, if they pull it off correctly.
The article is completely written like shit, though.
Check out:
The distribution itself is not a problem the blockchain can solve or should solve it just adds an unnecessary cost on top of other method of distribution.
It breaks down 4 benefits:
Free up content creators. Sure, or they could, you know, throw it up on youtube, twitch, vimeo, or any other centralized app.
New channels. This is just shit writing. This is 90% the same thing as bullet 1.
Advertising and Free Content. Again, see all the other centralized apps. Also, there would 100% need to be a middle man. Thats what a decentralized block chain is. Hosting a blockchain has costs. Especially something as space consuming as video hosting.
Paid Content. Still a problem already solved by not being on a decentralized application. I can't wrap my head around why someone wouldn't just host their own content if they have anywhere near enough money to produce content good enough to charge for.
"Livepeer’s peer-to-peer network lets you stream what you want, when you want, without a single point of failure or censorship."
Yeah, that's just plain ol' P2P. Blockchain is distributing a public list of transactions via P2P. Livepeer is using a blockchain to record streaming transactions, and pay the node responsible for streaming.
