|From:||John Greaves <email@example.com>|
|Sent time:||Wednesday, November 02, 2011 9:17:17 AM|
|Subject:||Re: [GlobalRevolutionMedia] Fw: server/budget|
Just putting adding a suggestion that might work in addition to the
ideas you had. What about creating bittorrents and having the people of
the movement help by seeding. This would be more about distribution than
archiving as torrents can die, but there would be much less bandwidth
strain on servers. We could host a small site that only distributes the
small torrent files.
I'm not sure if this helps a lot but it was a thought.
On 11/2/11 10:56 AM, nat wrote:
> I have been thinking a lot about the server situation and what to do
> with the huge amounts of video that we are generating out of this
> As far as hosting, there is the standing offer of free hosting for any
> occupy project from Mayfirst/ People Link (which I'm part
> of). Whatever we choose to do, that is an option that should be
> considered if we are discussing options like Dreamhost.
> More generally, I've been thinking the real archive should be left
> with archivists; in this case archive.org. There are a number of
> really good reasons to go with the Internet Archive (IA):
> * They've been around and functioning since the 1990s.
> * They encourage people to upload the highest quality video that they
> have and the archive will convert it to other video formats.
> * They know how to handle petabytes of data.
> * They encourage distribution under Creative Commons Licenses.
> Those that have used archive.org, may agree that the site is a bit
> hard to use and navigate. This is why I think we should build our own
> front end to the IA, as a way of occupy participants to search and
> submit audio and video content. There are projects that do this sort
> of thing, notably ourmedia.org which uses archive.org as its storage
> back end.
> I have been informally discussing this idea with techs at other
> occupations in Seattle, Boston, as well as folks local to New
> York. The idea is to have a single point of entry for everything from
> raw footage (that can be watched or reused), to completed pieces.
> There hasn't been any work on this yet, though Seattle may already be
> experimenting with it. I just wanted to throw it out on the list as an
> option, and get some response on what media folks think.
> I like this idea because it provides the chance to collaborate with
> the Internet group, the FLO group as well as a joint project between
> media makers and techs at all of the occupations.
> So what say you?
Partner - Creative Technical Development
Three Knights Media LLC
316 East 49 St.
New York, NY 10017
|< PREV||INDEX||SEARCH||NEXT >|