|From:||David Stam <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Sent time:||Wednesday, November 02, 2011 11:14:56 AM|
|Subject:||Re: [GlobalRevolutionMedia] Fw: server/budget|
I agree. http://archive.org is definitely the way to go.
It's free. It's unlimited. Super reliable. Only requirement is that it be content that is Creative Commons licensed.
If anyone needs super fast upload or download, we have 35 Mbps up as well as down. Standing offer for anyone to use it (call before coming).
OnlyOneTV | global television network
646-580-0022On Nov 2, 2011 10:56 AM, "nat" <email@example.com> 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
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?
|< PREV||INDEX||SEARCH||NEXT >|