While they do show it live, it's in the middle of the workday, so almost everyone in the USA will have watched it delayed by many hours at "prime time", aka around 8pm local time in each zone.
That being said, I'm in the US and I heard boos on the delayed broadcast.
This would be much easier said than done, most video segments are served up by CDNs, so it would have to be done via processing on CDN edge nodes. Cloudflare might support something like this but most CDNs don't as far as I'm aware. Doing it server-side would kill CDN cache hit rates and massively increase cost.
You don't need to. During premium streams the clients are frequently rekeying. So you cancel the streamer's subscription and the stream soon stops. The streamer also loses the rest of the month's subscription and goes onto a blacklist. This is already a thing with, for example, Sky in the UK.
This works as long as each of these boxes connects directly to the streaming provider's servers. With pirate streams often there's a pirate streaming provider with a legitimate subscription, whose STB handles the rekeying, then the already-decoded AV stream is captured and redistributed. The end-users never actually stream from the streaming company, they stream from the pirate. That's often how sports are pirated, and your best bet is going to everyone's homes and checking that they're not watching your streams without a license.
Right? Each legitimate stream, including the pirate's, includes a unique ID. The content protection company subscribes to the pirate stream, gets the ID, and shuts down the pirate. This works today.
The problem that Sky has is that most premium sports content is available in other countries with less effective copy protection, so that's where the pirate streams originate, and Sky can't do anything about them.
You're right that none of this affects the end-users.
Sure, you can buy a box and inspect that stream, but if there's a multitude of pirate streams it's an eternal whack-a-mole game. You cancel one pirate's subscription, the streams redirect to another, in the meantime the first pirate somehow gets access to another legitimate stream and so on.
This also doesn't account for the fact that there might be another proxy pirate in the middle who would relay the stream without the ID to the box (this and the first pirate might as well be the same person). This way even if you have the box you cannot find out which subscriber specifically the stream originates from, as the ID is gone before the stream is sent to the box.
To be 100% sure nothing is pirated, the streaming provider would have to either MITM the traffic from the ISP to the end-user (not legally possible) or just plain old show up at a place of a non-subscriber and inspect the equipment (again legally questionable).
Playback is 100% handled by the device. The primary (and essentially only) benefit of H.264 is that almost every device in the entire world has an H.264 hardware decoder builtin to the chip, even extremely cheap devices.
AV1 hardware decoders are still rare so your device was probably resorting to software decoding, which is not ideal.
He's a director not a "in the trenches" researcher anymore. He's being paid for being a highly technical leader who enables and recruits researchers he employs to do great work, similar to Oppenheimer in a way.
On the other hand, I know someone from the UK who moved away and lived in places like Qatar and Oman for 20-30 years, keeping their UK citizenship and paying zero taxes to the UK (and extremely low taxes in the gulf countries).
Then they retired, returned to the UK, sent their kids to subsidized state universities (in the UK), receive free healthcare on the NHS, and receive state benefits for retirees.
They receive all of these state benefits and they paid almost no taxes to the UK government for most of their adult life. Is that fair?
If I don't do any of the dodgy parts of that story but move to another EU country with children they'll also get free school, Healthcare and so on. For this to be "fair" you'd need some global EU contribution scheme OR nobody can move.
it's not, but it's not the general case and also you realise this is the very opposite of the US: you get taxed when overseas (unless your a large corporation) and then get no benefits when returning because that would be communism.
That's a bit of an exaggeration, social security (state pension) and medicare (state healthcare for retirees) are not perfect but they're not terrible either.
If you were outside the U.S. for most of your working life, it’s unlikely you’d qualify for social security (requires 10 years of work paying into it).
> Unlike the UK, the US levies capital gains tax on proceeds from the sale of a main residence.
I understand why it can feel unfair but by definition this is not "double taxing". The gains on the house were not taxed by the UK which is why he had to pay US taxes.
That being said, I'm in the US and I heard boos on the delayed broadcast.
reply