I like the very end of part 2, (http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/290734-2) where Michael talks about the "Guide to putting TV on JTV" that was introduced into the record. He was all: "If you used this guide, you would not be streaming TV. This is totally for people trying to stream XBox and PS3 games"

But if the instructions are geared to forking the console-to-TV output, wouldn't those instructions work perfectly to fork the cable-box-to-TV output as well?

EDIT: The page referred to seems to be http://www.justin.tv/p/video_games (since renamed to "Broadcasting video games") and indeed seems to be cast in terms of video game broadcast, but afaict the instructions would work just fine for broadcast content as well.

Michael Seibel starts at about 21:00 and gets a very nice introduction for how much everyone else seems to want his blood.

From the chair, welcoming Michael: "an amazing young man...we recognize his talent"

Michael then does an excellent job outlining the company and, most importantly, the purpose and vision behind the Justin.tv product.

He really does a great job, though the captioners got his title wrong (he's the CEO). I skimmed through and watched for when Michael comes back again at the end. By this time, his facial expressions show that he also knows he is kicking ass. The person on the House panel makes it clear that they aren't going to take any action immediately as long as Michael is willing to work with them to prevent piracy, to which he readily agrees.

It is painful to watch this. There's a HUGE opportunity for these companies to provide live sports content in a simple and unrestricted (i.e. not locked-in to a particular ISP in the case of ESPN 360) way on the web and these companies are blowing it.

I'll pay for ESPN 360 if they let me. I already pay for the college sport package on sat but I have to get off the computer to watch. Just let me subscribe ESPN, please.

As a side note, live broadcasting has a huge advantage over recorded tv. Ads can't be removed. Just put the feeds up for free and make your advertisers pay more.

Like all big companies... they refuse to innovate. It is such a shame. Partner with Justin.tv Don't take them to Congress!

Something about watching Justin.tv on CSPAN doesn't feel right.

The last guy had to bring up 3-strikes laws. Sorry but that idea is as bad as the DMCA at protecting both copyright owners and customers.

Internet is fast becoming a necessity for most people. Cutting off a family for one kid's actions is not the way to go. Or a whole coffee shop as another example.

Is it true that Justin.tv has a legal incentive not to actively look for and remove pirated content?

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=997115

The way the DMCA is currently commonly interpreted, as soon as JTV makes its own decisions on what content can be on the site, it loses DMCA safe harbor provisions.

Unless that editorial control is 100% accurate and 100% effective, any error whatsoever will make JTV liable for damages.

How did such a law get passed?

Same way as all the other terrible laws that get passed.

Dammit. Off by one.

First 7 digit palindrome, if that helps ease your pain.

The DMCA was created over a decade ago. Back then, the concept of streaming, let alone live video, was pretty much nonexistent.

It was signed into law by the same guy as the Defense of Marriage Act.

lobbyists

Sure, Michael says this during his testimony when talking about the DMCA.

Amusing comment from a congressman at 76:25...