Suport Oral Argument Video about juriscraper

[freelawbot]

All in all, this shouldn't be too terribly hard. The big problem though
will be finding CPUs to convert the video to reasonable formats. We might
want to use a distributed celery task server for that.

The other challenge is meta data on our final videos. For example, on audio
files we set a bunch of things into the mp3 headers including album art,
creator, length, etc. No idea how to do this with video.

The front end will need work, but that should be fairly obvious using the
toolkit we are using for audio.

The database layer may also need some work since we have classes for
"audio" but not "video". Or even for "audio-video" for that matter...
On Jan 26, 2015 4:35 PM, "Brian Carver" [email protected] wrote:

We've got oral argument audio and it's great. But it's already clear that
many courts are moving to video or started there to begin with. When you
look at the states, you'll find a lot of video. (See our wiki for a
preliminary list:
https://github.com/freelawproject/juriscraper/wiki/Court-Websites ) Also
of great interest is that the 9th Circuit which previously only did video
for en banc oral arguments has started providing video of most oral
arguments and appears to be moving towards having video of all oral
arguments. See http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/

I suppose the issue on juriscraper is resolved fairly easily as we're
already all set to download most any filetype and its associated metadata,
but it seems like some sort of filetype flag might be needed with options
"audio" "video" "opinion" "docket"
"whatever-else-we-decide-is-a-standalone-type". This same issue should be
filed on CourtListener, where integrating a video player would likely be a
larger project than any changes necessary to juriscraper.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#44.