The gist of it is the hosts we currently allow provide iframes so they can serve videos without Flash because they use HTML5 instead (except if the user's browser is incapable of using anything but Flash).

Traditionally (meaning before HTML5 became accepted enough to be a widespread alternative to Flash), hosts that required you to use an iframe were just using Flash or sometimes even JavaScript. The fact is some (or maybe most) such hosts are still using those old methods.

The bottom line is regardless of host, *any* arbitrary code could be inserted into an iframe, including ads or malicious code. It wouldn't need to be something executed by the host directly; some hackers could infiltrate their system and silently inject bad code into their iframes. This would compromise any visitor who sees such an iframe in their browser everywhere on the Web.

It's not much at all an issue of liability I'm concerned about. I just don't want to play any part in helping people get screwed by baddies.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
I don't really know of any hosts in particular, other than NPR I guess, that I'd want supported. Is the host required to have a Flash embed for it to work at all? I thought that for the few hosts you mentioned below were supported "Flash free".

I don't know the details of the security issues with iframes, but it seems that at worst VideoSift itself would be a conduit (or host) for malicious code - your own servers wouldn't be liable to attack from any embed, would they? In any case, it has to be something malicious used as an embed (knowingly or not), so at the very least, you probably want to limit iframe submission to, I don't know, silver stars and up?

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
The reason we've been so willing to accept the iframe hosts we accept now is they can readily be converted between iframe and Flash embeds given just a video ID.

We can consider accepting more iframes, maybe as part of VideoSift 5. Maybe make your recommendations there for new iframe hosts we should accept.

I, personally, am always hesitant to add iframes because they open a gateway onto videosift through which demons and goblins may spew forth.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Is there any chance of supporting more iframe hosts in the (near) future? I heard a great story about Igudesman & Joo tonight on NPR, and found a great video of them at the NPR studios performing, but it was iframe only (akaik).

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
There are more hosts than just YouTube that you can watch without Flash. In addition to YouTube and Vimeo, we support College Humor, Funny or Die, and Daily Motion.

I don't really know of any hosts in particular, other than NPR I guess, that I'd want supported. Is the host required to have a Flash embed for it to work at all? I thought that for the few hosts you mentioned below were supported "Flash free".

I don't know the details of the security issues with iframes, but it seems that at worst VideoSift itself would be a conduit (or host) for malicious code - your own servers wouldn't be liable to attack from any embed, would they? In any case, it has to be something malicious used as an embed (knowingly or not), so at the very least, you probably want to limit iframe submission to, I don't know, silver stars and up?

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
The reason we've been so willing to accept the iframe hosts we accept now is they can readily be converted between iframe and Flash embeds given just a video ID.

We can consider accepting more iframes, maybe as part of VideoSift 5. Maybe make your recommendations there for new iframe hosts we should accept.

I, personally, am always hesitant to add iframes because they open a gateway onto videosift through which demons and goblins may spew forth.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Is there any chance of supporting more iframe hosts in the (near) future? I heard a great story about Igudesman & Joo tonight on NPR, and found a great video of them at the NPR studios performing, but it was iframe only (akaik).

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
There are more hosts than just YouTube that you can watch without Flash. In addition to YouTube and Vimeo, we support College Humor, Funny or Die, and Daily Motion.

The reason we've been so willing to accept the iframe hosts we accept now is they can readily be converted between iframe and Flash embeds given just a video ID.

We can consider accepting more iframes, maybe as part of VideoSift 5. Maybe make your recommendations there for new iframe hosts we should accept.

I, personally, am always hesitant to add iframes because they open a gateway onto videosift through which demons and goblins may spew forth.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Is there any chance of supporting more iframe hosts in the (near) future? I heard a great story about Igudesman & Joo tonight on NPR, and found a great video of them at the NPR studios performing, but it was iframe only (akaik).

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
There are more hosts than just YouTube that you can watch without Flash. In addition to YouTube and Vimeo, we support College Humor, Funny or Die, and Daily Motion.

Is there any chance of supporting more iframe hosts in the (near) future? I heard a great story about Igudesman & Joo tonight on NPR, and found a great video of them at the NPR studios performing, but it was iframe only (akaik).

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
There are more hosts than just YouTube that you can watch without Flash. In addition to YouTube and Vimeo, we support College Humor, Funny or Die, and Daily Motion.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Wikileaks, Diplomacy, This, Guy' to 'Wikileaks, Diplomacy, This, Guy, Sergei Rachmaninoff' - edited by RedSky

>> ^RedSky:

One of my favourite classical pieces.


Mine as well. An absolutely brilliant composition.

It's way too complicated. It will never be popular..
>> ^mxxcon:

is this is like an old-school guitar-hero game? follow black and white dots..

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by evil_disco_man.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Rachmaninoff-Had-Big-Hands

>> ^Majortomyorke:
This woman must be Asian, it is impossible for any of the lesser races to have accomplished this =P


Undone only by average hand size - damn you Rachmaninoff!

It's good, no doubt. But Ralph Vaughan Williams' "Serenade to Music" is the one that always does me in. In fact, Rachmaninoff was at the premiere of that piece in 1938 and supposedly openly wept, he found it so beautiful.

thanks, the only version I'd seen before was a terrible VHS copy. extra credit for spelling his name correctly. or at least the name we call him with.

I just found this as well:

Elliott plays Rachmaninoff

>> ^rottenseed:
...sorry issy, those fella's that lives where my vagina should be said I'm not allowed to vote for this.


They that insecure?

That's patently moronic. A computer could reproduce pretty much any piano concerto with MIDI, too, does that mean it isn't impressive when someone sits down and bangs out a complex piece of Rachmaninoff? The whole point is that while that could have been sequenced, it wasn't - every individual sound you heard was triggered by a button being pressed at a precise moment. He played the drums, bass and guitar all separately. It was an insanely complex and demanding feat of musical prowess. Bow down.

Tags changed from "piano, rachmaninoff, recital, music" to "recital, cambry, moment musical no. 4" by gold star member looris.