Networks and Studios Against PVRs 616
HiredMan sent in an LA Times story talking about more suits against PVR makers
like Replay and Tivo. The most bizarre quote to me is that the
suit argues that "it's illegal to let consumers record and store shows based on the genre, actors or other words in the program description." Huh?
A Wrench. (Score:5, Insightful)
afraid of technology (Score:2, Insightful)
Coming next (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright infringement (Score:3, Insightful)
True. They aren't going after all those who actually infringe copyrights, since that would number in the millions. Instead, they are going after the makers, for contributory copyright infringement, much like the way Napster was sued. Napster itself did not violate copyright, but its users did, and Napster provided a convenient way to do it.
In the case of PVR's, its a little different, since fair-use does allow for time shifting, IIRC. It's the sharing of the "perfect digital copies" that the industry fears.
They are suing device-makers as a preventive measure. Without these devices, many will go back to using VCR's to make imperfect copies.
Editing is illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)
What does editing commercials out have to do with copyright protection? I can understand having a problem with sharing movies but sharing TV shows that broadcast for free seems just a tad over the top.
Here, you can have this free product but you may not give it to others.
Cat
Middleman trying to protect his territory (Score:4, Insightful)
While some shows are network produced, a lot of the really good ones... and the ones I figure most frequently subjected to PVR treatment are syndicated.
Why try to figure out which channell Buffy is on if you can get a copy from your friend who Tivo'd it the night before?
The problem with PVR's and the technology they represent is the same problem the RIAA had with napster... In the long run, it eliminates the need for television networks and their web of promotion and advertising deals.
Show producers are already finding this out with DVD box sets. Hercules on DVD, anyone? I know that I'd rather pay a small fee (I think 29.95 is a bit much for most shows) and watch a good show without the commercials, ads, and random network noise like weather bulletins, scrollers, etc...
PVR's are going to make this happen, and are thusly under attack by the aging dinosaurs who are fighting for their survival.
I have some shocking news for the networks.... (Score:2, Insightful)
If I recieve a magazine, I don't have to read it, I don't have to look at the ads. THey are there and I can look at them if I choose.
Commercials insult my intelligence every time I look at them. I do accidentally catch a couple, and maybe I wouldn't be so quick to flip away if the world's largest PC manufacturer could come up with something less irritating than "Yer gettin a Dell, dude."
Re:A Wrench. (Score:5, Insightful)
TV remote control has already eroded ad viewing already. Where's the suit to ban remotes?
And while we're on the topic, we need toilets that have lids that lock during commercials and refridgerators with auto-locking doors. Better yet, let's install seat belts on couches and lazboys and require all viewers be belted in before viewing. Belts will automatically lock during commercial breaks for optimum viewing convenience.
The reality of it all is that it's time for the advertiser to evolve. Rather than fighting intuitive behavior, those that want to survive will focus on better product integration in the programs and blur the advertising boundries from where we're at today. Heck, we might even Wouldn't a Whopper be good right now? see comperable use on
*scoove*
It's all about the Benjamins (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a fundamental precept of Capitalism. Party A has money, Party B wants money. Thus, Party B gets Party A's money in any way possible.
I really think that this belongs in the "It's Funny, Laugh" category, because a lot of those quotes truly are funny. Expect 95% of these to be thrown out of court, with the other 5% being dismissed later. This is really a non-event.
If they made good ads, this wouldnt be a problem. (Score:1, Insightful)
Will they make a law that once you start watching a show, you can't turn the station when an advertisement comes on? C'mon this is silly.
The ONLY ads people watch on TV these days are the ones on during the superbowl. Everyone just changes the channel to avoid commercials.
Networks have no basis to claim they are losing advertising money to DVRS because even without DVRs no one watches them to begin with we just change the channel .
Silly.
They are scared...... (Score:2, Insightful)
So the problem the networks have is they end up basically showing programs for free, so advertisers are probably applying pressure (ie threatening to pull sponsership) unless the networks fix the situation (ie sue PVR companies into the ground).
Personally, if it becomes illegal to use a TiVo or TiVo gets shutdown, I will stop watching TV, heck I have already stopped going to the movies (boycotting the MPAA) and I don't buy any music (boycotting the RIAA) might as well stop watching TV and just read.
Re:A Wrench. (Score:5, Insightful)
let the corporations earn their living, not have it fed to them on a plate.
About my meta-information, then... (Score:3, Insightful)
"It's illegal to let companies record and store people's profiles based on the location, income or other words in their profile."
My goodness, we could eliminate demographics entirely!
Commercials (Score:3, Insightful)
So, here's my prediction (guess I shouldn't be handing them ideas, but someone's bound to come up with it someday anyway, or probably someone has already):
In the future, we will have TV shows where you are forced to watch commercials. Something like: to view the second segment of "Friends", you have to enter the code flashing on the screen during the Pepsi ad that was aired after segment 1.
This should be perfectly feasible (technically), especially once everyone has a PVR.
I guess I should patent this idea...
Re:Explaining the bizzare "illegal" quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wong, but last time I checked, "markets" were not constitutionally protected, and neither were coporate profits or business models. (unless, of course, the business model is patented)
They're trying to protect their business model through litigation, because embracing new technology is more expensive than lawyers.
Maybe they'll all be hit with frivolous lawsuit countersuits. Here's hoping, anyway.
--Bob
Re:A Wrench. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ooh, here's an idea: targetted recording of the commercials. Suppose I decide I want to see what's out there for, say, washing machines... what is stopping me from telling my TiVo to record all commercials about washing machines as well as any shows about them? Well, besides lack of a TiVo? The lack of the advertisers telling the machine. Now this is minor, from the advertisers point of view, but to the potential buyer it's a big deal. And it's -- get this -- OPT IN. Real opt in, not DMA fake opt-in.
Now I've done the work for them by targetting their ads towards me, but on my terms. Maybe the next week I'll want to know about fridges. And the week after that watch beer commercials (gotta stock the fridge, after all).
VHS is _more_ of a threat to DVD purchase! (Score:2, Insightful)
Nuisance suit (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, if there is a show I want to watch, I let tivo record it and watch it later as commercials are just too annoying (one of the worst offenders is TNN which turns a 1:45 movie into 3 hours. Who the hell is willing to put up with that?)
Tivo and friends are are pure time-shifting devices. The don't have the ability to save off to an archive except by playing the movie and recording it with a VCR. If you are going to do that, you might as well just have recorded the damn thing with a VCR to begin with.
If they really don't want people to record by name, actor, director, they also need to sue TV Guide, all the newspapers in the US, movie trivia sites, book authors and publishers, film / entertainment magazines, etc. who also publish this info.
Re:Explaining the bizzare "illegal" quote (Score:2, Insightful)
uh hi. (Score:0, Insightful)
Oh? That's not good enough? You don't like that you can't control the scheduling of the programming so that you can skip the ads, thereby avoiding compensating the TV providers the way they deserve to be? This isn't really an issue of fair use, because we all know that the actual money you pay to bring the content into your home does not alone pay for the content. Watching the ads (and the predetermined scheduling is important to the TV providers, as they map their ads according to time and demographic) is part of your payment- fair use does not permit you to skip the part of the payment that you dislike.
more choices and central control (Score:2, Insightful)
As long as these companies continue to make devices that connect to central servers and require the company to be involved in my life beyond the purchase, then the devices will continue to be fundamentally flawed in my view and I will have trouble defending them against even these frivilous law suites.
Computers should empower people not subjugate them.
Re:"Value added what?" (Score:2, Insightful)
Copyright on commercials (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting phrasing here. It seems to imply that recording the entire thing with commercials is OK, but skipping commercials violates copyright.
That in turn would mean that it's not just the show - it's the entire presentation of the show, with each specific commercial at that point, that is the entire "show". I think Domino's would be rather surprised, though, to find their copyright was swallowed up by Ally McBeal's production company.
One also has to wonder if this means that when a local tv station (Hi, Global!) replaces the national ads with their own, are they committing copyright infringement by making a derivative work?
(yes, I know it's taking it to an absurd conclusion)
Re:A Wrench. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure I would define this as a consequence of being greedy (although I'm sure they are). Their problem is that the primary source of revenue is being threatened. It's not just a matter of making a little less money. It's more like making a whole lot less money if PVRs become as popular as VCRs.
I think somebody mentioned down below that these corporations need to evolve. It's time to find other sources of revenue. If their only salable "product" is airtime for advertisements, they're in real trouble. Every business that I know that stuck with a single product has gone down the tubes.
I think you would see a lot less concern over this kind of thing if someone could come up with a really good suggestion on how they can stay in business. As you might guess, charging the cable/sat providers isn't going to cut it. That cost will only be passed to consumers who are not willing to pay.
Re:Copyright infringement (Score:1, Insightful)
Here's what I think the Hollywood Mafia (aka. "The Entertainment Industry") is really after: They are trying to shake down the hardware manufacturers so that for every recording device sold, they get a cut.
Media companies don't care about you... (Score:2, Insightful)
"What difference does it make how I do it?" Wood said. "The dilemma is, the technology is turning the business model upside down. But that doesn't mean it's copyright infringement."
The media companies only care about forcing you to watch what they want, when they want, how they want. Just as with aural media companies and MP3s, the visual media companies are missing the boat. They're too locked into the current business model to want to change.
The record companies blew it with MP3s. Most people I know used Napster/Morpheus/Bear Share to find music that they either couldn't get in their own contry, or were previously unaware of (found through a keyword search). This, in turn, would lead to more music sales. The record companies panicked. They got scared and attempted to close off what could have been a promising new business channel.
Now it's the turn of the tv/film studios to resist change. I have a TiVo. I love my TiVo. When a friend sees a cool show, he tells me about it, and I tell my TiVo to look for the repeat. This is convenient for me, and what the studios are missing is that I JUST WATCHED MORE TV THAN I NORMALLY WOULD HAVE. Isn't that what they want as an end result? You'd think so.
There is no such thing as new media, only new ways to consume it. Apparently, we're not allowed to choose how we do it...
A Wrench, a wrench, my kingdom for a wrench! (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, you make that sound like a bad thing. Yes (to paraphrase the article) technology is disrupting existing business models. And it will continue to do so. Fighting the battle in court will not work, the genie is out of the bottle.
They make their money from ads, and the more people sitting through those ads, the more money they make. Well, what happens when advertising firms start paying channels less because there are less people actually viewing the show than recording it?
Obviously, the business model changes. Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, a sponsor (let's say "Geritol") would pay for the entire show (let's say a game show), and theirs would be the only ads you'd see - some done by the show's host him/herself. In fact they might have a great big "Geritol" sign right on the set!
When the number of commercial skippers hits critical you can expect to see lots more product placement as part of the show's content rather than as a stand-alone commercial - say, the Friends folks go to Hooters for a bite, and listen patiently while the buxom hostess describes the latest specials.
I don't know how that's going to work for something like Star Trek (maybe the captain insists that only genuine Mopar parts be used in the warp engines, I'm sure more creative people than I can come up with better ides)...
More likely it'll be something like TNN is doing now: dedicate screen space to ads. Still part of the "content", but doesn't interact with the story. Scroll away!
Its not about the commercials (Score:3, Insightful)
What they're more worried about is the fact that you can record and store digital quality shows and movies. That means, that they think they will lose revenue from all the folks who would normally buy the Simpson's DVD, but instead catalog all the episodes on a hard drive somewhere.
What they don't realize is that people are not likely to do this nearly as much as they think. Movies often come out on DVD before they come out on pay TV, I believe that the benefits of the DVD far outweight the value of taking the movie from HBO and storing it somwhere on a disk. I also believe that most people who would buy a Simpsons DVD set would still buy one, owing to the fact that syndicated episodes are cut for time. In short, people who normally would buy these DVDs would still do so, regardless of TiVo.
Yes, these lawsuits are useless, and generally a waste of time. But ever since the beginning of time, the industry has been unable to keep up with technology - and running to the courts has always been the great equalizer.
Re:Lump It (Score:3, Insightful)
My Tivo's value is in the service, not in the device.
Re:Copyright infringement (Score:3, Insightful)
But let's face it, how much longer are people going to be willing to watch low quality, signal degraded crap? (oh yeah...Betamax died...maybe forever then...but I digress.) People want high quality video. Recording is irrelevant to the point that people want to watch higher quality stuff. The home audio recording act (time-shifting) doesn't say that you can only time-shift your stuff if the quality is crap. Your right to time-shift applies equally well to high-quality video.
Why don't they just send us one pixel and one bit audio? Nobody will want to record it, and nobody will want to watch it...
--Bob
Re:A Wrench. (Score:4, Insightful)
And we, the viewers, have no right to free television. If the business model breaks down, the corporations aren't the only ones who take a hit. If ad revenue decays, networks will have to cut expenses, and the first thing to go will be some of the non-mainstream (including sci-fi and geeky markets) and expensive-to-produce (SFX, CGI, and quality production values) shows. Instead, you'll see cheap reality TV crap and other things that can be done on a shoe-string budget.
Thoughts for TV execs to ponder (Score:2, Insightful)
-- A video capture card + a PC + software = a PVR. This has already been done, though primitively. You can outlaw anything you want, but you can't stop everyone (and it only takes one) from capturing NTSC/PAL content.
-- PVR users aren't generally intellectual property Robin Hoods intent on stealing from you. They just want to watch TV, and help build mindshare for your programs. If you push them underground, though, expect to see commercial free versions of your programs on P2P networks.
-- Your copy protected HDTV, D-VHS, "rights managed" media, etc. will fail in the marketplace. Should you purchase legislation to mandate them, people will simply turn elsewhere for entertainment.
Re:Commercials (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, doesn't the fact that they cut portions of the show to add room for new commercials mean they have already violated the copyright of the original show producers/owners, then...
Commercials Will Not Go Away (Score:2, Insightful)
It already takes place to a large extent (watch the 'entertainment' shows- they are infomercials for the entertainment industry)
This type of advertising is much more subtle and probably more effective anyway.
.
Advertising - not dead yet. (Score:3, Insightful)
I for one don't think that a commercial-free future in which all TV either costs money (via pay-per-view, channel subscription, and show subscription) or is publicly/privately supported is such a bad thing. There's the obvious lack of commercials (yay). The direct relationship between content producer and consumer will allow more flexible dynamics of how much money will go into making a show or channel, and how much it will cost, even more flexible than theatrical films. Consumers will be much more picky about how much they're willing to spend and where they do, forcing quality to rise and less shows to be made. If channel subscription models prevail, a relative few networks will dominate with exclusive, tailored content, and syndication will boom amongst the players to reach as wide an audience as possible with lesser shows. Show formats, freed from the restraints of commercial breaks and standard lengths, will diverge. The big media players will force expensive package deals on the consumer rather than cheap individual channels... oh wait. They already do that.
Instead of suing them (Score:2, Insightful)
The only way to protect their copyrighted material is to implant chips into the viewers brain, and nobody wants that. If you give people a convenient and fair way to pay for the things they like, you just might make some money, but if your only goal is to suck every possible cent out of them with low grade cheap entertainment people will always find other ways to get what they want.
Re:A Wrench. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Explaining the bizzare "illegal" quote (Score:3, Insightful)
The argument they give here has absolutely no merit, as it is still possible, without a PVR, to look at the local listings and program your VCR to tape all of them for you. Better still, you can just make sure you're home to watch them live. There's nothing stopping you from doing that...in fact, maybe they shouldn't show anything on TV, because if you see it for free on TV, you won't buy it when it comes out on video. What will they argue next? TV Guide shouldn't be published, because then you'll know the shows are on, then you'll watch them, which will "cause substantial harm to the market" for the DVDs.
I'm interested to see what happens, but I have a hard time believing that the case won't be thrown out almost immediately.
Re:A Wrench. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A Wrench. (Score:2, Insightful)
They shouldn't fucking broadcast it!
-dbc
They really should worry about PVR's (Score:2, Insightful)
PVR's make it easier and more convenient. More people will skip the commercials. I think they really do have a reason to worry now. PVR's seem to modify the way that people watch TV in a way that the VCR's never have.
You can sit down for the evening and watch your programs 30 minutes delayed and easily skip through the commercials. With a VCR you had to wait until everything was finished recording before you watched it.
As these things become more common prices will drop and they will be connected to every TV in the house. It won't be long before you will be able to pick one up at WalMart for $100.
If this happens I wouldn't feel to secure if I made my living trying to get people to watch commercials.
Re:Scary but true (Score:2, Insightful)
Unlogic (Score:2, Insightful)
Virg
Re:Explaining the bizzare "illegal" quote (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A Wrench....or Xerox revisited (Score:4, Insightful)
I think somebody mentioned down below that these corporations need to evolve. It's time to find other sources of revenue. If their only salable "product" is airtime for advertisements, they're in real trouble. Every business that I know that stuck with a single product has gone down the tubes.
These are the same folks who anticipate using the free digital channels they were given to provide revenue by forgoing HDTV in many cases, and using the additional space for revenue data type services.
But the 'illegal' to copy using keywords like titles, authors... it sound more like a slap suit than copyright suit, and someone should slap back. I'd love to see them site case law on that one. It'd be like the publishers going back to the Supremes and asking to revisit the Xerox case because instead of copying a page at a copier, one can now use search engines by keyword to get that page you want for your book report or thesis and then print it on the printer. That's an exact analogy to the theory they're using.
I'd say if we ever go back to the stone age, it won't be through nuclear war as was once thought, but it'll be due to the RIAA, MPAA, Valenti (who's from that age anyway). This is all about control, and trying to get back what they lost in the Betamax case. They should get censured for filing a frivilous suit on that keyword thing, and then go from there. (standard IANAL disclaimer. I actually was prelaw, but decided early after meeting some real jerks, it wasn't for me. I see many are still practicing.)
The business model has changed, deal with it! (Score:2, Insightful)
That last line says it all. Much like the music industry, the business model is CHANGING. Instead of trying to compete head on to this change, the existing monopolies are reacting by suing their new competition out of existence. It's unfortunate that our legal system is helping them do that. It'd be nice to see free competition, instead of who ever is the biggest (old) company that's bought the most politicians wins.
PVR's have changed the way I watch TV. I'm actually watching MORE, because there's always something *I* like on. I find it very frustrating that the big monopolies are going to end up crushing this new way of watching TV (For now.. I"m sure they'll come up with their own after all the competition has been killed off by the lawyers).
Simply a market problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, so I'm supposed to care about harm to their markets? What's better.. the government is supposed to care?! This seems like a whine to me, rather than a legitimate grievance.
As Ian Clarke once said [paraphrasing].. "If you make money by selling water in the dessert, and it starts to rain... it's time to find some other way to make money."
Well folks.. it's started to rain, and the studios are turning to the government to supply the umbrellas.
Let them get wet, I say!
Re:Unlogic (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The airwaves are (should be) free. That means (theoretically) anyone can fire signals through the air. However, since that would make things really messy really fast, there's a licensing scheme to make the airwaves useable. Basically, if someone puts out a signal on the public spectrum, I can watch it (but not resell it or violate any copyrights on the material that the broadcaster might have).
2. Because of (1), I can BUILD my own TV (or in your example, my own car for a highway) to view the signals whipping through the air. And I can view it however I like, any color scheme, any time of the day, etc.
3. Also, because the airwaves are public property, the networks can't just start encrypting those publicly owned airwaves. It's like a private company fencing off a public park and charging admission to get in.
4. Because TV is a linear stream and there was no way to circumvent that linearity, commercials made sense. Interpose ads in the stream.
5. Because of the advent of TiVo, &c., the broadcast stream becomes non-linear, rendering the commercial model obsolete.
The correct response to this is NOT to sue the manufacturers of TiVO, &c., it's to change the business model of television. This is expensive, so they decide to sue these replayer manufacturers instead -- a stopgap solution at best. Broadcasters chose to get into this business and to use the commercial model for generating revenue. That's their problem. The onus is on them to revise their business models, not to sue those who found a way to legally circumvent their revenue stream.
Not willing to pay? (Score:2, Insightful)
As to charging the cable and satellite providers, well they already do. A couple of years back Disney/ABC got into a pissing contest with Time Warner (houston market at least). It seems Disney wanted Time Warner to carry Disney's answer to the Cartoon Network, and was withholding rights to the regular ABC programming as a bargaining chit. Both "channels" are considered "free (advertiser supported) TV". TW stopped carrying ABC for a brief period of time and all was eventually worked out, but somebody pays for it - and my basic cable bill keeps getting raised without any change in programming that I can see. So it looks like I'm paying with cash as well.
Personally, I think that going to Video On Demand is the answer the studios/networks need. Stop selling audiences to advertisers and start selling entertainment to audiences. Of course, if I pay a dollar (I figure that would be a good fee) for a forty minute (1 hour less commercials) program, then I should be able to record it and do anything else I like with it except those actions which would prevent the shows copyright holder from selling it to other people (like sharing it with 20 million close personal friends via a P2P networks)
Of course, this is a whole new business model for the studios and they just don't adapt well. Let's see, using my example, I'd pay fifty cents for an episode of Seinfeld - how many people would it take to get the 5 million per episode that Jerry turned down?
storage/quote (Score:2, Insightful)
"If a ReplayTV customer can simply type 'The X-Files'...and have every episode of 'The X-Files'...recorded in perfect digital form and organized, compiled and stored on the hard drive of his or her ReplayTV 4000 device, it will cause substantial harm to the market for prerecorded DVD, videocassette and other copies of those episodes and films,"
What drek! ok, the replaytv 4000 can hold up to 320 hours at it's worst quality. If you recorded at the best ratio, you'd get something like 55 hours. The X-files has (roughly)191 episodes. Anyone see a problem here? They're not going to be recording every episode at the best quality if they plan to record anything else and their life is going to be dedicated to saving to the external hard drive....
I'm sorry but I have better things to do with my time. My suggestion to the network exec is to price the x-file DVDs in a range where it's not worth the bother of saving them to external sources.
Plus the network exec never seems to mention my favorite part....being able to get that rare one that is never played except at late night or is never availible at the store. As a fan, I'm willing to fork over the dough to get a good, clean legal copy of the stuff I love (dvd/cd/whatever.) However, it's hard to see the harm when the man isn't releasing the goods any more.
Re:Explaining the bizzare "illegal" quote (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the first copyright laws came as a response to the invention of the first digital copying technology -- Movable type. Before movable type, there was no such thing as a professional writer. Writing was something that you did with pen and ink, and if you were very lucky, some scribe somewhere might painstakingly hand-copy your work, and a second copy would exist. The original purpose of copyright was censorship. In exchange for submitting to censorship by the crown, publishers were given a monopoly over printing. They had the right to seek out and destroy unlicensed printing presses and books. Only when copyright was on the verge of being abolished, due to publisher excesses, was it reinvented as an "author's benefit."
This isn't about our rights, it's about theirs. Fair use is a specific and limited exception to their right to control their copyrighted material; in a sense, it's a 'privilege' granted to us by the courts.
Absolutely wrong, and a dangerous meme. Fair use, far from being an arbitrarily created "privilege", is actually a consequence of the First Amendment. Remember that Exclusive Rights clause is part of the original Constitution. It authorizes Congress to grant speech monopolies. A copyright is really the right to exclude others from repeating or building upon your speech. One of the basic principles of law is that if a newly passed law conflicts with a previous law, then the new law supercedes the old. The First Amendment bans Congress from passing any laws abridging speech. After the passage of the Bill of Rights, the courts had to wrestle with the question of whether the First Amendment prohibition against speech control superceeded Congress' authority to grant copyrights. The doctrine of Fair Use was invented to save copyright in the face of the First Amendment. Fair use is an attempt to separate the commercial aspects of speech from the non-commercial aspects. Fair use was only codified into copyright law in 1976. It is not a "privilege" -- it is part of the First Amendment right of freedom of speech.
Another wrench (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would an advertiser spend huge sums to place an ad during the 20h00 run of a prime time show if people with PVRs are just as likely to watch an off-hours run of the same show? For example, UPN runs "Enterprise" as a prime time slot on Wednesday, and in a non-prime slot Sunday night. If an advertiser knows that people are just as likely to watch the Sunday transmission as the Wednesday, why would they pay the premium fees for the Wednesday prime time run?
PVRs also mean a lot of the "filler" shows that run before and after their big hits don't get any audience, because they aren't scheduled in the PVRs. Suddenly their advertising fees are tied to the popularity of a show, not the time slot, and that means they have to invest a lot more effort into producing something people want to see for it's own sake.
Given the quantity of drek on the airwaves, it's no wonder they're running scared. How dare the audience demand quality shows!
Re:A Wrench. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Explaining the bizzare "illegal" quote (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm an American living in Spain and I recently bought box sets of the first four "Friends" seasons on DVD to watch with my wife. They were just sitting there in the DVD section of a big department store here. (Subtitles and various soundtracks make DVDs perfect viewing for bilingual couples like us... and hell, let's watch tonight's episode in Polish!)
It seems that you can't get these box sets in the U.S., only here in Europe. You can, however, go to Amazon.co.uk and see that all of the seasons up to #8 are available (a little net research and I found out that season #9 is being aired now in the U.S. and that Rachael is pregnant. Oh no! I've been out of the country too long!).
Who knows if they'll ever sell these DVDs in the U.S. It basically seems that Warner Bros. is relying on country codes to keep U.S. viewers from getting all of the shows on DVD, thus forcing you to watch the repeats at 7 p.m. on channel 25 or whatever your local UHF/Cable licensee is... I guess they don't do that sort of thing here (cable not existing here in Spain) so they just sell the DVDs.
Random info: The weird thing about these box-set DVDs is that they are double-sided and only contain 3 episodes per side except for the last which contains 4 episodes on one side (for a total of 25 episodes per season). My best guess is that all the soundtracks and subtitles bloat the shows so they have to do this to fit it all in.
-Russ
Corporate welfare checks are distributed Fridays (Score:2, Insightful)
I actually think that the future of television could be a producer-delivery-storage system. Television studios produce shows, a delivery network delivers those shows to a PVR and the user gets them in their INBOX every week like a magazine. Essentially like a magazine. The money could be made by subscription, and a subscription ensures access to back issues, special commentary, a nice fanzine, no commercials, guarantee of quality and on-time delivery, special subscriber only shows. You know, perks for being a subscriber.
I see the major stumbling blocks, other than adoption, as the corporate need to not standardize the format and make stupid alliances with one company and not the other. It should be possible for any PVR to play in this arena. Also a central location to manage your accounts and collection would be cool to. Then they could move to making sure their shows would play on 3G devices.
People will no longer beholden to the dross that any single station presents. Content will solely be profitable if it is worthwhile content.
Ideas contained herein are released under a GPL license.
The future may be grim. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A Wrench. (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe I'll just not watch and recover that time in my life. In fact maybe a lot of people will... no matter what they try to convince you, Big Media absolutely depends on your watching. You, on the other hand, do not depend on them...
And that's what they fear.
Re:Explaining the bizzare "illegal" quote (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a stupid argument, anyways. I've got a ReplayTV 4000 which stores 80 hours at "standard"--which is good enough for time shifting, but the image is pretty grainy and not at all the quality of a DVD recording. If I wanted to store every episode of the X-Files on my ReplayTV, I could only store 20 episodes at high (near DVD) quality.
Which means for just $1,000 I have a piece of hardware which stores what I could buy for $99 at Amazon.com--rendering my ReplayTV unusable (as I'm using all my disk space to store 20 X-File episodes) in the process. How stupid is that?
Furthermore, the argument is incredibly dumb, given the fact that the studios refuse to sell me the damned DVDs of my favorite programs anyways! I love Stargate SG1--but can't they be bothered to release anything but the first season on disk (which I bought, dispite owning a ReplayTV)? Noooo....
Come on! I've got $400 burning a hole in my pocket, and the studios can't be bothered to put down the episodes to DVD for Region 1 (though the episodes for Seasons 2 through 4 are available for Region 2)...
The whole management process at these various entertainment companies stinks to high heaven. Using a lawsuit to protect a market they don't even want to sell into in the first place by making life more inconvenient for me is rediculous.