It's Not TV, It's MythTV 437
ChipGuy writes "The New York Times looks at MythTV (an open source PVR technology), Bit Torrent and Videora and how they are disrupting the television business, especially the lucrative business of selling TV DVDs. Unlike the music industry, television folks are trying to get ahead of the curve and offer TV downloads in a legal and easy to use manner."
Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
TV is disrupting its own business! (Score:5, Insightful)
First Post. (Score:1, Insightful)
Argh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why don't they fucking sell their shit online in a convenient, reliable format? Or don't they want to learn from the music industry, instead ignoring the solutions and only imagining the problems?
And it could further endanger what for the past 50 years has been television's economic linchpin: the 30-second commercial.
That *particular* business model is dying, and legislation should not protect it, just as "horseless carriages" shouldn't be required to carry horse whips to keep horse whip manufacturers in business. Note I didn't say *advertizing* or commercialism is dying, because it isn't. Merchants have managed to get information about their products to people, and subsequently have them purchased, over the years and through changing technology. Tomorrow will be no different. It's just that the volume of revenue from "forced" advertising, supporting $1M/show paychecks for actors, might not still be there.
And what a tragedy that would be...
Somebody's getting the idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr. Poltrack of CBS said that according to his network's research, a large number of viewers would welcome the chance to pay $1 to watch each television show, if they could do it on their own schedule and with the ability to skip commercials. With commercials, they'd be willing to pay 50 cents. And because the average viewer sees only half of a show's episodes, he said, this on-demand viewing won't hurt the regular showing.
Hey, somebody's on the right track! I pay $1 for a commercial/DRM/BS-free copy of insert-name-of-TV-show-here and I can do what I want with it. $0.50 wouldn't be bad at all with commercials, either. If the quality didn't suck, and I could watch it an unlimited number of times, that'd be perfect. The only thing I wouldn't ask to be able to do would be to share it with the world, but I should be able to at least burn it to a CD/DVD and whatever else I should normally be able to do within fair use.
But will it ever happen?
Re:First Post. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The fact of the matter is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The fact of the matter is... (Score:3, Insightful)
TV Downloads official=Not free.
But if Offical downloads are fast and less obnoxious and easily available to everyone regardless of where in the world they live, then the TCD (Total cost of downloading) for Offical downloads approaches and perhaps even beats unoffical downloads.
At that point, the only people who will still download all their TV shows illegally are those who either can't afford the legal option or object to paying to watch TV that they want to see, for whatever twisted reasons they want to come up with.
encouraging (Score:1, Insightful)
If this is done right, and priced right then i can see it becoming a success - especially if you arent forced to wait a week for each episode to come out just so TV networks can show it first. ( laiden with ads ).
Of course since you are getting it direct from the supplier, theres no need for adverts in it either - so if they`re gone, then yes i can see this becoming successful.
Ofc they`re going to have to DRM , or otherwise watermark it in some way to slow down the spread of the files to p2p networks ( its impossible to stop it really ) but as long as its all done in a nice way - i cant imagine there being much of a problem in it being adopted readily
They'll never get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Region encoding sucks. Downloaded shows don't suffer from stupid region encoding. I see syndicated shows that also have DVD box sets, so where's the issue there? The DVDs still sell.
"from video-on-demand offerings that could let viewers order up an episode of "CSI" any time they like to a device that allows viewers who tune into the middle of a live TV broadcast to restart the program instantly"
Comcast has ads for that all over this area but I don't know of one single person that actually has the VOD feature available to them, and isn't it more costly as well? You have to have digital cable (iirc) which can run your cable bill well over $100/mo (more if you have a cable modem too) - that's a lot of dough.
Are the VOD shows commercial free, too? That would be nice to know..
Of course they're going to blame the PVR as well. There are a few things that media execs seem to overlook:
* People are SICK AND TIRED of advertising.
* People have busy schedules and would LIKE to watch TV shows, but cannot always watch them right when they're aired. Hence, the popularity of DVR units.
(I'm not even going to get into the "but you don't have a right to steal the content" crap, because I sure as hell don't think that downloading a TV show is "stealing content" when my Tivo does the exact same thing.)
And last but not least, the "Broadcast Flag" is going to be a total and complete failure.. just like the "V-Chip."
Re:The fact of the matter is... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the important point. Available to everyone in the world at the same time. If it's a choice between getting a TV show via BitTorrent now, or watching it on TV (or via a legal download service) next year, guess which one people are going to choose? I would be more than happy to pay directly for the TV shows I watch (very few at the moment) for the convenience watching them when I choose, for not being forced to watch adverts, and for the pleasure of knowing that the money was going to those who made TV shows I want to watch, and none of it was going to reality TV producers.
The phoney black-and-white issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, there's a much finer gradation in the real world. I have some music that I've found on the net (most of it in almost certain violation of copyright, but most of it music either not widely available, such as small-run remixes or out-of-print recordings), and I've watched some episodes of TV shows like the Simpsons that my dad's taped over the years. (Before I bought him a boxed set of a couple of seasons, that is.) Some of it's pretty ambiguous -- some laws are a hindrance to perfectly reasonable day-to-day actions, and the law is of necessity always playing catch-up. (And I wouldn't want it *not* to be playing catch-up; the alternative is far scarier.) For instance, I like to listen to old radio shows; many of them are now in the public domain, some of them are of ambiguous copyright, and usually listed (I think quite sincerely) on the websites of collectors with earnest invitations to report if a particular episode thought free and clear is not. I've never been able to work up much moral indignation with myself for listening to widely available audio material that I'd never otherwise encounter.
(And moderate, curious downloading, no matter what the copyright issues, seems qualitatively different to me than proudly downloading current popular music by the bucketload just to fill up Ye Olde iPodde, to "stick it to the Man" or whatever. High-end grocery stores I've been in don't mind customers sampling a grape or two; they know it increases sales either directly or through generated goodwill. That doesn't mean that carting out a case of oranges is the same thing. There are slipper slopes going both ways, I realize, but there are some slippery slopes worth venturing around the upper stretches of, or something.)
Appropriate moderation also applies to the whole concept of copyright. I'm not opposed to copyright (in fact, as societal constructs go, I think it's high on the Good list), but [even / especially] as a rabid free marketeer, I know that copyright is an extended rather than a natural right; the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, by contrast, are inalienable. Copyright is different -- it's a societal convention codified in law, to grant certain privileges (temporary monopoly) in exchange for certain later transfers (into the public domain). It shouldn't mean people can't remember and repeat lyrics, and (let me whack an obvious mole), it shouldn't mean that superficial cultural aspects like the words to Happy Birthday are forever off limits to TV characters. Copyright law is perhaps not as broken as patent law, but it needs some overhauling. Specifically, I'd like to see the temporary monopoly bit be clarified as applying specifically to wide-scale copying likely to affect commerical endeavors of the copyright holder. This still leaves messy edges, but ones I think easier to deal with the current system's mess.
With TV, back to the Simpsons box set: I'd not see much moral problem with anything I do (record, re-watch, commerical skip, dub with voices of my relatives, use as the inspiration for a novel) with television shows unless I've explicitly and with full knowledge promised not to do those things. But for certain shows (glad to see Northern Exposure's box sets, and Monk's) I'd *like* to get liner notes, extra features, snippets, outtakes, etc, and paying for them seems fair. [On the other hand, when DVDs are available from the library, is there moral harm in recording them for later watching, before handing them back to the library? For private, non-commerical use, is the maker actually likely to lose revenue fr
Re:The fact of the matter is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since this demographic cannot afford the legal option, they never were a possible customer.
Obviously, you can't claim a loss to someone who can't afford your product*, but I'm betting the distributors will anyway.
*That is unless it is an item that decreases the amount of items that can be sold to other customers. Since downloads are limitless, it applies here.
Re:They'll never get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Most VOD programs are simply small selections of a daily program. For instance, a 5 minute segment of The Daily Show is available on demand. Hardly ever did I see an entire episode of anything, except some Aqua Teen
Just after I pressed the play button, I was called away for a moment. I didn't worry about missing anything because I could always rewind it or restart, etc. After being gone for 15 minutes, I was sure that I had probably missed most (if not all) of the show. On the contrary, the show HAD NOT STARTED YET. There were 15 minutes of commericals before the start of the show. Luckily, I learned they were able to be bypassed by a quick fast forward, but 15 minutes of commercials -- come on!!! It makes me sick that my dad pays over $60/mo. to have 15 minutes of commercials shoved down his throat to watch a 10-15 minute short.
I predict that VOD will go the way of OS/2 if this is how most cable/dish companies do their business.
Re:Unfortunately (Score:3, Insightful)
I dunno, I'd call that affordable. That's probably a couple bucks an episode, max? And without commercials, and possibly with extra features (some of which people may not want, *shrug*).
Yeah that'll happen (Score:5, Insightful)
By downloading them off the net, I can get them now, without the sucky translation - but it's also illegal. It's lose-lose all the way. I have given up hope of enjoying the shows just like a normal viewer in the USA can, long ago. DRM is going to make us pay very thoroughly. And by paying I don't only mean money but also the freedom to choose content you want in a format you want.
Despite all this stuff like MythTV, thinks aren't exactly looking so bright on the consumer front.
Dumbass: (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Well, why *don't* they move into a new medium? Or are you saying they should have just stuck with OTA delivery, instead of cable and satellite? Or maybe VHS? Or perhaps film? Or maybe hand-drawn flipbooks? The internet and various media formats are just another delivery mechanism which they should be JUMPING at, AND making a lot of money doing, to boot! This isn't about anyone stealing, this is about content providers responding to the marketplace.
Re:myth (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, but don't you expect at some point the Media Powers That Be will divulge their ultimate plan, when the ask US Congress to approve certain requirements for recording Television and effectively criminalize unapproved PVRs (those which don't erase stuff after so much time, those that don't automatically include some sort of DRM to prevent you burning DVDs of shows to give to your friends, etc.)?
it'll move underground and be known as MythterTV
Re:Why do we pay these people? (Score:3, Insightful)
Teachers are almost infinitely more useful than actors. But I pay lot more for tuition than going to the movies. Now, if we had superstar teachers whose lectures were all over the media and people paid to watch, they'd be millionaires too. I'm sure there are at least a few making good money doing lecture tours already.
Re:Cable Descramblers (Score:5, Insightful)
I've had folks ask what legitimate use anyone could possibly have for a cable descrambler -- I've had one for a few years.
My TiVo has a lifetime subscription (which is for the lifetime of the box) but the antenna connection is busted, so i can't just plug it into the cable line. I bought a cable box off eBay for $25 and use it to give me an SVideo feed into my TiVo -- problem solved. Yeah, i could pay TiVo $50 to fix my box, and be without it for 4-6 weeks. Or I could "rent" a cable box from my cable company for $5-15 a month. My solution works and is exactly the kind of situation the US Congress was thinking about when they eliminated the monopoly on cable boxes.
Re:The fact of the matter is... (Score:3, Insightful)
You are writing that BT is slow and obnoxious. People have to pay for bandwidth and their own time. Few people want to spend their Sundays downloading music or TV show from weird places. They just want it quickly and painlessly.
That means not too expensive, but it can carry a price and people will still buy it.
The big lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright infringement is not theft, but we see the industry repeat this lie repeatedly. Why, oh why, do people fall for this crap?
As well, please keep in mind that originally, copyright protected only the author and only for a limited time. In fact, most of the so called "copyrighted" material no longer even belongs to the original creator. Indeed, most of copyrighted material would now be in the public domain.
Jeez people, face facts, the overly affluent have corrupted the law and are using it to exploit you.
It simply amazes me just how many Americans love to talk about freedom and responsibility but then are silent in the obvious presence of tyranny and exploitation.
Re:Why do we pay these people? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They'll never get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
What a lot of people don't know is that when a show goes into syndication, it's only a subset of the episodes, usually the ones with lower ratings. This way they can show a rerun of the higher-rated episodes and still get people to tune-in and not think, I saw this on the local channel 50 times already. When was the last time you saw the pilot or the finale of a show in rerun?
Re:myth (Score:2, Insightful)
Article quote, +1 Insightful (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy sums it up for me. I've been running Bit Torrent to get the only 3 TV shows (Simpsons, Daily Show, Chappelle Show) I every watch. I would pay $1 for pulling a hi-res, color and sound corrected copy in a heart beat.
Re:Already beaten? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Finally... (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, don't expect the TV industry to be the messiah of digital, downloadable content. They have too much invested in the current infrastructure, and they are too closely tied to the bass-ackwards film industry to have them swoop down to be our savior.
Don't forget FCC restrictions (Score:3, Insightful)
The FCC won't allow it. How stupid is that? If I'm already paying for the local stations, I should be able to buy other feeds. It boils down to perceived advertising exposure.
It's not JUST the content providers, the FCC has something to do with it as well.
Now, if Discovery and the BBC would broadcast the same shows on both sides of the pond and if Canada wasn't excluded, boy, that would be nice.
Re:TV is disrupting its own business! (Score:5, Insightful)
and...
And if TV isn't going to entertain me, then I'm going to watch Family Guy and Futurama reruns until the cows come home
Wow. I wish I could even convey my disbelief. Let me hit you with the clue stick a couple times: In Family Guy, Peter is an idiot. In fact, the entire show centers around this. Same with Fry. Who are the intelligent, assertive characters that typically point out their counterparts' idiocy? Peg and Leela. You are too retarded for words.
-truth
Re:myth (Score:3, Insightful)
Who knows? They might even learn something and become less of a n00b.
Uh, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ugh. I hate it when industry propaganda gets reprinted by reporters without comment or common sense. OK, let's talk about this sentence. What exactly did happen to the music industry? During the rise of P2P, their business improved. Then a recession hit, and their business slowed. They then attacked their customers, which is bad for business too. Then iTunes and the like came out, and the recession eased, and business went up.
So what exactly went wrong for the music industry?! They certainly moaned about losing business, but check out those bottom lines and you'll see they are still in business and raking in the billions, thank you very much. Bah! Bad, John Markoff! Repeating industry propaganda is not good for a reporter to be taken seriously.
Re:It's amusing anyone would complain about $1/ep (Score:2, Insightful)
Now don't get me wrong, I would welcome being able to download TV shows for a reasonable price with the above conditions. I think the FCC should make it mandatory that OTA broadcasts be made available as soon as the episode airs and kept available until a DVD is available that contains that episode.
I also think you made a very good point regarding the accuracy of viewership. The only reason Family Guy is being brought back is due to DVD sales. Downloads and DVD sales should reflect reality far greater than Nielson rating ever could.
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh how I miss the TV that I grew up with: the commercial free BBC. They would even go as far as covering up product names and describing them in a generic manner (do they still do this?) What resulted was good quality TV aimed at the viewer. The British shows on TVO, CBC and PBS are some of the highest quality enterainment I find on N. American TV, and my Tivo makes the ones that appear on Showcase and A&E watchable. It's too bad that most N. Americans haven't experienced commercial free TV (or if they have on a visit to the UK, they always seem to pick the time of day when it's just cricket
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're not paying for their content, or not providing them with the viewers they need to charge money to their advertisers, you're not their customer.
Re:myth (Score:4, Insightful)
I think a new US law requires that in July, all HDTV recievers will be mandated to respect the "do not record" bit so that the networks can limit what you do with "their" tv stream.
Old encoders will be grandfathered in, so I just bought a pcHDTV that works with linux. http://www.pchdtv.com/
Buch of crap. HDTV has been such a mess. What, 28 different broadcast "standards"? That is not a standard. Go ask the Best Buy drone if any of their pretty flat screens support 1080i. None do, some tube sets may.
My crappy 21" CRT does 2000x1500 which is more than enough for 1080 lines of resolution.
Blah blah blah
Re:Finally... (Score:4, Insightful)
To paraphrase Syndrome's observation in The Incredibles: the only reason the industry is paying attention is because the leverage possessed by its consumers is a threat. A *threat* gets their attention. Nothing else... not, for example, a simple desire to please their customers or create good will.
But they are criminals (Score:1, Insightful)
It is perfectly feasible to have a totally differeent business model. The industry could have adopted the model when cassette tapes came out, i.e., part of the price you pay in the tape is to reimburse the copyright holder who material you are copying. But the kicker in this article was when they mentioned that they are making a 40-50% profit margin on DVDs of TV shows. Did you miss that part?
It's like Congress keeping drug patents in place so the drug industry can make a 30% profit margin.
Or the Justice Department doing nothing about Microsofts monopolies in operating systems, so they can make a 400% profit margin in that area.
They like to say that capitalism is based on free enterprise and competition, but now days its about buying Congressmen (and women) to give you a monopoly.
I call bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
I pay the local cable company for access to the programs I want to record with Mythtv.
All of my songs are purchased via iTunes
The simple fact is that I use mythtv as a recorder just like I would use a vcr. I do not steal any content even though the article suggests that I do.
I have 2 cable boxes (which I pay for) connected to my mythtv system. I pay the local cable company for the content I may want to record.
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
No matter what you do you're not really a customer, you are a consumer. And as a consumer you are supposed to accept what they are given and be damned happy about it.
Screw that.
Re:You are so, so wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They'll never get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like Macrovision on all VHS and DVD releases.. When it's mandated, we will have it. The video stabelizer for it will just cost more and be harder to find, but the broadcast flag will be there. You won't have the option of using it like with the V chip, just like you don't have the option of buying a consumer VCR with a manual gain control. (Macrovision screws with the Automatic Gain Control AGC)
Re:TV is disrupting its own business! (Score:3, Insightful)
I "The Family Guy" you have (besides a talking matricidal baby and a talking/smoking/drugging dog) a father who quite obviously isn't a 90's guy. He is so politically incorrect that he redefines the scale.
Sitcoms make fun of modern life. Cartoons like FG make fun of sitcoms way of moralising and making fun of modern life by taking it to the extreme. You could make a sitcom like FG but I doubt it would survive the moral police. You are not supposed to have bad "role models" on TV (how anyone could have Peter as a role model is beyond me).
Re:Argh... issues with the article (Score:2, Insightful)
Not surprisingly, the repercussions
Yeah, the RIAA kept making record profits each year, despite the recession. Why should the MPAA be afraid after such a "terrifying" example?
Saying that "the file-sharing networks
It's a bit late for that. Look at the download numbers given at the top of the article.
Television isn't in danger. The MPAA's business model is in danger. The government should not pass laws to protect an obsolete business model. If the current television mafia goes away, perhaps more shows will be created for love instead of greed. Wouldn't that be better for everyone?
Playing the same show on different screens around the house seems reasonable, said Mr. Cotton of NBC Universal. But he added that expanding the circle much beyond that
I think Mr. Cotton is missing something important here. Customers have no obligation to him, or to any television company. The issue isn't what he will allow the customers to do, but what the customers will let him get away with.
"You'll make more money and suffer far less from the black market if you simply create the opportunity to access content freely," said Mr. Garland of Big Champagne.
Tell that to the RIAA.
Re:First Post. (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly, a network or other content originator/distributor sells their material for broadcast under certain circumstances and with the expectation that it will air with certain commercials (or that, over cable, it will be part of a subscription). Most people disseminating a broadcast show are going to probably wind up chopping out the commercials. That certainly short circuits the network's expectation of potential revenue per viewer. But no question... the over-the-airwaves area is the trickiest. What's a no brainer is when people actually seek to make money off of copying and distributing material - definately a huge no-no.
I will, though, pick on your hot dog analogy. What the street vendor is really selling you (other than mysterious meat-like products) is convenience. He's right there, where you are, when you're hungry. If you have to go home to eat, you're giving up the convenience that is his real value. Sure, if you walk by his stand and think, "nah... I can hold out for another 30 minutes" he is missing out on the sale, but people make those judgements every day - it's part of the risk he's taking when he starts his hot dog empire. Now: if he were standing on the streetcorner playing guitar, and you really liked his music, and he says, "If you really like it so much, I've got DVDs of one of my performances right here - only $20!" But, standing right next to him is a guy that already bought the DVD last month, and is hold a sign that says "information wants to be free!" and has a URL of a web site where you can just download the guy's performance without paying for it... now that's another matter.
Re:TV is disrupting its own business! (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, you need to chill out. Family Guy is so far over the top that if you don't get that it's satire, you really shouldn't be watching it.
(Also, a hint for you: nobody is a better pianist when drunk.)
Re:TV is disrupting its own business! (Score:3, Insightful)
Or commercials for food that talk about how moms choose awesome food for their kids? Because obviously dads are never involved in that process. And dads never drive minivans to take their kids to soccer practice. Nope, never happens.
Those are the commercials that infuriate me. I hate the stereotyped portrayal of either sex. If the commercials you speak of merely had smart talented women doing awesome things and didn't rely on putting men down to show it, I'd be all for it. Sexism is stupid.
Re:Finally... the commercial free BBC (Score:3, Insightful)
Bear in mind that the reason why Soccer became so expensive was because of Sky outbidding everyone else in an effort to corner the market; just after the dotcom bubble burst, the prices started to fall, but not within the reach of ITV, so the BBC is essentially the only real bidding entity in what would otherwise be a fairly nasty little monoculture. Sky family pack subscribers subsidise the sports channels to the tune of 50-60%, and while I'm with you on supporting the multimillion wage cheques, it's just how things have played out. Sooner or later a change will come.
"However, they advertise their own programs"
Yeah, that's 'branding'. It's one of the things that they do to increase their viewership figures to stop the government talking about more reforms, because the government hates having an independent body that might be critical of it and they're just looking for an excuse. That was the terrible thing about the Hutton report and it's effect on Greg Dyke.
Re:Finally... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, it was pretty dumb and mindless.
"British TV has the same texture and taste as British food."
That says an a lot considering that curry is the national dish. Most Americans don't even have access to good curry.
"Nova 24-7 would rock!"
The funny thing about Nova is that it's quite often a British show with the narration dubbed over with an American presenter. Is that what it takes to make a British show more pallatible to you?