UK Leads in TV Show Downloading 355
dirutz writes "Britain has emerged as the world's biggest market for downloading pirated TV, with Australia being the second and the U.S. sitting at third. Among the top pirated TV shows, '24' ranks the first. 'The Simpsons,' 'Enterprise,' 'Stargate SG-1' and 'Battlestar Galactica' are also among the top hitters." 'Pirated' seems a strong word, at least for watching those programs which have been beamed (unencrypted) through my body. Where can I pay a quarter per show for moderate-quality, sanctioned torrent files?
First dup! (Score:1, Insightful)
(sigh)
A quarter a show? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:0, Insightful)
The really stupid thing is that the networks are missing out on the holy grail here: targeted TV advertising. Imagine if you were getting your high-quality, sanctioned downloads (still via Bittorrent) seeded by the network itself. The particular file you got contained commercials that matched your user profile for likes, dislikes, etc. Heck, even just matching your sex would nearly double the productivity of the commercials for advertisers. Getting 5 million men to watch a Playtex ad nets an advertiser $0.
Call it wrong all you want, but some people require laws that make sense.
Re:Why?-Business Geek. (Score:1, Insightful)
1. The networks won't allow a middleman. Where have you been for the last 10 years?
2. The geeks are getting exactly what they want. The networks aren't. Guess being a suite isn't so great, eh?
Re:Dupe (Score:3, Insightful)
2. It's 'lousy' not 'lausy'
3. So Spitting Image's utter lack of subtlety is somehow 'better' than Little Britain? Wouldn't the better comparison (given the political content of Spitting Image) be Spitting Image and Brass Eye, or Dead Ringers? Or The Day Today?
Define 'The British Sense Of Humour' before you harp on about its extinction, please. For me, the epitome of that has been summed up by the word 'dryness'*. Spitting Image was anything but dry, and as such could be classed as an anomaly. The new generation has taken 'dry' and added 'disturbing', to its credit. Take League Of Gentlemen for instance. Dry and disturbing.
It's evolved, but I don't know you you equate this to extinction, exactly.
* Add absurdity if you like, for example much Monty Python, but absurdity is a comedy universal, IMO.
Re:why is it piracy? (Score:1, Insightful)
Basically, what people do on the internet could be considered "fair use", but since so many people can transfer so many high-quality format recordings, those who pushed the DMCA forward decided that fair use had become too much of a good thing in the digital world, and put a stop to it.
There's good arguments on both sides. It's not wrong to view a TV show without commercials, but it would be unfair if a good TV show had 10 million viewers but only 200,000 saw the commercials. It's a matter of degree. Bittorrent is more dangerous to networks if lots of people use it than if few do.
Personally, I think it's more wrong to go after someone who downloads last night's episode of Lost than to download last night's episode of Lost, regardless of the "but it's THEIR show" argument. Yes, it's their show, but that doesn't give them carte blanche to do whatever they want to anyone who sees that show in a manner they don't approve of.
Re:A quarter a show? (Score:3, Insightful)
DVD gave you more bang for your buck, and for that extra bang, you have to pay more. There is definatly still a market for the VHS, for people who just want to see the video, and don't really want the extras and have the superior video/sound quality, and because they dont want this they get the film at a highly discounted rate.
I believe thats why being able to legally download a tv-show for a $1 an episode won't kill the dvd industry because a video clip on your computer, is a whole lot different to having a brand spanking new dvd in your hand to watch in your personal home theatre with 5.1 sound and amazing picture quality.
I also believe that it might fuel DVD sales. I believe this because if it only costs say $1 per show then people might be a bit more adventerous and buy shows which they wouldn't just go buy the dvd of. And if they like these shows, they would like to get all the extra stuff that the dvd gives, and hence go out and buy the dvd.
Lord save us from editors' comments (Score:2, Insightful)
'Pirated' seems a strong word, at least for watching those programs which have been beamed (unencrypted) through my body.
No, 'pirated' doesn't refer to recording them, it refers to posting them on the Internet for anybody to download. I would think the difference was obvious.
The standard meaning of the word is "distributing copyrighted material without permission" (for instance, here [hyperdictionary.com]). Regardless of your position on this issue, you have to agree that the definition applies here.
And yes, it's a strong word. It's a newspaper headline. What do you expect?
Re:I'm sure... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lousy dupe... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lousy dupe... (Score:2, Insightful)
One, the networks would make no money off of ads posted in those rips online. If anything, the ad providers would be annoyed at the fact that their ad is in pirated works.
Plus, those ads are targetted at a specific location. Each local channel of CBS/FOX/ABC/ETC has different ads for the exact same show. The advertisers in New York don't want their ads to be seen all over the US, so including commercials in online rips could potentially turn away prospective advertisers.
Secondly, the people posting the rips online, and most of the people watching them, don't care about their network making money. If they did, they would watch the show when it came on. Removing ads from the online rips makes the release groups look better and the leechers happier.
It's pointless to keep commercials in online rips.
Re:A quarter a show? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'v never been much for commentary tracks, but I've really grown fond of them from watching Buffy (gotta love Joss Whedon's commentaries, just go to re-enforce what a genius the guy is). I suspect that a lot of people would miss the commentary track, along with the featurettes, behind the scenes, scripts, etc. that are included on the DVDs.
Fruthermore, even with broadband, downloading an entire season of a show, even at a lower resolution, will take a while (anyone else want to do the math? 22 episodes at 20 or 45 minutes). I, like most people, enjoy the instant gratification I get by going to the video store, buying a season of a show, and having the whole thing to watch as soon as I get home.
If they did offer this, it would probably be through some service like the music download services anyway, but I don't think that would work because a lot of people will buy 1 or 2 songs off a bunch of different albums, but most people want either 1 episode of a particular show, or the entire season (for which, due to the reaons above, they would probably buy the DVD set), and I don't think that a bunch of people buying a very occasional episode would be enough to justify running the service.
The only way I could see it really working is through some sort of PVR service, probably something like not allowing the PVRs to save shows after a certain time period, or not allowing them to be burned to DVD, but for an additional fee you can download the commentary tracks in the background and burn the shows to DVDs at the end of a season (which also would be unlikely because of the money lost off syndication during the buffer period between when a show airs
Crazy Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lord save us from editors' comments (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not like I watch commercials anyway. I always have my laptop nearby, Slashdot is way better than literally seeing a cialis comercial for the 200th time.
Re:Dupe (Score:3, Insightful)
Just a bit off topic, but we've already seen this (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it that the public at large is expected to foot the bill for cable television for the luxury of watching programming that includes commercials? Television networks as well as your cable company make tons of money on the advertising that goes into television programs. The only reason the networks are able to charge as much as they do for the commercials is because people watch the programming.
It seems to me that if someone pays to receive television channels (many of which can be received for free over the air) via cable or satellite they should be able to receive programming that does not include commercials at all. For example if I can watch FOX using an antenna for free what value am I getting by paying to get that identical programming with commercials over a cable line? Compare it to viewing content on a website for free with ads or opting to buy a subscription to view the content without ads, much like you can on slashdot. Now channels like HBO that do not include commercials I can see paying for because they are offering me original commercial free content, something I can not get otherwise.
There is certainly a market for commercial free programming as can be shown by the popularity of subscription based DVRs such as Tivo. Sure people like watching their favorite programs at their convenience, but really a large part of it is being able to do so without the commercials.
To put it simply, I am of the opinion that basic cable should be provided to everyone without cost because the ad content has already generated more than enough revenue to cover the cost of distribution. The cable companies also generate ad review by selling local commercial spots into the programming. The cable companies should be able to pass on their costs to the networks rather than the general public because the networks could not possibly charge the advertisers as much as they do without the viewers the cable companies provide.
Offering at least basic cable for free would greatly increase the potential number of viewers which would in turn allow the networks and cable companies to charge more for their advertisement spots. Compare it to the way that print ads are sold where the cost is based on total distribution; higher distribution equals higher revenue per ad sold. Television viewership is down greatly and I would suspect that this trend will continue unless something new and innovative is given a chance.
Another thing I would really like to see happen would be for the cable companies to allow you to pick the programming you would like to receive. There are only 10 to 20 channels at most I would be interested in watching if I did have cable. Perhaps I could warm up a little to paying a nominal amount, say less than $20 per month including all taxes, if I were able to hand pick which channels I could receive and at least a fair number of those would have to be commercial free (such as HBO).
Re:Not Suprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the programming execs should get repeatedly fired for so completely and utterly failing to satisfy demand...
Hey, timothy! (Score:5, Insightful)
For that matter, how about checking for dupes [slashdot.org] before posting a story?
Slashdot Leads UK in Dupes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:they've all been duped! (Score:5, Insightful)
On the plus side, instead of thinking, we can just copy/paste all the +5 comments from the [slashdot.org] other story and get huge amounts of karma.
For example, here's a comment by Xner [slashdot.org]: "Thre real reason for rampant TV piracy on this side of the pond is that shows are released a lot later around here, sometimes even YEARS. This does encourage people to take their viewing habits into their own hands." Insightful, eh? I'd mod me up if I were you.
Re:A quarter a show? (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, with some shows, I've bought twice. The West Wing is almost a year behind on DVD in the States but has better features. So, I buy the Region 2 first, then the Region 1 a year later. In this respect, I've been suckered by studios playing dumb marketing games.
The only reason I download things is when I can't get them somewhere else (release date, stupid channels, etc). However, I can't think of a single thing I've downloaded that I haven't gone and bought the DVD for afterwards. I downloaded all of BSG (not having Sky One), and hit the "Pre Order" button on Amazon.co.uk the same evening.
I would far prefer it if this was made legal in some way, as you suggest. For example, I could buy from Amazon a combination of a download code and the DVD to be delivered later. If that mechanism existed for the content I want, I'd stop downloading TV shows in a heartbeat.
I know the downloading of such content is technically a crime and that authors have the moral right to control their creation, even if that means preventing it being distributed at all. (Incidentally, are the dumb TV execs morally the authors by virtue of being the copyright holders?) However, nowadays these TV shows are being withheld from sale for dumb reasons like scheduling, "synergy" and ratings wars. Screw them. Just let me buy the damn things. In the meantime, I'd prefer not to be called a pirate when I'm making a fair monetary offer for the content in question. It seems that as far as the studios are concerned a loyal viewer is either their bitch, or a criminal.
It would be far easier if "they" just released the damn show on DVD in good time. Then I wouldn't have to rob and plunder on the high seas just to have what I'm prepared to pay full price for. Arrr.
Re:A Quarter A Download (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, lets think about it this way. If it costs $52 for me to buy a season box set of Stargate, and there are 22 episodes per set, lets call it $2.40 per episode. Then hack off a conservative amount for the old manufacturing and distribution costs and guesstimate that with the new lower costs they could sell them for $1 or $1.50 an episode and maintain their profit margin. Would we pay that?
If we're asking them to reduce their profit, that's probably not realistic.
Re:Not Suprising (Score:2, Insightful)
So they are catering to demand, just not yours (or that of the part of the population downloading TV).
'pirated' tv shows? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dupe (Score:3, Insightful)
British comedy has gone down hill and is now all canned laughter and black people with an old man who's horny, a husband whos horny and a wife who is just there to look after the kids.
The current state of TV is trash at very best, comedy hasn't evolved, it's just got dumber to the point where a brick against the head would work just as well.
Young ones, Bottom, Black Adder, Mr Bean and so many others. Maybe not the most witty of comedies but they sure as hell made you laugh, which is what comedy is about. Not having 5 "parody" shows each week all covering the same thing.
The only decent thing we're making right now is comedic-quizshows. Nevermind the Buzzcocks, QI and this sort of thing. Nothing else we make is even worth it since it's watered down American drivel without the fake accents.
Re:A quarter a show? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the entertainment equivalent of Bill Gates apocryphal, "640K should be more than enough for everybody."
Today anyone can download MPEG4(XviD) AVI's of current shows like Lost, 24, Joan of Arcadia, Smallville, Enterprise, Veronica Mars, Joey, Carnivale, etc that are higher resolution than DVD and with multi-channel audio - they have been sourced from the HDTV broadcasts and transcoded to MPEG4. Somet maintain the original HDTV resolution, some have been stepped down to something like 960x576p which is still better than DVD. These AVI files are also 2-4 times smaller than the equivalent MPEG2 files for standard DVD.
There are already multi-function stand-alone DVD players that can play DVDs of these high resolution AVI files and their number will only increase as the year progresses.
So, while for the majority of people today downloads don't directly compete with TV on DVD releases, it is only a matter of time, probably a rather short time, until they do.
Given that, let's take that $1 and skip the network middlemen. Don't give it to NBC/CBS/ABC/FOX/ETC with all their overhead. Give it directly to the production house. Follow along with me here:
The average half-hour sitcom costs $2M per episode to produce. The average hour-long drama costs about $4M per episode. These numbers are probably on the high side.
So an hour-long show would break even if it had an audience of 4 million who were willing to put up $1 each. If the paying audience was 5 million, that's a 25% profit. If the audience is willing to pay the money for each episode far enough ahead of time (say a "season pass" of $25 up front) that means the profit could be locked in before production even starts.
That lock-in is a HUGE risk reduction - most shows today are money losers until they make it into syndication, which requires about 4 seasons worth of shows. Yet more than 80% of shows are cancelled before their 4th season. Thus making a profit up front is BIG deal for the tv production industry.
So what should this hypothetical paying audience expect in return for this guaranteed profit they are handing the production company? How about, ownership of the results? A typical work-for-hire situation where the "employer" is the public at large. In other words, the production company gets paid with a nice return on their investment and ownership of the result passes immediately into the public domain upon payment.
Then anyone could share copies of the show with anyone else and not have to worry about "stealing from the artists" or being persecuted for commiting copyright infringement. The creators get paid and the audience gets the content, which they can burn to DVD themselves, or just delete off their hard disk once they are done with it knowing that somewhere out on the net there is an archive of the show if they need a copy again.
Since the end result is in the public domain, the local broadcasters could still broadcast it with their own commercials for the audience that isn't motivated enough to download it. Which means that local tv stations would have an interest in footing part of the bill themselves, kind of like syndication fees, the end result being that you don't need all 5 million people to still hit that $5M per episode mark - just 100 local stations across the world, each putting in $10k per episode would cut the paying audience number down to 4 million.
A lot of these numbers are pessimistic - for example, in its first year, Star Trek the Next Generation was carried in syndication on over 200 stations. In its first syndication run (i.e. second broadcast), Cheers was on 450 stations at an average of $3.6K per station per episod
Re:A Quarter A Download (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. But only for a DVD. They must realize that a non-hard-copy of their show is worth much less than a burned, physical copy on relatively durable media. The price goes down even further for DRM'ed copies that reduce my ability to do what I want with the files.
Now for the other side of it: you have to realize that they won't offer this in any format you'd find usable. They'll use Windows Media because "everyone has it" or Real because "it's streaming so people have to pay-per-view". They'll inevitably screw something up to make it unusable, which makes it worth about $0.25 to those that will use it. Of course, they can't recoup their costs or match the amount of profit from the hard-copies when they do this, so it'll go away quickly.
Re:A Quarter A Download (Score:2, Insightful)
Take for instance Stargate SG-1, Atlantis and BSG. I live in Texas where my exposure to decent Sci-Fi is whatever I can get via cable or satellite. It's not even so much that the Sci-Fi channel doesn't air the shows that are seen on UK TV until almost 6 months to a year later - but when they do, they pull this "split-season" crap where they'll show only part of a season, followed by re-runs ad-nauseum, then complete out the season in some stair-step fashion simply to boost ad-revenue dollars.
I'd be happy to not bother downloading if they would simply show some continuity and quit jacking so much with the schedules.
I do purchase the DVD sets when they're available, and even watch them on occasion as I TiVo them all.
The networks would be smart to allow downloads and figure out new ways of revenue generation. And on that same note, I would like to thank PERSONALLY all of those wonderful individuals that post these shows from SkyOne as they are aired in the UK. You guys are the BEST! (and I mean that from the bottom of my heart!)
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember that the proposed business model does not exist in a vacuum. The current model is endangered by both unauthorized internet distribution and tivo-enabled commercial skipping. Thus, while the current model may end up being sustainable in the long run, it won't be at levels anywhere near as profitable as it is today.
Hollywood is notoroious for trying to put the genie back into the bottle instead of asking it for three wishes, so who knows what it will take to convince them.
it seems like it would still require the establishment of some sort of "network" to really get the word out worldwide.
Agreed, advertising gets both harder and easier. You'll need some kind of central location for people to find out about new productions. Plus, you either need to be really convincing to persuade people to put their money up (although part of the idea is that the money is refunded if the show is not produced) or give away a couple of episodes to hook people - either way costs money and is a risk.
But, on the other side, once established with a few shows bought and paid for, all the released episodes serve as free advertising for the next episode's production costs.