Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

Television Reloaded 241

Posted by timothy from the lower-the-tv-slowly dept.
theodp writes "The TV times, they are a-changing. Over at Newsweek, Steven Levy offers a serious tome on the future of television, including time-shifting ("people will follow schedules only for real-time events like sports and election night"), space-shifting ("Now that you've stored your show on a TiVo, it's only logical to take it with you on your laptop, hand-held viewer or PSP game player") and the move from broadcast TV to broadband TV. Meanwhile, Conan O'Brien lightens things up with his own vision of the TV future ("Toddlers' bowls will have a television at the bottom, and children will be encouraged to eat all of their mush so they can see Morley Safer.")."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Television Reloaded More

Television Reloaded

Comments Filter:

  • Will they... (Score:3, Funny)

    by xor.pt ( 882444 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:37PM (#12608032)
    Will they bring back the cookie monster?
    • Will they bring back the cookie monster?

      Super Grover where are you now?
      When everything's gone wrong somehow,
      The men of cookie dough, the men of flour,
      Are losing control by the hour.

    • Will they bring back the cookie monster?

      Yes, but in a slimmed-down, fitness-conscious version named Sri Swami Cookiemanda, who after a lengthy period of reflection and purification, came to renounce his sedentary lifestyle and wanton consumption of satvic foods.

  • The Future is Now. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vorondil28 ( 864578 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:38PM (#12608038) Journal
    In the /. tradition, our commuity has been riding the crest of this digital wave with our BitTorrent clients for some time.

  • On-demand is the future, today. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:39PM (#12608049) Homepage Journal
    The broadcast industry is fighting it every step of the way, but the future is in on-demand television. I argue the success of TiVo and other DVR devices demonstrates this; people want to be able to watch what they want when they want, without wasting time on things like commercials.

    The best thing the industry could do would be to figure out a system where you select what you want to watch from a menu, give you a VCR commandset (play, pause, rewind, forward, stop), and offer a meaningful guarantee of retention or recordability. And figure out how to make money off of it without breaking the people who want to use it.

    They're working so hard on figuring out how to make you watch commercials that they're missing the larger picture. If you charge for access to a service like this nobody can 'steal' content by fast-forwarding through commercials because there won't be any.

    • Buying music off TV (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      How come it's still not possible to buy music off MTV? There were rumors that the Xbox was going to enable this .. Press a button on the controller during the song .. and it downloads it so you can load it into an ipod or music device or whatever.

      They can also do this for TV shows .. they'd make mad money .. when showing a re-run they can give the option to buy the series on DVD or enable the series to be downloaded. With old TV shows or made for TV movies I cant imagine why they'd care ... They probably m
    • There are dozens of major pay and free channels that don't run commercials. None of these have a video on demand service for their content library. Why? Maybe because spending a maximum of two minutes explaining how to save an industry from the perspective of a sassy outsider isn't actually going to yield insightful or constructive results.

      • Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @08:25PM (#12608412) Homepage Journal
        I'm betting this will surprise you, but the work and social schedules of most people are growing to preclude their ability to plunk their ass in front of the tube for hours at a stretch. As television has cut into reading time, so too the Internet has cut into television time. iTunes is demonstrating the feasibility of delivering paid-for digital media over the Internet, technology companies are gearing up digital rights management, the broadcast flag for consumer video equipment is on the horizon (delayed, maybe defeated, maybe not), and Microsoft is pushing Windows Media Center. Satellite companies are offering DVR as part of their services and a ton of content is being released on DVD -- at the same time, broadcasters are doubling- and tripling-up the same shows on their schedules each day and delivering some considerably lousy content (Reality TV, one- or two- star movies, home improvement and crime shows are all I can tune) while explaining that the problem is that they aren't getting the money they need from commercials.

        Anybody in the pay-per-view industry will tell you on-demand television works. Details such as whether you pay per watch, per episode, or per 'channel' of content are certainly up to the implementors, but if you don't believe this is coming soon you're not properly interpreting the signals. I don't have to sing its praises to the broadcast industry; they're simply waiting for the various pieces that make up the technology and legislation necessary for such a scheme to fall into place.

        • Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by sleeper0 ( 319432 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @09:30PM (#12608876)
          "I'm betting this will surprise you [...]"

          sure no one has heard of people recording video programs for later watching, thank you for your time and insight!

          "iTunes is demonstrating the feasibility of delivering paid-for digital media over the Internet"

          True. I'm not sure anyone has argued that it is technically possible for it to be done. However, you might be interested in the fact that ITMS has been explained by apple as being no better than break even. They are unable to make a profit with the service. As far as apple is concerned it exists solely to promote sales of their iPod hardware device. Content interests have repeatedly protested that ITMS sales perform poorly compared to retail sales. So literally there is no corporate interest in ITMS barring sales of the portable. Not really a great example for on demand television unless you sell a portable video player.

          "Windows Media Center [...] offering DVR [...] released on DVD"

          Some good examples of the PVR/DVR market. Let's explain why PVR works now while on demand may not.

          98.2% of households own a TV (US 1990)
          74.9% of households have some kind of Internet (US 2004)
          45.2% of households have broadband (US 2004)

          obviously broadband on demand delivery has a major hurdle to take care of before it could replace broadcast + PVR timeshifting

          Even if broadband penetration was 98.2%, which could take decades, could current digital infrastructure support each television household consuming 2-6 hours of on demand 1mbps-6mbps video content? No. While it may work for you to download a show or two, it would all fall apart if all of your neighbors were doing the same thing. Infrastucture can't support it (yet)

          "If you charge for access to a service like this nobody can 'steal' content by fast-forwarding through commercials because there won't be any."

          Broadcast television revenues: US$54.4B (US 2004)
          Premium television revenues: US$8.5B (worldwide 2002)
          PPV television revenues: US$2.4B (worldwide 2002)

          I'm not sure I'd like to explain to shareholders how the only answer to sustaining my business is to abandon a $54B market to chase a $2B-8B market (at best) with higher costs.

          Also ratings would fall drastically:
          highest rated show 5/9-5/15: CSI (CBS) 26.4M viewers
          highest rated premium tv show 5/9-5/15: below public reporting threshold, below 3.1M viewers

          So in summary:
          * no example of profitable major on demand broadband video delivery
          * infrastructure does not support it
          * penetration is less than half of broadcast
          * current market revenue is 5%-20% of broadcast

          I dont think broadcast will be going away anytime soon.

          • "I'm betting this will surprise you [...]"

            sure no one has heard of people recording video programs for later watching, thank you for your time and insight!

            No, I meant the part about having a social schedule.

            • Ahh, I must have misunderstood. You suggest that the only answer to a broadcast television model is to cease broadcast, fire all sponsors and provide content exclusively through on demand digital delivery. I suggest practical factual reasons that won't work and your response is "I have more social obligations than you HAHA!" Obviously.
          • never believe any costing out of the recording industry. The recording industry makes ALL it's money out of burying costs within costs.

            gross cash value of CD sales doesn't account for the net after reproduction and distribution have been paid for.

            It's possible that they "are" being honest in their depiction of the numbers.

            but it would be the first time.
          • No better than break even for Apple. Apple is just a retailer. You can bet that someone is making money from it.
        • Woah, iTunes is a terrible example for future demonstration. You would end up going broke paying a couple dollars for every show you watch. It's got to be a free for all subscription service. Though the current price of cable is extremely messed up. For example...

          Comcast digital Platinum service is $100 a month with hundreds of channels. But at most you'll watch 30% of them.

          The entire Internet is $40 a month via broadband. It's interactive, and offer infinite number of channels.
          • The entire Internet is $40 a month via broadband. It's interactive, and offer infinite number of channels.

            The problem with that statement, though, is that when content becomes popular, the problem inherent to Internet popularity (melty server) usually forces the popular site to become pay-based just to afford the hosting.

            If content on par with premium cable were to go online in any significant way, it would doubtless be as a pay service, probably piecemeal to each provider, which would either be full of
            • "just to afford the hosting."

              P2P efficiency disproves that theory.

              "If content on par with premium cable were to go online in any significant way"

              Content better than premium cable already is online in a significant way. The current failure of content providers to change their business model to fit doesnt change that.
      • You mean like HBO, Showtime, and Cinemax? Because they all offer Video On Demand here. Granted, I live in austin (one of TWCables testbeds), But I know they offer this elsewhere now.
        www.hbo.com/hboondemand/ for more info on HBO's. The problem is they don't offer the good stuff.
    • Simple, put an advert before the TV show starts, maybe even two if you're a money whore. Most people wouldn't mind a 10 seconds advert before a TV show.

    • Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @08:14PM (#12608327) Homepage Journal
      Part of the problem here is that television is ad based, and time-slots are a VERY important factor in their pricing. By doing away with the time-slot (as DVRs basically do...) they feel they're going to lose big.

      There's probably some truth to it, but I see an alternative. Base advertising on the show instead of the time slot. I mean, seriously, who in their right mind thinks Star Trek is a great time for a tampon or birth-control commercial? Television shows often develop a strong following. Unfortunately, musical time slots often kill well loved shows. (Futurama...) Dedicated viewer base, homeless. With DVRs, they could show new eps at 3am in the morning and they'd still generate revenue.

      Unfortunately, this begs the ugly question of whether or not commercial skip should be allowed. Frankly, I think there's a compromise here. Get rid of commercial skip and add fast forward. I know this option won't go well with a lot of people. Sorry. But it's a sticky situation. If ads aren't being watched, the main source of revenue for these shows suddenly disappears.

      Another alternative is something like iTunes for tv shows. A buck or two buys you an episode of your favorite show, ad free. Unfortunately, though, this could result in ridiculous monthly expenditures on TV. Conversely, lots of people are buying TV series DVDs. So... eh.

      Frankly, I understand why this is contraversial on both sides. The solution isn't likely to make the customers or the television networks completely happy. Right now, I'm paying a pretty heft amount per month for digital cable. If I could funnel that money into an on-demand service instead, somebody could end up with a nifty sized subscription fee per month. Figure out how to make a profit on that, and they'll get my business.

      • Get rid of commercial skip and add fast forward. I know this option won't go well with a lot of people. Sorry. But it's a sticky situation. If ads aren't being watched, the main source of revenue for these shows suddenly disappears.

        So, if I understand this correctly, you're saying that every time technology changes in a big way, the public should give up a little bit of freedom. What will be left in 100 years?

        I watch TV a lot, but I'd rather see TV die than take away people's freedom in order to save

        • "So, if I understand this correctly, you're saying that every time technology changes in a big way, the public should give up a little bit of freedom."

          No. I didn't say that. I never said anything about giving up freedoms. What I did say is that we have to pay for TV. I don't know why you guys expect free ad-free TV when an episode of Star Trek, for example, costs over a million dollars to make.

          "I watch TV a lot, but I'd rather see TV die than take away people's freedom in order to save it."

          That's
          • Frankly, I'd rather pay an extra tv-tax to have tv produced than watch advertizing.

            Marketing is an unproductive parasite on the economy, where consumers get to pay extra for the privilidge of supporting the production of something they'd have to be forced to watch, resulting in nothing but damage to the free market.
            • Marketing is an unproductive parasite on the economy, where consumers get to pay extra for the privilidge of supporting the production of something they'd have to be forced to watch, resulting in nothing but damage to the free market.

              Yeah. Advertising has very little to do with informing the public, and is now basically about persuading or coercing the public. As a result, the capitalistic forces no longer encourage success of the best value/cost ratio, but the best advertisement_impression/cost ratio.
          • No. I didn't say that. I never said anything about giving up freedoms.

            Don't be naive. You said:

            Unfortunately, this begs the ugly question of whether or not commercial skip should be allowed. Frankly, I think there's a compromise here. Get rid of commercial skip and add fast forward.

            The obvious way this would be done is by legislating/regulating feature out of existence, i.e. giving up freedom.

            • "The obvious way this would be done is by legislating/regulating feature out of existence, i.e. giving up freedom."

              Eh. Don't get me wrong, I see your point, but the problem is that the freedom you describe potentially means people getting TV without 'paying' for it. (by paying for it, I mean watching commercials.) In other words, 'paying' for the TV is the step that's trying to be skipped. (Though not intentionally.) I see your point that it's 'giving up a freedom', but the alternative is 'no tv for
        • "So, if I understand this correctly, you're saying that every time technology changes in a big way, the public should give up a little bit of freedom."

          Uhm...giving up what freedom? What he said was that they should not offer commercial skip; they should offer fast forward. That's how TV + VCR works (and incidentally, how TiVo works) now.

          In a way, commercial skip takes away freedom. Studies have shown that most people prefer commercials to paying for content. That's why most stations are free but have
          • Uhm...giving up what freedom? What he said was that they should not offer commercial skip; they should offer fast forward.

            The freedom to buy devices that do offer a commercial-skip feature. Or do you think manufacturers will all voluntarily leave out this feature forever without any influence from the regulatory bodies?

      • Wait, that doesn't make sense.

        Time slots don't make the ads valuable, the number of people watching makes them valuable.

        If you have 15 million people watching ER at 10pm on Thursday, you may have a valuable timespots at 10:00, but if you move Entertainment Tonight to that time slot, the ads aren't going to be valuable just because its at 10:00.

        If you let 25 million people watch ER any time they want, the ads you insert in there will be just as, if not more, valuable as the ads in that timeslot. Why? Beca

    • Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hansbleep ( 866095 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @08:21PM (#12608379) Homepage

      Yes, the broadcast industry is fighting it every step of the way. But over the long-term the preferences of the content distributors have had very little sway on the ultimate delivery mechanisms for the content they distribute. We're always going to need some level of business apparatus surrounding the delivery of content, but the businesses themselves are basically just a means-to-an-end, with profits and success redistributed according to market need.

      Think about it: the RIAA was dragged kicking and screaming into distribution models like iTunes Music Store, etc, which has ended up being a popular and heavily used option for a huge number of consumers. The MPAA originally opposed VHS and Betamax.

      People are used to on-demand entertainment and television and radio are the only formats that don't widely support this consumption style. We like being able to pause our DVDs, skip past the songs we don't like in our CD/MP3 collections, browse what we want when we want to online, and so on. It's becoming part of our relationship with media. Any format that doesn't support this usage is going to have to evolve or die. It's simply the way things work, and it doesn't matter whether the broadcast industry doesn't like it, fights it, even wins a few legal battles in the short-term. Consumer demand will invariably be met by market forces.

    • Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dragoon412 ( 648209 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @08:42PM (#12608563)
      Believe it or not, Comcast already does this.

      They have this on-demand feature built into their digital cable boxes. The selection's a little lacking, but in effect, you can play any TV show or movie they have any time you want, it just costs a few bucks. They even have a fair amount of free content (no doubt to get people using the service), and the selection's not too bad. It seems most HBO shows are on it, and a lot of major cable networks seem to be on board; Discovery, Comedy Central, the History Channel, and quite a few others.

      I'm no big fan of Comcast, but I've got to say, they really nailed this one.
      • I have Comcast digital cable and I use on-demand fairly regularly. However, I have a number of big issues with it. For me (and I'm sure many others), it is nothing more than a neat trick than a useful feature...

        1) The interface sucks. You can't search for shows. You can't customize it. There's no easy way to see what is new and what is old.

        2) You need a Comcast-provided box to use it. With an ATSC CableCard tuner, there's no way to watch on-demand. As more and more of these TVs become available wit

  • A better solution... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sturat ( 139743 )
    I think I'll just buy one of these [tvbgone.com] instead.

  • shit TV (Score:3, Funny)

    by toby ( 759 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:41PM (#12608066) Homepage Journal
    Toddlers' bowls will have a television at the bottom

    Why did I immediately think he meant toilet bowls? -- and that it had already happened?

    • Re:shit TV (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Your lucky, I thought it said bowels.

  • What about actual content? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:43PM (#12608079) Homepage
    Great, so the shows are going to be portable ( pipe dream? I don't doubt the possibility, I doubt the IP laywers will let it happen ). What about decent shows?
    • Subscribe to HBO. Great shows, plus some movies, and they aren't dependent on revenue from commercials, and appear to have embraced on-demand television already.

      We need a couple more HBO-like channels (Showtime seems pretty close, but I haven't seen too many promos for their shows that entice me too much), or else need HBO to grow in subscribers so they can expand their offerings and produce more originals.

      It's really about the only TV channel I watch these days.

  • Future? How about Present. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EtherealStrife ( 724374 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:44PM (#12608083)
    Really.

    "It'll be a cosmic video jukebox where you can fire up old episodes of "Cop Rock," the fifth game of the 1993 World Series, a live high-school lacrosse game, a ranting video blogger and your own HD home-movie production of Junior's first karate tournament. While it's playing, you can engage in running voice commentary with your friends, while in a separate part of the screen you're slamming orcs in World of Warcraft. Then you can pay your bill on screen. And if you ever manage to leave your home theater, you can monitor the whole shebang in your car, at a laptop at Starbucks or via the laundry-ticket-size screen on your cell phone."

    I can do that now. What's so "futuristic" about that? Each of my bed posts has a surround sound speaker mounted to it, and I have big screen tv precariously situated on top of my dresser (don't ask), so I can just wake up and commence brainrot without leaving bed. Video output from computer to tv and bam! Stick the feed tubes in me, I'm set to go!
    • I believe the point is that the on-demand type of services and information overload will be widely accepted by the masses. Right now you're in a small segment of the population and, this is the important part, corporate America hasn't charged you enough for what you're receiving. The whole point is that companies want to bring this to the masses and make money off of it.

      On a side note, you should try taking the television out of your bedroom. I did this and I find it is a much healthier lifestyle. You might

  • When-I-see-fit-TV (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LittleGuernica ( 736577 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:45PM (#12608106) Homepage
    The way that I see it going is that TV will only be for the "premiere" of an episode and right after the broadcast you can watch it on demand, for maybe a small fee and without commercials for a handsome fee.

    I bet Apple will get into this market, the question is how, with As Seen on TV denying a video ipod like a MS server denying service. so probably with the Airport express AV. It just might work.

    Nobody wants to watch programs on a fixed time if they can get it from the internet whenever they want, so the TV stations have to come up with something special. Nobody knows what's on ESPN 8 "The Ocho" with 500 channels to choose from..

  • Driving hard or hardly driving? (Score:4, Funny)

    by The Angry Artist ( 877090 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:48PM (#12608123)
    What I'm surprised about is that there aren't yet televisions in car dashboards so we can watch our favorite programs during the boring drives on the road. C'mon, what do the car manufacturers expect us to do when we aren't talking on our cell phones, drinking coffee, eating, reading a newspaper, or sleeping in the car? Drive?

  • MythTV + PSP (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jack Porter ( 310054 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:48PM (#12608124)
    I'm already watching most of my TV on the subway on my way to work using my PSP. MythTV [mythtv.org] records what I want and then I use PSPvideo9 [pspvideo9.com] with avisynth to transcode with just a few mouse clicks.
  • ... to those paid advertisements at 3am in the morning? No one will want to buy those shows and watch them? where will they go? how will I know the new way to clean the beer/cheeto crubs off my shirts without OxyClean(C)

  • TV, what's that? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Stormwatch ( 703920 ) <`moc.liamtoh' `ta' `oarigogirdor'> on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:50PM (#12608145) Homepage
    Oh, you mean the screen to which we connect the game systems?

  • I'm half way there, the future rules. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:50PM (#12608146) Homepage
    I'm half way there, and the future rules. I've got a TiVo, so by and large I don't know when things are on anymore (I used to know EVERYTHING). I can't even tell you what channel many thing are on without thinking. Is there a new episode this week? I don't know, I'd have to check my TiVo. It takes care of it all, and TV is MUCH MUCH better. Now it doesn't matter if a show comes on at 2 AM, I can still watch it. TV on my schedule.

    But things will get better. Watching TV this way (and renting TV show DVDs from Netflix) have tought me one vital lesson that everyone will learn one day: Networks are meaningless.

    Long ago, when the internet ran at 9600 BPS and computer literacy of the day made the current situation look like a paradise, you subscribed to a online service. You had AOL, or Compuserve, or Prodigy. That was your view of the world. But now everyting is on the internet. It doesn't matter how you get to the 'net, Slashdot looks the same.

    TV will be the same way. It won't matter who airs CSI, your TiVo (or whatever) will download it off the 'net for you. All TV shows will be distributed that way. Once you aren't tied to a network schedule, it doesn't matter where you get the TV from, it's all the same.

    Video on Demand for HBO and Showtime that you see advertised are basically the future (only things will be better than that). That is where we are going. It will be like podcasts, only with TV shows. And it will be great.

    The sooner the TV exectives realize that, the better. In my opinion, half the reason shows like Futurama, Family Guy, and The Critic had problems was because they aired in a timeslot that was always getting pre-empted by football. How can people get into a show if it is almost never on for half a year? Well now it won't matter.

    I can't wait. Things will be better.

    • The only problem with this is that the next day you can't sit around the water cooler and gossip with the secretaries about "what happened on Desparate Housewives last night". ;)

    • Now in my fourth week as a TiVo owner.

      It really does change how you watch television. Almost from the very first day. The biggest problems I have now are
      • there is more in TiVo's "what's playing" list than I can hope to watch
      • I have the new problem of managing what I want to keep -- i.e. prioritizing the very best from among the best stuff that the TiVo recorded. I really want to see these nine things, but I will need six evenings to watch them.
      • because of that, my TiVo time cuts into.... horrors...

  • We tried working with Television... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    An employee suggested to me that we load Television on a few offices here as an evaluation. I was skeptical at first but he explained the benefits of using it for our employee's day-to-day channel surfing. So I decided to let him install the TV into 5 offices to see how the users got on. Besides, our IT manager had been using one in his office and it seemed to work fine, why not try it on the client offices?

    Once he'd got the machines up and running with TV we let the users try it out. It all seemed fine t
  • From where I sit, TV as we know it has little to no future, as the big media outlets go cheaper and cheaper with these crappy reality shows packed with more commercials and annoying 1/3 of the screen banner ads, as long as the TV industry sais HELL NO to time and space shifting, and as long as Macs, HDDV Cams and bandwidth gets cheaper, lots of great people will fill in the things we all so miss, great sitcoms, edgy dramas, and so on that dont fit the hollywierd steriotypes and thus are better. the good stu

  • License (Score:5, Interesting)

    by antiaktiv ( 848995 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:56PM (#12608207)
    I believe an on-demand system could work very well the way state-subsidised public service television works in a lot of european countries.

    Here in Sweden, anyone who owns a TV set (or, nowadays, a computer with a TV-reciever, or a television mobile phone), has to pay a TV-license of a couple of hundred kronors per year ($30-40). For this we get two channels with excellent quality content and no commercials. Most people add on to this with paying for cable channels that cost a lot more, and include commercials. But imagine a system where you could have just a large number of the public service channels for a proportionally higher price. There would be the traditional time-dependent broadcasts, without commercials but any old programming (that has already been aired) would also be available on-demand, perhaps by a bittorrent-type distribution network, that has proven very effective.

    By the way, I've been wondering about the legality of downloading shows that I have payed for with my TV-license. A lot of american sitcoms, that are normally shown in America with commercials, for example, is shown on one of these channels. Would it be illegal for me to download an episode that has already be shown on Swedish television, since I have technically paid to see it, commercial free?
    • The Swedish public broadcasting has not acquired a license to air the material or retransmit it freely (as in speech) only "for free", as in beer. (And only if you ignore the license for a moment.) If you rent a video for the weekend, you're likewise not allowed/supposed to copy it and watch it some other time.

      Now, this analogy is distorted by the fact that it's considered fair use to record a TV show for later, personal, viewing, but the principle remains the same -- you (directly or through the public br

    • Someone in the US should patent this mandatory License/Tax idea and charge royalties to the rest of the world. Obtain a business method patent on the method and system of charging a license/tax on receivers (otherwise known as computers).

      Everyone with a computer should pay royalties to US members of the MPAA, because of their ability to "receive" bittorrents of US television episodes.

      (slight whirring sound dies down and fades)
      NORMALITY RESTORED.

  • Conan O'Brien's vision (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mindaktiviti ( 630001 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:59PM (#12608226)
    I know that Conan was joking with a lot of the things he said (i.e. wolf attacks because we can't watch our tv's in our houses since they're so huge) BUT as funny and ridiculous as this may sound, when I was reading his column I wasn't cracking up and laughing at it.

    I was frowning and becoming more depressed because frankly that's where our technology will take us. Wrap-around screens on our coffee cups, made so cheap that they're disposable playing commercials or coupons for other coffee related products, and yes, maybe even tvs in our bowls, but I personally do not think this is desireable as we'll end up being surrounded by television (we already are, TVs are in every room, on our phones, pda's, computers, psp's, other hand held games and so on.

    Can't wait to watch those commercials while I'm sitting on the can in a bathroom stall.
    • We saw such things in Minority Report. I'd become a Cereal Killer if I had to walk through a supermarket with live animations playing on the surface of every box of cereal, never mind all the other packages.

      (in fifty-four part harmony in the appliance section) "I'm George Forman and this is my lean mean fat reducing grilling machine."

      Wander over to the macaroni aisle and really cheese Italian accented pitchmen are waiting, vying for your attention, and thanks to the AI of the times, arguing with each

  • Zero Channels (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cyberman11 ( 581822 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @08:05PM (#12608271)
    I liked the article, but one thing that bugged me was that the author kept using the word "channel" and writing about how there would be more and more "channels". The future of TV is zero channels. I want to download and watch. There is no need for a "channel". The channel metaphor implies a continuous stream of information. I like the metaphor of a "library" instead. I browse titles through some sort of on-line catalog, then download and watch later or right away. A library is not a channel. I would say zero channels, many on-line libraries. Or maybe just one on-line library named "Google".
    • There is still a place for the channel. Think of radio. When it is done right, a disc jockey can put together a program of good music, much of which may be unknown to the audience. I don't have the time or the patience to listen to every new album, let alone the back catalog. Why not let someone else sort it out.
  • "...just as televisions grow larger and more complicated, so will remote controls. In fact, changing channels will soon require people to literally jump from button to button. Trying to change the channel while simultaneously lowering the volume will require two people and will frequently lead to kinky sex.

    I look forward to television in the future.

  • I'm already doing it (Score:5, Informative)

    by skinfitz ( 564041 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @08:09PM (#12608305) Journal
    In the UK where we actually need a license to watch TV (no, seriously I'm not joking) I refuse to pay for it so I don't watch TV in the home. (However I do get hassled to DEATH by the TV Licensing Nazis)

    For the odd thing that I do occasionally want to watch (Dr Who for example) I have a Mac G5 installed at work with EyeTV [elgato.com] (a PVR) set to record the things I want from the digital broadcast (MPEG2). From there I export it as MPEG4 to get the size down, then scp it to a share on the Linux server at home from where I watch it on my PowerBook.

    Perfectly legal (as I'm not 'receiving broadcast services') and much more convenient for me - I'll watch things when *I* want to watch them thankyouverymuch.
    • How are you not receiving broadcast services when you are getting when you say your are getting your episode of Dr Who via digital broadcast, (DVB-T I assume)?

      Looking at the EyeTV product page it has got a tuner for broadcast reception, whether that is analogue or digital doesnt matter, and hence it's quite possible that the TV licensing people are right and you are still liable to pay.
      • How are you not receiving broadcast services when you are getting when you say your are getting your episode of Dr Who via digital broadcast, (DVB-T I assume)?

        I have a Mac G5 installed at work

    • Re:I'm already doing it (Score:3, Informative)

      by isorox ( 205688 )
      Yes, you don't need a license for what you are doing (althoguh your work does). No, not legal - in the UK it's a breach of copyright (section 54D of the copyright designs and patent act IIRC).

      And I'm not 100% sure about the first part as there is a new act out this year that changes definitions to include PC's, I've not taken much time to look at it.

      (Disclaimer: I get paid by the license fee)
      • You will find time shifting is perfectly legal in the UK, otherwise recording something on a VCR and sending it to a friend would be illegal (it isn't).
        • I assume you mean

          The making for private and domestic use of a recording of a broadcast or cable programme solely for the purpose of enabling it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe any copyright in the broadcast or cable programme or in any work included in it.

          However you are making the recording at a non-domestic place, so this clause doesnt apply to you.
          • ...but I am making it for private or domestic use to be viewed at a more convenient time so it does apply to me.

            Secondly we are an educational establishment in the UK and are covered by the ERA license which means at work I can record absolutely anything I want and keep it indefinitely (apart from one exemption which is Open University [open.ac.uk] broadcasts for some strange reason).

  • Toddler Bowls (Score:3, Funny)

    by stevenrnelson ( 865039 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @08:13PM (#12608322)
    Kids aren't dumb. If they want to see what's at the bottom of the bowl, they're not going to wait to eat the food, they'll just dump it over and watch. Heck, they do that now without anything at the bottom to watch.

  • The future of television: World Peace. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sssmashy ( 612587 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @08:13PM (#12608326)

    Think about it. TV is the ultimate capitalism machine. It turns kids from developing countries into placid consumers instead of violent ideologues.

    Those who grow up watching TV are aware that there is a much larger world around them, filled with attractive wealthy people who enjoy high standards of living. It has been statistically proven that kids living in conflict zones are much less likely to turn themselves into suicide bombers if they grew up watching MTV.

  • There is a lot of anime I'd like to see properly dubbed (or even subbed, for some of the older stuff). On-the-fly translation with a similar-sounding voice would be a killer app.

    Too bad I'll probably be drawing my (ten cents on the dollar) Social Security when that happens.
    • There is a lot of anime I'd like to see properly dubbed (or even subbed, for some of the older stuff). On-the-fly translation with a similar-sounding voice would be a killer app.

      Jayziz. You don't ask much, do you?

      Subtitles might just be doable, if we can get a computer to watch a minute or so ahead with a decent voice recognition software, and then piped the output through babelfish. But dubbing? Even The Young Lady's Illustrated Primer used human voice actors. Realistic human voices are an absolute bu

  • "If I've made even one mistake I'm certain the good people at NEWSWEEK,
    who never make mistakes, will refund you the price of this issue."

    Gotta wonder if this was a jab at Newsweek or coincidental?
  • While I do agree there is a paradox of choice, I know that there are solutions.

    Utilizing "Editors" or collectives to sift through the vast content available and mark their recommendations. Slashdot provides that for "news for nerds," which editors, other sites such as delicious popular [del.icio.us] provides community "voting" on what is interesting.

    Using social networks we can subscribe to other peoples interests, and "mine" through the mountain of content.

    If you have seen it, check out EPIC [robinsloan.com] for one possible f

  • On-Demand non-commerical TV would ruin networks (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Geekbot ( 641878 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @09:20PM (#12608824)
    I think most of us reading Slashdot have the opinion that we'd rather pay $$ for good TV rather than watch crappy TV for the cost 20 minutes of every hour spent with lame commercials.
    With that point of view we wonder why networks don't start carrying quality TV and asking the viewers to pay for it.
    The problem with this is that most people are stupid. I didn't realize this until I was about 25 even though I knew most people around me were stupid. I thought the world was full of reasonable people and I didn't understand why I kept getting surrounded by morons. The networks make money from the people who will veg out in front of the TV for 4 hours a night watching horrible programming because they think they are getting it for free. The advertisers specifically want those people. They might not be right, but they are certainly gullible and easier to win over with a 30 second commercial.
    That being said, I still wish that we had more cable networks bringing up good television series that were worth paying for. I don't think it's necessarily the future, but I do believe it's the right thing.
  • "[...] and the move from broadcast TV to broadband TV."

    I predict that one day, we will be able to stream TV shows through our existing cable lines in real time. And when that day comes, just remember you heard it here first.

  • No time limits... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by isny ( 681711 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @10:16PM (#12609122) Homepage
    On the internet, there are no time limits. You could have a real 60 minute tv show if you wanted. Or a 61 and a half minute tv show. And you could have advertisements every minute. Or 3 hours of ads before the show started. Or just broadcast "clever" ads. Why does everyone insist that internet tv has to look and fit the shape of broadcast tv? See podcasting for further details.

  • yes, but what's the business case? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Again, the /. crowd has foregone all business logic. There's no big war that's going to happen here. If content providers start losing money and technology keeps jumping ahead and cutting out their existing revenue stream, the studios will either stop making new content, or they will stop spending money to make content. It's as simple as that. It's a waste for the studios to constantly battle technologists.

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close