Slashdot Mirror
Digital TV Still Indecisive
/dev/trash writes "The logjam between Hollywood and Silicon Valley seems to be over. According to this article on cnn.com. It looks like they want to just add a flag that says "this is a broadcast, do not allow more than one copy"" If it
was only that simple- the article makes it sound like there isn't a lot of
progress being made.
What they don't seem to understand is that as long is it can be viewed it can be copied into a format that can be distributed online. Maybe the copy won't be as clean, but if it can be viewed it can be copied, and if it can be copied, it can be distributed.
Consumers could save digital broadcasts on DVDs, and transfer broadcasts for playback on different devices in the same house, they said. But they probably would not be able to e-mail an episode of "The Simpsons" to a friend, or make it available on a file-sharing network like KaZaA.
At least until debroadcastcss is developed. Gee, they don't even seem confident that it will work...
They still broadcast ads before/after/during reruns, and advertisers still pay. Maybe less than what they would pay for appearing next to the initial broadcast of a show, but probably enough to cover the costs and more. Why else would 30+ year old shows still be rerun?
Ever notice how many ads there are in recorded shows being spread around file sharing networks?
Is it really possible to make it so I cannot copy something which is playing on my TV?
I have a VCR, I have a video capture card, if I take a signal out of my VCR in the living room and plug it into the video capture card in the office, what is to stop me from making a digital copy available online. I may not get the true digital quality but who cares?
Maybe if the media companies don't want "piracy" of thier media, they should just go out of business and stop worrying about the whole thing. It's not like they're going broke, they still make millions.
I would guess you would not be able to watch TV without having it hooked up the internet reporting all you are doing. Big-brotherish future.
Until and unless Big Brother Hollywood is going to pay for my internet connection, they'd better not even think about imposing that kind of draconian supervision over my viewing habits. If they should try to do so I will either organize a class action suit against them, or sue them on my own. Whether it is 2 bytes or 2 gigabytes, I'm the one paying for the bandwidth and their use of my resources against my will constitutes tresspess of chattles and arguably theft in precisely the same way junk faxes and SPAM do.
Now, if Hollywood is going to offer me free 100Mbit bandwidth to the internet, I might briefly consider making a Faustian bargain with them, exchanging my privacy for faster pr0n downloads, but I suspect even then I would consider it only briefly before rejecting it. Some things, like individual privacy and freedom, aren't for sale at any price (at least by me, though it seems the masses of mindless drones that populate our western democracies, indeed perhaps the entire planet, aren't as discriminating as one might wish).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The value is in a few things. But the most obvious (at face) is syndication and reruns. If such "popular" episodes are freely available elsewhere then they stand to lose revenue when they air that old episode of CSI because less people are likely to watch it (as they can get it else where) and advertisers aren't going to pay top dollar for a spot they know few are going to see.
Effectively this kills the whole method of TV production as it stands now. (Consider how much out there *is* reruns).
No one wants to (or even can I believe) come out with hit show after hit show, which is what would effectively have to happen for people to keep up with TV.
Of course, all this is bullshit at the moment. Few have the bandwidth (and far fewer the inclination) to digitize the shows they watch and make them available to the general public. But then, the network execs aren't planning for now, they're planning for days ahead. They see what things like Napster have done to the music industry and don't want it happening to them. (Let's leave out the side comments about how Napster and other programs "help" the music industry.. I don't think anyone has the honest facts on that, and besides this is all about perception.)
Eventually, if one takes the slippery slope down the road of enlightenment, what we'll all end up with is extremely watered down TV.
Right now, I have the incentive to download music from the net and burn my own CD's. That incentive is that I normally only like 1-2 songs per CD and I'm not going to pay $18 for two songs. Movies are different, it's worth it for me to pay $20 (ish) for a DVD because it will take a couple of hours to download and put the whole thing together (today). The trick for the recording/movie/tv studios is to set a price point for their media and create a distribution channel where its not worth it for me to download from the internet. Why should I pay for rock/movie stars to go to the space station when the answer to all their problems are just lower prices and common sense distribution?
I agree. The whole idea of over-the-air broadcasts is that anybody with the proper receiver can pick up the signal. So, if we can all receive the programming for free, why can't we make a near-perfect copy of it for our friends?
The "content owners" say that we don't have the right to re-broadcast, basically because if everybody could re-broadcast then their syndicated shows would be less desirable and they couldn't keep making money selling the same product. Also, we could remove the advertising if we wanted to, or theoretically replace it with our own to subsidize our costs.
But let's focus on that last part - if we take out the advertising, then the audience that we re-distribute to won't go out and buy a new Jeep after watching our copy of the show. So the companies that advertise through the "content owners" don't get that additional exposure. But guess what? If we don't re-distribute, then our second-generation audience won't see it anyway. They also won't see the program, or the network's watermark in the bottom corner, so they may be less interested in getting the broadcast feed next time it's on. And that means nobody is going to tell them to drink Sprite ("Don't listen to celebrity testimonials, drink Sprite and be like me, the Famous Athlete").
The "content owners" are confusing "free advertising" with "loss of control" - yes, they aren't the only providers of the Andy Richter show now, but they have a distinct edge over the P2P network - they have the newest episodes, best quality, and are most convenient (most of us don't run the ATI All-in-Wonder out to the TV), and it's the same price to consumers. All that the P2P networks have is time- and space-shifting.
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
"It costs NOTHING to produce a show's archive for sale"
...
...
Uh, bullshit.
Programmers might be smart, but they really ought to need to take a couple business/economics classes before getting their sheepskin.
1. Home video distribution rights. Who owns them? Can Nickelodeon acquire/license those rights?
2. Digital transfer. The masters for the show are probably in analog format. A DVD transfer must be made. Possibly new soundtracks must be created (5.1 surrond, etc.)
3. Additional content: Behind the scenes interviews, production stills, subtitles, etc. Authoring a DVD is a PITA, and the service doesn't come cheap.
4. Locomotion is an AWESOME cartoon channel. How come we can't get it in the states? (oops, way off topic, nevermind)
5. Packaging. Yeah, consumers still want packaging. Weird, I know.
6. Distribution.
7. Marketing.
8.
9.
So no, it doesn't cost "NOTHING".
Releasing on DVD has an "opportunity cost" as well. If it is available on DVD, then your cannibalizing your ad revenue for future showings/syndication.
But hey, if you really like the series, talk to the producers. I'm sure they'd love for someone to foot the bill for them continuing their work. Maybe you can even buy the home video rights from them...
But yet, they keep coming back for more...
If you think this makes the US different, you've clearly never been to Europe.
Oh the irony of misspelled words in "our edumecation is bad!" rants.
Fuck patriotism, we have John O'Brien, Landon Donovan, and Brian McBride.
WE WON, YOU MOTHERFUCKERS! We will dispose of every pansy-assed Euro team that gets in our way.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
a) digital doesn't necessarily mean hdtv
b) it is actually easier to timeshift digital TV, the BSkyB Sky+ package does this, just capturing the transport stream, no messy analogue stage.
c) You can build your own digital tv shifter, google for 'VDR'
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
You're deeply, deeply out of touch.
You can buy a 40"-ish DTV for $1500 now. 50" sets are $2500, and 62" sets are $3500. This is, of course, the low end on each. But you can buy one of those $2500 50" sets, have someone come and calibrate it properly for about $200 and end up with a set that's better than an uncalibrated $6000 50" set.
Digital TV's are selling, and they're selling very well indeed. If you look at the circulars in Sunday papers you'll see that the majority of large screen (>36") sets are digital ready, either in 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratios.
The thing that is not selling is the digital receivers - which are down to about $500 now (maybe less). And those aren't advertised in the circulars either. Because they're not selling. People are buying the DTV's to be "upgrade ready" and to get way, way better picture quality from DVDs and (usually) NTSC broadcasts. Even a crappy scalar built into the sets is better than watching interlaced.
Why aren't people buying the receivers though? Well, it's a few factors. First, 8VSB sucks and a lot of people simply can't get reception. Since the FCC declined to require cable must carry rules for digital broadcasts (despite the fact that 80% of the US gets all TV from cable, and it's been this way for 15 years) most people can't get a signal. Rabbit ears don't cut it for 8VSB, and people aren't going back to the 1960s and putting huge ass antennas on their roofs.
Second, there's no broadcasting. The networks have done a miserable job of holding up their end of the bargain. Fox is deliberately dragging its feet and broadcasting in only 480p where they're broadcasting digital at all.
Third, the connection standards are pretty non-existant. There's no recording standards, no encryption standards, and no definite cabling standards. All of these have been vaguely proposed, and vaguely accepted, but the studios and broadcasters keep whining that it's not sufficient and keep wanting to go back to the drawing board. The cable industry has only done preliminary steps on a cable box interface standard -- allegedly finished, but now we get to watch them fight over patent and royalty issues for a few years. And those of us in the know haven't bought digital yet because of this. It's entirely possible that any DTV without the proper DVI connector will wind up not being able to display anything better than NTSC quality in a couple years when all of the above issues DO get ironed out. I have a good bit of money earmarked toward a very large DTV, but I'm not spending it until some of this gets figured out.