Slashdot Mirror


P2P Television?

An Anonymous reader submits a link to this "very interesting article on TVP2P," writing: "While the author doesn't really mention "P2P," think of the permutations of having TV's becoming Napster-like file servers. The tech can't be too hard to work out, since CATV systems are now piping Net access into millions of homes (anyone doing this hack yet?). If you thought the RIAA raised hell, wait until the MPAA and the relevant TV lobby groups figure this out. Of course, if history teaches us anything, they won't figure it out until way after the genie is out of the bottle ..."

158 comments

  1. SonicBlue? by Drunken+Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Isn't that kind of the reason that Sonic Blue has had so much legal trouble? I'm pretty sure they're systems allow sharing of recorded content. I would expect integrating their product into a P2P system would be fairly trivial.

    It would be nice if the cable companies got off their asses and let us use the infrastructure to the full potential, with network like Kazaa except everything on demand. I don't think the MPAA would go for it though.

    --
    Have you been stalked by Seth today?
    1. Re:SonicBlue? by b_pretender · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It has to do with barriers to entry. Right now, the large television networks control all of the radio towers, cable networks, etc. Replacing this with a p2p rig would allow Joe-SixPack to produce his own television show to compete with what's on the telly.

      That's not going to fly by the networks. At the very least, the cable companies that offer highspeed access will put a stop to it. They need to get their cut of the telly pie.

    2. Re:SonicBlue? by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      >>

      Hardly. Joe Six-Pack doesn't have the $1 million an episode to produce an hour-long drama, nor the sets, etc. Yes, you might see a few more South Park's out there, but that's it. We've all seen public access TV - does anything think that we need more of it?

      On another point, there are some real issues with this proposal, having to do with the nature of the network. Both cable and DSL networks are a heck of a lot more effective at downstream than upstream (nature of the RF). If people start trying to pull data from other endpoints, rather than the network core, it's going to overload the network much faster than if the content is coming from a central site.

    3. Re:SonicBlue? by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      And that's where wireless neighborhood networks come in. No need to go to the data center. Just beam roof-to-roof all your favorite episodes.

      It would have to have smart forward and load balancing, but that's for us hackers to figure out, not for the BigCo to shove down our throat.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    4. Re:SonicBlue? by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 2
      The reason that public access TV sucks, but personal web pages can be pretty good (obviously with incredible varying levels of consistency) is because TV isn't on demand--which means it isn't persistent. If your goal as an amateur television producer is just to get people to watch your silly show, there isn't much incentive to put it on public access, because no one will be watching it at the time you show it.

      With a web page on the other hand, you can put it on the web, and allow word of mouth to build support for it. Not to mention you can appeal beyond the limited geographic range of your local public access.

      Thus there are many great totaly noncommercial websites--and perhaps in a p2p tv world, we would see noncommercial tv shows of equally great quality.

    5. Re:SonicBlue? by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      While Joe-SixPack may not have access to the $millions needed to make a Friends episode, it doesn't cost much for a pr0n background.

      If this medium (TVP2P) is compared to, say, a webcam, could there be more of a forum for home-movies-gone-broadcast? Then again, there's not much chance to make money doing this either, so perhaps more if it will be free.

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
  2. this could bring a whole new meaning to by Dopefish_1 · · Score: 1

    ... searching the P2P networks for pr0n.

    --

    #include <sig.h>
    1. Re:this could bring a whole new meaning to by TheKubrix · · Score: 1, Insightful


      is it just me or does every article have to have a reply with "pr0n" in it,....now if it were funny, thats fine, but sheesh......

    2. Re:this could bring a whole new meaning to by azzy · · Score: 1

      .. searching the P2P networks for Tron

    3. Re:this could bring a whole new meaning to by yatest5 · · Score: 2

      is it just me or does every article have to have a reply with "pr0n" in it

      I hope you're not trying to insinuate that computer nerds are obsessed with 'pr0n'? Someone might sue ;-0!

      Incidentally, using gay-ass language such as 'pr0n' marks you out as someone who will always need to use 'pr0n' since w0m3n will never come near your sweaty ass!

      --
      • Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
  3. Re: "after the genie is out of the bottle" by GrueMaster · · Score: 1

    Shhh...Don't give them insight to the master plans!

  4. Oh great idea by huhmz · · Score: 3, Funny

    Great - The TV can get P2P worms now.

    Errr, no mom it was the worm that downloaded the pr0n, not me

  5. Don't read here much, do you? by eison · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They have already sued over file-sharing TV; specifically, the Replay4500. It's been on Slashdot *several* times already.

    Your gloating about how dumb the allegedly-don't-get-technology busineses are would be better placed if you at least demonstrated the ability to use a search box or scan an archive list.

    --
    is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
    1. Re:Don't read here much, do you? by Beatbyte · · Score: 1

      actually he's not speaking about PVR's.

      I'm sure he appreciates the point though. Since you obviously read here a lot.

    2. Re:Don't read here much, do you? by MrResistor · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wasn't there some company that was rebroadcasting US TV over the internet in Canada a few years ago? I don't recall the details, but I remember them being sued. I'd guess that was the end of them, or I'd probably be able to remember the name.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    3. Re:Don't read here much, do you? by NanoGator · · Score: 2

      Actually, they just relaunched a few days ago. Here's the addie: http://www.icravetv.biz/

      I'm not sure how they resolved their issues, but I'm watching a Live TV feed of CNN Live right now. :)

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    4. Re:Don't read here much, do you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not live, it's from 2000 :-)

    5. Re:Don't read here much, do you? by eison · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ??? The article is by the director of TiVo, about "having a PVR's really big hard disk in many living rooms creates a massively distributed system", but he's not talking about PVRs? Yep. Sure. Right. Nothing to see here, move along. These are not the file sharing devices you are looking for .

      Edit, please, editors. This submission had everything but a mention of a Beowulf Cluster, Microsoft, and how the Anonymous Reader wanted a pony.

      --
      is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
  6. duh - cable company bandwidth metering by plik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since most broadband providers will soon be metering access, depending on the costs involved in file sharing, maybe P2P will just be dead.

    --tom

    1. Re:duh - cable company bandwidth metering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some day, someone, somehow, somewhere, will figure out a solution. Scarcity of bandwidth can't last forever.

    2. Re:duh - cable company bandwidth metering by MImeKillEr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ..except for RoadRunner. They - so far at least - have stated that they don't have any plans to move to a metered service. They haven't officially announced it, but check out Yahoo's cable group (based out of Austin, TX).

      The second everyone goes to metered service, I go back to dial-up. I was considering going to DSL via AT&T, and then heard they've moving to a metered service. Thanks for the warning, AT&T!

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    3. Re:duh - cable company bandwidth metering by asv108 · · Score: 2

      I think it's an overstatement to assume that MOST cable companies will be providing metered access. A FEW companies are PLANNING on rolling out metered access. It remains to be seen whether metered access will prove viable in a climate where consumers are accustomed to unlimited internet access.

    4. Re:duh - cable company bandwidth metering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RoadRunner plans to switch to a metered pay system towards Q4 of 2002.

    5. Re:duh - cable company bandwidth metering by ImaLamer · · Score: 2

      Well if they don't fight until it's too late then they could jump on the bandwagon.

      Why not run re-runs with this P2P idea? Even with commercials. (if the users fast foward then that is the users fault).

      My point is that it doesn't have to be "us vs. them". They could benefit. TVLand branded Get Smart downloads would be fsckin' awsome - I don't care if a company has an interest.

      The difference between pirates and non-pirates is the fact that the pirates don't want to be associated with a company and are thrown back by the idea that the establishment is behind anything. (Pirates don't even like each other. Look at history this idea even holds true for people who raided ships... they hated the queen/king and what that meme embodied.)

      We can all work together to bad no one will.

    6. Re:duh - cable company bandwidth metering by ahfoo · · Score: 2

      Right, cable bandwidth metering is just a lousy business decision. Where I live DSL just keeps getting faster for the same price, we're at 512K for $30 a month right now and they definitely don't meter bandwidth. We're already getting ads for even faster wireless service. As if that weren't enough, we supposedly have some company that wants to wire the whole apartment in Cat5 and give us two megs ethernet to each apartment for ten bucks a month.
      In a climate like that the cable companies are merely putting themselves out of business with these stupid policies. I assume they're thinking they can get away with it in certain areas where they control the markets for the moment, but that won't last as long as bandwidth gets cheaper and people are willing to switch to another company in order to get more of it.
      If you don't think bandwidth is getting cheaper, check out Cogent's web page. A thousand bucks a month for 100Mbps, no oversubscription, no limits just internet bandwidth. And that's basically a retail deal. They encourage wireless ISPs to use their services and at those prices you could sell 1Meg up and down connections at cost for ten bucks. At twenty bucks a month to customers you'd be a lot cheaper and faster than cable and still be taking in fifty percent of the revenue. They handle all the peering, do DNS service and give you IPs. Seems pretty straightforward. I don't know any cable that fast and no way is it that cheap.
      So, bandwidth isn't an issue except temporarily for some people in some locations but not for most people in most locations.
      And as for TV shows, isn't this already going on over Kazaa? The idea of having everybody sell their showz is cute in a vicious sort of way, but luckily it's not the way the internet works. The problem is the net is too efficient. Financial transactions would slow everything down and create non-existing costs in the process. Media rights companies are outdated because their whole existence is based on a much slower exchange model where the fees they rely on were a minor issue in an otherwise costly endeavor of making a purchase.
      Preparing to leave the house to buy a product means getting dressed, getting in the car and risking ones life in the process and then interacting with others in the retail world which is sometimes like walking into a jungle. Then you're forced to stand in a line and serve the retail interests as they see fit in the temple that they have built in the all holy retail shopping center. By the time you take place at center stage among your fellow creatures before the cash register, handing over some cash is the least of your concerns.
      Contrast that with sitting at home in your drawers in your cozy coccoon selecting a range of a hundred or so media titles and pushing the get button and forgetting about it for a few hours till it starts to trickle in. Where's the motivation to pay there? There's no drama in it. You're not in public, nobody is impatiently standing behind you. There's no cash register making its pavlovian noises.
      These media rights companies want to delude themselves that as the process of obtaining information becomes more efficient by orders of magnitude that their earlier business model will do the same, but that's ridiculous and probably schizophrenic by the definition set by the insurance companies who determine which individuals qualify for disability because of mental disorders. These guys should properly be turning to disability payments as they are mentally incapable of facing reality. When a homeless nut job tries to stop you on the street and starts telling you about his psychotic delusions do you suddenly drop everything and try to understand how everything went so wrong for the guy and decide to take on each case yourself as a private charity or do you assume that this is what disability is for?
      I'm serious. When these whiners start talking about all the money that people are going to pay them for their collection of dirty booger rags, they should be given the number of an intern therapist and the address for social services and that's it. Do not even think about giving these nuts your money and if they start getting violent, well do what you have to do to protect yourself. Just remember, they've already demonstrated in public that they're totally delusional and out of touch with reality so watch out. If they do start acting out though, it's important that we, the members of the public, collectively make note of these disturbances in order to have these menacing potential offenders institutionalized when they begin causing real problems. If the media rights holders get out of hand, the terrorists have won.

    7. Re:duh - cable company bandwidth metering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But bandwidth will be an issue. If you think for one second that these companies are going to keep unlimited access you're crazy. Yes, they are going to monitor usage and charge for it. They are all going to do it. It is the only way they are going to make money. Small users will pay a set price and larger users will get hit with the surcharge. It's coming...I'm in the business.

    8. Re:duh - cable company bandwidth metering by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      Let me start out by saying I've not got a shred of legal training, unless you count going to court for traffic tickets.
      That said, I believe that TV stations will balk at this due to 'lost revenue.' The TV stations sell advertising seconds based on viewership...basically how many people are expected to be watching at that particular time. In the US, they're known as the Nielson ratings.
      Well, with rebroadcast, their numbers are no longer valid, and they can't forcast who will see the commercial. So more people (potentially) will see the commercial, and they can't charge more.

      This also seems to relate to some of the other P2P problems, namely the "if people couldn't get this online, would they buy it?" argument.

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    9. Re:duh - cable company bandwidth metering by MImeKillEr · · Score: 1

      Care to point to some proof? According to the area rep, they're not even considering it.

      I'd surely like to know where you're getting your information (not doubting you, just would like to have something to take to him and attempt to get a response....)

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
  7. bandwith?!? by stackdump · · Score: 2, Funny

    Think of all that wasted bandwith transmitting tv signals. Slashdot p2pTV would take out the entire web. .... the slashvision effect?

  8. permutations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    think of the permutations of

    having TV's becoming Napster-like file servers
    having TV's becoming Napster-like servers file
    having TV's becoming servers Napster-like file
    having TV's servers becoming Napster-like file
    ...

    *yawn*

    1. Re:permutations by S810 · · Score: 1

      Becoming TV's having like Napster file servers
      TV's becomming Napter having file servers

      --
      "I think you know what I'm talkin' about, Mr. President; We're gonna kill us a mummy!" - Bruce Campbell as Elvis Presley
    2. Re:permutations by jukal · · Score: 2

      Viva nights! Verse mincer bogs Frankie Elli's pet.

      Uh oh, I dont ever want to think of another anagram of that!

    3. Re:permutations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine a Beowulf cluster of TV/Napster/file server permutations!

  9. Well... by Ooblek · · Score: 5, Funny
    This wouldn't be that impressive. What would impress me is if they could figure out how to make Barney the killer purple dinosaur pop on the screen and scream, "Don't touch!" every time my daughter toddles up to the TV to push the buttons.

    Wow, there is never anything to watch on TV, so now there won't ever be anything to download either.

    1. Re:Well... by kb3hag · · Score: 0

      just think, a remote guard on tv! make it a charachter a child loves, and then they will never touvh the remote again!

    2. Re:Well... by fishebulb · · Score: 2

      what do you mean, ive been capturing, encoding and videocding a ton of shows, mostly the History Channel, and a few SNL's.

      its pretty easy to do, and quick once you figure out how to

  10. I already have file-served tv by molrak · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's called usenet. In the alt.binaries hierachy, many popular shows are already being distributed in this manner(albeit without consent of the respective programs' creators or distributors). While I'm not able to get a program produced by my local public television affiliate or from the local university channel unless I capture it myself, quite a number of programs are available-- some even before they are on your local affiliates. I remember how cool it was to be able to watch Fox's '24' in widescreen, since the local affiliate doesn't have hdtv yet. (For that matter, neither do I).

    --
    You're only as smart as your brain.
    1. Re:I already have file-served tv by Icculus · · Score: 1

      Yes. I stumbled across this after unhooking my cable and going through withdrawl. Now I can get anything from Simpsons to Farscape to MST3K all commercial free. A lot of them are posted in VCD format for convenient burning (for those of you without large storage arrays).

  11. TV People read this! by rikkards · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What you need to do to make VOD work is implememnt it with a network ala Freenet (the P2P Freenet not the other one) this way no one knows exactly what is on their share. Give incentives to people that the more space they give the lower the cost will be for them.

    Hmmm maybe I should patent this idea...

    1. Re:TV People read this! by NanoGator · · Score: 2

      If they were smart, they'd capture popular shows at really high quality, and include some ads in them to regain some of their revenue. Then, they'd put it out on a high bandwidth server so that I'd have incentive to pick up the version with ads instead of the P2P capped/edited one.

      The reason to share the shows isn't so that the ads would be removed, but so that I can actually watch the show!! Duh, why would I buy a Tivo if I was home to watch the shows I want?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:TV People read this! by rikkards · · Score: 1

      Ah but wouldn't it be great if the high bandwidth server you could potentially be downloading from could be some guy a subnet over?

    3. Re:TV People read this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you need to do to make VOD work is implememnt it with a network ala Freenet (the P2P Freenet not the other one) this way no one knows exactly what is on their share. Give incentives to people that the more space they give the lower the cost will be for them.

      Hmmm maybe I should patent this idea...


      Nah, I came up with it too... found your post by searching... and I'm sure someone else has come up with it too. (if not, we should put our heads together)
      Having it similarly structured as Freenet is the best possible way. Except that the stuff would only be accessible through the cable company's router. Your request would have to go through the company's server, which would charge you the correct amount (or deduct credits from your flat monthly fee account), and then direct a stream to your device.
      This could actually be a viable service...
      As you said... make sharing space an incentive by either lowering prices for the space you supply or give vouchers for movies.
      Making a device like this be upgradeable with FireWire drives or other external storage solutions would be kick-ass.
      Maybe someone needs to make a free version of this for the corporations to take notice...

  12. Existing technologies? by dk.r*nger · · Score: 1

    Now, how about making my_tv_show.mpg and put it on Gnutella or Freenet?

    We who are about to salute you, die.

    1. Re:Existing technologies? by Bouncings · · Score: 2
      In terms of existing technologies for reality tv, I've discovered that an interesting p2p reality tv show is where I stair out the window, and the person in the office across the street stairs back.

      P2p Reality TV at its finest. Aside from product placement (I like pepsi), it's commercial free too!

      Next season I'm selling out, it's going to be a show on the WB.

      --
      -- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
    2. Re:Existing technologies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not forget about GNUnet! :)

  13. Ultiamte, Ultimate TV by S810 · · Score: 1

    I have Ultiamte TV at home and I find that I am paying for a service that I use less and less. If I could find music and video that I could play on my TV with a P2P type application for UTV ... Talk about Couch Potato!!! w00t!

    --
    "I think you know what I'm talkin' about, Mr. President; We're gonna kill us a mummy!" - Bruce Campbell as Elvis Presley
    1. Re:Ultiamte, Ultimate TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fool. You should have gotten a DirecTiVo. That's what you get for falling for Microsoft's hype rather than doing some real consumer research before buying.

  14. Napster-like by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just what we need -- you think you're d/ling Bambi for the kids, and find out it's Bambi's Banged By Bombay.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  15. Re:this by MindStalker · · Score: 1

    Wow, when did about.com start offering URL redirection! (actually not URL redirection, I honestly can't remember the name, but basically about.com is pulling the content and pushign it back to you) Whoho!.
    BTW for everyone out there, its a goatse link!

  16. Blue by taernim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Interesting... If the cable companies are so against TiVO and the similar product lines, how do they feel about this?

    It also brings the menu to mind... Right now we have a list of channels to flip through. If you have Digital Cable or Satellite, you have a menu so you can skip to other channels. How will things be done if you have 1,000,000 hours of footage available to watch?

    Will it be like Napster or Morpheus or Kazaa? Will you have to be like "Ok content providers, I want the 4th episode of Twilight Zone... any of you have it?"

    That's what I want, really... having to rely on them. Imagine if the MPAA and RIAA join up... you "download" it to your TV only to find it was a 30-second looped promo for the new Mariah Caray special...

    Plus, the theme of Pay Per View could be expanded dramatically... it's scary.

    --
    "PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
    1. Re:Blue by justin.warren · · Score: 2
      I think you've got the right idea here, though it'll take a little while as serious bandwidth gets rolled out to handle all the traffic. I personally love the idea of being able to issue a request such as your example: I want to watch episode 47 of the Simpsons, or some obscure movie, or a particular foreign film. My local videostore doesn't have it, and I don't really like it enough to buy a full copy, but I want to watch it right now.

      Imagine being able to wander over to your PC in the corner and enter in the search and play it via streaming video? Now instead of pure P2P which would serve this audience best, imagine the concept of cable television on an Internet scale:

      Imagine a multitude of multicast networks, each with a specific server and/or mirrors (aka repeaters) serving a particular set of content. Instead of only having access to what the local broadcast companies decide to show, you've got access to a worldwide choice of channels.

      Add to this the lower cost of entry for indie films, community access TV, etc. and watch the level of content online explode. Sure, large tracts of it will be complete crap, just like the rest of the net. But there will be islands of quality, or special interest material, that rarely makes it to air currently.

      I just hope it doesn't end up mirroring the current state of play: hundreds of channels and there's nothing on.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT after you.
  17. Will we call it "television" anymore? by jukal · · Score: 2

    I am sure things like this will happen in the future, but when it is the reality for majority of people, are we still "watching TV" or do we call it something totally different?

    I believe we are fixated to thinking that TV means receiving a broadcast transmission. Instead in year 2015 we might be watching "something+vision" like "D vision" (and your favorite show will be D vision by zero). Any other suggestions on terms replacing TV in future?

    from Merriam-Webster's thesaurus:
    Entry Word: television
    Text: a medium of communication involving the transmission and reproduction of images by radio waves

  18. They will be quick to learn by Questioning · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At first they will likely assume that bandwidth will limit this sort of thing. However, the relationships between the music and movie industry will ensure that many of the coorperations will act quicker than you think. Yes, the genie caught the music industry unaware, but it was a new genie back then.

  19. UK landmark case by brejc8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In the UK someone got convicted for redistributing radio over the web.

    Anything else comes to the courts the judge is giong to look at this case and say wrong.
    There is a link here.

  20. SwapDV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Go to www.planetreplay.com and follow the link on the left to "SwapDV." The SwapDV program is almost exactly what you are talknig about. It emulates a replaytv 4000, so if you have a replaytv on your network, you can play mpeg2 encoded shows streamed directly from your computer's hard disk. It also is able to download shows from your replaytv to your hard disk. And, this is where the P2P part comes in, it is a gnutella client. So it is trivial to share all of your shows with everyone else out on gnutella.

    Now, if only regular people had the bandwidth to share these shows - mpeg2 just isn't compressed enough, you are looking at around 400MB+ for a half-hour show.

    1. Re:SwapDV by gduprey · · Score: 1

      Actually, we have just removed the gnutella support for the upcoming SwapDV release. As much as it shouldn't matter, SonicBlue was pretty unhappy and the threat of what may happen just wasn't worth it. Too close to "video goes napster" for the suits.

      SwapDV is designed to archive programs on a PC and allows you to treat that PC as just another Replay unit. For example, on your ReplayTV box, you can view your SwapDV archive(s) and play programs from it. If you have a modern OS, you can also play shows you've archived with SwapDV right on the computer (it's written in Java, so the platofrm really doesn't matter).

      In reality, even with gnutella, it is't too practical for sharing. Uploading a 30 minute program on most broadband environments takes 8 hours or so (assuming upstream capped at 128kbs)

      Someday, upload bandwidth will become as plentiful as download, but 8 and 16 hour transfers right now make P2P via SwapDV (or likely anything else) a bit impractical right now for most folks.

      That said, SwapDV as it stands really does transform the experience of having a PVR (which itself really transforms how you watch TV). It's pretty cool - enough to warrant getting a 4000/4500 unit over something else :-)

      You can check out the SwapDV project at http://sourceforge.net/projects/swapdv/

      (note - a new version with a ton of new features is due out in the next 24-72 hours)

      Gerry

  21. The News by Devil's+BSD · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At this rate, I'm surprised the MPAA & RIAA hasn't started to complain about the copyright laws specialized for news, where you can use so and so number of seconds of a copyrighted material for informational purposes.

    --
    I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
  22. Imagine.. by NanoGator · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    ... a Beowulf Cluster of Tivos!

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  23. Perhaps when bandwidth is cheap... by RyanFenton · · Score: 2


    ...at least not yet for all channels.

    I doubt many people are going to be willing to pay thousands, if not millions, per month, so that anyone may see the weather channel in it's pristine glory over the internet - especially when there's much more efficient weather web sites that already exist. Well, that is, unless the weather channel starts hiring supermodels to introduce the weather... with very special forms of weather simulations, etc.

    :^)

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Perhaps when bandwidth is cheap... by wormbin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The thing that "let the genie out of the bottle" for digital music was:

      1. Rippers that made it easy to suck wave files from a CD
      2. Encoders that turned an NNN size wave file into MM.
      3. Bandwidth that made downloading MM size files feasable.
      4. Cheap CD burners and blank CD media

      Now with VCDs we definitely have (4) we may have (1) (2) depending on your definition of easy but we certainly don't have (3) for a 650MB VCD image. ...and the latest news makes the future of broadband certainly look more expensive.

      The video P2P genie looks like it's still in the bottle to me.

  24. Re:Good lord, what will they think of next?! by TheTomcat · · Score: 2

    For the humor impaired: Slashdot's authors dont realize it (and dont disturb them--they're innocent, like little kids..) but the genie is already out of the bottle.

    For the stylistically impaired, user submissions are in italics, and slashdot editors' comments are not. Sure, maybe they shouldn't have posted it, but don't put words in their mouths.

    S

  25. I already get my tv over the internet... by SkyLeach · · Score: 2

    It's called Gnutella and if they can get the protocol to actually work in RL as well as in theory I'll finally finish downloading the first season of Enterprise and burn it to VCD and be happy.

    --
    My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so :-p
    1. Re:I already get my tv over the internet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude.. get a for-pay news server from www.newsfeeds.com (or any of the others) and go to alt.binaries.startrek. it will be your best friend.

      also www.newzbin.com is a great place to find about all usenet releases.

    2. Re:I already get my tv over the internet... by BradSVSi · · Score: 1

      Looks like you and I are in about the same boat. I've been using LimeWire to get the newest episodes of Enterprise since I started my new job. I work about 80 hours per week and am NEVER home to watch it except on weekends.

      I don't own a VCR and don't really see the need to buy one and I'm not ready to fork over the money for a tivo-like device yet. I really don't think that I'm stealing these shows because I pay my cable bill, I'm just not home when they air the few shows that really want to watch, so it's really not much different than recording with a VCR.

      The worst part is trying to find a copy of episode 12 of Enterprise (Silent Enemy) where the color is not completely screwed up for half of the show.

      The fact is that P2P television isn't new. ORGANIZED P2P television, now THAT would be something new.

    3. Re:I already get my tv over the internet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might consider checking out GNUnet. It's still in the early stages of development but it has great potential to keep information free, as well as scale in a reasonable fashion.

    4. Re:I already get my tv over the internet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get it from my slow 512Kbps-connection if you're really desperate.

      ftp://enterprise:enterprise@albatorsk.com

    5. Re:I already get my tv over the internet... by BradSVSi · · Score: 1

      Thank you my friend. Thank you very much.

  26. New Content? by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Now, let's stop to consider that the U.S., every day, produces something on the order of 360 hours (12 hours times 30 channels) of new content I don't get where he makes the connection between channels and airtime, and new content.

    1. Re:New Content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you actually been watching TV this season, There hasn't been new shows on every channel every hour of the day, infact with sept 11, who-ha, we've had barely a full season.

  27. This could be done today... by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not quite the same as what the article suggests, but I do think a reasonable P2P 'TV' network (it'd really be a PC network...) is rather plausible.

    I have a Pentium 2 400 machine in my bedroom. It has a Hauppage WinTV card ($49, $99 for stereo) and the PicVideo Motion JPEG Codec. It can capture at 640 by 480 @ 30 fps without breaking a sweat. I use it as a VCR. The data rate's pretty high, I usually compress it to DivX later if I want to keep the show. I wouldn't put this stuff out on Kazaa, though, with my 256kbps limit.

    However, I live in a pretty big complex that is laid out rather nicely for 802.11. I could see a few people taking really old computers, turning them into virtual VCR's, and making the shows available on 802.11.

    One guy could be capturing That 70's Show, while the next guy is capturing Enterprise, all at near-broadcast quality!

    The reason I'm mentioning this is that I expect one day there'll be a huge 802.11 network built. (Or something like it...) It'll start with an apartment complex sharing an internet connection. Then they'll share their files. Then they'll connect neighboring complexes.... and so on. There won't be any charge for bandwidth other than electricity.

    I have a feeling that the way the internet is going, individuals will build something like this so they can break away from the WWW. Maybe I'm just fantasizing, but who knows? Sharing TV shows, like the article describes, could be the killer app that gets this type of thing launched.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:This could be done today... by jsapo · · Score: 1

      Imagine harnessing the power of 30 million Playstation 2s out there and hacking up a badass TVP2P linux client for the PS2 linux kit. Every PS2 has got a TV on it anyways, might as well put it to use as a P2P television browser. Takes Cable Access to a whole new meaning. You could make a Japanese gameshow, and really market in Japan! All we need is a Distribution thrown together based on Sony's linux with all necessary software thrown on, and viola.... --P2PTV--

    2. Re:This could be done today... by rkent · · Score: 1

      I have a Pentium 2 400 machine in my bedroom. It has a Hauppage WinTV card ($49, $99 for stereo) and the PicVideo Motion JPEG Codec.

      Hey! Kinda offtopic here, but what OS do you use? I want to get a TV card but I refuse to use win98 or ME... anything that works with win2k or linux would be super.

    3. Re:This could be done today... by ryanvm · · Score: 2

      I have a Pentium 2 400 machine in my bedroom. [...] It can capture at 640 by 480 @ 30 fps without breaking a sweat.

      Hmmm, can I have a username/password to your web site? I'm over 18 - I swear. ;-)

    4. Re:This could be done today... by NanoGator · · Score: 2

      I use Win2k. :)

      I have up-times of about a month or two, usually. Works great!

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    5. Re:This could be done today... by NanoGator · · Score: 2

      Heh. Nah, I don't have anything to share. Recently cleared it all. Eventually I want to build a new PVR system here, but I have a coupla hurdles. I'm trying to capture at 60 fps instead of 30 by expanding the interlaced vid.
      I figured that part out, but the problem is that it randomly decides to start capturing on either the even or odd field. The problem is that in order to automate expanding from 30 to 60 fps, it has to know which field to start on, or it'll look really screwy!

      Any idea what I can do to enforce it capturing starting on the even fields?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    6. Re:This could be done today... by Per+Wigren · · Score: 2

      The Hauppauge-cards work great with the bttv driver! I have one myself...

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    7. Re:This could be done today... by Sneftel · · Score: 1

      The reason I'm mentioning this is that I expect one day there'll be a huge 802.11 network built. (Or something like it...) It'll start with an apartment complex sharing an internet connection. Then they'll share their files. Then they'll connect neighboring complexes.... and so on. There won't be any charge for bandwidth other than electricity.

      Oh, boy. Accessing servers 40 hops away, and 30 of those hops are not very dependable. Let's hope that by then, IPv7 can read minds.

      --
      The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
    8. Re:This could be done today... by corian · · Score: 1

      One guy could be capturing That 70's Show, while the next guy is capturing Enterprise, all at near-broadcast quality!

      I'm not sure that "quality" is really an appropriate term to describe That 70's Show.

    9. Re:This could be done today... by TobyIRC · · Score: 1

      Ehh? IPv7? As far as i know, it's still *.*.*.* and that's that. I am thinking that eventually the 4 fields will all be used so there will be no ips left! It will take a few decades to do, with the amount of combos.

  28. It is url redirection by yerricde · · Score: 1

    basically about.com is pulling the content and pushign it back to you

    That's a proxy, and this About page is no proxy. On my machine, I have goatse.cx and www.goatse.cx assigned in .../etc/hosts to an Apache server on 127.0.0.1 (otherwise known as localhost), which mirrors pineight.com. I didn't see the ass but rather the front page of pineight.com, which means that my computer requested the content.

    It's URL redirection in a frame.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  29. No, that's not it at all. by imadork · · Score: 4, Interesting
    You're right, I didn't see P2P mentioned in the article, but that's because I don't think that's necessarily what he's aiming at.

    In the P2P systems that we have seen, each node makes "their" data available on the system, and when looking for new data, it will search for it on the distributed system. When it is found, it will take it. It's like one big hard drive where everyone has access to data that is put on it.

    But, notice that while the writer mentions the big distributed storage network, he never really mentions the free and unfettered access part of it. In fact, there's very definite references to DRM-like constructs where you'll "order" some media, and have it delivered electronically, perhaps with a "key" that gives you limited viewings. In this vision of distributed storage, if the new episode of Buffy is on your neighbor's TiVo, you can snatch it from there and not have to go to the network's servers to get it, maybe saving you from having it count against your monthly broadband access GB limit.. But you still need to buy a Buffy-viewing license before the device will actually let you view it. And licenses for newer content like first-run movies will expire after a while, and won't be perpetual like a DVD you buy right now (supposedly) is.

    This is actually Pay-Per-View taken to an extreme, where your TiVo can get any episode of Star Trek you want automatically, but will prevent you from watching it unless you fork over money to Paramount. Is this really the direction where we want things to go?

    1. Re:No, that's not it at all. by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 2
      I dunno, I find myself a lot less opposed to DRMish TV than DRM on my computer.

      DRM on my computer requires me to run THEIR binaries, THEIR operating systems, and totally trust THEM with the physical object in the world that is most personal to me, my computer.

      However, if they start distributing a device that is SOLELY for watching television, I wouldn't mind seeing it managed by content companies so much, since presumably it's pay-per-view model would be more encouraging of new content.

      So while I'm not as completely opposed to copy restrictions on p2p tv, there are still some requirements I'd have for it: no infringing on my privacy, and the ability to produce copy-restricted content made available to EVERYONE, not just current broadcast stations and movie studios.

  30. Re:Good lord, what will they think of next?! by lunenburg · · Score: 1

    Ah, but if Congress and the HDTV standards groups get their way, people won't have the VCR for too long...

  31. MPAASUX by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    That's because the MPAA is a bunch of stupid bastards who don't know anything except their bottom line. Those sons of bitches.

    MPAASUX would be a cool license plate number.

    1. Re:MPAASUX by tgibbs · · Score: 2

      I don't think they even know the bottom line. I'd be willing to pay quite a bit to download TV on demand, even if there was a (reasonable) delay in availability after the intial commercial broadcast. After all, I'd be saving money on VCRs, tape, and my time in programming and setting things up. Not to mention the aggravation when I miss a favorite show because something went wrong. If the charges were reasonable and the user interface decent, I probably wouldn't bother seeking bootlegs even if they were readily available.

      The technology is here, now, yet the legitimate owners of the material aren't even offering a reasonable alternative to the pirates.

    2. Re:MPAASUX by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You've raised a good point. Here we are, in a day and age when there are hundreds, if not thousands, of geeks out there who would love to build the next home theater component, whether it's for P2P television or some kind of streaming video box or whatnot, and the folks with the content see this as a threat rather than jumping on it as an enormous business opportunity.

      When phonograph records were invented, the music industry was horrified that nobody would attend concerts any longer. When film emerged, theaters saw their own end as folks would no longer attend live performances. And when the video tape player became available to the consumer, cinemas worried that nobody would attend the movie theater.

      Am I wrong in assuming that these technologies have actually increased the worth of these businesses? For live music and theater productions, just check out Ticket Master! There are hundreds of performances every single day! As for the movie theater, have you seen the lines at the ticket booths lately? Sure, there might be 10 or 100 or 1000 or even 10000 geeks out there who will pass up the "real" performance for some crappy downloaded version played in a little window on their computer with people's heads in the way, but the rest of the world will continue to support theaters and concerts.

      I believe the numbers of live theater productions, live concerts and movies in the theater have increased by several orders of magnitude since the invention of recordable media. If only the dull, boring gray-haired old men in management of the RIAA and MPAA would understand that and use MP3, P2P, and every other "obstacle" to their advantage, rather than try to fight an impossible battle against good technologies, causing the government to pass all kinds of laws reminicient of George Orwell's 1984.

      The media companies are supposed to think of innovative ways to move content around BEFORE the pirates do it for them! But once again, the ever-important "bottom line" way of thinking among the idiot management crowd causes them to favor some silly numbers over good, solid technical knowledge and decisions, and that is what screws up their bottom line in the first place! Management thinks they don't need to know or get involved in the details. What those dumb-asses don't understand is that try as you might, those details NEED attention, because they are what compose the overall picture. And they need MANAGEMENT'S ATTENTION, just as much as the attention of the lower-level employees who deal with the details first-hand. And management needs to fully comprehend the depths and importance of these details. If they manage a programming company, they should study programming. They don't need to program, that's the programmers' job. But they need to understand, in order to make better decisions. They can't just say, "Well, why isn't it done?" Or, "You say it'll take a month, but you have two weeks to get it done." Well, excuse me, but if it takes a month, it'll be done in a month, and not a moment sooner. Management needs to understand that. And management of the RIAA, MPAA and all the media companies need to understand that the world changes, businesses rise and fall, and their time has come and gone... or, they will choose to understand that those ever-pesky details of their business need to change, and maybe, MAYBE they'll be able to profit from these changes.

      Regardless of what happens in the world, it is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE for companies of ANY type to have laws passed (like DMCA, SSSCA, etc) to protect their alleged right to profits, because they have no such right in any sense of the word. The government provides patents, copyrights and trademarks. With the original limitations, those are quite enough to provide ample protection for any business.

  32. Re:Good lord, what will they think of next?! by Icculus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sure, they're pretty much the same thing. Bob records a show and offers copies to others.

    Practically, it's much different to record a show, drop it onto your machine, and let people make an unlimited number of identical, almost zero-cost copies of it (discounting any forthcoming bandwidth tarrifs) at will. Video tapes and postage aren't free, real-time tape copying takes a long time and is lossy.

    All things considered, it's much easier and cheaper to trade via P2P than trade tapes via mail.

  33. Not P2P by da_Den_man · · Score: 1
    Unless thats a new acronym for PPV. This quote in and of itself states:

    "But if you want to watch the new Lord of the Rings next December, you'll need to reserve a copy from Comcast, which will download it to your living-room hard disk the night it's released with a key that lets you watch it a certain number of times."

    Meaning I won't control what is being stored on MY system. Yet, they expect me to pay for what they are using to store it with. No, this is not what I would want as a consumer.

    Why does it seem that My wallet is the ONLY reason these people want to give me ANYTHING? And why does it seem I am Supposed to sit back and be the Cash Cow for these outdated indutries?

    --
    You keep going until you die..."Me".
    1. Re:Not P2P by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 1
      Why does it seem that My wallet is the ONLY reason these people want to give me ANYTHING?


      Why should they GIVE you anything? If you want something, usually, you have to pay for it.
    2. Re:Not P2P by da_Den_man · · Score: 1

      If they are using MY equipment to store a video for My neighbor, or Jowe in Bumfumble Idaho, then YES, they should give me some sort of compensation. or did I NOT pay for the PVR system sitting in MY Living room Hooked to MY HDTV, in MY HOUSE?

      --
      You keep going until you die..."Me".
    3. Re:Not P2P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or... You could download a copy of LOTR now, which is virtually DVD quality, and fits quite nicely onto 2 CD's.

      Not that I'd have any first-hand knowledge of this of course, but it's do-able as we speek.

      Hence why I don't understand this thread... Since I've built my PVR PC, I've watched more downloaded content than anything else.

      I guess I must be living in the future, huh? 8)=

  34. Spongebob and Tom & Jerry by mallfouf · · Score: 1

    As long as i can get my sponge bob and Tom & Jerry on vcd, and watch them on my computer, i'll be happy. I'm for fully sharing tv broadcasts. They're all broadcasted, but now, we would get to watch them anytime we want.

  35. The IT age greets the Salad Shooter @ $19.95 by Quirk · · Score: 1

    The Gutenberg era wherein the word was sacred and could not be profaned is dead, dead, dead, and, information is a commodity destined to become cheaper. The question arises whether some form of Gresham's Law will come into play, and, bad information will drive out the good. But then , the more especially in the context of television, maybe the inverse will hold and good information will drive out the bad. May the Force be With You.

    --
    "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
    Cohen
  36. I 3 Technology by Procrasturbator · · Score: 1

    Finally, and end to the era of turning on my TV to see programming. Soon, I will get to see H4X0rz, how to make my penis bigger in just two hours, mislabeled TV shows, and most of all, viruses and bugs of all sorts. I was worried my TV wasn't giving me enough crap with the shows it picks up. Just what I need.

  37. Payment Model/Security by mongoks · · Score: 0

    If the prices are reasonable then I'm sure that some sort of payment model could be worked out. If you download something from another DVR you can still have a central server charge your account for it. You also need a mechanism to make sure it's a legit show and you aren't just wasting money. Perhaps some kind of checksum authentication mechanism could be used to verify that the content of the file is really what you are paying for. So let's say that you want to get an episode of X-Files you've never seen? How much would you be willing to pay?

  38. Re:Good lord, what will they think of next?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sony tried that years ago. For the same reasons as the MPAA too.

    Big surprise, Sony obviously failed.

  39. Local networks a partial solution by cryptochrome · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes, I agree. Unless bandwidth becomes real big and real cheap real fast, I don't expect p2p TV to go anywhere soon.

    However, local networks (including wireless neighborhood mesh networks) are another matter. They can be very cheap to build and run and very fast because the data doesn't have to be shipped across the country. With a wireless mesh, you just have to setup the antenna and power it, and you're in. Thus a neighborhood can easily share shows, allow people to know what they're watching in a neighborly way, and even actively pool resources for efficient storage without breaking the bank. As long as shows are initially autosaved off the regular broadcasts, it won't put too much stress on the on-demand mechanisms.

    This would be enough for popular shows, while less popular and more obscure ones could be piped over the internet individually. A smart filesharing network could handle all of this with a little effort, provided the files are compressed and you aren't living in some super-eclectic neighborhood.

    Good article though. Interesting data on 360 hours per day/ million total. Unfortunately, it also raises the spectre of pay-per-view-over-pay-per-get.

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  40. wow--from great minds come great inventions by zazas_mmmm · · Score: 2, Funny

    So if you want to watch reruns of Gilligan's Island...

    I guess necessity is the mother of invention after all. Why there could be thousands of people paying for and downloading Gilligan's Island as we speak! Think of the business oportunities! We could end the dot.com collapse right now!


    Gilligan! Put down those coconuts!

    --
    I'm a friend of a friend of the working class.
  41. Its time by sheepab · · Score: 1

    Time to break out those DRM helmets that fog up when you see something you havent paid for.

  42. P2P everything by elite+lamer · · Score: 0

    Today on Slashdot:

    P2P, p2p, P2p, p2P, and oh! a story on peer-to-peer networking.

    I developed a P2P peer-to-peer community. Basically, it's a network that shares P2P filesharing programs, like Kazaa, Audiogalaxy, etc. Put it on Slashdot, why don't you?

    --
    Oops!
  43. news to come- by denttford · · Score: 0


    NEW YORK (AP) - It has being reported that there has been a wave of suicide among Star Trek fans in the past week. The definite cause of such a statistically unlikely event remains unknown, however, all victims were found somewhere near a computer playing a one hour loop of the introductory credits for Enterprise, Paramount's latest addition to the Star Trek franchise. In other entertainment news, the RIAA has sent the MPAA a sizable bill. Details are still unclear, but sources report that it is a draft settlement for assertions that a member of the MPAA did severe harm to the music industry through the use of peer to peer sharing software and "one hour of 100% dreck." Disputing this claim, the MPAA notes that p2p usage has dropped some 70% in the last week.

    CD sales receipts have remained unaffected.

    --

    Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
  44. Apparently they already are thinking about it... by Traicovn · · Score: 1

    Please note, that Fortune Magazine article is on an AOL/TIME-Warner website. As in CNN, as in Turner Networks, as in Time Warner Cable. They obviously are considering it to some level, and I'm sure a few people in the company will read this article. How much notice they'll take is another thing, whether they'll do anything to try to stop it.... Chances are though they will do so, and as quick as possible. AOL Time Warner is one of the largest TV and entertainment conglomerates out there...

    --

    [Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
    {Traicovn}
  45. Re:Good lord, what will they think of next?! by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2
    Not to mention replaytv does this already and is currently being sued for not only commercial skipping, but also because people are sending out premium programming down the wire.
    Q. How do I share my recordings with my friends?
    A. If your friend has a ReplayTV 4500 or 4000, they can "talk" to each other over the broadband Internet connections. From your Replay Guide, just select the show that you want to share. A pop-up menu will give you the option to "Send Show" and then ask you to select the person that you want to share the video with. All that's left is hitting "Send" and the video is sent the person that you selected. It's that easy!!
  46. the need to restructure the internet by 8bit · · Score: 1

    I think the best place for P2P to go is broadcasting. True broadcasting. I think each router/gateway on the internet should start having built in accomidations for P2P, so when you want to stream video or audio your computer would send out a request and then the router will send out a request (much like it already does,) to the nearest server that is helping stream such and such a a/v channel. With something like that in place in the heart of the net can we achieve virtually seamless streaming data. Of course then there would be problems of assigning ID codes so joe-schmoe won't accidentally override cnn's stream and that could prove to be slightly evil.

    Such a method could also be used for file sharing, but I doubt that'd find quicker acceptance. At least with p2p streaming a/v, big broadcasting corperations wouldn't mind too much. TV and radio stations could only benefit from such a system, they can get their ads out to a wider audience cheaper than using a traditional client/server model.

    I think the real question is: is the internet ready to become the standard infastructure for all electronic communications? With a good P2P broadcasting scheme and VoIP phones we could have only two cables running into our homes, data and power (unless of course you want data over power.)

    Sometimes it's better to simply start over.

    --

    --Roy
  47. Great by NickRob · · Score: 1

    Now I'm going to try to get the latest TV show and it's going to be slow and then, I open it up and it's something completely different.

  48. Too late? by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

    Of course, if history teaches us anything, they won't figure it out until way after the genie is out of the bottle ..."

    Unless they're monitoring /. for subversive IP violators.

    --

    --

    As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

  49. PLAYSTATION TV by jsapo · · Score: 1

    I was sitting around pondering the potential uses of my Playstation 2 linux kit. With all the limitations Sony installed into it, you can't scale it into much more than it already is; a development platform for games. But then it hit me, the Playstion 2 w/ linux would be the perfect P2PTV platform! A standardized hardware interface, almost all with TV's attached, and ethernet connections... all that's needed now is for some clever hacker to whip up some GPL'd software made to interface with the Playstation's API's and viola! Hook it into Gnutella or one of the other new P2P protocols and you'll already have a huge filebase. Hell there's 30 million PS2 units worldwide right now, that's quite a market. The PS2 could even be the new P2P marketing platform. If Sony (or even Gameshark or somebody) could sell an authenticcation service through the PS2 w/ some P2P software, damn i think they'd be in business.

    no sig required

  50. The industry is well prepared for this. by unsung · · Score: 1

    This has been on the board for a long time at our company. In fact, from what I understand, ReplayTV already *has* program sharing between STBs. Personally, I'm still not sold on stuffing a Hard drive into a Set-top box especially if its prone to crashes.

    So in that light there are a lot of projects going on that are similar to this. Even Microsoft is pretty aware. Their 'Freestyle' project is a solution that's:
    1. meant to display on the TV screen (either through STB or computer video-out card) and,
    2. networks with the HD on your computer (a la works with 3rd party P2P file sharing).

    I'm sure there are some Linux equivalents.

  51. Nothing New....Just ask Bill! by InnovativeCX · · Score: 1

    If my memory serves me right, Bill Gates wrote page after page about a system such as this in his book The Road Ahead. He described a Tivo-like interface used to connect to a file server via set-top box to select programming. However, he described it more as a digital broadcast receiver (There were extensive references to programs being aired every 5 minutes allowing one to tune in [almost] as they pleased). When I read that several years ago, I thought it was an interesting idea and would still love to see a variant of the technology implemented today. Of course, I don't feel too inclined to 'activate' my TV or sign up for a Passport to change channels....

  52. Why not pre-emptively begin lobbying by Yhcrana · · Score: 1

    Start now, get shit in place so that we can make sure that ICAAN/napster/selling all our credit data/any of our data to anybody won't happen anymore.

    I'm sick and fucking tired of hearing how every bit of data about my life can be sold to some fucking company who can then spam me in any way they see fit (snail mail/e-mail/WHATS NEXT???)

    So, instead lets get our shit together and get some laws out there that pertain to this so the companies can't get their grubby little hands on any more of our lives. Keep coorporations out of our homes, out of our credit/phone/TV watching data!!! Hell, keep the fucking coorporations out of my head since they are heading there anyways.

    Yhcrana

    --

    The voices in my head don't like you

  53. Making disribution more accessible by Joel+Ironstone · · Score: 1

    This would certainly allow small content producers to have access to every consumer. I like the idea of being able to wacth local programming from wherever on my t.v. and have it accessible at the same rate as huge networks. Wayne and Garth wouldn't of had to sellout to the big networks.

  54. P2P TV a la swarmcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If video could be rebroadcast from clients to other clients
    in real time (as well as stored content), this would enable
    one person to provide a feed to the whole world, without
    having to have virtually infinite bandwidth.

    Think of the possibilities: A TV Linux Show, live
    broadcast of the Olympics from amateurs with stabilized
    handycams and 3G cellphones, Super Bowl coverage by
    the fans made for the fans, PBS for countries that
    don't have it (and never will if governments have their way).

    Of course, we must not forget that terrorists would be
    able to use this technology to air their broadcasts too,
    so it must be a Bad Thing (TM).

    Vik :v)

  55. Already done by Cyberllama · · Score: 2

    Lots of shows have around found their way into common exchange on peer to peer networks. Not only cartoons such as the simpsons, family guy, southpark, and futurama, but also Shows like Farscape can often be found. Sure it's not everything, but its a good start.

  56. Hey know-it-all-smart@$$... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It never ceases to amaze me how there is no shortage of snotty, wannabe tech nerds on this site who love to play the wise guy, I-am-smarter-than-you.

    I read this site every day. And as an attorney, I've been monitoring the Replay case (covered by numerous mainstream news sites, not just /.) pretty closely, and I can explain the legal intracacies to you if you would like. The plaintiffs *haven't won anything yet*, and lost their motion to force Replay to monitor users - all long after the technology has been sold into millions of homes for yquite some time.

    So your (rudely made) point is that this rather late and as of now unsuccessful lawsuit somehow *disputes* my point that the major media lobbies were asleep at the wheel on P2P file sharing? That logic only applies on the planet Convoluted.

    I would only gloat if somehow I was going to get rich off of all this. My original submission was meant to criticize the music industry, which had a chance years before Napster to create a pay-for-play download service, and didn't see the need, and how the entertainment industry has been reactionary rather than innovative. Your (rude) lawsuit post tends to argue *for* this proposition, not counter it.

    -- Original Submitting Anon Coward

  57. Fer the luv of Ra, WHY? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    P2P for music is one thing You buy a CD, copy it t your HD, and make it available within Kazaa/Morpheus/Gnutella/whatever. You've bought it,and are (ilegally?) distributing it.

    With TV, if JoeBlow wants the latest episode of Buffy, he can freakin record it himself! It's not like there is only one copy.

    P2P is NOT a suitable model for everything. PDA's, PC's, cellphones....what's next, P2P basketballs? Morse code to your buddy as you bounce it?

  58. The abuse of this is interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you encountered a hijacked webcast yet?

    Its very disconcerting, because you still feel inclinde to trust the image.

    Now emiagin that happening in your board meetings, to selected memebers of the nation...

    people will be swapping tv programs like bubble gum cards.

    Yes, i have seen a few on pOrn feeds.

    Anonymous Through Choice.
    Thank You Slashdot.

  59. Bambi banged by bombay, eh? by XJoshX · · Score: 1

    Even better. I bet they left the character of thumper in...

  60. Oui! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    C'est ne pas une mirror

  61. By 2006 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A friend of mine works for northern cable here in Sudbury, Canada. He says that they are aiming for the ability to use a napster-like ability to show any show you want by 2006. No word yet on wether it will be pay-per-view or a monthly fee. I guess they realized that people would pay more if they could choose what to watch, and not just pray that something good is on.

  62. Stuff to download by Sabalon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've got about 300 video tapes at home. Most stuff taped off TV. Stuff like MTV when they showed videos (yeah...I'm old), some shows from the 80s, Dr Who again and again.

    Why does it need to be something that is currently on?

    I think it'd be cool to fire up NapTV, search for "greatest american hero with the ghost" episode and let it rip.

    Of course, if it is like Napster, it'd probably be the wrong show misnamed and only half of that.

  63. They already have copy proof TV that works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simply make your programs so crappy that no one will want to copy it. That has already worked on me.

  64. Re:PLAYSTATION TV - Uh... No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. This won't work.

    1. I have a ps2 linux kit and I don't have it hooked up to a TV (usually.) why do you presume that almost all the developers would?

    2. most importantly: there is no AV -input- on the PS2.

    sure, it supports USB and firewire, so you could get some hardware to pump the video signal in, but that's not what you were suggesting, I think.

  65. "...new meaning to Pay-Per View" by Aqua_Geek · · Score: 1
    In the voice of Homer Simpson: "They have the Internet on TVs now?"

    As for the new meaning to Pay-Per-View:

    Instead of "I need to upgrade my 28.8 kb connection to a 1.5 MB Fiber-optic T1 LAN. Will you be able to provide an IP router capable of supporting my existing Tolken-Ring Ethernet network?"

    Homer: "Can I have my money now?"

    Now: "I need to download The Matrix tonight so I can watch it at my LAN party. Will you be able to provide a MPEG2 version of it that is both of optimal quality and small file size (i.e. adjust the bitrate down to 6.0 or so)?"

    P2P User: "Can I have my money now?"

    --
    Disclaimer: This comment was generated by a Flock of Trained Microsoft Programmers for Aqua_Geek.
  66. Rebroadcast TV by buck_wild · · Score: 1

    I can see why TV companies would want to sue: their customers are getting seen in more markets, yet paying for only the markets that the TV company is broadcasting in.

    Have any advertising companies sued or is it only the TV companies?

    --
    If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    1. Re:Rebroadcast TV by MrResistor · · Score: 2

      I believe it was just TV companies. They're the ones selling the ad space, after all. AFAIK, advertising companies are customers in this market, or at best middle men. They create the ad, obviously, and the more the ad is seen the more effective it will be, which will reflect well on the ad company and probably bring them more business in the future.

      The product company, of course, should be thrilled to have their ad being seen by as many people as possible.

      This is just my logical analasys of the situation, though. I'm not involved with the advertising market in any way, and people, especially business people who have lawyers, tend to do really strange, illogical, and self-defeating things.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    2. Re:Rebroadcast TV by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      So advertising companies would probably really like to see this works, as it has a chance to increase revenue, without them having to either pay for it, or potentially resort to spam.

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    3. Re:Rebroadcast TV by MrResistor · · Score: 2

      One would think so, but it's hard to say.

      One would think that advertising companies would try to keep something like adcritic afloat, but apparently that wasn't the case. Apparently it's been bought by Ad Age, and will be relaunched some time in the future, but why they ever let it go down in the first place is a mystery to me.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  67. Re:Good lord, what will they think of next?! by buck_wild · · Score: 1

    Flamebait?!? This was funny as hell!

    --
    If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
  68. Re:Good lord, what will they think of next?! by buck_wild · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but it takes a friend of mine like 8 hours to get a copy of a program. (unsure if it was a 30 minute or 1 hour show.)

    --
    If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
  69. Ahh memories by Snaller · · Score: 2


    Ah, I remember "greatest american hero", such great fun - wonder how it would hold up today :)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating