Slashdot Mirror


UK Leads in TV Show Downloading

dirutz writes "Britain has emerged as the world's biggest market for downloading pirated TV, with Australia being the second and the U.S. sitting at third. Among the top pirated TV shows, '24' ranks the first. 'The Simpsons,' 'Enterprise,' 'Stargate SG-1' and 'Battlestar Galactica' are also among the top hitters." 'Pirated' seems a strong word, at least for watching those programs which have been beamed (unencrypted) through my body. Where can I pay a quarter per show for moderate-quality, sanctioned torrent files?

47 of 355 comments (clear)

  1. They're doing so well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... that they're now beating out the UK as well!

  2. I'm sure... by Michael+Hunt · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...that this show is a repeat.

    Lousy cheap networks.

    1. Re:I'm sure... by natrius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Timothy is the internet's TBS.

  3. A quarter a show? by rm999 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't think they will ever sell shows for that cheap because DVD sales are becoming very popular for TV. Why would you pay 30 dollars for season 2 of family guy when you could download the whole season for 5 bucks?

    1. Re:A quarter a show? by JohnstonDJ · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I half agree with this comment. It's all about setting a price for the good you are recieving. VHS's drastically dropped in price because you could get far better sound/video quality on DVD, with a whole lot of extra's. (and we were promised that dvd would have a longer life than vhs, but I am really yet to see that)

      DVD gave you more bang for your buck, and for that extra bang, you have to pay more. There is definatly still a market for the VHS, for people who just want to see the video, and don't really want the extras and have the superior video/sound quality, and because they dont want this they get the film at a highly discounted rate.

      I believe thats why being able to legally download a tv-show for a $1 an episode won't kill the dvd industry because a video clip on your computer, is a whole lot different to having a brand spanking new dvd in your hand to watch in your personal home theatre with 5.1 sound and amazing picture quality.

      I also believe that it might fuel DVD sales. I believe this because if it only costs say $1 per show then people might be a bit more adventerous and buy shows which they wouldn't just go buy the dvd of. And if they like these shows, they would like to get all the extra stuff that the dvd gives, and hence go out and buy the dvd.

    2. Re:A quarter a show? by MMMDI · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I also believe that it might fuel DVD sales. I believe this because if it only costs say $1 per show then people might be a bit more adventerous and buy shows which they wouldn't just go buy the dvd of. And if they like these shows, they would like to get all the extra stuff that the dvd gives, and hence go out and buy the dvd.

      Exactly. I've got basic cable (ie, no HBO)... as a result, I've missed out on some (supposedly) great shows. As an exmample, I've been meaning to check out The Soprano's, as everyone I've heard talking about it goes on about how it's one of the greatest shows ever, blah blah blah. For a buck a pop, I'd download a few episodes and then determine whether or not that $80 DVD set was worth purchasing.

      <insert a similar stance on a number of other shows / DVD sets>

    3. Re:A quarter a show? by miyako · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm going to second this, I have a number of shows on DVD (Buffy seasons 1-7, Angel seasons 1-5, M*A*S*H Seasons 1-8, Charmed season 1), and it is really nice to have an entire season there in one boxed set. A standard season of a TV show seems to run between $40 and $60 for 22 episodes, so that works out to between $1.82 and $2.73 per episode. Even if they were offering the shows for download at say $0.50 or $1 per episode it would probably be encumbered with DRM, which would probably mean that it could only be viewed on Windows PCs, and probably couldn't be burned to DVD.
      I'v never been much for commentary tracks, but I've really grown fond of them from watching Buffy (gotta love Joss Whedon's commentaries, just go to re-enforce what a genius the guy is). I suspect that a lot of people would miss the commentary track, along with the featurettes, behind the scenes, scripts, etc. that are included on the DVDs.
      Fruthermore, even with broadband, downloading an entire season of a show, even at a lower resolution, will take a while (anyone else want to do the math? 22 episodes at 20 or 45 minutes). I, like most people, enjoy the instant gratification I get by going to the video store, buying a season of a show, and having the whole thing to watch as soon as I get home.
      If they did offer this, it would probably be through some service like the music download services anyway, but I don't think that would work because a lot of people will buy 1 or 2 songs off a bunch of different albums, but most people want either 1 episode of a particular show, or the entire season (for which, due to the reaons above, they would probably buy the DVD set), and I don't think that a bunch of people buying a very occasional episode would be enough to justify running the service.
      The only way I could see it really working is through some sort of PVR service, probably something like not allowing the PVRs to save shows after a certain time period, or not allowing them to be burned to DVD, but for an additional fee you can download the commentary tracks in the background and burn the shows to DVDs at the end of a season (which also would be unlikely because of the money lost off syndication during the buffer period between when a show airs

      --
      Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
    4. Re:A quarter a show? by slavemowgli · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's the wrong question to ask, though. The correct ones would be:

      1) Are you willing to pay 30 bucks for watching season 2 of "family guy" (on DVD)?
      2) Are you willing to pay 5 bucks for watching season 2 of "family guy" (downloading it)?

      I'm pretty sure there are many people who would say "Yes" to 2) but "No" to 1), and although it may seem tempting to try and force these people to pay 30 bucks instead of 5 after all, it won't work. Sometimes, lowering your prices is the best way to make more money...

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    5. Re:A quarter a show? by Gid1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have the whole of Buffy, B5, Farscape, West Wing, and a bunch of other shows, all on (legal) DVD. I had seen every single episode on terrestrial TV or (more recently) on BitTorrent before buying them. Part of the reason I still buy the DVDs is the special features and part is just the accessibility of it.

      In fact, with some shows, I've bought twice. The West Wing is almost a year behind on DVD in the States but has better features. So, I buy the Region 2 first, then the Region 1 a year later. In this respect, I've been suckered by studios playing dumb marketing games.

      The only reason I download things is when I can't get them somewhere else (release date, stupid channels, etc). However, I can't think of a single thing I've downloaded that I haven't gone and bought the DVD for afterwards. I downloaded all of BSG (not having Sky One), and hit the "Pre Order" button on Amazon.co.uk the same evening.

      I would far prefer it if this was made legal in some way, as you suggest. For example, I could buy from Amazon a combination of a download code and the DVD to be delivered later. If that mechanism existed for the content I want, I'd stop downloading TV shows in a heartbeat.

      I know the downloading of such content is technically a crime and that authors have the moral right to control their creation, even if that means preventing it being distributed at all. (Incidentally, are the dumb TV execs morally the authors by virtue of being the copyright holders?) However, nowadays these TV shows are being withheld from sale for dumb reasons like scheduling, "synergy" and ratings wars. Screw them. Just let me buy the damn things. In the meantime, I'd prefer not to be called a pirate when I'm making a fair monetary offer for the content in question. It seems that as far as the studios are concerned a loyal viewer is either their bitch, or a criminal.

      It would be far easier if "they" just released the damn show on DVD in good time. Then I wouldn't have to rob and plunder on the high seas just to have what I'm prepared to pay full price for. Arrr.

    6. Re:A quarter a show? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe thats why being able to legally download a tv-show for a $1 an episode won't kill the dvd industry because a video clip on your computer, is a whole lot different to having a brand spanking new dvd in your hand to watch in your personal home theatre with 5.1 sound and amazing picture quality.

      That's the entertainment equivalent of Bill Gates apocryphal, "640K should be more than enough for everybody."

      Today anyone can download MPEG4(XviD) AVI's of current shows like Lost, 24, Joan of Arcadia, Smallville, Enterprise, Veronica Mars, Joey, Carnivale, etc that are higher resolution than DVD and with multi-channel audio - they have been sourced from the HDTV broadcasts and transcoded to MPEG4. Somet maintain the original HDTV resolution, some have been stepped down to something like 960x576p which is still better than DVD. These AVI files are also 2-4 times smaller than the equivalent MPEG2 files for standard DVD.

      There are already multi-function stand-alone DVD players that can play DVDs of these high resolution AVI files and their number will only increase as the year progresses.

      So, while for the majority of people today downloads don't directly compete with TV on DVD releases, it is only a matter of time, probably a rather short time, until they do.

      Given that, let's take that $1 and skip the network middlemen. Don't give it to NBC/CBS/ABC/FOX/ETC with all their overhead. Give it directly to the production house. Follow along with me here:

      The average half-hour sitcom costs $2M per episode to produce. The average hour-long drama costs about $4M per episode. These numbers are probably on the high side.

      So an hour-long show would break even if it had an audience of 4 million who were willing to put up $1 each. If the paying audience was 5 million, that's a 25% profit. If the audience is willing to pay the money for each episode far enough ahead of time (say a "season pass" of $25 up front) that means the profit could be locked in before production even starts.

      That lock-in is a HUGE risk reduction - most shows today are money losers until they make it into syndication, which requires about 4 seasons worth of shows. Yet more than 80% of shows are cancelled before their 4th season. Thus making a profit up front is BIG deal for the tv production industry.

      So what should this hypothetical paying audience expect in return for this guaranteed profit they are handing the production company? How about, ownership of the results? A typical work-for-hire situation where the "employer" is the public at large. In other words, the production company gets paid with a nice return on their investment and ownership of the result passes immediately into the public domain upon payment.

      Then anyone could share copies of the show with anyone else and not have to worry about "stealing from the artists" or being persecuted for commiting copyright infringement. The creators get paid and the audience gets the content, which they can burn to DVD themselves, or just delete off their hard disk once they are done with it knowing that somewhere out on the net there is an archive of the show if they need a copy again.

      Since the end result is in the public domain, the local broadcasters could still broadcast it with their own commercials for the audience that isn't motivated enough to download it. Which means that local tv stations would have an interest in footing part of the bill themselves, kind of like syndication fees, the end result being that you don't need all 5 million people to still hit that $5M per episode mark - just 100 local stations across the world, each putting in $10k per episode would cut the paying audience number down to 4 million.

      A lot of these numbers are pessimistic - for example, in its first year, Star Trek the Next Generation was carried in syndication on over 200 stations. In its first syndication run (i.e. second broadcast), Cheers was on 450 stations at an average of $3.6K per station per episod

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  4. they've all been duped! by gobbo · · Score: 5, Funny

    OK, I'm just going to start submitting whatever story I see on the front page. A delay of a couple of hours for a duplicate story seems to be the going rate.

    1. Re:they've all been duped! by SamSim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the plus side, instead of thinking, we can just copy/paste all the +5 comments from the other story and get huge amounts of karma.

      For example, here's a comment by Xner: "Thre real reason for rampant TV piracy on this side of the pond is that shows are released a lot later around here, sometimes even YEARS. This does encourage people to take their viewing habits into their own hands." Insightful, eh? I'd mod me up if I were you.

    2. Re:they've all been duped! by biglig2 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ha ha! It's worked as well! +4 insightful already...

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
  5. Not Suprising by dasheiff · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is really not suprising because many of these TV shows don't make it over the pond till a few years after their orginal air date. But of course internet discussion is always my the american dates so if people want to see these shows and not wait years, they need to download them.

    1. Re:Not Suprising by Znork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Isnt it odd how almost the entire top-list is sci-fi which lacks distribution in a lot of places, while there is pretty much no downloading of reality soaps?

      Maybe the programming execs should get repeatedly fired for so completely and utterly failing to satisfy demand...

    2. Re:Not Suprising by sinclair44 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're downloading TV shows, you've got to at least be somewhat tech-savvy... but John Windows-User Joe, who doesn't even know the difference between "upload" and "download" (GRAHH!) probably likes the reality shows much better.

      So they are catering to demand, just not yours (or that of the part of the population downloading TV).

      --
      Omnes stulti sunt.
    3. Re:Not Suprising by henni16 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is not that surprising from an economical point of view:
      Reality soaps are really cheap to produce compared to most sci-fi (special effects, space scenes etc),
      but sadly still get a lot of viewers.
      So you have a cheap show that can sell more or less expensive advertisement blocks.
      Compared to that a sci-fi show would have to draw a _huge_ audience to generate the same profit per dollar spent to create it.

      At least that's one reason I read why some sci-fi show was canceled despite somewhat decent ratings
      (?or was it why Firefly didn't get a second - some might say: a first - chance in light of the DVD sales?
      IIRC it was really expensive per episode, even for sci-fi).

  6. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    indeed, become too american.

  7. It's not hard to work out why by onebuttonmouse · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We get series weeks and weeks after they first air in the US, and then only on sky TV. Downloading the shows from torrents is the only way you can see them while they're still a current topic of conversation. Also, the UK get gouged on DVD prices (just like everying else!), hey DVD makers, £1!=$1 damn you!

    --
    MacBook Pro. Worst name since the Bicycle
  8. Re:Dupe by Atrax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1. It's 'sense' not 'sence'
    2. It's 'lousy' not 'lausy'
    3. So Spitting Image's utter lack of subtlety is somehow 'better' than Little Britain? Wouldn't the better comparison (given the political content of Spitting Image) be Spitting Image and Brass Eye, or Dead Ringers? Or The Day Today?

    Define 'The British Sense Of Humour' before you harp on about its extinction, please. For me, the epitome of that has been summed up by the word 'dryness'*. Spitting Image was anything but dry, and as such could be classed as an anomaly. The new generation has taken 'dry' and added 'disturbing', to its credit. Take League Of Gentlemen for instance. Dry and disturbing.

    It's evolved, but I don't know you you equate this to extinction, exactly.

    * Add absurdity if you like, for example much Monty Python, but absurdity is a comedy universal, IMO.

    --
    Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
  9. Slashdot leads in duplicate article posting! by Beek · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's true!

    I read it on another site... Except THEY ONLY POSTED THIS FACT ONCE!

  10. Lord save us from editors' comments by Anomalous+Cowturd · · Score: 2, Insightful


    'Pirated' seems a strong word, at least for watching those programs which have been beamed (unencrypted) through my body.

    No, 'pirated' doesn't refer to recording them, it refers to posting them on the Internet for anybody to download. I would think the difference was obvious.

    The standard meaning of the word is "distributing copyrighted material without permission" (for instance, here). Regardless of your position on this issue, you have to agree that the definition applies here.

    And yes, it's a strong word. It's a newspaper headline. What do you expect?

    --

    Java: the bastard demon spawn of C++ and Ada

    1. Re:Lord save us from editors' comments by mboverload · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You TOTALLY missed the point. If he could have recorded it himself, what does it matter where he gets a copy?

      It's not like I watch commercials anyway. I always have my laptop nearby, Slashdot is way better than literally seeing a cialis comercial for the 200th time.

  11. WTF - Battlestar Galactica by BWS · · Score: 2, Informative

    why would UKers be downloading Battlestar Galactica? it airs for them 3 months before us..

    --
    -- Note: These Comments are Generated by ME! Not You! ME!
    1. Re:WTF - Battlestar Galactica by cfuse · · Score: 3, Interesting

      speaking from AU, I'm glad that the UK folks made it available - I never would have been able to see such an excellent series otherwise.

      The networks here don't give a damn about the viewers and seem to change a show's timeslot every five minutes. Who's got the time to chase the network around to see the shows they want? At least this way I get to see the show on my terms.

    2. Re:WTF - Battlestar Galactica by arkhan_jg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because Battlestar Galactica was aired on Sky 1, a satellite channel. The minimum subscription, last I checked, was £13.50 a month ($25) for the most basic package which includes it.

      In addition, there's plenty of places that can't install a satellite dish (or install cable), such as rental properties or blocks of flats under tenancy agreements.

      Even of the small percentage of the population (about 15% I think) who can watch Sky, some people may not have been around when it was broadcast, and downloading it is better than using tape, and simpler than ripping the ads yourself.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    3. Re:WTF - Battlestar Galactica by Nurgled · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A few of my friends watched it on TV and then downloaded it to keep. A DVD full of MPEG4-encoded episodes beats a commercial box set, and it's easier than everyone hooking up equipment to record it themselves.

      I'd probably buy more TV series on DVD if they came up with a DVD-like format that could store an entire US series on one disk.

  12. Here's a REAL topic for discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
  13. Re:Lousy dupe... by SetupWeasel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Am I the only one who loves finding ads on an old tape? The ads are kind of annoying now, but if you look back in 5 years they will be entertainment.

  14. Maybe Networks Should Post Their Shows? by kakos · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If networks posted their shows, with the ads intact and maybe a few extra, I'd download it in a heartbeat. It'd sure beat the hell out of finding a torrent (especcially with the sudden lack of good torrent directories). Sure, I can fast forward through commercials, but I could do that if I used TiVo or if I recorded it.

    1. Re:Maybe Networks Should Post Their Shows? by mpesce · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree wholeheartedly, and I think something like that is not far away. It'll probably end up being a three-step process:

      1) Broadcast the program - in all international markets - on the same date, everywhere. This means you won't have downloading between and early-air market and a later-air markets. (As is the case often between the USA and Australia, which is per capita the king of TV downloading for just this reason.)

      2) Release the program on the torrent, with commercials.

      3) Release an HD DVD of the series, with lots of special features.

      This is actually a win for the networks, because they get an extra chance for revenues. They lose the repeat market (which is substantial, don't get me wrong) but they'll make up for at least some of it by selling adds into the downloadable version.

      If the networks adopt this approach, they'll make it through the age of filesharing in a way the record companies seem unable to. We'll see if they're flexible enough, or if they'll go down in flames fighting P2P.

  15. Re:Lousy dupe... by boingyzain · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Doesn't really make sense, and the reason for that is two fold.

    One, the networks would make no money off of ads posted in those rips online. If anything, the ad providers would be annoyed at the fact that their ad is in pirated works.

    Plus, those ads are targetted at a specific location. Each local channel of CBS/FOX/ABC/ETC has different ads for the exact same show. The advertisers in New York don't want their ads to be seen all over the US, so including commercials in online rips could potentially turn away prospective advertisers.

    Secondly, the people posting the rips online, and most of the people watching them, don't care about their network making money. If they did, they would watch the show when it came on. Removing ads from the online rips makes the release groups look better and the leechers happier.

    It's pointless to keep commercials in online rips.

  16. Re:I am totally shocked Aust. is Second by donscarletti · · Score: 2, Informative

    Per capita, Australia is comfortably in 1st position, with 1.22 times as much downloaded by every person.

    --
    When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
  17. Re:why is it piracy? by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Informative

    Can't I record an episode of the simpson with my vcr?

    Yup. Delayed viewing. Explicitely permitted by law.

    If yes, can my friends borrow the tape from me? Can I do that

    Possibly. IANAL but it probably comes under fair use.

    If yes, what if I have 1000 friends? is it still legal?

    Then you're pushing your luck. Fair use takes into account various factors, including impact on the market. Letting a few friends see a copy is unlikely to have a huge effect on the market. It may result in a lost 'sale' (or rather fewer viewers resulting in lower revenue)for the broadcasters, but the effect will be small. Sharing with 1000 people is a lot more likely to have an effect. But you are limited here. It will take a long time to lend it to 1000 people. At the minimum, if only one person watches it at a time, it will be difficult for all of them to see it within a month.

    If yes, can I use bitorrent to share the video??

    No.

  18. Re:Dupe by Alioth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It isn't if you turn off the TV and turn on the radio. There is much humour on BBC Radio 4. I've been in paroxysms of laughter from some of the stuff they have on. Trouble is I was driving at the time...

  19. Just a bit off topic, but we've already seen this by Arkus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Okay, we all are aware that this story is a dup of a previous one, well everyone except the individual that allowed this story to make it to the slashdot front page again, so I would like to take a moment to change the topic and voice my gripe about cable television and the utter stupidity of the entire situation in general.

    Why is it that the public at large is expected to foot the bill for cable television for the luxury of watching programming that includes commercials? Television networks as well as your cable company make tons of money on the advertising that goes into television programs. The only reason the networks are able to charge as much as they do for the commercials is because people watch the programming.

    It seems to me that if someone pays to receive television channels (many of which can be received for free over the air) via cable or satellite they should be able to receive programming that does not include commercials at all. For example if I can watch FOX using an antenna for free what value am I getting by paying to get that identical programming with commercials over a cable line? Compare it to viewing content on a website for free with ads or opting to buy a subscription to view the content without ads, much like you can on slashdot. Now channels like HBO that do not include commercials I can see paying for because they are offering me original commercial free content, something I can not get otherwise.

    There is certainly a market for commercial free programming as can be shown by the popularity of subscription based DVRs such as Tivo. Sure people like watching their favorite programs at their convenience, but really a large part of it is being able to do so without the commercials.

    To put it simply, I am of the opinion that basic cable should be provided to everyone without cost because the ad content has already generated more than enough revenue to cover the cost of distribution. The cable companies also generate ad review by selling local commercial spots into the programming. The cable companies should be able to pass on their costs to the networks rather than the general public because the networks could not possibly charge the advertisers as much as they do without the viewers the cable companies provide.

    Offering at least basic cable for free would greatly increase the potential number of viewers which would in turn allow the networks and cable companies to charge more for their advertisement spots. Compare it to the way that print ads are sold where the cost is based on total distribution; higher distribution equals higher revenue per ad sold. Television viewership is down greatly and I would suspect that this trend will continue unless something new and innovative is given a chance.

    Another thing I would really like to see happen would be for the cable companies to allow you to pick the programming you would like to receive. There are only 10 to 20 channels at most I would be interested in watching if I did have cable. Perhaps I could warm up a little to paying a nominal amount, say less than $20 per month including all taxes, if I were able to hand pick which channels I could receive and at least a fair number of those would have to be commercial free (such as HBO).

    --
    -- Just my $0.02 worth...
  20. Hey, timothy! by Tim+C · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about making comments down here with the rest of us, where we can reply to them properly and even moderate them?

    For that matter, how about checking for dupes before posting a story?

  21. Slashdot Leads UK in Dupes by neildiamond · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is getting to be worse than broadcast TV with all these reruns!

  22. Re:I am totally shocked Aust. is Second by Wild+Wizard · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hardly surprising

    Take ST:VOY for example, the last episode finally aired on 9 last month, you could buy/rent the tape in Australia quite a few years ago and TV execs wonder why no one watches their networks anymore

  23. Re:A Quarter A Download by nametaken · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Well, lets think about it this way. If it costs $52 for me to buy a season box set of Stargate, and there are 22 episodes per set, lets call it $2.40 per episode. Then hack off a conservative amount for the old manufacturing and distribution costs and guesstimate that with the new lower costs they could sell them for $1 or $1.50 an episode and maintain their profit margin. Would we pay that?

    If we're asking them to reduce their profit, that's probably not realistic.

  24. Re:A Quarter A Download by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Most TV shows worth buying have about 20-26 episodes. At 22 minutes per episode, that 440 minutes of playtime(for 20 episodes). This is actual play time, not including stupid extras. This ends up being over 7 hours of actual watchable stuff. $50 isn't bad when compared to the 1.5 hour movies they often sell for $20. It get's to be an even better deal when you get the show's with 45 minute episodes (1 hour with commercials), which usually cost around $65 CDN.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  25. Re:A Quarter A Download by N3koFever · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sky don't make their advertising rates public (if they did you'd find them on the BRAD database), but from what I know about TV and media advertising I'd hazard a guess that it costs around £100,000 ($189,421 US) for a slot on Sky One, the station that broadcasts 24 here. The first two episodes of 24 which were shown back-to-back got a peak average of 680,000 viewers which means that the advertisers are paying £0.18 ($0.34 US) per viewer to advertise on there.

    As a Brit who's been downloading 24 to keep up with the US schedule (I think episode 5 is shown here tonight as opposed to 10 in the US on Monday, and I plan to buy the DVDs when they come out as I've done with all previous seasons), I'd gladly pay 20p per episode to download them early. It's 20p in their pocket that they wouldn't have otherwise and when I watch commercial television I'll go and do something else while the ads are on anyway. Hell, I pay £30/month for Sky anyway.

  26. 'pirated' tv shows? by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Excuse me, but I pay my cable bill. I'd like to be able to see some of these shows whenever I want, but don't feel like spending the time/money to encode them. If somebody else did and can share that with me, great! Heck, the simpsons is even still on 'free' air. How can they claim this as piracy? Nobody is trying to sell the stuff for profit (oh yeah, the networks want to overcharge you for the DVDs several years later. I forgot)

  27. Re:Dupe by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Try watching any of the crap on BBC1s Friday line up and say that with a straight face.

    British comedy has gone down hill and is now all canned laughter and black people with an old man who's horny, a husband whos horny and a wife who is just there to look after the kids.

    The current state of TV is trash at very best, comedy hasn't evolved, it's just got dumber to the point where a brick against the head would work just as well.

    Young ones, Bottom, Black Adder, Mr Bean and so many others. Maybe not the most witty of comedies but they sure as hell made you laugh, which is what comedy is about. Not having 5 "parody" shows each week all covering the same thing.

    The only decent thing we're making right now is comedic-quizshows. Nevermind the Buzzcocks, QI and this sort of thing. Nothing else we make is even worth it since it's watered down American drivel without the fake accents.

    --
    I like muppets.
  28. Re:A Quarter A Download by Mattintosh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Would we pay that?

    Yes. But only for a DVD. They must realize that a non-hard-copy of their show is worth much less than a burned, physical copy on relatively durable media. The price goes down even further for DRM'ed copies that reduce my ability to do what I want with the files.

    Now for the other side of it: you have to realize that they won't offer this in any format you'd find usable. They'll use Windows Media because "everyone has it" or Real because "it's streaming so people have to pay-per-view". They'll inevitably screw something up to make it unusable, which makes it worth about $0.25 to those that will use it. Of course, they can't recoup their costs or match the amount of profit from the hard-copies when they do this, so it'll go away quickly.

  29. Re:A Quarter A Download by spiritgreywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IMHO it's not even so much of paying a quarter a show or any price for that matter, to me it's more about simple availability from a continuity standpoint.

    Take for instance Stargate SG-1, Atlantis and BSG. I live in Texas where my exposure to decent Sci-Fi is whatever I can get via cable or satellite. It's not even so much that the Sci-Fi channel doesn't air the shows that are seen on UK TV until almost 6 months to a year later - but when they do, they pull this "split-season" crap where they'll show only part of a season, followed by re-runs ad-nauseum, then complete out the season in some stair-step fashion simply to boost ad-revenue dollars.

    I'd be happy to not bother downloading if they would simply show some continuity and quit jacking so much with the schedules.

    I do purchase the DVD sets when they're available, and even watch them on occasion as I TiVo them all.

    The networks would be smart to allow downloads and figure out new ways of revenue generation. And on that same note, I would like to thank PERSONALLY all of those wonderful individuals that post these shows from SkyOne as they are aired in the UK. You guys are the BEST! (and I mean that from the bottom of my heart!)

    --
    Never have a philosophy which supports a lack of courage
  30. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm guessing that, for them to bite - the big production houses would need to know that they could make more money using this model than the current broadcast > DVD > Syndication one.

    Remember that the proposed business model does not exist in a vacuum. The current model is endangered by both unauthorized internet distribution and tivo-enabled commercial skipping. Thus, while the current model may end up being sustainable in the long run, it won't be at levels anywhere near as profitable as it is today.

    Hollywood is notoroious for trying to put the genie back into the bottle instead of asking it for three wishes, so who knows what it will take to convince them.

    it seems like it would still require the establishment of some sort of "network" to really get the word out worldwide.

    Agreed, advertising gets both harder and easier. You'll need some kind of central location for people to find out about new productions. Plus, you either need to be really convincing to persuade people to put their money up (although part of the idea is that the money is refunded if the show is not produced) or give away a couple of episodes to hook people - either way costs money and is a risk.

    But, on the other side, once established with a few shows bought and paid for, all the released episodes serve as free advertising for the next episode's production costs.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.