Slashdot Mirror
Pay-Per-View Downloads of TV Shows?
An Extremely Anonymous Coward asks: "I've been thinking about the mass downloading of TV episodes. The TV companies appear to not be so desperate to sue people into bankruptcy for watching an illicit episode of _Friends_ or _The OC_. Does this mean they really are wondering about using this new media, rather then foaming at the mouth and suing twelve year olds? Will TV show production companies be the first to show some sense and offer their own downloads on a pay per view basis?"
"I'd be happy to pay a monthly subscription of around ten dollars, so I could get access to tv shows without being branded a criminal.Alternatively, I'd happily pay around a dollar a show, if the quality was good. The argument that this would give no incentive to buy the series DVD's can easily be dealt with, since the sales from downloads might easily replace the revenue from the DVD box sets, and there are some people (myself included) who'd still like the higher definition versions and box sets of a few shows.
Adverts in the deal would change the amount per episode I'm willing to pay. Perhaps options like a free stream with unavoidable adverts, or a subscriber download with either very few, or no adverts, with price determining the amount of adverts included might help entice more users to use the service. A free stream of a popular show with adverts would probably stop most illegal downloaders, simply because their aim of watching the show would be achieved.
DRM is inevitable, which may be why it's taking so long for the executives in control of such things to pull their fingers out. The fact that it's essentially pointless doesn't seem to have stemmed their lust for it. I own lots of DVDs, and yet curiously I've never once had the urge to copy them, making their included anti-copy technology pointless. Also those who do want to copy them seem perfectly able to anyway, but that's another issue.
I find this delay in legal downloads of TV shows surprising, it seems to me that legal downloads of TV media could be the Internet's next gold-rush phenomena, but maybe that opinion isn't shared by many.
If any kind of service were offered I'd join it, even if only to encourage it. How much would other Slashdot readers be willing to pay? And on what sort of terms?"
Adverts in the deal would change the amount per episode I'm willing to pay. Perhaps options like a free stream with unavoidable adverts, or a subscriber download with either very few, or no adverts, with price determining the amount of adverts included might help entice more users to use the service. A free stream of a popular show with adverts would probably stop most illegal downloaders, simply because their aim of watching the show would be achieved.
DRM is inevitable, which may be why it's taking so long for the executives in control of such things to pull their fingers out. The fact that it's essentially pointless doesn't seem to have stemmed their lust for it. I own lots of DVDs, and yet curiously I've never once had the urge to copy them, making their included anti-copy technology pointless. Also those who do want to copy them seem perfectly able to anyway, but that's another issue.
I find this delay in legal downloads of TV shows surprising, it seems to me that legal downloads of TV media could be the Internet's next gold-rush phenomena, but maybe that opinion isn't shared by many.
If any kind of service were offered I'd join it, even if only to encourage it. How much would other Slashdot readers be willing to pay? And on what sort of terms?"
Will TV show production companies be the first to show some sense and offer their own downloads on a pay per view basis?
Pay per VIEW basis is the holy grail of the entertainment industry -- they would *love* to charge you every time you glance in the direction of a copyrighted work...
However what most people seem to want is pay per DOWNLOAD and then be able to view the show whenever they like. For some reason this presents a problem to media execs.
But anyway, it's not like it's hard to buy a DVD (or get it from Netflix) and rip it...
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Well I'd rather watch an episode nonstop, with all the characters wearing pepsi shirt, coca cola jeans.
To stop your show every 5 minutes with a commercial is an old concept started in the 60s. About damn time we change.
I too would ditch my cable TV in an effort to select shows to watch.
... the message isn't the shows content. the show is merely a medium to deliver the real message: advertisements.
It seems like a business model could be setup by the broadcasters, but we are forgetting one thing...
The advertising model currently used is in trouble if shows are delivered as downloads. Advertisers ran scared with VCR's and now with DVR's - this would make things much worse for them.
There needs to be a shift in the revenue models for broadcasters - their customers are not their viewers, but are their advertisers.. what you suggest may seem simple and obvious, but it is really a VERY big change - you want the viewers to be the customers.
I would say broadcasters are reluctant to give the viewers much more control than they already have under the current structure of things - they need to keep their customers (advertisers) happy.
..mork
Comcast also offers some movies OnDemand for free, but they're typically movies no one would want to pay for anyway. Like "976-Evil", which is Mystery Science Theater bad.
Which "TV companies?" Are you referring to broadcasting networks? Given that broadcasted networks do not sell TV programs yet...
Strange. I could swear that these were on broadcast TV.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
TV shows exist as an advertising vehicle for TV stations. TV stations affiliate themselves with the networks because the network allows them access to shows, scheduling, branding, and marketing - all things you want when you're basically an advertising vehicle.
The TV shows themselves are somewhat independent of the TV Network that shows them - depending on the deal. It all depends on the deal.
An independently produced show (unlikely) could theoretically distribute itself any way it chose. There aren't a lot of options, but it could theoretically syndicate itself to independent stations. That's unlikely, because the draw would be somewhere near 0.
Today, well, it's unclear if providing downloadables would be a viable business, but I doubt it would conflict with the post-season DVD. The post-season DVDs have a lot of extras, and come in a nice box. For the general public, that's hard to beat.
Bandwidth costs alone would make downloadables a losing business. With Bittorrent you're piggybacking off of everyone else's bandwidth, but a real ("official") provider would have brutal bandwidth charges.
TV shows exist for one reason, to make money for networks.
In the beginning there were the Networks. The Networks produced their own shows. Then independent TV production companies got into the mix, and they started producing TV shows and selling them to the networks, which then ran them and sold advertising on them.
TV shows currently exist for two reasons: First, to make money for production companies. Second, to make money for networks. There are other reasons, too, but those will do.
These days the vast majority of TV shows are produced by independent production companies. The network's own news division is one of the few exceptions to this rule.
It isn't necessarily the networks who will start selling TV shows on the Internet -- it may well be the production companies themselves, cutting out the middleman.
(Sorry about the original, unformatted version of this comment. I hit "Submit" by accident, then hit "Stop". Not quickly enough. I figured it'd be good to resubmit with some paragraph breaks...)
They can't. 1/2 of the commercials are local, and almost all of them are time sensitive. The release of a new car model, or cellphone promotion doesn't play well after the promotion is over.
I was just saying that tv shows which are 30 minutes or an hour of video would be priced more than mp3s that are 3 to 5 minutes long of just audio. The bandwidth alone required to host these shows for download would raise the cost. (Provided they don't decide to use bittorrent, but that would open a whole new can of worms.)
TV stations already allow downloads in South Korea. The government run station (KBS) has FREE low quality downloads of shows. High quality costs something like 50 cents. YTN (a Korean news station) has free internet broadcast in low quality, and SBS (a private atation) allows sownloads of shows for around 50 cents as well. I'm not sure about quality on those though. Anyway, it surprises me that American companies are so far behind the curve.
Or the show is written such that as a character turns their back to the camera to go to the fridge they say "I'm just gonna grab a ________. I love the taste!" and the product name is pulled in.
This is called product placement and it's already at epidemic proportions. To pick just one random example, Neo in The Matrix doesn't just have a generic or fictional mobile (cellphone).. oh no.. he has a Nokia mobile - a Nokia 8110i (IIRC), to be specific. And the movie makes damn sure you know it, too.
Next time you watch a movie, just assume that any time you see a brand name or identifiable product that it's been put there deliberately (it almost certainly has, especially if it's in the foreground).. you'll be horrified at how widespread it is.
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
The problem with this is that most people who download TV are not going to be in that broadcast area
Take into account that broadband isn't widely available in the states. We suck in this regard!
In cases like Simpsons, Friends, and Enterprise I can see where the UK would have a higher demand. But in cases like Farscape, Stargate (Atlantis & SG1), and Battlestar Galactica it's the US who's demanding them from the UK. I suspect that UK is still tops for downloading these programs that are broadcast first there by a few months.
But I'm going to disagree on the idea of the demand for downloads being solely based on programing that is not available in your region. Let's say for example I wanted to collect Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I could
1. Invest in VCR/PVR/video digitizer Tape/Record when it's on.
2. Wait till the DVDs are out
3. Download
VHS tape bulky, low quality, and a hassel esp if you have a cable box or a dish system.
PVRs are nice but are a tad spendy
Digitizers/TV cards cost a few bucks, but are complex to use, and depend on you the end user to have a good signal and decent cables to get a good result.
Firewire isn't so bad so long as the cable/dish feed is good and strong.
Downloading depends on someone else having a PVR/Digitizer who likely already has invested in good cables and has a good signal. It's already a file which can easly be chucked into a disc for playback on most DVD players. Takes time to fetch, but but you don't have to plan ahead or invest in any special equipment.
I'm not going to disagree with the fact that the highest demand for telivision DLs are for people who want to get programing not in their region. But this doesn't negate the fact that there could also be a large demand for people in the broadcast area of an affiliate who are too cheap to or lazy to buy a Tivo. And who knows... perhaps one day it may be possible for me in the states to pay for a BBC feed rather than paying for BBC-America or waiting for PBS to to air stuff.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
In the US you are allowed to tape a television broadcast . . .
Timeshifting was held to be a valid fair use, yes. But...
. . . and give that tape to a friend.
The Court defined 'time shifting' pretty narrowly: noting that their opinion "concerned the private, home use of VTR's for recording programs broadcast on the public airwaves without charge to the viewer" and not "the transfer of tapes to other persons, the use of home-recorded tapes for public performances, or the copying of programs transmitted on pay or cable television systems . . ." Indeed, the Court nodded to the District Court's opinion, which highlighted "the private character of the activity conducted entirely within the home." Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). There was no mention of "giving it to a friend," and indeed, in dicta, even "library building" (saving copies of the taped programming, rather than reusing the tapes) was suggested as infringing. ("time-shifting without librarying")
Thus, I don't think you can "give that tape to a friend."
geek. lawyer.