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
They'll have to. Don't underestimate the bandwidth of Netflix, Blockbuster, and Walmart via mail truck bouncing down the road. One day the download scene may over take the mail truck bandwidth but the market is going to have to adjust. Distributors will have to figure out a way to make a profit that companies and consumers accept.
I bet the TV show 24 has done almost as well in rentals as it did during original airing. People aren't tied down to show times anymore. Tivo turned on a bulb and the shinning light has freed people to watch what they want when they want. With the FTTP arriving, the bandwidth is getting there now the companies have to get inline.
No, it means that it's still only nerds and geeks that are downloading everything. Once RSS & Bittorrent become mainstream, easy to use and/or standard features on HD Recorders, THEN the shit will hit the fan.
Congratulations, thanks for sharing. It's good to see submissions like this get accepted, whilst my newsworthy sumbissions get bounced.
The TV companies appear to not be so desperate to sue people into bankruptcy for watching an illicit episode of _Friends_ or _The OC_.
Which "TV companies?" Are you referring to broadcasting networks? Given that broadcasted networks do not sell TV programs yet, program piracy has yet to impact the "market". But try stream a live event, such as SuperBowl, over P2P and you'll likely get sued. Especially how the NFL grants no unauthorized individual the ability to reproduce or rebroadcast the show, included "verbal descriptions" of the show.
Does this mean they really are wondering about using this new media, rather then foaming at the mouth and suing twelve year olds?
The networks discovered that suing 12 year olds reduced the effectiveness of commercials against said individuals.
Will TV show production companies be the first to show some sense and offer their own downloads on a pay per view basis?
Hopefully it will be before they allow the customer to skip past commercials.
*ROFLMAO* The TV Production companies doing the right thing? Aren't these the people who are trying to implement broadcast flags for HDTV? Trying to heavily DRM TiVo devices? Amongst other stupidities I can't even count. While pulling gimmicks like announcing Star Wars trailers will be featured in "the OC?"...
Sorry Mr. Extremely Anonymous Coward, but I have no hope for the TV industry as a whole. Sure they produce a few gems (Whose line is it anyways and The Simpsons come to mind for me), but they're really just like the **AA organizations. Mostly interested in fighting piracy and hardly interested in innovating.
But your idea is a good one though! I'd love the day when I can go to their website and pull down an episode of the Simpson's for a few bucks and watch. I don't think I'll live to see that day, and the only downloadable episodes of the Simpsons will be Torrents/p2p downloads of whatever flavor.
...in bed
The TV companies appear to not be so desperate to sue people into bankruptcy for watching an illicit episode of _Friends_ or _The OC_
This is because there is no "TVAA" piracy division, because historically there has never been a TV piracy problem until a couple of years ago.
Don't be impatient. Just wait a couple of years and they'll be a new member of the *AA class ready to shoot first and ask questions later.
Isn't one of the ideas behind on demand television to pay a subscription fee and then be able to watch any of the television shows whenever you want?
I'm pretty sure thats the idea, which would be great. Say you want to see an episode of the OC from last week, you just watch it using On Demand and then you don't have to download it. I think that the reason people download the TV shows is because they miss an episode and want to catch up, and don't want to record it on Video.
Just my opinion...
Free Flat Screen
I'm more all about On-Demand TV. Keep a large back-catalog of your shows. This way, when I stumble onto something like Battlestar Galactica in the middle of the season, I can immediately go grab the episodes I missed on my TiVo so I don't have to pray and worry about the series getting cancelled. See Firefly.
I don't think DVD sales will suffer much because I've seen all kinds of quality rips on *torrent, which is nice when I want to "preview" a show to see if I like it. But I'll still buy the DVD set, just as I still buy CD's after checking out stuff via limewire or whatever. But that's entirely an unqualified/uneducated guess.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
The way things are looking, it seems bittorrent sites won't be around forever... I'm still mourning over suprnova, lokitorrents myself :( What are you gonna do when johnny corporation finally manages a shutdown of bittorrent sites? There will still be IRC, but we all know that people on IRC are there for leeching and not seeding :)
I sell out to The Man every day.
There is no way each show would cost a dollar, or only 10 bucks a month. Mp3s cost more per song and they are trying to raise the price, and Napster charges 15 bucks a month I believe. Look for it in the 5 bucks per and 40 bucks a month range. (Kinda the same as it costs to get TV anyway.)
Is that supposed to be pay-per- view or pay-per-download? I mean if they expected us to pay them everytime we wanted to watch our favorite show of say Family Guy or 24 that would cost hundreds of dolars a month (ok tens of). Wouldn't a pay-per-download of an episode be a much better (say easier) buisiness model.
And on another note would the episodes we download from the TV stations have commercials or could the cost of producing and such be covered by the revenue of the downloading?
What are you expecting to find here?
I stole movies. Then they gave me Netflix, and that was more convenient and reasonable, so I don't download movies anymore. I stole music. Then they gave me iTuenes music store, and that was more convenient and reasonable, so I don't do that anymore. Now I download TV shows. Charge me $5 and episode for good quality, everlasting rights, and I'll happily pay for that.
Maybe im a little un-informed, and i probably am....
but last time i checked, Prime Time TV doesnt cost me a dime. Yeah you could say you pay monthly for cable or satallite access, but you dont NEED cable or sattalite to watch the fox network, or NBC or other local channels, its still broadcasted over the air, and from what i know, the only thing that cost me is the cost of the TV. Sure i dont have the HDTV, but, the downloads ive seen off the net of TV shows, (the ones i have seen remember) are just as good of quality as what i would get on aired TV.
so my question is, if its free to watch on a tv, why is it illegal to download and watch on a computer?
is it wrong for me to compare TV shows to open-source?
Not meaning to sound cheap, but why should we pay for this? Why can't it be advert supported. When the article was recently posted about the UK bittorrent downloading of sites being the highest in the world, I commented that it was the perfect forum for the TV companies to distribute their shows complete with adverts intact. They can then draw the money from advertisers to pay for it (and bandwidth wouldn't be so enormous, they'd just have to seed and catch the slack).
:)
On the other hand, they could probably add a smaller revenue 50c, $1? per show if they offer them on the day (or following day) of original broadcast. That only leaves the problem of the rest of the world!
We get things 6-10 weeks after the US originally broadcasts (in the UK). That gap would have to be closed or the networks over here would complain (and not pay!).
In the end, as I mentioned in reply to the previous article, if there's any TV Execs out there that want this, let me know, I'll set it up for you
(I first must ask all to NOT click on the URL in my profile, because it's not meant to be related and I'm too lazy to change it...)
I want to make a show. It'll be a cool show, and you all will love it. To make 13 episodes, I will need to raise at least $3,900,000. Let's say the price'll be $3/episode. Pre-pay me now... just $39, and if 100,000 of you do, we'll make the show available for download, HD quality, on the web. So go ahead, send the money... you'll love the show.
The problem of course is that no one will pay to watch a show they don't trust to be good, so this scenario only works for established shows everyone likes. Not that you implied it, but purely on its own, you'll never get innovation in drama this way, because everyone will be trying to make cookie cutter projects to make the pre-payment a safe investment for consumers. So there has to be a first part to this theory that makes it possible to get to what you describe...
But I do agree, it would be a better way to do the Enterprise fiasco... don't DONATE $36M, just prepay for the DVDs. But of course that's not what Paramount wants... they want to bleed every dollar they can out of this show, so you've gotta pay your $30 donation plus another round of cash when the DVDs come out...
There's something really brilliant in all this, but I don't think anyone's been able to pick it out yet...
The world's only surviving livewriter.
Add to that that there shouldn't be any of those station watermarks or ads promoting other shows on the bottom portion of the screen.
For years, I said that if I could download high quality music files that were reasonably DRM free without a subscription for around $1 per song, I'd happily do it. Skeptics said it would never work, music companies and radio were horrified, etc. Now, with iTunes raking in ungodly amounts of money (or at least selling millions of iPods, thereby making ungodly amounts of money), I have all of that (except for the DRM part, but then I have an iPod, I can use the iTunes songs on all my computers, and it isn't really that hard to burn to CD-RW then re-rip to non-DRM'ed MP3 for my other MP3 player).
Now we're approaching the same idea with TV. If I could "buy" an episode of a show for some small amount of money, with decent quality and no commercials and without a subscription (except maybe for my digital cable if I got it through OnDemand or Pay Per View), I would do it.
The TV and cable companies are getting all upset that people are Tivo'ing or otherwise DVR'ing their shows then skipping through the commercials, well, as the poster said, if I pay a buck or so to watch an episode without commercials or have access to, say, a feed with commercials that doesn't have skip or even FF for free, then they're making their money either way and I can choose whether I want built-in bathroom breaks or not.
The hosting and management issues are beyond the local cable companies capabilities and just targeting computer viewing may not be enough. What we need is a cooperation between cable companies, STB manufactures, and networks to allow streaming of shows through your digital cable set top box to your TV from the network servers with payment going through your cable account. The same network servers could serve computers without as much overhead and without the cable co. skimming.
Then, every week if I wanted to watch, say, Battlestar Galactica, I could:
1) Watch it when it comes on
2) Tape or DVR it and watch when I wanted
3) Watch it in a forward only stream with commercials from my On Demand or PPV screen on my STB for free
4) Watch it commercial free on On Demand or PPV for $1.50 ($0.50 to the cable company, $1 to Sci-Fi)
or
5) Watch it on my computer for $1 (all to Sci-Fi)
or, to be honest, (6) download it from somewhere, but I actually don't bother doing that unless I've missed some once in a lifetime event -- it's too much hassle and I can wait for reruns.
If there any reason why this wouldn't work and make (almost) everyone happy? The cable company makes more money, the networks make more money, the advertisers might actually see lower rates and would know about how many people actually are being forced to watch the ads, and the consumer has more choices.
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
The consensus opinion on Slashdot seems to be that Big Media does not like to 'give the customer what they want', (or, in other words, allow mass download of cancelled shows) because they are big jerks.
That is not the case.
This is unlikely to happen because television and movie rights are absurdly complicated, doubly so for defunct programs. I think a little education is in order. Let's use as an example a fictional show, "Blar Trak".
Now, let's say the show originally ran on NBC from 1966-1969. The rights are now held by Paramount, a division of Viacom. IANAEL (I am not an entertainment lawyer, but...)
Let's see how this would work:
- User wants to download the 1-hour episode "Sark's Brain".
Who owns it? Viacom, through Paramount. Just pay them, right? Nope. First, check to see if Paramount has DISTRIBUTION rights. These are distinct from ownership and/or PRODUCTION rights. Production rights let you make more episodes or spinoff movies. Distribution lets you put it on TV, in theatres, or on DVD. Different methods of distribution are often covered by separate contracts. In the film world, movies can be distributed by a studio that didn't produce the movie. "Master and Commander" had THREE studios working on it. "Titanic" on DVD is Paramount in the US, Fox in the rest of the world.
Production companies do the actual physical production of the show, they ALSO have contracts that may limit distribution rights or assign partial or whole ownership. These rights are transferable to heirs, if the show makes grandpa look bad, no show for you, sayeth the grandkids.
Paramount may also have a limited option or distribution deal for that particular episode, or a group of episodes, or the whole series. Ever wonder why DVDs go out of print? Now you know- the distributor has a LIMITED TIME contract.
That's not all. All of the actors and workers from that show need to get paid residuals. Yes, even 40 years after production. Many of them will have contracts that state they get paid FOREVER. The ones who don't may sue to stop distribution, they don't want Viacom to get richer off their work. VIacom may screw all the actors by claiming the contracts are nullified in this case because they do not specifically refer to the internet as a distribution vehicle.
Whoops. The ongoing litigation may take years. No episode for you. It won't be $1.00, that's for sure.
That dollar has to cover:
Production Contract
Distribution Contract
Actor residuals
Writer/Producer residuals
Legal costs
Pipeline/Delivery costs
Don't even get me started on what happens when Viacom wants to deliver content on Time Warner pipe, suffice it to say they have to pay Time Warner and devise yet another contract, too.
Oh, and if the show contains POP MUSIC, give up now. You need to clear EACH SONG with the music industry equivalent on the other end, or replace the music.
The short answer is: If there is money involved, it is very complicated. If no one wants to make money, distribtion is easy-peasy, rightsholders just sign off on it.
Problem: EVERYONE wants to make residual income, it requires no effort and is very lucrative.
Why should the production companies care what adds value to the viewer? They aren't charities, they're businesses. And YOU aren't their customers, it's the people they advertise for. So why are they going to alienate their advertisers, so as to provide something to the viewer? They're advertisers aren't going to like it when they say, "We're providing a way for viewers to see the shows without watching your advertising, and we get money! Isn't that cool?!"
Lets happen to say you see show #10 on FOX for '24' and it makes you want to see other, earlier episodes. I say you should be able to download them for free. Afterall, you're going to watch the next 14 on TV so why should you have to pay for these earlier ones? This benefits everyone. You get to see the earlier episodes on your time and for free and FOX gets another person watching their ads.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Have a player for (windows and linux) of course...and the player could fastforward but the commercial would still be on the screen during the fastforward or when you pause. Have Blipverts...commericals that last 5 seconds.
Advantage...the programs would be free not PPV. Theres no reason why you should have to pay for something the public gets for free if youre willing to watch the version with commercials.
They'd be able to offer up cheaper 30-sec spots on these Internet-only viewings (assuming less people will PPV it rather than watching it on a traditional TV set).
Of course this plan is just a simple idea with no forethought, but if the TV Industry put their heads together they could definitely come up with a new business model. Either they will have to or Darwanism will take over.
I for one would pay $3-5/show to go online and watch the latest episode of "24" rather having to plan my day around the show time or getting a TiVO. If people are paying $5 for a cup of coffee at Starbucks, surely they can come up with some kind of business model.
They should also release TV show episodes via the traditional PPV scheme. A user clicks a few buttons on the remote and the thing is played just like "renting" a PPV movie/pr0n is done now.
Of course this will all probably never happen because the people that are in the board rooms are all 60+ yr old baby boomers who don't understand the Internet or this "New new media". Instead they will succomb to piracy. Right now it is too convenient to join a BitTorrent network and downloading the latest episode than trying to find a legitimate way to view it (mostly because there isn't one).
While downloading specific shows would be great, I'd first like the ability to choose what cable/satellite channels I get individually. I don't want to have to subsidized 20+ sports channels just so that I can watch the Food Network.
I've seen my cable bill rise just so that some idiots can get a sports channel featuring a regional team. Fine, pass that cost directly onto the people who want that content. I don't.
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice
So why don't the advertisers scream for laws against people getting up to go to the bathroom and raiding the fridge while commercials are on?!!!
The problem with that is:
In reality, it's those 20+ sports channels that are subsidizing channels like Food Network, History Channel, Sci-Fi, A&E, and anything else the typical American common denominator (who loves thing like Ashlee Simpson, NSF, NBA, and Bachlorette/Survivor 9: The Quickening).
If you choose the a-la-carte way, any channel that isn't very popular with the vast majority of the American public (with whom I share little in the way of entertainment taste) will go off the air.
With the first link, the chain is forged.