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.
Think about it, you catch show #10 of '24' and realize "Hey, this show looks damn cool!". Now, if you could PPV rent the firs nine shows of the season that you missed - wouldn't you?
DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
Before you flame me - could something like Allofmp3 (that pays royalties) work. Variable quality rates, price per MB, included comericals with lower prices.
I think it would be great!
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.
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.
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.
sci-fi's been offering episode 1 of their new battlestar galactica series on their site. doing this on a PPV basis does make sense. a monthly, per network fee would probably be the result, IMV, and i agree that this would go over well. after a while, perhaps a few parties would get together and create a single method whereby you could do that with a single source.
but i think the real key here is gonna be price point.
ed
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
Similarly, local networks get a specified amount of revenue from showing these shows. Take the distribution method out of the loop by allowing the end user to directly access the media content and you'd have some pissed off affiliates.
Furthermore, allowing off network viewing of a show would not only hurt a network's bottom line, but also its brand image. People know FOX is channel 7, or 11, but what channel is it when you're downloading from a website? Even if it is fox's website.
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.)
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
And this is where AOL / Time Warner really missed the boat.
Can you imagine how many new AOL Broadband subscribers there would be if your $20 / month fee included the ability to watch all of the previous seasons Sopranos? or Carnivale?
...they can't enforce their copyrights as aggressively as Hollywood can. In the US you are allowed to tape a television broadcast and give that tape to a friend. The US Supreme Court said that like 20 years ago.
You're not allowed to do that with a motion picture DVD you bought or rented.
In other words, they have very little to gain from going after people who are taping TV shows.
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 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
What, you mean production decisions made based on the actual value to viewers?
The only problem is that the only things left on TV will star 20 year olds playing the parts of teenagers who whine about their parents and sleep with their best friend's S.O.'s.
Then again, it could save Enterprise.
(I'm not sure that that's any better.)
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
The stations make their main dollars from advertising by charging based on viewership. It does not really matter that people get up during the ads to get another beer/take a dump etc. Anything they can do to hike the viewership numbers is considered a GoodThing. If they can do this through counting downloads then they win.
Pay per view is a barrier to hiking the viewership numbers.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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?
To watch their cranial bubble gum. $50 a month doesn't seem too steep. I'd even leave commercials on while I'm out to take a leak.
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.
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
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.
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.
Video recorders were invented in the mid-70s. Tivo may be a nice usability enhancement, but the "freedom" to record and watch later has been around for decades.
There is a BIG difference between a VCR and a PVR. Sure, you have been able to archive a show for 30 years, but the big difference is that a PVR is random-access when a VCR isn't. I record mediochre shows with my PVR and I may or may-not watch them. But, I always have something to watch, accessiable by my remote.
When you are recording on video-cassette, you can either put a bunch of episodes on one tape, which is inconvenient to watch, or you can put each episode on a different tape, which is inconvenient to store.
I would definatly be willing to pay a reasonable fee to watch all my TV on demand. I would even pay more to get a copy without commercials too. The TV industry would need a major paradigm shift though, to go from an advertising based revenue model to a pay based revenue model.
"If it sucks without butter, it still sucks with butter, only creamier." - AC
The TV companies most likely don't care that people download their shows for a number of reasons. One, since the shows are produced fairly rapidly, they don't need to worry about someone on the inside distributing the newest episode. And even if they did, it would only be out shortly before it was aired on TV, thus having no major impact on the number of views. The TV series has most likely received its payments from advertising well before the show is aired. sales from TV DVD's are mostly inconsequential to overall asset returns from shows, with the exception of a few of the more popular ones. If anything, its probably beneficial for shows to have their episodes downloaded. You can't get the newest one's much longer before they come to TV, and even if you do, the quality is always going to be lower unless you have the money for a really sweet connection speed. Most common folks not only dont have the speeds, but wouldn't bother with the effort. Constantly downloading shows, mp3's, and porn takes allot of effort. Sites are getting shut down, you piss off someone and they block you from some area to download. People are lazy, I'd love to see the age group for those who download the most. 10bucks says its highschool to college kids. they got money, and a ton of free time. For example, even though MP3 downloading has reached a very mainstream point, most people I know doing it, only use it casually to dl some random song, the ones constantly downloading the newest album of any particular band are either to poor to buy the CD, or have to much time on their hands. CD's are still popular because people are naturally lazy, IMHO. But that's a different subject entirely.
Induhvidual
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
I think that there's alot of crap floating around about the idea of downloading TV shows.
Is it piracy if I am paying for the cable channels the show is broadcast on and I record it to watch when it's more convenient and I can fast forward through commercials? The Betamax decision says no (for the moment anyways).
So why is there anything illegal about me getting a copy of a broadcast I already paid for from someone else?
It's just time shifting. It think that thier panties are in a twist over situations like a UK viewer downloading '24' *before* it's broadcast over there (alternatly, the new 'Battlestar Galactica' series released in the UK first, downloaded by N.Americans before US broadcast).
Someone needs to wake up to the fact that there is demand for these shows and that regional distribution is not a viable containment method anymore. The people want to see it and are going to get it one way or another. Might as well make it widely available.
My ISP is the cable company. I'd gladly pay a fee if they would buffer, say, a month of broadcast on a 'groupTivo (tm)' that I could access at my convenince. Pay for what you view, watch alot pay more. Watch a little, pay a little. Watch alot, pay more.
Just my rant
Where are we going, and why are we in this hand cart?
In August, after I watched a few episodes of Dead Like Me on Showtime, I wanted to go back and watch from the begging. I launched my bittorrent client and grabbed all of the first season. This was before Dead Like Me was available on DVD. A few weeks later, my Internet connection stopped working. Turns out MGM sent a DMCA violation notice to my ISP.
I was never sued, but I always fear that it will come back to bite me.
As you point out, "MOST" is pure crap. Having said that, thanks to Tivo, I can pick out the maybe 10 shows that are actually worth watching. So let's se, between 12 and 24 episodes for a given show per year. Let's say $2/episode.
That'd be 18 episode average times $2/episode or $36/year for a given show. Somewhat less than they'd make on a DVD box set, but that's assuming I wouldn't end up buying that anyhow. Furthermore, that $36 has very low distribution costs, especially if the download software incorporates some P2P technology.
Now, Like I said, maybe 10 shows at $36/show. So $360/year. I'm paying roughly $80/month for comshlock cable, so that's $960/year. So I could double the number of shows I watch and still save a huge amount of money. Furthermore, all that money that Comcast would normally get would go right to the production studios who actually make the stuff.
Now, think about it, if everybody was going out and selectively buying TV shows, they'd actually have to be good to compete for money. Why go download that one episode that's nothing but cuts from previous episodes. Give that new reality show a try and if it doesn't pique your interest after a few episodes, just stop downloading it.
Now, broadcasters have to think in terms of, ratings, which means getting either a large audience, or a very well defined niche. One thing that hurts enterprise is that it's a pretty broad audience, but not a big one. If you got all the trekkies to pay $2/episode, that would solve that problem nicely.
The other nice thing is that this opens up the possibility for small independent producers to make small and more creative shows. You have to be able to guarantee delivery of a fairly large audience to cost justify making a television show. That's why reality TV is so popular, it gets good ratings and it's cheap to produce. But if you could make a 12 episode television show for say $120K, or $10K/episode, then if you get 5000 people interested, you at least broke even. Plus, if you aren't sure about the appeal, you can do a pilot, and give it away to see how it goes.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple was in negotiation with the TV companies right now, trying to work out a way to add an "Episode store" to iTunes (or quicktime or iMovie or something).
As the iPod funds the iTunes Music Store, though, they would need something to fund it (ie a product that buying tv shows through them would encourage you to buy). Could be a iPod video, but I doubt it. More likely a MacMini-type "entertainment box" that hooks up to your TV. Products like this have never taken off before, just like mp3 players never took off until iTunes/iPod; people need a reason to buy a new paradigm of technology.
I see it like this. Apple launches iTunes Video Store and the iBox home entertainment center at the same time. At first, the iBox sales are sucky, but people start downloading episodes from iTunes (easier than finding pirated versions). Then people want an easy way to watch these series' on their 90-inch plasmatic television, and iBox sales take off.
And people like me, without a TV, would be happy to pay the occasional few dollars for a TV show to watch...
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.
50 cents per hour, eh? Interesting. I have started wondering if I shouldn't just start making independedent films. If I could get a few thousand people to pay a dollar for a torrent to an un-DRM'd video file, it would be enough to find microbudget indy work, with college students, and semi-pros. Obviously, it wouldn't be as slick as Star Trek, but with a few grand per episode of budget, you can make do with decent equipment and talented nonames.
The only problem would be that I'd have to pay a lawyer to sue anybody who put the files on Kazaa, or else I'd almost certainly never be able to get people to actually pay for it. I haven't been able to think of a good solution, except for trying to find advertising sponsors, and working them into the productions, so that you can't just skip over the ads. (I.E. The hero would save the day with the sponsor's product, or the bad guy would try to kill people with the competitor's product.)
But, since the distribution would be on the internet, most likely, no local businesses would be interested in advertising. (No guarantee that more than a handful of people in the same state would watch, and all the people in latvia wouldn't care that Bob's has the cheapest stuff in Denver.)
But, being a small independent production, a company that is international, and would be interested in reaching people all over the internet like Coca Cola would probably not be interested in targeting a few thousand geeky downloaders on the internet.
So, anybody have any good ideas for how to do an independent Internet distributed series without DRM?
I was wondering about this earlier today.
What with the new ST:Ent Challenge with the fans essentially paying for the production of a new season. This allows the broadcasters to provide the content without requiring prime-time advertising. Easily allowing the episodes to be made available online.
The only problem I would imagine is the actors royalty payments which DRM (god forbid) or a subscription based system could account for.
I am massively in favour of funding even $50 for the ability to fund a new season and be able to download it when I want to view it.
Hopefully Paramount will look into this option if they go ahead with ST:Ent S5!
If you didn't have access to all of what's on cable, how could you decide which 10 shows are worth wathcing?
Very good point.
Tivo has a "showcases" feature where their "partners" could (pay to) set up their own listings of what they are showing. They also have a "Tivo" showcase which lists things across the board in different categories. When I first got my Tivo some 5+ years ago, I thought these were useless. However soon after I got my Tivo I completely stopped watching live TV and skipped commercials in recordings and so a few years later I realized that I have never heard of many of the shows that started after I got my tivo. If I did not read about it on internet or was told about it by a friend, the show did not exist. And then I re-discovered the Tivo showcase - specifically the section listing new shows. Every once in a while (especially right before season starts) I would go there and look through what is coming up. If something catches my eye, I will record a few episodes, if I like it - then I "season pass" it. Simple and very effective.
Something like this is easy to implement and free to download previews or pilots can make it even easier. And as long as you put the viewer in charge of choosing what and when to see, Adverts for new shows may not be a bad thing.
Then there is always review sites, magazines, etc.
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
I propose a comission model.
First some background info on TV production in the USA:
Add all that up and you have an industry that is much like cinema - they need that 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 mega-hit just to break even on all the money losing shows. This fact is probably the biggest reason you see networks cancel promising shows after less than one season without giving them a chance to "find their niche."
So, if a production company could be guaranteed a reasonable (say 10-20%) profit immediately upon release of each episode, that would be a huge change in the way hollywood does business. It would allow more niche programming, one might even say more intelligent programming because the need to pander to the lowest common denominator in order to appeal to the largest possible audience would be gone. All you need to do is keep enough of an audience to proftiably fund the next episode.
But, how do you guarantee a profit on each episode? Commission.
Just as the net makes it easy for the pirates to share a show with thousands and even millions of their best friends on the net, so to can the net bring together millions of people to hire the production company to produce each episode.
Let's take Star Trek Enterprise as an example again. Look at the price on DVD for one season of Star Trek Voyager - MSRP is $140 and street is no better than $90. I'm going to guess and say there are 22 episodes per season - that's over $4 per episode. Viewership numbers for first run episodes of Enterprise in the USA are in the 3 million range - that ignores viewers in other countries and during any second showings (if there are any) later in the week.
For the sake of argument, let us say every one of those 3M viewers were to pony up an average of $1.50 per episode. That would produce $4.5M - enough to pay for $4M in production costs with ~13% return on investment in less than a month. In return, the people who paid for the production of the show would now own it - since there are so many owners, it is simpler to just make it public domain and not worry any more about the ownership details - we would all own it.
There are a couple of secondary benefits of releasing it to the public domain -- for both the production company and for society at large:
They are watching the other industries duke it out with their customers.. waiting to see how it comes out..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
First of all, I suspect that most shows would offer you a taste of a show for free to hook you. So you could readily go around and try different shows.
:)
Another possibility would be to do trailers like they do at the movies. I mean throw two minutes worth of ads for other shows before my program starts. Honestly the only ads I don't skip now are ads for other programming.
They can advertise on the Internet. They can release their shows to critics, and we can use them to measure whether they are good.
Honestly, I don't find good TV by skimming what's out there. I see ads for them when watching shows I already watch. I hear about them from friends or on the net. I'm fairly certain I found out about Battlestar Galactica on Slashdot and that's one of my favorite shows now.
Another possibility I could see would be an HBO like model. You could pay a monthly fee to get all of SciFi's shows for example. You could download however much you wanted whenever you wanted. Essentially allow me to do my television a la carte rather than getting a bunch of channels I'd never watch (FoxNews, for example
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service