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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.