Aussie TV Networks Fight BitTorrent

An anonymous reader writes "It seems impatient TV viewers have discovered BitTorrent in Australia mainly because the networks there are so slow; programs are at times behind by up to 8 months! According to an independent study, it takes an average of four months to watch the latest episodes of top-rated shows like Lost and Desperate Housewives. There are now calls for TV networks to consider offering episodes for download at a small cost."

Comments

Like the Peacekeeper wars

[mgv]

If you were as much a farscape fan as I am, you would understand the frustration in not being able to get the peacekeeper wars by any legal means in Australia.

The dissapointing thing is that there is no reason why this shouldn't be available in Oz right now. Its not even like film, where the latest releases only have a certain number of reels to go around the world.

If I can get a high quality copy easily over the internet, why can't the networks figure out how to do it for a profit?

Michael

Why pay? It's ad-supported!

[ilyaaohell]

I never understood the concept behind either paying for TV show downloads, or for the broadcast networks rejecting the medium. Last I checked, broadcast television access was free. It's free because they show several segments of advertising in the middle of the show. Why would the medium matter to these companies? Why stick with television sets?

The advantage of downloading stuff is that you can watch it whenever you want. My schedule may not permit me to watch the shows I want. If you give me the same exact show with the same exact ads over the internet, I will gladly watch it! With the ads! I don't give a damn about the show not being ad-free, and I don't give a damn about them even developing a technology preventing you from fast-forwarding past the advertising. I'll watch the damn advertising, just like I watch it on TV. Just let me watch the damn show at the computer if the need strikes me! You lose NOTHING. Even if someone does fast-forward through the commercials, someone else will watch the same file TWICE, thus increasing their exposure to the advertising. Is this not an acceptable trade-off?

Re:Why pay? It's ad-supported!

[RocketRainbow]

The above comment is not insightful!

Here is the real model for TV distribution and why your proposal doesn't work:

1. Some studio makes a TV show.
2. They sell it to national TV channels who distribute it to their local broadcasters
3. Local and national advertisers pay the local and national TV stations to run the show.

Now if you were to watch over the Intermanet, it wouldn't have the same local ads in it, now, would it?
Perhaps the TV could advertise - "Did you miss a show? Watch it streaming on www.ChannelNineCanberra.com.au!" and you could get your own ads for porno and fireworks (or whatever sells in your local area). But then the USA channels are going to be mighty miffed that you're robbing them of their potential viewers by broadcasting this stuff on the Intermanet. As are the local distributers in Finland, for example.

But most of all, the people who actually make and sell the TV show are going to be highly dubious about changing their distribution model in this way.

Actually I think it's silly. Given that an hour of your time spent watching ads costs about $1, you'd think you could just pay the people who make the stuff $1 for every hour of TV you watch over your computer using their streamer-viewer or some login account or who knows what. Porno manages to sell just videos and many of them keep in business, so why can't the TV people sell videos?

But simply expecting TV channels to take the feed you would have got and stick it on the internet is not going to work. How many times did you watch it? What targeted ads did you see? The advertisers aren't going to pay for this loss of control. Local streamed downloads seem easier, but there will be licensing issues as the internet broadcaster tries to convince all the other broadcasters that it's still worth them buying in (the studio will not be convinced that the internet broadcaster will make more money than all the world's TV channels).

Please remember that you are not the customers of this industry - you are consumers whose behaviour is legislated for the economic benefit of the TV channels and advertisers. They are going to do what works best for them and you are going to comply or else. Disagree? Don't watch TV!

Re:Not just late, but...

[awful]

Well exactly - if the networks insist on treating their customers badly, eventually their customers will look for alternatives. And then the networks will turn around and scream at the government to help them stop their customers exercising freedom of choice.

Re:Typical

[mystik]

If Aussie tv is anything like American tv, you must remember one important thing.

You are not the customer.

The advertisers are.

It suddenly becomes apparent that they *are* doing what the customers want: namely, full control of the distribution channel.

3 things certain in life

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd gladly pay a feww dollars/month to download TV eps (sans commericals)

There are at least three things certain in life:

1. Death
   
2. Taxes
   
3. COMMERCIALS
   

When cable TV was beginning to offer premium channels in the U.S. the expectation was that since you were paying for the channels, you wouldn't have to watch commercials.

That didn't last.

Now, commercials are even being shown in many movie theaters in the U.S. The commercials are shown during the time advertised as the start of the movie, so it's not like you only see them if you're early to a show.

I'm not surprised one bit that people are retaliating against the sensory overload of obnoxious product propaganda, both in TV and in the cinema.