Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Aussie TV Networks Fight BitTorrent

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the my-brain-must-rot-right-this-second dept.

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."

18 of 550 comments (clear)

  1. Like the Peacekeeper wars by mgv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    --
    There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
    1. Re:Like the Peacekeeper wars by medge_42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not too sure what you mean here. Amazon has the DVDs available already. You can buy them from the US, and play them on your multi-zone player.
      All perfectly legal, all perfectly legit.
      The trade practices act of 1974 and the copyright ammendments come together to make the zoning of DVDs illegal in Australia. All that's needed is a court decision to make it law.
      Any thing that restricts choice is illegal(Trade Practices) and we are allowed to parallel import(Copyright amendment). To the best of my knowledge neither have been negated by the further amendments.

    2. Re:Like the Peacekeeper wars by Nos. · · Score: 5, Informative

      Canada has a population nearing 30 million, and a land mass significantly larger than the US. Yet, we have two Satellite television providers. In the province I live in (Saskatchewan) anyone in a city with a population of around 1000 people has access to high speed internet. The local telco has also started offering wireless which means anyone living within I believe about 30Km of selected spots, will also have high speed available.

      The thing is, around here, a lot of money was invested in the infrastructure for many years. If the copyright holders would begin to allow us to download our favourite shows (for a fee) then we certainly have the infrastructure to support it.

      As for Austrailia, if the government can (and has the money to) get involved, there are a lot of new technologies coming out such as WiMax that can begin to offer high speed internet without the infrastructure costs normally associated with something like expanding DSL to a new area.

    3. Re:Like the Peacekeeper wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Economics is only part of the story.

      Australia does NOT have a TV Network. We have a few lame, protected stations, that broadcast 22 minutes of commercials per hour - truely 3rd world standard.

      Content is late, and uncertain - and not to 'best practice'. Thanks to easy, electronic access, punters will not tolerate such slackness.

      The stations pay 300-600% MORE for programs (per viewer) than they do, in say America, then compound the situation by trying to get 'Sports', and 'exclusivity', plus movies by 'Cable' companies to siphon even more content. Australians have a lower disposable income, so advertisers get poor value indeed.

      Unsurprisingly, the reaction of punters, um er viewers, is to cancel cable ($72 month for about a dozen channels and with commercials) for a $30 all you can hire at the local DVD outlet. Fast-Forwarding and internet options are attractive options.

      Aussie TV is dysfunctional, inefficient, protected, coddled, commercial ridden, and saddled with overpriced long term movie house agreements.

      Downloading has many pluses. Telstra makes bucks, and the TV stations have REAL reasons for getting content cheaper - because their viewing audience is declining, because they can't negotiate back to profitability. While they mull, more and more will use internet to get their fair share or free to air, with a long antenna.

  2. And New Zealand is just as bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    New Zealand has the exact same problem. There are shows I've heard about that were on in the US 3-4 years ago that will never show here...

    Ah, television - teacher, mother, secret lover. Why must you treat me so badly?

  3. Aussies by drivinghighway61 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm fairly certain it takes 8 months to change all instances of "Hello" to "G'day!" and all instances of "fries" to "chips." Really, aside from that, Australian people aren't so different after all.

    1. Re:Aussies by _generica · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hope a dingo eats your baby, you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:Aussies by Chuq · · Score: 5, Informative

      Australia actually gets US shows unedited (well, bits cut out to fit more ads in, but we learn your "cultural" terms).

      Its actually happens the other way around - some lines in "Crocodile Dundee" were changed for Americans - I think 'stickybeak' became 'busybody' or something obscure - but that whole movie is a stereotype anyway. In "The Castle", 'rissoles' became 'meatloaf'.

      --
      - Chuq
    3. Re:Aussies by lushman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The reason for the dub is that it then becomes "Australian Content" and fits into the broadcaster's quota for local programs.
      Channel 10 did it a bit to. Ever wondered why Sandra Sully had to "present" a wildlife documentary? Those minute-or-so spiels she would give at either end of the program were completely pointless to the viewer, but to the regulator, they made the program "Australian".

  4. Not just late, but... by kgbspy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's not just things being 8-12 months (on average) behind, say, the US or UK, it's also the insistence of the commercial networks (specifically Channel 9) to drop series without notice, schedule program episodes in the wrong order, or change the scheduling of episodes at the last minute.

    I'm not surprised that people are taking television programming into their own hands in this country...

    --
    ~
    ~
    ~
    -- INSERT --
    1. Re:Not just late, but... by awful · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  5. Broadcatching by Alien+Venom · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are a number of articles that describe a process known as "broadcatching." Basically it uses RSS feeds from certan TV torrent sites and a BitTorrent client. EnGadget has an article describing this, and how to do it. It's what I do and I don't even live outside of the US! Shows usually come out an hour or two before they broadcast in my local area, which means, for example, I can download the HDTV version of my favorite show (without commercials) and finish watching it even before it starts in my time zone. Amazing!

  6. Why pay? It's ad-supported! by ilyaaohell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    UNIX: A computer user is defined as a programmer. WINDOWS: A computer user is defined as a consumer.
    1. Re:Why pay? It's ad-supported! by RocketRainbow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
  7. Re:Typical by mystik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
  8. 3 things certain in life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:3 things certain in life by azrebb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Cinemas in Australia have had commercials at the start of the session since I've been going (15+ years). To be honest, I don't mind as much as tv commercials as you only see them at the start of the movie and normally they're those fancy ones that companies have paid ludicous amounts of money to some marketing firm to make something a)funny b)intelligent c)full of hot scantily clad women or d)all of the above.

  9. We're A Nation of Backups by planet-sloop · · Score: 5, Funny

    We don't download them to watch. As part of the free trade agreement between the US and Australia, we are providing you with off-shore storage in case of disaster.

    Its all about disaster recovery these days and being the caring nation, we're just trying to do our part.