Television Reloaded

theodp writes "The TV times, they are a-changing. Over at Newsweek, Steven Levy offers a serious tome on the future of television, including time-shifting ("people will follow schedules only for real-time events like sports and election night"), space-shifting ("Now that you've stored your show on a TiVo, it's only logical to take it with you on your laptop, hand-held viewer or PSP game player") and the move from broadcast TV to broadband TV. Meanwhile, Conan O'Brien lightens things up with his own vision of the TV future ("Toddlers' bowls will have a television at the bottom, and children will be encouraged to eat all of their mush so they can see Morley Safer.")."

Comments

The Future is Now.

[Vorondil28]

In the /. tradition, our commuity has been riding the crest of this digital wave with our BitTorrent clients for some time.

Re:The Future is Now.

[bheer]

Nothing stops TV companies from offering Janus/Fairplay encoded content (with ads) via BitTorrent. I'm pretty sure they'd get quite a few viewers too because the official seeds would be far more reliable than the unofficial ones operating out of Eastern Europe/someone's crappy home connection.

Any home that has a 2Mbps+ connection is a prime candidate for this sort of service.

Re:The Future is Now.

[DickBreath]

We can argue syntax and semantics all day, but depriving someone of payment due is close enough to theft that any arguments "justifying" copyright infringement lack weight.

I loved it late last year when the Federal Court of Appeals judge strongly scolded a lawyer for using "harsh language" like "stealing" and "theft" when describing "copyright infringement". This was in the mp3 of the oral arguments in the Grokster case.

You can argue syntax and semantics all day, but reproducing a copyright work without permission is copyright infringement, plain and simple. Whether copyright infringement is justified, or has actually occurred, or whether someone is liable for it, is a completely different argument than what it should be called. That was the court of appeals Judge's point.

Using loaded terms like "stealing" and "theft" are just attempts to add a sensational emotional charge. Using descriptive terms like "copyright infringement" does not somehow lessen what is happening. Perhaps we should revisit all of our technical vocabulary and substitute emotionally charged words/phrases?

Not convinced? Copyright is completely orthogonal to payment. A copyright work may be GPL licensed, but not require payment. Someone might infringe the copyright of the author by reproducing the work in contravention of the license (i.e. copyright infringement, not "theft"), even though the author made the work available without payment.

Re:The Future is Now.

[DickBreath]

That brings me to the major issue here: people are trying as hard as they can to disassociate the term "Copyright Infringement" from "Theft" in an attempt to make "Copyright Infringement" a softer, gentler euphemism for something that, if it isn't theft exactly, is certainly theft's blood relative.

You've got it backwards. "Copyright infringement" is not some recently contrived euphemism. It is a technical and legal term that has been around a long time. Theft is the recently invented euphemism.

You've got it backwards. Nobody is trying to disassociate anything. On the contrary, people are recently trying to associate terms like Theft and Stealing with Copyright Infringement when they are completely different things. This is because they have some agenda to push. People without any agenda are happy to use bland technical descriptions.

This kind of name calling is used when someone doesn't have any actual facts to argue. It is like trying to use terms such as "Anti-Life" or "Anti-Choice".

The law defined the term "copyright infringement" and assigned penalties for it a long time ago.



if it isn't theft exactly, is certainly theft's blood relative

The terms theft and copyright infringement are unrelated and mean different precise things. The "infringement" means that somebody's right (a copyright) is being infringed. There are civil and criminal penalties for this. Trying to inject emotion into it serves no purpose. Theft is when someone takes your physical property -- something that also has civil and criminal penalties.

Copyright Infringement is not some "softer gentler euphemism". It is a term that refers to a violation of the law -- just as other terms describe other violations of the law: Rape, Murder, Theft, Posession of controlled substance, Copyright Infringement, Jaywalking, etc.

Maybe it is that when seen in that list of crimes, it is embarrasing (to those with a certian agenda) how much more serious the other crimes are, and therefore, they have to try to associate the term Theft with it.

If you have a copyright, and someone infringes it, it is more productive for you to pursue the issue legally for both civil remedies and criminal prosecution. Name calling does not get you anywhere -- unless you are trying to play political games.



It is like the court of appeals case I mention where the judge scolded the MPAA's lawyer. There is no need to use harsh language like that. Simply argue and prove your case. Prove that, somehow, Grokster should be liable for how its users use the technology to infringe copyright. Simple as that. No need to use harsh language or redefine terms and meanings.

It is you that is trying to redefine the meaning of language that has been codified as the laws of the land.



I am not making any argument about trying to "justify" copyright infringement. If someone is infringing your copyright, stop calling names, and sue them!

On-demand is the future, today.

[Sheetrock]

The broadcast industry is fighting it every step of the way, but the future is in on-demand television. I argue the success of TiVo and other DVR devices demonstrates this; people want to be able to watch what they want when they want, without wasting time on things like commercials.

The best thing the industry could do would be to figure out a system where you select what you want to watch from a menu, give you a VCR commandset (play, pause, rewind, forward, stop), and offer a meaningful guarantee of retention or recordability. And figure out how to make money off of it without breaking the people who want to use it.

They're working so hard on figuring out how to make you watch commercials that they're missing the larger picture. If you charge for access to a service like this nobody can 'steal' content by fast-forwarding through commercials because there won't be any.

Re:On-demand is the future, today.

[sleeper0]

There are dozens of major pay and free channels that don't run commercials. None of these have a video on demand service for their content library. Why? Maybe because spending a maximum of two minutes explaining how to save an industry from the perspective of a sassy outsider isn't actually going to yield insightful or constructive results.

Re:On-demand is the future, today.

[NanoGator]

Part of the problem here is that television is ad based, and time-slots are a VERY important factor in their pricing. By doing away with the time-slot (as DVRs basically do...) they feel they're going to lose big.

There's probably some truth to it, but I see an alternative. Base advertising on the show instead of the time slot. I mean, seriously, who in their right mind thinks Star Trek is a great time for a tampon or birth-control commercial? Television shows often develop a strong following. Unfortunately, musical time slots often kill well loved shows. (Futurama...) Dedicated viewer base, homeless. With DVRs, they could show new eps at 3am in the morning and they'd still generate revenue.

Unfortunately, this begs the ugly question of whether or not commercial skip should be allowed. Frankly, I think there's a compromise here. Get rid of commercial skip and add fast forward. I know this option won't go well with a lot of people. Sorry. But it's a sticky situation. If ads aren't being watched, the main source of revenue for these shows suddenly disappears.

Another alternative is something like iTunes for tv shows. A buck or two buys you an episode of your favorite show, ad free. Unfortunately, though, this could result in ridiculous monthly expenditures on TV. Conversely, lots of people are buying TV series DVDs. So... eh.

Frankly, I understand why this is contraversial on both sides. The solution isn't likely to make the customers or the television networks completely happy. Right now, I'm paying a pretty heft amount per month for digital cable. If I could funnel that money into an on-demand service instead, somebody could end up with a nifty sized subscription fee per month. Figure out how to make a profit on that, and they'll get my business.

Re:On-demand is the future, today.

[hansbleep]

Yes, the broadcast industry is fighting it every step of the way. But over the long-term the preferences of the content distributors have had very little sway on the ultimate delivery mechanisms for the content they distribute. We're always going to need some level of business apparatus surrounding the delivery of content, but the businesses themselves are basically just a means-to-an-end, with profits and success redistributed according to market need.

Think about it: the RIAA was dragged kicking and screaming into distribution models like iTunes Music Store, etc, which has ended up being a popular and heavily used option for a huge number of consumers. The MPAA originally opposed VHS and Betamax.

People are used to on-demand entertainment and television and radio are the only formats that don't widely support this consumption style. We like being able to pause our DVDs, skip past the songs we don't like in our CD/MP3 collections, browse what we want when we want to online, and so on. It's becoming part of our relationship with media. Any format that doesn't support this usage is going to have to evolve or die. It's simply the way things work, and it doesn't matter whether the broadcast industry doesn't like it, fights it, even wins a few legal battles in the short-term. Consumer demand will invariably be met by market forces.

Re:On-demand is the future, today.

[Sheetrock]

I'm betting this will surprise you, but the work and social schedules of most people are growing to preclude their ability to plunk their ass in front of the tube for hours at a stretch. As television has cut into reading time, so too the Internet has cut into television time. iTunes is demonstrating the feasibility of delivering paid-for digital media over the Internet, technology companies are gearing up digital rights management, the broadcast flag for consumer video equipment is on the horizon (delayed, maybe defeated, maybe not), and Microsoft is pushing Windows Media Center. Satellite companies are offering DVR as part of their services and a ton of content is being released on DVD -- at the same time, broadcasters are doubling- and tripling-up the same shows on their schedules each day and delivering some considerably lousy content (Reality TV, one- or two- star movies, home improvement and crime shows are all I can tune) while explaining that the problem is that they aren't getting the money they need from commercials.

Anybody in the pay-per-view industry will tell you on-demand television works. Details such as whether you pay per watch, per episode, or per 'channel' of content are certainly up to the implementors, but if you don't believe this is coming soon you're not properly interpreting the signals. I don't have to sing its praises to the broadcast industry; they're simply waiting for the various pieces that make up the technology and legislation necessary for such a scheme to fall into place.

Re:On-demand is the future, today.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is people don't want commercials but most are used to free TV so they don't want to pay. You can point to cable but it's a bad example. Most of cable is supported by commercials. There are paid channels but if you paid for every channel it would cost thousands of dollars a month. You can say then that you simply choose which ones you want. I think you'd find the number of channels would drop like a rock. You might not see this as a bad thing but they may have to cut your favorite channels. Entertainment is going to have to change how it does business because it's fighting for it's life but the end result is likely to be a consolidation of options and more limited selection. Also the big budget films may one day go the way of the dinosaur. Without enough revenue the film budgets will have to drop. Star Wars films don't survive on one out of four people seeing it once. They make their money off a percentage seeing it a second and third time. If you say go to a pay per view HD system instead of theaters you have maybe a flat rate of $5 to $10 for the showing but a family of four gets to see the new release for $10 instead of $30, in some cases $40 or $50. And that doesn't count having the friends over to see the newest release. Revenues from a theatrical release could be cut easily from a half to a third of the present levels, maybe much more. The only way to keep the revenues up are embeded product placement and commercials that that play whether you like it or not. If you go for a no commercial model the budgets have to drop. Big budgets will hang on for a while but unless a new way of making money on them can be found they simply can't survive in the digital world. It's all about profits and they will be forced to adopt a way of making films that is more profitable. People may like the big budget films but if they don't want to pay for them they simply won't get made in the first place.

Re:On-demand is the future, today.

[sleeper0]

"I'm betting this will surprise you [...]"

sure no one has heard of people recording video programs for later watching, thank you for your time and insight!

"iTunes is demonstrating the feasibility of delivering paid-for digital media over the Internet"

True. I'm not sure anyone has argued that it is technically possible for it to be done. However, you might be interested in the fact that ITMS has been explained by apple as being no better than break even. They are unable to make a profit with the service. As far as apple is concerned it exists solely to promote sales of their iPod hardware device. Content interests have repeatedly protested that ITMS sales perform poorly compared to retail sales. So literally there is no corporate interest in ITMS barring sales of the portable. Not really a great example for on demand television unless you sell a portable video player.

"Windows Media Center [...] offering DVR [...] released on DVD"

Some good examples of the PVR/DVR market. Let's explain why PVR works now while on demand may not.

98.2% of households own a TV (US 1990)
74.9% of households have some kind of Internet (US 2004)
45.2% of households have broadband (US 2004)

obviously broadband on demand delivery has a major hurdle to take care of before it could replace broadcast + PVR timeshifting

Even if broadband penetration was 98.2%, which could take decades, could current digital infrastructure support each television household consuming 2-6 hours of on demand 1mbps-6mbps video content? No. While it may work for you to download a show or two, it would all fall apart if all of your neighbors were doing the same thing. Infrastucture can't support it (yet)

"If you charge for access to a service like this nobody can 'steal' content by fast-forwarding through commercials because there won't be any."

Broadcast television revenues: US$54.4B (US 2004)
Premium television revenues: US$8.5B (worldwide 2002)
PPV television revenues: US$2.4B (worldwide 2002)

I'm not sure I'd like to explain to shareholders how the only answer to sustaining my business is to abandon a $54B market to chase a $2B-8B market (at best) with higher costs.

Also ratings would fall drastically:
highest rated show 5/9-5/15: CSI (CBS) 26.4M viewers
highest rated premium tv show 5/9-5/15: below public reporting threshold, below 3.1M viewers

So in summary:
* no example of profitable major on demand broadband video delivery
* infrastructure does not support it
* penetration is less than half of broadcast
* current market revenue is 5%-20% of broadcast

I dont think broadcast will be going away anytime soon.

Re:On-demand is the future, today.

[Dwonis]

Get rid of commercial skip and add fast forward. I know this option won't go well with a lot of people. Sorry. But it's a sticky situation. If ads aren't being watched, the main source of revenue for these shows suddenly disappears.

So, if I understand this correctly, you're saying that every time technology changes in a big way, the public should give up a little bit of freedom. What will be left in 100 years?

I watch TV a lot, but I'd rather see TV die than take away people's freedom in order to save it. But that's probably a moot point, since in reality, TV won't die: there is money to be made selling television service to consumers.

Re:On-demand is the future, today.

[FLEB]

The entire Internet is $40 a month via broadband. It's interactive, and offer infinite number of channels.

The problem with that statement, though, is that when content becomes popular, the problem inherent to Internet popularity (melty server) usually forces the popular site to become pay-based just to afford the hosting.

If content on par with premium cable were to go online in any significant way, it would doubtless be as a pay service, probably piecemeal to each provider, which would either be full of ads or other trade-offs, or would be a paid service above and beyond the regular Internet fees. Basically, it's apples and oranges.

Future? How about Present.

[EtherealStrife]

Really.

"It'll be a cosmic video jukebox where you can fire up old episodes of "Cop Rock," the fifth game of the 1993 World Series, a live high-school lacrosse game, a ranting video blogger and your own HD home-movie production of Junior's first karate tournament. While it's playing, you can engage in running voice commentary with your friends, while in a separate part of the screen you're slamming orcs in World of Warcraft. Then you can pay your bill on screen. And if you ever manage to leave your home theater, you can monitor the whole shebang in your car, at a laptop at Starbucks or via the laundry-ticket-size screen on your cell phone."

I can do that now. What's so "futuristic" about that? Each of my bed posts has a surround sound speaker mounted to it, and I have big screen tv precariously situated on top of my dresser (don't ask), so I can just wake up and commence brainrot without leaving bed. Video output from computer to tv and bam! Stick the feed tubes in me, I'm set to go!

Re:Future? How about Present.

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

I believe the point is that the on-demand type of services and information overload will be widely accepted by the masses. Right now you're in a small segment of the population and, this is the important part, corporate America hasn't charged you enough for what you're receiving. The whole point is that companies want to bring this to the masses and make money off of it.

On a side note, you should try taking the television out of your bedroom. I did this and I find it is a much healthier lifestyle. You might find you don't need the television in the house at all.

When-I-see-fit-TV

[LittleGuernica]

The way that I see it going is that TV will only be for the "premiere" of an episode and right after the broadcast you can watch it on demand, for maybe a small fee and without commercials for a handsome fee.

I bet Apple will get into this market, the question is how, with As Seen on TV denying a video ipod like a MS server denying service. so probably with the Airport express AV. It just might work.

Nobody wants to watch programs on a fixed time if they can get it from the internet whenever they want, so the TV stations have to come up with something special. Nobody knows what's on ESPN 8 "The Ocho" with 500 channels to choose from..

I'm half way there, the future rules.

[MBCook]

I'm half way there, and the future rules. I've got a TiVo, so by and large I don't know when things are on anymore (I used to know EVERYTHING). I can't even tell you what channel many thing are on without thinking. Is there a new episode this week? I don't know, I'd have to check my TiVo. It takes care of it all, and TV is MUCH MUCH better. Now it doesn't matter if a show comes on at 2 AM, I can still watch it. TV on my schedule.

But things will get better. Watching TV this way (and renting TV show DVDs from Netflix) have tought me one vital lesson that everyone will learn one day: Networks are meaningless.

Long ago, when the internet ran at 9600 BPS and computer literacy of the day made the current situation look like a paradise, you subscribed to a online service. You had AOL, or Compuserve, or Prodigy. That was your view of the world. But now everyting is on the internet. It doesn't matter how you get to the 'net, Slashdot looks the same.

TV will be the same way. It won't matter who airs CSI, your TiVo (or whatever) will download it off the 'net for you. All TV shows will be distributed that way. Once you aren't tied to a network schedule, it doesn't matter where you get the TV from, it's all the same.

Video on Demand for HBO and Showtime that you see advertised are basically the future (only things will be better than that). That is where we are going. It will be like podcasts, only with TV shows. And it will be great.

The sooner the TV exectives realize that, the better. In my opinion, half the reason shows like Futurama, Family Guy, and The Critic had problems was because they aired in a timeslot that was always getting pre-empted by football. How can people get into a show if it is almost never on for half a year? Well now it won't matter.

I can't wait. Things will be better.

Buying music off TV

[Anonymous Coward]

How come it's still not possible to buy music off MTV? There were rumors that the Xbox was going to enable this .. Press a button on the controller during the song .. and it downloads it so you can load it into an ipod or music device or whatever.

They can also do this for TV shows .. they'd make mad money .. when showing a re-run they can give the option to buy the series on DVD or enable the series to be downloaded. With old TV shows or made for TV movies I cant imagine why they'd care ... They probably make very lil money for the studios anyway just collecting dust.

Re:MythTV + PSP

[oirtemed]

If sony didn't use yet another prop memory stick then I'd be all over this in a heartbeat.

Re:Will they...

[dabigpaybackski]

Will they bring back the cookie monster?

Yes, but in a slimmed-down, fitness-conscious version named Sri Swami Cookiemanda, who after a lengthy period of reflection and purification, came to renounce his sedentary lifestyle and wanton consumption of satvic foods.

Re:Helping solve the paradox of choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Could we please try to restore the word "hacker" a more positive meaning on mainstream media?

*sigh* Could we just once please stop this endless discussion?

What does it matter what a hacker and a cracker is? As if a programmer gets more attention once the media start to call him a hacker and call the phishers crackers. Also: definitions can change, you know that?
--
Life's a blog. [vanscherpenseel.nl]

On-Demand non-commerical TV would ruin networks

[Geekbot]

I think most of us reading Slashdot have the opinion that we'd rather pay $$ for good TV rather than watch crappy TV for the cost 20 minutes of every hour spent with lame commercials.
With that point of view we wonder why networks don't start carrying quality TV and asking the viewers to pay for it.
The problem with this is that most people are stupid. I didn't realize this until I was about 25 even though I knew most people around me were stupid. I thought the world was full of reasonable people and I didn't understand why I kept getting surrounded by morons. The networks make money from the people who will veg out in front of the TV for 4 hours a night watching horrible programming because they think they are getting it for free. The advertisers specifically want those people. They might not be right, but they are certainly gullible and easier to win over with a 30 second commercial.
That being said, I still wish that we had more cable networks bringing up good television series that were worth paying for. I don't think it's necessarily the future, but I do believe it's the right thing.

No time limits...

[isny]

On the internet, there are no time limits. You could have a real 60 minute tv show if you wanted. Or a 61 and a half minute tv show. And you could have advertisements every minute. Or 3 hours of ads before the show started. Or just broadcast "clever" ads. Why does everyone insist that internet tv has to look and fit the shape of broadcast tv? See podcasting for further details.

yes, but what's the business case?

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, the /. crowd has foregone all business logic. There's no big war that's going to happen here. If content providers start losing money and technology keeps jumping ahead and cutting out their existing revenue stream, the studios will either stop making new content, or they will stop spending money to make content. It's as simple as that. It's a waste for the studios to constantly battle technologists.

Incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

And the result of assumptions driven by ideology and a shoddy understanding of media than anything else.

Hate Radio in Rwanda played a major role in inciting the violence there; while B-97 broadcast through the Internet after being shut down by Milosovic in Serbia and still reached people inside the country helping in his overthrow. Radio was neither good nor bad nor had any special role in making people more passive or aggressive. It's just a tool.

So too with TV. A noted Palestinian Children's TV Host, all of 17 years old, blew herself up (and killed a 17 year old Israeli girl) at an Israeli Pizza parlor. Her "martyrdom" and murder (which is what it was) of the other girl was lovingly celebrated on Palestinian TV. Both Iranian and Palestinian TV shows reliably broadcast the most loathesom hate, including a series about "Israeli doctors" who steal Palestinian children to transplant their organs, including eyes, into evil and diseased "jewish leaders." The most recent Friday sermon broadcast by Palestinian TV compared Jews to a worldwide virus that would be "eliminated" which is pretty telling.

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD90805

If TV is used to push consumer products, depending on the society it might or might not moderate aggressiveness. If TV is used to push hate such asin Palestine, or glorify suicide bombings, you'll get more of it. A hammer can be used to drive a nail or bash someones head in, it all depends on the person holding it. It has no more innate morality than a rock.