Slashdot Mirror
P2P and TV
Khuffie writes "According to Wired, Warner Bros. Entertainment recently passed on a pilot of a show called Global Frequency. However, due to a leak on bit-torrent the pilot episode has reached thousands of viewers who are clamouring for more, and has given the show a new lease on life. What's more interesting is what the show creator learned. From the article: "It changes the way I'll do my next project," said Rogers. If he owned the full rights, he said, "I would put my pilot out on the internet in a heartbeat. Want five more? Come buy the boxed set." Frankly, I'm all for this method of distribution, as I barely watch 'regular' TV anymore."
Hoffman added that the pilot's unauthorized distribution is "unacceptable and illegal ... no matter what the underlying motives" and said the company hasn't ruled out taking legal action "when it comes to stopping the illegal distribution of our copyright material."
Quick! Cover it up! People aren't supposed to know we're rejecting the GOOD shows in favor of more idiocy! God forbid that a television network pander to an intelligent clientele. After all, you're all supposed to slurp up the low cost, low profit, low intelligence, but HIGH MARGIN reality shows! Who wants to worry about actually pleasing customers? Just pander to the stupidity! That's the ticket!
Gah. And television networks wonder why no one is tuning in anymore. It must be because there isn't enough stupidity. Bring on Big Brother on Survivor Island where the worst singer is voted into fear factor stunts! In Dolby 5.1 no less! That'll bring in the ratings!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
You're watching no ads. I'm not sure you realize how much money advertising brings to the table here.
Want five more? Come buy the boxed set.
You mean pay in advance for the boxed set that doesn't exist yet? Yeah, the kind of people hell-bent on pirating shows will do that. Even the ones who claim they'd "pay" for good content (How much? Ten or twenty dollars? Beyond which they'll just go back to BitTorrent again?). And no one's going to finance a project like this, since you've got no proven paying viewership.
Look, guys: we all realize that P2P has legitimate applications. But these desperate attempts to somehow "prove" that P2P is somehow the most desirable distribution mechanism are getting tiresome. And even in this case, Warner Brothers owns this content (though I'm not even going to touch on the legality of copyright infringement, since so many here already either believe copyright is inherently wrong, or that copyright is okay when its used by projects they approve of, but "wrong" when a corporation uses it).
Frankly, I'm all for this method of distribution, as I barely watch 'regular' TV anymore.
Well bully for you.
What do you watch, then? Shows whose production counts on the advertising revenue associated with the show? No, you don't have to watch the advertising, and yes, you can go to the bathroom during the commercials. But the advertisers are paying to be in front of X number of peoples' eyes. And if that goes away, how does your well-produced show get, well, produced?
I'm not saying there are NO alternatives; just that it's more than a little hypocritical to completely discount where the money came from to pay for these shows you're downloading.
Now, if someone who creates and owns the content wants to distribute on P2P and try to drum up interest that way, go for it. But I highly doubt the kind of entitlement crowd that downloads everything for free is going to be willing to pay to support ongoing production of such an operation. Some money? Aboslutely, sure. The kind of money that is ANYWHERE NEAR the kind needed to support the ongoing production of such an operation? Absolutely not.
Viral marketing
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Legal posturing.
This is *precisely* why Copyright law needs an overhaul. The supposed goal of copyright law is "to promote science and the useful arts".
How is allowing a company to stop this from seeing the light of day a promotion?
If you make something, and don't release it, you shouldn't be allowed to stop someone else from distributing it for no charge.
Frankly, I'm all for this method of distribution, as I barely watch 'regular' TV anymore.
Only on slashdot is stealing* encouraged and applauded when it involves Television, music, and movie copyrights, but God forbid anybody violates the GPL.
*Yes i know it's not technically stealing.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
I hate it when things accidentally get uploaded onto a computer and then leaked out on bit torrent completely accidentally.
No sireee bob, no humans were involved in this "leak"...it was all accidental
This 'leak' has produced a fanbase before this show has any possibility of airing, in effect creating a market for it (not to mention its being posterd on /.) This has the potential to generate WB a small fortune on a project they would have otherwise scrapped; and all they ccan do is complain about how it was a theft of intelectual property. If I remember correctly, once you throw something out, its fair game ;)
Ban Engadget - moderators censor comments!
One way to save.
But legal standing?
Really quite grave
Wherein lies SCOTUS, and ol'
Burma Shave
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
How many really cool TV show pilots are sitting on a shelf collecting dust, never to be seen by the public?
Why? Corporate interests? Copyrights? It's sad how copyright law lets something be shoved under the carpet like that.
I'd like to see media companies do something cool: if the product is no longer generating revenue, turn it loose on the web. Maybe that's just a dream, because they're hoping TV Land will pay royalties to air old TV shows, so since there's a *potential* revenue stream, the shows sit on the shelf.
Hey, here's another idea. Put the pilots on the web, and have a contest to see which one folks like best. *gasp* Imagine that! Having the *viewing public* help you pick out what shows to work on next! Oh, the humanity!
Torrent of mentioned show.
I think guy now "gets it" - he doesn't *need* the studios anymore. Get some funding, put together a pilot and a few episodes, and then do it himself. He could sell DVDs. He could do it via hostageware (until X amount of money or DVDs are sold, we won't make any more). He could make it, get it popular, then have a major network pick it up. Tell people that if he can raise X amount of money he can film a pilot episode (and if they're someone such as the producer/director of "Firefly" or "Battlestar Gallactica", maybe the fans would do it - look how much people raised to try and save "Star Trek").
Makes you wonder if Podcasting might not take this route. I once listened to the "Catholic Insider" (not because I'm Catholic, mind you, but I liked his reporting on the death on the last Pope), and he had a joke Podcast about podcasting in the future - where people all around the world online edit the video, set up production, then distribute it online with the ads built in (or people pay for certain individual content).
It's rather optimistic, and I'm not saying the major networks will "go away", but if gentlemen such as this guy can go "Woah - wait - now I have an option on how to promote my work", then there's a chance that it will bring a new level of pressure onto the networks. Which would mean more competition. And that is always good for the customer (I don't like using the word "consumer" for myself, sorry).
Of course, this is all just my opinion. I could be totally wrong. But I hope not.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
And not a moment too soon, I say. Right now, the only reason I pay for cable is that it's bundled with DSL and I keep telling myself I'll find out how to stream from it some day. Other than that, it's Bittorrent all the way, and when something comes out that's worthwhile (Firefly, Dr. Who, Harvey Birdman, ...) I'll buy the DVDs. The question is if this is more or less profitable for the studios. People will pirate things so just throw an episode or two up there, wait a few months for distribution, and BAM. Box Set. Lose the ad revenue, gain the DVD revenue. It won't work for everything, but that could have something to do with so much TV being crap. Can't hurt to try it with a few more things.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to download some Global Frequency...
- Relativistic? That's barely Newtonian!
Think about it. You've got a pilot. It wasn't picked up for whatever reason. Maybe the show was bad, maybe it didn't fit what the network wanted. You're left with one episode of a show for which about the only use left is taking a minute and a half out and using it in a Best TV Shows That Never Were special. So as there isn't any money left in it, why not give away the pilot? Worst case scenario is there's just more crap on the Internet. On the other hand, if it's something the network didn't really understand, you have the potential to generate a fanbase for the show and get it picked up or at the very least it's something the people involved with can point to as something they've done.
Remember RFC 873!
It's mind boggling to me that things like this don't put big, green, opaque dollar signs in the eyes of studio execs everywhere.
Even without effective DRM, studios could be raking in the cash RIGHT NOW via any number of online distribution methods. Yes, there would still be piracy, but it would convert at least SOME of it into dollars. RIGHT NOW!! If they want to keep pursuing DRM then fine, but they're losing money right now. What more incentive do they need??
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
It won't happen until networks can find a suitable sublement for ad revenue. TV commercials generate a good portion of TV entertainment's funding. Commercialized torrents? ...I would pay to see that.... yeah right.
Being funny is my sig nature.
Frankly, I'm all for this method of distribution, as I barely watch 'regular' TV anymore.
The only two channels I watch are the Discovery channel, and the Cartoon Network (Adult Swim). There is a definite need for more intelligent programming, other than the garbage that American Idol, The Crapelor, or whatever shi'ite that the big networks decide are "good" for the masses.
Then again, the morons that watch this crap raise the ratings, and the networks follow the new trends. Maybe this leads back to education. Educate people more, make them less stupid, and maybe we could get higher quality programming that would actually be enjoyable (as opposed to "reality tv").
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
Or he could use Google Video
I have the first issue of this comic from when it came out. Great premise, good art, but I was unimpressed with the story and writing, and I had no desire to follow up on it. The comic thought it was much deeper than it actually was.
That said, this probably translates a lot better to television.
This is the end of advertising-sponsored media -- not Tivo or illegal torrent downloading. Advertising-based media, which always must seek the largest audience possible for every program, simply cannot compete once broadcast distribution is no longer a scarce commodity. The larger the target audience, the lower the quality.
The full implications of the long tail are astounding, once you really work them out. Imagine the end of huge movie stars, of "hits", of fame in entirety -- it will simply not be profitable -- imagine what that would mean, in any medium! How will we decide what to watch, listen to, or read when there is nobody who can make money deciding for us?
Quick! Cover it up! People aren't supposed to know we're rejecting the GOOD shows in favor of more idiocy! God forbid that a television network pander to an intelligent clientele. After all, you're all supposed to slurp up the low cost, low profit, low intelligence, but HIGH MARGIN reality shows! Who wants to worry about actually pleasing customers? Just pander to the stupidity! That's the ticket!
And what does any of that have to do with protection of copyrights? You know, the topic that Hoffman was actually addressing. For good or bad, copyrighted junk is still copyrighted.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Unfortunately, he has now been blackballed.
"Want five more? Come buy the boxed set."
How are you going to get the money to make 5 more if the show never airs?? If you can just solve that one problem, network tv will be dead pretty soon in favour of online distribution. Slashdot rejoice!
No, script kiddies either found an existing flaw in their message board system that they bought, or easily found the admins password.
Stop using the word "hacking" so easily.
Given that everyone and their dog is downloading TV shows or movies now, wouldn't it make more sense for these studio types to get the jump on the market instead of jumping on the law suit bandwagon?
/. discussions when MP3 lawsuits started picking up? Everyone was saying they wanted a legal service, and they'd pay $0.99/track. Now people are saying the same thing, and I'm willing to bet most of you would pay $3-5 per TV show. Where are you Apple? Give us our iTMS for TV and movies and we'll open our wallets. Hell, it doesn't even have to be Apple, just someone with decent software that doesn't use that godawful WMP codec.
Do you all remember the
If I'm WB, I'd reply publicly and honestly to Rogers, "We're still not interested, but if you think you can do it, great. We'll sell the rights - for P2P distribution only - to you for $X".
If Rogers is right, WB would have learned a great lesson, saved face, and gotten a piece of the pie.
If Rogers is wrong, WB would have learned a great lesson, Rogers would be out a chunk of change, and we all can finally put this whole "free downloaders really want to pay for content" myth to bed once and for all.
Frankly, I'm all for this method of distribution, as I barely watch 'regular' TV anymore.
Only on slashdot is stealing* encouraged and applauded when it involves Television, music, and movie copyrights, but God forbid anybody violates the GPL.
*Yes i know it's not technically stealing.
Good Lord, your statement is so full of holes it must either be a troll or a sign of a one-digit IQ.
First, distributing a copy of a pilot that is destined for the dustbin isn't even the moral equivelent of jaywalking, much less "stealing", regardless of its legality.
Second, the quote you so misrepresented was, when taken in context, clearly not lauding the illegal sharing of said file (despite the fact that said sharing has demonstrably helped the project), it was lauding the notion of releasing pilots on the internet and selling the series as a DVD-set in place of broadcasting it on telelvision.
This is the model that could eliminate the cultural middlemen (the broadcast industry) that has created a vast cultural wasteland where art and creativity should be flourishing, an dinstead allow artists to bring their creations directly to the appreciative citizen.
That is what was being lauded, and everyone with the exception of the monopolist cartels you are shilling stands to benefit from it.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The world is big place. Why should we be forced to eat the vanilla the big networks force on us , when a lot of us prefer ?
// Just an idea//
If the demand is there, then sell the boxed set. And yes i do belive that leaking is a very savy way of building interest. Its just my experiance with my own hobby here (read my url). I have a couple hundred dollars in recording.. and couple thousand in equipment, and am not niave enough to think that fame and fortune are in my future.
Soon enough big networks will die if they don't change. And soon enough some real talent will come up on the music side, that can handle the new digital age.... embrace it... and do like the Dead did with their bootlegs... it builds a community.
All the big boys are trying to demonize p2p because of copyright infringements... Its just useless. They cry foul because their business model doesn't fit.... boohoo.
Maybe a smart advertising company could sponsor some Creative Commons shows and release them. And then merchandise it..
Reminds me of "Heat Vision and Jack". It was an unproduced pilot created and directed by Ben Stiller and starring Jack Black as an ex-astronaut who is super smart under sunlight and his talking motorcycle Heat Vision voiced by Owen Wilson.
If not for Bittorrent, I'd never have seen it. I bet most people haven't even heard of it. It's funny because everyone involved is really famous now.. It's like an artifact from an alternate reality.
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
So long as there are broadcast television networks and channels that don't make a dime off cable subscription fees, the subject is accurate. Execs don't particularly care about cool, fun or quality. They care that the programs they run bring eyeballs to the screen that will allow them to maintain (and raise) advertising rates. It's how they make virtually all of their revenue.
Now, what's changed in recent years is the number of cable networks and channels getting in on the act. Ad revenue matters to them too, but they throw on much riskier programming that can be resold through retail channels. Their smaller quantities of free eyeballs ("expanded basic" cable or satellite subscribers, not over-the-air or nearly-free basic cable) demands that they provide niche value to the channel lineups, and demands they produce programming that can be sold. Comedy Central is a perfect example of this - South Park, Chappelle's Show and Reno 911 would not have gotten a chance elsewhere. On CC, they made money for the channel through ad revenue, and sold tons of DVDs.
The production houses are the wildcard in all this (Warner Bros, Paramount, NewsCorp). They're now directly affiliated with broadcast media conglomerates themselves, but for years, they sold to ABC, NBC and CBS. Now they can pitch to those 3, along with their "vanity" broadcast network, as well as to their vanity cable station (FX, TNT, USA and the like). With so many broadcast outlets, the big dollars don't come with being picked up. They come from syndication and retail resale. As such, those production house (like the one from this article) owe it to themselves to get quality shows in front of viewers, no matter what it takes to get it there.
RW
Since IP is a loose guideline more than enforced, it wouldn't be hard.
...
And since Hong Kong is now in China, it would give it an edge at the same time
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"Want five more? Come buy the boxed set."
What happens when the contents of the boxed set finds its way to the P2P networks? Past actions dictate that thisis the most likely outcome and people will claim they want to make sure they like the other five episodes before they shell out money for the boxed set.
IMO, this is how things would work if copyright didn't exist. eg. you create a work and release it to the public. Then you ask for people to fund your next work. Information that hasn't been created yet has intrinsic value that can be bartered for.
It's like contract programming. You get paid for creating information, not owning it.
-metric
Those in charge of distribution of programs need to finally realize that either they distribute their shows and profit, or face the simple fact that they will be shared on P2P nets and distributed outside of their profit channels. The simple fact is that electronic distribution is not going to go away, no matter how many laws are erected to stop it.
That does not mean that I am saying that stealing is right, or that *is* a right, clearly, from a legal, moral and ethical standpoint it is not. However, common people are becoming common electronic thieves simply because that is the only way to satisfy demand. Given the illusory "anonymity" of the internet, it is all too easy to do, and right now, the odds are favoring them as opposed to Hollywood when it comes to facing the consequences of violating the copyright holders' rights.
That all said, it's also my take that people, given the choice, would pay a *reasonable* fee to legally download television shows and do more or less with them what they did or do with videotapes. However, for some reason, Hollywood cannot seem to grasp this, or at the very least, cannot grasp how to do loosen their grasp on their content in such a way to make a subscription based P2P net possible.
My suggestion: allow people to subscribe to virtual channels, as they do with satellite or cable now. Allow them to download the shows, to share them on legal networks and pay a fee that is comparable to what they pay for cable now. That would be a real on-demand system, one where the infrastructure of the network is paid for by the subscribers themselves. Other than a substantial investment in seed servers and a first uplink, Hollywood would have to do little else than pay credit card processors and accountants.
To enable protection, they could sell smartcards similar to what Dish and DirectTV use now. Yes, I know that they have been hacked in the past, but nowadays, they are relatively secure, in as much as the average guy will not bother even trying.
Then, collect cash.
The winner gets to work for The Donald, and it's in HDTV.
So, someone in the TV industry clues in to what Microsoft and a few others have know for a long time...Windows and other programs like Word, Autocad, etc are as popular as they are now not by quality, but by the fact that they are freely copied and thus everyone, even poor people learn them, and if they ever are in a situation where they can buy it, they do. Piracy thus creates a vast pre-made audience for a product, be it software, music, books or now TV shows. For all we really know, this release of the show could actually be a test of back-channel marketing. To sell a show, you need to know how popular it is, and only then can you sell commercials for it.
In today's 500+ channel universe, getting "eyeballs" can be hard for a new show on TV...but on the Internet, it's a good chance if you get even a small part of one percent, you will get more viewers than the average new show on network TV. As various groups track P2P transfers, you can get a more accurage accounting of viewership than you can with a random sampling of TV viewers such as Neilson does.
All in all, P2P distribution seems to be a more economical way to judge the possible success of a new show.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
At least I see that his message is clear: "illegal file-sharing is a bad, bad thing[...]You, despite your enthusiasm, should be ashamed" "I would put my pilot out on the internet in a heartbeat." Wow. that clears shit up nicely. in fact, I bet that he did put it up there.
bah.
>I think guy now "gets it" - he doesn't *need* the studios anymore. Get
>some funding, put together a pilot and a few episodes, and then do it
>himself.
Where will he get funding without a studio?
After "Doctor Who" debuted/returned triumphantly back to British television and the SciFi Network here in America continuted to pass on the show, I wrote a personal letter to TiVo CEO Michael Ramsey (a Scotsman) advocating that TiVo make an offer to BBC Worldwide to make the series available as a download to broadband enabled TiVo subscribers that might be interested. I figured that most broadband enabled subscribers would also be viewers with scifi leanings, and it would be a success and would generate buzz.
While it might have been costly short term wise, I asserted that TiVo would be at the forefront of a potentially profitable new television wave. Charging production companies/studios to make available pilot episodes to TiVo subscribers to create buzz for certain properties. It would be a way to circumvent the networks saying "no" to shows that might otherwise be successes.
To this day, I haven't heard one thing back from TiVo about this. I think my idea had merits, and obviously an idea whose time has come.
To this day, no American broadcaster or cable network have picked up the rights to the new "Doctor Who" series, leaving potential American fans to *acquiring* the show through less-than-legal methods until an official DVD release in the States happens...which won't until the series actually is televised in America first.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
I've watched the pilot. Clever, but the first half _sucks_. Uses pretty much every cliche in the book.
About halfway in, though, it really starts to shine, and my wife (who came in at that point) mentioned that she'd like to see more episodes of it.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
"It changes the way I'll do my next project," said Rogers. If he owned the full rights, he said, "I would put my pilot out on the internet in a heartbeat.
Translation: If I had full rights I'd do everying in my power to sell it off to a major studio... less risk taking for me, and money up front. If I couldn't sell it, then as a last ditch effort I'd use Bit-Torrent as a tool to prove its worthiness.
"This is the "first hit free" model."
Just because it made the guys at ID Software great thumping wads of cash . . .
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
I don't remember the last time I watched anything on any big-3 TV network. The last thing I ever watched on broadcast TV is the slow, withering death of "Enterprise", and that was only with my Tivo's help.
Broadcast TV is completely unwatchable these days. You're wasting a third of your time having your intelligence insulted by all the ads. It's not just the sheer amount of ads drowning out the real show you're trying to watch. My impression -- from the snippets I catch here and there -- is that they're utterly brainless, and are aimed at the lowest common denominator.
Every once in a while you might stumble across a retrospective show that runs some notorious commercials from the decades gone by. The difference is staggering. 15-20 years ago the commercials actually tried to be creative, funny, and entertaining. Now they just try to get into your face as fast as they can, and shout their slogan repeatedly at full volume, before their time runs out.
Broadcast TV is a cesspool. Cable TV is still barely watchable, so far, with some help from the Tivo.
It does not surprise me that the dude's show was rejected, but gained some popularity after the leak. The show was probably "too cerebral" (geek points if you know where the phrase came from, and obviously this isn't really new). If your show's too intelligent, it's a minus these days. Broadcast pablum has to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. If not, you're lose all the societal rejects, because they won't understand the show. There goes half your audience.
We'll make another 6 episodes as long as the actors and the audience can agree on a price for more. We'll stop when they can't agree.
Stephen King tried it. He started a new book and gave the first chapter away for free, putting subsequent chapters up for sale; when enough people bought a chapter he would write & publish the next one (all on-line). It was a dismal failure: the second chapter was bought by few and re-distributed by many; as a result, chapter three was never published. Author and audience couldn't agree on merely chapter 2.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
I wonder what the numbers would be to make if feasible for a producer to jump the network ship. Take Firefly for example, suppose it costs 1 Million dollars to produce an episode, therefore the producer would have to get 1 Million people to pay $1 per episode to break even, or more likely 2 million people to make it worth their while. Would it be possible to get 2 million people to pay $24 up front to subscribe to a season?
I might if it was a show I really liked and I'm guessing that a lot of fans of cancelled shows would do the same. Take Enterprise for example, the fans raised a pretty significant amount of money.
A better idea might simply be to sell stock, figure out the production costs for the season, divide by x to get y and then sell x shares for y dollars. The share holders get the right to view the episodes for free, non-share holders can dl them from iTunes for $0.99. The share holders split any left over revenue from on-line distribution, dvd and merchandising sales.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
<devil's adovcate>
If the oil companies hired somebody to create for them a vehicle that would get obscene gas mileage, leak near-zero emissions, and cost only a few hundred dollars, and they prevented it from seeing the light of day, would the argument be the same?
</devil's adovcate>
This could be a great thing. Rather then having a bunch of bobbing heads in a corporate courtroom decide what should be on TV, let those they are trying to cater to decide.
Start a monthly program. Put pilots up for download (will probably be DRMed; I'm sure many on Slashdot would have have a hissy fit, but I'd be fine with it.) Then have the people who download them fill out a general questionaire. Offer the service free to a limited amount of people, and allow others to buy their way in if they desire. Perhaps have a month/two-month trial thing, and if they rate enough pilots, their next month is free.
If they do this, they have a much greater idea of how a show will turn out. Sure, the bigwigs can still do the opposite of what the polls say, but you're less likely to have great flops, which is something that broadcast channels don't like.
Now we just need some corporate heads to pull their mind out of their asses and realize that this won't bankrupt them...
I launched my video hosting website http://videos.streetfire.net/ for hosting car videos and sister site http://video.freevideoblog.com/ for everything else, 4 months ago. In those 4 months we have swelled to 300K videos streamed a day proving one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt...... That American Infomerical-TV sucks and that kids with DV cameras can create more entertaining content than than TV production studios looking for the next ad sponsored show. (i.e. Pontiac Solstice "Aprentice" or "Batman Begins" NASCAR 400).....of course the bitter irony is that in order to support this service we use banner ads, so maybe we're no better afterall.....ahh sweet irony. making hypocrits of us all
In the next few years I think we're going to see some serious changes to the Television big-media business model. Much in the way Napster was distruptive to the music industry, Bit Torrent and the like will be disruptive to TV entertainment in how shows are piloted, selected and funded
Just my humble experience
-Adam
Like Heat Vision and Jack. (A Knight Rider parody, featuring Jack Black and Owen Wilson, directed by Ben Stiller.)
1) You can profit from GPL creations.
2) You can violate the GPL without profiting, ie. by using GPL'd code in your free-as-in-beer application and not releasing the source.
do what i did - just make a movie, put it on the net, let people enjoy it. If someone wants to hire you for your talent and abilities, they will. That's what basically has happened to me.
My boss saw my editing abilities when it got around that I do video junk for the kids at church, and now, instead of doing requirements validation and system engineering paper studies, i now sit behind a G5 with Final Cut Studio and Motion...and i even get paid to do it!
Hey - it beats working.
btw: have fun watching my video.
http://homepage.mac.com/gsf/thrive2005.mp4
its H.264, just so you know.
its a spoof of "24", made for Jr High kids at my church. Beware - as with all no-budget videos like this, there are a ton of inside jokes you probably won't get, and remind yourself of the target audience... jr high kids.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
I'm tired of having the views of these jerks imposed on the public. If they'd had their way there wouldn't have been a Star Trek... in fact, they wanted them to do it without "the guy with the ears... he looks demonic, it'll scare the women".
And don't get me started on Nielsen ratings... these people have no taste, and they get to decide what I can or cannot watch? Insane!
You can't take the sky from me...
Although it's not p2p, the Family Guy DVD popularity was another example of how a network misgauged the audience interest in a show, but open market forces showed a strong audience prompting them to bring the show back.
Another example but P2P related was how P2P piracy (*ahem* online independent distribution) helped BattleStar Galactica become a hit
"they" really don't see the opportunities that exist and gonna keep squeezing their existing business model till it's dry.
e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
Don't you understand? They are losing viewers because of the evil pirates who distribute their hard work for free on the Internet. This allows the terrorists to win. Please think of the children.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I've been watching all my TV over p2p for months now... thanks to places like mininova and isohunt and of course places like animesuki...
Broadcast tv sucks, you've got the old dillema of the father the boy and the donkey. The man starts off briging his donkey to market, with him and his boy walking, the first stranger he meets tells him 'how shameful, making your boy walk when you have a donkey he could ride.' so to please the stranger the father puts his boy on the donkey, and lets him ride until they meet another stranger, and she complains "what a rotten little boy, riding that donkey, while your old man suffers along walking" so, the boy leaps down, and the old man rides the donkey, finally, they come to a man with some poles. "how shameful would you look at the health of that donkey! how dare you ride him like that, you should be carrying him on your backs!" the man lends them the poles, and they carry the doneky, until they come to a bridge, the donkey becomes nervous, and the man and boy loose their grip, and the donkey plunges into the river, where he is swept away by the currents.
The moral of the story is, you can please some of the people some of the time, but if you try to please all of the people, all of the time, the only one who looses out in the end is you.
you and your 'wife/girlfriend'* decide to film a night of 'getting down'. You get drunk the next night and tell your buddy. Your buddy decides you should release the tape. You are vehemently against this. But your buddy insists that you shouldn't be able to keep that creative work private. At this point, would you not argue that the tape is indeed yours, and as your own creation you (and your wife/girlfriend*) have the right to choose what to do with it? *pretend you aren't a slashdotter for a moment please
Roger's's secritary - Bob, we have the new figures in.
Roger - Oh shit! What now? Are we going under???
Roger's secritary - Well, accually from what people see, they, well, want to see more.
Roger - BRILLIANT!!! Now I can give them just enough to want more! BRILLIANT!!!
Roger's secritary - Oh and sir, you look like a complete ass on Slashdot.
Roger - Slash-who?
I watched it, and it sure as hell beat the pants off the "Bones" pilot (featuring David Boreanaz) which I thought was horrible, but it wasn't all that. Sure, Michelle Forbes is a favourite, and seeing her do some Trinity-esque asskicking was fun, albeit somewhat cheesy.
It's always hard to tell with pilots though (as anyone who's watched the original Buffy pilot can tell you). I guess it could be saved.
But with my luck Fox will kill the fantastic "The Inside" for some more "Bones" :-\
Belief is the currency of delusion.
This is how good shows should be done that get rejected or cancelled by the studio that it's being pitched to. Take the show, do production on your own, through in some adverts, run your own tracker, charge $2 per episode(or yearly unlimited ratio) and ..
1. Successful show
2. cancelled by idiots(fox)
3. bittorrent
4. ???
5. profit!
I'll admit right now, I haven't RTFA, and I'm playing devil's advovate here (hence, I'm sure I'll be modded "Troll"), but...
The problem is, if they sell the rights to distribute this show on P2P networks, they've just sold the rights to distribute the show globally, which is something they don't want to do.
Just because WB has "turned down" a show does not mean they don't intend to profit from it. It means they won't show it here in the US. There are many other countries where a show that may not be popular here in the USA would be popular, and WB has the option of selling this show overseas now, which they may decide to pursue. Selling the electronic copy rights would hurt their ability to do this.
WB is just keeping their options open. While that sucks, because we don't get to see their cool show, from a buisness standpoint it is a very common move.
This is true, but as with any product, you have to make it, and that costs money. Making TV shows to attract the products to watch the commercials is their capital expense.
Cyncially, it's not entirely unlike a hunter putting out a salt lick. Well, TV viewers don't get shot. They just get shown commercials. I've known people who would say that the deer are getting off easy.
The upshot (as it were) is that the networks are the middle man, and P2P may represent a way of cutting out the middle man, for TV as it is gradually becoming for music.
As with music, there are still questions to be answered. Middle men exist for a reason: they make transactions easier. TV networks broker the transaction between the artists (TV show actors/directors/writers) and the viewer, extracting their inch of green in the form of commercials. Even if the TV producers could make their shows, getting it advertised and paid for are still unanswered questions. Pay per download, perhaps, with P2P used as "viral marketing"?
There's also, as with music, the question of up-front expense. TV pilots are wildly expensive. Worse, they make significant capital expenses, like sets and effects, which cost a lot but can be re-used if the show is picked up. Think about the Firefly pilot, for example: they had to build a huge set for Serenity. All that is up front expenses, which are spent by networks. There are economic solutions to that problem, but we'll have to see which ones work and which don't.
So having us as the product rather than the customer can change, but it's going to be difficult. It means changing the nature of the seller from the network, who makes its profit by selling your eyeballs, to somebody else who makes a profit elsewhere.
Perhaps a well-funded person who makes 10 TV shows, has one succeed on a pay-per-download basis, and makes enough to do 10 more. Or perhaps there are 100 low-budget movie producers, like Blair Witch, of whom 99 will lose their $20k investment and the others will get enough buzz from somewhere to sell copies online.
Or wackier, perhaps a subscription basis, where they sell shares of a project in progress, the price rising as it gets closer to completion, and the profits shared among the shareholders. I seem to recall a movie being made like that, but I don't recall what happened to it. I'm afraid that speaks badly for the idea.
Or perhaps even an "open source" project, but although writers and actors may do it for love and to share, the guys who sell lumber and costumes usually don't think of their work as open-sourceable.
Either way, if you don't want to be the product, you're going to find a way to be the customer. Customers pay for things.
Because they paid for it and most likely own the license for it, they get to say what they want to do with it.
[...]
The choice of what to do with it is in the hands of the creator, not what the masses want.
They paid to kill it.
THEY didn't create it. They bought the rights to it, and are using their money against the creator to prevent him from making more.
You replied to berate someone who said "this is why copyright needs an overhaul" and you PROVED HIS POINT.
You can't take the sky from me...
Thanks community! One TV show I didn't even know about. Getting it now!
"Now I have an extra 10,000 hits a week on my website, and I've got to figure out what to do here."
hits != unique vistors
Each unique visitor can easily generate 100 hits or more depending on how the website is organized.
10,000 / 100 = 100 visitors, and alot of that may be non-unique vistors (such as return visitors,) or even extra Googlebot, Yahoo, or MSN activity.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that the P2P community can bring life to a show that the corporate world sent to the trash.. power to the people and all that stuff.. but lets not get overly excited. 10,000 hits extra a week is a marginal amount of activity considering the amount of people actually surfing the Internet at a given time.
Valkyrie is about to die! Wizard needs food -- badly!
...caught it right as I was pressing "Submit".
Argh.
Last line should read:
"Just because advertising is gone doesn't mean you're immune to everything that comes along with fame and popularity."
I think that this is a good example that the current system where media company dictates what we watch and hear. Either we (the consumers) break free and build a channel directly to artists or... I don't see any viable alternative.
The leader of Global Frequency is the enigmatic Miranda Zero, played by actress Michelle Forbes. (Forbes is fast building a tech-geek pedigree: She's also the voice of Dr. Judith Mossman in the video game Half Life 2).
Funniest line in the story. Forbes has been a tech-geek actress for a long time. Perhaps some may remember her recurring role playing the compelling Ensign Ro Laren in Star Trek: The Next Generation?
When Family Guy premiered on Fox, it immediately got close to no attention. After a short 4 seasons, the show was terminated. THEN the internet distribution of Family Guy began: Winamp Online TV (saltwaterchimp.com anyone?), torrents, and p2p networks began showing various episodes. The popularity grew and grew as people started buying the DVD sets and renting them from video stores. Fox, in one of their smartest moves, LISTENED to this great attention it was getting, labeled it a late-bloomer, and put it back on the air. Internet distribution actually helped a show get back on the air and help the network get more advertising, etc. who says it can't be done?
The voice of the next generation. "In this tower, in my mind..." Babble - Tower
His point is you're a dumbass who thinks shows cost half a billion dollars to produce a single episode. So the actors get recognition... that's not going to drive the cost up $100 million. You're such a dumbshit.
I think we are on the cusp of the P2P Television era. I have been watching http://www.thebroken.org/ and http://www.systm.org/ . Two really great Tech shows. My only real bitch about P2P TV is that there is no organization. Does anybody do a website about P2P TV content? Were the hell are all the pirates that take a lousy VCD quality cam of Batman Begins and turn it into a somewhat watchable DVD? They should be distributing content on P2P and the other.... thing... Use... something or another. But back to my point. This is the 1940's/1950's of P2P TV. Now, one of you web monkey's, get out there and code up a site!! Get the word out, so we can choose. 1) Set up a website about P2P Television 2) Come up with a catchy name for said site 3) Organize video distribution and editing on things like Use... something or another 4) Get sponsors 5) Profit!!!! Sorry, I couldn't resist.
CAPS LOCK: ITS LIKE THE CRUISE CONTROL FOR AWESOME
So if BitTorrent isn't promoting that they can be used to spread copyright material...
Can John Rogers be sued for his obvious "tongue-in-cheek" admonishment of people who downloaded copyrighted material?
In a nutshell, if Software Company X releases a P2P software program and does all it should to discourage the distribution of "illegal" material, can Joe User get sued for posting in a blog, in a news story, etc that it can still be used for that goal?
Here's the link to the bittorrent download.
4 8390.torrent/Global.Frequency.S01E00.SCREENER.VCD- Cheetah-TV.mpg.3348390.TPB.torrent
http://static.thepiratebay.org/downloadtorrent/33
"...and said the company hasn't ruled out taking legal action "when it comes to stopping the illegal distribution of our copyright material...."
Legal action for what, a monetary amount?
So, please tell me how do you prove damages in this case, where WB specifically didn't pick up the pilot? Future revenues? Based off of what? Seems pretty flimsy to me considering not picking up the pilot amounts to WB saying it won't get ratings, hence won't generate revenue.
http://www.torrentreactor.net/view.php?id=5115523
"I would put my pilot out on the internet in a heartbeat. Want five more? Come buy the boxed set. Frankly, I'm all for this method of distribution, as I barely watch 'regular' TV anymore."
And how many shows can you name whose pilots were complete crap, but only came into their own as a series a season or two later? Here is yet another person claiming to be the pulse of America when America still has a huge population of TV viewers, just because he doesn't watch a lot. Clue: It's not about you and your habits. Do you honestly think we'd even have a Serenity movie if people only caught the pilot, download the rest online? Maybe a bad example because the pilot was actually good, but I still doubt it.
Frankly, Roger, I think you'd be shooting yourself in the foot with that mentality.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Not TV, though the change over to p2p episodes was not noticeable, then one day I realized I haven't watched TV in *years* other than while visiting someone's house.
I don't even use the TV to watch DVD's it's all on the computer now.
No ad's, and fast downloads.
I think I would pay for something like cable but only with the channels you want.
What's the next best thing? Just pay for the shows you want to download...how much?
What's a 150 channels of 30 minutes shows on 24 hours a day spread over a month divided by the amount you pay for cable?
I don't do math my computer does...but like pennies a show?
Sign me up.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
There should be NO protection for works that are never published...Any work that an "owner" is not interested in exploiting for commercial gain should be strictly PD. None of this nonsense about locking up masterpieces in a vault to rot away.
And since when do you have any right to tell me what to do with my ideas??? If I want to share them, I will. If I don't, then fine. It's my choice.
At what point are works "never published"? If my novel is rejected by a publisher, does that mean it's immediately in the public domain? What if I take my rejected TV pilot, rework it and a couple years later get it published? Should I have no rights to my ideas while I work on them?
Maybe after I'm dead, fine. Go through my "secret vault" and publish all my hidden masterpieces, but don't tell me that you have a right to my idea. I'll sell and share my creations when I'm ready, but don't you dare demand my hard work just because you think you're entitled to it.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
Put ads in the file..provide it via bittorrent. And put a blub somewhere (either in the show) or on the website that by getting the torrent from the show's offical tracker the producers can prove x amount of downloads of the shows to advertizers.
If people want the show to continue, they'll get their copy from the producers. If not, then advertizers will not pay and the show will die.
This should be true in general. Any work that an "owner" is not interested in exploiting for commercial gain should be strictly PD. None of this nonsense about locking up masterpieces in a vault to rot away.
Scenario:
1) I create a really neat widget.
2) I am not interested in releasing the widget.
3) I am not interested in financial gain.
And somehow you come to the logical (??) conclusion that I should release the widget into the public domain, because obviously if I don't want to profit from it then you should should be able to mandate such release.
That is a ridiculous and indefensible position. As an added bonus, some nitwits have chosen to mod you up.
Here is some news: Some things are not free. Some things are not your property. If you did not create $ITEM, you have no rights whatsoever to $ITEM until the creator/owner agrees to assign such rights. You really should understand this.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
In years gone by, kids would go to the movies every week to watch their favorite serialized show. Admission was cheap and the theater sold some snacks. What folks are talking about is similar for home viewing.
But what if we really did go back to showing serials at the movies again. It's very possible with digital projectors. Lots of opportunity there once digtal projectors become more common (pretty expensive toys).
Movie theaters run the shows in the afternoon, attracting the after school crowd. This fills up theaters when they are least busy. Kids pay a $1 to watch a 30-60 minute show. The real money is in selling popcorn. They can swap shows in and out depending on demand and what's hot. Sort of a hybrid TV-Tivo-Theater. Mall theaters would be perfect.
Theaters are happy: increased revenue
Kids are happy: new social scene
Parents are happy: safe place for kids after school.
Studios are happy: cash for what are esentially tv shows and avoiding most DRM hassles.
Maybe I'll open one of these theaters in a future career.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
If the TV world would wise up and start distributing their shows with the ads via bittorrent the world would be a better place. Embrace new technology don't fear it. It's exactly what iTunes is doing. They made it easier to buy the music than to steal it. I was "podcasting" tvshows off of btefnet.org when it was up and I wouldn't of minded if the ads were in there. I'm accustommed to watching ads on TV why not downloaded TV shows?
"This should be true in general. Any work that an "owner" is not interested in exploiting for commercial gain should be strictly PD."
You might want to think just a wee bit harder. If someone doesn't want to release something? Then that implies that others don't know about it. So what are you going to do to force them to release it to the PD? The PD Police coming to kick in your door, and take whatever it is you chose not to release.
"None of this nonsense about locking up masterpieces in a vault to rot away."
Funny the double standards around here. You all complain about losing your freedom, but see no problem with dictating the terms of freedom for others.
Torrent
This is what Cringley was trying to do with his PBS show.
Only this show turned out to be content people actually wanted to watch.
(ouch! sorry Robert - I love your column though!)
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
And, P2P aside, if it were that easy, it would already have been done.
Web comics, like Sluggy Freelance for example, seem to make their authors a decent living based entirely off of merchandising and compilations of free on-line content. So, the question isn't whether money can be made on this kind of open model, just whether it's enough to support movie production as opposed to say comics.
Basically, this new model requires producers to accept a (possibly) lower gross income per viewer in order to achieve distribution costs of almost nothing.
Of course, as you imply, 10,000 dedicated viewers is nothing for TV and movies. But just because this particular show didn't drum up more interest in this one instance doesn't mean the model is a failure. It just means there aren't enough people willing to both bother finding BitTorrents and cross the infringement boundary to make it worth while. An officially sponsored torrent link and open distribution model would likely do a whole lot better.
Hmm... speaking of merchandise, I think I'm giong to go buy that iSophagus shirt I've been eye-balling right now.
Sorry, but I don't think the majority of people have broadband access yet. That is at least a long time off, if ever. Come back when that happens and we can talk about it again.
In the article, even the attorney from the EFF calls it "stealing".
Jedidiah,
Consider these other aspects of a TV Pilot. In the real world where we all live, everyone working on a TV pilot is paid a minimum fee with contingency clauses in their contracts that mean these actors, set designers, costumers, directors, makeup artists, etc. will get a cut of the action if a network chooses to buy the show. So it's a big gamble for these people. For an actor, I think the day rate is like $800. And these acting gigs come few and far between. So a lot is riding on this for a lot of people.
If a show fails to get picked to run on a TV network, it's shelved. But there's an investment in there both from the production company and all the above-mentioned workers. The production company will continue to shop it around. They may even re-edit it.
If the pilot gets leaked, prospective buyers are going to look at it not always that there's a positive buzz, but that interest in this comodity has disappated.. it's been diluted. A prospective buyer is thinking that X number of people have already seen it (on the internet) and are unlikely to sit through commercials to watch it again when they've got a commercial-free version already available. Those eyeballs watching the pilot are critical to the prospective buyer because they've got to use those Nielsen stats from the airing of the pilot to then lasso advertisers.
So by leaking this shelved pilot, it decreases the chances that those crew members will get paid properly for their work.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
I had to stop watching after 5 minutes, I was already snickering uncontrollably. It was complete cheese balls. What kind of "global conspiracy" happily identifies itself to the first stranger that picks up one of its sekret phones? Does it get any better? Should I keep watching?
I read Usenet for the articles.
so it goes out on the web, where anybody can google for it, find it, download it (paying for it of course,) and enjoy it.
This is a devastating development for 'copyright owners', such as 'studios' of all stripe as it means that they don't control what gets made, (the eye-candy of the week,) how it gets made (ever notice that everything has to have the right look or the right sound and it all sounds the same?) and WHO COLLECTS THE MONEY!
Since the studio system doesn't actually produce anything (apart from censored songs/movies) they are running the very real risk that somebody will get wise and that everybody will start distributing WITHOUT them.
I'll be the first in line, metaphorically speaking, when you can download a TV show, from a site where the artists actually get the money, (something iTunes-like) for works produced on desktops (like Babylon5, Sin City and other 'direct to DVD movies [its interesting that Gooling for 'Independent record production' doesn't show any US companies, try it!])
There goes the lock on the market, when everybody can do it, and cheaply. There goes the exclusive, gated Beverly Hills neighborhood.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
If they yield control, competition from other sources then becomes possible and they don't want that.
Take the long view like they do. If they can keep competetors at bay, their longer term profits will be more than if they don't. However, opening the door for competetors today, even if that makes them more money, might mean they are not around to make *any* money in the longer term.
Blogging because I can...
Why stop with pilots? P2P is a broadcast network, similar in ways to the open airwaves. Why not form the BTBN (BitTorrent Broadcast Network)? Show producers could sell the commercial slots and embed them into the show. People would figure out how to fast-forward if they want to (just like DVR, VCR, etc), but hey - this puts the commercial dollars right into the producers pockets.
"Miranda Zero, played by actress Michelle Forbes. (Forbes is fast building a tech-geek pedigree: She's also the voice of Dr. Judith Mossman in the video game Half Life 2)."
I guess having appeared as Ensign Ro in multiple Star Trek the Next Generation episodes isn't worth mention as far her geek-pedigree goes?
Sometimes my arms bend back.
Why all the hoopla over this crap!
TV sucks and it just contributing to the overall mindless morons that we american's have become!
Plots, articulate dialog who needs that!
Yet another show that should have been made. D/L it and see for yourself. Glad I found the pilot!
...18...19...20 Submit
As long as artists are "in it" for the money (rather than because they simply can not control their artistic expression and/or quest for fame), they'll start to hate "p2p" sooner or later...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
This reminds me of the TV show (or movie...I have an old forgetfull brain) called Max Headroom, where the TV ratings are computed in realtime and shows go on and off the air at the drop of a hat.
I've watched the pilot. Clever, but the first half _sucks_. Uses pretty much every cliche in the book.
Clichés are clichés for a reason. They work because they meet the viewers' expectations.
I assume you're talking about the setup for the show, where we get the "what is the Global Frequency" talk, the introduction of the "new guy" into the world of the series, etc.
I'm curious how you would handle the following:
without ending up with either the pilot we got or having something like this at the beginning of the show?
By the way, this wasn't the final pilot; the GF ringtone was only a placeholder, and the music wasn't finished either. It was a version that was shopped around to networks, which would have been finished had they been picked up. John Rogers, the producer, said he would've reshot elements of the pilot they been picked up, particulaly the opening scene in the alley.
Jay (=
When people infringe upon the GPL, they're hurting everyone for their own benefit (depriving them of further innovation).
The reason a person can feel more strongly about one than the other is that copyright law was supposed to benefit the public (NOT merely the rights-holders) originally, and it no longer does.
In other words, one can dislike both on the principle that the public is being screwed in both instances, not because they respect copyright law.[1]
So no, it doesn't imply the inconsistancy you alledge.
[1] One can, of course, disrespect a law without breaking it.
This is most blatent in clothes, pop music, and novels, but the same principle applies to television and film -- just slightly less so, since there is a little more justification for new works there. No doubt a lot more money could be made selling old media than is currently, but it would undermine the whole marketing strategy of newer is better, which is the real cash cow. The old is obscure by design.
http://www.planet-familyguy.com/pfg/episodes.php
What a corporate shill - it's not stealing, it's copyright infringment - obviously he's been brainwashed by Microsoft, etc etc etc.
I think Family Guy's revival had more to do with it being picked up by Cartoon Network for Adult Swim. I know that's where I started watching it.
Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
[Long-winded talking out of my ass diatribe...] :)
Firstly I think it's a good thing that even though this show was cancelled, the Creator has obviously had his own thoughts and ideas about it reaffirmed by the growing fanbase on the Net.
Imagine if you made a television show, thought it was good but wasn't sure, and was rejected by the studios? I think you'd be feeling a bit blue - either sad or very vernacular, probably both.
Imagine then that out of the blue you've gotten all these emails in your mailbox that generally say "Just saw your tv show, it was awesome. When's the next episode coming out?"
I know my first reaction would be "What The Fuck?! How did these people see my show?" I'm guessing Rogers thought much the same thing, mixed with joy that people - real people from around the world and not a studio controlled group - liked his show enough to email him and say so, and maybe some annoyance that he wasn't getting some revenue back.
Now, why do shows get made? Because people like to create things and get back responses of "wow dude, that's cool." How do they get made? With time, attention to detail, and money. There's no getting away from the money.
So we, as an audience, want entertaining television shows, movies, books, etc., and the people who create the entertainment want positive affirmation of their investment of time, "blood, sweat, and tears," and money.
We have the best media distribution network built in the history of our civilization, and we can't create a medium for exchanging worthwhile entertainment for a few bucks?
Okay, let's say you want a model based on free-to-air television - you pay nothing, see some advertisements now and then, and get to watch a television show.
Take, for example, this pilot episode of Global Frequency, add a black border to the bottom of the footage, and periodically show an ad. Or cut and paste the advertisements into certain points, like they're shown now.
Some people will fast-forward with the slider bar on their movie player, and others will take the time to cut the ads out, but what is the ratio of people simply watching the ads to those using VCR's to fast-forward or stop-start recording now? Surely not enough for the advertisers to worry about.
Look at all the people who watch those shows that are just about ads, like "World's Raunchiest Commercials" or "World's Funniest Commercials". These things are nothing but ads.
Movies are one area where this might not work. A lot of people have put up with product placement, but then it gets to a certain point and you wonder "is this a movie or a ninety minute advertisement for soft drinks, fast foods, and cars?"
You don't want disparity or inconsistancy in your delivery medium though. Remember, a lot of people don't "get" computers, or the Internet, or IT in general, including the people we need to produce entertainment, and I'm not talking about the distributers like WB or Soly Pictures or Dosney.
A lot of writers with great ideas don't know how to set up a computer, put their work in a digital format, and pump it out onto the net aided by a machine that can take a few dollars per copy. A lot of advertisers have no idea how TCP/IP, HTTP, Apache, The *n?x's, or P2P can be used to distribute awareness of their products. A lot of people don't even know how television really works. To these people it's all either "turn it on and it's there" or "get Jonesy to do it, he's good with this technical crap."
So, we have the distribution network. Us geeks and slightly geeky people use it often. We just need to do for the Internet and media distribution what Apple did for Unix - make it seem so simple that any person can look at it and say "oh this is easy" and make it so damn convenient that people will pay a few bucks, or watch a few ads, to be entertained.
Now I know a lot of you don't like the idea of centralised netwo
His name is Robert Paulsen...
(Disclaimer: I haven't seen Global Frequency yet.)
My inclination would be to throw people right into the middle of the action, with no introduction to the characters, and let the audience figure it out as it goes along. With a lot of fiction, you can drop the first few pages / minutes and lose nothing. In fact, I once heard something like this as a universal principle for writers -- "always cut the first three pages" -- but I can't find the citation now.
In print SF, often you're thrown into not only an unknown situation and characters, but an entire unknown world, right from the get-go. It can take several chapters to understand what you read on page one. I'm used to it, and I like it, but I guess that approach might not work for everyone.
The principle was driven home for me the other day when I started watching "Face/Off" about twenty minutes in. I got lucky, because that seemed to be where the story actually started. If I missed anything, it must've been mostly redundant character setup -- redundant, because I watched the rest of the movie without feeling that I'd missed anything. (I'd actually come in even later on a previous occasion, and that time I did miss a lot. This time, I feel like I have no need to see those first twenty minutes.)
Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
"So if BitTorrent isn't promoting that they can be used to spread copyright material..."
BitTorrent does not share liability for improper use of a tool, just because they make the tool.
"Can John Rogers be sued for his obvious "tongue-in-cheek" admonishment of people who downloaded copyrighted material?"
No, because tongue-in-cheek or not, it is at least a token attempt to discourage copyright infringement.
"In a nutshell, if Software Company X releases a P2P software program and does all it should to discourage the distribution of "illegal" material, can Joe User get sued for posting in a blog, in a news story, etc that it can still be used for that goal?"
Joe User can still be considered liable for his own actions. Its like the legal difference
between saying I think there is a crackhouse in my neighborhood, and telling you to go to
a specific address to buy crack.
Who else read that as "PSP and TV" and nearly wet themselves?
He says the exact same thing as another poster, and 1 minute later.
My other first post is car post.
Global Frequency torrent link
Just in case you were curious, as I was...
FYI: The torrent's hosted on Demonoid, so if you're getting "unconnectable" errors, you might want to try registering there.
Man - I hate it when I forget to preview. And i wish I didnt have to put in [br]'s and it would just listen to my carriage returns.
Here is my post correctly formatted.
It's hard to come by accurate sales figures but here are some at:
http://www.thefutoncritic.com/cgi/newswire.cgi?id= 5806
In a recent report, Daily Variety has obtained sales figures for the most popular TV-related DVD sets. The results are surprising, as at least six boxed sets have topped one million copies sold:
"The Simpsons: The Complete First Season" - 1.6 million
"Band of Brothers" - 1.4 million
"The Sopranos: The Complete First Season" - 1.3 million
"Friends: The Complete First Season" - 1.3 million
"The Simpsons: The Complete Second Season" - 1.25 million
"Sex and the City: The Complete First Season" - 1.1 million
The results are surprising considering many items on the list retail between $75-$150. That means HBO has pocketed in the neighborhood of $97-$195 for the first season of "The Sopranos" alone.
You say.. That 'ten bucks' isn't your revenue. I think I laid out some of the major costs in my post. I wasn't assuming it wasn't revenue in the first place. It's reasonable to assume that where you had to pay taxes, that would be on top of the $10. In the States, you usually don't have to pay taxes if you do not have a physical location in that state.
Where do you get your numbers for costs from?
Purely conjecture. I do know what starts make when a series starts (usually about 50-60k if they are an unknown) and when a series is successful (a million an episode per star for friends).
But costs depend on supply and demand. Actors wave their salaries for some projects. Unions make things so costly that series get filmed non-union. There are probably a lot of decent actors out there who would be glad to find work for 10,000 an episode for 5 episodes. No- not jennifer aniston's or brad pitts- but that's a false choice.
Plus- costs tend to rise towards revenues. Star trek doesn't -have- to cost as much as it does. The more a show makes- the more everyone working on it wants. Unions lock in high base prices which make it hard to start a show cheap.
It's part of why actors used to make 6-9 films a year and now they only make a film every 2-3 years. Watch the old Boston Blackies and you will find good acting, good writing, and they made them much less expensively without credits that ran for 15 minutes at the end. India makes almost a thousand films a year which they show (presumably at a profit since they keep making them) to an audience who can probably pay 10 to 25 cents to see them. Modern movies and television are artificially expensive to make-- too many hands in the til.
So out of your $8.25 per DVD, you need $6 of that going to the studio.
Okay- consider the article and read my post again. There IS NO STUDIO. There is NO $6 going to a studio.
Making TV shows ALWAYS requires overhead. How do you distribute your DVDs?
Direct distribution to the end customer by mail or electronic image (like magnatune who I have purchased music from). Amazon only comes into the picture after the show becomes popular enough. TV does not ALWAYS require overhead. It only requires overhead if you are broadcasting it on TV. The folks making Star Wreck are making and distributing the movie without Amazon just fine.
I'm also assuming there is a lot of money to be made selling DVDs in 'brick and mortar' stores
That's true in the past- I'm still uncomfortable about making major purchases over the internet- but I'm up to about $200 items and I get more used to it every day. The stuff arrives- I don't have to waste time or gas going to stores that don't carry the items I want (which happens more and more as time goes on- stores selection compared to what is ava
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Personally, I think that the Mouse is one of the BEST thigs to talk about.
The current law says that Micky is part of a companies property. My great-grandmother could have gone to see Steamboat Willie before my grandfather was born. People all over the world identify the mouse with America, to the point of just the outline of his ears is enough to envoke a response.
If you think that a creator has rights forever more and that no content ever should enter the public domain, there is no better example. Mickey = Disney.
If you think that at some point a creatioin becomes part of a culture there is no better example.
The Mouse highlights what each person thinks is right. I find that it is also an excellent way to talk about copyright law in a way people can understand.
I mod everyone down who says "I'll get modded down for this." I hate to disappoint.
What if you designed a system where early adopters paid more and as a project approached profitability, the price gradually went down. Then at some point the early adpoters, the people who really loved something and believed in it from the start (like the Farscape fans), and had forked out say $100 a piece actually started to get some of their money back. If the show was really successful with millions of people forking out $2-$3 per episode they might even turn a profit.
I'm not an accountant or an economist but the idea 'sounds' nice to me, with the real believers in a project hoping to back something far enough to reach the tipping point.
I absolutely recognized the voice. It took me a few minutes to piece together who and from where. I'm glad I did a search before I posted. She is, indeed, the woman who played Ensign Ro Laren in Star:Trek The Next Generation.
Nice catch. You beat me.
> Quick! Cover it up! People aren't supposed to know
> we're rejecting the GOOD shows in favor of more idiocy!
Pilots are to TV series what demos are to software. Remember the original Star Trek series (or were you even born then)? There was a 2-part special with Captain Christopher Pike (a basket case with only his head functional) and the crew of the Enterprise being shanghaid to a "forbidden planet". Apparently, *THAT* used significant chunks of the Star Trek pilot.
Compared to that pilot, the Star Trek we got was crap. We got a show with 2 plot lines repeated over and over...
1) Captain Kirk involved in a transporter malfunction... Gene Roddenberry trying to make some deep statement about human values.
2) Enterprise discovers a planet just like earth, where everybody is human and speaks English (even the 20th century Roman Empire), but just *ONE* facet of today's society has been changed... Gene Roddenberry trying to make some deep statement about human values.
After a while it got old, and I stopped watching, as did many others. Hence the show's cancellation. Knowing the difference between the pilot and the actual series (the demo and the actual software release) I can see why TV networks might skeptical of high quality pilots. I wonder what the pilots for a lot of today's shows looked like.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
With MP3s eating the big guys, a lot of little people will figure out how to make a good living out of the music industry, instead of a few select people getting filthy freaking rich. So what it confuses the tabloids because they can't figure out who is a "star?" In the end, music will be better off, and I could give a rats ass if we don't have any more Madonnas or Michael Jacksons. I work hard for my money and I could care less if a hand full of suits and lawyers are pissed because their game is up.
As the fat cats die off, I think music will become more localized. And what's wrong with that? I would much rather see a lot of local bands across the country make 30 grand a year giving away MP3s as promotions for their concerts...than Michael Jackson becoming so filthy rich he can build elaborate theme parks to use as nothing more than foreplay for his slightly twisted version of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. And be fair, nobody should have to ride that one.
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
The results are surprising, as at least six boxed sets have topped one million copies sold:
Bear in mind, those are HUGE successful programmes, not some obscure thing sent over the Internet. Something that's seen over the Internet would probably barely make 10,000.
Okay- consider the article and read my post again. There IS NO STUDIO. There is NO $6 going to a studio.
So like I said, the programme just appears out of thin air? Presumably, someone will be MAKING the programmes.
Because they have astronomical profits. The costs have grown to match the profits.
You're a fucking conspiracy theorist. Costs don't go down just because you're not making much money. It just means you're bankrupted.
Let's get this straight. If 50,000 people download my show that were not going to/able to buy my show anyway- I lost nothing. If 500 of them decide- "hey this rocks" and they come and buy a copy from me - I gained 500 customers at zero cost.
And you've just lost 50,000 because they've all decided that you don't care whether they download it, so you've legitimised piracy. 500 customers don't keep your programme afloat.
I really don't think so. Most of the costs are on people or their time.
So you're going to make programmes with no people which take no time to make? People will still want a cut of the profits. Or if they're more clued-in, a cut of the gross revenue.
A lot of acting consists of standing in front of a green screen and everything else is laid in later. You don't actually GO to a mountain to act any more.
And when you do that, you end up with star wars. But without the marketing and huge special effects budget, it would crash and burn. Horribly.
1. Register hardcoretorrents.com
:-) And Major Corporations(TM) are not very willing to sell any mainstream content to torrent sites at all since they want to sell it on DVD and other polluting media. The Adult Industry, on the other hand, they have realized that (4) is good for everybody and are overall extremely kind, helpful and willing to work out good solutions for ???.
2. Make a web-site with torrents and explain to the users that BitTorrent is good for them.
3. ???
4. Profit.
Be aware that ??? involves creating or buying content. Content, specially TV content, is extremely expensive and that is a challenge for BitTorrent sites. I will push any TV content on as many viewers as possible if someone gives me TV content and gives me the distribution right.
Feel free to contact me if you want to give away / sell any good video formatted entertainment. Rogers is a smart person who has accepted Internet the present preferred distribution method for content. Traditional distribution by loose things (DVD etc) has no future.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
I think I understand where you are coming from but I think you misunderstand a couple points that I am making.
You say... Okay- consider the article and read my post again. There IS NO STUDIO. There is NO $6 going to a studio. So like I said, the programme just appears out of thin air? Presumably, someone will be MAKING the programmes. This is the key point. Refer to Star Wreck, The new voyages of Star Trek, and other shows referenced by others in this thread. Once the cost of production drops enough- you do NOT NEED a production company to make a show.
We also had this bid. Because they have astronomical profits. The costs have grown to match the profits. You're a fucking conspiracy theorist. Costs don't go down just because you're not making much money. It just means you're bankrupted.
No conspiracy is needed. You're being rude so I'm not sure why I'm bothering explaining this further but perhaps someone else will understand and make it worth the time.
1) Movies and Television made phenomonal amounts of money in the 50's to the 80's. Everybody got rich. But it wasn't enough to make a million dollars each for a movie. They wanted to manage the yield to make the maximum dollars possible. This means they will push the price to the point where the profits start to drop.
If that means they cut out 40% of their audience- that's not a problem for them. If 60% of people will put up with watching 22 minutes of commercials and that's 1% more profitable than 90% of people watching with 12 minutes of commercials- then they are going to put in 22 minutes of commercials per hour.
Everyone along the way wants a part of the action. The television affiliate that was initially happy to be making $20,000 is going to ask for more. The show or movie's editors are going to charge more. Not because they need more- but because they CAN.
They will push it to the point of turning the experience unpleasant to maximise profits. And that's their right of course.
But it does create opportunities for people who are willing to work for modest profits. You can create a reasonable quality show with 15 grand, average to low actors and a dedicated crew. So what can you do with 2 million per episode? I say if you have good writing- you can create something people will pay money for.
Last point... You say And when you do that, you end up with star wars. But without the marketing and huge special effects budget, it would crash and burn. Horribly I agree the recent 3 movies sucked (and the last half of the original #3). The original which was created on a tiny budget (and probably wouldn't be made with that small a budget - even adjusted for inflation- these days was good. The issue was not the budget- but the quality of the script and acting.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
You nailed it right on the head. I didn't buy into King's "gotta pay the paperboy" analogy, but I did purchase the damn texts just to see what would happen. (which was wasting $$$ to get 1/3 of a half-assed story)
I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
Funniest line about that: (paraphrased from memory)
Peter: Damn, we got cancelled by FOX!
Lois: So what does that mean?
Peter: Well, that means that if (rambling list of 50 or so fox shows that have been canned) all fail, we'll get to be back on the air!
I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
This is the key point. Refer to Star Wreck, The new voyages of Star Trek, and other shows referenced by others in this thread.
What the hell are those? Never heard of them. Are they like that kid with the light sabre?
Once the cost of production drops enough- you do NOT NEED a production company to make a show.
Whoever's making it ARE the production company. Whoever's making it will have costs, and will want to get something out of it.
The original which was created on a tiny budget (and probably wouldn't be made with that small a budget - even adjusted for inflation-
I think you're underestimating how much it cost. I bet that relative to the amount spent on films when Star Wars was made, it was astronomically expensive.
Thanks to slashdot, I downloaded the TV show. Thanks slashdot.
On the other hand, after watching 15 minutes of the show, I realized it was complete crap. It was a bunch of pseudo science masquarading as something vaguely interesting. The writing was horrible, and the characters were completely unbelievable.
This show was shitcanned? No kidding.
I'd have done the same.