Slashdot Mirror
CBS, NBC to Offer TV Shows for 99 Cents
According to an AP report. "CBS and NBC have announced deals to offer replays of prime-time programs for 99 cents per episode, shifting television toward a sales model that gained popularity with downloaded music." But the shows will only be available over Comcast on Demand, not for download.
What's the cost difference between what Apple will charge for theirs and this?
KeepTrackOfIt.com - Find the lowest gas prices in your area graphically
when download for iPod or TiVo? heck, I can pay 0.99.
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
For the cost of fifty shows you can just get a Tivo.
NBC's offering will be through DirecTV. CBS will be through Comcast.
Buy a tivo, mod it, and download the shows to your computer and burn. Voila. No .99c each and you get to watch it in a DVD player.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
We had our Comcast person hooking up a phone line to let the cable box talk to their service. At the last minute he asked, "do you have DSL?" We did, and now it looks like we have to use the actual phone to order OnDemand shows. We never have, since it's such a pain, though we constantly watch the free ones, expecially the kid shows.
Of course, eMule works fine with DSL and the price of t.v. shows from that venue are quite competitive. For some reason, using the Internet as my Tivo doesn't fill me with a twinge of guilt.
First comes mainstream TV on the net.
Then comes internet only TV.
On-demand, lower broadcast costs, and the replacement of 'public access' with equal opportunity online broadcasts all push internet video over it's ancient predecesor.
It's only a matter of time until the TV joins the newspaper in it's slow walk to the grave.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
I'm willing to bet they will push DC to enact laws that may recording TV illegal. Kiss your Tivo goodbye. This is just them being able to tell everyone, look people can get the TV show after it plays for a fair price, they shouldn't be able to record it on their own.
Error: Sig not found.
So I have to pay for cable and/or satellite, then I have to pay more for a show that just aired?!?! Plus I don't get a copy of it?!?! I'm sticking with my SageTV PVR and a 250GB drive. I can record any show I want and keep it forever at no additional cost! I hope this fails miserably.
gasmonso http://religiousfreaks.com/Channels like HBO and Showtime offer all of their programming free to subscribers on Comcast In Demand.
What makes time-shifting Survivor worth 99 cents when I can time-shift The Sopranos for free?
When I can get zero "always on" channels for $0/month and get any show On-Demand for $1 I'll be ecstatic.
$1-$5 for movies, too!
If I missed a new episode of Battlestar Galatica and my DVR was broken and I had no broadband access
... $0.99 seems good, until you realize that this is a rental, not a purchase.
...
Rental schemes in the music industry have yet to take off (Napster? Yahoo music?). iTunes provides ownership, which I think is a cause of it's popularity
From the article "The new DirecTV DVR comes with a hard drive that holds 160 hours of programming. One hundred hours are available for subscribers to record and store programs. The remaining 60 hours will be used by DirecTV to download programs that can be viewed on demand for an extra fee."
So they are recording a few shows from NBC, push them to your PVR, then let you pay money to watch them. Are you able to record them using the PVR in the first place for free? Or does the software prevent you. IF they prevent you from recording them yourself, this could be a preview of the boradcast flag, well a proprietary version of it.
This to me seems absolutely pointless, especially since its only available through comcast ondemand. For $10 a month you can get a dvr from comcast and record all the shows you want, and even record in high definition.
You can usually find HD quality shows using bittorrent with commercials stripped out. I think this is a good idea for those who don't, 99c is pretty cheap and effort free if you missed your fav show and didnt have it recorded. Definitely a market there I think.
Which means, to make ourselves clear, neither of these are IP downloads.
or until DirecTV cancels MPEG-2 service, but i tell you what, i'm going to run my hacked DirecTiVo until the wheels fall off - screw everyone else and their lameastic ideas.
My Hacked DirecTiVo works 1 step simple to get any show i want with my iPod (now, with Video), doesn't cost me per play, works great with my Mac, and doesn't have any DRM.
These things are going to be insanely valuable in years to come because of their incredible feature set, lack of DRM, and compatibility with so many other devices.
meanwhile, newer systems are going to be less and less useful and less interesting to me. HDTV doesn't make my skirt fly up compared to a well written show or good coverage of a hockey game... neither of which requires higher resolution.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
WHy would someone want a TV show replayed..when they can comfortably tape it? that too if u already got comcast ccable?
there could have been potential if thats for any broadband user.. (for me..i have DSL but no TV)
or like for someone who went overseas & dont want to miss his/her soaps back home
just my 2 cents to add to the 99 cents...
Me: OK - now I have my DVR so I can record shows.
Satellite company: Hey, but if you miss a show, you can download it to your DVR!
Me: Uh - that sounds pretty good. How much?
Satellite company: $0.99!
Me: Great - that's a better price than iTunes! So I can download it and watch it on my computer while I'm traveling -
Satellite company: No, you have to watch it at home.
Me: Oh. So can I sync it to my [insert portable video device here]?
Satellite company: No, you can watch it at home.
Me: But - could I just record the show with my DVR then? You know - the whole reason why I got a DVR?
Satellite company: You could, right until we decide that you can't record any shows you can buy. Isn't that swell?
Me: I knew there was a reason why I only use basic cable. This "digital crap but only through our proprietary boxes" is for losers.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
CBS and NBC have announced deals to offer replays of prime-time programs for 99 cents per episode
I remember when cable TV first appeared, and nearly every channel that existed did this for a monthly fee instead of per-episode. It was
called "syndication".
shifting television toward a sales model that gained popularity with downloaded music
Minus the entire computer this time.
Yeah, I'm considering quitting broadcast TV in favor of (low cost) rentals of the few good shows. Netflix combined with DVD timeshifting so you don't have to worry about getting it back in the mail immediately is a nice combo. No Daily Show/Colbert Report, but I can live with that. Sports are best watched in bars anyway.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Unless they're willing to strip out the commericials, which is how they get paid in the first place, then I'll just stick to P2P.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
CBS is teaming up with Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) and NBC with satellite operator DirecTV to offer the on-demand replays.
...it's imperative that people (DirecTV's Secret War On Hackers, DirecTV hacking is dead?) get those DirecTV hacks working full-swing again.
But the shows will only be available over Comcast on Demand, not for download. That's lame :(
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
This is proof that the Networks still don't understand this whole "internet" thing at all.
1. While downloading for iPod is mentioned in the article, NBC and CBS are referring to OnDemand (same ol' crap that cable companies have been pushing for years) with their set top boxes.
2. The article says that 99 cents is the cost, but it includes commercials. So you're paying $1 to watch a free show WITH commercials.
3. NBC still believes there "aren't enough protections" to put their content on the internet.
These guys don't realize that their shows are mediocre at best and placing any higher threshold on watching them will actually DECREASE viewers, not increase it. I'm not going to pay extra to watch a show with commercials (which you probably can't skip).
Apple's solution for $1.99 adds the benefit of watching it where you want and without commercials. It's great for the occasional missed episode that I can catch up with while traveling.
I've never used OnDemand TV (whether Cable or Satellite) and this won't be any different.
I pay for cable, which technically pays for all the shows that are broadcast during the month when I have access. And then if I miss a show, they want me to pay again to see it? Like people are actually going to pay twice to see a show, rather then buying a PVR or hacking up a free one themselves?
Honestly, I have no idea how the cable industry can explain how this business model will work now that PVRs are becoming popular.
It doesn't even make sense. People know they don't own the shows they watch, unlike they do with the music they download. If the cable industry wants to copy the music industry, then they would have to let people pay for shows al la carte, and give them access to that same episode as many times as they want. But then the industry wouldn't be able to charge for those huge DVD episode packs, nor if people recorded movies would people ever need to buy DVDs in general. That's not going to happen.
But then again, the point may be to simply capitalize on the millions of people out there who forget to do things. HUGE amounts of money are made from people who forget to cancel subscriptions, who return rented movies late, or who don't know anything about how simple it is to same money by using a free program on their computers. I guess if they really think this is going to work, then there must be a LOT of people who don't own PVRs and who forget to watch shows, that they would be willing to pay 99c to be able to see.
The water has turned out to be warm after all.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
You can watch excellent content even through the Winamp media library, using a simple mix of efficient audio and video codecs for streaming. Alo, an interesting mailing list post in this respect (companies being slow to deliver real time video)
OK, I admit it, I am bitter that CmdrTaco pre-empted my submission to take it for himself, so I am pointing out his summary shortcomings!
Honestly, this looks ready to fail. Why don't these guys ever get it?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
While this is a step in the right direction, I think they still miss the big picture.
"My" DVR box is very convenient. I time shift shows and then erase them.
But when it comes to movies, I'm one of those people that likes to own the movies I very much like, just like books or music. I like to have it close at hand for reference, entertainment, whatever.
Now I realize that they're not selling movies yet, but maybe at some point they will.
The question is, why would I pay for a show twice, if I'm not gonna own it?
I pay for it with my cable subscription, and then again to rent it. That's not a very good value proposition (if I understand the buzzword correctly).
With iTunes I at least, get to keep my shows and some day hopefully movies.
They're not thinking "How can we increase our value to the consumer" but rather "How can we extract even more money out of them?" (Notice that these shows are not downloadable over the net, they go directly to your DVR.)
And that brings me to the second point. I like storing stuff on my PC. I've got all of my data there, my music, pr0n, whatever. I don't want to keep track of different devices for my collections...
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Doesn't really sounds like anything new, except for a new pricing scheme. Time Warner already does this with some shows and their on-demand setup. So there's a new pricing scheme to get "all" shows, at least for one network. Then to get the shows for another network you need to sign up for Comcast, then for another network you need to sign up for DirecTV. So now you're subscribing to 2-3 cable services to watch all your shows which you still can only watch using that service's receiver. Hmmmmm I think I'll stick with my Tivo for instant gratification and torrenting network tv shows when my Tivo is busy doing something else.
Back in the good ol' days you could just put one of 'em splitters on your cable, and plug it into the TV and the VCR
Now I gotta watch me TV through this huge box thing, and I can't even have two different channels on two devices. And the cable company has like twenty thousand services that I can pay additional fees for! Damn it all!
Least I can get them Internets with that devil cable...
Its about time to face facts, people in general do not consider content to have the value that the companies would like to claim. I would suggest that a rough acceptable tariff for downloadable content would look like:
In addition I would suggest that people expect a licence to the content to mean they have a right to that content in any form with no extra licence costs. DRM might exist, but it can never interfere with the customer enjoying their property.I'll guess that there are rewards for the first company to realise where the market is going and act accordingly. People expect that the quality will not be there, and are unwilling to pay up on spec. Its a mass product market, not a premium product market.
when, exactly, did you "purchase" any movie / software / music? Probably never. in all cases, you obtained some license to the material. for example, when you go to bestBuy and purchase a CD, all would agree that legally you have gotten a license to play the music privately - you have not, for example, been licenced to take that CD and its contents and use it in the car commercial your company has filming. You have also not gotten a license to make copies of the music and sell it on.
Your "renting vs owning" view is doubtlessly some shorthand for two generic types of licenses. However, while that was probably more or less sufficient in 1987, it's clearly not a good shorthand now, where new devices and different licensing schemes require far more subtlety and understanding to define.
Like an ocean-going supertanker, slowly, slowly, slowly it comes about on a new heading.
the shows will only be available over Comcast on Demand, not for download.
OK, that's the first 3 degrees of the turn. You've grasped the basic concept of me being the customer and you selling me what I want (as opposed to me being the product and you selling me to the advertisers). Now you need to get the rest - I want it the way I want it, not the way that gives you a 6 million dollar kicback and a 1 million dollar bonus for the stuffed shirt that came up with the idea.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I don't own it. I can't take it with me to a friend's house and watch it with them (without lugging over my DVR). I also can't archive it when my drive is full and I want to download another show. I also cannot use this service if I don't have a DVR to store the programs...
With iTunes I pay $2.00 and I own the show. It is on my iPod, my Computer (PC or Mac), I can share it with others. If I decide that I don't want to download any programs next month, no fees. I can archive my programs to keep them safe. For that extra dollar I get an actual asset.
Even Napster understands that if they aren't going to let you own the media, they have to let you get all you want. That is why Comcast's onDemand service is a high value add. I feel as a cable subscriber I'm getting my money's worth because of the additional media library available at no charge in onDemand. As an HBO subscriber my value is even higher because I get premium movies included as part of my subscription.
Yes, there are still Pay-Per-View style moves in my Comcast service but those save me a trip to the video store, and they are not freely available on other channels in my subscription service.
As a consumer, what do I get from this new service other then another item to avoid in my on-screen menus?
I don't have cable at my apartment and get only PBS over the air. I only have time to watch a few hours an evening and PBS usually has something interesting on. If I am busy, then I tape show from PBS and watch them later. Once in a while I rent a DVD or video tape from the public library. The rest of my free time is spent reading or with friends. Why would I pay $.99 to download something that has no interest for me in the first place. Why would I want to spend money to watch some idiots voluntarily stuck on a desert island eating a lizard?
Why pay to watch it once when you can just TiVO it and be done? Maybe this is what the broadcast flag thing is all about. All TV will become pay-per-view.
DUH!
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
Also the idea that I don't need to pay $60 a month on top of that $99 to get cable service in the first place. I don't have cable, you see, so to me, the usefulness of iTunes TV shows will be when they start offering Comedy Central, SciFi channel, and HBO shows for $1.99 per episode. I can pick the couple of shows I like, and spend $100-$150 a year to view them rather than $60-$100 a month for a whole cable package with a bunch of crap I don't want.
Way to hit the nail on the freakin' head!
Why should I pay to RENT something as easily copied as content?
If only these guys would realize that people want to own something and to watch/hear it whenever they choose!
Why is TiVo so popular? Because I can watch TV whenever I want.
Why are iPods so popular? Because I can listen to music whenever I want.
If we just wanted to rent music and movies all the time, there would be no need for TiVo or iPods.
iTunes provides ownership
You wish. What you own you can give away.
I am getting excited about the shift towards internet viewing, and would actually prefer cheap rental over buying for video, and as a consumer don't really care about rented material being highly DRM'ed (purchased is anothering).
But this particular service isn't all that exciting. You need to have DirectTV's or Comcast's DVR already in order to use the service. That means that I could have been recording these shows and watching them whenever I wanted.
The price wouldn't be too bad on it's own. I figure that reasonable internet rental prices prices are $0.50 for a 20 minute show, $1.00 for a 40 minute show, and $2.00 for a movie. But this is on top of the $50-70 dollars that you are already paying for cable or satelite. I have already payed to watch these shows, I am not going to pay again.
I like the fact that they are trying things -- learning -- seeing what "sticks". Who knows, they may stumble across some use-model that nobody had thought of. Of course there are those who think this is just part of an elaborate evil plan to get all of our money, but I don't give them that much credit.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Seriously, this is just a marketing move by these networks. In no way is this service different than what subscribers could already do with the equipment necessary to participate in the new service, except now they have the option of paying for it. I really hope people don't take too much advantage of this, so that the iTunes version of business can shine more brightly. Then again, there are a lot of idiots paying ridiculous prices for digital cable these days, what's a few more $0.99's tacked on top?
I think its entirely possible either these deals were in the works before the iTVS went public, so they just seem late, or else they are bids by these networks to have firmer footing in negotiations with Steve Jobs to offer their content through iTunes. Although why they would go with a lower pricepoint, I have no idea. I guess this scheme would have made more sense if they'd gone for a larger price. The article I read did not indicate how DRM'ed to death the episodes would be (as far as expiration and portability) but that might be a factor for negotiations. They may be opting for a 'but we already have an on-demand contract that works just fine for us' approach in order to get a larger percentage cut of the profit.
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
(The Beatles)
Music is MUCH different than Video. I rarly watch the same TV episode twice while a song will be listened to several times. This isn't the same pay per month get unlimited access as the rental music services either, though such offerings would be appealig in the TV world. Similar services exist in the form of HBO/etc though a on-demand HBO with a full library that has a monthly service fee instead of per view would be a huge hit. Kinda like netflix??.. Which isn't popular at all is it?
This is a very different deal than the iTunes/ABC deal. First this has nothing to do with a new distribution method. Its making use of On Demand systems already in place. Its just a way of squeezing people for more money if they don't know how to program a VCR. The iTunes/ABC deal offers people access to content given an internet connection while these deals require you have cable and On Demand already. The Comcast/CBS shows will even still have commercials.
I'd like to pay for the show I want and nothing else. If the shows could all be commercial free that'd be even better. I don't watch much TV though so maybe it would be more expensive for some people. I feel like the iTunes/ABC deal was a step towards pay-per-content but these deals aren't really doing anything new.
This is a HUGE blow to satellite tv providers. At this point they just can't offer anything like this. Eventually this could take a big bit in Ad Revenue for prime time shows, but out of the gate, it's a pretty big win for the broadcast networks.
Very savvy move by Comcast too, Verizon and SBC have already announced their plans to do this with services like FIOS. Comcast at that point didn't have any plans to do it, but they certainly can move much faster and are first to market. Kudos to the execs at comcast.
When will they realize that most people will pay to have everything "on demand" without commercials. We already pay large sums of money for cable and satellite yet we are slaves to "broadcasting". The customer should be able to simply watch any show once it becomes available, including whole seasons worth of content without having some kind of DVR. The commercial model is outdated. For me, commercals have become a huge turnoff when watching TV. After 5 minutes of commericals I usually turn of the TV and do something else. I would watch more if I could see any current episode of my show whenever I wanted to. So in my case they would increase their customer base. The technology exists today to do this.
TV stations were being relayed over CU-SeeMe and the Multibone over ten years ago. Legally. Without advertising. Free. This "new stuff" is old-hat - or would have been if users had pushed for the technology to be widespread. As it was, CU-SeeMe denegrated into porn and commercialism, then vanished into the abyss. The multibone persists, but virtually no ISP is being encouraged to carry it.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The answer to your second point is the same reason DirecTV does not have an on demand streaming service. Their system does not have the infrastructure to handle individual streaming content like . With a DVR this allows you to tune to a specific channel and record the episode onto your DirecTV DVR. It may be that for a half hour show they use two channels on a 15 minutes staggard start.
I still prefer the 'sales' model of tvtorrent.com
My tech blog
Given that it's doubtful Comcast will license their on-demand software to other cable companies, or that Apple will license their DRM scheme to other companies, there's going to be an element of lock-in here somewhere. Which would you prefer?
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
Because this is an obvious effort to squash it without ditching the old-model's use of commercials and need to purchase a DVD for archiving an episode for watching later.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Buying Milk w/ expiration date is a fact of life.
Buying Digital Content w/ embedded expiration date is plain stupid.
They tried with disposable DVD's.
A fool and his/her digital content are soon controlled and ultimately, parted.
- these are not the droids you are looking for -
They get it that they can scam, bilk and price-gouge legally, so long as it is in small amounts at a time.
They get it that they're going to be able to milk the compliant viewer for all they're worth (and then some), boosting profits and keeping the shareholders happy, while keeping the programs sub-standard and their integrity non-existant.
From the perspective of the TV companys, what is there not to get?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Eastern country offers cheap HDTV download without DRM. Offer not available in the U.S. (HAH HAH!)
I don't want to be paying rentals to cable or broadcast companies. I like a program, I don't want just 1-4 shows, I want the entire damn season. I don't want the whole season 2 years from now either, I want it shortly after it airs for $30-$50. The only shows that I own everything to are Robotech and B5. I don't want Friends or Fraiser. I wouldn't mind "The Outer Limits" or "Politergist the Legacy" . There were a few other shows that only showed at 11:00 pm or 1 am around here. I'd like to be able to buy all of them on DVD. I don't care about what is on prime time TV. Why? Because if it is any good, it'll be showing again and again on other stations. The bad part is that TV stations kill good shows before the have a chance to build up an audience. Some shows that may have been good to see on DVD don't have the episodes. I wonder when someone is going to try a direct to DVD TV series.
Apple's version, by far.
Steve Jobs already said a long time ago that he doesn't believe that people like to "rent" music... thus Apple's lack of entry into the subscription tunes market.
I don't give a crap what Steve Jobs thinks. I pay $60/year for Yahoo music and I love it. I get unlimited access to listen to a large percentage of what Rhapsody and Itunes has on my portable player or on multiple computers. $60 is what I would pay to have access to only 60 songs of non subscribtion based music or roughly 4 actual purchased cds per year. My personal opinions and Steve Jobs's opinion aside, maybe it does not fit everyone and honestly, I don't care, it works great for me and my family.
How is this offering from NBC and CBS different from the iTunes Video Store? Instead of comparing this offering to iTunes video, think of it as an addition to standard Pay-Per-View, which people are using and apperently is a very big business and far from a failure.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
The television infrastructure in the US could be SO MUCH better than it is if it weren't for the rampant money grab these idiots are making on a daily basis. Instead of serving the customer they are serving the shareholders. It didn't used to be this way. It used to be a two way street where the networks actually made programs that people wanted to watch and in exchange people saw commercials for products they might actually be interested. Here we are 60-some years later and we are deluged with MORE advertising than ever and it's for shady loan companies, fly-by-night weight loss formulas (read "snakeoil") and 900 numbers for every kind of moronic obsession from fortune telling to phone sex. Any why? Because it makes a very small group of people very rich. They are no longer serving the customers. If they were they wouldn't be misinforming and making people dumber with crap programming and the advertising of products that are just barely legal.
I remember once reading the excited statements of the early engineers behind television in the 20th century. They believed (much like the internet in the 80s and 90s) that this new and wonderful technology would be used to bring culture, education and entertainment to the masses. They envisioned visual travelogues, remote classrooms, orchstral, operatic and stage productions being brought into people's living rooms. A populace with access to high quality content to enrich their minds and their lives. So we have the poorest funded public television network (PBS) that has to rely on donations because good quality television isn't profitable. Just like good quality internet resources aren't profitable.
It's not just the content that's crap. It's also the service. When I was growing up TV was percieved as "free" entertainment because you could just buy a TV and watch. Then cable came along with the promise of commercial free television. (PBS also offers this but no one is paying attention or paying donations) People rejoiced at the success of capitalism + television. You could PAY for better quality TV! But slowly the ads crept back in. Now you can't escape them. While the movies on certain cable and satellite channels might be free of commercials, the in between slots are marred with MORE commercials.
And your provider has the right to slap commercials over top of the network feed. Thereby allowing them far too much control over say... political ads. If the provider is biased towards a certain party or candidate, they can now completely slam competing candidates or issues out of your view without your consent. They can also make sure you're only aware of certain products. It's all too much control.
Why don't we have the promised "video dialtone" that AT&T was once working on? At one time there was talk of a new approach to video. TRUE on-demand content. And not just controlled content but ANY content. An actual realtime video library with on-demand access. It's a friday night and you want to watch a 50s Sci-Fi movie. You just do a search through the catalog, select the movie you want to watch. Go get some popcorn, come back and start the playback. You need to go to the bathroom? Pause it. Come back and pick up where you left off. You need to rewatch a section? Just rewind it. And since it's not tape, it's just the drag of a slider on your screen through a GUI. Once you're done watching it, the fair price charge ($.25 per hour) gets added to your phone bill. You only pay for what you watch.
Conversely, you want to watch the latest episode of a new series on SciFi, you again select from the same GUI based catalog and only get charged a fair price (which might be a bit higher for new content). Even better, for a slightly higher price you can watch it BEFORE it airs. True capitalism that works for the consumer and the service provider in a fair and balanced way instead of the rotten and corrupted version that has infected America. And if you REALLY wanted to own it, you could download it for a fair price a
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
It's about time that network television realize that their distribution method is archaic and self-defeating. For years now they have had the capability and capacity to restructure their broadcast distribution model, and have instead resorted to lawsuits, DRM, and lobbying to protect their ancient distro monopolies. Finally it seems that with the proliferation of technologies such as BitTorrent (among others) somebody was smart enough to realize that they could adapt their model to emerging technologies and profit from it. I hope that what this means is that end users will finally get the conrtol over their television content, that internet users have over theirs. The technology has long been here, but the big broadcasters have been too lazy and scared to try and do anything but protect their asses in an old, conventional profit structure.
I just switched from DirecTV to Comcast Basic simply because it was far cheaper and it was simpler to hook up to my WinTV card.
How can the U.S. govt allow such blatent piracy?
$0.99 episodes of "Everybody Loves Raymond", might as well stick a gun to my head...
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
I was excited at first, reading the subject title because I thought they were trying to undercut Apple iTunes and ABC. Then when I read the details, I was disappointed. This is kind of a lame move on NBC and CBS's part. Other than INITIAL cost of Tivo, it doesn't provide any advantage over it. With NBC and CBS's offer, you first of all need to pay for monthly Comcast cable (which negates the cost advantage over Tivo after about a year). Second of all, you HAVE to be physically tied to your cable connection. On TOP of that, they're asking you to pay $0.99 for each show that you should easily be able to record with Comcast's own (albeit crappy) DVR solution. The whole reason iTunes TV was exciting was that it allowed you pay one fee and allowed you to transport your show with you (whether via the dinky iPod video screen or via notebook computer). You don't HAVE to be connected to the Internet after you download it, to watch it. Regarding NBC and CBS's announcement, I say again, lame.
Here's what I want: I want to be able to pay $0.99 and then have access to that show anytime I have an internet connection. I'll even accept one or two targeted commercials right up front before the show begins. Really, is this too much to ask?
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
Does not makes sense. Who is gonna spend $1 per episode when they can spend $10 per month for a Comcast DVR. If your really that desperate to take you shows on the road then get a video capture card. This is boviously a feable attempt by tards to keep up with the jones of the failing media world, and as a consequence will only get picked up by tards. That might actually be quite an audience. Oh well maybe its a good idea after all, just not very progressive. Television companies like the movies is heading for a magnificent swath of awards at the darwin's this year.
I've got Time Warner's digital cable service at home, which offers a similar On-Demand feature. Unfortunately, it's essentially worthless due to a constant "service is very popular. Please try again later." message. I've watched a couple (completely free) episodes of The Sopranos that way, but only at about 3am when bandwidth allows.
All in all, I find it amusing but mostly worthless. If it was fast, easy to use and navigate, and priced the way it is now (from free to slightly-more-than-competitive) it might be worthwhile.
So I have Comcast Digital Cable without a DVR. After reading this, I loaded up OnDemand, selected TV on the menu, then Real World, then picked a random episode to watch, sans commercials. So what exactly am I gaining? The ability to pay for something that has till now been free?
How many fulltime jobs can one man have?
No, I bought a CD. Copywrite law prohibits copying, public performance, etc. There is no licencing involved in buying a CD. You are automatically alowed to do anything not prohibited by law with a CD you bought.
It seriously pisses me off when idiots like you parot the industry line that you licence content when you buy a CD. If morons like you keep repeating that, then someday it will become the "normal, reasonable person's expectation" and the courts will follow it, and that would suck badly.
Everyone repeat after me "I bought a CD. I bought a CD....." Lets all do our part to insure that we retain the ability to buy stuff, ok?
Let me explain something to you Mr. Network and music industry:
Cost to download a song off of fileshare that I can then play as many times as I want, 0$.
cost to watch your show with commercials for a week, or untill you feel like taking it away, 1$.
Guilt factor: NONE. At least not since you started pulling this crap. (Pay attention there, Mr. Riaa, I'm talking about you here.(
So, as a consumer, which product gives better value?
It's all about renting, subscribing, paying per view, etc these days. It sucks. It's not for convienence. It's not for price. It's to milk the consumer for as much as possible.
You can make the arguement that they ARE a business and should do what it takes to make more money but I would argue that the entertainment business goes far beyond that by using monopoly tactics, litigation, and lobbying politicians to make their money. This isn't a better service, and eventually we'll be forced into it.
The copy protection schemes going into media these days is a lot different then the old Macrovision on your VCR. These days, things are encrypted. Strongly. There's no way around it, we're screwed out of our fair use and there's not much we can do about it besides pay, or not watch.
Eventually I do feel as though these models will fail, as most people still prefer to own rather then rent. You buy houses, not rent them. You buy DVD's so you can have them forever. I know I like having hard copies of my stuff, accessable whenever I want for no extra charge.
I wish that more people that were using iTunes would understand how screwed they'd be if iTunes closed, and nobody supported all their music files anymore. All that investment - gone.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
First off, what if I don't want to watch it 100 times What if I just one more time in a year or so. Or when I can watch it with a friend in a couple of months. Or which ever combination I would choose to.
The fact that my right to view a program should expire is ludicrous.
Anyway, saying this is a mental issue rather than a practical one, pretty much accuses any collector of anything to be mentally unbalanced. I for one like to collect all Simpsons episodes. Not that I'm actually going to watch them all again, but if I were to think of a certain moment in a certain episode I could find and view it. Does that mean that I'm mentally imbalanced? Ehmm.. Wel ok... It probably does... Point being should I not be allowed to be?
Also, are you aware that quite a bit of series do pretty well on DVD? wink wink...
I can see charging for the show IF there are no commercials. If they want to make people pay for the shows and make money off advertising and product placement, forget that. I have pretty much given up on DVDs now because I can't stand the 15 minutes of ads prior to the disc menu. The same thing for movie theatres. You can't have it both ways and consumers are rebelling against obnoxious, never-ending advertising practices.
1. That the crud they deliver is WORTH paying $0.99 to watch in the first place.
2. If the "bought" episode becomes unavailable when the next one is broadcast, what happens if you go on vacation and miss it?
There must be a way to automate this comment.
If you don't have a three year old daughter, of course you don't know why you would want to watch the Fairytale Dora the Explorer 100 times. If you do, well, the need for multiple viewings is obvious.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Now, imagine a world where your TiVo (or DVR) won't record your show, because it is available as a PPV download. Not possible? Imagine NBC and CBS and ABC stroking checks for millions of dollars a (season/quarter/year) to Comcast or DirecTV in return for blocking recording of these shows with the "standard" DVR function. Think of it as an internal, proprietary "record none" flag. In return, every dollar above a negotiated threshhold gets split between the content creator and the content provider.
I hear money changing hands...don't you?
(yes, I own 2 SD DirecTiVos and a soon-to-be-hacked HDTiVo)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I don't get the people who are complaining about this service. It is a service. Not something that you have to use.
Sure, I prefer to record a show too with a VCR or PVR but it's nice to know that you can still watch a show legally when you forgot to record it. What's the big deal. If you don't want to pay for it, don't use it.
Rental schemes in the music industry have yet to take off (Napster? Yahoo music?). iTunes provides ownership, which I think is a cause of it's popularity ...
That simply isn't true. iTunes is big because iPods are big. I got an iPod nano as a present. If my iPod worked with Napsters all you can eat $15 a month service I wouldn't even think twice before switching. iTunes is big because the iPod is big and doesn't support WMA.
Further, I bet if iTunes offered an all you can eat service, I bet it would quickly become their most popular service. Of course, iTunes doesn't want to do this as offering music for a dollar a pop is far more profitable.
iTunes isn't a success because iTunes is better or more innovative. iTunes is a success because iPods are better, more innovative, and expertly marketed.
Personally, I like subscription models. I use Netflix over buying DvDs and would switch to an all you can eat music service for a flat rate like what Napster offers without a second thought if I had a compatible player. Buying stuff is good for collectors. Renting things is much more efficient for those that simply want to explore. I don't want to buy music to collect it. I want to listen to music for a little while and then throw it away. The same goes with DvDs, TV, and most other forms of media. Hell, if I had nice eBook, I would rent books and throw them away when I was done too.
It isn't just near, it is already here. In Belgium at least you can choose between two large ISPs (one DSL and one Docsis) offering digital TV. At the Docsis one you can get a wider selection of channels than plain old analog CATV - 40 channels -, plus 40 optional subscription channels and on-demand pay-per-view shows. The 40 basic channels are priced at 12,39 EUR per month all in.
It's all digital up to the set-top box in the living room, which converts it to plain old PAL, so the end user keeps using his analog TV.
Remember the Woody Allen joke "Someone ransacked my apartment - they broke in and left a television set".
A show I would watch is a show in which government officials appeared on camera and actually told the truth, answering questions from the audience. That would be worth paying for.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Um, this already happens. You already can't keep PPV shows on your TiVo for more than a week or something like that. A local Fox affiliate even accidentally set the flag on a random rerun of the Simpsons a couple of weeks ago, really cheesing off a lot of TiVo owners. It's pretty ridiculous!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
when, exactly, did you "purchase" any movie / software / music? Probably never. in all cases, you obtained some license to the material. for example, when you go to bestBuy and purchase a CD, all would agree that legally you have gotten a license to play the music privately - you have not, for example, been licenced to take that CD and its contents and use it in the car commercial your company has filming. You have also not gotten a license to make copies of the music and sell it on.
I did not get a license. I bought a product. Like copyrighted books, I got a physical medium I own. I also have the right of first sale. I have the right of fair use. I can share them with a friend, and they can have 100% use of them while in their posession and I can't use it, then I get full use returned to me when the purchased item is returned.
That is what I am used to for copyrighted material. When they come up with "shrinkwrap EULAs" and other such rules separate from the contract of sale, they are cheating. I'm either getting a license (in which case extra/replacement media should cost a media charge of $5 or less), or I'm buying a product with copyright restrictions (in which case it should cost full price to replace, like a book, but not be purposefully damaged to interfere with my right of first sale, right of fair use, and other rights). But what is happening is that they want all the trouble of a sale (less than real licensing) and all the control of licensing. But they can't sell me something that they then tell me later is a license, but not treat it like a license except when it is convenient for them. Well, they can and do, but it is immoral and should be illegal (is according to a strict reading of the law, but not according to how the law is currently being interpreted).
Learn to love Alaska
CBS and NBC are offering me the rare opportunity to "purchase" an episode of one of their shows which I need to watch before it expires. Hummm let me think, "purchase" a time limited show which I can record myself for free??? Humm, nope I think I'll pass on their generous offer. Call me whacky but I'm not in the habit of paying for something when I can get the exact same thing for free and not have to use it in the time frame the company specifies.
What's that, slashdot karma points??? HA! I got your karma points right here!!
Rental schemes in the music industry have yet to take off
I guess the whole video rental thing (VHS/DVD/VoD) hasn't a chance then...
Beauty is truly in the eye of the tiger
They want to charge you a buck to watch shows recorded on your DVR?
Why couldnt you just hit record for free? Or even schedule a recording?
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
...That almost sounded pretty cool there for a minute... Before all the "fine print" was divulgwed.
"hey, could you pass me a paper towel? er.. I mean... DEPLOY ABSORBTION PANEL!"
I have comcast on demand. I can stream better videos on a 56k Modem than the shit they're trying to deliver to my house. It's sad when I could watch an animated GIF with a better framerate then what I'm getting on my TV through Comcast On demand. As soon as my contract expires, i'm finding me a dish.
Do NBC and CBS show anything worth watching?
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I quit watching TV for several years until moving to an area where the cable company offered a cheap DVR rental. If they start pulling shit like this, I can drop TV again in an instant with no grief.
They need me more than I need them.
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
Or you could download TivoTool and download all the shows you already paid for onto your Mac.
John Susek
For me this would only be worth it if I can get the show without the advertisements for the $.99 ...
--
Time is on my side
you can take your 99 cent show and put it with your DRM ridden IPOD - well you know where.
DRM - your guilty and we know it.
in arizona had cox cable and the internet was blazing fast. moved to dallas area and comcast cant even compare to cox cable. sad that a company with such cruddy servce would get all the news and deals.
there is hardly anthing worth watching on tv these days anyway, who cares that they bundle hundreds of channels of crap and make ppl pay for it all and deny people the choice to choose individual channels, all so those media weanerheads can maintain their current position of craphood.
Nobody tell them about TiVo Desktop.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
that's how much the shit on both of those networks is worth
We want DOWNLOADED content that we can put on our computers and ipods, morons--not just some lame extension of cable service that's effectively useless. If you already have cable, you could Tivo or MythTV the show anyway. And if they're old episodes you can just buy, borrow, rent, or warez the DVD's.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.