Slashdot Mirror
Classic TV for Free Download
way2trivial writes to tell us the New York Times is reporting that Warner Brothers will have over 100 classic TV shows available for free download with a 1-2 minutes of commercials per episode. From the article: "There is a catch. To use the technology, viewers will have to agree to participate in a special file-sharing network. This approach helps AOL reduce the cost of distributing-high quality video files by passing portions of the video files from one user's computer to another. AOL says that since it will control the network, it can protect users from the sorts of viruses and spyware that infect other peer-to-peer systems."
This is great news for AOL. WB is one of the last "analog" networks continually mixing hit and past programming, with a huge license to decent past programming. The lady and I don't watch the news media much, but when we do it's strictly for WGN's morning comedy newscrew. (Sidenote: WGN is the Chicago's WB and has consistently been top notch is broadcast technical superiority. The station engineers answer the phones and have helped get us quality HD reception for years.)
We always joke about Welcome Back, Kotter and I'll be the first one downloading the shows. I'll get an MCE-plug-in to do it for me. The Fugitive is a great call by Frankel's team as well.
CBS and NBC's use of Comcast and DirectTV is outdated. Why use a very limited platform that they pay for when you can use your customers' paid for bandwidth and force them to share between each other? Throw in advertising for Smallville and Sex and the City, track download/share stats, Profit!!!
Babylon 5, Wonder Woman and Chico and the Man? Great ideas. Limited time access (via DRM?) is reasonable as I can see people buying the box sets if they like the shows enough. Here's to the WB to proving it once and for all. Frankel is really risking a lot, but I'm guessing the risk is worth the possible reward. The next generation will decide if this will work.
I'm not familiar with Kontiki or AOL Hi-Q. Hopefully it won't be too burdened by adware, Sony-style rootkits, or excessive tracking beyond what and when. We'll see, right?
One feature, to accompany "Welcome Back, Kotter," will allow users to upload a picture of themselves (or a friend) and superimpose 1970's hair styles and fashion, and send the pictures by e-mail to friends or use as icons on AOL's instant-message system.
Good idea. Use AIM as a pathway as well.
AOL may not be the idiot I previously mentioned recently. I'll be the first to admit it if they balance the good with the bad.
One thing I'd LOVE to see:
Ads separate from content with content flagged for an ad to be displayed. A user could give their Zip+4, Zip, Area Code or Metropolis (picking how specific they want to be) and more area targeted ads could be displayed. Here's where Google VidWords (VidAds?) would excel, actually.
Finally, WB-AOL needs an "Internet Extender." IP based set-top box that connects to your TV. Or a USB2TV box locked to their content? Watching on your PC is a step. Watching on your TV would be a lock.
Usually the fact that a P2P network has been under some kind of central control was the exact reason it included spyware...
(Stating the obvious here, but damn..)
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
Is this just a flavor of BitTorrent, or did they develop it in-house?
This sig rocks the casbah.
Proprietary file format? (can't edit out commercials in Virtualdub)
What encoding?
Special player required?
Quality?
Do you have to be an AOL member?
The media are slowly awakening to the possibilities offered by p2p technologies. Finally. ...it's a start.
...will look a lot like that classic Lucy in the Bonbon factory episode I'm downloading.
I suspect I'll allow Real Player on my system before I accept an entire p2p install just to download some crappy TV.
"We looked at the rise of broadband on Internet and said, 'Let's try to be the first to create a network that opens a new window of distribution for us"
hahahhahhahahahhahahahahahhahahhaha(etc)
Brain(s): 0.0% user, 1.3% system, 0.1% nice, 98.6% idle
Why would the control scheme change how the program is written? They could put spyware in bitcomet just as easily.
/. are going to tear that app apart? And if they found it... hmm, think it would make the news? Thisnk it would be a free for all on aol?
If you are advertising you wont use spyware, it'd be stupid to put it in.... you don't think so guys here at
Yes, it would.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
I would put money on it that they do a bittorrent style downloader. It is working well for blizzard and it has minimal client interface. Now if only my ISP werent blocking it...
At last someone is waking up in the USA after BBC embracing new technology.
The more competition the better!
The story says "high quality" but I wouldn't be so sure that will meet everyone's expectations. They'll probably be watermarked back and forth to hell, advertisements thrown in and the res will be something ridiculous like 320x240..... Most decent hour long shows (CSI, Rome, BSG) end up on torrent sites ripped from HDTV in either 350meg or 700meg.. the latter is just awsome to watch.
When I saw the word classic, I assumed the black-and-white hits of yesteryear, but this is going to include things that I would still consider somewhat recent like Babylon 5 and Growing Pains.
Then again, maybe that just means I'm getting old.
Sounds pretty decent so far. I just hope I don't have to install some P.O.S. viewer to see this stuff.
Its good to see this type of thing happening. It really is the future of programming even if its not on the TV yet. Soon there will be real integration with the desktop and the hone theater. The problem with the P2P technology is that inherently it is not secure. its only a matter of time until someone uses it to create viruses to infect all kinds of systems. can you imagine spam on your tv?
is it just me, or does it sound like they will be hosting a torrent?
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
"AOL says that since it will control the network, it can protect users from the sorts of viruses and spyware that infect other peer-to-peer systems."
Yea . . . uh . . you know . . . AHAHAHAHHAHA, no i'm sorry, there's no way I can make a serious comment about that.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
The NYTimes isn't letting me access it so I don't know what they're using, but I'd have thought a torrent would work perfectly for this, and the fact that they control the seed will mean that they can still have control over the network.
I agree with everything you said, but one of the best aspects of this from a slashdotter's POV is that it whittles away at the filesharing == evil stigma. I think this is a big plus for business, for users, and for the future of the internet. Hopefully it will accelerate broadband penetration as well.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
...if AOL had the idea to send you their data via snail mail, on some kind of CD.
It's just so nice to see a media corporation recognize that legit uses of peer-to-peer exist. The fact that they're actually using it is even better.
Bad statistics always irk me. Yet a recent survey by the Points North Group of 1,098 Internet users found that 28 percent said they wanted to watch regular television shows on their PC's or laptops, Mr. Storck said. Yea, and in a recent phone interview, 100% of the participants have a phone line. I'd be much more interested in the number of television viewers who'd prefer to switch to watching shows on their computers if they could.
When i can download only the shows i want to watch, now that'll be the day.
AOL innovating? Hey, they might make money again one day.
There is a catch. To use the technology, viewers will have to agree to participate in a special file-sharing network.
Why precisely is this a catch? why is it something bad? isnt this somethig we have been looking for since I dont know when?
For me it is not a catch, it is the technology that allows WB to broadcast these videos on internet.
I only think about the advertisments, I guess we will only get Coca/Pepsi-cola and Microsoft adverts, since these adverts must be for a really wide audience (i.e. the whole world)
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Yes, finally! My only concern now is that they will destroy this by putting DRM, etc. They're going to want to prevent people from skipping the commercials. Lets hope they trust the honor system (and the viewers follow said system) instead of making the downloads useless by
Personally, I would gladly pay to download the few shows I like to watch. We only get ultrabasic cable, so I can't watch channels like Comedy Central anyways. A reasonable ($1-$5) per-download fee or a season subscription fee would be a great model for those who prefer to watch TV when they want to. For prices at the low end of the spectrum I would even be willing to tolerate ads.
isomerica.net | Foonetic IRC
People can complain all they want, but this is a bold step for the networks. Obviously, there needs to be improvements, but this shows that p2p is not evil like its being portrayed. Networks are finally getting the message! In time, this will improve :)
gasmonso http://religiousfreaks.com/Seriously, I trust AOL to "protect" a system around as much as I trust Microsoft to "protect" consumers from endless upgrade cycles. AOL's own software has some vaguely spyware-like characteristics; for example, it hooks itself deeply into your system (from what I've heard; obviously, I don't use AOL) in all sorts of places, and if you cancel, and accidentally double-click on any of the various icons (or do any of several other things), it will assume you want to re-activate your service. I've heard that AOL's software basically associates itself with various file types, puts itself into various context-sensitive menus, etc....
I do not trust this company to "protect" computers from spyware. In fact, I would not be at all surprised if their application took, say, a detailed audit of all software installed on one's computer.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
AOL says that since it will control the network, it can protect users from the sorts of viruses and spyware that infect other peer-to-peer systems.
Sounds like a challenge to me.
AOL is using file-sharing technology from Kontiki, a Silicon Valley company providing a similar system to the ambitious Internet video program of the BBC.
That's odd, I remember Kontiki working off of caching, which means that part of the copyrighted video would be actually stored on client's computers.
From:
http://www.kontiki.com/technology/index.html
The Kontiki Delivery Grid dynamically optimizes delivery from many PCs and media servers by caching content at the very edge of the network. This creates network efficiency gains of 10 to 25 times over traditional approaches.
It also brings legality into question for other distribution mechanisms, I would think. If Kontiki is legal, how would caching a bittorrent for an episode of "Lost" be any different?
IANAL, but I'm very interested in this, because while I understand that the producers of Lost grant only ABC distribution rights, then obviously it's not the mechanism, but the individual violation that is at fault. In other words, the success of Kontiki would basically ensure that Bittorrent would continue to be a legal distribution method, even if the content being distributed itself was not. Right?
While I'm not aware of any specific attacks on Bittorrent's legality, I know that it has been questioned before. We just had some legal cases with Grokster and others that even now have on their webpages that there is such a thing as "unauthorized peer-to-peer services". If Bittorrent is one of these, then why is Kontiki be considered not one?
Here's another link to the story.
Also, if you want to read the NYT version but don't want to create a login, check out BugMeNot.com.
I remember that Gamespot used to use an app from Kontiki for free downloads for non-subscribers. The app wasn't the most reliable and didn't always work right... they eventually ditched it.
Maybe it'll actually work better now...
This is a sig. It is appended to the end of comments I post.
I'm all for company rehabilitation, and well, last i checked aohell doesn't really have the most.... sparkling reputation for doing things right, efficiently, or securely. But if this really works then i think it's a step in the right direction for them getting back to a respectable reputation. I mean what's the worst that could happen, the filesharing is as inefficient and buggy as aol's old browsers, and the rest of the ISP's don't cooperate? Oh wait.....
You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
Haskell: Hi Mrs Cleaver, how's the Beaver?
Mrs. Cleaver: Fine Eddie. And how's your little pecker?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
While we're solving problems...
can you imagine spam on your tv?
Ah. I'm closing my eyes, trying to conjure up the vision of spam on my TV. I'm watching a Friends re-run; let's see, Joey's drinking a Coke, Phoebe's buying an apothecary table from Pottery Barn. . . hmmmm, now I'm interrupted by a commercial for Zoloft (whatever the hell *that* is, since they can't legally tell me what it does and I have to ask my doctor), Chandler makes some lame joke about Trojan condoms. . .
Uhm, nope. I can't imagine spam on my TV at all.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
years after Al Gore invented the Internet, AOL invented BitTorrent?
Multicast is still far more efficient than any P2P "broadcast", if a million or so people are watching the same thing?
I guess when Bittorrent supports multicast for sending file chunks, it could at least optimize when a multicast network is available.
Its worth mentioning that Warner is also the one studio that has really resisted the MPAA strong-arm tactics of treating customers as criminals. They wisely felt pricing their movie library competitively ($10 range) meant greater sales for them, and less piracy.
They are definitely the good guys.
One to two minutes of commercials? Are they unskippable? If so, we'll figure out not only how much people are willing to pay to not have commercials but also how many people are willing to pay to have full seek ability in their own shows....
FTA: "Of the media companies' new experiments, Peter Storck, president of the Points North Group, a research firm, remarked, 'They are saying let's take the plunge, put the content out there, and figure out how to monetize it.'"
Yes, they'll put the content out before figuring out a business plan for this venture.
FTA: "'This is great goofy stuff that fans are going to love,' Mr. Storck of the Points North Group said."
What a stupid meaningless blurb, but does remind me of Carson.
BTW, Points North Group is a consulting firm, formerly called K-Town Group, that claims expertise in digital media.
Here's a choice quote of Storck's from 4/29/05 http://www.organic.com/about/news_detail.jsp?572:
"'The DVR will prove to be the beginning, the emancipation of marketing -- and content too, but marketing,' said Peter Storck, president of K-Town Group, speaking on a separate panel. 'In some months -- 13, 18, 24 -- the DVR is going to look like the torpedo that broke the dam and crated [sic, I think] new ways of marketing.'"
This guy sure has a way with metaphors. Sure wish he'd have a way with insight.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Its gonna be BitTorrent with extra logging capabilities.
-d
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
FROM THE ARTICLE: "The company will offer a changing selection of several hundred episodes each month, rather than providing continuous access to all the episodes in a series, Mr. Frankel said, so as not to cannibalize potential DVD sales of old TV shows." Better download as much as you can as fast as you can; it seemed to good to be true.
But I DO have a problem with having to use their client to view it. I watch video in basically 2 places. On my linux computer. And on my TV by way of a computer hooked to it. Now, the problem is that it is very hard to display video to a tv. Really only programs that are full screen and have taken this into account are capable of navigating and displaying video in such a way. I want 1 program to do this. Be it sageTV, a Windows Media Center Edition, MythTV, etc. The LAST thing I want to do is open up iTunes for my iTunes protected media, (and unless something has changed I don't know about, it doesn't display on a TV worth squat), or this Time Warner client to watch their media.
Granted, I have a very poor quality TV. But even if I update to a nice, fresh one, I should only have to have 1 program running to access my media. Each protection scheme should supply some pre-compiled library that each media player can then integrate to decode the data or to do whatever is required.
I honestly think that distribution of video media over computers will be hamstrung until providers consider how the way they make their media available will work with a Home Entertainment Center PC.
I do security
AOL says that since it will control the network, it can protect users from the sorts of viruses and spyware that infect other peer-to-peer systems.
Please note that AOL never claims that they will not have their own spyware installed, merely that their version is not one that "infects" other computers. And since everyone must be part of their network, everyone will have it installed.
Granted, I'm siding with the highly likely probability that AOL will have an uber-spyware program to go long with this network. I fully expect the license agreement to have a clause like "By installing this program you agree that we can monitor and regulate any and all electronic transfers of media you may have to help ensure that you are protected from digital pirates. Y'arr!"
People who trust AOL tend to believe that they are the internet, so this should be no biggie for them. I'm sure that there will be a follow up article a year or so from now, "AOL users shocked that personal information was collected."
Is the English language REALLY so hard to master that we remain subject to errors such as this? PROOFREAD your FREAKING SUBMISSIONS!
I would suspect some of the commercials are to buy the boxed set for the episodes being viewed. Get consumers to distribute your shows in a small computer version just so they get the idea to buy the boxed set for the living room HDTV.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
My ISP says I can't use my broadband connection to host a server. When running P2P programs like kazaa lite or whatever I knew that I was in violation, but I'm surprised a company like AOL is willing to be in a position of encouraging home users to violate ISPs terms of service, being an ISP themselves.
Kontiki *IS* spyware. I remember when Gamespot used them, it was basically a spyware download manager that used DRM to hide *other* spyware.
, 00.asp
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,365073
It's amazing to me how innovative this company is. Someone immediately must create an open-source project to capitalize on this veritable torrent of bits to facilitate file transfers.
Thank you, America Online!
I'm a big tall mofo.
When TV began, distribution channels were very limited. New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, our biggest markets, had 7 channels. Most other places got a lot less.
Cable TV started in the sixties. In 1970, when I signed up for cable TV service (TelePrompTer) in West Palm Beach, we got 12 stations - one of which was a rotating camera showing ads and a thermometer. I don't think I got anything that couldn't be plucked off the air.
Living in the Philadelphia suburbs in the mid-70s, cable TV began to bring additional channels like HBO (it was only programmed in the evenings) and CNN. For programmers, and advertisers, there were additional venues.
Try to get a new cable channel on now. Even with a hundred or more slots, there isn't room for anything new. Or, if a channel does somehow get on, it is relegated to such bad 'real estate' that no one sees it.
If AOL is successful, it will open up new channels and, more importantly, change the economics of distribution.
In the old days, the broadcast networks paid to have local stations carry them. That era is ending (and has already ended for most stations). In addition, the networks allowed local affiliates to sell a few commercials within the local shows.
If the AOL experiment works, and distribution costs are reasonable, AOL can sell the local and national ads itself, in any way it wishes, and eliminate the middleman.
Most local stations understand this... well, I hope they understand this. They will have to adapt their business model when they are no longer used by others as distributors, getting free or discounted shows to fill their broadcast day.
Over the past decade, local news programming has increased. Under this scenario there will probably be even more local programming.
I don't know what this means for those channels that don't do anything but play shows from syndicators or networks. This such a radical switch. Can they change? Many are physically incapable of even producing programs in-house.
Don't dwell on the specific programs AOL is rolling out on the Internet. The titles are unimportant, because if this move is at all successful, more valuable programming will follow. It's much easier to experiment with Welcome Back Kotter, which has little value at the moment.
Unfortunately, there are corollaries to Gresham's Law that come into play here. Will the addition of all these new distribution channels drive down the quality of TV? Stay tuned.
Adventures of Brisco County Jr.
Alice
Babylon 5
Beetlejuice
Chico and the Man
Dark Justice
Eight is Enough
F Troop
The F.B.I.
Falcon Crest
Freakazoid
Freddy's Nightmares
The Fugitive
Growing Pains
Hangin' with Mr. Cooper
Head of the Class
Histeria!
Kung Fu
La Femme Nikita
Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman
Maverick
The New Adventures of Batman
Perfect Strangers
Pinky and the Brain
Scarecrow and Mrs. King
Sisters
Spenser: For Hire
V
Welcome Back, Kotter
Wonder Woman
This is what I was able to find for a full list with more content to be added over the course of a year. There are a few shows I am glad to see, can you guess one from my sig?
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Why is Apple the only one to understand that people want to own what they pay for? If I download a show from iTunes, I can do whatever I want to it (well, almost, you have to go through hoops to save it to CD). Watch it on my computer? Fine. On my iPod? Sure. On a TV? No problem. How much does it cost me to view it on all three devices? The same initial price. This lame WB/AOL plan would have me pay three times to watch it three times.
Registration-Free Link
I want to see shows like Ark II, Electra Woman and Dyna Girl, Shazam, and Isis.
"Gee Ward, you were awful hard on the Beaver last night!"
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Joanna: I love kung fu.
Peter Gibbons: Channel 39.
Joanna: Totally.
Peter Gibbons: You should come over and watch kung fu tonight.
Joanna: Ok. Ok. Can we order lunch first? Ok.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Why would AOL need peer-to-peer to save on their bandwidth? Don't they own the internet?
This is just a change in distribution, not P2P.
peer: A person who has equal standing with another or others...
I'd love to watch the ones that originally aired on these shows.
The article says: "An enhanced version of the service will use peer-to-peer file-sharing technology to get the video data to viewers... For those who want to watch on a big screen, AOL is introducing optional technology that it says will produce a DVD-quality picture."
So, if you want lower resolution 320x240ish video, you can download directly. If you want DVD quality, you use their P2P client. Seems fair to me.
In absence of more solid information, I speculate the following --
a. Low Quality; episodes would be distributed in such laughable quality so as not to eat into their DVD sales revenue.
b. Proprietary Format; ridden with bizarre DRM schemes that requires their proprietary player and phone home on your viewing habits, showers you with "targeted" ads that you can't skip.
c. Embedded in fine print (think 2 point font) of EULA that permits them to use your bandwidth to launch DDoS attack against targets of their choosing.
d. When the whole affair blows up in their face, declare "legal" (i.e. "THEIR") P2P can't possibily work and blame the failure on pirates, and push legal establishment for more laws to "enforce" their rights.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Time Warner cancels 1,267,7354 subcribers of high-speed internet for violation of the terms of service by running P2P software...
but a D for impolementation.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Shouldn't that be 'subjected', well what do I know, english is not my best language. Anyway, I'm pretty sure you were using way too many capitals.
and Space Academy, Jason of Star Command and the old Flash Gordon animated series from Filmation!
And the Jim Henson Hour!
(uh... anyone seen any torrents of these lately?)
Seriously, where do we sign up?
...is that AOL will lean on any ISP that disallows the use of their software. They wouldn't be doing this if there wasn't profit involved.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Seriously, you are correct. Virtually all of market research is done within targetted areas with a self-selecting group (which means you're not even remotely using a random, representative sample), uses extremely poor questions (which means you'll induce bias) and - strangely enough - they never mention confidence limits, variance/standard deviation, distribution or indeed anything that can tell you if their results mean anything at all. They give you a number that, in and of itself, says precisely nothing without a LOT of supporting information.
(Statistics is like paint. It doesn't work so well with thin air.)
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)
What about the original Ghost Busters?
Nobody ever believes me when I say that Ghost Busters played alongside all those shows you listed, way before the unrelated hit movie. They think I'm talking about the movie.
or a big duck
It's pretty clear from reading TFA that cable TV as we know it is (well, will soon be) OVER. This step by Warner is a watershed event that I predict will completely change television distribution as we know it. Think about it - marrying the market-targeting power of the Internet with inexpensively-produced content such as video is going to prove an unstoppable combination. Although these shows have ads in them now, it's only a matter of time before said ads will be targeted per individual, and having the P2P network provide the distribution is a much sweeter deal than any cable network could ever provide. Best of all, the ad revenue is directed 100% toward Warner, instead of trickling down to them via a cable network.
.99 DVD bins at Wal-Mart as studios decide to dip their toes into the pool.
This is revolutionary. The reason that the MPAA members haven't bought into this yet is that their content costs a lot more to produce, and hence carries a lot more risk. I would guess though, that it won't be long before we start seeing the same movies coming across a service like this as are in the
-JT
Growing Pains rules. Show me that smile agian, Don't waste another minute on your cryin'. blah blah blah, As long as we've got each other, We've got the world (spinning) right in our hands Honey, rain or shine We'll be fine (forgot this line) ...Sharing the laughter and love.
--Always, I mean never..., No I mean always check your references.--
From the kontiki site follow. Looks like no Mac or Linux:
System Requirements:
(These are the minimum system requirements. Better performance will be seen on more powerful systems.)
* Pentium II 400Mhz (or faster recommended for optimal video playback)
* 64MB of RAM
* 2GB hard drive with 500MB of free space
* Windows 98, ME, NT4, 2000, or XP
* Internet Explorer 5.01 SP2 (or later), Netscape 4.7 or AOL 6.0 (or later)
* Windows Media Player 7, RealPlayer and Quicktime are recommended for the best experience
* A 56Kbps (or faster) Internet connection
Additional Requirements for using Secure Media and Document Control Features:
* Windows Media Player 7 or later for accessing files encrypted using Windows Media Rights Manager
* Adobe Acrobat Reader 5.0 or later for accessing secure PDF documents
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
Pinky: "What we gonna do tonight, Brain?" Brain: "The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the newest broadcast medium!"
They're Pinky and the Brain, Pinky and the Brain...
To shreds you say...
So if the users are forced to participate in the file sharing network...are they sharing the file only while they are using it? Can it be turned on & off? The pessimist in me pictures a client installed by AOL, running in the background all the time, which the average Jan Brady doesn't know is there and doesn't know why her connection is slower than usual.
Don't ya hate it when the correct spelling of your favorite screen name is taken?
Why should anyone expect that AOL can protect a file sharing network from viruses any better than they protect their content and access subscribers from viruses? Furthermore, what is wrong with bit torrent? This is just what the world needs another file sharing network.
Seriously, I trust AOL to "protect" a system around as much as I trust Microsoft to "protect" consumers from endless upgrade cycles. AOL's own software has some vaguely spyware-like characteristics; for example, it hooks itself deeply into your system (from what I've heard; obviously, I don't use AOL)...
---
Lose:Win::Loose:Tight
"There" != "their" != "they're"
"Mac OS X" == OS; "Mac" == platform; "Apple" == company.
"I've heard" == "I have no idea if it's true, but I'll jump on the bandwagon"
"AOL says that since it will control the network, it can protect users from the sorts of viruses and spyware that infect other peer-to-peer systems."
If all they wanted to do is protect users they could simply use Bittorrent, which is perfectly safe as long as the source of the original seed is trustworthy. Hash checking ensures that the content I downloaded is exactly identical to the original source.
I might be willing to consume their advertising if they distributed the content via bittorrent. But there's no way I'll be installing their software. I'm sure there will be something about it I don't like, and I bet I'd only have to go as far as reading the EULA...
BAAAAA!
In order to not annoy Podcast viewers, I sure hope they put their commercials at the END of the program instead of in the middle. I'm not even sure it's possible to jump ahead and skip them, but soon, I'll be the proud owner of a Vid iPod. yay....
Pretty much. But with companies like AOL and MS, it's safer to assume the worst.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Where is this list from? I didn't see it in the NYT article.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
It would be easier to discern what TMZ stood for if you would write out the number and capitalize it ("Thirty-Mile Zone" instead of "30-mile zone"). Who do I blame--Saul Hansell or his editor--for this?
I also note that Acronym Finder's got nothing on TMZ, directing users to Acronym Attic, which offers:
No "30-mile zone around Hollywood" definitions. (I'm submitting it now to AF.)
Also, wouldn't Pressman Toy Company have some say over trademarking AOL Hi-Q, or is that lost to HiQ Computers?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
You didn't get it.
The joke I mean.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
They are fucking greedy pieces of shit. End of story.
There are tons of shows I have bought season sets for that i only learned about by trying them through P2P networks. By doing this Warner is not only making money off of advertising but they are enticing customers like me to try out shows and buy season sets on dvd if they like them. I was never and I mean NEVER going to pay 99 cents to try out a new show...they get enough of my money when i do buy the season sets. I hope the other studios follow suit and this is not just a temporary thing for Warner...I Know i'll be trying even more shows and unfortunately will be that much poorer from it ;)
The ads subsidize the cost of the programming. If you didn't have the ads you would either be paying considerably more for your current access or your broad set of offerings would be reduced to a few channels. Clearly, from your super intelligent post, I'm preaching to the choir on this one.
If you like it and want it forever, buy the DVD sets.
Your definition of forever needs some adjustment. Great I go out and buy the DVD's but then there are hinderances to me making a backup copy. So if they get scratched too badly, etc, I have to get brand new ones. Eveventually DVD will be replaced by the HD standards and then it will become difficult to find anything play my "forver" DVD.
On the other hand, if I can get things as a digital file without a bunch of hinderances, I can use RAID, backups, etc, to make sure that I can really keep that file playable well into the future.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Assuming that they allow you to use your own favorite media player to play these free shows, then the file format will be something that is non-propritary and therefor most likely will be able to be edited (commercials removed) with the right software (avisynth, virtual dub, etc.) They could go through great lengths to make their own player and propriatary format for theses videos, but that seems like too much effort for something that will be free, and for classic shows that are already paid for. The obvious guess would be the slowly-dieing AVI container format, or an MPEG varient. I wonder if these free shows will be viewable in the iPod, or sony PSP with some tweaking?
One of the articles about this says that they'll be bringing more than 300 shows. Still, that sample of the list looks pretty interesting.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
They do mod the TCP/IP stack in order to enforce parental controls... very obvious because it makes it so you have to be logged into AOL to actually do anything (yes even with broadband).
I'm friends with the youngest daughter of the former head of the PowerPC division of IBM you insensitive clod!
I agree with most of the positive sentiments here. I'm really looking forward to seeing what this looks like in final FIRST form. Likely it'll be some form of streaming video with some measure of DRM. Hopefully the resolution will be nice. Sounds like the show selection will be broad. One thing that I hope will be a side-benefit will be that WB will be able to track what old shows are really popular and may use that data to release DVD sets. They may even be able to add petitions to the tail end of some eps ("Would you be willing to buy this set on DVD?")
So if they get scratched too badly, etc
For one thing: SkipDr. For another: DVDs of old live-action TV series aren't as likely to get scratched as animated DVDs are because your kids aren't likely to want to watch them and thus won't be as likely to look for them, provided that you keep them separate from discs containing programming targeted at children.
Eveventually DVD will be replaced by the HD standards and then it will become difficult to find anything play my "forver" DVD.
Difference is that DVD has such an installed base and an identical shape to the new high-definition video disc formats that it'd be market suicide to make and sell a player that doesn't play customers' existing DVD Video disc collections in at least EDTV (480p/576p) resolution. Even today, many DVD Video players are capable of playing legacy MPEG-1 discs such as VCDs.
if I can get things as a digital file without a bunch of hinderances
Not likely. The business models of the entities controlling exclusive rights in huge back catalogs rely on digital hindrance management.
First they say that P2P networks are pure Evil.
Now they want to set up their own P2P network.
Wouldn't it be a hell of a lot simpler if they just set up P2P servers with the shows set up with commercials and let everyone use the existing P2P networks rather than reinventing the existing technology?
I recognize they need to generate revenue via pumping advertisements into the shows, but you would think they could come up with a better business model. I suspect that the only reason they are requiring use of their own network is so that they can track who downloads what for the marketing demographics and charge back to the advertisement firms.
So I guess my first concern with this is the matter of privacy on their P2P network. I'm suspicious that they will be using this network a little differently than what people have seen in the past.
AOL says that since it will control the network, it can protect users
Yes, because as we all know, AOL is all about protecting users, not trying to make profits.
You really want to protect me? Go lobby to have the DMCA repealed and DRM outlawed.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
That is "we will not be posoning our P2P network and will not be spreading our custom made viruses"
There is nothing being created here.
Doesn't matter. A lot of people involved with production still collect residuals for the first 95 years after airing of a TV show; this right to collect residuals reverts to the estate upon death.
"viewers will have to agree to participate in a special file-sharing network. This approach helps AOL reduce the cost of distributing-high quality video files by passing portions of the video files from one user's computer to another."
;-)
So I assume AOL are being sensible and using the open, tried and truster BitTorrent? On no wait, this is AOL, they'll need to write some ActiveX plugin for MSIE or something.
"AOL says that since it will control the network, it can protect users from the sorts of viruses and spyware that infect other peer-to-peer systems."
So are AOL *TIME WARNER* going to stop the MPAA/RIAA/Sony poisoning their P2P network then?
Are we going to have to write a AOL proprietary-to-BitTorrent wrapper, or is one of us going to download everything and then torrent it?
I assume it's all going to be shows we don't want to see anyway, or stuff they can't make a Buck out of on [un]remastered DVD?
#include <sig.h>
It's nice of them to share their copyrighted material. That being said, it would be much nicer of them if they'd just let it enter the public domain like it should have done in the first place. My biggest concern is that actions like this will calm public outcry enough that copyright terms are extended YET AGAIN in 2015. However they want to spin it, you can't change the fact that they are profiting from something that would belong to everyone if they hadn't continuously lobbied to have the law changed in their favor.
The success of In2TV is going to have nothing to do with the merits of the project.
It's going to hinge on whether or not In2TV is supported under Linux.
Shocking, huh? "Why?" I hear you ask.
Simple. Linux users are the most persistant type of computer user. If something doesn't work in Linux, it will be hacked at until it does. Conversely, if something already works, and works well, there's less incentive to hack at it. The "good" programmers will concentrate on other projects, and a couple of the newbs will beat impotently at the In2TV protocol until their hammers bleed.
"But what's that got to do with the success of In2TV?"
Once a Linux user or LUG has built a working In2TV player for Linux, its popularity will spread like wildfire. Within a week of release, it will be ported to Windows. Within the same week, someone will have determined how to remove the ads and save the stream to disk. A month after a Linux-unsupported In2TV release, there will be hundereds of Linux users archiving all 300 episodes per month. Two months after, there will be _thousands_ of Windows users doing the same.
And AOL, as they have been in the case of "free riders" using GAIM, will be impotent to stop it.
And example from the other direction. Ever notice how there's no production quality open source marcromedia flash display software? Yeah. It's because "good" programmers aren't going to waste their time on rebuilding something that already works and works well for their platform of choice - the Flash plugin for firefox. All in nice closed source proprietary form.
So, a message to AOL: Make In2TV support Linux, ensuring at least a few years of sustainability for your product, or have In2TV fail within months from the abuse of over zealous users.
P.S.: I actually hope you DON'T take my advice. The faster your company goes down, the faster the rest of the media industry will go with it.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
I don't agree that this is "no cost". I value my time (yeah, yeah, I'm using it to post here), and I don't want to spend it watching or editing out lame commercials. Considering the track record of the giant media companies (hi, Sony!), this is one "gift" horse whose mouth should be thoroughly checked. I don't want to spend time doing that either. "Offering a product at no cost" assumes a lot. Some company offers sunshine (filtered for your safety!) for "free" and, boy, you sure bought into the notion that someone has to own the sunshine and gosh aren't they nice for "giving" it away. You write as if our "first response" is ingratitude for hacking this "deal", and cynicism for being suspicious. You surely don't agree to every deal anyone shoves your way. You don't always use every product in its intended way only, do you? We geeks are not mindless consumers. If they aren't offering much value most of us will notice that pretty quick. If they regard geeks as "bad" customers because we're too smart to buy garbage or pay for the same thing multiple times, that's just fine. I don't want to be targeted by such businesses, and find it tiresome being repeatedly treated like I'm desperate, stupid, or vulnerable to pressure. I sure am NOT whining that they don't pay attention to geeks. Let them cancel Firefly (whatever that was), Farscape, and whatever else. Hate to tell you that your dreams of geek market power by means of geeks engaging in profligate mindless consumerism aren't realistic. You sound like a corporate shill when you say stuff like that.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
If AOL is serious about this, it could kill 99% of "piracy" and remove the need for DRM at the same time. While there is a certain small percentage that will copy these shows just for the entertainment value of collecting them in one place, the vast majority of people would not bother.
You have to look at why people copy video. (please add more if I missed any) 1) Cost This is not an issue if the shows are advertisement sponsered. 2) Commercial free At one to two minutes per show, few people will be willing to take the time edit out the commercials, or to chase down the moving target of p2p/pirate sites to get a show without 1 to 2 minutes of commercials. If the consumer doesn't need to fiddle with the video to strip DRM, they are less likely to spend the time to cut commercials. 3) Quality If the quality is as good as standard TV, few will seek out the alternative sources. 4) Convinence If they keep all the shows available all the time without DRM or the need for a special client, people won't need to keep local copies to know that they will be able to pick the show they want to watch with just a remote. 5) Portability If people know they can always go back to the well for another copy, and the shows have no DRM, they won't feel the need to stockpile shows to have future access. They will fill their portable device, and delete when done to make room for new shows. 6) Hording is fun Some people download tons of music and videos, just to horde. These people often are not even listening/watching this content. Sometimes they download more content that they could watch/listen to in their lifetimes. These people aren't actually a concern because the data is not music/video until it is decoded. 7) Alternate OS/TV Top Device This can really only be solved by not implenting DRM or a specialize client. 8) Privacey If the data collected is limited to volentary data and date/time/file data without personally identifiable data, few will complain. No doubt this is a step in the right direction. If the stay away from artificial scarcity, and DRM, they will have removed almost all reasons for piracy.
Enzyte
XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-U
You mean shows. Content, if any, could be in either ads or shows.
I've got some prior art on the idea:
8 37148
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=141060&cid=11
Humans really need to hit the next level of evolution, where we evolve into decent fair people so we can continue to progress. Jesus is going to be really pissed off when he comes back, he'll probably say something like: "Quit being dicks to each other, quit killing mother fuckers in my name and for god's sake quit smoking crack!
Hey, I think I figured out what Martin Luther King Jr. meant by I have a dream... he was dreaming about a day when we would all set down our crack pipes and make out with each other.
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
Won't your ISP just end up throttling the connection for "excessive serverlike activity" the way they always do when you spend too much time on bittorrent?
I've heard that AOL's software basically associates itself with various file types, puts itself into various context-sensitive menus, etc....
Hmm, that would make them just exactly like... Apple! Thier QuickTime player is perhaps the worst offender w.r.t. taking over things you don't want it to. Heck, QT takes over as your *TIFF* viewer, even when you tell it not to. Apple/QT is now far worse about hijacking PCs than Real, who for all their faults at least listened to complaints and made new versions much less intrusive.
But somehow, Apple is immune from serious criticism, even if it's justified, and that's especially true here on Slashdot...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
It could be an ideal compromise of moderate penis size and moderate duck size. Wouldn't that be something?
In a related vein, DTV is doing some great things. It's a video content aggregation application for the internet that anyone can make a channel and appear on. Granted, mostly right now it's just homemade vids & podcast type videos, but creating an application like this where all channels & networks can post thier vids to would be great for the consumers.
"Sadly the same can't be said for many things put together with a DV and a bootleg copy of Final Cut. Just to to reach a minimal production threshhold costs money: professionals aren't cheap."
/. ills) will be filled to overflowing with free, quality material that will please everyone, and render all those (overpaid) professionals the next cliche "buggy-whip".
Of course by eliminating all forms of IP (by the fact it can't be owned, "Information wants to be free") will quickly correct this situation, and the Internet (that panacea for all
Here is something I've been thinking about for the past couple of months now.
d eo-bittorrent-diggcom.html
http://alecperkins.blogspot.com/2005/10/google-vi
"There is a catch. To use the technology, viewers will have to agree to participate in a special file-sharing network. This approach helps AOL reduce the cost of distributing-high quality video files by passing portions of the video files from one user's computer to another. AOL says that since it will control the network, it can protect users from the sorts of viruses and spyware that infect other peer-to-peer systems."
Of course there will be a catch whenever some corperation decides to give something away for free. Keep in mind that when you buy into AOL's idea here, you buy into their control of their own P2P technology. Whenever a corperation gives something away for "free", there will be always be something that they will not tell you. Do you really think a corperation who is about making the money will really give up full control to a P2P network? I'm sure that their special software that you have to download in order to access this content will contain other types of software bundled with it (software that you don't or won't need). This is just a warning to anyone who is looking to get something for free from Corperate America.
Also, P2P technology has been a legal battle that the RIAA and the entertainment industry has been fighting against for years to protect its artist's royalties. So, my question is, what gives the legal right to AOL to distribute TV shows over a peer-to-peer/file-sharing network where if individuals use programs like kaaza or limewire> to share files over the P2P/file-sharing networks which already exists on the internet? Somewhere someone would have to pay for these shows or the rights to offer this content for free to the end user. Then if advertisers take up this responsiblity then great for the little guy.
AOL's "protected file-sharing network" is not and will never be invisible to viruses and/or spyware because the cleanliness of the P2P network is dependant on the cleanliness of its client's computers and the fact it is connected to the internet.
yes, but... does it have porn?
I speak England very best
When I RTFA, my immediate thought was, "If they'll give me the shows I want, in a format I can use anywhere I want and archive however I please, I'll be happy to watch a few commercials, even ads between segments in the normal way for regular TV."
But better for keeping the ad content fresh, put the ads in the download client; that would be acceptable, and maybe even useful ("Buy the DVDs here!" and "Since you like Show XX, you may want to try Show ZZ too, to be offered [date].") This in fact would be a good place for clever TV-style ads that people might enjoy for their own sake. The client could even have both video and google-style ads.
Video ads would need to be mutable, tho -- meaning designed to get the message across without sound, since obviously no one wants to listen to ad blare all day long. How about video ads with user-selectable soundtracks, or even internet radio in the download client? If your ad method is both non-annoying and entertaining, we'll welcome it.
As an alternative model, there are plenty of shows I'd pay a buck or two for, if the quality was high enough. There's another point where ads in the download client could be useful: "This free download is merely SVCD quality. Want DVD quality downloads, for only a buck? click here."
OTOH, ephemeral, proprietary, or non-burnable copies are of no use to me (tho watermarking is fine), with or without advertising. If I'm going to this much bother, I want to be able to view the show whenever I like, on whatever device I prefer, and make a hardcopy archive whenever I need to. Otherwise I might as well buy the DVD up front... and for most shows, I just don't care enough to spend that much.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
It makes one wonder what Rootkit they'll use this time.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
...except the ones they choose to introduce themselves. **cough**Sony**cough**
It's already a free-for-all on AOL. Why should they care?
The question is, who controls the network? Big corporations don't want to kill P2P, they want to pwn it, and they do that in part by stomping on anyone who isn't paying them money. AOL is a big corporation, and no doubt paying money to the IP holders in question.
The In2TV.com domain name is still for sale for anyone looking to make AOL/Time Warner get down on their knees and beg for it. :-)
He admits he made his living (a nice one, I'm sure) off of media production for major networks. He's a biased little troll.
Follow the money!
I don't get it, why are they using Kontiki P2P when Microsoft Avalanche P2P technology is a much better alternative?
m
c _contentdist.pdf
n g_microsoft/
http://research.microsoft.com/~pablo/avalanche.ht
Avalanche is an improvement over BitTorrent for file distribution. There's a good research paper on it at:
http://www.research.microsoft.com/~pablo/papers/n
which is capably summarized in the following Register article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/16/fileshari
You're comparing apples and oranges. Avalanche is just a research paper, not a product. It's not even vaporware yet--there's not even a product announcement, let alone a shipping piece of software.
There's stuff on TV at 2am that you wouldn't watch in the daytime if you had anything better to do and weren't bored or stoned, but the TV channels will run it because enough people at 2am are bored or stoned and have nothing else to watch that the Ginsu Knife commercials can pay for the airtime. Later at night, or even earlier on some channels, the infomercials take over and don't even bother pretending to fund content, and they seem to make enough money at it to pay for the TV airtime.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks