Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Classic TV for Free Download

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the companies-with-perfect-security dept.

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."

9 of 366 comments (clear)

  1. Free but more details needed by dada21 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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    CBS and NBC's use of Comcast and DirectTV is outdated.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.

    1. Re:Free but more details needed by dada21 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Right, very light on details.

      As the content is being provided "freely," I think it is up to the publishers and the advertisers to decide who can see it and for how long. The #1 complaint from CD and DVD owners is "I bought the xD!!! I should use it as I please!" and this completely destroys that complaint (which is why I've never said the above).

      For now, the content owners are doing the most free market thing they can -- don't sell the content to the viewer (but to the advertiser), and control exactly who can view it and when. There is no physical medium exchanging hands, so the licensing of the programming is truly controlled (until a hack is found).

      This may not be what the /. crowd wants, but it is more in the direction of what the average viewer wants. In the long run, this really could be a win/win/win situation, depending on how well the advertisers recoup their money spent.

  2. I'll throw out the first questions by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Proprietary file format? (can't edit out commercials in Virtualdub)
    What encoding?
    Special player required?
    Quality?
    Do you have to be an AOL member?

    1. Re:I'll throw out the first questions by networkBoy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Who's going to pay for the delivery bandwith then?
      I realise it's using P2P to ease distrobution (but is is not _eliminating_ it)
      Basically that's what the ads are paying for. That's why there are only 2 mins of ads not 8.
      Don't like it? Tough, it's their content.

      As to the GP post about video production, he's spot on. I did a three minute "informertial" for UC Davis (for my wife's class). I sent her group out to do all the video taping, scripting, etc. All I did was post production work: editing, and mastering to DVD. The prof set a hard limit of 3 min and I came in at 2:59.25 (2min, 59sec, 25frames).
      My wife and her group told the prof in advance that they had someone else do the editing, as the on-campus media center had great gear with absolutly _no_ support. Since no one in the group knew the tools they were dead in the water, thus I did it on my video editing PC. That three min video took 10 hours to edit, sequence, and assemble (plus a few intermediate renders). I'm not a pro, but I can tell you that a pro would still take quite a while.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  3. Why not bittorrent? by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  4. Oh Come on! make up your mind already. by xtracto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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'
    1. Re:Oh Come on! make up your mind already. by jandrese · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The catch is that a large number of users will be in violation of their ISP's TOS if they subscribe to this service. Peer to Peer programs almost always run afoul of the "no servers" rule that nearly every ISP puts in the TOS for their "home" packages. In some TOSes they can terminate your account (with no refund) for simply responding to a ping.

      Of course almost no ISPs enforce their TOS agreements, but they are legally binding and you are in violation of contract when you do stuff like this.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  5. PC Specs by macemoneta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  6. ironic by tacocat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.