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."

Comments

Free but more details needed

[dada21]

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CBS and NBC's use of Comcast and DirectTV is outdated.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

Re:Free but more details needed

[kerecsen]

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.

I think the major deterrent will be this (FT fine A):
"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."

So just when you are in the middle of a season, the show will go out of rotation and you have to go and get the DVD anyway (or wait -- 4800 episodes, a few hundred per rotation -> at least 6 months).

Re:Free but more details needed

[Saxerman]

From TFA:
The service, called In2TV, will be free, supported by advertising, and will start early next year. More than 4,800 episodes will be made available online in the first year.

Programs on In2TV will have one to two minutes of commercials for each half-hour episode, compared with eight minutes in a standard broadcast. The Internet commercials cannot be skipped.

The article is extremely light on technical details, saying only that it "will use peer-to-peer file-sharing technology to get the video data to viewers." This, along with the commercials which cannot be skipped, suggests a custom client will be required to view the content, which probably means alternative OS users will not be supported. Regardless of how tentative it is, I Personally think it's a great first move at bringing old content online. Considering this is a free service, I guess we can't really complain, and it will be exciting to see what happens when their protocol is decrypted so we can stream the content to our player (or file) of choice.

In related news, Firefox 1.07 would crash on loading TFA, but 1.5RC2 doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

Re:Free but more details needed

[dada21]

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.

Re:Free but more details needed

[dada21]

Why is this a deterrent? You're not buying content, so why should you keep it forever? If you like it and want it forever, buy the DVD sets.

Possibly, in the future, they'll have a link at the end of a certain episode saying "To see the rest of this season, click here to order the full season." This isn't a bad idea actually. Get someone hooked on the first half of the season, and charge them for the latter half. It's something the drug dealers have done for eternity :)

Re:Free but more details needed

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

Throw in advertising for Smallville and Sex and the City, track download/share stats, Profit!!!

Congratulations!!!! You just solved for the mysterious '???' of the three step Profit mantra.

Re:Free but more details needed

[dr.badass]

Finally, WB-AOL needs an "Internet Extender." IP based set-top box that connects to your TV.

A box that allows you to watch television on your television? I think I can get behind that.

Re:Free but more details needed

[Midnight Thunder]

I think it would be AOLs interest to actually come up with clients for alternative OSs (MacOS X and Linux being the main two), since it would reduce the need for a third party to hack the system. Then again, there shouldn't be anything stopping AOL from using a Bit Torrent based solution, and then simply requiring that you visit their site to view the catalogue - ok I haven't thought about all the practical issues yet. If the ads are in the "master" copy as opposed to being tagged on prior to download, then this shouldn't cause too many problems.

Given the past history AOL has had with Apple (from Quantum Computer Services to eWorld to iChat) it would make sense for them to maintain this relationship and produce something in a format suitable for the iPod. MPEG4 and H.264 are both becoming more common and are considered industry standards, so in using this format the shows should potentially play on the iPod, most computers and then eventually any other portable video players. Sure the quality is not the best, but if you want good quality with no adverts, then you always have the option of buying the season DVDs.

Central control = no spyware? Ha...

[MS-06FZ]

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..)

I'll throw out the first questions

[voice_of_all_reason]

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

Re:I'll throw out the first questions

[TedTschopp]

And don't forget, how can I put this in my iPod.

Re:I'll throw out the first questions

[jschottm]

Proprietary file format? (can't edit out commercials in Virtualdub)

And slashdot types wonder why media companies aren't falling all over themselves to cater to them. A company offers you FREE content in exchange for including ads in it. The FIRST thing you want to do is edit out the ads.

Want it without ads? Buy it.

Content costs money to create, particularly movies/TV. If you've never been involved in TV (let alone Movie) quality production, you might be surprise at how hard it can be. Despite the hype, you can't make a decent show with a DV Cam and a Powerbook.

If you want the content you like to be delivered to you in the format you want, you have to provide some kind of economic benefit back to those that produce it.

Re:I'll throw out the first questions

[peragrin]

If content costs money, then why do media companys publish so much bullsh!t content?

If they cut some 60% of the crap that is out there, they could save billions.

Re:I'll throw out the first questions

[xigxag]

Proprietary file format? (can't edit out commercials in Virtualdub)

Probably so, but I think AOL realizes that it will be impossible to completely prevent some determined pirate from editing out the commercials. Rather, they are relying on a principle that Apple uncovered -- that if you make things simple and reliable, most people would rather get a quick legitimate copy from a reliable source than an iffy bootleg which may be bad quality and may not even be what it purports to be. The average person will reason, why risk stiff criminal penalties for an illegal download when you can get it for free, or rather, just for watching a few commercials? (Surely we don't think it's coincidental that the carrot and the stick are being shown to us at the same time, do we?)

Re:I'll throw out the first questions

[pinkocommie]

In principle i agree but shouldnt that content be already paid for many times over. From the original copyright duration, all programming prior to 1998 /1991 (duration dependant) should've been free/public domain :)

Re:I'll throw out the first questions

[orac2]

Because even bullshit costs a hellava lot more money when produced by professionals. Consider, say, Mission to Mars, which is my standard example of Worst Movie Ever. However, lets ignore the wooden acting, bland direction and painful script for now. All the actors are in focus. They all have competently applied make up. The picture isn't grainy. You can't see any plywood poking out from behind the fairely extensive sets. The costumes look realistic. The audio is fine: you can hear the actors' lines without the music, sound effects, or ambiant noise drowning them out. There's a score. The custom 3-d modelling is competent. You can't see bits of camera equipment or sound booms in the frame, and so on. 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.

Anyhoo, I suspect that your idea of what's crap may not exactly match up with what's mine, or others', raising the question of which 60% gets cut. I suspect that a lot of crap is actually responsible for some of the highest profits in the industry, so the exec's wouldn't exactly be saving billions in any case.

Re:I'll throw out the first questions

[networkBoy]

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

Re:I'll throw out the first questions

[Zathrus]

You make valid points, but the question remains -- what's the file format?

I don't care so much about editing out the commercials, but the fact of the matter is that if I can't watch it on my TV in a reasonable manner then this is of absolutely no use to me.

And the only way to make it watchable on TV in a reasonable manner is to provide it in MPEG-2 format, or something that can be easily transcoded to that -- then you can burn it to DVD and watch it on any DVD player (or, in my case, stick it on my server and transfer it to a TiVo to watch).

Heck, if you provide all the stuff necessary to burn a DVD easily then you can make the commercials non-skippable, at least for most users who won't take the time to figure out how to edit the control files/content to change that.

Re:I'll throw out the first questions

[jschottm]

why do media companys publish so much bullsh!t content?

A number of reasons. Some of it is because people have different tastes. Most forms of media out the have had a number of people that thought it was worth spending money on making. There's a small amount of stuff that's generated just as a tax writeoff, but mostly it's a combination of bad judgement and the fickleness of the public. You basically create a bunch of stuff that you think is good, throw it out to the public, market it, and see what becomes popular. No one could have predicted the ubiquitous coverage that "Standing outside a broken phonebooth with money in my hand" received. You make a bunch of stuff like that and put it out. If you do it right, you make enough money to cover all of the experements, reward the ones that did well, and stay in business as a company.

Related to that is the fact that influential people will sometimes latch onto a bad project for whatever reason and push it forward. Hence why things like Battlefield Earth get made - a big enough person wants it to happen and the studios decide that placating that person is worth it. If Tom Cruise wants something to happen, it will, because the public will go see things that Tom Cruise is in.

Another part of it is that lowbrow tends to sell well. Insert the usual comments on Bread & Circus, no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American Public, and so on. Horrible sitcoms and reality shows not only attract a larger audience than, say, Firefly, but attracts an audience less likely to Tivo/download shows.

If they cut some 60% of the crap that is out there, they could save billions.

Perhaps. I have thousands of CDs, the vast majority of them are far from the mainstream, and a good chunk of them are prolly things that you'd describe as crap. People have different tastes.

Re:I'll throw out the first questions

[jschottm]

the content broadcaster gets paid for the ads by the advertisers when I download them, whether I watch them or not, as long as nobody but me knows that I didn't actually watch them. I could make a sandwich or use the restroom during the commercial and it would have the same effect as transcoding the media file without the commercial, just like with real TV.

True, and a certain amount of that is expected, although I'm sure they're considering something like the semi-interactive ads at Salon.com. (If I were in charge of the program, I'd also offer a low cost payment to get rid of the ads entirely, but that's just me.) There's a certain amount of ignoring expected. I imagine that part of what they're going to try to do is use targeted ads ala Google Ads to deliver ads that you might actually be interested.

But back to my original point - it's mostly about the perception of the geek audience. If I were an executive deciding what shows to offer and saw the original poster's immediate desire to remove the ads, and then looked at usage statistics and saw that geeks watched a lot of B5 and very little Wonder Years, I'd stop making things like B5 available. The very vocal part of Slashdot wants their media for free. No matter how the industry tries to accomidate them (iTunes, legal Napster, this), they will never be happy because they "deserve" media without any restriction or payment. This is a completely unworkable business model that will only lead less media that appeals to their segment (which, sadly, tends to overlap with mine) because companies simply can't make money doing it. Of course, most of these techno-utopians tend to not actually give anything back to society while demanding that others provide things to them for free..

Re:I'll throw out the first questions

[jschottm]

These are old shows that have long since been paid for.

And you KNOW this how? Further, if you bought stock in a company, would you support a regulation that you could only sell it for 150% of what you bought it for, or that after the dividents had brought in 150% of your purchase price you had to give it away? Corporations exist to make money. This money goes into making new things and providing money to the owners.

In fact, most of them should have entered the public domain long ago if our copyright system were not corrupted by dirty politicians being bribed by rich lobbyists.

The shows I saw listed were all created within the past few decades, within copyright protectiong long before there were masses of rich lobbyists extending copyright laws.

People can make good shows for much less than you think

OK, prove it. I speak with over a decade of professional experience in the music industry. I have also dabbled in video, doing costuming, lighting, camera work, audio recording, and editing/post production. My work's appeared on ESPN, PBS, and Australian music video programs. Not a ton of work, but enough to know what even just lighting a scene to look good takes. Your qualifications are?

Take a look some time at the numbers for the production cost of TV shows.

Slashdot favourite, Farscape, cost somewhere around $2 Million per episode, just to make it.

The last time I saw the numbers some people worked it out that to pay for the production, manufacturing, and distribution to give every cable and satellite subscriber every show on cable on DVD, without ads, would cost about eight dollars a month.

OK, let's pretend that there's 2 billion people in the world in this equation, all of whom pay in $8/month. Let's further pretend that there's 150 channels (In fact, there'd be many more than that, because once you go global there's going to have to be channels that provide local/local language programming), with 6 hours/day of unique programming. That works out to:

2,000,000,000*$8=
$16,000,000,000 pot. Divided by 150 channels:
$106,666,666 per channel. Divided by 30 days in a month:
$3,555,555 per day. Divided by 6 hours of unique programming leaves:
$592,592 per hour of programming.

And that's supposed to include the cost of distributing the content to the users on DVD too? I think their math is a little suspect. Perhaps they set out with an assumption and looked for "evidence" to prove it?

This is not about rewarding artists so they will make more content.

Actually it is - the artists involved get residuals from old shows.

How many more episodes of "The Prisoner" are going to be made that would not be made is copyrights were cut down to 7 years?

None. But your question is broken because no matter what (within the realm of likely possibility), no more episodes of "The Prisoner" will ever be made. It's about as valid as me asking how many more episodes would be made if I don't shoot two dozen adorable little puppies in the head.

What is more important is whether actors can continue acting in small but interesting shows such as the Prisoner rather than some schlocky sitcom, knowing that the Prisoner audience will be far more likely to subvert payment systems. What is more important is whether anyone would fund making more shows LIKE the Prisoner, based on the behaviour of the fans of existing shows. I can assure you that reducing copyright to 7 years would cause media production of all kinds to fall drastically. Sure, there'd be some amateur stuff that would try to fill in the gaps, but you know, amateur work is called that for a reason. The vast majority of it simply isn't very good and finding the stuff that is can be a major pain. I'd far rather watch The Prisoner than public access cable. How about you?

Re:I'll throw out the first questions

[LWATCDR]

I feel the key is to use old commercials. If the show is from the 70s use 70's style commercials. People might not even edit them out if they could. I am sure that somebody will break the DRM at some point in time.

Re:I'll throw out the first questions

[orac2]

Well, let me see. There was a) the complete and utter disregard for the basic laws of physics and large chunks of biology (see Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy site for more), b) the retread of plot elements from 2001:A Space Odyssey and many other places, c) the plot holes (Why would the aliens go to another Galaxy when Mars was threatened? Why not go live on Earth, instead of just stopping by to drop spores all over it? Also, why have an astronaut killing defense system at all?) d) the aforementioned poor acting (with the honorable exception of Don Cheadle who gave it the old college try) -- it's not that the cast are bad actors per se, but these weren't great performances -- and e) stodgy dialogue.

So, there you go, just those five things. :)

Don't Immediately Bash This..

[lightyear4]

The media are slowly awakening to the possibilities offered by p2p technologies. Finally. ...it's a start.

I suspect AOL's attempted p2p network control...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

"Classic"

[eMartin]

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.

Ah . . *sniff*

[OverlordQ]

"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.

Why not bittorrent?

[91degrees]

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.

Re:Why not bittorrent?

[Solder Fumes]

You must not be familiar with Bittorrent, or you'd know that with some clients implementing decentralized tracking, the torrent can live on long after the tracker is gone. At least, I think you meant to say tracker instead of seed, right? Because a seed is merely someone who has downloaded the whole file and is uploading only.

win/win/win

[xigxag]

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.

Re:win/win/win

[Beardydog]

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but broadband is already saturated with penetration.

Re:win/win/win

[dada21]

I originally had a similar comment but edited it out as I figured I was saying too much and I feared that if they did this wrong, it would actually be negative for filesharing. It CAN be "filesharing == good" but it could also be "publisher controlled DRM'd == good" and that would be bad.

Re:win/win/win

[NeoTwig]

Looking at the subject of your post, I can't help but wonder if those are the list of supported operating systems for this service.

Re:win/win/win

[budgenator]

it whittles away at the filesharing == evil stigma

Kontiki 5.0 Leading the Evolution in Digital Media Delivery
Content protection
  Content cannot be copied or shared illegally from one device to another
  A centrally managed publishing process allowing only authorized parties publish content to the system
Rapid content delivery
  Creates a compelling internet based offering for the consumer with a superior end user experience through DVD quality video delivery
  Can deliver content from one client behind a firewall to another

Sorry I just don't see how a commercial rip-off of bittorrent style technology, with some DRM shoe-horned in (probably very lame weak, encryption) is going to make file-sharing anymore respectable.

Users on Macintosh and Unix workstations can retrieve Kontiki-powered content using standard http download via their browser. Some security features may not be available to these users.

I read that as if your on a Mac, Linux or solaris machine your just shit- outa-luck, and if you think your going to download a program from you desktop to your laptop to watch later, your SOL also!

Re:win/win/win

[bluephone]

Only in middle class homes close to urban or major suburban centers. Get more than a couple miles away from a CO and you have either cable or nothing. And even with cable, I'm (currently) in an area served by Time Warner, and cable Internet has been coming Real Soon Now for three years. Absolutely NO progress there. I have DSL, but I'm close to the CO. MANY people around here want but can't get DSL. Broadband still has plenty of room to grow once it bothers to reach out and serve more people.

Re:win/win/win

[snuf23]

"saturated with penetration"

Is that the same as having every hole filled?

Re:win/win/win

[schon]

I just don't see how a commercial rip-off of bittorrent style technology, with some DRM shoe-horned in (probably very lame weak, encryption) is going to make file-sharing anymore respectable.

Then perhaps you need glasses.

Current P2P is demonized by big media companies - they say it's evil and destroying their profits.

We now have a major media corporation talking about how *wonderful* their P2P app is. The perception amongst those who don't know better *can only* be "hmm, maybe this P2P stuff isn't all that bad after all."

Re:win/win/win

[vandil]

In some cases, twice.

You know what would be cool...

[Anonymous Coward]

...if AOL had the idea to send you their data via snail mail, on some kind of CD.

Legit uses of P2P!

[Kelson]

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.

Statistics

[olego]

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.

Oh Come on! make up your mind already.

[xtracto]

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)

Re:Oh Come on! make up your mind already.

[jandrese]

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.

Re:Oh Come on! make up your mind already.

[Comboman]

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)

Pretty much the same as network TV now (minus the ability to insert local ads by the local affiliates). You could talor the ads somewhat by show and target viewers (i.e. Hair dye ads during Sex and the City, Internet dating service ads during Babylon 5, Scientology ads during Welcom Back Kotter, etc.).

Re:Oh Come on! make up your mind already.

[ikegami]

MSN clients, ICQ clients, FTP clients (in active mode) and many more clients create server sockets. I'm not sure that makes them servers. The language of the TOS of these ISPs is outdated. If the problem is excessive use of upload bandwidth, the TOS should talk about this, not servers.

Re:Oh Come on! make up your mind already.

[spinfire]

A broadband ISP would be crazy to enforce this, since one of the largest selling points of broadband access is quick downloads of large media content such as this. I'm not saying it would make people go back to dialup, but I do think the cable/DSL/FiOS speed war is fueled by the downloading of media. ISPs use their download rates to attract new customers at a price premium, and it works. Remove that incentive and you'll be back to the lowest common denominator (768k DSL.. how can they even call it broadband?!).

They finally get it! (hopefully)

[spinfire]

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.

Re:Bittorrent style

[iamhassi]

"Now if only my ISP werent blocking it..."

i'm guessing ur ISP isnt AOL then...

Step in the right direction.

[gasmonso]

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/

Re:Central control = no spyware? Ha...

[Caspian]

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.

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.

Uhh...

[Sheepdot]

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?

Re:Uhh...

[barfy]

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?

Because it is ostensibly controlled by the owner of the copyright, which means they are controlling the means and methods of distribution, which is the central power of copyright. Nothing here changes or makes the illicit distribution of "Lost" legal.

Re:Uhh...

[Lehk228]

using kontiki to violate copyight law would be illegal, using bittorrent to violate copyright law would also be illegal. there is no difference really if they give permission to download via torrent it would be legal, if they give permission to download via kontiki it would also be legal.

there isn't anything special about using a peer to peer network for distribution, the advancement is a social advancement in WB seeing the market for free downloads with ads as comparable to free broadcasts with ads.

Re:Uhh...

[schnarff]

The main issue is the intent of the network doing the distribution. Grokster et al were found to be illegal because they promoted lawbreaking as their primary raison d'etre -- with ads like "download the top 40 here" and other things that clearly were designed to incude infringement. Since Bittorent is content-neutral as a technology, it can't be declared illegal under MGM v. Grokster, since those who created/maintain it don't intend for its primary purposes to be infringing, and aren't encouraging infringement directly.

Go read the opinion -- it's publicly available for free, and it's really not hard to understand at all. (BTW, I copied that link straight from www.supremecourtus.gov, so it's as legit as it gets, despite what Slashdot may say about the domain. :-P)

another link

[Call Me Black Cloud]

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.

Kontiki

[daranz]

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...

Is Leave It To Beaver one of them?

[winkydink]

Haskell: Hi Mrs Cleaver, how's the Beaver?
Mrs. Cleaver: Fine Eddie. And how's your little pecker?

Re:blah.. corporate quality for corporate citizens

[mattwarden]

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.

So you've heard, right?

Spam on TV

[Tony]

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.

Re:Spam on TV

[schon]

let's take Zyrtec, which for a long time ran advertisements consisting of people climbing mountains and shouting out the drug's name

To be honest though, that was just because nobody but their marketing department knew how the hell to pronounce it. :o)

Its worth mentioning...

[tgd]

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.

Special network my ass

[MetalliQaZ]

Its gonna be BitTorrent with extra logging capabilities.

-d

Not as good as it seems

[DisplacedJoshua]

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.

Re:Proprietary or No?

[brajesh]

FTFA-

"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."

and a google search brought me here at Kontiki's page.

required clients are blocking true integration

[Gyorg_Lavode]

I am very happy that companies such as apple, ABC, and Time Warner are making tv shows available over the internet. But I have a signifigant problem with their implimentation. I have no problem watching a 1-2 minute comercial that can't be skipped. I have no problem loading proprietary software to watch their show so they can trust that I am not missusing my license to the media.

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.

Re:required clients are blocking true integration

[Chrononium]

Just a small comment on the iTunes thing ... at least on the Mac, you can open up protected files (audio or video) with Quicktime (as long as the computer is authorized), which allows you to play the stuff fullscreen or on a TV.

Re:required clients are blocking true integration

[dublin]

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.

No, the PC will never be it - people watch TVs because watching PCs sucks pond water.

Pay attention to what this enables, though, even if it's not in the announcement: There is nothing about the technologies decscribed that would prevent downloading them as new features for a Tivo unit connected to an Ethernet. Tivo's been trying madly to get me to plug mine into the net, offering useless and entirely uncompelling freebies like the "home media option". If I could access decent programming through my Tivo, though (so it's on my TV, not my computer, where I have never, ever, watched a movie), that might convince me both to hook the Tivo to the net as well as consider keeping Tivo's ridiculously priced service. $15/mo for a guide is a ripoff, but if they were to throw in the ability to download and watch whatever I want from a reasonably large library of decent quality shows, they've dramtically increased the desirability of Tivo's service.

Note that when presented this way, this is an very interesting and much more practical hybrid between traditional Tivo wishlist recording and true VoD systems, and one that has a preexisting very large viewer base just waiting for the right software upgrade for thier Tivo boxes. This service, like all broadcast services, wants eyballs - and Tivo can deliver them - without a PC and the tech hassles that would otherwise limit the audience to propellerheads.

Interestingly, this effectively makes WB's archive yet another cable channel (although with somewhat different flexibility, since there's no "live" feed), but one that does not have to pay for transponder space, or deal with the MSOs. AOL could easily springboard this into hundreds of similar "channels", somce of which would even be mirrors (as in archive mirrors!) of existing channels. Miss that cool "Dogfights" special on the History Channel the other night? Maybe you just discovered a cool new series and want to "catch up" on the old episodes? No problem - just tell the Tivo to download them from the archive and you've got a week or two to watch them before they automatically vanish. This really could change TV viewing forever - it's almost as good as real VoD, but isn't locked into clunky cable networks - AOL and DirecTV could clean up with this sort of thing in a DirecTivo-NG. Just don't let AMC put seventy-five commercial breaks into a movie using only three commercials, and it'll work fine...

Weasel Speak

[jeffvoigt]

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."

This is much bigger than Kotter reruns

[ctwxman]

I work in local television. I told some co-workers last night and got a 'so what' response. Maybe they're right. Maybe I'm paranoid. I see this as a very large test to find if online distribution of TV is cost effective.

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.

The List

[thebdj]

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?

Everyone's missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not something like bittorrent. You don't get to keep the TV show after you've watched it. This is yet another lame pay-per-view deal. They say they don't want to cannibalize DVD sales, so they will rotate the available shows every few weeks. So great, I get to pay to watch Chico and The Man, and if I want to save it to my computer I'm out of luck? So if I want to watch it a second time I get to pay The Man again? No thanks.

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.

Reg-Free Link

[karmatic]

Registration-Free Link

Dirtist words every uttered on prime time TV?

[Bodhammer]

"Gee Ward, you were awful hard on the Beaver last night!"

Do you ever watch kung fu?

[digitaldc]

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.

Why would AOL need peer-to-peer?

[Tax Boy]

Why would AOL need peer-to-peer to save on their bandwidth? Don't they own the internet?

Which commercials?

[RandoX]

I'd love to watch the ones that originally aired on these shows.

PC Specs

[macemoneta]

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

Re:Kontiki = DRM

[ZachPruckowski]

Does DRM matter? If it is free, I can access it whenever I want to redownload it. It'd be a pain to have to re-download it every time I want to watch it (or every few weeks or whatever). It shouldn't be hard to move it from a laptop to a TV with the right cables. I have a friend who uses a TV as a monitor in his dorm room (perversely, he uses a big CRT monitor as a TV as well). I suppose desktop to TV without a wireless network is a loss. I'd complain about DRM if I was paying for it, but if it is free, than whatever I can get.

Re:Source(s)?

[eMartin]

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8& ncl=http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3563926

It was a sex joke

[flyinwhitey]

You didn't get it.

The joke I mean.

Re:It was a sex joke

[bluephone]

[14:49] <poningru> hahahaha thats a first
[14:50] <poningru> jX was told to get his mind into the gutter
[15:06] <jX> ?
[15:07] <poningru> your slashdot post dude
[15:07] * jX looks
[15:08] <jX> oh christ

Oh crap. Yeah, ok, I see it now. I'm a doofus. I can not believe I didn't see that, and obviously the people who know me are amazed as well. Pardon me while I go to a reeducation camp...

Movies and Cable that I PAY FOR have Ad's Asshole

[ThoreauHD]

They are fucking greedy pieces of shit. End of story.

Re:Internet Killed the Video Star

[interstellar_donkey]

Most likely, yes. Conventional sat or cable television is going to go by the wayside.

I first realized this a few weeks ago, after I took an S-video cable and ran it from my video card to my widescreen television. Combine that with an audio cable from the sound card to the home theatre audio system, and you get a television viewing experience virtually indistinguishable from traditional cable or satellite.

I always felt the biggest hurdle the Internet faced in terms of being a viable method for media distribution was found in the relative isolation of the desktop PC to the rest of the home theatre setup; sure it's neat that you can watch a TV show on your computer, but people aren't going to want to sit in their desk chairs watching movies and TV shows on their computer's monitor.

Thankfully, the home PC is a pretty versatile tool, and methods already exist to integrate the PC with the more traditional TV/Home theatre setup. I knew the hardware and software existed already to play media obtained from the Internet on one's TV setup nearly as easily as it is to turn on a cable box or put in a DVD, but it wasn't until I saw it for myself that the potential became obivious.

http://www.adultswim.com/">Adult Swim's Friday Night Fix, which provides streaming videos of programs which will be played on broadcast the following Sunday was quite telling for me: I couldn't tell the difference between the streaming video off the Internet and the normal satellite broadcast in terms of picture and sound quality.

So as long as content providers don't muck it up with difficult to operate clients (hey, how hard is it to just run stuff through a standard media player?) or convoluted downloading schemes (AOL can just as easily use the standard and accepted Bittorrent if they want safe downloading), the days of the traditional TV network are numbered.

DVD backward compatibility

[tepples]

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.

ironic

[tacocat]

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.

Linux support and the Hacking of In2TV

[Fordiman]

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.

geeks as a target market?

[bzipitidoo]

You're saying we should shop or stop whining? Only big buyers deserve having their complaints heard?

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.

Another example of something that should be free..

[NIN1385]

This is the kind of stuff that should be free, stuff that was made so long ago the company can no longer profit from it. The patents and copyrighting is getting so out of control, after a certain amount of time patents and copyrights should be released for free so everyone can enjoy it or benefit from them. Once so much money is milked from one idea it's just wrong and immoral to keep making a killing from it.

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.

Re:Central control = no spyware? Ha...

[dublin]

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...