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CBS and NBC's use of Comcast and DirectTV is outdated.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
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
95% of all sigs are made up.
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
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."
Registration-Free Link
"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."
I'd love to watch the ones that originally aired on these shows.
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.
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.
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