Slashdot Mirror
Viacom Nudges Some Premium Content Online, For Free
amplt1337 writes "Debates about the profitability of 'free' continue to rage, but at least one major media conglomerate — Viacom — is pushing forward with releasing paid-for content for free on the Internet. Of course, the prospect of free and easy full-length Daily Show episodes has caused some tension with cable providers, who pay a hefty premium for a heretofore-exclusive right to distribute the conglom's content (there are obvious parallels with the conflict between labels and musicians). What strikes me as really interesting is that even an old, entrenched company like Viacom has enough vision to see the opportunity for increased profits through free distribution — provided they can control that distribution (see their YouTube lawsuit) and have discretion over just how free they go. Of course, the NYT itself has had its own experience with expanding access to previously fee-based content ..."
...what they're essentially saying with that lawsuit is that they want their content available for free, but they want to be the ones handing it out.
This makes sense. If I'm going to give away a resource for free, I want to be the one (and the only one!) who makes money off it. If that means I have to restrict who/where/when this free content can be distributed, so be it.
Trouble is, trying to give something away for free and then restrict where and how that something is used, doesn't quite work. They're not losing any money off the sale of that product.
...So how can they sue YouTube for damages when they're planning on giving it away free anyway?
the *free* is not going to lure me.
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
Am I the only one that thinks being able to influence the hearts and minds of millions or billions of people ought to be its own reward?
Seriously, if Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were to spring from their graves and start imposing high license fees on the distribution of their creative works, does anyone seriously think their power and influence would become greater?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Free is all well and good, but all too often it leads to crappy ads and abridged enjoyment.
I'd still gladly pay for this content -- just not $2 per episode that I'll only watch once. What I can't imagine I'm alone in really wanting to see here, and what I have yet to see tested, is a nice, simple subscription model like Netflix that lets me pay a single monthly fee to watch a reasonable amount of new programming.
Netflix almost offers that right now for a number of shows, except that the streaming of shows is tied to their DVD release, so you can't watch anything until the season's over. But all that's keeping them from becoming a genuine alternative to broadcast viewing is a bit of licensing, for which I'd gladly pay a few more Washingtons a month.
All things considered, isn't skipping a few beers each month worth not having to deal with ads?
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
I love the daily show and the colbert report. I had been watch TDS since cason daily was hosting it even. Two years ago I was paying $40 a month for essentially those two shows.
But I quit watching during the writer strike and coincidentally I moved and started working more during that same time.
When the episodes had come back, I didn't get the memo and didn't want to go through the hassle of catching up on the week or so of shows I'd missed using bittorrent.
So I just quit watching. To viacom: you want to know why? Because it would just kill me to watch something so good by myself (or occasionally with a lady) and not be able to send friends links to particular segments on youtube. You want to selfishly hoard all your copyrighted content? Fine by me. I just won't watch it (even though I'm paying for it in some way). I won't tell my friends about it. And I won't buy anything on the commercials I'm not seeing.
Jon and Stephen could do better. Personally I'd like to see them operate without viacom and have control over the content, but I know the challenges in making that work and making it profitable.
Viacom wants some of the pie, they claimed that youtube was unfairly benefiting from viacom's intellectual properties...
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
given that Comedy Central's media player sucks monkey balls and is probably turning a whole bunch of potential viewers off of watching their content there, they don't just outsource this to Youtube? Can't they come to some sort of profit-sharing agreement? Youtube has a model that works. They have fairly unobtrusive ads that don't wind up crashing my computer (unlike CC). People already go to Youtube. I've never heard anyone say they like CC's site. CC could, if it wanted to, post the Youtube content on their site. So why can't they just negotiate some sort of a deal where Youtube can host the content and CC takes a large chunk of the ad revenue? Why can't they leave Youtube alone?
There is at least one company already doing it - they have many movies and television shows online (classic TV series as well as newer series) - some full seasons, some are just a sampling, but check it out: http://www.hulu.com/ - it doesn't let you take the media with you (and honestly I have not tried capturing it) and there are commercials inserted into the stream, but SOMEBODY has to pay for the content, so I'm very happy with their service. I wish I could get it on my PDA though.
Oh, and yes, it works with Linux.
I've submitted feature requests to them, one of which is to be able to opt out of certain advertisers. For example, I'm not going into the military so I should be able to opt out of those ads, and I don't do fast food so I should be able to opt out of those. This would make advertising less likely to be ignored, and would actually increase the value of each ad delivered to the viewer.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
What people are gonna learn real soon is that the Daily Show doesn't need Viacom any more than a musician needs the RIAA.
Viacom, like the RIAA, is only powerful because it controls a distribution system. But as far as delivery goes it makes about as much sense to deliver content via a one-way pipe to a dumb terminal (which is what television basically is) than it does to deliver music on plastic disks via the Interstate.
Right now many cable companies are also ISPs so increasing Internet bandwidth is likely viewed by them as a conflict of interest because greater bandwidth is likely to draw viewers away from television to a more competitive Internet. But as time goes on consumers are gonna view more and more content on the net.
Looks like Viacom vs. YouTube are the first shots in the revolution of old tech vs new.
Frankly, just releasing material IN A NEUTRAL FORMAT and delivery channel would be more than sufficient. In other words -- no ITunes lock-in. It doesn't even have to be free as in beer. IFO would pay a modest, reasonable charge for each episode of Daily Show, as long as I could get it in a neutral format (video podcast, say).
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
As I understand it, they are saying that it's possible to make money from free content and they're willing to try. The lawsuit is over the fact that Youtube is making money from their free content while it should be Viacom making that money.
It'll be interesting to see what models they try to monetize the content - something established like banner ads and video commercials or something a little more experimental. Regardless, I think it's good for the industry that bigger companies are trying to adapt.
So?
There is a remedy in law for Viacom: tell Google to take down the offending content.
If Viacom doesn't like the law they subverted democracy for, they really shouldn't whine like a spoiled child.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.