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
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.
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
Or hell, distribute it with bittorrent with the fucking ad's in it on the day it airs!
Its brilliant. They pay virtually nothing for a few servers to seed it until the swarm takes off. They get their adverts out into the open. There's very little reason to track down some ripped version with no commercials as you can get the legit one 8-12 hours sooner!
Where is the downside to this?
Heck, they could even require a DRM license(which would be given to anyone for free) and track exactly how many views it gets! They can do a pay per viewer model with the advertisers.
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
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.
What the hell does any of that have to do with copyright? Copyright is a way of legally enforcing the traditional "you want it, you pay for it" means of exchange for a good which is easily obtained against the wishes of the seller. If I wish to make my scribble drawing only available to someone who has paid me for it (or bought a copy of said scribble drawing from a previous owner), that's my right. Copyright is a way for me to protect that right, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the cost of copying/distributing works. In fact, the cheaper it is to copy, the MORE necessary it is to have legal protection of the creator's rights.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard