Slashdot Mirror


Hulu Munging HTML With JS To Protect Content

N!NJA writes "Hulu has started encoding the html that they send to people's browsers, and then decoding it using javascript before rendering it. [...] They then run the character stream through a series of javascript functions to convert it back into plain text before pushing it into your browser using DHTML. That's quite a lot of effort just for fun, so I assume that is to stop screen scrapers from parsing content." I really can't understand all this effort. Boxee displayed the Hulu advertising perfectly. I suspect Alec Baldwin is to blame.

60 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. what do you expect? by antibryce · · Score: 5, Funny

    they're aliens. that's how they roll.

    1. Re:what do you expect? by punkmanandy · · Score: 5, Funny

      They are doing this to confuse, to better mush our brains.

    2. Re:what do you expect? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sadly their marketing is so clever and hilarious I think it's making many of us forgive their stupid actions with regard to boxee and such.

      I mean, come on. They're ALIENS.

  2. With apologies to Shakespeare... by Bieeanda · · Score: 5, Funny

    It sounds like there's something ROT-13 in the state of Hawaii.

  3. April Fools Day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...ended at midday yesterday. Though I have to admit that this is far funnier than the "stories" that Slashdot ran at the time.

  4. Cat & Mouse. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The XBMC guys already made a plugin after the last hulu change. It'll take a few hours and a new one will be made.

    Especially if you SEND the user all the info they need, how hard is it to decode functions? There are crackers out there that take decoded assembly to figure out how to bypass DRM, what makes Hulu think their implementation will be any more difficult?

    1. Re:Cat & Mouse. by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      a marketing major or MBA course. that's what makes them think it'll be more dificult.

      --
      What ? Me, worry ?
    2. Re:Cat & Mouse. by schmidt349 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Shut up! That's why.

    3. Re:Cat & Mouse. by v1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's probably more targeting people like me. I've already considered writing an app to scrape the pages, and download ALL their movies to a large hard drive or two.

      I'm sure it's on a lot of other people's minds too with similar skills.

      I do that from time to time for web archives of images too. Curse that 1000 hit limit on images.google.com!

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    4. Re:Cat & Mouse. by jnetsurfer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even still, if they're using javascript to decode the HTML, they're not really protecting themselves. Your app can just run their javascript and still work perfectly.

    5. Re:Cat & Mouse. by koterica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is modded as funny, but it is rather insightful. The people who make business decisions (or what they think are business decisions) don't necessarily understand the things they are messing with. In this case, they obfuscate because they are worried about people pirating content.

      Honestly? Hulu is a great service (if you live in the US) but its not a high priority target for piracy. Why go to the effort of ripping a stream with ads in it when the torrent is already out?

    6. Re:Cat & Mouse. by fprintf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, trust me, the freakin' programmers and IT people make it impossible. All us MBAs want to do is output a freakin graph, and you put us through all kinds of process steps, and gates and usability testing, and then decide it will cost $1Million just to make a simple change. No wonder nothing gets done without a multi million dollar budget.

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    7. Re:Cat & Mouse. by tweek · · Score: 4, Informative

      It has nothing to do with piracy. It has to do with revenue from cable company contracts. The problem the "content providers" had was that via Boxee and other set-top pcs, people could forgo cable all-together and that would be a huge chunk of lost revenue. Hulu is popular but the ad revenue from Hulu is nothing compared to the money the cable companies pay "content providers".

      * I quote "content providers" because Hulu liked to use that phrase when Boxee was shut out. The fact of the matter is that Hulu is co-owned by two of these "content providers" so in essence, Hulu *IS* the "content provider"

      --
      "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
    8. Re:Cat & Mouse. by Zebedeu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you really believe that all of this content is going to get less available over time? Note that this would essentially contradict all of history.

      Yeah, don't bother making copies of those documents at the Great Library of Alexandria.

    9. Re:Cat & Mouse. by Idiomatick · · Score: 3, Informative

      The documents in Alexandria WERE copies. The reason the library was so great was that when people came to port the librarians would copy travelers' stuff. I think it would be kind of impressive if the riaa drmed some of their stuff and protected it so well that it dissapeared entirely... like top secret documents in the us gov.

    10. Re:Cat & Mouse. by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact of the matter is that Hulu is co-owned by two of these "content providers" so in essence, Hulu *IS* the "content provider"

      I'd be interested to know where the division lies, actually. Their blog posts when Boxee was cut off had a distinctly irritable tone - they were very much making their point that the content providers don't understand the new marketplace they're operating in; basically, they were saying of the content providers the exact same thing most of the posts on this story are saying of them.

      To me, that means they're autonomous to a reasonable degree but the studios have the final say. I would guess that the Hulu team themselves made all the relevant points about how this obfuscation won't work, and were overruled - just because their company is owned by the studios, doesn't mean the employees working there share the same ideas.

    11. Re:Cat & Mouse. by thesolo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, trust me, the freakin' programmers and IT people make it impossible.

      Riiiiiight.

      Sorry, but you're wrong. Honestly, we just want to get the code written and have you leave us alone. But we can't do that.

      Instead, we have to follow the rules implemented by management, usually non-IT management. So while the code change itself might be all of 10 minutes, we have to follow Six Sigma, or have all changes go through 3 weeks of requirements gathering, or have to follow some horrible process workflow like the Waterfall model because they read about it in CEO Magazine.

      It's management who make your life more difficult. And oddly enough, almost all of them have MBAs...

    12. Re:Cat & Mouse. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      True story...

      Three separate estimates for a project have determined that making a change will take about 1400 to 2800 hours. These were swag by a analyst with 8 years experience with the application, a formal 40 hour estimate by a different analyst with 9 years experience with the application, and an outside estimate by a contracting house (who wink/wink made it clear the 1400 hour estimate was really them lowering their billing rate to get some work- they would be working 20 hours a week unpaid to make the 1400 hour estimate).

      The CIO came in and said "I don't see how this can be so hard", drew some boxes on a whiteboard as the "high level design" and said, "this should take 400 hours". (This was after the three estimates kept disagreeing with her wishes)

      And *every* VP and senior director in the room, nodded in agreement and didn't say a god damned thing.

      One of the ways planned to meet this goal is to assume testing will find no defects and take one week less than normal. That's just one -- there were more.

      In the current environment- IT people are seeing some really bizarre behavior by the business types (I have friends at three other companies that report similar experiences).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    13. Re:Cat & Mouse. by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 4, Funny

      A month, a friggin month to unplug from a 100mb switch port and plug into a 1gb switch port.

      5 minute change if you include the exhaustive checks, and double checks, and tripple checks to make sure there is not a problem.

      Change Management at its finest!

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    14. Re:Cat & Mouse. by hondo77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What about if your internet goes out and there's jack-crap on TV?

      Read a book?

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    15. Re:Cat & Mouse. by kirbysuperstar · · Score: 3, Funny

      What is "book"?

    16. Re:Cat & Mouse. by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Funny

      The XBMC guys already made a plugin [lifehacker.com] after the last hulu change. It'll take a few hours and a new one will be made.

      Those slowpokes, I've already configured my videocamera to record my computer screen, the plugin took only 30 seconds (and the only reason it took that long is because I didn't have a flashlight and it was dark under my desk.)

      Not only that, but I bet their version won't encode to high-quality VHS tape format.

    17. Re:Cat & Mouse. by fprintf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't bother! I was being totally serious. You see, from a business/MBA standpoint (yes, I know there are very very few of us here on Slashdot.. I think we might be outnumbered by the women) it all looks like stonewalling. And the thing is, the project architect is going to get blamed, probably when he is long gone from the first project, when it takes $500K to add a table to a data warehouse.

      Here is the problem. The MBA type guys don't have a clue what works or doesn't work from an IT perspective. We can only make suggestions of what we want, and encourage folks to seek acceptable alternatives. But if we say we have $5M to do a project, and you say it can't be done for less than $10M we have to trust you. Since we only have $5M you get to recommend either doing the project half-assed, with half the functionality required, or you don't get *any* work and the funding goes to some other project. So what ends up happening is a "multi-year" project is born. "We'll build the foundation and some of the features required and do the rest next year when more funding is available" the project manager will say. And yet, when next year rolls around then there is no funding 'cause a 100 other projects are requesting priority instead. It is a maddening circle. The MBA types, like myself, blame the IT team for incompetence and failure to deliver when they promise a certain feature set. The IT types blame the MBAs for being inflexible and unrealistic. Finally everyone blames the customer for being too demanding.

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    18. Re:Cat & Mouse. by Yold · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think the CIO's lack of understanding is caused by her being a "business type". Fact is, unless you've been knee-deep in the code for the system in question, you probably have a very skewed understanding of the time requirements.

      Case in point, a client of mine was a PhD/MD. Definitely a nerd, not a business type. He has programming skills, yet he expects me to be able to accomplish 20+ hours of coding in an hour. He simply doesn't understand the amount of thinking, experimentation, design, coding and testing involved for modern web-apps.

      More relevant case in point, my boss has a PhD in computer science. About 10 years ago, he was a programmer just like me, but now he runs big-numbers for the business types. He has been nagging me about current project to be done, because back when he was a web developer, everything was server-side CGI. No CSS prettiness to worry about, limited cross-browser issues, and there was no cluster-fuck codebase to wrestle with. If he gave 2-shits about being a better manager, he'd ask "what sort of problems are you having/expecting", rather than "is it done yet?", and then telling me to hurry up to create bug-free code (pfffft what an oxymoron).

      Fact is, every manager I have ever had in a technical position has been woefully out-of-touch with the nitty-gritty of their subordinate's work. Whether or not that person had substantial computer/technical background is irrelevant, because they don't understand the specifics of the system/project in question.

  5. Dumb question here by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Couldn't an enterprising screen-scraper also just run it through the same Javascript code? Hulu is forgetting what I like to call the Fundamental Law of DRM: if you make data possible for users to see /hear, it will be possible for a reasonably enterprising user to copy it.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Dumb question here by ynef · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, in fact, HtmlUnit is my preferred browser simulation library in Java for this very reason: it allows you to write very easy to understand Java code, and it uses Rhino as a JavaScript interpreter. Completely brilliant, and yet few people know about it.

    2. Re:Dumb question here by Applekid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Couldn't an enterprising screen-scraper also just run it through the same Javascript code? Hulu is forgetting what I like to call the Fundamental Law of DRM: if you make data possible for users to see /hear, it will be possible for a reasonably enterprising user to copy it.

      Sure. Except, crappy as the Javascript "encryption" is, now you're in violation of the DMCA by reverse engineering a copy protection mechanism.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    3. Re:Dumb question here by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Couldn't an enterprising screen-scraper also just run it through the same Javascript code? Hulu is forgetting what I like to call the Fundamental Law of DRM: if you make data possible for users to see /hear, it will be possible for a reasonably enterprising user to copy it.

      I think you left some of that Fundamental Law unstated. This is an approximation of the full version:

      If you make data possible for users to see/hear, it will be possible for a reasonably enterprising user to copy it. Only one such user is needed to make a DRM-free (and ad-free) version available via BitTorrent. Meanwhile, you stand to annoy all of your legitimate/paying/ad-watching users, especially if they understand this Fundamental Law and/or your assumption of bad faith.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    4. Re:Dumb question here by nobodylocalhost · · Score: 4, Funny

      only if the decoder is american though.

      --
      Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
    5. Re:Dumb question here by jnetsurfer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But you're not reverse engineering. They're sending you their code, you're just running it!

    6. Re:Dumb question here by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe this is Hulu's "security theater" response to their content providers. Maybe Hulu knows it won't stop jack squat, but are trying to appease them by putting some "DRM protection" on the content. Maybe Hulu isn't so dumb after all.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
  6. Phase One is Over by wonkavader · · Score: 5, Informative

    TunerFreeMCE couldn't scrape the data. Mission accomplished. Oh, wait... Tada:

    "Update- version 2.6.7 is now available to download to work round this new tactic."

    And now, I supposed, there will be a DMCA attack as phase two.

    1. Re:Phase One is Over by Fahrvergnuugen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And now, I supposed, there will be a DMCA attack as phase two.

      That's really interesting. According to Wikipedia: "The DMCA criminalizes the circumvention of access control".

      Can obfuscated HTML & JavaScript really be considered access control?? I sure hope not.

      If it is, then what's the difference between obfuscated code and horribly written code thats difficult to understand? Or code thats been run through a minifier to make it smaller?

      --
      Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
    2. Re:Phase One is Over by derGoldstein · · Score: 5, Funny

      I sure hope not.

      If it is, then what's the difference between obfuscated code and horribly written code thats difficult to understand? Or code thats been run through a minifier to make it smaller?

      So you mean all Perl!??

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
  7. Can you blame them? by g0es · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm all for boxee, but if they wanted aggregates to link to their content I would think hulu would have provided an API to allow it. Maybe instead of trying to work around every change hulu makes they should work with them instead.

    1. Re:Can you blame them? by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm all for boxee, but if they wanted aggregates to link to their content I would think hulu would have provided an API to allow it. Maybe instead of trying to work around every change hulu makes they should work with them instead.

      Hulu wants nothing to do with them and would rather they go away. They want to be able to release this stuff, but control it at the same time.

    2. Re:Can you blame them? by FauxPasIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > if they wanted aggregates to link to their content I would think hulu would have provided an API to allow it.

      They did. It's called the hypertext transfer protocol.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    3. Re:Can you blame them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Absolutely.

      It's been cute these last 10 years watching companies try to put things on the Internet and monopolize the information they put up. If you don't require user authentication, it's public.

      If you want to piggy back in a web browser, with a public protocol like HTTP, expect people to interact with your server in unintended ways.

      The only way to prevent this is to invent your own propietary protocol, and your own client. And even this doesn't prevent reverse-engineering of the protocol to gain access.

  8. Re:Don't they want people to use Hulu? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They *want* you to go back to watching regular TV, where the ad revenue is greatest.

    --
    If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
  9. Huh? by AlterRNow · · Score: 3, Informative

    My father gave me some HTML that was decoded with Javascript. To get the raw HTML was pretty simple IIRC..

    1) Load page in Firefox
    2) Open DOM explorer/inspector
    3) Export as HTML
    4) ???
    5) PROFIT!!

    --
    The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
    1. Re:Huh? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

      The particular situation here deals with compressed/encoded HTML in an effort to prevent screen-scraping. This leaves two options for screen scrapers:

      Option 1
      1) Figure out how the decoder works
      2) Replicate the decoder functionality in the screen scraper
      3) Parse the decoded HTML
      4) Make changes as the encoding scheme changes
      5) ???
      6) Profit!

      Option 2
      1) Link a Javascript engine like SpiderMonkey, Rhino, V8, or SquirrelFish into the screen scraper
      2) Run the Javascript to decode the HTML
      3) Parse the decoded HTML
      4) ???
      5) Profit!

  10. As Long As It Works With Linux by Prototerm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As long as Hulu continues to work with a Linux-based browser, I'm happy. This is unlike ABC, whose system doesn't support Linux at all.

    Their loss (or perhaps I should say "They're Lost").

    --
    "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
  11. I can't understand...Boxee displayed ads perfectly by Papabryd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...On a TV. Where ad rights, restrictions, and most importantly prices are much different than they are on the web. Hulu's (well really Fox/NBC's) bean counters won't let that fly especially when they can get roughly 7 minutes of ad space on a broadcasted show versus 2 minutes on Hulu. I'd be willing to bet that the prices for those 2 minutes on Hulu are a lot cheaper than 2 minutes on TV for an equivalent show.

    And to anyone complaining about having to dance through proxies to watch Hulu internationally, it's for the same reasons. What benefit does Charmin see from advertising toilet paper to people in the Netherlands?

    All that aside, as someone who has a modded XBOX with XBMC and was living abroad,I can say with experience that all these shenanigans are tiring. Like any arms race where it's content producers vs. the internet, the internet will win in the end.

  12. Content Providers' Demands? by T+Murphy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe they are just doing this to sate the content providers. As long as they appear to be trying to solve the problem, they should get brownie points with the major companies. Considering how popular DRM seems to be with the execs, I'll bet they think this works just as "well".

    1. Re:Content Providers' Demands? by maxume · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hulu is a joint venture of NBC Universal and Fox Entertainment Group. The Hulu management might not precisely be content providers, but the folks holding the purse are.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  13. Plan B: CAPTCHA by derGoldstein · · Score: 5, Funny

    Make the viewer fill it in every ~2 minutes to keep watching.

    --
    Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
  14. Re:Don't they want people to use Hulu? by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They *want* you to go back to watching regular TV, where the ad revenue is greatest.

    As you probably know, that cat's not going back into the bag. I wonder whether the inability to admit this and work with it is a special trait of media companies or if it's just true of large organizations in general?

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  15. Ad revenue on TV Ad revenue on Hulu by Coopjust · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hulu is owned by Fox/NBC, and they are trying to attract other content providers.

    Simply put, the ad revenue on Hulu is much, much less than on TV. Sure, it beats piracy (a little money and control over how long your content is on there) but if people were to cancel cable or watch Hulu on their Xboxes more, both cable/satellite providers and the content providers themselves would be unhappy.

    Just another game of cat & mouse: Hulu makes changes, and Boxee updates. The hope is that if you make the workarounds unreliable enough to the point where people are too irritated, most will switch back to TV, with a few using Hulu just online on their computers and a few turning back to piracy.

  16. I really don't get this... by paralaxcreations · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why all the effort to apply DRM to free streaming content? Is it just because the networks think that everything needs to have DRM?

  17. Re:I can't understand...Boxee displayed ads perfec by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These guys do understand that nothing prevents me from plugging my laptop into a TV and running a browser on it? And nothing prevents me from plugging a tuner card into my computer and showing TV on the monitor? So regardless of what they do, they can't make something show on a computer but not on a TV?

    Wait a minute, my assistant is handing me an envelope he says will explain everything.

    (envelope opening noises)

    The note inside says "They're total idiots".

    Yep, that does explain everything.

  18. Site modding ponderings ... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Funny

    "I really can't understand all this effort. Boxee displayed the Hulu advertising perfectly. I suspect Alec Baldwin is to blame. "

    I used to wonder why you cannot mod a Slashdot editor's comment "Funny", but now I see that it would be an unused feature ;-)

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  19. Brand dilution guys.... by nweaver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hulu is a BRAND. It wants to live in its own world and be exclusive.

    So their attitude is "Frak Boxie", as boxie is trying to DESTROY the brand of all the video sites to be replaced by the Boxee brand.

    Why should Hulu play nice?

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:Brand dilution guys.... by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Informative

      They are being knuckleheads. Their "website" is analogous to a traditional TV channel and Boxee is analogous to a set-top cable box. You'd still get the Hulu ads, still get the Hulu branding.

      To be fair, it seems like Hulu would very much like to be on Boxee - the distaste of the content providers' policies is palpable on their blog.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  20. It's all about the DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you do decrypt it without authorization, they can claim you're in violation. It's not about the technical merits of their solution, it's about the legal aspect.

  21. Re:I can't understand...Boxee displayed ads perfec by MrMarket · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And to anyone complaining about having to dance through proxies to watch Hulu internationally, it's for the same reasons. What benefit does Charmin see from advertising toilet paper to people in the Netherlands?

    This is where the MBA and Marketing guys are falling down on the job. They should be selling regional ads for international viewers... instead of Charmin, they could sell Nokia ads for Dutch viewers, Weetabix in the UK, and Nutella in Italy, etc...

  22. Fail by Chlorine+Trifluoride · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is not actually the worst web DRM. I once found a site where the top of the code had a comment that said "Source code not available" followed by a bunch of blank lines. In order to get the source, one just had to scroll down some.

    Which, of course, would make the scroll bar an anti-circumvention device.

  23. EUCD is the EU variant of DMCA since 2001 by emj · · Score: 3, Interesting

    EUCD is the EU version, if DVD Jon would have been trialed in the EU it would have been interesting. Because I find it very hard to believe that anyone will ever get convicted for circumventing protection mechanisms, if it wasn't with malicious intent, or for monetary gain.

  24. Re:Just More Proof... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is just more proof that the people who run the big media companies not only do not understand technology, but cannot be bothered to learn it either.

    There is an old saying: "It is impossible to teach a man something, when his livelihood depends on him not understanding it."

    They make their money the old way. If they learn this new way, they realize that their old way is doomed. Thereforefore, they cannot learn the new way.

  25. Obviously discrinatory against Lynx by Digital_Quartz · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is probably to stop Lynx browsers from properly displaying content. I'm betting this move was backed by bribe money. Clearly this is aimed at reducing compatibility with Lynx. MS is just trying to steal away market share.

  26. Re:I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE ENTERTAINED! right? by tweek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wouldn't say I have a right by any stretch. I don't. These guys provide the content to me at their discretion.

    I think what people are "upset" about is the fact that:

    1) Companies (Hulu or otherwise) seriously think that they can control HOW someone access their content. Technology or not, you can't force me to listen to a song on the radio anymore than I can force you to play the song I want to hear. You can't force me to listen to that CD I bought in my car vice my house.

    2) People were more than happy to access the content via legal means via Hulu. No one WANTS to pirate anything. It's a pain in the ass. A standard non-HD conversion of a tv show without the commercials over bittorrent still takes in the neighborhood of 30 minutes to download on a standard internet connection. God forbid I want something that is more than a few weeks old.

    With Hulu I could sit down and watch the shows on my couch with my wife (when the kid was in bed). Now? Not so much.

    The absolutely ASININE part is that users were screaming for this for years. For once, it seemed like the media companies actually GOT it. We were naive. Hulu was working on Boxee for the better part of a year if not longer. It wasn't until Boxee started gaining attention that someone said "You mean people aren't watching this stuff on a computer?"

    Let's ignore for a minute how fucking stupid that question is. I *AM* (well was) watching it on a pc. It just happened to be hooked up to a television. What possible idiot doesn't have such a grasp of technology that they don't realize that you can hook a computer up to a television? Who, on the grandiose payroll of the media companies, didn't see this coming?

    In the end, they DID hurt themselves. Ad revenues are already down. The company I was laid off from was in the business of television advertising. Between DVRs and P2P, you have a choice. Either provide the content and get at least a sliver of revenue or don't get any at all.

    Sure, it may be costing you up front to build support for Hulu advertising among the advertisers but once the ball is rolling, it becomes a more viable outlet for advertising.

    Here's the thing. Television advertising is a split bag. Local networks sell ads. National networks sell ads. There's a whole business around brokering advertising spots between buyers and the people with the air time. It's a complex machine. Hulu essentially cut out a few layers of that.

    In the end, Hulu was a step in the right direction. Boxee was the "killer application" for Hulu. They really did screw themselves.

    --
    "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"