Slashdot Mirror
ABC, CBS, and NBC Block Google TV
markjhood2003 writes "The Wall Street Journal reports that 'ABC, CBS and NBC are blocking TV programming on their websites from being viewable on Google Inc.'s new Web-TV service. ... Spokespeople for the three networks confirmed that they are blocking the episodes on their websites from playing on Google TV, although both ABC and NBC allow promotional clips to work using the service.' Google has responded, 'Google TV enables access to all the Web content you already get today on your phone and PC, but it is ultimately the content owners' choice to restrict their fans from accessing their content on the platform.'"
nah there is a general problem.... how can i get cable without a isp?
google tv is a solution in search of a problem. A half-assed solution at that.
Nope. A problem exists. My DVR's software is extremely clunky to the point of unusability. If you could replace that crap with a google interface that allows me to search for shows and times and allow me to use it to program the DVR, I would gladly pay for it. I understand that Dish Network is thinking about integrating it into their set top boxes. So, I might be gladly paying for it.
Add to that the fact that you can use the web on the dang thing is an absolute bonus.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Seems like this would be easily worked around by changing some useragent strings. Not sure why Google wouldn't do that themselves, but I guess they probably care more about their relationship with media companies than I do.
It baffles me that the networks' left and right hands don't know what the other are doing. With one hand they gleefully provide online versions of the shows and with the other, they smack down anyone (Boxee, Google) that tries to make the consumption of those products easier.
People that choose to watch the shows over the internet are actively choosing to not make regular network TV a part of their day. They aren't willing to sit down at 8 pm, 7 central to watch Chuck; they want to watch it at 6:00 am before work. 10 years ago, they would have been lost viewers. All that advertising revenue would have vanished with their choice. Today, the networks have an option to recapture some of that lost revenue via internet viewers. Granted, they don't show as many adverts, and that ad space (for the moment) is worth less than TV ad time, but they still get money.
Why are they getting upset when google/boxee/whoever drives MORE users to their product? Or are they just afraid that people will choose to eschew network TV in favor of internet TV? If that's the case, they've already lost the battle by offering shows on the internet. Some networks have come up with reasonable solutions though: Fox shows House a week late on the internet for example. Why not offer extra content on TV to encourage TV watching over internet watching. Or, resolve cliff-hangers on the air and make internet viewers sweat it out for an extra two weeks.
What other reasons can /. think of for the networks behavior? Why are they so afraid of internet content aggregators?
This one's tricky. You have to use imaginary numbers, like eleventeen... --Hobbes
We have passed the Iron Age, the electronic Age, and entered the information Age. We will look back upon this time as the turning point of entertainment distribution. Will Cable companies become Internet on-ramp companies or will they wither and die. I use UseNet for all my needs. A GBPVR system gives me all that, free radio, and a bag of chips. Will new networks arise? American Internet Corporation? National Broadcast Internet? What will it take to change the cash flow from broadcast advertising to the Internet Google HD Streaming Network? What if Conan left TBS and did an Internet only show? Oprah? Will infomercials and house flipping shows become relics? Will adverts cease if we pay (Netflix)? How will the cable companies keep ripping off consumers when more and more of their programming becomes available online?
Here's the deal.
Anybody with a current video card probably has TV out, So basically anything you can squeeze down to 640 * 480 can be streamed to the TV. The trick is to click on the little buttons of each website's player to go full screen. So, a user using this method can port anything to the TV, but clicking that little full screen button is harder than it looks. There's different players, some may be in a browser, some may not, some may be on your hard drive, regardless, pushing that full screen button is the trick, of course being able to pause and rewind and all that is nice to have too.
I would buy a set top box if it can help mitigate these problems. Sounds like Google TV was on it's way in this regard, but abc, cbs, nbc who are dangerous cults don't care about logic, or the truth, so you can bet trying to bend your neck to look backwards and get the mouse to line up with the button is going to be around for awhile.
My guess, and I'm no lawyer, is that you can download programs without violating the law (or violating somebody's copyright), but that uploading is where you may run into some trouble.
Look at how the RIAA has gone after music downloaders. I believe their legal cases have all hinged on the fact that the downloaders (that they went after) also shared the torrents. I think that leeching is safe - you aren't "republishing".
Of course, one may also question the ethics.
Since I can record shows myself, I don't personally have an ethical dilemma with downloading the same program. But everyone has their own ethics.
>>>they will wait a few more years and try and launch their own version which will suck.
Or maybe not. The history of invention shows that being "first" is typically a bad idea. It's often a good tactic to let someone else waste millions on R&D, plus advertising, and then jump on the bandwagon after the technology is already proven. It also helps you avoid wasting cash on flops (like Digital Cassette* or CED Videorecords or Betamax).
*
* This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Cassette
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Should Sony, Samsung, and all the other television manufacturers also give the networks a cut of their profits? Surely one of the primary uses of any television is to watch shows put out by the networks.
You know what is gonna FINALLY get the average Joe into using their PC as an HTPC? And the sad part is I think they didn't even realize it themselves, because I sure as hell haven't seen them advertising it: MSFT with the Internet TV in Windows 7 Media center. I have more average folks, I'm talking about the clueless ones that barely know how to get to Facebook, coming to me and asking "Hey, have you heard of this "Internet TV" thingie? Can MY PC do that? How would I do that?". Apparently it is spreading via word of mouth all over the place, probably geeks finding out and passing to relatives who pass it to friends, etc. Even my dad, who is king of clueless and behind the curve, asked me about setting up Internet TV. For everyone that asks I usually just wake up the box at the shop I watch TV on and let them see Internet TV integrated with my local cable, boy does that set them drooling. And frankly the UI is perfect for average folks, it just don't get any simpler than "Choose Internet TV, Choose network, watch shows". Hell they even have Netflix built in for those that have a subscription.
I just wonder if they aren't pushing it for fear of a Google TV style reaction? Because if I was MSFT I'd be pushing the living hell out of it. Just add a TV tuner and Windows Media Center makes a damned good DVR that is butt simple to use, the Internet TV makes catching a show you forgot to tape easy, as well as having whole series of older shows like Twilight Zone and Star Trek TOS, hell the whole setup is just sweeet. But if folks if BF nowhere have heard of it via word of mouth, I'm sure others are spreading it elsewhere. which is cool with me, I've been waiting for HTPCs to become the norm since I was squeezing every once of performance I could out of a PII to get smooth video on an All-In-Wonder in the late 90s.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Reading your post makes me think of the UK's "Free Satellite" service. I wish we had that in North America, and it makes me wonder why no provider ever copied the idea. You buy a dish. Aim it at the sky. And get ~40 channels totally free.
As for ABC/CBS/NBC:
When I read this article the first thing I thought was, "Maybe the FCC ought to revoke their licenses to public frequencies (2-51)." Not that I want that to lose free broadcast TV, but it would be a friendly reminder to the Big Three their position in the world (use of the People's airwaves is a *privilege* not a right).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall