Slashdot Mirror
TV Show Piracy Soars After CBS Blackout
TorrentFreak reports that piracy rates of the television show Under the Dome shot up by more than a third last weekend, even though official ratings dropped. What caused the increase? On Friday, three million subscribers to Time Warner's cable TV service lost access to CBS programming, the network on which Under the Dome airs. The article says this provides compelling evidence that the availability of a show is a key factor in the decision to pirate it.
"To find out whether download rates in the affected markets increased, we monitored U.S. BitTorrent downloads of last week's episode as well as the one that aired this Monday following the blackout. The data from these two samples show that in Los Angeles, New York City, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Detroit and Pittsburgh, relatively more people downloaded the latest episode, an indication that customers are turning to unauthorized channels to get the show. With hundreds of thousands of downloads Under The Dome is one of the most pirated TV-shows at the moment. Of all sampled downloaders in the U.S. 10.9% came from the blackout regions for last week's episode, and this increased to 14.6% for Monday's episode, a 34% increase. In New York City, one of the largest affected markets, the relative piracy rate more than doubled from 1.3% of all U.S. downloads last week to 3% for the episode that aired after the blackout."
Is that you can get that night's episode hours before it airs on CBS, without commercials. I'm not sure where else it's airing (maybe Canada) that shows it early.
It's only piracy in the teams being able to sue some one.
https://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
This means that those "new" pirates had the capacity to pirate all along, but chose not to.
People are quite willing to pay for services such as television, but given the absence of legal means to do so, they will turn to illegal means.
Increase the legal avenues to access media and piracy will decrease accordingly.
This signature is false.
People having the convince of TV shows on their iphone/andoid/(Slashdot forbid)Windows Phone/ipad/whatever. Wouldn't that be better? To have the primetime shows on a streaming service/light DRM-Download service? You'd have less piracy since it would be convenient. But I guess all these big corporations have not seen the light of the modern era. If it was on iTunes even, you'd get money from that as well, surprising isn't it.
People once told me 68K ram was all we needed,
They also commissioned a study on whether water is wet and if the pope is Catholic.
Another reason the torrent numbers probably wen up is that CBS also blocked TW customers from accessing their shows from the CBS website. If a TW customer went to the CBS website to try and watch a show, they weren't able to. So any money they could have made from that was gone as well. So really, CBS actually pushed people who would go through the next legitimate channel further down the line. Sure, they could possibly buy it from Amazon or iTunes, but at a dollar per show, that is a pretty hefty price for a show you will watch once and then delete.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Avast ye buccaneers! They've cut ourrr access! Batten down the hatches and farrrrr up the bittorrent! We be settin' sail for the commercial-free waters of internet piracy, global warmin' be damned! Yarrr!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I'm in the Boston area, and I don't think we even have TWC around here. It's mostly Comcast with some RCN and Verizon.
It's shown on the air for free - so how is this pirating?
What do you expect?
Let's face it, for most people simply turning on the TV is more convenient than downloading a show and then figuring out a way how to watch it sensibly on their computer equipment. They easily and willingly accept ads as the price for that convenience. Remember that they're not technical people like most on here, they want something that "just works", and they don't consider watching shows on their computer or connecting it to a TV very convenient.
But if they have a favorite show, especially if it's a show that spans a longer story arc and doesn't just consist of self contained episodes, they will go that extra mile to compensate if their cable provider drops the ball. And no, you may rest assured that they're not happy about it, far from it. It was most likely a hassle for them to get that show, they had quite a bit of "expense" (in terms of time and 'nerves') to get their show back.
It's actually even likely that they will not continue this policy despite the ads. It's simply more convenient for them to just switch on the TV, grab a box of chips and sprawl out on the couch rather than tinkering and toying with the computer to get that.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The sad part is that "Under the Dome" really does SUCK. I am hooked and want to know what is happening, but the whole "drama" part is so horrible, I am fast forwarding through at least half of each show now.
And no, I don't pirate the video, it is on Cox.
Is it still pirating when it is distributed for free?
yaaaarr?
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
I don't have a magnet link, but I do have an HTTP link. Perhaps someone's HTTPS Everywhere rules have fallen out of sync.
It's pirating because current law requires you to make your own copy from the signal received over the air (Sony v. Universal), not through an unauthorized Internet transmission (UMG v. MP3.com). The resulting copies are indistinguishable other than that making one is an infringement and making the other is not.
My family has had TWC for several decades, although we don't use them for our Internet service. As soon as we learned that they'd dropped CBS, we called one of their competitors and signed up with them. We were told that normally, they'd be able to have a tech out to make the switch in two or three days. Right now, it's taking about eleven days because they're so backed up with TWC customers bailing because of this. This sounds like the typical decision MBAs make when they get the chance: raise the short-term bottom line at the expense of long-term interests. With any luck, they'll lose more revenue this quarter because of the loss of customers than they'll make up by cutting down the number of channels they provide.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
I hadnt even heard of "Under the Dome" but I might try at least the first episode [...] I think im allergic to commercials. If I watch broadcast TV, the second a commercial comes on, I change the channel. I refuse to watch commercials or advertising!
SPOILER ALERT: The whole TV series is an ad for a book.
Pre-1996:
TV Stations: Broadcast all day long... what's that, Cable company?
Cable company (10% of TV viewers): We are going to carry your station in our market, bringing you to some new viewers.
TV Stations: (SHRUG) OK, go for it. More viewers means more ratings! More ratings means more advertising revenue!
1996:
Federal Government: Here you go, Broadcast stations, you can now demand payment for being carried on a cable provider! with The Telecommunications Act of 1996
Cable Companies: WTF?
Federal Government: The free ride is over
TV Stations: Hmmmm... free money, we like that!
Post-1996:
TV Stations: GIMME, GIMME, GIMME, GIMME, GIMME, GIMME, GIMME, GIMME, GIMME, GIMME!
Cable Companies: It's not worth THAT much for us to caryr you. How about we start whittling down the network affiliates to a single, small local-market station
(time passes)
TV Stations: Our ratings our down, we are losing ratings to cable stations - it's all the cable company's fault! Raise the rates!!
Cable Companies (now 95% of the viewers): Geez, not this again, this is ridiculous, we're outta here. Goodbye, CBS.
(Sometime in the next decade):
TV Stations: Where did all our viewers go? Doesn't anybody have antennas? Why does the FCC want to narrow the broadcast spectrum to "auction valuable unused frequencies"? Hey Cable Company, want to carry us at a slightly discounted rate?
Cable Companies: (Chirp Chirp Chirp)
----------- At least that's the way I see it. Where does CBS think those viewers will come from? Will they magically sprout an ATSC TV antenna out of their collective asses and start receiving OTA signals again? Over 90% of their viewers no longer HAVE antennas and don't care. They can PIRATE your programs and why feel guilty??!? They got the programs for "free" before.
GREED is the ultimate downfall of broadcast networks. Cable providers do OTA broadcasters a SERVICE by providing access to large numbers of viewers, which in turn incereases ratings, which, in turn, increases revenues. There was NEVER a need to double dip by demanding cable companies pay a fee.
Why aren't piracy numbers included in the ratings?
If they are able to quantify them that precisely, they should be included in the ratings numbers, since what you care about is how many people watch the show. If you know how many people watch the show, then you know what markets to target, and the value of a commercial on the show as an influencer.
Companies such as Reckitt Benckiser (Lysol) already advertise on the pirate sites, as do other major U.S. Companies, as well as the American Red Cross (I'm told). Clearly the issue is one about contract exclusivity excluding other distribution channels, and about getting a cut of the advertising revenue.
I'd be very surprised if the advertising supported "pirate" sites weren't getting a lot of their uploads directly from the networks themselves, as a side channel to get around the exclusivity contracts with the distributors.
Really? Why would they do that when they can just seed them on bittorrent?
I haven't watched tv in years, sounds like I'm not missing anything that special. CBS isn't on an overly expensive cable subscription? This makes no difference to my life whatsoever. Cable was commercial free, now they have got people used to paying for commercial tv, and I never saw the sense to that. My library has lots of DVDs of good (and bad) movies and tv shows, for when I need a fix of boob-tube viewing, which is rarer and rarer lately. Real life beckons, and I'll be damned if I'll be spending (wasting) my remaining years on this planet sitting zombie-like in front of a screen, bitching about how my cable company doesn't carry a channel that has little to offer. Breaking the tv habit is quite freeing, and I doubt I'll ever go back to that world. There's too much other great things to actually 'do' in life.
No, what they care about is how many people may watch the ads. Shows are bait to attract product (viewers) that the networks sell to their customers (advertisers). The cost of the ads are based on how many views are expected to go for the bait (watch the show) and see the ads in the process.
Now, networks would love it if they could do what you suggest, but the advertisers would not accept it. The networks are still fighting to get advertisers on board with DVR (live plus...) ratings, and trying hard to get any real money at all out of online streaming ads. Counting pirated downloads would also lack demographic info. Advertisers want certain demographics that fit their product and, more generally, they pay more for demographics that are harder to advertise to. Younger people watch less TV due to work, social, and family life. Older folks tend to stay home more and fewer distractions, so they are cheap and plentiful. This is why so much emphasis is put on the 18-49 and 18-34 year old viewers. You can have 12 millions viewers but if you are pulling a 1.0 in demo, you're probably getting your show canceled.
So networks can't charge more for ads it's useless to them. They don't sell online ads on pirate sites so that's also useless. Advertisers won't care because they already get much better market research currently that would be provided by looking at torrent or usenet download stats and they really don't care all that much about online ads in general (thus one of the reasons they are so damn cheap to begin with). At the same time the networks see the downloads as threatening, but not exactly for the reason most people think. Unless Nielsen families are all out pirating TV shows (odds are against that) it doesn't directly affect the ratings numbers. However, advertisers see these unauthorized downloads and begin to question the Nielsen estimates. If 5 million people downloaded a show, are the Neilson numbers off by 5 million viewers? Now, we all know this is tenuous at best, but the advertisers can use it to pressure the networks on pricing. Thus, the networks see it as a revenue threat. There are also the usual issues of "it's mine, mine!!" at play, and the false piracy economies of "we are losing zillions!" but at the core there is a real economic issue for the networks.
The other problem they have created for themselves is this reliance on the cable cash cows. These retransmission deals can be worth billions. The cable companies see any competition to their services as a threat, and losing video subscribers because the subscribers figure out it's cheaper, easier, and more flexible to pirate is not making them happy. Since cable companies pay the networks based on their subscriber base, this is making the networks unhappy too.
Worse, for the networks, is that they have painted themselves into a corner with the cable industry. They can't live without the deals anymore, not without some major financial adjustments. At the same time industry consolidation is putting more and more power into the hands of fewer and fewer companies. This TWC deal could have a huge impact on their ratings if it rolls into the fall (it won't I would imagine, but still). TWC controls the #1, #2, and quite a few of the other top 20 markets. Only about 20% of viewers across the country (at most) use over-the-air anymore. Of the rest, about half are (on average) cable subscribers (the other half being mostly satellite). That's a metric shit-ton of viewers. They have also made it virtually impossible for them to offer direct subscriptions, since cable operators are also, usually, the best game in town for internet access as well. The would not look kindly on the networks competing with them directly, and force many smaller cable only networks to sign away the ability to do so in their contracts. They should have the foresight to push for more diversity for content deliver in their markets a long time ago, but alas, all they saw was the money they could make. In the end, it is the network's own fault.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
... I'll PirateBay
One thought that a friend of mine had...
There's a site in New York City that streams live TV called Aereo. They've fought the fight in court and have come out ahead.
It would be interesting to see TWC set up a site like this to stream, say, KCBS from an antenna located in the Los Angeles area to TWC cable boxes in the Los Angeles area, WCBS from an antenna located in the New York City area to TWC cable boxes in New York City, etc.
Hey, if Aereo can do it and not have to pay the stations, why shouldn't Time-Warner?
It won't solve the Showtime/TMC/Flix/Smithsonian issue, though.
I suggested to TWC that they allow CBS to charge whatever they want to subscribed users, adding only a $0.10/month handling fee for collecting the money. If CBS think they deserve a premium rate, treat them like one.
Personally, I haven't watched "broadcast" television for years (decades?) unless the parent company of the cable channel that handles F1 (was Fox, now NBC) moves a few races to the broadcast channel.
You could read what the article is saying. They monitored and acknowledged that there was piracy, but there was a large increase the last week that correlated with the lack of a legal alternative for TW customers. That's pretty good evidence showing that sprinklers are making the sidewalk more wet. No one's saying that it doesn't rain - everyone knows it rains, that's a given, but this sprinkler theory is often debated by the big media so this provides a good example.
Because all the consumer A/V equipment can only record in SD even if it gets HD input.
Hauppauge has made a HD analog video capture device for a number of years now.
Are these Hauppauge products self-contained "consumer A/V" boxes, or do they need to be installed in a desktop PC? A lot of the products on hauppauge.com are obviously PCI Express cards that won't work if your primary computer is a Mac or a laptop. This page states: "it uses your PC", as opposed to just using an external USB hard drive. Which Hauppauge products work with no PC at all?
Global warming be damned indeed! Not because we don't care what will happen but because increasing the number of pirates lowers global warming! Global warming will be damned to hell! Weigh anchor!
Antenna.
Cut the cable 20+ years ago and never looked back. Saved a lot of cash.
However, I'm located between to large markets with several stations. If someone is located out in a remote area, this probably isn't viable since antenna ranges top out around 70 mi, I think (can't remember). And terrain is an issue (locations with mountains and locations in mountain valleys are a problem.
Conservative estimate is we receive 60 stations. And we do receive HD.
We got tired of paying more and more for cable AND having commercials. Remember when cable started and they promised no commercials since their revenue would come from the subscriptions? We do.
We're also watching more DVDs (collections of programs, etc) and I'm making more use of the internet.
Also I really enjoy watching certain sports, but there is NO way I'm paying ESPN some freakin' premium price just because they're popular. I understand supply and demand, but there also is such a thing as gouging. I sincerely hope they price themselves out of the market.
An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
And you can play it on your TV easily with a ROKU box.
I'm seriously thinking of going to the local computer club's internet for $45 a month and cutting the cord (tho in my case it's Comcast and not time warner).
Their service is okay- but it's up to $96 now.
That's $600 a year-- $6000 per decade.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
This is nothing new! - Countless surveys have established long ago that unavailability of both music and television is almost the only motivation for piracy.
Interestingly enough - availability as a piracy motivator is also (along with price) one thing under direct control of the rights holders, and for some reason they flat out refuse to fix this, despite the fact that it will kill off a lot of piracy and make them a lot more money.
I love "Under The Dome" but there's no legal way to get it here in Denmark. It's not on any of the online services and no channels air it. Attempting to access it from a US-based online service results in the usual stupid geo-discrimination. I guess they don't want my money because I live in the wrong place? - Dumb and stupid.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
They had a story on this. Apparently, the exact amount TW pays CBS per subscriber per month is a closely guarded secret, but I'm willing to bet TW won't be adjusting subscribers' bills to deduct that amount during the lockout. So TW will actually make *more* profit during the blackout (as long as subscribers don't drop cable altogether)
The media companies don't realize that they're in competition with the torrent sites. People will pay for content, but only if it's easily avalable, int the format they need, at a reaonable cost, when they want it. Torrent sites meet that need, the media companies are all about subscriptions, bundles, "not released in your area yet" and a raft of convoluted and constantly changing access mechanisms. Is it any wonder people choose torrents?
Xorbit. I ran an Xorbit box for several years, which basically monitored certain cable stations for just such activity, while Xorbit paid me a monthly stipend to do this for them. They in turn got paid by the channels (HGTV, for example) to monitor this on various cable carriers. The money dried up and I ended up sending the box back a few years ago, though.
As for local stations, if they ARE stealing commercial time, then the cable company would have no problem paying. They do this on the "cable" channels because they know the commercial slots, but I imagine on local broadcast stations, this is more difficult. It would be simple enough to demand cable companies do not do this sort of thing in the contract.
Note to cable providers: We are unhappy with the method you use to doll out our shows. Please fix it and expand your business model to online distribution. Nuff said.
We saw this effect earlier this year with Game of Thrones. The decision of the producers to not release it through legal channels (such as iTunes or Amazon) caused a huge spike in piracy. I guess the rule of thumb here is that unless you're trying to peak notoriety of a show, then the window for profit on the sale of a show is short. If you offer it to purchase, folks will buy it, but if you don't, they'll steal it.
Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/08/05/time-warner-dispute-has-minimal-impact-on-local-cbs-ratings-in-new-york-city-los-angleles-dallas/195643/
Weird. It didn't impacts its ratings in those blocked cities.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
It's "often debated by the big media" that a lack of legal alternatives has no effect on piracy rates? This seems hard to believe. Source?
Are there recommendations just a plain-Jane DVR? Something sans subscriptions, sans rentals from my cable company, and just records a show like an old VCR? I don't need fancy HD quality, but something to just get a show or two recorded when I am at the gym or out?
I've seen some positive reviews of a "Magnavox HDD, DVR" via Wally World, but the three hundo price tag is a bit crazy to roll the dice on.
Stop moving the goalposts
That was my first question. How should I determine whether or not asking a particular question constitutes "moving the goalposts" that would warrant use of Powerword: Real Name?
Besides, aren't there external boxes that connect to a laptop's ExpressCard port and present a PCIe x1 slot?
I didn't know home laptops still had ExpressCard ports. I was under the impression that that had become reserved for larger, high-end business laptops.
Not that it has no effect, but that the main reason people pirate is that they are greedy and want things for free
What would be so hard to establish internet sites owned by CBS, NBC, etc...., that aired HD content of current shows? I'm sure the techies could come up with some software which would prevent "fast forwarding" through commercials and would stop/erase the content if tried. The networks etc. could even reduce the amount of commercials while demanding a "premium price" on commercials which air on the internet site only. In this way, we all would win! We would be able to see those episodes we've missed and the network would still profit greatly from the reduced ads shown during the shows. Am I right or am I just dreaming that the networks could be so progressive?
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!