News for nerds, stuff that matters
Stories
 TV Piracy is Next |
 |
from the i-always-miss-episode-one dept.
Blackfire writes "Why is a TV executive so agitated about online pirates? Because he, like most media honchos, has seen the scary numbers indicating that the next big craze in illegal file-sharing is not music, not movies, but television." Frankly I'm amazed that movies caught on before TV since there's so much more TV, and they tend to be smaller files than movies.
| Slashdot Log In |
| TV Piracy is Next | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 774 comments | Search Discussion |
| The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. |
| (1) | 2 |
|
TV piracy is next? (Score:5, Insightful)
by Carrot007 (37198) <Carrot007@nOspaM.thewibblereport.co.uk> on Friday November 26, @06:16AM (#10923320) (http://www.thewibblereport.co.uk/) |
|
See that over there? That is the boat, you have missed it. Seriously, this has been going on for years. I remember downloading auful real encoded southpark season 1 and 2 episodes on dial up. ICK, that was painfull. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:5, Insightful)
by gilesjuk (604902) <doveleys@nildram . c o .uk> on Friday November 26, @06:20AM (#10923339) |
| Definitely and when you see the ludicrous cost of DVD boxsets for some TV shows you can see why. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2, Insightful)
by shufler (262955) on Friday November 26, @08:50AM (#10923921) (http://www.shufler.net/) |
|
While you may think $40 for an entire season or two of a TV show is ludicrous, I find this perfectly acceptable. At a bare minimum, a season of most shows is usually 13 episodes. At around 22 minutes each, you're buying 260 HOURS of programming you probably enjoy (no one buys the Friends DVD if they can't fucking stand the show). Considering you can buy a lot of 2 hour movies for $30-$40, buying TV episodes is clearly a better use of your money (13 stories vs 1 story, and both usually have the "Special Features," which I must admit, I don't watch since IMDB uses these in the Trivia section). There are tons of shows that were around during my childhood, or even before that, which would be a PERFECT product to sell on DVD, but they haven't yet, probably due to licensing. Some people would say that the TV producers are waiting for the next medium to come along, but that's silly, as anyone who has multiple copies of the Star Wars trilogy will tell you that chances are, someone is more than happy to shove the movies down their throat on a different media (VHS, Laser Disc, DVD). Not to mention, that either with the DVD, or downloading the episodes, I get the option to watch as many episodes that I want, when I want instead of becoming a slave to when the TV stations and advertisers feel I should be watching TV. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:4, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, @08:58AM (#10923994) |
| Actually, 13ep at 22min is 286min, or 4h46m. Failing math, huh? =) |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:5, Informative)
by 1u3hr (530656) on Friday November 26, @09:09AM (#10924067) |
|
, a season of most shows is usually 13 episodes. At around 22 minutes each, you're buying 260 HOURS of programming.. 22min x 13 = 286 minutes = 4.8 hours. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2, Funny)
by iminplaya (723125) on Friday November 26, @05:08PM (#10927549) |
|
260 MINUTES I don't think I could stand that much Mike Wallace, Morely Safer, and Andy Rooney. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by cburley (105664) on Saturday November 27, @09:42AM (#10930646) (http://www.theburleys.net/) |
260 MINUTES How about Mike Wallace, Morely Safer, and Andy Rooney...wearing hats!!.
|
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:5, Insightful)
by boaworm (180781) <boaworm@gmail.com> on Friday November 26, @09:12AM (#10924102) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Friday September 27, @08:23AM) |
|
Well, you mention $40. Tried buying Star Trek TNG on DVD ? Amazon [amazon.com] retails them for just over $100 Perhaps Friends [amazon.com] is cheaper as you say, but that's not true for all TV series. When someone tries to charge something like $700 for some plastic material with IP produced in 87-94.. i think that's close to robbery. (Not that i can use that as an argument to steal it, but nevertheless, i understand those who do). |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1, Redundant)
by Snaller (147050) on Friday November 26, @08:28PM (#10928507) (Last Journal: Saturday October 23, @05:40PM) |
|
When someone tries to charge something like $700 for some plastic material with IP produced in 87-94.. i think that's close to robbery. "intellectual property" is always robbery - never forget. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday November 30, @10:33AM (#10952864) (Last Journal: Thursday July 15, @09:56PM) |
|
"intellectual property" is always robbery - never forget. Intellectual? It's simpler, Property is Robbery [vwh.net]. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:5, Insightful)
by Tassach (137772) on Friday November 26, @10:16AM (#10924567) (http://www.rapiertech.com/~tassach/) |
$700 is also probably a lot less than you would have to buy for the rights to all those shows, so you should be thankful that DVD brings an otherwise UNATAINABLE creative license to you.Yeah, but it's a lot more than a spindle of DVD-Rs. FYI, it is still *LEGAL* to record a TV show for your personal use. If I want all 7 seasons of TNG on DVD, all I need is a video capture card, SpikeTV's broadcast schedule, a simple shell script, and a small investment of time to edit out the commercials and burn the disks. If Paramount wants me to PAY for something I can *LEGALLY* get for next to nothing, they have to make it worth my while. Better image quality is a start, but it isn't worth an order of magnitude price difference. $100 for the WHOLE SERIES RUN is a more realistic assessment of the real value -- at that price it's almost worth it to me to get the nice box set rather than collecting the episodes over the course of a couple months. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2, Informative)
by Arcturax (454188) on Friday November 26, @11:36AM (#10925266) (Last Journal: Thursday June 26, @06:46PM) |
|
How about not having the damnned annoying spike logo in the corner, the stretch and squish games they do with the image, the commercials and parts of the show cut out because the 45 minutes of program time (15 mins for commercials) that was done back in the 80's and 90's is now too long for the now 17-20 commercial times we now have. I don't remember if Spike does that but Sci-Fi channel cut out many parts of the original Star Trek to make room for commercials. Now one solution to this is not to buy new. Wait 4 months, then you can get them for about 60% of the original price on Amazon. Or there is Wal-Mart. Stargate SG-1 Season 7 retails for $59.99 at Best Buy, I found it at the local Wal-Mart for $35. For whatever reason (their size and clout most likely), DVD's are really bloody cheap at Wal-Mart. It's the only reason I go there other than for cheap oil changes. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by garett_spencley (193892) on Friday November 26, @12:01PM (#10925531) (http://www.spencley.com/) |
|
Also, in the case of ST TNG, each episode is on it's own DVD packed with behind the scenes shit and extras. It's almost worth the $150 (canadian) just for that. Not that I can afford it |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by ghettoboy22 (723339) <scott.a.johnson@gmail.com> on Friday November 26, @04:18PM (#10927285) (http://akghetto.com/) |
| I don't know what DVD set you bought, but the one I got from Amazon has 6 or 7 discs... 4 ep/disc, not 1. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:5, Insightful)
by badasscat (563442) on Friday November 26, @01:19PM (#10926179) |
|
How about not having the damnned annoying spike logo in the corner, the stretch and squish games they do with the image, the commercials and parts of the show cut out because the 45 minutes of program time (15 mins for commercials) that was done back in the 80's and 90's is now too long for the now 17-20 commercial times we now have. I don't remember if Spike does that but Sci-Fi channel cut out many parts of the original Star Trek to make room for commercials. Spike clearly advertises that their Trek is "uncut". Anyway, though, your point allows me to perfectly illustrate my point, which is that it seems to me there's a perfectly acceptable solution to TV "piracy" staring TV execs right in the face and they simply fail to acknowledge it. Make all TV shows available for download, for free. TV execs will look at this and say "bah! It's our IP! You don't just give IP away!" Well, yes you do. I don't pay anything for over-the-air broadcasts (even in high def!), and while I do pay a cable bill, that bill's going to the cable company for maintenance of the infrastructure - it's not going to the broadcast TV networks (or even to most of the cable networks, who are ad supported). Most TV stations give their content away gratis every day of the week. I don't see why a TV station couldn't put whatever bugs they want in the corner and include commercials with their downloads (people will find a way to skip them however hard they make it to fast forward, but then what else is new? People have been doing that for years with VCR's, nevermind TiVo). The perceived value to advertisers shouldn't be any different, because I mean look. Either downloading is a small issue and therefore it shouldn't matter either to advertisers or the networks, or it's rampant and growing, in which case those advertisers would at least want the chance to reach all those eyes, rather than just sitting on the sidelines while ad-stripped copies of shows float around on bittorrent sites. Now, there would be issues to work out with affiliates, syndicators, etc. who sell their own advertising, often locally. But so what? Issues can be worked out for the good of the industry; it's actually a rather minor change in how TV business is done in the grand scheme of things. You work out some sort of revenue-sharing deal and voila: done. And of course, TV still needs to be broadcast live before it can be downloaded, so the affiliates still get their local advertising in anyway. One quick example - I remember when the Jon Stewart Crossfire interview aired, and afterwards there was a big story about how more people had shared and downloaded a digitized version of it than had actually watched the show in the first place. This is an extreme case right now (though it will happen more and more over time), and CNN was completely pissed about it, but I saw more than one journalist suggest that instead of whining about it, CNN could have driven people to their web site and could have promoted the show a lot better by simply making it available for free download themselves. I don't see how you can really argue with that - the downloads happened anyway, wouldn't it be better for the network to get some traffic and marketing out of it themselves rather than just ceding that market to the file sharers? If TV shows were available for free download from network web sites, very few people are going to take the illegal route in stripping out the non-program material and then sharing them on file sharing sites. Sure, some people will, but those are the same people who'd rip or download the DVD's and share them too; they're pretty hardcore pirates, and they're not going to pay for your stuff regardless. It seems to me the idea is to keep the 99% of viewers who aren't pirates from becoming pirates, not to convert the 1% who are pirates into paying customers (a futile goal). Of course, DVD's would still be made available at some future date, sans commercials and bugs, and with higher resolution and better picture quality. They'd still be desirable. But it seems to me that just posting a show for download the night after it airs, in the same basic form as it aired the night before, would basically kill any growth in piracy before it really even gets off the ground. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:4, Insightful)
by Firethorn (177587) on Friday November 26, @01:41PM (#10926354) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Friday December 10, @08:39PM) |
|
Making it available for download (with commercials) would be a legitimate business strategy. Heck, you could even go the iTunes route and sell it for a minimal cost w/o commercials. I know that I'm almost at the point of hooking a computer to my TV to replace the DVD player, and start ripping all my DVD's to a HD, so I don't have to go searching for movies. Just don't make it so annoying that the pirated versions are easier to use. That's what doomed the earlier music programs. And Ebooks. Definatly the Ebooks. I only get ebooks from baen, which comes in five formats, including HTML & RTF. How much more universal can you get than that? Or price the DVD's low enough that people are willing to pay the money for the added convenience(Yes, I know it varies), legality (yes, it's worth money!), quality, and features. Also, release them quickly enough that the pirates aren't providing a product that's otherwise unavailable. Heck, that's happing in the movie industry right now. You look at Farscape. They actually made so much money from the DVD sales that they made a Direct to DVD season! How messed up is that? Not really, ultimatly speaking. I'm not willing to pay $40 a month for cable/dish when the only channels I'd really watch would be the cartoon &SciFi channels. $40x12=$480 a year, which can cover about 4 season DVDs. Doing without a Tivo/VCR gets me another. Which I can watch at any time (I work long&unusual hours), as often as I like, rewinding and whatnot. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by Erik Hollensbe (808) on Friday November 26, @02:19PM (#10926630) (http://erik.hollensbe.org/) |
|
You're on to a great idea... But do you remember when cable TV started getting ubiquitous? It was fucking expensive. That's because infrastructure costs were, not to mention, it was new. Take a look at Steam which distributes HL2. You guys think it's bad now, read about the reports of when it was originally launched to distribute CS 1.6 - and realize that many people waited a week or two TO EVEN PLAY. Now, that's just a video game. Imagine The Apprentice being available like that. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by compro01 (777531) on Friday November 26, @03:06PM (#10926934) |
|
i don't see why it couldn't be run with P2P networking. you get the show for cheap (pennies), and in exchange, you distibute it along with everyone else. it would cut the server costs (and savings could be passed on to the buyer, though that would never happen with today executives..) and give lots of bandwidth available. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by 42forty-two42 (532340) <bdonlan.users@sf@net> on Friday November 26, @07:13PM (#10928162) (http://slashdot.org/) |
| Bittorrent runs plenty well already. Give it a beefier tracker, and a colocated seeding host, and it'll run plenty quickly. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:4, Informative)
by brianosaurus (48471) on Friday November 26, @02:41PM (#10926767) (http://www.brianosaurus.org/) |
|
BBC did it (or are in the process of doing it). It should be interesting to see how it plays out for them, and to see if anyone else follows suit. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by SlimFastForYou (578183) <konsoleman.yahoo@com> on Friday November 26, @05:42PM (#10927718) (Last Journal: Tuesday May 04, @12:27AM) |
|
I thought of this before your comment but there is one snag. Actors in commercials and I think even the TV shows want to be paid for each and every person who sees their beautiful (or not) face. Notice how many radio stations don't archive commercials with their content? With a torrent tracker, TV networks would know EXACTLY how many people are watching the shows. And the people on TV who demand so many $$$ per viewing will want to get paid too. Though is everyone who downloads the DivXed version of Enterprise complete with commercials going to watch the commercials? Are the actors who are trying to sell auto insurance going to want to be paid for every download? If the tv networks find a way to adjust their business model, this could very well become the next big thing. Hopefully they don't miss the boat like the RIAA did. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:3, Insightful)
by Snaller (147050) on Friday November 26, @08:36PM (#10928549) (Last Journal: Saturday October 23, @05:40PM) |
|
I don't see why a TV station couldn't put whatever bugs they want in the corner and include commercials with their downloads (people will find a way to skip them however hard they make it to fast forward, but then what else is new? People have been doing that for years with VCR's, nevermind TiVo). And it would be easy to make a 'custom build' for the user. Require users to create a profile. On the server each act is seperate, based on the users profile they select the commerials (which of course are prerendered) auto join the lot and allow people to download. If you get something with commercials you feel are somewhat relevant to you, you would probably be less inclined to skip them. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by dilvish_the_damned (167205) <dant@@@tg-embedded...com> on Friday November 26, @11:15PM (#10929160) |
|
I agree, but I also see it from the broadcasters point of view. From my perception of the situation, I would believe that this is closely related to the same issues that the major music labels have with internet access to music. Anyone can do it. Once downloading your show and playing it your 52 inch LCD widescreen becomes common, they are no longer strictly needed. Even with a humble project that defines a standard for cataloging independant provided content, and a user interface for expressing interest in such content, the old standard infrastructure we know as cable/satellite/broadcast would potentially take on a slow death. They fear death from the internet and its probably right that they do so. Its not that they cannot collect monies from advertisers, its that they would eventually fail to have the demand. But maybe this is longer term than what you were thinking... |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by ganley (88666) on Monday November 29, @02:58PM (#10945394) (http://ganley.org/) |
| Amen. Having easy, legal access to past TV episodes would be valuable enough to me that (assuming this were technically possible) I'd be willing to let them disable my ffwd/skip capabilities on those downloaded broadcasts. Or banner them, or whatever. Never mind the (relatively small) community of filesharing pirates, the networks are missing a huge, mainstream advertising market of people who would love on-demand access to old episodes. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:3, Insightful)
by Catbeller (118204) on Friday November 26, @01:21PM (#10926191) (http://slashdot.org/) |
|
Software exists to remove network logos. It's annoying that they put them in, but they are doing it intentionally to mess up your recordings. So smear it out. Anyway, HD-DVD's are coming soon. Present DVD's are downrezzed from about 525 lines to 480. Why buy fuzzy recordings for high prices when soon they will have full-rez versions available? And you can download most popular programs NOW using Bittorrent -- in HD format, wide aspect ratio. And make copies. Which HD-DVD's wll not let you do. They simply won't make a decent product at a decent price. If we want to see Buffy in her hidef glory, we'll have to do it ourselves for a while. For free gratis. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) on Friday November 26, @02:18PM (#10926621) |
|
"I don't remember if Spike does that but Sci-Fi channel cut out many parts of the original Star Trek to make room for commercials. " Spike claims not to cut their Trek episodes - the program is actually called "Trek Uncut". They don't do the funny business with the picture squishing anymore, either. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by Frizzle Fry (149026) on Friday November 26, @01:05PM (#10926074) (http://slashdot.org/) |
If I want all 7 seasons of TNG on DVD, all I need is a video capture card, SpikeTV's broadcast schedule, a simple shell script, and a small investment of time to edit out the commercials and burn the disks And now you have to sit around and wait until they've aired every episode from all 7 seasons? How long is that going to take? Look, if you don't want to buy it, then don't buy it. But stop acting like the concept of buying something is completely unreasonable. A lot of us have actual jobs and don't care that much about $100 and would much rather just go to the store and pick up the discs than jump through all of those hoops. Not everyone is on a college student budget. If you have an attitude of "why should I go to a restaurant and spend $20 on a meal when I can cook food at home for less?! All of those people who eat out are suckers" then stfu. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by Tassach (137772) on Friday November 26, @01:23PM (#10926207) (http://www.rapiertech.com/~tassach/) |
How long is that going to take?At 10 episodes per week, about 4 months for the entire run. But stop acting like the concept of buying something is completely unreasonableI'm not saying that buying it is unreasonable -- I'm saying that THE PRICE THEY ARE ASKING is unreasonable for what you get. I don't mind paying a fair price for a product. I *DO* mind having my wallet ass-raped. Look, if you don't want to buy it, then don't buy itI don't plan to. A lot of us have actual jobs and don't care that much about $100Some of us have kids and mortgages and have a more important things to spend $100 on than a TV show which we can watch for free. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by Frizzle Fry (149026) on Friday November 26, @01:41PM (#10926353) (http://slashdot.org/) |
Some of us have kids and mortgages and have a more important things to spend $100 on than a TV show which we can watch for free. For free? Can you explain to me how you are getting SpikeTV legally without paying? Because I would like to do that as well. I don't watch television. I really don't like it very much. I am currently visiting family for thanksgiving and they have cable, and I watching it, I am reminded of why I am not willing to pay for it. If cable or satellite cost $5/month, I would get it. At current prices, for the approximately one or two hours a month I might watch, it's not worthwhile at all. That doesn't mean that I tell my parents that they are unreasonable people who are getting their wallets ass-raped. It means that I don't buy it because I don't like the price. Obviously, other people value it differently. Just like these dvd's. If you think it's too expensive, then don't buy it. I'm not saying that it is worth $100 to you and you are making a mistake by passing it up. But it's pretty obnoxious to say that anyone who values it differently is an idiot and is getting screwed. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by Tassach (137772) on Friday November 26, @03:05PM (#10926927) (http://www.rapiertech.com/~tassach/) |
For free? Can you explain to me how you are getting SpikeTV legally without paying?Basic cable TV comes with my cable modem, whether I watch it or not. Since I need a broadband connection for telecommuting, and the cable package is cheaper than DSL, from my perspective the TV part is effectively "free" (especially since I can write it off as a business expense). Call it "Included-in-the-price-of-a-service-I'd-get-anywa |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by baloneypole (600786) on Friday November 26, @10:51PM (#10929077) |
| > FYI, it is still *LEGAL* to record a TV show for your personal use. Wrong. You can time-shift or media-shift shows that were broadcast, and you can back up material you own a copy of. TV shows do not fit that, and you have zero right to a multiple-use archival copy. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by Finite9 (757961) on Saturday November 27, @09:15AM (#10930528) |
| Can someone explain to me why broadcasters think they can claim this as being illegal? If something is shown on TV and a person makes a copy using a video capture card this is = the quality of the broadcast, and that person (who has paid his TV license) then shares that program over the internet, and I, having paid my TV license, download that file, what is the difference between this and if I had just watched and recorded the TV show myself??? As TV is broadcast over the airwaves, and as nearly 100% of the population owns a TV in the developed world and presumably pays their license fees, how can this be made illegal, simply because it is re-distributed via another channel without profit? |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by A Naughty Moose (672032) on Saturday November 27, @11:11AM (#10931126) |
| It's illegal simply because the person who puts a copy of the show that he recorded at home does not have the broadcast rights. The broadcasting companies have paid for those rights, not the individual receiving those signals. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by Minna Kirai (624281) on Saturday November 27, @09:44AM (#10930662) |
|
FYI, it is still *LEGAL* to record a TV show for your personal use. No it isn't. The only way it's legal to record from TV is for "time shifting" purposes. Watch it more than once, and you're breaking the law. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by mink (266117) <[moc.flahnogard] [ta] [knim]> on Tuesday November 30, @04:02PM (#10956520) |
|
What if I watch the tape part way through and back it up some to see something I missed (sign or want to re-watch an FX bit). Is it different if I do it on VHS vs. a PVR? I can watch something several times over using a "approvded" PVR like Tivo or those S.A. boxes time warner gives out. |
|
Piracy and Spotting it (Score:2)
by SeanDuggan (732224) on Friday November 26, @12:55PM (#10925994) (http://www.xanga.com/duggan/ | Last Journal: Thursday December 09, @09:40AM) |
| Admittedly, it's geared towards anime, but check out The Pirate Anime FAQ [anime.org.uk]. They've got a lot of nice little tips such as areas to watch for false logos, not to mention some common-sense rules of thumb such as episode to disc ratios (As they state, a typical ratio is 2-3 episodes per disc. If you're getting Seasons 1-7 and they list only 14 DVDs, it's probably pirated and there's a good chance that you're getting a lower-quality product. |
|
Re:Piracy and Spotting it (Score:1)
by rock_climbing_guy (630276) on Friday November 26, @03:00PM (#10926891) (Last Journal: Wednesday October 22, @03:09AM) |
| My brother bought one of those once. He says that it's so cheap that you can see the "play" icon on the screen from the VCR that it was copied from. The worst part, though, was the subtitles. He said that there was one part when they shouted before firing the canon from the spaceship which was subtitled "Ready make the tampon fire!" |
|
I'd be worried if they were firing "canon" too... (Score:2)
by SeanDuggan (732224) on Friday November 26, @03:46PM (#10927122) (http://www.xanga.com/duggan/ | Last Journal: Thursday December 09, @09:40AM) |
| Personally, my favorite was in Chobits. One of the pirate versions changed fansubs for the last two episodes, resulting in some truly egregious translations. The funniest part was that one of the episodes was reminiscing on prior events, which meant you could see the contrasting dialogue. My favorite mistranslation was translating a shouted "hentai!" into "metamorphist!" for the final episode rather than "pervert" as in the original episode. |
|
Re:Piracy and Spotting it (Score:2)
by superpulpsicle (533373) on Friday November 26, @08:52PM (#10928629) |
|
Publishers are milking every anime series for $$$. I have tried to watch that series stuff, and the screen writings are looped as hell. Plots take an eternity to develop. Most animes are part drama, part tragedy, part action, part comedy. WTF screenwriters?! Pick one! Though I still give credit to the two of the shortest and best animes ever "Ninja Scroll" and "Battle Angel". So I can understand why animes are such pirate-worthy material. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:3, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, @09:14AM (#10924120) |
|
13 episodes, 22 minutes each --> 286 minutes --> 4 hours 46 minutes But if you were watching friends it would probably feel like much longer... AC |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by DoctorMO (720244) on Friday November 26, @09:19AM (#10924137) |
|
Yes but I'm entitled to piret on the grounds that media worth $40 costs me $100 because I'm in the UK, no really £60 for a series is not uncommon. discusting really, media in this country is so damn expensive. that why I like ebay. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by zerocool^ (112121) on Friday November 26, @09:28AM (#10924204) (http://www.fredrock.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday April 13, @11:24AM) |
|
farscape - the complete 3rd season - $112.49 [amazon.com] |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by hattig (47930) on Friday November 26, @10:08AM (#10924500) (Last Journal: Tuesday May 04, @09:18PM) |
|
Wait for the price to drop The whole market is driven by demand, which sets the prices. I waited until Family Guy was £8.99 a season before buying it though! I shelled out £17.99 a series for Alias 1 and 2 as well. Otherwise the prices are too high. Patience rewards the buyer of TV DVD boxsets |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by sadler121 (735320) <msadler@gmail.com> on Friday November 26, @01:44PM (#10926374) (http://mhsadler.home.comcast.net/) |
|
Wait for the price to drop I've been wating for the price of Farscape DVD's to drop, they haven't. Meanwhile I've been able to buy nearly the entire seasons of Buffy and Angel for 40 bucks a season. If whoever puts out the Farscape DVD's (dunno if it is Henson or Sci Fi, I wouldn't doubt it if its Sci Fi) would drop the price to the $40-$50 range than they would sell TONS of DVD's, making up the drop in price from $112 to $50 in volume. I've got to say, for all their quirkiness, (read dumbass-ness) Fox knows who to market and price there box sets, where as other companys don't know shit about how to price there box sets and try to maximize profits solely through raising the price on the product instead of relaying on making a profit through a volume of sales. The Economy still is in the shitter, and with the re election of our dumb ass president, the Economy will only be getting better for millinare CEO's and shareholders, while Corperations continue to ass rape the American public (read, lower to middle class) at minimum to near minimum wage. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by hattig (47930) on Monday November 29, @08:11PM (#10948773) (Last Journal: Tuesday May 04, @09:18PM) |
|
Sadly Buffy and Angel are dead series, hence price dropoff. Farscape was dead, the prices did drop for seasons 1 and 2, then back up again because of the miniseries and launch of season 3 on dvd. they're milking the captive farscape fan market at the moment. In two years time, they'll be cheaper. Unless there is a bi-yearly Farscape mini-series, grrr. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by shufler (262955) on Friday November 26, @10:53AM (#10924899) (http://www.shufler.net/) |
|
For the sake of all the people who focus on a single aritmetic error: At around 22 minutes each, you're buying more than 260 minutes (or, more precisely 286 minutes, or 4 hours, 46 minutes) of programming. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by shufler (262955) on Friday November 26, @10:55AM (#10924919) (http://www.shufler.net/) |
|
For the sake of all the people who focus on a single spelling error: For the sake of all the people who focus on a single arithmetic error |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by 1u3hr (530656) on Friday November 26, @01:53PM (#10926448) |
|
For the sake of all the people who focus on a single aritmetic error: What, you have to endorse your mistake? Anyway, it was actually two errors: one being (originally) too lazy to calculate 22x13, by making it 20x13= 260, the other confusing hours and minutes. But by the big deal you made out of "260 hours!" it seemed an important part of your case. 4.8 hours doesn't seem such a great deal, does it? |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by shufler (262955) on Saturday November 27, @11:39AM (#10931280) (http://www.shufler.net/) |
|
Yes, 4.8 yes, it was a mistake. I had written 22 x 13, yet rounded to 22 to 20 in my head. I have no idea why I wrote HOURS, it was the incorrect unit of time, deal with it. Instead of people recognising that I had made a MATH ERROR and moving on with their lives, they instead felt the need to notice said error as if it was the only thing I had said. In the words of Professor Frink, "PI IS EXACTLY THREE!" Now then, I'm not complaining, and yes, I know this is slashdot so the response is to be expected. I suppose in the future I will do everyone a favour and check my math. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by 1u3hr (530656) on Sunday November 28, @08:00PM (#10939765) |
|
need to notice said error as if it was the only thing I had said. As the rest of your comment followed on from that mistake, addressing the rest seemed pointless. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by gilesjuk (604902) <doveleys@nildram . c o .uk> on Friday November 26, @12:26PM (#10925758) |
|
I just dislike paying over the odds for TV shows that have long broken even and make the TV studio fat wads of cash. Anything from the 80s such as A-Team, Airwolf or Knight Rider has made the studio loads. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by shufler (262955) on Friday November 26, @01:03PM (#10926060) (http://www.shufler.net/) |
|
None of those shows are on DVD though! I would certainly pay (reasonably though) for the compelete series of each of those (also McGyver, Miami Vice, and most of the cartoons from that decade). My only hope is that the upcomming A-Team and Miami Vice movies will result in DVDs being released as well (this might also be why they haven't been released all ready -- the studios are biding their time to release things to help feed the marketing hype). |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by TWX (665546) on Friday November 26, @07:55PM (#10928373) (http://www.blacksatin.net/) |
| A-Team is already out on DVD. It was a few months ago. I don't know about Miami Vice. I'm still waiting for the animated Tick cartoon series. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by shufler (262955) on Saturday November 27, @11:28AM (#10931224) (http://www.shufler.net/) |
|
Awesome. Amazon has season one, along with the Dukes of Hazard, Magnum P.I. and Knight Rider. Now I know what to get for Christmas. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by mrgriscom (721144) on Friday November 26, @12:40PM (#10925861) |
| > you're buying 260 HOURS of programming Funny how most box sets I've seen only have 4 or 5 DVDs, and not, say, 100... |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by sadler121 (735320) <msadler@gmail.com> on Friday November 26, @01:26PM (#10926239) (http://mhsadler.home.comcast.net/) |
|
There are a good deal of TV Shows that you can buy for 40-50 dollars which I agree is a bargin and worth the money. On the other hand, there are other shows that retail and $150 new to $90 used this is WAY TOO MUCH MONEY.
If you want to get people to buy your DVD sets price them around the $50 range, if it much higher than that people are going to get them elsewhere. As for the TV industry starting to sue us now, anybody know some good cheap (not neccessarly free) southeast asian proxy servers that I can get a shell account from. Looks like I am going to have to proxy all of my connections from there, encrypting them from the US of course |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by rilian4 (591569) on Sunday November 28, @03:14AM (#10936006) |
While you may think $40 for an entire season or two of a TV show is ludicrous, I find this perfectly acceptable.So would I but the fact is that most boxed sets for a single season are more like $60 to $70 per season. I don't download tv episodes but I also don't buy many box sets since they usually are pretty spendy... |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by ConceptJunkie (24823) on Friday November 26, @09:07AM (#10924050) (http://www.zycha.com/ | Last Journal: Monday August 25, @10:22PM) |
|
Hey, I'll buy DVD sets of all my favorite shows, but "The Simpsons" is only up to season 4. Of course I have almost all the first run episodes on VHS, but it's sure nice to burn a bunch of DVD's of seasons 5+. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by interiot (50685) on Friday November 26, @09:19AM (#10924136) (http://paperlined.org/) |
|
DVD boxsets? You can do that with TiVo too, but TV execs aren't up in arms about those.
An even better justification for TV pirating that you probably already receive most of the TV shows, but you don't want to go to the time/expense of buying and setting up a TiVo. After TiVo's latest [slashdot.org] BS [slashdot.org], this probably means building your own which can be costly and time consuming, especially when compared to buying a new hard drive and running BitTorrent constantly. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by Yartrebo (690383) on Friday November 26, @09:47AM (#10924349) |
| There's also the archiving aspect. I'd like to keep the stuff I download forever. To that end, I burn to CD stuff that I download (once I get myself a DVD burner, it'll be DVDs) and don't rely on a frail hard drive that could break any day. Also, to have any decent material for the Tivo, I'd need a cable subscription, which would be quite expensive. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by druxton (166270) on Friday November 26, @10:33AM (#10924678) |
| If you're relying on a CD or DVD to keep your stuff forever, I hope you're following these guidelines [cd-info.com] for "Prolonging CD-ROM's Life Expectancy". |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by Draknek (701283) <(slashdot) (at) (draknek.org)> on Friday November 26, @12:28PM (#10925774) (http://www.draknek.org/) |
|
I agree. I'm currently watching Angel episodes that I've downloaded with BitTorrent. I'm intending to work my way through the entire run, but I'm not expecting to do so more than once. A season of Angel is supposed to retail at £80. That's far, far too expensive for something which I am only going to watch once. It looks like I can get it from Amazon for £40, which is much better, but still not good enough. At these prices, there is no way I will buy them. BitTorrent provides me with an easy alternative. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by St. Arbirix (218306) <.matthew.townsend. .at. .gmail.com.> on Friday November 26, @05:27PM (#10927647) (http://www.clemson.edu/~mtownse/ | Last Journal: Friday December 03, @02:58AM) |
|
Shut up! Buy Firefly!!! [fireflymovie.com] It's only like $20 for 15 40-minute episodes at Wal-Mart. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by NanoGator (522640) on Friday November 26, @05:53PM (#10927765) (http://www.ferion.net/ | Last Journal: Monday May 06, @02:16AM) |
|
"Definitely and when you see the ludicrous cost of DVD boxsets for some TV shows you can see why." Sticker shock, not ludicrous prices. The most I ever paid for a DVD box set is $100 for a season of DS9. If memory serves, that was 16 hours of DS9. Basically, I paid a little over $6 per episode. That's a lot cheaper than what individual episodes are sold for. Anyway, that was the most extreme case. I bought an entire season of the Osbournes for $30. A season of M*A*S*H... I want to say $30, maybe $40 tops. The first season of Quantum Leap was $40. See a pattern? I think somebody else already commented and basically said the same thing. I just wanted to add that I don't really think they're all that ludicrous at all. I've been quite the happy little TV-season shopper. Cheaper than movies, really. I'm desperately looking forward to seasons 4 and up coming out for Oz. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by mink (266117) <[moc.flahnogard] [ta] [knim]> on Tuesday November 30, @03:37PM (#10956221) |
|
The problem is not the cost of TV series boxsets. The problem is when you want to buy a TV series and either it is not available(and never will be like Earthworm Jim/Freakazoid) or the DVD release is just some best of compilation (SNL and Muppets). This leads to the "problem" of piracy, there is a want not being met by the marketplace. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, @06:42AM (#10923440) |
|
I download 'lost', 'the daily show', 'the batman' and 'justice league unlimited' -- none of these shows are available in the uk, and if/when they become available I *will* watch them (on my big widescreen tv rather than my laptop). If some of these shows are bought by the BBC they won't have adverts in them anyways. The big problem seems to be loss of revenue through loss of advertsing but how hard would it be to come up with a hi-res format that allowed downloads but inserted adverts (in the normal course of the show, not banner ads) based on the end-users geographic location? Surely something like that would appease advertisers and downloaders (and there will always be those that prefer to watch these things on TV at set times - me for one). Course if something like that did exist you couldn't accuse people of theft (not unless they skipped through the adverts) - pj |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by aussie_a (778472) on Friday November 26, @06:50AM (#10923473) (http://www.armageddon.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 21, @03:52AM) |
| I'm in the same boat with Stargate: Atlantis. I eventually did stop, but not before watching 10 episodes. My conclusion after watching these 10 eps was checking what the prices for Stargate: SG-1 boxset was and saying "I'll be buying Stargate Atlantis season 1 when it comes out." This is an example of an increase in revenue for the business. And for us foreigners I'm going to go out on a limb and say it aint too uncommon. It may not be most of us foreigners illegally downloading the movies then going and buying the boxsets, but I'd say there's a significant portion. Of course, they don't care about that. RIAA started the suing p2p users bandwagon and everyone else is going along for the ride. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1, Interesting)
by Cheesy Fool (530943) <coward_fool.hotmail@com> on Friday November 26, @07:38AM (#10923618) (http://slashdot.org/) |
|
I've downloaded Batman: animated series episodes and when the dvd was released, I bought it. I've downloaded The Critic episodes and when the dvd was released, I bought it. I'm downloading Justice League episodes and if/when the dvds are released, I will buy them. |
|
You've described the Anime business model... (Score:3, Interesting)
by Firethorn (177587) on Friday November 26, @01:49PM (#10926410) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Friday December 10, @08:39PM) |
|
I've lost track of the number of Anime series/movies that I've downloaded, watched, and ended up eventually buying the DVD of. Heck, Anime companies have made statements that amount to "Sue the pirates? Heck, no, they're our best customers!" Most of them don't even pay macrovision to turn that bit on for the "copy protection" because "We don't believe in paying money for something that doesn't help the business." It doesn't stop piracy, it doesn't increase sales (actually decreases them!), and it annoys the legitimate customers. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by DavidTC (10147) <sasdxa1.vadiv.vadiv@neverbox.com> on Friday November 26, @02:33PM (#10926730) (http://slashdot.org/) |
|
Some of us in the US can't get Stargate, either SG-1 or Atlantis, or Farscape, because our local cable monopoly doesn't carry Sci-Fi, and, no, we can't get a dish in a dorm room. It is literally impossible for me to legally get said shows without renting a piece of property somewhere and setting up a dish with a VCR, and thus I have no qualms about getting them illegally. Same with Dead Like Me...stupid-ass cable has HBO and Cimemax, no Showtime. If they'd stick the shows up on their web sites with commericals and all, I'd probably watch their versions. Until then, I'll watch it however I get it. If they'd look at the shows that are pirated, they'd realize they all have one thing in common: They have a fanbase that's unable to get their shows, or at least unable to get them until much later. TV show trading isn't like movie trading, which is basically a way to get free movie rentals, or music trading, which is a way to keep from purchasing CDs, because people rarely purchase TV shows in the first place. TV trading is a way to replace 'viewing shows on TV', which, at last check, was also free, and thus the only people doing it are people who really want to watch a show but can't. Like me. Instead of whining about piracy, maybe they should figure out a way to get their fucking show to its fans. Now, of course, there are exceptions, like Babylon 5 or ST:TNG trading, which is a way to keep from purchasing the DVDs. But I'd have to guess that 50% of the TV trading going on are shows that have aired in the last month. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, @06:55AM (#10923495) |
|
XboxMediaCenter I watch the LOST hrhd (960*580 resolution) on my Sanyo PLV-Z2 projector in hidef. In Europe - where we don't even have HDTV yet How on earth is local TV supposed to compete with a vastly superiour, and fully legal in my country, product? |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by didde (685567) on Friday November 26, @07:21AM (#10923572) |
|
Good point. Shows produced in the U.S. are usually one season (at the very least) behind here in the EU, so downloading gives us the leverage of being able to watch the "new" shows – instead of the "old" ones - sooner. There's a lot of high quality rips made from HD-TV nowadays, so this is not an issue as much as it used to be. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by ezzzD55J (697465) <slashdot5@scum.org> on Friday November 26, @08:29AM (#10923801) |
|
Good point. Shows produced in the U.S. are usually one season (at the very least) behind here in the EU, so downloading gives us the leverage of being able to watch the "new" shows – instead of the "old" ones - sooner.
true, but i wonder if leverage means what i think you think it means. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by SirWinston (54399) on Friday November 26, @08:50AM (#10923929) |
|
> true, but i wonder if leverage means what i think you think it means. "You keep usin' tha word. I do na think it means wha you think it means." |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by didde (685567) on Friday November 26, @05:47PM (#10927742) |
|
Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps I did not pay enough attention in english class. Where are my modpoints when I need them? |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by legojenn (462946) <jsd@@@jenn...ca> on Friday November 26, @05:37PM (#10927693) (http://www.jenn.ca/ | Last Journal: Tuesday May 13, @04:25PM) |
|
Good point. Shows produced in the U.S. are usually one season (at the very least) behind here in the EU, so downloading gives us the leverage of being able to watch the "new" shows – instead of the "old" ones - sooner
And vice-versa. I like getting my hit of Eastenders when it is new, unlike the other suckers who get it on an 18 month delay on BBC Canada. I have an S-Video cable going from my PC to the TV and can watch downloaded like anything else I watch on satellite. The only downside or the bars on the top & bottom, but that is the downside to having the crappier TV protocol.
|
|
TV Piracy for the TV-less (Score:2, Interesting)
by wintermute1974 (596184) on Friday November 26, @08:22AM (#10923771) |
|
none of these shows are available in the uk In addition to geographic unavailability, another good reason that people download shows is that they don't own a television at all. I offer myself as an example. About a year and a half ago, I realized that the only show I enjoyed was The Simpsons. The rest was a regrettable waste of time. So I freed up space in my house by getting rid of the box itself, freed up personal time to do interesting things, and thanks to robotolabs' Simpsons torrents, I still get to watch this Sunday's episode of The Simpsons without having to wait the decade or so before it comes out on DVD. |
|
Other reasons... (Score:3, Insightful)
by totoanihilation (782326) on Friday November 26, @12:36PM (#10925834) |
|
Another good reason, too, is that some areas (even in the same city) cannot get some channels. For example: I live about 15 minutes from a friend of mine who gets the Space channel (canadian version of Sci-fi) for free with his basic cable service. Me? I can't get it at all, not even if I wanted to pay for it. Why? Because my neighbourhood is considered a french neighbourhood by the cable company, and thus we don't want any sci-fi in English. Let's forget the fact that most of the people I cross on my street speak english. So there is no way for me to watch sci-fi on tv, even if I wanted to pay for it. What I used to do is to get my friend to record shows for me, and then swap video tapes with him, but that was troublesome for him, and also unreliable ("oops, I forgot"). So instead, I cut the middleman, and download my weekly sci-fi fix. Finally, another reason to download shows is that TV is 4x3, and I have a 16:9 TV. HDTV isn't available here yet, and the image quality from my cable provider is piss-poor (fuzzy, grainy, washed out). So while I do watch a show live when it airs, when I'm away I no longer bother recording a show, because I can get a widescreen image, and better quality (than broadcast) by downloading it later. Now what I would truly dig is an iTunes Music Store for buying single episodes of a tv show. Then I could ditch the cable company entirely. Because seriously, 30 bucks a month for about 20 channels, all airing reality tv shows? I could really live without. Anyways, that was my 2 cents worth |
|
ICraveTV (Score:1)
by PhYrE2k2 (806396) on Friday November 26, @10:28AM (#10924641) (http://www.myinnercircle.ca/) |
|
A great venture back about 4-5 years ago was ICraveTV.com (now a dead link). See http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,33093,00.h |
|
"Next" ??? No kidding ! (Score:3, Informative)
by AftanGustur (7715) on Friday November 26, @06:55AM (#10923497) (http://slashdot.org/) |
|
Scroll down to "TV Shows" |
|
Re:"Next" ??? No kidding ! (Score:2, Informative)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, @08:05AM (#10923721) |
|
Suprnova without the ads: http://project-2501.net/php-scripts/suprnova-lite |
|
Re:"Next" ??? No kidding ! (Score:1)
by Tkaos (112433) on Friday November 26, @09:30AM (#10924224) |
|
Okay, so it IS without ads. I'll give you that. But, what about IP logging and automatic e-mail to district attorneys and RIAA lawyers? Hmm? |
|
Re:"Next" ??? No kidding ! (Score:1, Informative)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, @08:32AM (#10923810) |
| http://www.tvtorrents.net/ [tvtorrents.net] is THE TV source. |
|
Re:"Next" ??? No kidding ! (Score:3, Funny)
by Ubergrendle (531719) on Friday November 26, @08:49AM (#10923912) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday December 04, @09:13AM) |
|
EX-NAY on SUPRANOVA-NAY!!!!!!
I'm convinced that the RIAA and MPAA has Slashdot accounts, and just lie in wait... "Oh, look, a cool new technology that vaguely threatens our self-centered view of the world...EXTERMINATE!!!!" |
|
Re:"Next" ??? No kidding ! (Score:2)
by focitrixilous P (690813) <focitrixilousPNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday November 27, @06:54PM (#10933942) (http://fred.wackiness.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday September 01, @10:32PM) |
|
"Oh, look, a cool new technology that vaguely threatens our self-centered view of the world...EXTERMINATE!!!!"
Indeed, but there isn't much that's vague about suprnova. It's blatently a threat to their current profit making model. |
|
Re:"Next" ??? No kidding ! (Score:2)
by fred911 (83970) on Friday November 26, @10:14AM (#10924548) |
|
"It's probably the most popular and widely known file-trafficing site on the net." What second to Usenet? |
|
Re:"Next" ??? No kidding ! (Score:1)
by LegionX (691099) on Friday November 26, @10:33AM (#10924689) (http://www.evilmonks.net/) |
|
I wouldn't place usenet first |
|
Usenet isn't free anymore, Suprnova is... (Score:1)
by Cid Highwind (9258) on Friday November 26, @02:19PM (#10926635) (http://slashdot.org/) |
|
What second to Usenet? Usenet was number one for a long time, but it's a distant also-ran these days. Seriously, who still gets unfettered access to alt.binaries.* now? Maybe some college students do, but it seems that most commercial ISPs either charge an extra $10-20 per month for the binaries groups, or don't carry them at all. |
|
Actually (Score:2)
by StarKruzr (74642) on Friday November 26, @11:15AM (#10925098) (Last Journal: Monday September 30, @11:09PM) |
|
I heard somewhere that they use Suprnova and other BT sites as a kind of ratings source to tell them what shows they should be pumping up product placement in. Or someone does that and sells it to the ??AAs. Personally, I think that's a pretty ingenious idea. They'd get their advertising dollars and the more people download their placement-infused content, the more they can charge for them. Doesn't everyone win there? Doesn't work for music, of course... |
|
Re:"Next" ??? No kidding ! (Score:2)
by julesh (229690) on Saturday November 27, @01:07PM (#10931803) |
|
You bastard. I wondered why I couldn't get to suprnova earlier. |
|
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:1)
by trewornan (608722) on Friday November 26, @01:08PM (#10926096) |
| It's always advisable to keep this sort of stuff quiet but I think in the case of suprnova the cat's already out of the bag. |
|
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:2)
by HTH NE1 (675604) on Monday November 29, @03:02PM (#10945436) |
|
I think in the case of suprnova the cat's already out of the bag. When you have a TV show host wearing a suprnova.org T-shirt on live TV for an hour, yeah, it's out of the bag. Nevermind that the site even has T-shirts. Then again, it was a show on third tier digital platinum plus cable, so that might still be considered on the "down low". |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2, Informative)
by lukedukekiwi (834705) on Friday November 26, @06:59AM (#10923509) |
| Yeah i have been downloading tv for years too, but its often my only way to watch tv and keep up with shows. I travel around a bit and live in different countries. When i lived in germany i downloaded tv as i could not understand german dubbing. Im in sweden at the moment and down have a tv, just a laptop and a high speed internet connection. Also the release schedule is different depending on where you are in the world, so even if the tv is in english i often find they arnt at the same point in a series as the last place i was. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:5, Insightful)
by bampot (814270) on Friday November 26, @07:08AM (#10923537) |
|
This guy is making the assumption that people want to download shows in the first place Me, I'm going the other way because it just occurred to me I'm paying £XX/month for:
Just recently I've found myself watching program A, then the adverts start. Rather than watch them I channel-flick and start watching program B. Then forget I was even watching program A until more adverts come on. Damn. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2, Insightful)
by schizacopf (768954) on Friday November 26, @07:50AM (#10923669) (Last Journal: Monday November 29, @12:22PM) |
| I have been doing the same thing. However, in my area, they have recently upgraded their network. So we now have Entertainment On Demand, with HBO and Cinemax On Demand. Now I get to watch all their programs at my liesure without any adverts or their selected times. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by devonbowen (231626) on Friday November 26, @08:27AM (#10923791) |
|
All those reasons and you forgot "it just occurred to me I could be living my life". I want a TV show that just shows people sitting around watching TV. No, scratch that... I want a whole 24 hour network that does that. Now that would be Reality TV. Needless to say, I wouldn't be featured. Devon |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by jbrw (520) on Friday November 26, @09:14AM (#10924110) (http://www.blogthing.com/) |
|
Richard Bacon did this on (I think) Sky channel 247. "Flipside TV". Oh, and looky loo [digitalspy.co.uk], Flipside TV has been picked up by Comedy Central in the US and Bacon is expected to front it. Someone warn the kinky prostitutes. Oh, and the best thing on TV? Check out ch 695 on Sky. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:4, Insightful)
by Sai Babu (827212) on Friday November 26, @09:36AM (#10924265) (http://edebris.com/) |
|
This attitude re:copying TV is akin to that of the fat ugly broad who bitches you out and calls you a pervert because you happened to glance at her in her string bikini. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:3, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, @09:59AM (#10924418) |
|
Just recently I've found myself watching program A, then the adverts start. Rather than watch them I channel-flick and start watching program B. Lately, I've found that many stations have begun syncing their commercials with each other so that you can't do that anymore. When there's a commercial on...YOU MUST WATCH IT... |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by myov (177946) on Saturday November 27, @02:17AM (#10929748) |
|
I'm convinced I watch a TV show between commercials. I could just see some PHB at a TV network reducing expenses while increasing revenue by dropping shows and switching to <ANNOUNCER VOICE>all ads, all the time</VOICE>. First it was the voiceovers over the credits. Then it was scaling down the credits to display ads while they run. Then it was the "Coming up next..." titles popping up during the show. Now we have the animated coming up next titles (and the occasional "brought to you by Foobar corp!") taking up the lower third of the screen. I don't need to know what's on next DURING a show, or what's on your other networks, or what else I could be watching, or what's on next Thursday at 3AM. If it's good and I remember, I'll watch it. One thing I never understood... In Canada, cable companies will replace an American station with the Canadian one during the same show. (ie: Watching the Simpsons on the "fox" station, I'll actually see Global's feed). The only reason I can think of is so that I see Canadian ads (although, I've also seen commercials replaced by cable companies), since they're not doing it for Canadian Content reasons. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by Casca (4032) on Friday November 26, @10:57AM (#10924942) |
|
Some time ago while watching some show on a major broadcast network a commercial was on, and someone asked me what I was watching. I couldn't remember. I'd been sitting there watching whatever it was for at least 20 minutes, and I couldn't remember what I was watching! It was at that point that I realized how incredibly aweful programming has become. Its like having 300 channels of "Hypnotoad" or something. FWIW, I've never forgotten what book I was reading during some brief interlude in reading... |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by dorsey (119963) on Friday November 26, @01:31PM (#10926271) |
|
HEY! Hypnotoad is AWESOME! Do not criticize Hypnotoad. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by Beautyon (214567) on Friday November 26, @11:08AM (#10925046) (http://www.cafepress.com/irdial.13697382) |
| Let me guess, your network was Sky in the UK? because thats a 100% accurate description of their "service". |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by MrDickey (653242) on Friday November 26, @01:43PM (#10926368) |
| You make a good point that TV is the worst thing on TV, but I think the worry about piracy is about the TV DVDs that are coming out. Cable TV will never die, because it is relatively cheap entertainment that requires no work or movement whatsoever. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:3, Insightful)
by Dread_ed (260158) on Friday November 26, @06:18PM (#10927910) (http://slashdot.org/) |
|
I summed up your complaints in one (run on) sentence... "There aren't enough good writers to make enough good shows to fill one station with good programming for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, much less 250 of them." --Me Sometimes I think that they run the commercials to distract you from the horrible programs you are mesmerized into watching. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by MasTRE (588396) on Monday November 29, @02:43PM (#10945233) |
|
> This guy is making the assumption that people want to download shows in the first place Me, I'm going the other way because it just occurred to me I'm paying £XX/month for: [snip very, very good reasons] Well, you are living proof that all is not lost, that there is still independent thought out there. Shocking (to me)! Unfortunately, you, like I used to, do not understand the world around you. People do want to download shows, people do want to watch this garbage, people do want to be led by the hand, people do want to be patronized, people in general are very weak and easy to control and these fuckers have the best formulas and a monopoly on your free time (the little free time you are still allowed to have, as they make you work much longer hours for less pay these days - at least in the good ol' US of A, and I suspect it's much the same in your country, our top partner in crime). And the bad news? There is nothing you can do, absolutely nothing; your only option, really, is to live your life as an outsider - but at least you have the piece of mind that you're a decent person. There is no point in even attempting to change anything, you will waste your time=life. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:5, Interesting)
by Hieronymus Howard (215725) * on Friday November 26, @07:11AM (#10923544) |
|
You're right. This is nothing new. I don't watch TV, so only got into Buffy when a friend asked me to download some episodes for him, as I had adsl. This was a few of years ago when broadband was quite rare. I ended up watching them with him and was hooked. Since then, I've bought six boxed sets of Buffy and Angel DVDs and am planning on buying more. Another case of piracy leading to sales that they wouldn't otherwise have had. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2, Interesting)
by Threni (635302) on Friday November 26, @08:24AM (#10923784) |
|
> Since then, I've bought six boxed sets of Buffy and Angel DVDs and am planning > on buying more. Another case of piracy leading to sales that they wouldn't > otherwise have had. Why buy them when you could download them? Did you choose to support the show, or are you rich enough that it didn't make any difference whether you downloaded them or bought them? Or are you one of those odd `physical media fetishists`, like the ones that prefer inferiour vinyl over CD because `it smells better` or has `bigger cover art` or whatever? Just interested. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:5, Insightful)
by BlackHawk-666 (560896) <blackhawk@ivanhawkes.com> on Friday November 26, @08:36AM (#10923828) (http://www.ivanhawkes.com/) |
|
I also do exactly this. I hate watching TV because of all the ads and the fact that each pay channel usually only has 1 or 2 shows that are worth watching, forcing you to buy the whol damn lot just to get the few shows you want. I opted out years ago and started downloading instead. My time is worth something, and if I can see a movie with a running time of 90 mins in 90 mins instead of 120 mins that 30 mins I just saved right there - and no, I'm not incontinent and don't need a four minute toilet break every ten minutes. Lately, I have really been upping my anime fetish, and the shows I like aren't even available in the US in most cases, let alone the UK, so I download fansubs and buy the DVD's when/if they get released. But why buy the DVD's when I downloaded it already for free? Because I still believe content creators should be paid. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by Yartrebo (690383) on Friday November 26, @09:41AM (#10924300) |
|
I agree that ads are the #1 reason I barely watch over the air TV any more, except for PBS (which only has a handful of ads, and even though I dislike them, putting them around shows instead of in the middle placates me enough). I consider ads to cost me far more than my time. They stick dumb brand names into my head and screw with my mind as I'm no less vulnerable to brand marketing as any other person. Even if they don't work, they can get me all steamed up from them trying, since I find propaganda to be a form of insult/attack in my moral code. However, I won't buy the DVDs either (if the legal situation gets such that I can't get it safely, I'll just do without). I don't like paying for a large advertising and legal department. Right now I'm a student, so I don't have much money, but if I did have money to spare for entertainment, I'd much rather give it to PBS (which doesn't waste the better half of the budget on advertising) or to wikipedia or gutenberg (or other information related organizations that will make effective use of my dollar). Also, funding those groups will directly fund new content creation or distribution. On top of that, I can get a charitable contribution deduction, letting me donate a larger amount. It might not be fair, but at least I know that my money won't be used to lobby against me if I donate to those groups. The artists could either ask for donations directly (I'll be receptive, once I get a job) or go ask the government for direct subsidies (I'm supportive of expanding subsidies for the arts, though only for artists and PBS-like organizations and not for corporations). |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by druxton (166270) on Friday November 26, @12:05PM (#10925568) |
|
Let's see: So, if I understand you correctly, you won't watch ad-supported broadcast TV because it offends your "moral code", and you won't buy DVDs of those programs because you can't afford them. If you could afford them, you'd rather give the money to PBS "which doesn't waste the better half of the budget on advertising". Here are some clues for you, since you don't seem to have one: Obligatory paraphrase: "moral code" - I do not think these words mean what you think they mean. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by Jucius Maximus (229128) <[54lcrcv02] [at] [sneakemail.com]> on Friday November 26, @09:45AM (#10924334) (http://www.getfirefox.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 30, @10:38AM) |
|
"Lately, I have really been upping my anime fetish, and the shows I like aren't even available in the US in most cases, let alone the UK, so I download fansubs and buy the DVD's when/if they get released."
Yeah, exactly. Sharing of TV shows is huge, possibly bigger than the movie sharing underworld, it's just that it's mostly non-US shows being shared. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by BlackHawk-666 (560896) <blackhawk@ivanhawkes.com> on Friday November 26, @02:11PM (#10926573) (http://www.ivanhawkes.com/) |
| Oh man, I just followed your sig link and laughed my ass off! Please tell me that is not you in the picture. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by mpe (36238) on Friday November 26, @09:47AM (#10924347) |
|
I hate watching TV because of all the ads and the fact that each pay channel usually only has 1 or 2 shows that are worth watching, forcing you to buy the whol damn lot just to get the few shows you want. Or even worst you might have to buy channels you have no interest in at all, just to get the channels which have some content you might want to watch. My time is worth something, and if I can see a movie with a running time of 90 mins in 90 mins instead of 120 mins that 30 mins I just saved right there - and no, I'm not incontinent and don't need a four minute toilet break every ten minutes. The broadcasters expect you to keep watching when the adverts come on. The likes of electricity supply companies know this is nonsense, to the point that you could probably get a decent estimate of viewership from peaks due to electric kettles and water pumps (due to toilet usage)... (It's not unknown for people to be employed to watch TV and start up gas turbine power plants immediatly a commercial break comes up.) But why buy the DVD's when I downloaded it already for free? Because I still believe content creators should be paid. Though no doubt it's the middle men who get most of the money. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by lpret (570480) <lpret42@hotmaAAAil.com minus threevowels> on Friday November 26, @11:51AM (#10925423) (http://www.bearswap.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 15, @07:55PM) |
|
How come we can't have tv shows on iTunes? Imagine, buying a show for one dollar, or a whole sesason for 10 -- I would pay for that!
|
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:3, Interesting)
by discord5 (798235) on Friday November 26, @11:52AM (#10925438) (Last Journal: Friday December 10, @08:47PM) |
But why buy the DVD's when I downloaded it already for free? Because I still believe content creators should be paid. Hell, invent a system that allows you to download and share TV WITHOUT the ads legally where the actual creators of the show get a bigger cut instead of the middleman (the ones making the boxes), and I'd jump on it. I bought (starting jan 2004), 12 boxes of series, somewhere between 30 and 40 movies, and then I'm not even counting the cheap ones (the ones you pick up in some store between 3 and 10 €). I bought a single season of farscape, until I noticed that they had put ADVERTISEMENT on the DVDs. You know, if you add them as trailers, I won't nag, but if they FORCE you to watch ads on stuff you actually pay for I don't buy that crap anymore. Hell, everyone reading slashdot knows how bittorrent works, and 99% of us have used it for Evil. Except for perhaps students, most of us would be willing to pay for quality shows if we got DVD quality at good prices. Boxes are usually priced pretty well, unless it's a money hungry franchise drawing it's dying breath (*cough* Star Trek *cough*), and make up the largest part (counting discs, not packages) of my collection. Will I ever buy the 23 seasons of Friends? Nope. Will I/Have I downloaded them? Nope, not even "for a friend". Yes, leeching this stuff is stealing, but if I hadn't downloaded it first, I most likely wouldn't have seen it anyway. The movie industry is so keen on stopping piracy that they've actually hindered themselves more in this direction than they have helped their cause. DVD Zones stand in the way of promoting their shows across continents. So now we buy DVD players that can be put in region free modes. Copyright protection schemes like CSS have failed miserably and hindered a free and open adoption of DVD movies in free operating systems. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by Tink2000 (524407) on Friday November 26, @09:59AM (#10924430) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday February 10, @08:10PM) |
|
Why buy them when you could download them? I bought them because aside from the "pay the piper" principle, it looks better onscreen and typically sounds better as well (corrupted audio streams and video artifacts vs crystal clear picture and dolby digital). It's also acted as conscience salve as well. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by tabrnaker (741668) on Friday November 26, @04:01PM (#10927192) |
| But when will they come out with shows in hdtv on dvd? |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by really? (199452) on Friday November 26, @12:28PM (#10925781) (http://www.ebij.com/) |
|
In my case, because it's the simplest way _for me_ to reward the content creator. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by Queer Boy (451309) <<Dragon76> <at> <cinci.rr.com>> on Friday November 26, @04:16PM (#10927275) |
Why buy them when you could download them? Did you choose to support the show, or are you rich enough that it didn't make any difference whether you downloaded them or bought them? Because, no matter what anyone says, computer CODECS stink rotten tampons when it comes to quality. Bulky media CODECS are always better. I downloaded most of the Aqua Teen Hunger Force season one episodes and except for a few XviD AVI's, the quality is not as good as an MPEG2 encoded DVD, which is why I own the DVDs. I don't watch television in general. I don't have cable and get no reception on my TV, it's for games and movies. I happened to see an episode of ATHF at a friend's house and was hooked. I never would have bought the DVDs if I hadn't downloaded the shows first. I bought the second season without downloading any episodes. I didn't need to at that point. I was confident in the product. I would pay per show to watch TV shows without commercials. When do I get that choice? |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by phaln (579585) on Friday November 26, @10:50AM (#10924861) (http://www.splurb.com/) |
| Swap "Anime" for "Buffy" and we're pretty well on the same page. I've purchased more anime than I ever would have, if I had not been able to at least sample it first. Hell, my wife and I have spent far too many dollars on that as it is. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by Dr. Evil (3501) on Friday November 26, @12:53PM (#10925975) |
|
How oddly appropriate that the only product they successfully advertised to you was directly related to the program itself The interruption based advertising model MUST DIE! |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by MrNemesis (587188) on Friday November 26, @01:45PM (#10926383) (http://www.demolicious.org/) |
|
Amen, brother. I haven't had a TV for 6 years, and have finally got around to building myself a Myth box. Saw a couple of eps of Futurama on the recommendation of a friend, which I loved. Downloaded a few more from the net, loved them too. Bought the entire collection of 4 box sets on DVD... and I'm greeted to: a) About eight dead trees worth of "Stop pirating stuff, you filthy child murderer!" propaganda falling out of the box, plus requisite product catalogue b) A full *three minutes* of unskippable copyright notices (I'm in the UK, so all the EU langs have to be catered for) before I can watch the actual episodes (Xine and Media Player Classic will of course let me skip them, but we've only got a PS2 hooked up to the TV at the moment, pending the next MythTV box) And this is a country without the direct influence of the *AA's. And that is precisely why my terahertz althlons are busy transcoding their way through 15 DVD's worth of Futurama. Perhaps this is an exception, but I'm scared it isn't. The only TV shows I've bought on DVD until now are from the BBC, who are pretty no-nonsense about their DVD's, which also appear ludicrously cheap once the initial "It's a new DVD so we need an 800% markup" has worn off. Got the entirity of Coupling s02 (nine 28min episodes) for £7. I also downloaded about 60 movies frmo P2P when I was a student, all of which have now been replaced by DVD rips from my own collection (although this is still illegal in the UK), including about 20 movies I wouldn't have seen (Dark City, The Game, Brazil - lots of cool flicks) if my flatmates hadn't recommended them. Incidentally, my former flatmates are also busy legitamising their collections now that we have moolah, what with having jobs and stuff. But I can tell you: if I ever get bombarded with crap like I did with those (excellent, I might add) Futurama DVD's, I'll be taking a long hard look at ever buying propag^H^H^H^H^H^H TV DVD's ever again. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by Snaller (147050) on Friday November 26, @08:39PM (#10928563) (Last Journal: Saturday October 23, @05:40PM) |
|
Don't forget Firefly also by Joss Whedon - its fantastic |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:3, Interesting)
by meringuoid (568297) on Friday November 26, @08:04AM (#10923716) |
|
I watched the second half of Buffy series 6 and all of series 7 by downloading them, mostly from USENET. The BBC had stopped just as S6 was starting to turn really nasty, and I couldn't be waiting! I downloaded the last few that I had seen, and then all the rest of S6, and then all of S7 that had been aired to date, and thereafter I got the new episodes weekly, shortly before the US air date.
When the BBC finally caught up, they cut the last few episodes to ribbons, meaning that we didn't see Willow cutting anyone to ribbons... but I already had my high-quality, ad-free, uncut and unbranded pirate copies in which that naughty, naughty girl ties up, tortures, skins and burns that lucky, lucky guy... ... I'm sorry, I drifted off a little there. |
|
Maybe this is why (Score:3, Informative)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, @08:38AM (#10923836) |
|
This could be the reason why it is suddenly making headlines [engadget.com]. The article has been doing the rounds recently and I guess getting some peoples attention. It is a bit annoying because I have been using this exact method for quite some time, but now that everyone else has a step by step guide to it, they are having a 'slashdot effect' on my favourite rss feeds, and it is drawing attention to the tv episode download scene, which can only mean lawsuits are just around the corner. For me I feel I am justified in downloading some of these shows as they are never going to make it onto tv over here (the UK), for example Survivor, which is in its 9th season and not one episode has aired here, so it is highly doubtful they ever will. Maybe though if the UK companies use bitorrent file popularity for research, they might see which new US shows are popular with UK downloaders, and will buy them to air here. |
|
Re:Maybe this is why (Score:2)
by Dogtanian (588974) on Friday November 26, @01:19PM (#10926176) |
|
Survivor made it onto TV in a UK version, and no-one gave a fuck, probably because they were too busy watching Big Brother (the exact reverse situation of the US). As for showing the US Survivor in Britain... well, I don't think British audiences would be interested enough to justify broadcasting it on any major channel. Even the celeb-based shows wouldn't play well, because, although there are tons of US celebrities known in the UK, the ones who appear on US daytime TV and the like (the kind most likely to appear on reality shows) would have UK audiences scratching their heads and saying "Who the fuck is that?". I mean, do *you* know any famous US gameshow presenters, or hosts of daytime magazine shows? The sort of people that would be household names in the US but will never be widely known in the rest of the world? Of course not. Actually, forget that. I doubt half the "celebrities" on "I'm a Celebrity.... Get Me Out of Here!" were known to anyone who doesn't have "Hello" and "OK!" as their sole reading matter before they appeared on the show. And they only appeared in Hello because they were going to be on the TV show. Jeesus... there's *nothing* more soul-destroying than C-List, famous-for-being-famous schedule-filling, supermarket-magazine-selling celebrities. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1)
by rihooligan (834516) on Friday November 26, @10:46AM (#10924831) (Last Journal: Friday November 26, @11:05AM) |
| i dont know what the fuss is about the last thing i want to do is bootleg tv...over the internet ! |
|
Subs are another important reason (Score:1)
by RMgX (834712) on Friday November 26, @11:01AM (#10924978) |
| Fans of anime etc that are non japanese basicly don't have much choice other than to rely on dc and torrents to get subtitled ( fansub )animes. Of course some of the biggest hits will be out on DVD long after. I havn't seen much action taken by any of the Japanese companies making these shows, probably because they know that most of their fanbase/customerbase ( for eventual merchendise and dvdboxes ) abroad wouldn't even exist without fansubs. This is sort of the reverse I guess to the situation of people not wanting to see dubbed shows and therefore dl raws from US( not that I ever would watch dubbed anime over subbed ) |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by iabervon (1971) on Friday November 26, @11:34AM (#10925247) (http://iabervon.org/~barkalow/ | Last Journal: Saturday May 31, @02:01AM) |
|
It's only "next" because, while the RIAA was always worried about copying, and the MPAA was worried about bandwidth going up, the TVA has just been thinking about the same dam thing they always did. The owners of shows sell content to stations; stations sell time to advertizers, and send the combination to viewers whether or not they're watching. The fact that anyone can get a copy of a show for their own viewing doesn't make it harder for the owner to sell to stations, and the stations only care whether you're watching them or not, not what else you might be doing if you're not watching them. In fact, assuming that people are downloading TV shows over the internet a lot, it is in the interests of the owners of shows to cover this fact up rather than publicizing it and doing something about it, because they don't want to send the message to stations and advertizers that people don't watch shows. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:2)
by NewWaveNet (584716) <me@austinheap.com> on Friday November 26, @03:30PM (#10927054) (http://www.austinheap.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday September 08, @11:57PM) |
|
Uhm, did they miss something [austinheap.com] back in 1998 -- six years ago?
I'm honestly not posting this because of my secret addiction to living in the past, but this has been going on much longer than the main-stream music sharing. South Park was a natural canidate for digitization (then using one of Real's codecs) due it's incredibly simplistic style. |
|
Exactly (Score:1)
by YowzaTheYuzzum (774454) on Friday November 26, @05:19PM (#10927604) |
|
Seriously, this has been going on for years. Exactly... It's gotten to the stage now where most of the TV I watch comes from the net. And the reason why? TV here (in Australia) sucks. We're years behind the US. Hell, we're still getting new episodes of Voyager. |
|
Re:South Park piracy is next? (Score:1)
by L0k11 (617726) on Friday November 26, @07:19PM (#10928192) (http://www.fordlaser.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday October 15, @10:27PM) |
|
The filesize was alright though, 30 megs isn't so bad on dialup, i remember this was before divx... it was just the quality was aweful. These days average episode size is 150mb in divx so i guess I better get broadband connected again (just moved) Actually I remember Matt Stone and Trey Parker giving an interview saying they liked that people were downloading episodes and didn't have a problem with it... Though I dont doubt that comedy central wasn't so happy.. |
|
Re:TV piracy is next? (Score:1, Offtopic)
by Snaller (147050) on Friday November 26, @07:48PM (#10928346) (Last Journal: Saturday October 23, @05:40PM) |
|
See that over there? That is the boat, you have missed it. Damn, you've got good eyes! |
|
It's a bit late (Score:1, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, @06:16AM (#10923321) |
| I've only been downloading tv shows from p2p networks, and that's going back a few years as well. |
|
Re:It's a bit late (Score:2)
by ardiri (245358) on Friday November 26, @06:45AM (#10923457) (http://www.ardiri.com/) |
|
i have over 700gb of my favourite TV shows. i dont bother with music of movies - but, completing the complete series of a tv show and forever having it to view whenever you want is gold. with the groups now releasing HR HDTV, the quality isn't crappy VCD anymore. they can be 350mb or 700mb xvid files with near DVD quality. the second reason is that sometimes shows ONLY air in the USA - and, they take up to a year to air over in europe. with bittorrents/direct connect - i can watch last nights episode, direct from CBS HDTV ripped into a 350mb xvid file. and, it isn't old news. the quality has just gotten much better over the years. |
|
Re:It's a bit late (Score:3, Insightful)
by DaHat (247651) on Friday November 26, @10:52AM (#10924889) (http://dahat.com/) |
|
Programs airing over seas and then in the US months later is also IMO a major reason for tv 'piracy'. SciFi frequently took very long mid season breaks in airing Farscape in the US... all the while they continue airing on SkyOne. SciFi does this often sadly... the new Battlestar Galactica series, 'coming to SciFi in January'... has already aired 5 episodes on SkyOne. Not that I download such things... but I wonder if SciFi's slowness to broadcast could be considered inducement of copyright infringement... thousands of geeks saying "I don’t want to wait 4 months to watch the episode just because of where I live legitimately". |
|
Re:It's a bit late (Score:2)
by peccary (161168) on Friday November 26, @05:20PM (#10927607) |
|
As if timeliness were really an issue of concern for a fiction miniseries. Why is it such a big deal to wait a few months? It won't go stale... ('Course, I can't figure why people obsess about watching football games live, either. If the game is good, it will still be good an hour later, right? What if that game was aired a half-hour delayed, and they just *told* the viewers it was live. Would that diminish the experience?) |
|
I love TV (Score:4, Insightful)
by koan (80826) on Friday November 26, @06:17AM (#10923323) (http://www.lostpacket.net/) |
|
When I can download it with no commercials, that's how I get my dailyshow. If I have to pay 49$'s a month for cable why do I have to have commercials. |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:2, Insightful)
by leonmergen (807379) * on Friday November 26, @06:19AM (#10923335) (http://www.solatis.com/) |
| Because otherwise you would have to pay $99 a month for your cable... |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:1)
by mirko (198274) on Friday November 26, @06:28AM (#10923370) (http://gnuart.net/data/ | Last Journal: Wednesday November 17, @01:43PM) |
|
They should at least give people this option : pay extra buck for no intrusive ads. I personally refuse to have a tv set, there's so much to be done. |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:1)
by Archangel_Azazel (707030) on Friday November 26, @09:51AM (#10924373) (Last Journal: Wednesday January 07, @06:51PM) |
| ...They did. I remember when they kept advertising cable by saying "Why would you want those crappy air tv stations? the recption is shoddy and THEY HAVE COMMERCIALS, WE DON'T." oh but I remember those days well. Then, when people all came over to cable, *poof* cable commmercials. |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:2)
by eggstasy (458692) on Friday November 26, @06:33AM (#10923398) (http://metaverse.sourceforge.net/) |
|
Wrong. The cable companies are just being greedy. They dont even need $49 per user, let alone $99. In my country cable is a lot cheaper than in america and it also has no advertisement. |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:3, Insightful)
by miu (626917) on Friday November 26, @06:42AM (#10923438) (http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ | Last Journal: Saturday July 10, @03:34AM) |
|
In my country cable is a lot cheaper than in america and it also has no advertisement.
I'm gonna be an asshole here and ask the obvious question - sure it may be commercial free, but is there anything worth watching? American TV is a wasteland - but there is so much money floating around that occasionally shows get made that I like (course those do seem to get cancelled awfully quick too). And someone must like those stupid reality shows and boyband infomercials. |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:2)
by wwwillem (253720) on Friday November 26, @10:31AM (#10924665) (http://www.schaik.com/) |
|
In my country cable is a lot cheaper than in america and it also has no advertisement. Then I'll ask the other obvious question: Which country? Which nerd doesn't want to live in a country with zero ad TV |
|
Obligatory reaction... (Score:2)
by leonmergen (807379) * on Friday November 26, @01:24PM (#10926228) (http://www.solatis.com/) |
|
... in Soviet Russia, products don't need to be advertised! |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:2)
by Kombat (93720) <kombat@kombat.org> on Friday November 26, @09:22AM (#10924156) (http://kombat.org/) |
|
Because otherwise you would have to pay $99 a month for your cable.. Only if the current "bundling" model is preserved, and I'm forced to keep the same 200 channels. I currently pay about $80 a month for cable ($25 of that is PVR rental), and I don't even know how many channels I get. One day, I was up, flipping around in the 600's, and I was surprised to find a bunch of the same channels in the low 100's, just timeshifted. I didn't even know I got those channels! If TV stations would let us pick which channels we want, I would gladly pay $5, even $10 per channel, if they were commercial-free, because there are really maybe only 5 channels I ever watch. Yes, yes, I know all about the CRTC Canadian Content rules, and why the cable companies are not allowed to offer the exact thing I just suggested. I'm saying it would be nice. Sure, all those niche networks would disappear, but such is capitalism, isn't it? Why are we propping up obscure channels anyway, when the market should be deciding if those channels deserve to exist? |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:2)
by Kombat (93720) <kombat@kombat.org> on Friday November 26, @09:25AM (#10924186) (http://kombat.org/) |
|
For the curious, the "5 or 6 channels I watch" are TLC, Discovery, FOX (I gotta have my COPS), CNN Headline News (morning fast-food serving of news), Global (a Canadian NBC/CBS affiliate that broadcasts the most popular shows from both those networks [eg. Joey, Survivor, Apprentice]), CityTV (my wife watches Smallville and Enterprise), and CBC (which doesn't count because it's the publicly-funded channel in Canada, and would be free anyway). And maybe HGTV and Comedy Network. Every other channel on the dial could go away, and I wouldn't care (if I even noticed). |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:1)
by shades6666 (657396) on Friday November 26, @10:42AM (#10924791) |
|
Out of curiosity, aren't all those channels offered through regular cable in your area? Here, Rogers cable include all of those in their MeTV pack for $38.99 btw: I assume you're subscribed to a digital package since you talked of having 200 channels and the duplication of the first 100 into the 600 range |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:2)
by Kombat (93720) <kombat@kombat.org> on Friday November 26, @12:05PM (#10925569) (http://kombat.org/) |
| Yup, I'm a digital customer, because you have to be in order to get the PVR. I really like the way the PVR has changed the way my wife and I watch TV, but the current version is too buggy for me to consider paying the $700 to buy it outright. |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:2)
by Tripster (23407) on Friday November 26, @12:10PM (#10925613) (http://www.dynanet.ca) |
|
Costco out here in BC now has the Panasonic DVD recorders that also double as DVR's, last I looked they were down below the $400 mark now. Sure they don't feature the integrated IPG features so you'd have to set timers like a VCR but hey, it beats paying $25/month or $700 for the cableco version which ties you to the cableco. Optionally you should consider going the ExpressVu route as they are now selling their 5200 PVR at reasonable prices ($299 comes to mind for new subs). I'm a ExpressVu sub, had one of their early 5100 for a couple years now, I don't watch it myself but my wife loves the thing, except now she's whining she wants one with two tuners, three if I could manage it |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:3, Insightful)
by kfg (145172) on Friday November 26, @06:29AM (#10923374) |
|
If I have to pay 49$'s a month for cable why do I have to have commercials. For exactly the same reason that you have to pay $49 for a cable internet connection but websites still have ads on them. KFG |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:1)
by Splab (574204) on Friday November 26, @06:32AM (#10923394) |
|
Ever heard of addblock? I havent seen internet adds in days now. Its only when I'm farking around I get ads - and thats because I havent seen that add server before... |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:3, Funny)
by Zorilla (791636) on Friday November 26, @06:48AM (#10923467) |
| Dude, I think your spelling has an identity crisis. |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:1)
by druxton (166270) on Friday November 26, @12:16PM (#10925679) |
| Time for an intervention, or maybe an apostrophe key. |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:5, Interesting)
by AllUsernamesAreGone (688381) on Friday November 26, @07:08AM (#10923535) |
|
Not really. The advert revenue on cable allows the cable company to reduces the cost to the subscriber*, effectively the cable subscriber is paying for their subscription in two ways: money and viewing time. With cable internet it's a different kettle of fish: the subsciber's $49 goes to the cable company, but the revenue from the advertisement doesn't go anywhere near the cable company, it is used by the site maintainer to pay for bandwidth costs. In this case the cable internet subscriber is paying their subscription and the costs of a third party. The two cases aren't really equivalent: the former is a simple trade of one cost for another, the latter is two costs - one from the cable company and one from the website owner. * as long as you assume that the cost of the subscription really is > $49. Which it probably isn't, but such is the way of business. |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:1)
by kfg (145172) on Friday November 26, @07:45AM (#10923648) |
|
No, it is more complicated than that. Cable television can only derive advertising revenue from channels they control. They don't get a dime of the bazillion dollars that Pepsi spends on the Superbowl, for instance, just as they don't get a dime for the ads on my website, and back in the day when cable only showed network television it cost less than ten bucks. If I only wanted network over cable now it would only cost me fifteen bucks, because I'd only be paying for the cable, not the content (and I'll point out that the only reason my cable bill is $49 is because I do get some commercial free channels plus commercial free "radio" (if you don't count the advertising for the music itself). So they set up their own content channels to which they could direct my viewership and sell advertising on it, and have to produce content to get me to do that, and the content has to be payed for, so they sell advertising. . . On the flip side my cable internet provider, since it doesn't derive a dime from the advertising on my website, sets up it's own portal, sells advertising on it, and attempts to direct as much of my internet use through their portal as they can. The weighting of the numbers changings from one to the other, but the practice is the same. KFG |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:2)
by antiMStroll (664213) on Friday November 26, @10:34AM (#10924699) |
|
"The advert revenue on cable allows the cable company to reduces the cost to the subscriber..." How are cable companies making money from TV advertising? TV sales reps work for individual stations, advertisers pay TV stations directly. Cable companies pay TV stations for the right to carry them per household. By which route does advertising money paid to TV stations find its way into cable company coffers? |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:1)
by a8o (743233) on Friday November 26, @07:01PM (#10928114) (http://jennykelly.bizmail.com.au/) |
| I see it differently in that most ads on cable TV are for the CHANNEL SHOWING THE SHOW. It's as if advertising executive have thought you are not conscious of the choice you are making to watch a show, which really reflects the standard of programming on the whole. They operate on the basis that there are dozens of channels in competition for a viewer's time and that they must establish name/brand recognition in order to bring channel surfers back. |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:2)
by Queer Boy (451309) <<Dragon76> <at> <cinci.rr.com>> on Friday November 26, @04:21PM (#10927304) |
For exactly the same reason that you have to pay $49 for a cable internet connection but websites still have ads on them. Oh, you must be on AOL. THE WEB IS NOT THE INTERNET. I don't get ads in my e-mail, FTP, P2P, or IM. |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:1)
by jerde (23294) on Friday November 26, @07:47AM (#10923656) (Last Journal: Monday January 20, @05:37PM) |
|
>>On the internet, the ISP does NOT dictate internet ads. >This will be news to the maintainers of my ISPs website. Huh? What does an ISP's website have to do with internet ads on the rest of the web? - Peter |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:1)
by kfg (145172) on Friday November 26, @07:52AM (#10923673) |
|
What does an ISP's website have to do with internet ads on the rest of the web? Nothing, just as ads on NBC have nothing to with ads on cable only channels. KFG |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:2)
by BrainInAJar (584756) <johnbarker@gmTOKYOail.com minus city> on Friday November 26, @06:44AM (#10923452) (http://www.marxist.com/) |
|
I don't have cable, and even if i did i couldn't watch the shows i want...
no comedy central up in the great white north, so daily show is on once a week (weekly show?), and aquateen or invader zim is just right out so instead i "steal" them. |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:1)
by Aroma 7herapy (814263) on Friday November 26, @09:21AM (#10924150) |
|
I completely agree with you,
The only shows I watch are Top Gear and the Daily show. Top Gear is on the BBC satellite which is free-to-view (w/out ads) and the Daily show is not available in my country (Holland) So, I maybe a pirate in theory, I really don't see _anything_ wrong with downloading those shows. |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:1)
by Khuffie (818093) <khuffie@@@khuffie...com> on Friday November 26, @11:54AM (#10925469) |
| I'm assuming you mean Canada by the 'great white north', because Comedy Network has the Daily Show Mondays-Thursdays (when its on in the US) at 11pm EST and CTV has it at midnight. |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:1)
by SirWinston (54399) on Friday November 26, @08:27AM (#10923793) |
|
I understand full well that commercial revenues, even for cable shows, underwrite everything and decrease our cable fees. But given the breadth of TV programming it's impossible to watch everything at airtime and recording everything potentially great would require about six tuners and recorders. And when it comes to new series, you don't know what's great ahead of time. Case in point, I thought *Desperate Housewives* would be either girlish crap or dumb sexploitation *V.I.P* style. Only after hearing good buzz and grabbing the first few eps off BT did I realize I liked the show's ongoing air of mystery and many episodic intrigues. I'm now a regular viewer of a show, on first broadcast commercials-and-all every week, which I'd never have watched, thanks to P2P downloading. To think that media companies aren't filling this niche themselves by allowing some sort of download (DRM, commercials, fine--just dip into the market) of previous episodes, to recruit new viewers, is remarkable. To think that they may want to sue me for using the only means I had to catch up on a new series and become one of their ratings-inflating viewer drones is even more so. My experience with TV on P2P has made me watch more commercials, not less, because it's gotten me hooked on new shows I would have missed the boat on otherwise. And when I'm hooked, I need my fix at broadcast time, not a day or two later when the XviD encodes appear. |
|
Ex-act-ly (Score:2)
by phorm (591458) on Friday November 26, @12:14PM (#10925647) (http://www.phormix.com/ | Last Journal: Monday May 19, @12:08PM) |
|
I can download a few hours worth of programming in DivX format in a relatively low time-frame. When monthly bandwidth usage becomes less of a concern, why not offer a package wherein for $30/mo I can set my 'puter up to pick shows I want from TV-guide, download them, and watch them when I get home from work. Not much different from what's happening already anyhow The main issue is probably commercial revenue. If you *really* want me to see a few commercials, drop the price a bit for packages with mandatory commercials, or perhaps throw them in during the loading process as a quick clip. |
|
Re:I love TV (Score:1)
by WiggyWack (88258) on Friday November 26, @12:39PM (#10925855) (http://www.maccomedy.com/) |
|
If I have to pay 49$'s a month for cable why do I have to have commercials.
That comment really isn't all that "Insightful". Your $49 a month (along with everyone else's) does not cover the billions of dollars networks put into programming every year. It only pays a portion of it. Cable TV providers (Time Warner, Comcast, Adelphia...) pay the cable nets (HGTV, Sci Fi, Comedy Central, G4TV) a certain amount per month per subscriber the system carries. So if Adelphia has 5 million subscribers and Viacom charges 10 cents per subscriber to carry Comedy Central, that's $500,000 a month that Adelphia has to give to Comedy Central. But that's only $6 million a year for Comedy Central which only covers Dave Chappelle's salary. Hence, advertising dollars needed to cover the rest. The $49 a month you pay also pays all the people that work at the call center, install cables, work at the headend, etc. Using Adelphia as an example again, only 10 percent of their revenue comes from local advertising sales. 90 percent comes from that monthly fee, but it's used to pay the networks, run all their offices so little old ladies can still walk in and pay their bills, upgrade systems to digital, new technology, etc... If you don't want commercials, subscribe to a premium network such as HBO. But it'll cost ya more than 10 cents a month... |
|
Question (Score:1)
by JNighthawk (769575) <NihirNighthawk AT aol DOT com> on Friday November 26, @06:17AM (#10923325) |
| If I download DVD rips of TV show compilations, who's sales am I supposedly hurting? Does it count as both DVD and TV piracy? I just want to make sure I know who's gonna claim I hurt their sales by downloading what I never would have bought. |
|
Re:Question (Score:3, Interesting)
by BiggerIsBetter (682164) on Friday November 26, @06:36AM (#10923406) |
| It *potentially* hurting advertising sales for the TV networks. BUT, the TV networks don't play anything worthy over here anyway... so for me to download Farscape - ripped from an already free to air broadcast - will be hurting the sales of nobody. |
|
Re:Question (Score:2)
by BiggerIsBetter (682164) on Friday November 26, @08:34AM (#10923821) |
|
The problem with your argument is that their ratings for those shows are zero anyway. They simply aren't showing them, and therefore they aren't losing any advertising revenue. And in all seriousness, people who download TV programs aren't going to be paying much attention to the Micky D's ads anyway... Potentially, yes, the free-to-air stations could lose out, but that's happening because they're not competitive. They're in the business of selling eyeballs to advertisers, and if the eyeballs are going elsewhere,they need to change their game to get them back. If there's something good on maybe I'll watch it (eg Crossing Jorden, Ren and Stimpy), but most of what we see here in NZ are reruns of The Simpsons and Friends, and 80s/90s blockbusters movies. That's just not competitive with what's available online. |
|
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
by TheRaven64 (641858) on Friday November 26, @08:21AM (#10923767) (http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Monday October 11, @05:13AM) |
|
The important question is; is it actually illegal? If I subscribe to a TV channel that broadcasts a show, fail to watch it, and then download it, was that illegal? If I record it on a tape or a TiVo-like device and watch it later, then it was not illegal (under time-shifting rulings). The internal workings of a VCR and a TiVo are very different, but they are treated by law as black box devices that allow a broadcast TV programme to be time-shifted. A computer connected to the Internet is doing exactly the same thing - time-shifting a programme that has been broadcast. The only difference is that it operates retroactively (i.e. you can choose to time-shift something after it has been broadcast, rather than before, which is usually more convenient). The next question is; if this is legal, what happens if you download it before it is aired, but don't watch it until afterwards? Again, from a black-box user's perspective, this is no different from using a TiVo or a VCR. In fact, it is more similar than the first case, since you are performing the time-shift action before the airing as you do with a VCR or TiVo. I would very much like to see this defence used in court. If the court views it as legal then it could almost certainly be extended to include any song that has been broadcast on public radio or film that has been shown on TV. Of course, the question is moot if you are downloading things that have not been broadcast on channels you to which you are subscribed. |
|
Re:Question (Score:1)
by whiskeypete (305461) on Friday November 26, @09:21AM (#10924147) |
|
Whether or not it is illegal for you to download it, it IS illegal for the person(s) uploading it to provide the content. Watching the show isn't illegal. Recording the show isn't illegal. The difference between this and personal timeshifting is where you got the content. Did the person you received the file from have the right to distribute the file? |
|
Re:Question (Score:2)
by HTH NE1 (675604) on Monday November 29, @03:32PM (#10945779) |
| Well, I wouldn't use the Internet at all if I could get the hang of the time machine. It's a very delicate business, web surfing, you know. Full of appalling traps and dangers. |
|
TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:5, Insightful)
by My Iron Lung (834019) on Friday November 26, @06:17AM (#10923326) |
| It's true. I don't even make the effort to watch shows at their designated times anymore. I'll go and download the latest episode of CSI in about 15 minutes and watch it with much higher quality video and sound, and no commercial breaks. How will the industry adapt? |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:5, Insightful)
by Chicane-UK (455253) <chicane-uk.ntlworld@com> on Friday November 26, @06:25AM (#10923356) (http://www.overclocked-hardware.com/) |
| Lots more lawsuits perhaps? |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:5, Insightful)
by My Iron Lung (834019) on Friday November 26, @06:32AM (#10923386) |
| Lawsuits at first, but like the copyrighted music swapping industry, it's never going to be stamped out. The music industry is already learning that they must embrace mp3s or die, and someday the television industry is going to have to wake up and smell the coffee as well. Between TiVo, the internet, and broadband internet, how can television advertising stand a chance? True that the percentage of people actually watching televion must be huge compared to the number of people watching TV shows off the internet.. but as the technology becomes more easily adapted and readily available, there are going to be a lot less people viewing television commercials. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:3, Interesting)
by Zorilla (791636) on Friday November 26, @06:51AM (#10923479) |
| There is a problem with TV timeshifting that we never saw with music swapping. The devices used to do it are usually controlled through a service and much easier for companies to cockblock through firmware and hardware restrictions. That's the thing to look out for. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:1)
by alib001 (654044) on Friday November 26, @10:20AM (#10924586) |
...how can television advertising stand a chance? It will probably just adapt and become more objectionable. It's too lucrative a practice for it not to do so. There are already alternatives out there that supplement the advert breaks and no doubt there are more in development. Product placement, for example, would probably increase. Popular programmes are now "sponsored by _____" such and such a product with advertising shown between the programme and the advert breaks themselves. A lot of TV is now branded with a permanent logo. To advertising people this is probably just more space they could fill and sell. I wouldn't be surprised if ticker tape displays or banners were introduced either. You're dealing with the sort of people that thought subliminal advertising was a good idea and make the adverts sound louder than the TV shows. There is no ultimate low. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by forkazoo (138186) <forkazooNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Friday November 26, @03:57PM (#10927172) |
|
How can television stand a chance? Easy, offer It's a really obvious gold mine. -Make torrents available, so you have negligible bandwidth costs. No station to build, negligible staff, it's basically free money. -Use standard MPEG, or similar, so there aren't crazy licensing fees associated with some of the fancier codecs with DRM and such. Also, almost everybody on the planet can play MPEG, so you have a low effort solution for your customers. -Since torrents are downloaded rather than streamed, your viewers will be automatically archiving a copy of your program. You can use this as a big sticking point with your advertisers, as people will likely watch the adverts over and over again. -step 3: Profit. If the ads are not overwhelmingly plentiful, and the quality is good (using a professional engineer to encode you shows off of the original masters, rather than a 12 year old witrh rabbit ears trying to figure it out), people will prefer using the legit service with ads to pirating. Having one convenient website with an RSS feed, which you know won't get shut down by feds next week... That's nice. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:1)
by yabos (719499) on Saturday November 27, @11:45AM (#10931317) |
|
What they should do is just get time shifting working properly, then there would be no reason(or less reason) for people to download shows.
Half the shows I watch a week are all on at the same time, and only on once per week. Who's the genius that did that? I can't have 3 VCRs recording stuff all at once, so I invariably end up downloading at least one show a week. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:1)
by Foddrick (13702) <mark AT donkmail DOT com> on Friday November 26, @06:29AM (#10923375) (http://www.donkmail.com/) |
|
And add to this, anyone from outside the US who gets to watch stuff 6-12 months later. IIRC, the Friends finale hasn't actually aired here in |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by aussie_a (778472) on Friday November 26, @06:58AM (#10923506) (http://www.armageddon.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 21, @03:52AM) |
|
Lucky you do because it was aired a week ago |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:4, Interesting)
by yobbo (324595) on Friday November 26, @07:28AM (#10923593) |
|
I have crappy reception, a larger monitor than my TV, and I have the option of downloading Enterprise in HD, 6 months before the episode airs in Australia. I don't have to wait until 10:30pm to watch it either. Channel 9, what do you seriously expect me to do? |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by Viceice (462967) on Friday November 26, @09:37AM (#10924275) |
| Same here. My local TV station is currently airing season 1 of Enterprise.... And i've seen every episode between the pilot and this weeks pre-air which is due in the next 2 hours. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:1)
by alib001 (654044) on Friday November 26, @10:27AM (#10924637) |
|
And in some cases before it even gets aired in the US... today, for example. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:5, Interesting)
by nano2nd (205661) on Friday November 26, @06:30AM (#10923380) |
|
The industry SHOULD and COULD adapt to this by offering their own high quality copies of TV episodes via BitTorrent. The TV companies would be in control of their content again and would be free to include advertising. This is a whole new distribution medium for them with virtually no operating costs (due to the highly distributed nature of BitTorrent). Any revenue generated by advertising in this channel would be total profit! I would be happy to download "official" torrents that included ads rather than take my chances with dodgy video and lipsync etc. Unfortunately, the TV companies will probably try to wrap it up in some evil DRM to prevent other people cutting the ads out and seeding the high-quality ad-free versions. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:5, Insightful)
by Random_Goblin (781985) on Friday November 26, @07:06AM (#10923527) |
|
Unfortunately, the TV companies will probably try to wrap it up in some evil DRM to prevent other people cutting the ads out and seeding the high-quality ad-free versions. I know this is perhaps a controversial view on There is nothing wrong with a company wishing to protect its investment, and to be paid for its product. The point at which it becomes evil is when it is used a vehicle for out-dated commercial models. I believe most people would rather have a legitimate copy of something rather than a pirate, and would even pay money for that legitimacy. The problem facing owners of digital media, is HOW MUCH money are they prepared to pay. If the cost is too great, $15 for a CD, people will quite happily justify piracy to themselves. I also think many IP owners fall into the mistake of thinking that better DRM will enable them to keep their prices higher. But as we all know once someone finds out how to crack their security, the high prices serves to fuel the market for pirates. As an aside, having watched american adverts and english adverts, i notice a huge difference in approach. Correct me if i'm wrong, but in the US an advert treats you like a moron who will buy anything cause a guy with white perfect teeth say's it will change your life. In the UK, our advertisers pander to our sense of intellectual superiority. Here the message tends to be, obviously we as advertisers know YOU are far too clever to fall for our marketing, but here is a clever and amusing advert, which you can pretend not to be influenced by. For an example of this sort of english ad check out some of tango's ads [tango.tv].. compare them to coke or pepsi for example who would have you believe a coke/pepsi can save the world... Tango on the other hand asks you to "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough!" In my experience lots of british people like watching adverts, (tango's website lets you e-mail the ads to people). The challenge faced by TV producers now is not to try and stop this new technology, but work out how to make it work for them. Making adverts that people don't mind watching is where i think their future lies. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:4, Insightful)
by Darren Winsper (136155) on Friday November 26, @07:36AM (#10923613) (http://www.winsper.org.uk/) |
| I like a clever and witty advert, but to say lots of British people like watching adverts is a bit of an overgeneralisation. The problem is that for every advert that's witty and clever, there's 10 that are complete shit. Plus you have the problem that the clever and witty adverts get overplayed and thus become irritating. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by eggz128 (447435) on Friday November 26, @08:01AM (#10923709) |
| Thats not really a problem. We can just wait for "Tarrent on TV" to cherry pick the best ads for us and then ignore all the other ads in between shows. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by Darren Winsper (136155) on Friday November 26, @08:41AM (#10923853) (http://www.winsper.org.uk/) |
| The major flaw in that proposal is the "Tarrent" part. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by eggz128 (447435) on Friday November 26, @10:36AM (#10924721) |
|
Well, isn't that what the 30 second skip function on Tivos is for? |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by ideonode (163753) on Friday November 26, @09:42AM (#10924306) |
|
We can just wait for "Tarrent on TV" to cherry pick the best ads Or you could wait for TV on Torrent! (Yes, yes, I know you're talking about Chris Tarrant) |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:1)
by Mycroft_VIII (572950) on Friday November 26, @07:41AM (#10923631) (Last Journal: Monday June 07, @02:13AM) |
|
So in other words your advertising is based on 'I double dare you' whereas ours is based on 'it's great I cross my heart hope to die'. I strongly suspect they're BOTH aimed at the same level of intellegince, but adjusted for cultural differences. Just compare the different advertising stratagies used regionally in the US and you start to see it. I've seen ads by company x in other parts of the US and thought 'I thought x treated us as idiots at home, but here they don't even give them that much credit'. Only to visitors here say 'geeze I thought our adds were stupid, but you get total crap out here'. Mycroft |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:4, Insightful)
by Random_Goblin (781985) on Friday November 26, @08:17AM (#10923754) |
|
not so much the double dare, more the feel smug and pretend it's not influencing your decisions. Oh we also get the this product is amazing and will change your life ads too, but there is a large group of very post modern ads. I'm not sure if it's just a cultural thing, for example Pot noodle [potnoodle.com] (probably work safe, but you may need to reasure people it's not a porn site), a noodle snack food, who's new marketing campaign is based on the premise "it's filthy but you love it". The website is a parody of a porn site, the ads on TV follow the theme that this snack food is dirtier than most sexual vices. I think pot noodles core market is students and truckers, who know full well it's rubbish food, but is quick and easy for lunch, or when you come back from the pub... I don't think you could run the same ads in the US, and i think it's a bit deeper than just cultural translation, i think it's an acceptance that an ad is by its very nature dishonest, lying sales speak, but even knowing that, there's no reason why you can't use that public knowledge to your advantage. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:3, Interesting)
by Darren Winsper (136155) on Friday November 26, @08:45AM (#10923893) (http://www.winsper.org.uk/) |
| Pot Noodle ran an ad campaign where they were calling themselves the "slag of all snacks." People complained to the ASA and Pot Noodle had to pull the advert, despite arguing that it wasn't offensive because they were slagging themselves off. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:3, Insightful)
by Random_Goblin (781985) on Friday November 26, @09:34AM (#10924249) |
|
did they really get complaints for that? that was a brilliant set of ads. Mind you the numbers of people that have to complain in order for a tv broadcast to be considered offensive is stupidly small. I seem to recall thing with 10 or 20 complaints being pulled, which compared to the number of people that watched them is quite disturbing... I mean more people than that believe david icke [davidicke.com] for goodness sake.
pot noodle are putting disclaimers on their websites now though. This one from natural noodling [naturalnoodling.com] nearly made me wet myself laughing. "If you're under 16, you shouldn't be here. You should be hanging out in shopping precincts with your mates." |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by Darren Winsper (136155) on Friday November 26, @10:05AM (#10924485) (http://www.winsper.org.uk/) |
| Yeah, they did get complaints, probably from a bunch of whiney bitches. One day, I may get together with a bunch of mates and see if we can make enough complaints between ourselves to get an advert pulled. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:3, Insightful)
by poptones (653660) on Friday November 26, @08:22AM (#10923772) (Last Journal: Tuesday October 19, @09:51AM) |
|
I believe most people would rather have a legitimate copy of something rather than a pirate, and would even pay money for that legitimacy. The problem facing owners of digital media, is HOW MUCH money are they prepared to pay. If the cost is too great, $15 for a CD, people will quite happily justify piracy to themselves. I think you may have an antiquated notion of "legitimate." If a tv program is shown over the air it is not "piracy" to record that show or even to rebroadcast it. The show has been run on the public airwaves - how is it "piracy" to enjoy the show again? Some of the corporate mindset might argue otherwise, but i think that in itself just furthers the point about antiquated notions. Correct me if i'm wrong, but in the US an advert treats you like a moron who will buy anything cause a guy with white perfect teeth say's it will change your life. Funny you should mention that, since one of the better ads on american tv (I think) is for a certain chewing gum that promises fresh teeth even through the most extreme happenings. They're hosted by a cute blonde with a british accent - sound familiar? There's an ad campaign for Hewlett Packard printers that is based entirely upon one special effect. The effect is so cool I find myself smiling every time I see one. It won't make me buy an HP printer, but it will make me watch the ad and even look forward to the next one. Last night "The Apprentice" devoted an entire show to a project involving Pepsi. To launch a new product called "Pepsi Edge" the teams had to design a new bottle and ad campaign to go with it, then present it to about 100 of Pepsi's marketing team. Thirty minutes of people talking about Pepsi, hyping Pepsi, drinking Pepsi and bouncing off the walls - then off to the boardroom where someone who didn't love his Pepsi enough was fired. Pepsi commercials, Pepsi bottles, Pepsi cups, Pepsi, Pepsi, Pepsi... Last week it was designing an ad campaign for Levi's jeans. The Donald even brought out his latest trophy-wife-to-be to give us all a closeup of how great her ass looks in Levi's. And the poor folks who forgot "Levis is all about making your ass look great" got fired. You could cut out every second of commercials, but to cut out the sponsor you'd cut the entire "heart" of the show. Hell, you wouldn't even have a show. Last Sunday it was "American Dreams," where Dad gave Son a shiny new '66 Mustang to welcome hm home from 'Nam. Mustang ads on the TV, Mustang billboards; uncle wants a Mustang for Christmas. Again, you'd cut out half the show getting rid of the sponsor. Now, why would any of these production companies (and their sponsors) NOT want these programs "shared?" |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by Random_Goblin (781985) on Friday November 26, @08:53AM (#10923953) |
|
I would agree with you that it would appear to be in these companies best intrests for us to distribute their shows by any means we see fit. Now while we may feel justified in doing so, and suffer no pangs of guilt about it. It is not legitimate for us to do so without THEIR explcit permission. You get a similar situation in staff theft from the work place, where people steal vast amounts of office stationery, because they feel justified in doing so. Their actions aren't legitimate, or legal, but they continue to do it. Studies have shown the way to reduce office theft is not just to increase the penalties for stealing, but to REDUCE things that can be used to justify the theft to the individual... i work long unpaid hours, the company is a faceless corp... the company can afford it etc. |
|
Stationery vs. Employee Welfare? No competition. (Score:2)
by Dogtanian (588974) on Friday November 26, @01:41PM (#10926347) |
|
Studies have shown the way to reduce office theft is not just to increase the penalties for stealing, but to REDUCE things that can be used to justify the theft to the individual... i work long unpaid hours, the company is a faceless corp... the company can afford it etc. Let's face it, unless people are stealing PCs and photocopiers (which is going to be damn hard to get away with in the same casual manner), the company is going to bite the cost of the stationery rather than reduce hours, pay more, or treat their staff as human beings. Seriously, if I was a pennypinching amoral fuck, it'd be a no-brainer. Stationery just isn't that expensive (even accounting for the bloated prices in your average office stationery catalogue). |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by HTH NE1 (675604) on Monday November 29, @04:06PM (#10946105) |
|
You could cut out every second of commercials, but to cut out the sponsor you'd cut the entire "heart" of the show. Hell, you wouldn't even have a show. Dude, you're talking about The Apprentice. There wasn't a show there to begin with. Meanwhile, there used to be an open site called adcritic.com which had free downloads of commercials. It was quite popular (especially after the Super Bowl). Now it's a pay service, $99.95 a year with a compulsory companion print magazine. And the funny thing? They pay millions of dollars to television stations to get their ads on TV, but would likely still sue people sharing their favorite advertisements for free! |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:3, Insightful)
by Tim Browse (9263) on Friday November 26, @09:42AM (#10924309) |
As an aside, having watched american adverts and english adverts, i notice a huge difference in approach. Correct me if i'm wrong, but in the US an advert treats you like a moron who will buy anything cause a guy with white perfect teeth say's it will change your life. Yes, because, gosh, we don't have any ads like that on UK TV, do we? Give me a break. For every witty tango or yellow pages ad, there are 10s of crap ones that are just like the ones you describe. Just because some car manufacturer spends a lot of money trying to sell you a lifestyle, doesn't mean it's an ad I want to watch, or that it appeals to my 'sense of intellectual superiority'. In addition let me just say Currys, Dixons, Linda Barker, DFS, Yes Car Credit, any advert for cleaning products, Asda, Safeway, etc. Let's call those exhibit A. There are stacks of ads on UK TV that are just "This exists! Buy it!" ads. They aren't fun to watch. From my experience of American TV ads, it's more in what's being advertised (or the ratios). My reactions were that the most common US ads are about pain killers, car financing (that was how I learned that US cars are never advertised with the ticket price - it's always "$X down, and $Y per month!"), personal injury lawyers (although we have that in the UK now too, yay, sarcasm ends) and anything that involves the phrase "America's Favourite {Product/Service}", or an attempt to include the word 'America' in the product/service name (e.g. AmeriHealth, etc). That last one is weird. I know of the stereotype that Americans love their country blindly, but I didn't realise just how much the US marketing companies rely on it. Then again, judging a country on their TV ads is a risky proposition, because you're assuming the population buy into everything the ads say. As I said, it's more interesting and meaningful to look at what is being advertised. The oddest ad I saw in the US was an infomercial for the Orlimar Trimetal Golf Club (or similar - pretty sure it was that, they said the name about a zillion times while I was packing in the hotel room). It was based purely on the fact that if you're no good at golf, then your career is over because your boss will think you're worthless. If you accepted that tenet, the infomercial made perfect sense. I didn't And one of the cleverest ads I ever saw was from the US - the Pepsi ad set in the future where a teacher is showing children round some ruined buildings, and one of them finds a classic Coke glass bottle and asks what it is. The teacher says something like "I have absolutely no idea." Inspired In summary, I'm British, and I don't like watching adverts. Luckily, I have a Tivo, which helps out greatly with this. I accept there may be people in the UK who like watching ads, but they're probably from the set of people who tune channel 1 on their TV set to ITV, and call magazines 'books'. Damn, there's that intellectual superiority again |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by freeweed (309734) on Friday November 26, @10:30AM (#10924656) |
|
DRM isn't evil per se. You just summed up this non-problem in a nutshell, and why myself and many others believe DRM to be evil, period. It serves no purpose other than to annoy legitimate customers. Because most will pay regardless, and those that won't, will pirate anyway - and DRM will always be cracked. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by ZorinLynx (31751) on Friday November 26, @10:51AM (#10924877) (http://zorin.org/) |
|
My biggest problem with DRM is that I have this philosophy that when I download something, I want to be able to watch and enjoy it any time I want, without having to "check in" with some server out on the net that can go down or revoke my right to watch it anytime. Another problem with DRM encoded media is that it is generally only playable on certain crappy operating systems that I don't want to deal with. -Z |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by Carrot007 (37198) <Carrot007@nOspaM.thewibblereport.co.uk> on Friday November 26, @11:45AM (#10925372) (http://www.thewibblereport.co.uk/) |
|
I agree DRM is not evil. However becuase I expect to be able to watch what I want where I want the only viable DRM would have top be an open standard with no fees for use and implementable by anyone. I can't see it happening though. And no having the source around for the DRM should not make it any easier to crack if programmed properly. |
|
DRM good Vs DRM bad (Score:2)
by phorm (591458) on Friday November 26, @12:18PM (#10925697) (http://www.phormix.com/ | Last Journal: Monday May 19, @12:08PM) |
|
Good DRM is when a company can stream or upload you a file over the net - much like a video rental - allow you to watch it, and not worry that you'll dump the thing into a file and stick it on KaZaa right away. Bad DRM is when you've bought a disk or an "unlimited use" file (download), but can't watch it on another machine, burn it to CD, etc. DRM as a method for hindering illegal activity is good. It's when it hinders legal activity as well that it's bad. In the first example I really can't see anything being hindered at all, since the file download is a "rental" you have no more rights to copy/dump the file than you would a Blockbuster rental. In the latter it's a pain in the ass because you should be able to use your "purchase" as you see fit (withing your own domain of ownership) |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Friday November 26, @01:06PM (#10926077) |
|
I know this is perhaps a controversial view on That thinking is far too short term. The problem with DRM is that it does a lot more than just "protect their investment." It kills the public domain. Not that copyright law hasn't been mangled to do the same thing, at least in the USA, but the law can be undone. Correctly implemented DRM can not be undone, especially if the "owner" ceases to exist such that the unlocking mechanism no longer exists either. As far as I am concerned, using DRM is outright theft from the public domain. All those people running around calling copyright violators "thieves" should take heed -- the companies implementing DRM are "stealing" from the entire nation, if not the entire human race. That is a heck of a lot more weighty than a bunch of individuals "stealing" from a couple of corporations. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by BillyBlaze (746775) <tcfelker@mtco.com> on Friday November 26, @02:31PM (#10926717) (http://vlevel.sf.net/) |
|
I'd like to move your line a little. I think the point where DRM becomes evil is when it gets legal protections like the DMCA, which allow it to completely circumvent what little fair use protections we have. Oh, and it's evil when, due to the completely non-competetive nature of the market, there are no viable studios willing to trust in humanity by offering non-DRM stuff and letting market forces decide. Yeah, boo advertising. But picure what could be - imagine if some shows were, aside from being broadcast with ads, also offered for paid torrent download without ads, or for a much cheaper (often free) torrent download with ads, or free with DRM but no skipping of the ads, or illegally for free without ads. My guess is, of those who don't get broadcast or cable, 60% will choose the cheap ad torrent, 34% the ad-free torrent (dependant on price), 1% the DRM version, and 5% the illegal version. If this were allowed to happen, everyone would be happy - cheapskates would get free programming, people with a disposable income (or who are feeling lucky) could get ad-free versions, IP lawyers could masturbate to mandatory ad viewing, advertisers would be happy, and while cable companies would lose cable revenue, they'd gain broadband revenue. Unfortunately this will almost certainly never happen, because all the industries have their head so deep in the DRM sand that by the time they die, they will have destroyed the last semblence of sanity in our copyright laws, crippled the internet, and generally fucked society over, unless somthing drastic changes soon. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by Snaller (147050) on Friday November 26, @08:46PM (#10928603) (Last Journal: Saturday October 23, @05:40PM) |
|
There is nothing wrong with a company wishing to protect its investment, and to be paid for its product. Actually yes there is in the current system, its by no way fair. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:3, Insightful)
by complete loony (663508) <Jeremy@Lakeman.gmail@com> on Friday November 26, @07:07AM (#10923529) |
|
Yeah, but you're not going to stop them from ripping the content of the airways anyway. So why bother. Put adds in, but make it trivial to download the contents legally. Build this and they *will* come. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:1, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, @07:19AM (#10923568) |
|
I would not download anything with commercials in it! But i would pay a "small" amount to be able to download episodes of my favorite shows "without" any commercials and drm. I figure about 2-5 dollars for a 45minute tv episode in a 350Mb xvid/ogg file i could downloaded at full speed sounds ok. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by Darren Winsper (136155) on Friday November 26, @08:50AM (#10923926) (http://www.winsper.org.uk/) |
|
I remember reading Firefly cost $2,000,000 per episode. So, at $2 a pop, it would only take a million people paying to break even. Hell, let's say 2 million for overheads. Would you really get that many? I imagine it wouldn't be that hard if you kept in mind the global nature of the internet. If people stopped their $30/month cable plan, that's 15 weekly episodes they could subscribe to for the same price. Doesn't sound too bad, does it? |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by realdpk (116490) on Friday November 26, @10:45AM (#10924818) (http://www.dpk.net/ | Last Journal: Sunday September 05, @11:31PM) |
|
2-5 dollars you say? No commercials you say? How about 14 episodes of Firefly for $35.96 = $2.56/episode [deepdiscountdvd.com]? 21 episodes of Stargate SG-1 for $45.76 = $2.17/episode [deepdiscountdvd.com] 26 episodse of Star Trek: TNG for $102.00 = $3.92/episode [deepdiscountdvd.com] The list goes on. The prices you want to pay are out there, readily available, already. The only difference is that you have to wait a few days to get the package in the mail. (not to shill too much more for DDD, but they have free shipping, too) |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2, Interesting)
by JackJudge (679488) on Friday November 26, @07:25AM (#10923582) (Last Journal: Tuesday November 23, @06:42AM) |
|
Nice idea except given the global nature of BitTorent how are they gonna target the advertising on a geographic basis ? A $100 voucher against my next whitegoods purchase at Wal-Mart isn't much use to me in the UK.... Speaking of which, it'd hurt their partners overseas too. Our only English language entertainment channels on satellite in the UK are run by Sky TV. Personally I ditched my subscription to their service a couple of years ago and now I get shows like 24 and Alias months ahead of their customers. I don't imagine I'm the only one to have cancelled subscriptions coz of the beauty of BitTorrent. As TV over p2p gets more popular these companies will feel the financial pain, and while that may give me some personal satisfaction it's also the time when the really big guns get rolled out of the courts and installed into my ISPs switch room... |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by BlackHawk-666 (560896) <blackhawk@ivanhawkes.com> on Friday November 26, @08:47AM (#10923901) (http://www.ivanhawkes.com/) |
| Nice idea except given the global nature of BitTorent how are they gonna target the advertising on a geographic basis ?Your IP address can be resolved to the nearest major ISP which will generally get you down to an area no greater than 10km across, even better in dense cities. That's even more location specific than a national broadcast. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by jbrw (520) on Friday November 26, @09:21AM (#10924151) (http://www.blogthing.com/) |
|
Apart from Cable customers, I challenge you to identify the location of any UK (and probably other European) residential user to within 100km based on their IP. People do live outside your country, you know... |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by BlackHawk-666 (560896) <blackhawk@ivanhawkes.com> on Friday November 26, @02:08PM (#10926552) (http://www.ivanhawkes.com/) |
| Been there done that. I live in the UK by the way. I tracked down a guy who was sending offensive junk mails to the MD of the company I worked for. Once I had his IP I nailed him down to his location within about 10 km based of that, and was able to deduce who he was from there. For the record, he was a disgruntled contractor. The police took it from there. Check this google [google.com] search if you're interested in how it might be done. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by ZorinLynx (31751) on Friday November 26, @10:53AM (#10924903) (http://zorin.org/) |
|
Sorry, but this is entirely the TV networks' fault. If they'd play the shows worldwide within a reasonable time of the premiere in the US, this wouldn't be a problem. But by making people wait months, a lot of them will say "fuck this" (like you have) and download the episodes. I know I would. It's the same excuse movie studios used for region coding on DVD's. A pitiful excuse, since studios have shown that a worldwide simultaneous DVD release is indeed possible. -Z |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by DarkEdgeX (212110) on Friday November 26, @07:27AM (#10923590) (Last Journal: Tuesday July 27, @01:15AM) |
| I suspect the problem with advertising in BitTorrent distro'd TV episodes is the issue of counting how many people actually *see* the ads. Yes BitTorrent keeps track (at the tracker level) of who finishes a file, but TV ad executives aren't silly enough to think that there are only one set of eyes watching an episode. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by mpe (36238) on Friday November 26, @08:51AM (#10923931) |
|
I suspect the problem with advertising in BitTorrent distro'd TV episodes is the issue of counting how many people actually *see* the ads. Assuming that the creator of the video file dosn't cut the ads. Which can easily account for a quarter to a third of the output. I wonder how much of this downloading is due to people not wanting to have to wait months to years to watch something. Especially when the latest episode is being discussed over the Internet as soon as it has been broadcast anywhere on the planet. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by Kombat (93720) <kombat@kombat.org> on Friday November 26, @09:01AM (#10924014) (http://kombat.org/) |
|
The industry SHOULD and COULD adapt to this by offering their own high quality copies of TV episodes via BitTorrent. They'd still have to include ads. How long do you think before someone hacked out the ads and re-offered the same content for free, ad-free (as is currently available now)? How would that be any different from the current situation, except that a few of the users on the network, offering the TV torrents, would be the studios themselves (still not making any money off of it)? Then, of course, people like you would just come back and tell them they should shut up, stop complaining and "adapt" or "innovate" some more. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by Mr. Cancelled (572486) on Friday November 26, @09:09AM (#10924073) |
|
I would be happy to download "official" torrents that included ads rather than take my chances with dodgy video and lipsync etc.
I completely agree! If I could download official, quality copies of the shows I watch, and still have the ability to chop them up afterwards and save them to DVD (much as I did with a VCR a few years ago), then I wouldn't mind the commercials being inserted. Now if they go the usual "Hollywood route and try to do it 'bigger and better', hosting off their own pay services, or wrapping the media in DRM, I would quickly revert back to torrents and such. But if I could get the Simpsons I missed last Sunday (for instance), in full resolution, and with no more commercials than I'd have seen if I'd watched the broadcast, I would quickly switch to the official network feeds. But the key is that the media must remain free as it currently is. This means (not to repeat myself, but it's big business here, so repeating's neccesary) that if I want to archive the episode and add it to my video collection, I should be free to chop out the commercials after watching it! I fear that this is the point that most Hollywood types would balk at though: They want to control all the media, including what you do with it after viewing! |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:1)
by nano2nd (205661) on Friday November 26, @09:41AM (#10924303) |
|
This is slightly off-topic as it doesn't relate to Bit Torrent but did you know that the BBC is planning to allow downloads of TV shows from the Interweb after they have been broadcast? BBC already offers the chance to replay radio shows via their website (using an ad-free version of RealPlayer). They are also in the process of building an online archive containing thousands of hours of content: Some news website article [digital-lifestyles.info] Obviously the BBC have a completely different business model i.e. no ads. But this shows that some people are beginning to "think different" (sorry Apple). |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by joshv (13017) on Friday November 26, @09:44AM (#10924322) (http://www.everythink.org/) |
|
Hell, all they have to do is provide a torrent for the content with Ads, and a high quality seed server and most people won't bother trying to track down the ad-stripped version. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent, Product Placement (Score:1)
by Nehmo (757404) <nehmo54@hotmail.com> on Saturday November 27, @03:33AM (#10929884) |
TV companies will probably try toDr. Jing-Mei [erheadquarters.com] tells a teenage girl ER patient about a new diet drug, Amphetagor, which is medically better than puking after every Hogie – sexier too. After her shift in the ER, the good doc goes outside to her shiny new HumPee (the camera loiters on the car's brand insignia with Jing-Mei's thighs in the background), where she gushes about how the spacious, luxurious, vehicle can accommodate… Commercials separate from the show's content aren't necessary. |
|
Hey, not going to buy cable (Score:4, Insightful)
by sgant (178166) <scott_gantNO@SPAMsbcglobal.net> on Friday November 26, @06:43AM (#10923446) (http://skewedreview.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday September 21, @12:50PM) |
|
I don't watch TV at all. Also, Thieves-R-Us...sorry, I ment to say Comcast, is in our area but to put up basic cable...this is BASIC cable...they want 50 bucks a month! Oh, and when I used to have Comcast, I might as well have been a non-entity with them in the customer service area. Actually had a rep tell me that if I didn't like their service, I could cancel it...which I promptly did on the spot. My antenna doesn't reach any local channels, yes, I'm in the boonies...yet I have 3mbit DSL. So, I watch one program a week, and I download the show "Lost". That's it. Sorry, but I'm not paying Comcast 50 bucks a month just to watch one show. Hey ABC, want to put commercials in? And still get paid? Offer torrents of your programs on your website of all your shows WITH the commercials still in them...and I'll download from there. I have no problems with commericals. They are missing out on a HUGE opportunity here. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by isorox (205688) on Friday November 26, @07:15AM (#10923555) (http://www.slashdot.org/~isorox | Last Journal: Tuesday November 30, @04:36PM) |
| Product placement |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:1)
by PerlDudeXL (456021) on Friday November 26, @07:41AM (#10923635) (http://public.fh-wolfenbuettel.de/~luedickj/) |
|
Downloading them with BitTorrent is really nice and the only option to see the original episodes. Usually I have to wait until the episodes are shown over here and they get dubbed for the english-inapt audience. Furthermore TV-BitTorrent sites give me a larger choice of series that I can't get to see here. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by ZeroExistenZ (721849) on Friday November 26, @10:02AM (#10924453) |
|
Interactive digital TV. In Belgium there was a pilot project with a small focus group with the new technology, which has gone public now... I haven't seen it myself in action (Cause I lost interest in TV the way it used to be. I now just download the latest Simpsons' and Southpark Episodes, which is about all the "tv" I watch.) You can find the report of the project in Dutch here in PDF [ti.kviv.be] Some English paragraph about the same project: INTERACTIVE TV [nionex.com] |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by One Childish N00b (780549) on Friday November 26, @10:30AM (#10924657) (Last Journal: Wednesday November 17, @08:55AM) |
|
It's true. I don't even make the effort to watch shows at their designated times anymore. I'll go and download the latest episode of CSI in about 15 minutes and watch it with much higher quality video and sound, and no commercial breaks. How will the industry adapt?
The director of the BBC's 'research into new technologies', a certain Matt Locke, came to speak at my college a few weeks back and we spoke about this very thing. The BBC are apparently looking into ways of distributing their programming via the internet, using a service like iTunes (the interface they had in the mock-up even looked like iTunes) to do so. He talked the talk very much of a man who knew that illegal downloading of media, including TV shows, was not something that was going to be stamped out, and that it was foolish and frivolous to even try. I like the system he demonstrated a lot, and I think it has a lot of promise - He proposed a system where you paid a flat subscription fee (as you would a television licence fee) and you have access to the BBC database of programmes, where you could download an (admittedly DRM-encumbered) official media file of any show from the past week, which would expire after seven days. There were plenty of other details, but I forget them as I was fairly out of it at the time. Best of all, I needled him a little more and got it out of him that the system would use a BitTorrent-like (though not the BitTorrent we know and love) system to spread the load away from the BBC servers, and even got him to state, in his capacity as a BBC department director, that he was in full support of the legal uses of BitTorrent-style P2P filesharing, So that's how they'll adapt - Once a big corporation like the BBC switch I'm sure plenty of others will follow - and we can add another big name to the list of corporations that accept and support the legal use of BitTorrent (et al) technology. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by scowling (215030) on Friday November 26, @12:32PM (#10925804) (http://www.kitchengeek.com/) |
|
I'll go and download the latest episode of CSI in about 15 minutes I occasionally read abut someone getting through the download of a 42-minute long episode that quickly. I can't figure out how they do it. I have fast cable. If I open up a hundred connections and download from a tracker with hundreds of seeds I still rarely get more than 100 kbps down; even with occasional bursts of 220 kbps it takes 40-45 minutes to download a show. I'd love to know how people are getting so much better speeds than I am. Anyway: this is another case where, as with music, the content producers are going to have to adapt to the new market. And for you anti-download folks: I just dropped $114.99 Cdn on the deluxe edition Seinfeld seasons 1-3 on Tuesday. My downloading isn't affecting my spending. Hardline tactics from content owners will affect my spending. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by Yartrebo (690383) on Friday November 26, @02:25PM (#10926677) |
|
Upload, and only have one connection open. I generally get 40-100kB/sec on active torrents (15 or more seeds+leechers) and max out the upload line at 40kB/sec (I have about 45kB/sec, but I cap it a little underneath so that my ACK packets can be sent). I would consider my cable (about 300kB/sec down, 45kB/sec up) to be slow cable, so with your fast cable you should be able to do better. If you do manage to get a better speed with multiple connections, just remember that you're diverting the resources from other downloaders and putting extra load on the tracker at the same time. |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:1)
by My Iron Lung (834019) on Saturday November 27, @10:08AM (#10930784) |
| My cable provider offers a 5mbps connection, and while the upload seems ultimately capped at 40kb/s, download, which for others on my ISP seems to be around 200kb/s, I have at times reaches as high as 550kb/s, consistently through large downloads. This has happened ever since my cable provider switched my modem with a much older looking one. Oh well! |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by PK_ERTW (538588) on Friday November 26, @02:12PM (#10926580) |
|
How will the industry adapt?
I believe I know the answer to this question. Things are going to go back to the way TV started out. Advertisers are going to directly sponser programs. We have already seen the start of this in reality programs such as Survivor, where they give away cars (advertising) in challenges, and Pringles or whatever as rewards. What I mean here goes far beyond product placement. What you are going to see is "Joey, brought to you by Chevy" or whatever. As far as I can tell, the TV studios don't have much of a reason to care about the cable compnies. As long as they are still providing them the shows, they will continue to show them. But, with the show directly sponsered, embedded ads, and so forth, the studios can create a show in which if you want to see the show, you wll see the Ads. It will not matter how the viewer gets the show. This will allow them to embrace the internet as a way of getting the shows to their viewers pk |
|
Re:TV episodes from BitTorrent (Score:2)
by TheLittleJetson (669035) on Friday November 26, @03:25PM (#10927031) |
| i have a tivo-like device (computer with capture device & software) so either way, i'm not watching commercials. but sometimes, 2 shows air at the same time, or i forget to record one, or something. in those cases, i just download the show from BT. i guess what im saying is, i don't download an entire season of a show. however, i often download the latest episode of something i missed (the simpsons, for example). |
|
Most people still want to watch TV... (Score:1)
by Kojo (1903) on Friday November 26, @08:17PM (#10928465) (http://www.hal-pc.org/~kojo | Last Journal: Saturday March 23, @08:23PM) |
|
I haven't had a TV for a little over 5 years and people think I'm some kind of freak. I have trouble getting people to do all sorts of other things for me, but as soon as they find out I don't have a TV, they start offering to buy me one or give me an extra one they have. No one EVER wants to buy me an external DVD burner... Even some of my more tech-savy friends don't want to be bothered downloading TV or movies. They'd rather just look at their (TV) box or buy bootleg DVDs to watch on their 40+" TV instead of downloading stuff for free over the cable internet connection they're paying for. I don't know how it is in other countries, but here in the US, people want to turn on the TV and watch it. Anything else is too hard...or requires too much of a "paradigm shift". That's how the TV industry will compete. Those of us on Slashdot (and similar places) are a minority. |
|
Uh, no. (Score:5, Interesting)
by Paska (801395) * on Friday November 26, @06:18AM (#10923329) |
|
Sorry, I don't buy this crap. I used to work in Win Television (Australia's largest regional television station, 7million viewers) and I can say that privacy was not even a minor concern. The major concern executives are having, is trying to ensure video tape operations do not put in commercials into the wrong aspect ratio, The shows airing on TV do not mean crap to the executive, it’s the commercials paying his wage. I was trained to make sure, in the worst case situation. That the commercials go to air, even if that meant the TV show itself was just one nice black screen. |
|
Re:Uh, no. (Score:2, Insightful)
by Freexe (717562) on Friday November 26, @06:24AM (#10923352) |
| Your missing the point, if everyone is downloading ad free tv shows instead of watching tv shows with ads, then they are losing viewer and thus ad renvenue |
|
Re:Uh, no. (Score:3, Insightful)
by Paska (801395) * on Friday November 26, @06:39AM (#10923419) |
|
Call me a little biased, but I still see no problem in real life even if this was widespread. Prime time in Australia are your, Home and Away, Friends, your soap operas, renovation shows galore. Grandma’s from Sydney to Perth tune in every day, and every single day for 20 years to get their fix of Bold and the Beautiful. I can say you’re not going to be getting these people to Bit torrent anytime soon. Aslong as someone is watching a show, and their will always be. Then advertisements companies will pay up the money. Plus, afterall most of the stations money comes in on prime time live events, which afterall aren’t on BitTorrent until after they are aired. |
|
Re:Uh, no. (Score:1)
by Freexe (717562) on Friday November 26, @06:46AM (#10923460) |
| Ad companys pay depending on how many viewers there are, if that drops by 5% because people don't watch tv anymore because they watch what they want off the internet then they get 5% less money... |
|
Re:Uh, no. (Score:2)
by TummyX (84871) on Friday November 26, @07:55AM (#10923689) |
|
Hmm, so can you find any Home and Away torrents? |
|
Re:Uh, no. (Score:2)
by hachete (473378) on Friday November 26, @09:50AM (#10924372) (http://www.badstep.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday August 24, @05:15AM) |
|
Sure, this is a growing demographic but most business should, as a first resort, go for the younger end of the market with money to spare. The sort of adverts that air for programs like "Home and Away", "The Bold and the Beautiful" aren't targeted at the big spenders. I suspect the real worry is that the downloaders -- as well as taking money away -- are feeding the younger, "hipper" end of the market. The bit that advertisers like, the bit that rakes in the the money. So it's not loss of earnings per se, it's the loss of potential earnings. But who is to say that even these should be guaranteed by law. In some other respects, "piracy" has brought a convergence of sorts - but not the sort that anyone imagined. h. |
|
Re:Uh, no. (Score:2)
by TheRaven64 (641858) on Friday November 26, @08:33AM (#10923815) (http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Monday October 11, @05:13AM) |
I really hope this becomes so widespread that advertising on TV is no longer worth spending money one. I have practically stopped watching TV because I can't be bothered to sit through 15 minutes of spectacularly irritating adverts for 45 minutes of programme. I do, however, buy several shows on DVD. If someone offered a service that let me download TV show at (say) £1-2 / show (maybe with a discount if I buy an entire season, and a larger discount if I bought it before they started filming) then I would do so. I'm surprised studios don't do this for shows that are dropped by the networks. FireFly is an example. A lot of people bought the series on DVD after it was dropped. If the studio had offered people a pre-order for the second season (on the condition that they got their money back if it did not go ahead) then they would almost certainly have been able to fund it. Perhaps they could use some kind of auction system:
|
|
Re:Uh, no. (Score:2)
by WhiteDragon (4556) on Friday November 26, @10:59AM (#10924961) (https://dawgchain.at/ | Last Journal: Thursday September 23, @03:40PM) |
| Ah, that would be sensible. How many shows that I like have gotten canceled. And if they don't cancel it, they shuffle it all around. I would occasionally buy a show if it was current and I missed an episode, for instance. |
|
Re:Uh, no. (Score:2)
by cammoblammo (774120) <cammotruds@hotkeELIOTy.net.au minus poet> on Friday November 26, @06:47AM (#10923463) |
|
WIN TV is watched by a third of the Australian population? Really? The bloke they pay (okay, the other networks too) to get the aspect ratio right seriously needs sacking. Sorry, bad day at the office...! |
|
Re:Uh, no. (Score:1)
by natd (723818) on Friday November 26, @09:03AM (#10924029) |
|
Another poster reckons your name means 'shit' in finland. In any language I reckon what you are saying is shit. 'WIN' is a regional station which I have only seen on occasions I'm out in Bathurst or other 'arse ends of nowhere'. Given that I spend a lot of time in all the capital cities of a county of 18 million, for you to suggest 'WIN' has 7 million viewers is...well...finish |
|
Re:Uh, no. (Score:1)
by a8o (743233) on Friday November 26, @06:40PM (#10928024) (http://jennykelly.bizmail.com.au/) |
| Which is why SBS and ABC are so much better. No ads duiring their shows. |
|
Re:Uh, no. (Score:1)
by NoMaster (142776) on Friday November 26, @08:20PM (#10928481) (http://slashdot.org/) |
The major concern executives are having, is trying to ensure video tape operations do not put in commercials into the wrong aspect ratio...Wow... Imagine what shit is going to hit the fan when the ad execs start watching FTA digital here - complete with 16:9 & 14:9 ads pillarboxed in the 4:3 area! That's (note to aliens and other-worlders: here in Australia, the powers-that-be mandated that all FTA digital be widescreen. That means no AR switching in the stream. Which means that 4:3 content is transmitted in a 4:3 box in the centre of the 16:9 picture. For some reason - I've heard it variously attributed to stupid ad-execs, clueless producers, and slow-to-update TV stations - most advertising content, aside from in-house station promos, is supplied in 4:3 format. Even ads produced in 16:9 are masked top and bottom to fit in the 4:3 dub. So, it's transmitted in the standard FTA digital 4:3 method - with black boxes up and down the sides of the 16:9 transmission. Many FTA digital watchers think this is funny...) |
|
Re:Uh, no. (Score:1)
by kb7oeb (543726) on Friday November 26, @11:50PM (#10929281) |
| US digital stations are allowed to transmit 4:3 but they usually dont and you end up with the same thing when 16:9 ads come on. |
|
Ok (Score:2, Insightful)
by cubicledrone (681598) on Friday November 26, @06:18AM (#10923331) |
|
They're being broadcast for free in the first place. What's the difference? And yes, people have been and will STILL PAY and PAY WELL for DVDs of shows they can get for free. Been to Best Buy lately? They've got about 40 yards, five shelves high of television shows on DVD that have been available for FREE broadcast almost continuously. Can't keep them in stock, even the shitty shows. Non-issue. |
|
Re:Ok (Score:2, Insightful)
by malfunct (120790) on Friday November 26, @06:36AM (#10923407) (http://www.happypirate.com/) |
|
Nope, they are being broadcast at the cost of you watching the commercials (or at least going to the kitchen long enough for those commercials to get over). Moreover, because advertisement costs are based on show ratings (in a way), even if you watch the show with commercials the network doesn't get more money for it. Mostly people cut the commercials though so that doesn't even get viewed. You know what the savior of the networks will be? IPTV that allows you to pick whatever show you want to watch at the time and inserts new relevant ads in it. It would have any shows from that network that are in syndication (you wouldn't get tonights show today, but you might be able to get last nights show). Anyways, this would totally allow the network to get the full ad value out of the download stream without burdening you with a super big charge for show you download through IPTV. |
|
Re:Ok (Score:2)
by Znork (31774) on Friday November 26, @09:27AM (#10924196) |
|
"Nope, they are being broadcast at the cost of you watching the commercials" Not really. If you take a look at exactly what shows are mostly downloaded you'll notice that the vast majority is stuff that is available until later, or isnt available _at all_ in many countries. The network execs could, if they had a braincell or two between them, take the damn hint and syncronize distribution and make these shows available where people wanted them, and they wouldnt have this problem. This isnt money lost. This is opportunity squandered, because there are a whole lot of people who'd pay for cable channels showing these shows or watch commercials, but they have no way at all to get the shows they want to see for any reasonable amount of money. |
|
Re:Ok (Score:5, Insightful)
by Mance Rayder (832217) on Friday November 26, @06:39AM (#10923421) |
They're being broadcast for free in the first place. What's the difference?Commercials. If advertisers know their audience won't see their commercials, they lose incentive to invest in advertising, and the networks lose money. I don't think it's a big issue yet, but it might be someday soon. I'm personally frustrated as hell with how long it takes to get shows to DVD -- I can understand why others tire of waiting years for a single goddamn season, then putting out $60-80 for it. Television networks can avoid the same mistakes the RIAA has made by adapting to technology and setting up a legal alternative to piracy before television piracy begins in earnest. If they start churning out DVDs now instead of infuriating the consumer with slow marketing to squeeze every drop of money possible out of each season, and dare I think it lowering the insanely high prices on these DVDs, I can see television shows becoming far more profitable than they are today. Imagine, if they sell the latest episode online or mail-order DVD for, what, $5 after airing it? (Probably less, but then the average twelve-episode season wouldn't cost $60.) I can see them making some serious money. But that would require that the status quo change, so, yeah, hold your breath. |
|
Re:Ok (Score:2)
by Jugalator (259273) on Friday November 26, @06:54AM (#10923493) (Last Journal: Friday November 19, @05:03AM) |
|
Commercials. If advertisers know their audience won't see their commercials, they lose incentive to invest in advertising, and the networks lose money. Meh.. So they still think people will sit through the commercials like zombies, never switching away from them or using them as a break to do other things. |
|
Re:Ok (Score:2)
by 0123456 (636235) on Friday November 26, @07:49AM (#10923665) |
|
"So they still think people will sit through the commercials like zombies" No, you're missing the point of TV advertising. TV advertising doesn't exist to sell products, it exists to allow advertising executives to pay for their coke and hookers... as such it doesn't matter whether it works, only that companies continue to believe that it works (and to a certain extent it does, at least in getting brand names established). |
|
Re:Ok (Score:1)
by ms139us (723585) on Friday November 26, @12:56PM (#10926004) |
|
Commercials. If advertisers know their audience won't see their commercials, they lose incentive to invest in advertising, and the networks lose money. You may be on to something here. They probably have a hard time selling commercial space on the internet if they cannot say who is watching what. Nielsen ratings allow the networks to sell ads based on hard evidence of viewership, but... What if Tivo teamed up with a network to offer shows via broadband, complete with ad injection? You could watch what you want regardless of your local lineup. The network could get feedback from Tivo on what people are watching which shows, broken down by demographics. The only downside to this that I can think of is that a network trying this out would alienate its current last-mile providers: TV stations, cable or satellite companies, which have probably demanded some sort of exclusive. Supporing internet downloads might be a contract violation or worse, piss off the last-mile providers enough that they drop the network completely, leaving the network only with the nascent internet market. Now that I think about it, I can see why they just want the internet thing to go away. |
|
Re:Ok (Score:2)
by advocate_one (662832) <advocate_one@NoSpAm.linuxmail.org> on Friday November 26, @07:44AM (#10923642) |
| Yup... I've purchased all of the Sex and The City series... even at half price in sales, that's cost a packet... and I'd already downloaded them on bittorrent... Same goes for Red Dwarf and AB Fab... got the lot on torrent, busy purchasing them on DVDs as the torrents are OK, but the DVDs are so much better. All the extras and the picture quality is superior as well. |
|
iShows (Score:4, Insightful)
by VC (89143) * on Friday November 26, @06:18AM (#10923332) (http://www.vans-colina.com/ | Last Journal: Monday August 12, @10:56PM) |
| Seriously. Id pay £1 an episode of most shows i watch, and thats way more than they make on ads. |
|
Re:iShows (Score:5, Funny)
by Zorilla (791636) on Friday November 26, @06:26AM (#10923361) |
|
Dude, that comes out to somewhere around 5.50 USD these days. I'll pass! Mods: It's a joke |
|
Re:iShows (Score:2)
by VC (89143) * on Friday November 26, @06:30AM (#10923381) (http://www.vans-colina.com/ | Last Journal: Monday August 12, @10:56PM) |
|
Mods: It's a joke It wont be when china, japan and saudi arabia decide to trade in their dollars for euro.. Fortunatly (swinging back ontopic) tv shows are priced in us dollars so it'll still cost the same for you. (ie not $5.50) and it'll just be cheaper for the rest of the world. |
|
Re:iShows (Score:2)
by julesh (229690) on Saturday November 27, @01:38PM (#10931997) |
|
It wont be when china, japan and saudi arabia decide to trade in their dollars for euro.. Why would they want to do that? Now's the time to _buy_ dollars -- more bucks for your... err.. bang? |
|
Re:iShows (Score:2)
by mpe (36238) on Friday November 26, @10:16AM (#10924562) |
|
Most of the legitimate music websites simply take their dollar price and stick a pound sign on instead. iTunes is the only big exception, and even that costs 79p (~$1.50) a track. A situation which will get worst, considering that the US Doller is continuing to drop in value. |
|
Re:iShows (Score:2)
by BlackHawk-666 (560896) <blackhawk@ivanhawkes.com> on Friday November 26, @08:57AM (#10923987) (http://www.ivanhawkes.com/) |
|
Count me in too. I don't see why they don't create a three tier or more system of purchase e.g.
They've been telling us for years that they are having to spend stupid money to find and retain viewers, and enormous money on distribution. Direct downloaders should only have to pay £1 or £2 / episode because:
I only ask for ad free content, I'm willing to download it, seek it out, store it on blank DVDs, and even print my own covers. Why aren't they will to offer consumers the products they want? If they did, I wouldn't even bother with suprnova and their ilk, and they would all get paid much sooner. Hell, if the DVD's had real and decent "extras" I'd even be likely to flash out for them, but in reality the extras are "watch once and forget" at best, or HBO "specials" of very little merit, coming over more as a commercial than anything else. |
|
Re:iShows (Score:2)
by mdfst13 (664665) on Friday November 26, @10:23AM (#10924605) |
|
"I don't see why they don't create a three tier or more system of purchase e.g." [ad and no ad alternatives] The problem with this is that the people the advertisers want to reach are those who are willing to pay not to see ads. I.e. if you were an advertiser, would you rather advertise to people who prefer to exchange money for services or people who are willing to accept inconvenience to save money? Most advertisers would rather reach people who prefer to pay for services. Thus, offering people a choice of paying or watching ads devolves into just paying (because advertisers won't pay to reach the unprofitable customers), which will lose out to alternative products that are just ads (people who would prefer to pay than watch ads are more likely to watch ads if that is the only choice than people who prefer ads are to pay if that is the only choice). This was a common business model in the dot bomb era. It consistently failed then. There is no reason to suspect that it will be more successful now. "We seek you out, not the other way around, saving on advertising" That's ridiculous. You're telling us that you would watch a show that received no advertising? How would you know that the show existed? You are implicitly relying on the existing advertising to announce the show to you (in TV listings, etc.). Shows aren't the equivalent of songs on iTunes. Shows are closer to being albums (which are similar in length but lower in content--no video needed in albums, while sound is needed in both). I would expect shows to cost at least $10 for a permanent license, just like albums are now (may be more in £s). Packaging and production costs are trivial, and even distribution is not that much (apparently about $5-8 per album, since that's how much cheaper iTunes is). You sound like one of the people who claim that iTunes should sell songs for 10 cents and albums for a $1. It's not going to happen. |
|
Re:iShows (Score:2)
by BlackHawk-666 (560896) <blackhawk@ivanhawkes.com> on Friday November 26, @02:22PM (#10926658) (http://www.ivanhawkes.com/) |
|
That's ridiculous. You're telling us that you would watch a show that received no advertising? How would you know that the show existed? You are implicitly relying on the existing advertising to announce the show to you (in TV listings, etc.). I watch a lot of shows that have never been advertised in the country I live in. I get them through referral networks i.e. I look on Amazon, in newsgroups, forums, etc to see what people who are watching the stuff I like are also watching which I haven't heard of. This requires more effort from me, but is ultimately far more rewarding e.g. I am currently watching Full Metal Alchemist, Ghost in the Shell SAC: 2, Macros Zero, Madolax, and Naruto. I have recently watched Lain, Noir, Evangelio (again, it's great), and You sound like one of the people who claim that iTunes should sell songs for 10 cents and albums for a $1. It's not going to happen.Your math needs a little skilling up based on the last comments. For example: Futurama Series 4 cost £35 over here, and contains 17 episodes. That's £2.05 each episode according to my calculator, right on the £1 or £2 quid I said I was happy to pay. Other shows work out at similar rates. |
|
Re:iShows (Score:2)
by mdfst13 (664665) on Saturday November 27, @06:41AM (#10930193) |
|
"I get them through referral networks i.e. I look on Amazon..." You realize that you are proving my point? Amazon is only going to have listings for things that it sells. If there is no DVD set (with associated marketing), Amazon won't have it. The same thing with newsgroups and forums, except that they are based on the broadcast show (rather than the DVD set). Btw, I watched Evangelion (with original crappy ending) on DVD without ever seeing any ads for it myself. Word of mouth is already considered in the advertising benefits. It's also worth noting that there are far fewer people watching this way than watch on broadcast. I don't have hard numbers, but I'm guessing tens of thousands as compared to millions. The truth is that if producers were going to do this, they would spend money for advertising so as to bump up the volume. "For example: Futurama Series 4 cost £35 over here, and contains 17 episodes. That's £2.05 each episode according to my calculator, right on the £1 or £2 quid I said I was happy to pay." There are two separate issues here. First, is the original claim that it would make sense to offer ad free versions at the same time as the broadcast version with advertising is available. DVD sets do not do this. They are invariably offered *after* the broadcast is completed. They are also offered for *less* than the show makes from broadcast and are primarily sold to people who saw the show when broadcast. Direct to DVD releases are not feasible, as demonstrated by their non-existence. If they were feasible, then shows like Firefly and Wonder Falls would have switched to DVD after being cancelled. The second issue is the question of whether or not it would make sense to release downloads at the same time as the DVD sets. This is more likely to work, although I would point out that it interferes with region encoding. Further, it is unlikely that they will sell episodes cheaper singly this way than grouped on DVD. It is more likely that they will price episodes closer to £2.50 or £3 if they chose to do this. It is also likely that they will create a lower quality format for this (comparable to broadcast, but inferior to DVD; like MP3s and AAC are to CDs). |
|
Re:iShows (Score:1)
by Fraser Cain (203191) on Friday November 26, @11:03AM (#10924997) (http://www.universetoday.com) |
|
You probably do already. My cable bill is about $60 CDN a month, and I only watch about 10 hours a week of the best shows. So, I'm already paying close to $1 a show. If I could pay DOUBLE and have access to every TV show ever made, I'd snap it up in a heartbeat. |
|
been doing this for ages (Score:5, Insightful)
by xirtam_work (560625) on Friday November 26, @06:19AM (#10923337) |
|
my friends have been downloading american series for years because we haveto wait ages for them to show in the UK. also you need cable or satelite to get many of the new shows and tennacy agreements do not allow you to put up a satelite dish in most instances and cable tv is only available in limited areas. I watch enterprise, SG1, atlantis, alias, etc. before they're shown on tv over here. eventually when the dvd's become available i end up buying quite a few of them as well. i don't think the studios are loosing anything major whilst this is happening. in fact they're building a bigger fan base than they would have anyway. it's the tb stations that loose out on the advertising revenue |
|
Re:been doing this for ages (Score:1)
by CavemanKiwi (559158) on Friday November 26, @06:32AM (#10923396) |
| I actually started Watching SG-1 on TV but found the programming time to be absolutely awful and ended up missing episodes due to begin outside and doing things. So I noticed that you can D/L the episodes I did this and got really hooked on the show since I could watch it when I want and without ads. Since this I have purchased the first two DVD box sets. Don't even get me started how the BBC moved the Farscape schedule all over the shop.grrrr |
|
Re:been doing this for ages (Score:4, Informative)
by The Rizz (1319) on Friday November 26, @06:41AM (#10923432) |
|
That's funny... I used to grab copies of SG-1 from the UK since they were (for a while) broadcasting them there 1 week before they were broadcast in the US. (This was back when I had Showtime specifically for SG-1, too!) However, I do have to agree that there are many shows that, if you want to stay current, you have to download. I am always watching the UK/EU download sites and grabbing the first few episodes of their TV series. There have been several shows that I got that way that I would never have found otherwise. As for the creators getting paid? Amazon.co.uk has seen me buy several box sets. It looks to me that my "piracy" has generated them more revenue than they would have had otherwise. I think that while loss of revenue from commercials may hurt things in the short run, sales of box sets will more than make up for it in the long run. In the meantime, the losses are small (while a large % of movie-goers are the correct demographics for downloading, on TV the % is much smaller) and will not have a large impact on ad revenue. This will worsen over time as more people figure out the technology (and that Tivo can skip the commercials), but this is a good thing: It will force the industry to quit being so stagnant and actually figure out their new business model, but affect them slowly enough to give them time to do it. |
|
Re:been doing this for ages (Score:1, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, @06:44AM (#10923450) |
|
Sg1/Atlantis will probably broadcast a week early here again... We don't take the mid-season break you do and for the last 2 years we have ended up an episode ahead by the time it starts in the US again |
|
Re:been doing this for ages (Score:4, Interesting)
by RollingThunder (88952) on Friday November 26, @06:58AM (#10923507) |
|
Heck, I can beat that. SKY is running the new Battlestar Galactica seried already - which won't start airing in the US until January 15th. Meanwhile, I'm *cough*told*cough* you can get up to episode 6 online. |
|
Re:been doing this for ages (Score:2)
by rikkards (98006) on Friday November 26, @11:35AM (#10925257) |
|
Yup. love the show. Bunch of us here at work are watching it. If anything we are building hype for others in the office who will watch it in January. For me, I would love if the local Cable provider (Rogers) would set up on their Rogers on Demand the ability to watch shows from the previous day even with the commercials intact. Hell give you the option of watching them all first before the show starts. |
|
Re:been doing this for ages (Score:1)
by LakeSolon (699033) on Friday November 26, @04:07PM (#10927219) |
|
The availability of BattleStar Galactica is actually what got me started on both Bit Torrent and Television again. I pretty much only watch "real" television for Football. Note: You want to go download the 2003 MiniSeries as well before watching evening the opening to the first episode, especially if you've never heard of BSG before. The Mini is on suprnova.org, and you want to ignore the VCD versions here http://www.precious.net/index.php?show=88 the VCDs for most shows come out first, but the quality is very poor in comparison. Once you've started using BT to watch your television you'll never go back. You can get HD-sourced divx versions of shows that are broadcast as such, and it's higher quality than normal analog broadcast. No Commercials. The ability to pause, go back, whatever (Ya, TiVo). You can watch them whenever you like (TiVo again). And my favourite part is if you're interested in a series already in progress, you can watch the first episode first and catch up in order. Or even watch an entire series that you've missed (I just finished the entirety of Farscape's 92 hours). ~Lake |
|
More on that... (Score:2)
by temojen (678985) on Friday November 26, @07:00PM (#10928110) (Last Journal: Sunday December 05, @10:54PM) |
| Some of my friends in Vancouver, BC were downloading Stargate from the US because the networks in Canada were a full year behind. What's amazing about that is Stargate is filmed in Vancouver! |
|
Re:been doing this for ages (Score:1)
by Enygma42 (301776) on Friday November 26, @06:46AM (#10923462) (http://www.corksurf.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday March 18, @11:48AM) |
|
I've always downloaded South Park episodes because they're so topical, they can do an episode in a week, that by the time it arrives over here (Ireland) it's just not that funny anymore. You're left thinking "Oh they must have done this one around the time of the election, hehe, I guess it was funny then" I'll be more likely to watch it on TV then when it does come on. This is a non-issue. |
|
Re:been doing this for ages (Score:1)
by chman (746363) on Friday November 26, @07:17AM (#10923559) |
|
Yeah, I've been doing the same. I pay for the BBC and Sky, yet everything is delayed at least 6 months before it reaches here. I wouldn't mind if we had a lot of good TV to keep us entertained, but it's mostly the American stuff that's entertaining. To be fair, the Beeb does put out a lot of good programming, but it's mostly documentaries and such. Sky Plus is a great service, but it's quantity rather than quality of channels, and I still can't find anything to watch on a Wednesday night. However, I stopped downloading episodes of The Simpsons when I saw that Sky One has them the week after they're on Fox in the US. Thing is, even though I'm not downloading them, I'm still not watching the adverts. I watch it when I want and skip past them. I guess Sky can survive with this as they make very little programming themselves and just buy it from others, so my monthly fee covers them for the most part, but when these new series cost many millions and the advertising revenue isn't there anymore, where will the money come from? |
|
Re:been doing this for ages (Score:2)
by Suppafly (179830) <suppafly@@@livejournal...com> on Friday November 26, @07:20AM (#10923569) (http://suppafly.livejournal.com/) |
|
also you need cable or satelite to get many of the new shows and tennacy agreements do not allow you to put up a satelite dish in most instances Shame you don't live in the US where tennacy agreements aren't allowed to keep you from getting satellite. |
|
Re:been doing this for ages (Score:1)
by JackJudge (679488) on Friday November 26, @08:45AM (#10923887) (Last Journal: Tuesday November 23, @06:42AM) |
|
It's not so much tenancy agreements, but over here in the UK we have what are known as "listed" buildings. These are structures of historical and/or cultural significance and they enjoy certain protections under law. The owner (never mind a mere tenant) may not be allowed to even make certain types of repairs to the building, so you can imagine how far down food chain putting a satellite dish is. |
|
Re:been doing this for ages (Score:2)
by Suppafly (179830) <suppafly@@@livejournal...com> on Tuesday November 30, @12:32PM (#10954066) (http://suppafly.livejournal.com/) |
|
Even with a restricted community agreement, you can't be restricted from putting up a satellite. Visit the fcc website if you need more infomation, this topic has already been covered several times here at |
|
Re:been doing this for ages (Score:1, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, @08:51AM (#10923933) |
|
Look at all the posts in response to parent post! Damn near every one of them mentions downloading television shows initially but later buying the DVD box set! This is the same thing that was shown time after time in regards to downloading music. People downloaded songs but later bought CD's of their favorites! I expect exactly the same response from television executives as we got from the RIAA: more and more cries about how piracy is killing their bottom line, lawsuits against their customers and, eventually, embracing stupid, restrictive DRM measures. Will they ever learn? |
|
Re:Sky 1 (f'n Logo) has new Battlestart Galatica. (Score:2)
by guidryp (702488) <guidryp@yahoo.com> on Friday November 26, @08:54AM (#10923961) |
|
It is on in the UK, but no due till January in the US. PS I hate the Way Sky One sticks there damn logo in the upper central portion of the picture. I can't believe people who pay for this don't get annoyed and tell them to take a leap. I can handle the lower corner like everyone seems to be doing these days... |
|
Re:been doing this for ages (Score:1)
by BradleyUffner (103496) on Friday November 26, @11:27AM (#10925212) (http://slashdot.org/) |
| Several years ago I had a friend in Austrialia who wanted to see a new TV series that I was talking about, but wasn't being shown over there. So I setup a TV Tuner card, and used Net Meeting with it's video and audio source set to the tuner to stream the show over to him |
|
Movies before TV (Score:5, Interesting)
by SnAzBaZ (572456) on Friday November 26, @06:21AM (#10923340) (Last Journal: Thursday June 05, @08:29PM) |
|
The reason movies caught on before TV is because generally the two work differently. A movie you have to make a conscious choice that you want to watch it, you have to take steps to watch a specific film. TV is something you might flick on to see if there is anything interesting on. Also 90% of TV is very low quality crap, so why would anyone waste their bandwidth downloading it. Films caught on before TV because they are much more 'worthy' of the bandwidth. Most of TV, with the exclusion of the occasional good documentary or high quality series (think 24, Friends, Simpsons, etc) is 'throw away' stuff that you watch mindlessly and forget about, and none of that stuff is something you'd ever download voluntarily (or randomly). |
|
Re:Movies before TV (Score:1)
by iainl (136759) on Friday November 26, @08:06AM (#10923725) |
|
The irony of all this is that we (the people who download episodes of things) are actually contributing to the dumbing down of television. When people watch "the good stuff" by downloading advert-free encodes, TV execs will be more interested in screening reality-show crap that gets watched by those who don't do such things. Friday Night on Fox TV seems to be in a constant trap of advertising 12-episode box sets by only showing the first couple of them before switching to something else. |
|
The answer is the VCR (Score:2)
by Raindeer (104129) <raindeer72@[ ]mail.com ['hot' in gap]> on Friday November 26, @09:14AM (#10924117) (http://slashdot.org/) |
|
The main reason why tv hasn't caught on as much for downloads, compared to movies is the VCR. Yes I know we have all been downloading series for years. However in the US, you generally can see repeats later in the week, or turn on your VCR or Tivo. So you will see what you want. So in one of the largest internet economies the VCR saves many people from downloading. Whereas movies take forever to arrive on DVD and there is a price to pay for them. In the rest of the world downloading of a serie generally happens after someone has grown to like the serie and then gets frustrated with the fact that it isn't broadcasted anymore, or they have to wait for 6 months to see part two of the cliffhanger episode. In general, but not always a tv-serie only becomes popular in a country after it has been broadcasted, whereas word of a movie travels fast and all around the globe. I hope I make some sense |
|
Re:The answer is the VCR (Score:1)
by fatgeekuk (730791) on Friday November 26, @10:35AM (#10924711) (Last Journal: Saturday December 20, @06:10PM) |
|
Not really so.... I always wait until September when all the new shows start in the states (they only get here in January-March time) I download many pilots and then start tracking a series... And I am sorry, but the plot and character development of series is much more interesting in many series (Buffy, Angel, West Wing, Sopranos, Scrubs, ER, Gilmore Girls...) simply because they have more time and more situations in which to exercise the characters. TV can be MUCH more interesting than a Film that has a single story to tell and a very short time in which to tell it. I must also point out that I would not be at all averse to watching SOME adverts as part of downloadable content (say 10-15%) I am constantly appauled at the 33% of time taken with adverts in broadcast and cable setups. |
|
Re:Movies before TV (Score:2)
by 88NoSoup4U88 (721233) on Friday November 26, @10:50AM (#10924868) (http://www.fpsgamedesign.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday December 02, @02:09PM) |
|
"Also 90% of TV is very low quality crap"
As opposed to what percentage of movies released ? |
|
Re:Movies before TV (Score:2)
by ThousandStars (556222) on Friday November 26, @10:58AM (#10924954) (http://www.editingandwriting.com/) |
|
Also 90% of TV is very low quality crap... high quality series (think 24, Friends... I think you've been watching too much TV, because 2/3 of the shows you cite are part of the 90%. To find the actually good stuff (aside from the Simpsons) try HBO for the Sopranos and Six Feet Under. |
|
Re:Movies before TV (Score:2)
by Yartrebo (690383) on Friday November 26, @02:43PM (#10926783) |
|
Perhaps 90% of stuff is crap because different people have different tastes. I personally like cartoons and anime and find most other stuff to be crap. Other people might disagree and decide the stuff I like is crap. As long as there's something I like, that's good enough. |
|
Re: Movies before TV (Score:2)
by PetoskeyGuy (648788) on Friday November 26, @11:27AM (#10925205) (http://www.tcmidwife.com/) |
|
I agree, but you have to consider the EASE of ripping movies compared to TV. I think people shared movies before TV just because it was easier. Movies come on DVD. Computers come with DVD drives. Insert DVD into computer, rip, play, share. Compare that to how many computers come with TV Input. You could buy a video encoding card, but I don't think most people would just to record some shows. If TV encoders start becoming a standard piece of computer hardware, then you can bet ripping TV shows will get way more popular, even the crap. It's just one of those things you do because you can do it with what you already have. |
|
Re:Movies before TV (Score:2)
by RovingSlug (26517) on Friday November 26, @11:45AM (#10925374) |
|
the occasional good documentary or high quality series
That's a good point. PBS seems like an ideal service to start officially releasing their shows via bittorrent. Maybe a new distribution model and inherently more traffic to their site means more donations. We'd all win |
|
Re:Movies before TV (Score:2)
by sik0fewl (561285) <[moc.liamtoh] [ta] [xxllehlatigidxx]> on Friday November 26, @12:57PM (#10926008) (Last Journal: Monday January 12, @04:15PM) |
|
Frankly I'm amazed that movies caught on before TV since there's so much more TV, and they tend to be smaller files than movies. I think it's worth pointing out that a movie is about 700mb to download. If you're watching a decent TV series where you want all the episodes, it's probably about 5-6gb per season. Movies are clearly much smaller than TV when you think about it. |
|
Re:Movies before TV (Score:2)
by Idarubicin (579475) <(allsquiet) (at) (hotmail.com)> on Friday November 26, @02:09PM (#10926561) (Last Journal: Sunday June 08, @10:05PM) |
|
Also 90% of TV is very low quality crap...
Yeah, but that's Sturgeon's Law [catb.org]: 90% of everything is crud. This includes movies. Look at what we have in the theatres right now. The Incredibles is clever, witty, good fun. Then there's the new Bridget Jones flick, which I understand is significantly less plausible. I won't talk about Christmas With The Kranks, beyond mentioning that their rating of 96% rotten on Rotten Tomatoes [rottentomatoes.com] is singularly impressive. |
|
Re:Movies before TV (Score:2)
by sik0fewl (561285) <[moc.liamtoh] [ta] [xxllehlatigidxx]> on Friday November 26, @12:53PM (#10925970) (Last Journal: Monday January 12, @04:15PM) |
|
I think you misinterpreted him (as I did the first time I read the sentence). He's saying that those shows are the "throw away" stuff or "most of TV". |
|
This is new? Maybe so (Score:1)
by rooijan (746599) on Friday November 26, @06:21AM (#10923342) (http://is.und.ac.za/~vanwyk) |
|
I'm not a big downloader myself - work policies prohibit BitTorrent etc and phone calls in South Africa are too expensive (even locally) to download great whopping amounts of data from home. I do know many people though who have episodes or full sets of various TV shows, and offer them to me all the time. They've been doing that for years - I can't really see that this is anything new, especially if we're already doing it in my sleepy corner of the globe. Of course, just because a (relatively) few people do it now, when they become shared with the same regularity as music, that's when they become the next craze. Perhaps the TV exec's are perfectly aware that it already happens - what they're scared of is when it becomes huge. |
|
Re:This is new? Maybe so (Score:2)
by DigitumDei (578031) on Friday November 26, @06:48AM (#10923465) (http://www.darkervision.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 02, @08:11AM) |
|
Get sentech, the 128k option is slow, but cheap (by our overly expensive South African standards anyway) and the movie/episode/mp3 will come down eventually. Of course here in SA most of the TV series are so delayed that one would think piracy would be an even bigger problem. By the time it gets onto one of our local channels, its been downloadable for at least 6 months. |
|
Re:This is new? Maybe so (Score:1)
by beuges (613130) on Friday November 26, @07:07AM (#10923531) |
|
I've got the 256k sentech package, and while http downloads fly through at almost 256kbps, i'm lucky if bittorrent hits 20kbps. Its taken me over a month and a half to download all 6 gummi bear seasons off suprnova, the largest being just over a gig, and the smallest being 300mb. Sentech's port shaping sucks ass |
|
Re:This is new? Maybe so (Score:2)
by DigitumDei (578031) on Friday November 26, @08:10AM (#10923736) (http://www.darkervision.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 02, @08:11AM) |
|
Yes but if you watched all 6 gummi bear seasons in less than a month and a half, you are very very dedicated. At least if you don't need it "NOW" then its fine. With sucky telkom ADSL (which I have because good gaming pings are what I'm after) they'll still port shape you into oblivion, only you'll be capped before you finish season one. |
|
Re:This is new? Maybe so (Score:2)
by rikkards (98006) on Friday November 26, @11:39AM (#10925308) |
| I have a 5M cable and have found that Bittorrent is not always the fastest. In general, I find http download to be much faster. The advantage of bittorrent is that the link is more reliable than other p2p sharing programs where you can easily get disconnected. Of course this is assuming that the file in question is popular. If not then it is no better. |
|
Re:This is new? Maybe so (Score:2)
by Yartrebo (690383) on Friday November 26, @02:49PM (#10926812) |
| HTTP puts all the load on the server and won't scale to demand, while Bittorrent distributes the load and actually gets better as more people use it. If you have 1,000 people downloading a file simultaneously at an average rate of 20kB/sec (common for a freshly released popular torrent), that's 20MB/sec or about 200Mbit of bandwidth. Few webmasters could afford that bill. |
|
Re:This is new? Maybe so (Score:2)
by rikkards (98006) on Saturday November 27, @12:47PM (#10931664) |
| True but I was talking from the client side of things. There was nothing more annoying on Kazaa or WinMX where you were downloading a file and either someone logged off or disconnected you. BitTorrent helps. I would rather get something at half the speed than get half of it at full bore. |
|
Old Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
by Lesrahpem (687242) <{moc.egnuolknilpu} {ta} {handai}> on Friday November 26, @06:22AM (#10923345) (http://www.uplinklounge.com/) |
|
This has already been an issue once. I don't know if anyone else does, but I remember the frenzy about people being able to record television using a VCR. All that aside, what do they really have to lose from people recording TV shows and showing them to other people? It's not like all TV is pay-per-view or anything like that. Yeah, so people who don't have cable or satellite might see some TV without paying for a subscription. These people wouldn't be paying for a subscription anyway, so no one is really at a loss. If anything, I think it might cause people to be more likely to switch to cable or satellite. |
|
Re:Old Idea (Score:1)
by Zeromous (668365) on Friday November 26, @07:37AM (#10923616) (http://www.whiteravens.com/) |
|
In my city we have on-demand digital cable. Nothing beats TMN (HBO) on demand, and I can watch old He-man episodes for 99c a pop. I think TV execs understand the situation and are concerned about piracy. Its clear they are adapting better than other media pillars. DVD sales of TV shows are huge, and on-demand will satiate any need to rid yourself of commercials and download hunting. |
|
Re:Old Idea (Score:2)
by shaka (13165) on Friday November 26, @07:57AM (#10923697) |
|
Well, the problem here is that in a few years, if it's sufficiently convenient to download all the TV you wanna see, people will start doing that and quit their subscriptions. As stated by many others in this thread, though, this is no issue for the producers of TV since they just want to get their shows out to as many viewers as possible. Now they don't have to bother with the overhead of building their own network, but they have to create new revenue-streams. If they want to continue to get their revenue from ads, they have to create new models for advertising, which is not trivial. Regardless of piracy, this is becoming a major problem for media that get lots of income from ads: We, the people, are fed up with bad ad-formats. Recent studies here in Sweden show that while we're not bothered by ads per se, we don't like pushy advertising. 10% of all Swedish households are registered in the NIX-registry. This is a registry which prohibits phone sales to the households registered. More and more people are switching channels when the ads come, and then there is the risk they won't come back. Even the Swedish Advertising Association is picking up on this, and their chairman recently wrote a debate article about this in Sweden's biggest newspaper. So, even if people don't pirate TV, the advertising model is starting to show major flaws. This is only augmented by the possibility to download TV over the Internet and bypass advertising completely. In this scenario, TiVo et al are only by-products of the flawed situation we have, and I foresee that a new player will step up, that will strike deals directly with the TV producers and make the networks redundant - that is, if the networks don't adapt and do, in essence, the same thing. This will be done as soon as some smart business person comes up with a new great idea for creating revenue, and then, the only way for the networks of today to continue to compete is to use whatever strengths they have today, when it comes to brand recognition as well as their ability to sell ads. I'm not sure if I was able to make my point, my English isn't what's it should be today. |
|
Re:Old Idea (Score:1)
by iainl (136759) on Friday November 26, @08:12AM (#10923739) |
|
A big part of the problem is international sales. Between waiting a year to see them and watching the episodes get cut to shreds by idiot schedulers who can't get their head round the idea that "Fantasy != Aimed At 5-year-olds", loads of us in the UK downloaded Buffy and Angel while they were on. Which means fewer people actually watching them on broadcast TV, and so the channel not being prepared to shell out much money for the rights to broadcast them. |
|
they didn't (Score:5, Interesting)
by Punto (100573) <punto@geocities.com> on Friday November 26, @06:22AM (#10923346) (http://anime.com.ar/) |
| movies _didn't_ catch on before TV.. you can find a torrent for almost any tv show (but mostly fiction and reality crap) every week. 4 years ago it used to be mostly people from europe who didn't get the shows on their tv, downloading from IRC (or southamerican, in my case).. Now, with the widescreen episodes captured from HDTV on nice fast torrents, who knows? |
|
Oh nose! (Score:2)
by zarthrag (650912) on Friday November 26, @06:23AM (#10923348) |
| You mean I can watch my SG1 without Tivo AND without paying for cable?!? Oh nose! No commercials too!?!?!? Oh nose! And I don't have to pay for a $80 set of dvds with just one season?!?!? Oh nose! You mean I can find any show on irc?!?! Oh nose! I can watch shows that haven't even aired in my timezone yet!?!? Oh yes! |
|
Re:Oh nose! (Score:2)
by azzy (86427) on Friday November 26, @06:43AM (#10923441) (Last Journal: Friday November 14, @03:47PM) |
| What's wrong with your nose? |
|
Freely available means less cause to pirate (Score:2)
by Stone Rhino (532581) <mparke.gmail@com> on Friday November 26, @06:23AM (#10923349) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday December 16, @05:19PM) |
| Actually, it's no surprise to me why TV hasn't been popular with pirates. There's no incentive to pirate episodes of The Simpsons or Family Guy or Futurama when they can be seen, full-screen, full quality, in syndication, or, with the help of tivo, any time you want. Television is piped into one's home relatively free, with no download times, no partial/misnamed files, and no risk of prosecution. The only real reason for piracy is convienence, since the average college student, for example, has a computer and broadband, but no TV. Also, collectors may want an entire series, or a show that is no longer being broadcast. I doubt TV piracy will ever explode like, say, music downloads, since it's a product that's available for free, but there is a market of desire, and, as people discover the availability, TV downloading will grow just as music downloading has, leading to collections of more songs than most people could ever afford to buy on their own. |
|
Re:Freely available means less cause to pirate (Score:2)
by Fulcrum of Evil (560260) on Friday November 26, @11:14AM (#10925092) |
|
There's no incentive to pirate episodes of The Simpsons or Family Guy or Futurama when they can be seen, full-screen, full quality, in syndication, or, with the help of tivo, any time you want. What if you live in Europe, or have lousy reception (and don't want to fork over $50 for the privelege of basic cable)? Lots of reasons. |
|
WtF? (Score:5, Interesting)
by thewldisntenuff (778302) on Friday November 26, @06:25AM (#10923355) (http://slashdot.org/) |
|
Hmph...."next big craze in illegal file-sharing", eh? What the hell? How is trading copies of broadcast television shows illegal? Since when is it piracy to copy and share copies of tv shows THAT ARE ON TV? I pay my dues in cable bills, so how the hell is it illegal? Recording shows to VHS has been done plenty of times - and you'd think they'd want you to watch the shows again and again....I don't see the logic or the losses involved here. Either way you end up seeing the show (commercial free or not)... TFA states that people will have "no need to spring for satellite feeds or specialty channels" Hell, some specialty channels are a waste anyway...I mean, who needs 6 ESPNs, or 5 Discovery channels, or 10 friggin HBOs? I think some people would still hang on to their channels anyway...Its still a hell of a lot easier (for most) to watch tv at 6 than download and play clips offline. They make it sound like everyone's going to drop their cable services and rely on the downloading and recording of one lone pirate with an eye patch and a rouge TiVO.... TFA also states a line about "In his forum speech, Chernin said: "Consumers need to understand that stealing is wrong, and there are consequences." " When the fuck did free use become a dirty word? Stealing? Bah! What a good way to start Thanksgiving leftovers... -thewldisntenuff |
|
Re:WtF? (Score:2)
by JaredOfEuropa (526365) on Friday November 26, @06:57AM (#10923501) (Last Journal: Saturday January 31, @05:25PM) |
Since when is it piracy to copy and share copies of tv shows THAT ARE ON TV? I pay my dues in cable bills, so how the hell is it illegal? Recording shows to VHS has been done plenty of times - and you'd think they'd want you to watch the shows again and again....It's (probably) not the copying they are worried about, but the sharing. Same as with movies on DVD: you pay your dues when you purchase the DVD, and you should be allowed to copy it, but distributing those copies online is not allowed and rightly so. If I can download all my favorite shows from people who capture and share them online, why on earth would I still need to pay for cable or watch commercials? People deciding to drop cable and download shows instead means lost revenue for cable companies and TV stations, so they are rightly worried. With that said, I wouldn't know what rights pertain to recordings of TV shows, but I imagine it's much the same as with movies. |
|
Re:WtF? (Score:1)
by atriusofbricia (686672) on Friday November 26, @08:56AM (#10923974) (http://www.gleamingedge.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday August 22, @02:39PM) |
|
You might be right as to the reason they are worried. However, the reasoning isn't sound at this time. The amount of bandwidth required to totally replace cable/satellite viewing for the average person would be staggering. I'll download episodes of shows that I have missed, and Tivo couldn't get because we don't have local channels right now. (Damn it.) And I'll download seasons of shows that just aren't on TV anymore and they want ludicrous amounts of money for on DVD (Sorry, no season of any show is worth $100.00USD when you can get entire series of anime for that price and less). But day to day viewing? No way. And I don't even watch that much TV. This isn't South Korea with 100M Internet connections. |
|
Re:WtF? (Score:2)
by Kombat (93720) <kombat@kombat.org> on Friday November 26, @09:30AM (#10924225) (http://kombat.org/) |
|
What the hell? How is trading copies of broadcast television shows illegal? Since when is it piracy to copy and share copies of tv shows THAT ARE ON TV? I pay my dues in cable bills, so how the hell is it illegal? Recording shows to VHS has been done plenty of times - and you'd think they'd want you to watch the shows again and again....I don't see the logic or the losses involved here. In a word, it's ad-revenue. When you download the shows, presumeably they're commercial-free, and thus, no one is making any money at all off of you, yet you're enjoying their content for free. That's the problem. Either way you end up seeing the show They don't make money when you watch the show. They make money when you watch the ads. Nice rant, otherwise. |
|
Re:WtF? (Score:2)
by evilviper (135110) on Friday November 26, @11:42AM (#10925338) (Last Journal: Sunday October 24, @02:31AM) |
Since when is it piracy to copy and share copies of tv shows THAT ARE ON TV? Since about the turn of the century. I pay my dues in cable bills, so how the hell is it illegal? Paying for cable TV does not suddenly give you unlimited rights to use the copyrighted material as you see fit. If you pay for a magazine subscription, does that make it legal to make copies of the entire thing, and resell it at a lower price? They make it sound like everyone's going to drop their cable services and rely on the downloading and recording of one lone pirate with an eye patch and a rouge TiVO.... It's not that much of a stretch there. Plenty of people who like a show that's on HBO download the whole season rather than paying to get HBO themselves. That's more than a convience thing. Just because not everyone is going to cancel their HBO subscription doesn't mean it's not going to hurt them when a good percentage does just that. I happen to agree that the huge majority of programming on TV is pure garbage, but I also don't see the need to download any of it... The best stuff on is still pretty mediocre, and I can certainly see myself dropping cable TV all-together. Then, perhaps I will download an episode or two of a decent show, every couple months. |
|
Re:WtF? (Score:1)
by DogDaySunrise (829682) on Friday November 26, @10:13PM (#10928966) |
|
It's a little different in the UK, as we have the BBC - which is paid for with public money via a licence fee (about £9 a month, although it's compulsory if you own a TV & it's able to receive a signal). The upshot is, the UK *public* owns the shows, as they've paid for it from start to finish - I'm sure you've all read that the BBC is still considering opening it's archives over the net, which is only as it should be I've been downloading a lot of stuff lately, people have been posting great shows I remember watching around 1990 lol...! |
|
Re:WtF? (Score:2)
by Queer Boy (451309) <<Dragon76> <at> <cinci.rr.com>> on Friday November 26, @04:30PM (#10927356) |
They make it sound like everyone's going to drop their cable services and rely on the downloading and recording of one lone pirate with an eye patch and a rouge TiVO TiVOs come in red? |
|
What do you mean ?. (Score:2)
by Gopal.V (532678) <gopalv82.yahoo@com> on Friday November 26, @06:26AM (#10923359) (http://t3.dotgnu.info/ | Last Journal: Monday November 01, @04:15AM) |
|
Does this mean letting the guy next door borrow your TiVo files is illegal ?. I thought that recording shows and viewing it at your leisure was a Good Thing (tm) for TV shows ?. I reach home at 11:00 PM at night, how'll I watch the 5-7 pm comedy slot ?. |
|
Hey (Score:5, Funny)
by cubicledrone (681598) on Friday November 26, @06:26AM (#10923360) |
|
Mr. Media Executive? If you're looking for a "major concern," how about the fact that most of the shows suck harder than an industrial vacuum hooked up to a gas turbine? Have you watched the shit you're shoveling lately? It is awful. Face-down in bubbling warm shit awful. It's enough to make a brave man weep into a PA system. And then the commercials. Oh great humpity fuck, some of the commercials on television are enough to make someone want to projectile vomit their shoes for a 90-yard touchdown. It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't broadcast at intervals more frequent than a dry-heaving hummingbird. And yes, most of the people watching have already re-financed their house eight times this week. Try working on the quality, there, Captain Meetings. Maybe then people will actually watch your channel. |
|
Re:Hey (Score:2)
by zx75 (304335) on Friday November 26, @07:52AM (#10923674) (http://www.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~gmrempel/) |
|
Let me try to translate: Its bad. Did I get it right? I kinda got lost between the touchdown and the hummingbird... |
|
Re:Hey (Score:2)
by poptones (653660) on Friday November 26, @08:42AM (#10923865) (Last Journal: Tuesday October 19, @09:51AM) |
|
Have you watched the shit you're shoveling lately? It is awful. Face-down in bubbling warm shit awful. It's enough to make a brave man weep into a PA system. I'm sorry, but this is a complete red herring. For one thing, if tv sucks so bad why do so many people get caught up in certain shows? Yeah, people are idiots - which brings me to the real point:
Three's Company TV has always had shows that suck. TV has such a great track record of sucking that the few times it hasn't sucked are memorialized in rarely seen specials. Rod Serling's shows; Seinfeld; Twin Peaks. It's so rare that American TV doesn't suck you could count all the great shows that have ever been on US broadcast TV on the fingers and toes of a single bloated TV viewer. |
|
Re:Hey (Score:1)
by rts008 (812749) <rts008@rednova.com> on Friday November 26, @10:06AM (#10924486) |
| I applaud your command of the written word! LOL!!!(I also wholeheartedly agree with you). Well said, and add my vote. |
|
Advertising (Score:4, Insightful)
by eMartin (210973) on Friday November 26, @06:26AM (#10923363) |
|
No, I don't mean the ads that people get to skip by downloading TV shows. There are several TV shows that I first saw online (either from File sharing nets, torrents, or Winamp TV stations), and then started to watch on TV, mainly because I missed the first season or so and got to catch myself up. If I hadn't seen them that way, I never would have gotten hooked in the first place, and whether I downloaded them or not, I wouldn't have seen the original ads. I also certainly wouldn't buy a DVD set for a TV show that I've never seen before, but I've bought a couple for shows that I originally downloaded. I've got all of NewRadio on my computer, and I can't wait until they finally get around to releasing the set. With a movie, you download it, watch it, and maybe if you REALLY like it, you go and buy it anyway. With TV, it's totally different. You get hooked, and come back for more (usually on the TV). You can easily make CDs for friends and get them hooked too (I got a whole bunch of people to start watching Arrested Development that way). It's free advertising. They are morons if they don't see that. |
|
What's the problem? (Score:2)
by Trailwalker (648636) on Friday November 26, @06:27AM (#10923364) |
| There are now so many channels out there that the networks ought to be grateful that anyone is watching a given show. It would be to the advertisers advantage to give away dvds of the shows and the included ads, since not everybody will skip through the commercials. |
|
TV Piracy is a godsend... (Score:5, Interesting)
by absolut_kurant (152888) on Friday November 26, @06:27AM (#10923366) |
| No way I could otherwise watch unsynchronized TV shows (I live in Austria), there isn't even the option of e.g. watching the Simpsons in English here (except waiting a few years for the DVD release). So much subtle nuance is lost and so many glaring errors are made in translation it's not even funny. Very frustrating. My thanks to all Americans making their TV shows available via Bittorrent. |
|
Re:TV Piracy is a godsend... (Score:2)
by Zorilla (791636) on Friday November 26, @06:36AM (#10923408) |
|
Haha, I actually got to see The Simpsons in Spanish during my overnight stay in Madrid. Yeah, the translation ruined one great part where Homer is attempting to pour Lucky Charms cereal into a hole to get a leprechaun to appear, only to find out he's holding a box of Trix. Apparently, the Spanish translation of "D'oh!" is a slightly muted "B-ah!" Not to mention that Marge sounded really weird. |
|
Re:TV Piracy is a godsend... (Score:1)
by cockroach2 (117475) on Friday November 26, @06:57AM (#10923503) (http://www.desire.ch/) |
| Don't you get SF2? They broadcast the Simpsons in two-channel sound. |
|
Re:TV Piracy is a godsend... (Score:1)
by bhaak1 (219906) on Friday November 26, @08:55AM (#10923968) (http://bhaak.dyndns.org/) |
| SF2 is a swiss-german channel. If at all it is only available in the southern parts of Germany close to the Swiss border. |
|
Re:TV Piracy is a godsend... (Score:1)
by cockroach2 (117475) on Friday November 26, @11:52AM (#10925428) (http://www.desire.ch/) |
| Indeed. I was just wondering, as the austrian channels (ORF1 and 2) are available in Switzerland. |
|
Re:TV Piracy is a godsend... (Score:1)
by mikelieman (35628) on Friday November 26, @08:32AM (#10923811) (http://www.albany.net/~msl) |
|
I think the same thing about fansubbed anime. I think the translations, and nuances are MUCH better presented, than the hatchet job some TV writer in "L.A." will do... |
|
Re:TV Piracy is a godsend... (Score:1)
by NoMaster (142776) on Friday November 26, @08:33PM (#10928533) (http://slashdot.org/) |
|
Come to Australia - here we get Kommissar Rex on SBS [sbs.com.au] in German, with English subtitles. You'll feel right at home. On the plus side, plenty of Americans can't tell the different between our two countries, and at least you'll be able to point when telling them where to find kangaroos... |
|
Re:TV Piracy is a godsend... (Score:2)
by saskboy (600063) on Saturday November 27, @07:54PM (#10934249) (http://cgi.ebay.com/...Item&item=6120698481 | Last Journal: Sunday December 05, @09:34PM) |
| http://www.lokitorrent.com/download.php?id=65825 Enjoy a Canadian show, Corner Gas. Canadians can make good TV too, Americans don't have a complete monopoly yet. |
|
There are reasons why people do that (Score:5, Insightful)
by fobsen (798504) on Friday November 26, @06:28AM (#10923371) |
|
For example: I'm living in Germany and I don`t have any opportunity to watch the series in the original language. You probably won't understand how horrible it is to watch a translated comedy-show compared to the original one. Wordplays: gone. The quality of the series itself is simply not the same. Another thing is that we have to wait for a long time until the new series from the U.S. are translated and running on TV here. (for example: The last season of "Sex and the City" is still running here. Or "Scrubs": Season 4 runing in the US - still waiting for Season 3 to start in Germany.) I'm sorry for being unable to support my favourite series in the US by watching the channels they are running on, but i simply don't have an other chance to do that. |
|
Re:There are reasons why people do that (Score:1)
by Splab (574204) on Friday November 26, @06:53AM (#10923488) |
|
What is it with german television and voiceovers anyways? Its bloody annoying because you guys get the new movies before us danes - and I cant watch them because I suck at deutch. (btw. the via-sat bird has some danish channels showing scrubs season 3 in english with danish subtitles, just get a decoder and tune in) |
|
Re:There are reasons why people do that (Score:1)
by bhaak1 (219906) on Friday November 26, @09:03AM (#10924025) (http://bhaak.dyndns.org/) |
|
I don't think I quite understand you. You're annoyed because the Free-TV premiere of a dubbed movie in Germany is before the undubbed version is shown in Danemark? What keeps you from watching the undubbed movie in Danish movie theaters? Aren't you forgetting that in German cinemas they usually also show a dubbed version? Most Germans don't have the possibility to watch an undubbed movie. |
|
Re:There are reasons why people do that (Score:2)
by arose (644256) <artis@aaa.apollo.lv> on Friday November 26, @07:08AM (#10923532) (http://arose.hopto.org/) |
| Shows in german aren't that bad (too bad there are far less German channels on cable than there where on satelite -- I want my SAT1). You have good translators and it's dubbed. Here in Latvia we get crappy translations that 2 poeple (man and woman) speak over with the original in the background; offten impossible to tell wich character tells what because the timing is off. Those are the good ones, the bad ones have a single speaker talking in a monotone or even anoyed voice... |
|
Re:There are reasons why people do that (Score:2)
by Slashamatic (553801) on Friday November 26, @09:39AM (#10924291) |
|
The translations in germany aren't always so good and sometimes they are plain wrong. Script translaters don't get paid better per page than anything else and usually, they just get the script, not even an English preview.
Yes, I know about the stuff that you get in the baltic states. This is really a hangover of the Soviet style dubbing. The only good point is that at least in Russia, you can still find plenty of stuff in English on VCD. |
|
Re:There are reasons why people do that (Score:2)
by aug24 (38229) on Friday November 26, @07:24AM (#10923577) (http://www.aug24.co.uk/) |
|
Weirdly, the one show I can't get hold of is the UK cut of M*A*S*H. It had no laugh track and the dry humour came across wonderfully. Hawkeye's laconic delivery was killed stone dead when some dick suit decided it needed a huge belly-laugh after every line. Justin. |
|
Re:M*A*S*H (Score:2)
by thunderbee (92099) on Friday November 26, @07:58AM (#10923699) (http://jorune.net/~case/) |
|
There's a zone 1 "collector edition" that would suit you just fine. One complete season on 5 DVDs, with and without laugh track. I can find it here, you should be able ton find it in UK. Hey, there's even a zone 2 version at amazon [amazon.co.uk]. You didn't look very hard, did you? |
|
Re:M*A*S*H (Score:2)
by aug24 (38229) on Friday November 26, @09:14AM (#10924118) (http://www.aug24.co.uk/) |
|
Never even occured to me that there might be a 'turn off laugh track' option on the DVD (I'd been looking for a release marked 'UK version' or something). I wasn't even sure, on reading the link, that that allowed it till I saw the reviews at the bottom. Thanks! Justin |
|
Re:There are reasons why people do that (Score:3, Interesting)
by Angstroem (692547) on Friday November 26, @08:27AM (#10923789) |
|
I feel your pain Admiral: "What do we want most?" Homer: "Peas!" Admiral: "Exactly. Peace! And how do we get peace?" Homer: (trying to reach the peas with a knife) "With a knife!" It just doesn't work in German, especially since they translated it literally. Care for another one? (Movie, this time):
"He jammed the radar!" Ok, there are always counter examples: the only movie where I'd prefer the dubbed version over the original is Ghostbusters. Not to mention "The Persuaders" (Die Zwei). |
|
Re:There are reasons why people do that (Score:1)
by innerlimit (593217) on Friday November 26, @09:32AM (#10924235) |
|
Weird... Nors, Swedish, Flemish and Dutch TV don't do this... luckily for us the costs outweigh the so called benefits. I also believe this contributes to the fact so many of us have English as our second language (!) We did try to do some lipsync on BH90210 a long time ago, just for fun, but the result was nauseating! I'm living in France at the moment, and I have to miss out on all my favourite shows! And watching Friends or 24 in french, just isn't an option! |
|
The next craze! (Score:5, Funny)
by lxs (131946) on Friday November 26, @06:29AM (#10923376) |
|
Since we're all way ahead of the curve here, (let's face it TV shows have been around on P2P networks for ages) let me take this opportunity to announce the Next Big Thing: Sheet Music piracy. After all, everything else is being shared already. Introducing Cleffster a P2P utility written in C# especially for the sharing of scanned sheet music. (And if that network really exists I'll eat my tinfoil hat.) |
|
Re:The next craze! (Score:1)
by Enygma42 (301776) on Friday November 26, @06:39AM (#10923420) (http://www.corksurf.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday March 18, @11:48AM) |
|
You know something, in the olden days(tm) before TV or Radio or even Gramophones people used to buy sheet music so they could play it at home on their pianos. Obviously it wasn't a huge market or anything but it did exist. Also you could probably find guitar tabs on any of the P2P networks, so in a way that network does exist Time to start eating your tinfoil hat |
|
Re:The next craze! (Score:2)
by DeepHurtn! (773713) on Friday November 26, @06:01PM (#10927806) |
|
Obviously it wasn't a huge market or anything but it did exist. Actually, it *was* a pretty huge market (even considering the much smaller population at the turn of the century). Tin Pan Alley was big business, and big hits would sell millions of copies (back in the day, having a piano -- and having at least one member of the family able to play it -- was the sign of virtually every middle class household). Tin Pan Alley also spawned ASCAP (American Society for Composers, Authors, and Publishers), which is still with us. |
|
Re:The next craze! (Score:2)
by xirtam_work (560625) on Friday November 26, @06:42AM (#10923439) |
|
talking about sheet music pircacy, I actually discovered a sheet music bittorrent site this week (www.pianosheets.org) whilst looking for a program that teaches piano by eMagic. OT: I went into the Apple store to buy it and they don't stock it - only the guitar versions. So I went to the Apple online store - nope not there either. So I tried Amazon, not there either. So, I had to download it to 'evaluate it'. I can't play keyboard but was thinking of buying a USB keyboard to use GarageBand with on my PoweBook. |
|
Re:The next craze! (Score:1)
by Zorilla (791636) on Friday November 26, @07:05AM (#10923524) |
|
So, I had to download it to 'evaluate it'. I can't play keyboard but was thinking of buying a USB keyboard to use GarageBand with on my PoweBook You should just get a P-P-P-Powerbook [mannequin3d.com] instead. It should produce much better results than that PoweBook of yours. |
|
Re:The next craze! (Score:2)
by Kombat (93720) <kombat@kombat.org> on Friday November 26, @09:33AM (#10924245) (http://kombat.org/) |
|
You should just get a P-P-P-Powerbook instead. Karma whore. Everyone's already seen that site already. If you're going to whore, you should include an obligatory fragment of especially witty Simpson's/Futurama dialog, or perhaps a clever limerick/haiku, preferably involving "SCO." That'll get you "+1:Funny" mods for sure. Better luck next time! |
|
Re:The next craze! (Score:2)
by Zorilla (791636) on Friday November 26, @11:09AM (#10925059) |
|
What's that one part in the Slashdot FAQ where it says something about Funny mods and how it affects karma? Oh, I guess I am here to inform others on the P-P-P-Power of the P-P-P-Powerbook so I can add to my preexisting karma bonus. |
|
Re:The next craze! (Score:3, Interesting)
by a24061 (703202) * on Friday November 26, @07:28AM (#10923594) |
| There was a big fracas in the 19th century about player piano rolls. |
|
Indeed. (Score:1, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, @11:21AM (#10925159) |
|
There was a big fracas in the 19th century about player piano rolls. from www.lespagesauxfolles.ca/Academic/chap04.htm The Software Act began the erosion of a basic distinction between copyright and patent by suggesting that useful objects were eligible for copyright. In judicial cases such as Diamond v Diehr (1981), the court held that 'when a claim containing a mathematical formula implements or applies that formula in a structure or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function which the patent laws were designed to protect (for example, transforming or reducing an article to a different state of things), then the claim satisfies the requirements of [the copyright law].' This finding ran against the grain of the long-standing White-Smith Music Publishing Co v Apollo Co decision of 1908 where the Supreme Court ruled that a player piano roll was ineligible for the copyright protection accorded to the sheet music it duplicated. The roll was considered part of a machine rather than the expression of an idea. The distinction was formulated according to the code of the visible: a copyrightable text must be visually perceptible to the human eye and must 'give to every person seeing it the idea created by the original. (ibid) The analogy of a computer program to a player piano seems apt, since both are basically sets of instructions for a machine. The 1981 court decision uses some torturous logic in order to essentially overturn the previous court's decision. |
|
Re:Indeed. (Score:2)
by a24061 (703202) * on Friday November 26, @12:30PM (#10925797) |
|
The analogy of a computer program to a player piano seems apt, since both are basically sets of instructions for a machine. Hmm---that's debatable. I would argue that a player piano roll is analogous to a strict data file rather than an executable. The player piano contains the executable code in hardware and just reads the roll and plays the notes verbatim. |
|
Re:The next craze! (Score:2)
by thisissilly (676875) on Friday November 26, @11:25AM (#10925187) |
| And, it lead to laws requiring compulsary ("mechanical") licensing -- the same laws that today allow anyone to cover a song after the creator has published it, at a fixed (by law) royalty rate. |
|
Re:The next craze! (Score:1)
by radishfarmer (682863) on Friday November 26, @09:20AM (#10924141) |
| It already happened. Back before the web, we had some great guitar tab and lyric sites. Then the lawyers, and the September that never ended came. Another age. Sniff. |
|
Re:The next craze! (Score:2)
by Sabalon (1684) on Monday November 29, @11:15AM (#10943143) |
|
Actually, there was someone who had scanned some song out of Guitar mag and posted it on one of the tab newsgroups...this was before the OLGA lawsuits. The tab community was horrified by it and very unsupportive of it. Though I supposed I could go look for alt.binaries.warez.tab |
|
Re:The next craze! (Score:2, Funny)
by pleumann (219030) on Friday November 26, @09:22AM (#10924159) |
|
Napster and eDonkey have been sharing tons of shi... oh, you meant *sheet* music? |
|
Re:The next craze! (Score:2)
by Mr.Ned (79679) on Friday November 26, @10:54AM (#10924913) (http://www.thened.net/) |
| This isn't copyright infringement, but there is an effort to make sheet music freely available at http://www.mutopiaproject.org/ using out-of-copyright scores. |
|
Re:The next craze! (Score:2)
by julesh (229690) on Saturday November 27, @01:21PM (#10931893) |
|
I downloaded Evanescence's My Immortal arranged for piano on Gnutella a few weeks back. I've also found copies of a few others. It's already coming. And given the ludicrous price of books of music (my local music shop charges about GBP 25 == $50 US for anything current), it's a wide open market. |
|
Re:The next craze! (Score:1)
by mgbastard (612419) on Sunday November 28, @02:20PM (#10938180) |
After all, everything else is being shared already. Introducing Cleffster a P2P utility written in C# especially for the sharing of scanned sheet music. Ahh my friend, but what of a recipe sharing P2P app? Gnutella just didn't live up to creator's promise of being the ultimate recipe sharing app. Where is that? |
|
Re: Sheet music is already pirated (Score:2)
by gidds (56397) <gidds@ci[ ]o.uk ['x.c' in gap]> on Friday November 26, @08:32AM (#10923813) (http://www.cix.co.uk/~gidds/) |
|
And most of it is crap. It's either dodgy scans of existing paper music (i.e. hard to read and/or massive files), stuff that's useless on its own (e.g. one instrument's part of a multi-instrument work), or stuff that's been typeset so badly you'd think the creator had never played anything from music.
The best places to get sheet music for free are The Choral Public Domain Library [cpdl.org], the Mutopia Project [mutopiaproject.org], Gutenberg Music [gutenberg.org], the Sheet Music Archive [sheetmusicarchive.net], and the Werner Icking Music Archive [icking-music-archive.org]. And while we're at it, the best way to engrave (typeset) music is with Lilypond [lilypond.org]. |
|
Re: Sheet music is already pirated (Score:2)
by HamNRye (20218) on Friday November 26, @03:51PM (#10927150) (http://nothing4sale.org/) |
| Try searching Gnutella for sheet music, and you'll come across tons of it. Also, type in Hot Licks, and you'll have guitar instructional videos coming out your ears. |
|
Boo Fucking Hoo (Score:2, Funny)
by kjots (64798) * on Friday November 26, @06:29AM (#10923377) |
|
So TV executives are scared that we might actually want to burden others with the garbage they vomit daily into our living rooms free of charge anyway. Well, maybe I'll just stop watching TV. Nothing but crap on anyway. |
|
If you can't beat them (Score:2, Interesting)
by FluffyPanda (821763) on Friday November 26, @06:31AM (#10923382) (Last Journal: Thursday December 02, @09:22AM) |
|
What we need is an industry supported downloadable TV service. Adverts are a non issue for me and I don't even care if they're inserted into my downloaded shows.
Downloading TV is the only way that I can get english language content here in Italy. It also provides access to shows that haven't been released on DVD yet.
Seriously, I bought season 1 of Twin Peaks on DVD the day it was released. After watching it with my girlfriend she wanted to see season 2, but there's no DVD. So I downloaded it, quickly and painlessly. When it comes out on DVD I'll be buying that too. |
|
authorized downloads with ads inserted? (Score:5, Insightful)
by vinsci (537958) on Friday November 26, @06:31AM (#10923385) (http://www.funet.fi/~vinsci/) |
From the article:
For the real solution, media moguls might refer to Chernin's first rule of survival -- the one about consumers wanting control, choice and convenience. Logging onto the Net and quickly downloading your favourite show in HDTV fulfills that principle. Until makers of entertainment can satisfy this desire, the piracy fight is likely to keep getting bloodier.I've been wondering for a long time why they don't simply set up a well-working torrent tracker that serves torrents with real, paid ads inserted in the material. This should work great for TV-based media, which is mostly prepared for hosting ads anyway. Ads could be inserted with an overlapping, rolling, three-week schedule, for example - at any time there'd be - say - three different torrents of the same show, differing only in ad contents. The ad contents would get updated on a weekly bases then, thus serving fresh ads all the time, while not breaking away too far from the well-working torrent distribution model. It's been said many times before: all other industries would be overjoyed by getting free distribution of their product - how long until the TV industry figures out how to do ads online and start providing free highquality downloads? By the way, you can watch a recording (in various formats) of Larry Lessig's interesting and entertaining talk on Free Culture in Helsinki in May 2004 here [arki.uiah.fi]. |
|
But wait there's more... (Score:2)
by complete loony (663508) <Jeremy@Lakeman.gmail@com> on Friday November 26, @07:04AM (#10923518) |
|
Target the adds.. ask the viewer for their vauge demographic information and give them adds they might be more interested in. Don't bundle them in the stream, bundle a player to insert them in the middle at run time based on who's watching (or do both, providing a non-drm add laden stream for easy playback, and a controlled player with targetted adds). Then provide a premium service with no adds. I don't want to see adds from US companies I can't possibly buy anything from even if I wanted to. Let people vote on the adds, give the add companies feedback. Maybe then the add companies will learn how to sell their products in a more interesting fashion and the quality will improve. Here in Australia most adds on free to air tv are actually quite clever. There is a lot less air time (since there aren't many channels), the peak viewing period actually gets some good adds. Yeah I know people will have privicy concerns, so make it voluntary. |
|
No No No! (Score:2)
by Darren Winsper (136155) on Friday November 26, @07:32AM (#10923604) (http://www.winsper.org.uk/) |
| If I want to watch something, I want to use MY player, the player I chose. Besides, if they bundled a player, what's the bet that it would be Windows only? |
|
You're lucky, US advertising is total overkill (Score:1)
by OneInEveryCrowd (62120) on Friday November 26, @12:01PM (#10925538) (http://slashdot.org/) |
|
I compare US television adds with telemarketing. One call a month would have been livable, but noooooo, they had to keep chiseling away with more and more calling until legislating a national do-not-call list was the only solution. Since a legislative solution could never occur with TV adds, it looks like we're going ahead and solving the problem on our own with technology. It did't have to be that way. It's not like I didn't use the mute button a long time before Tivo and MythTV either. The foreign TV I'm most familiar with is Japanese. Sometimes the fansubbers leave the commercials in. I'm so appalled by the brevity and unobtrusiveness of these commercials I actually do imitations of them at work when people complain about advertising. Here's my impression of the comercial for Bandai, a Japanese toy company: Me (deep Japanese sounding voice): BAAAANDAIII !!!!! Me (punchline): That's the WHOLE commercial ! |
|
Re:But wait there's more... (Score:2)
by Reziac (43301) * on Friday November 26, @06:31PM (#10927981) (http://www.offworldpress.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 31, @12:57PM) |
|
Rather than a player (which might not be MY player of choice anyway) Also, they might offer discounted DVDs for sale direct to downloaders. I know when I really like a series (or tune, or movie), I want the real thing for posterity, even if I already have a bootleg. It'd be handy as hell to be able to look back in my download list and pick out shows that I want DVD sets for. [insert fantasy about getting broadband in my lifetime here] |
|
Please stop (Score:2)
by thrill12 (711899) * on Friday November 26, @07:05AM (#10923522) |
|
I know why you are saying this - let's put in ads and television will be happy. Afterwards, there will be tools to strip the ads again and we will be happy too. Why put the darned things in in the first place ? Only a few people will be able to use the tools at first - and the majority will find that all internetmovies will soon be bugged with horrendous amounts of commercials. I am willing to buy a DVD of the product or pay for it in a regular way - but I must keep the right to skip those ads. |
|
Re:Please stop (Score:2)
by vinsci (537958) on Friday November 26, @07:33AM (#10923606) (http://www.funet.fi/~vinsci/) |
I know why you are saying thisThere's no hidden agenda - you loose. Why put the darned things in in the first place ?Ad-supported versions are necessary even if you could buy an ad-free version of any show for 1 cent or other micropayment, some people would still think that's too much -and some of us actually enjoy watching ads(!)-, so there's got to be both a convenient ad-free version at a very "low" cost (or it will be pirated), as well as an ad-supported version for those who really don't want/can't pay that "low" price. I am willing to buy a DVD of the product or pay for it in a regular way - but I must keep the right to skip those ads.Agreed - any distributor trying to force-feed ads at all cost (for example by forcing you to use their player program) will fail miserably. |
|
The BBC is on it! (Score:2)
by aug24 (38229) on Friday November 26, @07:10AM (#10923541) (http://www.aug24.co.uk/) |
|
Recently the great and glorious Beeb-beeb-ceeb started working on a codec intended to enable torrent-style netcasting of shows. As one of the (only?) free-to-air public funded "Nation shall speak peace unto nation" - no wonder Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell hated them. Justin. |
|
Re:The BBC is on it! (Score:2)
by wintermute1974 (596184) on Friday November 26, @09:10AM (#10924079) |
|
Recently the great and glorious Beeb-beeb-ceeb started working on a codec intended to enable torrent-style netcasting of shows. Really? You don't say? I think [slashdot.org] I read [slashdot.org] something [slashdot.org] about that somewhere [slashdot.org]. To ensure that videos are not locked into proprietary video formats, I wish the BBC the best of luck with their codec named Dirac. If I was any good at video compression algorithms, I would help them out. |
|
Re:The BBC is on it! (Score:2)
by aug24 (38229) on Friday November 26, @09:20AM (#10924142) (http://www.aug24.co.uk/) |
| ...and your point is? Sad little bugger. |
|
A good idea? (Score:1)
by Airw0lf (795770) on Friday November 26, @08:07AM (#10923732) |
|
I've been wondering for a long time why they don't simply set up a well-working torrent tracker that serves torrents with real, paid ads inserted in the material. This should work great for TV-based media, which is mostly prepared for hosting ads anyway. A possible argument that the networks may use against this - people collecting downloaded shows will not want to buy the DVDs. They could of course offer lower-quality torrents, but this would simply drive people further towards the unofficial HDTV rips and the like. These are of course fully ad-free, and some of the "HRHD" (Hi-Res HD) XviD rips come equipped with AC3 sound. Having said that, high-quality, official torrent releases would offset any losses in DVD sales through advertising revenue. The really big fans will probably buy the DVDs in any case, so there will likely be no great loss. Official torrents could also be quite attractive in that the networks could easily provide some very fast seeders, thereby ensuring that the torrents stay consistently "strong" for much longer. Current TV torrent networks are very good, but can be a little inconsistent at times. Most newbie computer users will also tend to gravitate towards the official torrents, which are likely to be better publicised. Overall, I think there is some merit to the idea. One last issue would involve the problem of preventing worldwide distribution - if the networks want a show to be US-only. This of course would also be a rather silly excuse, because the Internet would allow producers to reach markets in which their show would otherwise have not been seen. Ads could even be specially targetted on a per-country/region basis. |
|
Re:authorized downloads with ads inserted? (Score:1)
by cyways (225137) on Friday November 26, @10:49AM (#10924850) |
|
I've been wondering for a long time why they don't simply set up a well-working torrent tracker that serves torrents with real, paid ads inserted in the material. This should work great for TV-based media, which is mostly prepared for hosting ads anyway. Television broadcast networks in the US must negotiate among a variety of consituencies. In particular the "major" networks, CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox, distribute their programming via affiliated local broadcast stations. It shouldn't take much thought to realize those stations would be appalled at the notion that network programming would be available via a distribution channel that took them out of the loop. Cable programming services have a similar problem. If it were possible to obtain original programming from, say, USA Network via the Internet, the value of that channel to cable operators would decline. For decades cable operators have touted their ability to provide access to programming available only to cable subscribers. Internet distribution of such programming would not go over well with the Comcast's of the world. |
|
Re:authorized downloads with ads inserted? (Score:2)
by Mr. McGibby (41471) on Friday November 26, @10:49AM (#10924856) (http://www.xmission.com/~gibson/mike | Last Journal: Tuesday November 18, @03:00PM) |
|
I've been wondering for a long time why they don't simply set up a well-working torrent tracker that serves torrents with real, paid ads inserted in the material. This should work great for TV-based media, which is mostly prepared for hosting ads anyway. I would certainly download from here. While I don't have a whole lot of fear of *actually* getting sued for downloading from tvtorrents, it would be nice to know that I wasn't going to get sued for doing so. Hell, I can watch ads, I just don't want to have to wait for reruns when I miss an episode. |
|
Re:authorized downloads with ads inserted? (Score:2, Insightful)
by lamona (743288) on Friday November 26, @02:21PM (#10926648) (http://www.kcoyle.net/) |
|
The difference between broadcast and download is that when a show is re-broadcast NEW ads are inserted. When you download, you re-watch it with ads that are out of date. Think about how rapidly products change -- car models last a year, household products seem to be on a six-month schedule, and there's a new frozen or boxed food-like product every week, it seems. It's of no use to the companies that you see these ads a few months later much less a year or more later. If the shows are paid for by advertising, that advertising has to be up to the minute to have any value. Downloading is the opposite of this model and requires a different kind of payment. No, I'm not trying to justify their fear of downloading, just explain why downloading with ads doesn't fit their revenue model. |
|
Re:authorized downloads with ads inserted? (Score:2)
by Reziac (43301) * on Friday November 26, @06:18PM (#10927914) (http://www.offworldpress.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 31, @12:57PM) |
|
Or for that matter -- rather than inserting ads into the material, the networks COULD just provide a nice clean (no spyware, no DRM) client that plays ads on the side while it lets you look for, perhaps preview, and then download the shows of your choice. That would probably wind up being about the same show-to-ad time ratio as meatspace TV. Yeah, local automation or scripts would likely bypass some of the ads, but no more so than fridge-runs or VCR/Tivo recordings. And if it's a well-mannered client and the ads are halfway decent quality, why spend energy avoiding 'em? And so much the better if it hooks into BitTorrent -- that's a whole lotta bandwidth the networks wouldn't have to provide for their own product. Yeah, there'd be ripped copies floating around that some folk would grab to avoid the evil ads, but why bother with that if you can get guaranteed top quality downloads on your first try?? |
|
Re:authorized downloads with ads inserted? (Score:2)
by vinsci (537958) on Friday November 26, @07:41AM (#10923629) (http://www.funet.fi/~vinsci/) |
|
You assume that TV watchers are actually living, thinking and have active control of their lives. Joking aside, watching ads is necessary to stay informed on new product offerings so while you think you win something by skipping ads, you're loosing something as well. Skipping ads for non-interesting products or services isn't hurting anyone - no matter how many times one would watch one of those, the product or service is still not interesting, so no sale. |
|
Re:authorized downloads with ads inserted? (Score:2)
by EnglishTim (9662) on Friday November 26, @09:12AM (#10924097) |
|
Joking aside, watching ads is necessary to stay informed on new product offerings so while you think you win something by skipping ads, you're loosing something as well. |
|
Re:authorized downloads with ads inserted? (Score:2)
by Reziac (43301) * on Friday November 26, @06:35PM (#10927998) (http://www.offworldpress.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 31, @12:57PM) |
|
Ads are mostly not about immediate sales anyway, but rather about *brand recognition*. With a dedicated downloading client, it would be easy to designate a set of episodes as "Sponsored by BigCorpX", in a way that the user couldn't help seeing as they select the desired downloads. Cripes, just a textbox and a corp logo would do the job. |
|
non issue? don't think so. (Score:1, Informative)
by hostylocal (827126) on Friday November 26, @06:32AM (#10923387) |
|
true enough, this has been going on for years. true enough that tv shows are broadcast for 'free'. but when some many people are downloading shows that tv companies are also trying to make revenue from via dvd sales - then they will start to make an issue of it. in the uk, tv isn't free. you have to pay a licence fee. there may be issues with people downloading these programs, watching them on their pcs, without having a tv licence. admittedly, this is probably a tiny minority - but it is possible. however, in the copyright/piracy mudfight, money is the underpinning agenda. up until earlier this year i used to think that piracy of movies, tv shows and music was just a minor thing - not very many people doing it. but even i was amazed by the amount of people actually involved in this and the extent that they were involved. |
|
TV is transient (Score:1)
by deerpig (62295) on Friday November 26, @06:32AM (#10923393) |
|
Television might have some lasting value in syndication but it is far more transient than feature length motion pictures. Television get's their money from the first run on the network it was created for, and then possibly, later as syndicated series. For the most part, TV does not translate to VCD, or DVD sales--some does but most doesn't. So TV doesn't see themselves hurt as much by piracy as the film industry. |
|
Let me download it for a $1.50 (Score:2)
by eclectro (227083) on Friday November 26, @06:33AM (#10923399) |
|
How about a subscription service for TV shows, for a season, priced the same as a magazine subscription. I do not think that a TV show gets more ad revenue than that per show for my eyes. The only time I downloaded a show is because my VCR missed it, and I think that others download for the same reason or unable to get the broadcast where they are at. This is way overblown, and like the RIAA, looking for an excuse to deploy stormtroopers. |
|
All those Startrek, Stargate and Galactica Geeks (Score:4, Informative)
by Open Council (704163) on Friday November 26, @06:35AM (#10923402) (http://www.opencouncil.org/) |
|
All those Startrek, Stargate and Galactica Geeks probably have PCs (even Macs maybe) and are into P2P filesharing.
Major TV series are usually broadcast in the US well ahead of their UK and european dates. When "Enterprise" first aired in the states, months ahead of its arrival in the UK, there was considerable traffic in DivX copies of the episodes. The same thing didn't happen with the latest series of Stargate because of the lack of reasonably small copies. The "protection" that DVD producers have to stop the US discs playing outside the US didn't stop online sharing. Now the same thing is happening with regionally transmitted TV. The TV producers are also worried because so much content goes on on subscription channels, so free access costs them profits. It interesting that the BBC, who provide programs free here in the UK are worried by transatlantic access . They are about to provide free access to their program archives but have two problems.. 1) The UK taxpayer pays for the programs to be made and expects that non-UK viewers should pay for access. 2) the BBC is very good about paying appearance money to actors appearing in old programs reshown on TV. They want to find a way of compensating actors for online distribution.
|
|
Re:All those Startrek, Stargate and Galactica Geek (Score:2)
by Nurgled (63197) on Friday November 26, @10:52AM (#10924891) |
|
Actors get paid more when they are "reshown"? That's insane! It's not like they did any more work. |
|
Re:All those Startrek, Stargate and Galactica Geek (Score:1)
by Open Council (704163) on Friday November 26, @11:11AM (#10925074) (http://www.opencouncil.org/) |
|
The original Startrek cast had contracts that paid them for the original US transmission and one repeat. Just think of how much money the studio has made from all the repeat showings of Startrek Actors learnt from the Startrek fiasco and now insist that if the studios are going to make money from repeats then some of it will come their way as well. The BBC, apparantly operating to a higher ethical standard, chooses to reward even thos radio and TV performers who have no contractual right to a repeat fee. Even when the BBC is repeating in-house productions at no real cost, it uses an estimate of how much it would have cost to make a new program to fill the time being filled by the old one
|
|
Re:All those Startrek, Stargate and Galactica Geek (Score:2)
by Nurgled (63197) on Saturday November 27, @11:48AM (#10931339) |
|
Well, as far as I'm concerned the original series of Star Trek should be in the public domain by now. They've made more than enough money from their temporary artifical monopoly and now the work should be returned to the commons. I guess that's an argument for another day, though. |
|
Re:All those Startrek, Stargate and Galactica Geek (Score:2)
by radish (98371) on Friday November 26, @12:03PM (#10925553) (http://slashdot.org/) |
| Recording artists are paid per CD sold or radio play. Why? It's not like they did any more work to sell 1000000 than 10. Authors are (typically) paid per book sold. In the creative industries people are less likely to be salaried and more likely to be paid, essentially, on commission. The more popular your art, the more money you make. |
|
TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:5, Insightful)
by Kjella (173770) on Friday November 26, @06:35AM (#10923404) (http://slashdot.org/) |
|
TV providers seem to have missed this little thing called "globalization". I'm from Norway. I talk to people from US, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Switzerland regularly. Imagine the following conversations: A: "Have you seen [movie title] yet? It's really cool" B: "Cool. I'll go to the cinema next week and see it" A: "Have you seen [TV series] yet? It's really cool" B: "No. Come ask again in a few years, when it'll be on TV here. That is, if it is popular enough to be internationally sold at all. And if it is priced so reasonably that some TV channel picks it up." A: "Wanna download it from me?" The movie industry has understood this. The TV industry has not. Gun, meet foot. Kjella |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:2, Insightful)
by cockroach2 (117475) on Friday November 26, @06:51AM (#10923477) (http://www.desire.ch/) |
|
You forgot B: "Yes, but somehow the dialogs don't really make sense." A: "Oh, you've been watching the $LANG translation..." Seriously, some shows (eg. "Friends") have been translated so poorly that you can hardly watch them, and most TV stations don't use 2-channel sound. |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:1, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, @07:13AM (#10923549) |
| in norway, nothing is dubbed (if that is what you mean by translated). there are subtitles though, which can sometimes be pretty funny, like when some brainiac mixed up invincible and invisible in their star-wars translation |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:1)
by grandmofftarkin (49366) * <3b16-ihd3@xemaps.com> on Friday November 26, @07:14AM (#10923553) |
| In Norway they never translate them, simply add subtitles. Also most Norwegians are familiar enough with English that they don't need the subtitles. |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:2)
by Allison Geode (598914) on Friday November 26, @01:52PM (#10926443) |
| i don't think its bad translation: friends is just not funny and generally unwatchable, even in english. |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:1)
by cockroach2 (117475) on Friday November 26, @02:12PM (#10926582) (http://www.desire.ch/) |
| Well, I think there are some quite funny episodes, but of course it's no match for the probably best show ever [stanthecaddy.com] (I can't remember a single bad episode - most of them are just hilarious). |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:3, Insightful)
by Gadzinka (256729) <rrw@hell.pl> on Friday November 26, @07:07AM (#10923530) (http://reptile.eu.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday December 07, @09:19AM) |
|
TV providers seem to have missed this little thing called "globalization". You misunderstood the term. Globalisation is for corporations to maximise their profit. Globalisation is not for you (vide the intention of dvd region coding), and your attempts to use globalisation for your convenience or profit will meet strong oposition and prosecution with new laws written especially for that purpose. Robert |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:5, Insightful)
by rcs1000 (462363) * <rcs1000.yahoo@com> on Friday November 26, @07:22AM (#10923574) |
|
Spare me the anti-capitalist bullshit. Globalisation is aided and abetted by consumers and workers (who *gasp* are the same people). You buy a French wine in the US... you're supporting globalisation. Heck, you read a US web-site like Slashdot in the UK... that's globalisation. Globalisation is an inevitable consequence of a levelling of the playing field (Indian programmers can now compete with US ones; good for them) due to falling costs of transporting goods and information. You can erect barriers if you like (Bhutan has), or tear down the technologies causing globalisation - but don't forget that when you buy a Sony TV, or a Dell PC, or a piece of Fench brie, or a Gabriel Garcia Marquez book. Yep, you're supporting and encouraging globalisation. Corporations have a duty to their shareholders to make money. This is nothing new. |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:2)
by Gadzinka (256729) <rrw@hell.pl> on Friday November 26, @07:30AM (#10923598) (http://reptile.eu.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday December 07, @09:19AM) |
| And how does dvd region coding fit in this weird universe of yours? |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:3, Funny)
by samael (12612) <Andrew@Ducker.org.uk> on Friday November 26, @07:44AM (#10923645) (http://andrewducker.livejournal.com/) |
| I ignore it. And so does my DVD player. |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:2)
by Darren Winsper (136155) on Friday November 26, @08:53AM (#10923950) (http://www.winsper.org.uk/) |
| Go to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:2)
by Gadzinka (256729) <rrw@hell.pl> on Friday November 26, @02:40PM (#10926760) (http://reptile.eu.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday December 07, @09:19AM) |
| Do you also ignore region coding for games and prosecution of people importing CDs from markets with (legal) lower prices? |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:2)
by samael (12612) <Andrew@Ducker.org.uk> on Friday November 26, @05:49PM (#10927749) (http://andrewducker.livejournal.com/) |
| I happily import things from all over the world. |
|
DVD region codes (Score:2)
by tjwhaynes (114792) on Friday November 26, @07:47AM (#10923651) |
|
DVD region codes are an example of localisation, not globalisation. They are a poor attempt to keep a lid on globalisation at the expense of the consumer. They don't actually work in sane countries because you can go out and buy a region-free DVD player that ignores the region codes. It seems that getting a region-free DVD player in North America is a lot tougher than it is in Europe which pisses me off no end.
Still, with the advent of Dual layer burners and DeCSS, you can remove the region codes of the DVDs you own pretty easily. Cheers,
|
|
Re:DVD region codes (Score:2)
by mpe (36238) on Friday November 26, @09:22AM (#10924158) |
|
DVD region codes are an example of localisation, not globalisation. Or even "anti-globalisation". It's a case of trans national corporations wanting to pick and choose what kind of globalisation happens. It seems that getting a region-free DVD player in North America is a lot tougher than it is in Europe What happens is that North America tends to get most movie DVDs first (as well as often getting to see most movies). When DVD was mostly used for movies it was everywhere outside R1 who wanted region free players. What has changed is that DVDs are also being used for TV series. With R1 often being the last. Because the US has a unique system called "syndication" which effectivly equates to repeating programmes until no advertiser will pay them (even cutting the content to make more space for ads). Everywhere else on the planet broadcasters buy a licence for a certain number of showings from the copyright holder. |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:1)
by iainl (136759) on Friday November 26, @08:21AM (#10923765) |
| Does that still exist? Here in the UK I've only rarely seen a DVD player which has it enabled since about 2000. Seriously - I can get a multi-region player from Amazon or Asda (the UK subsidiary of Walmart), let alone specialist shops. |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:1)
by iainl (136759) on Monday November 29, @06:20AM (#10941539) |
|
"Joe Average will buy one of 4-5 big brands without even knowing about all this region mess" Except that my Toshiba is multi-region, so is my friend's Pioneer, and even another friend's Sony that they bought from the actual Sony shop. Which big brand do you mean? |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:1, Flamebait)
by fmaxwell (249001) * on Friday November 26, @08:24AM (#10923783) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 09, @05:49AM) |
|
Spare me the anti-capitalist bullshit. You may jerk-off to Forbes magazine, but don't knock those people who have more concern for their jobs than for corporate profits. Indian programmers can now compete with US ones; good for them Yes, it is good for them and it's bad for U.S. programmers. It's also bad for the U.S. economy because we will lose the competitive edge in tech. Right now, we have U.S. firms outsourcing to Indian programmers. How long do you think that it will be before tech firms open up in India and start competing with the likes of SMC and Cisco? It won't do you much good to be able to get a router for $10 less if you aren't employed, will it? Corporations have a duty to their shareholders to make money. This is nothing new. I remember when corporations felt an obligation to their employees and the community -- not just to their shareholders. So, in your view of capitalist nirvana, just what would the average worker earn? Do you view a race to the bottom as being the ideal, with corporate CEOs getting seven figure salaries while outsourcing all work to workers who live in countries where apartments can be rented for $50/month? |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:3, Insightful)
by fmaxwell (249001) * on Friday November 26, @11:02AM (#10924990) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 09, @05:49AM) |
|
You won't have a job if the corporation does not make a profit. That's clearly untrue as National Geographic, a non-profit, employs hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Other companies that just break even employ countless thousands of people. Also, you ignore the fact that most firms are already profitable before they start outsourcing. Company X has a CEO who makes $7million/year. They outsource software development to India to save $5million/year. They could have cut the CEO's salary to $2million per year and kept the U.S. development staff. What outsourcing does is make a tiny percentage of senior management rich while driving down wages for the bulk of the workers. Other people developed new skills and started something called the industrial revolution. So what will be this generation's "industrial revolution"? Where should the out-of-work software engineers be channelling their energy? Be specific. Many of these people are watching their bank accounts dwindle as they try to put food on the table, so they don't have time to spend going down dead-end roads. You can cry about it and get left behind, or you can continue to develop skills that will allow you to feed your family. What skills should a software engineer develop to compete with people who can live comfortably on $6K/year? What skills will allow him to maintain the standard of living that his family currently enjoys? Should he go back to school for four years to get a law degree or an MBA? While doing that, should his family live in van in the Walmart parking lot, maybe with the wife turning tricks to pay for food? What happens when the kid gets sick and there is no insurance during those four years with no real income? I'm tired of the right-wing making vague comments about learning "new skills," "creating value," and other hollow, Limbaugh-esc crap. It's like the idiotic "work smarter" malarkey that managers spout when they set unrealistic deadlines. They don't have a real answer, so they try to blame the workers for the bad situation. P.S. My job is not directly threatened by outsourcing in any way, so don't try to personalize it. And don't try to portray me as someone only concerned with my own self-interests -- I am not a Republican. |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:2)
by servognome (738846) on Friday November 26, @08:55PM (#10928647) |
|
That's clearly untrue as National Geographic, a non-profit, employs hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Other companies that just break even employ countless thousands of people. Also, you ignore the fact that most firms are already profitable before they start outsourcing. National Geographic is functions off of donations and grants. This business model works for them as they do research, teach, etc.; this model wouldn't work for most businesses. Most businesses require investment, investment is driven by returns, which comes in the form of profits or capital growth. Where should the out-of-work software engineers be channelling their energy? Be specific. Many of these people are watching their bank accounts dwindle as they try to put food on the table, so they don't have time to spend going down dead-end roads. Move to India, if you are a good programmer you have an advantage over the local workers based on your native language and ability to communicate with management. Should he go back to school for four years to get a law degree or an MBA? While doing that, should his family live in van in the Walmart parking lot, maybe with the wife turning tricks to pay for food? They're facing the same problems that happened to people in other industries that were outsourced (electronics mfg, auto mfg). Those people had to retrain, had to find alternative jobs to apply their skills, or had to move and follow their job. Don't expect life to just give you a free ride just because you got an IT degree. Just as online distribution of movies and music, and now TV will require companies to find alternative ways to make money, outsourcing IT jobs will require workers to find alternative ways to make money. |
|
I've got solutions, you idiot. (Score:2)
by fmaxwell (249001) * on Friday November 26, @01:13PM (#10926129) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 09, @05:49AM) |
|
Unlike you, I'm not an anonymous coward and I do have solutions: 1. Eliminate tax incentives for companies that outsource. 1a. Tax American companies on their foreign subsidiaries’ profits just like they are taxed on their domestic profits. 2. Collect larger unemployment insurance payments from profitable companies that layoff U.S. workers. The amount could be based on a formula that takes profit margin, number of workers laid off, and average pay of laid-off workers into account. 3. Collect a per-laid-off-worker retraining fee that would be put into a fund to provide government-assisted training to laid off workers. 4. Give preferential consideration for government contracts to companies that minimize outsourcing. 5. Require that companies inform U.S. consumers when their phone calls are being transferred out of the country (e.g., "please hold while your call is transferred to our call center in Bangalore, India"). Also require that telephone representatives provide their actual names. If a person's name is "Ramanpreet," "Suryanarayanan," or "Priyamvada," then don't allow them to identify themselves to a caller as "Jim", "George", or "Sharon." These requirements would allow consumers to make informed choices on their purchases. 6. Require that companies comply with U.S. labor and environmental laws when they open plants overseas. If it's wrong for Nike to hire a 14 year old child in the U.S., then it's wrong for them to do it in Vietnam. If it's wrong for General Motors to expose a worker in the U.S. to asbestos, it's wrong for them to expose a worker in Malaysia to asbestos. If it's wrong for Mattel to pollute the air from their U.S. plant, then it's wrong for them to pollute the air from their Mexican plant. There are many more things that can be done and, obviously, details to be worked out by legislative bodies before the suggestions that I made could be implemented. But I've made suggestions rooted in ethics that could help a lot. |
|
Re:I've got solutions, you idiot. (Score:2)
by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Friday November 26, @01:23PM (#10926215) |
|
Also require that telephone representatives provide their actual names. That won't work, they will just add a western name to their official name and use that. 6. Require that companies comply with U.S. labor and environmental laws when they open plants overseas. This is the big one. All this talk of "leveling the playing field" from the outsourcing advocates seems to conveniently side-step this issue. Our worker protections are a major component in our costs - if we export the protections along with the jobs then the playing field really is levelled. |
|
Re:I've got solutions, you idiot. (Score:2)
by fmaxwell (249001) * on Friday November 26, @01:58PM (#10926484) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 09, @05:49AM) |
|
That won't work, they will just add a western name to their official name and use that. Some will, but I bet that many will not. Imagine the cost, headache, and hassle of changing your name and getting the change to trickle down through bank accounts, employer, government, etc. This is the big one. All this talk of "leveling the playing field" from the outsourcing advocates seems to conveniently side-step this issue. Our worker protections are a major component in our costs - if we export the protections along with the jobs then the playing field really is levelled. I wouldn't go that far, but it's closer to level. There is still the entire cost of living aspect. How does an American compete when an Indian worker in Mumbai can rent an apartment for under $100US per month? There is also the cost of office space and services in the U.S. In major metropolitan areas, you can be looking at lease costs of $20/sq.ft. and up. Figure that the average cubicle is about 80 sq.ft. Now add in the cost of common areas (conference rooms, lobby, hallways, restrooms, kitchen/vending and you're looking at around 200 sq.ft. per employee. That's probably a total cost that exceeds what you would pay for an Indian tech worker who already has a cubicle. |
|
Re:I've got solutions, you idiot. (Score:1)
by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Friday November 26, @02:22PM (#10926655) |
|
There is still the entire cost of living aspect We have cost of living differences throughout the USA too, and the playing field within the US is considered equal already, right? The way the capitalistic system is set up, the invisible hand tends to level them out pretty rapidly. Unlike worker protections which also tend to level out "on their own," but at a far slower pace. Your example of Mumbai is actually a good one because, for equivalent standards of living, pricing is already approaching parity with major western cities. That $100/month apartment is going to be really ghetto in Mumbai, so ghetto that we probably have few equivalents in the USA. A decent western-standards apartment in Mumbai costs a whole lot more. |
|
Re:I've got solutions, you idiot. (Score:2)
by fmaxwell (249001) * on Friday November 26, @07:47PM (#10928339) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 09, @05:49AM) |
|
We have cost of living differences throughout the USA too, and the playing field within the US is considered equal already, right? In the U.S., lower costs of living usually go hand-in-hand with lower levels of education. So, while HP could probably hire people cheaper in Alabama than in Silicone Valley, it's unlikely that they would find the people with the skills and education that they need. Your example of Mumbai is actually a good one because, for equivalent standards of living, pricing is already approaching parity with major western cities. That $100/month apartment is going to be really ghetto in Mumbai, so ghetto that we probably have few equivalents in the USA. A decent western-standards apartment in Mumbai costs a whole lot more. The "whole lot more" that I'm seeing is in the range of $250 per month, and we're talking about units with 2 bedrooms, lots of square footage, balconies, and advertised as being near tech businesses like Mindspace. That's $3,000/year. That might get you two months in a crappy studio apartment in a major tech center of the U.S. |
|
Re:I've got solutions, you idiot. (Score:2)
by fmaxwell (249001) * on Friday November 26, @03:32PM (#10927066) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 09, @05:49AM) |
|
ok, then it should be ok for you to be taxed multiple times depending on where you live and what nation you are actually a citizen of. I am taxed by the federal government, the state government, and the county government. In the end, all this will do is force the company to leave and make what the US operations a subsidary of the foreign parent company so all profits leave the US. I could move to Alaska or Florida and avoid a lot of the taxes that I now pay, but I don't do it. Many companies would not move overseas either. The infrastructure in the U.S. is too good for business. And the cost of moving is too great. As far as the regulations, what country's regulations take precedent? They have to, by law, conform to the regulations of the country in which they are located. But if the U.S. has tighter standards, then the company would have to adhere to those standards. For instance, if Vietnam allowed the employment of 12 year olds and the U.S. had a minimum age of 16, then the U.S. firm would have to conform to the 16 year old age limit in its Vietnam factory. |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:3, Insightful)
by NardofDoom (821951) on Friday November 26, @10:01AM (#10924449) |
|
Or a pair of Nikes made by 10-year-old slave labor. Or a shirt made by a woman who is chained to a sewing machine twelve hours a day. Or a little piece of plastic crap made by someone in China who doesn't have political or religious freedom.
Globalization wouldn't be so bad if there was a level playing field, as there is between Japan, Europe and the US. But it is wrong to support regimes and companies who stomp all over human rights and environmental policies to lower costs a few cents so their shareholders can buy that new yacht. Corporations have a duty to their shareholders to make money. This is nothing new. And governments have a duty to their subjects to protect them from tyranny, or be overthrown. Our country is founded on this principle. Why do we support China and Indonesia and Saudi Arabia with trade when they don't provide their people with basic human rights? |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:3, Interesting)
by SlashDread (38969) on Friday November 26, @10:14AM (#10924550) |
|
"Spare me the anti-capitalist bullshit." Spare me the cultural-imperialistic, greedy bastard nonsense please. - When I can buy a DVD at the same bloody time you can, you will beright. Now you are not. - When Terminator 5 is brought out over the world, AT THE SAME DATE, you are right. Now you are not. - When iTunes offers service globally, you are right. Now you are not. THAT is what anti-globalists see. There is nothing anti-kapitalist about it. There is a -difference- in globalization for -people- and globalization for corps, and if you do not reckognize that, you are blind. "/Dread" |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:1)
by a8o (743233) on Friday November 26, @06:51PM (#10928072) (http://jennykelly.bizmail.com.au/) |
| - When I can buy a videogame from North American, Japanese, European AND domestic markets and play it in Australia. - When Jackass the TV show is brought out in Australia, not on MTV, esp. since the movie was a huge success in terms of funds raised. |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:1)
by DeadVulcan (182139) <dead.vulcan@pob[ ]com ['ox.' in gap]> on Friday November 26, @05:39PM (#10927701) |
| Try hitting the "Parent" link and you'll see what he's replying to. You probably have "Reparent Highly Rated Comments" turned on in your preferences (under Comments). With a UID as low as 65094, have you never noticed this? |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:1)
by a8o (743233) on Friday November 26, @06:55PM (#10928089) (http://jennykelly.bizmail.com.au/) |
| This is actually a decent arguement and I would mod it up if I could because to reach a level of sustainable environmental development, we would not be producing enough in order to share our resources between all people AND maintain a standard of living comparable to our current (we all have the internet and leisure time to spend on slashdot) levels. Countries with comparative advantage in certain fields (US in technology for example) would lose it for the ends of global equality. Everyone WOULD be poorer, corporations included because without a wealthy market, consumer sovereignity loses out. |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:2)
by ceeam (39911) on Friday November 26, @07:41AM (#10923633) |
|
Face a "Big Ass Corporation of America". Put your hand in front of your face. Squeeze your fingers into a fist. Slowly move a middle finger upwards. Repeat with the next corporation. It's called "fighting for your rights". If you don't like it then the alternative is to turn backwards and bend over. ["Burn motherfucking carma, burn"] |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:2)
by Kombat (93720) <kombat@kombat.org> on Friday November 26, @09:14AM (#10924114) (http://kombat.org/) |
|
Squeeze your fingers into a fist. Slowly move a middle finger upwards. Repeat with the next corporation. It's called "fighting for your rights". But then what do you do when the corporation that signs your paychecks decides they don't like being flipped off, and fires you? Work for yourself, freelance, start your own business. But then, if you're successful, you'll grow, and become one of those very corporations you hate! That's exactly how all of the existing corporations came into being. Then, would I have to give myself the finger? Then, in response, would I have to fire myself? Ack, I'm so confused! What do I do? How should I pay for food/housing in your world!?! |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:1)
by bjoeg (629707) on Friday November 26, @07:30AM (#10923601) |
|
Yearp follow u completely, I'm fan of G4-TechTV which first of all we dont have any channels in europe yet that is built on the concept, and no networks here carry the channel. But still, one unanswered question for me is it illegal to share it. I mean, what if I ask a friend to tape (I really mean VHS tape) a show cause I forgot the schedule it, would it be illegal for my friend to actually give the tape to me? |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:1)
by lune tns (683021) <iamnotadj@g m a i l .com> on Friday November 26, @08:00AM (#10923706) |
|
As an American who currently lives in Norway, I'd have to say Norway has done an excellent job with TV. One of the government-owned TV stations (NRK [www.nrk.no]) provides their most popular shows online via streaming WMV. The others might also, but that is the only one I'm sure of. Norway's prohibition of advertisements targeted toward children, as well as the extremely short and sparse commercial breaks - the few advertisements being other shows on the same channel, generally - shows that the Norwegian TV industry is a completely different beast from the United States' TV industry. |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:1)
by m0rphin3 (461197) on Friday November 26, @09:39AM (#10924287) |
|
TV2 [tv2.no] also streams some of their content, including in mobile-phone-format. It _is_ a different beast, but it's because of high taxes ($300(?) a year per tv-set to pay for NRK to keep it ad-free),laws, and a different mindset. In the US, laws restricting the amount of advertising would be regarded as some kind of communist pipe-dream, I guess.. Is there advertising on PBS, or whatever it's called? |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:2)
by jandrese (485) * <kensama@vt.edu> on Friday November 26, @09:59AM (#10924428) (http://www.ceyah.org/~jandrese/ | Last Journal: Wednesday October 01, @01:47PM) |
| PBS is in the middle. After every show they take a moment to thank their sponsers (which feels a lot like an ad sometimes), but you don't get car commercials and the like. All in all, it is far less annoying than regular TV though. It's also great when they get British/Canadian sitcoms and then have to stick a weird musical number or short documentary at the end to fill in the time. |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:2)
by Jameth (664111) on Friday November 26, @08:30AM (#10923803) |
|
Myself and a lot of my friends in the US like to watch Japanese anime. The fansubbing of anime has been going on in an almost industry-like manner for longer than most free piracy. I can watch about half of anything shown in Japan (yes, even the crap) in the US within a week of its first show, translated without adds. However, if I don't download my copy, about half of everything I like never comes to the US. Ever. So, no, I don't feel guilty about 'pirating' anime. The executives need to deal with those situations before they can stop this. (Oh, and the fansubs often have better translations because they don't get so worried about dumming stuff down. Yet another hurdle.) |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:2)
by mpe (36238) on Friday November 26, @09:10AM (#10924076) |
|
TV providers seem to have missed this little thing called "globalization". The idea of "globalization" is apparently that manufacturers and "providers" can get their raw materials and labour where-ever they like. It appearently isn't intended for the benefit of customers (or even retailers)... A: "Have you seen [movie title] yet? It's really cool" B: "Cool. I'll go to the cinema next week and see it" There may still be staggered releases of movies, but if it's only a few days most people can live with it. Once it gets beyond about 2 weeks people will consider alternative means. A: "Have you seen [TV series] yet? It's really cool" B: "No. Come ask again in a few years, when it'll be on TV here. That is, if it is popular enough to be internationally sold at all. And if it is priced so reasonably that some TV channel picks it up." Months to years in staggered scheduling is the problem here. As is also the tendency to release first in the US, where series are often shown in a not sequential way. Even when doing this effectivly discourages people from watching. As with so many things we have somehow ended up with a US and a "rest of the world" doing TV series. Do US viewers actually want series to be shown in discontinuious blocks and even out of order? |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:1)
by cuby (832037) on Friday November 26, @10:08AM (#10924501) |
| And what about old series? I'm from Portugal, and if i want to see one of the Monty Python's episodes, i'm doomed. It's not being broadcasted in any crapy network, and if i want the DVD it's not for sale... So... there's no other solution. |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:2)
by ThousandStars (556222) on Friday November 26, @11:03AM (#10925005) (http://www.editingandwriting.com/) |
|
Gun, meet foot. I don't think dropping a gun on one's foot would hurt that much, unless it were a really heavy gun or accidently discharged upwards and the person were leaning over. Maybe you mean "bullet meet foot," assuming that the holder of the gun fired the bullet and didn't drop it, because a dropped bullet would probably hurt even less than a dropped gun. Plus there wouldn't be a ~1d12 chance of discharge. |
|
Re:TV is actually worse than movies... (Score:3, Interesting)
by shut_up_man (450725) on Friday November 26, @12:10PM (#10925617) (http://hamfisted.net/) |
|
Agreed... it's ridiculously difficult to get hold of specific world content on local lowest-common-denominator tv and cable networks. It's all about niche programming, and the tv model simply isn't built that way. It's built for mass appeal and maximum eyeballs. It's fine if you're a member of the mass, but if you're on the fringe, you get nothing. My current tv annoyance is sport (hmmmm... posting on Slashdot about sport, uh... try the Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org]?). I'm from Australia, and I'm currently in Canada. I want to watch every international rugby union test I can stand (well, maybe not Bolivia vs Romania, but all the big ones). The problem is that Canadians only ever want to watch curling and ice hockey*, which leaves me out in the cold without any pants. Here in Canada I've bought cable, and then digital cable, and then the specific international sports channels, and they still don't carry the rugby games. I'm seriously considering cutting my cable off and sending the equivalent cash to friends in other countries so they can vidcap the games and send them to me, either over the net or on posted DVD-Rs. My timeframe is shorter than new episodes of Stargate SG-1 too, since it's inevitable that I'll end up accidentally seeing the scores on a news site or when my dad emails me next, and then I'm screwed. The kicker is that I have money for this. I will pay. No-one seems to want my cash, though. * Don't get me wrong, I think ice hockey is awesome. It's just that I like rugby more. Curling, on the other hand, does nothing for me. |
|
Stupid Man/Article. (Score:1)
by wild_berry (448019) on Friday November 26, @06:37AM (#10923411) |
|
"people are ignoring the old notion that you watch your program at 8 o'clock when CBS or NBC decides you should be watching it." (Mike McGuire of Gartner.) I've been doing that for years with my video tape recorder. What's changed? That I can borrow a recording from a friend on the other side of the world in HD? Not really new. I'm in the UK, so I have to wait for US-made shows to make it to our networks. The And why aren't they advocating that the networks and studios run their own high-quality download sites? |
|
Re:Stupid Man/Article. (Score:2)
by mpe (36238) on Friday November 26, @11:30AM (#10925228) |
|
I'm in the UK, so I have to wait for US-made shows to make it to our networks. The This can happen. Even more ironic is that quite a lot of "American TV" is made in Canada. Since it costs less... |
|
Re:Stupid Man/Article. (Score:2)
by rikkards (98006) on Friday November 26, @11:56AM (#10925483) |
|
Macleans is a canadian magazine. I would say most of the reasders are not your typical Suprnova visitors and have no clue about BitTorrent. TV is the same as US. Sometimes we even get shows before. I remember Home Improvement being on a day earlier in Canada than the US as Global showed it on Tuesday and NBC (or was it CBS) showed it on Wednesday. Why are they doing it? probably needed filler but then again why was napster considered so newsworthy? Probably that it made things a lot easier than using ftp servers to get music as well as Kazaa for games, etc. The fact is that distribution has become a lot easier. In Canada, you are legally allowed to rebroadcast tv shows so this is not as big of a deal as the states. |
|
Re:Stupid Man/Article. (Score:2)
by rikkards (98006) on Friday November 26, @12:00PM (#10925526) |
| To counterpoint my comment above, I wouldn't be surprised if the CRTC (Canadian version of the FCC) becomes concerned about this as people will be able to filter out all the crap that we are force fed because it has "Canadian Content". Mind you some Canadian shows have become quite good. But there is still crap shows from here that would never make it without the CRTC Nazis pushing for it. |
|
Here is an idea! (Score:1)
by sebastianboethius (457437) on Friday November 26, @06:38AM (#10923416) |
| How will the industry adapt? Implement the content on demand stuff for everyone, and don't complain if the people who are downloading the shows can't get access to it otherwise! If we can sit in a couch all day and get our shows on demand from the touch of a button i doubt we will be trying to download it from the internet and spend tons of money on bandwidth and hd space. Seriously, the guy who wrote the article has no idea what he is talkig about technology wise or "trend" wise. I think this whole file sharing this is a big case of the companies sueing like little babies because their product doesn't meet the standard anymore and they are too dull or fixed on the good ol' days that they can't come up with better ideas. |
|
VCRs? (Score:2)
by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Friday November 26, @06:40AM (#10923426) |
| I remember at one point in the UK they were trying to enforce people to only store a recorded show for 30 days and then they had to erase it. Obviously this would be impossible to enforce with a VCR but now that Dixons have stopped selling them I guess we'll soon see PVRs with DRM that will auto delete shows after a certain number of days. |
|
TV ? - What's that ? (Score:2)
by bushboy (112290) <sturdybigchairs@furniture.for.satan.com> on Friday November 26, @06:40AM (#10923427) (https://furniture.for.satan.com/) |
|
I don't even own a TV anymore - it truly is an "idiot box" I'd rather visit Slashdot and, er, well, erm write messages like this |
|
Re:TV ? - What's that ? (Score:1)
by spikedvodka (188722) on Saturday November 27, @09:02PM (#10934548) |
|
Or to quote Robert A. Heinlein The babble Box The Goddammned-noisy-box or as it often used the "Boob Tube" |
|
It's not piracy ... (Score:2)
by dJOEK (66178) on Friday November 26, @06:45AM (#10923455) |
|
It's 'Time-shifting' |
|
am i missing something? (Score:1)
by malsbert (456063) on Friday November 26, @06:45AM (#10923456) |
|
/from article Earlier this month, the FCC came through, ruling that broadcasters would be permitted to embed a computer code, known as a broadcast flag, in programming. Makers of consumer devices capable of receiving digital broadcasts will now have to include a card that will allow viewers to watch and make personal copies of shows on VCR or recordable DVD player, but not to share them over the Internet. how would this be done? if you can copy it, you can share it right? or will my dvd-player know the AV signal its sending to my tv is not infact going to my tv but my video capture hw? if so how? i do not see this thing ever working unless they get control of the entire pipeline, that is unless it becomes illegal to own hw that dos not support this computer code thingy. |
|
Re:am i missing something? (Score:1)
by phulshof (204513) <phulshof@xs4all.nl> on Friday November 26, @08:54AM (#10923963) (http://www.xs4all.nl/~phulshof/) |
| That is _exactly_ what they want to do! Please have a look at the BPDG blog at the EFF website if you're interested in this topic. |
|
Evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
by thrill12 (711899) * on Friday November 26, @06:57AM (#10923502) |
|
Get with it - or get shut out... What TV probably cannot stand is the fact that people will now filter away all inferior quality products that this medium keeps sending out (including commercials - and bad gameshows). It's just those products that will *not* get pirated - and it's just those products that tend to form the majority of television today. People downloading television shows (or series) want the creme-de-la-creme of television - and they want it all: 24, ER, CSI etc. Instead of keeping these television series off DVD to make sure the (international!) re-broadcasting rights are safe, television-producers should choose to publish the stuff on DVD almost simultaneously as they do on television. Waiting almost 4 years (ER) for the DVD is way too long - and will promote this kind of behaviour even more. As for the choice between DVD and pirated series: I would choose DVD - it's all-in-one, has the same standard of quality and it contains useful commentaries and background information. But please, if you do publish a DVD, don't be a cheap-*** and skip the music because the rights cost too much [killermovies.com] - either give it all or keep it all... |
|
The BBC? (Score:3, Informative)
by aslate (675607) <planetexpress.gmail@com> on Friday November 26, @07:00AM (#10923510) (http://www.thefryhole.alltoons.co.uk/) |
|
I'm wondering what the BBC makes of this. A while ago i read they were planning to put parts of their archive online for [free] download for UK viewers only (Although i presume foreigners would be able to obtain copies eventually). We pay the licence fee, they show the programs ad-free. If we want to watch again, we either have to have recorded it or buy it on DVD/Video. Well, i'd rather download a decent quality copy and treat it as recording. It's just easier to find shows online and i can try out new series', see things i missed (and won't be on DVD, like one-off documentaries) and it is much easier to store. Currently i watch the News online through the BBC website, and often their documentaries and other shows that they put online (Panorama, Question Time). These are very poor quality, although with these shows i'm interested in the content and not the picture. |
|
less is not the new more. (Score:1)
by yakumo.unr (833476) on Friday November 26, @07:00AM (#10923512) |
| the problem is manifold, but mostly centers arround advertising probably being the biggest reason TV runs. . instant international distribution, they can't stagger releases, and can't *sell* show X to network Y in county Z (for as much). . They can't monitor how many people are actually watching, this is needed for advertising purposes, as has been said before they don't actually give a damn about the programs for the most part, just that their advertisers know their ads are being seen. . VCR's record bad quality copies that don't get MASS distribution, encodes don't really have that problem, something like 90% of the people downloading them wouldn't consider going DVD for quality improvements. yes DVD sets sell shitloads, BUT the world runs on greed and the companies are of course convinced they'd sell a lot more if it wasn't for online encode distribution. . Your cable subscription I'd guess goes to your cable company alone, not the network/channel that gets most of it's money from advertising, and even if not , less is not the new more. . The producers of the show will get their money from the network, based on how large an audience they think it will get TO SELL ADVERTISING. . And no they don't like TIVO/PVR's either, so any 'how is it different' arguments wont stand, they've been trying to do something about them since day 1, as the first thing people do with them is skip the adverts, the next is hack them, take the eppisodes off with no loss of quality and distribute them. . they've waited way to long to be doing something about this imo, but it won't stop them from trying now as they won't want to succumb to the radical changes in the industry such things hearald. it's taken far longer, but it's basically going the way of the internet. banner ads no longer generate any real revenue, people are desperately trying to find alternatives to keep their sites off the ground. however the TV companies are in a much better position to try and force things round to a more convinenet settup for them. |
|
Re:less is not the new more. (Score:1)
by yakumo.unr (833476) on Friday November 26, @07:04AM (#10923521) |
|
dammit, left it on html formatted and hadn't actually used any formatting, all my nice bullited points messed up |
|
I have comcast digital cable (Score:2)
by t0qer (230538) on Friday November 26, @07:02AM (#10923514) (http://www.kaillera....topic=1743&forum=5&0 | Last Journal: Tuesday August 10, @02:43PM) |
|
The other day i'm flipping through my 250 channels of quality programming... 2-13 local stations 14-24 spanish stations 25-40 shopping stations 41-50 food network, discovery, history channel 51-60 nick, disney, cartoon network 61-70 chinese stations I was curious about these "extra" stations I didn't really give a crap about. I don't speak spanish, I don't speak manderin, I don't shop on home shopping club, and I don't care about a good %50 of the channels on there. It's just way too much to sift through, and the interface just moves way too slow. Why do I need all this crud? Why do I need to buy a "package" that gives me channels i'll never watch. I have a few things that I like to watch. Adult swim on cartoon network. (since toonami is miguzi now, daytime went downhill) I like the things that come on discovery channel from time to time like modern marvels, and I like my local news. That's it, nothing more. I'd be more than happy to pay for just those channels/programs, instead of all the waste I have to pay for. I have a feeling we're just a few years off from this type of content delivery. |
|
Real TV piracy has been around for ages (Score:2)
by Zog The Undeniable (632031) on Friday November 26, @07:04AM (#10923519) |
|
And I don't mean time-shifting or lending people shows that have already been broadcast. Piracy of smart cards for satellite and terrestrial digital systems is rampant in Europe, especially (for some unfathomable reason) in Scotland, where cards for ITV Digital were sold openly on market stalls. ITV Digital's final collapse may have been precipitated by their overpaying for the rights to show minor-league soccer, but the fact that half the UK was watching for free didn't help. Sky TV (Rupert Murdoch's UK satellite service) has never been pirated to the same extent as the encryption is unusually hard to break. ITV Digital used the Canal+ system, which was cracked wide open. In a nice twist for conspiracy theorists, Canal+ later tried to sue Sky in the belief that they had funded the hack - and it was a really, really deep tech hack involving electron microscopes - which was perpetrated by an Israeli lab. |
|
Actually I have tried. (Score:3, Insightful)
by Impie (46586) on Friday November 26, @07:05AM (#10923523) |
|
I have tried to get SciFi, SkyOne and other channels here in Sweden that send the content I am interested in but it was virtually impossible. I even asked a retailer when I was in London if it was possible to be a subscriber when I lived in Sweden and he said no. I pay for the channels I look at here in Sweden, don't get me wrong now, and I would gladly pay to be able to see SciFi/SkyOne etc as well. The result is: I cannot get Battlestar Galactica/Enterprise/Stargate etc here in Sweden in any other way other than downloading them from the Internet. |
|
Re:Actually I have tried. (Score:3, Informative)
by I confirm I'm not a (720413) on Friday November 26, @09:07AM (#10924057) (Last Journal: Friday January 30, @03:41PM) |
|
I even asked a retailer when I was in London if it was possible to be a subscriber when I lived in Sweden and he said no. My sister (UK resident) obtained a Sky subscription for my Aunt and Uncle (French residents), then took the Sky box out to France for them. Likewise, on holiday in Spain over the Summer the hotel I was staying in had Sky. I suspect the trick is not to tell Sky where you live Good luck! |
|
Re:Actually I have tried. (Score:2)
by Dogtanian (588974) on Friday November 26, @02:20PM (#10926645) |
|
My sister (UK resident) obtained a Sky subscription for my Aunt and Uncle (French residents), then took the Sky box out to France for them. Likewise, on holiday in Spain over the Summer the hotel I was staying in had Sky. I suspect the trick is not to tell Sky where you live You deserve... well, some nice reward for that insight. You did miss the potential business plan in there, though. Sell stuff to foreigners that only the British are meant to see, and vice versa. Decent porn... yay! Oh, hang on, I can download that anyway. |
|
Re:Actually I have tried. (Score:1)
by spikedvodka (188722) on Saturday November 27, @09:07PM (#10934574) |
|
Having tried to get Sky while not in the UK... I have a couple of additional insight 1) Don't ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, even THINK about calling B-SKY-B for whatever reason... they track all the calls, and will shut down service for your card if you are not calling from inside the UK 2) Better have a friend in the UK call with all of your information to activate the service 3) Be careful about who you tell that you have Sky in continental Europe... B-Sky-B can be pain the the arses when it comes to tracking down people outside of the UK the reason: They don't have broadcast rights in the rest of europe, so if they get caught with subscribers outside of the UK, they get slapped with huge-freaking fines. |
|
Equipment (Score:1)
by Derf_X (651876) on Friday November 26, @07:06AM (#10923526) |
|
Frankly I'm amazed that movies caught on before TV since there's so much more TV, and they tend to be smaller files than movies.
The submitterseems to over look a couple of thing when saying this. First: TV capture cards (to record the TV onto the computer) were pretty rare, and still are, as opposed to DVD player (to RIP a DVD movie) are much more common. And it's pretty recent trend for the companies to sell TV shows on DVD compared to movies on DVD. |
|
I'm seeing a trend in the posts (Score:4, Insightful)
by aussie_a (778472) on Friday November 26, @07:08AM (#10923534) (http://www.armageddon.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 21, @03:52AM) |
|
and that is if the episodes were made available online (with any price modal they want) then many people here would stop pirating their content. They're even willing to use THEIR OWN BANDWIDTH to help make this possible (bit-torrent). Many non-geek piraters would love this as the fear of a virus becomes nill. Now if only the companies could see this *sigh* |
|
THIS IS THE SAME THING THAT WAS SAID WITH MUSIC. (Score:2)
by mumblestheclown (569987) on Friday November 26, @07:48AM (#10923659) |
|
During napster-era:
"If only the Music companies sold tracks online for, say, 99c" Now: "99c is a rip-off!" I'm sorry. Your argument has no credibility. |
|
Re:THIS IS THE SAME THING THAT WAS SAID WITH MUSIC (Score:2)
by I confirm I'm not a (720413) on Friday November 26, @09:10AM (#10924080) (Last Journal: Friday January 30, @03:41PM) |
|
Sorry, the GP actually wanted to pay 99c for online music during the Napster-era, and now reckons 99c is a rip-off? Or are you confusing two disparate groups? I'd be prepared to pay, say, 99c for the latest episode of, say, Enterprise. I'd not be prepared for you to tell me I have no credibility when other people don't share my sentiments. |
|
Re:THIS IS THE SAME THING THAT WAS SAID WITH MUSIC (Score:2)
by aussie_a (778472) on Friday November 26, @01:58PM (#10926486) (http://www.armageddon.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 21, @03:52AM) |
| Yeah I hear Itunes is failing miserably. |
|
Re:I'm seeing a trend in the posts (Score:2)
by ThousandStars (556222) on Friday November 26, @11:10AM (#10925062) (http://www.editingandwriting.com/) |
| People said the same thing about music. A solution [apple.com] arrives -- one from which you can even remove [hymn-project.org] the DRM -- and music sharing networks still get plenty of traffic. |
|
Simple, systematic problem... (Score:1)
by Biomechanical (829805) on Friday November 26, @07:09AM (#10923538) |
|
An executive of a major distribution company/conglomerate sees the demographics stagnating in their area of entertainment or communications. First thing they do is ask, Of course, s/he conveniently forgets that:
Yes, people are downloading movies, tv shows, games, books, and anything else that can be broken down into a digitised form for easy distribution. That's what people do. We like to have it quick and easy when possible. `I want it now! No! I want it yesterday, with sugar! And ice-cream! And f'cking bells on!' Executives need to learn, and learn fast, that we are slooowly sick of being consumers. We want to be customers again. The old bastards have the tools at their disposal, the Internet being the biggest and most obvious, but they won't use it, probably not even in my lifetime, and I'm only twenty-eight. No, they won't use it for the same reasons we will get things in ways they don't like. `I don't want to think about how the money system or banking or accounts f'cking work, I just want you to give me money now! No! I want it yesterday! With sugar! And ice-cream! And f'cking bells on!' The wheel keeps turning round-and-round, and I keep falling into the ground... Over and over I reach for the sky, and some beligerant bastard forces me down... Round-and-round we'll never stop, give me money for that copied movie or I'll call the cops... * You'll have to do the |
|
Instant solution (Score:5, Insightful)
by Cynikal (513328) on Friday November 26, @07:14AM (#10923554) (http://mp3.com/contrast) |
|
How about you give me a website or something where i can watch my favorite shows when i get home from work (at 4am), even if its 3 weeks or even 3 months since the show aired. let me download the show in hi def quallity, put whatever commercials you want in it (dont go overboard), give me a source to get it from at 300+k/sec, rather than the horrid 30k/sec i get off a p2p server, and give me a way to catch that eppisode i missed 3 months ago, or even watch the whole series when *I* have the time. or does the concept of flexibility and catoring to your customers' needs a bit too far outside the box? i am a tv subscriber, i am your customer, if you dont provide me a viable means to watch what i want to watch, when i want to watch it, i will find someone who does. the only question for you is are you going to piss and moan about it, or will you join the 21st century and continue to do bussiness with me and people like me? whether you like it or not, unless your job title is "old wooden shoe maker" you are in an industry of changes, where the survival code is adapt or die off... I am a couch potato, and this is my manifesto... |
|
Re:Instant solution (Score:2)
by MikeBabcock (65886) <mtb-slashdot@mikebabcock.ca> on Friday November 26, @09:04AM (#10924031) (http://mikebabcock.ca/slashdot/ | Last Journal: Tuesday December 07, @12:48PM) |
|
I've been thinking the same thing for years. Cable on demand is stupid -- I have highspeed Internet already. I can stream download high-definition 40 minute TV shows in under half an hour. I even E-mailed the producers of Alias about this (but they're under contract Anyone willing to front a few million bucks putting together contracts for major TV syndications and providing them by streaming to subscribers? |
|
Re:Instant solution (Score:1)
by aka_big_wurm (757512) on Friday November 26, @10:14PM (#10928971) |
| Soaps do it its $10 a month to download most of the soaps that are on TV. |
|
I look forward to the imminent death of TV! (Score:1)
by DoChEx (558465) on Friday November 26, @07:18AM (#10923565) |
|
Most TV programs are sold through syndication to TV Broadcasters who then sell advertisements. Normally you have your block of times when all the “hit” programs are on shown. Commercials shown during this time are more lightly to be watched or recorded then at any other time. On a VCR it’s not as easy to edit out the ads (as VRCs with this function were stopped a while back). Why will TV die? An example of one show is the current series of Joey the Friends spin off. At the movement this can’t be seen in Ireland or I believe the UK as the Syndication costs were too high and not worth the risk. People in those countries can only see this TV show if they download them off the web or have someone tape the show and then ship it to them, back in the day I saw many a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode this way. The world has moved on from TV, Radio & VCR as a way mass-distribution. What do the TV people expect when people can’t view what they when they want to watch it!?! Why should they be discriminated against? Why should someone in Ireland have to wait and not get to see the show at the exact same time as the people in the US? I bought my copy of Half-Life 2 from Steam as I knew come 8am GMT I would be able to start playing the game like anyone in the US. In fact this even worked out better for me as I got a goodnights sleep before getting up for my marathon gaming session. I can’t wait till the day when I don’t need a TV or TV-Tuner card in my PC. I would love to be able to go direct to the Broadcasters’ homepage and view the show online, using the same type of format as VALVe Steam pre-purchase downloads. Select the list of show you want to watch then download them. They sit on your PC till it’s validated from the main web server for viewing. I’m a busy man, I want to watch these shows at my convenience. The current format doesn’t meet this requirement so I don’t watch any TV beyond the News. There are other ways I can get to see what I want to see. I choose convenience over the current programming schedule. |
|
Re:I look forward to the imminent death of TV! (Score:1)
by DanBrusca (197887) on Friday November 26, @08:14AM (#10923745) (http://danbrusca.co.uk/) |
| The rights to Joey were bought by Five, which intends to show the series sometime in the first half of next year. |
|
Re:I look forward to the imminent death of TV! (Score:1)
by DoChEx (558465) on Friday November 26, @08:29AM (#10923799) |
|
I can't get Five where I live. |
|
Re:I look forward to the imminent death of TV! (Score:2)
by mpe (36238) on Friday November 26, @11:49AM (#10925416) |
|
The rights to Joey were bought by Five, which intends to show the series sometime in the first half of next year. This is the problem. It certainly should not take months for a TV programme to cross the Atlantic. Sticking video tapes on cargo ships would be quicker (even if the ship was travelling West). 20 years ago air freight was used to enable programmes to be broadcast within hours from various parts of the planet. Now the technology is available for members of the public to watch programmes within hours (sometimes minutes) of their being broadcast anywhere on the planet. Yet TV companies can spend months even getting to the point of showing programmes it's self evident their potential viewers want to see. |
|
Re:I look forward to the imminent death of TV! (Score:2)
by mpe (36238) on Friday November 26, @11:41AM (#10925329) |
|
Why should someone in Ireland have to wait and not get to see the show at the exact same time as the people in the US? Or at least within hours, due to the time zone difference. Even then why should the US be first most of the time... It would be perfectly possible to have a channel which repeats 8 hours of content 3 times or 6 hours 4 times. I bought my copy of Half-Life 2 from Steam as I knew come 8am GMT I would be able to start playing the game like anyone in the US. Or someone from anywhere else. Howcome TV companies cannot get concepts which computer games companies, even book publishers, can understand? |
|
Ahem, hello? http://tvtorrents.net/ (Score:5, Interesting)
by JPamplin (804322) on Friday November 26, @07:21AM (#10923571) |
|
*A friend of mine* has been enjoying http://tvtorrents.net/ for a while now. And, yes it is the best thing - No TiVo, no ads, HDTV quality and usually 350MB per hour of DivX encoded video. Plus you can search. Just check the site the day after airing, and pull down the torrent. The HDTV-LOL versions are some of the best for Galactica, Lost, all the hot shows. According to my friend, that is. JP |
|
Re:Ahem, hello? http://tvtorrents.net/ (Score:1)
by Buzzard2501 (834714) on Friday November 26, @08:28AM (#10923797) |
| btefnet.net/ [slashdot.org] is a similar site. Thanks to it (and tvtorrents) I haven't watched Australian free to air TV for many, many months |
|
And again, this time iwht a working link (Score:2, Informative)
by Buzzard2501 (834714) on Friday November 26, @08:42AM (#10923867) |
| http://btefnet.net/ [btefnet.net] is a similar site. Thanks to it (and tvtorrents) I haven't watched Australian free to air TV for many, many months |
|
Re:Ahem, hello? http://tvtorrents.net/ (Score:2, Funny)
by acq3 (315236) on Friday November 26, @03:46PM (#10927125) |
| I have a friend that agrees with your friend! |
|
Re:Ahem, hello? http://tvtorrents.net/ (Score:2)
by Saxerman (253676) * on Saturday November 27, @02:31PM (#10932341) (http://slashdot.org/) |
|
I have a friend that uses http://sharetv.net/ which is a list of file hashes for use on the edonkey network. It's almost like reading a tv guide, since so many shows are listed, only you merely select what you want and wait for it to download. This friend tells me they download entire seasons in less than a week.
The Networks need to wake up and smell the burnt toast. While not quite TV on demand, it's close enough for the average user who doesn't need cable to watch most anything being offered. Considering what people are currently paying for digital cable, this market has been ripe for the picking for years. The Networks might want to stop trying to figure out how to maintain control of their existing markets and start thinking how they will continue to exist in the future... perhaps without turning their customers into criminals. |
|
Re:Ahem, hello? http://tvtorrents.net/ (Score:2)
by julesh (229690) on Saturday November 27, @01:33PM (#10931971) |
|
True. I've been downloading loads of FoV stuff lately, and the quality is amazing for a 350Mb file with ~40 minutes of video. High res, almost no artifacts. I just wish they'd encode with CBR audio, as half of my apps don't like the VBR MP3 encoding they use. Particularly TMPGEnc, which I use for converting to MPEG2 for writing to DVD-R. I have to use VirtualDub to rip the audio to a separate |
|
Product placement (Score:1)
by werdnapk (706357) on Friday November 26, @07:27AM (#10923589) |
| You're already seeing product placement in the actual tv show. The ads are where much of the money comes from and since downloaded versions of shows cut out the ads I'm sure you'll see more and more product placement in a show than before. I believe this has become more common ever since devices like Tivo have become available, which is a very similar concept... watch what you want, when you want and ad free. |
|
Question (Score:2)
by Mr_Silver (213637) on Friday November 26, @07:35AM (#10923610) (http://www.uberworld.org/user_info.cgi?name=Silver) |
|
What is the easiest way to download your favourite versions of TV programmes? Is there some way to view the schedule, pick a programme and have it appear on your PC/XBOX/whatever some time later?
Or is it a completely manual process to get these files? |
|
German TV forces me to do it (Score:3, Insightful)
by mikrorechner (621077) on Friday November 26, @07:37AM (#10923614) |
|
I also download TV episodes from bittorrent, but I see it as an act of self-defence. Most US (or British) TV shows are dubbed so horribly for German TV, they make you want to puke. Not only the voices (I could tolerate that - there are only so many good dubbing artists), but also the translation - it gives a whole new meaning to the term "lost in translation". I almost smashed my TV to pieces once when I watched a dubbed episode of Futurama, and they translated "Dungeons&Dragons" with "Drachen und Kerker", "Deep Blue" with "Tiefblau", "urban legend" with "Vorstadtlegende" and so on. All literal translations that don't make *any* sense in the context. So, if I want to watch a bearable version of these series, I can either wait a few years (2-5) for the DVDs, or download them right after they are out in the US. Easy choice. Sorry for the rant, but this is a pet peeve of mine. |
|
"I'm amazed that movies caught on before TV" (Score:2)
by Anita Coney (648748) on Friday November 26, @07:38AM (#10923619) |
|
Yeah, but on the other hand TV mostly sucks. |
|
Re:"I'm amazed that movies caught on before TV" (Score:1)
by iainl (136759) on Friday November 26, @08:25AM (#10923787) |
| I'm more amazed that he thinks movies caught on before TV. I was watching Buffy downloads back around series 4, and yet I've only once even considered downloading a film, and that was when I heard that the dual-layer Academy screeners of Lord Of The Rings looked slightly better than the commecial releases I already owned (thanks to less edge enhancement). Couldn't find them, by the way, so I've still never downloaded a film. |
|
Re:"I'm amazed that movies caught on before TV" (Score:2)
by Anita Coney (648748) on Friday November 26, @09:43AM (#10924315) |
|
Now that you mentioned it, I think you're right. I remember seeing episodes of South Park on the net back in the late 90s. That was WAY before movies could be downloaded. |
|
TV is crap. (Score:1)
by torpor (458) <jayv@sy[ ].net ['nth' in gap]> on Friday November 26, @07:42AM (#10923639) (http://virus.info/ | Last Journal: Saturday March 29, @01:33PM) |
|
People who are addicted to it are incredibly boring. TV executives ought to be more concerned about clans of people getting together and making their own media |
|
The Television Has You (Score:2)
by carcosa30 (235579) on Friday November 26, @07:42AM (#10923640) |
|
No danger of me pirating TV shows when they all seem to suck so badly with a few very limited exceptions (The Hitlery Channel, etc.) When I turn on the television-- very rarely for the last 18 years-- I'm astonished by how horrible the shows are. Every time it seems to have gone downhill, from bad to worse to worse yet. That goes for cable, normal TV, everything. Wouldn't mind pirating some really bad crime dramas from the 1980s, such as "It Takes a Thief" and other drivel of that nature. If they want me to consume modern television in any form, they've got to make it better. An aside: it blows my mind that they've got people paying for programming with commercials now, on cable. When cable first came out, I remember the big selling point for it was that there were no commercials. They did t |
