Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

How Battlestar Galactica Killed TV 749

Posted by Zonk
from the death-to-the-infidels dept.
Don Melanson writes "Following up on the MPAA going after torrent sites, you may be interested in Mindjack's latest feature - Piracy is Good? How Battlestar Galactica Killed Broadcast TV by Mark Pesce. It includes a post-script written in reponse to the recent Torrent site shutdowns." From the article: "While you might assume the SciFi Channel saw a significant drop-off in viewership as a result of this piracy, it appears to have had the reverse effect: the series is so good that the few tens of thousands of people who watched downloaded versions told their friends to tune in on January 14th, and see for themselves. From its premiere, Battlestar Galactica has been the most popular program ever to air on the SciFi Channel, and its audiences have only grown throughout the first series. Piracy made it possible for 'word-of-mouth' to spread about Battlestar Galactica."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Battlestar Galactica Killed TV

Comments Filter:
  • by espergreen (849246) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @02:31PM (#12536928) Homepage
    "Hey! There is this really good show that just came out! You should download it off bittorrent too!"
  • Great Show (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nra1871 (836627) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @02:32PM (#12536938)
    I watched every episode off of bittorrent. Friday nights at 10 is quite possibly the worst time ever for me to try and see a show. I downloaded the shows and watched them when convenient. I pay for cable and get sci-fi so I don't see how anyone could reasonably consider it stealing.
    • Re:Great Show (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sj0 (472011) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @02:39PM (#12537004) Homepage Journal
      Well NRA, you see, by paying your cable bills but not watching the show, you're not stealing at all.

      Wait -- oh shit.

      I mean....um....You ARE stealing...because...you...paid...for...

      it?

      I've got nothing. I don't watch the ads regardless of where I watch it, so that's a bullshit claim. I pay extra to get the premium channels all my favourite TV shows are on(and I'm guessing sci-fi is a premium channel as well), so realistically the mpaa are just assholes.
      • Re:Great Show (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SatanMat (757225) <PowellS@gmail.com> on Sunday May 15, 2005 @03:34PM (#12537356) Journal
        Control, control, you must learn control...

        1) -- You did not watch the ads. in so doing you have taken revenue away from me, my family and our porche...

        2) you did not watch the show in the manner which I THE LORD MPAA have deemed the only one worthy

        3) You are thinking... STOP IT!! I will tell you how to think and what to watch...

        now go... and download no more.
    • Re:Great Show (Score:5, Insightful)

      by }InFuZeD{ (52430) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @02:41PM (#12537012) Homepage
      By the same argument, if you have a radio, it should be legal to download the music that is played on the radio. This argument becomes even stronger if you have XM radio or the like.
    • by MrDomino (799876) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `onimodrm'> on Sunday May 15, 2005 @03:01PM (#12537154) Homepage

      "Lisa, if we don't watch the commercials, it's like we're stealing TV!"

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Battlestar killed the TV .. star!
  • What if... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Richie1984 (841487) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @02:32PM (#12536942)
    What would have happened if people had downloaded the show, watched it, hated it, and told their friends not to tune in? Viewing figures would be down, and piracy could be held accountable. This sort of result works both ways, folks
    • Re:What if... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by m50d (797211) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @02:36PM (#12536979) Homepage Journal
      That cuts down the spread of it. Those friends who didn't tune in won't have seen it, so they won't go telling their friends it's bad because they've got no basis to. Wheras if they hear it's good, they will watch it, and then tell their friends about it, who will tell their friends, and so on.

      Also, remember any publicity is good publicity.

    • by Em Ellel (523581) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @02:44PM (#12537040)
      What would have happened if people had downloaded the show, watched it, hated it, and told their friends not to tune in? Viewing figures would be down, and piracy could be held accountable. This sort of result works both ways, folks

      What?! And encourage producers to make higher quality programming that people actually WANT to watch!?!? We just can't have that!

    • Re:What if... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zakezuke (229119) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @02:54PM (#12537106)
      What would have happened if people had downloaded the show, watched it, hated it, and told their friends not to tune in? Viewing figures would be down, and piracy could be held accountable. This sort of result works both ways, folks

      Ask your self what are you more likely to do in the event of crap.

      1. Download something new, discover it's crap, tell all your friends it's crap.
      2. Download something new, discover it's crap, and just delete it.

      Let's assume you take the time to tell your friends it's crap. It's still advertising... they might take the time to watch the crap to see how crappy the crap is.

  • Anime Fansubs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Beolach (518512) <beolachNO@SPAMjuno.com> on Sunday May 15, 2005 @02:33PM (#12536948) Homepage Journal
    Another example of this is effect is anime fansubs. It's the free fansubs that create a market for a show; if there's enough of a market, the anime will hopefully get licensed, and will be profitable. If an anime is licensed, but hasn't been fansubbed, chances are it will have a much smaller market & not be as profitable.
    • Re:Anime Fansubs (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ShinmaWa (449201) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @04:04PM (#12537510)
      You are fallaciously supposing a cause-effect relationship where there likely isn't one. People only fansub anime that they like. People only buy anime that they like. Therefore, the fansub vs market size don't share a cause-effect relationship, but actually have the same cause (people like the anime because its good). If its no good, not only would no one buy it, but no one would bother to fansub it either.

      Compare the fansubs with the massive marketing machine that anime enjoys today (visit any Suncoast to see what I mean), and it is easy to see that relatively low-quality fansubs with practically no distribution to speak of have almost no effect on sales of anime.

      Its the same thing with Battlestar Galactica. People watched the show because the show was good, not because of BitTorrents. The vast, vast, vast majority of the people who tuned into the show did so not because of some guy who watched it on a BitTorrent and told his buddies, but because of a highly hyped miniseries, multiple magazine articles, a featurette in TV Guide, commericials out the ying-yang, billboards, print ads, and yes, even word of mouth of those who watched the show legally (which are probably 2-3 orders of magnitude higher than those who downloaded it via BitTorrent).

      This whole article seems to employ a lot of wishful thinking and some very sketchy, highly faulty, and impossible to prove logic to rationalize morally questionable behavior.
      • Re:Anime Fansubs (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nz17 (601809)
        Pretend that you are newcomer anime company VDA. Now you have very little assets to spend on acquiring new anime properties for N.A. distribution. Do you:

        A) Buy up the really popular and thus expensive shows currently airing in Japan, knowing full well that such a show might not enjoy the same popularity in America due to the culture difference.
        B) License lots of cheap shows (which culminate into large cost) hoping one will be a break-out hit in N.A. and pay for the other shows' cost.
        C) Look at what the
  • by johnny_sas (785125) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @02:33PM (#12536949)
    This is the same thing Metallica did in its early days to get known, and it worked.

    Of course, now that they're rich, they call doing this 'being a criminal' and that it destoys the chance of new talent (or by extension, shows) being recognized and being able to survive, when the opposite is clearly true.

  • by EtherAlchemist (789180) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @02:33PM (#12536952)

    1). Too much money is involved in advertising and programs

    2). There will always be a readily available audience for TV

    3). People are "lazy" when it comes to viewing, it's easier to flip through channels and see right away what's on than start a download, wait, watch, decide it sucks and try to find something else.
    • Right, but... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ieshan (409693) <ieshan@gmAUDENail.com minus poet> on Sunday May 15, 2005 @02:58PM (#12537136) Homepage Journal
      The people who download are *series* viewers. These are very different from spontaneous viewers.

      Series viewers are those who will pay to watch their favorite shows each week, and rarely (but sometimes) watch something at random. Usually anything they've watched at 'random' is actually something they've heard about beforehand, through advertising, friends, or downloading.

      Here's the thing. While the TV model accomodates spontaneous viewing very well, it's very difficult for series viewers to catch each episode, especially since many of them don't show more than once a week. The Survivor community online (www.realiiity.com, etc) is a great example of this type of viewer. A friend and I exchanged video-cassettes to catch up on shows that we would miss but for which could schedule recordings.

      The problem is, the series viewer is the one that suits the current format of show production. Unless you see each episode, the show isn't nearly as entertaining. Missing Week 5 of a 13 week program is simply *bad*.

      There needs to be an alternative distribution system. Bit-Torrent farms provided this. In large majority, these are fans who will buy the DVDs for the commentary and bonus features *anyway*. Downloading isn't bad for series TV. It's good.

      • Re:Right, but... (Score:3, Informative)


        Hmm. I agree downloading isn't bad for series TV. I see your point, afterall TFA was about a series. For series shows with an established viewer base, I can totally see Internet distribution as a supplemental method of getting the show out (pirated or authorized) but I can't see torrents or P2P replacing or, frankly, even harming broadcast TV.

        98% of all households in America have a TV, 64% have cable, another 24% have satellite or a combination while only 31%-50% (depending on your source) have a compute
    • Not so sure about pt. 3. As bandwidth gets cheaper and more available, one could easily conceive of the systems for distributing torrents getting more user friendly.

      Some of the sites out there are getting quite a way. They've the shows listed with next air date and readily clickable links to the torrents for the newest episodes. In fact, that's how I watch Lost at the moment, since the Danish syndicated version is several episodes behind (and in pan & scan format).
  • It is, to me, obvious that the free promotion by TV torrent sites gave television shows excellent free promotion and gave them a huge increase in viewers, popularity and even DVD sales.

    But the latest crap from MPAA will highly likely change that. Some torrent sites now encurage a boycott of the MPAA members.

    I am probably not the only person out there who got majorly upset for being caled a thief for downloading TV shows. As if that is stealing.. Just like people stopped going to cinemas when the MPAA
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15, 2005 @02:34PM (#12536963)
    This is how I was introduced to Doom and Windows, if I recall correctly.

    Piracy is as beneficial as it is "damaging". If not moreso. Example: I download all my PC games to try them out before buying. I never want to get screwed, and a lot of games are lemons that you can't return.
    Unfortunately that doesn't work for everyone since it's kind of a self-enforced honor system, but I call bullshit whenever I hear such major loss of profit due to filesharing followed by a record quarterly earnings from the same companies.
  • I remember a few weeks ago, the premiere episode of Family Guy leaked and everybody I work with was talking about it. I downloaded it at work (not using bittorrent, it was actually posted for download on a website), and the whole office stood around watching it. Needless to say, The Family Guy owes a lot of its popularity to how accessible it's been on the internet.
  • It's true... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darth Maul (19860) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @02:35PM (#12536970) Homepage

    I completely missed the miniseries. But when the new season was getting ready to start, a friend said I should check it out. I was rather skeptical because of the 'backlash' that a lot of the sci-fi crowd had against a lot of the changes from the original.

    The first thing I did was find a torrent of the miniseries, and I was hooked, absolutlely. I then made sure to watch every single episode of the new series because it really was that good. But I never really would have gotten intereted unless I had that torrent.

    Sci-Fi just got so much *right* with BG. The free downloads on their site, the official commentary podcast, and the show itself is just outstanding. I'm waiting eagerly for next season.
    • Re:It's true... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by As Seen On TV (857673)
      I completely missed the miniseries. But when the new season was getting ready to start, a friend said I should check it out.

      That part is fine.

      The first thing I did was find a torrent of the miniseries

      That part is not. The show was aired repeatedly on the Sci Fi channel in the weeks leading up to the series' premiere. A cut-down version was broadcast in prime time on NBC. The miniseries was released on DVD and made available for rent at any video-rental place in the country. There were numerous opportu
  • This is totally true (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15, 2005 @02:35PM (#12536971)
    I work at the leading worldwide online retail store in the world (Amazon.com) and checking the stats for keyword Battlestar galactica in customer search shows a increase of about 750 % monthtly since the torrent incident was reported in the press.
  • The exact same thing happened with Doctor Who. I couldn't careless for it before the leak, infact I downright mocked it. Thanks to peoples reviews I started to watch it and now follow it every week.
  • Really? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by xfmr_expert (853170)
    Oh come on...that is the weakest justification I ever heard. If someone is watching a pirated copy, why wouldn't they tell their friend to download the same copy, or pass it on themselves. This is plain illegal. It's theft of service, unless you are actually paying for cable and the Sci-Fi channel. No amount of bullshit justification will change that. Now, if the torrent versions include commercials, and the station airing it derives income solely from advertisements, it wouldn't matter how you watched
  • by rice_burners_suck (243660) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @02:42PM (#12537026)
    You have to remember that a widespread viewership is not the goal of the RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft. Nor do they care about increased profits. These organizations are under the control of a conspiracy that cares only about one thing: Reducing and eventually eliminating the rights of all people to information. Their goal is a world where all people are stupid; where only duckspeakers exist; where thoughtcrime is cause for a death penalty.

    These people want to be in control over everybody. This is why they increasingly want to create laws limiting the rights of people to information. When their goal is reached, there will be no such thing as movies, music, books, software, etc. All people will be brainwashed from childhood into a state of near unconsciousness. Only the few elite will be learned and have access to information. They will control the masses to obtain their own goals. And we will all be slaves, in eternal bondage of the mind.

    That, not profits, is the goal of the RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft. Otherwise, they would wake up to the obviousness of piracy's advantages to their business. (For example, some businesses spend a ton of money for publicity. Piracy provides this for free.) That is why we must fight these evil organizations.

    • by TheKidWho (705796) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @02:47PM (#12537059)
      hey!! Where do you buy your tin foil hats? I get them from the guy on 3rd Avenue! You too?
    • What you say is mostly so extremely true I am almost stunned. But you claim that profit is not their motive. This is wrong. Their goal is to make as much profit as possible in any given quarter. Controlling information and turning the human population into mindless consumers who do not question the information they are forced upon by these organizations is a means of reaching that goal: Profit. Profit is the goal and motive, control of the masses is just something they do in order to reach that goal.
      • Money = Power (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Scrameustache (459504) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @04:33PM (#12537654) Homepage Journal
        Profit is the goal and motive, control of the masses is just something they do in order to reach that goal.

        But they act in a way that sacrifices short-term profit in order to reach that goal. So it leads some people to think that profit isn't what they really care about.

        I think what they really want is power, and profit is one way of obtaining power.
    • These organizations are under the control of a conspiracy that cares only about one thing: Reducing and eventually eliminating the rights of all people to information. Their goal is a world where all people are stupid; where only duckspeakers exist; where thoughtcrime is cause for a death penalty.

      I would say that is a bit of an 'extreme' view. The RIAA, the MPAA and Microsoft all have one thing in common - their business model is on it's way down the shitter.

      In the case of Microsoft, people are eventuall
    • I have mod-points, but I'm at a loss on how to mod both you and the appangly bad replies you've gotten.

      You have to remember that a widespread viewership is not the goal of the RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft. Nor do they care about increased profits.[...]

      What? Seriously, what? Debunking something like this is hard, because I have friggin idea what you're basing this on. Are you seriously thinking two organisations made up of lots of large corporations have managed to create consensus to start an evil-brainwas

  • by Gribflex (177733) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @02:44PM (#12537032) Homepage
    I often read stories about this kind of thing; where a {piece of software, band, CD, Movie, TV Show, etc} gains popularity and a 'legitamate' user base as a result of piracy.

    The most commonly used example of this is Photoshop (followed closely by windows). Through a very high piracy rate, and a very low litagation rate, photoshop gained so much market share that it is now the dominant application in its field (bitmap editing).

    Adobe didn't condone the piracy of their software, but they also didn't actively pursue minor cases. That is, if some high school kid pirated photoshop, and used to create images for personal use, no biggie. If a company pirated photoshop, and used it for commercial purposes (and got caught), send in the lawyers.

    So many people used the software illegally at home that when it came time to make a purchase in the work place, the choice was obvious. People already knew how to use photoshop, and kept hearing the name of the application over, and over again.

    By allowing piracy (or in this case, downloading of tv shows) to happen amongst a demographic that 'doesn't matter' (home users that cannot afford the software anyways, or a small number of people that would have downloaded BSG regardless) but have influence over a demographic that does (companies that can afford photoshop, or friends and family that have never heard of BSG), companies can gaing huge market share. It's a grey area, but it has proven positive effects.
    • Tiered pricing.

      Charge less for people who can not pay as much or people less inclined to pay at all. It's the same idea behind the senior citizens discount, or kids eat free, or midnight or matinee movie showings.

      In this case, it's give away the programming (well, let people watch it stripped of the advertising) if the viewer is someone willing to pay to go through the trouble of downloading it instead of just turning on the TV.

      The problem with this model for TV (or movies for that matter, the article attempts to differentiate between the two but on the internet there is no difference) is that what happens when the cost of getting the program on the internet goes away? What happens when most people find it just as easy to get a program on their computer as they do to get it on TV?

      What happens when you can get bittorrent on AOL?

      The problem with the "little bit of piracy for a lot of real viewers" is that it only works when piracy is inconvenient. If the costs of pirating the program become less than the costs of getting the program legitimately for most viewers, then the model doesn't work anymore.

      As things like bittorrent become more and more user friendly, MPAA et. al. are going to have to issue more and more lawsuits to keep the costs of piracy high and preserve the model, otherwise more and more regular viewers will become pirate viewers and the model won't work anymore.
    • Good post. Not only the "Photoshop Effect" is at work here. Kais Power Tools, a series of plugins for Photoshop, had the same idea. We bought a copy for our business in England in the 1990s after a summer intern kept badgering us to purchase a copy. How did she know so much about KPT?

      She had a pirated copy, had learnt to use it (pretty well) on her home Macintosh, and convinced us to go out and buy a copy.

      KPT (by Kai Krause and MetaCreations) actually had a "readme" text imbedded in the installer that kin
  • One major issue (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jarnis (266190) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @02:50PM (#12537077)
    The amount of viewers you can get with a legimate, legal torrent of a good TV show is still so small that the advertising revenue out of that wouldn't pay for the show.

    And you can bet your farm that the broadcasters will fight this all the way to their grave - meaning once you have a broadcaster footing any bit of the bill for the program, you can be sure that the agreement denies any legal avenue of internet distribution. So even if they could put it both on the telly, and legally as torrent, the broadcaster will NEVER allow it, as if torrents take off and become more popular, the broadcaster becomes redundant.

    I imagine it'll start off slowly... someone sponsoring a legal torrent of a 'geeky' subject material, paying for onscreen bug / 'sponsored by XXX' banners in the video, and then putting it out legally. Maybe something like, say, coverage of the E3 trade show or something else like that with small production costs (basically the cost of taping and editing). Then it'll go to cheap comedy stuff - animation, talk shows... and it's a long way until a drama show with $500K+ production costs per hour are funded by advertising for torrents.

    Also there is the issue of regions - advertisers want to advertise to target audiences. Very few companies want to advertise worldwide. Torrents are, by definition, worldwide. So you'd need sponsors who see value in advertising to the whole planet at once.

    Companies like Intel, AMD etc. might see some value in it, but considering that 90%+ of the advertisements I see in my telly are from very local companies, and would mean nothing to a large percentage of the torrent audience, it's problematic for the advertisers.

    We'll get there.. 10 years.. 15 years.. but in the meantime people will try subscription models with DRMed streams, pay-to-download DRM-crippled files and all the other junk like that - all while torrents slowly own the world. Things will start to change only after major chunks of the viewers are consuming torrents. Today it's few percent, not enough. iTunes came only after MAJOR chunk of music was downloaded online, same applies here.
  • Wow (Score:3, Interesting)

    by As Seen On TV (857673) <asseen@gmail.com> on Sunday May 15, 2005 @03:33PM (#12537352)
    I'm really amazed by how many people have said here that they think downloading stuff off the Internet is okay, that it's just like setting the VCR, that it's not stealing. That really blows my mind.

    I don't see much point in making a moral argument. I get the impression that talking about karma here would get me laughed out of the room.

    How about a pragmatic argument, then? You want to be able to download high-quality TV shows and movies over the Internet, right? You want somebody to set up a store, like the iTunes Music Store, where you can legally get high-quality TV shows and movies. Well, guess what? Every time somebody says "Bit Torrent is just like a VCR" or "it's not stealing" or "I'm not doing anything wrong when I download," you make it just that much harder for Apple or anybody else to open such a store.

    Every time you say something like that, you push the date of our opening back by a month.

    If you won't buy a moral argument, will you at least buy that one?
    • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

      by vga_init (589198) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @03:39PM (#12537380) Journal
      Every time you say something like that, you push the date of our opening back by a month.

      Good. We consumers have made it quite clear we're not interested in doing business with you; we've chosen our own method of distribution, and we don't need to pay you to do it for us.

    • Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)

      Right. Which is why iTunes is a total failure, and absolutely nobody else has shown any interest in getting into the online music biz. Right?

      Oh, wait ...
    • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15, 2005 @05:03PM (#12537837)
      I'm really amazed by how many people have said here that they think downloading stuff off the Internet is okay, that it's just like setting the VCR, that it's not stealing. That really blows my mind.


      How is it not like setting the VCR?

      [...] How about a pragmatic argument, then? You want to be able to download high-quality TV shows and movies over the Internet, right? You want somebody to set up a store, like the iTunes Music Store, where you can legally get high-quality TV shows and movies. Well, guess what? Every time somebody says "Bit Torrent is just like a VCR" or "it's not stealing" or "I'm not doing anything wrong when I download," you make it just that much harder for Apple or anybody else to open such a store.


      You haven't actually made an argument yet.

      Every time you say something like that, you push the date of our opening back by a month.
      ...What? Whose opening? What opening? (ObGoatse here.)

      If you won't buy a moral argument, will you at least buy that one?


      No. You haven't actually made an argument, you've just said "it's wrong".

      Explain to me exactly how downloading something off BT is different from setting my VCR timer. Then I'll buy your argument, maybe. So far, you've just made a couple vague hand-wavings and said "fire baaaaaaaad".
  • by erroneus (253617) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @04:35PM (#12537665) Homepage
    1. Stealing is wrong but so too is lying. They are both 'not good' and they are certainly not at all the same thing. That said, I'd like to assert that making copies is not stealing. It is called something else but it's not stealing.

    2. This only makes an [entertainment source/type] mroe popular so it's actually good. If the people who control the rights to the material in question thought so, they probably wouldn't be spending money on lawyers to combat the activity. It's more likely that they see this activity as a way to make more money and are doing what they can to contain it and make a profit. The proliferation of unsanctioned copies of entertainment material lowers the value of commercial sponsorship and therefore threatens to decrease the REAL product they are selling, which is advertising space/time. Whether the problem is real or merely perceived as such, sponsors will be less willing to spend their advertising dollars on a medium that is devalued due to people using alternative venues.

    The **AA groups are a bunch of liars making false claims that making and distributing unsanctioned copies of entertainment material is somehow hurting the people we admire the most -- the entertainers. It's not true. Tons of math and logic has been applied to show that the opposite is true. It is, however, contrary to the **AA's interests in that the components that offer value to those groups are being affected. (Again, advertising) (Another point to note, unlike trademark, copyright does not get 'diluted' by ingoring infringement.) I think the **AA's should be held accountable for their deceit in the form of a civil suit... I wonder how successful that would be but it can't be legal to go about spreading lies in order to support their aims. The truth [of devalued adjacent revenues] might not win the sympathy of the public, but it would certainly fly in court.

    The public wants what it wants. The enterprise wants what it wants. The differences will be set, settled and re-settled over and over again.
  • Ads (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ucblockhead (63650) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @05:27PM (#12537991) Homepage Journal
    If TV producers had brains, what they'd do is supply free downloads of their own, with ads, requiring only that you fill out a survey. If they were to do that, they could do really spiffy ad-targetting that is impossible with network TV.

    The thing about good ad targetting is that people are more likely to watch the ad and more likely to buy the advertised product. In other words, if the people making these shows stopped fighting the internet and started using the internet, they could actually make more money on ads.

    But they're too wrapped up in old models that are hard to maintain in modern times. But someone will do it, make a mint, and put them out of business.
  • by blibbler (15793) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @05:58PM (#12538197)
    There was an interview with the article's author on the media report last week. You can listen to the audio or read the transcript here [abc.net.au]
  • Oh, the irony... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Khyber (864651) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Sunday May 15, 2005 @09:29PM (#12539423) Homepage Journal
    And to think, about 20+ years ago, Metallica credited their rise to success mainly in part to the bootleggers who copied their shows and albums, and distributed them. Then, come the Napster era, Metallica turned right around on the very same thing that brought them to fame to begin with. I wonder how long it's going to take before the exact same thing happens in this case?

news: gotcha

Working...