Not to mention how much more they will take if there is a uniformed and armed police officer visible who might get "upset" if you don't participate. You don't want to get Mr. Police Officer upset now, do you?
Don't hate me too much. The YouTube video channel will work perfectly for some videos and for others will show the video twice, side-by-side, squished onto the screen (sort of like those pictures where you cross your eyes and a 3D image pops out... only without the 3D image). So even though I have the channel, it's all but useless. When I want to watch YouTube via my Roku, I usually just use PlayTo.tv or another app to stream the video from a tablet or my phone to the Roku box.
There are channels that can do this. Here are two free ones I found. (NOTE: I've never used them so I can't vouch for how good they are.)
USB Screen Saver
Picasa Web Albums Screensaver
Roku can definitely handle MP4 videos now. I put my videos in MP4 format on a USB hard drive and have my Roku box play them back for me. Works beautifully.
There's also PlayTo which can send photos/music/videos from an Android or iOS device (phone or tablet) to your Roku box. There's a free version to try it out and a paid version for $4.99.
I have that channel too. That was a private channel that someone else programmed, not an official channel. Roku removed access to it for new users but those of us who already had the channel kept it on our boxes. This is about an official YouTube channel coming to Roku.
I have that channel. Maybe it's a glitch with the channel or just the fact that I'm using a standard-definition TV and some YouTube videos try to display in HD but I often get two videos side by side on the same screen.
For example, instead of seeing:
Of course, since there's only so much screen room, these double videos wind up squished together and are pretty unwatchable. Here's hoping that this YouTube support goes back to past devices and doesn't just stop with their current ones.
It's both a scare tactic and a protection against precedent. Let's say I was the head of a big company with lots of lawyers and money and I sued you for sharing one movie I owned the copyright to. If the penalty for losing was reasonable - say, 10 times the cost of a DVD of the movie, or about $150 - you might decide to fight it. This could 1) result in you winning and not having to pay a fine at all and 2) setting a precedent that others would use when I sued them.
However, if the fine was a few million dollars per movie, suddenly you are looking at a lifetime of bankruptcy. What's more, the bigger the number the scarier the outcome seems. If the MPAA/RIAA could sue for a trillion dollars without being laughed out of court by a judge, they would. Now, you are unlikely to want to fight this court fight. You'll be likely to take the very one-sided settlement that I "graciously" offer you where you admit that you did it (regardless of whether or not you really did) and pay a "much reduced" fine of a few thousand dollars. This has the added benefit of freeing the big copyright holder up to sue more people and rake in more settlement money.
True, but hard drives are so large nowadays that it shouldn't be a problem. Apparently, it takes 8-10GB per hour of 1080p recording. This means a 1TB hard drive will record about 100 hours of programming. Not too shabby and you could always disconnect the hard drive, connect it to a computer, and compress the recording in some fashion (e.g. MP4) to save it long-term without taking up tons of space.
You pretty much answered your own question. In the not-too-distant past, if you wanted video entertainment, you went to the "giants." If you wanted to see a show that was on at 6PM on Tuesday, you sat in front of the TV at 6PM on Tuesday. They controlled what you watched and when.
Then came VCRs, DVRs, the Internet and other disruptive technologies. Slowly but surely, their control was pried away from them. They could no longer guarantee that people watching a show would be sitting in front of the TV at 6pm on Tuesday. They couldn't guarantee that people wouldn't fast-forward through ads. Now they can't even guarantee that people will come to them for video entertainment.
They have two options: 1) Embrace the future but risk not having a prominent place in it, or 2) throw all their still-considerable muscle behind slowing progress to a halt so that they profit for longer.
They've chosen 2. This might lock in their status as obsolete, but it pushed off when that will be for as long as they can hold off technology. As long as they can retain the barest shreds of control, they'll keep pulling in profits in the short term and that's what's important to them.
I believe Amazon VOD does this already. Programs (mostly) seem to appear the day after it airs on TV. In addition, you can buy a season pass and get the episodes for a reduced rate.
There are so many TV shows that I just don't watch because I've been burned so often that I don't want to get into another show only to have it cancelled in the first season or on a cliffhanger.
Thank you for this. I've been planning for our near-inevitable cord cutting for some time. OTA is nice, but without a DVR you just go back to "I need to be at home and not interrupted to watch this show." Tivo is nice, but very expensive - especially when you consider either having to pay a monthly fee or spend $300 on a lifetime subscription. The HomeWorx, though, looks perfect. Inexpensive ($46), no pay-for-guide data (that I can see), and would work on OTA broadcasts. Combine this with our existing Netflix and Amazon Prime subscriptions along with some Amazon VOD purchases (to get must-see cable shows without cable) and cable's days in my household are even more numbered.
Starting my own ISP would require investing time and money into the project: Two things that are in short supply for me right now. I have a full time job, have no time to start an ISP business on the side, and can't take the financial risk of quitting my job to launch an ISP in my area. I have nothing but respect for the people who do this and if someone like this was available in my area I'd definitely look into it as a possibility, but launching it myself isn't really an option.
That's the position I'm in. I can use Time Warner Cable for my ISP or Verizon DSL. Not only is DSL slower, but Verizon has all but said they want out of the DSL business. They've ignored their DSL lines and outright ditched them where possible. Verizon didn't run FIOS to my neighborhood so that's not an option. Meanwhile, Time Warner Cable and the other cable ISPs have financial interests in people not doing a lot of video streaming. That's why they've introduced caps and "per bit billing." They frame it as a "fair billing" or "protect our network from data hogs" practice but really it is a method of killing streaming so that people go back to their (uncapped) VOD solutions.