How Battlestar Galactica Killed TV 749
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."
I remember it somewhat different.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I remember it somewhat different.... (Score:3, Informative)
Did you just watch the pilot, or the actual episodes?
I *hated* the pilot, but after seeing the first season I went back and watched it again, and I can totally see why they made all the changes they did, other than the stupid glowing spine thing.
I'm a big fan of the original se
Re:I remember it somewhat different.... (Score:4, Funny)
Looks like a lot of slashdotters are going to be extinct.
Re:I remember it somewhat different.... (Score:5, Funny)
Cure for male pattern baldness (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I remember it somewhat different.... (Score:3, Funny)
Olmos's character is the majestic backdrop for all the young pretties to dance around, like Mt Kilimanjaro, a Buddha statue, or a neon beer sign.
Re:I remember it somewhat different.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I remember it somewhat different.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I remember it somewhat different.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But she's hot, and therefore all is forgiven.
Re:I remember it somewhat different.... (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO, other than Adama, she is the only MACHO character on the show.
Re:I remember it somewhat different.... (Score:3, Interesting)
She is super super cute and has a terrific body. Don't knock her 'til you do your research
Great Show (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Great Show (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
Because of the nature of electricity travelling through a wire broadcast to thousands or millions of households, it is not realistically possible to determine Television ratings by trying to discover if all the televisions are tuned into a certain channel(and the fact that there are a wide variety of cable recievers makes this task virtually impossible -- if they were all the same, one could concievably take the Zth at frequency wc to determine the number of band-pass filters being used to extract the particular channel from the cable connection, but the circuits are different on old Sony TVs from the 1970s, younger sets from the 80s, and modern sets from the 90's and today, making such an approach useless). Because of this, not watching a TV show on the comedy network won't get them a penny more than me watching it there. Your arguement falls apart immediately because nobody knows if my TV is set to channel 2 or 200. If someone calls and asks? Oh fuck, yeah, I'm watching the daily show on the comedy network! Right now! Yep! Sure! They won't though.
Your argument also is a bit weak. Cable companies, like ISPs, provide access not content. The fact that you pay the cable company and could watch the show means nothing to the cable channel producing the content.
Not my problem. I'm paying to watch the show. That makes me a paying customer, not a pirate. I modded my x-box too which I'm positive Microsoft is pissed off about, that doesn't make my x-box illegal(especially since I don't use it to run illegally pirated software, just good old fashioned Xebian).
Should cable channels have other ways of paying for their content? I believe they would love to hear any ideas you have about alternatives to ratings that could be used to pay their production costs and produce a profit. If you figure that one out, you'd be this generation's equivalent of Ted Turner.
Again, you mistake me for someone who cares. When I pay to get into a concert, it's not my problem that they only make money on t-shirts. When I walk into a store and buy only the item that is on sale, it's not my problem that they're playing a loss-leader game and won't make any money unless I buy something else. When I buy a monthly bus pass and use it fifty times a day, again it's not my problem that they only break even if I only use it 3-4 times a day. When I watch a movie with product placement, and I don't even consider their product once, that's not my problem either.
Making the studios money *ISN'T* my job. That's theirs. If I'm paying for something -- and I am, in fact I'm paying a premium for the channels with my favourite shows, my end of the bargin is done with. The fact that they can't make any money the way I consume simply isn't my problem.
Re:Great Show (Score:4, Informative)
ACNielsen [nielsenmedia.com] is the ratings service that advertisers use to gauge how many people watch a particular show. They then go to what is called the upfront market where media buying companies buy commercial space in bulk from channels. The prices set are based on ACNielsen's numbers and the market - it's a bit like an auction. If advertisers do not buy ads for a particular show that covers the costs and the channel it is on is supported by advertising, it goes away and is replaced by a new show that advertisers will buy advertising for so it covers costs.
As to why it is your problem, it means if you don't watch the show in a way ACNielsen tracks it, the show is more likely to go away. It's not about legality - although I think if you live in the U.S., there are a lot of nuances in IP law and I don't know if your particular line of argumentation would work in a court of law - might also depend on your court.
As for your other comments, you don't need to care. However, you should understand that there is a causal relationship between not watching it on TV and the show not lasting. Personally, I don't watch TV, so it doesn't make a difference to me. I'm just pointing out how the system works so you can make choices to your advantage.
Re:Great Show (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't it a bitch that the corps own mindset can be used against them, that we're not all so happy to be willing cogs in their machines beyond the bill at the end of the month?
Re:Great Show (Score:3, Insightful)
I could leave it tuned into the public access channel and it wouldn't change a thing. That's the point most of us are making.
Except the guy with the box. It's his duty to watch the shows I like.
Re:Great Show (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it doesn't matter at all if I watch it or not. The only ones that really matter are the people in the sample set for ACNielsen watch it. AC Nielsen makes their money by alleging that their sample set is representative of the entire tv-viewing population.
It's not my job to make sure I conform to that sample set. It's their job to figure out what I'm watching - if they want to be in the business of reporting on what people are watching.
Re:Great Show (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, TV commercial-viewing population, since the advertisers are who ultimately who pays Nielson. The objective popularity of the show is immaterial, except to the extent it sells commercial time.
If you're watching the commercial-free version on your computer, you've effectively dropped out of the people who "count", and Nielsen is going to exclude your group from the reporting even i
Re:Great Show (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great Show (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great Show (Score:4, Insightful)
This different is not subtle, nor is it something you can dismiss with a wave of the hand. It doesn't go away when concealed behind an "as far as I'm concerned."
Re:Great Show (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed, it means that the person who uploaded the show has done something wrong.
KFG
Re:Great Show (Score:3, Insightful)
Well then, perhaps you could explain that difference to us, because I sure don't see it.
Besides the fact that someone has to take time to make a copy, what's the "qualitative" difference you're speaking of?
Re:Great Show (Score:4, Interesting)
He was just hoping the fact that he used a lot of big words would convince you that he was smarter than everyone else. Clearly, he isn't.
There is no "qualitative difference" between recording a show yourself when it's on and asking someone else to do it for you. "Qualitative" in this context would mean that there is a distinction between the act of recording for yourself and for somebody else. This strikes me as a very printing press-era sort of mindset - when media is media, it's freely available over the air, and it's possible for that media to exist in an infinite number of places at once, then how is there a qualitative difference between watching media I have recorded and watching media someone else has recorded? Either way, I'm watching the exact same media, and I am costing the broadcasters the exact same amount of money: zero.
The dirty little secret of the TV industry is that they don't have a moral leg to stand on here. They may have a legal one - which is why they keep throwing words around like "theft" and "piracy" - but how do you steal something that's freely available over the airwaves, or that my household pays to receive (and indeed, did actually receive) but that I choose to instead download from somebody else later?
The fact is there's absolutely no difference to anyone when or how I watch TV programs, morally, ethically or by any other standard. The problem for the TV networks is a) they lose the ability to track my viewing habits when I download vs. watching on cable, and b) they lose the ability to serve me ads - but then I skip through the ads on my TiVo anyway, and there's certainly no law that says I have to watch them. (Not yet, anyway.)
Bottom line is it screws up their business model and they don't like it. Too bad for them; they choose to put this stuff out either for free over the air, or over cable that I already pay them for anyway. If they were smart, they'd host downloads for all their TV shows themselves and put everything on free (i.e. basic) cable VOD, which would solve most of their problems. In the absence of that, though, I'm going to keep right on downloading shows from the usual sources and I'm not going to feel bad about it. (Not with a $98 per month cable bill, that's for sure.)
Re:Great Show (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Great Show (Score:4, Informative)
1) You still had a physical medium, so if you give your copy to your friend, you don' have it. Unles...
2) You made copies, which wasn't as common as it is now. And then, everything was analog and still required a physical media, so making copies wasn't as easy as click & save.
It's sort of a slippery slope argument, I guess. Making those early copies wasn't a huge deal (although the **AA companies fought against them back in the day, I believe), but now with the technology we have those same old practices are really causing problems for content producers & broadcasters that expect the old business models to continue to function.
Re:Great Show (Score:4, Interesting)
meaning let's say i recently purchased the firefly tv series on dvd. i'm paranoid that somehow these dvds may get scratched and damaged so i want a backup of it before anything happens. i don't have a dvd burner, but i know a friend does. can i bring over my dvds and ask him to help me create a backup? now taking this a step further, let's assume my friend already has his own set of the firefly tv series on dvd. is it illegal then to ask him to duplicate his copy so i won't have to bring mine over. the end result is the same, but the mean is slightly different in which my friend is using his dvd set to backup instead of mine.
to translate this over to the tv scenario. i purchase cable tv and so this my friend. i'm legally allowed to record stuff from tv onto tape or harddrive, but i personally don't own a vcr or tivo or dvr. However, my friend owns a vcr and i asked if he could help me record something (note that both of us has access to the source and both of us are legally allowed to record the source). is that really illegal then because he's not using my source to make a recording for me? as stated before, the end results are the same, it's just the means are slightly different.
Re:Great Show (Score:4, Funny)
"Lisa, if we don't watch the commercials, it's like we're stealing TV!"
Re:Great Show (Score:5, Funny)
1. Get high Nelson ratings.
2. Charge more for commercials.
3. Profit!
In the Slashdot world there are plenty of Nelson ratings. Mostly it's geeks sitting on couches, pointing at dumb shows on TV and taunting, "Ha-Ha!". I recently Nelsoned Enterprise, for one.
Unfortunately the rest of world isn't so clever and they have to go by Nielsen [nielsenmedia.com] ratings.
Re:Great Show (Score:5, Insightful)
No... I'm going to give you the same answer to this type of statement that I alway's have:
READ your TOS - as far as I can tell, and that some laywer friends of mine can tell, You are NOT liable for 'skipping advertising of any kind' when you sign your agreement with your local broadcasting company.
The advert's are nothing more than a nuisance to most people, and do absolutely nothing except provide for 'snack/bathroom break' time during the show. As far as 'advertisers/distributors
Re:Great Show (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Great Show (Score:5, Interesting)
You still have a full bladder in the later scenario.
Other than that... Fuck 'em, I don't want to see their ads for tampons: I'll never buy tampons in my LIFE, if I ever do, it will be a brand specified by the woman making me run errands, not a brand selected based on advertising.
I use the mute button or channel-surf when ads come on, I'm not watching ads on TV, I don't see ads on the net, I don't read the ads in the magazines, I don't listen to them on the radio, I don't owe anything to the advertisers.
They try to brainwash me into giving them money, I resist by ignoring them, changing channel, muting, adlocking, turning the page, or skipping to thwe end of the commercial break. It isn't wrong of me to do this, like it isn't wrong of them to spend money to get me to know their product exists.
Re:Great Show (Score:3, Funny)
The advertisers see you as an untapped market.
Re:Great Show (Score:3, Insightful)
But no doubt you're the first to complain when things on the internet become subscription based?
Nice straw man. It never will because people have an obvious need to sound off. Supply and demand will do it's thing. Not to mention the fact that when a millions of people can read something one person wrote the cost/benefit is extraordinary.
Advertisers love to claim they're doing people a favour. Bullshit, they're largely parasites these days.
Just forcing consumers to pay twice, once in time to watch th
Pay-for-TV on DVD (Score:3, Interesting)
That works for me; it's like I'm years behind on my TV watching but gradually catching up.
(At least I hope it remains commercial-free. Sooner or later somebody will get the idea to put a non-skippable ad in the middle of the show. I stop buying all DVDs in perpetuity from the company that tries that. I'm serious: I really don't care that much ab
Is MythTV fair use? (Score:4, Insightful)
On my computer, I get Sci-Fi's entire lineup, commercial free, by pressing a "skip" button whenever a commercial starts and jumping immediately to the resumed show. I know that function's either hidden or nonexistant on commercial PVRs, but it's really only an incremental improvement on "mute" and "fast forward" anyway. Even permanently cutting out commercials on programs I want to archive is something that's always been possible for anyone with two VCRs and too much time on their hands.
So is what I'm doing unethical? Morally wrong but allowed via legal loophole? Illegal?
I hope not. If TV channel owners are expecting me to watch those commercials, they probably ought to have me sign something to that effect. On the other hand, if the Sci-Fi channel gets 20% of my viewing time but 0.4% of my cable bill, perhaps I'm not the one with whom they should be renegotiating a contract.
Re:Great Show (Score:5, Insightful)
This same effect has been shown in the case of music CDs as well. The real issue of the RIAA is not "piracy," since it is easily shown that there IS NO FINANCIAL LOSS to any of their members. The issue lies in the fact that the RIAA represents middle-men, not artists. The potential ability of the artists - who are in effect the RIAA's cash cows - to go independent and cut out the middlemen entirely by using the internet as the artist's primary distribution channel scares the "pigs" out of the RIAA's membership.
Also, the use of the terms "piracy" and "stealing" and "theft" are confusing and erroneous language. Nothing has been stolen. What has happened can best be described - if you insist trying to think in terms of a crime - as "dilution" of the nominal value of the "property." On a per-copy basis, the "legitimate owner" has to sell more copies, less expensively to clear the same amount they would if market forces permitted them to continue to peddle legal copies at the inflated prices they would prefer. The very fact that "piracy" occurs indicates that their product is both over-priced and demonstrably less available than it should be for the best sales. The RIAA could easily end their own priacy worries by reducing prices and increasing production.
If the article's author is correct, BBC may well have quietly encouraged the "piracy" of the new Doctor Who to take advantage of the same effects that SciFi observed. Nearly 17% of the population of Great Britain tuned in to the first official broadcast of the new show. If that number was weighted to reflect that actual probable segment of the British population from which viewers are likely drawn for a show such as Doctor Who, that fraction has to be nearly 100% of the probable potential viewers, maybe even more than that. They can't have anticipated anywhere near that kind initial response to a new show, not even a new Doctor Who. Once more, you have ask where is the loss that the use of words like "stealing" and "theft" implies?
Lastly, the article's author argues that the behaviour we observe is nothing more than what generations of broadcast radio and TV have lead the public to expect and how to behave. Payment is made indicrectly through the purcahse of products that have been advertised on the show, or over the radio between songs. This behaviour has been modified by the enabling technologies of computers and the internet. Never the less, it is what the industry has lead their consumers to expect.
Obligatory .. sort of. (Score:2, Funny)
What if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, remember any publicity is good publicity.
Re:What if... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What if... (Score:4, Funny)
Hell, I want to go to neverland ranch! They got a ferris wheel, llamas AND porn! Sounds like my kind of place.
Re:What if... (Score:4, Funny)
Don't forget the freak show. Ok, so they only have one freak, but what a freak eh!?!?
Re:What if... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What if... (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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)
Re:Anime Fansubs (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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
The "Metallica" effect (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
3 Reasons Broadcast TV will never die (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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
Re:3 Reasons Broadcast TV will never die (Score:3, Interesting)
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).
This may change (Score:2)
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
This is true for every industry (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Same could be said about The Family Guy (Score:3, Interesting)
It's true... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
Drwho (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2, Interesting)
The RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:The RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft. (Score:3)
Money = Power (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:The RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft. (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:The RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft. (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Sounds like the Photoshop Effect (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
What you're talking about is... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sounds like the Photoshop Effect (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Oh, wait
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it not like setting the VCR?
You haven't actually made an argument yet.
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".
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
The truth is that in 2002, Turner CEO Jamie Kellner said that editing out commercials entirely with special software in DVRs is stealing. Nobody cares if you hit the fast-forward button. The networks care if you use software to automatically edit the commercials out entirely.
However, the bigger issue here is that some people think it's okay
Re:Wow (Score:3, Informative)
I usually agree with your posts, but in this case you are wrong.
"Turner Broadcasting CEO Jamie Kellner is quoted in the trade journal 'Cableworld' saying, 'Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch
Arguments and more arguments (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Ads (Score:3, Insightful)
Interview with the article's author (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, the irony... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unbiased much? (Score:2)
Re:Unbiased much? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Excuses Excuses (Score:5, Insightful)
Without BT it might not be as popular. Why is that a bad thing?
Truth is, we pay for TV. If we miss a show that we like, and download it, isn't that akin to recording it on a PVR? Commercials or not?
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
And the problem with your argument is that it's not analogous to the situation at hand.
I rob a convenience store
RIght there - your analogy is broken right from the very beginning, because robbing a convenience store is *IN NO WAY* similar to downloading something from the internet (regardless of how the MPAA/RIAA apologists try to spin it.)
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
"I go to a convenience store and use my Star Trek Replication Device to copy a can of Diet Coke, without taking away the existing Diet Coke. I like it so much that the next day, I go out and buy a case. I tell my friend that I like Diet Coke, and he buys a case."
The real problem with that analogy.... (Score:5, Interesting)
"I go to a convenience store and use my Star Trek Replication Device to copy a can of Diet Coke, without taking away the existing Diet Coke. I like it so much that the next day, I replicate a case. I tell my friend that I like Diet Coke, and he replicates his own case. Now none of us buy Diet Coke, and they go bankrupt. Noone will bother inventing new soft drinks anymore, since there's no profit to be made."
The whole "this is profitable" argument relies that a chain of events leading up to more sales (or other money-generating events like ad impressions). But if copying the first can is ok, why shouldn't the second, third or 100th be? Why should any of those you market it to bother to buy it instead of pirate it? You end up with a market with all marketeers and no customers.
Kjella
The REAL problem with that analogy.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"I go to a convenience store and use my Star Trek Replication Device to copy a can of Diet Coke, without taking away the existing Diet Coke. I like it so much that the next day, I replicate a case. I tell my friend that I like Diet Coke, and he replicates his own case. Now none of us buy Diet Coke, and they go bankrupt. Noone will bother inventing new soft drinks anymore, since there's no profit to be made."
The whole "this is profitable" argument relies that a chain of events leading up to more sales (or other money-generating events like ad impressions).
If you have Star Trek Replication Technology. You also have the Star Trek Socialist Techno-Eutopia that goes with it, in which there is no money, and no RIAA.
Q. E. D.
Re:The real problem with that analogy.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You've taken the StarTrek replicator argument a little too far, and you're missing a key point of real-world economics. No matter how easy it is to download a show it still costs you something. As the article points out, as long as the cost of getting everything free is just high enough, revenues still increase. To wit:
Someone gives me a can of Diet Coke (or a TV show), and I really like it. I like it so much, in fact that I decide I want to drink (watch) it all the time. I look into getting it for free, by making my own at home (downloading all the episodes), but I decide that it is easier in the long run to buy it at the store (watch it when it comes on), and I do so. Diet Coke sales (show viewership) increase, and everyone is happy.
There are two key points in that story. The first is that if you expose a large number of people to a new thing, you are likely to increase consumption by finding those people who didn't know about your product, but like it. In fact, companies do this all the time. Everytime there is a new cola variety or gum brand, marketers flood big events and college campuses, giving away free samples with the hope that people will like what they've tried, go buy it, and tell their friends. Premium cable channels do it as well, by offering "Free Weekends" packed with programming that will encourage viewers to subscribe to that channel.
The second point is the Someone. In the case of new colas, etc., that someone is the company (or marketing company), enticing you to try something new, but only giving away a set amount of the free stuff. With TV shows via bittorrent, that someone is giving away as much as they can, but despite that, word of mouth has driven people to watch the shows via cable, which increases their revenue, because the cost of getting it for free is just a little too high for most.
The fact of the matter is that downloading shows and software takes time, effort, computer hardware, and some technical know-how, making the cost of getting the shows greater than just watching it when it comes on. While I don't agree with the sue-happy tactics of the MPAA/RIAA, their lawsuits are ensuring that the cost of obtaining the shows/music is still just a little higher than buying it at the store. Sure it would be easier (and, I believe, more effective) to lower the cost of the cable TV or music CDs, but that affects their bottom-line directly, and they really don't like that.
GPL violations killed the free software cause? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would like to see the same arguments applied to GPL violators. After all, unauthorized use of GPL software can't decrease the legitimate use of that software. It's not "stealing" because no one is being deprived of property, and the companies that choose to violate the GPL weren't the ones that were going to contribute in the first place. But now consider all the programmers who are being exposed to GPL via their employers' unscrupulous practices. The same guy who today is writing proprietary Linux extensions may someday cash in his stock options and spend his "retirement" writing the next generation networking code. And think about the benefit to the up & coming programmers in the 3rd world, who are benefiting from working on outsourced Linux-based code instead of outsourced Windows-based code. 10 years from now, that pool of programmers will make Linux even stronger. So come on
Now go ahead readers & nitpick my analogy. But you know it to be true in essence.
-a
Re:GPL violations killed the free software cause? (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not.
I know that free software is distributed freely, and that the products of the copyright owners aren't supposed to be.
Freely distributed software, freely distributed TV shows.
Re:GPL violations killed the free software cause? (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I think that there are some people who do think A and B in this case. I think they do, though, because they see the GPL as a reasonable set of restrictions to put on a piece of software, and they generally sympathize with the goals of the people who create it. In contrast,
Re:GPL violations killed the free software cause? (Score:3, Insightful)
Being pro-P2P and pro-GPL isn't the hypocracy you think it is. Obviously you disagree with the principles of copyleft but it's proponents are generally consistant.
Re:GPL violations killed the free software cause? (Score:5, Interesting)
Consumers are NOT an organized whole. They are not out to destroy anything. As long as the TV/Music industry chooses to evolve, they will never be put out of business. OTOH, if a company like Microsoft could violate the GPL, they could virtually destroy Linux for all but the most dedicated enthusiast (use their war chest to build a ton of awesome improvements, convert all of the commercial users and a significant portion of the home users, then slowly break compatibility.)
Your analogy fails because commercial enterprise is not the same as personal use. Downloading a TV show might not be "right", but it's not in the same league as major GPL violation. One is for profit; the other is not. Corporations do not (or rather should not) have the same rights that individuals do, and you just can't compare the calculated tactics of a software giant with a bunch of preteen p2p users who just wanna catch last night's Inuyasha.
Stop lying (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPL exists so as to subvert copyright. By creating the GPL, RMS intended to turn copyright against itself. The GPL itself is an act of disrespect to copyright.
The only hypocrisy is in your mind.
Re:Same old, same old (Score:3, Insightful)
There is wrong in that: The owners are wrong.
If you wanted to turn this around into an argument that says, "Hey, content providers should offer this as a service," that would be fine. I'd be right there with you. But using it to say "It's okay to take things" just isn't right.
It