ABC, CBS, and NBC Block Google TV 227
markjhood2003 writes "The Wall Street Journal reports that 'ABC, CBS and NBC are blocking TV programming on their websites from being viewable on Google Inc.'s new Web-TV service. ... Spokespeople for the three networks confirmed that they are blocking the episodes on their websites from playing on Google TV, although both ABC and NBC allow promotional clips to work using the service.' Google has responded, 'Google TV enables access to all the Web content you already get today on your phone and PC, but it is ultimately the content owners' choice to restrict their fans from accessing their content on the platform.'"
Sickbeard & XBMC. (Score:5, Informative)
Sickbeard [sickbeard.com] makes one hell of a DVR program. (When paired with sabnzbd [sabnzbd.org] or a torrent program).
$25 for a 180GB block from Astraweb has lasted me since August and I haven't even burned through 1/2 of it yet. (I used to have the $10/month unlimited until I realized how much I really didn't use it). Programs available within a few minutes of the show ending. 30 minute TV shows take 2-3 minutes. Hour long never take longer than 10. (Heck when I saturate my cable I can have a movie in 8 minutes).
XBMC [xbmc.org] makes one hell of a nice front end. I come home from school or work and just browse to the 'latest episodes' and watch something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sickbeard & XBMC. (Score:5, Informative)
Sickbeard [sickbeard.com] makes one hell of a DVR program. (When paired with sabnzbd [sabnzbd.org] or a torrent program).
$25 for a 180GB block from Astraweb ...
Since I never heard of Sickbeard, sabnzbd, or Astraweb, I figured I'd do a little research, and post my (Score: 5 Informative?) findings here. Please correct me if I made any mistakes....
Sickbeard is an open source, GPL licensed Python application (so runs on Windows and Linux and other platforms), that watches newsgroups, looking for announcements of TV shows whose torrents have been put on the web. In Sickbeard, the user can specify which shows he is interested in, and it keeps an eye out for those shows. Once it finds shows that the user has specified, it can queue up a retrieval program, but Sickbeard doesn't retrieve them itself.
Sickbeard will request the show from sabnzbd. Sabnzbd is also open source, Python. Its function is to go retrieve binaries from newsgroups. So it seems to me that the newsgroups have both the announcement of the availability of a TV program (like a torrent tracker), and the actual program. Sickbeard is watching the announcements, and Sabnzbd is grabbing the program.
Astraweb is a newsgroup website that apparently allows you to download newsgroup posts. This is a paid service, and the parent post signed up for a $25 service for 180GB of downloads. Based on my MythTV experience, I'm guessing this might be 180 half hours of TV (please correct this number if I am off!).
So for $25 plus 2 free open source programs, I can have almost 200 half-hour programs that I can watch anytime (starting a few minutes after they air). Interesting!
----
I'm looking for a "to go" solution for watching TV at a cottage (where we have no cable, and no internet). We've been getting by with taking Netflix with us each time we go to the cottage (combined with a small DVD collection), but this might be an interesting supplement! (Other suggestions welcome!!)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting post
Is any of that legal?
Too bad my Verizon ISP stopped carrying Usenet newsgroups. I can understand the newsgroups used a lot of bandwidth/storage, but they could have dropped the *.binary groups and kept pure text forums like rec.arts.tv or rec.arts.startrek. (sigh) At least they haven't installed datacaps like my other ISP comcast did.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My guess, and I'm no lawyer, is that you can download programs without violating the law (or violating somebody's copyright), but that uploading is where you may run into some trouble.
Look at how the RIAA has gone after music downloaders. I believe their legal cases have all hinged on the fact that the downloaders (that they went after) also shared the torrents. I think that leeching is safe - you aren't "republishing".
Of course, one may also question the ethics.
Since I can record shows myself, I don't p
Re:Sickbeard & XBMC. (Score:4, Informative)
In the US, both are illegal. It's just that it's far far easier to go after the uploaders, and even that isn't working out that well for the RIAA/MPAA.
Re: (Score:2)
In response to everyone:
Astraweb does have an affiliate program, I'm not signed up.
100% scot free legal (in the USA). You're not uploading anything with Usenet (different story if you use torrents, which sick beard does support). You request the file from them, they send it. Unless someone can correct me, no one has ever been successfully sued in the US for downloading stuff. It's all uploads.
A "to go" solution would be to toss this on an external hard drive or what I used to do was had my XBOX in an easy t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Reading your post makes me think of the UK's "Free Satellite" service. I wish we had that in North America, and it makes me wonder why no provider ever copied the idea. You buy a dish. Aim it at the sky. And get ~40 channels totally free.
As for ABC/CBS/NBC:
When I read this article the first thing I thought was, "Maybe the FCC ought to revoke their licenses to public frequencies (2-51)." Not that I want that to lose free broadcast TV, but it would be a friendly reminder to the Big Three their position i
God damnit.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a lot of crappy television shows I have to boycott now.
I was just thinking that all the t.v. shows on right now suck because of the writers strike a while back.
It turns out the executives are just insane.
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out the executives are just insane.
Why? Because Google ( a business in the business of making money ) wants to make boat loads of money on their product without paying for it? The "crappy" shows you were not watching anyway are a product. If Google wants to make money off of them, than perhaps they should pay the networks a cut of the take? It sounds like a reasonable idea to me...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well the alternative is iTunes
Re:God damnit.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well for one the tv studios didn't innovate when the technology was ripe. Now they missed out on the money train and are afraid of their revenue stream taking a hit. Now they are going to alienate themselves from portions of their audience. I don't follow TV statistics but I would bet that the number of TV viewers & subscriptions has leveled out and will start to decrease as tv over the internet takes hold.
Instead of embracing technology and taking their beating earlythey will wait a few more years and try and launch their own version which will suck.
Most companies have the mentality of avoiding investing in new tech that would cut into their revenue. Even though that new technology might insure or increase its market share.
Like it or not google seems to be pushing for innovation in almost all forms of communication / entertainment.
Let me know when google bank, google mobile, google car, google real estate come online.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
>>>they will wait a few more years and try and launch their own version which will suck.
Or maybe not. The history of invention shows that being "first" is typically a bad idea. It's often a good tactic to let someone else waste millions on R&D, plus advertising, and then jump on the bandwagon after the technology is already proven. It also helps you avoid wasting cash on flops (like Digital Cassette* or CED Videorecords or Betamax).
*
* This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Cassette [wikipedia.org]
A cut of the take (Score:2)
If Google wants to make money off of them, than perhaps they should pay the networks a cut of the take?
Then why don't the manufacturers of small form factor PCs pay the major networks a cut of the take? And why haven't the manufacturers of TV sets been paying the networks a cut of their take since the black-and-white days?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>Because Google ( a business in the business of making money ) wants to make boat loads of money on their product without paying for it?
Ooops! ABC, CBS, and NBC are public broadcasters.
They don't charge to access their content.
You can watch it for free (via antenna or internet).
I can't think of any logical reason why these broadcasters would block Google or any other web device. Perhaps the FCC ought to revoke their licenses to public frequencies, and give channels 2 to 51 for cellphone/interne
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a cable or satellite operator, you pay for stations that elect Retransmission Consent [wikipedia.org].
John
Re:God damnit.... (Score:4, Insightful)
> Why? Because Google ( a business in the business of making money ) wants
> to make boat loads of money on their product without paying for it?
No. They are just providing a means to read the same data that is being provided for free to anyone else.
They are by no stretch of the imagination "leeches" or "pirates".
The notion that they are is just pure NewSpeak.
This is the Net Neutrality problem in action. Although in this case it is website owners trying to discriminate based on what web browser they see.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Should Sony, Samsung, and all the other television manufacturers also give the networks a cut of their profits? Surely one of the primary uses of any television is to watch shows put out by the networks.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Report itself as a normal PC? (Score:5, Insightful)
ABC, NBC, et al. could claim Google is spoofing its useragent to circumvent the ban on Google TV. That means they could sue Google under the provisions of DMCA. Blame your legislators for passing idiotic laws that forbid gaining "unauthorized" access through spoofing.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there's any law that dictates what User Agent String a web browser returns. Web Sites can try to use the User Agent string to block content, but I hardly think the User Agent String constitutes a legal 'access control' for content. However, I suspect that there are other ways to suss out what browser is being used - perhaps something with JavaScript, or similar. Maybe a DirectX plugin or something which won't run on a Linux-based Google TV device.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think even with the horrendous DMCA it's as clear-cut as you say. The DMCA section in question, I believe, is: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
The thing is, the User Agent String was not desgined nor was it ever claimed by the HTTP standards group, to be a measure to control access to copyrighted works. I'm not a lawyer, so don't take any legal advice from me, but I believe there is at least a possibility that
Re:Report itself as a normal PC? (Score:4, Interesting)
No they couldn't.
User agent strings don't count as "technological measures"; both the IETF and the W3C say that they're purely advisory, optional, not guaranteed to even exist let alone be correct (or to be useful when they are correct), and MUST not be relied upon.
Besides; what's to stop someone filtering the User Agent with a proxy? That's what I do.
CAPTCHA: baseless
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anything Google changes it to will be blocked, most likely. Unless it happened to be the exact UA of - say - IE6, and then these companies would probably start blocking based on other bits of availaible information(like flash version, browser accept string, platform etc).
If users change it themselves, different strings will be used and thus the problem will be avoided - You would end up blocking a lot of legit users to try to block all GoogleTVs.
Also, Google is trying to provide a platform, and most likely
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Situations like this are why I never liked the user agent string. It shouldn't have been included in http to begin with and every time I see some new protocol appear with a user agent string (like bittorrent) I start wondering how long it will take before someone has to spoof it (in the case of bittorrent, a few months ago torrent trackers I use started using whitelists and my client is obscure so I changed it to that of the most popular client at the time).
User agent strings are evil since it makes it easy
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because if Google reacts like that, it would be saying that the media companies are right and Google is sneaking around being dastardly.
If Google simply sits there, patiently, eventually Big Media will, snarling all the way, cave. At which point Google has the upper hand in all dealings. And all it has to do in the meantime is keep its hand out with a delicious snackie and say soothing things like "We completely respect the right of the TV companies to make decisions they believe are in their best interes
Re: (Score:2)
>>>If Google simply sits there, patiently, eventually Big Media will, snarling all the way, cave.
You are correct (maybe). That's what Cable companies typically do during negotiations. For example when FOX recently cut-off Time-Warner, the cable company refused to budge. Eventually they reached an agreement that TW would pay 25 cents to air the channel, which was far less than the 1 dollar FOX wanted.
Google can and should adopt similar tactics. The only problem is that GoogleTV is a new object
It baffles me (Score:5, Interesting)
It baffles me that the networks' left and right hands don't know what the other are doing. With one hand they gleefully provide online versions of the shows and with the other, they smack down anyone (Boxee, Google) that tries to make the consumption of those products easier.
People that choose to watch the shows over the internet are actively choosing to not make regular network TV a part of their day. They aren't willing to sit down at 8 pm, 7 central to watch Chuck; they want to watch it at 6:00 am before work. 10 years ago, they would have been lost viewers. All that advertising revenue would have vanished with their choice. Today, the networks have an option to recapture some of that lost revenue via internet viewers. Granted, they don't show as many adverts, and that ad space (for the moment) is worth less than TV ad time, but they still get money.
Why are they getting upset when google/boxee/whoever drives MORE users to their product? Or are they just afraid that people will choose to eschew network TV in favor of internet TV? If that's the case, they've already lost the battle by offering shows on the internet. Some networks have come up with reasonable solutions though: Fox shows House a week late on the internet for example. Why not offer extra content on TV to encourage TV watching over internet watching. Or, resolve cliff-hangers on the air and make internet viewers sweat it out for an extra two weeks.
What other reasons can /. think of for the networks behavior? Why are they so afraid of internet content aggregators?
Re:It baffles me (Score:5, Insightful)
As you said, they are terrified that people will stop watching regular TV. Not only do most networks get paid by cable companies per customer (rather than based on viewership numbers), they also get much higher advertising rates on regular TV.
They started putting content online for a variety of reasons:
1) Because some people have switched permanently and they can't afford to miss out on that revenue
2) Because they don't want to get left behind their competitors
3) Because if they can increase online viewership sufficiently and/or prove to advertisers through metrics that internet ads yield a similar or greater return than traditional tv, they can up their online advertising prices.
If ESPN3.com and similar sites succeed, expect all the major content providers to do the same thing. Charging an ISP per customer to let them have access to a website is what most TV companies (and even sites like NYTimes) want the most. Reliable baseline income + bonus from advertising is how these companies like to operate.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, wait. The networks mentioned here are ABC, CBS, and NBC. Those are broadcast networks. Until very recently, they didn't get paid at all by cable companies. Since the programming was available for free over-the-air cablecos didn't see any reason why they should have to pay to carry them as well. It's only within the last year or so that
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly why this is happening. The broadcast networks found that they could double dip by charging the cable providers for their content, after it was already paid for by the advertisers. It seems entirely logical (to them) that they should get money from every service which delivers their content to the consumer, even if it happens to be their own website. They're looking to get $$$ from all these players.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Many people here will redoubtably recall temporary [cable] blackouts of some network stations
God I'm glad I have an antenna.
No blackouts here. Ever.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>they are terrified that people will stop watching regular TV
True. Because they make less profit from online ads. But perhaps it's time TV stop spending 1-2 million dollars per episode? Back in the 50s and 60s, television only cost $200,000 per episode (in today's dollars). There's not really any reason to spend much more than that today. ----- Babylon 5 only cost $800,000 per episode... half what Star Trek DS9/VOY cost. They accomplished that by (1) finishing scripts one week prior to sh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But perhaps it's time TV stop spending 1-2 million dollars per episode?
Well, if they did that then ANYBODY could create a TV show. And, since Google TV would make random-webpage-RSS-feed as easy to tune into as CBS, there goes the oligopoly.
Right now the major networks control the distribution of television, and the barrier to entry is extremely high (what does it cost to actually get something broadcast to the majority of TV sets in the US?).
If you make TV nothing more than an RSS feed, then all you need
Re:It baffles me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What product are you referring to? The only product I see is the one sitting behind the box, that apparently is defective - it needs to be made to jump through more hoops dammit, or it won't be docile when delivered to the customers.
Re:It baffles me (Score:5, Informative)
If anyone cares...
CBS Feedback Form
http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/fb_global_form.php [cbs.com]
NBC Feedback Form
http://nbc.researchresults.com/?s=3 [researchresults.com]
ABC Contact Form
http://abc.go.com/site/contact-us [go.com]
Re:It baffles me (Score:5, Informative)
My apologies, for NBC this is the contact page...
http://www.nbc.com/contact/general/ [nbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Dang. I had NoScript turned-off, and that nbc site brought my browser (Gecko Mozilla/5.0) to a crawl. What on earth kind of scripting are they using?
"Dear ABC/CB/NBC:
"Google TV blocked - why? I'm not angry. I'd just like to know WHY you chose to block my new GoogleTV device from seeing your shows? Thank you. :-)"
Re: (Score:2)
"If anyone cares...
CBS Feedback Form..."
CBS cares! /\
Re: (Score:2)
P.S.
I can't believe how difficult these channels are to "talk" to. It's as if they don't want to hear from the customers. ABC/CBS was not too bad, but on NBC they forced me to fill-out some stupid survey. On FOX I couldn't find a "contact us" link, so I was forced to do a search. Then after I submitted my question, I was redirected to a FAQ and my question never mailed to a real person. NPR had exactly the same problem when I tried to contact them yesterday.
Now contrast that with CW which proudly displ
Re:It baffles me (Score:5, Insightful)
That one's easy. They're terrified of losing control of your big TV with a remote in the living room. Ordinary viewers do not have a computer hooked up the TV, and a laptop is just too inconvenient to use for most.
The internet viewing streams are there to use hunched over your laptop or sat at your desk. It's not the 'premium' experience of the family sat on the sofa with an easy to use remote. The internet streams are based on that, and the revenue from that is relatively low.
Remember, you are not the customer - the advertiser is the customer, you're the product, and the TV program is just there to get your eyeballs on the adverts. Google TV threatens to bring the internet streaming model to the comfy sofa TV viewing for the masses, and is a direct threat to their broadcast business model.
Apple TV is a little different, as they get paid directly per episode 'bought' through itunes, and I imagine the profit margin on that is considerably higher than the adverts on the web-streaming model. It may even be higher than the traditional broadcast-advert model, and it works as apple users are used to paying through the nose for a slick experience. Ordinary users with a google box (or boxee box) streaming off of hulu etc? Not so much.
Why no HTPC? (Score:2)
Ordinary viewers do not have a computer hooked up the TV
From 1987 (VGA introduction) to 2006 (when HDTVs became affordable), PCs didn't have television output as a standard feature. SDTVs needed an obscure adapter [wikipedia.org] to turn the EDTV output from a PC's VGA port into a 480i signal that they can handle. But by fall of 2010, two-thirds of U.S. households have an HDTV [bizjournals.com], and HDTVs accept the VGA and DVI signals from common PCs [pineight.com]. Why hasn't a PC in the living room taken off, and what can geeks to help make them more common among non-geeks?
Re: (Score:2)
Just spread the word. HTPCs sell themselves. It's just a matter of knowing what is possible.
I recommend HTPCs to people, and I point out that they don't need to buy new stuff. While it is nice to have DVI out and a video card that supports accelerated Flash, these are not required. Nor is the wireless keyboard/mouse or the special media centre software. You can just use an old machine. Windows XP and a web browser. It is easy.
Here in the UK, HTPCs have a second advantage beyond the convenience of on-deman
Re: (Score:2)
>>>From 1987 (VGA introduction) to 2006 (when HDTVs became affordable), PCs didn't have television output as a standard feature
I know you're talking about IBM PCs, but if you look at the "generic" PC, then Ataris, Commodores, and Amigas have been NTSC and PAL TV compatible since 1979, because their video output was based upon those standards.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Why hasn't a PC in the living room taken off, and what can geeks to help make them more common among non-geeks?
Old-fashioned notions that computers don't belong in the living room. For example my friend's wife will NOT let him put his computer in the living room, and instead forces him to put the computer in the upstairs office. I told her I have my computer in my living room so I can surf & watch TV at the same time and she replied, "Yeah that's because you have no taste." I countered t
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Apple TV is a little different than Google TV. It's a working product that has been making money for a while now.
You characterize Apple users who are "used to playing through the nose for a slick experience" but Apple TV owners are not Apple users any more than the legions of iPod and iPhone users are. You are taking what you think of Mac users and projecting it on to everything else.
The Apple TV is $99. The TV shows they can purchase a la carte are a few dollars per episode, without commercials. S
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Put it this way: if they wanted to make the free versions of their shows as easy to access as possible, they would provide downloadable DRM-free copies to anyone that wanted them. The point is not to make access easy, it's to make acces
Re: (Score:2)
Real life. For every person I know who browses the internet on a screen equal to or larger in size than the screen on which they watch their television, I know about 50 people who do not, and at least 30 who wouldn't consider watching TV on their computer.
And no, I don't know too many computer geeks. How can you tell?
High definition was for text (Score:3, Informative)
What is the source of this myth that "computer screens" and "televisions" are different things, having different sizes and used in different rooms?
Until 2006 or so, high definition was for text.
In the mid-1980s, home computers lost the ability to output standard-definition television as a standard feature. One needed a special monitor to display the EDTV signals (480p RGB component) from the new "VGA" video cards; TVs could handle only 480i or 576i depending on the local AC power frequency. PCs of the time were designed to show text, not video, and they added high-definition "XGA" modes to display more text on the screen. There were adapters called
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People that choose to watch the shows over the internet are actively choosing to not make regular network TV a part of their day. They aren't willing to sit down at 8 pm, 7 central to watch Chuck; they want to watch it at 6:00 am before work. 10 years ago, they would have been lost viewers.
Why would those viewers be lost? Wouldn't those viewers have used a VCR 10 years ago? Or a TiVo?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would those viewers be lost? Wouldn't those viewers have used a VCR 10 years ago? Or a TiVo?
Yes. But the networks count them as lost. The ratings provided by Nielsen et al only count live viewers. Why? Because the people who aren't watching live are less likely to see the commercials, and that's all they really care about.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>The ratings provided by Nielsen et al only count live viewers.
False.
The HouseHold ratings only count live viewers, but the Same Day and 7-Day Ratings add the DVR homes to the total.
Re:It baffles me (Score:5, Insightful)
It might be a losing battle, but I understand why companies would fight it for as long as possible. It certainly seems better to be a good TV channel than to be one of the random websites where people land if they want to watch a TV show that has significant brand recognition and for that reason cost a lot of money for the channel to have the right to broadcast it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/26/2236210/The-Simpsons-Worth-More-Per-Viewer-On-Hulu-Than-On-Fox?from=rss
Actually, some shows are worth more online than via nielsen rating driven advertising. Many shows have approached, or surpassed broadcast advertising income per viewer, and the number of shows are growing every day. The logic behind this is simple. People are more likely to actually watch/listen to the ads via Hulu than they are via broadcast. With only a single commercial during breaks, the majori
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>6:00 am before work. 10 years ago...that advertising revenue would have vanished
That's not even close to accurate. Ten years ago people had VCRs. They taped what they wanted to see, which included the ads. (Nielsen Research at the time showed most viewers didn't skip the ads.) So almost no advertising revenue was lost by the networks.
.
>>>internet ad space (for the moment) is worth less than TV ad time,
Precisely. The networks prefer that people watch (or tape) the TV ads, rather tha
This is a battle we WON'T win... (Score:5, Insightful)
The traditional TV networks, recording companies, movie producers, etc. are *never* going to give up their business model. EVER. They are dinosaurs and simply will not change. It's futile to think that they will. The only option is for them to go out of business. They will, of course, but it's going to be a long wait, unfortunately. They will continue to fight us at every turn, but eventually, they will be gone. Until then, our job is to hang in there, continue to support independent projects, use torrents so that they lose advertising revenue, and teach as many people as we know to do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
But they have already modified their business model. They provide free streamed versions of many of their high-rating shows. It's perfect for those who want to "try before they buy". Oh wait, you weren't wanting a change in business model, you just wanted them to change to the business model you wanted. Doing anything else makes them a dinosaur.
Boo hoo, this battle are the so difficults D: (Score:2)
But they have already modified their business model. They provide free streamed versions of many of their high-rating shows. It's perfect for those who want to "try before they buy". Oh wait, you weren't wanting a change in business model, you just wanted them to change to the business model you wanted. Doing anything else makes them a dinosaur.
I'm sorry, resisting what hackel wants is not what makes them dinosaurs. Resisting what the market wants is what makes them dinosaurs. The market is waning for broadcast, timeslotted, shut-up-and-eat-your-spam programming now that new technology allows time shifting and format shifting. That's what people want, what they'll spend their time on and what they'll pay to have. Why do we need a "try before you buy" of something we don't want to buy? Oh wait, it's not about what we want. It's about what you want
Re:Boo hoo, this battle are the so difficults D: (Score:4, Informative)
If I, personally, was given the choice between being called a dinosaur by morons and working thanklessly for them for free, I would rather be called a dinosaur. I'm not sure I could afford anything different.
Cable companies are now supplying DVRs, and, like I said, providing free versions of their shows online. I can't think of a format shifting example, but then again, I can't think of anyone who expects to be able to format-shift their TV. Bitch all you want, but cable companies are adapting, and you whiny pirates are revealing yourselves to be the greedy, inflexible ones in all of this. Whodathunkit?
Citation needed. Why on earth would I want anything like that?
What I do want is sustainable practices when it comes to art. I don't mind if we do away with copyright, only if we have a working, implemented, and already used system that replaces all of copyrights functions. I'm sceptical that we can find one that embraces the self-justifying pirate's sense of self-entitlement and abject greed, but like any good sceptic, I'm open to the possibilities.
Have you spouted this same crap before to me? I'm sorry if I don't remember you; you sound just like all the other self-entitled pricks I've argued with: rhetorically empty, with arguments pasted together purely out of insults.
As for the $300mil blockbuster, I think the market should decide. Nobody is forcing you, or anyone else, to see them.
Let's get this straight. You took a half-truth like "eyeballs are the product" (advertising is only a portion of their revenue), you used that to create a laughably bad analogy, and then concluded something from it about something that was only tangentially related to thing you created the analogy about? That is seriously the worst argument I have heard in at least a month or three.
I certainly agree with that. Supporting alternatives is what will get us off our dependence on Big Media. Not just downloading more from them.
Let's get this straight. Choosing to search for and illegally download from a torrent is not the same as walking down the street, hearing buskers and seeing billboards. To claim otherwise is utterly dishonest.
Re: (Score:2)
Cable companies aren't the issue. NBC, ABC, and CBS are not cable companies.
Re: (Score:2)
And why are we, both the people who use torrents and those who don't, allowing them to erode our liberties? And why aren't we throwing out a Government who legislates against us?
Personally, not only has my MEP voted against ACTA, but I'm involved with out local Pirate Party to ensure we get our message across. Ignorance is our biggest threat, not the media companies.
This is a battle we WON'T LOSE (Score:2)
On the contrary, I think just the opposite. Those TV networks can do whatever they like, but if nobody watch their shows, then it won't matter. Like music and movies, most TV shows are pure entertainment that most people can easily find substitute for. Except for news, I haven't watched any TV shows "over the air" (i.e. at the time designated by the TV network) for years already. If I cannot download or buy DVD for it, I don't watch it. It actually saves a lot of my time, and I don't have to watch any
Re: (Score:2)
"Resisting what the market wants is what makes them dinosaurs."
Umm, resisting free, unlimited, advertising free content on demand, doesn't make them dinosaurs, because it isn't actually a market.
They just need to include Bittorrent (Score:2)
Once there is a simple, uncontrollable way to distribute video with those boxes, the industry will have to react. After all, it's trivially simple today to just record a whole television station.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently with the next update you'll be able to install Android apps. I haven't looked at the Android API, but I would assume it includes everything you'd need to download a video via bittorrent and play it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well unfortunately they still probably have the technical possibility to remote-delete application.
Enable? (Score:2)
Looks like enable [merriam-webster.com] is one of those words that is its own antonym. The first definition from m-w.com is actual empowerment and the second potential empowerment. The Google statement uses the second definition. But the two definitions are as opposite as actual is from potential.
Oh wait, I'll just get modded -1 Troll by those who think I'm arrogant. Let me try this again in Slashdotese:
Uh, no it doesn't...
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no it doesn't...
No, actually it does. Really. If somebody else later disables it, that's not Google's fault, really, is it?
I'm going to bet they'll reverse the ban (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone seems to think that the networks don't know what they're doing. They're banning Google TV, when anyone with half a brain knows this sort of thing is the wave of the future. I'm willing to bet that the network execs do, in fact, have at least one half of a brain between them.
It makes perfect sense if you think, well, maybe they don't really want to ban Google TV. More likely, they want to make a deal with Google, whereby Google pays them for the privilege of using their content.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's the plan. The networks have shown over and over again that they are willing to put their shows online on your computer, but they don't want the internet distribution to end up on your TV set. They want to continue having TV distributed on "channels" during certain "time slots", because their entire business is built around the concept. They're willing to try to supplant the old business model with "new media", but they don't want to abandon the old business model for a new one.
Soone
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That, and they don't like a world where random youtube video is listed on the channel guide next to CBS. Their whole business model is based on it being hard to broadcast TV, and so they are the gateways that decide what is good enough to show, and they get paid handsomely to do it. If any studio could just put their shows on TV sets, why would they give a chunk of the revenue to some network?
Apple TV probably doesn't bother them so much, since Apple is all about getting people to pay for an experience -
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Why? More users "watching" == "more money"? Right? (Score:2)
The more views the more money, correct?
So why do they care if I use IE, Firefox, Orb, GoogleTV, etc.? Are they suggesting the more people watch the less they make? If so then why do they have this online business model at all?
From the article Hulu is blocking viewing from Google TV as well. Again, what do they care if I use Opera, IE,
Because advertisers pay less for online viewers (Score:2)
It's that simple. Apparently they'd rather people torrent.
Shit doesn't work anyway. (Score:2)
I saw a review linked from daring fireball and one of the things they noted was that various ad solutions didn't work right. I suspect this isn't the nature ofthe problem though.
Streaming vs Broadcast (Score:2, Interesting)
User Agent String (Score:2)
blocking set-top is silly, but normal (Score:2)
Suppose you were a company that had a set-top box that can access local media, pay-per-view, and free stuff, like youtube.com. Further suppose you had customers that wanted to PAY to subscribe to content, such as Major League Baseball. To anyone with enough functional brain cells to form a synapse it would seem logical that the content provider would make it easy for the company's set-top box to offer the subscription option to the PAYING customers.
Not so, of course. For example, the execs at MLB want th
Just pretend to be a desktop (Score:2)
The browser on these set-top-boxes are generally close to a desktop browser anyway so just pretend to be a desktop browser and the sites cant block you.
Although in the Google case, I think Google does NOT want to piss off the media companies by attempting to lie to web sites just so their Google TV boxes can download content the media companies dont want them downloading.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want "cable without a isp", just get cable without an isp.
Hunh? Is there some service I don't know about where I can watch HBO without a Cable, Satellite, or Telephone Provider?
not just HBO, But cable like content in general. I mean I know I can torrent it, But.... yeah....
Re:meh (Score:5, Informative)
There is one solution that's legal. You could get a dual C band dish or a C and K band, or a K and Ku band with a non-branded digital receiver and pay a satellite channel clearinghouse for channels rather than a satellite service with integrated packages of receiver and set station lists.
You'll pay more. It won't be as convenient. You'll have a positioning delay as your dish tracks to the different distribution satellites instead of a dedicated customer feed satellite like with Dish Network or Direct TV. You'll have to pay for installation and support on a consulting basis because you won't have the dedicated support staff of a subscriber-based company like Dish Network or Direct TV. You'll have increasingly uncommon equipment to keep maintained at your own expense.
On the bright side, you can get a few free satellite channels. You'll also be able to get free audio distribution channels for syndicated shows in extra audio channels of the video channels sometimes. You won't have to do business with someone also wanting to sell you Internet access. You'll just have a lot of cons to get the few pros.
Re: One solution that's legal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: One solution that's legal (Score:5, Insightful)
There's something sinister about blocking display of content on a platform that otherwise supports the tech needed for viewing. It certainly looks to be anti-competitive behavior worthy of examination by the F.C.C. or whoever.
I wonder what else they're doing.
Re:meh (Score:5, Interesting)
google tv is a solution in search of a problem. A half-assed solution at that.
Nope. A problem exists. My DVR's software is extremely clunky to the point of unusability. If you could replace that crap with a google interface that allows me to search for shows and times and allow me to use it to program the DVR, I would gladly pay for it. I understand that Dish Network is thinking about integrating it into their set top boxes. So, I might be gladly paying for it.
Add to that the fact that you can use the web on the dang thing is an absolute bonus.
Re:meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that's the *other* problem... the networks have so far treated Internet streaming of shows as an oddity that they need to get involved in to be relevant. But now that they think people may actually use it as their *primary* source of content, they are confused and terrified.
As for integrating into DVRs - that would be interesting. But the DVR industry is basically made up of 2 camps today - the innovative, struggling companies (Tivo, Moxi, etc) relying on govt regulations like CableCard to survive at all. And the big, bloated cable hardware suppliers (General Instruments aka Motorola, and Scientific Atlanta aka Cisco) that have no concept of user interface or quality control, but have enough influence to dominate the OEM cable box market.
In the end, though, content availability is all about the providers/owners feeling comfortable with the (revenue from the) distribution model. Can they make a profit with free online content with ads? Do they get enough share from an iTunes transaction? Will they get enough of a cut from a monthly fee in a subscription service? It's going to be an interesting battle...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's the deal.
Anybody with a current video card probably has TV out, So basically anything you can squeeze down to 640 * 480 can be streamed to the TV. The trick is to click on the little buttons of each website's player to go full screen. So, a user using this method can port anything to the TV, but clicking that little full screen button is harder than it looks. There's different players, some may be in a browser, some may not, some may be on your hard drive, regardless, pushing that full screen b
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, get an old laptop and throw it under the couch or somewhere close, string a couple of wires to the TV (tv-out to SCART here in uk, YTVMV) and plug a wireless keyboard and wireless optical mouse in.
Now you can lie on the couch and watch web content while filling the wireless keyboard with cheeto dust.
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody with a current video card probably has TV out
Most PCs are sold without video cards. Onboard video typically has either only VGA out or only VGA and DVI out. Most non-geeks aren't aware that DVI is the same thing as HDMI, that their TVs take VGA signals, and that adapters are available [sewelldirect.com] to turn a VGA signal into an SDTV signal. And they would prefer not to carry the family PC back and forth between the desk and TV and fumble with cables every time they want to watch a show.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed, saying there is no need for an accessible software platform for set-tops is like saying there's no need for one on smartphones. 6 years ago you might have had some credibility in saying that about phones -- today, with iOS & Android out, you'd just sound like an idiot.
The manufacturers of TV accessory equipment haven't progressed much more software-wise than did the old-era dumbphone lineups -- they even intentionally cripple devices in the same way. It's wonderful when the entire fucking indust
Re: (Score:2)
They're wondering why Google should generate additional revenue off their viewers without their getting a cut. As long as Google is generating huge profits, but generating almost no content themselves, that's a fair question. And I'm sure there's some way Google is making money off this. Google needs to figure out how to be a "good parasite" in a number of areas. Otherwise, they're going to find less and less useful content for them to use to shovel ads at users.
There's also the point that the networks don'