<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;television&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:13:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>HBO's One Attempt At A Standalone Digital Service Sucks</title>
<dc:creator>Leigh Beadon</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/11385121704/hbos-one-attempt-standalone-digital-service-sucks.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/11385121704/hbos-one-attempt-standalone-digital-service-sucks.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>In my recent post about the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/18442221671/dear-hbo-disney-netflix-et-al-fragmenting-online-tv-lets-piracy-keep-its-biggest-advantage.shtml">fragmentation of online television</a>, there were a few aspects and details I left out because they seemed worthy of a separate, closer look. One is the oft-forgotten fact that HBO does indeed offer one lonely digital-only subscription service... to customers in Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway. That program was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120902/20364620255/hbo-hooks-up-nordic-cord-cutters-offers-standalone-streaming-service.shtml">announced last year</a> and seemed like a promising step for the notoriously cable-dedicated HBO&mdash;but the customer feedback is coming in, and <a href="http://www.arcticstartup.com/2013/01/08/hbo-nordics-underwhelms-early-adopters" target="_blank">the results are not encouraging</a>:</p>
<blockquote><em>A list of complaints include HD content is (was?) only available on Samsung Smart TVs, meaning you were only given SD quality when streaming through your computer or any other device. Same goes for surround sound and 5.1, which are only available through the Samsung TV app. Other complaints I've heard includes buffering problems with the Widevine plugin (at standard definition), and lack of Apple Airplay support. The product is available as iOS and Android apps, but Xbox and Playstation apps are still said to be under development.
<br /><br />
The online UI is nice to look at but was poorly designed; initially HBO only allowed you to search for TV shows by alphabetical letter. The results were underwhelming and exaggerated how little content HBO was offering.
<br /><br />...<br /><br />
It should be noted that you're not given access to the full back catalogue, several classics are not available such as Deadwood and Oz, which apparently have some copyright restrictions.</em></blockquote>
<p>Some might claim it's still a good deal at &euro;9.95/month, considering most people can't access <em>any</em> of these shows legally without a full cable package. Of course, Netflix only costs &euro;7.99/month in the region, and has a larger selection, which makes the price a little less impressive. Then there's the fact that HBO <a href="http://www.kilkku.com/blog/2012/12/how-to-alienate-your-fan-base-hbo-nordic-launch-in-finland/">initially promised much, much more</a>:</p>
<blockquote><em><ul>
<li>Every episode of all HBO series available online</li>
<li>All new episodes available within 24 hours of the US premiere, with local subtitles (dubbing is rare in the Nordics, foreign TV shows and movies are usually subtitled in the local language)</li>
<li>Works on practically all devices: smartphones, tablets (Android, iOS), computers (Windows, Linux, Mac), video game consoles (PS3, Xbox), Samsung Smart TVs and Blu-ray players, and Sonera IPTV service</li>
<li>Full HD 1080p picture quality</li>
<li>Surround sound</li>
</ul></em></blockquote>
<p>Compare that to the list of complaints, and you realize HBO isn't doing a great job of living up to the expectations it created. Then there's the other truly insane catch: <strong>customers are locked into a 12-month contract, after which they must give 3-month notice for cancellation.</strong> Yeah. Moreover, the terms stated that simply logging into the service <em>once</em> waives your ability to cancel it because you're not satisfied (despite using the service being the only way to know if you are satisfied). After facing significant criticism for this move, HBO backtracked and offered subscribers the chance to use the service until the end of this month without a longer commitment&mdash;<a href="http://campaign.hbonordic.com/of/fi/">but only those subscribers who also signed up for the HBO Nordic newsletter</a>. Classy.</p>
<p>It's no real surprise that HBO's first attempt at a standalone online offering is a disaster. HBO approaches the internet with extreme trepidation, but revolution requires gusto. Digital distribution&mdash;especially when it comes to competing with piracy&mdash;is a go big or go home endeavor. Or... go halfway, and watch your customers go elsewhere.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/11385121704/hbos-one-attempt-standalone-digital-service-sucks.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/11385121704/hbos-one-attempt-standalone-digital-service-sucks.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/11385121704/hbos-one-attempt-standalone-digital-service-sucks.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>surprise-surprise</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130116/11385121704</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:01:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Aereo Wins Round One Against Broadcasters; Judge Rejects Injunction &amp; Allows Service To Live</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120711/22343219668/aereo-wins-round-one-against-broadcasters-judge-rejects-injunction-allows-service-to-live.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120711/22343219668/aereo-wins-round-one-against-broadcasters-judge-rejects-injunction-allows-service-to-live.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been covering the ridiculous <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=aereo">legal fight</a> over Aereo for a few months now.  If you don't remember, Aereo is a company that offers -- for a fee -- to let people watch over-the-air broadcast TV (not cable, so just the small number of broadcast stations) online.  Basically, what they do is set up antennas in a building in Brooklyn -- with one antenna per customer -- and then connect that antenna to the internet so the person can watch.  The TV broadcasters flipped out <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120302/00190517940/tv-networks-gang-up-to-sue-aereo-do-copyright-rules-change-based-length-cable.shtml">and sued</a>. 
<br /><br />
As we've noted, in essence, this is another lawsuit that asks the question: do the copyright rules change depending on the length of your cable.  That is, we know that it's legal to put up an antenna yourself and watch what you get.  That's how broadcast TV works.  We also know that it's almost certainly legal (it hasn't directly been tested) to take the legal TV you are accessing and then place-shift it so you can watch it over the internet (like with a Slingbox).  So, if you combine those two things, why would it suddenly be illegal?  The only real difference is that the antenna and the place shifting device sit in Aereo's building rather than in your own home.  So, it's just that the "cable" length between the users and the devices is longer.  Why should the length of the cable determine whether something is infringing or not?  In a few related legal cases, the rulings have been mixed.
<br /><br />
There was the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110222/11395313211/court-not-impressed-with-ivis-legal-loopholes-shoots-online-tv-broadcaster-down.shtml">ivi</a> case, where the company offered a very similar service, but went with a different legal theory (relying on compulsory licensing rules)... which has so far been shot down in court.  Then there was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110317/03194613525/if-remote-dvrs-are-legal-what-about-remote-dvd-players.shtml">the Zediva</a> case which relied on a very similar theory, but with DVDs (i.e., the company had a separate DVD player for each customer and let you watch movies streamed from that individual player).  In that case, the court issued <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111031/04020316568/mpaa-kills-more-innovation-zediva-shut-down-permanently.shtml">an injunction</a> and the company shut down.  Finally, there's the  <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090520/0255534947.shtml">Cablevision ruling</a> in which the TV guys went after Cablevision for offering a remote DVR feature.  In a somewhat convoluted, but important, ruling, it was found that a remote DVR could be legal and non-infringing.
<br /><br />
While the networks seriously argued that anything that caused anyone to think about cancelling their cable subscriptions could be <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120531/10124119152/tv-network-exec-argues-that-anything-that-causes-cable-subscribers-to-cut-cord-is-illegal.shtml">illegal</a>, the judge in the Aereo case, Alison Nathan, has <b>refused to grant a preliminary injunction</b> (basically doing the opposite of what happened in the Zediva ruling).  Zediva was in a different court (and only reached the district court level anyway) so that ruling had little direct influence here.  The Cablevision ruling, however, was pretty clearly instrumental in saving Aereo from being shut down.
<br /><br />
Much of the ruling focused on what seems like a relatively tangential question: whether Aereo is really creating an individual antenna for each customer, or if it's just building a giant single antenna.  More or less, it's a question of whether or not each individual antenna works with the others to better capture the signal.  This is also known as a totally stupid debate.  I mean, if you were to step back and just look at this from a <i>common sense</i> standpoint, you'd say the fact that Aereo has to set up a different antenna for each customer is pretty stupid.  There's no technical reason to do so, only a legal one.  It is an expense that serves only to satisfy a legal demand, which is by definition an inefficiency introduced into the market for no reason other than to keep lawyers happy.
<br /><br />
But, here, the judge ruled that the individual antenna theory applies, and thanks almost entirely to the Cablevision ruling, there's no reason to issue a preliminary injunction.  The networks tried some bizarre theories about why Cablevision didn't apply, but the judge saw through all of the attempts at misdirection:
<blockquote><i>
Despite this creative attempt to escape from the express holding of Cablevision, for the
reasons discussed below this Court finds itself constrained to reject the approach Plaintiffs urge.
Contrary to Plaintiffs' arguments, the copies Aereo's system creates are not materially
distinguishable from those in Cablevision, which found that the transmission was made from
those copies rather than from the incoming signal. Moreover, Plaintiffs' attempt to distinguish
Cablevision based on time-shifting fails when confronted with the reasoning of that case,
particularly considering that the Second Circuit's analysis was directly focused on the
significance of Cablevision' s copies but did not say one word to suggest that time-shifting played
any part in its holding.
</i></blockquote>
From there, the ruling goes into a wonderfully thorough debunking of the networks' attempt to ignore the ruling in Cablevision and a detailed explanation for why Aereo is quite similar to Cablevision.  In the end, the judge also bars the preliminary injunction due to the lack of irreparable harm if the service keeps going for the duration of the trial.  The court actually says that it can see how there is a clear case that the networks could suffer irreperable harm, in the form of losing viewers and advertisers -- but that since that "harm" is a longterm one, there's little reason to issue an injunction right now.  Separately, the court recognizes that an injunction would almost certainly be "irreparable harm" for Aereo, as it would effectively be a death sentence (as was the case with Zediva).   Either way, however, the level of detail the court uses in laying out why Aereo is so similar Cablevision does not bode well for the networks' overall case.
<br /><br />
This case is far from over, but in round one, the networks' key argument appears to have taken quite a beating.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120711/22343219668/aereo-wins-round-one-against-broadcasters-judge-rejects-injunction-allows-service-to-live.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120711/22343219668/aereo-wins-round-one-against-broadcasters-judge-rejects-injunction-allows-service-to-live.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120711/22343219668/aereo-wins-round-one-against-broadcasters-judge-rejects-injunction-allows-service-to-live.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-do-you-define-your-antenna</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120711/22343219668</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 07:48:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Viacom Uses Fans As Hostages: Blocks Daily Show, Colbert Streams For Everyone To Spite DirecTV</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120712/03405119672/viacom-uses-fans-as-hostages-blocks-daily-show-colbert-streams-everyone-to-spite-directv.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120712/03405119672/viacom-uses-fans-as-hostages-blocks-daily-show-colbert-streams-everyone-to-spite-directv.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ So, as the dispute between Viacom and DirecTV over how much money Viacom wants for its channels wore on, the various Viacom channels like MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodian <a href="http://www.dailynews.com/ci_21052656/directv-drops-daily-show-mtv-over-viacom-contract?source=most_viewed" target="_blank">disappeared for DirecTV subscribers</a>.  As often happens in such situations, DirecTV told its customers that they regretted the situation and were working on it, <i>but</i> in the meantime, they could check out missing programs online.  Viacom's massive overkill response?  <a href="http://adage.com/article/media/viacom-stops-free-streams-daily-show-directv-fight/235984/" target="_blank">Pull the free streams it offers online</a> of two of its most popular shows: <i>The Daily Show</i> and <i>The Colbert Report</i>.  For everyone.  Not just DirecTV subscribers.  Because, apparently, pissing off consumers and driving them to unauthorized means, is... um... I don't know... supposedly going to get them on Viacom's side?  This is the kind of "strategic" thinking that goes on at Viacom, apparently.  
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/0if5D"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/0if5D.png" title="Hosted by imgur.com" alt="" /></a>
</center>
Of course, this really highlights the exceptionally distorted economics of the cable/satellite TV business, where it makes more sense to <i>block</i> your direct relationship with fans and piss them off... in the hopes that it might make the satellite provider to pay you more money.  Viacom's new motto, apparently, is: <b>Using our fans as hostages</b>.  This is why the TV market is so ripe for disruption.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120712/03405119672/viacom-uses-fans-as-hostages-blocks-daily-show-colbert-streams-everyone-to-spite-directv.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120712/03405119672/viacom-uses-fans-as-hostages-blocks-daily-show-colbert-streams-everyone-to-spite-directv.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120712/03405119672/viacom-uses-fans-as-hostages-blocks-daily-show-colbert-streams-everyone-to-spite-directv.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>um.-overkill</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120712/03405119672</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:05:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>CBS Mocks Its Own Failed Copyright Lawsuit By Sarcastically Announcing New 'Completely Original' Show 'Dancing On The Stars'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120621/01482419410/cbs-mocks-its-own-failed-copyright-lawsuit-sarcastically-announcing-new-completely-original-show-dancing-stars.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120621/01482419410/cbs-mocks-its-own-failed-copyright-lawsuit-sarcastically-announcing-new-completely-original-show-dancing-stars.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few weeks back, we wrote about a silly lawsuit from CBS, arguing that it could basically hold the copyright on some of the most basic concepts in reality TV.  CBS was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120507/02423318800/can-you-copyright-most-basic-concepts-reality-tv.shtml">suing</a> ABC, because ABC was about to put on <i>Glass House</i>, which was similar to CBS's <i>Big Brother</i>.  Of course, this is the nature of TV and most people deal with it.  You can't copyright <i>an idea</i> (or so we're told) but that doesn't seem to stop big companies from pretending otherwise.  Here, at least, the judge wasn't convinced.  He <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/tv-column/post/judge-tentatively-nixes-cbs-bid-to-block-glass-house-launch/2012/06/15/gJQA0k1efV_blog.html" target="_blank">refused to issue an injunction</a> blocking the showing of <i>Glass House</i>, and noted that it certainly looked like the ideas were different:
<blockquote>
 "I think is very likely to induce quite different behavior than one would expect to see in the 'Big Brother' show."
</blockquote>
CBS had put out a statement saying that it would keep fighting the lawsuit, but apparently it decided on another way to fight this as well: by snarky press release.  In something that honestly reads like it was meant for April Fool's Day (and caused many people to wonder if CBS's system had been hacked), the company put out a <a href="http://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-entertainment/releases/view?id=32146" target"_blank">mocking and sarcastic press release</a> supposedly announcing a "groundbreaking and completely original new reality program" called <i>Dancing on the Stars</i>.  Here's the full press release:
<blockquote><i>
<center>CBS ANNOUNCES DEVELOPMENT OF &#8220;DANCING ON THE STARS,&#8221; AN EXCITING AND COMPLETELY ORIGINAL REALITY PROGRAM THAT OWES ITS CONCEPT AND EXECUTION TO NOBODY AT ALL</center>
<br /><br />
            Los Angeles, June 20, 2012 &#8211; Subsequent to recent developments in the creative and legal community, CBS Television today felt it was appropriate to reveal the upcoming launch of an exciting, groundbreaking and completely original new reality program for the CBS Television Network.
<br /><br />
The dazzling new show, DANCING ON THE STARS, will be broadcast live from the Hollywood Forever Cemetery, and will feature moderately famous and sort of well-known people you almost recognize competing for big prizes by dancing on the graves of some of Hollywood&#8217;s most iconic and well-beloved stars of stage and screen.
<br /><br />
The cemetery, the first in Hollywood, was founded in 1899 and now houses the remains of Andrew &#8220;Fatty&#8221; Arbuckle, producer Cecil B. DeMille, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Paul Muni, Benjamin &#8220;Bugsy&#8221; Siegel, George Harrison of the Beatles and Dee Dee Ramone of the Ramones, among many other great stars of stage, screen and the music business. The company noted that permission to broadcast from the location is pending, and that if efforts in that regard are unsuccessful, approaches will be made to Westwood Village Memorial Park, where equally scintillating luminaries are interred.
<br /><br />
&#8220;This very creative enterprise will bring a new sense of energy and fun that&#8217;s totally unlike anything anywhere else, honest,&#8221; said a CBS spokesperson, who also revealed that the Company has been working with a secret team for several months on the creation of the series, which was completely developed by the people at CBS independent of any other programming on the air. &#8220;Given the current creative and legal environment in the reality programming business, we&#8217;re sure nobody will have any problem with this title or our upcoming half-hour comedy for primetime, POSTMODERN FAMILY.&#8221;
<br /><br />
&#8220;After all,&#8221; the spokesperson added, &#8220;people who live in glass houses shouldn&#8217;t throw stones.&#8221; 
</i></blockquote>
Yeah, that last sentence might push this one a bit far over the top, don't you think?  This is the kind of response that people have and joke about <i>internally</i>.  They don't release it to the world.   I will grant you that it's amusing, but it also seems pretty petulant for a company having lost the basic argument in its lawsuit.  If it really is going to fight on with this lawsuit, perhaps so publicly mocking the judge who ruled against you isn't such a good idea.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120621/01482419410/cbs-mocks-its-own-failed-copyright-lawsuit-sarcastically-announcing-new-completely-original-show-dancing-stars.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120621/01482419410/cbs-mocks-its-own-failed-copyright-lawsuit-sarcastically-announcing-new-completely-original-show-dancing-stars.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120621/01482419410/cbs-mocks-its-own-failed-copyright-lawsuit-sarcastically-announcing-new-completely-original-show-dancing-stars.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-snark-is-strong-with-this-one</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120621/01482419410</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 05:04:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Google Books Data Mining Reveals Mad Men's Big Historical Flaw: Business Lingo</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120616/01535419358/google-books-data-mining-reveals-mad-mens-big-historical-flaw-business-lingo.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120616/01535419358/google-books-data-mining-reveals-mad-mens-big-historical-flaw-business-lingo.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The TV show <i>Mad Men</i> has quite a reputation for going to great lengths to be as authentic as possible.  The clothes, the props, the scenarios are all supposedly thought out in great detail.  While some who were actually in the business at the time <a href="http://adage.com/article/rance-crain/real-scoop-ad-age-mad-men-era/145094/" target="_blank">quibble</a> with certain aspects of the show, it cannot be denied that the show's producers certainly go way beyond other period pieces to try to make keep everything accurate for the time period.  However, it turns out that there's one area where it appears the writers have completely flopped: period-specific <i>language</i>.  <i>On The Media</i> ran an absolutely fascinating clip about a researcher who has shown <a href="http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/jun/15/lexicon-valley-takes-mad-men/" target="_blank">how frequently <i>Mad Men</i> uses words or phrases that were not in popular usage</a> at the time, but only came into the lexicon at a later date:
<center>
<iframe width="474" height="54" frameborder="0" src="http://www.onthemedia.org/widgets/ondemand_player/#file=%2Faudio%2Fxspf%2F216808%2F;containerClass=onthemedia"></iframe>
</center>
<br />
This is actually a cross-broadcast of another podcast, <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2012/06/lexicon_valley_anachronisms_in_mad_men_downton_abbey_and_edith_wharton_.html" target="_blank">Lexicon Valley</a>, and it's covering the work of Ben Schmidt, who has produced a software algorithm that compares the <i>Mad Men</i> scripts... to a searchable database of language from Google's book scanning project.  Schmidt's algorithm compares the language from the show with scanned books from the same period.  Schmidt has a website, <a href="http://www.prochronism.com/" target="_blank">Prochronism</a>, which covers his findings.  I can't quite explain why, but it's really quite fascinating.
<br /><br />
Schmidt has found that the show is pretty good about getting language about <i>technology</i> right (with one exception).  It knows that there aren't fax machines and computers and stuff.  The one area where it gets things wrong, is with <i>the phone</i>.  For example, using the phrase <a href="http://www.prochronism.com/2012/06/eps-11-12-defining-moment-on-hold.html" target="_blank">"on hold."</a>  He notes that phones had hold buttons, but there wasn't yet a concept of the state of being "on hold."  That showed up in the 70s.
<br /><br />
What Schmidt has also found is that the show is absolutely <i>terrible</i> about getting "business" terms correct in a period specific way.  That same post about "on hold" also chides the show for using "defining moment," another phrase that showed up in the 70s, but was basically stuck in academia until the late 80s or early 90s when it became a popular phrase.
<br /><br />
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/W3rJj"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/W3rJj.png" width=560 /></a>
</center>
<br />
Honestly, Ben's site is really fascinating.  I could spend hours on it (and actually had to stop going through it post by post to finish this post).  There are also discussions on phrases like "focus groups" and "leverage."  But one more awesome chart from Ben, discussing the use of both <a href="http://www.prochronism.com/2012/06/eps-9-10-moral-high-ground-of.html" target="_blankl">"moral high ground" and "consumerism,"</a> both of which were barely in use until much later:
<br /><br />
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/Dw6xi"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/Dw6xi.png" width=560 /></a>
</center>
<br />
On the podcast, they discuss how part of the reason that the show gets the language about technology right, but not business, is because we <i>know</i> that technology rapidly evolves and we're more attuned to it.  But people don't pay nearly as much attention to how business changes and especially how the language of business changes over time.  I guess that's true, though it doesn't surprise me that "consumerism" and "moral high ground" are both more recent phenomena.  "Defining moment" and "on hold" are a bit more surprising to me.
<br /><br />
Either way, I also wanted to highlight something else about all of this that I find fascinating.  For all the talk by some about just how evil Google's book scanning project is, this kind of effort and research <i>wouldn't be possible</i> without large scale scanning of books.  While this particular example may appear (on its face) to be a frivolous (even if it's fascinating) area of research, it does highlight just how collection of certain data can open up vast arrays of data that can be mined in useful ways.  When people freak out about new technologies and services, they almost always focus on how it impacts the old offerings.  So most of the talk was about book scanning and its impact on book sales.  But what almost no one talks about is how it enables new things that simply weren't possible before -- such as being able to build an algorithm like the one Ben built.  Those kinds of innovations -- the unexpected "externalities" of projects like the Google book scanning project -- shouldn't be ignored, because there's tremendous value that can come out of them.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120616/01535419358/google-books-data-mining-reveals-mad-mens-big-historical-flaw-business-lingo.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120616/01535419358/google-books-data-mining-reveals-mad-mens-big-historical-flaw-business-lingo.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120616/01535419358/google-books-data-mining-reveals-mad-mens-big-historical-flaw-business-lingo.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>keep-a-low-profile</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120616/01535419358</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:16:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DOJ Realizes That Comcast &#038; Time Warner Are Trying To Prop Up Cable By Holding Back Hulu &#038; Netflix</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120614/01292519313/doj-realizes-that-comcast-time-warner-are-trying-to-prop-up-cable-holding-back-hulu-netflix.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120614/01292519313/doj-realizes-that-comcast-time-warner-are-trying-to-prop-up-cable-holding-back-hulu-netflix.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For quite some time now, we've been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/01524013905/why-does-entertainment-industry-seek-to-kill-any-innovation-thats-helping-it-adapt.shtml">reporting</a> on how the big television players were so upset that Hulu and Netflix were dragging them kicking and screaming into the 21st century (even though they owned Hulu) that they were working on <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110324/17421513618/hollywood-continues-its-plan-to-kill-netflix.shtml">plans</a> to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110930/13341216152/tv-companies-plan-to-make-hulu-suck-even-more-making-it-more-difficult-to-sell-hulu.shtml">kill off</a> both services -- or at least cripple them.  Mostly, what this goes back to is the inevitable fact that the internet is going to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120604/04210719187/duh-tv-business-is-verge-collapse.shtml">subsume</a> television.  But, these days, there's <i>so much</i> <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101022/17112211553/mark-cuban-it-s-okay-for-broadcasters-to-block-access-based-on-browsers-because-they-re-making-billions.shtml">money</a> in TV, thanks to the ability to be a gatekeeper, that all efforts are on holding back the internet for as long as is humanly possible.   Want to know <i>why</i> HBO <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120606/19135519231/correction-earn-my-money-hbo.shtml">refuses</a> to offer a standalone internet streaming option?  It's because of the monopolistic power of cable.
<br /><br />
This has all been pretty obvious for years, but the Justice Department has finally <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-13/u-s-said-to-probe-cable-company-competition-with-online-video.html" target="_blank">begun investigating Comcast/NBC Universal and Time Warner Cable</a> to see if any of their actions with regards to Netflix and Hulu trip the antitrust wire.  In particular, they seem focused on whether or not tiered broadband plans are actually designed to keep people from using competing online services, and preventing people from cord cutting.  For Comcast, the risk may be much higher.  As part of the merger with NBC Universal, it made certain promises to the government concerning how it treats online services.  If it's not living up to those promises, it could mean trouble.
<br /><br />
Unlike some <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120523/04204919033/antitrust-complaints-against-google-still-dont-make-any-sense.shtml">other</a> antitrust investigations, this is one where you can make a strong case that these companies are making life worse for consumers, by using their natural monopoly positions to keep prices artificially high.  That said, I have little faith that the DOJ will get things right with the investigation.  I think it's likely that the natural economic pressure of cord cutting (which, despite <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120531/03352019133/hollywood-super-agent-ari-emanuel-mystified-that-google-doesnt-just-invent-magic-stop-piracy-button.shtml">denials</a> from Hollywood and the cable industry, is very very real) is going to have much more of an impact on the eventual massive reconfiguration of the television market than any antitrust lawsuit.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120614/01292519313/doj-realizes-that-comcast-time-warner-are-trying-to-prop-up-cable-holding-back-hulu-netflix.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120614/01292519313/doj-realizes-that-comcast-time-warner-are-trying-to-prop-up-cable-holding-back-hulu-netflix.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120614/01292519313/doj-realizes-that-comcast-time-warner-are-trying-to-prop-up-cable-holding-back-hulu-netflix.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>took-'em-long-enough</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120614/01292519313</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2012 05:10:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Red Green Show Thrives Thanks To The Internet And A Whole Lot Of Duct Tape</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120502/06373818741/red-green-show-thrives-thanks-to-internet-whole-lot-duct-tape.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120502/06373818741/red-green-show-thrives-thanks-to-internet-whole-lot-duct-tape.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ This one is a tad old, but it is certainly worth sharing. A while back, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=nealtime">Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased)</a> sent in this great interview with Steve Smith, the creative mind and star of the Red Green Show. This show, for those who are not familiar with it, is the amalgamation of comedy, handyman, and personal counseling all wrapped up in duct tape and presented by the backwoods host Red Green. Just to give you a taste of what this show has to offer, here is one of my favorite skits from the show.
<br /><br />
<center><iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MFAgQZCGs3U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>
<br /><br />
In this interview, Steve describes a <a href="http://www.amestrib.com/sections/entertainment/theater/meet-steve-smith-handyman-behind-red-green.html" target="_blank">few interesting things about what has happened to the show in the five years since it was taken off the air</a>. 
<blockquote> 
<i>Q: It&rsquo;s been more than five years since the show signed off, so how is the fan base growing?
<br /> <br /> 
A: Two things: No. 1 YouTube. I mean fans are putting clips up there, and we are getting response, and we are getting new viewers that have never seen the show, only the clips on YouTube. And then we started putting them up ourselves. We are putting all the episodes up. We have about 120 episodes on YouTube now. Soon we will have all 300 up.
<br /> <br />
The second one is Facebook. We are almost at 500,000 followers on Facebook, so we have this line of communication. So between those two, I&rsquo;d say brand awareness is more than ever." </i> 
</blockquote> 
What I find interesting here is that Steve has embraced the full potential of YouTube. Not only does he upload videos, he actually allows and encourages the uploading of clips by users. This line of thought is something that is completely absent from many others in the television and movie industries. They would rather control what is shared and what people are allowed to watch. Unfortunately for them, that attitude only results in a stale online presence. The ability for new fans to find your show and share it is key to surviving in this internet age. 
<br /><br />
Next we have Steve contemplating the future of the show. 
<blockquote> 
<i>Q: Will you ever bring the character back to television?
<br /> <br /> 
A: I really doubt it. For one thing, I&rsquo;m really preferring the Internet to television these days. I like having direct contact with the fans rather than having to go through some middle man or interpreter. If I was to do anything, I would probably do it on the Internet rather than on TV.</i> 
<br /><br /> 
<i> Q: Have you considered a YouTube series or something similar?
<br /> <br /> 
A: Yeah. We&rsquo;ve got some people that we&rsquo;re talking to now that might want to do something like that, and that would interest me as opposed to the whole mess of a television series where you have to worry about the network folks. We don&rsquo;t necessarily have overlapping agendas, and the older I get the harder it gets."</i> 
</blockquote> 
Many skeptics of online business models would probably laugh at Steve over these responses. Those skeptics claim that the only way to succeed is to go through old and dying channels of television and theaters. Sadly, these same skeptics also would gloss over the fact that the Red Green Show has had more success in the five years it has been off the air than the entire time it was on air. 
<br /><br />
Another key point to take from this interview is the importance of connecting with fans. Much like many artists before him, Steve has recognized that and has placed the value of that connection far higher than any deal that a gatekeeper would offer. Why would Steve abandon what he has accomplished in the last five years to go back to being relegated to 10:30 pm Friday night on public television? Wouldn't you rather give your fans 24 hour access to your content and in turn have 24 hour access to your fans?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120502/06373818741/red-green-show-thrives-thanks-to-internet-whole-lot-duct-tape.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120502/06373818741/red-green-show-thrives-thanks-to-internet-whole-lot-duct-tape.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120502/06373818741/red-green-show-thrives-thanks-to-internet-whole-lot-duct-tape.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>quando-omni-flunkus-moritati</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120502/06373818741</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Jun 2012 07:02:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Duh: The TV Business Is On The Verge Of Collapse</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120604/04210719187/duh-tv-business-is-verge-collapse.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120604/04210719187/duh-tv-business-is-verge-collapse.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been noting for quite some time that the old TV economic model is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090324/0004194221.shtml">unsustainable</a> -- and pretty much the only argument we've seen in favor of TV as it works today is that for now it still makes a ton of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101022/17112211553/mark-cuban-it-s-okay-for-broadcasters-to-block-access-based-on-browsers-because-they-re-making-billions.shtml">money</a>.  But that's a reason why the TV guys like it -- not a reason for the public to continue to embrace it.   In fact, with cable/satellite TV costing so much these days just to feed those economics, more and more people are seeking alternatives.  The Hollywood guys remain <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120531/03352019133/hollywood-super-agent-ari-emanuel-mystified-that-google-doesnt-just-invent-magic-stop-piracy-button.shtml">in complete denial</a> about this, insisting that when people "grow up" they suddenly decide to pay tons of money for TV.
<br /><br />
But that's increasingly not the case, and it's not difficult at all to <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/tv-business-collapse-2012-6" target="_blank">predict that TV is facing a pretty big crisis</a>, which could lead to a pretty rapid decimation of the business.  At that link, Henry Blodget makes the right comparison: to the newspapers.  They denied there was any real problem with their business for ages -- and were shocked at how quickly the market changed.
<br /><br />
This is a point that we've raised for over a decade concerning businesses going through disruption.  The standard refrain when the disruption comes along is to insist that it's no threat at all.  After all, it's "crappy" compared to the established player.  But then things get better, and it starts eating into market share -- and we're told that it's just a temporary thing, or a "cyclical" market.  At some point, the blame game starts ramping up -- and we're told that "piracy" or stupid execs giving things away for free are to blame.  And then there's my favorite: execs in the legacy industry demanding that they can't change until someone tells them how to make the same amount of money and spend the same amount of money as before.  But that's not how disruption works.  While it almost always <i>creates</i> larger markets, it does so by changing the game and having that money pop up somewhere else -- somewhere that's difficult for the legacy players to capture without being true visionaries (which they almost never are).  And that change happens really, really fast.  So when you see legacy execs demanding to know how they can make what they used to make -- as Ari Emanuel recently did concerning television -- it's a key sign that the legacy business is about to collapse, and its main players have no idea.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120604/04210719187/duh-tv-business-is-verge-collapse.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120604/04210719187/duh-tv-business-is-verge-collapse.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120604/04210719187/duh-tv-business-is-verge-collapse.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-happening</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120604/04210719187</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 13:09:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>TV Network Exec Argues That Anything That Causes Cable Subscribers To Cut The Cord Is Illegal</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120531/10124119152/tv-network-exec-argues-that-anything-that-causes-cable-subscribers-to-cut-cord-is-illegal.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120531/10124119152/tv-network-exec-argues-that-anything-that-causes-cable-subscribers-to-cut-cord-is-illegal.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Okay, let's start this out right by noting that the headline is only <i>slight</i> hyperbole.  We've already talked about the TV networks <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120302/00190517940/tv-networks-gang-up-to-sue-aereo-do-copyright-rules-change-based-length-cable.shtml">suing Aereo</a> for letting people connect, via the internet, to a TV antenna that picks up over-the-air (i.e., free) TV programming in NYC.  I still can't quite figure out what the legal argument is here, other than that it upsets their business model.  Watching over-the-air TV programming is, obviously, perfectly legal.  We've yet to see a competent claim that place shifting legal TV is illegal.  About the only real complaint is that this has the chance to drive more people to cut the cord, rather than pay ridiculously high cable/satellite TV prices.  Of course, the networks these days thrive because of the insanely high carriage fees they get to charge the cable/satellite guys to include their network programming.
<br /><br />
But, you know, disrupting the TV networks business model isn't illegal.
<br /><br />
Yet, as with the DISH Networks case, wherein the networks seem to be claiming that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/04185919074/tv-networks-file-legal-claims-saying-skipping-commercials-is-copyright-infringement.shtml">skipping commercials</a> is illegal, the networks in the Aereo case don't seem to have much of an argument other than "this disrupts our business model."
<br /><br />
In a hearing about whether or not the court should issue a preliminary injunction (as has happened in the similar, but different in important ways, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100921/11173011095/company-claims-legal-right-to-stream-broadcast-tv-online-broadcasters-disagree.shtml">ivi</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110802/02374615353/court-shuts-down-zediva-apparently-length-cable-determines-if-something-is-infringing.shtml">Zediva</a> cases) the judge didn't just roll over for the networks, and <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/barry-diller-aereo-hearing-330951?utm_source=dlvr.it&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">allowed Aereo's lawyers to grill an exec from CBS</a>, who more or less admitted that they think (1) the DVR is a bigger threat than Aereo and (2) that their main issue is that Aereo may lead to more cord cutting.
<br /><br />
But, again, getting more people to cut the cord isn't illegal.  This is, once again, appearing like a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071004/163314.shtml">"felony interference with a business model"</a> case.  The network exec actually tried to make the argument on the stand that the fact that someone might cancel their cable subscription to use Aereo (cord cutting) is a form of "harm" that requires Aereo be shut down by preliminary injunction.  Thankfully, the judge wasn't buying that logic:
<blockquote><i>
The judge also got into the act somewhat, addressing broadcasters' insistence that any customer who cancels his or her cable service to sign up with Aereo is a problem. How does subtracting one subscriber impact advertising, asked the judge, which caused the CBS executive to admit that it would have to be one Nielsen household that canceled for impact, and later that it would more likely have to be a substantial number of defections.
</i></blockquote>
There was some other damning info that came out in the hearing, including the fact that the TV networks refused to even talk to Aereo, never sent a cease &#038; desist, and only decided to sue once they found out that Barry Diller was backing Aereo.  Hopefully, the judge refuses the injunction.  At the very least, it's good that he's not willing to just roll over and kill innovative startups because they mess with the entertainment industry's business model.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120531/10124119152/tv-network-exec-argues-that-anything-that-causes-cable-subscribers-to-cut-cord-is-illegal.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120531/10124119152/tv-network-exec-argues-that-anything-that-causes-cable-subscribers-to-cut-cord-is-illegal.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120531/10124119152/tv-network-exec-argues-that-anything-that-causes-cable-subscribers-to-cut-cord-is-illegal.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>felony-interference-with-a-business-model</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120531/10124119152</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 06:42:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>TV Networks File Legal Claims Saying Skipping Commercials Is Copyright Infringement</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/04185919074/tv-networks-file-legal-claims-saying-skipping-commercials-is-copyright-infringement.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/04185919074/tv-networks-file-legal-claims-saying-skipping-commercials-is-copyright-infringement.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Okay, we had <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120515/03152918920/tv-network-execs-contemplate-going-to-court-to-say-skipping-commercials-is-illegal.shtml">expected</a> the TV networks to possibly take legal action against DISH Networks for its new Auto Hopper technology, which allows DISH subscribers who use the Hopper feature (which records all prime time shows from the four major networks) to autoskip commercials, if they watch shows in the days after they originally air.  It wasn't a surprise that the TV networks <i>didn't like</i> this at all, but could they really make a <i>legal</i> argument that skipping commercials was against the law?  We've all heard the story of former Turner Broadcasting exec Jamie Kellner <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120515/03152918920/tv-network-execs-contemplate-going-to-court-to-say-skipping-commercials-is-illegal.shtml">claiming</a> that not watching commercials was "theft," but do the networks actually think there's a legal basis for such claims?
<br /><br />
It appears they do.  Though, the legal arguments are <i>insane</i>.
<br /><br />
As you may have heard by now, Fox, CBS and NBC Universal <a href="http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/dish-seeks-ruling-on-feature-that-skips-commercials/" target="_blank">have all sued DISH in California</a>.  At about the same time, DISH itself filed for declaratory judgment in New York against those three, and ABC, who hasn't yet filed suit, but perhaps will shortly.  I would imagine that all of the cases will be consolidated in one of the courts.
<br /><br />
What's scary, however, is that the TV networks appear to be using this lawsuit to claim that <i>skipping commercials is copyright infringement</i>.  <strike>I haven't yet seen the NBC filing</strike>, but the Fox and CBS filings both make this same basic argument.  <b>Update</b>: NBC filing is added below, and is nearly identical to the CBS filing, down to the very same lawyers. Fox first argues that merely recording the entire prime time lineup is making "bootleg" copies of the videos.  That's a rather stunning claim, and a <i>direct</i> challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.">Betamax case</a>, which made it clear that time-shifting is legal.  The networks are claiming that this is not the same thing, because the "copies" aren't being made by the user, but by DISH itself for use by the user.  Beyond being a meaningless distinction, it's also not true.  As the Cablevision case concerning a "remote DVR" offered by the service provider showed, if the actions are at the request of the consumer, then it's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080804/1218551884.shtml">the consumer</a> making the call.  With the DISH offering, the subscriber is still the one pushing the button and asking the DVR to record the shows.  Is it really that different that it takes one button rather than punching in a few shows?  That would be extraordinary -- but these filings are full of such extraordinary claims.
<br /><br />
Where the filings go really off the wall is in basically saying that skipping commercials is infringement.  They do this in the sections on "inducement," wherein they suggest that, even if DISH doesn't directly infringe, it is is inducing infringement by offering the auto commercial skip feature to users.  From the CBS filing:
<blockquote><em>
Users of the Hopper's PrimeTime AnyTime feature who record 
Plaintiff's prime-time shows and use the Hopper's Auto Hop feature to 
automatically skip commercials otherwise contained in those recordings infringe 
Plaintiffs' exclusive reproduction rights under section 106 of the Copyright Act,
</em></blockquote>
But this makes no sense.  Recording the show for later viewing is <i>already deemed legal</i>.  So the only difference here is <i>the intent</i> of the user to watch later to skip commercials.  Thus, CBS seems to be saying that merely wanting to avoid commercials <i>is, itself, direct copyright infringement</i>.  And, given that Auto Hop doesn't work until the day after the shows air, does that mean that it's legal to record the shows if you intend to watch them the same day... but the second your <i>intention</i> is to watch them later, it's copyright infringement?  That makes no sense and has absolutely no basis in the law.  And, uh, what happens if you record it with the intent to watch the next day and skip commercials... but then watch it the same day with the commercials?  The allegation above says merely recording the shows with intent to skip commercials is infringement, even if you don't actually skip the commercials!  That makes no sense.
<br /><br />
Fox's filing makes similar claims, insisting that DISH is inducing infringement because it "took active steps to encourage its subscribers to use Primetime Anytime to infringe FOX's copyrights."  But that's flat out malarkey.  It's <b>legal</b> for users to time shift shows.  That's established.  Yet, these filings seem to want to <i>totally ignore that</i>, and then assume that a user watching a DVR'd s how is automatically infringing on copyright because they might skip commercials.
<br /><br />
The argument makes absolutely no sense at all.  Effectively, the networks are trying to claim inducement to infringe... but do not (and, indeed, can not)  show what or who is actually infringing.  Time shifting is legal.  Not watching commercials is legal.  So, er, where's the copyright infringement, unless you completely throw out the Betamax ruling?
<br /><br />
The filings also go down the path of explaining how this disrupts their business model.  They honestly seem to be arguing for what some people have amusingly referred to as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071004/163314.shtml">"felony interference with a business model."</a>  They list out all the different ways they get companies and users to pay multiple times for the same content, and use that to suggest this must be illegal, even though DISH has a retransmission license and all the individual parts are legal.  I honestly don't understand this argument -- they're just claiming that because they don't like how end users engage with otherwise legal content, it must be illegal.  Fox even uses this to claim that DISH's offering is <i>not</i> "enhancing consumer choice."  Apparently, in the minds of TV network lawyers, what counts as "consumer choice" is limited to what the TV networks want to count as consumer choice... and any other choices are no choices at all.  Or something.
<br /><br />
There are a few slight differences in the lawsuits.  For example, Fox brings up the fact that DISH also offers the Slingbox to allow users to not just time-shift but also place shift, though fails to explain why that's an issue at all.  Fox also includes a breach of contract claim, which also may be difficult to support if all of the other actions prove to be legal.
<br /><br />
DISH's declaratory filing gives you a pretty clear sense of that company's argument, pointing out that this is a nice feature that consumers want, that this kind of technology is already widely in use, and that it's not clear how any of this is infringement.
<blockquote><i>
Auto Hop is a more efficient way of achieving what consumers already do with
standard DVRs. A 30-second skip feature is already standard on many DVR remote controls. It
permits viewers to automatically skip ahead in a recording, at the touch of a button, completely
bypassing a typical 30-second television commercial. The remote controls that come with DVRs
supplied by Comcast, an NBC affiliate, can be programmed to include this 30-second skip
feature. DISH has provided a 30-second skip feature for years. By pressing the 30-second skip
button multiple times, a viewer can elect to bypass the full complement of commercials between
show segments. Now, DISH allows the customer to opt to use an Auto Hop feature that is just
an extension of this 30-second skip function. It avoids the common frustration that occurs when
viewers, using the 30-second skip or plain fast-forwarding, overshoot the commercials and fastforward
into the television programming content that they really want to watch.
</i></blockquote>
DISH also points out that skipping commercials is not illegal:
<blockquote><i>
DISH's Auto Hop feature promotes consumer autonomy. Viewers have skipped
commercials for decades. Viewers commonly use the commercial break as a time to get up and
momentarily leave the room. Ever since the advent of the remote control, viewers have changed
channels or muted the sound during commercial breaks. And, since the advent of the VCR and
DVR, viewers playing back a show have fast-forwarded through commercials. DISH is simply
making it easier for viewers to refuse to be a captive audience and to exercise the well-accepted
choice to skip a commercial.
</i></blockquote>
I can't see how the networks' argument can stand very much legal scrutiny at all -- but stranger things have happened when copyright cases hit the court.  Still, the arguments here are so bizarre, and so unsupportable, you have to believe a judge will reject them quickly.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/04185919074/tv-networks-file-legal-claims-saying-skipping-commercials-is-copyright-infringement.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/04185919074/tv-networks-file-legal-claims-saying-skipping-commercials-is-copyright-infringement.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/04185919074/tv-networks-file-legal-claims-saying-skipping-commercials-is-copyright-infringement.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wow</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120525/04185919074</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 05:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Game Of Thrones On Track To Be Most Pirated Show Of 2012; Pirates Still Asking HBO For Legitimate Options</title>
<dc:creator>Leigh Beadon</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120510/10505618869/game-thrones-track-to-be-most-pirated-show-2012-pirates-still-asking-hbo-legitimate-options.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120510/10505618869/game-thrones-track-to-be-most-pirated-show-2012-pirates-still-asking-hbo-legitimate-options.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Much like the North, <em>Game of Thrones</em> cannot be held&mdash;it's too big and too wild. Matthew Inman warned HBO that they should make their content more accessible or risk <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120220/13592517821/how-to-turn-legitimate-buyer-into-pirate-five-easy-steps.shtml">driving people to piracy</a>, but that isn't really <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120418/08405618545/hbo-decides-it-still-isnt-difficult-enough-to-watch-hbo-shows.shtml">HBO's style</a>. Now <b>jilocasin</b> points us to the news that <em>Game of Thrones</em> is well on track to be <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/05/09/hbos-game-of-thrones-on-track-to-be-crowned-most-pirated-show-of-2012/" target="_blank">the most torrented show of 2012</a>, and nobody can deny that HBO's foolish subscriber-only distribution is <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/05/09/hbo-has-only-itself-to-blame-for-record-game-of-thrones-piracy/" target="_blank">a primary reason for that</a>. Approximately 25-million times have people decided to <a href="http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Balon_Greyjoy" target="_blank">pay the iron price</a> for the show, and as the <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/gameofthrones/comments/tf6aq/hbos_game_of_thrones_on_track_to_be_most_pirated/" target="_blank">comments on Reddit attest</a>, it's often because the gold price wasn't even an option. Others pay for the show but <em>still</em> pirate for the sake of occasional convenience:</p>

<blockquote><em>Sometimes I just want to fire up an episode and watch it on my laptop immediately and with mobility as I'm wandering around the house, and not worry about streaming/quality issues or finding a disk, setting up the DVD player etc. I am truly lazy.</em></blockquote>

<p>Meanwhile, <em>Game of Thrones</em> continues to have <a href="http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/05/01/game-of-thrones-ratings-2/" target="_blank">great ratings</a>. And the torrent piracy count doesn't include <em>streams</em>, which are also hugely popular, so it only represents a fraction of the pirate world. Why not create new ways to legitimize some of those viewers, especially considering so many of them have said they <em>want</em> to be legitimized? I still contend that HBO-style shows <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120220/13592517821/how-to-turn-legitimate-buyer-into-pirate-five-easy-steps.shtml">owe a lot to piracy</a> for their cultural dominance, because, if they were actually as exclusive as HBO wants to pretend they are, they would have had a much harder time gathering fans. But HBO co-president Eric Kessler thinks <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/30/2600620/hbo-go-eric-kessler-cable-satellite">cord-cutting is a fad</a>, so like most characters in the show, he's fighting silly battles while ignoring what's really going on.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120510/10505618869/game-thrones-track-to-be-most-pirated-show-2012-pirates-still-asking-hbo-legitimate-options.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120510/10505618869/game-thrones-track-to-be-most-pirated-show-2012-pirates-still-asking-hbo-legitimate-options.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120510/10505618869/game-thrones-track-to-be-most-pirated-show-2012-pirates-still-asking-hbo-legitimate-options.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>blame-matthew-inman?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120510/10505618869</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:16:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Hulu Puts Gun To Own Head: May Require Users To Show Proof Of Pay TV Subscription</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120430/09032418715/hulu-puts-gun-to-own-head-may-require-users-to-show-proof-pay-tv-subscription.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120430/09032418715/hulu-puts-gun-to-own-head-may-require-users-to-show-proof-pay-tv-subscription.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've discussed in the past how Hulu's owners -- the major Hollywood/TV studios -- absolutely <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/01524013905/why-does-entertainment-industry-seek-to-kill-any-innovation-thats-helping-it-adapt.shtml">hate</a> that Hulu is actually <i>useful</i> and convincing people to watch TV online.  Because of that, they've been trying to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110130/01074712886/hulu-owners-looking-to-make-hulu-even-more-useless.shtml">destroy Hulu</a>.  Hulu's management -- which mostly seems to understand the internet -- tried to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/13164613467/hulu-realizing-that-taking-orders-every-entertainment-company-boss-isnt-effective.shtml">get out</a> from under this potentially paralyzing ownership structure, but the studios (stupidly) <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110930/13341216152/tv-companies-plan-to-make-hulu-suck-even-more-making-it-more-difficult-to-sell-hulu.shtml">telegraphed</a> the message that they would block Hulu from getting their content, meaning that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111013/16503616343/hulus-owners-unable-to-find-idiots-willing-to-overpay-to-take-hulu-off-their-hands-before-they-kill-it.shtml">no one</a> wanted to pay the ridiculous asking price.
<br /><br />
Well, now it appears that phase one of making Hulu absolutely useless to people who might cut the cord from pay TV is going into effect, with plans to join the networks silly "TV Everywhere" setup and <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hulu-pay-tv-subscription-olympics-317992?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed: thr/news (The Hollywood Reporter - Top Stories)" target="_blank">require users to have a pay TV subscription</a> in order to access parts of the service.  Hulu's main (non-studio) investor, Providence Equity Partners, <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/04/hulu-providence-equity-stake-200-million.html" target="_blank">sold its shares</a> last week <i>because</i> it heard about this plan and <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/tv_in_real_dime_ph0GiKk7rC9agDUEkHae2I#ixzz1tWUi6ZaY" target="_blank">knew it was suicidal</a>.
<br /><br />
In no rational world would Hulu move in this direction on its own.  Hulu's key selling point is that it's <i>the</i> go-to source for cord cutters, helping it build up a very large audience.  Taking that crowd out of its audience makes it close to useless.  While the studios love this because they make so much money from pay TV companies, it's incredibly short-sighted in the long run.  It's pure protectionism of legacy revenues, done by sacrificing the one truly innovative platform they've invested in.
<br /><br />
Meanwhile, along the same lines, the THResq story that we link to above <i>also</i> notes that NBC Universal will, once again, seek to marginalize its own online coverage of the Olympics, by <i>also</i> requiring proof of a pay TV service.  Way to raise a giant middle finger to all the cord cutters out there -- guaranteeing that they seek out alternative streams for which NBC Universal gets no money.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120430/09032418715/hulu-puts-gun-to-own-head-may-require-users-to-show-proof-pay-tv-subscription.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120430/09032418715/hulu-puts-gun-to-own-head-may-require-users-to-show-proof-pay-tv-subscription.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120430/09032418715/hulu-puts-gun-to-own-head-may-require-users-to-show-proof-pay-tv-subscription.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>preserving-the-problem-to-which-they-are-the-solution</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120430/09032418715</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:24:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Networks Go After Barry Diller Personally For The Insult Of Investing In Aereo</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120418/12345318547/networks-go-after-barry-diller-personally-insult-investing-aereo.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120418/12345318547/networks-go-after-barry-diller-personally-insult-investing-aereo.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's amazing just how desperate the TV networks appear to be getting.  We've already discussed how they've <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120302/00190517940/tv-networks-gang-up-to-sue-aereo-do-copyright-rules-change-based-length-cable.shtml">sued Aereo</a>, the company that sets up individual antennas to get over the air broadcasts, and then streams them over the internet to people's homes.  But, now they appear to be <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/04/barry-diller-aereo/" target="_blank">going after Barry Diller personally</a> for investing in Aereo.  They've subpoena'd info from him directly including:
<blockquote><i>
All documents concerning Aereo or the Aereo service, including without limitation (i) communications with or about Aereo, the Aereo service or Aereo&#8217;s business plans, (ii) presentations or other documents received from Aereo, and (iii) documents or communications concerning the potential impact of Aereo or the Aereo service on broadcast television networks and stations, or the producers of broadcast television.
</i></blockquote>
Diller is fighting this (as you can see below) but it's a pure intimidation technique to go after those "in the fold" who invest in disruptive innovation.  We saw it a decade or so ago when some major labels <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030512/1627213.shtml">sued Bertelsmann</a> -- one of their own who broke ranks to invest in the original Napster.  Investors are supposed to be protected from the actions of the companies they invest in, but the dying entertainment industry folks play nasty, and they especially seem to hate it when one of their own becomes forward looking, rather than playing their myopic game.  In this case, they haven't sued yet, but it's clear they're going on a fishing expedition to embarrass and annoy Diller, who (of course) came out of Hollywood in the past.
<br /><br />
<b>Update</b>: Looks like <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/barry-diller-aereo-documents-iac-314600" target="_blank">Diller's already lost</a> this part of the legal fight, which is unfortunate.  Intimidating investors from funding innovative companies -- the kind of companies that actually can help move the industry forward -- isn't going to help anyone.  Amazing how short-sighted Hollywood can be.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120418/12345318547/networks-go-after-barry-diller-personally-insult-investing-aereo.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120418/12345318547/networks-go-after-barry-diller-personally-insult-investing-aereo.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120418/12345318547/networks-go-after-barry-diller-personally-insult-investing-aereo.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>getting-desperate</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120418/12345318547</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 9 Apr 2012 03:01:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Just How Much Do Shows Like Game Of Thrones Owe To Piracy?</title>
<dc:creator>Leigh Beadon</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120404/21120918379/just-how-much-do-shows-like-game-thrones-owe-to-piracy.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120404/21120918379/just-how-much-do-shows-like-game-thrones-owe-to-piracy.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>The HBO show <em>Game of Thrones</em> has become something of a symbol for TV piracy as a response to lack of availability, ever since it was used as an example <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120220/13592517821/how-to-turn-legitimate-buyer-into-pirate-five-easy-steps.shtml">in a comic by Matthew Inman</a> (which was then reprised as <a href="http://pandodaily.com/2012/03/20/a-winter-of-piracy-is-coming/" target="_blank">a post by MG Siegler</a>, minus the jokes). This is probably because it's <em>ridiculously addictive</em> (once you start watching, there's no way you're going to stop before someone stabs that Joffrey kid). This month the second season began, and after all the criticisms of their distribution scheme, HBO accidentally threw frustrated online viewers a bone by <a href="http://www.geekosaur.net/2012/04/game-of-thrones-season-2-episode-2.html">leaking the second episode</a> nearly a week ahead of schedule&mdash;someone working on the Dutch edition of HBO Go must have accidentally flipped a switch, and winter came early. But before that happened, the season premier aired to a <a href="http://winteriscoming.net/2012/04/season-2-premiere-ratings-jump/" target="_blank">massive ratings jump</a>, which most people anticipated. Why? Because, <a href="http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/04/01/a-tale-of-two-sophomore-series-game-of-thrones-and-the-killing-return-poll/126945/" target="_blank">they reasoned</a>, the nine-month gap between seasons gave new viewers a chance to catch up with (and get hooked on) the series by watching season one on HBO On Demand and HBO Go.</p>

<p>It's a good theory, but only some are prepared to <a href="http://www.avclub.com/articles/a-lot-more-people-are-watching-game-of-thrones-now,71870/" target="_blank">mention</a> the elephant in the room: plenty of people (quite possibly the majority) caught up through unauthorized streams and torrents, just like Matthew Inman. And that brings us to the bigger elephant lurking in the whole house: how much has piracy contributed to the rise of HBO-style television? Would we have complex, high-concept, critically acclaimed shows like <em>Mad Men</em>, <em>Breaking Bad</em>, <em>Boardwalk Empire</em> and <em>Game of Thrones</em> without it? Many people attribute this fundamental shift in the nature of popular television, from episodic towards serialized, to DVDs and legitimate digital sources&mdash;but I'd wager that piracy is a much more significant factor.</p>

<p>There are two main reasons. Firstly, the ability to watch any episode any time makes such <em>can't-miss-an-episode</em> shows less of a commitment.  This, alone, is the single biggest contributing factor to the popularity of heavily serialized television, and it is impossible to explain it entirely with DVDs and sources like iTunes. Many cable subscribers turn to piracy as a way to catch missed episodes, and that safety net prevents serialized shows from alienating viewers and losing momentum. Secondly, unauthorized sources are especially popular with the fanatics&mdash;the people who evangelize "must watch" shows to their friends and coworkers, and who create memes with screencaps to spread on Tumblr and Facebook. That's not to mention the amateur critics and TV bloggers who generate buzz (in fact, there is a bit of a <a href="http://www.indiewire.com/article/critics-notebook-is-it-wrong-to-download-pirated-movies-not-quite-says-one-critic" target="_blank">back<a /> and </a><a href="http://blogs.indiewire.com/criticwire/critics-and-piracy" target="_blank">forth</a> going on over the ethics of piracy in the critic community).</p>

<p>Of course, as digital offerings get better, more and more of this kind of activity happens through legitimate channels instead of piracy (not like anyone's been saying that all along, or anything). But services like Netflix got to the table once the serial television trend was in full-swing, so they don't account for its inception. Some people fear that television piracy will put at end to such ambitious undertakings in the medium&mdash;but they should stop to consider the hand it played in making them possible to begin with.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120404/21120918379/just-how-much-do-shows-like-game-thrones-owe-to-piracy.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120404/21120918379/just-how-much-do-shows-like-game-thrones-owe-to-piracy.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120404/21120918379/just-how-much-do-shows-like-game-thrones-owe-to-piracy.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>more-than-they-like-to-admit,-I-suspect</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120404/21120918379</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:51:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Appeals Court: Bundling Cable Channels Together Isn't Anticompetitive</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120403/02585818343/appeals-court-bundling-cable-channels-together-isnt-anticompetitive.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120403/02585818343/appeals-court-bundling-cable-channels-together-isnt-anticompetitive.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Over the years, one topic that seems to engender extremely passionate responses around here is the question of cable TV bundling.  People <i>hate</i> bundled cable TV packages -- usually because they hate paying for a bunch of channels they don't want just to get the four channels they do want.  I still tend to think this complaint is overstated -- if the cable guys priced things out a la carte, the pricing would basically come to the same thing anyway (the channels you do want would be super expensive, and the ones you don't would be pretty cheap or free with other channels).  Either way, the complaint also seems increasingly antiquated in an internet world.  More and more TV shows are moving to the web anyway (through both authorized and unauthorized means).  While it's certainly not perfect yet, you can create your own a la carte solution for many TV shows/channels.
<br /><br />
Still, some folks sued over this bundling, claiming that it was anti-competitive.  However, as <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/" target="_blank">Eric Goldman</a> alerts us, an appeals court has upheld a lower court decision and <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000012132" target="_blank">outright rejected the idea that bundling is an antitrust issue</a>.  The court points out that "tying" arrangements are only illegal if they lead to clear anticompetitive behavior and consumer harm, but that's missing here:
<blockquote><i>
The complaint does not allege that Programmers&#8217; practice of selling  &#8220;must-have&#8221; and low-demand channels in packages excludes other sellers of low-demand channels from the market, or that this practice raises barriers to entry into the programming market. Nor do the plaintiffs allege that the tying arrangement here causes consumers to forego the purchase of substitutes for the tied product.... Nothing in the complaint indicates that the arrangement between the Programmers and Distributors forces Distributors or consumers to forego the
purchase of alternative low-demand channels.
</i></blockquote>
The court notes that the only real complaint is that the contract between the parties limits what kinds of offerings can be made by the cable companies, but the court notes that third parties suing over others' contracts that limit some actions "is not sufficient to allege an injury to competition."
<br /><br />
I think it's pretty silly that cable companies haven't innovated to the point that a la carte offerings are regularly available.  I recognize that the issue here is more about programmers requiring the bundles to get the "must have" channels, so the cable providers are a bit hamstrung, but sooner or later the cable companies need to convince the programmers that lumping stuff together just pisses off consumers, and they might as well offer up an a la carte solution instead.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120403/02585818343/appeals-court-bundling-cable-channels-together-isnt-anticompetitive.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120403/02585818343/appeals-court-bundling-cable-channels-together-isnt-anticompetitive.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120403/02585818343/appeals-court-bundling-cable-channels-together-isnt-anticompetitive.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-it's-outdated-anyway</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120403/02585818343</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 3 Apr 2012 03:30:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>German Scriptwriters Attack 'Greens, Pirates, Left-wingers And Internet Community' For Daring To Have Different Views On Copyright</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120402/04273018324/german-scriptwriters-attack-greens-pirates-left-wingers-internet-community-daring-to-have-different-views-copyright.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120402/04273018324/german-scriptwriters-attack-greens-pirates-left-wingers-internet-community-daring-to-have-different-views-copyright.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>The German series "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatort">Tatort</a>" ("Crime Scene") has been running since 1970, and remains one of the most popular programs on German television.  Given this venerable position, it's perhaps not completely surprising that its scriptwriters -- 51 of them -- have written an open letter complaining about the supposedly negative attitudes of some groups to copyright (<a href="http://www.drehbuchautoren.de/nachrichten/2012/03/offener-brief-von-51-tatort-autoren-0">German original</a>).  But what is noteworthy is the tone and content of the letter.
</p><p>
It's addressed to "Dear Greens, dear Pirates, dear Left-wingers, dear Net community" -- as if these share a common position on copyright reform, which indicates just how little the authors of the letter understand their respective policies.  The letter itself is framed in terms of what the scriptwriters term "life lies".  
</p><p>
The main "life lie" concerns the idea that the term of copyright needs to be shortened to make it fit for the digital age, where huge numbers of people are creators as well as consumers:

<i><blockquote>Not only does the author suffer expropriation through a reduction in the copyright term and is thus dramatically worse off, no, this proposal doesn't even change the situation of the supposedly innocent end-user one bit: your illegal downloads or streams concern mostly the absolutely latest films, music, books, photos and designs -- and not works that are, say, 20, 40 or 60 years old.  A shortening of the copyright term would change nothing for this problem, and would be purely symbolic: look, we have taken something away from the authors....</blockquote></i>

This shows an extraordinary lack of understanding on the part of the Tatort scriptwriters.  Nobody is suggesting that reducing the term of copyright will "solve" the problem of unauthorized downloads: it addresses a completely different question to do with the re-use of copyright materials, something the signatories of the letter seem unable to grasp.
</p><p>
But more remarkable is the sense of entitlement -- the idea that authors have a right to a copyright term that for practical purposes is typically in excess of one hundred years (life plus 70 years in most jurisdictions.)  They call any reduction of copyright "expropriation", and seem blissfully unaware that this necessarily implies that the repeated extension of copyright from the original 14 years of the 1710 Statute of Anne was a similar "expropriation" of the public domain.  
</p><p>
The point here is that there is no reason why the term of copyright should only increase, or why it should not be reduced back to its original levels, or even beyond -- it's for society to decide how long the state-backed monopoly ought to be, and how much incentive is needed to encourage creativity.  The scriptwriters' view, as laid bare in this open letter, reveals an indifference to the public's thoughts that borders on contempt.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120402/04273018324/german-scriptwriters-attack-greens-pirates-left-wingers-internet-community-daring-to-have-different-views-copyright.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120402/04273018324/german-scriptwriters-attack-greens-pirates-left-wingers-internet-community-daring-to-have-different-views-copyright.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120402/04273018324/german-scriptwriters-attack-greens-pirates-left-wingers-internet-community-daring-to-have-different-views-copyright.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>yet-more-entitlement</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120402/04273018324</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:44:27 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The Many Killers Of The Film Industry Vol. 3: Post-Ellipsis And Beyond Television</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/18284716443/many-killers-film-industry-vol-3-post-ellipsis-beyond-television.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/18284716443/many-killers-film-industry-vol-3-post-ellipsis-beyond-television.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ [<i>If you're just joining us, be sure to check out <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/21381216423/many-killers-film-industry-volume-one.shtml">Volume 1</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/21584316424/many-killers-film-industry-volume-2-disaster-called-television.shtml">Volume 2</a> in this series, which tells the true story of how the movie industry was killed over and over by each new advancement in eyeball-oriented entertainment. Volume 3 is the exciting followup to the breathtaking "..." that ended Volume 2. What lies beyond? Words. A lot of them.</i>] 
<br /><br />
<b>Post-Ellipsis</b><br />The movie industry, flush with success, strutted away from the battle that never was, having successfully fended off its new drinking buddy, television. Up to its collective ears in record-breaking movie receipts, the film industry (yet again) kicked back on its gold-plated laurels and lazily watched the money roll in.
<br /><br />
The cinema was enjoying a new Golden Age, ushered in by the advent of the multiplex, the still-viable drive-in industry and some of the finest movie-making ever, in the form of <i>Airport</i>, <i>Airport '75</i>, <i>Airport '77</i> and <i>Airport '79: New Moon</i>.
<br /><br />
But as was foretold by the harrowing ellipsis at the end of the last volume, a new enemy would rise (mostly from the East). This new invention would kill the film industry harder that it had ever been killed before.
<br /><br />
<b>The VCR</b><br />Japanese electronics company JVC kicked Old Man Movie right in the throat with its VHS (Video Home System) player that promised a new era of TV and movie-dependent independence. Now people could watch television and movies in the comfort of their own home, on their own schedules. No more standing in line at the box office or endless waiting for their favorite programs to hit syndication. The public was now in command of its mostly pre-recorded destiny, leading to skyrocketing VCR sales and new highs in box office receipts.
<br /><br />
Quite obviously, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050617/0325232.shtml" target="_blank">home taping</a> was once again killing an industry.
<br /><br />
An apoplectic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Valenti#Valenti_on_new_technologies" target="_blank">Jack Valenti</a> (representing the MPAA) stormed a listless Congress, demanding that they get off their overstuffed asses and do something, goddammit. During his Oscar-worthy performance, Valenti compared the theoretical damage done by home taping to a <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/31/1622232" target="_blank">combination of the Holocaust, My Lai Massacre and that time when he got beat up in grade school</a>.
<br /><br />
The television industry fought back, claiming that the public had no right to watch their favorite shows and movies whenever and wherever the hell they wanted to. "What of our precious and highly annoying advertising?" it pleaded. "They'll be able to skip past it, thus rendering our efforts useless. Not to mention blockbuster lineups like &lsquo;Must See Thursday,' which will now become &lsquo;Can See Whenever the Hell We Want, Possibly Even Next Week.'"
<br /><br />
<b>The Positive Negatives of the VCR Invasion</b><br />Fortunately, the film and TV industries greatly overestimated the public's willingness and ability to program their VCRs, meaning that most viewing was still prerecorded movies or "live" TV. In fact, the general inscrutability of the VCR usually meant that it was regarded as a minor household diety whose mood swings and impenetrable manual were tolerated in exchange for nearly "on-demand" viewing.
<br /><br />
Much like any diety, the VCR would periodically demand a sacrifice, devouring random tapes like "Child's First Birthday" (priceless) or a New Release rental from Blockbuster (considerably more expensive).
<br /><br />
Not only that, but the VCR's entropic delivery system caused videotapes to degrade steadily in a short period of time, soon reducing the act of re-watching an "old favorite" to a tedious hour or two of dicking around with the tracking in a futile attempt to make the movie look like something other than scrambled Cinemax porn featuring dialogue recorded underwater.
<br /><br />
<b>"Boon:" Not Actually a Dirty Word</b><br />Not every industry felt threatened, however. The new videotape proved to be a boon to the porn industry, which was thrilled to have another delivery system. Porn theater staffers were thrilled to see their semen cleanup time drop by over 50%. Porn aficionados were thrilled to be able to "privatize" their perversions, without fear of being accosted by women's right groups, soft news journalists or the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pee-wee_Herman#1991_arrest" target="_blank">Sarasota, FL Sheriff's Department</a>.
<br /><br />
Unfortunately, a related industry fell victim to this new portable, rentable menace. The suddenly embattled trench coat industry fought this turn of events with "Home Masturbation is Killing the Trench Coat Industry" pickets. This movement never really took off however, mainly due to the fact that few people were willing to wear t-shirts or hoist signs with the word "masturbation" prominently featured.
<br /><br />
As the years went on and prices dropped, the movie industry began to embrace this "threat" as a powerful ally in its constant struggle to make even more money. They were delighted to discover that the public was more than willing to purchase something they had most likely already paid to watch in a theater. They were made positively giddy with the realization that the public would buy the same movie twice, provided one version was slapped with a "Special Edition" label and contained a cursory 5-minute "Making Of" featurette cobbled together from second unit footage and "found sound" recordings.
<br /><br />
The movie rental business was thrilled as well, what with it suddenly having a reason to exist, along with the opportunity to charge $3.99/night for "New Releases" that had been on the "Just In" wall for nearly half a decade.
<br /><br />
<b>Coming up next:<br />A veritable rogue's gallery of industry killers, each more diabolically deadly than the last.</b>
<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/18284716443/many-killers-film-industry-vol-3-post-ellipsis-beyond-television.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/18284716443/many-killers-film-industry-vol-3-post-ellipsis-beyond-television.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/18284716443/many-killers-film-industry-vol-3-post-ellipsis-beyond-television.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>vhs:the-metallic-killer/new-revenue-stream</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111020/18284716443</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:03:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The Many Killers Of The Film Industry: Volume 2 - A Disaster Called Television</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/21584316424/many-killers-film-industry-volume-2-disaster-called-television.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/21584316424/many-killers-film-industry-volume-2-disaster-called-television.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ [Those of you following along will remember the cliffhanger <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/21381216423/many-killers-film-industry-volume-one.shtml">ending of Volume 1</a>, in which it was revealed that "something" would come along and destroy the movie industry with its tiny screen and tinny sound. In this followup, we reveal the true killer of the film industry, which is also one of the many pretenders to the throne.]
<br /><br />
<b>A Disaster Called Television</b><br />
Little did Roger Philco and Francois Magnavox know when they assembled the first "magic picture box" that it would change American society as we knew it, mostly for the worse.
<br /><br />
There was no indication during its early broadcasts of test patterns, puppet shows and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_%27n%27_Andy#Television" target="_blank">white men in blackface</a> that the daily life of Americans would soon revolve around it. Instead of gathering around the wireless to watch Dad get drunk and curse the Yankees, the whole family would gather around the tiny screen to watch Elvis from the waist up or catch breaking footage from the moon landing set.
<br /><br />
The movie industry understood how serious this new threat could be and stepped hastily over the still-cooling corpse of live theater to denounce the new "tele-vision," which would <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101019/04235911477/the-movie-business-is-dying-blame-tv-the-1959-edition.shtml">surely destroy</a> their precious industry. They lamented this turn of events, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100312/0039048529.shtml" target="_blank">cursing every new box office record</a> and crying into their stacks of $1000 bills.
<br /><br />
Representatives of the "dying" industry called on Congress to do "something" about the "talking picturemajig." How can we get people to sit in front of our 42-foot screens, enjoy our Technicolor and Sensurround when they have 3 inches of black and white power at home, all coming to them in deafening mono?
<br /><br />
Congress was too busy watching the National League Championship to be bothered by an outdated industry and their rhetorical questions, no matter how many bribes and high-dollar hookers they waved around. Another blow was struck when forward-thinking Dwight Eisenhower announced his bold plan for America: a television in every house, a car in every garage and an epidemic of childhood obesity.
<br /><br />
<b>Disaster? Or Powerful, Distracting New Ally? </b><br />
The movie industry was premature in its panic. Americans soon proved they had the leisure time for both activities, which could easily be squeezed in between backyard barbecues and conceiving the eventual bankrupters of Social Security.
<br /><br />
During the early '50s, the average male enjoyed a 25-hour work week, divided between harassing the typing pool, pounding martinis and hitting the golf course. The remaining time they spent watering the lawn, washing the car, pounding martinis and pounding the wife (mostly in a sexual fashion, but often in a physical fashion).
<br /><br />
TV grew and grew, becoming the focal point of American family life. Television producers turned the mirror on the public, reflecting life as they knew it in the form of sitcoms, playing up spousal abuse ("I Love Lucy," "The Honeymooners") and sexless marriages (every other sitcom). They also went after more respected institutions with uncanny accuracy. (See also: "The Andy Griffith Show" and its devastating take on inept law enforcement and artistic whistling, or "Bewitched" and its brilliant satire of the advertising world, long before "Mad Men" made it cool to be casually sexist again.)
<br /><br />
As its influence grew, television turned its unblinking eye on other "hot button" topics such as the Korean War ("M*A*S*H*"), teen hoodlums ("Happy Days") and greed (every game show). TV devoured everything in its path over the next 50 years, before going all ouroboros and devouring itself, shitting out show after show containing no actors, no script and starring everyday people like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_boy_hoax" target="_blank">Balloon Boy's</a> dad.
<br /><br />
As the airwaves were conquered by Joe Gloryhound and his occasionally-swapped wife, the film industry breathed a sigh of relief, knowing that TV's "tapped-outness" would allow them to continue to collect billions of dollars a year cranking out <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110801/11255815347/without-copyright-hollywood-would-never-be-incented-to-make-bunch-remakes.shtml" target="_blank">sequel after sequel</a>. Directors such as Michael Bay were allowed to continue trafficking in explosions and recycled punchlines. All was well in the word, until...
<br /><br />
Coming up next:<br /><b>Post-ellipsis!</b><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/21584316424/many-killers-film-industry-volume-2-disaster-called-television.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/21584316424/many-killers-film-industry-volume-2-disaster-called-television.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/21584316424/many-killers-film-industry-volume-2-disaster-called-television.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>setting-box-office-records-from-beyond-the-grave...-apparently</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111019/21584316424</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:57:28 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Fox Responds To 'Piracy Surge' By Answering A Different Question</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110823/16422515638/fox-responds-to-piracy-surge-answering-different-question.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110823/16422515638/fox-responds-to-piracy-surge-answering-different-question.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Exactly as we <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110726/19530115274/fox-decides-to-drive-fans-to-piracy-rather-than-giving-legitimate-options.shtml">predicted</a>, when the Fox Network hid its TV shows online behind various paywalls and delays, the rate of infringement on those shows <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110822/10585015615/course-new-fox-delay-means-more-unauthorized-downloads-fox-shows.shtml">shot way up</a>.  Eriq Gardner, over at THResq spoke to a Communications VP at Fox to get his response about all those people going to unauthorized means to get their content, and in true "Communications VP" fashion, Scott Grogin deftly <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/fox-responds-reports-of-piracy-226500" target="_blank">ignores the key question and focuses on a secondary claim from the original TorrentFreak article</a>, the suggestion that these delays were about getting people to watch TV live:
<blockquote><i>
The TorrentFreak blog post is a little over the top. The story indicates that we 'took this drastic step in the hope of getting more people to watch shows live and thus make more revenue.' Nothing could be further from the truth.
<br /><br />
Authenticating viewers is not about making sure they only watch live...in fact, quite the opposite&mdash;we support a 'TV Everywhere' proposition and are working with our distribution partners to benefit our businesses. It's about receiving fair value so we can continue to produce this expensive and high quality programming. We are pursuing a strategy where the 90+ million households who pay to watch our programming via cable/satellite/telco will ultimately receive maximum benefit. They can watch live, via DVR, on VOD, online, or through one of the various tablet apps that allow in-home viewing.
<br /><br />
We are actively in negotiations with all cable/satellite/telco providers regarding authentication of their customers. We hope to announce several more agreements before the start of the new television season in mid-September.
</i></blockquote>
The issue of watching "live" or not is really a side matter, and was perhaps a bit of hyperbole from TorrentFreak.  What those guys clearly meant was that this is a weak effort by Fox to keep people watching via TV or via a big cable/satellite provider.  And, I'm sorry, but this line is pure bull:
<blockquote><i>
We are pursuing a strategy where the 90+ million households who pay to watch our programming via cable/satellite/telco will ultimately receive maximum benefit.
</i></blockquote>
Anyone who claims that to offer maximum benefit to one set of people, you have to take away features from others isn't being particularly honest.  To offer maximum benefit, you offer maximum benefit.  Could Fox offer new additional features to such subscribers?  Sure.  That would be interesting and perhaps a good strategy.  But taking the content away, when it's so readily available via unauthorized means doesn't help provide maximum benefit to subscribers at all.  It drives more people to unauthorized means of access (where Fox gets no money at all), and actually <i>takes away value</i> from those subscribers.  That's because one reason why people watch hit shows right away is so they can discuss them with friends.  Fox has now made it more difficult to discuss with friends because it's that much harder to watch its shows.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110823/16422515638/fox-responds-to-piracy-surge-answering-different-question.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110823/16422515638/fox-responds-to-piracy-surge-answering-different-question.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110823/16422515638/fox-responds-to-piracy-surge-answering-different-question.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-didn't-answer-the-question</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110823/16422515638</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:50:26 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Could The Internet &#038; Television Be Making Everyone Smarter?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110811/10573715477/could-internet-television-be-making-everyone-smarter.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110811/10573715477/could-internet-television-be-making-everyone-smarter.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ To hear the neoluddites talk, Google <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080610/0146101362.shtml">makes us stupid</a>.  And, of course, there's a common belief out there that television and video games similarly are somehow "dulling" the brain.  But, if that were the case, then we'd be seeing some pretty specific evidence of that by now.  And that's a problem.  Because the actual data seems to be going in the other direction.  <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/10/the-smart-appear-to-be-getting" target="_blank">Reason</a> points us to Jonah Lehrer's reporting on a new study that suggests <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/are-smart-people-getting-smarter/" target="_blank">the smartest kids have been getting smarter</a> over the past few decades. 
<br /><br />
There had already been reports showing that the <i>average</i> IQ keeps creeping upwards, but many suggested this was because of efforts to bring the <i>bottom half</i> up.  That is, over the past few decades we've generally improved the quality of education and especially focused on helping those who struggle, more than in the past.  We've also increased educational opportunities for groups that got much less attention in the past.  However, there hadn't been much exploration of the top of the curve.  Were the smartest getting smarter too?  The latest research suggests the answer is <i>absolutely</i>:
<blockquote><i>
The effect was found in the top 5% at a rate similar to the general distribution, providing evidence for the first time that the entire curve is likely increasing at a constant rate. The effect was also found for females as well as males, appears to still be continuing, is primarily concentrated on the mathematics subtests of the SAT, ACT, and EXPLORE, and operates similarly for both 5th and 6th as well as 7th graders in the right tail.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, my own initial reaction to the studies about increasing IQ was to wonder if there might be a different factor: the test itself.  It's entirely possible that the standards of the test changed and/or people somehow were "teaching to the test."  That <i>could</i> still be true of this newest study, but for whatever it's worth, the new study does not rely just on IQ tests, but a variety of different measures, which at least (hopefully) minimizes the impact of the test itself.
<br /><br />
Either way, it certainly calls into question the claims of an Idiocracy world, driven by our interactions with modern technology.  In fact one hypothesis put forth by researchers is that "the increasing complexity of entertaining" may actually be helping quite a bit here:
<blockquote><i>
The question, of course, is what this stimulation might consist of? It obviously has to be extremely widespread, since the IQ gains exist at the population level. One frequently cited factor is the increasing complexity of entertainment, which might enhance abstract problem solving skills. (As Flynn himself noted, &ldquo;The very fact that children are better and better at IQ test problems logically entails that they have learned at least that kind of problem-solving skill better, and it must have been learned somewhere.&rdquo;) This suggests that, because people are now forced to make sense of Lost or the Harry Potter series or World of Warcraft, they&rsquo;re also better able to handle hard logic puzzles. 
</i></blockquote>
Of course at this stage, that's nothing but a hypothesis, so I'm hesitant to give it too much credence yet. 
<br /><br />
If I had to take a wild, flying guess (and yes, I'm saying this is a total guess), I'd wonder if the increase is because we end up communicating much more with other people these days.  Some of it is that we communicate textually, rather than verbally, much more often than in the past.  So children spend a lot more time with the written word -- even if lots of it is considered silly or banal.  However, I believe that intelligence increases the most through the spread and sharing of ideas and conversation.  The more you have ideas challenged the more you have to think through the logic of what you're saying and try to improve your arguments and cognition around those ideas.  And, just in general, I believe intelligence is mainly expanded through pattern matching and the intersection of new ideas.  The more one communicates with others, the more likely you are to hit those sparks of ideas together, and generate that new knowledge and cognition.
<br /><br />
I don't know how one would go about studying that, but I'm sure it would make for some fascinating research.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110811/10573715477/could-internet-television-be-making-everyone-smarter.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110811/10573715477/could-internet-television-be-making-everyone-smarter.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110811/10573715477/could-internet-television-be-making-everyone-smarter.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>i-thought-google-made-us-dumb</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110811/10573715477</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2010 06:00:34 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Parents Television Council Accused Of Dumping Petitions, Just Focused On Cash</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101027/18035711618/parents-television-council-accused-of-dumping-petitions-just-focused-on-cash.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101027/18035711618/parents-television-council-accused-of-dumping-petitions-just-focused-on-cash.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've written a few times about the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?q=television+council&eid=&tid=&aid=&searchin=stories">Parents Television Council</a>, the infamous nonprofit group that sends out alerts any time anything it considers indecent is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090911/0257326163.shtml">aired on TV</a> or shows up elsewhere that the PTC doesn't like.  Back when Kevin Martin was at the FCC, the PTC actually appeared to have some influence, but since then, its influence has clearly dwindled quite a bit.  And with a court recently <A href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100713/12185410195.shtml">rejecting</a> the FCC's attempts at fining those who upset the PTC as unconstitutional, the organization is apparently struggling with being relevant.  I'd also guess that a growing number of people think that PTC's fear mongering is totally ridiculous and unfounded.  For example, its latest grandstanding is about the CBS TV show <i>$#*! My Dad Says</i>.  I would guess that most people simply don't care.  And that's reflected in the fact that donations are way down to the PTC, and while the group claims 1.3 million members, only about 12,000 people seem to actually be active.
<br><br>
However, the NY Times recently had an article that suggests things are even more screwed up for the PTC than what was already known.  It includes accusations from a whistleblower who worked at the PTC that the organization would <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/business/media/25watchdog.html?_r=1&adxnnlx=1288206002-tJREjnVPG0YKf4YcBbZJCg&pagewanted=all" target="_blank">ignore petitions that were sent in, just taking donations and not doing anything with the material</a>.  To understand what apparently happened, you need to understand how the PTC works.  It generally sends out hyped up FUD-filled "petitions" that it asks people to sign, with promises that the PTC will pass them on to the FCC or whoever else.  Except, the accusations claim that the PTC would take the returned envelopes, take out the cash, but then never pass them on to the FCC.
<br><br>
For a group that tries to present itself as being super ethical, taking money and failing to live up to what you promised to do in exchange for the money seems pretty unethical.
<br><br>
The group's response to this seems to be to attack the whistleblower, trying to turn his request for severance after he left the organization into a claim that he was trying to extort money from them.  Unfortunately for the PTC, after the LAPD investigated the accusations of extortion, it found that the guy did not commit extortion.  Rather than admitting that, it seems that any time anyone brings up these questions, the PTC goes right back to <A href="http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/10/whistleblower-says-parents-television-council-is-beyond-repair.ars" target="_blank">accusing the guy of extortion</a>.  At some point, you'd have to think that if the PTC continues to make such charges, the guy might actually have a decent defamation claim against them....<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101027/18035711618/parents-television-council-accused-of-dumping-petitions-just-focused-on-cash.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101027/18035711618/parents-television-council-accused-of-dumping-petitions-just-focused-on-cash.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101027/18035711618/parents-television-council-accused-of-dumping-petitions-just-focused-on-cash.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well,-look-at-that...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101027/18035711618</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:38:09 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Hulu Finally Announces Subscription Plans: $10/Month To Still Get Advertisements</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100629/13281010005.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100629/13281010005.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As has been predicted and expected for quite some time, Hulu has finally <a href="http://consumerist.com/2010/06/hulu-finally-announces-999month-pay-service.html" target="_blank">announced its subscription plans</a>.  Let's start with the one thing they got right: unlike some newspaper paywalls and such, they're not technically putting the existing offerings behind this subscription wall.  Technically, you can still use Hulu for free the same way you did in the past, but as I explain in a bit, this might not work out in practice.  So what do you get for your $10 per month?  Well, you get access to the latest full season of shows from ABC, NBC and Fox (co-owners of Hulu).  Of course, this isn't exactly a benefit.  It just means that, unlike currently, Hulu doesn't delete shows quite as quickly -- a point that had been annoying users of the site.  What else do you get?  Well, you still get the annoying pre-roll/mid-roll/post-roll commercials, so you're not paying to get rid of those.  And... hmm... well, if you pay, Hulu is just slightly less obnoxious about trying to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100323/0211188667.shtml">block you</a> from accessing the content on a television (even with a perfectly legitimate setup).
<br><br>
That appears to be it.  I'm trying to figure out who thought this was compelling.  Basically, for $10/month, Hulu will be slightly less annoying to the average user by not deleting content during the season and maybe kinda sorta letting you access Hulu on your TV if you happen to use the "approved" equipment.  Of course, you could also use a system that gets around Hulu's bizarre and pointless TV blocks just as easily, but we'll skip over that for now.
<br><br>
Looks like another lost opportunity.  Hulu could have come up with real reasons to buy by actually adding value.  Instead, it just focused on being slightly less annoying. Some might not see these as being all that different (doesn't it add value to be less annoying?).  That's true, but there is a fundamental difference: anyone can be less annoying without getting people to pay for it.  Any business should be striving to be less annoying all the time in their core product.  When you set up your subscription service around "we'll be less annoying," you've now given yourself a perverse and dangerous set of incentives.  You now have the incentive to <b>be more annoying</b> in your core product in a push to get people to sign up for the less annoying product.  Effectively, it's nagware, which may work for some segment of the market, but is not about providing more positive value, but about minimizing negative value.  That's not a growth strategy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100629/13281010005.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100629/13281010005.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100629/13281010005.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well-that's-comforting</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100629/13281010005</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:44:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Is Hulu About To Find Out That There's Always Somewhere Else To Get Content Online?</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100422/0944109138.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100422/0944109138.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=wanderlust">Wanderlust</a> wrote in to point out the rumors doing the rounds today that <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/04/hulu-pushes-forward-with-995-subscription-service.html">Hulu is getting ready to launch a paid subscription service</a>, something that's <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20091023/1117066656.shtml">popped up before</a>. Apparently Hulu is looking to offer the five most recent episodes of a show for free, then will charge $10 a month for access to older episodes. There aren't a ton of details, so it's not clear exactly how the plan will play out. But we can say this: unless Hulu is adding some real value for users, and not just putting currently free content behind a paywall, it's doomed to failure. It's pretty clear that some of Hulu's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090223/0055373860.shtml">corporate overlords</a> think all of its content should be behind a paywall. But erecting a paywall will simply drive Hulu users to unauthorized downloads and streams, delivering those content providers absolutely nothing. All too often these paywalls are based on the idea that once users have nowhere else to go, they'll start paying; the reality is, though, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100407/0245048908.shtml">there's always somewhere else to go</a>. 
<br /><br />
Hulu's success thus far has been by attracting users with a good choice of content presented in a good interface, reflecting something of an understanding that the way to compete with free, unauthorized content is to offer users something better. It's already started to undermine some of its success by <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100323/0211188667.shtml">blocking certain browsers</a> in an attempt to force users to only access its content (and its advertising) through means of which it approves, and the paywall represents yet another step towards replacing a product that's better than unauthorized content with one that's worse. In any case, when online streaming TV shows are already pulling in some <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090628/1603045385.shtml">high ad rates</a>, does it make any sense at all for Hulu to start throwing up paywalls?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100422/0944109138.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100422/0944109138.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100422/0944109138.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>killing-the-goose</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100422/0944109138</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:50:30 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Dish Network Lies About Having 200 HD Channels, Hopes Nobody Notices</title>
<dc:creator>Karl Bode</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100420/1108529114.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100420/1108529114.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>For several years TV carriers have enjoyed bickering over which company has the most HD channels, in part because it creates a debate focused on perceived value -- and steers the conversation away from who offers the lowest prices (or the fact that companies seem to impose annual or bi-annual TV hikes in unison). Carriers only just recently surpassed the 100 HD channel count, so it was surprising this week when Dish Network <a href="http://dish.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=460944">suddenly and proudly announced</a> that the company was the first to pass the 200 HD channel mark -- insisting &quot;only DISH Network has delivered&quot; on this supposedly-epic promise. Except amusingly, Dish Network didn't bother to include a full list of the channels they added, and when reporters and bloggers on the TV/telecom beat started asking Dish questions, the company <a href="http://www.tvpredictions.com/dishbozle042010.htm">started getting a little bit uncomfortable</a>:</p><blockquote>&quot;<em>I asked Dish Network's PR department for a list of the 200 HD channels, numbered from 1 to 200. Not too surprising, the company was evasive, saying the 200 HD channels could be found at its web site. However, when I told them I could not locate more than around 130 HD channels listed at DishNetwork.com, the company's PR department got even more evasive -- and started to act a bit strange. At one point, a company spokeswoman said she could give me a breakdown of the 200 HD channels on &quot;background only,&quot; meaning I couldn't attribute the information to Dish Network</em>.&quot;</blockquote><p>As it turns out, Dish's marketing department had gotten creative -- and was suddenly counting 57 different On Demand movie titles as&quot;channels&quot; (the <em>Alvin &#038; The Chipmunks 2</em> channel, anyone?) and just hoped that nobody would notice. So instead of being seen as the TV operator that offers the most HD channels, Dish Network is now being seen as the TV operator who assumes everybody is stupid, which we'll assume wasn't what the company's PR department was aiming for. </p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100420/1108529114.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100420/1108529114.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100420/1108529114.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>your-customers-can-count-you-know</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100420/1108529114</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:01:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The Number of People Giving Up TV for the Web Is Slowly Gaining Pace</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100413/0915408997.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100413/0915408997.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A new report estimates that some <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/13/800000-households-abandoned-tvs-web/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&#038;utm_content=Google+Reader">800,000 American households now watch TV only via the Web</a>, as the move to abandon cable, satellite or OTA broadcasts starts to gather pace. This represents a small percentage of the pay TV industry's 101 million subscribers, but the number is expected to double by the end of next year. These are the earliest adopters, though, and they account for just 3 percent of all full-episode online television viewing -- meaning that plenty of people are already supplanting their standard TV viewing with online episodes. It's clear already (and has been for some time) that TV viewers are undertaking a fundamental change in how they want to access and view content. The combination of the Web and DVRs allowing on-demand viewing has made the linear TV channel something of an outdated concept, and at some point, TV providers will need to realize that on-demand shows are now how a growing number of people want to receive their programming. 
<br /><br />
Cable companies, for one, recognize this to a certain extent, so they've responded with TV Everywhere, a plan to offer programming online. But that plan is <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20100323/0228158668.shtml">doomed to failure</a> because it's being implemented in the hamfisted way you might expect from cable companies, and is set up simply to force people to keep paying for cable if they want to watch shows online. If the plan to capitalize on online viewers is first to force them to keep paying for something they don't want, then by further embracing the "features" of current systems that <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090918/0140316234.shtml">drive users away</a>, it's hard to see TV companies having a whole lot of success. The key is not to shoehorn the cable model onto the web, but to embrace the positive features enabled by the web and apply them to the rest of their business.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100413/0915408997.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100413/0915408997.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100413/0915408997.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>cord-cutting</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100413/0915408997</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>