<?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;tv&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 09:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>TV Networks Finally Discover Live Streaming; Still Get It Really, Really Wrong</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130514/01475423078/tv-networks-finally-discover-live-streaming-still-get-it-really-really-wrong.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130514/01475423078/tv-networks-finally-discover-live-streaming-still-get-it-really-really-wrong.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Over and over again people have pointed out that one of the reasons people flock to "unauthorized" versions of content is that legitimate versions aren't available.  For a decade or so, it's been odd that network TV has been generally resistant to embracing the internet.  A big part of the reason, of course, is money driven, since they  make so much cash from cable deals (even if their content is free over the air).  The fight with Aereo, of course, is not so much about copyright as it is about retransmission fees that the networks can get from cable.  So it might seem like a bit of progress to see that <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/13/net-us-abc-online-idUSBRE94C00720130513?feedType=RSS&#038;feedName=internetNews&#038;rpc=22" target="_blank">the networks are finally moving towards <i>live streaming</i> of content</a>.
<br /><br />
While many shows are now available online, they usually aren't available until hours (or sometimes days or weeks) after things air.  And while, yes, we're now a DVR world, where people don't always watch shows when they air, there is still a sizable population of fans of shows that like to watch them in real-time.  In fact, many have said that the supposedly evil internet is actually making them <i>more</i> interested in watching live, because they can share the cultural experience more widely via things like Twitter and Facebook.  So, recognizing that reality, making it <i>easier</i> for people to view the content live at the same time, such as via online streaming, makes a lot of sense.  Kudos to the networks for recognizing that, about a decade later than they should have.
<blockquote><i>
Disney's ABC network will become the first broadcast network to stream its shows live online through an ongoing service, starting with viewers of its TV stations in New York and Philadelphia on May 14 and expanding to its other stations by the end of the summer.
</i></blockquote>
Okay, that's the good part.  But, given who we're talking about, of course there's a catch.  There's always a catch:
<blockquote><i>
Starting on July 1, <b>Disney will only provide its WATCH ABC service to subscribers of cable, satellite and other TV subscription services</b> that have agreements with ABC to offer the service to their subscribers in New York and Philadelphia. Subscribers <b>must provide an authentication code</b> to be granted access to the shows.
<br /><br />
Later this summer, Disney said it will expand use of its WATCH ABC service to <b>authenticated subscribers</b> that receive its TV stations in Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Houston, Raleigh-Durham and Fresno, California.
</i></blockquote>
Remember, this is <i>free, over the air, network television</i> we're talking about.  But they're so frightened of pissing off the cable/satellite guys from whom they make boatloads of money, they won't offer the content to cord cutters -- only to people who are already paying ridiculous sums for cable/satellite TV.
<br /><br />
Oh, and rather than make it work on any platform, it appears to be specific to certain devices:
<blockquote><i>
The app will initially allow users to be able to watch the service on Apple's iPad and iPhone and on the Kindle Fire device, and later this summer on Samsung Galaxy devices.
</i></blockquote>
Oh, and they're not done with the <a href="http://techland.time.com/2013/05/13/abc-to-stream-live-tv-in-fight-against-cord-cutters/" target="_blank">bad ideas</a> either:
<blockquote><i>
The report also claims that in the future, <b>ABC will &#8220;withhold its most recent TV episodes from the free versions of Hulu and ABC.com, further limiting access to paying subscribers of cable and satellite providers only.&#8221;</b>
</i></blockquote>
Way to take a good idea (live streaming) and make it completely crappy and pointless again (locking it to devices and existing overpriced pay TV offerings while taking away the value for everyone else and further fragmenting the space).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130514/01475423078/tv-networks-finally-discover-live-streaming-still-get-it-really-really-wrong.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130514/01475423078/tv-networks-finally-discover-live-streaming-still-get-it-really-really-wrong.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130514/01475423078/tv-networks-finally-discover-live-streaming-still-get-it-really-really-wrong.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>of-course-they-do</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130514/01475423078</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 9 May 2013 00:27:50 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Iraqi Government Shutters Television Stations It Doesn't Like</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130429/09383522881/iraqi-government-shutters-television-stations-it-doesnt-like.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130429/09383522881/iraqi-government-shutters-television-stations-it-doesnt-like.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
Some of us had hoped that the liberation in Iraq would finally produce an example of a once clamped-down, dictatorial regime giving way to a pluralistic government in the Middle East. The theory was that after years of oppressive rule by the minority Sunni population, an inclusive government would result in functioning democracy, with all the benefits that go along with it. Chief amongst those benefits is the right to free speech, which requires allowing an open and free press. Unfortunately, that hope dwindled somewhat years back, when the Iraqi government joined the list of nations that sought to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090805/0154095774.shtml">censor</a> the internet to protect its own power. The importance of that move was probably lost on many people who failed to understand that it was an absolute negation of the freedom gained only years before.
<br /><br />
And now that negation is apparently continuing under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government, as they have <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/28/world/meast/iraq-unrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t5">ordered 10 television networks to be shut down</a> on the charges that they simply don't care for their reporting.
<blockquote>
<i>Iraq's government ordered 10 television networks shut down Sunday, accusing them of stoking sectarian violence with "unprofessional" and "unethical" coverage of recent clashes in the country's north. Sunday's order from the Communications and Media Commission includes the Qatar-based satellite network Al Jazeera and eight outlets aimed at the country's Sunni Arab minority. Ahmed Saeed, a reporter for Baghdad Satellite TV, said the decree effectively halts his network's reporting.</i></blockquote>
This move is wrong-headed on several levels. First, if media outlets had to be shut down whenever they reported <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130418/08282522750/major-medias-fine-job-confusing-everyone-about-boston-suspects.shtml">inaccurate</a> information, even America would be left with zero media outlets. Second, considering the targets of these shutdowns, there is a roughly 100% chance that they will be seen as a stifling of speech specifically on the Sunni minority, once in power and now with a minor seat at the government table. The tone here is one of simple revenge rather than any sincere attempt at stifling bad information. Shias censoring Sunnis isn't the way to stop internal conflicts. One needs only look to Syria for evidence that stifling speech won't stop the violence.
<br /><br />
And most importantly, moves like this will simply push Iraq back to the very arena in which its people suffered for so many years. Censorship of speech and the press is the field upon which folks like Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida play, and have been playing for longer than al-Maliki's government. They're <i>better</i> at it than he is. The cure is open culture, pluralism, and free speech. Push Iraq away from openness and you place it in danger of fascism and theocracy once more.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130429/09383522881/iraqi-government-shutters-television-stations-it-doesnt-like.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130429/09383522881/iraqi-government-shutters-television-stations-it-doesnt-like.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130429/09383522881/iraqi-government-shutters-television-stations-it-doesnt-like.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-more-things-change</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130429/09383522881</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2013 07:01:09 PST</pubDate>
<title>Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage</title>
<dc:creator>Leigh Beadon</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/18442221671/dear-hbo-disney-netflix-et-al-fragmenting-online-tv-lets-piracy-keep-its-biggest-advantage.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/18442221671/dear-hbo-disney-netflix-et-al-fragmenting-online-tv-lets-piracy-keep-its-biggest-advantage.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>As surely as iPods will continue to outsell wax cylinders, the film and television industries are moving online. Really, the whole distinction of media that "is" or "isn't" online will sound ridiculous within a generation, and today's awkwardness is just an unavoidable transitional phase. Reluctance and momentum are keeping legacy structures intact, but in an increasingly ersatz manner that guarantees lots of anxiety at the big TV networks and movie studios. AVClub editor Todd VanDerWerff <a href="http://www.avclub.com/articles/nbc-at-the-tca-winter-press-tour-nbc-is-still-nbc,90468/" target="_blank">saw the signs everywhere</a> during the recent Television Critics Association winter press tour:</p>

<blockquote><em>For years, people who write about TV have been wondering just what the tipping point would be, when DVR usage, online streaming, and pirated viewing of TV broadcasts would become so significant that networks would essentially have to invent a new business model. The networks aren't at that point yet, but they're so close that everybody's talking about it with great confidence, as if the Internet hasn't thrown a great fear of the unknown into their souls. There's still far more money to be made in the old model, the sort of money that can still afford to produce big, ambitious shows like Revolution, as opposed to smaller-scale things like reality series and multi-camera sitcoms, than there is to be made under any new model. But the tipping point is almost here.</em></blockquote>

<p>Is it ever. The news of big things happening with online service providers, especially Netflix, never stops pouring in. Though traditional analysts might recommend Disney <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/14403819570/tv-analyst-kids-love-netflix-disney-should-break-them-that-nasty-habit.shtml">start a cold war with Netflix</a>, the companies instead recently <a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-08/news/chi-tms-variety-disney-netflix_1_disney-inks-netflix-subs-agreement-for-disney-output">entered an exclusive partnership</a> to stream lots of content from Disney, Pixar and Marvel. There's only one part of that sentence I wish I didn't have to type: <strong>exclusive</strong>. It's a word that pops up all too much in recent news about evolving TV and movie business models.</p>

<p>Netflix has been <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2013/01/08/netflix-arrested-development-house-of-cards/1816835/" target="_blank">stockpiling exclusive original content</a>, including a lot of potential hits like the revival of <em>Arrested Development</em>, a new drama starring Kevin Spacey, a murder mystery produced by Eli Roth, a new Ricky Gervais series and more &mdash; all on top of deals like the one with Disney. Then there's the infamously closed-off HBO and its hoard of ultra-popular shows that can't be accessed without a full cable package plus an HBO subscription (and which also happen to be among the <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">most pirated shows</a>). HBO recently reached <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/01/07/hbo-and-universal-strike-10-year-exclusive-deal-wage-war-on-netflix/" target="_blank">its own exclusive agreement, this time with Universal</a> &mdash; to air the studio's films and keep them <em>off of</em> Netflix, along with the rest of the HBO catalogue. For at least ten years.</p>

<p><center><img src="http://i.imgur.com/owWWr.png" title="Not today." /></center></p>

<p>Paul Tassi has a good grasp on what this move really represents:</p>

<blockquote><em>I think people are missing the larger idea of what's happening here, and that's HBO becoming the closest thing Netflix has to a direct competitor. The groundwork is already in place with the aforementioned Go service. Add in exclusive access to movies from all those studios, and $15 a month for HBO Go starts looking nearly as appealing as $15 a month for Netflix.</em></blockquote>

<p>Basically, HBO is betting against cord-cutting, but also trying to compete in the online space, assuming that most people will keep their cable <em>and</em> pay extra for exclusive content plus digital access to that content. I can see that being true for a while (lots of people have both cable and Netflix), but it makes no sense in the long run. Eventually, HBO will be forced to offer some sort of online-only subscription.</p>

<p>But will even that be enough? Here's where we get back to the exclusivity problem. All these exclusive deals are serving to fragment a market that doesn't yet have clearly defined rules for delivery. Exclusivity is a great thing for creators to sell, and a great thing for businesses to leverage, but in this transitional phase for distribution models, it's harming everyone involved by making sure piracy retains its biggest advantage: comprehensive access. Networks have always had exclusive shows, but they all ended up in the same place &mdash; your television, delivered through a single antenna. Then later you needed not just an antenna, but a cable, to get everything. Then later you needed to pay more for specific cable channels to get certain shows &mdash; and lo and behold, those shows were among the first and most widely pirated.</p>

<p>The knee jerk reaction to piracy's unflagging popularity is to assume that, as the mantra goes, "people just want everything for free." But as the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110721/04092915191/industry-suppressed-report-showing-users-shuttered-pirate-site-probably-helped-movie-industry.shtml">evidence</a> that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121126/00590921141/dear-riaa-pirates-buy-more-full-stop-deal-with-it.shtml">pirates buy more media</a> has continued to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110727/16233815292/another-day-another-study-that-says-pirates-are-best-customers-this-time-hadopi.shtml">pile up</a>, that idea has been stripped of its credibility.</p>

<p>As some people have been pointing out for years, piracy's real advantage lies elsewhere: convenience, selection and availability. Piracy is currently the fullest realization of the internet's potential as a culture-machine: virtually any movie, any TV series, any song, any obscure documentary or bootlegged live performance, all accessible to anyone. No need to subscribe to multiple different providers; no release windows or geographical barriers. The fact is that no other means of obtaining media has matched piracy in terms of sheer selection and accessibility, so naturally it has never gone away, even though it has many significant flaws like spammy sites and spotty quality control.</p>

<p><center><img src="http://i.imgur.com/0H1Zp.png" title="Stannis used to prefer torrents." /></center></p>

<p>I'm not saying everyone should hand everything to Netflix &mdash; only that service providers, studios, networks and everyone else involved need to employ a little game theory and figure out how to move the business forward to everyone's benefit. This means partnerships that allow more sharing of content, new infrastructures that make delivery and payment more seamless, and the undeniably challenging elimination of geographical restrictions and other obsolete licensing concerns. As the world moves away from the captive audience and towards a culture of infinite choice, expecting people who want comprehensive access to buy multiple different subscriptions from multiple different companies is tragically foolish. The culture machine has been built; pirates shouldn't be the only ones using it properly.</p><br /><br /><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">Permalink</a> | <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#comments">Comments</a> | <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?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>bake-a-bigger-pie</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130114/18442221671</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:02:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Smart TV Exploit Means Hackers Can Watch You Watch TV</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121212/10482321363/smart-tv-exploit-means-hackers-can-watch-you-watch-tv.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121212/10482321363/smart-tv-exploit-means-hackers-can-watch-you-watch-tv.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Remember all the hubbub (now there&#39;s a word I never thought I'd use; thanks a lot, aging process) over Comcast's kind of, maybe plan to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080320/171005601.shtml">spy on</a> subscribers through their cable box as they watch TV, fold their laundry, or engage in coitus? There was quite an outcry at the time, even as Comcast said that the plan was only to have the cameras be able to recognize when different types or numbers of people were watching the tube. People just didn't feel comfortable with corporations being able to spy on them. As a result, Comcast backed away from the plan -- the people had defeated the corporation.<br />
<br />
All, apparently, so that hackers could spy on them instead. At least, that's what some reports are saying about <a href="http://securityledger.com/security-hole-in-samsung-smart-tvs-could-allow-remote-spying/">Samsung Smart TVs and an exploit that would allow hackers</a> to snatch social media credentials, access any files or devices connected to the smart TV...oh, and to use the built in cameras to spy the hell out of people as they do whatever they do while watching television.
<blockquote>
<i>In an e-mail exchange with Security Ledger, the Malta-based firm said that the previously unknown ("zero day") hole affects Samsung Smart TVs running the latest version of the company's Linux-based firmware. It could give an attacker the ability to access any file available on the remote device, as well as external devices (such as USB drives) connected to the TV. And, in a Orwellian twist, the hole could be used to access cameras and microphones attached to the Smart TVs, giving remote attacker the ability to spy on those viewing a compromised set.</i></blockquote>
The group that reportedly discovered the vulnerability, ReVuln, proudly stated that they would not publish any information about what they'd uncovered except to paying subscribers because <i>screw everyone else </i>(not an actual quote). They also have a company policy, apparently, that would prevent them from working with Samsung directly on a fix or even to disclose the hole, leading me to reach the logical conclusion that Dr. Evil is apparently running that company.
<br /><br />
Even more fun, thanks to how Samsung designed the product, chances are any fix that could be produced would be difficult to implement.
<blockquote>
<i>Currently, the Smart TVs offer no native security features, such as a firewall, user authentication or application whitelisting. More critically: there is no independent software update capability, meaning that, barring a firmware update from Samsung, the exploitable hole can't be patched without "voiding the device's warranty and using other exploits," ReVuln said.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>The company posted a video of an attack on a Samsung TV LED 3D Smart TV online. It shows an attacker gaining shell access to the TV, copying the contents of its hard drive to an external device and mounting them on a local drive, providing access to photos, documents and other content. ReVuln said an attacker would also be able to lift credentials from any social networks or other online services accessed from the device.</i>
</blockquote>
In other words, customers get to wait around until Samsung can figure this thing out on their own, since ReVuln won't help them out by company policy, or risk voiding their warranty on their smart TV that has a complete lack of security features. Nicely done, everyone involved.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121212/10482321363/smart-tv-exploit-means-hackers-can-watch-you-watch-tv.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121212/10482321363/smart-tv-exploit-means-hackers-can-watch-you-watch-tv.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121212/10482321363/smart-tv-exploit-means-hackers-can-watch-you-watch-tv.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>i-spy-with-my-little-eye</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121212/10482321363</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 00:07:04 PDT</pubDate>
<title>NZ Gets New 'Homeland' Episodes Less Than 4 Hours After US</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120924/18074520503/nz-gets-new-homeland-episodes-less-than-4-hours-after-us.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120924/18074520503/nz-gets-new-homeland-episodes-less-than-4-hours-after-us.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Despite <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051202/0233234_F.shtml" target="_blank">windowing</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120322/04380018198/fox-tv-finally-realizes-internet-is-global-launches-show-around-globe-simultaneously.shtml" target="_blank">regional restrictions</a> being the international sign for "PIRATE ME!" many content providers continue to throw artificial locks on their offerings. Their potential viewers soon discover that "2 weeks out" in TV network time means "3 hours or less" in TorrentTime. If the content providers truly believe that Piracy = Lost Sales, why aren't they doing more to eliminate the gap between the content's debut and its worldwide spread?<br />
<br />
It's not as if it's impossible. Another case in point: <a href="http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/tv3-shows-way-beat-online-piracy" target="_blank">New Zealand's TV3 is chopping away at the excessive (and arbitrary) delay</a> between Showtime's American debut of Homeland episodes and their availability locally.
<blockquote>
<i>TV3 is going to screen the new series of Homeland just four hours after episodes play in the US &ndash; with episodes posted to TV3.co.nz's on demand service at midnight on the day of broadcast.</i></blockquote>
The timing is actually even tighter than that. Here's the breakdown directly from TV3:
<blockquote>
<i>Homeland episodes will screen 3 hours 25 minutes after the Pacific Time debuts in the US. That US-NZ gap will be consistent until there's a daylight savings change. The broadcast time in each country won't change.</i><br />
<br />
<i>With ondemand, we can have each ep available from midnight the same night</i>.</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/tv3-shows-way-beat-online-piracy#comment-585199" target="_blank">As someone in the comments points out</a>, that's roughly the same amount of time it takes for new episodes to show up at, um, "unlicensed" distributors:
<blockquote>
<i>4 hours would put it on schedule with me getting it off torrents, so quite viable to watch</i>.</blockquote>
Beating free at its own game often simply means eliminating legacy remnants like exaggerated delays and other restrictions. Even though this move will likely trim down the number of fans looking elsewhere for new episodes, MediaWorks (TV3's parent company) refreshingly claims converting pirates is not the "primary motivation" for this move:
<blockquote>
<i>"TV viewing is increasingly a community event, and online communities are global rather than local," spokeswoman Rachel Lorimer told NBR.</i><br />
<br />
<i>"By screening international shows as close to their global premieres as practical, we ensure our audience is part of the global conversation around a big show and, of course, that keeps us relevant. Those are the main motivations.</i></blockquote>
How often do you hear a spokesperson for a large corporation (content or otherwise) talk about doing what's important for the <i>fans</i> rather than, say, the quarterly financial statements? Many, many content providers refuse to acknowledge that the internet has made "country of origin" a non-factor while also providing an incredibly powerful platform for both distribution and "global conversation."<br />
<br />
Lorimer also acknowledges the side benefits of catering to the customers:
<blockquote>
<i>"However, positive side effects may well be that our viewers save on their broadband data cap and are less likely to risk illegally downloading TV series. And a win for viewers is a win for us."</i></blockquote>
Giving viewers what they want when they want it. It's a plan so crazy it might be profitable.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120924/18074520503/nz-gets-new-homeland-episodes-less-than-4-hours-after-us.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120924/18074520503/nz-gets-new-homeland-episodes-less-than-4-hours-after-us.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120924/18074520503/nz-gets-new-homeland-episodes-less-than-4-hours-after-us.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>fighting-piracy-and-connecting-fans-by-breaking-windows</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120924/18074520503</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:24:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>HBO Go Goes Everywhere... Except Your TV Set</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/18212720200/hbo-go-goes-everywhere-except-your-tv-set.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/18212720200/hbo-go-goes-everywhere-except-your-tv-set.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Oh, HBO. You want so many people to love you. <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" target="_blank">And they do</a>, shelling out for additional offerings like HBO Go in order to take the shows they love with them on their mobile devices. And what do you do with this love? <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120418/08405618545/hbo-decides-it-still-isnt-difficult-enough-to-watch-hbo-shows.shtml">You crush it</a>. You crush it like a heartless Lothario parting ways with a high-school girlfriend after a quick round under the bleachers, announcing "I'm going to college out of state. Call you sometime," leaving her half-dressed, teary-eyed and a bit dusty.<br />
<br />
The issue has been knocking around for awhile, but today, <a href="http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/08/hbo-no-go.html" target="_blank">the unfortunate high school girlfriend was Fred Wilson, respected blogger and venture capitalist</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>I put the awesome HBO GO app on the family&#39;s iPad yesterday and tried to Airplay into our family room TV. I got audio on the TV but not video. I thought I was doing something wrong. So I rebooted everything and tried again. Same thing.</i><br />
<br />
<i>So I did a web search on the topic to see what was going on. Turns out HBO GO has disabled the video on Airplay but not the audio. That&#39;s right. They disabled the video but include an Airplay button in the app.</i></blockquote>
Why would someone do this? Why brick half the service and leave end users scratching their heads and casting about wildly over at the <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=hbo+airplay&amp;aq=f&amp;sugexp=chrome,mod=17&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8#hl=en&amp;q=+site:discussions.apple.com+hbo+airplay&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=9jM9ULq9JInlyAGjoYGoDw&amp;ved=0CEcQrQIwAw&amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&amp;fp=4c4e4dd9cacdc02d&amp;biw=880&amp;bih=893" target="_blank">Apple support forums</a>?<br />
<br />
The "why" is the usual "why." Or rather, two usual "whys." The first "why" is somewhat of a licensing issue. HBO really doesn't want to do anything to jeopardize its relationship with the studios and cable companies, so it's limited the functionality of the Go app to mobile devices only. HBO wants you to use HBO On Demand if its current slate of programs isn't working for you. I would imagine there's a revenue stream hidden there, but taking advantage of it would mean damaging some valuable relationships. In HBO's view, Go <i>isn't</i> broken because fixing it would break something more valuable.<br />
<br />
The second "why" is piracy, or rather, the fear of. From the <a href="http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/08/hbo-no-go.html#comment-632171500" target="_blank">comment thread</a> at AVC:
<blockquote>
<i>Having developed these sort of systems before, I can tell you it&#39;s because AirPlay is considered an insecure protocol. It&#39;s too easy to capture the AirPlay stream and thus, in theory, create HD copies of the video. That&#39;s why they don&#39;t do it.</i><br />
<br />
<i>I&#39;ve found that the cryptographic particularities don&#39;t always matter when you&#39;re in discussions with the studios. They have a list of approved DRMs and technologies and you&#39;re either on the list or you&#39;re not. Otherwise, you face at least a 6+ month in depth technical review of the stack.</i><br />
<br />
<i>TL;DR: The studios can be somewhat arbitrary in approving or disproving technologies. Last I heard, AirPlay was not approved.</i></blockquote>
Even if HBO wanted you to have this freedom (and it's not necessarily clear that it does), it still has to keep the upstream (studios) happy. And if the studios think there's a possibility that the TV you're streaming to is actually some sort of unauthorized recording device (like a VCR made out of hard drives?), it's never going to get the green light.<br />
<br />
The next question is this: why put an Airplay button in your app if it's completely (or at least, mostly) unusable?&nbsp;No real answer is available. Perhaps the hope is that at some point the button will work. Or <a href="http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/08/hbo-no-go.html#comment-631893820" target="_blank">developer cruelty</a>.<br />
<br />
The whole situation is clearly ridiculous and highlights just how incestuous all these services (cable companies, movie studios, premium channels) are. HBO can't piss off the up and downstream sides of the equation, so it locks down anything that might be perceived as "leaving money on the table." The combined fear of piracy between these three entities (well, two of them anyway) is likely verging on "unmeasurable." This results in some very arbitrary restrictions created in the name of copy protection.<br />
<br />
Caught in the middle is the cheerleader/consumer. HBO Go <i>requires</i> having an active cable account. The cable box (an additional monthly charge) only provides access to HBO On Demand (another additional <a href="http://www.hboondemand.com/faq.html" target="_blank">monthly charge</a>). Then there's HBO Go itself (another additional charge). It's tough to see much more than couch cushion change being left on the table in this situation.<br />
<br />
And why do people <i>want</i> to stream HBO Go to their TVs? Because of HBO itself. HBO's On Demand selection is very limited as compared to HBO Go. On top of that, many users seem to feel that HBO Go's interface is better and more easily navigated. So, if it's all paid for, why is this feature bricked?<br />
<br />
See above. Piracy fears. Fear of upsetting the balance between the three related parties. But further than that, it's the inability to recognize that users and customers will want to use your products and services in ways you never intended.<br />
<br />
To HBO, it's likely inconceivable that someone would want to stream to a device and kick it right back to the TV set where its other content resides. But they do. And they're going to find ways to work around this limitation. When these roadblocks become easily circumvented, rather than realize that these efforts are made to make paid services work the way the <i>customer</i> wants them to, the content providers usually start worrying about their loss of distribution control. This worry leads to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120824/01254520142/mpaa-pretends-offering-something-is-same-thing-as-offering-what-people-want.shtml" target="_blank">less innovation</a> and more disabled features and bogus restrictions.<br />
<br />
What they need to be doing (HBO, studios, cable providers) is taking long looks at these complaints and adjusting their offerings to better fit customer expectations. Consider yourself lucky you're still able to monetize nearly every aspect of these services and look to improve your current offerings. Do this often enough and you may learn to anticipate customer wants and needs. If you're looking to keep the food chain happy and trim down on "unauthorized" viewing, your best bet is to get to the "anticipation" point as quickly as you can.&nbsp;<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/18212720200/hbo-go-goes-everywhere-except-your-tv-set.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/18212720200/hbo-go-goes-everywhere-except-your-tv-set.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/18212720200/hbo-go-goes-everywhere-except-your-tv-set.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>pls-stop-using-our-services-in-unexpected-ways-kthx</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120828/18212720200</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:44:01 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Honest Mistake: Order A TV From Amazon, Receive An Illegal Assault Rifle</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120809/05445819976/honest-mistake-order-tv-amazon-receive-illegal-assault-rifle.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120809/05445819976/honest-mistake-order-tv-amazon-receive-illegal-assault-rifle.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ With guns and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120723/05472819794/press-speculates-batman-shooter-must-have-played-video-games-theyre-right-he-loved-guitar-hero.shtml">violence</a> in <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/05/us/wisconsin-temple-shooting-scene/index.html?iid=article_sidebar">the news lately</a>, you would think that&nbsp;everyone involved in the chain of&nbsp;the firearms business&nbsp;would be a teensy-weensy bit more careful, from manufacturers, to retailers, all the way up to those handling the shipping and distribution. As with any other business, you have to expect to deal with some human error, but one would imagine that the firearms industry would have the tightest of controls in place right now.<br />
<br />
As it turns out, such notions are exactly that: imagination. Or, at least that appears to be the case in the Wired story of a man from Washington D.C. who <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08/tv-amazon-assault-rifle/?utm_source=facebook&amp;utm_medium=socialmedia&amp;utm_campaign=facebookclickthru">ordered a television on Amazon and was shipped a Sig Sauer 716 Patrol Rifle</a>. For anyone keeping score at home, that&#39;s a military grade weapon. Seth Horvitz, the guy who is guilty of attempted TV-buying, is not a military grade citizen.
<blockquote>
<i>&ldquo;When I saw some metal parts inside the box, I thought, &lsquo;Maybe this is a TV stand or mount or something,&rsquo;&rdquo; Horvitz said in a phone interview with Wired. &ldquo;When I realized it was an assault rifle, it was pure shock and disbelief.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
The Wired interviewer chooses not to ask Horvitz if he attempted to point the weapon at his wall and pull the trigger to see if flat-panel televisions shot out, which is disappointing. In any case, Horvitz did the responsible thing and immediately called the D.C. police, who informed him that the weapon is illegal to own in the District of Columbia. There is no word yet on whether flat-panel displays are also illegal, but I&#39;m guessing not.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
The story then details how the mistake happened, which essentially appears to boil down to a lovely bit of insight into the shipping warehouses of UPS, in which the Label Fairy made a mistake and put two shipping labels (only one of which was correct) on the box-&#39;o-death and allowed the box to be shipped anyway. Everyone from the guy who let it leave the warehouse to the guy who delivered the rifle to Horvitz&#39;s door apparently decided to play the new hit game "Shipping Address Coin Flip", resulting in Horvitz getting his new Rambo Halloween costume accessory. Amazon, predictably, disavowed any responsibility for the mistake, which it&#39;s looking like it has every right to do. On the other hand, when Horvitz tried to post a review of his purchase, Amazon blocked it. Admittedly, the review was hillarious, and guns and funny just don&#39;t mix:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/A0TwV"><img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/A0TwV.jpg" width="560" /></a></center>
<p>
I&#39;m not sure what pretending all this didn&#39;t happen accomplishes from Amazon&#39;s end, other than to perhaps flip open the cover to the Streisand Effect alarm, press it, and wait for the derision to ensue.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120809/05445819976/honest-mistake-order-tv-amazon-receive-illegal-assault-rifle.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120809/05445819976/honest-mistake-order-tv-amazon-receive-illegal-assault-rifle.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120809/05445819976/honest-mistake-order-tv-amazon-receive-illegal-assault-rifle.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>might-have-been-a-mistake</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120809/05445819976</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 6 Aug 2012 08:25:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Over 400,000 Homes Have Cut The Cord So Far This Year... But Cord Cutting Is Still A Myth?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120803/04291719926/over-400000-homes-have-cut-cord-so-far-this-year-cord-cutting-is-still-myth.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120803/04291719926/over-400000-homes-have-cut-cord-so-far-this-year-cord-cutting-is-still-myth.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For a few years now, we've been hearing pay TV execs (and some of their favorite Wall Street analysts) claiming that cord cutting in the US is some sort of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110928/02411516123/time-warner-cable-ceo-remains-denial-about-cord-cutting.shtml">myth</a>, even as the numbers continue to prove otherwise.  The latest stat is that, since the beginning of this year <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/02/paytv-idUSL2E8J29MJ20120802" target="_blank">400,000 households have cut the cord</a> and dropped pay TV services.  At what point will the TV guys realize that cord cutting is real?  They still like to blame it all on the economy, but the fact is that the vast majority of these users are <i>never</i> going back.  Until TV execs realize that's a fact, they're never going to understand how to adapt.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120803/04291719926/over-400000-homes-have-cut-cord-so-far-this-year-cord-cutting-is-still-myth.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120803/04291719926/over-400000-homes-have-cut-cord-so-far-this-year-cord-cutting-is-still-myth.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120803/04291719926/over-400000-homes-have-cut-cord-so-far-this-year-cord-cutting-is-still-myth.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>reality-smacking-that-myth-around</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120803/04291719926</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 03:09:50 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Time Warner Cable Is Ready For A 'Conversation' About Rising Costs, But Not The One You Want To Have</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/12063919844/time-warner-cable-is-ready-conversation-about-rising-costs-not-one-you-want-to-have.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/12063919844/time-warner-cable-is-ready-conversation-about-rising-costs-not-one-you-want-to-have.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's no secret that lots of internet users <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110126/03531712831/metered-bandwidth-isnt-about-stopping-bandwidth-hogs-its-about-preserving-old-media-business-models.shtml">hate</a> the idea of metered broadband.  It adds serious mental transaction costs in using the internet ("will watching this movie actually cost me lots of money in overage fees?") and generally limits innovation by limiting what you can do online.  On top of that, there's little evidence that such metered bandwidth is necessary (contrary to the claims of marketing people, when you talk to the tech people, they <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110314/08473413487/as-att-introduces-caps-bt-removes-them-says-investing-network-is-smarter.shtml">don't see</a> any real congestion problems).  However, the broadband providers absolutely love the caps because they basically allow them to make more money without having to actually invest in expanding their infrastructure.
<br /><br />
So it's interesting to see that Time Warner Cable has set up a site, called <a href="http://twcconversations.com/" target="_blank">Time Warner Cable Conversations</a>, which they claim is a conversation with consumers about how to "fight rising costs."  Except... they really only want the conversation to be about rising costs caused by what the TV networks charge to carry the channels.  If you want to talk about fighting rising costs by arguing against broadband metering, well, too bad.  The whole site is <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Time-Warner-Cables-OneSided-Conversation-on-Usage-Billing-120516" target="_blank">moderated and limited</a> and it appears that only conversations about TV networks and such are allowed.  That's not much of a "conversation" now, is it?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/12063919844/time-warner-cable-is-ready-conversation-about-rising-costs-not-one-you-want-to-have.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/12063919844/time-warner-cable-is-ready-conversation-about-rising-costs-not-one-you-want-to-have.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/12063919844/time-warner-cable-is-ready-conversation-about-rising-costs-not-one-you-want-to-have.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>choose-your-friends</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120726/12063919844</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:57:44 PDT</pubDate>
<title>It's An Olympics Tradition: How Difficult Can NBC Universal Make It To Enjoy The Olympics?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120727/15210819860/its-olympics-tradition-how-difficult-can-nbc-universal-make-it-to-enjoy-olympics.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120727/15210819860/its-olympics-tradition-how-difficult-can-nbc-universal-make-it-to-enjoy-olympics.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Is it really that time again?  When NBC screws up its coverage of the Olympics by showing people what <i>it</i> thinks they want to see, rather than what they actually want to see?  Every two years, the Olympics does two appallingly annoying things: makes it <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090414/1107344506.shtml">difficult</a> to watch the Olympics online... and refuses to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100217/1511548205.shtml">show it live</a> on TV.  In the 20th century view of NBC execs like Rick Cotton, the only thing that matters is prime time television.  So they hold off and focus everything around that prime time slot... effectively pissing off everyone else.  As <a href="https://twitter.com/erickschonfeld/statuses/228970084478107651" target="_blank">Erick Schoenfeld noted</a>: "The only Olympics tweets I've seen all day are from people pissed that NBC is not broadcasting the opening ceremony live."
<br /><br />
Hell, even when they go on Twitter the Olympics can't do things right.  There was a lot of buzz around the fact that NBC and Twitter teamed up to <a href="http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/27/twit-olympics/#s:olympics-twitter-1" target="_blank">create an "Olympics" hub</a>.  Great (though some people are <a href="https://twitter.com/digiphile/statuses/228961860593020928" target="_blank">pointing out</a> that NBC's own Twitter feed is now tweeting stories that it refuses to broadcast live).  However, as Canada-based reporter Mathew Ingram <a href="https://twitter.com/mathewi/statuses/228954600957419520" target="_blank">discovered</a> in trying to look up the Olympics Twitter hub, thanks to NBC Universal restrictions, Twitter is <b>geoblocking</b> access.  To check it out, I visited the Olympics hub site from the US and saw this:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/35yqp"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/35yqp.png" width=400 /></a>
</center>
And, then, through the magic of the internet, "transported" myself (or, at least my connection) to Toronto, where I reloaded the page... and saw this:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/HsvnN"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/HsvnN.png" width=400 /></a>
</center>
In the end, I'm not really sure it makes a huge difference.  To be honest, I'm not sure I quite understand the point of the Olympics "hub" on Twitter, but it's yet another way in which NBC Universal seems focused on <i>restricting</i> access, rather than <i>enabling</i> access.  It's 20th century thinking for a company that is in desperate need of 21st century leadership.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120727/15210819860/its-olympics-tradition-how-difficult-can-nbc-universal-make-it-to-enjoy-olympics.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120727/15210819860/its-olympics-tradition-how-difficult-can-nbc-universal-make-it-to-enjoy-olympics.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120727/15210819860/its-olympics-tradition-how-difficult-can-nbc-universal-make-it-to-enjoy-olympics.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>yet-again</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120727/15210819860</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:16:58 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Boxee Ramps Up Its Fight To Stop The FCC From Letting Cable Companies Effectively Break Its Device</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120321/04534918181/boxee-ramps-up-its-fight-to-stop-fcc-letting-cable-companies-effectively-break-its-device.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120321/04534918181/boxee-ramps-up-its-fight-to-stop-fcc-letting-cable-companies-effectively-break-its-device.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last month, an interesting fight broke out concerning the cable companies' desire to block out competing set top boxes.  The simplified version is that the cable companies asked the FCC for a waiver to allow them to encrypt basic cable signals -- something they're currently forbidden from doing.  The cable companies insist they need to do this to "stop piracy" (of course).  But, the reality is that this is an end run to lock people into specific cable company set top boxes (for which they hope to charge you) and away from newer, more innovative solutions.  At the center of this fight has been Boxee, the <a href="http://gigaom.com/video/boxee-fcc-clear-qam/" target="_blank">maker of an innovative device</a> for making your TV better, by letting you access and watch internet video via the device.  It recently <a href="http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/24/boxee-live-tv-software-update/" target="_blank">launched</a> a new product that lets users add live local network TV to their Boxee -- but that could be cut off if the waiver goes through, since those channels would then be encrypted.
<br /><br />
Public Knowledge has been fighting the FCC on this for a while and has an <a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/cable-encryption" target="_blank">action page</a> to let you send a note to the FCC about your concerns with this policy change.  From all the indications and scuttlebutt around DC, it seems clear that the FCC has been leaning towards approving this waiver, though realizing that it would kill off an innovative product like Boxee has taken the commissioners by surprise.
<br /><br />
Of course, this just highlights the dangers of having politicians make declarations that impact technologies -- especially when they appear to be wholly unfamiliar with the state of the art or the general trend lines of where the technology is heading.  They make "simple" decisions without realizing the massive impact such decisions can have.
<br /><br />
Boxee has ramped up its offensive against this effort by the cable companies, recently sending out an email urging supporters to voice their concerns with the FCC via the PK action page linked above:
<blockquote><i>
Cable companies want to increase the cable bills of millions of Americans and to virtually eliminate competition from third party devices like Boxee. We want you to know because it will affect millions of people, non-Boxee and Boxee users alike, and we need your help to fight it.   
<br /><br />
For the past several months, Boxee has been forced into a legislative battle with cable companies. Right now, anyone can get basic tier cable. Attach your TV, computer, or Boxee Live TV tuner and everything just works. Cable companies want the federal government to end that, and to require every user to have ALL of their TVs attached to cable boxes. We&#8217;re concerned many users who have Live TV tuners and rely on basic cable will be hurt by this, but we&#8217;re also focused on how the issue goes far beyond Boxee.  
<br /><br />
Here are the effects of the rule:
<br /><br />
1. It could more than DOUBLE the cost for the typical new basic cable subscriber.
<br /><br />
2. If you have a TV that&#8217;s hooked up to cable without a box, you MUST rent a set top box for that TV.  
<br /><br />
3. If your computer&#8217;s TV tuner is connected to your cable connection without a box, it will no longer work unless it uses a CableCARD.
<br /><br />
4. If you bought a DVR that does not include a CableCARD it will no longer work without an antenna.  If you don&#8217;t get signal with the antenna, your DVR is now worthless. 
</i></blockquote>
It should come as no surprise, of course, that cable companies are seeking to limit consumer choice and better control the market, and even less surprise that they're doing so by making "piracy" claims (next it'll be "for the children!") but that's no reason that the FCC has to simply roll over and break innovative devices and services like Boxee's.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120321/04534918181/boxee-ramps-up-its-fight-to-stop-fcc-letting-cable-companies-effectively-break-its-device.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120321/04534918181/boxee-ramps-up-its-fight-to-stop-fcc-letting-cable-companies-effectively-break-its-device.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120321/04534918181/boxee-ramps-up-its-fight-to-stop-fcc-letting-cable-companies-effectively-break-its-device.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>is-this-about-piracy-or-fighting-competition</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120321/04534918181</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:17:54 PST</pubDate>
<title>MIPCube Looking For Startups Disrupting The Video Market</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120224/01282217859/mipcube-looking-startups-disrupting-video-market.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120224/01282217859/mipcube-looking-startups-disrupting-video-market.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For a few years now, we've been attending and/or partnering with Midem, the big music industry conference.  The same folks are now also doing MIPCube, a similar conference focusing on TV and video.  We're partnering with them on their MIPCube Labs event, similar to the equivalent program at Midem, where a bunch of startups get to present their disruptive ideas, and the ones voted the best by a panel of judges will win some awards.  If you're involved in an innovative or disruptive startup that is changing the face of video, TV or film, you should <a href="http://miptv.reedmidem.com/ebrochures/press/120105-MIPCUBE_LAB_CFE-ENG.php" target="_blank">apply to take part</a> -- and hurry up since you have to apply by February 29th (I know that link says the 20th, but it's been extended!):
<blockquote><i>
MIPCube Lab is the only start-up competition to be tightly integrated into the TV industry and its future. It provides a global platform for start-ups to get feedback from the most powerful and innovative decision makers in the TV business and obtain funding from the finance community.
</i></blockquote>
Having seen the Midem Labs competition evolve and grow over the years, and seen lots of great companies present through there (including folks like Kickstarter and SoundCloud), these events can be really worthwhile for startups, so check it out.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120224/01282217859/mipcube-looking-startups-disrupting-video-market.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120224/01282217859/mipcube-looking-startups-disrupting-video-market.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120224/01282217859/mipcube-looking-startups-disrupting-video-market.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>go-disrupt</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120224/01282217859</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:06:58 PST</pubDate>
<title>Smart TVs: Not Such A Smart Idea</title>
<dc:creator>Derek Kerton</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120221/03352017827/smart-tvs-not-such-smart-idea.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120221/03352017827/smart-tvs-not-such-smart-idea.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A Smart TV is a TV that includes at least a rudimentary OS, access to web and Internet functions, and streaming content. They have been a hot product category <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/06/google-apple-smart-tv">at the last two CES shows</a>, and the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/9076502/ITV-warns-Apple-not-to-brand-smart-television-iTV.html">rumor that Apple is about to launch</a> one is adding fuel to the fire. The Apple rumor is somewhat reliable, since it is partly based on a quote from the Steve Jobs biography where Jobs says of the Smart TV: "I finally cracked it." <br /><br /> But having looked closely at the offerings at CES, and comparing them to the mobile phone industry, I don't believe that the entire concept of putting extensive intelligence into the TV is a wise one. The reason is mostly because of the temporal mismatch between the lifetime of&nbsp;a TV, and the lifetime of a mobile device, mobile OS, or mobile processor. You see, people want large screen TVs, and these are expensive investments. The main screen in most American homes <a href="http://www.isuppli.com/Display-Materials-and-Systems/News/Pages/US-Flat-Panel-TV-Pricing-Declined-in-November-to-Lowest-Level-in-Eight-Months.aspx">runs around $1,100</a>. And those screens are designed to have a half-life of around 60,000 hours of viewing. Now, it's not clear how long the average consumer will keep a 1080p TV bought in 2012, but I'd suppose that 10 years is not a ridiculous guess, so humor me and work with 10 years. <br /><br /> So if there is one component of the Smart TV that costs $1,100 and lasts most people about 10 years, does it make sense to mate it to the "smart" part? The cost of the "smartness" is fairly easy to estimate: A Roku box, Google TV box, or Apple TV box run around $70-$100, a Boxee box goes for around $200. So, the "smart" factor runs between $70 and $200 street price.&nbsp;But what is the life-cycle of the average "smart" device? For that, I look to the phone market, where people cycle their smartphones every two years. Apple fans line up at the store to replace their one or two year old 3GS for a 4G because of added features and function.&nbsp;On Android and iOS alike, the&nbsp;latest OS versions,&nbsp;features and apps only work on the latest hardware. Does anyone here have an old phone or smartphone sitting in a drawer? Yes? Do you want to do the same with your $1,100 TV investment? It's a given that a TV is not a smartphone, but for now we're asking them to do similar tasks: apps, streaming media, social updates, etc. The Internet performance of the TVs will become out of date like smartphones do. Tying relatively cheap, 2-3 year life-cycle&nbsp;smarts to an expensive&nbsp;10 year product just doesn't make sense. <br /><br /> It seems the obvious solution is already here: keep the TV dumb, and provide a set-top box&nbsp;(STB) that has the smarts. The STB can thus be replaced cheaply, once out of date. Consumers can easily have more than one STB, not committing to any one company's ecosystem. Do people really want to buy their TV's by ecosystem? "Hey, I love this Sony's picture, price, and size...but I want an iCloud, so I'll buy this smaller TV instead." <br /><br /> Really, the Smart TV is just a sales vehicle dreamt up and promoted by the TV OEMs. They had a bang-up decade updating everyone to flat panels, then pushing the upgrade to 1080P. They've had less success with 3D, and are looking for the hook to make another upgrade worthwhile. For now, Smart is it. But I doubt customers are eager to jump on, given they can just buy a STB. Even those actively looking for a TV may resist if there is a price premium, given most Blu-ray players and many cable or telco STBs already provide smart features. The TV OEMs are going to have to bundle in the smarts for free, and hope that they can make money back on the content ecosystem. But will they enjoy ecosystem lock-in for 10 years, or less? <br /><br /> So far, the Smart TVs sold to market are too new to have suffered from the life-cycle mismatch. The earliest Smart TVs can still compete on level ground with the latest, since it's only been a year or so since they've been in shops. But it won't be long until we start hearing complaints from those customers that "I can't stream that resolution." or "Why can't I watch programs with that new MP4 codec?" or "That app doesn't work for me. Why can't I get the latest OS on my TV?" Some of those people will end up with a newer STB, and just obviate the smarts that had been built into their TV, much the same way most of us don't use the TV tuner that is bundled with our sets. <br /><br /> Ultimately, whatever the&nbsp;problem that Steve Jobs "cracked", or whatever smarts&nbsp;are provided by Sony, Google, LG, Samsung, etc. I think those smarts will be better placed in a STB&nbsp;(or tablet, or other smart device)&nbsp;than in a TV.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120221/03352017827/smart-tvs-not-such-smart-idea.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120221/03352017827/smart-tvs-not-such-smart-idea.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120221/03352017827/smart-tvs-not-such-smart-idea.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>Temporal-Pre-crime</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120221/03352017827</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:48:58 PST</pubDate>
<title>Network TV Execs Discover What Pirates Always Knew: Making Stuff Available Online Is Good Marketing</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120116/22155517428/network-tv-execs-discover-what-pirates-always-knew-making-stuff-available-online-is-good-marketing.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120116/22155517428/network-tv-execs-discover-what-pirates-always-knew-making-stuff-available-online-is-good-marketing.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Want to understand just how tone deaf and clueless the legacy entertainment industry players are these days?  It appears that network TV execs have just discovered the brilliant idea of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/business/media/networks-embrace-cables-way-of-introducing-new-shows.html?_r=2&#038;scp=1&#038;sq=network%20marketing%20an%20cable&#038;st=cse" target="_blank">using the internet to pre-release TV shows</a> in an effort to build up buzz and an audience who will watch the full series.  The stunning thing here is that these are the very same companies who go absolutely <i>ballistic</i> if their works get "leaked" early online -- and insist that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111220/18294817149/guy-who-uploaded-early-version-wolverine-which-appears-not-to-have-hurt-movie-all-gets-1-year-jail.shtml">criminal penalties</a> are needed to stop this kind of action.  It's really quite amazing how these execs are coming to the same conclusion that pretty much every internet user came to years ago: just make the damn stuff available.  Instead, they're acting like it's some big revelation:
<blockquote><i>
The networks have embraced the idea &#8212; originally hatched by cable networks &#8212; of introducing initial episodes of their shows through other distribution outlets like YouTube before they have their premiere on their own schedules. 
</i></blockquote>
Yes, the same YouTube that Viacom is still trying to sue out of existence.  The same YouTube that supporters of PIPA and SOPA still insist is really a den of "piracy" from which Google unfairly profits.
<br /><br />
So, here's a simple question:  How much are these networks <i>paying YouTube/Google</i> for the use of YouTube's software, bandwidth and audience?  Nothing?  Damn those TV networks... just wanting all that stuff for free.  But, more to the point, if laws like PIPA and SOPA were put in place a few years ago, the networks wouldn't even have a YouTube to do this.  This is what's most stunning about all of this.  They seem to think that they've come up with something brilliant and new here, when this is all that "pirates" were doing earlier: putting stuff online to make it accessible.  When "pirates" do it, it's theft?  And when companies do it, it's some brilliant marketing scheme?  How's that work?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120116/22155517428/network-tv-execs-discover-what-pirates-always-knew-making-stuff-available-online-is-good-marketing.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120116/22155517428/network-tv-execs-discover-what-pirates-always-knew-making-stuff-available-online-is-good-marketing.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120116/22155517428/network-tv-execs-discover-what-pirates-always-knew-making-stuff-available-online-is-good-marketing.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wait,-what?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120116/22155517428</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 9 Jan 2012 14:10:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Study Confirms: News Networks Owned By SOPA Supporters... Are Ignoring SOPA/PIPA</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120108/00533117331/study-confirms-news-networks-owned-sopa-supporters-are-ignoring-sopapipa.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120108/00533117331/study-confirms-news-networks-owned-sopa-supporters-are-ignoring-sopapipa.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While the debates about SOPA/PIPA have been raging all over the internet, and appearing regularly in all sorts of mainstream <i>newspapers</i>, they still have been almost entirely absent from TV news.  We've <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111130/05175116932/keith-olbermann-no-longer-afraid-corporate-parent-interference-willing-to-talk-air-about-pipasopa.shtml">discussed this</a> in the past, noting that the major TV news players are all owned by media conglomerates who have been major backers of SOPA/PIPA.  There was some indication that cable news was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/17580817113/cable-news-finally-realizing-that-sopa-protect-ip-are-bad-news.shtml">starting to pay attention</a>... but things have gone quiet since then (perhaps upper management sent out a memo...).
<br /><br />
The folks over at Media Matters decided to check in on this and have confirmed that <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201050008" target="_blank">the big TV news players have almost entirely ignored it</a>, despite the widespread controversy found elsewhere in the mainstream press:
<blockquote><i>
As the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) makes its way through Congress, most major television news outlets -- MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, and NBC -- have ignored the bill during their evening broadcasts. One network, CNN, devoted a single evening segment to it.
</i></blockquote>
The report does note that there have been <i>articles</i> online... but very few TV segments.  It also discusses how much attention SOPA/PIPA is getting, concerning all the companies who have come out against it, the media coverage in the NY Times among other places, and the big GoDaddy flip-flop -- to highlight that this is a big story making waves.
<blockquote><i>
Despite all of this, the response from American television news outlets has been to almost completely ignore the story during their evening programming. The lone exception was a segment on CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer  in December, during which CNN parent company Time Warner's support for the legislation was not disclosed. (Though Fox News Channel has apparently not touched the story during evening programming, conservative/libertarian host Andrew Napolitano has run several segments vocally opposing SOPA on his program, which runs on the separate Fox Business Network.)
</i></blockquote>
It's postulated that perhaps the issue is the fact that SOPA/PIPA don't fall along easily scripted left vs. right lines:
<blockquote><i>
The fight over SOPA does not fit into the 
usual left vs. right narrative that occupies so much of the political 
horserace coverage with which TV news outlets fill their schedules. The <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03261:@@@P" target="_blank">cosponsors</a> of SOPA come from both sides of the aisle. Likewise, the most vocal <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/strange-bedfellows-nancy-pelosi-ron-paul-join-sopa-opposition.ars" target="_blank">opponents</a> of SOPA in Congress are an ideologically diverse bunch, including Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Darrel Issa (R-CA).
</i></blockquote>
Either that... or the corporate folks upstairs don't want to allow this to become an even bigger story.
<br /><br />
Of course, as I was writing this up, Tim Cushing was writing up the same story (coordination, people, coordination!), with an alternate theory -- which makes sense too.  So, everything below the line is his read on the situation:
<hr />
<b>Tim Cushing's analysis</b>: Gray areas seldom make compelling news, especially when there's no political angle to take. Beyond that, I think the mainstream media silence is also explained by the outdated thought process that still believes that the Internet Is Not Real.
<br /><br />
First and foremost, the evening news is generally a broad overview of the days' happenings. Not only do they not have the time to delve into an issue that mainly affects an "ethereal" service like the web, but they also (ignoring any corporate bias for the sake of argument) have no interest in doing so. The cliche that "if it bleeds, it leads" likely eliminates a war that involves a bloodless dismantling of the internet. The internet is generally trotted out only as an example of how things are bad (online bullying, etc.) or how things are cute/weird (any crossover meme that can be easily brought up, discussed and dismissed forever in less than 60 seconds).<br /><br />
Even though many news teams invite you to follow them on Twitter or Facebook, the connection seems to go no further than that. The percentage of the population that still relies on the evening news to get them caught up on the world is unlikely to care about legislation that affects the internet.
<br /><br />
In essence, the internet is still treated like some sort of fad infested with tech-y nerds and thus can be safely ignored when dealing with Real Issues on the nightly news. This attitude is pervasive, both within content companies and among our representatives. The gatekeepers pushing the legislation need the internet as much as it claims it needs them, but they want their own internet, one closer in spirit to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Village_%28The_Prisoner%29" target="_blank">The Village</a> than the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110527/13281714462/can-we-kill-off-this-myth-that-internet-is-wild-west-that-needs-to-be-tamed.shtml" target="_blank">Wild West</a>. 
<br /><br />
Our legislators are still amused by their <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/12082717110/dear-congress-its-no-longer-ok-to-not-know-how-internet-works.shtml" target="_blank">own lack of internet prowess</a>, indicating that they still believe the web to be some sort of "outlier" whose opinions can be easily dismissed. It's a cognitive gap, but it explains why the mainstream TV news so willingly ignores SOPA and the building momentum of its opposition: it's just the internet. It can be either humored or feared, but never respected.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120108/00533117331/study-confirms-news-networks-owned-sopa-supporters-are-ignoring-sopapipa.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120108/00533117331/study-confirms-news-networks-owned-sopa-supporters-are-ignoring-sopapipa.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120108/00533117331/study-confirms-news-networks-owned-sopa-supporters-are-ignoring-sopapipa.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but,-of-course</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120108/00533117331</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 5 Jan 2012 06:16:45 PST</pubDate>
<title>Dear Pro Sports Leagues: Can I Watch The Game Please?</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120104/06070417275/dear-pro-sports-leagues-can-i-watch-game-please.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120104/06070417275/dear-pro-sports-leagues-can-i-watch-game-please.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In Mike's latest annual New Year's message about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111230/15322617240/new-years-message-optimism-innovation-to-power-to-make-difference.shtml">innovation and opportunity</a>, he mentioned how technology is allowing the masses to say "no" to impediments set down by those seeking to control: <blockquote><i>"The key element this year: the power of large groups of people to make use of the technology to start to say, "No!" to those who have sought to hold back progress."</i>
</blockquote>
A heady concept, but one which I think will only prevail as technology marches forward. That said, I had a slightly different take as a result of a personal story that happened on Christmas Day. Like many of you, I made the trek with my girlfriend to my parent's house to exchange gifts, eat too much food, and sit around with my family and friends talking as the television sat in the background displaying football and basketball. As the night progressed, the food cooled, the board games became boring, and the way my family slings around red wine resulted in the urge to go home early in the evening. Since my girlfriend was kind enough to drive us home (sober, of course), I was free to do what I wanted in the passenger seat. <br /><br />
And what I wanted to do was watch sports. The tail end of the Bulls game was still on. The Bears game would shortly follow. Sports on radio never did much for me. I wanted to <i>watch</i>. So I yanked out my smart phone and checked out the NBA site, the NFL site, and the sites of our local television stations. What I found was what I expected: the local stations didn't offer any streaming of the games, but the NBA and NFL have their versions of mobile streaming packages which generally start right around the $50/season mark. This gets you access to their respective broadcasts (not the local ones). <br /><br />
Here's my question: why is any of this necessary? With that same smart phone, I could have gone to one of dozens of websites (evil, evil websites) that would simply stream the games I wanted directly to my device for free. More to the point, they'd stream the local broadcast that I wanted, complete with commercials. Why wouldn't the major sports leagues do the same thing? If advertising is still the major money-maker for professional sports (and, along with merchandise, it is), why wouldn't they want to increase their reach by offering their own free advertisement-laden stream? Coupled with location identifiers, I'd think the leagues could partner with local broadcasters to make sure that people were getting the same geographical broadcast they'd get watching at home. Again, the same commercials can be in place, so what's lost? Why charge me $50 a season to watch the game on my phone or tablet, but not levy that same charge for watching on my television? It's the ads that matter, isn't it? 
<br /><br />
It seems I'm not the only one with this kind of experience, either. VC Fred Wilson <a href="http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/01/screwcable.html">relates a similar tale</a>, touching on the additional idiocy of navigating local blackouts of games with many of these league packages, all in the name of protecting the same local broadcasters whose numbers could be boosted by offering free streams of the game:
<blockquote>
<i>"Last night we were turned into "pirates" as the entertainment industry likes to call us. As 2011 turned into 2012, the executives at Time Warner Cable and MSG Network were unable to make a deal to keep MSG on Time Warner Cable. My son was fuming and so was I."</i>
</blockquote>
But he wasn't fuming for long, as helpful Twitter followers showed him a plethora of sites where he could get the stream he wanted, for free, with none of that viewership resulting in revenue for the league or the broadcaster. Which is a shame, because if they wanted to, everyone could be making money off this stuff while enhancing the fan's experience with a better quality stream.
<br /><br />
And so we get back to the start of this piece, in contrast to Mike's message of masses saying "no" to those who impede technological progress. Because in my case, driving home that blustery Christmas night, with only thoughts of Derrick Rose and Brian Urlacher in my head, I felt no urge to say "no". I only recognized one sentiment as I glanced over the league's packages for streaming and then turned to one of the evil, horrible, death-enducing sites that gave me the stream I wanted just in time to see Derrick Rose drive the lane and score the winning layup to beat the Lakers: I don't need their packages.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120104/06070417275/dear-pro-sports-leagues-can-i-watch-game-please.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120104/06070417275/dear-pro-sports-leagues-can-i-watch-game-please.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120104/06070417275/dear-pro-sports-leagues-can-i-watch-game-please.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-make-it-easy</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120104/06070417275</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:08:55 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Hulu's Owners Unable To Find Idiots Willing To Overpay To Take Hulu Off Their Hands Before They Kill It</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>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</link>
<guid>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</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We recently noted that the attempt by Hulu's owners to sell Hulu <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">wasn't going well</a>, mainly because those same owners had made it clear that they hoped to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110130/01074712886/hulu-owners-looking-to-make-hulu-even-more-useless.shtml">kill Hulu</a>, by limiting how much it could compete with their lucrative legacy business of cable TV.  No one was willing to offer more than $2 billion -- significantly less than what Hulu's owners wanted -- other than Google.  But Google would only do it if the TV companies agreed to certain conditions (i.e., <i>not</i> killing off Hulu by limiting content, requiring a paywall, etc.)
<br /><br />
So it comes as little surprise that Hulu has now announced <a href="http://blog.hulu.com/2011/10/13/hulu-equity-owners-announce-decision-to-terminate-the-hulu-sale-process/" target="_blank">that its owners are no longer trying to sell the company off</a>.  Instead, they'll focus on suffocating it from within.  Well, that part wasn't mentioned, but watch what happens to Hulu execs over the next few months.  I think it's likely that we're going to start seeing some departures of key people.  Hulu was an amazingly well executed offering with a really capable team... but as we <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090223/0055373860.shtml">predicted</a>, the fact that the only way it could really succeed was to cannibalize the business of its owners, almost certainly meant that Hulu would never be allowed to execute on the strategy it <i>needed</i> to become a massive player.
<br /><br />
Of course, what the big TV companies still fail to recognize is that killing off Hulu doesn't stop the move to an a la cart, online driven world.  It just means that when it comes, they will be even less relevant, and less able to capitalize on it.<br /><br /><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">Permalink</a> | <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#comments">Comments</a> | <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?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>tough-luck</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111013/16503616343</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 3 Oct 2011 03:01:09 PDT</pubDate>
<title>TV Companies Plan To Make Hulu Suck Even More Making It More Difficult To Sell Hulu</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110930/13341216152/tv-companies-plan-to-make-hulu-suck-even-more-making-it-more-difficult-to-sell-hulu.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110930/13341216152/tv-companies-plan-to-make-hulu-suck-even-more-making-it-more-difficult-to-sell-hulu.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've talked about how the entertainment industry is really good at <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/01524013905/why-does-entertainment-industry-seek-to-kill-any-innovation-thats-helping-it-adapt.shtml">killing the golden goose</a> every chance it gets.  Any time some new online service actually gets people to move away from infringement, the industry freaks out and complains that they're not making <i>enough</i> money from the service and then tries to kill it.  For example, the TV folks have made it clear that they'd <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110130/01074712886/hulu-owners-looking-to-make-hulu-even-more-useless.shtml">like to kill Hulu</a> <i>even though they own it</i>.  They're so worried about "cannibalizing" the old revenue streams, that they're killing off the new ones as well.  We <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090223/0055373860.shtml">predicted</a> this would happen a few years ago, and it's amusing to see it happening in real time.
<br /><br />
Because of the conflicts between what Hulu management (who do seem pretty clued in) and their ownership wanted to do with the company, Hulu was recently put up for sale.  But, now it's coming out that the bids Hulu is receiving are much lower than the owners want -- and <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/guess-who-made-the-highest-bid-for-hulu-2011-9?op=1" target="_blank">it's because they've made it clear they plan to cut off all free content from Hulu</a>:
<blockquote><i>
But the bidders all figured out pretty quickly that the TV companies who own Hulu  now want to phase out free ad-supported content completely. So as soon as the current set of Hulu contracts expire in a couple of years, it would be back to the negotiating table.
</i></blockquote>
Because of that, no one was willing to bid over $2 billion -- and the TV guys (of course) think it's worth a lot more than that, even as they're trying to kill it.  Well, one exception: apparently Google was willing to pay closer to $4 billion... but it would only do that under certain conditions (which likely involve getting the TV guys to renew/guarantee future deals).  So congrats, backwards looking TV guys, not only are you killing Hulu, you're killing the goodwill you build up via the company so you can't even cash out on that.<br /><br /><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">Permalink</a> | <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#comments">Comments</a> | <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?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well,-duh</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110930/13341216152</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:37:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Time Warner Cable CEO Remains In Denial About Cord Cutting</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110928/02411516123/time-warner-cable-ceo-remains-denial-about-cord-cutting.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110928/02411516123/time-warner-cable-ceo-remains-denial-about-cord-cutting.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's growing evidence that hordes of people are cutting the cord from cable TV, with many realizing that it's just way too expensive for what they get -- and compared to alternative options.  But, as they have for years, it appears that the cable execs remain in total denial (at least publicly) about this.  Time Warner Cable's CEO, Jeff Bewkes, was quoted recently as saying that <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Time-Warner-CEO-Cord-Cutting-Hasnt-Arrived-116291?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">cord cutting "hasn't arrived yet,"</a> despite massive customer defections.  Of course, to explain this, Bewkes falls back on the other claim that we've seen before: people aren't cutting the cord because of <i>alternatives</i>, but because of the bad economy and the fact that they have no job.  Sounds good.  But it's a myth.  You see, just a week or so before he said those words, a research report came out noting that <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Cord-Cutters-Arent-Deadbeats-116235" target="_blank">cord cutters tend to be young, well educated and employed</a>.  Kinda makes you wonder what sort of strategy the cable guys are preparing to deal with this issue when they refuse to even admit it's an issue.  Pretending that the tide isn't coming in may be worse than pretending you can hold back the tide.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110928/02411516123/time-warner-cable-ceo-remains-denial-about-cord-cutting.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110928/02411516123/time-warner-cable-ceo-remains-denial-about-cord-cutting.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110928/02411516123/time-warner-cable-ceo-remains-denial-about-cord-cutting.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-very,-very-real</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110928/02411516123</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:24:54 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Of Course: New Fox Delay Means More Unauthorized Downloads Of Fox Shows</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110822/10585015615/course-new-fox-delay-means-more-unauthorized-downloads-fox-shows.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110822/10585015615/course-new-fox-delay-means-more-unauthorized-downloads-fox-shows.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Back in July, when the Fox Network announced plans to block or delay many of its popular shows from going online, 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> this would increase the number of unauthorized downloads.  This just seemed stupid.  People want to access it online and they will access it online.  Why not offer it to them in an easy and convenient manner that can be monetized.  Of course, when others pointed out the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110812/01061715485/file-sharing-continues-to-grow-not-shrink.shtml">same thing</a>, the geniuses at the MPAA threw a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110812/23402015511/stealing-isnt-saving-sharing-isnt-stealing.shtml">hissy fit</a> about how even admitting that Fox's stupid business decision might increase unauthorized file sharing was the equivalent of praising "stealing."  
<br /><br />
So, um, I wonder how the MPAA's brilliant strategists will respond to the news that, in the first week of Fox's delays alone, <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/foxs-8-day-delay-on-hulu-triggers-piracy-surge-110822/" target="_blank">unauthorized downloads of some of its most popular shows increased massive amounts</a>, doubling or tripling what they were before.  In fact, that article notes that many of the people viewing it through unauthorized means left comments about how they tried to watch via legal channels, but couldn't.
<br /><br />
So I'm wondering how the folks at the MPAA might explain this.  Are they going to throw another tantrum and blame "reality" for supporting file sharing?  Or will someone there finally buy a clue and recognize that <i>not providing consumers what they want</i> is a <i>bad business decision</i>.  I guess that would require someone at the MPAA to actually have experience in business -- but they all seem to be lawyers or political flunkies.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110822/10585015615/course-new-fox-delay-means-more-unauthorized-downloads-fox-shows.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110822/10585015615/course-new-fox-delay-means-more-unauthorized-downloads-fox-shows.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110822/10585015615/course-new-fox-delay-means-more-unauthorized-downloads-fox-shows.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-isn't-rocket-science</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110822/10585015615</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2011 07:34:44 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Will TV Providers Finally Realize That People Really Are Cutting The Cord -- And Not Just Because Of The Economy</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/12255915468/will-tv-providers-finally-realize-that-people-really-are-cutting-cord-not-just-because-economy.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/12255915468/will-tv-providers-finally-realize-that-people-really-are-cutting-cord-not-just-because-economy.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ This week, my wife and I finally decided to drop our satellite TV service.  We almost never watch it.  I turn it on maybe once or twice a month, at most.  For what we're getting, it's crazy expensive.  There are some TV shows I'd like to see, but it's just not worth what's being charged.  Even if I agree rationally, for about a year I've been emotionally attached to hanging onto the account "just in case."  But that's silly.  We just don't get that much value out of it.  For years, we keep hearing the TV folks insisting that such cord cutting is largely <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101027/11542311613/comcast-pretends-that-cord-cutters-aren-t-cord-cutters-if-they-cut-cord-because-of-the-economy.shtml">a myth</a>.  But the fact is my wife and I are not alone in this.  A new report says that we're actually a bit behind the curve, and that <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/pay-tv-industry-loses-record-number-subscribers-090422571.html" target="_blank">people are cancelling in droves</a>.
<br /><br />
Of course, the Associated Press buys the TV industry's very questionable claim that it's all because of "the economy."
<blockquote><i>
The chief cause appears to be persistently high unemployment and a housing market that has many people living with their parents, reducing the need for a separate cable bill.
</i></blockquote>
I don't buy it.  I would bet that a lot of folks cancelling are like us.  We can afford it, but we just don't see the value.  We don't watch enough to want to pay the rates that seem way out of line with what we're getting and using.  Even more ridiculous, though, is that the AP mentions this kind of reasoning <i>as a problem</i> rather than an opportunity for the industry:
<blockquote><i>
But it's also possible that people are canceling cable, or never signing up in the first place, because they're watching cheap Internet video. Such a threat has been hanging over the industry. <b>If that's the case, viewers can expect more restrictions on online video, as TV companies and Hollywood studios try to make sure that they get paid for what they produce.</b>
</i></blockquote>
Wait, what?  Because more people want more convenient options, they should expect to get less of them?  This is the logic of dying businesses (both the TV folks and the AP).  Restricting people doesn't help you get paid.  Giving people what they want and putting a smart business model around it does.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/12255915468/will-tv-providers-finally-realize-that-people-really-are-cutting-cord-not-just-because-economy.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/12255915468/will-tv-providers-finally-realize-that-people-really-are-cutting-cord-not-just-because-economy.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/12255915468/will-tv-providers-finally-realize-that-people-really-are-cutting-cord-not-just-because-economy.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>bye-bye</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110810/12255915468</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:44:56 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Fox Decides To Drive Fans To Piracy, Rather Than Giving Legitimate Options</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110726/19530115274/fox-decides-to-drive-fans-to-piracy-rather-than-giving-legitimate-options.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110726/19530115274/fox-decides-to-drive-fans-to-piracy-rather-than-giving-legitimate-options.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It appears that the Fox Network hasn't learned a damn thing from well over a decade of evidence concerning how you deal with people infringing your works.  Rather than providing a legitimate and authorized option as part of a business model, Fox has decided to <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20083912-93/fox-network-to-limit-web-access-to-its-shows/?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20&#038;dlvrit=142337" target="_blank">block or delay web access to many of its popular TV shows</a>, trying to push people to watch them on TV.  Now there will be some exceptions... for people who already pay a "participating video distributor."  In other words, pay more for less.
<br /><br />
The whole article linked above is ridiculous.  Even the title is wrong.  It says:
<blockquote><i>
 "Fox Network to limit Web access to its shows."
</i></blockquote>
  But that's wrong.  People still will have plenty of access... just from unauthorized sources.  Then there's this quote from Michael Hopkins, the president of affiliate sales and marketing for Fox Networks:
<blockquote><i>
"We are continually looking at opportunities to provide our pay television distributors with content and products that enhance the value of pay television to subscribers," 
</i></blockquote>
I'm somewhat surprised this even needs to be explained in this day and age, but <i>taking away features and locking them up</i> does not "enhance the value" to anyone.  This is the sort of thing lots of companies stupidly do.  Rather than <i>actually</i> increasing value, they take away value from one set of people, and <i>pretend</i> that means they've increased value for others.  Except, it doesn't work that way.  All it really does is piss off all the people you just took value away from.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110726/19530115274/fox-decides-to-drive-fans-to-piracy-rather-than-giving-legitimate-options.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110726/19530115274/fox-decides-to-drive-fans-to-piracy-rather-than-giving-legitimate-options.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110726/19530115274/fox-decides-to-drive-fans-to-piracy-rather-than-giving-legitimate-options.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>um,-that-doesn't-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110726/19530115274</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 1 Jun 2011 21:57:56 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Yet Another Company Rigs Up A Silly Technical Setup To Let You Watch Broadcast TV On Your Mobile Device</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110531/02133314472/yet-another-company-rigs-up-silly-technical-setup-to-let-you-watch-broadcast-tv-your-mobile-device.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110531/02133314472/yet-another-company-rigs-up-silly-technical-setup-to-let-you-watch-broadcast-tv-your-mobile-device.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ And here we go again.  Peter Kafka has the details of a new company, called Bamboom, which will let people <a href="http://allthingsd.com/20110529/heres-how-you-might-be-able-to-watch-live-tv-for-free-on-your-ipad/" target="_blank">stream broadcast TV to their iPads</a>, and which must be waiting for the inevitable lawsuit.  The idea appears to be a mix of <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 hef="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110317/03194613525/if-remote-dvrs-are-legal-what-about-remote-dvd-players.shtml">Zediva</a>.  
<br /><br />
If you remember, ivi is the company that wants to stream broadcast television, and is claiming it's legal based on a questionable interpretation of current copyright laws -- an interpretation that (so far) the courts <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110222/11395313211/court-not-impressed-with-ivis-legal-loopholes-shoots-online-tv-broadcaster-down.shtml">aren't buying</a>.  Zediva, on the other hand, is offering streaming DVDs by literally placing DVDs in DVD players and streaming <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110317/03194613525/if-remote-dvrs-are-legal-what-about-remote-dvd-players.shtml">just that one copy</a> to users, relying on the Second Circuit court's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/01523313456/did-japan-korea-just-make-life-really-difficult-any-cloud-service-provider.shtml">ruling</a> in the <i>Cablevision</i> case to suggest that if you can do something legally in your living room, it should also be legal to be done at a hosting center.  In other words, it's arguing that the length of the cord shouldn't matter.  If a DVD player is in your home or in a data center a few miles away, does it matter if the process (put DVD in player, watch on screen) is the same?  The MPAA <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110404/15513413774/as-expected-mpaa-sues-movie-streaming-site-that-uses-connected-dvd-players.shtml">has sued</a> and Zediva is currently fighting that lawsuit (with some impressive legal horsepower).
<br /><br />
Bamboom basically appears to be using both of these arguments.  It's streaming broadcast TV only, and is also assigning a single antenna to each user who is streaming.
<br /><br />
The company is still going to get sued, of course.  The TV companies wouldn't have it any other way.  But, really, all it demonstrates is how ridiculous the laws are here.  This company has to set up a ridiculously convoluted technical system that is not at all efficient and is downright wasteful, just to provide a simple service that is technically easy to provide if legal complications didn't get in the way.  I don't think the service is particularly useful (do people still watch broadcast TV?), but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110531/02133314472/yet-another-company-rigs-up-silly-technical-setup-to-let-you-watch-broadcast-tv-your-mobile-device.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110531/02133314472/yet-another-company-rigs-up-silly-technical-setup-to-let-you-watch-broadcast-tv-your-mobile-device.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110531/02133314472/yet-another-company-rigs-up-silly-technical-setup-to-let-you-watch-broadcast-tv-your-mobile-device.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>legality's-a-mess</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110531/02133314472</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 01:01:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Smartphones Make People Ignore Commercials Way More Than DVRs</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110524/21305414421/smartphones-make-people-ignore-commercials-way-more-than-dvrs.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110524/21305414421/smartphones-make-people-ignore-commercials-way-more-than-dvrs.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For years, the TV industry has been at war with the DVR, because of their fear that people would just use DVRs to skip over commercials.  And, of course, there were the requisite reports about how DVRs were causing <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061208/113942.shtml">massive</a> totally made up "losses."  Except, the reality turned out to be completely different.  Various studies found that DVRs changed watching habits in that they actually drove <i>more TV watching</i>, and actually <i>increased</i> <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060407/1720246.shtml">retention</a> of what was in the commercials viewers did see.  Of course, the "fear" from TV folks was totally misplaced -- and they were going after the symptom, not the actual heart of the issue: which is that people don't want to watch TV commercials because the TV commercials <i>suck</i>.
<br /><br />
TV commercials worked because people were a captive audience and had nowhere else to place their attention.  Yet, when they have other options for their attention, they tend to take them.  In fact, the latest study (sent over by Eric Goldman) shows that DVRs were never really a huge threat in terms of taking people's attention away from ads.  Instead, it seems the <i>real</i> threat <a href="http://adage.com/article/adagestat/smartphones-a-bigger-distraction-dvrs/227725/" target="_blank">is that everyone has a smartphone now</a>, and when commercials come on, they turn their attention to their smartphone, check their social network/email/etc.:
<blockquote><i>
It was found that simply turning one's head to ignore video ads had far greater impact than DVR fast-forwarding is assumed to have. Magna Global estimates that 35% of U.S. households have DVRs and 10% of their total TV consumption is time shifted, within which 65% of ads are fast-forwarded, meaning 35% x 10% x 65% = 2% of total TV ad impressions are avoided through fast-forwarding. Our study found that 63% of TV impressions were avoided simply by not paying attention to the screen.
</i></blockquote>
To be honest, that 2% number seems <i>crazy low</i> to me, and I wonder how accurate it really is.  However, even if it's noticeably higher, it appears that smartphones and other distractions are definitely taking people's attention away.  In fact, even when people do fast-forward ads (as we noted in that study years ago) they still seem to see the ads:
<blockquote><i>
When participants did use the DVR to fast-forward TV ads, nearly half of them paid full attention to the screen during that process. Fast-forwarded ads had 12% more attention levels than non-fast-forwarded ads.
</i></blockquote>
Though, this study contradicts the other one from a few years ago concerning retention: saying people don't retain quite as much from fast-forwarded ads.
<br /><br />
Of course, you can debate the statistics all you want, the basics are pretty obvious: if your method of advertising relies on a captive audience, and that audience is no longer captive, then you're going to have problems.  TV execs were wrong to worry about DVRs, because they didn't really take people's attention away from the TV, and had the other side effect of making people watch more TV.  However, there may actually be an issue with things like smartphones, because if people don't like what's on the TV (i.e., the ads suck) they now have a much more entertaining option right in their pocket.  The captive audience is dead.  Of course, that doesn't mean that there's nothing the TV guys can do.  They could start making the ads more compelling such that people actually <i>want</i> to watch them, but I guess that probably sounds like "work."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110524/21305414421/smartphones-make-people-ignore-commercials-way-more-than-dvrs.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110524/21305414421/smartphones-make-people-ignore-commercials-way-more-than-dvrs.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110524/21305414421/smartphones-make-people-ignore-commercials-way-more-than-dvrs.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>captive-audience</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110524/21305414421</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 18:57:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>TV People Realizing That The Internet Is Global</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110424/22422314018/tv-people-realizing-that-internet-is-global.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110424/22422314018/tv-people-realizing-that-internet-is-global.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's kind of amusing to read this NY Times article about how the producers of Doctor Who had the brilliant idea of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/23/arts/television/doctor-who-us-premiere-will-not-be-delayed.html?_r=1" target="_blank">showing the latest season in the UK and the US on the same day</a> this season, rather than showing it in the UK and then delaying the US release for a while.  It's typical that TV shows are released at different times in different countries, which is a massive frustration to fans, and generally encourages more file sharing in that people want to know what happens (and what others are talking about online).  So it took a huge revelation to realize that perhaps these kinds of regional differences in release schedules is pointless.  That realization is good -- but what's amusing is how it's made out to be such a big revelation, when it's something that plenty of people have been talking about for years... and wondering why the TV folks took so long to figure it out.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110424/22422314018/tv-people-realizing-that-internet-is-global.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110424/22422314018/tv-people-realizing-that-internet-is-global.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110424/22422314018/tv-people-realizing-that-internet-is-global.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>shocker</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110424/22422314018</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>