Viacom-Owned TV Station Using P2P To Offer Up DRM-Free Downloads Of New Show
from the so,-wait...-do-you-like-or-dislike-file-sharing? dept
Viacom seems to have a bit of a multiple personality when it comes to online video. It’s famously suing YouTube for $1 billion because some clips of TV shows have shown up on the site, but at the same time, it’s been aggressively putting its own shows on a variety of sites. Yet, for the most part, it’s focused on having full control — that is, making them streaming versions only, on specific sites, often complete with advertising. However, it looks like the company is finally realizing that a little uncontrolled distribution isn’t such a bad thing. Viacom-owned Spike TV is trying to promote a new TV show by distributing a commercial-free, DRM-free download of the show through a variety of sources including P2P system Limewire. The company admits that it’s just trying to entice viewers to watch the series on TV when it debuts later this summer, but it makes you wonder how the company can stand up in court complaining about YouTube, when its out there telling people to do whatever they want to help promote this other show. In fact, the folks behind this offering admit that DRM would have defeated the purpose, which is to get the show seen by as many people as possible: “We’re trying for a bit of a ubiquity here, to go where the people are.” Wonder if this story will make its way into the Viacom-YouTube lawsuit.
Filed Under: distribution, drm-free, factory, limewire, p2p, spike tv, tv
Companies: limewire, viacom
Comments on “Viacom-Owned TV Station Using P2P To Offer Up DRM-Free Downloads Of New Show”
“The company admits that it’s just trying to entice viewers to watch the series on TV when it debuts later this summer, but it makes you wonder how the company can stand up in court complaining about YouTube, when its out there telling people to do whatever they want to help promote this other show.”
Maybe it’s because everything isn’t as black and white as you try to say it is. When trying to build up viewers for a new show that nobody has ever heard of, this is a good idea. Maybe when the same thing is done with established shows that people have heard of, they feel giving it away for free download cuts into more profit sources then it generates.
Ever hear of a site called Revision3? It seems that model works for new shows as well as pre-established.
Re: Re: Duh
Um, your comparing Revision3 to Viacom shows? Bad example.
Re: Re: Re: Duh
Re: Re: Re:2 Duh
Viacom owns some of the most popular TV shows around, and I would guess makes much, much more then Revision3.
The model would work much better for Revision3 because of the huge number of people who haven’t heard of them or their shows. An example of a more well know company with well know shows would be better.
Re: Re: Re:3 Duh
I was researching my response to that and then I realised that Viacom is a perfect example of what you speak of. They are thriving despite the fact that it’s easier to download their TV shows than watch it live.
Re: Re: Re:4 Duh
The question would be what percentage of their shows are downloaded vs. people who watch them live or Tivo them (which is what I find easiest – and I can watch the show on my TV, not my computer). This doesn’t included the streaming off of their own sites, because they can get advertising money for that.
Honestly, I’ve never understood Mike’s anti-streaming stance. It benefits everybody, the consumers can watch the show for free, and the creator of the show gets paid through advertising on the show and site.
Re: Re: Re:5 Duh
Huh? What are you talking about? I don’t recall Mike ever saying that streaming shouldn’t be allowed or anything like that.
Viacom needs YouTube, LimeWire, LittleShoot etc
I’m increasingly amazed at the massive number of copyrighted works on many, many sites that *have not received takedown notices.* Before you say, “duh, that’s because there are zillions of files on the Internet — they can’t police all of them, hence the lawsuit”, it’s increasingly obvious on sites from YouTube to LittleShoot that copyright holders like Viacom are intentionally leaving a great deal of material up because it promotes their content so well. There’s a gargantuan gray area between Viacom distributing on LimeWire, on YouTube, and then whining about it in the courts.
The moral of the story is everyone’s still trying to figure out how to make money on Internet video, and they’re following all paths simultaneously. The dirty little secret is no one’s making money except the companies that can eliminate bandwidth costs using p2p — aka my old boys at LimeWire and hopefully someday soon, my latest project everyone should definitely sign up for:
streaming is ok no problem with it. I have said for a long time now that the companies like Viacom that are suing you tube have put the stuff up there themselves. as a means to sue verious posts on here today have proved that.
via com down
It is interesting that Streaming, bit torrent, P2P, etc is bad if the consumer wants to do it but OK if it is from a commercial provider. Maybe they will work out a deal with my ISP so they will pay for all that bandwidth, (as I’m sure it will include advertisements), instead of me having to pay exorbitant rates for sub standard service (and all those advertisements). REBIRTH of FREE TV?
I plan that if a worker on VIACOM comes to my house, I’ll trick them into thinking they won our youtube, even if they didn’t.