If TV Companies Released Authorized Torrents With Ads, Would People Download Them?

from the it's-all-about-choices... dept

More than seven years ago, we first wrote about Ernest Miller's concept of Bitcatching -- a name that never caught on -- which was the combination of RSS + BitTorrent, allowing the ability to "subscribe" to certain video programs. Miller envisioned that as a legal and useful way for TV broadcasters to embrace the internet with shows that had ads on them, and to avoid the fate of the recording industry. Of course, that was in the days before YouTube and Hulu existed. The industry decided to focus on those streaming platforms (with a bit of iTunes on the side). However, those all have some annoying limitations, which means that many people still just go to BitTorrent to get the shows they want.

A few different people pointed us to this interesting recent Reddit thread, in which someone asked if people would download official TV programs via BitTorrent if they were high quality... with ads:
If major broadcasting companies released high quality TV show torrents WITH commercials in them, would you download those instead of commercial-free pirated ones?

I definitely would. Right now I find I'm constantly defending myself when people ask why I download all my shows. I personally do it for the convenience of being able to watch them at my leisure.

As a consumer, I would happily download a torrent straight from the broadcasting company's site since I know it would be coming from a good source, that it would be high quality and would be helping them pay their bills.

Advertisements make the entertainment industry go round, I'm not oblivious to that. I'll happily be pitched to if the companies are willing to meet me and my lifestyle halfway. Chances are, if I'm vegged out on a couch watching a show, most of the time I'm not even going to fastforward through the commercials either. They simply just aren't a big deal to me.
The responses are mixed. There are, certainly, a lot of people who insist they would never do that because they hate all advertising. I still think those people really just hate bad advertising, and don't realize that they actually like good advertising (for example, the TV shows they download? They're just "advertising" for other episodes of that TV show). But there are two types of answers that stand out and are seen throughout the comments. The first are that some people would agree to do this, having no problem supporting the TV folks. The second are people who say they hate commercials and wouldn't do this, but that they would pay for a similar thing without commercials.

It seems that the TV industry is missing a big opportunity in not offering both of those options, and letting people decide.

Some may claim that shows are being put up on Hulu or iTunes, but again, the problem people have there are the restrictions associated with that content, along with the pointless delays. And, no, not everyone would agree to download the official versions or to pay. Some would still get unauthorized versions. And, as the Spotify experiment has shown, if you offer people good and convenient offerings, they're happy to pay, either with cash or with their attention.

So it really seems like the TV guys are leaving money on the table by not embracing those who prefer to use BitTorrent to get shows. Obviously, some would ignore those official offerings, but it seems likely that plenty would jump at the opportunity to use the official channels and to support one of the "options" for a business model: free with ads, or at a cheap price without. But, of course, that would require that folks in the industry be forward thinking and not have a brain spasm every time they hear the word infringement.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2011 @ 8:59pm

    Anonymous Coward in post 118 has the idea.

    Look at this thread. The majority will either 'put up with ads' or will do without them, no matter how the industry thinks it can control viewership.

    The industry is already at the losing end of the battle when it's viewers revolt. That's exactly what's going on.

    Those that see the 'but piracy' as the only answer will lose this one. It's not about willingness to view ads, it's about a viewership fed up with the BS. Double and triple dipping incomes for the commercial end is great until the viewership has had enough.

    It appears the majority here as a random sampling of responce has had enough of it. The industry will never be able to force the viewership to accept that.

    Now back to post 118. He states in this that everyone is going to producing their own music, 3D models, and artwork. For my part, it's what I do with some of that time I've gained from not having tv. I learned something of value to me, at the cost of giving something up of little value to me.

    Here is an example of that type of art that really has my attention.


    I can't get that sort of material on tv. I can get it on the net.

    Here's an example of my work where I've modeled some stuff to add into the image.


    While it isn't what I would consider up to par for professional work, still I enjoyed the time it took to create this image.

    I got that time because I no longer put up with TV as the industry wants it consumed. I can't stand TV as it is today. I'd rather be doing something like the above than playing couch potato.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.