4 ms·

Control Freaks: Hulu Now Blocks Anonymous Proxies Too

19 points by jasonlbaptiste 18y ago

jrockway 18y ago
This is why there's the Pirate Bay.
buugs 18y ago
I'd like to see someone make an international model of such a site and gain a large backing with some popular tv show or movie content providers and beat hulu at their own game. It would be interesting to see how their revenue model changes.
- mynameishere 18y ago
  There is an international model and it doesn't make much money.
- mikedouglas 18y ago
  I doubt if Hulu had the bargaining power, they would be spending their time playing "police officer". Unfortunately, its the same hand giving them the content, that is pushing them to plug these minor leaks. The only alternative I can see would be an HBO-style online retailer willing to pay to produce high-quality content, cutting off the studio entirely. For whatever reason, they don't exist yet.
- JimmyL 18y ago
  Distribution rights aren't cheap - and while electronic ones would be cheaper, buying them to cover the world wouldn't be. Plus, you'd have to find advertisers for each individual country (which would be a huge pain in the ass) - without that, there's nothing to offset the per-user costs in those countries without contracts.
mdasen 18y ago
To be fair to Hulu, the restrictions on content distribution are from the networks, not Hulu. To explain: a television show is created by a network or a third party and then that show is licensed for distribution within a country by that network or third party. So, Disney makes Scrubs and runs it on ABC in the US (although it had licensed it to NBC for a while) and, if there is a market for it in other countries, licenses it to a network in those countries for distribution in that market. So, when a network gives online distribution rights to Hulu for content, it's only for the US. In order to make sure that they keep getting content, Hulu really has to prove that they won't be hacked - that Hulu can effectively serve ads that won't be easily blocked, that Hulu can control distribution, etc. It sucks. However, the behavior is more network/hollywood related than Hulu related. I'm sure the Hulu folks would love to be an open free-for-all, but they also realize that by playing ball they're able to offer something that, frankly, I find more entertaining and a much better experience while also having a much greater potential for profit. Who knows? Maybe someday show creators will simply license their material for online distribution, completely bypassing networks and borders. In the meantime, Hulu is trying to make sure they don't piss off their benefactors and have content yanked because they can't control distribution. Is it good? No. But I'd blame the networks before leveling my anger at Hulu.
- saturdayplace 18y ago
  > To be fair to Hulu, the restrictions on content distribution are from the networks, not Hulu. I always thought that Hulu ARE the networks. Founded by Fox/NBC. ABC/Disney recently acquired a 30% stake. This kind of thing never surprises me, because Hulu/The networks are the same thing. Sure, Hulu is run by a bunch of cool guys who're trying to do the right thing, but their bosses have never gotten the online side of things.
  - smhinsey 18y ago
    i'm not sure that this is a matter of "getting it" or not. it seems like a contractual reality that may change over time, but as of now, it prevents them from distributing everything to everyone, so i am hard pressed to blame the networks for this particular problem.
    - cabalamat 18y ago
      Whether it's the networks' fault or not, lots of TV viewers outside the US are probably saying to themselves "Hulu? Who cares? I'll continue to download TV shows via BitTorrent". If the TV networks are determined to go the same way as the music industry, it's their funeral.
      - smhinsey 18y ago
        how old is hulu? frankly i am pretty impressed with how far it has come already. while they may be terminal regardless of what they do, it is encouraging that they are at least starting to bleed off some inertia and change directions. [edited to actually address your comment] with respect to international users, i totally understand their frustration. i don't really depend on hulu for anything since i can dvr more tv than i can watch as it is, but i would be upset too. i think it might be best to look at it in the same light as geographic roll-outs of movies, games, etc. it's a bummer, and due to mostly stupid limitations, but we can plausibly imagine a future where those limitations are no longer in place because they are inefficient.
- 18y ago
knightinblue 18y ago
If I was running Hulu, I would do the exact same thing. A user costs Hulu 'x' amount of dollars in terms of bandwidth and Hulu makes 'y' dollars off that user via ads. In the US, x < y. In developing countries, x > y. Two reasons - one, they're eating up more bandwidth ('x' goes up) and two, they're much harder to monetize ('y' goes down). It's hard enough to monetize viewers from the US. Compared to them, it's practically impossible to monetize viewers from other countries. As a for-profit company, Hulu is doing the right thing. Otherwise, they'd be bleeding all over the place like youtube.
- cellis 18y ago
  What?! Things Shouldn't be 100% Free And Open?? You really don't get it. Edit: it should be painfully obvious that this is sarcasm
- mikedouglas 18y ago
  I'm sure most of us are talking about Canada, Europe and Australia, but thanks for referring to us all as "developing countries".
  - knightinblue 18y ago
    I was talking specifically about countries like India where users consume a lot of bandwidth, thereby resulting in a double whammy (it's not just the 'y' that goes down, 'x' also goes up) I guess I should have been clearer in the distinction. My bad.
- bodhi 18y ago
  I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that everywhere outside the US is a 'developing country' :)
  - knightinblue 18y ago
    lol of course not. I was talking specifically about countries like India where users consume a lot of bandwidth. I guess I should have been clearer in the distinction. My bad.

This is why there's the Pirate Bay.

buugs 18y ago

I'd like to see someone make an international model of such a site and gain a large backing with some popular tv show or movie content providers and beat hulu at their own game. It would be interesting to see how their revenue model changes.

mynameishere 18y ago
There is an international model and it doesn't make much money.
mikedouglas 18y ago
I doubt if Hulu had the bargaining power, they would be spending their time playing "police officer". Unfortunately, its the same hand giving them the content, that is pushing them to plug these minor leaks. The only alternative I can see would be an HBO-style online retailer willing to pay to produce high-quality content, cutting off the studio entirely. For whatever reason, they don't exist yet.
JimmyL 18y ago
Distribution rights aren't cheap - and while electronic ones would be cheaper, buying them to cover the world wouldn't be. Plus, you'd have to find advertisers for each individual country (which would be a huge pain in the ass) - without that, there's nothing to offset the per-user costs in those countries without contracts.

mdasen 18y ago

To be fair to Hulu, the restrictions on content distribution are from the networks, not Hulu. To explain: a television show is created by a network or a third party and then that show is licensed for distribution within a country by that network or third party. So, Disney makes Scrubs and runs it on ABC in the US (although it had licensed it to NBC for a while) and, if there is a market for it in other countries, licenses it to a network in those countries for distribution in that market. So, when a network gives online distribution rights to Hulu for content, it's only for the US. In order to make sure that they keep getting content, Hulu really has to prove that they won't be hacked - that Hulu can effectively serve ads that won't be easily blocked, that Hulu can control distribution, etc. It sucks. However, the behavior is more network/hollywood related than Hulu related. I'm sure the Hulu folks would love to be an open free-for-all, but they also realize that by playing ball they're able to offer something that, frankly, I find more entertaining and a much better experience while also having a much greater potential for profit. Who knows? Maybe someday show creators will simply license their material for online distribution, completely bypassing networks and borders. In the meantime, Hulu is trying to make sure they don't piss off their benefactors and have content yanked because they can't control distribution. Is it good? No. But I'd blame the networks before leveling my anger at Hulu.

saturdayplace 18y ago
> To be fair to Hulu, the restrictions on content distribution are from the networks, not Hulu. I always thought that Hulu ARE the networks. Founded by Fox/NBC. ABC/Disney recently acquired a 30% stake. This kind of thing never surprises me, because Hulu/The networks are the same thing. Sure, Hulu is run by a bunch of cool guys who're trying to do the right thing, but their bosses have never gotten the online side of things.
- smhinsey 18y ago
  i'm not sure that this is a matter of "getting it" or not. it seems like a contractual reality that may change over time, but as of now, it prevents them from distributing everything to everyone, so i am hard pressed to blame the networks for this particular problem.
  - cabalamat 18y ago
    Whether it's the networks' fault or not, lots of TV viewers outside the US are probably saying to themselves "Hulu? Who cares? I'll continue to download TV shows via BitTorrent". If the TV networks are determined to go the same way as the music industry, it's their funeral.
    - smhinsey 18y ago
      how old is hulu? frankly i am pretty impressed with how far it has come already. while they may be terminal regardless of what they do, it is encouraging that they are at least starting to bleed off some inertia and change directions. [edited to actually address your comment] with respect to international users, i totally understand their frustration. i don't really depend on hulu for anything since i can dvr more tv than i can watch as it is, but i would be upset too. i think it might be best to look at it in the same light as geographic roll-outs of movies, games, etc. it's a bummer, and due to mostly stupid limitations, but we can plausibly imagine a future where those limitations are no longer in place because they are inefficient.
18y ago

knightinblue 18y ago

If I was running Hulu, I would do the exact same thing. A user costs Hulu 'x' amount of dollars in terms of bandwidth and Hulu makes 'y' dollars off that user via ads. In the US, x < y. In developing countries, x > y. Two reasons - one, they're eating up more bandwidth ('x' goes up) and two, they're much harder to monetize ('y' goes down). It's hard enough to monetize viewers from the US. Compared to them, it's practically impossible to monetize viewers from other countries. As a for-profit company, Hulu is doing the right thing. Otherwise, they'd be bleeding all over the place like youtube.

cellis 18y ago
What?! Things Shouldn't be 100% Free And Open?? You really don't get it. Edit: it should be painfully obvious that this is sarcasm
mikedouglas 18y ago
I'm sure most of us are talking about Canada, Europe and Australia, but thanks for referring to us all as "developing countries".
- knightinblue 18y ago
  I was talking specifically about countries like India where users consume a lot of bandwidth, thereby resulting in a double whammy (it's not just the 'y' that goes down, 'x' also goes up) I guess I should have been clearer in the distinction. My bad.
bodhi 18y ago
I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that everywhere outside the US is a 'developing country' :)
- knightinblue 18y ago
  lol of course not. I was talking specifically about countries like India where users consume a lot of bandwidth. I guess I should have been clearer in the distinction. My bad.