3 ms·

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

by 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.
Zak 18y ago
It seems like content providers are trying to do something smart in providing users with an alternative to piracy by working with Hulu, but they haven't figured out a model that will work for all users. It might be smarter for everyone involved to get those users on Hulu now despite the lack of a means of making a profit. To do anything else means more users will get used to piracy, and may get picked off by local competitors before Hulu and the content providers find ways to monitize them. This strategy seems like winning the battle at the expense of an increased risk of losing the war.
- JimmyL 18y ago
  The international distribution market is the problem. Let's say I'm a network and I come up with a show named _Lost_. I broadcast it on my network in the US, and it's pretty profitable and popular. I see people are pirating it, so I put it on Hulu and regain some of my previously-lost market share. Now, a year late a network in England wants to show it. I can then sell them the rights to an audience that has never been formally exposed to it - sure, some have pirated the episodes, but not many. I can get a bunch of money for this. If, however, those British viewers could have seen it on Hulu as it was coming out in real-time, a whole lot more of them would have been exposed to the show, and hence I'd command a much lower price for licensing _Lost_ to that British network. Think of it from a network perspective (and remembering McLuhan's notion that the purpose of TV shows is to sell advertising, and that the content is just a way to make you look at it). If you let international viewers on Hulu you'll lose the money I mentioned above, but in addition you'll have trouble selling advertising on it, since domestic advertisers don't care about someone in Canada seeing their ads (and the viewership would be small enough that no one would buy a contract just for those ads). If you don't let internationals see it, you'll preserve your resale price, and make it easier to sell ads both on your electronic network, and on the electronic network of whoever you sell the rights to. Which one makes more money for the network?
  - Zak 18y ago
    It seems to me that the network is the link in this chain that's becoming obsolete. The barrier to entry for distributing content online is much lower - all you need is a bit of storage and some bandwidth. The expenses may be non-trivial if something is popular enough, but there's essentially no infrastructure to set up compared to creating a new TV network. Providing content with embedded advertising looks like a better model for content providers to me. The main barrier at this point is to get people used to watching online instead of on broadcast/cable TV.

by mdasen 18y ago

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.

Zak 18y ago

It seems like content providers are trying to do something smart in providing users with an alternative to piracy by working with Hulu, but they haven't figured out a model that will work for all users. It might be smarter for everyone involved to get those users on Hulu now despite the lack of a means of making a profit. To do anything else means more users will get used to piracy, and may get picked off by local competitors before Hulu and the content providers find ways to monitize them. This strategy seems like winning the battle at the expense of an increased risk of losing the war.

JimmyL 18y ago
The international distribution market is the problem. Let's say I'm a network and I come up with a show named _Lost_. I broadcast it on my network in the US, and it's pretty profitable and popular. I see people are pirating it, so I put it on Hulu and regain some of my previously-lost market share. Now, a year late a network in England wants to show it. I can then sell them the rights to an audience that has never been formally exposed to it - sure, some have pirated the episodes, but not many. I can get a bunch of money for this. If, however, those British viewers could have seen it on Hulu as it was coming out in real-time, a whole lot more of them would have been exposed to the show, and hence I'd command a much lower price for licensing _Lost_ to that British network. Think of it from a network perspective (and remembering McLuhan's notion that the purpose of TV shows is to sell advertising, and that the content is just a way to make you look at it). If you let international viewers on Hulu you'll lose the money I mentioned above, but in addition you'll have trouble selling advertising on it, since domestic advertisers don't care about someone in Canada seeing their ads (and the viewership would be small enough that no one would buy a contract just for those ads). If you don't let internationals see it, you'll preserve your resale price, and make it easier to sell ads both on your electronic network, and on the electronic network of whoever you sell the rights to. Which one makes more money for the network?
- Zak 18y ago
  It seems to me that the network is the link in this chain that's becoming obsolete. The barrier to entry for distributing content online is much lower - all you need is a bit of storage and some bandwidth. The expenses may be non-trivial if something is popular enough, but there's essentially no infrastructure to set up compared to creating a new TV network. Providing content with embedded advertising looks like a better model for content providers to me. The main barrier at this point is to get people used to watching online instead of on broadcast/cable TV.