4 ms·

If you're paying Netflix rates for ALL your TV and movies, the content industry goes bankrupt in a year. Netflix rates are possible because there's now a very l

by cwyers 13y ago

If you're paying Netflix rates for ALL your TV and movies, the content industry goes bankrupt in a year. Netflix rates are possible because there's now a very low MARGINAL cost to additional copies of a movie or TV show, but if all copies of a movie or a TV show went for that, nothing would recoup its costs.

Zak 13y ago
I'm skeptical. Most TV shows are broadcast free of charge and supported by ads and product placement. Paid streaming, digital downloads and DVD sales are supplemental revenue streams. Offering inexpensive, high-quality DRM-free downloads is compatible with making money from overlay ads and (where applicable) product placement. If the content industry doesn't take this path, I see piracy becoming more and more mainstream. My mother (65 years old, not very geeky) pirates TV shows so she can watch them on her tablet on a plane because her Netflix subscription doesn't provide a good solution for that. How long do you think it will be before she drops Netflix because The Pirate Bay has a better user experience?
- thenomad 13y ago
  How do you plan to make offering DRM-free content compatible with overlay ads? Are you suggesting having the ads actually baked into the video stream?
  - dublinben 13y ago
    >Are you suggesting having the ads actually baked into the video stream? Networks already do this on their broadcasts. Why couldn't they do it on free downloads as well? How many people are going to actively avoid the high quality, well-seeded, official download just because it has a few lower third ads?
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      The existence of TiVo suggests that the answer is 'lots of people.' And 'a few' lower third ads? In the US, an hour of prime time usually means 15 minutes' worth of advertising. DRM is a heck of lot less distracting when I'm trying give my attention to a program.
      - dublinben 13y ago
        DRM is pretty distracting when it prevents you from watching the show at all though.
        anigbrowl 12y ago
        Oh bullshit. That's like saying capitalism is preventing me from enjoying my Ferrari because I don't have enough money to buy one. Why do you start from a false premise of being entitled to watch anything you feel like at the price of your choice? Just because the marginal cost of copying is low does not create an entitlement on your part, nor does it reflect the fact that the fixed costs of production are often terribly high and have to be recouped by selling a large number of copies. Of course, a Ferrari is a physical thing. But every Ferrar sitting in a showroom is one that nobody has been willing to pay for yet. Does that mean you should be able to take it for a ride when the dealership closes at night as long as you have it back there by opening time the following day (ignoring depreciation)?
        Zak 12y ago
        Most of the things DRM is used to prevent would otherwise be classed as fair use. Copyright law was, until quite recently about granting a monopoly on the large-scale or commercial use of a work. At-home copying for personal use was generally legal - even explicitly protected by law in some cases[0]. Same with multiplexing video on different screens, creating backups and skipping commercials. DRM and legal provisions forbidding its circumvention change the rules quite a bit, stripping away significant rights from consumers. Losing rights one once had might well be grounds for a feeling of entitlement. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Exemption_from_infringement_actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Exemp...
    - thenomad 13y ago
      The problem is that networks ALSO include interstitial ads. From practical experience as an advertising buyer, I'd expect the CPM for those ads to be considerably higher than for the in-stream ads. Indeed, you'll see that most of the in-stream ads shown on network broadcasts are internal for other network shows, rather than being sold, strongly implying that the potential revenue is massively less. As a result, just giving away free downloads with baked-in lower third ads would likely reduce the revenue from the shows being downloaded by a factor of 10 or more. That's gonna be a problem. (Don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of DRM at all and would love to find an equitable distribution solution to this problem. But as a professional in both the media and advertising industries, this sort of revenue generation is something I struggle with myself, and I know it's a non-trivial problem to solve.)
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Most TV shows are broadcast free of charge and supported by ads and product placement. That's netowrk TV. Many of the most popular shows on paid cable TV channels. Also, those ads only generate revenue because people can't bypass them at broadcast times. Also, you're completely ignoring syndication revenues, which are often where the real money is. My mother (65 years old, not very geeky) pirates TV shows so she can watch them on her tablet on a plane because her Netflix subscription doesn't provide a good solution for that. I never cease to be amazed at the creativity of piracy apologists in coming up with new scenarios where piracy is the only solution. Seriously, what percentage of Netflix users are in transit without internet access so often that they're horribly underserved by the inability to pre-cache multiple TV show episodes?
  - tragic 13y ago
    > I never cease to be amazed at the creativity of piracy apologists in coming up with new scenarios where piracy is the only solution. It doesn't need to be the only solution. It simply needs to be the most economically viable solution to the consumer. Joe Bloggs is an Englishman. He likes high-quality US television imports - Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, House of Cards, True Detective. He wants to obtain them for his viewing pleasure. His options: 1. Go old school. pay £100-£150 for all the box-sets. 2. Go new school. Pay £7/month for Netflix (BB, HoC). Pay £30+ a month for Sky TV subscription with Sky Atlantic for the others. Plus £x, plus £y for everything else he needs - not even to mention movies, which are very inconsistent across streaming services. (I fear that we Limeys get less out of our Netflix subscriptions than you.) 3. Go illegal. Spend an upfront cost of time, electricity, bandwidth and risk of malware apocalypse/getting caught to get all this stuff on his hard drive. Forget the morality of the issue. Never mind the legality: if Joe is a driver, it's a statistical near certainty that he speeds; if he doesn't take drugs, it's not because they're illegal. It's simple economics. If three is cheaper - in terms of time plus risk plus money - he will do number three. As long as The Pirate Bay offers real advantages over legal services - principally, beyond the monetary price, everything you could possibly want is there in one place - then people will choose it. And just as it's unrealistic to expect media conglomerates to share the EFF's view of DRM, so it's unrealistic to expect media consumers to put up with the enormous inconveniences for the sake of some mythical starving artist grubbing away at the bottom of the Hollywood food chain.

by cwyers 13y ago

Zak 13y ago

I'm skeptical. Most TV shows are broadcast free of charge and supported by ads and product placement. Paid streaming, digital downloads and DVD sales are supplemental revenue streams. Offering inexpensive, high-quality DRM-free downloads is compatible with making money from overlay ads and (where applicable) product placement. If the content industry doesn't take this path, I see piracy becoming more and more mainstream. My mother (65 years old, not very geeky) pirates TV shows so she can watch them on her tablet on a plane because her Netflix subscription doesn't provide a good solution for that. How long do you think it will be before she drops Netflix because The Pirate Bay has a better user experience?

thenomad 13y ago
How do you plan to make offering DRM-free content compatible with overlay ads? Are you suggesting having the ads actually baked into the video stream?
- dublinben 13y ago
  >Are you suggesting having the ads actually baked into the video stream? Networks already do this on their broadcasts. Why couldn't they do it on free downloads as well? How many people are going to actively avoid the high quality, well-seeded, official download just because it has a few lower third ads?
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    The existence of TiVo suggests that the answer is 'lots of people.' And 'a few' lower third ads? In the US, an hour of prime time usually means 15 minutes' worth of advertising. DRM is a heck of lot less distracting when I'm trying give my attention to a program.
    - dublinben 13y ago
      DRM is pretty distracting when it prevents you from watching the show at all though.
      - anigbrowl 12y ago
        Oh bullshit. That's like saying capitalism is preventing me from enjoying my Ferrari because I don't have enough money to buy one. Why do you start from a false premise of being entitled to watch anything you feel like at the price of your choice? Just because the marginal cost of copying is low does not create an entitlement on your part, nor does it reflect the fact that the fixed costs of production are often terribly high and have to be recouped by selling a large number of copies. Of course, a Ferrari is a physical thing. But every Ferrar sitting in a showroom is one that nobody has been willing to pay for yet. Does that mean you should be able to take it for a ride when the dealership closes at night as long as you have it back there by opening time the following day (ignoring depreciation)?
        Zak 12y ago
        Most of the things DRM is used to prevent would otherwise be classed as fair use. Copyright law was, until quite recently about granting a monopoly on the large-scale or commercial use of a work. At-home copying for personal use was generally legal - even explicitly protected by law in some cases[0]. Same with multiplexing video on different screens, creating backups and skipping commercials. DRM and legal provisions forbidding its circumvention change the rules quite a bit, stripping away significant rights from consumers. Losing rights one once had might well be grounds for a feeling of entitlement. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Exemption_from_infringement_actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Exemp...
  - thenomad 13y ago
    The problem is that networks ALSO include interstitial ads. From practical experience as an advertising buyer, I'd expect the CPM for those ads to be considerably higher than for the in-stream ads. Indeed, you'll see that most of the in-stream ads shown on network broadcasts are internal for other network shows, rather than being sold, strongly implying that the potential revenue is massively less. As a result, just giving away free downloads with baked-in lower third ads would likely reduce the revenue from the shows being downloaded by a factor of 10 or more. That's gonna be a problem. (Don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of DRM at all and would love to find an equitable distribution solution to this problem. But as a professional in both the media and advertising industries, this sort of revenue generation is something I struggle with myself, and I know it's a non-trivial problem to solve.)
anigbrowl 13y ago
Most TV shows are broadcast free of charge and supported by ads and product placement. That's netowrk TV. Many of the most popular shows on paid cable TV channels. Also, those ads only generate revenue because people can't bypass them at broadcast times. Also, you're completely ignoring syndication revenues, which are often where the real money is. My mother (65 years old, not very geeky) pirates TV shows so she can watch them on her tablet on a plane because her Netflix subscription doesn't provide a good solution for that. I never cease to be amazed at the creativity of piracy apologists in coming up with new scenarios where piracy is the only solution. Seriously, what percentage of Netflix users are in transit without internet access so often that they're horribly underserved by the inability to pre-cache multiple TV show episodes?
- tragic 13y ago
  > I never cease to be amazed at the creativity of piracy apologists in coming up with new scenarios where piracy is the only solution. It doesn't need to be the only solution. It simply needs to be the most economically viable solution to the consumer. Joe Bloggs is an Englishman. He likes high-quality US television imports - Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, House of Cards, True Detective. He wants to obtain them for his viewing pleasure. His options: 1. Go old school. pay £100-£150 for all the box-sets. 2. Go new school. Pay £7/month for Netflix (BB, HoC). Pay £30+ a month for Sky TV subscription with Sky Atlantic for the others. Plus £x, plus £y for everything else he needs - not even to mention movies, which are very inconsistent across streaming services. (I fear that we Limeys get less out of our Netflix subscriptions than you.) 3. Go illegal. Spend an upfront cost of time, electricity, bandwidth and risk of malware apocalypse/getting caught to get all this stuff on his hard drive. Forget the morality of the issue. Never mind the legality: if Joe is a driver, it's a statistical near certainty that he speeds; if he doesn't take drugs, it's not because they're illegal. It's simple economics. If three is cheaper - in terms of time plus risk plus money - he will do number three. As long as The Pirate Bay offers real advantages over legal services - principally, beyond the monetary price, everything you could possibly want is there in one place - then people will choose it. And just as it's unrealistic to expect media conglomerates to share the EFF's view of DRM, so it's unrealistic to expect media consumers to put up with the enormous inconveniences for the sake of some mythical starving artist grubbing away at the bottom of the Hollywood food chain.