Is There a Real Difference in Used DVD’s vs. “Free” Downloads

Recently, I was drawn into the HBO series “Rome” after seeing the first episode for free online via a very nice site in China that streamed it for me in low quality.

Wanting to see more I was fascinated to discover that while episodes 3+ were also on the same site, episode 2 was nowhere to be found.

I now had a couple of options.

Most directly, I could walk to a store and buy a new copy of the season one DVD for around $30 – a lot considering I wasn’t sure I was ready to commit to the whole season.  I could also look online for a used copy that I could get for around $20.  Finally, I could download the entire thing for free from a site like The Pirate Bay.

While I was weighing the moral, social and finacial implications of each option I had the following thought:

What is the difference, economically speaking, between me buying a used copy on Ebay from some kid in Nebraska and just downloading it for free from The Pirate Bay, as far as the studio/MPAA is concerned.

Unless I buy a new copy of the DVD than HBO will not be seeing any of my money.  Nor will any of the people involved with making “Rome.”  So, the notion that downloading the copy from The Pirate Bay is directly “stealing” from the producers and artists is kind of absurd.  Am I equally “stealing” from them if I buy the used DVD on Ebay?

Time Warner Cable’s Last Hope (oh, and Comcast et. al.)

There is no denying that cable companies are facing some big challenges to their business model.  Until very recently, the only reliable way to view the vast majority of programming made for TV was to pay a hefty monthly fee to a cable company for the privilege.

Over-the-air, while free, limits selection to the few networks that still offer signals and cable “black boxes” are relatively rare.

Then along came that evil internet to muck it all up for the cable companies. Since the only tangible service provided by the cable company is access, the internet is one big wrench in the works.  See, the internet provides access, too.  Until now, nearly all of that access, whether legal or pirated, was  free.  Suddenly, some people began to wonder just what they were paying all that money to the cable company for.

Well, the cable companies are wondering the same thing.  Instead of looking for a way to offer even more to their customers for a lower price, or some other direct response to the online proliferation of TV on the web, they’ve decided to do what they do best: throw up walls.

Time Warner Cable, the second-largest cable operator in the country, is working with customers here to test a subscriber model for online TV viewing. Residents who pay for HBO can watch “Big Love,” “Entourage” and other programs on their computers, using special software and a personal log-in. People who are not HBO subscribers are barred from the service.

Anyone else see the problem with these approach?

For starters, Time Warner isn’t actually offering anything that great to its paying subscribers since there are plenty of ways to view the same content online for free.  The more paywalls they erect, the more likely it is for piracy to expand in response.

The same would be true if only cable subscribers could access, say, Hulu or TV.com.  While there might be some logic in this approach with a pay-cable network like HBO the argument collapses when applied to network TV shows that are chock full of branded content and ads.

It may well be true that the evolution of technology makes things like cable companies obsolete but that doesn’t mean we should support these kinds of schemes to save them.  If there is no economic reason for cable companies to exist they should cease to exist.

(link)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Some Online Shows Could Go Subscription-Only (nytimes.com)
• Cable Companies Try to Get Some Online Pie (mymediamusings.com)
• CBS Interactive: “Well Within Our Rights To Stream Hulu Content” (techcrunch.com)

Atlantic Claims TV to Become AM Radio to Drooling Masses

Michael Hirschorn, writing for The Atlantic (it’s a magazine…ask your parents), has created a baffling collection of arguments leading up to the conclusion that TV is going to become a lowest-common-denominator entertainer on par with the blowhards of AM radio.

Aside from the fact that TV has long courted the broadest, and therefore sometimes not the brightest, audience, I find myself needing to respond to some of the more absurd points Hirschorn puts out there:

The only thing network television can uniquely offer us non-digitally-optimized saps and dipshits is the promise of immediacy. Leno’s content—like that of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, the breakout stars of the past few years—is news-driven, hypertimely, and ultimately disposable, insofar as it loses almost all its value within 24 hours.

Somehow, Hirschorn has missed the explosion of live-streaming programming on the internet.  From Obama’s last press conference to much of Sunday football, TV is far from exclusive in its ability to offer “of-the-moment” content.  In many ways, as technology continues to facilitate fast, low-cost streaming we can all provide live coverage (Qik, anyone?).

But niche networks like HBO and Showtime may loom even larger than they do now: they’re supported by cable subscription fees, and they’ve smartly anticipated the move away from real-time viewing and made video-on-demand part of their broader scheme. This has allowed those networks not only to continue to produce top-flight scripted shows, but also to promote them with a fervor redolent of the old days of Must-See TV.

The truth is that subscription-supported TV is never going to be able to make up for what advertisers currently shell out and HBO et. al. are seeing their business models collapse as the struggle to come up with enough truly great original programming to replace the hundreds of hours of movies nobody needs them anymore to see. 

The exceptions (Twilight, Pixar movies, American Idol, Britney, 24,
anything Oprah likes) are huge and will remain so, since people clearly
will always like to congregate around shared cultural experiences.

Actually, I agree with this but it seems to directly contradict Hischorn’s idea that scripted shows are failing and being replaced because nobody wants to watch them.  People watch what compels them and a good story well told will always compel an audience, with or without a script.

“Heroes” is the show Hirchorn (and many others) hold up as proof that serial content just can’t sustain an audience on TV.  Of course, these same people like to ignore “Lost” the “CSI” franchise and other shows that dominate their time-slots.  Sure, reality TV is cheaper to produce so the failures hurt less but don’t think that reality fails less often than scripted fare.

Instead of TV devolving, as Hirschorn seems to fear (and, oddly, hopes for), it is far more likely what we think of as TV will be consumed by the “web” and content itself will change its manner of distribution and as long as artists have great stories to tell, audiences will come and advertisers will follow.

Paramount Pictures, MGM and Lionsgate Partner on Epix FAIL

I have written a fair amount about what I see as the complete obsolescent concept of a “premium movie channel” like HBO or Showtime but that hasn’t stopped Paramount Pictures, MGM and Lionsgate from teaming up to launch EPIX, a premium movie channel that I predict will fail faster than Middle East peace negotiations.  According to the NYT:

The channel has engendered its fair share of skepticism in the media world, partly because of questions about consumer demand for another movie channel and because, increasingly, viewers have more options for how to consume video. Cable executives say privately that they have little interest in carrying the channel, which could partly be a negotiating ploy. But it does not appear that they are remotely close to a deal with any of the major cable companies.

I honestly can’t understand the thinking behind this move.  Instead of focusing on how to bring their films to the widest possible audience in the broadest number of formats at the lowest price, these studios are trying to get consumers to pony up more cash for a basically broken system that forces them to watch films on the studio’s terms instead of their own.

Can you say “Epix FAIL”?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Viacom and partners brand new movie channel (latimesblogs.latimes.com)
• Movie channel to go live on Web before TV debut (news.cnet.com)

HBO, Facing Obsolesence, Tries Threatening Inaugural Ball ‘Tubers

HBO, which has a completely obsolete business model at the moment, took a shot at relevance by securing the exclusive rights to film and air Barack Obama’s Inaugural Ball.

Now, via TechDirt, comes word that HBO is attempting to force the takedown of personal videos posted on YouTube that were shot by regular folks lucky enough to be in attendance last night.

The majority of these videos seem to be short clips shot on cellphones and it is pretty hard to imagine how their presence online could harm HBO’s “exclusive” rights.  Nobody is going to watch those videos as a replacement for HBO’s professionally shot and produced video nor will anyone mistake those videos for the work of HBO.

Not only is it just plain mean to attempt to stop folks from sharing their personal looks into a major historical moment but it makes HBO look bad.  Considering how few reasons there are to pay for HBO, you’ve got to wonder why they would risk web backlash…unless they were blind and ignorant when it comes to New Media.

Nah…

Related articles by Zemanta

• HBO owns Obama’s inaugural concert. If you took any photos or videos you’d better destroy them now.
• Live Blogging Obama’s Inauguration Concert
• HBO Wins Bidding War For Exclusive Inauguration Footage

Free Advice for Whole Foods

I was at Whole Foods today, the incredibly crowded one in the Time Warner Center, and noticed that there were ads running on the screen next to the display of the items I purchased.

For just a moment, it looked like the ads were actually related to what I was buying.  I quickly noticed this was not the case but that there were just five or six ads in rotation.

Strikes me as a huge missed opportunity.  There they are scanning every item I am buying so how hard would it be to have that information cross-referenced with the available ads and run ads that actually related to what I was buying.

Sure, I am done shopping for today but what a perfect time to plant an idea in my head for next time.

So, Whole Foods, link that scanner to the ad-delivery program and you might increase those sales in these tough times for no additional cost.

Dear HBO, Showtime, et. al., Your Business Model is Absurd

It just sort of dawned on me how completely ridiculous the whole notion of a network like HBO is in today’s digital world.

Back when HBO was born, their big offering was the chance to see lots and lots of movies for a pretty low price.  Sure, you had to wait maybe a year for it to make it there from the big screen, and you had to watch it when they decided to air it and you had to want to see the movies they had licensed.

For a time, this wasn’t a bad deal.  It was a good enough deal that millions decided to pay an extra $20 or whatever for that programming. But that was before DVRs and Hulu and Boxee and NetFlix WatchNow and all the other ways I can watch all the same basic movies HBO (et. al.) offers but I can decide when I want to watch them and it’s FREE!.

Now, HBO (et. al.) are trying to convince people that, while you can see the same movies they charge you to watch for free through other methods BUT check it out, now they have original programming. Actually, they’ve had that for decades, but now it is the centerpiece, it’s what they’re asking you to pay for – and they’re asking for the same amount of money as before.

So, to review, HBO wants me to pay them a premium above and beyond my basic cable fees to watch original dramas and comedies. Isn’t that what all the basic cable channels already do? Sure, they have ads, but that’s what DVR is for.

That leaves only two things HBO (et. al.) still offer that you can’t get on basic cable – boobs and cursing.  Is that really worth $20 a month? Really?

Oh, and that HBO show you love enough to pay for, “Flight of the Conchords?”  Yeah, HBO is premiering the new season on FunnyOrDie.com. That’s a free website they bought.

Why the hell are people paying for HBO (et. al.)? Seriously? No kidding.  Leave me a comment.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Netflix Headed For Boxee
• Video: The couch potato’s game-changer
• DVR commercial skipping: 50% or 97%? Depends on whom you ask

HBO Spares No Expense on New Web Series

I mean that literally.  HBO’s web series, set in an elevator, looks like it costs $5.00 per episode to produce.  At that’s a good thing since this is what you get:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVVb70pe9b0&hl=en]

Via Tilzy I learned:

“When he signed on to Runawaybox, Tondorf wanted to create a series “impossibly simple” to produce, a locked-frame, one-take show that could deliver a fresh episode every day.  “I thought that something from an elevator security camera might be a fun idea, seeing as we’re all trapped in a small box with people we don’t know for an amount of time, often dropping in on their conversations and having no idea what they’re talking about.”

Christ, people in the industry wonder why nobody is watching their content on the internet but they produce content that is so completely marginal and doesn’t look anything like the content they would offer on TV.  It doesn’t even look as good as most of the UGC stuff out there.

Why bother, HBO?

FunnyOrDie Gets Some Cash From HBO – HBO Get Will Ferrill Cheap

At first glance, one might wonder why HBO would give an obviously struggling video website $10 million, that is until you read on and discover that Will Ferrill, FoD co-founder, is going to provide HBO with original content for their TV network.

Considering that Ferrill gets at least $15-20 million per movie, this is a virtual bargain for HBO.

Even more curious is that this is considered a 10% stake for HBO which means that the entire site is valued at an utterly insane $100 million.  Give me a break!   This site gets less than 500,000 viewers a month.  So, that means someone thinks views are worth more than $16 each!

HA!

(via Vallywag)

Related articles

• HBO buys into Funny or Die – VIDEO [via Zemanta]
• HBO invests in Will Ferrell’s FunnyorDie.com [via Zemanta]

Sony Doing Some Cool…Oh, Wait. Nevermind

For just a second there is sounded like something vaguely cool coming out of Sony – full-length movies available over your cell phone.  Sure, tiny screen but nice to have the option.  Except, that as Engadget points out:

“It’s more the prospect of sitting in front of that tiny mobile screen to watch a full-length film without the ability to pause, fast forward or rewind. This is live broadcast folks.”

That’s right.  Like HBO or Showtime, movies will just be playing whether or are watching or not.  No control for the viewer.  Oh, and it will only be available to AT&T customers.

Not that anyone will ever watch.