Movie Studios Next to Sue Pirate Bay in Latest Act of Futility

A few months ago, one of the larger and better known sites to index torrent files, the Pirate Bay, was successfully sued by a group of music industry types for all sorts of copyright violations resulting in large fines and possible prison sentences.

Of course, this has done nothing to curb music piracy since the Pirate Bay is only one of literally hundreds of sites providing the EXACT SAME links to potentially infringing torrent-files.  In addition to, oh, I dunno, Google and Bing, some of these sites include Mininova, SumoTorrents, Demonoid, Thunderbytes, IsoHunt and, no kidding, hundreds more.

Now comes word that the movie studios are going after the Pirate Bay:

Columbia Pictures, Disney Enterprises, Universal Studios (NYSE:GE) and 10 others are demanding the site’s operators be fined and prevented from distributing TV-series including “Lost” and “Desperate Housewives” and films such as “Batman.”     LINK

Now, a huge percentage of TV piracy is due to FANS of the show living in regions that do not broadcast current episodes.  This piracy is not an act of protest against the show but a major show of love, of a willingness to do whatever it takes to get the latest episode.  You’d think studios would want to figure out how to meet the needs of these super-fans instead of trying to hinder them but that would be far too forward-thinking for this dying Industrial Age model of doing business.

While one might argue that suing the Pirate Bay sends a message to other sites, this same thinking has done nothing to slow the rate of music piracy and force a natural evolution of the industry.  Film and TV is next, whether they like it or not.  In the meantime, they are going to waste millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours trying to shut down the Pirate Bay, after which nothing will have changed but their bank balance.

TV Everywhere Scheme Includes Ads Everywhere, Too

So, Comcast is getting ready to roll out its attempt to compete with Hulu and Bittorrent and the host of other options to watching traditional cable television, something they have given the misnomer of “TV Everywhere.”

As defined by NewTeeVee:

TV Everywhere is an authentication system whereby certain premium content (TV shows, movies, etc.) are available online — but only if you can prove (or “authenticate”) that you have a subscription to a multiservice operator (e.g. cable, satellite, telco TV).      LINK

So, by everywhere, they don’t actually mean, say, being able to download the show to watch offline on an iPhone or to burn onto a DVD to take on a trip.  Sure, the same can be said for Hulu or any other streaming solution, but it isn’t TV Everywhere.

Now comes word that TV Everywhere will also include ads everywhere:

The Wall Street Journal follows up this morning with a story about how shows from OnDemand Online participant Turner, including My Boys and The Closer, will both carry their full load of ads from traditional TV, which is more than four times as many ads than the typical ad load on many sites. And as a bonus (for advertisers), the ads can’t be skipped.       LINK

So, once again, the corporate giants are making the key mistake of pretending to offer a better service when they are really offering something less than what is already readily available.  Unlike, say, DVR’ing a show and being able to fast-forward the ads, or watch via Hulu and get limited ads, TV Everywhere forces the viewer to sit through the entire ad-load, something most of us haven’t done for years, outside of major sporting events.

As competition to either Hulu or file-sharing, TV Everywhere strikes me as a weak entrant into the field.  It also doesn’t help anyone who has already severed ties with the cable company for being over-priced and offering poor customer service.

Meet CinemaCube – An MPAA Nightmare

The device pictured to right is BrightView’s CinemaCube and, if they are aware of it’s existence, it is giving those in the MPAA nightmares.

The device plugs directly into a user’s TV and uses any USB storage device (from thumb drives to external hard drives) to store data. On the surface, that means you could watch your home movies or view photos.

The CinemaCube is also comes with a built-in BitTorrent client, meaning users can access the online file sharing service. It’s also networkable, letting users can grab files (ranging from music to video to photos) from a remote PC to view on their television.

The device, which supports HD content up to 720p and comes with an HDMI port, is on sale now for $89.99.   LINK

I don’t have much to add except that it’s one more reason the MPAA and the major movie studios should be spending more time a new distribution model than on suing sites like The Pirates Bay

UK Music Label CEO Still Doesn’t Get It

In yet another attempt by a major music label to justify it’s continued existence, the CEO of the UK label BPI has written a rather pathetic, rehashing of the same old arguments against file-sharing masked as a look back on the ten years since Napster changed everything, forever:

Many critics have argued that the music industry could have avoided some of the problems it faces today if we had embraced Napster rather than fighting it. That’s probably true, and I, for one, regret that we weren’t faster in figuring out how to create a sustainable model for music on the internet.

Ok, I’m listening.  Tell me what how your new vision and understanding will translate into a new busines model that takes advantage of, instead of fights futilely against what the internet does best:

But this innovation, and the vital investment by labels in new music, is constantly undermined by the various P2P successors to Napster. These companies take and exploit what musicians and artists create, without being honest enough to reward them. And the publishers of books, journalism, films, TV programmes and other media are now lining up with us in the fight against illegal downloading.  Like us, they see how it will destroy their ability to create new content. So we are united in calling for ISPs to play a more positive role in steering consumers towards digital services that reward creators.

Oh, wait, you don’t want to change anything AND you aren’t even remotely listening to the issues and complaints by some of music’s biggest acts including Radiohead and NIN.

Well, maybe you’ve at least moved beyond thinking that the future of the music business will be driven by album sales:

It is true that some people use P2P for music discovery and spend more on music as a result, but in the aggregate they are heavily outweighed by the number of people whose downloading substitutes for purchases. If the reverse were true, our business would be booming and not contracting right now.

Christ, you still think you’re business is collapsing because of pirates?! How about your insane treatment of fans as criminals?  How about your insistence on raising the cost of an album even while the cost of making and distributing that album has plummeted?  How about all the artists that have been screwed by devious contracts and cheating accountants?

Once again, the music industry demonstrates why they will not be long in this new world.

MTV Plus Hot Girls in Underwear Plus Good Music Still Equals Squat

$5 Cover is an extremely well-made, well-cast and relatively entertaining webseries currently running on MTV.com.

In the first episode we get two very pretty young women in their underwear, some above-average acting, a decent plot and an appealing musical performance.  All-in-all, it is easily one of the better examples of original web content currently available and is easily as entertaining as any number of TV programs.

What’s amazing to me is that, even with all of this going for it, $5 Cover appears to be a flop in terms of viewership.

All six of the current episodes appear to have launched simultaneously on May 8th.  The strategy of releasing multiple episodes is one I believe can be helpful.  Now, five days later, episode one has been viewed just over 10,000 times and episode 6 has just barely cracked 1,000 views.

It might be too soon to count out $5 Cover and it is very possible that MTV is syndicating this content to other sites and platforms where it is getting far more attention, but this begs the question, what is it going to take to get a serious audience to an original webseries.?

Poke Fun But “Homeless Real World” Not a Joke

Thanks to now-defunct web video site ManiaTV, there are over 160 hours of footage featuring six homeless people living in Denver.  The show’s creators were never able to convince Mania to go to series and were able to get the footage back.

They have released a “sizzle reel” that gives a very good taste of what they were able to capture.  Since the produccers were independent and not bound by conventional TV approaches the result is quite unusual:

The approach that the producers took to shooting the series is unlike anything on TV. The producers bonded closely with the subjects, at times breaking the fourth wall in the footage. Interviews are more conversation than Q&A and feature nothing like the typical “confessionals” adopted by so many reality shows.

“The cast and crew became so close that they’re still very much in touch with each other,” Ayoub says. “So we can tell you what everyone is doing today.”

This is apparent in the video below.  This is the sort of unique programming that could only happen in the new world of independent web video producers.  Whether or not a major distributor will take on such controversial material is uncertain.  This would be a tough sell to advertisers.  At the same time, one has to wonder if a smart distributor would be able to use the controversy to build the level of attention that advertisers simply cannot ignore.

Homeless Real World (sizzle reel) from Broadcasting & Cable on Vimeo.

Check out the video:

Hulu vs. Paying for Cable TV

Just a quick thought:

I can watch last week’s episode of 30 ROCK on Hulu right now for free.

However, if all I had was $80+/month cable TV and I had forgotten to set my DVR to record the show for me I would now be completely screwed.

Seems to me that Hulu, on many levels, offers a superior set of features and benefits when compared to the offerings of basic cable.

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)

UK’s Baffling Ban on Product Placement

The UK Parliament has upheld a ban on product placement in television programming.  While I guess one could applaud the government for trying to maintain so sort of purity it doesn’t quite hold up to scrutiny.

For starters, the ban is only on shows made by Brits and for Brits.  Shows made in countries that allow product placement will still be allowed to air.  If you’ve ever been to the UK you know how much US programming has permeated their television.  This decision effectively makes it even harder for UK TV producers to compete with US companies since traditional ad revenue is drying up quickly and they will not be able to tap into the growing revenue generated by product placement.

It’s also hard to understand where the harm lies in product placement.  Our lives are saturated in brands.  From the Colgate toothpaste in the morning to the TylenolPM at night, we are completely surrounded by products.  So, it is simply natural that the characters on our TV shows would be equally exposed.  That one company can pay to be the featured product is just making the best of the situation.

And why pick on TV?  Think how much “product placement” there is online and in movies.  Why is the government so concerned with TV?

Why not invest money in creating early-education intervention to teach children how to think critically about all the media they consume? Yeah, I know, that would be hard.  Writing and passing silly legislation is a whole lot easier.

(via)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Culture Secretary urged to allow TV product placement (telegraph.co.uk)

CNets Jumps On My Cable-Cutting Band Wagon

Way back in December I severed my Time Warner Cable TV connection because I was tired of paying $100/month for thousands of programs I never watched – oh, and dealing with their notion of customer service gave me nothing but aggravation.

Since then, the economy and new applications like Boxee are making it easier than ever to cut the cord.

CNet has a pretty good roundup of set-top boxes that let you move the internet-video experience to that big flatscreen monster in your living room:

I’ve done a little digging through the CNET Reviews archives to highlight the top 10 boxes/computers for accessing video-on-demand content via the Web. Here’s a brief summary of each, in no particular order. You can see at a glance what makes each one cool and what makes it not so cool. And you’ll get a general idea of how much each one costs.

I’m sorry to say that I haven’t found a box that offers me everything from all the top movies and TV shows to the best local and live TV programming. But the market is still evolving. And I promise you that the landscape could look very different in another 18 months, so stay tuned. (via)

Of course, if you don’t want to spend money on what is basically place-holder technology, you can just run a cable from your computer to your TV and enjoy.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Time Warner Cable Losing Subscribers. I’m One of Them. (mymediamusings.com)
• Cable Companies Try to Get Some Online Pie (mymediamusings.com)
• A Quick Boxee Update (mymediamusings.com)
• NYT Confirms Drop in Cable Subscriptions (mymediamusings.com)