The Supreme Court Is About To Decide The Future Of Television

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

I wasn't thinking about TIVO anything like that because it's been such a long time since I've done that. We're getting ready to cut off the cable here and stream, so I'll know about it soon.

They'll find other ways to advertise soon enough, product placement or those little banner things at the bottom of the screen.

As I said, I'm not familiar enough with streaming yet to have good ideas on how to advertise with it.

Hulu just inserts advertisements periodically in the broadcast. Oddly enough even when subscribing they still give you the ad's, paying just gives you access to more shows. The point I'm getting at is the people who pirate content, whether that's torrents, direct downloads, or streaming get their product in a commercial free form. That is never going to change because the people who make that pirated content available remove the advertisements.

That is what TV broadcasters, Netflix, Hulu, and everyone else are competing against. Content available for free in any desired format without ad's. It is the most enjoyable form of a show to watch.

As I said before, I'm a game designer and what is happening to TV now happened to games around 15 years ago. A game that came out a few years ago was named Spore. It was designed to be really cool but had many security features to prevent piracy. It was loaded with DRM, automatically assumed it was being pirated, and the games creator on launch day even came out and outright dared people to try and pirate the game because it was iron clad, locked down, and supposedly the new model by which games would be created. Spore went down as the most pirated game in history, I believe it still has that title even though there have been many games with more total players.

So what went wrong? The answer is that those who pirated the game circumvented all of the security features. In terms of usability the game was so locked down that those who pirated the game were playing within hours of it's launch while the legitimate users were locked out of the game. It treated those who stole the product better than it treated those who bought the product. The irony is that the game did go down as a model of future design, but it went down confirming the total opposite of everything it set out to prove.

If your customer base can obtain a free version of your product that is superior to the version of your product that you are charging for, given the technical expertise to get the free version. People will do just that. In the end, some might buy your version to support you but they will still use the superior free one. This happened with Spore. After weeks of people who legitimately bought the game still being locked out from playing because the software said they weren't legitimate enough, the creator even broke down and told the honest customers to go get the pirated version and play it.

That is what's happening with TV right now. There are two types of cord cutters, those who are going to Netflux/Hulu/etc and those who are going to TPB/oneTV (are they still around?)/etc... The people who get the best product are those that are getting the product with no commercials, in whatever format they want. And they don't have to pay for it.

If the TV industry really wants to cut down on piracy they need to come up with a system that delivers a better product than the pirated option. I outlined one way to do that above. There may be more. Either way, their business model needs to change.

a reply to: Aazadan
So that means no product placement in Westerns, or shows set anytime before well, the 1950s/1960s, or prsent-day, depending on how new the product is.

If everyone would just boycott the whole damn television programming market, changes would be made.

But that won't happen.

I turned off the cable months ago, only had it on for a year. After so long without tv, I found a few shows I liked, then like everything else, it/they went to sh$@. Televisiin blows and it blows my mind how people are still paying so much money for crap programing.

They can charge what they want. I'm done with the BS.

originally posted by: kkrattiger
a reply to: Aazadan
So that means no product placement in Westerns, or shows set anytime before well, the 1950s/1960s, or prsent-day, depending on how new the product is.

That's one flaw in the system, but that's also a minority of programming. I don't deny that it constrains writers but at the same time it would allow for an expansion of streaming which brings about al a carte purchasing options (doesn't Itunes do this already with 99 cent TV shows? I thought they did). Once viewers pay directly for just the shows they want, advertisements become less needed in the first place.

The whole goal of the television industry needs to be to get to a place where they're able to offer a product that's better than the advertisement stripped free version pirates offer.

Honestly who cares? It's evolving right now anyway, soon cable will be obsolete it will all be Internet Chanel's on demand and with net neutrality gone its realllly going to move in that direction.

I don't pay for my TV, just connect an antennae, get broadcast TV for free ... hope the don't win! LOL I like my free TV!

Doubt it's to help any entrepreneurs succeed. With that will likely benefit a conglomerate. I don't care for watch TV, but that is not the point. It's the overreaching that the bought out Supreme court, lobbied by corporations that control this helped by the voting puppets(who don't read bills until after they are passed) that they pay for and are trying to create pay for packages limiting freedom net usage, as it already occurs somewhat already.

When you're nearly off the grid in some areas(only offering satellite) or in emergency it an benefit some people. Locally I can pick up some stations if need be in emergency SHTF or area wide disaster for updates(antenna, car battery, older TV). The whole process of their voting is bought and paid for anyway.

originally posted by: onequestion
Honestly who cares? It's evolving right now anyway, soon cable will be obsolete it will all be Internet Chanel's on demand and with net neutrality gone its realllly going to move in that direction.

Net Neutrality is the only way these types of providers can survive. Most likely with it gone streaming will be no more. I wasn't even getting into that aspect of it.

I heard of this and it appears it will go through. The Supreme Court cannot deny a new business venture. When companies get too big and therefore government regulated it always makes it a big issue - sent to the courts to delay it.

TV... that's like one-way Internet with more ads and a lot fewer websites, right?

Never watch it, don't miss it.

a reply to: Majic

I use an old school approach, I spend time outside. Amazing how much more rewarding it is to build a picnic table than to know what is happening on some TV show. Even just sitting around a campfire eating a burger and talking with friends is more interesting than sitting in silence watching images flicker on a glowing box recalling a story that no one you know was a part of or about.

a reply to: Aazadan

Except dinosaurs don't like change. Just like the music industry before them, the television industry will fight change in favor of their consumer gouging models up until they go out of business. So don't expect those goals to be reached until streaming services officially start to take over as the medium by which people receive their tv shows.

I still have an antennae(free TV).
I predicted long ago that free tv was going bye bye. They sit around and think of ways to make money off the sheep. There is a charge for almost everything these days. Greed has taken over every aspect of life. I think it's time to start charging them all.

Something I never understood with these networks getting upset with Aereo and Filmon and limiting network streaming to cable subscribers and all that crap.

They make their money from selling advertisement. So isnt more eyes on the ads the goal?

I can't believe that they make more money from Comcast or Time Warner than they do from being able to sell ad space by saying "20 million people watch this show."

As I understand the model the more eyes, more hits the better. Fighting Filmon or Aereo or blocking streaming is the networks going out of their way to actively limit how many people watch their network at a given time.

I'm not about to buy cable and there is no antenna reception where I live so the only way I'm going to view any of their precious ads is by streaming.

I don't watch TV, I haven't been able to stomach someone trying to make a sale to me so often during a television program that I have to record it to recall the plot or whatever.

TV is going the same way as gas prices, baby steps going higher and higher in price until one day it is basically unaffordable but part of someone's many addictions they don't think they can do without.

Just remove the TV and fall asleep without it, go rent DVD's from your public library while you still can because that will be going away the same as everything else.

The world will be too ugly to recognize soon to all but those who have never known anything but the ugliness.

Round and round it goes....

a reply to: flammadraco

I thought the main stream media already done that.

Was I mistaken?

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

Cable and cell phone companies are extremely greed, they want to make boatloads of money from both sides. Well, I admit it's been a while for having a cell phone, but I am kinda doubting the whole charging for both incoming and outgoing calls crap has changed.

a reply to: Aazadan

Are you kidding me?

I think the advertizing of the 50s and 60s was along a more normal and conservative public, unlike the hell I see on adverts from the 80s and 90s onwards