Does YouTube care about getting content to the world? Or just getting as many of their fingers in the pie as possible and abusing the current geo-restricted licensing model while they can?
Does YouTube care about getting content to the world? Or just getting as many of their fingers in the pie as possible and abusing the current geo-restricted licensing model while they can?
I really wonder who is going to pay $35 a month for US shows, while you are already in the US. There are just so many other ways to get that content.
I hope one day before I die the media companies will realise that their old idea of breaking up the world into pieces and sublicensing is a stupid one.
If not, at least you can die laughing
Note to the BBC - I would be to pay 3x the license fee to be able to watch on the internet with a subscription from outside the U.K. I bet if you opened it up world wide you would make more money then you do on the all the U.K license fees.
One of the shows that I want to watch is Match of the Day. Not sure what the situation is like now, but when I was in the UK the BBC was having a huge problem trying to negotiate the rights to put it on the iPlayer (strangely MOTD2 was OK ???). It would be impossible if they needed international distribution :-(
I'm a rugby fan and it's possible to watch high quality, BBC or ITV coverage of the Six Nations from abroad (BBC Scotland on Wales/Scotland has the higher quality for free). I'm pretty sure that Americans can't watch it though judging by comments on Reddit.
Initially I bought a NowTV subscription, with a home-made proxy setup. That worked for a long time, but then they caught on, and most of the VPN-providers became blacklisted too.
Nowadays I'm using FilmOn with a Roku box. I've slowly weaned myself off UK TV, but there are afternoons where I just want to sit on a sofa and watch two hours of "Come Dine With Me" for the snarking. I wish I could pay for it ..
I get especially annoyed when I also have to 'prove' I have a licence by ticking a box.
In other words, it's easier to get for free outside the UK than it is to pay for it.
Just had to do a second take to appreciate the irony of a geoblocking circumvention service being geoblocked.
Besides, all their competitors are US only as well - Sling TV, DirecTV Now.
Someday who knows, but for now live linear is very region-locked.
It doesn't work like that. These contracts are worth more than the few users that are willing to pay to stream across borders. Sad but that's TV life.
> Yes it is.
No, notifying that the offering won't be available outside of the U.S. wouldn't be difficult. Actually offering it outside would (and I think that's the question you were actually answering, which wasn't the question that was asked).
* Works with any player or device, vs you have to use their application
* Free vs $35/mo
* Has been available for 13+ years, vs available nowhere so far
* Available worldwide, vs some unknown region-locking but certainly US-only for the foreseeable future
* Has pretty much everything, vs "6 accounts" whatever that means
For any live TV offering they are competing against traditional cable providers. Netflix is already on their way on figuring out the "on-demand" content space. If you look at the blog post, 3/4s of the channels offered are either sports or live news. This simply isn't a service for on demand content.
But yes, it's still niche, but wow it has moved on a lot. The program I used was called acestream.
I know many people who have either cut their TV subscription, or at least scaled it down to lowest cheaper tier, since grabbing a mag254 IPTV box and finding a reseller offering upwards of 1000s of channels.
If u don't know about it, you may be content with standard livetv. But if you in the know, you are cutting at least part of your cable TV bill.
I'd prefer to give YouTube the benefit of the doubt as they introduce a brand new service. They're an American company, it makes perfect sense for them to start with US customers.
And I can't imagine they voluntarily restricted things to just the US for zero reason. Licensing around this stuff is nightmarish, and there are benefits to launching even before you're 100% global (which nothing is yet).
Are most cable channels offered in the usa operate internationally?
This logic falls flat however in the digital world, where distributor isn't limited by region. I.e. you can open a digital store, and sell worldwide (like for example computer games stores like GOG, Steam and etc.).
So in the pure digital world, geo restrictions sound like nonsense, since they reduce reach and profits, both for creators, and distributors. My guess is, this creeps into the digital sphere, because of the influence of physical distributors, who see digital ones as a threat to their local monopolies. I suppose strong grip of some regional cable TV companies, forces creators to limit their distribution through any digital stores as well. The problem is, this approach is pretty nasty when applied in the digital space. It basically becomes xenophobic. Translating it back to physical goods, it can look like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbiacSD13qk
Hopefully, the weaker regional monopolists will become, the more likely we'll have global distribution for video too.
Add to that a theoretical possibility of automatic translation and possibly even modeling the Chinese voice of actor X to sound like the original from the original broadcast data which would cut out the dubbing costs and the worldwide streaming workflow could be optimized further.
> Google's founders are avowed American-supremacists
Pretty strong claims. Got any arguments to back them?