Fox’s 8-Day Delay on Hulu Triggers Piracy Surge
torrentfreak.com
torrentfreak.com
This just smells like corporate bureaucracy, and it is unfortunate, because it helps no one.
If you look at the cost to watch a movie, the earlier you want it the more you pay.
It starts with theaters, then pay per view, then buy it, then expensive rentals, then cheap rentals, and finally tv movie. You have b-list theaters somewhere in the last as well, and I may have missed some other places.
If you are willing to wait to watch your shows you will pay a LOT less for them. But apparently most people are not willing to wait, otherwise this model would not work.
I accidentally stumbled upon the winner of the show during my eight day wait for the episode to come to Hulu, and now I have no incentive to watch the final episodes and give Fox/Hulu whatever ad revenue they'd get from that.
The Hulu comments have been filled with angry viewers, some of which are listing the sites where people can go to pirate the show.
So why watch the show at all? Wait until the end of the season and read the results on the Internet.
If you find yourself about to object, then perhaps you do have an incentive to watch the final episodes. Otherwise, I just saved you 12 hours of your life. ;)
Your suggestion is similar to saying, "So you've eaten five pounds of cupcakes and now you don't feel like eating a proper dinner? Either you don't need a proper dinner at all, or you really do want to eat this vegetable platter!"
I just finished "Star Trek: Voyager", so I'll use that as my example. In the first episode, they get stranded far away from home. You know they're going to make it home because that's how stories work. Does that make the show spoiled? Well, they saw reason to make 7 seasons of 24 episodes, so I'm guessing it wasn't spoiled.
Actually, studies[0] have shown that spoilers make stories more enjoyable.
[0] http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/spoilers-dont-spoi...
I'm not sure there's actually enough evidence to even validate that study as showing what it appears to show, much less to generalize the result to all humans everywhere.
There. Saved you another 12 hours. You're welcome.
I think the point is that its the journey, not the destination.
People like us who don't care can save a lot of money.
And, honestly, the lack of ads is a bonus, it's not the sole reason pirates pirate.
How the hell the media companies continue to screw this up is baffling. They've got a product that people want really bad. And yet...they don't really want to give it to people?
Huh?
If people were banging down my door to use a product that I had created, I think I would probably be working my ass off to facilitate their ability to pay me for it.
For places like FX, which carries several shows that I like: why on earth can't I just stream FX from your website?
But the Internet treats price discrimination as damage. Pretty soon everybody will be paying "pirate prices" and Fox will only be able to afford to produce reality TV. Perhaps such a new equilibrium is inevitable, but every year they can delay it is another year before the executives have to find new jobs.
In fact, how many HN hackers do you think would dive at the chance to display localized ads in a stream from FX/TBS/USA/TNT/Comedy Central/etc./etc.
Sounds like a good startup idea for a seasoned founder, since they're more likely to get 'color' levels of funding required to do this at scale from the get go. As unfortunately I don't see this kind of startup getting traction in a limited market, hence go big or go home levles of funding.
But my cable/Hulu/Netflix streaming bill isn't where Fox's revenue comes from - it comes from their advertisers. If they sell me their shows in a convenient .avi format, they're gaining me at $10/month, but they're losing every single company that pays for me to watch their commercials.
This means each user is worth $0.01 per minute of commercials. The average American watches ~4 hours per day, 25% of which is commercial advertising, which comes out to 30 hours per month of commercials. That's 1800 minutes of commercials.
Answer: $18/month, average. Roughly.
And then CPM for online video like Hulu is totally different as well - due to a number of factors, such as the smaller number of spots, the difference in attention paid, the quirks of Nielsen ratings on the web, and the clickthru opportunity.
There was some hubbub a while back about how CPMs for a 30s spot in the Simpsons on Hulu was actually going for more than a new episode of the Simpsons on Fox (something like $60 vs $30).
Most of the TV you watch on Hulu is prime content and even though it is online, you can expect a CPM of $25-50.
And anyway, is it even piracy when it was already broadcast into your house? (Anyone can watch Fox for free with a big enough antenna.) I can pay someone to clean my house; why can't I pay someone to videotape my TV shows?
That, I think, is an undervalued point here - Piracy as a signaling mechanism is, I think, why an awful lot of what's currently out there for digital delivery (Hulu, especially) exists.
The industry's still not entirely sure what a viable market model looks like - that's part of the reason why Fox pulled their 8-day move. Bittorrent's shown people will do it for free, Hulu's shown more people will do it if it's easier even if they have to watch ads, Netflix has shown people will pay for it (though recently they've shown the selection needs to be bigger), but nobody's hit the magic bullet that both consumers and industry will accept yet.
In the mean time, piracy is certainly a valuable signal for the industry that demand exists - it's just that the price and mechanisms aren't right yet. (I'm sure the content producers feel the same way /s)
If you can get a show in HD quality, very fast, without commercials, and at no cost..nothing will compete with it that costs money.
Content producers shouldn't have to consider pirates the competition.
At this rate, the answer will be a forced monthly fee/tax through all of the major Internet providers.
Also as counterexample, lots of people pay for Netflix.
To ask someone not to participate in media (watch videos) is tantamount to asking someone not to participate in culture. Cultural participation is a basic human need: people will go to great lengths, will in fact in despotic, tyrannical, totalitarian or fascistic regimes go so far as to actually risk their own lives and the lives of their loved ones to participate in unsanctioned culture. Whether the sanction comes by way of money or by way of politics, it is no matter.
The idea that "not watching the videos" is somehow an option ignores this basic (desperate) human need to participate in culture. It's not going to happen. Media existed before money and before despots. Media is what happens when a culture expresses itself. People are going to watch Jerry Springer, The Sopranos, and listen to Lady Gaga and listen to Woodie Guthrie, money or no (though when payment is convenient, we all know what happens). They will in fact lay down their lives to do so if the circumstances demand it. If that's the case, (and we often find ourselves praising the bravery of such individuals in those cases), then it doesn't seem to me to make any sense to become moralistically reversed when the matter isn't of death but of a few measly dollars.
All of your friends could go to a $100/mo gym. Sure, you would have a "need" to participate in this culture. But, "not going to the gym" is perfectly acceptable too. After all, your friends may like you for more than your gym membership! Or, you could find new friends. Or, you could make up an excuse. It's not the end of the world.
This is a very narrow view of culture. If culture is simply any given activity, then yes, you decide your own culture. But if culture is simply any given activity, then we are talking about two different things. One can either go to the gym or not go to the gym and still be a part of the general culture in which one exists and be conversant in that culture. But one cannot abstain from all media and still be a part of that culture. We refer to such individuals as deprived, unfortunate, uneducated idiots. We in fact expect people to be conversant in culture through familiarity with available media. We say, "It is your responsibility to know yourself and know the world." One can do neither except via engagement with media. If there is a bureaucratic or fiscal or political lock-down on culture, we cannot say, "Well, too bad for those individuals, they'll just have to suffer their existence as deprived, unfortunate, uneducated, idiots." Yes, it is not that bad for anyone in the U.S. Yes, we are saturated with media. And, no, no one is suffering to any real extent because of the 8-day FOX hold on Hulu releases. But that's hardly the issue when someone says, "You don't like the price? Go eat worms." People have a right to watch Jerry Springer without paying a dime for it. Which isn't to say that one shouldn't charge a dime.
Edit: I said "U.S." above, but I really mean any culture for whom Hulu is not just a gibberish word.
So on that note, people should have to pay to watch Jerry Springer, if that's what the content producer wants.
I do not gain or lose anything (aside from my time) from watching or not watching Jerry Springer, or any other TV show. Perhaps I am lucky that none of my friends watch TV, but TV is a luxury. If you want to be part of a group whose "culture" involves watching the latest TV shows, joining expensive gyms, or even starting companies, then that is your choice. The value you gain from paying for these activities is in part feeling more connected to your friends, feeling part of a privileged group, or just personal satisfaction. Clearly, there is no inherent "need" to watch any TV show.
How convenient it is that media companies can perpetually turn last year's luxury into today's necessity, yet when their opponents use the same argument against them, they feel free to roll back the clock and declare everything beyond basic caloric sustenance a luxury once again.
I don't see how this could possibly be ethically wrong.
I have no problems rewarding businesses (or individuals) which produce content of value to me. If it's not of sufficient value that I'd pay for it, why would I watch it anyways?
I tried to find a $200 Porsche, but couldn't so I had no problem stealing one.
At first glance this might seem a fine refutation of the earlier point, but upon deeper inspection, it falls back on the fallacy that digital data is analogous to tangible property. By stealing a Porsche (whatever be your motivation) you are denying another person the right to his car. However, the same is untrue of pirating.
I am firmly of the belief that until we abandon the false and forced analogies and treat digital data and IP as something new, something that requires us to work out ethics and moral of afresh, we'll be stuck in this rut of old business models forcing new technology to fit into their mold and the consumers suffering because of bureaucracy.
I'll go further and state that the precise reason why Movie Studios and Recording Labels seemingly don't want to innovate and adopt new technologies to their benefit is precisely because of this thinking that immediately clouds all other possible arguments (oh, and maybe the people in charge of making decisions have got to the top because of their understanding of old technologies and therefore have little incentive to abandon that and embrace newer ways of doing business) /rant
(In fact Steam probably makes most of their money from sales where hoarder-type personalities buy hundreds of games they never even play.)
It's not analogous to stealing a Porsche, but it's not analogous to nothing either.
There's nothing particularly novel about it, people have been stealing services in ways that don't directly deprive anyone else for... well, quite some time. They've been sneaking into theaters, sneaking onto buses, and otherwise dishonestly using services that the honest people pay for, and which couldn't exist without them. It's just the old free rider problem.
Morally there's nothing "new" about it. And it's not particularly difficult to work out the answer to a question about "is it morally acceptable to sneak into a non-full movie theater?" The only question is whether you're prepared to behave immorally to save a few bucks.
Personally I value my self-respect a bit higher than that.
His point is that if he CAN'T pay for it, having no avenue to give them revenue, then it doesn't hurt the content creator for the OP to consume the video for free.
eg, Fox will let you watch their content on Hulu 8 days after broadcast. But you don't want to wait 8 days, so you go pirate it. Fox makes no money.
If you'd waited the 8 days, Fox would show it to you via Hulu, and show you some ads, and they and Hulu would have made some money.
The distributor is a very important part of the creation process at the moment.
But, by your logic, purchasing any non-expiring stored media, such as a DVD, would deprive "the content creator (well, a distributor) the chance to make money from you consuming the content at some point in the future."
...if Fox gets a cut of the Hulu subscription cost regardless of whether that individual watches any Fox content during the subscription period or not.
> But, by your logic, purchasing any non-expiring stored media, such as a DVD, would deprive "the content creator (well, a distributor) the chance to make money from you consuming the content at some point in the future."
Yes. But they've made your money off your consumption of that content at some point in time.
Awesome!
You: If the author sold the work on his site, would you buy it there or pirate it?
Me: I guess that depends on if people know to find it there.
You: That's so disrespectful!
What's the connection?
As a remarkably honest biped (who, e.g., bought two Adobe Suite licenses, one for his PC & one for his Mac, and has purchased WinRAR), I am thus being put in the hilariously paradoxical position where not only I am hardly incentivized to legally purchase content, but I am unable to do so. I am struggling to do so, and I can not; this is such a tragicomical condition that my fruitless effort to legally retrieve movies&shows has become a running joke within my circle of friends. Adding insult to injury, every single major firm persists on sticking to this ridicolously unreasonable regional distribution paradigm—which adds basically no value even from a job-creation standpoint— whereas I would be absolutely happy to throw money at them by purchasing non-localized content.
P.S. To be clear, I live in European first-world country, where the value of the movie market is more than big enough to justify sensible business investments.
Fox's problem is that they did this mid-season and they started with a FREE business model and then took it away. You can't give someone something for free and then half way through take it away and make me pay for it. It wouldn't make sense for me to want to pay for it, of course I would resort to something else.
That is if the series is actually popular here and relatively easily available. Dexter, Weeds, Lost, Sons of Anarchy are a couple of series I can think of that are unpopular and therefore not as simple to come by.
I am aware of HBO Go, but it is not available unless one already has cable and HBO.
Instead of expecting viewers to put up with 18 minutes of mindless advertising for every 42 minutes of actual content, just show a ten second long list of sponsors at the beginning of the show (along with their general product category), after the opening credits.
Example:
We would like to thank the following corporations
for sponsoring the production of this show. Please
consider thanking them as well, by purchasing their
products.
PanCorp - Maker of fine non-stick cookware
Net Net - High-speed ISP, gigabit speeds
...
geeks like me who aren't significantly influenced by traditional advertising
Do you really believe that you're magically superior to the things which influence the rest of the human race?
(If you do, then I know exactly how to make an ad to manipulate you already -- tell you what you want to hear by appealing to your sense of superiority.)
No, not magically, rationally. I deliberately disregard anything that is demarcated as an ad and look for and comment on things like product placement within shows. I've never seen a beer commercial with scantily-clad dancers and thought, "Man, I'd sure like a cold one." Cheap cable TV ads with flashing lights, out-of-gamut colors, and an 800 number repeated over and over just make me tune out and change the channel. I try to counteract the effect of logo and color familiarity by buying brands that look different from what I'd expect. Any time I learn of another subliminal advertising technique, I add a counterattack to my defensive arsenal. On top of that, if I record a show I use MythTV's commercial detection to skip ads entirely, and anyone who downloads their TV won't be seeing commercials either.
"But you're not in their target demographic." No kidding.
I'm not saying that I can't be reached by advertising -- I gave explicit directions for how to do so in my original post. I'm complaining that advertisers continue to reach to the same old bag of tricks, tricks that appeal to the lowest common denominator of animalistic behavior and consume 18 minutes of every programming hour. I'm saying those tricks don't work on me because I tune them out, skip them, block them, etc. I never answer surveys, I'm not a Nielsen participant, etc. I've tried contributing to media metrics with my Hulu viewing and rating habits, but Hulu continues to recommend shows from the same network rather than the same genre, and networks continue to alienate online viewers by delaying shows (Fox) or pulling them entirely (Syfy).
I'm offering a viable alternative for advertisers to earn money on someone like me, but advertisers seem to think they know better. In the mean time, I'll continue to apply whatever selective pressure I can to get advertisers and content producers to evolve.
(If you do, then I know exactly how to make an ad to manipulate you already -- tell you what you want to hear by appealing to your sense of superiority.)
I make a conscious effort to avoid this type of influence as well. [Edit: and I'm not motivated in this regard by a sense of superiority, either. The only sure way to influence me is with hard data demonstrating a high quality and utility of whatever product you're offering.]
However, I do believe that manipulative advertising is a net detriment to society, regardless of how effective it is at reaching the average consumer.
And I doubt anybody would upload a tv series episode where the commercials hadn't been cut out.
[0] Actually it seems they want the force of law behind their business model...