Could Fox's New Streaming Video Policy Turn Web Viewers Into Dastardly Pirates?
Could Fox's New Streaming Video Policy Turn Web Viewers Into Dastardly Pirates?
Posted 07/28/2011 at 11:02am
| by Brad Chacos
44
Comments
Print
Fox just doesn't seem to get it. Around a week after Netflix's price hike sent irate customers into the arms of its competitors – like Hulu, which Fox has a stake in – the network announced, in a very customer UNfriendly move, that people who don't subscribe to cable, Dish Network or Hulu Plus would soon have to endure an eight-day delay between the time a show airs and the time it appears online. Customers didn't get angry, but they're just going to shrug their shoulders and go back to picking up Family Guy on P2P networks, anyways.
That's what GigaOM theorizes, at least, and its case kinda makes sense. It cites numbers from Torrentfreak, who tracks Bittorrent trends each and every week. Apparently, when a show becomes available on a major streaming provider like Netflix or Hulu, its rate of P2P piracy drops dramatically. In fact, when Hulu launched in 2008, piracy of many of Fox's flagship shows dropped by up to a third. GigaOM says piracy rates could climb by similar rates when Fox's online viewing change takes effect.
Fox's new streaming policy might even push paying subscribers who don't want to bother with authentication procedures into the inviting arms of P2P networks. We won't be able to know for sure how it's going to shake down until the paywall goes into effect on August 15th, but it will be interesting to check out Torrentfreak's data the following week.
What about you, Max PC readers? Are you more likely to download Family Guy on P2P networks the night after it airs, or is waiting for a week no big deal?
More like this
44
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
Holly Golightly
August 06, 2011 at 9:17pm
You know who is doing this now too? AdultSwim! I could not believe they are following this trend everybody else is following. Big fan of shows like Family Guy on that website. Now to access "gold" you need a paid subscription, and I just disconnected my TV just 2 weeks ago. Man, they sure know how to make a girl feel guilty. I would be happy to pay for a membership on the website, but they seem not to offer it. Feels like they just don't want to do extra business, and just force people to do old fashioned things like paying for TV service. Gosh, what I would do to watch a live stream of TCM on the internet.
Cooketh
July 29, 2011 at 9:02pm
It won't affect me too much, because I do have a log-in for their stupid network thing.
That being said, and I'm not a "slippery slope" kinda guy but regardless, this will be the start of the end.
You see how EA and Steam are fighting in the digital pc game distribution market?
Fox will fight with others, others will fight with them, all of a sudden people are going to have to pay up some cash or have very specific cable/sat packages. Just wait. In the not so far future gaurantee DirecTV, Dish, Comcast, etc will start having commercials about their digital TV / internet packages like they do now - but you have to the premium combo package for an extra $10 for a fox login. Wait and see.
Right now you can catch fox shows on Hulu[dot]com, XfinityTV[dot]com, and Fox[dot].com
Bet your butt that won't last too much longer.
diafebus
July 29, 2011 at 6:20pm
That is such crap. I watch the damn commercials on Hulu, same as I would if I watched it on TV. They are still making money off of me on Hulu damn it...
blkpanthr
July 29, 2011 at 9:18am
i hate to point out the obvious to you "Screw the Corporations" crowd.
If there was no FOX, there would be no content, and no entertainment.
You can bitch all you want, but if they cant make money, you wont get your show because they wont produce it.
Marthian
July 30, 2011 at 8:34pm
Pfft, not entirely true. As far as I know, they only publish it, they don't actually MAKE the show, someone else does. I mean look at the Simpsons, despite its constant jabs at Fox (which is kind of ironic.), it's still on Fox. I believe if fox actually DID make the shows, they would probably put in some of their crap propaganda in them, and we would not have cartoon characters making fun of Fox.
blkpanthr
August 03, 2011 at 10:27am
missing the point. Fox pays for it to be made. If they dont make any money, they wont buy it, and it wont be made.
TerribleToaster
August 03, 2011 at 12:37pm
" If they dont make any money, they wont buy it, and it wont be made by Fox but one of the many other networks."
Fixed.
You don't give credit for Harry Potter to Bloomsbury, you give it to J.K. Rowling. Publishers don't drive the cars, they are just along for the ride.
blkpanthr
August 04, 2011 at 7:32am
If a network starts losing money, series get canceled. they DO NOT go to anouther network most of the time. While it may be produced by an outside production company, the network owns the rights when they purchase the initial episodes or agree to fund the project.
Networks tend to hold on to their ip very tightly.
I can think of a few examples to the contrary (stargate sg1 comes to mind), but on the whole it just dies.
They arent driving the car, as you say, but they own the title, and are absolutley paying for the gas. You arent going anywhere without it.
TerribleToaster
August 05, 2011 at 6:01am
You have changed your argument from "What if there was no fox" to "what if fox started losing money" which are fundamentally different. If there is no fox, then fox either never existed or went completely out of business. If they never existed then of course they don't have the IP and another network could pick up a show. If fox goes under completely, and for some reason never sold any of their IP to keep afloat, they no longer have a right to it (because they are gone) so the shows can once again move elsewhere.
But even then, your example of them cancelling a show because they are losing money is also flawed. No network would cancel a show unless the show was losing them money, in which case, even if fox had no claim to the IP no other network would pick up the show either because they don't want to run a show that will cost them more than the revenue it makes.
The other thing is that if a show that was making them good profit got cancelled for out of the ordinary reasons, that show can still move to the another network by sometimes doing things as simply as changing it's name (i.e. Conan O'Brian). The true value of any show isn't owned by the publisher because what makes great shows are great writers, actors, directors, etc.
A publisher without an author has nothing; an author without a publisher has a book.
blkpanthr
August 06, 2011 at 5:50pm
In my original post, that was meant to be a generalized statement as an example. But it still stands. Sure, that writer could pitch a different netowrk if fox wasnt around and they could fund it, but we were referring to exsiting programming rather than a currently unproduced one. The amount of time between bancruptcy proceedings, and selling of any IP in their portfolio, and ramping up production in a new network would render it basically a new show anyway and potentially irelevent if the timing is off.
I subsequently became more specific.
If any particular show is not making enough money to support the production costs and make a resonable profit, they kill it. Perhaps i should have specified "the show". my bad.
If everyone pirates the show, there are no eye balls on the advertizing, the advertizers pull out, no money for fox. canceled or replced with anouther show that has more potential for revenue. This assumes of course its not in syndication, and no consumer marketing income from related products, That changes the model somewhat and the show itself could potentially become a loss leader for the marketing of goods.
Most of the time it really all boils down to advertizing revenue.
Conan, or talk/variety shows in general is a bad example, as the Person (Conan) is the IP, not the concept/characters/name. You are not permitted to own a person, just contract with them. Thats all in their contracts and they make sure they are transportable.
The reality is the networks own the IP. They rarely give it up unless they can make a lot of money on doing so.
Rival networks are not likely to bid decent money for a show that has outlived its useful life.
If they sell the IP when its still performing well, thats another issue. Stargate SG-1 was an example of this. HBO didnt like the production costs of Science Fiction IP, so they sold to the Sy-Fy netwok while it was still generating decent revenue. Sy-fy subsequently made a killing on it. As well as the spinoff Stargate Atlantis, and a couple of DVD movies.
A book without a publisher is just paper and ink.
Carlidan
August 06, 2011 at 6:24pm
That was an interesting read. But I have to nippick one thing. :P
"A book without a publisher is just paper and ink."
No book without a publisher is still a book. Just a book that might make you millions or billions of dollars. It's not just paper and ink. :)
blkpanthr
August 06, 2011 at 8:16pm
ok, ill nitpick also...lol...
its intrinsic value is still limited to paper and ink....it has the POTENTIAL to be worth a million bucks, but it still has no actual value until a publisher markets it, and makes money....
Carlidan
August 03, 2011 at 1:10pm
Well I agree with most of what your saying. But without these publishers there wouldn't be the money needed to help Rowling sell her movies/books. Printing or creating those movies require tons of cash that Rowling didn't have but publishers did. And publishers take alot of risks too.
whathuhitwasntme
July 29, 2011 at 5:28am
I watch fox on terrestrial broadcasting, its not required to have "cable" to watch it, it is FREE over the air. If I give something to you free today, and you give it to somebody else tomorrow, did you steal it? If this was a subscriber based programming like HBO, or even CNN, it would have a valid point as to you taking a paid service for free. Fox is free to watch on terrestrial broadcasting, therefore it was given freely! You can not steal something that is free, its FREE.
A9JE
July 28, 2011 at 6:46pm
Let's see, watch a show on TV on a specific day at a specific time with commercials, Or watch a show anytime, with no commercials streaming online. Whatever, either way I don't pay. :) good ol' air antenna.
Atomike
July 28, 2011 at 2:19pm
I think what you meant to say is that immoral people will turn to P2P, while normal decent people will have the shred of self-disciple and character to wait an extra week. If you can't even wait a week for a show online, then there is something tragically wrong with you as a human being.
bling581
July 29, 2011 at 9:50am
Why in the world does it matter if you wait a week and watch it "legally" or go download it or watch it online? Is the content owner going to make any less money if I watch it online versus logging into Hulu Plus to watch it? If it's already been shown on the air then there is no difference and people need to stop making a big deal about it.
If I watch a show live, record it on TiVo, or watch it through Hulu Plus it's perfectly legal. Watching it online or downloading it via P2P then I'm a pirate? Get real.
CaptainFabulous
July 28, 2011 at 2:37pm
Or maybe they're completely moral but don't give a crap about whether or not Fox makes any more money than they already have. Who wants to wait an extra week to see their favorite show, especially if all your friends are going to be talking about it.
Fox should be thankful that anyone is watching their programming at all.
Atomike
July 28, 2011 at 4:12pm
Hmmm. A completely moral thief/pirate. Hilarious. No such thing, my friend. Fox owns the shows it airs. You have no intrinsic right to view them. They allow you to do so under conditions which will make them money. If you don't like their terms, you don't watch their show.
The sense of entitlement that people have today is nauseating.
Speaking to those who would P2P these shows - the world owes you everything, doesn't it? People like you were specifically the target of the song "Smells like Teen Spirit" - "here we are now - entertain us." You deserve to be entertained because you exist. Right?
There is no such thing as a "good" pirate. That word simply can't be used to describe a person who takes what they have no right to take. No matter how "evil" the actual owner is. You can't justify it.
CaptainFabulous
July 29, 2011 at 2:31pm
Morality has nothing to do with it. I just don't care. Do you think Fox is a "moral" entity? Do you think they care about you? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
When Fox and other billion dollar corporations start caring about their customers then I'll start caring about their bottom line.
I find it humorous you think we the people should be held up to some kind of glorious high horse moral standard while it's perfectly a-ok for corporations to rape us blind at every opportunity. This is the exact same kind of behavior that compels battered women to return to their husbands. Sorry, but if a man ever puts his hands on me he's gonna get a cast-iron frying pan to the head. And whenever a billion-dollar corporation tries to fuck me over then yeah, I'm not gonna give a shit about them or their profit margin. To do otherwise is sheer stupidity. Or mental illness. Or both.
bling581
August 01, 2011 at 10:33am
Well said. I'm not an anarchist by any means, but playing by the rules all the time is just plain idiotic, for reasons like the one you mentioned. If they're not playing by the rules then why should we? I honor companies that make quality products and have good service with my hard earned money. Do as I say but not as I do? I don't think so.
bling581
July 29, 2011 at 10:12am
"There is no such thing as a "good" pirate. That word simply can't be used to describe a person who takes what they have no right to take. No matter how "evil" the actual owner is. You can't justify it."
It's completely justified if it's considered to be reasonable use. Since when did legal vs. illegal = right vs. wrong? There's a line between what's right and wrong, and it's not defined by laws created by the government or corporations. If I choose to tape a show on VHS and give it to a friend then that's completely fine. If I charge him $5 for a copy then that's crossing the line. The same thing applies here. What happens if I lost a movie or a CD key for a computer game I have? Do I go out and spend the money to buy another copy? No, I already gave them my money so I download it. Oh, but that's wrong you say?
TerribleToaster
July 29, 2011 at 7:06am
Morality is not tied to law because morality is relative while law is absolute. You could possibly have a "good" theif just like you can possibly have a "evil" policeman.
Crum.Nathan
July 29, 2011 at 8:30am
1st off morality is not relative. Murder is wrong no matter where you are. Stealing is stealing. If you tell me morality is relative and I steal your car because I say, to me, taking your car is not morally wrong you will be severly angry with me. Laws are one of the least absolute ideas of right and wrong I have seen because lawyers seem to get people out of any trouble just by pleading insanity or the ridiculous Casey Anthony case lately. There are always loop holes to laws or people who believe in "Relative Morality" that are continually trying to change our laws to be more relative than they already are.
TerribleToaster
July 29, 2011 at 11:00am
" Murder is wrong no matter where you are."
No, murder is a crime no matter where you are. Killing is not always wrong according to the rules of morality. For example, I kill a man in order to stop him from killing ten thousand more. I may have committed a crime and will be likewise punished for it, but are you going to tell me that I was wrong for preventing the deaths of thousands?
"If you tell me morality is relative and I steal your car because I say, to me, taking your car is not morally wrong you will be severly angry with me."
And? You think you are in the right because you believe it was not wrong to steal it and I think it's morally wrong because you stole my car. That's a perfect example of how morality is relative. It's all about POV.
"Laws are one of the least absolute ideas of right and wrong I have seen because lawyers seem to get people out of any trouble just by pleading insanity or the ridiculous Casey Anthony case lately."
Laws are absolute because they depend on only one POV (the courts). And as you pointed out with the Casey Anthony case, just because the majority of us saw her as morally in the wrong, the courts didn't and thus she is not convicted of a crime. Another example of how morality does not necessarily follow the law.
Just take a second to think about the idea of absolute morality. If morals were absolute, you won't have terrorists, hate crimes, or anything else that you see as immoral. A Muslim terrorist doesn't think he would be morally wrong for killing all those people which is why he can do it. There are other POV’s in this world besides your own, get use to it.
Carlidan
July 29, 2011 at 11:40am
Well written. You could also have put canablism to your response. Now to our civilization eating a human is wrong but another it's right. Morality is subjective also.
dstevens
July 29, 2011 at 2:32am
if i remember right, there was a supreme court ruling that said that after a show is transmitted that the corporation who owns the show has no legal right over that which was transmitted. as long as you do not copy and redistribute the material. somehow someway there was a rush to get rid of analog tv signals right after that (even a federal law was instituted to make digital tv mandatory remember)
wonder why those coincide so close together....
as for p2p..
well ya i admit it ima leech on p2p sites sometimes, but you know what.. my internet connection costs me $30 / month... cable... $50... why.. why does the most basic cable cost more than 50 mbps internet? maybe because the corporations that run it say they want our monies, and most people are to stupid to find thier tv on the internet.
there are morale and noble "pirates" as you put it you self righteous prick....
we hate corporations for thier money grubbing schemes, and thier lack of caring about the customer. you think fox applauds you taking thier side? kool fine whatever.... wait till its your turn in the barrel... cause as consumers.. we all MUST take a turn in there...
some of us are just oblivious to being in it i suppose
screw the corporations, screw the money hungry grubby hadned ceo's (who are best of friends with them banker ceo's you forget are ruining our country) and screw anyone who sides with them...
blkpanthr
July 29, 2011 at 9:17am
i hate to point out the obvious to you "Screw the Corporations" crowd.
If there was no FOX, there would be no content, and no entertainment.
You can bitch all you want, but if they cant make money, you wont get your show because they wont produce it.
CaptainFabulous
July 29, 2011 at 2:24pm
There is a difference between being a profitable entity and being a money-grubbing one. Too bad most pro-corporate Americans have forgotten that.
You can respect your customer base and still turn a profit. They are not mutually exclusive.
blkpanthr
July 29, 2011 at 2:59pm
money grubbing is a part of the purpose of a corporation.
"a going concern whos purpose is to Maximize shareholder wealth."
its the first thing you learn in business school
i have no problem with the money grubbing.
if they alienate their customer base, they will not be maximizing wealth, therefore the market will correct for it by them losing wealth.
i will vote with my wallet when it hits a tipping point, as will everyone else.
everyones tiuping point is different.
As a corporation, thats what they struggle to determine.
Carlidan
July 28, 2011 at 2:09pm
I'll just wait a week. House's new episodes takes around that long to wait. No big deal to me. It's just a show.
Holly Golightly
July 28, 2011 at 2:03pm
Sigh, the greed never ends with these large corporate entities. Fox needs to see the trend that many young people are cutting the cable, for good. TV is too expensive because you have to pay for these insane packages, in which you will probably watch 5 channels out of a thousand? Even for PAID tv, you still have to watch commercials like you do with free tv. That is not quality worth paying for. I would rather pay for the commercial-free netflix. NetFlix is cheaper than cable. Why would I want to stick with cable? With that said, I do not plan on going through a torrent because torrents are trackable, which could get anybody in deep trouble with the courts. But I will watch them commercial-free on my favorite Russian social network.
TerribleToaster
July 28, 2011 at 11:13am
So if I am understanding this correctly, Fox manged to help plug the hole in their "profit boat" that pirates were sinking. And now that the hole isn't so leaky, they are going to possibly make it bigger again because?
They found out Gandalf was Magneto? Obama is a Commie Nazi? George Bush Jr. is a chimp? Oliva Wild is really a sparkely vampire?
What's the reason for the policy change?
Teeebs
July 28, 2011 at 5:51pm
Rupert Murdoch needs more dough to pay his lawyers right now. Suck it up everybody. Besides, who watches Fox (or Family Guy for that matter) anymore these days.....lol
Brad Chacos
July 28, 2011 at 11:17am
From Fox's press release:
“We are continually looking at opportunities to provide our pay television distributors with content and products that enhance the value of pay television to subscribers. Our new authentication service will continue to provide next-day access to FOX broadcast shows for our viewers who subscribe to participating pay television providers.”
CaptainFabulous
July 28, 2011 at 2:39pm
Translation: "Cable and satellite operators are unhappy because we're letting people watch our shows for free."
Peanut Fox
July 28, 2011 at 12:32pm
I don't watch much TV anymore. Isn't Fox still free over the air? If so how do you increase the value of free over the air HD? How exactly is Comcast making big bucks by offering FOX over something that requires cable?
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
The gang discusses the GTX 690, Trinity, Ivy Bridge, Amazon, big-box stores, MMOs,...
This month's issue
Feature
Build a PC On Any Budget
Feature
Cloud Services Showdown
How-To
Encrypt Your External Drive
Build It
Upgrade an X58 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Original RickRoll Video Returns to YouTube After 24-Hour Copyright Hiatus http://t.co/MaH9Sxyy1 day 7 hours ago
- maximumpc: Corsair has decided not to go forward with its $78 million IPO, citing weak equity market conditions http://t.co/A5a4DAzj1 day 7 hours ago
- maximumpc: Want to work at Maximum PC? Our Online Managing Editor, Alex, is moving away, so we need a new one. http://t.co/9Z7JCh0E3 days 5 hours ago
