I download a few series I can´t ge where I am through Utorrent and http://eztv.it/
But movies are best seen in the cinema, I don´t see the point of downloading some cam job or bad copy.
And the movie mentioned Ive never heard of.
I download a few series I can´t ge where I am through Utorrent and http://eztv.it/
But movies are best seen in the cinema, I don´t see the point of downloading some cam job or bad copy.
And the movie mentioned Ive never heard of.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
me too, you can´t watch every movie in the cinema obviously.But quality its quite important, and cam jobs are crap.
Oh yeah, I'd never download a cam version. I'm not usually in a hurry to see a certain movie. But I think most DVD rips are most adequate, especially for my laptop where I often watch movies. I do have a small HD TV, however I don't own any Blu Rays so I never took advantage of it, besides gaming. I guess the look of the movie is not usually that important to me anyways, so I don't mind having a slightly grainy picture. But, yeah, cam rips, with cinema noises and lots of shaking, I don't need those.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Right, because that was my point.
ya, I didn't see where you were coming from either here
its like this:
reality is A
you are describing B
the path between A and B is going to step on a lot of toes and require at least as much as a shift in corporate distribution as has occured in the music industry. Unfortunatly, there is much more financial regulation over the distribution of shows vs the distribution of music, so it will be much harder and companies are going to be less motivated to put content online because of potential losses.
Now, we all love piracy, so we would all love it if it were stream-on-demand, but like you seem to be insinuating that there are no actual hurdles to getting there... As if the movie industry isn't going to be harder to "take down" than the music industry was.
It seems all you have done is restate the fact that there is potential, and then critisize bardock for pointing out the actual financial reasons that companies wont. Like, are you saying he is wrong? are you saying there are factual inaccuracies with what he is saying?
Originally posted by Bardock42
I assume your point was that I am wrong and an idiot. I obviously can't convince you of that not being true as I have tried for 4 posts now, but perhaps I can convince you I am not in marketing, which for some reason you seem to think is the type of idiot I am...
Correction: Marketing idiot, which happens to be exactly what we were talking about: marketing products to get as much market penetration as possible. (Selling it to distributors, etc.)
What you fail to realize is that media only has to be hosted once. Just once. Just once. Just once. Just once. Did you get that? Just once. Not twice, not in every single country. Just once. It is up to the distributor to offer language redirects to the material. The costs are far less when something is hosted just once. That's what both you and Craig don't realize. You both are hung up on trying to "sell" it to a TV station in another country when you don't have to. You only have to get past any sort of regulation in the hosted country and the "available in" countries. Your hosting team should be intelligent enough to alter redirects based on IP location (actually, it could be based off of ISP or certain origin gateways/hops), to alter the site for the common language or even offer to allow the language to be chosen. If the produce wants to dub or sub, they can, as that's their option and prerogative.
Not really hard to do.
Then you have the complaing of Ping time. That's legit, but not very much considering the stream will start eventually, anyway. That can be gotten around by simply having a 'smart' buffer download that auto-downloads similar to the auto-record feature in the TiVo OS. Ping time is really not an issue, but there are very simple technical ways around it for those people that detest a 1 or 2 second delay before a video starts. I'm aware that part of the appeal of the iPad is it's snappiness.
Do you want me to continue? I can, for pages and pages.
Originally posted by dadudemon
What you fail to realize is that media only has to be hosted once. Just once. Just once. Just once. Just once. Did you get that? Just once. Not twice, not in every single country. Just once. It is up to the distributor to offer language redirects to the material. The costs are far less when something is hosted just once. That's what both you and Craig don't realize. You both are hung up on trying to "sell" it to a TV station in another country when you don't have to. You only have to get past any sort of regulation in the hosted country and the "available in" countries. Your hosting team should be intelligent enough to alter redirects based on IP location (actually, it could be based off of ISP or certain origin gateways/hops), to alter the site for the common language or even offer to allow the language to be chosen. If the produce wants to dub or sub, they can, as that's their option and prerogative.
you are either describing illegal file hosting, which is rampant and we are trying to think of legal alternative to combat, or you are in fact describing the process which undermines potential profits (in the way companies design their business models) that companies are not willing to engage in anyways
who has said that, in theory, this type of hosting isn't preferable? All that has been pointed out is that the people who would make this possible are not willing to do it
Originally posted by dadudemon
Correction: Marketing idiot, which happens to be exactly what we were talking about: marketing products to get as much market penetration as possible. (Selling it to distributors, etc.)What you fail to realize is that media only has to be hosted once. Just once. Just once. Just once. Just once. Did you get that? Just once. Not twice, not in every single country. Just once. It is up to the distributor to offer language redirects to the material. The costs are far less when something is hosted just once. That's what both you and Craig don't realize. You both are hung up on trying to "sell" it to a TV station in another country when you don't have to. You only have to get past any sort of regulation in the hosted country and the "available in" countries. Your hosting team should be intelligent enough to alter redirects based on IP location (actually, it could be based off of ISP or certain origin gateways/hops), to alter the site for the common language or even offer to allow the language to be chosen. If the produce wants to dub or sub, they can, as that's their option and prerogative.
Not really hard to do.
Then you have the complaing of Ping time. That's legit, but not very much considering the stream will start eventually, anyway. That can be gotten around by simply having a 'smart' buffer download that auto-downloads similar to the auto-record feature in the TiVo OS. Ping time is really not an issue, but there are very simple technical ways around it for those people that detest a 1 or 2 second delay before a video starts. I'm aware that part of the appeal of the iPad is it's snappiness.
Do you want me to continue? I can, for pages and pages.
Well, you still didn't answer who you think should host it. Should it be the owners of the property, or the channels that bought certain rights for it, or maybe a new middleman. It seems to me that you are perfectly right...in a copyright free world. However in this world we live in you have to be more pragmatic, and the best way to make money atm is by going the old distribution model, the risk of trying it only in streaming is immense, and if you want to do part old distribution you run into the problems of ownership that was described in the article and you rely on people who don't want streaming to happen as it would cut into their piece of the pie.
Originally posted by inimalist
you are either describing illegal file hosting, which is rampant and we are trying to think of legal alternative to combat, or you are in fact describing the process which undermines potential profits (in the way companies design their business models) that companies are not willing to engage in anywayswho has said that, in theory, this type of hosting isn't preferable? All that has been pointed out is that the people who would make this possible are not willing to do it
Damnit, edited out too much.
No, I'm not. It's not illegal. One file, one media cluster, bla bla bla. the server can ....forget it. Wait a while and I'll post on it in a bit. I'm too busy at work.
Won't happen very soon because places like the BBC want it on their own junk because they want to make money...so producer's or original funding studios (like ABC) sell contracts for it. That's where the problem is: cut out the middle man, which won't happen very quickly because there's too many chiefs.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I'm not. I'm referring to file hosting, which only has to happen once. ABC.com only has to store the file in one media cluster, and use their media templates to add in advertisements, based on IP, origin hope/gateway, and, presto, you have one AV file, cut up, and advertised, for any place you get approval to "play" it in.
ok, this already exists.
We talked about southparkstudios before, which does exactly that
I still have to pirate south park, because the show is not allowed to be shown in my area. I could further break the law and start hiding my ip or changing where it is from, but elsewise, this doesn't stop me from pirating.
The problem you seem to be glossing over is that you wont get the approval to play it everywhere, and the market infrastructure really doesn't exist, yet, to provide that on a global basis.
I think its an enventuality, but that doesn't mean we can do anything, today.
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, this already exists.We talked about southparkstudios before, which does exactly that
I still have to pirate south park, because the show is not allowed to be shown in my area. I could further break the law and start hiding my ip or changing where it is from, but elsewise, this doesn't stop me from pirating.
The problem you seem to be glossing over is that you wont get the approval to play it everywhere, and the market infrastructure really doesn't exist, yet, to provide that on a global basis.
I think its an enventuality, but that doesn't mean we can do anything, today.
Thank the Lord you captured what I accidentally deleted. I didn't feel like typing that all out again because it had to be worded properly.
And, yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. It is not what I'm glossing over, it's what I am literally calling the problem. That's what I've been talking about. "Local" channels want a slice of the pie when only the producers should be getting slices.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And, yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. It is not what I'm glossing over, it's what I am literally calling the problem. That's what I've been talking about. "Local" channels want a slice of the pie when only the producers should be getting slices.
fair enough, there must have been a communication problem, because thats what I also figured Bardock was saying
I think we all want the same thing, and I guess we are all not happy with the current regieme of distribution
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, you still didn't answer who you think should host it. Should it be the owners of the property, or the channels that bought certain rights for it, or maybe a new middleman..
Yes, to all of the above and no to some, and yes to others. Just depends on what the people want. In the end, it will be some sort of combination of the above with cable companies being data companies, instead. They will either have to focus on data busing or diversify. It's still a slow change as it will take a decade or two before things are the way I say they will be.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It seems to me that you are perfectly right...in a copyright free world.
No, I'm perfectly right, in the copyright world. Remove the copyrights and "my" ideas turn to complete and utter sh*t and the whole data hosting thing fails.
Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough, there must have been a communication problem, because thats what I also figured Bardock was sayingI think we all want the same thing, and I guess we are all not happy with the current regieme of distribution
Sort of. Yes, Bardock, you, and I all want the same thing: access to media, instantly, for what we want to watch, when we want to watch it: video on demand. It's there already, but people don't want to pay $100 a month for it: it's quite clear with the Netflix project that they will pay abotu $30 a month for it...but still want more options.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Won't happen very soon because places like the BBC want it on their own junk because they want to make money...so producer's or original funding studios (like ABC) sell contracts for it. That's where the problem is: cut out the middle man, which won't happen very quickly because there's too many chiefs.
That's exactly what I (and I think the article) were saying. There's too many people profiting from it not being streamed, people that the owners of the property are reliant on atm, because that's where the money lies.
So yeah, if someone could create an online platform that would get creators of shows the same revenue the distribution model does at the moment, though that seems problematic at the moment
In this simplistic model there are 5 different interest groups. And due to the entangelment it is explained why there aren't more streaming sites at the moment
Consumer: Mostly watch TV, some do streaming what is availale, some pirate.
TV Studio: Own a show and need to maximize their profit. Get a lot of money from selling the rights to a TV Network in one country, hope to make money internationally by selling it internationally to other TV Networks, can't stream it nationally because they sold rights to TV Network, don't want to stream it internationally cause they have little ability to monetize it as there's no good way for them to connect to advertisers in every country and there's currently no working global model, and they don't want to hurt their chances of selling it to a network for a lot of money by making it available for free.
TV Network 1 country: Bought the rights to distribute it nationally (online or offline) makes a lot of money offline cause advertisers pay some prime buck for TV Commercials. Can make some money online, and perhaps win new viewers, but can only limit it to streaming nationally as their rights bought from the TV Studio don't cover international streaming and they'd find themselves in a lawsuit. Additionally they can only stream a certain amount nationally because of the Cable Providers.
Cable Provide: Don't want too many people to watch it online as they want to maximize their viewers as that's how they make money. And the TV Networks are reliant on their subscription based monetization
Advertiser: Know they can make a lot of money on TV. Know they can make some money online, though that is not nearly as mature. Can only make money with national viewers, as international viewers might not even be able to buy the products advertised.
That's the situation now, as described in the article, if you can convince the Advertisers, Consumers and TV Studios to bypass this system, you'll potentially make a lot of money, but it's just not as easy as a snap of the finger as you make it out to be.
We are on the same page it seems, you just villainized me and the article for some reason. I and, as I understand it, the author (although his job kinda depends on it) are on your side, we'd like it to happen, but he explained why it doesn't at the moment.
I assume you'll probably not read what I said again, cause I didn't admit you were 100% right in the first line, but I think that's how it is. If you have some constructive argument why I am totally wrong about what I said there I'd love to hear it, I am just tired of trying to set misconceived opinion of my argument straight.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Sort of. Yes, Bardock, you, and I all want the same thing: access to media, instantly, for what we want to watch, when we want to watch it: video on demand. It's there already, but people don't want to pay $100 a month for it: it's quite clear with the Netflix project that they will pay abotu $30 a month for it...but still want more options.
indeed, my point would be that, if I wanted TV, I could pay a single price and have access to as much or as little TV, whenever I want it.
I'd be happy to pay money to my ISP that gave me unlimited access, and have them deal with it the way is done on TV.
I'm willing to admit that the price of bandwidth will increase (just naturally, inflation and increased demand) due to distribution and such, but I can't imagine this would be impossible. I'm no economist though.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And, yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. It is not what I'm glossing over, it's what I am literally calling the problem. That's what I've been talking about. "Local" channels want a slice of the pie when only the producers should be getting slices.
Okay, this is exactly, 100% what the article explained, and what I said. Why did you even argue with me?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, this is exactly, 100% what the article explained, and what I said. Why did you even argue with me?
Don't pretend that that was your idea: I pointed out that the actual problem is TV and local channels wanting a slice of it on their TVs. He did not say: "Let's get rid of TV type TV, and start doing TV streaming."
He said, "Someone will probably find a way to make real money streaming online soon, and then the business model will shift (again) and you'll see more episodes of TV online. Until that happens, this is why you don't see more shows online."
Which was completely stupid. It's already being done, and across borders, at times. He explained how things work, but he did not say he disagreed with it. In fact, he seemed to be keen on the idea of getting TV stations to make profits and he did not even consider cutting them out and going straight streaming. That was quite explicit: he's part of the problem. He can't think outside of his world, but only acknowledge it.
For instance: ABC funds a project...say....Lost. They should get to "air" the show anywhere in the world as long is it met the censorship or other regulatory requirements but NOT have to sell it to a local TV station in each country. THAT was my point. That was not his point.
Edit - I can see this is giong to take forever to hammer into your head, you'll still argue about something petty, and pretend something about something. I don't want to do that. Get it out of yoru system in one post.
Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, my point would be that, if I wanted TV, I could pay a single price and have access to as much or as little TV, whenever I want it.I'd be happy to pay money to my ISP that gave me unlimited access, and have them deal with it the way is done on TV.
I'm willing to admit that the price of bandwidth will increase (just naturally, inflation and increased demand) due to distribution and such, but I can't imagine this would be impossible. I'm no economist though.
Technically, Bandwidth costs should actual decrease as time goes by until we hit a ceiling, and then they'll start to go up. Japan has 100Mbps for like $60 a month: we are still paying $60 a month for 20Mbps. We've got a long way to go before we catch up to them. Someone might say, "But teh japeneez government subciteez!" Snarf.
Not a big deal with a democrat in office pushing broadband penetration....teehee. We just need to get it down much faster and our shareholders need to stop being so short-sighted. I thought the housing bubble might take care of some of that short-sightedness...but I think I'm mistaken.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's exactly what I (and I think the article) were saying. There's too many people profiting from it not being streamed, people that the owners of the property are reliant on atm, because that's where the money lies.So yeah, if someone could create an online platform that would get creators of shows the same revenue the distribution model does at the moment, though that seems problematic at the moment
In this simplistic model there are 5 different interest groups. And due to the entangelment it is explained why there aren't more streaming sites at the moment
[b]Consumer
: Mostly watch TV, some do streaming what is availale, some pirate.TV Studio: Own a show and need to maximize their profit. Get a lot of money from selling the rights to a TV Network in one country, hope to make money internationally by selling it internationally to other TV Networks, can't stream it nationally because they sold rights to TV Network, don't want to stream it internationally cause they have little ability to monetize it as there's no good way for them to connect to advertisers in every country and there's currently no working global model, and they don't want to hurt their chances of selling it to a network for a lot of money by making it available for free.
TV Network 1 country: Bought the rights to distribute it nationally (online or offline) makes a lot of money offline cause advertisers pay some prime buck for TV Commercials. Can make some money online, and perhaps win new viewers, but can only limit it to streaming nationally as their rights bought from the TV Studio don't cover international streaming and they'd find themselves in a lawsuit. Additionally they can only stream a certain amount nationally because of the Cable Providers.
Cable Provide: Don't want too many people to watch it online as they want to maximize their viewers as that's how they make money. And the TV Networks are reliant on their subscription based monetization
Advertiser: Know they can make a lot of money on TV. Know they can make some money online, though that is not nearly as mature. Can only make money with national viewers, as international viewers might not even be able to buy the products advertised.
That's the situation now, as described in the article, if you can convince the Advertisers, Consumers and TV Studios to bypass this system, you'll potentially make a lot of money, but it's just not as easy as a snap of the finger as you make it out to be.
We are on the same page it seems, you just villainized me and the article for some reason. I and, as I understand it, the author (although his job kinda depends on it) are on your side, we'd like it to happen, but he explained why it doesn't at the moment.
I assume you'll probably not read what I said again, cause I didn't admit you were 100% right in the first line, but I think that's how it is. If you have some constructive argument why I am totally wrong about what I said there I'd love to hear it, I am just tired of trying to set misconceived opinion of my argument straight. [/B]
I didn't read one word of this post.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't pretend that that was your idea: I pointed out that the actual problem is TV and local channels wanting a slice of it on their TVs. He did not say: "Let's get rid of TV type TV, and start doing TV streaming."He said, "Someone will probably find a way to make real money streaming online soon, and then the business model will shift (again) and you'll see more episodes of TV online. Until that happens, this is why you don't see more shows online."
Which was completely stupid. It's already being done, and across borders, at times. He explained how things work, but he did not say he disagreed with it. In fact, he seemed to be keen on the idea of getting TV stations to make profits and he did not even consider cutting them out and going straight streaming. That was quite explicit: he's part of the problem. He can't think outside of his world, but only acknowledge it.
For instance: ABC funds a project...say....Lost. They should get to "air" the show anywhere in the world as long is it met the censorship or other regulatory requirements but NOT have to sell it to a local TV station in each country. THAT was my point. That was not his point.
Edit - I can see this is giong to take forever to hammer into your head, you'll still argue about something petty, and pretend something about something. I don't want to do that. Get it out of yoru system in one post.
That's actually exactly what he said:
Cable is a regional business, so they're paying to show our content in the areas that they serve. They don't want us giving away that content for free on the Internet in those same areas, which makes sense. We can choose not to sell our channel to them and put our content online, but (for now) there is no way to recoup our expenses with online only distribution.
Did you read the whole post? You may argue that he doesn't want it to change, perhaps that's true, I don't know his feelings, but he objectively explained exactly everything you said there. So yeah, that's exactly what I said, as I argued for the article. He explained why it's not working at the moment.
Also when he said his last sentence:
Someone will probably find a way to make real money streaming online soon, and then the business model will shift (again) and you'll see more episodes of TV online. Until that happens, this is why you don't see more shows online
He explained again that it is hard to monetize a TV Show online only, which is absolutely true. Just because some parts of it work, doesn't mean it works across the board and that it works as that only. So no, he was not wrong, he didn't say that you can't monetize online, he said it is impossible to make the same money online only.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I didn't read one word of this post.
Exactly like I said. I wouldn't be proud of that though, it is somewhat shameful, to just close your eyes and yell la la la. However it explains the insane straw man you built around my posts.
Seriously, you are just being aggressive towards me today for aggressions sake.