Disney

[wu_trax]

Apparently they want to put TV-shows on the net, so that you can legally download them for free. To pay for that they want to add 1-2 minutes of commercials to each episode. Fair enough, they need to make money somehow.
Anyway, I think this is a great idea. I hope others do this too.

[midge5]

I think it's a great idea and would happily use it rather than illegally downloading shows.

[Dante Hicks]

I'll still download the episodes illegally because the thrill excites me. More seriously I don't think the quality will be good enough (especially considering you can get HD episodes of things like Lost relatively easily). And I hate commercials.

If they manage to destroy "the scene" to the point where it becomes impossible to download anything other than authorised channels (this seems unlikely) then I'll probably not bother with the content Disney et al produce. If I do decide to download from CorporateApprovedDownloads.com then I'll fast forward past the adverts which according to Turner's CEO makes me a thief* anyway. If they make that impossible then I'll leave the room when the ads come on, mainly out of spite.

* This article is not bad, on this general subject : http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/mod...rticle&sid=198

[midge5]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

. If they make that impossible then I'll leave the room when the ads come on, mainly out of spite.

I'd never watch the adverts, I don't when I watch tv now. As long as they do keep it to only 2 minutes or so then it is still far less than tv and I will just use the time to get a drink or something as I seem to end up pausing most shows I download anyway. I think I'd probably use this method as well to try and encourage other companies to follow suit so they will become of as good a standard as the illegal versions. Unless the download times are ridiculously high then I may not

Aren't the BBC doing something similar to this for UK residents sometime this year as well?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'll still download the episodes illegally because the thrill excites me. More seriously I don't think the quality will be good enough (especially considering you can get HD episodes of things like Lost relatively easily). And I hate commercials.

If they manage to destroy "the scene" to the point where it becomes impossible to download anything other than authorised channels (this seems unlikely) then I'll probably not bother with the content Disney et al produce. If I do decide to download from CorporateApprovedDownloads.com then I'll fast forward past the adverts which according to Turner's CEO makes me a thief* anyway. If they make that impossible then I'll leave the room when the ads come on, mainly out of spite.

* This article is not bad, on this general subject : http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/mod...rticle&sid=198

You werent cuddled much as a child, were you?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

You werent cuddled much as a child, were you?

Not by Jack Valenti, no.

[Cooling]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

Fair enough, they need to make money somehow.

Oh those poor multinational media organisations. My heart bleeds for their shareholders. Please oh please give us more advertising, it's what the people want.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Cooling

Oh those poor multinational media organisations. My heart bleeds for their shareholders. Please oh please give us more advertising, it's what the people want.

The problem is that people seem to want to evade reality and pretend that high quality content costs nothing to make. If you wish to bury your head in the sand and ignore the fact that without advertising revenue, the programs which you watch would be unable to be produced thats fine, but dont complain when you get called on your naievety.

The only reason youre able to watch, and listen to, the content you do is because someone, somewhere is paying for it. If this someone isnt you then thats fine, youre a leech. But dont pretend this content would still exist if everyone acted like you did.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The problem is that people seem to want to evade reality and pretend that high quality content costs nothing to make.

I don't think anyone really believes this, outside of the world of the strawman. I think perhaps some people simply dislike the advertising business model. Disliking taxes don't mean you think roads cost nothing to maintain to use an obvious analogy.

In this case people do vote with their dollars by buying ad-free products (e.g. premium cable, DVDs, etc) but often these services are not seen as in competition with ad supported products but in addition to them.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

On this issue I think that downward pressure on the cost of TV programmes and movies can only be a good thing. But you are right the money has to come from somewhere. I think though that the current way Television is used essentially as a delivery mechanism for adverts and little else is scandelous. Would our lives be so much worse if the current model was drastically changed?

This thread is a discussion of changing the current model.

The television channel is an anachronism and will probably die out soon. The internet has removed the need for that sort of specialised content delivery system, and the fundamental idea behind the 'channel model' - that you see programs only at the time when television executives want you to see them - is outdated. Internet users are used to being able to have access to whatever they want, whenever they want it, and the idea that you only get to see the latest episode of the Simpsons at 6pm on a Tuesday night looks increasingly ludicrous. There have obviously been minor adaptions to this model, such as the introduction of video recorders, sky plus boxes, etc, but its not enough - there probably needs to be a radical overhaul of the whole delivery mechanism.

I think this goes back to the distinction between active and passive audiences - the television audience is necessarily passive, being forcefed a selection of prepackaged content. The explosion of the number of television channels available has changed this to some degree, but the TV viewer is still forced to choose from a limited range of content at any given time. I think that the generations who have grown up with the internet are less likely to be happy when treated in such a passive manner - the internet necessarily promotes an active approach to content consumption with people actually seeking out what they want to watch rather than having it fed to them, and personally I greatly prefer this.

Now that we have the internet, the middle men involved in the television process arent really needed - the makers of tv programmes should be able to distribute individual programmes to consumers directly, without needing to have them packaged up and integrated into 'channels'. But the question is how to make this profitable - it doesnt make financial sense for companies to allow people to download content for free, and the idea of charging directly for access to intellectual property is problematic due to the prevalence of broadband, file-sharing, and the general "something for nothing" mentality a lot of people have. Integrating adverts into programs seems to be a good solution - it allows the funding mechanism behind television to be retained, while getting rid off the delivery system. Unfortunately I'm not convinced its going to work in the long term, because as people have pointed out, there will probably be software produced that somehow edits out the adverts. The likely result of this isnt going to be advert-free content; its going to be programmes where the advertising and content are intertwined to a degree where removal is impossible - think increased product placement and the like. The fundamental idea behind using advertising to fund content production is brilliant even if it can be irritating at times, and its not going to go away.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't think anyone really believes this, outside of the world of the strawman. I think perhaps some people simply dislike the advertising business model. Disliking taxes don't mean you think roads cost nothing to maintain to use an obvious analogy.
.

Well yeah but in order to be taken seriously you should have alternative ideas for how production is going to be funded, otherwise you come across as a child stamping its feet and throwing a tantrum. Theres a difference between saying "I think we can live without adverts while still maintaining high quality content production: here are my ideas..." and saying "but I just dont WANT to see coca-cola adverts in the middle of my favourite films :((((("

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Well yeah but in order to be taken seriously you should have alternative ideas for how production is going to be funded, otherwise you come across as a child stamping its feet and throwing a tantrum.

Well, even within capitalism I prefer the DVD model*, the pay-per-download model, the merchandise supported model, the donation model, etc. You don't have to imagine expropriating the expropriators to see there are alternatives to advert supproted television.

In any case, I expect the average cost of television to be reduced dramatically by different approaches to production and better use of tech. Things like Red vs Blue or Pure Pwnage while being flawed are definitely a sign of things to come.

* = And yeah I've bought DVDs in the past, and would happily do so again so long it wasn't by an organisation affiliated with the MPAA, etc.

[Dante Hicks]

Also, ignoring whether capitalism is teh suck there's a practical argument here too. The advert supported model seems to encourage programming which is inoffensive to large numbers of people. It doesn't really matter (from the point of view of advertisers) whether you think the show you're watching is kind of dumb but worth watching or the greatest cinematic masterpiece ever. You're still a pair of eyeballs.

One of the reasons I'd give for the dreadful state of most television is the way it's funded. Shows made for the subscription networks (HBO, Showtime, etc) in the United States definitely seem superior to the standard Survivor-esque fare that seems to dominate most network television. Admittedly it could be they're immune from FCC related faggotry but I'd also imagine the fact they're (relatively) directly dependant on whether their shows are good or not has an impact on their quality.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Also, ignoring whether capitalism is teh suck there's a practical argument here too. The advert supported model seems to encourage programming which is inoffensive to large numbers of people.

This isnt a problem with advertising, its a 'problem' with market economics. If adverts were replaced by user fees then you'd have the same scenario - content would be dumbed down in order to sell it to as many people as possible. The music industry is a good example of this - advertising isnt particularly prominent there, but the most successful artists are generally still those who produce bland and inoffensive material. However, I would like to think that this levelling effect is partly a result of audience passivity - when people are being spoon-fed content, theyre less likely to try and form their own pesonal tastes and opinions. But when theyre actively seeking things out for themselves, theres more liklihood that they will find something they genuinelly want. Again, the internet seems a good example of this; theres probably less uniformity among the websites and communities people visit online than there is in their music and film tastes. Perhaps I'm being somewhat idealistic, but I do think that in the longrun internet users are more likely to start appreciating 'non-mainstream' music/films/tv than the average person.

The other alternative, of course, is to socialise content production and physically force people to pay for things whether they want them or not (the approach taken by the BBC).

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

This isnt a problem with advertising, its a 'problem' with market economics. If adverts were replaced by user fees then you'd have the same scenario - content would be dumbed down in order to sell it to as many people as possible.

Only in certain markets. Wallmart might try and sell as many as possible on razor thin margins but I doubt Harrods do.

Again, the internet seems a good example of this; theres probably less uniformity among the websites and communities people visit online than there is in their music and film tastes.

I think this is related to barriers to entry as well though. To make a "good" website is within the reach of most educated Westerners (OK, not everyone can make their own Google but certainly any idiot can write a blog, and of course most do). Since it costs almost nothing to make a website there's no need to care whether anyone reads it and it affords a wonderful freedom in output. I don't worry about whether anyone reads my forum posts because there's no positive/negative feedback either way (i.e. I don't go hungry if no one pos-reps me). If I had to pay per post then I might feel differently.

Music is inbetween movies and the internet - there are thousands of shitty punk bands out there - and indeed we find that there is a fairly large diversity in music tastes out there (in that GD music thread I've probably only heard of 30% of the bands mentioned, for instance). Even "mainstream" music like in the UK singles charts sells relatively small numbers (vs people who listen to music every day).

The other alternative, of course, is to socialise content production and physically force people to pay for things whether they want them or not (the approach taken by the BBC).

This is hardly the only choice, even under capitalism as I've said.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Only in certain markets. Wallmart might try and sell as many as possible on razor thin margins but I doubt Harrods do.

Well yeah, but this applies to content production too. Major record labels might try to simplify music as far as possible, but there are still many artists in the world who wish to make high quality material. Ditto for films and programming. Even from a purely profit-driven perspective, being the best within some subculture may well generate more income than being yet another mainstream outlet.

I think this is related to barriers to entry as well though. To make a "good" website is within the reach of most educated Westerners (OK, not everyone can make their own Google but certainly any idiot can write a blog, and of course most do). Since it costs almost nothing to make a website there's no need to care whether anyone reads it and it affords a wonderful freedom in output. I

I agree.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Also, ignoring whether capitalism is teh suck there's a practical argument here too. The advert supported model seems to encourage programming which is inoffensive to large numbers of people.

I'm not sure why that's such a bad thing, at least as long as we have broadcasting. I suspect many people aren't all that keen on being offended. I should confess, however, that I watch very little television (although what little I do watch, I watch because I find it interesting--not offensive). Unless by offensive you mean something else entirely.

It doesn't really matter (from the point of view of advertisers) whether you think the show you're watching is kind of dumb but worth watching or the greatest cinematic masterpiece ever. You're still a pair of eyeballs. One of the reasons I'd give for the dreadful state of most television is the way it's funded.

I don't see why Sturgeon's Revelation wouldn't continue to apply to television even with a different funding model. It may be that the problem is on the other side of the television screen. :/

Shows made for the subscription networks (HBO, Showtime, etc) in the United States definitely seem superior to the standard Survivor-esque fare that seems to dominate most network television. Admittedly it could be they're immune from FCC related faggotry but I'd also imagine the fact they're (relatively) directly dependant on whether their shows are good or not has an impact on their quality.

The subscription channels have a lot less original content though. They have a lot more movies, repeats and even shows that originally aired on the networks around their "good" programs. It's just a different kind of chaff.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

The subscription channels have a lot less original content though. They have a lot more movies, repeats and even shows that originally aired on the networks around their "good" programs. It's just a different kind of chaff.

You're right, but on the primary ad supported network in the UK (ITV) we'd be lucky to get 1% non-crud, let alone 10%.

(And by inoffensive I meant non-challenging in the widest sense. Kind of easy listening muzack for the teleivision screen)

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I'm not sure why that's such a bad thing, at least as long as we have broadcasting. I suspect many people aren't all that keen on being offended. I should confess, however, that I watch very little television (although what little I do watch, I watch because I find it interesting--not offensive). Unless by offensive you mean something else entirely.
.

Inoffensive in this context means content which most people will like, or at least not actively dislike. Modern pop music is a good example - its hard to dislike most of it in the way could dislike heavy metal or hardcore trance, because its just so bland. Noone is likely to run out the room screaming when the latest song by Kelly Clarkson or whoever comes on. The problem with inoffensive material is that although its very difficult to hate it, its similarly difficult to love it. Not many people are likely to get passionate about chart music in the same way they get passionate about rock, or classical music, or indie - its just background stuff for your life, rather than anything you seriously engage with. The same applies to a lot of mainstream film and TV; noone is going to have their lives changed by the latest romantic comedy or Hollywood blockbuster - its just a pleasant way to spend an evening when you have nothing better to do.

When it comes to selling material though, it doesnt matter whether people like your stuff or love it - it just matters if they buy it. Therefore, theres likely to be market pressure to produce content which doesnt alienate potential buyers - you could produce the best trance anthem on the planet, but its not going to sell very well if most people dont like trance. The result is that you end up with a mainstream thats out to please everyone while offending noone, which normally involves blandness, banality and a complete lack of challenge.

Several notable people around the start of the 20th century predicated that in the long-term, mass culture would have a levelling effect, with the glorification of mediocrity being the end result. If they were alive today, they would probably feel they had been proven correct.

[Nodrog]

To clarify, I dont mean that in an elitest sense - I think too much nonsense is often spouted about the 'lowest common denominator' or the lack of intellgence of the fabled 'average person', and so on. Its not that the public are unable to appreciate high quality products, its that the sort of high quality product they appreciate differs from person to person, hence if you want to appeal to a large market you cant stray too far from the mainstream. If I'm a huge fan of trance music and I hang out with a friend who loves hardcore punk, its likely that either of us playing our favourite songs would repulse the other. Therefore we might settle on a compromise, such as lighter 'popularized' punk such as Limp Bizkit or whatever. Neither of us would particularly like this, but then we wouldnt want to rip our ears off while listening to it either.

In the long run, the most popular channels/stations are likely to be those that play material which noone hates, even if noone especially likes it either. This goes doubly so when most people are too lazy to go actively exploring for stuff outside the mainstream.

[coffee-]

ahh
http://sea.search.msn.com/dnserror.a...dDownloads.com