Fox Decides To Drive Fans To Piracy, Rather Than Giving Legitimate Options
from the um,-that-doesn't-work dept
It appears that the Fox Network hasn't learned a damn thing from well over a decade of evidence concerning how you deal with people infringing your works. Rather than providing a legitimate and authorized option as part of a business model, Fox has decided to block or delay web access to many of its popular TV shows, trying to push people to watch them on TV. Now there will be some exceptions... for people who already pay a "participating video distributor." In other words, pay more for less.The whole article linked above is ridiculous. Even the title is wrong. It says:
"Fox Network to limit Web access to its shows."But that's wrong. People still will have plenty of access... just from unauthorized sources. Then there's this quote from Michael Hopkins, the president of affiliate sales and marketing for Fox Networks:
"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,"I'm somewhat surprised this even needs to be explained in this day and age, but taking away features and locking them up does not "enhance the value" to anyone. This is the sort of thing lots of companies stupidly do. Rather than actually increasing value, they take away value from one set of people, and pretend that means they've increased value for others. Except, it doesn't work that way. All it really does is piss off all the people you just took value away from.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: culture, fox network, locking up, paywall, tv
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I actually disagree this time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I actually disagree this time
Or you can pirate, which is Mike's point. Give the people what they want, how they want it, when they want it or suffer the consequences. The market is speaking, but big content is deaf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
Artificial release delays, more ad's, higher prices is not how you compete against this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I actually disagree this time
Then you are as blind as a bat. They are taking something that they offered for free, and are now trying to make you pay for it, without offering any more value. This is one of the reasons people pirate TV shows in the first place.
If the networks offered an add-supported stream on their web site, then at least they would get something for their efforts. Now, people that don't have the cash, or perhaps the ability to subscribe to one of these pay servers, will have to pirate the material to enjoy it. They have now made some of their customers become pirates. How is that good for anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
Nobody makes anybody become a pirate. This is classic victim mentality. Are you suggesting that if something is once free, it must always remain free?
By that argument, no item can ever increase in price. Fox wants to make $. What else is new?
"Now, people that don't have the cash, or perhaps the ability to subscribe to one of these pay servers, will have to pirate the material to enjoy it."
No, they don't "have to" at all. You choose what to do.
Yes, I'd like to see some shows for free. And I can. If the show I want to see suddenly costs more money (as from zero to more than zero, or whatever), I get to decide how to handle it. Nobody is forcing me to either subscribe or become a pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
And then there's the fact that Murdoch is a moron but that's another story ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
Hmmm...is that marriage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
but if i can't make it home at 7 I have to pay 8 bucks a month or wait a week? If it made sense it wouldn't be a big deal but there is no reason other than old people fighting culture and trying to make extra money when there are better ways to make that money that dont upset the fans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
If you're lucky.
Since the digitalization of broadcast TV, though, lots of people aren't lucky and can no longer receive many (or any) of the free broadcasts, even if they do have the equipment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
I know in Chicago a few networks have really shitty towers and almost no one can get CBS anymore. They lost their tower on the Sears Tower about a year before the switch and kept talking about building or moving to a more powerful tower than the weak one they currently broadcast from. They stopped talking about moving shortly after the switch and still do not provide a signal to the majority of Chicagoland, all the other networks are hit or miss depending on your neighborhood even with a powered or roof antenna.
While the digital switch certainly provides a better picture its also a much less forgiving signal, I think most people still using rabbit ears lost out on the switch more than they gained.
Try and find someone in your area that install rooftop antennas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
You're exactly right.
I pay for a cable subscription, and am in an area that can receive free over the air broadcasts. But if I want to watch a show from Fox without jumping through needlessly inefficient hoops, the only convenient option Fox has left me is an "unauthorized" option. And I will choose to use that option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
That is utter bullshit.
My wife had a legally purchased copy of Grey's Anatomy. Due to copy protection, one of the discs did not play in our laptop. The rest did. So I had to resort to downloading that disc via BitTorrent with the copy protection removed. Burned it to a disc and it worked with no problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
I'm not against downloading and I don't give a shit about Fox. But at least have the honesty to admit that downloading is your choice (as it has been mine also). Nobody is forcing you. That's the part that is bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
1. The only reason why piracy is wrong is because it can represent a lost sale. How was a sale lost in this instance?
2. HE ALREADY BOUGHT THE CONTENT! How is downloading content you already own legally wrong?
3. If it was the DRM that was stopping him from playing the DVD as he stated, how would exchanging for a new one help?
4. What was done wrong here? Instead of travelling back to the store, he stayed home and downloaded a replacement. What was lost? What was done wrong? If anything, he helped SAVE the store money as they no longer had to restock the faulty item as they would have done if he'd returned it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I actually disagree this time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
1) They don't seem to do enough commercials (only 1-2 between each break rather than several on normal TV broadcasts), which is I guess a plus for me, but
2) They never have up to date TV shows.
Why not just have up to date TV broadcasts, and include some more commercials so you'll have everyone flocking to your site and be generating more revenue while you're at it?
Adapt to the new world, fer chris' sakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
You mean like how TV networks operated before cable TV existed? It never ceases to amazes how content producers forget how they made money back in the day. Giving something away for free. That sure was crazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I actually disagree this time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I actually disagree this time
just a Whoooosh! noise?
the content was monetized, there are ads in the video that is how fox is suppose to make money, not by making deals with broadcasters. This is just because they are scared of people cutting cable.
So here is what you really get, either people watch it on your site with ads same day or people watch it elsewhere with no ads same day.(or even next day) People who really want to watch something arnt going to wait because you throw up artificial barriers. Put the show on your site, put ads in it and shut up and make your money. Then of course feel free to add extra things to pay subscribers but don't try to make free things cost money, its not gonna work.
Thankfully Im struggling to think of anything on fox that I really care about watching anyway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
So, yeah, nothing to watch on Fox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
Which is interesting, because I didn't think Fox was in the cable business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
Also the broadcast companies are scared and willing to start offering deals with companies like fox, who were starting to let some of their content onto the web with reasonable restrictions, to give them extra money to make their content less available. Ahhh artificial scarcity a scheme that always works so well.
So while the broadcast fox channel isnt effected by people cutting cable the can get more money out of those that are
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I actually disagree this time
Mike's point is that if someone doesn't want to wait the 24 hours (Hulu paid) to a week (Hulu free) and also doesn't want to watch it when it airs or build a DVR setup, they are left with no legitimate way to watch the programming. That one option is illegitimate delivery/piracy. And he's not wrong here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I actually disagree this time
There are ways that make more sense in the modern marketplace.
"I don't see a big "driving away" your customer base in this instance."
It's simple. They offer something for free. Then, they try to charge for that same item. If any customer ceases to be their customer (i.e. doesn't pay, whether through piracy or by simply not watching) then they've driven that customer away. Drive enough away, there goes your base.
There's simply no incentive here for people to pay. Sure, some will, but others will simply do without. Those who do pirate will soon learn that the pirates offer a better service with less restrictions. How is imposing further restrictions going to help?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I actually disagree this time
I accept that piracy is going to happen, even if Fox (or whomever else) runs all its content instantly On Demand after initial broadcast. Someone somewhere is not going to be able to access it and will pirate it. In this case, Fox is trying to build value for its subscribing services to give you a reason to buy Hulu+ or whatever. They may be failing to connect with fans but thier business objective is legitimate. Offering some product or service for free or at a discounted rate then raising the price is hardly new or unique to Murdoch's empire. I see this as a reasonable step in adapting thier business model. Maybe its not perfect but its something and something is better than nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
That's the fallacy. They are not trying to build value for the subscribing services - they are trying to make them seem more valuable by destroying value elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
You do *not* provide value to group A by taking away value from group B. The value of the product to Group A is the same. It's now just that it's more value than Group B.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I actually disagree this time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I actually disagree this time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This fits perfectly with the Murdoch business plan
He mainly does it with sport - where it has worked well for him and for the sporting bodies -at the expense of the sports themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But pretending that Hulu Plus is equal to the convenience of piracy is a dream land. Believe me, I WANT Hulu Plus to succeed, anything to get away from paying 100 bucks a month for cable tv, I cut that cord a long time ago. But locking up your content then pretending we should pay for ad supported shows doesn't make sense when you don't make it easier to use than piracy.
Sorry I ranted :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Murdock's War with the Internet
Rather than cater to the market he wants to control it and force consumers to comply with his preferred business practices. In a free market it does not work that way. Someone who claims to be conservative politically should understand this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why don't you blame the people who choose to infringe and to break the law for a change?
I know how much you hate it when someone blames someone else for their own actions (like how you hate indirect liability), but when it comes to infringement, all you do is blame everyone but the infringer.
Your love of pirates and piracy is so incredibly transparent that it's hilarious that you don't just admit that you're a pirate lover.
What a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In an age where you can go to TPB, Isohunt et al and get it in a little over an hour, waiting a week is complete bullshit. Hell, if even the BBC can do simulcasts, why can't Fox?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike the Piracy Apologist and his Band of Merry Idiots notwithstanding, that's how it works in the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
...at which point idiots like you assume we pirated it anyway and fight to take away more of our free speech/legal option...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(2) may be morally justified, but that doesn't mean it's a smart decision. If they choose (2) and go out of business, it's their fault and their fault alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like I said, you are morally correct. But that won't do you or FOX a lick of good. If you have your panties in such a twist that all you can do is complain about pirates well then that's just dandy - nobody can tell you you're wrong, but we are definitely going to laugh as you tilt and windmills while your business crumbles around you.
I'm not trying to give an "excuse" for pirates - I'm trying to give a solution to the content creators.
Piracy represents a market demand. You simply cannot deny that. You can say it's still wrong, and people still shouldn't do it, and that's all fine and good - but it IS an indicator of a very real demand. FOX would be a lot smarter to meet that demand themselves rather than complain that others are meeting it illegally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, so how do you "take" something that is free and infinite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
DRM server gets shut down.
My CD breaks/is scratched.
I want to watch my DVD on my home Streaming Software.
My DVR went on the fritz or didn't record, and I have Cable.
I have purchased thousands upon thousands of dollars of media in my life that has been lost, stolen, or destroyed.. If I am just buying a license for the media, why do I have to pay full price for it again and again?
I used to "Pirate" games... never again! Why you ask? Because I get them off of Steam now. I get what I want, when I want it, I can put it on whatever computer I choose, and I only have to pay for it once. I had to give up the possibility of reselling the game, but it's worth it! DO THAT AND YOU WILL WIN !
You assume everyone that fits your "pirate" mold, are just freeloading freetards.. you forget the music industry has for years been cheating the consumer..... the get no sympathy from me, game on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
keep telling yourself that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
About the assholes part, well pirates are little a-holes, but they don't come close to the content producers a-holesseness. For years people had to endure all kinds of abuse from louder commercials, to creaping ads in places where they were supposed to not exist, people had no choices now that they found a way around those a-holes are sad, but nobody is going to shed tears for you people LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
someone is a being a selfish asshole, ill agree with that. Its just not who you think it is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What is the goal of a business?
1) To make money
2) To end piracy
Got that? Let's hear your answer. Yes, you can argue that 2) is necessary to achieve 1) but I haven't actually seen you make that argument - you just keep saying how important it is to stop pirates. So it seems like you are coming at this from a position of moral indignation. Try thinking practically and pragmatically instead!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) To make piracy
2) To end money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's that? Somebody who is late all the time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.entertainmentgeekly.com/images/dan/cap025.bmp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I lead a sad little life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
More and more people are cutting the subscription TV "cord" because they know that the future is streaming through the internet. It offers them more options on what they can consume and what they can pay; only companies who fail to see the future of the business are hanging on to these outdated business models and purposfully forcing customers into options that the customers don't want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I guess it is criminal too when people recorded TV and lent to the neighbors or coworkers, it is criminal to record TV with a DVR.
Why can't TV stations create their on P2PTV streaming app to monetize things like the Chinese did(i.e. PPTV and QQStream)?
You know on the internet the new channels are streaming services that is why Youtube gets 2.5H/day which is almost on par with the 5H/day of TV.
Start bugging people about it and Youtube and other websites may become the new TV stations in the world.
Just to put it in perspective only in the USA and some parts of Europe cable is actually something that makes money nowhere else people pay for TV like that, but unsurprisingly people do pay for internet.
When people start changing their habits and start watching other things the dumbasses will continue to claim it is because of pirates just like the music industry.
Visible music piracy fell dramatically in recent years but sales didn't go up did they?
The reason? people now can find the same music for free legally that they record just like they did record radio or have other options that are free and legal like Jamendo and Magnatune.
The same is happening to TV, people are starting to produce webshows now give it time and those TV producer will need to compete with webseries that will be global and could be streamed by an app that serves ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Given all the piracy you keep whining about, this actually seems to be the way it works in the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Assumption A2: Mike has a pirate lover's blog.
Fact F1: You are here...
Assumption A3: ...and apparently like hanging around here.
Conclusion: You are a pirate lover.
I'm sorry, but you can't deny the logic. We're all in the same boat (pun intended).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The main difference between cartels and pirates is the cartels have the blessing of the government.
Often times piracy is the only thing that provides real competition which is why people are drawn to them when the cartels fail to deliver.
Piracy is the best indicator of an industry out of touch with its customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike, you've really got a nice bevy of pirate-lovers on your boards. Congrats! Just what you wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Justifications and excuses. That's all you guys have. Funny how you can't just admit that pirates are to blame for their own piracy. They weren't "driven" to it by anyone but themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If your understanding of scarce and non-scarce is that flawed, you have no place in this discussion. You simply don't have the knowledge required. Other copyright supporters must cringe when lines like this get trotted out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact that you either refuse to admit that or simply don't understand it speaks to either your intellectual dishonesty or your plain old lack of intellect. Take your pick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When applying your pirate logic to other things, it fails, not because I don't undestand infinite goods and scarcity, I have followed Mikes blog for several years
By your logic, since so many people murder, rape, steal, speed on the highway, abuse children et al.. because no one seems to follow them, by your reasoning, those old anitquated system of laws should be abolished
of course you are going to come back with some drivel about I do not understand the digital/internet world and have no right to speak to such things, again, when you dismiss someone out of hand, it means you cannot address the discussion at hand, since those things are similar in one way, but yet different, that is where the logic comes into play
bottom line, you have content, you didn't pay for it, you are not a underserved customer, you are a thief and should be treated as such
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yet, you have either failed to understand, or have chosen to ignore, every single basic point raised in favour of your own strawmen. As demonstrated clearly by the idiotic screed above.
"bottom line, you have content, you didn't pay for it, you are not a underserved customer, you are a thief and should be treated as such"
Weird, you didn't pay to access the content here. Either you admit that you're wrong and there are business models that don't require direct payment, or you turn yourself into the nearest authority, as by your own definition you're a pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I bet you were fun to teach in maths class... 10 years later still going "but 2+2 is 22! It's obvious! Why are you people trying to destroy my pocket money by telling me it's only 4!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't care, you can say whatever you want, if I want to copy something I will not feel bad about it and I don't think it is wrong, I did for awhile and now I don't, I don't even consume that crap you call content and is trying to protect, you people don't get money from me, the only thing you will get is the finger.
Now if I was pirating something there is no one that can stop me from copying anything. I know that and billions of other people also know that, there is no government that can enforce that BS laws you hold so dear.
Want proof?
I can rip a DVD right now!
What are you going to do besides moan?
Nothing that is what.
I can rip a TV show and send it through encrypted mail to all my friends and family, what are you going to do?
Nothing that is what.
You can't do nothing about it, nor law enforcement, nor any government, so you keep trying to annoy people and shame them when they simply don't care, it is not going to work, you are powerless and everybody knows it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From the point of view of someone like me who doesn't believe in "intellectual property", what you've just said is trivially true.
It's as if you had said "Toyota buyers are to blame for buying Toyotas!" in response to a story about how Ford was driving customers away by not offering the cars customers wanted at prices they were willing to buy.
Well, yes, the customer was ultimately responsible for his decision about where to buy a car, but that doesn't mean Ford made no mistakes, or shouldn't have acted differently if they wanted to capture that business. Nor does it follow that someone who points out Ford's mistakes in an honest effort to help their business succeed must "hate Ford" and "secretly love Toyota".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're not a producer, you're a parasite. Nothing but a leech.
And because of that, nobody gives a fuck about your opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At the moment, you are a nameless, faceless blob who, to our knowledge, has contributed nothing but a dozen comments on a blog one day. Chris gives us his real name and plenty of examples of his work.
You're the one whose opinion lacks credibility right now, buddy. Where's the link to all the stuff you've produced?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What now? Fox doesn't have it's Shows anymore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You see, we live in the internet era, where people are used to finding whatever they want with a few clicks. The average viewer with little knowledge of IP issues simply assumes that TV shows are available online - why the hell wouldn't they be? And they assume that when they find a TV show online, it's supposed to be there.
The streaming sites are well-made (much better than network streaming offers). You can set up accounts, make comments, connect with facebook and twitter - they are high-quality, professionally designed offerings. So when your average person thinks "I missed last night's Mad Men!" and googles "watch mad men online" then finds themselves at BlinkX.com, they honestly have no idea that they have just stumbled into a den of "thieves". All they see is the quality streaming TV service they have always assumed existed because, and this point cannot be repeated enough, why the hell wouldn't it?
Now, of course, this is exactly why the industry places such importance on "piracy education" - but when a law is so counterintuitive and obsolete that the average consumer is completely unaware of it, the problem is probably with the law, not the consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Sons Of Anarchy" took two years to get to Australia and then it wound up on the channel oneHD which not everybody can get unless they have a high definition digital tuner AND live in an area that actually GETS that channel. And if we miss an episode? Wait for the DVD? Oh, OK, we'll play by the rules and wait until September to see it. Unless, of course, the DVD company changes their mind (which probably won't happen for "Sons Of Anarchy" but HAS happened for other shows!)
Why? Because I don't live in the United States, I must therefore be a second class citizen who has to wait for Hollywood to finish screwing around and get the content to the WORLD. And the world is a pretty big market.
Sure, our local channels offer what they call "Catch up TV" with SOME shows streaming - assuming that they can get the streaming rights (well done ABC Australia there) but that's assuming that we have high speed internet access which a LOT of Australians don't yet (because they CAN'T get it and I'm talking infrastructure here, not price)
You know, I'm gonna stop now or I'll end up on my "video on demand" rant which always falls on deaf ears anyway. I demand a video on demand service. The best way of getting one outside of the United States? ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You legal options are to do what's legal. It's not hard to follow. If it's not legal for you to get something, you don't get it. Simple.
The problem with you guys is you think you're entitled to get this stuff whenever you want, wherever you want, and for free. Does the rest of the world work this way? No. But since piracy is easy, you think it works this way for pirated goods.
I actually feel sorry for you guys. For Mike too for having such a thieving band of followers. Remember, Mike, piracy is not OK. That's what you said. Funny how NONE of your articles ever actually reflect that sentiment. Actually, it's not funny at all. It just means you're lying. We all know you love piracy Mike. It's OK to admit it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So we go into examples of failures of the cartels in providing media. Let's make a few examples. Let's take a random show that is displayed on Netflix. Starsky and Hutch and see what happens to it.
US - Nice and legal through Netflix. You pay for access to the show.
Canada - Fairer laws but you can have oddities in copyright law. Available, but also at a cheaper bitrate due to data caps that are enforced.
Brazil - Still needs to get to Latin America. I find it funny how the first comment says this: "Yay! Now we can pick up GLEE in Venezuela!"
Now if you have a window effect going on for your shows, there's a problem.
Europe - Just now getting there.
So... You have one service that has just expanded into other territories. It's been established that before hand unauthorized versions of movies were (and still are) downloaded, discussed and found. But you say wait for legal versions.
That isn't what's occurring. People still want to watch their shows, they'll just go elsewhere until the industry gets its act together.
"I actually feel sorry for you guys. For Mike too for having such a thieving band of followers. Remember, Mike, piracy is not OK. That's what you said. Funny how NONE of your articles ever actually reflect that sentiment. Actually, it's not funny at all. It just means you're lying. We all know you love piracy Mike. It's OK to admit it."
Do you ever get tired of being proven wrong through the data. Just because someone doesn't believe in how you would fight piracy (which has already been proven wrong on multiple levels) doesn't make them a pirate themselves. Maybe it's time for a new argument. One that's backed up by something other than heresay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"you think you're entitled to get this stuff whenever you want, wherever you want, and for free."
1. I'm offering to pay for Netflix, Hulu or any other legal content channel, asshole, as I have been for years. Your industry refuses to let me, yet complains anyway.
2. For most people this content would be offered FREE anyway! It has been for decades!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Quote:
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/10/idUS193958+10-Jan-2011+PRN20110110
So there you have it even the government by its own findings understands that banning something comes with risks, the risk of an emerging black market, what is more it drives people to seek out the illegal alternatives which makes them less likely to even go to the legal options, why bother with the legal expensive offer if you can find everything on the illegal section of the market which you are already forced to use anyways, so the law is not a problem anymore, it also encourages people to keep coming back to that illegal supplier instead of the other legal one and the word of mouth spreads quickly.
The same works for the copyright industry, which is a ban on others to supply something and when there are failing in that distribution on the part of the industry, black markets quick come to life and fill that space at which point it becomes difficult to displace the culture and players involved, you will have to pay through the nose to regain that market after that.
You think you can change how people behave? You think you are above those little facts of life?
Think again billions of people prove you wrong every day. You want to go against the grain and be an idiot that is fine, just don't ask others to "understand" your silly point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This scenario is your worst nightmare...and one I'm personally looking forward to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
During the prohibition era, people couldn't satisfy their need for alcohol legally. Did that stop them? Do you remember what happened to that particular law? And did the law do any good to anyone?
The similarities between prohibition and "piracy" are overwhelming. Perhaps we should learn from history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One day, your thick skull will accept the idea that pointing out the reasons that someone pirates is not the same as supporting piracy. Then, perhaps, you can follow the discourse that some lower primates are able to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My point is that when it comes to indirect liability for infringement, Mike is the first to yell about how we shouldn't blame others for infringement. But when it comes to blaming infringers, all he does is say it's someone else's fault.
Bottom line is that Mike doesn't think anyone should be at fault for infringement, except for the victims themselves. It's absurd.
If someone chooses to pirate, blame that person first and foremost. Once you do that, I might listen to your theories of what other factors led them to infringe. But as it is, Mike blames no one but the victims, and that's bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Who gives a damn about "blame"? Companies don't trade on blame. They don't include it in their quarterly reports. This is about one thing and one thing only: smart business models. The smart business decision is the one that makes you more money - and that's not focusing on piracy or taking away legitimate alternatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The AC does, and the industry he shills for does. They honestly, really, truly believe that every downloaded copy of a song/show/movie is a lost sale. Every. Single. One. Dollars out of their pockets. Food snatched from their babies mouths.
You will never get through to people like that. They live in a different reality and will never recognize what you and I know: copying is here to stay. When little old ladies (yes, more than one!) ask me how to find movies on the web... when police chat about jailbreaking their iPhones... when everyday people "infringe" without a second thought or a twinge of guilt... Like Marcus said, morality doesn't come into this equation, and to a very large extent neither does illegality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In the stories where innocent people are being prosecuted, the focus is on what's wrong with that situation (innocent people should not be punished without due process, punishments should be just and not excessive and so on).
Here, the focus is on what's wrong with this situation (Fox are only going to encourage more people to pirate). They could do all sorts of things to encourage people to consume their content and not to pirate, but they do the opposite (here, imposing extra restrictions with no benefits for paying).
What is NOT being said, and the words you always try to put into the mouths of Mike and others here, is that piracy is acceptable or justified. If the industry encouraged legal consumption and punished only the truly guilty, we'd have no argument. Sadly, the opposite is happening.
"But as it is, Mike blames no one but the victims, and that's bullshit."
No, your conclusions are bullshit. There's not only one party to blame, all parties can share it. The pirates are to blame themselves, and I don't believe Mike or anyone else has said otherwise. But, the content industry need to realise that they have some culpability. Everything they do to try and game the system in their favour, from DRM to windowing to regional restrictions only encourages piracy. If they realised that and adjusted to profit accordingly, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You people are too funny. Such a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
oh that's right, nobody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If that were true then Masnick wouldn't being crying all the time about the government doing their job and enforcing the law."
I made a remark about how they would enforce dumb laws. And what do you do? Go off on an entirely different tangent. Bravo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We wouldn't "cry all the time" if the enforcement was a) effective, b) didn't violate existing fair use and due process, violating the rights of innocents in the process, c) didn't call for punishments that far outweigh the crime d) had massive and dangerous unintended effects on freedom and free speech and e) wasn't aiming for an effect better achievable by modernising business models.
So far, none of those is true, and your constant lying about the positions of people you disagree with doesn't help your argument, which so far seems to consist of "my corporate masters' 1992 business model is the only model and anyone who disagrees is a pirate".
If it makes you feel better, try prefacing every post of Mike's, mine and others with "Of course pirates should be punished but....", and maybe it'll make more sense. Else, try getting one of those primates to teach you basic logic, they're way ahead of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So why aren't you laughing, instead of bleating and moaning and complaining and whinging and bitching and whining and...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, I can see how Mike trying to explain to companies how they should act to avoid losing paying customers to piracy is the same as Mike advocating piracy.
Wait, what? Seriously, read what you write before you post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please, Mike LOVES piracy. It's so obvious it hurts. But for obvious reasons he can't come out and admit how he feels. He's on the fringe far enough as it is. If he explicitly said piracy is great, he'd be pushed over the edge.
It's hilarious to watch him defend piracy day in and day out while he pretends that piracy is not OK if you ask him.
That's half the entertainment of this place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"how terrible copyright is"
About how overreaching it is and how fair use is being overridden at the same time that corporations are trying to extend its length to infinity. The basic concept of copyright is not a problem, in theory.
"how it shouldn't be enforced"
False. The criticisms are that the enforcement is draconian and damaging, and there are times where it's more productive not to do so. Not that copyright should never be enforced. 2 out of 2 lies, so far.
"arguing every single possible gray area against copyright holders and for pirates"
Copyright is a complex issue, and most of the modern scenarios in question could never have been imagined by the original inventors of the concept. Also, unless you can point somewhere for me where this has actually been said, most such grey areas are argued about in favour of ARTISTS, not "pirates" (e.g. remixers, people who independently come up with similar concepts, people who want to see orphaned works, etc.)
"If he explicitly said piracy is great, he'd be pushed over the edge."
He'd almost certainly be lying and contradict most of the positions he's put forward here. Just as you would be if you said you understood any of the discussions you've trolled.
"That's half the entertainment of this place."
The entertainment is seeing corporate shills like yourself argue for everything that's destroying the industry while attacking the people with solutions as "pirates". Kind of like seeing a cockroach slowly die when trying to get off its back... sad and pathetic, but entertaining and you feel like it might deserve it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really, Mike? They're driving people to infringe?
Put this into a 'real' product. Say you go to the store to and see a beautiful orange sitting there. They tell you oranges were free 5 minutes ago, but now you can't have that orange until next week, oh and then it will cost you $5. Of course by then the orange will be moldy and half rotten. You going to come back and buy the orange? Didn't think so.
So, IF I really want to see a video I am not going to wait a week AND pay for it when it was free today and a week from now it's value will be reduced but I will be expected to pay more for the reduced value product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really, Mike? They're driving people to infringe?
Yes, you should, because YOU HAVE NO RIGHT. It's not your property.
Pirates: Think everything belongs to them.
I guess you think you've earned it, right? Yeah, sport. The world revolves around you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really, Mike? They're driving people to infringe?
I guess you think you've earned it, right? Yeah, sport. The world revolves around you."
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really, Mike? They're driving people to infringe?
I guess when you rely on an artificial government construct to make money, screaming and complaining seems like a good way to protect your business.
Most other industries would adapt and change to meet changes in markets and technology, but not you guys. No, there's no need for that when you can just go to Uncle Sam for more monopolies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really, Mike? They're driving people to infringe?
Besides people have every right to copy and share information with whom they wish and it should not be illegal to do so with rare exceptions where everyone inside society agrees too which is not the case with your supposed imaginary property that is not even property is a right to exploit the public space by restricting how it is used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really, Mike? They're driving people to infringe?
Whoa there big boy, calm down. Breathe deeply. Relax.
Now, just for the sake of argument, let us suppose that what you called "property" was not real property at all. Hahaha, ridiculous, I know, but let's just suppose. So, if there is no actual property anyway, and anyone can just come along and make a copy of "it" for their very own, can you see how your position and arguments would just fall apart?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes.
Why don't you blame the people who choose to infringe and to break the law for a change?
I never said they weren't breaking the law.
I know how much you hate it when someone blames someone else for their own actions (like how you hate indirect liability), but when it comes to infringement, all you do is blame everyone but the infringer.
You're confusing legal liability with explaining the actual business impact of a decision. I thought it was obvious. Actually, it is obvious.
Your love of pirates and piracy is so incredibly transparent that it's hilarious that you don't just admit that you're a pirate lover.
Kill the messenger, huh? I don't see how explaining the consequences of someone's actions is the same thing as "loving" those consequences. I have no "love" for piracy or those who engage in it. But I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't explain the consequences.
What a joke.
Yeah, honesty. Hilarious. I should just lie from now on, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But when it comes down to blaming the infringers, you say, "Don't blame them. They did nothing wrong. Blame those who drove them to infringe."
Got it, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I tried to give HBO and Disney money for these fine entertainments but they didn't want my money, so I did the next best thing.
Crisis averted!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm costing the industry millions!
Oh yeah... I infringed hard on Game of Thrones. I tied it up out back and watched it 2, no... Three... No, wait. 5 Times. It was exciting. I thought the police would catch me. But I need more, MORE!
So I infringed on Entourage. And it was good! But I needed more. MORE!
I infringed on Avatar, Ghostbusters, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and even the old cartoons of Pacman.
And I infringed all over those old episodes of Sesame Street and Doctor Who. And I did it all for free!
Man, after all that infringement, I'm kinda tired. But I can still go for two more rounds of infringement...
I want more. MORE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm costing the industry millions!
to bad you never made a decent product AC or someone might have bought it :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm costing the industry millions!
But the AC doesn't understand that detail, thinking that free automatically means "freeloading".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
All 2 billion people around the world that are breaking that hilarious law called copyright.
Can you make that happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Little sniveling coward that won't admit he fully supports piracy, despises the laws against it and those that enforce the law.
Because deep down you're ashamed at being such a lousy member of society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you're representative of your industry, it's a miracle anybody ever managed to sell anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ad hom.
Little sniveling coward that won't admit he fully supports piracy, despises the laws against it and those that enforce the law.
Ad hom.
Because deep down you're ashamed at being such a lousy member of society.
Ad hom.
You know what's missing? A single response to the points I raised. Well, that's Just Ducky, isn't it? Can you actually respond to the points I raised, or are you only set on attack mode?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In this day and age I learned that if a mailing from my bank starts with words "In order to serve you better", I know 100% that something will be taken from me - fees increased, conditions tightened etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Joke
Because you have to jump through (Hulu) HOOPS to watch it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A Joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fox
ABC and NBC have been fantastic about making them available though. Castle, 30 Rock, and Chuck are among my favorite shows and if I miss one I know that I can watch it the next day or sometime before the next episode so I am all caught up for the next week. I used to never watch NBC shows, but I do know all because they let me watch it when and where I wanted to rather than forcing me to be somewhere at this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time Shifting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time Shifting
Remember, though, when yu ASSUME you make an ASS out of U and ME! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hrLj8QEAgI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time Shifting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only place I may suffer is Big 10 Sports, but I'm hoping Big 10 Network will offer a streaming service again this year. If not, there is Sports Bar within walking distance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see spots!
Spot on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe not with FOX in my comment, but same difference.
I recently watched Flashpoint via Netflix (Legal). When the show returned to FREE tv there were a few episodes that netflix did not have and were before the new ones. I found on CTV ( Cananda tv ) but I could not stream them from Cananda to the US, so I checked CBS.com and they were not available there either. I BOUGHT the DVD for the last season only to find out the missing episodes were NOT on it. Seems there is a difference between Cananda and USA in the order of the episodes. For 2 weeks I sought a LEGAL way to watch these without missing them before starting to watch live. No Luck! I DVR'd the new ones while I searched so not to have a hole in the series as it were. eventually I used uTorrent and downloaded them and watched them that way. THEY DROVE ME TO PIRACY IF I WANTED TO SEE THEM WITH NO LEGAL OPTION, other than pay for TV , which we DO NOT!
SUCK IT CBS, and you will suffer also FOX.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This piece highlights Mike's doublethink.
Those are people who weren't paying. They were relying on the "free" model that Mike touts. Fox is presumably finding advertising doesn't pay as much as they want. Note here that Mike holds pricing decisions exist in a fantasy realm (see the "can't compete" piece); Fox is only doing as other businesses do (it's just that they sell pro-war propaganda). -- YET now Mike points out that trying to get people to pay makes them go to pirate sources!
That's just plain DOUBLETHINK.
And by the way, the advertising supported model for "content" isn't going to hold up much longer because of this very contradiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This piece highlights Mike's doublethink.
Really? Wow. I guess no media will ever be free again. I can see a silver lining though: I can't imagine you paying to post your rants on techdirt, so we'll finally be free of you/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This piece highlights Mike's doublethink.
i would point out which word but it would just be a copy/paste of your post, pretty much
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This piece highlights Mike's doublethink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This piece highlights Mike's doublethink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If fox is worried about the value of its payed customers then why can you still watch it on the good old fashion bunny ears....? (with the DTV converter of coarse)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree
Fox needs to cut off broadcasting, going to cable ONLY to truly get their target audience and find out what the network is actually worth. It'd be an unpleasant surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Over-reacting
I would definitely prefer waiting for free content that is legal over getting it immediately from some virus and malware infested piracy site that the MPAA may or may not be watching.
I may be biased, though. I hate the whole "tune in next week for..." crap. I wait for a whole season to be done and then I watch it all in a few days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Over-reacting
The point is that some customers will wait, and some customers won't. And once the customers who don't wait get accustomed to file-sharing, what are the odds you will lure them back again, even if you change your mind in the future?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bird Hunting and Techdirt
Word quickly got out and soon there was hundreds of hunters lined up, wallets open, to shoot the birds. The farms soon began making more money shooting birds than farming. The farmers soon began to love the birds.
The farmers stopped trying to just kill the birds, and starting thinking of how they could make money, they ended up doing both.
Perhaps Mike should take the media exec's bird hunting!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bird Hunting and Techdirt
Not exactly progress, if you ask me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bird Hunting and Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not surprising.
And if you think Fox is bad, try watching any of the Syfy shows on Hulu. Now, that is a compete and utter mess. Their "window" is about a month - and they keep putting shows on Hulu out-of-order, or weeks before they're supposed to be there, and then pulling them a day later. (Happens with their own website, too.)
Talk about driving people to piracy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah, I get it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i will buy no new MAFIAA products ever again.i will only buy used physical.MAfiAA gets nothing at all form me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How you ask?
If they provide advertising during their online content streaming� they advertise to an entire world, not just the country they are licensed to broadcast over the air in. Imagine the advertising revenue they can get by providing their content to a few billion more customers.
Welcome Fox� this is how the internet works. Learn it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Does anyone remember why Fox was broadcasting over the air for free to begin with? To compete. They realized that to compete with other broadcasters, they had to provide their content at a higher quality and lower price."
Are you sure they didn't broadcast for free because thats how all TV was broadcast prior to the invent of cable television?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not sure how this is new or different?
My last note is just what others above me have said. I have an HD antenna. It works great for everything locally except ABC for me. So even though I can see CW shows and FOX shows when they air, I choose not to do so.
I do not have a problem with the limited 'free' offerings of content that FOX is proposing and it does not seem ground breaking at all. I do understand that advertising does not cover all of the costs and do not have a problem with reasonable prices and limitations. What I do have a problem with are the offerings of companies like HBO and the new CNN tv streaming. You have to be a rip-off cable company subscriber to access their content. I cannot get access to their content online (in a timely manner- dvd's/itunes a YEAR later) legally, no matter how much I am willing to pay.
My dream world consists of online streaming a la carte access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This probably won't get people to subscribe to Hulu+ all by itself, but for some people who were already considering subscribing (for the old movies and such perhaps), it might push them over the edge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
8 days
An 8 day blockade stops completists who want to watch on television, but who have missed a single episode, from watching that season's episodes on television again, at least until there's a week with no new episode. It seems to have been designed by people who only see the behavior of the 'enemy' (those who don't want to watch on TV), and ignore the lost opportunity for keeping their current TV-watchers loyal.
By all means block free online viewing for a day or so after transmission. This forces fans to try to watch live on TV, rather than saying "No need! I'll just watch online." You can't be part of the water-cooler or social network conversation the next day unless you've watched on TV (or paid). However, after those conversations have taken place, you have an opportunity to capture new fans, who have heard their friends talking and are now curious to see what the fuss is about (ie. the actual episode in question). Having seen it (for free, of course - they're not that curious!), you may well have them hooked for the rest of the season, watching on TV, where you want them.
Shortly after the season is over, or if you're feeling mean, a month or so after transmission, decide it's too late for anyone to catch up and pay-wall the episodes - so you won't cannibalize your DVD sales.
I'd like to hope that the potential of personally targeted advertising will ultimately prove sufficient to pay for a comprehensive, free, possibly even globally-accessible archive of on-demand network television that would be able to give pirate sites a run for their money, but if broadcasters feel that they need to charge some of the time, they should at least charge at times that will help their overall strategy, not hinder it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]