Comcast's New Half-Assed Answer To Netflix Is No Answer At All

from the learn-to-compete dept

So far, legacy cable operators have crafted an ingenious, two-pronged response to the rising threat of internet video competition. One, mindlessly raise programming and equipment rental rates (since we all know that traditional cable TV is a cash cow that will live forever). Two, pretend to be innovative. This latter part doesn't have to consist of much; you have to do just enough to make it look like you give a shit about television's evolution, like offer a sloppy Hulu clone under your own brand, or launch a "me too" streaming service with so many caveats to make it largely useless.

That's apparently Comcast's MO with the launch of its new creatively named "Stream" internet video streaming service. According to the company's announcement, Comcast's Stream service will offer users a handful of channels (including HBO) with ads, for $15 a month. The biggest caveats: you can only use the service if you're a Comcast "Xfinity" broadband customer, and you can only use the service while at home on your Comcast Wi-Fi connection. It's yet another cable industry attempt to keep cord-cutters in house by offering them something that looks like innovation, but falls well short of the mark.

Comcast and other cable operators are obsessed with the false belief that you can create such wonderful, amazing walled gardens that traditional cable users will somehow be impervious to obscene pricing and will never want to leave. That's the mindset behind the industry's TV Everywhere initiative, and it's a mindset on proud display here. But when you actually look at the pricing and value proposition on display, it's pretty clear where Comcast still thinks it can steer users:

"Here’s some quick math: Comcast sells Internet at different prices in different markets, but right now a basic broadband-only subscription in its home market of Philadelphia is $67 a month. Add in the cost of Stream and you’re up to $82 a month. But Comcast sells a basic TV + Broadband package, including HBO, for $45 a month. You will want to read the fine print when you compare the two offers.** But you might reasonably conclude that Comcast would still rather sell you cable TV than Web TV."

Gosh, yes, you might just reasonably conclude that. Comcast (like all cable operators) is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If it offers a truly disruptive, well-priced internet streaming service, it will start heavily cannibalizing all of the customers currently paying an arm and a leg for traditional television. The answer? Cable will have to do the unthinkable and begin competing on price, offering traditional cable TV and streaming capabilities and a better bundle price. Yes, the reduction in quarterly revenues is going to make investors and executives cry over their lattes, but it's a smarter play over the long haul than responding to fleeing, cost-conscious customers with the inept one-two punch of yet more rate hikes and the pretense of innovation.

Besides, said executives and investors can then turn around and recoup those losses by socking broadband customers with broadband usage caps and overage fees, right?

Filed Under: stream, streaming video
Companies: comcast, hbo, netflix

Court Issues Highly Questionable Restraining Order Over Anyone Even Remotely Related To Streaming Mayweather/Pacquiao Fight

from the that's-not-right... dept

Last week, we wrote about HBO and Showtime teaming up to pre-emptively sue two websites that publicly claimed they were going to live stream video footage of the Floyd Mayweather/Manny Pacquiao boxing match that happened this weekend. As we noted, it seemed odd to sue someone for infringement prior to the copyrighted content even existing, but as some helpfully noted, US copyright law includes a weird provision, 17 USC 411(c), which notes that when you're talking about works where "the first fixation of which is made simultaneously with its transmission," then "the copyright owner may, either before or after such fixation takes place, institute an action for infringement" given a few, pretty basic, conditions. In other words, while rare, the law does allow for just that sort of lawsuit for anticipatory infringement.

Thus, it shouldn't be too surprising that the judge, in fact, granted the request for a temporary restraining order on the two sites in question, boxinghd.net and sportship.org. Frankly, I have no idea if either one of the sites carried through on their promise to stream the fight this weekend, though I imagine it would be fairly dumb of them to have actually done so. From a cursory check, as I type this, it appears both sites are completely offline, so perhaps they both just shut down rather than deal with the threats from HBO and Showtime (or, perhaps, just moved to alternate domains).

However, as EFF points out, the court's temporary restraining order issued in the case goes way, way beyond just restricting those two sites, and raises some really serious concerns. Specifically, the restraining order didn't just restrict those two sites from showing the streams of the boxing match, but basically anyone who is sent the order:

Each and every one of the Defendants and their agents, servants, employees, officers, attorneys, successors, licensees, partners, and assigns and all those acting in active concert or participation with any of them, including any and all service providers who receive notice of this Order, are temporarily restrained and enjoined...

As the EFF points out, this is de facto SOPA -- allowing copyright holders to simply point at a site they don't like, claim they're "bad" and basically order them off of the internet by merely sending a copy of the restraining order:

You may not feel much sympathy for the websites in question. But this kind of site-blocking, without real legal process, is essentially one of the worst parts of the ill-conceived, long-dead Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) being brought in through the courtroom back door. HBO got an order to block content against those who act as intermediaries, even though they have nothing to do with the alleged illegality of the sites, are simply providing normal business services, and almost surely had no notice that they were about to be enjoined.

This is not the way our legal system is meant to work, and the good news is that it actually doesn’t. Federal Rules only allow courts to issue injunctions against those who truly are in “active concert or participation” with bad actors. We doubt that those who offer hosting services and video delivery, without more, can properly be considered in “active concert or participation” with the unauthorized streamers.

As the article above points out, it may not seem all that sympathetic considering these kinds of sites, but take it a step further. As we already discussed, whether or not these sites actually streamed any parts of the fight, the fight was widely streamed -- but via Twitter's Periscope service. And, under the terms of this order, if HBO or Showtime had sent this order to Twitter, it could be found to have violated a court order despite not even remotely being a party to the case!

I don't care what you think about those who might have streamed the fight in an unauthorized way, you have to admit that there are clear due process concerns when a court pushes such a broad order, that ties the hands of those who might not even have been aware of the court case at all, let alone that it was legally restricting their ability to operate (in a way that might also be technically impossible). Yes, this may have been convenient for HBO and Showtime, but it's difficult to see how that temporary restraining order is even remotely constitutional (or sensible).

Filed Under: due process, floyd mayweather, free speech, lawsuits, manny pacquaio, restraining order, streaming
Companies: hbo, showtime, twitter

Forget, Mayweather v. Pacquaio: The Big Fight Was Apparently Hollywood v. Periscope Streaming

from the oh-make-it-stop dept

Remember, just last week, when HBO and Showtime were flipping out about a couple of streaming sites promising to broadcast live streams of the big Floyd Mayweather/Manny Pacquiao fight? Apparently, they had the wrong target.

Just a few weeks earlier, we had noted that Hollywood seemed to be losing its mind over the latest round of livestreaming apps. Never mind that livestreaming apps have been around for ages, but because there were two new shiny ones (Periscope, which is owned by Twitter, and Meerkat), suddenly it was a "big deal" again. Especially when it came to sporting events. We'd already discussed the NHL's silly ban on reporters, saying they couldn't use Periscope. All of that came together this weekend in a collective mess.

First, many of the big pay TV providers experienced outages, meaning that people who paid $100 to see just this one fight found themselves completely locked out. Looking for a solution, they turned to Periscope. And they apparently found what they were looking for. And, it probably didn't help that Twitter (again, owner of Periscope) CEO Dick Costolo tweeted the following, claiming "the winner is... Periscope." Of course, as some pointed out, he may have really been talking about the fact that HBO itself used Periscope to show inside Pacquiao's dressing room before the fight -- which seems like a pretty good way to use the technology. However, if this ever leads to a lawsuit, expect that tweet to be an exhibit of an out-of-context claim by HBO/Showtime that Twitter was somehow "inducing" infringement on its platform.

Either way, given how popular the bogus storyline is that there's some sort of existential struggle between Silicon Valley and Hollywood, the resulting news story practically writes itself. Once again, we hear of big bad technology completely tearing down pure hearted big copyright holders, and how "something must be done!"

It will be absurd for Twitter to mount the defense that it complies with any takedown notices filed over copyright-infringing content. Because by the time the compliance occurs the livestream is already over, the company is going to need to figure out a better way to combat piracy on the fly. Periscope may require something like Google’s Content ID system, technology capable of identifying forbidden streams in an instant, and maybe even converting them to transactional opportunities for legal alternatives to the content in question.

Wait, it would be absurd for Twitter to say, "Look, we comply with the law, what else do you want us to do?" Why? Why is it Twitter's responsibility here? Why not the promoters of the show to make sure that their partners supplying the paid streams actually have technology infrastructure in place that works? Or why not Showtime and HBO for creating additional reasons for people to sign up for its service, rather than signing on to one of the Periscope streams?

Why, again, does Hollywood always seem to (1) blame the tech industry for its own failures and (2) then demand that the tech industry magically stop what is unstoppable? Why not, instead, recognize that the technology is really useful, that people like it, and look for ways to take advantage of that? Why not offer an official Periscope stream or partner with others who are Periscoping on their own to offer different/better commentary? There are many things that they could do to embrace things rather than complain about it (or threaten to sue).

Technology keeps advancing. Pretending that you can stop that technology is not a productive path towards the future. Hollywood keeps having to relearn this lesson with every new major technological advancement. It tried to stop the radio, the television, cable TV, the photocopier, the VCR, the MP3 player, the DVR, YouTube and more. One day, you'd think they'd learn that this is a bad strategy.

Filed Under: copyright, dick costolo, floyd mayweather, livestreaming, manny pacquaio, streaming, takedowns
Companies: hbo, periscope, showtime, twitter

Can You Sue For Copyright Infringement Before It's Actually Happened?

from the pre-crime dept

A few months ago, we wrote about a lawsuit filed by a boxing promoter that sued UStream for not taking down streams of a boxing match fast enough. The promoter claims that because it warned UStream ahead of time to block these streams, it should have been faster about deleting them. That case is still ongoing and headed to trial, but in another story of boxing and streaming, we now have an attempt at creating a legal violation of pre-crime copyright infringement. It appears that HBO and Showtime have decided to pre-sue two sites that it claims are planning to stream the big Floyd Mayweather/Manny Pacquiao boxing match. If you've somehow been under a rock, this fight is getting a ton of publicity and is set to happen this weekend.

Yet, the two big broadcasting companies that will be showing the fight, Showtime and HBO, feel that they can sue ahead of time, according to the lawsuit [pdf] -- which raises a ton of legal questions. And it seems that many of those questions could be answered with a basic "Uh, no, you can't do that."

First off: can they sue over a copyright on content that simply doesn't exist yet? HBO and Showtime say, no problem, that they'll have it eventually:

Plaintiffs intend to register the copyright in the Coverage, as joint authors, within three months after May 2, 2015.

But then there's the bigger question: can these websites be sued for breaking the law some time in the future? It seems to raise issues a la "pre-crime" and Minority Report. Yes, the sites make it pretty clear they're going to try to stream the fight, but what's the actual infringement before it happens? You can't sue over theoretical infringement. You have to show actual infringement. But HBO and Showtime seem to have made up a new form of copyright infringement: "anticipated infringement."

Defendants’ anticipated infringement will cause Plaintiffs severe and irreparable harm.

This leads to odd statements in the lawsuit about future events that simply haven't happened yet:

Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that Defendants will materially contribute to direct infringement of their rights in the Coverage by others, including without limitation third parties from whom Defendants acquire the infringing stream and third parties who use other websites to redistribute the infringing stream from Defendants’ websites.

Perhaps it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things: on Saturday, the event will happen and these sites will or won't stream the boxing match. Maybe the lawsuit scares them off and they don't stream the match -- and then the lawsuit can be easily dismissed. Or, if they do, HBO and Showtime amend the complaint to move the future tense to the past tense and all is good. Assuming HBO and Showtime believe this is the case, then the lawsuit serves as something of a possible deterrent to the sites, showing that HBO and Showtime are so serious about potentially suing them, that they already have. Still, it seems somewhat questionable to sue over infringement that everyone readily admits has not yet happened in any way, shape or form.

And, don't get me started on the question of whether or not merely embedding a stream hosted somewhere else should be seen as direct infringement, but that's a discussion for another day...

Filed Under: anticipated infringement, copyright, floyd mayweather, lawsuit, manny pacquaio
Companies: hbo, showtime

HBO Shuts Down Bar's Game Of Thrones Viewing Party

from the no-fun-allowed dept

Winter is coming. Again. Or, it has come back already, or still, or whatever. Look, I don't know, I just love Game of Thrones. Lots of other people like it too, which means that lots of people watch on HBO...and a lot of others watch it through illegitimate sources, making it the "most pirated" of shows. Part of the reason it's so pirated is that access has traditionally been restricted to those with HBO cable subscriptions. Still, HBO being pissed over some fans pirating the show is understandable.

Less understandable is HBO going after non-pirate fans, such as a GoT viewing party at a local Brooklyn watering hole.

HBO recently sent a cease and desist letter to the owners of Videology bar in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Williamsburg, asking them to stop their Game of Thrones weekly viewing parties.

"As a pay subscription service, HBO should not be made available in public establishments," a spokesperson for the network told the Daily News "When it does happen, it is of particular concern when there is an attempt to profit off the programming. We have taken such actions for well over a decade."

Yes, HBO, you have indeed taken these kinds of actions for well over a decade. But things have changed over that decade that you might want to pay attention to. Cable subscriptions are in the decline, for instance, meaning that content producers are going to have to find other avenues to keep consumption at the same levels. Also, and you probably noticed this...Game of Thrones is insanely popular and profitable, even with all of the actual piracy going on. Targeting a bar that holds a party for fans of the show isn't just useless, it's plainly damaging to the brand, the fanship, and the spread of the fanbase. I mean, is anyone really suggesting that the patrons who attended this viewing party were all planning on immediately cancelling their HBO subscriptions, and instead planning to watch their beloved show at the bar every week? Or is it more likely that these patrons all probably are HBO customers who just want to get in a group once in a while and collectively watch their show? And how many new fans will miss on the opportunity to jump into the GoT fervor because this event isn't going to take place?

The bar in question seems to get what HBO doesn't, of course.

"Seeing that many other bars in the neighborhood and around the city were showing it, we made the assumption that HBO believed, as we do, that public screenings were in the best interest of both HBO and the fans, since GOT is enjoyed on a deeper level as a communal event," co-owner Wendy Chamberlain told the NYDN. "But in the end, it's not up to us."

And so HBO misses another opportunity to grow the show's fanbase and brand, if only it could just behave in a human and awesome way for once.

Filed Under: bars, copyright, game of thrones, viewing party
Companies: hbo

Hollywood Collectively Loses Its Mind About Latest Set Of Livestreaming Apps

from the get-a-grip dept

If you (lucky you!) don't pay attention to the latest craze among the internet media, you may have missed the mid-to-late-March hype cycle around two livestreaming apps that are available via Twitter. The initial darling was Meerkat, which became this year's annual darling-for-a-week at SXSW. Soon after, it was eclipsed by Periscope, a startup that Twitter bought, just about the same time it pulled Meerkat's ability to push notifications out to users. Both offer the same basic idea: enabling Twitter users to easily livestream video to their followers. Of course, livestreaming is not a new concept. It's been around for ages, and things like Ustream and JustinTV are well-known. Even BitTorrent has tried to get into the livestreaming game. Not surprisingly, livestreaming technology has been particularly useful for newsworthy situations -- and have been used extensively in violent clashes around the globe or at protests like in Ferguson, Missouri last summer.

But, of course, Hollywood absolutely hates such things. For years, they've argued that Ustream and JustinTV were destroying their businesses because some people would turn on a television and set up their phone or computer to livestream whatever they were seeing. So it should come as little shock that right after the media hype cycle around Periscope and Meerkat, a whole series of silly articles started appearing about the copyright consequences of livestreaming. The Guardian warned that these new livestreaming apps "could cost unwary brands dear." Billboard warned that these two new apps created a "legal minefield" because a song playing in the background might (*gasp*) infringe on someone's copyrights. The Atlantic warned that these apps were enabling "a new kind of internet pirate." And, CBS really went the distance with a fearmongering headline about how Periscope and Meerkat "threatened" the "multi-billion dollar sports broadcast copyrights," even though they do no such thing (and, in fact, that article speaks to no actual sports officials, whereas when Major League baseball was asked, it noted that it sees no real threat).

And, rather than admit that (1) livestreaming has been around for ages and hasn't really been a serious drag on revenue, and (2) it's not a particularly good user experience for watching broadcast content anyway, various folks in Hollywood lost their minds about these two new services. The main culprit? HBO. After there were a few scattered reports of various Game of Thrones fans using Periscope to broadcast the latest episode of the popular show, HBO decided that it's all Twitter's fault, and who cares about DMCA safe harbors, something must be done, and Twitter has to do it:

"We are aware of Periscope and have sent takedown notices," an HBO spokeswoman said in a statement. "In general, we feel developers should have tools which proactively prevent mass copyright infringement from occurring on their apps and not be solely reliant upon notifications."

There are two issues there. First are the takedowns -- which is a part of the DMCA. But the second part is asking for Twitter to go Beyond the DMCA and to start proactively reviewing and policing the content that is streaming over Periscope. This is a bad idea for a whole variety of reasons that both Twitter and HBO should already understand. First, such efforts inevitably lead to takedowns that block important, legitimate, non-infringing speech. Considering how Periscope and Meerkat are designed for livestreaming events right now, blocking those could lead to important content never seeing the light of day at all. The chilling effects could be massive.

On top of that, there is little to no evidence that unauthorized streams of Game of Thrones are doing any harm whatsoever. In fact, Game of Thrones is often the prime example of how unauthorized streams have helped certain content get more attention and more long-term committed fans. Both a director on the show and Time Warner's CEO (who owns HBO) have admitted as much. So why the collective freakout about these new apps?

It seems, as is the tradition among some in Hollywood, any new technology that might possibly be used for some amount of infringement must be loudly condemned and shamed. Despite the fact that this policy never works, and tends to just lead to widespread ridicule, it is the only gameplan that the old guard in Hollywood have. They could embrace these things. HBO execs -- especially with the launch of HBO's new streaming services -- could be highlighting how much better the official streaming experience is than the crappy Periscope/Meerkat experience. But, what fun is that? That, apparently, takes work.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, livestreaming, takedowns
Companies: hbo, meerkat, periscope, time warner, twitter

HBO Now's Apple Exclusive Ensures The 'Most Pirated Show On TV' Stays That Way

from the great-Apple-wall-of-the-north dept

For years now, customers have been begging HBO to offer a standalone streaming service. Instead, customers got HBO Go, a streaming service only accessible if you can prove you have traditional cable. HBO Go is part of the cable and broadcast industry's "TV Everywhere" initiative -- or the industry's misguided belief that you can thwart cord cutting by building giant walled gardens firmly tethered to traditional cable. Of course this does nothing to actually thwart cord cutting, and only drives customers unwilling to pay cable's endlessly-soaring rates to piracy.

For many years, HBO was hesitant to offer a truly stand alone streaming service, fearing disruption of the cozy, promotion and subsidy-laden relationships it has with cable operators. Late last year HBO finally announced it would offer a standalone HBO service, but didn't provide any hard details.

The good news? HBO has formally announced that it's launching "HBO Now" next month for a $15 monthly fee. The bad news (for some)? The service is going to be an Apple exclusive at launch, meaning that while you can access the service via iOS devices, you're out of luck if you'd like to use the service on a game console, Roku player, Chromecast, or any of the myriad other competing streaming devices. And while you will be able to watch HBO Now content via the new website and any old browser, you can apparently only register for the service using Apple's HBO Now app and an iOS device.

This resulted in many people correctly noting customers are being herded from one walled garden to another:

HBO used to be cable only, now it's cable and Apple exclusive. Is that really an improvement? http://t.co/ExSUMumDPg pic.twitter.com/1NKqrtV7Ei

— Richard Lawler (@rjcc) March 9, 2015

The press release can't be bothered to mention this, but the exclusive is only for three months, after which HBO Now will be made available on all the usual platforms. Cable providers may also jump in and pitch the service, though many will likely worry they'll only act to cannibalize existing cable subscribers. In other words, we're not exactly talking about the end of the world here, and HBO Now is still part of a welcome sea change toward more standalone streaming options in 2015. If you're still annoyed, just pretend Apple users are beta-testing the service and ironing out the wrinkles ahead of your arrival this summer.

Still, while the exclusive surely nets Apple a nice cash payout, being greeted by a giant wall isn't a great first HBO Now brand impression for Android, Xbox, Playstation, Chromecast or Roku users. Being greeted by that same giant wall also isn't going to do much to keep the "most pirated TV show on television" from being downloaded via BitTorrent. HBO Now's still a welcome change, it's just a shame its market entry has to be polluted by unnecessary, annoying boundaries just to fatten Apple's wallet.

Filed Under: availability, convenience, exclusives, hbo, hbo go
Companies: apple, hbo

HBO Decides It's Finally Time To Go It Alone

from the timing-and-details-are-everything dept

For years, plenty of people have been wondering why HBO absolutely refused to offer a standalone internet offering for cord cutters (and cord nevers), with the general response being that "the math" was against it. Basically, HBO gets a ton of money from cable, and every time new customers sign up, that's free money for HBO without having to spend anything on marketing. A standalone product may not even bring in as much money and would require HBO to do more marketing efforts on its own for the offering. Of course, as we pointed out in response to that argument, "waiting for the math to make sense" is a kind of predictor for legacy companies that wait too long to innovate and find that the future has become the present while they're still in the past.

Eventually, the timing was going to be right, and apparently HBO has decided that time is now. Or, at least, sometime next year. The company announced plans to launch a stand-alone internet offering leading to much speculation. Actual details are lacking, and there's some speculation that it might be a very different product than the current HBO Go offering. Some are saying it may actually be in coordination with another player (like Amazon or Hulu). Reading too much into at this point doesn't do much good.

Of course, this has also led to some speculation that it may increase people cutting the cord -- and that's likely true for the segment of the population that has cable for HBO (duh) and not for sports (a bigger driver). However, the real point here may be that where HBO goes, others are likely to follow -- including sports.

HBO's decoupling with cable TV may not single-handedly change the cable TV market, but it's a sign of a much larger shift that started long before and is now dragging HBO along with it. The traditional cable TV market has been ripe for disruption for quite some time. This is just a single mile marker in an ongoing process.

Filed Under: cable, cord cutting, hbo go, internet, pay tv, tv
Companies: hbo, time warner