Like any business, boxee has to find a way to make money from it's service. Using Hulu videos (without permission) to create value in their service.
I don't get the "without permission" part. I doubt that Hulu has given explicit permission to Firefox, IE or Safari to access their service.
If users go to boxee instead of going to hulu, hulu loses their chance to deal directly with the consumer and create an experience, market that experience, etc.
I see one of your fundamental misunderstandings. Users are not "going" to Boxee, they are "using" Boxee - like FF, IE, etc.
As an example, Hulu has certain things on their front page. Perhaps Hulu is being paid to place them there, or gets better ad revenues from certain content. Boxee is effectively denying them the chance to operate their business freely. a browser would just display the hulu site directly, and hulu would be "in control" of the experience. Boxee interferes with the experience.
Is Boxee blocking those things?
What would happen if boxee became a members only site? Actually it is, because you have to register to use it.
Another misperception. You don't have to register. At the top of the registration screen, just click "click here" and you can download the software without registering. I'll admit that's a little sneaky - the page looks as if you're required to register. I can't test the download right now, but I gave no information to get the software.
Do they at all market anything to their users?
So? The pertinent question remains - do they block or hide Hulu's ads?
Obviously if they are going to a pay-to-play market for some content, they would be effectively marketing using Hulu's content (but not selling Hulu content). At some point in there, it is obviously against Hulu's best interests to allow that to happen.
I can see how it would be easy to be confused on this. They (Boxee) say they are trying to negotiate with content providers, but they are not using Hulu's content in that negotiation, other than perhaps Hulu blocking them has caused them to have to negotiate with people who have content on Hulu in the first place.
Hulu is a private company and private website, and they should have the right to refuse access to anyone for any reason, as long as that reason is applied equally to all without discrimination.
Yeah. I suppose so. You can make it technically difficult for users of a particular software to access your public website, but on the other hand, it's not illegal for people to fix their browsers so it works with that site unless they're doing something like cracking passwords or hacking the system.
Okay. I read that a little further. They are going to institute a Pay-for-play mechanism, but will be doing so in cooperation with "content providers"
Going back to the initial point however, how does that qualify them to be blocked from giving users access (just like an extension-enabled Firefox) to ad-supported video like Hulu if they don't block Hulu's ads or charge for that access?
I glanced at that. It appears to be some way that Boxee is proposing to collect money to give to the TV industry in order to pay for something the TV industry is giving away free for people who don't use Boxee.
Am I wrong, or did Boxee say they were going to add charges on top of that for themselves?
My firefox browser doesn't go out and automatically catalog the contents of Hulu and present it in a format other than the way Hulu presents it (web page).
I could write a Firefox extension that does just that.
Or is he just making stuff up in a Congressional hearing?
What's so infuriating about all this, is that the content industries are most obviously fighting for two things - profits and control. They are most decidedly NOT fighting for a better experience for their customers.
These things (profit,control) can be had in the digital age, but they must be earned. In the past, all you had to do to earn them was to capture an expensive, narrow distribution channel - broadcast license, record-stamping plant, printing press.
Now, those barriers to participation in the content distribution game are gone and with them the (sometimes obscene) profits they provided.
Rather than learn to compete however, these greedy bastards want the game changed in their favor.
You can hardly blame them; it was so easy in the past if you had the big bucks to get in the game.
Now any schmoe with a video camera and an internet account is potential competition.
Eventually, the industry is going to have to realize that fighting Redbox is a mistake.
The thought of this mindlessly greedy industry - who has had things its own way for so long - waging a doomed battle against technological progress, fills me with joy.
...I also think this treaty will regard both digital goods AND physical goods with equal validity, and until a compelling reason why it should not gains more than minor grassroot support, "product is product" will out.
Actually digital "goods" are quite different from physical products in that they can be duplicated at the touch of a switch.
What you are essentially arguing is, when they become available, machines which can duplicate food and medicine at the "touch of a switch" should be tightly controlled or outlawed because of "unlawful duplication"
You know that as well as anyone. And that's why the ACTA (and every refinement that comes after) will be at first regarded, then accepted and eventually warmly embraced.
Yes, just like the drug laws are so warmly regarded by the relatives of people being kept in jail for 20 years for an ounce of marijuana or the grandmother shot to death by a SWAT team raiding the wrong address.
I'll bet a great deal of the delusion on the part of print media is the mistaken assumption that being online is analogous to having a broadcast station.
I can just imagine them believing that they can lock up their content like a cable television signal and charge for access.
What they are failing to realize is that, unlike cable TV, there are numerous alternatives.
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't get the "without permission" part. I doubt that Hulu has given explicit permission to Firefox, IE or Safari to access their service.
If users go to boxee instead of going to hulu, hulu loses their chance to deal directly with the consumer and create an experience, market that experience, etc.
I see one of your fundamental misunderstandings. Users are not "going" to Boxee, they are "using" Boxee - like FF, IE, etc.
As an example, Hulu has certain things on their front page. Perhaps Hulu is being paid to place them there, or gets better ad revenues from certain content. Boxee is effectively denying them the chance to operate their business freely. a browser would just display the hulu site directly, and hulu would be "in control" of the experience. Boxee interferes with the experience.
Is Boxee blocking those things?
What would happen if boxee became a members only site? Actually it is, because you have to register to use it.
Another misperception. You don't have to register. At the top of the registration screen, just click "click here" and you can download the software without registering. I'll admit that's a little sneaky - the page looks as if you're required to register. I can't test the download right now, but I gave no information to get the software.
Do they at all market anything to their users?
So? The pertinent question remains - do they block or hide Hulu's ads?
Obviously if they are going to a pay-to-play market for some content, they would be effectively marketing using Hulu's content (but not selling Hulu content). At some point in there, it is obviously against Hulu's best interests to allow that to happen.
I can see how it would be easy to be confused on this. They (Boxee) say they are trying to negotiate with content providers, but they are not using Hulu's content in that negotiation, other than perhaps Hulu blocking them has caused them to have to negotiate with people who have content on Hulu in the first place.
Hulu is a private company and private website, and they should have the right to refuse access to anyone for any reason, as long as that reason is applied equally to all without discrimination.
Yeah. I suppose so. You can make it technically difficult for users of a particular software to access your public website, but on the other hand, it's not illegal for people to fix their browsers so it works with that site unless they're doing something like cracking passwords or hacking the system.
On the post: Microsoft Exec Calls For 'Driver's License For The Internet'
Duplex
That whole two-way communication thing is scary isn't it, Marcus?
It was alright when the people were just blasted day-and-night from radio and TV.
But now that they are raising their little fists (sometimes in frighteningly large numbers) against their corporate masters, it's getting a bit tense.
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay. I read that a little further. They are going to institute a Pay-for-play mechanism, but will be doing so in cooperation with "content providers"
Going back to the initial point however, how does that qualify them to be blocked from giving users access (just like an extension-enabled Firefox) to ad-supported video like Hulu if they don't block Hulu's ads or charge for that access?
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I glanced at that. It appears to be some way that Boxee is proposing to collect money to give to the TV industry in order to pay for something the TV industry is giving away free for people who don't use Boxee.
Am I wrong, or did Boxee say they were going to add charges on top of that for themselves?
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re: Re:
I've never seen Boxee in action - there doesn't appear to be a charge for the software - is there advertising in the application?
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re:
I could write a Firefox extension that does just that.
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
It Seems Endless
What's so infuriating about all this, is that the content industries are most obviously fighting for two things - profits and control. They are most decidedly NOT fighting for a better experience for their customers.
These things (profit,control) can be had in the digital age, but they must be earned. In the past, all you had to do to earn them was to capture an expensive, narrow distribution channel - broadcast license, record-stamping plant, printing press.
Now, those barriers to participation in the content distribution game are gone and with them the (sometimes obscene) profits they provided.
Rather than learn to compete however, these greedy bastards want the game changed in their favor.
You can hardly blame them; it was so easy in the past if you had the big bucks to get in the game.
Now any schmoe with a video camera and an internet account is potential competition.
On the post: This Has To Be A Joke: Music Duo Claims It Won't Sell CDs Again Until 'Piracy' Is Stopped
It's Finally Happened
Glad to see someone else has finally figured this out.
:)
On the post: Wal-Mart, Target Trying To Block Redbox From Purchasing DVDs?
Glee
The thought of this mindlessly greedy industry - who has had things its own way for so long - waging a doomed battle against technological progress, fills me with joy.
On the post: Writers Of 'Back Pockets On The Floor' Claim 'Pants On The Ground' Ripped Them Off...
Curses
On the post: USPTO Rejects Submission Because It Was Faxed 'Upside Down'
Alternative Transmission
As opposed to what? Mechanical fax? Organic fax?
On the post: Decision In iiNet Case Explains Why ISPs Cannot Effectively Be Copyright Cops
Re: Hobson's choice
How do you feel about being kicked off the internet for not taking products you didn't want?
On the post: USTR: A Lot Of Misperception Over ACTA, But We Won't Clear It Up Or Anything
Re: Re: Re: Re: We, the People
This is a fundamental misconception. If you are paying $250k for something that can be copied for $0, you are doing something wrong.
The government should not be in the business of ensuring that you recoup your bad investment.
You need to figure out how to work with new technology, not insisting that the government cripple or restrict people's access to that technology.
On the post: USTR: A Lot Of Misperception Over ACTA, But We Won't Clear It Up Or Anything
Re: Re: We, the People
Actually digital "goods" are quite different from physical products in that they can be duplicated at the touch of a switch.
What you are essentially arguing is, when they become available, machines which can duplicate food and medicine at the "touch of a switch" should be tightly controlled or outlawed because of "unlawful duplication"
You're going to lose on that one.
On the post: USTR: A Lot Of Misperception Over ACTA, But We Won't Clear It Up Or Anything
Re: We, the People.
Yes, just like the drug laws are so warmly regarded by the relatives of people being kept in jail for 20 years for an ounce of marijuana or the grandmother shot to death by a SWAT team raiding the wrong address.
On the post: Massive Disconnect: Paywall Analysis Claims It's Reasonable To Expect 66% Of Readers To Pay
Making Connections
I can just imagine them believing that they can lock up their content like a cable television signal and charge for access.
What they are failing to realize is that, unlike cable TV, there are numerous alternatives.
On the post: Vision Media Apparently Would Prefer No Public Discussion About Its Lawsuit
Curses
"It makes being sneaky and underhanded (S&U) so much more difficult. If only there were some way to stop people telling each other about us..."
On the post: Econ 101: Study Shows That If Record Labels Lowered Prices On Music, They Would Sell A Lot More
Broken Record
If CDs were about $5/ea I'd buy 10 a month, probably forever, just rebuilding all the music I used to have on vinyl.
I like physical CDs because I like having a product to hold in my hand, I can't imagine ever buying a download.
On the post: Indiana Senators Rush To Put In Place Sexting Law When They Clearly Don't Understand Sexting
Slogan
On the post: Google Explains Why Ad Blockers Aren't A Problem
Re: Re:
There's ads on this site?
Next >>