Google Blocking Set Top Boxes From Showing YouTube Unless They Pay Up?

from the evil-is-as-evil-does dept

I'm wondering if there's more to this, because it seems rather "un-Google-like." The makers of a set top box that can display internet content are complaining that Google is blocking them from displaying YouTube content, unless they agree to "partner" and commit to buying lots of ads (the amount is in dispute). If this sounds quite a bit like the ongoing battle between Hulu and Boxee, you might be right. However, in that case, at least you could sort of understand the (misguided) thinking behind it, since Hulu is owned by the colossally short-sighted content companies. But what's Google's excuse? If all these set top boxes are really doing is accessing free internet content and formatting it better for a TV, why stop it? They're really no different than accessing content via a computer and a browser -- it's just that the "computer" is a set top box and the "browser" is formatted for a television. That shouldn't require a special agreement, or any sort of ad buy commitment. Update: Received a confused and angry email from YouTube PR linking us to the very Wired article we linked to and demanding we add their PR statement (which is already in the Wired article). However, it does not actually answer the questions raised or change the point of this post. The fact that YouTube restricts set tops from accessing the content still does not make sense.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Dear Hulu: Stop Treating Me Like A Criminal

from the if-you-don't-want-me-to-watch... dept

I mentioned recently that, for some idiotic reason, Hulu has stopped letting me view any of its content. That's because I use WiTopia's VPN service for security reasons. It seems that plenty of other WiTopia users are discovering this, as well, and are getting annoyed. The issue is that Hulu wants to block people from outside the US from viewing its content (for licensing reasons, even if they're pretty pointless in today's world). But, for some bizarre reason, it's been decided that anyone who uses any sort of VPN or proxy can't use Hulu at all because they might be coming from a foreign country. I'm sitting here in California and Hulu tells me I might be illegally accessing its content, so it doesn't allow it. So, instead, I don't give Hulu any additional ad views and I don't watch the content I wanted to watch. How does that help anyone? It appears to make everyone worse off. And it's not like WiTopia is some free anonymous proxy -- it's a pay-service that has been around for ages and is used regularly for WiFi security purposes. Many of its users are US-based (the company is based in the US, and most of its servers are in the US as well). So, because (gasp!) a small group of people outside the US might dare to catch a video (with ads!!), all of Witopia's US customers can't watch any content at all? This is the same ridiculous content industry mindset that drives so many people to unauthorized file sharing: they treat you as a criminal first and force you to prove you're not (or sometimes, don't even let you prove otherwise). The problem the industry is facing isn't due to some guy in Europe catching The Colbert Report from across the sea. It comes from turning off legitimate customers and users who are sick of being treated like crap.

108 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Stop Overreacting: Hulu Not Ditching Free Yet

from the hold-your-horses dept

A ton of readers here have been submitting various versions of stories claiming that Hulu is getting rid of free content. I'd been ignoring the story, because it's a non-story at this point. But people keep submitting it, so let's go through the details. Basically, at a Broadcasting & Cable event, News Corp. Deputy Chairman Chase Carey basically said that free content isn't the best way to monetize and that Hulu "concurs." Here's specifically how B&C reported it:

"It's time to start getting paid for broadcast content online," he said. Carey said that while everyone cites the infamous Jeff Zucker quip that "We'e exchanging analogue dollars for digital dimes," the industry continues to do exactly that. The strategy needs to be more than just fighting piracy and Google, he says.

"I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content. I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value," Carey said. "Hulu concurs with that, it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business."

AdVerse had a quick chat with Carey too and posed the question, when exactly does Hulu start charging then? Carey, who says he's only been to one Hulu board meeting since arriving at News Corp., suggests there is still no timeline but supposes it's at least in 2010. Carey says that while throwing up a pay-wall around all content is not the answer, it doesn't mean there wont be fees for some specially-created content and TV previews

So... this is really no different than what was said a few months back, when News Corp's Jon Miller started saying that Hulu should add subscription offerings. It's the official News Corp. position, ever since Rupert Murdoch suddenly flip flopped and decided free content online is evil. All News Corp. execs have now been making noise about trying to charge for content.

But... Carey is just one board member, not Hulu management, and has only been to one board meeting -- this is hardly an official announcement. He even admits that a paywall is not the answer. This isn't anything official from Hulu. So, before we freak out about how dumb this is, let's wait and see what Hulu actually does. As we've been seeing the ad rates on Hulu can be quite impressive, and the site itself is still somewhat new. So, yes, giving up on free content would be dumb, and would just drive people back to file sharing for TV shows. But until we see what Hulu is actually planning, the claim that Hulu is giving up on free content simply isn't supported by what's been said.

36 Comments | Leave a Comment..

New Estimate: YouTube's Bandwidth Bill Is Zero

from the remember-all-that-dark-fiber? dept

Earlier this year, there was an analyst report that got a lot of attention, claiming that YouTube's bandwidth bills were huge, and there was no way the site was likely to ever become profitable. Google critics gleefully danced on Google's grave, mocking the company for the purchase. However, the estimates by the analyst seemed off, and we began to wonder if the ancillary benefits of YouTube actually made the site a much better investment. In fact, Google later hinted at exactly that point. One of the major problems with the original estimates of YouTube's bandwidth costs were that they simply extrapolated out the cost of bandwidth, and never took into account Google's unique position -- such as the fact that, during the "down" years a while back, Google scooped up a ton of dark fiber for pennies on the dollar.

Now, a new analyst report points out that, given how much traffic runs through Google, combined with all that dark fiber it owns, there's a good chance that Google has set up peering relationships with other backbone providers, such that YouTube's actual bandwidth bill may be closer to zero. I'm not sure I believe that either, but at the very least, it points out that there's a lot more to consider here than simply extrapolating out the number of videos times the basic cost of bandwidth.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Limited Selection, Walled Gardens, Unskippable Ads... What's The Benefit Of TV Everywhere Again?

from the train-wreck-in-action dept

While Mark Cuban's insisting that TV Everywhere is brilliant, it's difficult to see what the benefit is for users. We already noted that the whole program seemed to be something of a mess with no one agreeing on standards, meaning that there might be a bunch of different ones. Oh, and then there's the whole plan to include way too many ads and not let users skip any of them. Meanwhile, Broadband Reports notes that the various players appear to be bickering with each other over who pays for what... and who gets compensated for what. The whole thing is a recipe for a disaster. As Broadband Reports summarizes, "bickering between broadcasters and TV operators, limited selection, walled gardens and unskippable ads" are the sort of things that drive people to other options, such as file sharing -- which is what TV Everywhere was supposed to prevent.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

State Wide TV Franchising Not Living Up To Lobbyists' Promises

from the lobbyists-inaccurate? dept

I'll be the first to admit that I actually agreed with the stance of telcos a few years back that local "franchising" rules were a problem. If you don't know, for a long time, if you wanted to offer cable-based television in a market, you had to get a "franchise" agreement from a local (town/city/region) authority. For many years, this meant a single cable company offering service with absolutely no competition. When the telcos came along with plans to offer television over fiber or DSL lines, they realized (accurately) that having to get approval in every tiny region would be cost prohibitive. This was all absolutely true, and it was also true that it was silly and unproductive for telcos to have to get so many different approvals and abide by so many different rules just to finally give the cable companies some serious competition in markets.

The telcos were successful in making their case, but, of course, these things never happen without a catch. Various states wiped out local franchises, and put in state-wide franchises... but, in doing so, the telcos were often able to dictate the terms of the state-wide franchise rights, making them quite friendly to the telcos, but not so friendly to others or to actual consumers. Apparently, states are now realizing that the promises given to them by telco lobbyists haven't been shown to be true. The insistence that statewide franchising would lead to lower prices for TV service, for example, hasn't been validated at all.

I recently got to hear first hand how the statewide franchise law in California is leading to serious problems for some really amazing local municipal and school networks, which will now get shut down, since the statewide law doesn't require it, as the local franchise rule did. I'm not convinced that the answer is to return to local franchising, which still seems like a process that is too convoluted for innovation. Perhaps the real answer is that none of this will matter eventually, once television all runs through your browser, anyway...

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Cable Companies Appear To Be Screwing Up TV Everywhere

from the what-a-surprise dept

Back in March, some cable companies announced plans for an offering called TV Everywhere, which was designed not to actually add value to your cable subscription plan, but to pressure TV networks to stop putting their content online for free, and offer it, instead, via cable authentication. For users, it would mean the ability to watch their cable subscriptions online, but only after they authenticate themselves, which seemed like a big hassle. It may be an even bigger hassle. Apparently, in this effort to take on things like Hulu (and, to a lesser extent, YouTube) no one at the cable companies got the message that simplicity is what made those sites work:

CBS Interactive president Quincy Smith this week proclaimed that there's no unified standard among cable companies for the project, and dozens of companies are all approaching back-end technology differently. There's also no real consensus between cable companies on how to proceed. One result? Users not having a central resource for video content.

Bowman suggested that projects like TV Everywhere may not yield a single site that will contain content from dozens of programmers. Instead, the authentication system the industry develops may be used to point pay-TV subscribers to several different sites to view their pay-TV content online.

Now that sounds like a winner.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Making Magazines Worth Buying: Magazines That Play Video

from the neat! dept

Earlier this year, we talked about how some magazines were really making an effort to make the physical magazine worth buying by doing cool things with the physical product. Most of those were niche publications, but there's some evidence that much more mainstream magazines are experimenting as well. Last year, Esquire Magazine experimented with an e-ink cover. However, it looks like Entertainment Weekly is going even further, by allowing CBS to embed video within an ad in the magazine. Yes, you read that right. Basically, a small video screen is installed in between two pages, and seen through a cutaway. Apparently, it works pretty well, with full-motion video, including sound (apparently somewhat loud, with no volume control, which is a bit annoying).

While a bit gimmicky (and probably quite expensive), it does get you thinking about some other possibilities for actually making physical magazines a bit more worthwhile.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Another Misguided Lawsuit: Ustream Sued Over Users' Actions

from the trademark-safe-harbors dept

It's no surprise these days to see that service providers are getting sued for the actions of their users, but it is always fun to see how the lawyers for the plaintiffs try to get around the obvious problems of DMCA or CDA safe harbors. The latest case involves boxing promoter One Ring suing Ustream, one of a number of live video streaming companies out there. Like the misguided lawsuit threat against Justin.tv, this involves a sports group suing the platform provider because a user turned their webcam towards the television, so that others could watch the stream. The DMCA pretty clearly makes these lawsuits entirely baseless, as the only liability is on the person who actually used the account and pointed the webcam at the TV (separately, the fact that you can potentially be guilty of copyright infringement for showing the world what you see with your own two eyes is quite troubling, but a discussion for a different day).

In this case, though, there's a little tidbit, brushed over by the original article, but which suggests how One Ring hopes to get around the DMCA safe harbors on copyright infringement. It's not just suing Ustream over copyright, but it's also claiming that since its logo was seen via the broadcast, Ustream is also guilty of trademark infringement. That's because there's an annoying loophole in that trademark is not technically covered by either the DMCA's safe harbors or the CDA's safe harbors. The DMCA only covers copyright, and the CDA specifically exempts "intellectual property," thus leaving trademark in nowhere's land between the two. Not surprisingly, this has become a popular loophole for lawyers to try to exploit (in fact, we were recently threatened on this very point).

That said, it still seems like Ustream should have a strong case. Even if trademark is not explicitly covered by a safe harbor, simple common sense should make it clear that the company should in no way be liable for the actions of its users. On top of that, claiming that its trademark infringement to show the One Ring logo is also quite questionable and hardly seems likely to stand up under scrutiny. Still, it's an annoying lawsuit that Ustream has to deal with, for no particular reason.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Details Behind Amanda Palmer's Amazing Impromptu Music Video

from the connecting-with-fans dept

On Friday, we posted a guest post from singer Amanda Palmer, all about her thoughts on connecting with fans. If you didn't get a chance to read the whole thing, at the end she included a music video that she did. However, the story behind that music video is so good that it deserves a separate post of its own. We already know that Amanda has been a big fan of using Twitter to reach out to fans, and she did exactly that in this case -- but not to film a video. Just to hold an impromptu "flash gig" on the beach with two days' notice. Cool idea. Other bands should try that as well.

And then... one of her fans suggested the morning of the gig that she learn this song by Cat Stevens. So she did. And she went to the beach and a bunch of her fans showed up and she played some music and everyone was happy. And then they realized that the setting was great to film a music video. One of the people there was Danna Kinsky, who hardly knew Amanda, but is a filmmaker, and had her camera. Another person there was Lindsey Barnes, a photographer, who agreed to shoot some photos of the group. And, with the help of Kirsten Vangsness to corral and organize people, they created an impromptu music video...

The whole thing was thought up, organized and completed in 20 minutes. There was some after the fact editing and sound work, which appears to have taken a few weeks, but the end result is really amazing. It's a better music video than an awful lot of expensive professional music videos... and it was a spur of the moment thing. As the video notes at the end, musicians shouldn't fear Twitter, but learn to embrace it:

It's really an amazing example of what you can do by connecting with fans. We're so thrilled that Amanda is taking part in our CwF + RtB experiment, that this week's special promo is that you can just buy her book and CD by itself (the book is signed by both Amanda and Neil Gaiman), or for a little bit more, you can also buy the whole Techdirt Music Club and get a bunch of other stuff as well. If you just want the Amanda Palmer stuff separate from The Music Club, it's only available until midnight August 10th, so don't miss out...

50 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Erin Andrews Nude Video Means We Should Regulate The Internet?

from the please-explain dept

In talking yesterday about the legality of viewing the "spy camera" footage of sportscaster Erin Andrews in her hotel room, someone pointed out in the comments that some journalists are now claiming that this shows why the internet needs to be regulated. Wait, what? How? Why? Creating the video was already illegal. What kind of regulation is needed here and how would it actually change anything? It seems that any time something "bad" happens some people suddenly jump up and insist "their oughta be a law!" without actually thinking through what that actually means.

Meanwhile, some others have noticed that this video apparently has been online for many months, and no one paid any attention at all to it until ESPN made a big deal out of it. Now, you can understand ESPN's general position, but it makes you wonder if there wasn't a better way to handle this that could have involved tracking down who was responsible without putting out a big press release and kicking off all this interest in the video. It's almost as if (perish the thought!), ESPN is actually trying to exploit this situation (and Andrews) to draw more attention to itself...

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is It A Crime To Watch The Naked Erin Andrews Video? No, But It Makes You A Total Jerk

from the didn't-stop-the-NY-Post dept

You may have heard that some miscreant somehow surreptitiously filmed well-known ESPN sportscaster Erin Andrews naked in her hotel room using some sort of pinhole spy camera installed the room. Obviously, this was incredibly illegal (apparently, the suspicion is that it was an insider at ESPN who knew which room she was in) and hopefully the person/people responsible are caught and punished. However, CitMediaLaw points out that some legal analysts are apparently claiming that it's criminal just to watch the video. But, that's not true. It makes you a terrible person, but it's not illegal. After talking about how a talking head legal analyst on CBS claimed it was illegal to watch the video, Carlos Miller checked in with a First Amendment lawyer who balanced the questions clearly:

According to Photography is Not a Crime's legal analyst Marc Randazza (yes, I have a few, so take that, CBS), Bloom is talking out of her ass.

"That CBS analyst needs more legal education and less melodrama," the Florida First Amendment attorney said in an email responding to my question.

He also added that although it is completely legal to download and view the video, he didn't have much respect for anybody who would.

"Anyone who does download it is kind of an asshole," he said. "She did have an expectation of privacy. We live in a society where the sleazes and the lowest common denominator individuals seem to thrive. If we dried up their mud flats, they would die off.

"What I mean by that is that downloading the video is legal. but doing so is a douchebag move. I certainly won't be downloading it (although I personally would love to see her naked too)."

As if to prove the point, apparently, the NY Post posted still images from the video -- and ESPN has responded by banning NY Post writers from ESPN. The Post didn't break the law, but that doesn't make it any less evil a move.

51 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Google To The World: Don't Be So Sure YouTube Isn't Profitable

from the and-there-we-go... dept

It was just a few weeks ago that we were suggesting all the talk about YouTube's inability to be profitable was suspect, and there was increasing evidence not that YouTube was profitable yet, but that the claims of how much they were losing didn't take into account the real situation. Still, it comes as a bit of a surprise for Google to come out with a blog post that basically tells everyone that they are way, way, way off in thinking that YouTube is a huge money loser for the company. The reason it's a surprise is because it actually seemed like Google enjoyed having people think that YouTube was such a loser, since it held back competition. Perhaps there was some fear that it was also holding down the stock price or something. Either way, hopefully we can put to rest the silly idea that YouTube is some sort of blackhole for money.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Hulu Admits: Content Companies Boxee'd The PS3 Too

from the not-making-people-happy dept

Earlier this year, there was an uproar when Hulu and Boxee got into a back and forth "blocking" of Hulu content on Boxee (with Boxee posting workarounds for every Hulu block) at the request of Hulu's content partners, who were worried about pissing off cable companies. The whole thing was silly. Boxee wasn't doing anything illegal or wrong. It just provides a specialized video web browser. Today, already, anyone who can hook up a computer to a TV can access Hulu on their TV using a regular browser. The only difference with Boxee was that it was a better browser for the TV. It's hard to see why that should be blocked. Then, a few weeks ago, the same thing happened with the PS3 suddenly being blocked from displaying Hulu content as well. Not surprisingly, Hulu has now admitted basically the same thing: it came under pressure from content partners. Hulu is (again) reasonably apologetic and open and honest about the situation, but again it raises questions about whether or not Hulu can really survive as it serves two masters, one of whom is so backwards looking it thinks that pissing off consumers who are doing something completely legal is a good business strategy.

71 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Cable Walled Garden TV Plans To Include Too Many Ads

from the of-course-they'd-screw-it-up... dept

We've already been incredibly skeptical of the plans by certain cable companies to get TV networks to limit their content such that it can only be accessed online if you have a cable TV subscription. The whole thing is based on setting up artificial barriers and artificial scarcity to hold back the inevitable. Such plans never do well. They piss off users and drive them to alternatives. And, of course, you just knew that the likes of Comcast and Time Warner Cable would like screw up the execution too. Many folks (myself included) have been surprised at how well (for the most part) Hulu executed, but just leave it to big cable companies not to learn from Hulu's success.

Reports are coming out claiming that when the shows are put online for this "TV Everywhere" program they'll include the full slate of ads seen during the regular TV version. Studies have shown that this is a bad, bad idea. Having so many commercials -- especially on a platform (the internet) with so many other options, simply drives people away. Hulu learned very quickly to limit the number of ads to just a few -- and it's discovered that (1) people actually pay attention to them and (2) they can charge higher rates. One more sign that this TV Everywhere program is a disaster in the making.

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

BT Throttling Online Video For Competitive, Not Congestion, Reasons

from the not-nice dept

While the broadband providers often talk up the need to break network neutrality in order to avoid "congestion" problems, most people have recognized that's just a smokescreen. The congestion issues are not an issue at all. Broadband costs have been going down, consistently, and most network engineers admit that with basic upgrades (nothing out of the ordinary), there's no bandwidth crunch to worry about. The real reason why broadband providers are interested in breaking network neutrality is because many of them want to get into the content business -- and they don't want to compete on even ground.

Case in point? BT. The British telco is starting to heavily throttle all video -- especially the BBC's online video player. This is the same BT, by the way, that just two years ago was saying there was no need to traffic shape or break net neutrality, and that it could handle all traffic issues with basic upgrades. So what happened? Well, it appears BT didn't like the competition from online video providers, so it decided to pretend it needed to do this for congestion purposes.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Cable Companies Aren't Immune From The Economy As More People Go Online-Only For TV

from the take-your-500-channels-and... dept

People are cutting back on lots of spending these days, but one area that was supposedly relatively safe was in-home entertainment expenditures. Things like cable and satellite TV and Netflix were thought to even thrive during economic downturns as people looked to limit going out, choosing instead to stay in and be entertained. While that seems to be working out for Netflix, cable companies are starting to feel the pinch as people drop their subscriptions and get their TV fix online. While it's a relatively small number of people that are making the move, it's the sort of thing that cable companies have been concerned about for a while. The WSJ story talks about some moves by the likes of Comcast and Time Warner to grab more online viewers, but if the cable companies continue to try and treat their online efforts in the same way as their traditional offerings, it's hard to see much success. It doesn't seem like a coincidence that this is happening as cable companies are looking to introduce caps on their broadband services. They say it's because some consumers are creating too much traffic, in part because of their online video viewing, and it's straining their networks. But perhaps it's just a way to try and capture lost TV revenue from cord-cutters? Of course, trying to get users who are going broadband-only for their TV to take on metered broadband seems like a good way to drive them to competitors with uncapped plans.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Everyone Assumes Copyright Only Applies When They Like It

from the silliness-all-around dept

Having written about copyright issues for so long, we've started to notice some trends. For instance, many people try to twist copyright law to the point where it only applies when it helps them, and suddenly doesn't apply when it helps them not to have it apply. In fact, this is so common that many people falsely assume that the same is true of us -- claiming that we'd be pissed if people copied our content (it's the usual retort to those who are unsure of copyright's benefits). Of course, for us, it's not true. If people want to copy our content for fun or for profit, they're free to do so. Yet, it is true that we often see people who should know better freak out when it's "their content" being used. These scenarios never make anyone look good.

You may recall the group NOM, an advocacy group fighting against gay marriage, that we talked about on this site a few weeks ago because of a bogus takedown notice it sent to YouTube on content that it almost certainly did not own the copyright on. NOM also seemed to have no sense of fair use.

How quickly things change.

NOM had no problem then taking 3 seconds of a clip from the blogger known as Perez Hilton and putting it in an advertisement. Perez Hilton the played the role of the copyright bully, sending a highly questionable takedown notice, claiming the 3 seconds was copyright infringement. Except, as pretty much anyone would tell you, the use was almost certainly fair use, and if anyone should know that, it's Perez Hilton. Yet, it was rather amusing to see NOM, just weeks earlier a staunch questionable takedown notice issuer, suddenly finding themselves on the flipside, defending fair use against a DMCA takedown.

And, how quickly things change again. Because just as Hilton is claiming that using 3 seconds of his own video is copyright infringement and not fair use, Ben Sheffner notes that Hilton has posted a 10 minute video of CNN footage, including his own Perez TV overlay and his own pre-roll ad at the beginning, along with a single sentence beneath the video.

Personally, I think both uses should be perfectly fine (the law, as it currently stands, is more likely to accept NOM's use, but not Hilton's), it's still illustrative of the way many people view copyright. It's an issue to protect you, but it's a hindrance when it gets in your way. Of course, we see this quite often with politicians. It's why Nicolas Sarkozy, who is pushing for incredibly strict new laws relating to copyright in France was found to have ignored copyright law when it suited him. We saw the same thing last year when a Canadian politician who was pushing for the Canadian DMCA was caught infringing on copyright himself.

While some claim it's just hypocrisy, I think it actually represents one of the fundamental flaws of copyright itself (or, really, any monopoly system). Monopolies aren't being used to create incentives to create. They're used to stifle others and to "protect." These days, almost everyone uses them and views them as tools of protection rather than an incentive to create. When you get so far away from the entire purpose of copyright law, you have a system ripe for widespread abuse.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

MPAA Shows How Teachers Should Record Movies By Camcording Their TVs

from the ok-then... dept

As you probably know, every three years, the Librarian of Congress gets to review requests for special "exemptions" to the DMCA. It's a ritual every three years, and every three years most people hoping to get rid of some of the worst abuses of the DMCA are disappointed. Back in 2003 very few exemptions were issued, and in 2006 it basically extended the exemptions and added a few very, very narrowly defined and specific exemptions -- and did nothing for consumers. This year, the process is going on again with a variety of requests for exemptions.

But, of course, the process also has some requests in the other direction as well... The entertainment industry, for example, would like fewer examples. Kevin alerts us to some video of a recent hearing, where the MPAA actually (you have to see it to believe it) demonstrates how to use a camcorder to videotape a movie off a TV:

Why would the MPAA show this? Because it wants to remove the (very narrow) exemptions that were granted in 2006 to media professors who wanted to copy clips of movies from DVDs for the purpose of education. But the MPAA wants the Library of Congress to take away that exemption, and is using this demonstration to show that a media professor shouldn't need to break DRM on DVDs, when they can go through the cumbersome process of recording the DVD via the "analog hole" of playing it on a TV and capturing it with a video camera.

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Hulu Continues Its War On Users

from the this-is-not-good dept

We've wondered in the past if it's really possible for Hulu to survive in the longterm, given its awkward position between consumers who want to watch content, and content providers who want to put massive limits on how people can access content. This got plenty of attention in the ridiculous (and totally unnecessary) fight to block Boxee. In that case, even Hulu admits that it would like to allow Boxee (which is nothing more than a different type of browser), but that its content providers won't allow it (despite the fact that anyone who uses Boxee can simply open up another browser and watch the same content).

One of the biggest complaints with Hulu is that its content is limited only to people in the US, so those trying to access it from elsewhere get a message saying "too bad." Of course, there have been rather simple workarounds, using proxy servers to access the content. A couple months ago, when I was in the UK, I wanted to watch something on Hulu, but was blocked because of the location. Luckily, I just logged into my VPN, and Hulu let me through. Yet, today that might not work. Apparently Hulu has started blocking various anonymous proxies, saying that to watch Hulu, you need to log out of the proxy/VPN and "prove" that you're really in the states. Beyond being ridiculous, this can be a security risk. Many of us use VPNs for security reasons.

Again, my guess is that this is due to pressure coming from Hulu content providers, rather than Hulu itself. It makes little to no sense for the company to waste time and resources blocking people from viewing their content. However, it's that ongoing split, whereby Hulu has to waste time and resources making its service worse that may eventually spell doom for the company. Those who are blocked are likely to just go elsewhere -- such as BitTorrent -- to find the content they want, and thus the content providers won't get any ad revenue, whereas on Hulu they do share in the ad revenue. It's difficult to see how it makes any sense. Sure, some might point out that there are "rights" questions involved -- since the content providers may not have licenses to display the content outside the US, but given the basic geographic restrictions the site has set up, you'd think that Hulu had passed a sufficient bar that no court would accuse the company or the content provider of willfully violating any license agreements.

There's a pretty simple maxim that Hulu may be unable to follow: if you have to spend time and money making your product worse, you're going to have a hard time surviving. I recognize that Hulu has been something of a success to date, but it's hard to keep that up when you keep screwing over your users.

47 Comments | Leave a Comment..