8-Day Delay on Hulu Triggers Piracy Surge

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Imagine that, as soon as the eight day delay went into effect for Fox programs on Hulu, piracy surged drastically. Kinda funny that we aren't talking about movies or paid content, these are regular TV shows that are being pirated.

It’s been a week since Fox stopped offering free access to its TV-shows the day after they air on television. The TV-studio took this drastic step in the hope of getting more people to watch their shows live and thus make more revenue. TV-viewers, however, are outraged by the decision and have massively turned to pirated sources to watch their favorite shows.
Click to expand...
 
I cancelled my TV service recently. I only watch a handful of shows, most of which are on premium channels. But to get those premium channels was costing me 100+ a month on a TV bill for about 2 hours a week of TV.

Much easier just to download the shows I want or watch them on Netflix / Amazon Streaming.
 
No surprise here..
Im not one of these people tho, I gave up on TV years ago.. Will never know why people pay to watch 50% commercials when its online without them.
 
Since FOX broadcasts for free, is it really "pirating" ?

That would be like calling pre-recorder FM radio pirating?
 
Again Big Content shows it only understands its failing business model. When alternatives are available, people will take them. Instead of fighting, monetize. Have they tried (forgive my ignorance--I'm not up to date on this stuff) charging a small fee (like, $0.99) to view immediately/day after and then making it free/ad supported 8 days after? That would make more sense...
 
Ahh, taste the wrath of the enlightened!
Money will come so long as you do not screw your customers.
 
Fursphere said:
Since FOX broadcasts for free, is it really "pirating" ?

That would be like calling pre-recorder FM radio pirating?
Click to expand...

They make money from advertising and license that content accordingly. If everyone downloaded it, instead of watching it live, the ratings would tank and companies would have no interest in placing ad's during that shows timeslot... and the show would be cancled.

In short... yes, it is piracy. There is no such thing as a 'free' lunch.
 
Sovereign said:
Again Big Content shows it only understands its failing business model. When alternatives are available, people will take them. Instead of fighting, monetize. Have they tried (forgive my ignorance--I'm not up to date on this stuff) charging a small fee (like, $0.99) to view immediately/day after and then making it free/ad supported 8 days after? That would make more sense...
Click to expand...

"Making sense" is not in their vocabulary.
 
dr.stevil said:
They make money from advertising and license that content accordingly. If everyone downloaded it, instead of watching it live, the ratings would tank and companies would have no interest in placing ad's during that shows timeslot... and the show would be cancled.

In short... yes, it is piracy. There is no such thing as a 'free' lunch.
Click to expand...

I don't buy this. Back in the good ol' days you would make a mixed tape by popping a cassette into the recorder and recording a song on a radio station. Is that piracy? I think not. It is in the public domain already (see patents).

Plus, when was the last time in the 80s and 90s you heard of people being sued for billions of dollars for making a tape?


Regardless, the 30-day USA block-out is much worse. Oh, and the fact that some shows aren't even online at all (Discovery, I'm looking at you...and Tosh.0).
 
This isn't rocket science. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUTTING IT ONLINE WITH COMMERCIALS AND PUTTING IT ON THE AIRWAVES WITH COMMERCIALS?

They sell AD SPACE either way.
 
Achron said:
I don't buy this. Back in the good ol' days you would make a mixed tape by popping a cassette into the recorder and recording a song on a radio station. Is that piracy? I think not. It is in the public domain already (see patents).
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong. While I think copyright law is horribly broken, your understanding of it is even worse.

One of the exclusive rights granted by copyright is the right to reproduce the work. The radio station is given permission by the copyright owner to reproduce (transmit over the air) the copyrighted work. You are not given a right to reproduce the work (record it to a casette). Recoding off the radio is a clear violation. Even playing a radio in a store is a violation the public performance clause of copyright.

People really need to educate themselves on the law and maybe finally we'd see some progress into getting copyright laws reformed. The only reason people didn't get sued is because it was much more difficult to track offenders as unlike with an IP address, there is no way to trace a cassette recorder from a remote location. Look to the Audio Home Recording Act for more information on knee-jerk reactions from Congressed based on the subject.
 
Achron said:
I don't buy this. Back in the good ol' days you would make a mixed tape by popping a cassette into the recorder and recording a song on a radio station. Is that piracy? I think not. It is in the public domain already (see patents).

Plus, when was the last time in the 80s and 90s you heard of people being sued for billions of dollars for making a tape?


Regardless, the 30-day USA block-out is much worse. Oh, and the fact that some shows aren't even online at all (Discovery, I'm looking at you...and Tosh.0).
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that people used to make mixed tapes off the radio... hell, I used to do it too. I also used to tape my favorite cartoons and fastforward through the commercials. That doesn't mean that I was licensed to copy and listen to it/view it.

With that said... I'm not saying that the logic isn't flawed... but that's the way that the system works. Fox isn't airing shows out of the kindness of their hearts... they're doing it because it makes them money. If they're not making money, they'll cancel the show in question.

This move, however, is stupid. Having to wait 24/48 hours was a PITA... let alone 8 days. I can certainly see why people would just download it instead of waiting. Maybe these networks should look into streaming their shows live via the internet as well as on TV. People then shouldn't be able to bitch too much and they still get their ad dollars. However, I have a feeling that the problem is also compounded by contracts with various networks and syndication deals (re-airings and such)
 
Advil said:
This isn't rocket science. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUTTING IT ONLINE WITH COMMERCIALS AND PUTTING IT ON THE AIRWAVES WITH COMMERCIALS?

They sell AD SPACE either way.
Click to expand...

Except advertisers aren't willing to pay the same amount for online that they do for airwaves. So it is "lost revenue" for them.
 
Achron said:
I don't buy this. Back in the good ol' days you would make a mixed tape by popping a cassette into the recorder and recording a song on a radio station. Is that piracy? I think not. It is in the public domain already (see patents).
Click to expand...

mixtaping is copyright infringement. do some searching on people getting sued for mixtaping (Jay-Z is a good place to start, or Timbaland, or Kanye). nor is stuff played on the radio in the public domain, its a public performance, which is why the radio stations have to pay to be allowed to play it. additionally, if you record a song on the radio and play it in your place of business without licensing it, you can (and if you are unlucky enough, will) be sued for it.
 
Inu said:
How do you pirate something that is already free?
Click to expand...

Copyright law doesn't require a price, copyright law simply defines certain rights, one of them is the right to reproduce.
 
demingo said:
I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong. While I think copyright law is horribly broken, your understanding of it is even worse.

One of the exclusive rights granted by copyright is the right to reproduce the work. The radio station is given permission by the copyright owner to reproduce (transmit over the air) the copyrighted work. You are not given a right to reproduce the work (record it to a casette). Recoding off the radio is a clear violation. Even playing a radio in a store is a violation the public performance clause of copyright.

People really need to educate themselves on the law and maybe finally we'd see some progress into getting copyright laws reformed. The only reason people didn't get sued is because it was much more difficult to track offenders as unlike with an IP address, there is no way to trace a cassette recorder from a remote location. Look to the Audio Home Recording Act for more information on knee-jerk reactions from Congressed based on the subject.
Click to expand...

Yes I know all of this...my statement was an opinion. It's the way (logically) things should be. Honestly I don't know how anyone makes any money off of radio advertisements, who listens to them anyway?

Like I was saying, the entire reason they never cared was because they KNEW it didn't dent their income (who here has never recorded a movie or song to a VHS or cassette?). Now, however, they know they can bully people around; damn you interwebz.
 
Fursphere said:
Since FOX broadcasts for free, is it really "pirating" ?

That would be like calling pre-recorder FM radio pirating?
Click to expand...

Pre recorded FM radio probably is pirating. I think you have to have some kind of license to have TV or the radio playing in a public place. Pretty soon they will sue you for driving down the street and being able to hear someone else's car radio without paying up.
 
I don't pay for TV either. It was too expensive for the few shows I do watch, so I just download em.
 
I think everyone here is misunderstanding, if you recorded the song from the radio it is NOT pirating. Same as if YOU recorded a TV show for YOU to watch yourself on your own equipment later. Piracy as it pertains to copyrighted works is done when YOU DISTRIBUTE the copyrighted work to another person without a license from the copyright owner. So long as you did NOT distribute the recording you made, you have not pirated anything, you are exercising your fair use rights as a consumer.
 
I can just get shows off of usenet and the ISP cannot see what is going on anyway.
 
If I can watch it OTA, it's fair game for downloading. There's no way you can convince me otherwise.
 
dr.stevil said:
Maybe these networks should look into streaming their shows live via the internet as well as on TV.
Click to expand...

This would make sense. It is another form of distribution that so many are overlooking. It's not just offering your shows for free to get people hooked so they watch it on TV. The Internet IS the replacement for cable/satellite service for me. Just as cable replaced OTA and satellite replaced cable (for many), streaming is the next part in the distribution evolution.

With Hulu (or Hulu Plus, or the others), you gained a single place to watch TV shows. Get a program or outlet that combines all the streaming shows, and it'd spread like wildfire. Only pay for what you watch (unlike satellite/cable which is buy everything, regardless of what you watch). Not sure of the economic model or anything else, but I'd switch. HTPC (or Roku box, etc) would be all you need. Sure, it's not the same quality as satellite (yet), but it's close. That's something that they can work on.

I didn't give up cable or DVR. But, there are many times when I'll watch online because I missed an episode, found a new show and want to watch the older episodes, or whatever. The networks are missing out on a whole new outlet for their media. Some of the media is only available through illegal channels. The networks won't release it online or on DVD/Blu. Piracy of one show led me to buy the whole series on Blu-ray. One episode downloaded - 4 seasons bought. I never watched it while it aired, which is sad (Heroes).
 
I record a lot of shows thru my DVR. I noticed sometimes the on-demand stuff for HD doesn't go up right away but the non HD stuff is up sooner. So shows I know never get put on on-demand right away go to my DVR instead. These days I rarely watch a show as it airs, its easier to watch shows at the time I want to watch it. And I think this is the direction a lot of people are going. Networks will have to adjust or the they can cancel every show they have and go out of business.
 
I just download all my TV shows online anyway. No commercials, and I get to see it when I want too. Not like I watch a whole lot of TV anymore anyway. It just so happens lately there's a lot of stuff for me to watch. Futurama, Top Gear (season ended), and the new Thundercats. That's it. I couldn't care what's on the news or what some celebrity thinks (celebrities don't really think).

Futurama's season is going to end soon, Top Gear already ended, and Thundercats has a while to go. What the hell else you got for me that's worth a damn to watch? Better yet, what could you possibly have for me to watch that's worth wasting half my life on commercials?

Downloading is here to stay for me. You want to make money off me? Then I suggest you start putting ads on the torrent web sites I visit. Otherwise tuff titties.
 
For me, it's not about the "free" aspect with no commercials and whatnot. It's the availability of the media. If I can't find it through legit means, of course I'm going to look elsewhere.

I'd gladly pay for what I download. I do in most cases.
 
Ur_Mom said:
This would make sense. It is another form of distribution that so many are overlooking. It's not just offering your shows for free to get people hooked so they watch it on TV. The Internet IS the replacement for cable/satellite service for me. Just as cable replaced OTA and satellite replaced cable (for many), streaming is the next part in the distribution evolution.

With Hulu (or Hulu Plus, or the others), you gained a single place to watch TV shows. Get a program or outlet that combines all the streaming shows, and it'd spread like wildfire. Only pay for what you watch (unlike satellite/cable which is buy everything, regardless of what you watch). Not sure of the economic model or anything else, but I'd switch. HTPC (or Roku box, etc) would be all you need. Sure, it's not the same quality as satellite (yet), but it's close. That's something that they can work on.

I didn't give up cable or DVR. But, there are many times when I'll watch online because I missed an episode, found a new show and want to watch the older episodes, or whatever. The networks are missing out on a whole new outlet for their media. Some of the media is only available through illegal channels. The networks won't release it online or on DVD/Blu. Piracy of one show led me to buy the whole series on Blu-ray. One episode downloaded - 4 seasons bought. I never watched it while it aired, which is sad (Heroes).
Click to expand...

I did the same, except I d/l all the other seasons too. Truth be told the shows were starting to get stale near the end.:)
 
comercials dont work. I watch 0 live TV. Life is too short. Why do I want to spend 3 hours to see a 1.5 to 2 hr movie? And why would I sit for an hour to watch a tv show that is aired for aprox 40 minutes while adjusting the volume up and down every 10 minutes because the comercials are loud and annoying. Can you say DVR. That destroys their so called business model right there and we havent begun to discuss online. The tv stations have brought this on them selves. As for hbo and the likes they are just too damn expensive when there are options like netflix outhere. Now if we can find a company that can provide cell service without forcing services you dont want down your throat or charging insane prices for their service.
 
Gee it kinda makes you wonder how different things would be if movies released in theaters and on dvd/bluray/payperview simultaneously like they have been considering for years now.
 
wasteomind said:
Gee it kinda makes you wonder how different things would be if movies released in theaters and on dvd/bluray/payperview simultaneously like they have been considering for years now.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't work. How would they sell the $10 bags of popcorn and $5 sodas?

I'd buy the Blu-ray straight away, though. I'd rather do it that way instead of the shitty theater. I have to drive an hour to go to a damn good theater worth watching movies at. Unless there are other people there, then it sucks. Some movies have to be seen on the big screen, most don't.

Commercials on a pay to watch system (cable/satellite) have baffled me. Usually, they pay for the content on OTA channels. That's how they got their income. Now, you pay twice. Once for the channels and again during the commercials. WTF? I'd pay for the shows themselves if I didn't have commercials the whole time. Kill cable, but watch what I want when I want would be great.
 
As to be expected. our society has enough schedules without having to adhere to strict scheduling to watch tv shows nor would anyone want to be 8 days behind in the conversation with everyone else. anyone that's had a taste of the freedom of watch on demand is going to struggle to return to watch regular scheduled broadcasting. you can't take away convenience from someone without expecting repercussions. people who watch hulu would think they're trying to do the right thing choosing a legal way to watch their shows and now feel entitled to do so they'd then feel that was stolen from them.

also of course tv shows are pirated no adverts, no schedule, no conflicts with simultaneously broadcast shows, can watch a show from the first episode if you hear about a show mid-season marathon style with zero interruptions, no massive airing delays in month non-us countries. also tv is better than movies these days. most movies suck cheese-covered dick making it not worth taking the risk to start watching a movie (even pirated) but its easy to find a good tv show and stick to it.
 
Advil said:
This isn't rocket science. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUTTING IT ONLINE WITH COMMERCIALS AND PUTTING IT ON THE AIRWAVES WITH COMMERCIALS?

They sell AD SPACE either way.
Click to expand...

at this point the ads for the TV get more money than internet ads? Still, they should just be the same if they aren't already. Stations need to adapt.
 
Parmenides said:
at this point the ads for the TV get more money than internet ads? Still, they should just be the same if they aren't already. Stations need to adapt.
Click to expand...

It'd be that higher ratings allows them to sell their ad space for more and also not give hulu a slice of their pie.

but who cares boo hoo fox isn't making enough money. sure they make more than i do.
 
Seiuchi said:
comercials dont work. I watch 0 live TV. Life is too short. Why do I want to spend 3 hours to see a 1.5 to 2 hr movie? And why would I sit for an hour to watch a tv show that is aired for aprox 40 minutes while adjusting the volume up and down every 10 minutes because the comercials are loud and annoying. Can you say DVR. That destroys their so called business model right there and we havent begun to discuss online. The tv stations have brought this on them selves. As for hbo and the likes they are just too damn expensive when there are options like netflix outhere. Now if we can find a company that can provide cell service without forcing services you dont want down your throat or charging insane prices for their service.
Click to expand...

Lots of good points after two years I'm glad you refreshed my memory of why I dislike cable tv.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top