
If TV Companies Released Authorized Torrents With Ads, Would You Download Them? - jsherry
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110831/02402915749/if-tv-companies-released-authorized-torrents-with-ads-would-people-download-them.shtml
======
dgallagher
The giant elephant in the room is being overlooked: Advertisements have a
lifespan measured in months, weeks, or days. Television content can stay
relevant for decades.

Imagine it's the year 1997. Aliens from the planet GNU have gone back in time
and provided us with bittorrent, and technology making dial-up modems a
million times faster (but they still drop their connection if your mom picks
up the phone). You just torrented and watched the latest Seinfeld episode,
"The Muffin Tops", and have forever changed your muffin-eating habits.

While watching, you saw ads for Apple's "Think Different" campaign, McDonald's
Arch Deluxe, and that "Da Da Da" Volkswagen commercial (which is now stuck in
your head). You go out and buy the car, buy a Mac, and buy a Big Mac because
the Arch Deluxe tastes like crap.

In 2007 you watch The Muffin Tops again. The old ads from 1997 are still
embedded in the file. Apple's ad seems weird since the logo is all rainbows.
You drive to McDonald's to get an Arche Deluxe because now you're an adult and
it'll taste good, but they don't have it anymore, so you cry and drive home to
sign a petition website to bring it back. Nobody ever reads it. Along the way
your Volkswagen breaks down and you remember how that terribly sounding ad
tricked you into buying such an unreliable piece of junk. You get a lift from
the aliens, but they charge you one anal probe for the ride. Now you hate
Apple, hate McDonalds, hate Volkswagen, and hate that the aliens didn't have
the common decency to at least warm up their metal tools before use. Ouch.

~~~
LogicX
Except this same scenario happened if you recorded off TV; or used a DVR like
Tivo.

Now imagine the benefits of a torrent option where they have the option of
updating the ads every 6-12 months; and releasing fresh torrents (or even
better they use your IP Geo info when you fetch the torrent and have region-
specific torrent offerings with different ads in them.)

Maybe if its a legit source, you're more likely to download it when you need
it from the trusted source, instead of hoarding the file for 10 years,
swapping it with friends through other means, etc.

Bonus for increased likelihood that you're swarming with people closer to you
instead of slower connections on the other side of the globe

~~~
DannoHung
Orrrr, even better, the container they send the show in dynamically changes
the ads based on what advertisers are trying to sell.

~~~
archangel_one
That would also make it drastically easier for the playing software to skip
them entirely though.

~~~
sqrt17
Having two versions that only differ in the ads would also make it very easy
to take only the common (non-ad) content and throw away the rest.

Considering that there is DRM software, and that it's largely accepted for at
least some content (PC games), it's a wonder that there's no digital format
where a DRM software plays the content you downloaded after playing some
relevant ads to you. (Kind of like crunchyroll, or youtube, but with
bittorrent distribution like vuze).

Saying that, if vuze or bittorrent.com implemented that scheme, would there be
enough of of an indie films community that would supply the first round of
content to such an app? And - would people prefer this to youtube or
crunchyroll if they can get the same content without installing a bittorrent
program?

~~~
archangel_one
Yes, but to do that you'd have to download two versions then throw some
special software at them - or someone else would have to do this then supply a
new torrent without them, which would mean you weren't getting it from an
official source any more. Whereas if your movie has embedded directives saying
"get some ads from ads.hbo.com to fill in 6:25 to 7:45", it seems pretty
trivial to have the player software respond to that as "skip straight from
6:25 to 7:45".

As for the DRM software thing - that does solve that problem, but to me it is
a deal killer. Yes, I would probably download TV from the "official" torrent
with ads if it's just a movie, but if it's some DRM-laden mess that has to be
played through their proprietary player, no way. Also, there would seem to be
very little chance of getting a Linux version of the DRM software which would
be a practical deal-killer for me even if I got past the conceptual issue.

~~~
sokoloff
How hard would it be for _someone_ to download both versions, do the diffs,
and create the instructions, get torrent X, and play from 0:30 to 6:25, skip
straight to 7:45, etc?

The differencing task would be the perfect app for the new unlimited inbound
bandwidth at linode. :)

------
cookiecaper
I would definitely do that. I'd be highly attracted and would use it instead
of pirate trackers because there wouldn't be any potential negative legal
ramifications. I can't stand the streaming experience provided by most
vendors; I find Flash the most detestable component thereof, but I also
strongly dislike being forced to redownload data if I want to watch again or
even make significant seeks. I don't necessarily have a problem with ads.

However, I would prefer to patronize a tracker that required subscription fees
and didn't display ads. I have thought about launching a startup that would
provide media companies with the platform to do this. There are a lot of
interesting possibilities for both producers and consumers there.

At the same time, advertisement is so deeply ingrained in the operation of TV
companies that I am not really sure they'd ever be comfortable moving to a
model of distributing TV that didn't rely upon an advertisement as a revenue
stream.

As jerf mentioned, these companies love streaming because it gives the same
kind of control they get from "streaming" the broadcast to your television;
all the content is retained server-side and the user doesn't get their own
copy without special initiative (DVR/VCR). They are still able to consolidate
control of distribution under the streaming model (or the iTunes model, where
they ask Apple to remove the file and it's apparently gone forever) and I find
it unlikely that they'll be willing to give that up.

This is primarily hypothetical as I consciously avoid almost all TV and
movies.

~~~
davedx
This is what I don't understand about cable TV (as I've used it in the UK,
Australia and the Netherlands anyway; not sure about the US model). It's
rammed full of adverts, yet we're already paying a subscription for the
service. I'm sure there is a simple explanation for this, but what gives?

~~~
cookiecaper
Essentially, they do it because they can. People expect advertisements on TV
so they accept it even with a subscription to cable; cable offers value that
otherwise wouldn't be available by offering a lot of channels that are not
accessible over-the-air in any market. It's not like a website with a premium
ad-free subscription where the content is the same, only without
advertisements. Cable also prevents fiddling with antennae/reception, etc.

The cable company I'm sure would argue that your subscription fees pay only
broadcast and signal transport costs and that the individual channels run
advertisements to pay for their operation and production.

------
jrockway
No. Why would I watch content with ads when I can already watch the same
content without ads?

Content middlemen: you've lost. The 21st century has no place for you.
Distribution is now dirt cheap and dirt simple. You can't add any value
because you don't solve any hard problems. All you've done for the last 10
years is make content harder to pay for.

Content creators: make content, add it to your website, charge $2 (or
whatever) for a DRM-free download, and enjoy money forever. People will pay
you for making things if you let them. No, you won't get a billion-dollar lump
sum just for coming up with an idea. Sorry, those days are over too.

(Also, I'm not willing to share my 'net connection with big companies. You
have money, buy your own bandwidth.)

~~~
teamonkey
Why would I pay $2 to watch content without ads when I can just download the
same content from a torrent site for free?

~~~
eropple
Because, fundamentally, most people aren't assholes.

I vacillate between both sides of the piracy issue. I used to pirate, when I
was 14 and had no money. About the time I turned 16 or so I realized it wasn't
a good idea and pretty much went without if I couldn't buy it; I saw no reason
why other people couldn't do likewise, and got pretty annoyed at the casual
piracy at the time. Having graduated from college and moved into a nice job, I
buy stuff pretty much on the basis of "it looks interesting and it's only two
bucks," and I can't bring myself to care about the pirates at all anymore.
They're not part of my worldview.

If you can make the process of buying something simple enough and pain-free
enough, I think that most people who can afford it will buy it. Others will
pirate it because they can't afford it, and I think that there's a compelling
argument to be made that many of those will eventually become regular
consumers when they've got the money to do so. There surely is a group of
dyed-in-the-wool douchebags who will never buy anything they can pirate
because they are, at their cores, Bad People, but them's the breaks--I've come
to the gradual understanding that these people are shitty human beings who
will screw others so long as they don't have to look them in the eye to do so,
and all you can do is write them off.

But I think that, for the most part, if you treat your potential customers
right, they'll do right by you. (The same is not true, I think, of "donate
what you want"--I strongly feel that method of revenue generation encourages
people to pay as little as they can rationalize, and what even nominally
'good' people can rationalize is really really small. But that's another
topic.)

~~~
mbreese
> Because, fundamentally, most people aren't assholes.

I think that the concept is that piracy is a symptom of a broken market, not
the cause of a broken market.

If something costs more than someone thinks it is worth, or they have
difficulty obtaining it in an 'easy enough' manner, they will revert to
piracy. However, if something is available at an appropriate price point with
easy access, then piracy will diminish (down to people who only think that
everything should be free).

As far as the 'donate what you want' concept, Panera Bread has a few locations
that are like this [1]. I can't remember the details, but I think that it all
ended up evening out. They would give you a suggested cost, and you paid what
you wanted/could.

[1]
[http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2011-05-16-pan...](http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2011-05-16-panera-
pay-what-you-can_n.htm)

------
wisty
I was reading a book called "Super Crunchers" (a book on industrial use of
data-mining), and it mentioned a company called "Epagogix" which predicts
movie profits (also covered less tersely by Malcome Gladwell -
<http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_10_16_a_formula.html>).

In Super Crunchers, it describes a meeting between Epagogix, some potential
investors, and some Hollywood heavyweights. The investors quizzed the movie
guys on why they didn't want to buy in - the movie guys said that even if
Epagogix could get 100% accurate, they wouldn't use it. If they used it, they
would lose some of their own influence, and so they wouldn't get invited to
the right parties. The investors loved that response, because it meant that
the market was ripe for disruption. Epagogix wasn't so happy, though.

When broadcasters control a channel, they don't just get to tax it. They get
personal perks as well.

You might think that the purpose of toll boothes is to pay for roads. People
who work in toll boothes might think it's the other way round.

TV channels are the same - you might think execs are there to ensure only good
shows get access to limited screen-time, but they think that limited screen-
time exists to keep them in a job.

------
rb2k_
I can see the message already: "The torrent you're trying to download is not
available in your country"

Thank you content industry...

~~~
ashconnor
Then I have to mess around with HTTP headers just so I can watch The Daily
Show.

~~~
dhughes
I get a kick out of www meaning "world wide web" but it's used on websites
where I can't see anything due to my location in this wide world using the
Web.

------
sliverstorm
So long as the ads are a small portion of the video and the recording is high-
quality, of course! I could probably even be talked into ignoring the equally
high-quality rips without ads- I would love to encourage such a forward-
thinking model.

Now, if we're talking 10 minutes of content and 20 minutes of advertising,...
no.

~~~
pan69
Also, the audio of the commercials shouldn't be louder than that of the
content.

------
jerf
Surprised nobody else has said this in the three hours this has been up, but:
Can I skip them? Are they just embedded into an mp4 file that otherwise has
nothing special about them? Yeah, sure.

Are they in some DRM'ed format with a player which mandates playing the ads
without skipping? No, absolutely not.

It's a null issue anyhow because it's not on the table. Everybody wants to
stream you stuff so you can't keep it, and can't accidentally derive any
unanticipated value from it. I honestly have no idea what would get people to
give up the idea of streaming stuff to you.

~~~
sausagefeet
The main problem I see with not doing the latter option is targeting ads. You
simply can't give the same ad to someone in Boston as you give to someone in
LA.

------
hermannj314
I live in Europe, but absolutely "need" to watch American television. My only
option is Hulu via a US VPN or Usenet. Currently, I choose the Usenet route. I
would be glad to pay for some 3rd option. I have disposable income to give
away, but if giving it to you is worse than my 2nd best option, you lose.

I just forked over nearly $100 today to buy access to Big Ten Network live
streaming of football games for the 2011-2012 season. I did this because I
need this access and there was no better option. There were free options,
trust me, a little googling and I can get any NCAA football game for free, but
Big Ten offered the best quality of service at a great price.

Regular TV. Why can't you learn from the football guys? I honestly have no
idea how to access American broadcast TV from Europe. Outside of waiting 20
years for reruns of Twin Peaks to appear on basic cable.

------
jeffool
Absolutely. I was recently kicked off my cable provider's ISP for excessive
DMCA violations (torrenting) after DVRing and their OnDemand services proved
too shoddy to actually watch. (And I forgot to DVR one show, to be fair. That
one's completely on me.)

It seems that they could ask you to sign in to a service, offer free show in
segments, and build in local (or at least relative) advertisements.

I'm told web ads cost less than traditional ads. With growing numbers watching
plus interactivity, I don't get that. But even so, for generations TV has made
its job to take in insane amounts of money on the back of free programming. I
find it amazing that given the ability to spread their show faster and cheaper
the more people watch it, they're now having trouble with this.

Please, let me give you my time and eyeballs. Stop suing because we want to
watch the shows you've told us are available for free, our entire lives.

~~~
sliverstorm
_Stop suing because we want to watch the shows you've told us are available
for free, our entire lives._

Amen. They should be thrilled their product is getting torrented so much- it
means people like their product so much, they will commit crimes to get it.
Few businesses are blessed with the problem of too many rabid fans.

~~~
teamonkey
It's only great if you can monetize it.

~~~
sliverstorm
Either way, they still have half the problem already solved.

------
pan69
I guess one of the issues here is localisation. If you insert a commercial in
a video then everyone, everywhere needs to watch that same commercial.

Also, commercials tend to go stale. You want to switch commercials based on
season or even current affairs. This doesn't allow you to do that, T.V. and
streaming video does.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it but I think these are two major issues
potential advertisers will struggle with.

~~~
jeffool
I can easily see them using a custom client so that they can segment the shows
and add localized/fresh ads even as you go back and watch reruns.

~~~
onedognight
_I can easily see them using a custom client_

i.e. Hulu.

------
w1ntermute
No, not a chance. A lot of people say that torrents are inconvenient or
unreliable, but that hasn't been my experience. If you use a good private
tracker, you are _guaranteed_ good & fast downloads, no strings attached.

After not watching TV except when with friends and using ABP in my browser for
several years, I've become hypersensitized to ads. I simply cannot stand
watching them.

------
Qz
If it was DRM-free and available immediately (no 8 day delay bs), then yes.
Constantly refreshing TPB waiting for a torrent to pop up for a show that
aired >3 days ago is more annoying than commercials.

------
stevengg
I have an honest question why should I pay when the product they are offering
is inferior in every way to the setup I have been using for the last 2-3
years? For the past few years I have used a irssi script that is setup with
the tv shows that I want to download and the quality i wish to have them
downloaded in this takes about 5 minutes to setup and about the same to
maintain every season after this five minute time investment I’m getting shows
less then a half an hour after they air on the east coast in 720p with no
commercials that means when I’m ready to watch them that night or later that
year they are ready to go with no hassle no worrying about whether or not its
on netflix or waiting a week to see it on hulu if i want to see breaking bad i
can watch it 15 mins after its done airing on the east coast and be done
before its even done airing in Texas until they can offer up something to
match that I don’t see any reason to meet them half way.

------
xenophanes
It's the same as the answer to: Can I watch them in VLC?

Also I'm not actually going to watch the ads. It's not very hard to skip
ahead. So how much can they really be paid for those ads?

~~~
cookiecaper
I think they can still get paid pretty well for them. For one, if these
releases occur, they're better than nothing; right now, media companies derive
no advertising revenue from torrented files with ads embedded because they
don't offer them at all. Even if they have to sell for a reduced price, that's
better than zero.

Furthermore, "skipping the ads" isn't that big of a deal. People do it on TV
all the time by getting up to go do something else, changing the channel,
muting the television, etc., when the commercials play. Those with DVRs or
VCRs fast-forward, as a VLC user might. VLC doesn't really offer much better
fast-forward features than the VCR; unless you also download a pre-defined
chapter file (and I don't think many people hate ads _that_ much), this is no
different than using DVR/VCR and there's no point in paying less for these
ads. VLC users will still visually see your logos, commercial, etc., while
watching and I think that has value too, and again, the situation in that
respect is no different from conventional methods.

I think the real logistical issue here is that it'd be much more difficult to
insert localized ads. Hulu et al can use IP geolocation to target local ads (I
don't know if they do or not, but it's possible), but a nationally distributed
mp4 file would only have nationally distributed advertisements. This causes
some havoc on the current pricing system, as it cuts affiliates, who manage
the advertisements on conventional TV, out of loop. Perhaps the corporate guys
like this, but as long as terrestrial broadcasts are the predominant form of
distribution, corporate is always going to be careful not to disrupt the
affiliates' revenue stream too much.

------
fractalcat
No. Definitely not. However, I would pay money for a no-DRM HD video file
released under some kind of CCesque license that gave me the legal freedom to,
say, watch it with a friend. (I know this will never happen).

------
cgag
Can't say that I would. I'd rather risk the small chance of legal trouble on a
private tracker than have to skip ads or cut them out myself.

I would however consider paying to download shows without ads if they were
cheap.

------
Vivtek
Damn straight I would. Not that anybody seems to be willing to do that.

------
mantalk
Content thinks about this a little bit differently.

Here are a few factors that may make the proposed offering less favorable than
the status quo, even if you factor in piracy:

(1) Windowing. First-run content is way more valuable than longer tail
content. So sure, Simpsons episodes can go for $2 on Amazon and eventually
come bundled on Netflix, but only after a wait. This is a more favorable
situation for content. Different media and different windows command different
fees, and this allows content producers to sell to different people at
different times. In the case of Scrubs, for instance, Buena Vista/ABC produced
the content, sold the first run rights to NBC (who paid ~20% of cost for
first-run rights) and then later syndicates it to Comedy Central and others.
They ultimately become available on DVD, iTunes, etc.

(2) Advertising revenue isn't enough. That's right, in many cases, only around
half of value comes from advertisers. "But TV is free on my bunny-ears!"
Sure...but not if you pay for cable. If you do, the cable guys have to pay
retransmission consent to content guys, and those costs can be considerable.
On cable, most if not all of the content revenues are from subscription fees.

(3) Bundling. Taking in subscription revenue allows content to take bigger
risks on (potentially) great content, and to invest more in it upfront. Think
about HBO. They cost a fortune, but I think that many would argue that they
are worth it.

On a related note... I part of a new TV startup that addresses many of these
issues. We're serious, we're venture-backed and we're disruptive. PM me if
you're interested.

------
masaq
I would. Presumably the less informed will have to endure the ads, but I and
others like me with the know-how will find a way to skip them if they are too
intrusive. One or two 30 second ads... maybe I wouldn't even bother skipping
them.

I don't know what the situation in the states is right now, but in the UK the
majority of the big channels have Flash-based streaming versions of their
shows available online very soon (hours) after they've aired (in the case of
the BBC some of the shows are available live). The BBC is publicly funded - so
no ads - but ITV and Channel 4, the other big players, do have ads, and most
people, anecdotally, have no problem with this given the convenience.

I still download episodes of US shows I or my partner enjoy regularly, but if
the networks were to offer these shows on their sites with ads I'd be more
than willing to watch them there.

For overseas viewers the problem, as other posters have mentioned, is region
locking. If the show is sold to overseas markets they cannot then offer the
show to viewers in that market. The model needs to change and incorporate
revenue sharing with these other markets - but history has shown us these big
businesses are unable to do this sort of thing in a timely manner. And that
could ultimately be their downfall.

------
steve621
Product Placement. Product Placement. Product Placement. Product Placement.
Product Placement. Product Placement.

I know it's kind of annoying/cheap sometimes when a camera zooms in on the Bud
Light logo in a fridge, or when Don Draper says that he loves Smirnoff (lawl),
but its the only choice that the studios have. They must turn to product
placement as their primary source of advertising revenue.

Because if they just release it, realistically, somebody will just download
the file, remove the ads, and reupload it so the net effect will largely stay
the same. One huge difference is that people who normally dont torrent and
stream (like my girlfriend and mom) would probably do this. Granted for every
episode they download, I download 10, but its an improvement.

If they would offer torrents with ads, available IMMEDIATELY upon airing it
(say the torrent is available the second the show airs or 20 minutes before or
next week or whatever) and I could get it at a comparable speed (or faster)
than TPB, then that would change things. Product placement is still much
cleaner and more sustainable.

~~~
tomjen3
Well that would be a good way to get me of watching new tv episodes, that is
for sure.

I hate product placement because it breaks the story and my suspension of
disbelief.

But hey, maybe I would get more done that way.

~~~
steve621
fair enough, but they would get better at it. they would (hopefully) get more
subtle with the product placement and make it more natural.

or they could just mess it up terribly and ruin television forever.

------
tjmc
No. However I would pay for content if the bandwidth to stream it was included
in the price. Here in Australia most broadband is metered. Globally, most 3G
and 4G bandwidth is metered. I'd much rather stream something in HD that I can
watch immediately rather than torrent a lower quality version because I don't
want to blow my data allowance.

------
InclinedPlane
Let's not kid ourselves, the salad days of broadcast TV are over. They
happened due to a quirk of technology that imposed unusual restrictions on the
transmission and consumption of media for a few decades, restrictions that had
not been present before or since. These unusual conditions made monetization
of broadcast media far easier and far more lucrative than it would have been
otherwise.

The result was an unusual era of TV content that was exclusively ad supported
and also generated far more revenue than it should have. That era is now
coming to a close. This is a catastrophe for the folks who have come to live
on the anomalous gravy train that has been broadcast TV in the 2nd half of the
20th century. Nevertheless, distributing and consuming video content has
become easier and cheaper than ever, the industry will survive and thrive as
new business models take hold.

------
whichdan
I would watch streaming TV shows with targeted ads, but I don't think I would
download a TV show with generic ads. If there's an advertisement before a
YouTube video plays, I'll avoid watching it, but if it means that I can watch
a TV show without paying $2-3 per episode, I'd feel a lot warmer about the
idea.

------
neilrahilly
No. I'm tired of waiting for downloads, dealing with external hard drives, re-
encoding video files, syncing my phone/tablet/TV, etc. Streaming is such a
superior experience. Search, hit play, watch. Happy to watch an ad or pay a
subscription for that convenience.

------
ryanwhitney
I would, but unfortunately they'd never release torrents with ads unless they
could stop you from skipping them.

The only way to do this would be a custom filetype and player, no? And the
chances of of being able to stream that to your xbox or media player...

~~~
zizee
_unless they could stop you from skipping them._

But with ubiquitous PVRs on the horizon (which will compete on their merits)
the ability for the unwashed masses to skip ads automatically is pretty much
upon us.

I think that the problem for television broadcasters is that they realise if
everyone gets used to downloading shows to watch on demand, they'll become
increasingly irrelevant. So, instead of cannibalising their existing
businesses to reinvent themselves, most of them will kick and scream to try to
delay the inevitable.

It's mostly amusing, apart from the fact that all the kicking and screaming
ends up in pain for us because part of it involves bribing congress critters
to protect the incumbents failing business models.

------
rglover
I think something like this may be good as a supplement to an online streaming
service. Since the users who will take advantage of such a thing will
generally be more advanced than the average viewer, I think this would best
fit as a premium service (perhaps strip the advertising). Pay a certain amount
each month and you can download the episode for later viewing.

This is the kind of stuff broadcasters should start experimenting with now.
Stop looking for a permanent solution and try things out. Why do you think
fast food chains have test markets for new products?

------
younata
I've taken to just buying a season/series on dvd, then ripping them to a hard
drive.

I get the double whammy of 1) I feel all good and whatnot of making sure the
content produces get some money (even if it's realistically, like, 10% of what
I payed to get the series), and 2) I have rather high quality masters that I
can then rip rather high quality copies to a hard drive.

Also, this is faster than just torrenting the shows at similar quality. (maybe
a few days, regardless of the show compared between a day and more than a
week, depending on the popularity of the show)

~~~
w1ntermute
> Also, this is faster than just torrenting the shows at similar quality.
> (maybe a few days, regardless of the show compared between a day and more
> than a week, depending on the popularity of the show)

Is it? In my experience, most DVD/Blu-ray rips of TV show boxsets are released
online before their retail date because an employee at a Wal-Mart somewhere
grabs a copy and sources it to a scene group.

As for the actual download time, I'd say it's faster than ripping the DVDs as
well, not to mention the hassle of inserting/removing 5+ DVDs is just
annoying.

------
pessimizer
I'm pretty sure that there's no way to do this without effectively just
releasing pristine copies that somebody will cut the ads out of within 5
minutes of them being posted. They could use their own DRM'd file format and
media player, but that would be broken in a week and have the effect of just
releasing copies that somebody would cut the ads out of within 5 minutes of
them beng posted.

I can't think of any scheme except maybe releasing content through torrents
that no one would care about enough to cut the ads out within 5 minutes of it
being posted.

Wait - maybe intense product placement/integration into television shows? It's
inevitable really; with DVRs most people aren't watching traditional
commercials anyway. Maybe content producers need to, as a group, get over the
artistic squeamishness they have about setting scenes in a Taco Bell...

Maybe the answer might be as per jrockway's comment below:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2958478>. Ditch ads, put up a massive
torrent site with killer bandwidth, charge 50 cents a torrent. Entire season
for 7 bucks, no risk of prosecution? Might be worth it to most people. Trickle
of cash recieved in perpetuity? Might be able to finance pretty high quality
shows.

OK - flight of fancy coming: How about an investment market for television
shows and movies? People put together trailers, pilots, or maybe just
announcements and attachments to a project, and people can buy shares in that
project based on how many absurdly cheap downloads they think it can wrangle,
and they buy those shares _on the same site where the torrent will be hosted
for download_. The gambling prospect would be a pretty good incentive for
people to already have credit card attached accounts when it comes to
downloading, and good investments could pay for your habit, or even bring a
return. These shares could be traded in perpetuity, and would pay dividends
monthly of the download revenue minus the infrastucture cost.

Even farther down the rabbit hole: The cost per download could be determined
by an (open) algorithm combined with a voting system by the current
shareholders. If they're not liking their return, they could state what they
think the ideal price would be to maximize that return, and that price would
be weighted with their amount of ownership to determine the current price of
that content. Maybe to simplify that system, they could be given simple
upvotes and downvotes? I feel that the math could be worked out.

This would incentivize shareholders to market the content themselves in social
and in blogs.

Completely crazy talk: Free downloads of collections of trailers. Shareholders
of one film could vote to dilute and give shares in their content to the
shareholders of content that is sure to attract a large group of eager
downloaders, in order to have the trailer to their film or sample of their
show included in a collection that the known anticipated content will also be
on.

\-----

Maybe this is an efficient way to motivate people to

1\. Invest in the shows that they like, 2\. Proselytize about the shows they
like, 3\. Watch (and pay trivial amounts for) content in order to be familiar
with the market (especially obscure content, to get an edge.), and 4\. Set by
guessing the prices that people would be likely to pay for content.

For me, this might be the MMORPG/fantasy baseball from hell. I'd be futzing
around with my investments and looking for new things that were coming out
_all day_.

edited: for clarity.

~~~
bryanlarsen
"I'm pretty sure that there's no way to do this without effectively just
releasing pristine copies that somebody will cut the ads out of within 5
minutes of them being posted."

The scene will probably just ignore the bittorrent copies. Over-the-air
digital is already a pristine copy at a much higher bitrate so would be the
preferred source.

~~~
cpeterso
If I ran a media company, I would seed slow, low-quality (but not fake)
torrents. That would boost the benefit of paying for fast, direct downloads of
high-quality legit content.

------
voidfiles
The question misses the point. Networks wouldn't care where there shows were
distributed if they could make as much money from new distribution channels as
old ones. That is really all they care about. If you have ever heard the term
analog dollars, for digital pennies, it's talking about this exact problem.

------
vena
i don't really see the point. i can't imagine the transfer protocol matters.
otherwise, putting ads that have less capability than web streams (because
they're contained in a local file) seems like a red herring. content companies
have tried streaming and they've simply decided they don't like the internet.

it seems to me that content available online experiences immediate
devaluation. why am i going to pay more to place an ad during your content
when i can target the same audience for pennies elsewhere online? why am i
going to pay the same for syndication or for physical media?

streaming license costs will continue to rise until they reach equilibrium
with existing revenue streams with the corresponding rise in access costs, or
decent quality streaming will cease to exist (legally). likely the latter will
happen simply as a result of the former.

------
notatoad
no. their competition is torrents without ads. why would i volutarily choose a
worse product?

i pay for netflix, because they have added value by being convenient and
available on lots of devices without any fuss. simply being legal is not a
real advantage, and certainly not one i am willing to pay for.

------
rimantas
Oh, how I hate this "ads will pay for everything" attitude. I'd pay for
content with an option to get it via torrent. Torrent is mostly a convenience
to me not a way to get something for free. Especially when something is not
even available by official channels, for money or not.

------
cabalamat
I certainly would. I don't like streaming because the picture sometimes stops
for the feed to catch up.

------
jodoherty
I would rather just pay them a small subscription fee to download their
advertisement-free content via torrents after watching streaming
advertisement-laced versions for free on their website and choosing which
shows I'd actually want to buy and enjoy.

------
pakeha
Yes, primarily because I wouldn't need multiple content subscription sources
any more (HBO, Hulu, Netflix). Obviously I'm making some assumptions about how
such a system would work, but I'd rather pick and choose content than pick and
choose providers.

------
fsniper
No. I would not do that. Advertisements are just distractions. Paying a
reasonable amount for reasonable conditions (like no available way to recall
or restrict media) and high quality would be a better and viable option for me

~~~
fsniper
Ofcourse with no adds.

------
rheide
I wouldn't. And I'm guessing a lot of other people wouldn't either. I think
it's better if TV companies found different ways of making money rather than
forcing their customers to watch ads that they don't want to see.

------
8plot
I'd rather skip the ads and just pay some money directly for the shows I like
and want to encourage to continue. Because I don't want to be tracked, I'd
prefer bitcoin.

~~~
zizee
_Because I don't want to be tracked, I'd prefer bitcoin._

Don't Bitcoin's encode all transactions that they have been used for into the
coin? Unless you use some intermediary to launder your payment bitcoin
provides the ultimate in publicising your spending. And if you use an
intermediary they'll be tracking your transactions.

~~~
jarin
No, you can generate a new address for each transaction.

------
forkrulassail
That would be great, but only after someone integrated this with SickBeard and
has coded an automated script to remove ads at the defined locations in every
video file.

------
ikawe
TV companies don't want "an advertisement". They want a stream of advertising.
This is a lot less possible with bittorrent.

------
michaelbuckbee
To some extent this is happening already with in tv show product placements,
maybe that is just the future of things.

------
akshat
Isn't Hulu pretty much the same thing?

------
quellhorst
Torrent isn't needed for authorized content. Ads can be updated and targeted
without torrents.

------
vectorpush
People would just skip the ads.

------
reustle
They stole this question right off of AskReddit

------
ericmoritz
Yes.

------
joeguilmette
Yes. YES YES YES YES YES.

------
owaislone
Definitely!

------
rorrr
If you do this, you might as well stream them on a hulu-like site, and even
charge a little (do some A/B testing to find the "sweet spot").

It's actually easier to skip ads while watching downloads.

------
bluedanieru
No, I hate sitting through commercials. They also cheapen the medium and
you'll note that premium networks generally have better shows. What I will do
is pay a flat rate to get access to whatever content that provider has the
rights to that I can watch whenever I want.

For reference, I would regard access to every television show ever produced
and streamed reliably, at high definition when available, as worth
$150-200/month.

