A few years ago I got a digital video recorder ("DVR") from my cable provider. Now, I don't know how I ever lived without it. I love pausing and rewinding the TV shows I watch, and of course, fast-forwarding through commercials. The only thing that could make my DVR experience better is if I didn't have to have that stupid box taking up space in my apartment. As though they heard my prayers, the Supreme Court decided this week not to hear a case involving that very question. The standing U.S. Court of Appeals ruling clears the way for those annoying DVR boxes to be a thing of the past.
So really, what was the harm in getting rid of the boxes? Hollywood was against it. So what better source is there than the Los Angeles Times to hear its side:
The move is a blow to Hollywood, which had fought the technology all the way to the Supreme Court. Fox, NBC Universal, Paramount, CBS, Disney and other programmers argued that because Cablevision transmits recorded programs to consumers over its cable lines, the remote storage DVRs actually constitute a new on-demand service for which they should pay licensing fees.
Hmmm. Let me get this straight: Since the cable company possibly only has one recording of a TV show and hundreds of customers view that same recording, that's different from if those customers had physically recorded it on their physical DVRs instead? That's crazy.
Why would Hollywood be okay with Hulu and not remote DVR storage? The article later reveals the whole story:
Of course, what this is really about is advertising. Television executives are very worried about the ease with which consumers can skip advertisements while watching recorded programs via DVRs.
So why not be honest about it? Why not try to prevent people from fast-forwarding certain sections of commercials? That would cramp my style a little, but if I had to watch a few 20-second commercials once in a while, I'd prefer that to those annoying boxes. Besides, we all need bathroom breaks once in a while anyway.
Perhaps this win for DVR is also a win for print and online advertising revenue. If people can just fast-forward through their TV commercials, it's hard to understand why they would be any more effective than magazine or newspaper ads, in paper or online. That could begin to bridge the gap between what advertisers are willing to pay for TV and print/online advertising. As a result, maybe the DVR will save print journalism. I dare to dream.
There is only one company that can save print. And that is Google.
people don't even bother going to newspaper web sites any more.
why should they? - its all on their desktop.
they dish it out for free, while the poorly paid journalists who broke the story get fired because the market has collapsed - even though graduate Johnie's stories are being read by 2 million people.
Which ever newspaper does the deal with Google will secure a future.
The others will wither away pretty quickly.
You can't even give papers away.
4g on-demand cellphone networks will seal their fate.
Print is dead. You have been warned.
It is all about advertising, and privacy. Advertising has to be seen to be considered and both ad-blocking and ad-skipping technology make it easier and easier to avoid.
Microsoft could differentiate itself from Google by boosting privacy protection in its browser and simplify blocking ads. Google is hyperdependent on ad $, but Internet Explorer is still the most used browser and could be used to weaken Google. Invisible paid-for links, no clicks and no revenue goes to the Googleplex. Microsoft has unfortunately decided to be a follower and launched an ad-supported search engine instead.
The advertising model might not be dead, but it's wheezing, and content creators need to rapidly evolve their ad dependent business models.
I have to disagree. Fast-forwarding through commercials lets me watch 60 minutes worth of show in 40 minutes. That's 20 minutes of my life saved. If all I wanted to do was record shows, I would have a VCR.
People are crazy if they think print will go away entirely. And what we are really talking about is original reporting. If all the newspapers go away someone will still be reporting the news. Or else what would google have to wrap its ads around. The whole business model is not sustainable for google or for newspapers. And do you really trust bloggers more than journalists? Are they really less biased? This whole anti-press notion has very serious implications for society. Right now, nobody can really predict where this all is leading. There could be technology that upsets the apple cart all over again.