[mythtv-users] Boxee/Hulu?

Brian Wood beww at beww.org
Sat Feb 21 21:24:55 UTC 2009


On Saturday 21 February 2009 14:00:26 Michael T. Dean wrote:
> On 02/21/2009 03:08 PM, Brian Wood wrote:
> > On Saturday 21 February 2009 12:49:51 backuppc wrote:
> >> I would hasten to point out, however, that hulu's HTML presentation
> >> (i.e. what you see at hulu.com) contains *no* ads (the ads are all in
> >> the video stream).  So it was not a case of Boxxee depriving hulu of
> >> their ad revenue.
> >
> > In any case, this didn't take long:
> >
> > http://lifehacker.com/5157615/how-to-reinstall-a-working-hulu-in-boxee
> >
> > If the material is on the net, in any form, trying to keep it on
> > "computers", and off "TV sets" is a doomed effort. The difference between
> > a TV set and a computer monitor is only in the mind of the perceiver, in
> > reality there is no difference.
> >
> > So I would expect the content to disappear from the net completely, there
> > is no other solution for the desires of the content owners.
>
> Yep, if people are unwilling to respect the terms of the site, then the
> content owners will just take their football and go home.  And then the
> people who were abusing the site (violating ToS) will complain about the
> big mean media companies.  And then people will find other ways to steal
> the content.  And then the media companies will start to sue people.
> And then a large majority of the people who steal tons of movies will
> get away with it, and a few people will be sued.  And then the media
> will talk about the occasional grandmother or 7 year old getting sued.
> And then the media and people will complain about the big bad media
> companies.
>
> No, I'm not saying that the media companies are doing the right thing.
> I'm simply saying that I completely understand their reluctance to
> continue to provide the content if people are unwilling to abide by the
> terms under which it's distributed.

If the terms were intended to keep media on "computers" and off "TV sets" they 
will fail, especially if they try and obscure the fact that that is the true 
goal. People can't understand the simplest of EULAs, and even the attorneys 
who write them can't agree on what they mean.

But the bottom line, like it or not, is that the "content owners" are in fact 
the content owners, and US law (and probably others) support their right to 
put any conditions they want on the use of their material.

If somebody was to give me access to the material, and specifically tell 
me "you can watch it on the 22" monitor attached to your PC, but not on the 
13" TV in your bedroom", I would try my best to comply, even though I think 
it is idiotic, because I want the access.

The problem is they are not that clear in what they ask. They bury their 
actual goal in incomprehensible language they know I am not going to read, 
and wouldn't understand if I did.

I will try my best to comply, if I understand what it is I am supposed to do. 
It's hard to expect people to comply with an unstated demand intended to 
support an unstated goal.

They want their cake and to eat it. They want the ad revenue, but they do not 
want to push thousands of people to cancel cable or satellite service, which 
is apparently what happened. The fact that they failed to see this extremely 
obvious result coming just shows how ignorant they really.

But they ARE the "content owners", no matter what we think.

-- 
beww
beww at beww.org


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list