With apologies to Psalm 23:1.
There's an article
on /. about video
on the internet. As usual, I have not read the article, but I'm
going to comment anyway. An idea popped into my head about how
downloading TV on the internet should work. A related item that leads
me to this was the recent release of BitTorrent 4.0.
This started with a business idea involving BitTorrent, but
really it's just some notes about the state of digital content
distribution.
What would the target audience be for downloading TV shows?
Internet savvy TV fans who are passionate about shows and want to see
the episodes as soon as they are released. People like Tamara. Another
audience exists: people who want to download older shows that may not
have been released on DVD, may not be in the local video store, and
may not be available anywhere online. Since torrents are really only
useful for popular things, and since binary usenet isn't cached
forever, selling stuff on the
long tail is also a viable business model.
How much burden are the rabid fans who are the target audience for
internet TV willing to bare? Probably not a lot. These are people who
want convenience and easy of use with data. Having to burn a CD/DVD and
re-rip to get around the DRM so that the file can be copied where ever
the person goes may be a deal-breaker hassle.
Since the DRM is a deal-breaker for many, no DRM is the ideal way
to go. On a political level, this probably wouldn't fly with TV
producers, but I think that some trust has to be placed in
customers. Especially ones who are loyal enough to the show to fund it
up front (more in a minute). Will there be losses through piracy?
Certainly, but probably no more than now. Anybody with a video
capture card can already create a torrent or post a movie on usenet.
Restricting the number of copies than can be made, the number of DVD's
that can be burned, or the player software which can be used will only
piss off your (formerly loyal) audience.
Perhaps the average audience member doesn't care about DRM, and
would tolerate it for a while. But what happens when they run up
against one of the restrictions while doing something they consider
within their rights? It may lead to frustration and support calls, and
eventual loss of customer.
Why do I think this has merit? Because I would be a customer in an
instant. Consider all the Star Trek: Enterprise fans who would pay $50
or $75 up front to fund another season. The Farscape fans, the Firefly
fans, the Wonderfalls and Dead Like Me fans. If there were a way to
get money directly to the producers of those shows so that they could
continue to produce them with or without a network, lots of people
would do it. It would be a better use of cash than buying ads in
Variety.
For many users, the simplicity of getting content from a reputable
source with no hassle is a big selling point. Many people would much
rather pay a fee and get a worry free download than try to download it
from usenet or using BitTorrent. If people could get a TV show of
known quality which is guaranteed not to have German subtitles or
dubbing, then BitTorrent and usenet use would fall.
People who do not have the means to pay for content but do have
spare time are the ones who are most willing to deal with the
complexities of downloading TV from BitTorrent or usenet. The poorest
of the poor don't have internet access of course, but people like
students do. They also have time and access. But students join the
work force and (hopefully) become more affluent and have families,
time becomes more precious than money. One minute and a couple of
clicks to get a download started before leaving for work becomes a lot
more simple than spending the afternoon combing torrent indexes or the
binary newsgroups hoping that what you want is available.
In addition to the convenience argument, there is a moral argument
that producers need to be compensated for work. It is necessary to pay
actors, directors, set dressers, and other production costs. While
there are some people who are willing to sacrifice food and shelter
for their art, in general these things must be provided for, or other
work must be found. Without some profit, it is difficult to implement
new ideas.
I think the moral argument weighs on people enough that they are
willing to buy DVD sets even though they've already downloaded the
show. The bonus features, pretty packaging, and the knowledge that you
own a reliable backup also help. While students downloading shows may
appear to be cutting into the bottom line when they should be paying
(though cable or satellite fees, or by watching ads), they sometimes
become ardent fans who are willing to pay for related paraphernalia
such as DVD sets.
What models can be used? There are two ways of using digital
content. First is Apple's iTunes Music Store
model. Here people download tracks with the expectation of
ownership. I believe the track is tied to the user's account, and they
are limited by the DRM, in that only a certain number of copies can be
made and a certain number of CD's can be burned. There are probably a
lot of legal technicalities that I am not aware of, since I am not a
user of iTunes.
The other model is the new Napster. This is a subscription
model which allows you do download as much as you want for a flat
monthly fee. The catch is that you don't "own" the tracks you
download. The DRM expires and causes them to be deleted once your
subscription is up. If you signed up to Napster expecting iTunes style
ownership, that's not what happens by default. Napster does allow the
purchase of tracks and albums through Napster Light (apparently).
This
BoingBoing post looks at Napster's model a little
bit. Particularly interesting are the EULA tidbits. BoingBoing
draws a tangible object analogy by comparing downloaded tracks to
milk. If you don't pay your milk fee, then it vanishes from the
fridge. If you sign up for the service expecting to download tracks
and own them, then you would obviously be pissed when you discovered
that all your milk has gone missing.
However, I think download services like Napster are better thought
of as a sort of on demand radio subscription. You choose what you
listen to from a vast catalog, with the understanding that
you don't have access to the catalog if you don't pay your
subscription fee. Perhaps if one could prove that one had been mislead
into thinking you owned all the tracks you downloaded using Napster,
then you might have a case. There are other options available, and
sensible thing to do is not to get your knickers in a twist and not
use the service if you don't like the operational model.
Which is better? Since I value simplicity and flexibility, I'd
prefer to be able to pay a fee per download, and once the download has
been successfully verified, be able to terminate my relationship with
the provider. So I'd go with the iTunes model, minus the DRM.
So how would such a system work? Since video files are large
compared to music or ebooks, some kind of distributed method of
getting the data out would be ideal. A modified version of BitTorrent
would do the trick. The organization doing the selling would set up
trackers and seeds at a couple of different points in the
network. Since the target audience will all want to download the file
as soon as it is released, allowing then to share with each other in
the way BitTorrent does will increase download speed to the audience
and lowering the bandwidth cost for the provider. Long tail data, such
as older TV shows where perhaps one person downloads one episode per
day, could be handled by the same protocol, but all the load would be
placed of the providers seed.
There's one problem with using a BitTorrent style system to
distribute TV shows or other content. How do you distinguish users
that have paid from those that haven't? I believe this problem is
actually solved, since there are BitTorrent trackers that required you
to create a log in and which maintain an upload/download ratio to
prevent leeching. The devil is in the details of course...
Perhaps in the end the hardest problem of all is convincing
producers that there are people out there who actually want to give
them money for a the privilege of downloading a non-DRM'ed
file.
