Entertainment 2.0: Episode 51-Happy All Hallows’ Eve!

What where you guys talking about, you had 3 comments for last ep..

Yeah, don't know how I missed those but we'll cover them with Episode 52.

IMO 10 yrs is an unrealistic timeline to expect everything online and no tuners in the PC. While technology moves quickly, using the pace of technology (what can be done) as a road map for implementation (what is done) is flawed. You need to look at who's going to fund the transition, who is going to dream up the business model to make it profitable, and will content providers want to give up what works for what might.

I completely agree that more content will be online in 10 yrs, but I really doubt that your “common people” will be prepared to find and consume content in the world you describe. Take a look at how long people keep the TVs they buy and what a TV that you can buy today can do — neither mesh with a tuner-less world. Also, keep in mind that there are many areas in the US where you can't even get broadband yet.

More importantly, I wonder why you want this. When the content is local (i.e. files on your HD) you own it, you can do what ever you want with it (place/time shift, skip commercials, archive, etc); if it all moves to the cloud, you give up all of that control.

Adam,

In the podcast, you described getting content protection errors for analog broadcast tv shows. You also stated that if you watch the shows then record, they will record fine but if you schedule them or do manual record from the guide you get the error. I have the exact same problem and it's driving me nuts. I am using 2 ATI DCTs and can't figure this out. I haven't done enough experimentation to see if this happens for both tuners or just one. I would love to hear if you received any tips or solutions. Love the podcast.

Hey you hardware noobs!!!! Anyways getting into the question about video cards, and component cables. The “Svideo” port on most videos cards are new modified ports. Generally refereed to as 7pin and 9pin ports. They basically add additional ports to the old svideo port standard, the additional ports or pins are what are used to transmit the component video signal.

here is an example of a card with a 9pin port: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item…

if you look at the last picture, it shows a dongle with component video as well as svideo adapters all on a single dongle that works because the svideo port is really a 9pin port that has additional ports for component video support.

Another option if a new video card is not wanted or needed, is you can get the HD Fury: http://www.geektonic.com/2009/08/keeping-analog…

- Josh

Andy,
But if you can get said content, any where, any time, from the cloud, and still be full 1080p HD, with DD+ 5.1 surround sound (IE like VUDU's HDX) then why not?

I would drop cable tv in a heart beat, get a bd player or a roku box and use that as my access to my content in a heart beat, but only as long as it was 1080p hd with 5.1 surround sound.

When they can figure out how to supply full high quality surround sound along with 1080i/p hd content and make it so that any bd player or roku type box, a tvio, or gasp even a media center plug in like internet tv is now, then you'll start to see people go that route.

Also for “on the go” more and more and more people have smart phones or smart phone type devices, as long as EVDO, 3G, and the next gen mobile high speed internet feeds are out there, and you can get to hulu, or some other content type services that can stream tv to your mobile phone, then why bother wit downloading, converting, and all that bull shit that goes along with having to get the content to your mobile device?

I'd rather just be able to click on a piece of software on my phone, hit play and be done with it.

- Josh

BTW I still fully disagree with your statement about “When the content is local (i.e. files on your HD) you own it, you can do what ever you want with it (place/time shift, skip commercials, archive, etc);”

That mentality is, IMHO, the reason we have DRM and all that shit, and the reason we don't see more advancements in streaming content.

- Josh

Are you sure VUDU is the e.g. you want to hold up? Take another look at how limited their consumption model is, that's not progress.

In a perfect world, everything would be online, high quality, and reasonably priced. Eventually we'll get the first two, but I doubt it will be in ten years. The problem is that when I look at where content owners go when they have a free hand in the business models, it's not reasonably priced or consumer friendly. At least when it's local I get a say in the process, even if it's gray.

We would have DRM without the fair use mentality; but you are correct, DRM is more about protecting content business models from normal people than “pirates”.

I wonder why you think the desire to exercise fair use is a bad thing. Why shouldn't I have the right to archive TV content, place/time shift or skip commercials? I've been able to do that since the VCR, why should I give that up in a digital world?

I'm talking technology wise, not the content they currently provide and how much they charge VUDU is movies, we're talking TV.

The reason why most hard core HD fanatics like myself don't fully support online streaming right now is lack of true HD and 5.1 surround sound. However VUDU and sort of Xbox market place is currently the only games in down actually getting close to where you can get 1080p HD with 5.1 surround sound in a pseudo streaming method.

So If I could get all of the current network TV shows, (CSI's, NCIS, Flashforward, Lost, ect.. ect.. ect..) all online, the same day they broadcast, streaming online, in full HD, with 5.1 surround sound, I would do that in a heart beat vs. having to DVR them.

Let me ask you this. How often, and be HONEST here, how often, do you really move your content around to other devices? I probably travel more often than you or anyone else on this blog here, I am on the road 15 days a month easy, and very seldom to I bother with moving my content to a portable device. I would rather watch my tv shows in full HD, in front of my big screen with the surround sound vs. my head set and my phone or my ipod or my zune.

- Josh

Because the commercials allow us to get the content for free in the first place (talking about local broadcast tv that is). Without some sort of monetary subsidy we'd have to pay for ALL tv.

I skip commercial like everyone else, I DVR like everyone else, but I am a watch and delete person.

I just don't understand the mentality of “If I dvr'd it, I own the rights to it, to keep it for as long as I want, and do with it however I want”

I don't agree with the double, triple, quadruple dipping that goes on with the studios either, but I also don't think I own the content after I DVR it or have the right to archive it for as long as I want.

I am of the mindset, is if you like it soooo much, go out and buy the DVD/BD box set, you didn't pay for the tv show in the first place, unless you are talking about premium content but still even if it is premium content I still don't agree with archiving it for personal use for as long as you want. You don't see commercials on HBO tv series, so you pay for it to see it, without any commercials, that is how I see it.

I honestly look at this as a hoarder/pack rat, why do you honestly need to keep a tv show for ever? Are you honestly going to go back and watch each and every one of those tv shows over and over and over again?

When you had your VCR and recorded tv shows, how often did you even go back to watch them? and with your VCR you never moved it to a different medium now did you?

- Josh

While the VUDU tech is cool, the implementation is telling about how content providers view the future w/ that tech.

I'd love it if Netflix would push BD quality down the pipe, I just don't think we're going to get there in 10 yrs.

We have different preferences (obviously); I don't watch TV in real time or usually even close. With a few tuners and a big hard drive, I can watch it when I want, as an entire season w/o commercials. I have a hard time seeing that model coming to the interweb anytime soon.

There are shows that I wouldn't watch if I couldn't placeshift them. Almost everyday I watch The Daily Show on my phone. I also create DVDs of kids shows for the car; can't do that w/ online content.

well if you are waiting for an entire season to record, then why not rent or buy the season box set? Those are both commercial free.

Also what exactly do you mean about “the implementation is telling about how content providers view the future w/ that tech.”

The absolute only thing I find wrong with VUDU is the price. What I am getting at though is IF vudu can give us HD streaming with 5.1 than ANYONE can give us that. Netflix, hulu, ect… its not like Vudu is doing anything specifically ground breaking when it comes to online streaming.

The current solution of Flash streaming and/or Silverlight may not be the answer yes, but something will come about to give us full HD and 5.1 streaming, on demand.

I too don't watch live tv, I fucking have 10 tuners in my pc, and DVR EVERYTHING. I again don't see the need to record an entire season strip the commercials, archive it, and save it until I am dead is what I am saying and pretend I own the content.

And with kid shows, on the road, again if I could get on demand content, via 3G to a phone, a laptop, or gasp maybe an apple tablet or something like a nokia N800/N810/N900, then they could watch what they wanted, when they wanted, without me having to waste my time re-encoding and ripping and burning a DVD each and every road trip we took.

But honestly if a kid can't get into a car these days without a tv in front of them that is a whole another issue in of itself if you ask me.

- Josh

Just because someone creates a business model doesn't mean I need to embrace it. Markets [should] decide what models work, and which ones don't. If technology makes an existing model obsolete, why should we continue to act as if that weren't the case? FWIW, advertisers pay for the chance to push ads at you. OTA broadcasters take a public good (air waves) and use it for private gain, being able to record it “for free” is part of the bargain they agreed to.

You are free to disagree, but the foundation of your position is shaky. There are basic economic principles in play w/ any digital (non-rivalrous) good. If you just want the Cliff Notes, techdirt provides a good starting point.

I don't archive TV content generally, but I will save segments of some shows (like a song from Glee that I liked) or create DVDs for the car. Our personal experience isn't really material to the discussion though.

Even if you don't like it, or agree w/ it personally, using that as a basis for a position against fair use is flawed.

I am not disagreeing with fair use, I never once brought it up. You are the one who did.

And again I am not, nor ever once said vudu itself was a great business model I only bring up Vudu as it is currently the ONLY service that is truely streaming HD with 5.1 surround sound, and that once you can get full HD with 5.1 surround sound streaming to a BD player or Roku box or a HTPC is the day when you will find that it will become more of a mass adoption is all.

And I don't agree with you that we won't see it in ten years. In fact I think we will see it in under 5 years. Look at moore's law and exponential growth and advancements in technology.

What does techdirt have anything to do with the right to do anything you want with the content you DVR? Techdirt is a biased blog that leans towards the way you want to do things and doesn't always give full rational to every point of view if you ask me.

[quote]OTA broadcasters take a public good (air waves) and use it for private gain, being able to record it “for free” is part of the bargain they agreed to.[/quote]

I don't see how airwaves are a public good or commodity at all. Local broadcasters have to pay millions for licenses, hell I have to pay for licenses to use public safety frequencies in teh 4.9ghz band all the time, also have to deal with 460mhz and 800mhz license for work constantly, all of work my company has had to pay for, and it not a public good what so ever.

License have to be paid, and such, advertisers pay yes, that is because studios need to get paid, before the broadcasters can broadcast the content, btw most of the commercials you see are national commercials and not local broadcaster commercials, and the content aired is sent out via the national feed. So say NBC produces, airs, and sells advertising for say Heroes.

The only broadcaster I can think of that this would be ok is PBS, but not CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CW, ect…

- Josh

I record entire seasons and watch them as such because it's more convenient and cheaper for me to do it that way then rent/buy the disc. For channels I don't get (like Showtime), I do rent the disc. Technology enables me, why fight it?

You don't have an issue w/ the time limits on VUDU? I certainly do. The combination of price and time limits is what I mean by “the implementation…”.

Applying your usage blindly to determine policy is fallacious. Also, while you don't personally exercise s right, doesn't mean there isn't value in having it.

Bringing it back to the org topic; I live in the 3rd largest city in the US and network coverage is so unreliable that even if the cloud world you advocate existed, I couldn't use it anywhere but my house (where btw, my 3G phone doesn't work). Ten years isn't going to be enough time to fix all of that, and put a media aware network appliance in everyone's hand/car/house. The infrastructure to provide all the features you describe doesn't exist outside the lab; and I really doubt that you will find anyone to pay for it to get deployed in the next ten yrs.

All that archiving and place/time shifting is fair use — when you argue against that, you are arguing against fair use.

I guess I'm missing your point w/ VUDU. We can agree that the tech is cool; my position is that the implementation is so flawed that it's useless to me. I have more features, convenience, and better price with a BD. If anything VUDU is an arguement why physical media still works.

Moore's law applies to semiconductors not bandwidth or Hollywood's business acumen. When you can explain who is going to sink the billions of $ required to enable your vision then we'll talk about five year time lines.

Like everyone techdirt is biased, but they do a good job of explaining the basic economics behind digital goods (as they are non-rivalrous in consumption). It's not a perfect start, but you seem to be missing the fundamentals around what it means to be non-rivalrous and how that effects issues like pricing and control.

Receiving airwaves is a public good (non-rivalrous & non-excludable), broadcasting is a common good (rivalous & non-excludable). While hardly authoritative, the Wikipedia entry for “Public Good” actually lists free-to-air TV as a public good.

Perhaps the disconnect b/w us is that I approach this as an economic issue; where things like price and control should be determined by market forces and my behavior is driven by value.

for the 10th time I am not arguing about the business practices of vudu. I am merely talking about the “technology” IE streaming 1080p HD with DD+ 5.1 surround sound, that is IT!

If vudu can deliver full HD (HDX as they call it) with 5.1 surround sound, then netflix, hulu, and other content providers most cerntainly can do the same thing.

and I am not only applying my usage here, I am just going off the fact that you and many others “assume” that you own the content, and can do with whatever you want with it and however you want with it.

And you come here and bitch about it, like its your god given right to do with it however you please.

Well if you refer to 3g and mean the iPhone get a real carrier like VZW and see what real coverage is like i've been to chicago, driven through it too, with a verizion mifi streaming pandora on my phone and chatting on IRC and emails and such all from the comfort of the back seat and never once skipped a beat.

there are also next generation radios coming down the pipe, wimax and the more popular LTE (some times refereed to as 4G) that blows the doors off of current provided wireless broadband.

Remember the spectrum auction that took place? well that lower frequency is great for long distances, and verizon and many other companies bought into that to provide greater distance wireless broadband and combine that with LTE and you've got the potential for some great wireless broadband coverage.

it is honestly much closer than you think. it might not be ATT but it most certainly is verizon and other vendors.

- Josh

Just talking about the tech ignores the more important part of the equation. There needs to be a proven business model behind any tech to make it useful. VUDU doesn't have that, and it's unlikely that the infrastructure will be there to provide it short term.

I'm not “assuming” that I own the content (what does <strike>G</strike>god have to do with it). Fair use is a recognized part of our copyright system; also note that there is more than one meaning to the word “own”.

Please explain to me why I should have to pay more than once for a non-rivalrous good? When you buy a BD the delivery mechanism and packaging is rivalrous; once the bits are free of the plastic why should I have to pay again to consume them on another device, or in another place? Looking at TV content – I pay to bring the content into my house and record it (i.e. cable subscription*, physical infrastructure, etc). I don't own the content in the sense that I can resell it or rebroadcast outside of my home; but the bits on the disc are mine and I own them in the sense that there is no technical or legal constraint to where/how I consume them for personal use. Once the broadcast leaves the provider's infrastructure and enters mine, technology and fair use provide that.

* So what about OTA? Obviously their business model is slightly different, but there are still costs involved on both sides so it's not really free. We can get into that more if you want, but the underlying principal is the same just that the content costs are shifted around differently.

For IP based content delivery to replace the current models it has to work for everyone, even AT&T subscribers. Until that happens no one [who is serious about making $] is going to go IP only, it artificially narrows the market. I made the point earlier that there are still many areas in the US where broadband isn't available, the same is true of 3G. Go take a look at VZW's mobile TV coverage map.

The underlying debate here, which Josh and Adam started was talking about a tv/content delivery…. should I say method of consumption. You assume that more and more won't use streaming tv.

Josh, Adam and even myself all agree that in 10 years, which btw according to moorse law is an eaternity, will definately bring such methods around. We are already seeing it now, Roku boxes, BD players, ect… Internet tv in 7MC, we're seeing it now, my only contention is that HD fanatics like myself won't fully adopt it until we can get true, full HD with 5.1 surround sound which I fully believe we'll see that happen easily in 10 years.

the content we get may not be fully network content, or content we're used to seeing on tv, however there is still great content being produced all the time by some very entertaining people/groups, just look at what revision3 is doing as one example.

The only reason I say what I say about you, and many others might I add, is that you sound like any gun toting red neck, with an NRA card saying “you can't take my guns” but in your case “you can't take my content”

You might want to re-look at fair use, and what it really was meant for, you and many others are just “bending” what fair use is, and was meant for. A law from 1976 has nothing to do with digital content, and digitally recorded tv or ripped dvd's. Hell most of fair use has to do with educational purposes and that is originally what the law was meant for. Now you nor I are lawyers so I will leave it at that, but you are just basically interpreting something that suits your needs and make it sound legit when honestly I feel its far from it.

I never once said you HAD to pay for a BD disc or any other movie, and pay for it again, I for one am whole hartedly against that as well, but when it comes to tv, DVRing tv, archiving recorded tv, is another issue in of itself. You don't pay for the content you get, you pay for the medium of the content to get to you. You pay satelite, or cable operators to lay the cables (the medium) so that you can get the content to your tv, once it gets there doesn't then mean you get to do with it however you want.

I may sound like a biggot here, I DVR as much as the next guy, but I am not about to go and record and entire season of a TV show, keep it forever and say its mine, and then say I have the “RIGHT” to do with it however I please, IE record a tv, then strip the commercials, re-encode it to my zune for an example.

But I do agree there needs to be some methods in place that do allow us to do those things easily, but at the same time, allow the content providers to still maintain control of their content with out hindering the end user at the same time, which gets back to streaming tv over the internet, it gives us the end user the content when we want it, where we want it, how we want it, IE the three screens, and still allows the content provider their control they want.

Finally you do realize that content providers are getting way more matrix data on usage with services like hulu and vudu than they do with the way outdated and poorly managed system of the nielsen system.

nielsen is flawed that it still ultimately is an avg of users per market, and not a true demographic as a whole. I could go on forever about how much nielsen sucks and how flawed it is, but the things that suck about nielsen have no bearing on streaming tv, as the content providers know exactly to the T how many users are streaming a given show, how long they watch it, and where in the country they are watching it, way way better matrix data for the studios. why do you think they air premiers of a new show on hulu and their subsequent sites weeks before it airs on broadcast tv? Because the data they gather from that gives them a way better indication on the shows success or failure, and they some times even throw in surveys to get further data.

So as Josh and Adam discussed it is only a matter of time until you see more and more studio content on streaming devices like the Roku box.

- Josh

Josh, Adam,
You also talked about services where you can go and get broadcast tv shows the next day online and stream them for a small fee, dude, that already happens on netflix now. So the methods are in place, I still stand by what I said with Andy, that the reason it hasn't taken off more is that you don't get full HD and 5.1 surround sound, when true enthusiasts adopt it and can subsidize OTA and cable/sat HD content and get exactly what they get now with netflix that is when you will see it take off.

- Josh

I'm not asserting that more people won't being using streaming TV in the future, just that it won't replace the existing methods for content delivery in the next ten years. I do think it's quite safe to assume that for the majority of Americans TV delivery and consumption will look quite similar to how it looks now.

Moore's observation about the pace of change in semiconductors is about as relevant as Newton's about apples in this discussion (why do you keep bringing it up?). Infrastructure is a huge blocking issue to the future you predict. Even if the technology exists to cheaply deploy the necessary bandwidth, someone has to pay for it (and that someone is not the same as those who will benefit from IP delivery; in fact the opposite is true), and probably more importantly the existing players need to lay down. Full IP television may be coming, but it's not going to replace the existing model in any reasonable time frame.

You are free to feel however you like about fair use and my position on it, but it is important to note that our personal beliefs have no impact on the fundamentals of how economics works as it relates to pricing. The basic principles, digital content as a non-rivalrous good and price should equal marginal cost (which approaches zero for a digital good) in the long term, have been touched on enough here (and certainly in much more detail elsewhere should you care to self-educate) so I won't rehash. But before leaving it completely, I do find it interesting that instead of addressing any of these fundamental principals, all we see is blind assertion about what you feel and what you would[n't] do. Is there anything beyond your personal beliefs that you can provide to back your position on this issue?

It's also important to note that while the intent is important, what the law allows is much more so. Are you claiming that fair use doesn't apply to archiving and time/place shifting? I know you're not a lawyer, but I am curious.

If I don't pay for the content, why does my cable provider charge extra for HBO?

I'll happily agree that internet content provides better metrics than Nielsen, but so would a DVR with some custom software or any kind of tracking intelligence built into a STB. Is your point that better metrics should convince providers to put the content online? If so, we can agree on that, but getting their buy-in isn't the only issue that needs to be resolved before IP can replace broadcast.

You need to re-listen to the podcast, Josh specifically stated that Internet, streaming TV for people on the PC, i.e. enthusiasts such as our selves will replace tuner cards in our pc for internet based solutions. My only contention, that I've stated over and over again for enthusiast such as ourselves will only adopt it fully and give up our tuner cards is if and only if it is full HD and 5.1 surround sound.

Moore's law was about semi conductors but you can also apply the same thought processes and theory to anything technology wise, the internet, software, ect…

I'm claiming that the fair use law has been taken way out of proportion and that those who use fair use to do what they want, with anything they want, for personal use, is far outside of what fair use was originally intended for is all. You keep yapping on and on about fair use and how it applies to you, but in truth it doesn't is all, are you using fair use for educational purposes as it was originally written?

I'm just curious as why you keep bring up economics and fair use together?

Also why do you assume that just because a good is in digital format, that is has a zero value?

You also are assuming there is marginal cost of digital goods, why?

Most of this is rambling yes, but they are not uneducated ramblings and it not just my view points either.

You don't pay for HBO because it is not subsidized by commercials/advertisements simple as that.

My point is not that it should but that it will convince them to put more and higher quality content online, they are already doing it now. It also allows them to do more targeted advertising again which we are already seeing now. Many don't mind the 3 commercials you get with hulu, they are short and to the point, Many can take in a 30 second ad and get back to the content more easily than several minutes of ads.

But again back to where all of this started, we are all enthusiast here, we are in the minority when it comes to building, using, and maintaining our own DVR systems. As I said above, Josh was ONLY talking about replacing the tuners in your PC and replacing it with internet tv, and again we are already seeing that.

Hell look at how many more people use Boxee over Sagetv or Media Center, again more anecdotal information than anything, but the trends are there, getting content on demand when you want it is more of an acceptable practice over putting forth hundreds of thousands of dollars to build and maintain a HTPC DVR system and it is only a matter of time when more enthusiasts (read hard core) will go that route as well.

The only reason I bring up fair use or anything like that is just in the past and now where its all you and other SageTV users ever talk about is “I should be able to do with my content as I please” and every time I hear that, it just boggles my mind is all, that many just assume it is how it is suppose to be and that is the way it is suppose to be.

I will just leave it at that, yes I may have gone a little off tangent, but that happens from time to time.

If you have more to add that is fine, you know where I stand on this matter and I was just trying to clarify more about what Josh was getting after as I understood it completely, as he wasn't specifically talking about replacing TV methods for EVERYONE, but merely speaking on behalf of us HTPC enthusiasts as the first thing he said was take the tuner out of the pc and replace it with internet tv, didn't' say anything about replacing the tv methods for my parents who don't even have a htpc or anything along those lines.

- Josh

If the content's not 1-1 online and broadcast (which I doubt will be even in ten years) pulling tuners out of the box won't do you any good. This isn't just about providers putting content online, it's also about the need for infrastructure to make is useful. I completely agree that there will be more content online, some of it will even be HD; but it won't be 1-1 with what's broadcast because their isn't a viable model for it yet.

You could apply the same [Moore's] thought process to all of those things and many others (like auto production); but it would be fallacious. The most important thing to remember about Moore's “law” is that it's not a real law-of-nature; it's just an observation that has [thus far] borne out, it's not predictive or compelling.

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. was not about educational purposes, it was about time-shifting; and therefore directly applicable to all of the use cases I've mentioned previously. As such, I don't see the disconnect between what fair use is, and how I've applied it in this discussion. Remember I'm not defending anyone's claims around fair use but my own.

Economics should drive pricing and business models; for those who argue against fair use or seek to limit the application pointing out that the economic forces that apply to digital goods are different than those that apply to physical goods provides a solid rational for why fair use is a good, logical approach to regulating personal use. While I don't personally exercise many of the rights that fair use provides, I don't think we should give them away on your say so.

I didn't say that a digital good has no value, just that its marginal cost approaches zero. The marginal cost of a good is how much it costs to create another copy of that good; in this case making a copy of a digital good is almost costless (small amount of electricity, wear and tear on the hard drive, etc). That price should equal marginal cost in the long term is a basic economic principle; something I learned in high school. Every good has a marginal cost, not sure why that's a point of contention.

Instead of using HBO, how about FSC or Disney Channel. Both have commercials, both require a premium tier (at least where I live) subscription, and in the case of FSC an additional “Sports Package” on top of that. Clearly I am paying for something beyond the pipe.

FWIW, my opinion on fair use was the same when I used Media Center.

I'm not asserting that more people won't being using streaming TV in the future, just that it won't replace the existing methods for content delivery in the next ten years. I do think it's quite safe to assume that for the majority of Americans TV delivery and consumption will look quite similar to how it looks now.

Moore's observation about the pace of change in semiconductors is about as relevant as Newton's about apples in this discussion (why do you keep bringing it up?). Infrastructure is a huge blocking issue to the future you predict. Even if the technology exists to cheaply deploy the necessary bandwidth, someone has to pay for it (and that someone is not the same as those who will benefit from IP delivery; in fact the opposite is true), and probably more importantly the existing players need to lay down. Full IP television may be coming, but it's not going to replace the existing model in any reasonable time frame.

You are free to feel however you like about fair use and my position on it, but it is important to note that our personal beliefs have no impact on the fundamentals of how economics works as it relates to pricing. The basic principles, digital content as a non-rivalrous good and price should equal marginal cost (which approaches zero for a digital good) in the long term, have been touched on enough here (and certainly in much more detail elsewhere should you care to self-educate) so I won't rehash. But before leaving it completely, I do find it interesting that instead of addressing any of these fundamental principals, all we see is blind assertion about what you feel and what you would[n't] do. Is there anything beyond your personal beliefs that you can provide to back your position on this issue?

It's also important to note that while the intent is important, what the law allows is much more so. Are you claiming that fair use doesn't apply to archiving and time/place shifting? I know you're not a lawyer, but I am curious.

If I don't pay for the content, why does my cable provider charge extra for HBO?

I'll happily agree that internet content provides better metrics than Nielsen, but so would a DVR with some custom software or any kind of tracking intelligence built into a STB. Is your point that better metrics should convince providers to put the content online? If so, we can agree on that, but getting their buy-in isn't the only issue that needs to be resolved before IP can replace broadcast.

You need to re-listen to the podcast, Josh specifically stated that Internet, streaming TV for people on the PC, i.e. enthusiasts such as our selves will replace tuner cards in our pc for internet based solutions. My only contention, that I've stated over and over again for enthusiast such as ourselves will only adopt it fully and give up our tuner cards is if and only if it is full HD and 5.1 surround sound.

Moore's law was about semi conductors but you can also apply the same thought processes and theory to anything technology wise, the internet, software, ect…

I'm claiming that the fair use law has been taken way out of proportion and that those who use fair use to do what they want, with anything they want, for personal use, is far outside of what fair use was originally intended for is all. You keep yapping on and on about fair use and how it applies to you, but in truth it doesn't is all, are you using fair use for educational purposes as it was originally written?

I'm just curious as why you keep bring up economics and fair use together?

Also why do you assume that just because a good is in digital format, that is has a zero value?

You also are assuming there is marginal cost of digital goods, why?

Most of this is rambling yes, but they are not uneducated ramblings and it not just my view points either.

You don't pay for HBO because it is not subsidized by commercials/advertisements simple as that.

My point is not that it should but that it will convince them to put more and higher quality content online, they are already doing it now. It also allows them to do more targeted advertising again which we are already seeing now. Many don't mind the 3 commercials you get with hulu, they are short and to the point, Many can take in a 30 second ad and get back to the content more easily than several minutes of ads.

But again back to where all of this started, we are all enthusiast here, we are in the minority when it comes to building, using, and maintaining our own DVR systems. As I said above, Josh was ONLY talking about replacing the tuners in your PC and replacing it with internet tv, and again we are already seeing that.

Hell look at how many more people use Boxee over Sagetv or Media Center, again more anecdotal information than anything, but the trends are there, getting content on demand when you want it is more of an acceptable practice over putting forth hundreds of thousands of dollars to build and maintain a HTPC DVR system and it is only a matter of time when more enthusiasts (read hard core) will go that route as well.

The only reason I bring up fair use or anything like that is just in the past and now where its all you and other SageTV users ever talk about is “I should be able to do with my content as I please” and every time I hear that, it just boggles my mind is all, that many just assume it is how it is suppose to be and that is the way it is suppose to be.

I will just leave it at that, yes I may have gone a little off tangent, but that happens from time to time.

If you have more to add that is fine, you know where I stand on this matter and I was just trying to clarify more about what Josh was getting after as I understood it completely, as he wasn't specifically talking about replacing TV methods for EVERYONE, but merely speaking on behalf of us HTPC enthusiasts as the first thing he said was take the tuner out of the pc and replace it with internet tv, didn't' say anything about replacing the tv methods for my parents who don't even have a htpc or anything along those lines.

- Josh

If the content's not 1-1 online and broadcast (which I doubt will be even in ten years) pulling tuners out of the box won't do you any good. This isn't just about providers putting content online, it's also about the need for infrastructure to make is useful. I completely agree that there will be more content online, some of it will even be HD; but it won't be 1-1 with what's broadcast because their isn't a viable model for it yet.

You could apply the same [Moore's] thought process to all of those things and many others (like auto production); but it would be fallacious. The most important thing to remember about Moore's “law” is that it's not a real law-of-nature; it's just an observation that has [thus far] borne out, it's not predictive or compelling.

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. was not about educational purposes, it was about time-shifting; and therefore directly applicable to all of the use cases I've mentioned previously. As such, I don't see the disconnect between what fair use is, and how I've applied it in this discussion. Remember I'm not defending anyone's claims around fair use but my own.

Economics should drive pricing and business models; for those who argue against fair use or seek to limit the application pointing out that the economic forces that apply to digital goods are different than those that apply to physical goods provides a solid rational for why fair use is a good, logical approach to regulating personal use. While I don't personally exercise many of the rights that fair use provides, I don't think we should give them away on your say so.

I didn't say that a digital good has no value, just that its marginal cost approaches zero. The marginal cost of a good is how much it costs to create another copy of that good; in this case making a copy of a digital good is almost costless (small amount of electricity, wear and tear on the hard drive, etc). That price should equal marginal cost in the long term is a basic economic principle; something I learned in high school. Every good has a marginal cost, not sure why that's a point of contention.

Instead of using HBO, how about FSC or Disney Channel. Both have commercials, both require a premium tier (at least where I live) subscription, and in the case of FSC an additional “Sports Package” on top of that. Clearly I am paying for something beyond the pipe.

FWIW, my opinion on fair use was the same when I used Media Center.