The death of Hulu may be nigh

[Rigamarole]

Alas:

Hulu To Require Cable TV Subscription

This is some serious bullshit. I'm too pissed/disheartened at the moment to write a coherent flame, but I wanted to share. Discuss amongst yourselves.

[Gagundathar]

Big media has won this round.

[silenus]

Open rebellion and salutary lynchings may be the only answer.

[sparky!]

More people need to ditch their cable subscription.

But like a lot of things, too many people bitch about the service while still forking over the bucks every month.

As long as iTunes and Netflix are still around, then I'll continue to shun the cable companies.

[Rigamarole]

Originally Posted by sparky!

More people need to ditch their cable subscription.

I haven't had cable in 8 years. But there are a number of current TV shows I like to watch on Hulu (Daily Show, Colbert, Parks & Rec, Community, etc.) and if this change goes through I'll be forced to do something I've never done - pirate them (I have pirated music, but never movies/shows). What can I say? The industry drove me to it.

[DigitalC]

So torrents it is then.

[KarlGrenze]

Many shows are available, for free, at their own websites. You may not have an archive of them, but I've watched The Daily Show, The Big Bang Theory, and others directly from the channel.

[sparky!]

Originally Posted by Rigamarole

I haven't had cable in 8 years. But there are a number of current TV shows I like to watch on Hulu (Daily Show, Colbert, Parks & Rec, Community, etc.) and if this change goes through I'll be forced to do something I've never done - pirate them (I have pirated music, but never movies/shows). What can I say? The industry drove me to it.

No, what you need to do is not consume the content if you disagree with the business practice.

I got sick of the cable pricing and cancelled it. There were still shows I wanted to watch, but just decided the hell with it. If I don't find the content online legally, then I just don't watch it. It sucks at first, but the withdrawal was over quick.

BTW, isn't Comedy Central content available via their website?

[Rigamarole]

Originally Posted by sparky!

No, what you need to do is not consume the content if you disagree with the business practice.

That's a nice and lofty ideal, and if I held myself to higher moral standards I might adhere to it. But fuck that - Parks & Rec is funny as hell and I want to watch it. I prefer the legal channels but if they are going to piss all over them like this, then I'll get it however I can.

Originally Posted by sparky!

BTW, isn't Comedy Central content available via their website?

Yeah, but I don't think the NBC/Fox shows are (I also watch Family Guy and American Dad).

[KarlGrenze]

Like I mentioned above, some of the big networks have their contents on their websites (TBBT and Vampire Diaries are on broadcast, not cable).

[Rigamarole]

Originally Posted by Rigamarole

Yeah, but I don't think the NBC/Fox shows are (I also watch Family Guy and American Dad).

Originally Posted by KarlGrenze

Like I mentioned above, some of the big networks have their contents on their websites (TBBT and Vampire Diaries are on broadcast, not cable).

OK I retract that - I checked and it looks like the NBC/Fox shows are on the websites after all, which is a bit of a relief. I still liked getting them all in one place, but I can cope.

Oh and I don't get broadcast TV either because I think rabbit ears are fugly and I don't get good reception with them anyway.

[Scumpup]

I ditched DirecTV and watch Netflix and Hulu+ through my Daughter's Xbox. Hulu+ costs a few dollars a month. If they require a cable subscription on top of the fee, then I quit.

[KarlGrenze]

I was using broadcast to mean "the big four" or whatever passes for basic cable. My old TV didn't get reception at all with the bunny ears either.

It is a bit confusing, but even Hulu would transfer me to the networks' websites, automatically (at least for TBBT and Vampire Diaries).

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Rigamarole

That's a nice and lofty ideal, and if I held myself to higher moral standards I might adhere to it. But fuck that

I agree with this attitude. Copyrights exist as a convenient legal construct to "promote the useful arts", they are not an inherent human right. They exist to make things better for the public, not simply to give copyright holders power over their works.

You abuse that power and do stupid things with it, I'm not going to subject people to some moral judgement over how they react to your choice.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

I agree with this attitude. Copyrights exist as a convenient legal construct to "promote the useful arts", they are not an inherent human right. They exist to make things better for the public, not simply to give copyright holders power over their works.

You abuse that power and do stupid things with it, I'm not going to subject people to some moral judgement over how they react to your choice.

Reminds me of this Wizard of Oz-based anti-'piracy' PSA. Under the copyright laws at the time The Wizard of Oz was released (1939), the copyright was good for 28 years, renewable once, which would have taken them to 1995, after which the movie would have been in the public domain. But in response to a pile of money from outfits like Disney and Warner Brothers, and despite absolutely zero groundswell of support from we, the people, the term of copyright has been extended indefinitely.

As Woody Guthrie said, "some will rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen." Warner Brothers has stolen 17 years (and counting) of exclusive ownership of The Wizard of Oz from the rest of us, yet is using that movie to admonish us about the wrongness of stealing back. Wonder if the irony even crossed their minds, or whether their sense of ethics goes no further than "he who has the gold, makes the rules."

[MsRobyn]

Then WTF am I paying for Hulu? We don't have cable because it's far too expensive for the service we were getting, and our over-the-air reception is lousy, so we have a $7.99 Hulu subscription. I get my entertainment fix, Comcast gets nothing (from us, anyway), and everyone's happy, except Comcast. I'd consider going back to Comcast if they somehow managed to offer a super el cheapo package with maybe broadcast channels and some of the more popular basic cable channels. But I'm not paying a metric assload of money for a metric assload of channels I don't watch and don't care about.

Besides, ISTM (and pretty much every other person who isn't somehow affiliated with Big Media) that the more they push these nonsense schemes, the more they're begging for people to steal content. Hell, I'd do it out of spite.

[Rachellelogram]

Television consumption is quickly evolving into a two-tiered structure. 1) The suckers who pay for cable, and in return get shit on by ever-longer and -louder commercial breaks & increasingly-predatory advertising techniques. They may also be forced to watch a show on a particular time and date if they don't have a DVR. 2) Everyone else, who torrent exactly what they want, exactly when they want it, ad-free, free-of-charge.

If you're paying for it, you're essentially paying for those that are crafty enough to pursue alternative, free content-delivery methods. What does paying for cable gain you, but a clear conscience? Is a clear conscience worth the shit content providers are pummeling you with? Because it's not, to me.

[Munch]

Seems like Hulu is basing their model off of regular cable subscribers - i.e. people not already pissed off enough to cut cable and utilize Hulu. They already require people watch ads (even their Hulu Plus subscribers) - I cannot see how this will be a net gain, since their user base is already people who have been sufficiently motivated enough to seek alternatives to paying for cable.

[Rhythmdvl]

Wow, and we were just about to drop cable in favour of Hulu, Netflix and other streaming options. This steaming policy (not a typo there) is going to work in the opposite direction in the house--we're more likely to drop both cable and Hulu now. Need to learn what this bit torrent is all about.

[RealityChuck]

I ran into this problem with The Closer. You can only watch episodes if you sign up with your cable system.

But my cable carrier (Time Warner) wasn't one of the systems taking part.

It's screwed up.

However, the networks, especially the broadcast networks, won't go for this for their shows. You should be able to find shows on their own web pages. It also probably won't affect Britcoms, which are what I watch on Hulu.

[RandMcnally]

I got a call from Comast about a SPECIAL CHEAP DEAL!! of $70 a month for cable and internet, which then goes up after six months. I couldn't even imagine paying that much for cable anymore. We just use Hulu and Netflix.

But if Hulu goes through with this plan we'll cut that out, as well.

I don't have an issue with torrenting, per se, but I won't due it. I want Archer and Community to have my money. I had the season pass for Archer from Amazon and the day after the episode aired it'd be pushed to my Kindle Fire. It was worth it.

I've already bought an episode of Community (Pillows and Blankets. My favorite episode), and if Hulu cuts I'll buy more. I really only watch a very few tv shows, so it isn't going to hurt financially.

[Merneith]

I agree with the OP that this is more likely to cause the death of Hulu than a big surge of cable subscribers. "Cord-cutters" aren't suddenly going to be ok when their hulu bills jump by $100 a month to prop up failing technology.

[gardentraveler]

This article makes it sound more like cable verification would be for those who watch hulu for free right now and/or for those who get next-day access for free. It also makes the change sound less imminent.

[Antigen]

I'll be pissed if they do restrict all content to cable subscribers, but it will not be enough to make me go back to paying exorbitant amounts of money for cable. If I could pay for only the channels I'll watch, then I'd consider it, but I don't like the cable companies' pricing system, and they can suck it. Why should I pay for shopping channels and 67 news channels when all I want is Discovery and Comedy Central?

I already watch a lot less TV than I was watching a couple of years ago, and that's probably a good thing. I choose what to watch instead of mindlessly letting the TV chatter away while I flip channels. If the few shows I still watch suddenly become unavailable to me, well, I guess I'll read more books, while I wait for my shows to become available on Netflix. Until, of course, the inevitable happens and Netflix jacks up their rates and/or the big media companies stop giving them rights to stuff.

[Pops1963]

Wait until Dish Network owns Hulu(they are trying to buy it) and see what happens.
I don't think signing up for cable will be the answer.

[SeaDragonTattoo]

It already irks me that cable companies hock their wares as such a deal just for basic channels, including NBC, FOX, ABC, etc. Ooh, such a deal! What? I get those for free. FREE. WTF do I want to get a good deal on cable or dish when I get that shit in high def over the air? I ditched cable back in 2006 or so, and hell will freeze over before I go back. I'll just - stop watching stuff.

[Spud]

No one else is at all concerned that the link provided is from bangstyle.com... a hair styling site? We all know the most accurate news comes from the beauty parlor.

I did a search, and found one other report on EW (Entertainment Weekly) that had basically the same report but with the addition "... Eventually." The other was about a Time Warner Exec who thinks this is a good idea to consider.

I think I'll panic later (ok, not really, I have my internet and tv through cable so it won't affect me at all).

This quote may be helpful..."Bewkes was responding to a question on rumors that Hulu will start requiring users to prove that they have a cable TV subscription before using its service."

[Dan Norder]

Fight ignorance - don't spread it.

Don't post crap rumors from crap web sites.

And please don't post ridiculously simple minded rationalizations for breaking the law and ripping off content creators that have already been debunked on countless other threads here. Yes, we get it, you're a parasite who doesn't care if the people creating the things they watch (listen to/play/etc.) won't be getting any money for their hard work. No, that doesn't make you more intelligent or "crafty" than anyone else. That just makes you a thief, and a sadly deluded one at that.

[Rachellelogram]

Originally Posted by Dan Norder

Fight ignorance - don't spread it.

Don't post crap rumors from crap web sites.

And please don't post ridiculously simple minded rationalizations for breaking the law and ripping off content creators that have already been debunked on countless other threads here. Yes, we get it, you're a parasite who doesn't care if the people creating the things they watch (listen to/play/etc.) won't be getting any money for their hard work. No, that doesn't make you more intelligent or "crafty" than anyone else. That just makes you a thief, and a sadly deluded one at that.

You can't "steal" a copy. People can make illicit copies, and even break the law in so doing, but that doesn't make them "thieves" because they aren't taking anything--they're making a copy. And there's already a useful term for people who do this, namely "pirate." And calling pirates thieves is reactionary knee-jerk bullshit. Overstating your case isn't likely to win it.

[Idle Thoughts]

Moving to Cafe Society.

[Tarwater]

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

You can't "steal" a copy. People can make illicit copies, and even break the law in so doing, but that doesn't make them "thieves" because they aren't taking anything--they're making a copy. And there's already a useful term for people who do this, namely "pirate." And calling pirates thieves is reactionary knee-jerk bullshit. Overstating your case isn't likely to win it.

[Jophiel]

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

You can't "steal" a copy.

I suppose it's okay to deprive the owner of their rightful compensation so long as you have a bumper sticker to justify it.

[Lamar Mundane]

This is why you should always shout "AARRGHHH" when boosting your local bank. Totally gets you off the hook.

[grude]

You can call it whatever you want and write long posts proving those who pirate are directly causing the death of small puppies, won't change a thing in the long run. Most people crave ease of use, they would rather pay a friendly merchant a dollar for a sandwich rather than walk ten miles to get a free one. But make that sandwich merchant the soup nazi and charge a grand for it and that long walk starts looking very attractive. You can bleat but its wrong, no one cares.

[Rachellelogram]

Originally Posted by Tarwater

Yes, silly me for thinking words should mean something. back atcha.

[Tarwater]

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

Yes, silly me for thinking words should mean something. back atcha.

They're stealing intellectual property, as well as future revenue for the copyright holders.

Your attempt to yoke the argument with semantics about word definitions is doomed to failure. The word 'thief' has been applied to these types of crimes almost as long as they've existed. Only recently, however, have thieves attempted to abrogate themselves of culpability by changing the definition of the word. It wasn't a convincing argument when it first began to circulate, and it's not a convincing argument now. IP thieves can fill a library with their ill-formed, prejudicial, and bullshit claims about what constitutes theft. It doesn't matter. The law recognizes it as theft and so do the people who control the English language, which is everybody who speaks it, basically.

So until you can convince the world that IP theft isn't theft, color me unimpressed with your pedantry.

[II Gyan II]

Here's an article on the topic of the proper term for copyright violations.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Tarwater

They're stealing intellectual property, as well as future revenue for the copyright holders.

Oh no they might have to start making TV shows that only cost $1 million USD per episode!

At this point the TV industry and media industries as a whole are so set in their ways and locked down in commitment to failed methods that it will probably take a total implosion(which will probably never happen) to restore some sanity and new thinking into the industry. Until that time comes they are ALWAYS ALWAYS still of the mindset they can win somehow and go back to 1980, they have never embraced the new reality.

To me hulu was a rip roaring success, it got people who were using torrents and providing no revenue aside from word of mouth to actually watch ads, but the industry has done nothing but bitch. They have done nothing but bitch and hike rates for Netflix which was one of the few companies smart enough to move into the brave new world of the 00's, they should be thanking Netflix. Oh and if you're outside the USA and get that "sorry no ads for you" message well WHY AREN'T THEY FINDING ADS IN EVERY COUNTRY? No its easier to bitch about the good old days.

Funny thing is people don't NEED the latest show about doctors fucking in broom closets, its a fun diversion but its not needed. And you make the terms too onerous and guess what? People will just pirate or not care at all, they aren't going to die without soap operas and cheesy sci fi. I think the industry should tread lightly.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Tarwater

They're stealing intellectual property, as well as future revenue for the copyright holders.

Your attempt to yoke the argument with semantics about word definitions is doomed to failure. The word 'thief' has been applied to these types of crimes almost as long as they've existed. Only recently, however, have thieves attempted to abrogate themselves of culpability by changing the definition of the word. It wasn't a convincing argument when it first began to circulate, and it's not a convincing argument now. IP thieves can fill a library with their ill-formed, prejudicial, and bullshit claims about what constitutes theft. It doesn't matter. The law recognizes it as theft and so do the people who control the English language, which is everybody who speaks it, basically.

So until you can convince the world that IP theft isn't theft, color me unimpressed with your pedantry.

It doesn't matter whether it convinces you. That is what the people who do this believe. Putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "Thief" isn't going to make them stop.

The world already believes that "IP theft" isn't theft. That's why people do it. Sitting back as you do with your moral superiority isn't going to change anything any more than abstinence-based sex ed will keep teens from catching STDs or having babies.

And the idea that it's always been thought of as theft shows again how off in your own world you are. When you made mix tapes as a kid, did you think about how you were stealing the songs? When you recorded them off the radio? Heck, when you go to a library, do you think about how you are stealing the author's intellectual property to their story since multiple people are getting it out of the same book?

Sorry, but people don't think of intellectual property the same way as they do real property. And all the whining about how people should isn't going to change that.

But, go ahead. Keep on attacking the very people you are trying to convince to not do it. See how well it works.

[grude]

Originally Posted by BigT

But, go ahead. Keep on attacking the very people you are trying to convince to not do it. See how well it works.

Hell the media companies have never learned this lesson, and anytime it looks like they might be making progress they reveal another childish attempt to strike once again

When your opposition is inherently evil and wrong you tend not to make progress in negotiation.

[BigT]

Also, on reread, I love how rachel actually agreed with you that it was wrong to pirate. And yet, rather than pay attention to what she said, you attack her like she's saying that makes it okay.

Way to prove her right about people just trying to vilify others rather than actually deal with the problem. (Though at least the original poster she is responding to hasn't made that dumb remark.)

I also want to add something to my previous post: my sister, uber-Christian, sees nothing wrong with using Frostwire to get songs. She thinks taking a grape from the church fridge is wrong, but this is perfectly okay. That's how pervasive this message is. Don't post in ignorance about a culture you are completely not a part of.

[Tarwater]

Originally Posted by BigT

It doesn't matter whether it convinces you. That is what the people who do this believe. Putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "Thief" isn't going to make them stop.

I don't care.

The world already believes that "IP theft" isn't theft. That's why people do it.

There's so much wrong with this statement that I don't even know where to begin. To start off, you're assuming that the entire English-speaking world engages in copyright theft; that's absurd on the face of it, I hope you realize. The people who willingly engage in the theft of intellectual property is quite small. Don't take the noisome rantings of people on the internet as an indication of how an entire population feels.

But I'll suppose that you're talking about that minority and not the entire world. This time you're assuming that the primary reason they do it is because they don't think of it as theft, which is wrong, of course. They do it for any number of reasons -- because it's the easiest way to get their hands on the product, because it's the cheapest, because it's the fastest, or whatever -- and the idea that they're either unaware of what they're or have convinced themselves that it isn't theft is ignorant. People break the law all the time. Are they only doing it because they've convinced themselves that what they're doing is legal?

Sitting back as you do with your moral superiority isn't going to change anything any more than abstinence-based sex ed will keep teens from catching STDs or having babies.

I don't care.

And the idea that it's always been thought of as theft shows again how off in your own world you are. When you made mix tapes as a kid, did you think about how you were stealing the songs? When you recorded them off the radio? Heck, when you go to a library, do you think about how you are stealing the author's intellectual property to their story since multiple people are getting it out of the same book?

No, it goes to show that my understanding of the history of copyright law is more extensive than yours.

I'm not even going to respond to the notion that checking a book from the library is theft, a claim so preposterous that I literally started laughing when I read it.

But, go ahead. Keep on attacking the very people you are trying to convince to not do it. See how well it works.

Who said I was trying to convince anybody not to do it? I'm not. I DON'T CARE.

This has been a linguistic exercise for me. Whether people are doing it or not is of no concern to me, at least as far as this discussion is concerned. Nowhere did I claim otherwise.

EDIT:

Also, on reread, I love how rachel actually agreed with you that it was wrong to pirate. And yet, rather than pay attention to what she said, you attack her like she's saying that makes it okay.

You made this post while I was composing mine, and I just wanted to say that I'm laughing again.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Tarwater

There's so much wrong with this statement that I don't even know where to begin. To start off, you're assuming that the entire English-speaking world engages in copyright theft; that's absurd on the face of it, I hope you realize. The people who willingly engage in the theft of intellectual property is quite small. Don't take the noisome rantings of people on the internet as an indication of how an entire population feels.

But I'll suppose that you're talking about that minority and not the entire world. .

Actual for profit piracy is the norm where I am, there are guys with racks of burned DVDs all over urban centers. Old and new movies and TV shows by the season, they seem to be serving people who either don't know how or can't afford a PC and internet connection. A real DVD from the US would cost around $40 - 50 USD once it gets here, video games real ones cost $100 USD or more and minimum wage is less than $2 USD an hour. Go lecture people about how they are evil.

[Tarwater]

Originally Posted by grude

Actual for profit piracy is the norm where I am, there are guys with racks of burned DVDs all over urban centers. Old and new movies and TV shows by the season, they seem to be serving people who either don't know how or can't afford a PC and internet connection. A real DVD from the US would cost around $40 - 50 USD once it gets here, video games real ones cost $100 USD or more and minimum wage is less than $2 USD an hour. Go lecture people about how they are evil.

Oh, it's a huge market, all right. But most people don't do it. The last study I read concerning the subject (which, unfortunately, I have lost) said that somewhere between 15-25% of Americans engage in piracy. That's millions of people, to be certain. It's still nowhere near a majority, however.

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Tarwater

They're stealing intellectual property, as well as future revenue for the copyright holders.

Is this a philosophical conundrum? How do you steal something that doesn't exist*?

I'll also point out that their intellectual property is property GRANTED to them by the Copyright Clause, to promote the arts and sciences. It is not granted to them because artists have an inherent moral right to own their works. There is no moral right to control the distribution of a work that has been made public, there is only a legal right.

When that legal right is violated, it's not legally theft, it's a copyright violation, and is punished by the specific punishments for CV, not by punishments assigned to theft.

People who call it theft do so because they don't feel CVs get enough respect, and they are trying to link it to a crime that does get respect.



*just to clarify - future revenues don't exist, they are completely theoretical. For instance, future revenues against Justin Bieber's new album can be projected to be X, but may in fact be Y when it's found out he likes having sex with kitchen appliances, on tape.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Tarwater

Oh, it's a huge market, all right. But most people don't do it. The last study I read concerning the subject (which, unfortunately, I have lost) said that somewhere between 15-25% of Americans engage in piracy. That's millions of people, to be certain. It's still nowhere near a majority, however.

I'd assume it clusters on the younger end of the scale, where it can seem like literally everyone does it. Not to mention all the out of print music and movies where say they haven't even been released on DVD(latest one I ran into was Quintet a Paul Newman movie!)

[Unintentionally Blank]

Netflix's amount of suckage has been growing dramatically, as well!

[aceplace57]

Does DirecTV have a login that allows us to get Hulu like Dish TV?

Fox began limiting access to its most popular series on Hulu; while Dish TV, Verizon Fios, and Hulu Plus subscribers can still watch shows like Glee the day after they air, everyone else must wait an additional eight days if they want to view for free.

And according to the Post, this “authentication” model — so-called because viewers without Hulu Plus get next-day access to Fox shows by logging in with a Dish or Verizon account number — may soon become more common across the site.

[dropzone]

Since when is watching a show on Hulu free? Don't they make money from all those commercials they make us watch?

And I would think that checking "No" to the question "Was this ad relevant to you?" would mean that I would get fewer-to-no ads for booze and feminine hygiene products. Pretending you target advertising is not the same as actually targeting advertising.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Rigamarole

That's a nice and lofty ideal, and if I held myself to higher moral standards I might adhere to it. But fuck that - Parks & Rec is funny as hell and I want to watch it. I prefer the legal channels but if they are going to piss all over them like this, then I'll get it however I can.



Yeah, but I don't think the NBC/Fox shows are (I also watch Family Guy and American Dad).

I'm pretty sure you can get NBC and Fox over the air for free. It might depend on where you live.