Hulu To Require Viewers To Have Cable Subscriptions 648
The NY Post reports that Hulu, the video streaming service with over 30 million users, has plans to force those users to prove they have a subscription to cable or satellite TV if they want to keep watching. Quoting:
"The move toward authentication is fueled by cable companies and networks looking to protect and profit from their content. The effort comes as entertainment companies continue to face drastic shifts in home viewing habits. Overall spending on home entertainment edged up 2.5 percent to $4.45 billion in the first quarter as a surge in digital streaming — which rose more than fivefold to $549 million — offset a continuing collapse in video rentals, according to Digital Entertainment Group. ... Hulu racked up some $420 million in ad revenue last year and is expected to do well in this year’s ad negotiations. But the move toward authentication, which could take years to complete, will make cable companies happy because it could slow cord-cutting by making cable subscribing more attractive."
Forget BitTorrent (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:5, Interesting)
They get it...and yet, they don't (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't think for a moment that these guys don't understand why people are using Hulu. This action today shows that they understand quite well. The cable companies are scared shitless that people will cancel and use Hulu instead, and that's why they're doing this.
And yet, they don't get it. They seem to think that this scheme is going to stop people from dropping cable. In fact, all it's going to do is flush Hulu down the toilet. People will still drop cable, but they'll find alternatives to Hulu, both legal and illegal.
You really have to hand it to the entertainment industry. These guys aren't afraid to walk up to their customers, spit in their faces, piss all over them, and then hand them a bill for the privilege. And I'd be willing to bet that the ONLY reason they don't hire Guido, Vinny, and Rocco to handle collections is because the lawyers told them that doing do is a liability issue.
If I worked at Hulu, I'd be updating my resume about now.
Re:Bye Bye Hulu! (Score:5, Interesting)
Hulu free has been sucking for months now. Can't deliver even a half decent video stream at any resolution. Meanwhile, Netflix watch it now, on the exact same hardware/network/etc., looks and sounds great. Can't say I'm inspired to pony up for a Hulu subscription when they change their service terms faster than the subscription period runs out.
Last cable service I had was in 1993... can't say I've missed it. If Hulu cuts me off, there's plenty of TV to watch on Netflix.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Interesting)
Amen to that.
Re:no. (Score:5, Interesting)
Rare non-xkcd, yet relevant comic: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones [theoatmeal.com]
InstaFail (Score:3, Interesting)
That's what I call that idea. Nothing will stop cord cutting. The reason is on-demand. A good friend of mine is the head of programming at a well-known cable channel. He tells me he has to run like crazy every day to try to not lose ground, but they're still losing ground because they can't compete with on-demand, anywhere entertainment that the Internet offers.
If Hulu does this, they're only nuking their own business. Customers have already seen the future and it is Netflix. Yes, given the intransigence of the MPAA and Cable companies, there is an initial adjustment to the absence of the blockbuster titles. But then you discover the excellent content produced in other places around the world and the American stuff starts to look tedious.
Since Starz channel picked up its ball and went home, I've discovered production values on Korean movies are just as high as here, and their plots are twisted and interesting. And Bollywood movies are pure fun. Bollywood! Who knew?
I was thunderstruck the other day when my 3-yr old daughter saw a picture of Mickey Mouse somewhere and said, "Who's that?" She honestly had no idea. And it occurred to me that because Disney (and by extension the other MPAA and Cable players) have so locked away their content and have been so intransigent about getting with the times that they are running a real risk of rendering themselves culturally irrelevant. Think about what that also means about their ancillary revenue streams: my kids will never pester me to buy Disney toys or to take them to Disneyland. Disney has unwittingly saved me about $20K (over their lifetimes) that way.
So go on, guys, do the world a favor and destroy Hulu, too. The rest of us will move on happily without you!
Re:In that case... (Score:5, Interesting)
The tragedy is that as great as all that you propose is, it's very much illegal and truly isn't fair to the content producers.
It's a real damn shame too, the experience of that sort of content is many times more pleasant than any legitimate means of acquiring said content. No streaming restrictions limiting the bitrate of the quality or incuring significant buffering times. No DRM to mysteriously cock up somewhere in the line and erroneously or intentionally block legitimate use. No juggling of optical discs to watch the specific content you want....
If I could have a solution analagous to Amazon or iTunes mp3 situation, I'd be all over it in a heartbeat. Alas, the studios won't relent on the imaginary benefit of DRM.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Interesting)
No mod points to give (and I wish it went above five at times like this).
Two months ago, I gave Comcast the ol' heave-ho in favor of a far, far cheaper ($100 less per month cheaper) satellite+DSL subscription package. I get more channels, a far more reliable connection (speed? whatever... my 6Mbps DSL line gets me downloads way faster than Comcast's forged-RST and oversubscribed-DOCSIS 'product' could ever hope to give.)
Let's just say that I'd rather masturbate to a nudie pic of Rosie O'Donnell with a fistful of broken glass soaked in gasoline, than to even think of giving money to those fucktards... ever.
If Hulu demands that I get a cable sub, Hulu simply won't be visited by any computer here.
Besides, speaking of which, how exactly does Hulu intend to compete with the cableco's own online/streaming features? It's like buddying up to a ravenous tiger in the hopes that you'll be eaten last or something.
Re:No. (Score:3, Interesting)
It won't slow "cord cutting" to make cable subscriptions more attractive, it'll just lead to people not using Hulu,
I 100% agree. I've had Comcast service for the last 2 years after moving out to the fringe. Last month, after three iterations of the "discount-expires / I-cancel / Comcast-reoffers-discount / I-reneg" charade, I cut the cord. The mental exercise of remembering the offer's expiration date and then rehashing that cycle totally overshadowed what was my already dwindling viewership. Aside from "Walking Dead", the only other channel I hit was Discovery -- and even then maybe twice a week. Netflix Instant Watch on the Roku / iPad coupled with DVD's for the kids give us plenty to watch.
However, the wife and I were talking just this morning about signing up for Hulu. The price and convenience of it are a no-brainer compared to traditional cable. But now that I hear about this, I think I'll reneg...and not feel shameful about this one.
Good luck, Hulu.
Re:Where's the evidence? (Score:5, Interesting)
Starting August 15, 2011, viewers of content from Fox and related networks will have to authenticate whether they subscribe to a paid cable or satellite service wherever Fox streams episodes, including Hulu, to be able to watch them the morning after the first airing. Non-subscribers will see those episodes delayed a week before they are viewable.
The wikipedia article cites the following NY Times article. [nytimes.com] The source is more credible, and there's a big difference between "Hulu to Require Viewers To Have a Cable Subscription" and "Fox to Limit Next-Day Streaming on Hulu to Paying Cable Customers."
TFA is probably wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
While the customer support guy was not permitted to respond directly to claims in new stories, he said they hadn't heard of such a change, he'd be shocked if they did so, and would feel the same way about it that I did. It doesn't make much sense, as this would precisely eliminate the reason I bother to pay for Hulu Plus -- because I don't have, and will not buy, cable service. A move like this would do nothing to enhance Hulu's revenue, and would almost certainly eliminate a large part of their subscribers.
If you're a Hulu Plus subscriber and you're actually concerned about it, call them yourself; 1-877-719-2773. No hold time, no phone tree; it goes directly to a human in customer service.
Andy says... (Score:4, Interesting)
In the future everyone will be famous for 15 minutes.
Youtube is a rudimentary fullfillment of that prophesy.
The lack of need for a music industry is killing the current parasite. Music and musicians adapt fine and all is well. No need to panic.
The lack of need for pregurgitated propagandii perpitrated perpetually program pandering pustules we call the media, our enemy, will
give way to population perfected programming particularly presented palatable personas propheting pandemic.
Thufferin' Thuccothash! Did I Thpit on you? Here's a hanky.
That's right, the internet and computers blur the need for several old school things. Newspapers? Magazines? Blogs are certainly evolving faster than their predecessors and outpacing them in some cases.
Now we have YouTube, Open source movies, open source animation, individuals, film students and everything in between. Individuals broadcast live programs both video and audio. More and more power has come to the individual and now that we're all a networked audience, the worlds a stage that frees us from the constraints of a parasitic dangerous tool of government and special interest.
Well ding,dong the witch is dead! 25 years and no one will care about the burnt out crack neighborhood they call Hollywood.
I personally welcome ourselves as overlords.
'Cause cable/satellite/broadcast and the studios that fill them all eat where they sh*t and no one is amused, let alone fascinated with anything but the fewer and farer between techo-breakthroughs. Internet killed the media star.
Personally if the world took over reporting the news, just generally, the average Joe is already someone I'd rather give the time of day than the inhuman swine genetically attracted to the film/tv/music industry.
Another story near this asks if we are still evolving. I think we may be, electronically, artificially, as a networked human race be on to something here.
Re:Of course (Score:4, Interesting)
Have your child play what they've rehearsed over the weekend on Monday, have a nice dinner, then help the kids with the homework then read them a book off gutenburg (well now that they've *ked downloading ebooks, go to one of the scabsites).
On Tuesday you play a card game the copyright died on a millennium ago or one you just made up, have a nice dinner, help the kids wash the cat/dog or rats to much squealing, dinner is pizza, homework if any.
On Wednesday you play a board game, maybe one you bought at a garage sale when Gygax was still alive, dinner, homework
On Thursday you have music appreciation played off of digitized no longer copyrighted works, dinner and homework
On Friday take the kids out bowling and a little fast food.
On Sat relax and rehearse for Monday
On Sunday rest
Re:In that case... (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately they did it to themselves. They refused to adapt to new technology, and as a result, they're playing whack-a-mole with legislation and treaties that do nothing for the widespread bootlegging in emerging markets. Instead of finding a way to monetize that and keep happy customers, they try to squeeze those of us who do pay and do play by the rules as if we're just "on the verge of being a dirty pirate" because we embrace technology and have an mp3 player and computer. (Really, is the Ukraine really a market where you want to charge $20 for a DVD? Where'd these idiots go to business school?)
I used to feel a tinge of guilt when someone put up on a torrent a cammed version of a movie... now I just don't care. When I buy now, I buy used, since most of the movies I want to see are either out of print or not available in my region (as stupid as that sounds, why can't we get the Japanese versions of ALL the Godzilla movies, hmm? What the hell are they doing that keeps a "US version" and a "Japanese version" in separate regions? Not all Godzilla movies feature Raymond Burr to mask the nuclear holocaust warnings the originals had.) :)
Anyway, I'm rambling. I like the Amazon mp3 store... there are some good sales and some great free compilations to get without DRM. Why is it movies and TV shows (that are broadcast without cost to the viewer) held under a lock and key that rivals the CDC's ebola wing? Because the people in charge are stupid. The people in charge of the government are stupid. The people electing them are stupid. The people running multinational corporations are stupid. The media conglomerates are chock full of stupid. Hell, the Justice Department is full of ex-media lawyers and RIAA goons for fuck's sake, what do we expect?
I am done with movie theaters. I am done with new DVDs. If I can get it used, it's not worth watching. It costs less, and it doesn't give those rat bastards a penny who are fucking our technological lead in the ass. Honestly, this is all over something they could've solved 10 YEARS ago instead of litigating the planet into a cesspool of bullshit and draconian laws that outlaw everything this side of whistling. And by FSM, when they find a way to do that, you KNOW they will. Fuck lawyers, politicians, actors, and CEOs in the ass with big rubber dicks.
I guess I am cynical, but I am tired of hearing their excuses... and I am tired of the lack of respect for the Public Domain (the very thing that made Disney billions....) Eh. I hope they all go bankrupt and take about 90% of the overpaid actors/actresses with them. Oh, and could someone please for the love of FSM, NUKE Barbara Streisand from orbit? It's the only way to be sure.