RSS

Why Streaming is not the Answer

Science fiction author, blogger extraordinaire, and digital rights champion Cory Doctorow has an essay up at the Guardian site that explores in detail a point we have discussed here previously, and that is what the relationship is between streaming and downloading content, and what are the possible ramifications of a trend that emphasizes streaming over other forms of distribution (see YouTube, Hulu, Spotify, Last.fm, etc.).

Doctorow is flat-out brilliant and pretty much anything he writes is worth reading, and this most recent contribution is no exception.  He ably sketches what he sees as a growing consensus among content distributors that streaming is the answer to their problems with piracy, since, in theory at least, a streamed piece of media is not saved on a local hard drive, and the customer must then go back to the distributor for repeat viewings (sales), and cannot then distribute the content themselves to their friends or the Pirate Bay.

As anyone with much technical savvy knows, however, streaming and downloading are basically the same thing, it’s just that the streamed content is not supposed to be saved.  Users have worked around these kinds of restrictions for as long as streamed content has been around, and I personally used a number of programs to capture Real audio streams of Internet radio shows back before pod-casts became standard.  There are currently dozens of applications, plug-ins, widgets, you name it, to capture YouTube video, and if enough people were interested, I’m sure there will be some for Hulu as well.

As Doctorow eloquently explains, if big media companies do actually believe in the streaming “illusion” then they are in for a shock, and as with so much else, their clumsy legal attempts to make their wishes come true will likely so harm to all Internet users.  Not to mention the incredible inefficiency and network strain a world of constant streaming would create.

One area, however, where I think the media companies may have more reason for optimism with streaming than Doctorow believes is with video.  Music and video may diverge more strongly in regards to streaming than in other aspects of digital distribution.  While storage is getting cheaper every day, high definition video remains relatively sizeable, and generally there is not as much repetition as with music, decreasing the inherent inefficiency of streaming.

Less mobile consumption of video, away from reliable network bandwidth also allows for more streaming advantages in this area, as I think YouTube and Hulu are demonstrating.  Regardless of what actually serves user needs best, however, Doctorow is absolutely correct that the big content companies will continue to push for business and legal frameworks that serve their own interests first, at the cost of our own privacy and access to innovative technology.



Bruce Lidl
When not blogging, I do PR, marketing, community outreach, and social media. I’ve spent over ten years studying the file-trading and Peer-to-Peer phenomena, both personally and professionally, with specific interest in how file-trading has impacted technology, innovation and business. I live in San Diego with my lovely wife and two very rambunctious kids. Follow me on Twitter: kosmonautbruce | Google Plus
Eric G.
Eric G.

The streaming vs. download is often framed as a technical difference, but it is also a business model difference. Download = DVD model = Buy a title. Streaming = Broadcast model = Dynamic advertising. US DVD market ~ $10B US Broadcast market ~ $70B Margins are higher on per title sales to studios, but as you can see there is big money in broadcast. In broadcast the same title can get different ads at different times, and that is fundamentally what streaming offers. The question is: Given all the ways money moves around content today how will those ratios change or not in the future and how quickly?

Bob Jonkman
Bob Jonkman

One area, however, where I think the media companies may have more reason for optimism with streaming than Doctorow believes is with video. Music and video may diverge more strongly in regards to streaming than in other aspects of digital distribution. While storage is getting cheaper every day, high definition video remains relatively sizeable, and generally there is not as much repetition as with music, decreasing the inherent inefficiency of streaming. You say that now. When Napster first hit the Net it was said that while music was readily available, movies were safe from downloading because of their relatively large size. And in the late '90s when the photographers were all up in arms about pictures getting copied, it was said that other arts (like music and film) were safe from copying because of their relatively large size. And in the days of the BBS when people were swapping highly compressed GIFs it was said that full colour pictures were safe from swapping because of their relatively large size. And when home taping was killing music, it was thought that movies were safe from home taping, not because of their relatively large size, but because the technology to tape movies cost tens of thousands of dollars and was available only to studios. The only reason that HiDef movies aren't being downloaded or streamed is because North American service providers offer such miserable bandwidth to the consumer. HiDef will succumb to swapping, sharing and recording as soon as the ISPs realize they can make a buck by providing the bandwidth to do so. Next, it'll be complete libraries of music that get compiled and streamed. Then the complete catalogs of the studios. "Do you have Warner's holdings yet?" "Got it, but I'll swap you Sony for Disney". Soon, everyone will have everything. That'll put an end to file sharing. --Bob.

ralphie
ralphie

Uhh yeah. If it's watchable or listenable, it's recordable. Duh. If they had their way, they would demand that we immediately erase a movie from our brain that we just watched because we don't 'own' it, we just 'rent it'. poppycock.







VyprVPN Personal VPN lets you browse securely