AfterDawn: Tech news

Fox's misleading response to piracy report

Written by Rich Fiscus @ 24 Aug 2011 4:58 User comments (5)

Fox's misleading response to piracy report

A Fox Network executive responded to TorrentFreak's report of an increase in piracy caused by the network's change in online video policy with a statement that completely dodges the issue.
Earlier this week TorrentFreak pointed out how Fox's decision to delay the availability of their shows for free online viewing had already resulted in more piracy.

As of last week, the free streams for Fox shows aren't available on Hulu until 8 days after they air. Instead, they are only available to Hulu Plus or Dish Network subscribers.

Fox is also working on other pay TV providers. Fox Television senior vice president Scott Grogin told The Hollywood Reporter:

We are actively in negotiations with all cable/satellite/telco providers regarding authentication of their customers. We hope to announce several more agreements before the start of the new television season in mid-September.

He also claims the network is, "pursuing a strategy where the 90+ million households who pay to watch our programming via cable/satellite/telco will ultimately receive maximum benefit."

Of course that doesn't address TorrentFreak's point at all, which was delaying official online releases drives people to piracy.

Besides, suggesting this policy maximizes anything except viewer annoyance is laughable. Fox isn't giving pay TV customers anything they didn't already have. Instead they're trying to take it away from everyone else.

Of course Fox executives already know all this. Unauthorized options, from file sharing to YouTube uploads, are the entire reason Hulu exists at all.

At the time Hulu was launched by News Corp and NBC Universal, the goal was to convert unauthorized viewers who generated no revenue for Fox Network and NBC into authorized viewers generating ad revenue.

The problem is Fox's paranoia that authorized video streams will compete with cable, satellite & other subscription services. The unauthorized sources compete with those services already, which means any successful alternative will have to do the same.

Previous Next  

5 user comments

124.8.2011 18:33

So what'cha expect?!? The Truth?!? HA! This is FOX, after all.

"FOX NEWS: We Decieve, You Believe"

224.8.2011 21:14

This is not about Fox News, this is about Fox Broadcast. Different beasts, although owned by Newscorp.

324.8.2011 21:47

Yup...and so is "The News of the World"...or they were before they had to close for that phone hacking thing.

I really hope they follow through on their false promises...everything on the network should be available instantly online and without streaming limitations, and episodes should never expire...and there should be no additional fee (he said, "maximum benefit").

...and I think all the networks should do this. In fact, if they did this and offered access to the websites for $5 a month per site, I would turn off my cable (I only watch a handful of channels, but I have to pay for the expensive channel pack to get one of them).

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 24 Aug 2011 @ 9:48

425.8.2011 10:20

Fox, looked at in pity & laughed at all over the developed world
(pockets of the USA excepted).

To anyone with even a shred of critical intelligence they are an obvious propaganda outlet, not a serious TV or news station.

With luck we in the UK are about to get rid of the Murdocks after the criminal activities of their company and bar them from holding senior positions in the UK.

With luck we will also have the sense to break up News International & impose sensible cross-media ownership riules so as to stop this sort of corrupting criminal situation ever arising again.

I would suggest others find a way to do likewise.

525.8.2011 12:50

I've already complained in the past that I too pay an exorbitant amount of money for cable service & internet service. All of it continually bombards me with their self propaganda of all the wonderful attributes that come with being with this company, yet I can't access most of what they tout as having. And no, it isn't operator head space, it's just flaccid reasons to charge more for a rather simple service. Exactly what Fox is trying to do.

I really don't see what Fox is going to offer that isn't already being sold by the cable/satellite providers already. All I see is a double dipping avenue to now charge folks for their advertising as well. Pretty much like cable TV & the movie theaters do now.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive