I think Apple should instead relaunch Apple TV the service. Just like the iTunes store and music, it is far more effective to provide a good solution for distributing material and just collect fees. This is how I envision Apple TV should work.

Instead of launching a cable network or a hardware TV, Apple needs to address the problems people have with their current cable company. Chief of those complaints is paying for channels no one watches.

Apple should launch a rebranded “Video Store”. Much like their Newsstand app, it will focus on specific content that is delivered automatically and presented in a central location. Content providers can then make Video Store compatible apps that users open and stream their “channel”. So, in Newsstand, I subscribe to GQ. Every month the latest GQ issue is downloaded to my iPad. I’m notified and the cover changes in the Newsstand. Whenever I’m ready, I open the GQ app and read it. I’m able to pay my subscription through iTunes using the same account I use to buy apps. Simple.

The Video Store would be similar. I could have the HBO app downloaded. I pay a set amount per month for the subscription and open the app when I’m ready to watch. Let’s say I don’t want to pay for all of AMC. I could simply buy the “Mad Men” subscription, and every week when the latest episode comes out, it shows up available to stream on my device.

This doesn’t sound groundbreaking, but it gets to two issues. First, is the universal cord cutter wish of “a la carte” cable choices in subscriptions. Second, it gets around the storage issue of buying episodes in iTunes and having to sync your device to download them. These video files take up huge amounts of space, so it is far easier to put all that server space Apple bought in NC to use and just stream on demand to subscribers. We can see Apple is already doing this with the current version of Apple TV, allowing you to stream episodes you have previously downloaded.

It also allows users who complain about live sports and news to get that content as well. The CNN app streams live CNN and you can subscribe to MLB at bat or NBA Season Pass. The content providers could still get paid – and get it directly from users instead of charging fees to cable operators.

Obviously, it is also necessary to get the content on television screens. Apple should utilize the standard that they already put right in front of our noses – Airplay. So, for those who only want to use Apple for TV – buy an Apple TV plug it in your screen of choice, and subscribe. For those on iPads and iPhones, you can subscribe on your device and “push” to your device the shows you want to watch. This is a key point, because suddenly your television and video content becomes truly mobile. No longer do you have to be home scrolling through your DVR to watch last week’s episode of Community. Now you can catch Boardwalk Empire at the gym and then How I Met Your Mother when you get home on the big screen.

This appeases complaints that content is too locked down in current offerings like Hulu with “PC only” restrictions. No longer do you have to hope that the episode you missed three weeks ago is still on Hulu, or that the one you missed last night is available on Fox.com only after a week has passed.

Will this work? If anyone can do it, it is Apple. They were the only company that could push the music companies into online distribution. Now with even more clout, they might be ready to gently guide the video content companies toward the future.

Instead, I’m going to point to an example of why it is important and necessary and that it is difficult because it is very hard to be an artist and make a decent living by selling your works when we live in the age of the internet and easy copying and distribution.

Louis CK is a fantastic comedian. He was wildly popular as a “comedian’s comedian” for a long time during the early 2000s, but is finally getting some big recognition. Check out his early hour long HBO comedy specials, or his FX show “Louie”.

Many don’t know that he actually directs, shoots and edits “Louie” himself. He has explained how he puts it all together on his own mac which lets him express his creativity and keep his budget low or allow him to use it on other things, like a freaking helicopter in the pilot.

Anyway, he recently decided to put out his latest stand up special out on video using his website as the distribution method. And, he is doing so against lots of strong opinions that he is being dumb. See this disclaimer on his own website:

To those who might wish to “torrent” this video: look, I don’t really get the whole “torrent” thing. I don’t know enough about it to judge either way. But I’d just like you to consider this: I made this video extremely easy to use against well-informed advice. I was told that it would be easier to torrent the way I made it, but I chose to do it this way anyway, because I want it to be easy for people to watch and enjoy this video in any way they want without “corporate” restrictions.

Please bear in mind that I am not a company or a corporation. I’m just some guy. I paid for the production and posting of this video with my own money. I would like to be able to post more material to the fans in this way, which makes it cheaper for the buyer and more pleasant for me. So, please help me keep this being a good idea. I can’t stop you from torrenting; all I can do is politely ask you to pay your five little dollars, enjoy the video, and let other people find it in the same way.

Sincerely,
Louis C.K.

Already he is admitting it is almost futile to fight pirates who are going to steal his material. It is rare to see an artist address it so openly. Normally, they want to appear cool to their audience, so they let the distribution arm take the heat of enforcement.

In order to make a living, an artist needs to sell their work. But in order to do that in a digital world, it takes money and requires technology that restricts easy usage. That makes the product cost more.

Louis CK is in a unique position because no one (other than his kids) rely on the profit from this experiment. If it fails there is little risk of big loss. But, when a big media studio makes a film requiring a director, several writers, actors and technical experts like editors to pull together the risks of putting something out without protections are far too great.

I would also argue that people feel worse when it feels like a more direct stealing of a piece of work. When you illegally download this special you are very aware you are taking money from Louie. When you download the latest studio film from some faceless corporation it is far easier to rationalize that no one is getting hurt.

Edit: A few days later and Louie’s experiment seems to have paid off. He has sold many copies. However, I still argue this is an outlier. Giant media corporations couldn’t pull this off, for exactly the reason I articulate in the last paragraph above. And Louie agrees:

Fascinating, wide-ranging group interview with Louis C.K. On piracy and bootlegging:

To steal from someone and not feel bad, you either have to be a sociopath or view the act differently. One way is to remove “Someone” from the equation. You’re not stealing from a person. Big companies do a lot to help people view them as less than human. I heard a speech by Noam Chomsky who said that corporations are like super humans. They cannot be hurt like a human can and they never die. They are not susceptible to scrutiny or accountability. This makes them more profitable. If companies want to enjoy these benefits to some degree they have to live with what else comes with being not human. You miss out on compassion, forgiveness, camaraderie, empathy, trust all kinds of shit.

Sometimes you feel like you are listening to his therapy sessions set to music. But I also think this unbridled license to explore raw emotions is what allows fans to connect to Gambino unlike other artists they listen to.

Fantastic show. Sharing two songs off his album which drops Tuesday. You can listen to it in its entirety at NPR. You can also buy it over at Amazon.

First is my current hype song – You See Me. Filthy, misogynist, braggadocio which is exactly what you want in a hip hop psych yourself up to go out song.

Second is what is Gambino’s strong point. Emotional songs about girls. Check out both to see the complexity and lyrical skill of this up and coming rapper.

Largely, users don’t have to do anything. If you just subscribe to DVDs, you will be moved to a Qwikster account. If you only pay for streaming, you will remain a Netflix user. However, for users who subscribe to both are bound to be a little annoyed. Instead of being able to search one site, you will now have two separate accounts, two separate bills, and most annoyingly – two separate websites to handle. That means two queues to edit and keep track of. Oh did you already watch that on streaming? Sorry, you didn’t take it off your DVD que on qwikster.com. We’re still sending it to you. Sorry you forgot to remove it from both of your queues.

This seems like yet another bungled step in the current odd track of moves Netflix has taken as of late. Luckily, Netflix doesn’t have serious competition, but it almost seems like they are willingly creating an opportunity for one to step up.

I had a feeling this is exactly what Netflix was trying to do when it announced it was separating DVDs from Streaming plans. They realize DVDs are old media. Expensive to ship compared to just moving data, and far less convenient.

Until very recently, record labels often forced very tough contracts on their artists. If they didn’t agree, fine you didn’t get your music out. Part of these contracts was an agreement that the artists would grant the copyright of their recording to the record label. Not just the right to distribute or promotion, but the entire right to the song. They did this in exchange for the right to use the studio, get an advance award of money, etc. The record label would spend a lot of money on the artist to record and promote, so they wanted the profit off of the song. Of course, these contracts were permanent. It wasn’t “you get the right to the song for 10 years”, it was for as long as copyright protects the song. This all meant the record labels were profiting from licensing the song in films, or for other public performances without having to compensate artists.

However, Section 203 of the Copyright Act might change that. Basically, copyright law allows for any permanent transfers of copyright to be cancelled by the artist after 35 years of the transfer has passed. There are some limitations, such as the artist has 5 years to file the claim to re-acquire, and they have to give 2 years notice. Most important though, is the qualifier that this right can’t be sold away in a contract. This means the record labels can’t claim their all-encompassing contracts probably doesn’t include the right of termination.

There is one more limitation that the record labels are grasping on to. “Works made for hire” don’t qualify. Works for hire would be songs made by an “employee”. The question of course, is whether these musicians are employees. The labels are going to argue that they gave the artists money and instructed them to record. The artists will counter that they were just given studio time and decided to assign their songs to the labels. It will be up to the courts to decide.

Does this affect you personally? Unless you recorded music in the 70s, probably not. However, record labels are already hurting. The industry would really be shaken up if they stop collecting royalties on old songs that get played. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I’m not picky. As long as she’s smart, pretty, and sweet, and gentle, and tender, and refined, and lovely, and carefree…

-Sundance Kid

and a night in LA