Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Media Television Hardware

Hulu Again Removed From Boxee and Again Added Back 220

An anonymous reader writes "In a mouse and cat game, Hulu the popular online content provider of shows, movies, and more has blocked Boxee yet again from accessing the Hulu content from the Boxee application. Just as Boxee added RSS feeds to include Hulu content, Hulu responded with blocking Boxee users from accessing the content via RSS feeds the very same day. RSS feeds are publicly available and it's really disappointing to hear that a site would block certain applications from accessing their content in such a manner. I would assume that the Boxee development team is currently working on disguising its browser to look like Firefox, Internet Explorer, or some other known browser in an attempt to fool Hulu."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hulu Again Removed From Boxee and Again Added Back

Comments Filter:
  • by Daimanta ( 1140543 ) on Saturday March 07, 2009 @08:02PM (#27108333) Journal

    "How would you feel if someone hot-linked your content, consumed your bandwidth, and gave you no advertising revenue in exchange?"

    Probably like a person with a very broken business model, but that's just me.

  • by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Saturday March 07, 2009 @08:04PM (#27108347)

    It's not an engineer's problem entirely. No matter how they engineer it, someone can possibly scrape their streams, and serve them to the user utilizing the provider's bandwidth.

    So they can and shold get their lawyers involved to take action and stop the blatant copyright infringment (framing someone else's content in your own site is a case of infringement, except when you're authorized to do it [implicitly and otherwise], and you do it in the manner so authorized).

    There is a possible solution though: inject the ads into the video itself, so they can't be separated.

    Make the videos 'dynamic' flash videos, so the advertising can't really be removed without modifying a .SWF file.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07, 2009 @09:48PM (#27109083)

    The moderators don't have a TV you insensitive bastard.

    Turing word: lacking
    In a sentence: Today's group of moderators is not lacking in lackwits.

  • by ShieldW0lf ( 601553 ) on Saturday March 07, 2009 @10:12PM (#27109237) Journal
    Interesting theory. Please, let me know when you develop a means to pay the bills with your lofty ideals, it sounds much more fulfilling than selling out the way everyone else does.

    You mean like when my girlfriend releases digital copies under creative commons, allows book publishers, music publishers and event promoters to use her images free with attribution, and then sells the original works of acrylic painted on canvas in higher volume and for higher prices? Works real well... gets a lot of commissioned pieces for murals, does live paintings of performers at raves and spoken word events and festivals, the list goes on.

    It's called dealing with the realities of the world. Sell what is naturally scarce and share what is naturally plentiful as wide and far as you can, and people will come knock on your door. Now, contrast that with a business model whose entire existence relies on the continuation of wildly unpopular and wasteful legal structures that treat bits on a wire as though they were carrots dug out of your garden. Who is the idealist here?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08, 2009 @12:19AM (#27109895)

    So... you have no idea what you're talking about, but you won't let that stop you?

    You have nothing to add to the discussion but a vacuous post that proves that you don't understand what the adults are talking about.

    But that certainly didn't stop you from posting did it. Go away & let the adults talk cutie.

  • Re:Screw `em (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nschubach ( 922175 ) on Sunday March 08, 2009 @01:25AM (#27110137) Journal

    I suggest anyone interested in this grab the script form the forums: []

    (It doesn't add in domain names for links if you have them enabled)

  • by pushing-robot ( 1037830 ) on Sunday March 08, 2009 @03:24AM (#27110529)

    I wouldn't be surprised if the cable/satellite companies and local broadcasters are pressuring the national networks, as they have the most to lose from Internet-streaming set top boxes.

    Local broadcasters don't have enormous profit margins. They're hurting right now, [] and if ten percent of their market decide to stream Hulu to their TV, it could mean bankruptcy for many smaller providers. NBC and Fox have done the math; they don't want to lose the majority of their audience (who still watch whatever's on the tube) just to make a minority (who've learned about this whiz-bang Internet thingy) happy.

    Cable and satellite companies, of course, have tremendous influence over the networks as well, as they provide the majority of the audience these days. They also have a history of doing whatever it takes to prevent competition and sweeten their contracts with the networks. If NBC has to choose between Comcast and Hulu, they'll pick the one that has 25 million paying subscribers. Hint: It's not Hulu...

    Honestly, I don't think this is really about Boxee at all. I think it's just an attempt to set precedent. Lots of people are scared to death of a box that lets people watch whatever they want, whenever they want, with no monthly fee (beyond their broadband service). End distributors (local networks, cable companies) are afraid of the competition. Networks are afraid of losing their position as the gatekeepers of content, as the Internet makes it far easier for content creators (the individual production companies) to deal directly with the "distributors" (YouTube, etc).

    So the networks have to walk a very fine line here. On the one hand, they can't afford to anger (or bankrupt) their current distributors. On the other, they can't afford to lose their dominance, even as people start switching to Internet-based services.

    As a result, the networks seem to be taking a cautious approach: They work to popularize their own online services, like Hulu, in hopes of transferring their content oligopoly to the online world, but they avoid direct competition with their major distribution methods.

    I'd wager that if streaming ever reaches a "saturation point", where everybody is watching TV on their computer and the market seems ready to switch, the networks will release some ordained "magic box" which streams their content (and maintains their control over the content market), and happily give their old distributors the metaphoric finger.

    Or, if one large content owner makes a big push for streaming set top boxes, expect the rest to follow suit fairly quickly.

    Until one of those occurs, though, expect more of the status quo. To use an analogy that describes technology adoption by most large industries: Nobody wants to be the only one in the pool, but they definitely don't want to be the only one out of the pool. They may all decide to jump in together, but if one decides to jump in now, the rest will follow.

Money can't buy love, but it improves your bargaining position. -- Christopher Marlowe