I would definitely do that. I'd be highly attracted and would use it instead of pirate trackers because there wouldn't be any potential negative legal ramifications. I can't stand the streaming experience provided by most vendors; I find Flash the most detestable component thereof, but I also strongly dislike being forced to redownload data if I want to watch again or even make significant seeks. I don't necessarily have a problem with ads.
However, I would prefer to patronize a tracker that required subscription fees and didn't display ads. I have thought about launching a startup that would provide media companies with the platform to do this. There are a lot of interesting possibilities for both producers and consumers there.
At the same time, advertisement is so deeply ingrained in the operation of TV companies that I am not really sure they'd ever be comfortable moving to a model of distributing TV that didn't rely upon an advertisement as a revenue stream.
As jerf mentioned, these companies love streaming because it gives the same kind of control they get from "streaming" the broadcast to your television; all the content is retained server-side and the user doesn't get their own copy without special initiative (DVR/VCR). They are still able to consolidate control of distribution under the streaming model (or the iTunes model, where they ask Apple to remove the file and it's apparently gone forever) and I find it unlikely that they'll be willing to give that up.
This is primarily hypothetical as I consciously avoid almost all TV and movies.
This is what I don't understand about cable TV (as I've used it in the UK, Australia and the Netherlands anyway; not sure about the US model). It's rammed full of adverts, yet we're already paying a subscription for the service. I'm sure there is a simple explanation for this, but what gives?
Essentially, they do it because they can. People expect advertisements on TV so they accept it even with a subscription to cable; cable offers value that otherwise wouldn't be available by offering a lot of channels that are not accessible over-the-air in any market. It's not like a website with a premium ad-free subscription where the content is the same, only without advertisements. Cable also prevents fiddling with antennae/reception, etc.
The cable company I'm sure would argue that your subscription fees pay only broadcast and signal transport costs and that the individual channels run advertisements to pay for their operation and production.
However, I would prefer to patronize a tracker that required subscription fees and didn't display ads. I have thought about launching a startup that would provide media companies with the platform to do this. There are a lot of interesting possibilities for both producers and consumers there.
At the same time, advertisement is so deeply ingrained in the operation of TV companies that I am not really sure they'd ever be comfortable moving to a model of distributing TV that didn't rely upon an advertisement as a revenue stream.
As jerf mentioned, these companies love streaming because it gives the same kind of control they get from "streaming" the broadcast to your television; all the content is retained server-side and the user doesn't get their own copy without special initiative (DVR/VCR). They are still able to consolidate control of distribution under the streaming model (or the iTunes model, where they ask Apple to remove the file and it's apparently gone forever) and I find it unlikely that they'll be willing to give that up.
This is primarily hypothetical as I consciously avoid almost all TV and movies.