People today use the Netflix service on their computers, but Netflix (NFLX) has cut a series of deals with hardware partners to make the service available on TV sets through an array of devices.

Most of these devices were designed to do other things: a videogame console, high-definition Blu-ray disc players, a TiVo (TIVO) digital video recorder. So to see how well the service works on these devices, I’ve spent the past couple of weeks comparing the Netflix experience on Microsoft’s (MSFT) Xbox 360 game console, on LG Electronics’ BD300 Blu-ray disc player and on a set-top box from Roku called the Netflix Player. The last, as the name implies, is designed mainly for Netflix service.

The devices suffer from a relatively skimpy selection of videos on the Netflix Internet service. Netflix has more than 100,000 titles for rent on disc, but about 12,000 titles for viewing through its Internet service at the moment, and there’s often a months-long delay after a movie’s release before it shows up online. Television shows generally turn up more quickly, with a handful, like NBC’s “Heroes,” watchable the day after they air.

Still, I find the Netflix service very appealing, especially for catching up on episodes of TV series, such as “30 Rock,” that I missed when they aired. Unlike the iTunes Store and other sites that charge users $1.99 per TV episode and $3.99 to rent a movie online, the Netflix Internet service is free to subscribers to its DVD service on one of the company’s “unlimited” rental plans, which start at $8.99 a month.

Depending on how fast your Internet connection is, Netflix videos begin playing almost instantly, though you can’t keep permanent copies.

Connecting the devices to Netflix through my wired home network was easy in all three cases. I used a wireless home network — more common in homes than the wired variety — with the Roku device, the only one of three products that comes with built-in Wi-Fi (it worked well in this mode). People who want to use the Xbox 360 with a wireless network will have to spend $70 or so on an external Wi-Fi adapter. LG recommends people use only a wired home network to connect to Netflix from its player, including adapter kits that cost about $100 for transmitting data over home power lines.

All the devices require you to create a list of movies you want to watch from a computer, just like Netflix subscribers set up “queues” of DVDs to be delivered by mail. The Xbox 360 offered by far the most elegant-looking interface for browsing through videos in my Netflix queue, letting me glide through a long row of cover art representing the movies and TV shows I selected on my PC.

In contrast, the Netflix menu on the LG Blu-ray player and Roku device were more static, making it more awkward to navigate the expanse of titles. Netflix became available on the Xbox 360 in November as part of a more sweeping software upgrade, delivered over the Internet, that remade the graphical look of the system.

The quality of most of the videos on Netflix is, to my eyes, about DVD quality, though Netflix is adding some titles in high-definition to its Internet library. HD titles were available for viewing only through the Xbox 360 when I was testing the service. Roku and LG say they will make software updates available online this month that add HD support to their devices.

The Xbox 360 also has some annoying quirks when using it as a movie player — including a noisy fan I found distracting. The game controller that comes with the Xbox 360 is clunky for playing movies, so users will need to invest in an inexpensive additional remote-control design for media. The Roku and LG players, in contrast, were totally silent and had acceptable remote controls for watching Netflix videos.

I experienced the most serious glitches with the LG Blu-ray player, which occasionally dropped the video signal to my television set as I was watching a movie. LG says the loss of video signal could have been due to the connection I used to hook the player to my TV, though I’ve never had a problem with other devices using the same connection. The LG Blu-ray player also took the longest of all the devices to install software upgrades from the Internet.

While there are some differences in the Netflix experience on the Roku device, Xbox 360 and LG Blu-ray player, none of them is so great that they should trump other considerations — like a desire to play videogames or watch HD Blu-ray movies — in deciding which system is the best fit.

The LG Blu-ray player is available online for about $300. The cheapest Xbox 360 model is $199. (To get Netflix through the Xbox 360, users must be “gold” members to the $49.99-a-year Xbox Live game service.) But if what you’re after is primarily Netflix movies, and you’ve got room near your TV for another box, the $99.99 Roku product is the best value.

Walt Mossberg is on vacation.

Write to Nick Wingfield at nick.wingfield@wsj.com

Amazon (AMZN) launched a new service called Amazon Video on Demand, which allows users, for a fee, to watch any of 40,000 TV episodes or movies, in real time, on their Windows and Macintosh computers, and on specially equipped Sony Bravia TV sets. This service replaces an earlier Amazon video offering called Unbox.

I have been testing Amazon Video on Demand and I found it worked well, although it has some limitations. The user interface is clean and smart, the quality is good if you have a fast Internet connection, and there are some clever features. On the downside, it works poorly with the slow connections typical in places like hotels. And there are some studio-imposed limits on what content is offered and how you can view it.

To date, there have been three major models for legally getting TV shows and movies from the Web.

In one, best represented by Apple’s (AAPL) widely used iTunes store, the TV shows and movies are ad-free, but you pay for each. All of this content is downloaded to your Windows or Macintosh computer or your Apple TV set-top box for later viewing, even when you’re not connected to the Internet — though on Apple TV you can start watching while the material is being downloaded.

A second model, best represented by the studio-owned Hulu.com, presents movies and TV shows on a Windows or Macintosh personal computer free of charge, but requires you to watch commercials that can’t be skipped. The TV shows and movies you view on Hulu are “streamed” rather than downloaded, meaning they are meant to be viewed immediately, in real time, rather than stored for viewing when you’re not connected to the Internet.

The third online model is best represented by Netflix (NFLX), the popular DVD distributor. It offers a “Watch Instantly” streaming option on Windows PCs or on TVs equipped with a special set-top box, for a small portion of its large catalog of TV shows and movies. These videos are ad-free and don’t carry an individual charge, but require a monthly subscription fee.

The new Amazon Video on Demand service is a hybrid of these others. As on iTunes, the TV shows and movies it offers are ad-free and purchased individually, don’t require a subscription, and work on both Windows and the Mac, plus on one type of set-top box. In Amazon’s case, that’s Sony’s Bravia Internet Link, a $299 device that works only with Sony (SNE) TVs.

But, like Hulu and Netflix and unlike Amazon’s older Unbox service, the new Amazon Video on Demand service offers videos via real-time streaming. In many cases, it also allows downloading, iTunes-style, to Windows PCs (but not Macs) and to TiVo devices attached to a TV. The videos can’t be streamed in real time using a TiVo (TIVO).

Amazon’s streaming videos are viewed in any of the major Web browsers and don’t require any special software. I tested the new service on both Windows PCs and Macs, and on a Sony Bravia TV equipped with the $299 adapter box. In my tests, Amazon’s videos looked quite good over a fast Internet connection. However, on a typically lousy hotel Internet connection, the movies were often grainy and kept stuttering.

The new service doesn’t yet offer videos in high definition, something Apple just announced this week it is adding for some TV shows. Amazon says it is working on HD.

Amazon’s user interface for the new service is very nice. All of your purchased videos are available in a library stored on the company’s servers, so you can easily watch them again and again if they are purchased, or resume a partly watched rental. And the service remembers where you stopped watching a video and resumes it at that point, even if you started it on, say, a Dell (DELL), and resumed it on a Mac.

On the downside, the new Amazon service isn’t always simple or consistent. For instance, you can watch only two videos at a time, and not all titles can be either streamed and downloaded, or be either purchased or rented. Most rentals last 24 hours, but some differ.

Selection was OK, but not great. Because of studio policies, many current and recent movie hits aren’t available. There are gaps as well in the TV selection. For example, while iTunes offers the current second season of the excellent “Mad Men” series, Amazon has only the first season.

Prices also can be confusing. Amazon rents most movies for $3.99 and sells them for between $9.99 and $14.99. TV shows generally cost $1.99. But some titles carry different prices, albeit these are often lower.

All in all, Amazon Video on Demand is a good service for people who prefer paying for ad-free TV shows and movies, and is another strong step in the Internet’s rising competition with traditional TV.

Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the All Things Digital Web site, walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

The trouble is, it’s hard to find a DVR that can record in high definition, so most people wind up simply going with the bare-bones high-definition DVR capability built into the set-top box supplied by their cable or satellite service.

But TiVo, the pioneer in digital video recording, has recently entered the high-definition recorder market with a high-end, high-priced product. It’s called the TiVo Series3 HD Digital Media Recorder and it sells for a whopping $800, as much as some HDTVs themselves. And that doesn’t include the $12.95 a month it costs to subscribe to TiVo.

I’ve been testing the new TiVo and I like it a lot, but it’s hard to swallow that huge price, especially since the new Series3 model doesn’t include some nice features available on the much cheaper Series2 version, which doesn’t record in high definition. It also can’t handle certain cable features.

So, why not just stick with the high-definition DVR supplied by the cable company? After all, while it isn’t free, it’s cheaper than the TiVo.

The answer is that, at least in my recent experience with the nation’s biggest cable company, Comcast, the high-definition DVR it supplies is just awful. If cable boxes were sold at retail like consumer-electronics devices, the Comcast DVR I tested, built by Motorola, would get creamed by better competitors.

My Comcast box, a Motorola DCT3412 I, which Comcast rents for about $12 a month, holds a maximum of 15 hours of high-definition programming or 60 hours of standard programming. The TiVo holds up to 35 hours of high-definition programs or up to 300 hours of standard.

Also, the user interface on the Comcast box is crude and confusing — nothing like the elegant interfaces people have become used to on their personal computers and devices like iPods. The TiVo interface, by contrast, is effective and attractive.

The worst problem is that the Comcast box flubs the basic functions of a DVR. It is maddeningly slow at responding to commands sent by the remote control to pause, play, fast-forward and rewind. You press pause and nothing happens. So you press it again. You try to return to normal speed after fast-forwarding through commercials and the unit takes so long to obey your command that you badly overshoot the resumption of the program.

This latency problem didn’t affect just one dud of a Motorola box. In our home, we have four of these units, and three have the problem. All, of course, share the capacity limitations and user-interface problems.

In the program grid, even on a 50-inch, high-definition screen with acres of room, the Comcast box displays just four rows of stations at a time. Until recently, there was a fifth row, but now that has been replaced by an ad. The ad not only sucks up space, but also is aggravating because it gets selected each time you reach the bottom of the grid screen.

Advertising is fine, but in this case, sacrificing 20% of an already paltry information screen for an ad just shows contempt for users.

By contrast, the basic TiVo grid shows eight rows of stations at a time, and offers an alternate view that packs in even more information using two vertical columns: one displaying stations and the other showing a list of shows scheduled in the coming hours.

And, unlike the Comcast box, the TiVo Series3 can be programmed from a Web site, so if somebody at the office tells you about a great show, you can tell the TiVo to record it long before you get home. The new TiVo can also play music and display photos that are stored on Windows and Macintosh PCs on your home network. The Comcast box can’t.

But the TiVo also has some downsides. Unlike older TiVos, it’s intended to replace, not complement, a cable box. So, installing it requires a visit from cable-company technicians to install gadgets called cable cards that plug into the back of the TiVo. In my case, that process took over two hours. Even worse, these cable cards don’t support Comcast’s on-demand feature, which allows you to see certain programs and movies whenever you choose.

And the new Series3 lacks the capability of cheaper TiVos to let you transfer recorded shows to computers and portable devices.

Also, unlike the Comcast box, the TiVo doesn’t have a filtered grid display showing only high-definition shows, which is handy once you become addicted to HD.

Fortunately, it may be possible to get some, but not all, of TiVo’s superior features by just waiting. In 2007, Comcast and TiVo expect to roll out an option for downloading TiVo software to Comcast boxes. This would provide the TiVo interface without sacrificing Comcast features such as on demand. The pricing and details haven’t been announced. Comcast is also working on other new user interfaces and features using non-TiVo technology.

But, for now, the choice is tough. The Comcast high-definition DVR is a cheaper, but flawed product and the TiVo Series3 is an excellent, but overpriced one.

Email me at mossberg@wsj.com.

Once mainly known inside the media industries and among activists who follow copyright issues, DRM is gradually becoming familiar to average consumers, who are increasingly bumping up against its limitations.

DRM is computer code that can be embedded in music and video files to dictate how these files are used. The best-known example is the music Apple Computer sells at its iTunes Music Store. Using a DRM system it invented called FairPlay, Apple has rigged its songs, at the insistence of the record companies, so that they can be played only on a maximum of five computers, and so that you can burn only seven CDs containing the same playlist of purchased tracks. If Apple hadn’t done this, the record labels wouldn’t have allowed it to sell their music.

DRM systems are empty vessels — they can enforce any rules copyright holders choose, or no rules at all. Apple’s DRM rules are liberal enough that few consumers object to them. In fact, obtaining relatively liberal DRM rules from the labels was the key to Apple’s success in selling music. But some other uses of DRM technology aren’t so benign.

Some CD buyers are discovering to their dismay that new releases from certain record companies contain DRM code that makes it difficult to copy the songs to their computers, where millions prefer to keep their music. People who buy online music in Microsoft’s Windows Media format too often run into the DRM error message “unable to obtain license” when trying to transfer the songs to a music player.

Some TiVo owners have reported seeing messages on their TV screens, apparently triggered by error, that warn that if the copyright holder so chooses, TiVo recordings can be made to expire automatically after a certain period.

For some activists, the very idea of Digital Rights Management is anathema. They believe that once a consumer legally buys a song or a video clip, the companies that sold them have no right to limit how the consumer uses them, any more than a car company should be able to limit what you can do with a car you’ve bought.

But DRM is seen as a lifesaver by the music, television and movie industries. The companies believe they need DRM technology to block the possibility that a song or video can be copied in large quantities and distributed over the Internet, thus robbing them of legitimate sales.

In my view, both sides have a point, but the real issue isn’t DRM itself — it’s the manner in which DRM is used by copyright holders. Companies have a right to protect their property, and DRM is one means to do so. But treating all consumers as potential criminals by using DRM to overly limit their activities is just plain wrong.

Let’s be clear: The theft of intellectual property on the Internet is a real problem. Millions of copies of songs, TV shows and movies are being distributed over the Internet by people who have no legal right to do so, robbing media companies and artists of rightful compensation for their work.

Even if you think the record labels and movie studios are stupid and greedy, as many do, that doesn’t entitle you to steal their products. If your local supermarket were run by people you didn’t like, and charged more than you thought was fair, you wouldn’t be entitled to shoplift Cheerios from its shelves.

On the other hand, I believe that consumers should have broad leeway to use legally purchased music and video for personal, noncommercial purposes in any way they want — as long as they don’t engage in mass distribution. They should be able to copy it to as many personal digital devices as they own, convert it to any format those devices require, and play it in whatever locations, at whatever times, they choose.

The beauty of digital media is the flexibility, and that flexibility shouldn’t be destroyed for honest consumers just because the companies that sell them have a theft problem caused by a minority of people.

Instead of using DRM to stop some individual from copying a song to give to her brother, the industry should be focusing on ways to use DRM to stop the serious pirates — people who upload massive quantities of music and videos to so-called file-sharing sites, or factories in China that churn out millions of pirate CDs and DVDs.

I believe Congress should rewrite the copyright laws to carve out a broad exemption for personal, noncommercial use by consumers, including sharing small numbers of copies among families.

Until then, I suggest that consumers avoid stealing music and videos, but also boycott products like copy-protected CDs that overly limit usage and treat everyone like a criminal. That would send the industry a message to use DRM more judiciously.

• Email me at mossberg@wsj.com

But there is another idea for making TV watching convenient that is less well known. It is called “place shifting.” Place shifting allows viewers to watch TV shows they receive at home in other locations, and on devices other than their TV sets.

Unlike time shifting, which has been around for decades, place shifting is just getting going. A few portable video players are available, but they can’t play live TV, only shows recorded on special TiVo models or relatively expensive TV-capable “Media Center” PCs. And they are clumsy to use.

Today, however, place shifting of TV shows takes a big leap forward. A Silicon Valley start-up company called Sling Media is introducing a $250 gadget it calls a “personal broadcaster.” This small device, named the Slingbox, can beam any live TV show coming into your home to an Internet-connected Windows PC anywhere in the world. It also allows you to remotely watch shows you have recorded at home on a TiVo or other digital video recorder.

Sling Media’s Slingbox

The Slingbox gives you full control of your home TV and digital recorder even if you are thousands of miles away. You can change channels, use the program guide, and perform any action on the menus of your TV or recorder just as if you were sitting in front of your set. The home TV doesn’t even have to be on at the time.

And, best of all, the Slingbox is just a piece of hardware, not a service. It is a small silver box that simply sits between your cable or satellite receiver and your home broadband Internet connection and pumps your TV programs out via the Internet. It doesn’t require a TiVo, and it works with a standard Windows PC.

There are no periodic fees to pay, no membership is required and no advertisements are beamed at you other than the normal commercials that appear in the TV programs. All you shell out is the $250 for the device itself. Starting today, it will be available at CompUSA and Best Buy stores, and at those companies’ Web sites.

I have been testing the Slingbox at home, in my office and on the road. In my tests, it worked exactly as advertised. At my office, about a dozen miles from home, I watched recorded episodes of “Charlie Rose” and “Desperate Housewives.” At an airport, I watched CNBC live on my laptop via a public Wi-Fi connection. And in a Boston hotel room, about 450 miles from home, I watched a live Washington Nationals baseball game unavailable in Red Sox country.

The Slingbox was even useful when I hung around the house. I was able to watch live and recorded shows in rooms of my house that lacked TVs, and even while sitting out on my porch.

Video quality was surprisingly good — much better than the average video clip streamed over the Internet. The company has some video-optimizing technology that resulted in mostly smooth, stutter-free viewing. There were a few brief freezes, but nothing serious, even when I expanded the video playback window to the full screen.

The Sling software is well designed and easy to use. It allows you to view TV programs in a variety of sizes and formats, and it includes a software control panel with all of the key functions of your home remote control.

Setup, while not perfect, was as easy as the company could possibly make it, given the complexity of computer networking.

That brings me to the inevitable downsides and limitations of any new product. The Slingbox requires a broadband connection on both ends. It only works on PCs running Windows XP. The company has demonstrated it running on PDAs and cellphones, but software for those devices isn’t ready yet. Software for Macintosh computers is in the works.

You need a home network and a router. And even though the setup software and the manual are very well done, there is a step where you have to configure your router for the Slingbox that can get complicated fast. This has more to do with the needless complexity of computer networking than with Sling Media itself, but it can be an obstacle.

Also, the Slingbox doesn’t allow you to record or save the programs you receive on your remote computer, mostly for legal reasons — though somebody will probably come up with a way to do that. Similarly, mainly for legal reasons, there is no built-in way to give access to your Slingbox to another person, but all that person needs is a copy of the free Sling software, your password and your Slingbox’s ID number, which you could give them. Two PCs can’t access the same Slingbox at the same time, however.

There is another problem with the Slingbox: It extends the fight over the remote well beyond the walls of your home. If someone is watching the TV at home and you start changing channels from afar or launching recorded programs the other person doesn’t want to watch, long-distance arguments can ensue.

Still, I really like the Slingbox and can heartily recommend it to roaming TV lovers. It is a very good product that finally makes TV place shifting a reality.

Write to Walter S. Mossberg at walt.mossberg@wsj.com