how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·voip.ms
| reply to Noah Vail
Re: My acquaintance in Poland always downloads pirate movies said by Noah Vail:I think a more realistic evaluation of her post is: A lot folks would pay a reasonable amount for the programming of their choice. However, as long as content providers are more concerned with controlling viewer choice then they are with fair_product@fair_price; a meaningfully free market isn't normally available to viewers. I'll pay ~$10.00/mo for one Channel of Netflix that gives me an ad-free selection of content. I won't pay $10.00/mo for a basic cable package that gives me 30-40 channels; each consisting of ad-driven content beyond my choice. I'd pay $15.00/mo for the 3 non-premium channels of my worldwide choice. I suspect her friends might too. Look, not to be rude, but this is, in a nutshell, the entire debate! It isn't yours, so you don't get to decide what the content owners should charge. All you get to do is evaluate the offerings in the marketplace and decide whether you want to pay what they're asking, or do without.
Of course the simple alternative for many people is "bah, if they won't sell it to me for $15 (or $10, or $5, or $1 or whatever I think is 'fair') then I'll just download it."
The same justification has been used for years by people pirating software: "No way Office 20xx Pro is worth $400, I hardly use anything except Word and Outlook, but I really want Excel and Access just in case, so I'll just pirate it. Microsoft doesn't get hurt because I just wouldn't buy it for $400 anyhow."
Now MS has evolved their thinking and offered more options like Home editions and vastly reduced prices for Student editions, bully for them. But people still pirate Office and it's still wrong, and Microsoft could have chosen to stay with their old pricing model, and it wouldn't be a question of "fair".
So you can pick arbitrary numbers and appoint yourself lead negotiator with the TV industry and tell them that $15 is "fair" (to you) until you're blue in the face. Until they decide it's in their financial interest to offer packages like that, it's still fair. | |
 El Quintron... a faint odor of kerosenePremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
 ·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
 ·WIND Mobile
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| said by jester121:So you can pick arbitrary numbers and appoint yourself lead negotiator with the TV industry and tell them that $15 is "fair" (to you) until you're blue in the face. Until they decide it's in their financial interest to offer packages like that, it's still fair. The real difference nowadays is there is a choice. They can charge a fair price, or we can get it easily for $0.
What's great about piracy is that it actually creates a free market... no pun intended.
My beefs with ACTA are not about the whole piracy issue, but rather the privacy issue and my opinion still stands that we shouldn't throw our privacy out the window to protect the entertainmnet cartels from civil infringements.
--
Everything in Moderation... including moderation. | |
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
·Bright House
·Sprint Mobile Br..
| reply to jester121
said by jester121:Look, not to be rude, but this is, in a nutshell, the entire debate! It isn't yours, so you don't get to decide what the content owners should charge. All you get to do is evaluate the offerings in the marketplace and decide whether you want to pay what they're asking, or do without. So, you support the free market ideal
that the owners should charge what they want to charge;
but you also support the anti-capitalist notion
of carefully controlling a user's viewing experience
by purposefully limiting their choices.
A free market would have all available content
on the market
competing for consumer dollars;
as the technology emerges that enables that to happen.
A belief
that every legal business practice
is by default pro-capitalist and ethical,
isn't a very reasoned one.
said by jester121:Of course the simple alternative for many people is "bah, if they won't sell it to me for $15 (or $10, or $5, or $1 or whatever I think is 'fair') then I'll just download it." The same justification has been used for years by people pirating software: Which is why I suggested the realistic third option. It seems to be important to you that a consumer respect business practices; but I don't see evidence of a corresponding concern - for a capitalist free market - that protects consumers.
said by jester121:So you can pick arbitrary numbers and appoint yourself lead negotiator with the TV industry and tell them that $15 is "fair" (to you) until you're blue in the face. Until they decide it's in their financial interest to offer packages like that, it's still fair. There isn't anything at all arbitrary about my numbers. The two dollar amounts omitted by you above are actual market dollar amounts. The third ($15.00) is a definite value of the suggested product.
That the content providers universally choose to avoid competition by restricting their products is an anti-capitalist measure. Their disrespect toward the consumer side of the equation is unethical.
You are advocating for respect in only one direction. Your concern for content controllers (and seemingly no one else) is
interesting.
NV
--
Any Goal that is Driven by Animosity, is Empowered through Deceit. | |
jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL Reviews:
·voip.ms
| said by Noah Vail:So, you support the free market ideal that the owners should charge what they want to charge; but you also support the anti-capitalist notion of carefully controlling a user's viewing experience by purposefully limiting their choices. A free market would have all available content on the market competing for consumer dollars; as the technology emerges that enables that to happen. A belief that every legal business practice is by default pro-capitalist and ethical, isn't a very reasoned one. It's kind of funny watching you tapdance around choosing words so carefully -- Is there a framed poster somewhere what uses the phrase "carefully controlling a user's viewing experience by purposefully limiting their choices"? I swear that comes up verbatim in every one of these threads.
It's very simple. The owner of something (or holder of the copyright, or licensee, or whatever) has the right to decide whether or not to sell, rent, share, or give away the material if they want to, or decide not to, and also to determine the price they want in exchange.
That's capitalism at its absolute foundation, and it drives some people nuts that they can't stomp their feet, or beg mommy and daddy, or convince Senator So-n-so to pass a law to get them their way. Sniveling and offering to pay $10 or $15 sounds like a teenager trying to to coax a parent to give an advance on their allowance to buy something they can't afford.
Choosing not to offer $2 digital downloads on iTunes doesn't make them insensitive or disrespectful or evil or unfair or anything else. It's called freedom. The same freedom you have to change the station when a crappy show comes on, and go do something else when there's nothing good on at all. When you run a media company you get to decide what is fair for your customers, and you'll be judged on the decisions you make.
Which is why I suggested the realistic third option. It seems to be important to you that a consumer respect business practices; but I don't see evidence of a corresponding concern - for a capitalist free market - that protects consumers. Protects them from what, the mind--bending peril of not being able to watch their favorite shows without commercials from their laptop on an airplane? I don't care if people respect companies or not. If the company thinks it's worth pandering to the masses and kissing their asses, good for them -- it's their choice. If instead the company decides to take a hard line, then the marketplace will determine whether that decision was correct or not.
There isn't anything at all arbitrary about my numbers. The two dollar amounts omitted by you above are actual market dollar amounts. The third ($15.00) is a definite value of the suggested product. Definite to whom? To you? What channels do you own again? You lost me here.
That the content providers universally choose to avoid competition by restricting their products is an anti-capitalist measure. Their disrespect toward the consumer side of the equation is unethical.
You are advocating for respect in only one direction. Your concern for content controllers (and seemingly no one else) is
interesting. So wait, which is it, I'm getting confused -- are they being greedy or short-sighted? Are they anti-competitive or disrespectful? And your attempts to deceive people about what capitalism really means are pretty feeble, but good for a laugh. Just a hint though -- try to get away from words like "disrespect" and instead just call them evil greedy heartless corporations full of suits who are out the screw everyone except the rich investors and other CEOs. Otherwise you're going to confuse a lot of people. | |
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to jester121
said by jester121:Look, not to be rude, but this is, in a nutshell, the entire debate! It isn't yours, so you don't get to decide what the content owners should charge. All you get to do is evaluate the offerings in the marketplace and decide whether you want to pay what they're asking, or do without. OR If they *CAN* get it some other way, they do so, despite how the "owners" say it's "wrong". Seriously, they need to stop trying to force people to buy what they want them to buy and dictate to them the terms and start providing options that people can accept. Piracy will never go away entirely because some people just don't (or won't) have the money to buy "entertainment" when there's other pressing needs.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Right. Like I said in the other post, heaven forbid anyone have to go without all the free movies and music they want.  | |
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | My point really is focusing on the Piracy side and the stick is missing out on a market.
There's the carrot-and-stick approach. These days it's mostly all stick.
They'd be better off trying to win new revenue then spending money trying to stop something they can't.
You could spend millions trying to stop piracy to get it down to some magic number, but in reality all you're doing is pissing off the customers you already have and wasting loads of money.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL Reviews:
·voip.ms
| said by KrK:My point really is focusing on the Piracy side and the stick is missing out on a market. There's the carrot-and-stick approach. These days it's mostly all stick. They'd be better off trying to win new revenue then spending money trying to stop something they can't. Yeah, your posting history really points to a deep concern for the well-being of media companies and their opportunities for profit.  | | |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| And your posting history really shows a concern for consumers and the public's best interests, right?
Not to mention a tendency to make some "friendly" little snide comments and insulting remarks, eh?
But a smiley makes it all good.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Bright House
·Sprint Mobile Br..
| reply to jester121
Worshiping More than One God. said by jester121:It's kind of funny watching you tapdance around choosing words so carefully Just keeping you focused on the topic.
said by jester121:Is there a framed poster somewhere what uses the phrase "carefully controlling a user's viewing experience by purposefully limiting their choices"? Some folks don't require a framed poster to remind them of the obvious. It's true. There are a lot of us, actually.
Do you deny that the content market is manipulated by limiting viewer choice? It's a Yes or No question.
said by jester121:I swear that comes up verbatim in every one of these threads. Several folks seem to be reminding you of the same thing.
Perhaps this time....
Sure is.
Especially if one chooses to ignore lots of other relevant stuff.
said by jester121:The owner of something (or holder of the copyright, or licensee, or whatever) has the right to decide whether or not to sell, rent, share, or give away the material if they want to, or decide not to, and also to determine the price they want in exchange. But they do not have a "Right" to join with the near entirety of the industry to artificially manipulate the market.
They do not enjoy a "Right" for corporate lawyers to draft exceeding longer copyright laws every generation or two.
The word that isn't featured in your posts is Ethics. As much as anything, that is what you appear to be railing against.
Well, you do seem to endorse ethical behavior for consumers.
And that's where your interest seem to end.
said by jester121:That's capitalism at its absolute foundation, And is that the whole of capitalism in your world?
So we know where you stand.
On the 1-10 scale:
1=Not bothered -
10=Bothers me LOTS
See if you'll respond with how you feel about each of these.
A Consumer is committing repeated unethical acts against a corporation.
A Corporation is committing repeated unethical acts against a consumer.
Would you say your posts in this thread reflect your response to the above?
said by jester121:and it drives some people nuts that they can't stomp their feet, or beg mommy and daddy, or convince Senator So-n-so to pass a law to get them their way. Oh Yea. We get laws like that all the time.
Like the DCMA.
Like the Copyright Act of 1909 (extends CR to 28 yrs + 28 yrs)
the Copyright Conventions of 1954 and 1971
the Copyright Act of 1976 (extends CR again to 75 yrs + 50 yrs)
the Berne Implementation of 1988 (expands US CR abroad)
the URAA of 1994 (anchors US CR on foreign works)
the Copyright Term Ext of 1998 (extends CR again to 95/120 yrs + 70 yrs)
Yep. Consumers sure are convincing Senator So-n-so to pass a law to get them their way.
Why, each and every one of the consumer-driven laws above,
just drove one nail after another
into the coffin of Big Entertainment.
Sure. That's how it is.
said by jester121:Sniveling and offering to pay $10 or $15 sounds like a teenager trying to to coax a parent to give an advance on their allowance to buy something they can't afford. Choosing not to offer $2 digital downloads on iTunes doesn't make them insensitive or disrespectful or evil or unfair or anything else. Remember when I mentioned respect running in only one direction?
You appear to expect respect, but you don't seem to be handing much out.
Not much of a recipe for success.
said by jester121:It's called freedom. The same freedom you have to change the station when a crappy show comes on, and go do something else when there's nothing good on at all. When you run a media company you get to decide what is fair for your customers, and you'll be judged on the decisions you make. Hmm. Only pronouncements on consumer behavior from you here.
And above.
And below.
I haven't seen a single expectation from you concerning corporate behavior.
Not one. Judging by what you've offered here (and offered, and offered);
you have no expectations of appropriate corporate behavior.
None at all.
But it "drives you nuts" when consumers behave poorly.
Why is that Double Standard OK with you?
said by jester121:Which is why I suggested the realistic third option. It seems to be important to you that a consumer respect business practices; but I don't see evidence of a corresponding concern - for a capitalist free market - that protects consumers. Protects them from what, the mind--bending peril of not being able to watch their favorite shows without commercials from their laptop on an airplane? No. That answer was wrong.
It was a really terrific guess however. Really was.
My third option helps protect folks
from the decisions of Content Managers
who compulsively reject
notions of ethical business practices.
Yes. I know you object to any discussion of corporate ethics.
It distracts you from your rants about consumer ethics.
Repetition can be an effective teaching tool for those with no interest in understanding certain subjects.
said by jester121:I don't care if people respect companies or not. Well, that's a complete turnaround from everything you've posted previously in this thread.
said by jester121:If the company thinks it's worth pandering to the masses and kissing their asses, good for them -- it's their choice. If instead the company decides to take a hard line, then the marketplace will determine whether that decision was correct or not. And if the company's lawyers compose industry friendly laws and offer tremendous incentives for legislators to pass those laws...
Have you ever found a corporate practice objectionable?
If so, would you link to where you posted about it?
said by jester121:There isn't anything at all arbitrary about my numbers. The two dollar amounts omitted by you above are actual market dollar amounts. The third ($15.00) is a definite value of the suggested product. Definite to whom? To you? What channels do you own again? You lost me here. Try to stay with me here.
It's what I would pay per month to view 3 channels of my international choice.
Imagine the BBC lifting the - UK only - restrictions on their stream, and then getting paid for each one of those additional streams.
I realize millions/month of new income isn't the most important thing for some.
The BBC would have to abandon their collusive contracts with overseas networks and compete in the open market.
I'll wager you find that prospect objectionable.
After all, it's got competition
and gives consumers a tiny bit of content control.
I'm not causing you any projectile vomiting, am I?
said by jester121:That the content providers universally choose to avoid competition by restricting their products is an anti-capitalist measure. Their disrespect toward the consumer side of the equation is unethical.
You are advocating for respect in only one direction. Your concern for content controllers (and seemingly no one else) is
interesting. So wait, which is it, I'm getting confused -- are they being greedy or short-sighted? Don't be. It's Yes and Yes.
Yes
Yes.
Four for Four. Good Job!
said by jester121: And your attempts to deceive people about what capitalism really means are pretty feeble, Yep. Nothing more anti-capitalistic than competition. Right?
said by jester121:but good for a laugh. Just a hint though -- try to get away from words like "disrespect" You keep not mentioning ethics. If it's because that word causes you severe intestinal cramping, I am sincerely apologetic for my repeated use.
Just let me know, (ethics) I'll understand(ethics). Don't you worry about (ethics) surprising me.
said by jester121:and instead just call them evil greedy heartless corporations full of suits who are out the screw everyone except the rich investors and other CEOs. I understand that corporations consist of fallible human beings, just like consumers can be fallible human beings.
I just prefer to not endlessly demonize consumers for singularly unscrupulous behavior; while defending unscrupulous corporate behavior; committed in bulk.
But that's me. I'd rather examine the ETHICS on both sides of the issue.
Other people prefer other things.
said by jester121:Otherwise you're going to confuse a lot of people. Well, one anyway.
NV
--
Any Goal that is Driven by Animosity, is Empowered through Deceit. | |
cewagy
join:2004-02-03
Santa Barbara, CA Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| reply to jester121
Re: My acquaintance in Poland always downloads pirate movies Yes private enterprise should have absolute rights to set prices or deny service, all in the name of controlling their products and services.
If they don't want to serve their content to a certain country or ethnic group, they should have that right. | |
|
