Instead of SOPA, Beat Piracy With Better Product > Supply and Demand

Supply and Demand

They have to change because their customers are beginning to demand it. Contrary to what the entertainment companies believe, the customer is still in charge.

Let me start with the obvious; bi-annual rate increases for programming are making consumers question the value of television. Add in a complete flood of cheap programming content in reality shows, and the value:cost proposition becomes even more skewed. Throw in oppressive commercial loads and it gets worse. So, to answer your question in this light, they have to change because people are beginning to find other ways to view their content that isn't such a financial burden.

Yes, piracy and theft are illegal and any freshman level ethics student can never come up with a way to rationalize the theft. But that doesn't change the stark reality that people are and will continue to pirate the content. If it is too expensive, that's the fault of the entertainment industry. And don't forget, the broadcast networks like FOX throw this stuff into the air anyway. I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for them when people pass around a 1.5 gigabyte file of the Simpsons recorded from the local FOX affiliate.

Next, appointment TV is dead. Let me restate that; appointment TV is DEAD. With so many possible ways to view content, and so many competing forms of entertainment, it is completely unreasonable to expect people to show up and view your product at a set time. Theaters see it, broadcast TV sees it; technology, lifestyle and the DVR have made appointment TV a relic of the golden age of TV. To continue to insist that people show up at 8:00 p.m. to view your show borders on delusional.

So, faced with these harsh realities, why should they change? It is because the consumer demands a fairly priced good product that they can watch on their own terms. To ignore the consumer's wishes and continue insisting that the world bend to them will only result in their own declining profits.

That is why they need to change.

But piracy shouldn't be regarded as competition for paid content.

That would like comparing working and robbing a bank as a means of earning a living.

reply to n2jtx
This is the digital age. I don't think anybody's asking for government subsidies or the 'right' for free entertainment, but likewise content owners can't and don't have the right to magically suspend the internet, in an infinitely copyable (non-scarce) & moving at the speed of light digital world.

My suggestion would be for content owners to consider the world they live in, and adjust. There are ways for them to embrace digital distribution and make a great living without playing whack-a-mole.

Attempting to artificially limit access promotes piracy, if content owners don't want to accept that, they really should be doing something else.
--
Jeff Howe
Jeff's Blog - »www.ostjournal.net

reply to fifty nine
Piracy is a symptom, not the problem.

The entertainment industry ignores this fact at their own peril.

reply to n2jtx
They can keep whatever business model they choose. Heck why stop at $20, charge $20 mn a DVD but then donot try to slam down SOPA/PIPA down my throat to protect your outdated business model buying thug politicians

reply to fifty nine
It is because scarcity doesn't exist in a digital world where everything is infinitely copyable. Decent content will be widely available no matter what. That's the reality.

What the paid/pirated ratio looks like is dependent upon what the content owners charge and how widely they make it available.
--
Jeff Howe
Jeff's Blog - »www.ostjournal.net

reply to fifty nine

reply to n2jtx
Because regardless of the legality of something there are consequences. Look at Prohibition - just because you make something illegal, doesn't mean you stop it. Or in some cases even slow it down.

They can choose to face reality or they can choose not to. It is not a matter of morals, unless you really think you can re-educate the entire human race. It is a matter of choosing to limit the effects of piracy by having legitimate alternatives, as has started to happen in the music industry or to encourage piracy by poor policy decisions.

Anyone trying to input morality or legality into it isn't thinking in practical terms and that isn't good business sense.

reply to n2jtx

reply to mech1164
You guys are arguing about piracy in relation to mainstream television with commercials. This is the television that broadcasts a show during prime time once and might replay that same episode 2 maybe 3 times per year on that channel again but only after months gap after the first showing and never on a regular schedule in it's original order in it's entirety again. The first time these programs air EVERYTHING is paid for and profit is to be had, anything else is just double dipping and extra icing on the cake.

Quit propping up the piracy argument from both sides with a misguided understanding of what's going on. It makes you no better than this stupid article with someone pandering to a 80 year old dirtbag ceo hoping to sway him on matters of todays technology right after he shows his ignorance by bitching about the results on a search engine as if it wasn't suppose to show what is really existing on the internet.
--
Say no to JAMS!

reply to kaila
The problem is that when content owners are talked about it refers to the ones at the very top 99% of the time so laws and actions are based on what they want pushing everyone else out of the market even if it's one where people just want to share their own created content.
--
Say no to JAMS!

reply to firephoto

reply to n2jtx

reply to firephoto
But piracy exists because content people want is not available where they live or how they want to view it.

Up here in Canada one of our cable companies teamed up with FX and created FX Canada.

What's on it? Older shows that FX cancelled (Lights out), non current seasons of SoA, and a host of reality shows to fill out the schedule, but I'm expected to pay through the nose for this.

I can't watch Boardwalk Empire unless I subscribe to the Uber premium gold pressed latimum package, I'd be happy to shell out $x for HBO, if I could get it by itself,without the bundled bs, to me it's worth it.

So the restrictions put in place by the media companies has forced me to look elsewhere for their content and they aren't legal means.

I'm not justifying what I'm doing, but the reality if I could get what I wanted to watch, when I wanted to (even if it means paying for HuluPlus)I would resort to those alternative methods of getting my fix.

Now you can say wait for the Blu Ray/DVD to come out. OK, so in the above example of Boardwalk Empire, I'll have to wait till next fall (HBO releases the Blu Ray/DVD's just before the next season starts) to watch the previous season and the cost is now higher then if I just paid $X/month to HBO.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......

reply to firephoto
Actually, everything *isn't* paid for. If you actually worked in television (as I have), you'd realize that the hope is that everything is paid for, but often times isn't.

When the next-day's Nielsen report hits the networks *and* the advertisers, a less than promised audience results in a lower rate for the advertising. These days, only stupid advertisers pay the rate card.

reply to n2jtx
Piracy in large part is an expression of unmet consumer demand. The entertainment industry could treat this as an opportunity to be exploited or as an evil to be stamped out. They've kind of gone with the latter. Not really a good business strategy long-term, although they really do have to play whack-a-mole with the most egregious offenders just to keep it not quite so easy to pirate. See my thread "I agree completely" for more detail on how I see Apple as the biggest player in fixing this, at the expense of the entertainment industry.