dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
33
« I love people's justificationsWhat's a fair price? »
page: 1 · 2 · next
This is a sub-selection from Show

Hall
MVM
join:2000-04-28
Germantown, OH

1 recommendation

Hall to pandora

MVM

to pandora

Re: Show

said by pandora:

The problem isn't greed of HBO, but of people.

Put it this way - if if wasn't available via torrent, I wouldn't watch it, period. I wouldn't subscribe to HBO (or, in turn, HBO Go), stream it via Amazon, or buy the DVD.

I wouldn't even rent the DVD for "binge" viewing. In the case of GoT, it's because we have kids....

Packeteers
Premium Member
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
Asus RT-AC3100
(Software) Asuswrt-Merlin

2 recommendations

Packeteers

Premium Member

you make a good point about some no p2p/torrent alternate reality. I read the books years ago, so I'd wait till the DVD's were at the public library. thus the best way for HBO to make money off ME would be to start streaming to non CableTV subs at a fair price.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora to Hall

Premium Member

to Hall
said by Hall:

said by pandora:

The problem isn't greed of HBO, but of people.

Put it this way - if if wasn't available via torrent, I wouldn't watch it, period. I wouldn't subscribe to HBO (or, in turn, HBO Go), stream it via Amazon, or buy the DVD.

I wouldn't even rent the DVD for "binge" viewing. In the case of GoT, it's because we have kids....

THAT is a truth that Karl doesn't wish to discuss. If it isn't available free, people don't want to pay for it. He blames HBO's greed, but it's not only the greed of HBO, but of consumers.

Greed motivates us all, moderated by law or morality for individuals.

TheBionic
Funkier than a mohair disco ball.
Premium Member
join:2009-07-06
united state

TheBionic

Premium Member

Some people will always steal, sure. And some people will steal GoT no matter how cheap it is (by the way, I don't consider almost $2 an episode of a half hour sitcom cheap).

The point is, if HBO made GOT easier to legally access, less people would torrent it. Nobody is advocating the point of vie that torrenting would disappear. Of course it wouldn't. But locking down your content as hard as HBO does ensures astronomical rates of torrenting. They don't even release the blu-rays until the January after the show ends in June. But as I see it, that is their choice.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora

Premium Member

said by TheBionic:

Some people will always steal, sure. And some people will steal GoT no matter how cheap it is (by the way, I don't consider almost $2 an episode of a half hour sitcom cheap).

The point is, if HBO made GOT easier to legally access, less people would torrent it. Nobody is advocating the point of vie that torrenting would disappear. Of course it wouldn't. But locking down your content as hard as HBO does ensures astronomical rates of torrenting. They don't even release the blu-rays until the January after the show ends in June. But as I see it, that is their choice.

It wouldn't make any difference. Game of Thrones season 1-3 is available on Amazon or iTunes. 10 episodes for $28 SD, $38 for 10 episodes HD.

If you consider $2 for a popular half hour show expensive (The Big Bang Theory), certainly $4 for another popular hour long show will also be too expensive (Game of Thrones). As such, availability will make no difference to you, or to most who torrent.

Any price is too much if you are used to free content.
Papageno
join:2011-01-26
Portland, OR

2 recommendations

Papageno to TheBionic

Member

to TheBionic
Hear hear. I bet tons of people would be lining up to pay 5 bucks an episode for legal HD copies of episodes that they could download the day after airing. Most people watch it with friends/family, so split up the cost and you're good.

Nice sig BTW. Man that takes me back. I graduated from college the year that Stop Making Sense came out.

TheBionic
Funkier than a mohair disco ball.
Premium Member
join:2009-07-06
united state

TheBionic to pandora

Premium Member

to pandora
You're simply wrong. We're not talking about the torrenting episodes of season 1-3. We're talking about last Sunday's episode. And the only way to watch that is either a subscription or a torrent. If there were another option, some people would use it. Some wouldn't. The torrenting rates would go down.

For the record, I don't steal. I am an HBO subscriber and buy the blu-rays when they become available.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora

Premium Member

said by TheBionic:

You're simply wrong. We're not talking about the torrenting episodes of season 1-3. We're talking about last Sunday's episode. And the only way to watch that is either a subscription or a torrent. If there were another option, some people would use it. Some wouldn't. The torrenting rates would go down.

For the record, I don't steal. I am an HBO subscriber and buy the blu-rays when they become available.

The reason people want last Sunday's episode is it's topical, nobody is going to talk about Tony Soprano on Monday, but folks will talk about the death of a hated king on Game of Thrones.

HBO creates content to get viewers, to generate revenue, the actors, directors, writers, makeup, lighting, wardrobe, and tons of other folks who produce this show want to be paid.

Self interest causes HBO to create this content, and self interest causes HBO to not cannibalize cable subscription revenue. If you or I want this we can subscribe to HBO or can wait until next March and buy it from Amazon. At that time, most will be discussing season 5 and my guess is the arrival of dragons.

There was a time when the Soprano's was the hit at HBO, today it's Game of Thrones, in a few years it will be something else. HBO will want to maximize profit.

Users will either subscribe to HBO, wait a year, or illegally stream.

My fascination is with Karl, who can only blame HBO, when HBO's content would still be streamed illegally.

At the moment, I subscribe to Marvell's Agents of Shield, The Big Bang Theory and Person of Interest on Amazon. It is an experiment at cord cutting. So far it seems to be working. I believe this summer I will put my satellite service on vacation ($5 per month to hold it) and see if over 3 months it is possible to not miss satellite. Assuming all goes well, by this fall I will have cut satellite service and be streaming only.

I do not believe there is any need to illegally stream content to achieve cord cutting. I do not believe it is necessary to steal HBO's content to have topical discussions with people.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207

Premium Member

I think the bigger issue is that the technology exists to allow a customer to be able to watch a show at a reasonable price on a multitude of devices and at many locations at a great quality, if only it weren't for those entities struggling to come to grips with a solution that allows for this convenience while still providing a super-syrupy sweet profit.

We went through this same issue with music. The artists and media conglomerates are simply this age's buggy whip makers of yore. The only problem is that the buggy whip makers probably didn't have the lawyers and seemingly endless amounts of money to throw at them and the politicians that abuse their power.

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron to TheBionic

Premium Member

to TheBionic
said by TheBionic:

The torrenting rates would go down.

I think they would, but HBO clearly doesn't give a shit, because their current business model makes them more money than providing a decent streaming service. They're even stated outright that they don't care if people pirate.

Case and point:

»www.forbes.com/sites/ins ··· bo-care/
said by Forbes/HBOceo :
"Basically, we've been dealing with this issue for years with HBO, literally 20, 30 years, where people have always been running wires down on the back of apartment buildings and sharing with their neighbors," he said. "Our experience is, it all leads to more penetration, more paying subs, more health for HBO, less reliance on having to do paid advertising%u2026 If you go around the world, I think you're right, Game of Thrones is the most pirated show in the world. Well, you know, that's better than an Emmy."
(snip)
But for now, Game of Thrones suffers an "acceptable" level of piracy that doesn't really hurt the bottom line for HBO or Time Warner.


TheBionic
Funkier than a mohair disco ball.
Premium Member
join:2009-07-06
united state

1 edit

TheBionic to pandora

Premium Member

to pandora
said by pandora:

said by TheBionic:

You're simply wrong. We're not talking about the torrenting episodes of season 1-3. We're talking about last Sunday's episode. And the only way to watch that is either a subscription or a torrent. If there were another option, some people would use it. Some wouldn't. The torrenting rates would go down.

For the record, I don't steal. I am an HBO subscriber and buy the blu-rays when they become available.

The reason people want last Sunday's episode is it's topical, nobody is going to talk about Tony Soprano on Monday, but folks will talk about the death of a hated king on Game of Thrones.

HBO creates content to get viewers, to generate revenue, the actors, directors, writers, makeup, lighting, wardrobe, and tons of other folks who produce this show want to be paid.

Self interest causes HBO to create this content, and self interest causes HBO to not cannibalize cable subscription revenue. If you or I want this we can subscribe to HBO or can wait until next March and buy it from Amazon. At that time, most will be discussing season 5 and my guess is the arrival of dragons.

There was a time when the Soprano's was the hit at HBO, today it's Game of Thrones, in a few years it will be something else. HBO will want to maximize profit.

Users will either subscribe to HBO, wait a year, or illegally stream.

My fascination is with Karl, who can only blame HBO, when HBO's content would still be streamed illegally.

At the moment, I subscribe to Marvell's Agents of Shield, The Big Bang Theory and Person of Interest on Amazon. It is an experiment at cord cutting. So far it seems to be working. I believe this summer I will put my satellite service on vacation ($5 per month to hold it) and see if over 3 months it is possible to not miss satellite. Assuming all goes well, by this fall I will have cut satellite service and be streaming only.

I do not believe there is any need to illegally stream content to achieve cord cutting. I do not believe it is necessary to steal HBO's content to have topical discussions with people.

It is necessary to steal HBO's content if you want to watch a current episode of Game of Thrones and don't want to subscribe to premium cable. And if HBO allowed their content to be streamed 4 hours after original airing, torrenting would go down, it's common sense. It wouldn't disappear, but it would lessen. That's all I'm saying, it's what Karl is saying, and what you were so adamantly disagreeing with upthread. Like Quintron said, HBO clearly doesn't give a shit, so obviously it's in HBO's financial interest to keep doing what they are doing, torrenting be damned.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora to jmn1207

Premium Member

to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:

I think the bigger issue is that the technology exists to allow a customer to be able to watch a show at a reasonable price on a multitude of devices and at many locations at a great quality, if only it weren't for those entities struggling to come to grips with a solution that allows for this convenience while still providing a super-syrupy sweet profit.

We went through this same issue with music. The artists and media conglomerates are simply this age's buggy whip makers of yore. The only problem is that the buggy whip makers probably didn't have the lawyers and seemingly endless amounts of money to throw at them and the politicians that abuse their power.

The technology exists, and right and left content owners are selling and streaming stuff online.

Karl's complaint was true a few years ago, but things have changed. There is a ton of content, current, and old, available from numerous sources online, all legally. There is no need to steal, but I've read posts here that even $2 for an episode of a popular show is too much.

When people think ANY amount of money for a program is too much, or is unfair, they will steal. Karl never seems to try and understand the inherent problem of those who steal content. Personally, I'd like to see a bit more balance.

Are content owners greedy, you bet. Are viewers greedy, you bet.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207

Premium Member

It's my opinion that current pricing schemes could be much cheaper for the consumer, while allowing many more viewers to have access to the content over a multitude of formats. The obstacles preventing this from happening are fabricated by the greedy conglomerates clinging to antiquated business models using outdated technology.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora

Premium Member

said by jmn1207:

It's my opinion that current pricing schemes could be much cheaper for the consumer, while allowing many more viewers to have access to the content over a multitude of formats. The obstacles preventing this from happening are fabricated by the greedy conglomerates clinging to antiquated business models using outdated technology.

Lets give it a try.

How much should a half hour popular show like Big Bang Theory cost?

How much should a very popular hour program like Game of Thrones cost?
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to pandora

Premium Member

to pandora
said by pandora:

When people think ANY amount of money for a program is too much, or is unfair, they will [watch it for free]. Karl never seems to try and understand the inherent problem of those who steal content. Personally, I'd like to see a bit more balance.

Trying to classify anyone that watches for free as 'stealing' is pretty ridiculous even for you. The problem with your argument is that the people who would never pay a dime for the show (by your own definition) aren't costing HBO anything. The fact that they watch for free is immaterial, HBO has the same amount of money either way.

There are plenty of people that will pay for the show if HBO offered it for ala carte streaming immediately after broadcast. Those are the people HBO has a shot at making money from but HBO is turning their backs on these potential customers. The people who "think ANY amount of money for a program is too much, or is unfair" simply aren't going to pay ANYTHING; Karl is right to leave them out of the equation (though there are other stories that include them).

There will always be people that don't buy a product (for whatever reason)... get over it.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207 to pandora

Premium Member

to pandora
said by pandora:

said by jmn1207:

It's my opinion that current pricing schemes could be much cheaper for the consumer, while allowing many more viewers to have access to the content over a multitude of formats. The obstacles preventing this from happening are fabricated by the greedy conglomerates clinging to antiquated business models using outdated technology.

Lets give it a try.

How much should a half hour popular show like Big Bang Theory cost?

How much should a very popular hour program like Game of Thrones cost?

If we consider Hulu Plus is $8 per month, and it has been suggested that advertising doubles the earnings, than $20 per month should make more money with no advertisements at the current subscriber numbers. If the media conglomerates all cooperated, and abstained from the practice of keeping their content out of reach by requiring participation of pay TV accounts, more people would likely sign up.

It all seems very inexpensive when one considers that modern distribution methods can make the content available to countless millions globally.

Sure, if Game of Thrones was only made for Bill Gates and a few billionaires, I suppose it would be reasonable to expect HBO to charge several million per episode, while trying to prevent others for seeing it. Though, in a natural market, that price should drop significantly as more paying customers could be allowed access to the show. While there are different places in the supply/demand curve where profits are nearly the same, media is art, and I would hope that everyone involved would rather have as many viewers watching what they created at a low cost rather than having fewer people watch at a greatly increased price. Though, as what seemingly always happens in these situations, there are a bunch of lawyers and talentless profit mongers with too much control over the distribution.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora to CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

to CXM_Splicer
said by CXM_Splicer:

Trying to classify anyone that watches for free as 'stealing' is pretty ridiculous even for you. The problem with your argument is that the people who would never pay a dime for the show (by your own definition) aren't costing HBO anything. The fact that they watch for free is immaterial, HBO has the same amount of money either way.

Intellectual property IS property. Use without permission, violates copyright law. This site for example, dslreports.com, represents the effort of many people over many years. Should someone be able to clone and create another similarly named site using the same forum content and copies of the programs which run dslreports?

How about any work you or I create, can someone just take and use it? I mean, if lets use your argument, they weren't going to pay for it anyway, so whats the point? Right?
pandora

pandora to jmn1207

Premium Member

to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:

[
If we consider Hulu Plus is $8 per month, and it has been suggested that advertising doubles the earnings, than $20 per month should make more money with no advertisements at the current subscriber numbers.

So your answer is $20 a month to see ALL HBO content ever made or to be made? That correct?

SimbaSeven
I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
·StarLink

SimbaSeven to pandora

Member

to pandora
said by pandora:

Intellectual property IS property. Use without permission, violates copyright law. This site for example, dslreports.com, represents the effort of many people over many years. Should someone be able to clone and create another similarly named site using the same forum content and copies of the programs which run dslreports?

How about any work you or I create, can someone just take and use it? I mean, if lets use your argument, they weren't going to pay for it anyway, so whats the point? Right?

Happens everyday in the open source world. It's alright for corporations to steal source code from open source projects in their own work, but not OK for the opposite.

..even though the GPL and (to a degree) BSD requires them to at least contribute to the project by donations or code. They usually snag it and it would take a NDA (and an act of god) to actually see what's in their source code.

What's worse is some companies passing the code off as their own. This *IS* stealing, but they get away with it because no one can review their source code. One advantage of closed source software for a software company.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora

Premium Member

said by SimbaSeven:

Happens everyday in the open source world. It's alright for corporations to steal source code from open source projects in their own work, but not OK for the opposite.

So in your mind, dslreports.com is an open source site, and can be pilfered from freely by anyone?

Hmm. Also you believe HBO is open source?

OK.

Suggestion, try kickstarter to get money to make your own Game of Thrones open source. Contact the author, see if you can buy the rights or if HBO is locked in. If so, buy the rights from HBO, and produce your own open source version. I'm certain it will be better.

SimbaSeven
I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
·StarLink

1 edit

SimbaSeven

Member

Nice way to twist my words around.

What I'm saying is it's OK for Corporations to stomp on Intellectual Property, but not OK for a person or a small company.

Basically, whoever has the most money (and lawyers).. wins.

I never said DSLReports.com was. Sure, it probably utilizes open source packages (Linux [or *BSD], MySQL, Apache, PHP, etc) that makes up the server, but they never claim that it was their code. Only the site code (HTML, PHP, MySQL Tables, etc) is truly theirs.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207 to pandora

Premium Member

to pandora
said by pandora:

said by jmn1207:

[
If we consider Hulu Plus is $8 per month, and it has been suggested that advertising doubles the earnings, than $20 per month should make more money with no advertisements at the current subscriber numbers.

So your answer is $20 a month to see ALL HBO content ever made or to be made? That correct?

How would anyone seriously be able to answer you? I'm suggesting that I believe that Disney could make equal profits or even more by providing a much lower cost with a significantly greater availability. Remove the restrictions and find a price that will not be too high as to jeopardize the business model and generate increased piracy.

I get high quality music from Google at $7.99 per month, as 320 kbps mp3 is typically audibly transparent to practically anyone that attempts to find a difference in a properly controlled ABX test. That's nearly 20 million songs. If a music CD can be compared to a DVD or Bluray disc, than it would seem reasonable that a similar model could be 2 - 3 times more for a huge library of movies and TV content.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to pandora

Premium Member

to pandora
said by pandora:

Use without permission, violates copyright law.

Wrong... COPYING without permission violates copyright law. There are a couple of other things it restricts but use is not one of them. You don't need anyone's permission to listen to a CD.
said by pandora:

How about any work you or I create, can someone just take and use it? I mean, if lets use your argument, they weren't going to pay for it anyway, so whats the point? Right?

First, I didn't say NO ONE would pay... I am simply agreeing with you that there are some that will never pay. Secondly, yes they CAN take my work and use it as long as they aren't profiting from it. If they are profiting from it, I get to dictate those terms and get a cut of those profits. That's what copyright was invented for.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora to SimbaSeven

Premium Member

to SimbaSeven
said by SimbaSeven:

Nice way to twist my words around.

What I'm saying is it's OK for Corporations to stomp on Intellectual Property, but not OK for a person or a small company.

Basically, whoever has the most money (and lawyers).. wins.

I never said DSLReports.com was. Sure, it probably utilizes open source packages (Linux [or *BSD], MySQL, Apache, PHP, etc) that makes up the server, but they never claim that it was their code. Only the site code (HTML, PHP, MySQL Tables, etc) is truly theirs.

I'm trying to demonstrate a flaw with your logic. Not twisting your words, just using them.
pandora

1 edit

pandora to jmn1207

Premium Member

to jmn1207
Disney doesn't seem to have a lower price than about $20 for HD classics like Mary Poppins. For this reason, many Disney titles seem to expensive to me, and do not get purchased for streaming.

If / when Disney lowers streaming cost for it's content, I'll purchase more, same with HBO.

However, believing something is too expensive, and blaming theft due to the price, seems a bit of a stretch. Streamed content isn't a matter of life and death.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to pandora

Premium Member

to pandora
said by pandora:

I'm trying to demonstrate a flaw with your logic. Not twisting your words, just using them.

No, you twisted them. He never said anything about this site, he made a general (and correct) statement about corporations stealing open-source code and including it in their proprietary software. If you are accusing Justin & this site of doing that, it is a very serious accusation.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207 to pandora

Premium Member

to pandora
said by pandora:

Disney doesn't seem to have a lower price than about $20 for HD classics like Mary Poppins. For this reason, many Disney titles seem to expensive to me, and do not get purchased for streaming.

If / when Disney lowers streaming cost for it's content, I'll purchase more, same with HBO.

However, believing something is too expensive, and blaming theft on due to the price, seems a bit of a stretch. Streamed content isn't a matter of life and death.

The content is artificially made too expensive, and this business model is going the way of the buggy whip. It's a big transition, and the entire business will have to either adapt or increasingly suffer as technology simply makes the current model obsolete.

You are absolutely right, streamed content is certainly not a matter of life or death.
jmn1207

1 recommendation

jmn1207 to pandora

Premium Member

to pandora
said by pandora:

However, believing something is too expensive, and blaming theft on due to the price, seems a bit of a stretch. Streamed content isn't a matter of life and death.

A stretch? Maybe because theft has nothing to do with this? There is a direct correlation between copyright infringement and content availability, regardless of price. A reasonable price can only help to reduce copyright infringement.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora

Premium Member

said by jmn1207:

said by pandora:

However, believing something is too expensive, and blaming theft due to the price, seems a bit of a stretch. Streamed content isn't a matter of life and death.

A stretch? Maybe because theft has nothing to do with this? There is a direct correlation between copyright infringement and content availability, regardless of price. A reasonable price can only help to reduce copyright infringement.

Number 5 on Karl's list was The Big Bang Theory S7 E20. It was available within hours after network broadcast for $1.88 plus tax on Amazon.

If what you say is true, why was a less than $2 item, available within hours of broadcast, the 5th most popular bittorrent download?
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to jmn1207

Premium Member

to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:

A reasonable price can only help to reduce copyright infringement.

Undoubtedly true. Some would have us believe that there are no Netflix subscriptions or Amazon video purchases at all. Flawed logic can be used to say almost anything!
« I love people's justificationsWhat's a fair price? »
page: 1 · 2 · next
This is a sub-selection from Show