"We pirate Game of Thrones, we use our friend's HBOGO login to watch True Blood…"
Yeah I am not associating myself with that. Perhaps something like "We don't currently pay to see your content".
Honestly as an Australian I don't see this happening here, the cable here is an effective monopoly and unless they get a cut of the profits they're not going let HBO do this. It might be completely against their business model as well due to the fact GoT has received more publicity here than any other cable show in some time. This has likely been driving sales for them and so would be bad for their business.
That really isn't a discussion. It is one CEO explaining their decision to make their products available online. Kessler has a different idea of how HBO is going to position themselves online. Why is Newell's opinion on his business model any more valid than Kessler's?
I never understood this thing about "easily copy-able" being a reason to strip a business of their distribution rights. Yes, the actual string of 1's and 0's is easy to copy. But physically making a 60 minute episode of Game of Thrones is not so easy. I think the work they have put into making their product has earned them the right to control the distribution of their product just as much as any other business. If you don't like the way HBO distributes Game of Thrones... you don't go pirate it... you go film it yourself (although I suspect that would not be allowed either).
I think right now, HBO makes more money from selling to the cable companies than they could selling directly to people. The cable companies are very good customers of them, and I think that HBO as a company is better off not taking the money of people that feel entitled to their content.
HBO Go puts the technical infrastructure in place to eliminate the cable companies as customers if this ever changes, so they have some chance of surviving the likely collapse of the cable industry
No, it says "everyone is finding a way to watch it whether it is on HBO or by pirating, so why don't you figure out how to enable everyone to watch it without infringing on copyright and make some money in the process?"
Interestingly
GoT seasons 1 and 2 are available on iTunes in Australia. The latest episodes only take an extra week to show up from when they're first screened in the US. Even so, Australians apparently pirate the show in greater numbers than elsewhere.
Could be because it's $3/episode or it's only standard def or it's a week late. My guess is people find it just as easy to torrent it so don't even bother to look at paid options.
So if Australia is being used by HBO as a test market (quite common for US companies in the past), the stats on offering a paid online option in parallel to cable to reduce piracy don't look compelling to me in this case.
GoT is absolutely huge in Australia - I am continually surprised at the people I know who are well outside the target demographic and watch it. Monday is Game of Thrones night, where everyone watches it, and then talks about it with their mates, which seems to be a significant part of the experience (I'm not a fan of the show personally).
A week later is one week too late - you need to be looking at hours after screening. Australia has a huge pirated TV culture because of how awful our free to air is (pay TV is only really starting to catch on due to exclusive sports licenses, and in terms of getting US content it is almost as terrible as free to air), and everyone just torrents what they want to watch.
Guess we'll find out next week if it's the screening time because season 2 just finished. So from next Monday will there be a drop in Australian GoT torrents because the show is equally available on iTunes? It'd be interesting to see the stats.
The other thing is that on iiNet (Australia's #2 ISP), iTunes downloads aren't counted against download quota. So there's some incentive to buy for people on the basic plans.
If you were really determined to buy it outside Aus I suppose you could buy an iTunes gift card from here and then login to iTunes via an Aussie proxy. Happens surprisingly often in the other direction.
You really would be paying the 'gold price' too as the $AUD is pretty strong due to the price of gold and other commodities mined here.
The quality fluctuates wildly. If its $60 unlimited from a good ISP like iinet then it's a good deal, if it's with TPG or Dodo then it's not worth the hassle.
Right you are! I've had both colo in the US a number of years ago and current colo here in Australia. Couldn't agree more. Do you think that's due to the cost of "shipment" or just greedy men in the middle?
Great and sound idea! But the pain is already aching if this kind of thing get through: posts will be made, bootstraps distrubuted and sources will be opened and the start of the era of "Please, Take my money whatever" will have began.
Lets hope for the best, take all our money HBO.
If it was the only way my wife and I could get the content we would pay. We would even pay a lesser fee for the ability to stream some of their shows they don't allow to stream outside of Britain.
It is cheaper if your TV is black and white. You also get a reduced price if you are legally blind, although I am not sure how much of a discount you get.
Overall, I think the TV license is brilliant considering it provides us with an ad-free TV and news network.
Plus, you only actually need a license if you watch TV "as it is aired." I.E. DVDs, recordings etc. don't require a license. It's less of a TV license, more of a live TV license.
It always struck me as odd however that watching streamed live foreign TV on your computer counts under that however, and you need a TV license for that, to help fund the BBC.
$18/month? If I got all content that was produced for the entire history of the BBC, and all future content, then yes. I'm tired of having to wait for new episodes of QI to show up on youtube.
But keep in mind that content production is a fixed cost, so if you increase the number of subscribers you can lower the cost per subscriber.
You don't quite get everything-ever. Certain programs (including films) are made available online on iPlayer for a few weeks, but after that you usually have to wait for it to be repeated on TV (and usually again on iPlayer).
I'd be willing to pay a lot more than that. If they wanted to charge me what Brits pay that would be fantastic but considering that is not currently an option I'd settle for paying more too.
Radio is free -- you're only paying to watch live broadcast video (or to watch video that's simultaneously being broadcast, so live streaming of a TV channel counts).
Normal cable which is most of the channels does have adverts. "Premium channels" like HBO and Showtime and Starz do not, because they grew out of being uninterrupted movie channels ("Home Box Office").
The "recent tweets" widget shows people tweeting numbers like $10. Isn't HBO as an add-on to an existing cable subscription generally significantly more than that?
Yea, but plenty of the cut the network takes of that $20 is going to infrastructure- and marketing-type costs that HBO would have to shoulder if they struck out alone.
I doubt that inequality amounts to much. Outside of the tech crowd, if you have cable internet, you pretty much have cable TV. Their salespeople are relentless, and most people [in the US] really really really really like TV anyway.
customers that pay for cable + HBO > customers with internet only.
Hence why they have no current desire to alienate big cable to cater to the small number of users who loudly complain they can't watch HBO online when they want.
I'd rather see people put their money where their mouth is, in a non-hypothetical way.
For example, pick some otherwise random date a few weeks after the DVD set will be released and organize a concerted buying effort amongst "pirates" on that specific date.
As a purchaser of the season 1 blu-ray... lets get to the secondary issue of buying.
The packaging of the videos is SHIT... there are ads, I have to sit through FBI warnings, I have to sift through bad menus to get to the content I want, and I have to deal with trying to find features when everything I select says "please insert disc X"
I paid $70 CND and with the exception of the actual quality of the picture (blu-ray is fantastic), the whole experience is VASTLY inferior to the piracy route.
That said, I'll still be purchasing the Season 2 Blu-Ray when it comes out, because I very much want to support the production of this series.
But why? Why couldn't they have just made a good Blu-Ray boxed set? Why does disc three have nothing but one episode on it (no extra features... everything I click while using disc3 says "please enter disc 5", while disc 4 has three episodes on it? Why do I have to sit through an FBI warning when I dont even live in the states? Why do I have to see ads for other HBO shows when I put in disc 1?
I spent good money on the fucking thing? Why couldn't they have given me a BETTER experience than the people who steal it?
yeah, i fully agree with you, and i have for the most part opted out altogether - i don't pirate and i don't buy the dvds due to the fundamental brokenness of the model. however, if you do want to watch the show, and if you want to support the creators in some way (and, sadly, support their multifarious parasites as well), the only real way to do it is to buy the dvd (so you have paid your money to the smallest possible superset of people who deserve it) and then pirate the show (so you actually have something watchable).
I pay $30/month to watch Starcraft 2 tournaments on GomTV.net.
I pay $0/month to watch Game of Thrones, Veep, Girls, and True Blood. I will continue to pay $0 until there is an option that does not involve enriching evil cable executives.
Profit isn't inherently evil, so I assume by his comment that the "evil cable executives" would cease to be evil if they offered a product considered reasonable by him.
Do you always analyze who gets enriched before making purchases? For example, how do you purchase anything without enriching the evil oil executives who sell the petroleum products used to transport goods used in the production of the products and services you consume?
Even if you manage to perfectly align your beliefs with your purchasing habits, how do you ensure that those who profit from your purchases don't give their money to the evil cable or oil executives?
I don't think this question is asked in good faith, but I'll try to respond anyway. The answer is we don't live in a perfect world, and we all have to make pragmatic choices. If there was an alternative to petroleum that involved painlessly breaking a wrongheaded law, I would do it in a heartbeat. Choosing to pirate Game of Thrones is a win/win. I get the content I want and I don't enrich cable executives who not only try to monopolize local municipalities and fight progress, but who are striking at the heart of the internet itself with crap like SOPA.
How does your action result in a win for the thousands of people (actors, extras, film crew, set construction crew, costume designers, editors, sound engineers, musicians, etc.) who worked on Game of Thrones? If everyone followed your lead and nobody paid a cent to HBO they would all be out of a job. It's only because others are willing to reward the creators for their work that your freeloading is possible.
It doesn't. But the alternative, not watching the show, doesn't either. He also never claims that his actions would benefit anybody. (You probably have the moral high ground here, I just don't agree with this argument.)
If everyone followed my lead, HBO-Go would be available standalone. Today. Not ten years from now after they've had their fill of dumb money. They're greedy, not stupid.
How can you possibly claim some sort of moral high ground when you're saying "I like the content you produce but don't agree with the methods you use to charge for it so I'm going to steal it!".
If you don't agree with their distribution methods then DON'T CONSUME THAT CONTENT.
Nope! Why would I do that? What good comes of it? Moral high-ground? Fuck that, I'd prefer to watch the show.
I think this is what goes through most people's heads. When it's a choice between benefiting nobody and retaining moral high-ground and benefiting nobody and watching the show, they choose the latter, because they don't see any real rational reason not to.
Now, how about pirating the show, then buying the DVD when it comes out? Gets trickier, doesn't it...
Have you guys thought about how many people are already paying for HBO ? Is HBO hurting for money?
Or is it just a bunch of geeks trying to get hbo for cheap? I know anti-piracy is not always popular but they are creating popular and original shows, why not support them?
I don't think the issue is that HBO costs $10-15/month right now, but that there's also the cost of the cable subscription and the cable box. Aside from the programs on HBO, the vast majority of what I watch is over-the-air, so it's not too much of a stretch to say I'm paying $60+/month to get HBO legally.
The trouble is not that HBO is too expensive, but rather that there is no way for this "bunch of geeks" to pay HBO directly.
If you look at the current tweets, people are offering up anywhere between $8 and $20, which I imagine is considerably more than HBO's take based on their current revenue model.
The whole point of this website, I gather, is to convince HBO that their product is worth considerably more to the end user than what they're currently making, and that they can tap into a lot more revenue if they let people subscribe to their products directly, without the cableco middleman.
[edit] My impression of HBO pricing is completely wrong. It doesn't seem like HBO would stand to gain a huge amount based on how much people are "pledging".
At the same time they don't provide an option for legitimate "over the top" Internet video users to watch their programming without a PayTV subscription.
I am pretty sure HBO charges money such that they hedge for losses that happen through piracy.
Few days back, I met a guy who runs a cab fleet. He pays his drivers once a week for the fuel they need. On further inquiry on home much he pays, it turned he always pays for atleast 4-5 litres of extra fuel a day. The drivers cheat, they say they need more fuel for lesser distance and cite mileage problems. But he was dead sure, that was not the case.
How did he hedge for all that. He takes fuel theft into consideration while billing his customers. Drivers don't loose out, the cab company doesn't. But consumers pay a little extra.
showtime has pretty good content but i'd definitely pay less for it. have you seen hbo go? full seasons of all hbo content + great collection of new release movies.
I see his argument.. but why not just partner with ISPs? If HBO doesn't want my $8 directly, then why not let AT&T (or whoever) charge me an extra $8/mo along with my DSL (or whatever) bill and get HBOGO? It would be nearly identical to their current model, but with different types of subscriber organizations distributing their content for them.
Because this is an act of war against other carries that currently carry HBO. Those carriers can drop HBO and cause revenue to drop much faster than broadband-only HBOGO subscribers will bring in new revenue. It's trading an existing, stable, proven revenue source for one that is none of the above at scale.
Edit: This is a summary of one of HBO's arguments. The dcurtis post examines a couple of other arguments. Positioning is an interesting one: How does HBO convince viewers that $5/mo is reasonable for just a few shows when Netflix is $8/mo for far more content? There are some really tough issues here.
They don't have to drop HBO, they just have to stop advertising it. A large fraction of cable ads I see have the not-so-subtle message of: "BUY HBO! IF YOU DONT HAVE HBO THAN YOU ARE MISSING OUT AND YOUR FRIENDS WILL THINK YOU ARE UNCOOL"
How much revenue does HBO get from that marketing?
I'll wait and see how Netflix does on producing original content; HBO seems really good at it. Over the years they've shot some amazing shows and the product speaks for itself. Even though I am a current Netflix subscriber I would still easily add HBOGO to my monthly bills for premium access to their content.
Also.. their largest carriers also serve a lot of cable internet, for most it wouldn't be adding a competition so much as adding another way to get at subscribers money. I'm not so sure they would be in a huge rush to drop them.
>> their largest carriers also serve a lot of cable internet, for most it wouldn't be adding a competition so much as adding another way to get at subscribers money.
The status quo is that the typical HBO sub has a cable bill over $150/mo, because he already has broadband. Helping that subscriber cut the cord and go Internet-only (while unbundling HBO) will therefore result in a lower cable bill for the subscriber. A portion of the money the subscriber saves comes out of the carrier's pocket. This is the classic trading of analog dollars for digital pennies, and carriers will resist it as long as they are able (in the absence of a new big revenue source).
Regarding positioning: HBO is very good at producing content, but so are a lot of the organizations that provide content to Netflix (e.g. CBS, NBC, TNT, Showtime, Disney, etc.) $8 gets you access to all of those vs. a hypothetical $5 to get the output of a single studio. It's going to be very hard for HBO to hold the line on pricing in that environment.
That's an interesting point. Maybe those ISPs who are also cable TV providers could bundle HBO with their high-tier Internet offerings instead of TV channel packages. In this case, one shouldn't petition HBO but the likes of Comcast, Time Warner (HBO's parent) and Verizon.
Very good blog post. Not sure I'd watch the full video interview, but it was worth the time to read.
What I took away from it is this: A lot of our paying subscribers don't actually watch HBO, and we don't want to compete against the sources that deliver those subscribers to us.
(Every single discussion about this should always include a mention that Time Warner owns HBO, saves a lot of mental hamster wheeling.)
They forced a bad deal on competing networks via those networks' own customers. The prize was capturing margin and exporting cost of business.
The language about controlling the examples that consumers use as a frame of reference is telling. This is a business that has mastered the game of baiting 1st parties against 2nd parties while negotiating price as a 3rd party.
That one passed over me. Time Warner spun off Time Warner Cable in 2009. Someone knew what was coming, HBO has a better shot than I thought. HBO Go was fantastic when I used it last year, when I still had Uverse.
The interesting thing is that this seems to imply that HBO makes most of its revenue from people who don't use their product. This in turn implies some economic actors here are not acting rationally (for example, there are a significant number of subscribers who are willing to pay more for cable bundles containing HBO, but then don't actually watch HBO).
I would guess it's largely the same as a person who buys a premium gym membership but never uses it.
I would guess there's a lot of businesses that make money by charging people for things that they don't use.
Case in point , services that allow you to subscribe online but can only be canceled by telephone. Making a telephone call is not exactly difficult , but there must be a significant quantity of people who can't be bothered to do it in order to make it worth their while implementing that policy to begin with.
I actually do watch HBO, but I can see exactly how this works (and how I got sucked into the super-premium package). You sign up for the standard internet+tv bundle, for say $60. Then you get HD for an extra $10 or $15, then the DVR is only an extra $5 a month on top of that, and then they ask you about HBO. And you think, "I've seen some good shows on HBO, that's worth the additional small percentage of my cable bill (now up to $80/month)".
And then you don't watch HBO (or at least not as often as warrants the money you spent on it). It's like all those 'options' you get when buying a car (Only $200 for floormats? that sounds like a deal!). I think it's called the bundling effect or something similar.
You wouldn't think that the availability of HBO online for say $10/month would change that dynamic much, particularly if the additional cost on your cable bill to get HBO is less than that.
Unfortunately, the market works in such a way that unless you build a mechanism for people to pay a reasonable price for a game at launch (see Steam vs Piracy), then you lose out. Example: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe...
Even a trial run, like pay $5 and watch S03E01, would be a really great test to see if the market is telling the truth here. (But the availability could NOT lag behind HBOGo or broadcast, it'd have to be simultaneous.)
The most popular show on HBO will get cancelled because people are pirating it? Definitely disagree. It's not just critically acclaimed, it's among the most popular HBO original show in the network's history.
Pirating, of course, won't change their business. But even if I really want to watch the show (I don't watch it), I wouldn't sign up for Cable TV, and sign up for HBO on top of it just for one show. I see this as less of an ultimatum and more of a "hey your business model is fucked so you're not getting my money" thing.
To be more correct... it is more of a "hey your product kicks total fucking ass... but I disagree with you business model. I'm going to consume your kick ass product anyway... but you're not getting my money" thing.
HBO as an add-on to cable packages costs ~$20. If HBO were to offer it as a standalone service, they would have to handle billing, subscription management, increased marketing budget to make up for marketing that cable/sat currently offers for them, etc. So unless a critical mass of people are willing to pay AT LEAST $30 per month, this is a lost cause.
HBO's cut is very small (< $3 I think). But the cable and satellite cos pay a fixed fee per base cable/sat sub to HBO but then upsell their own customers and recoup that cost. Using the $20 as a proxy for about what HBO gets, even though it's a lot more complicated than that in reality.
As several people have said, Netflix or Hulu would probably be happy to do the billing and management. The marketing is definitely an issue, since cable companies can efficiently market HBO to existing cable subscribers.
HBO currently gets around $8 per subscriber, typically you are paying double that to the cable company so unless the overhead is 100% I doubt they would need to charge more than $15 per subscriber. The real problem is distribution and making up for the fact that cable companies are guaranteeing a certain number of subscribers (in the millions).
The other reason is that Time Warner wont risk their other channels being unbundled from the basic tier such as TNT, TBS, CNN, Cartoon, etc. They make more on some of those channels (Ads + subscriber fee) than HBO.
Did HBO ever consider asking some fixed price per simple download? No streaming, no complicated subscription services. Just payments per files. There can't be any logical reason not to offer it, if it's so widely pirated already. They can only convince some of those who pirate not to do it, if they provide the same level of simplicity and convenience. In any case, it can't make it any worse for them, than it is now. It can probably only make it better.
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to compare. Rather try to compare those who simply pirate the stuff as soon as it's out with anything of the above. I think if they'd offer something around $2-$3 per episode right away (without any iTunes), they could gain more from those who don't pay anything to them now.
I'm comparing the amount of money HBO would get from people who only watch Game of Thrones. If you could get it without subscribing, a lot of people would cancel HBO.
I just don't understand what some people are thinking when it comes to this issue. In my mind, HBO is offering people two options:
1) Premium price, instant gratification. If you're willing to pony up for cable TV + a HBO subscription, you're able to watch Game of Thrones the instant it comes out. Yes, you're paying a lot (~$100) - but - sometimes that's the price you have to pay for a premium service.
2) Pay a reasonable price, get it digitally, but I have to wait. If the $100/month subscription is a problem for you - no problem! You just have to wait. You can legally gain access to Game of Thrones on iTunes or BluRay for ~$40 for the whole season... about 10 months after it finishes airing.
When I hear someone say, "Why can't I just pay HBO directly for access? They're dumb! I'll just pirate it instead." - What they really mean is, "HBO charges too much for my tastes, and I don't want to wait... so I'll just download it." If that's your mentality, fine... but please don't think you're doing it for some higher reasoning. You just want the show now, and you don't want to pay what HBO is selling it. In every other medium (physical goods, food, dinner, cars) - you'd be SOL. But.. just because it's digital, you can copy it for free.
You're exactly right - there is a vocal set of people that want a third option. My point is, however, no business has to offer the "third option". Just because they don't offer the third option doesn't make downloading them for free OK.
I've read the article - and I completely agree with Gabe. From a business point of view - you (and Gabe) are probably right. It might be absolutely, completely stupid of HBO to not offer GoT online, 24/7, for a reasonable price.
However, just because they may (or may not) be making a poor business decision, it doesn't excuse what people are doing: illegally pirating content.
>However, just because they may (or may not) be making a poor business decision, it doesn't excuse what people are doing: illegally pirating content.
Look at it from the other direction. Pirates are gonna pirate and there is fuck all anyone can do about it. Moralize about it all you want, it doesn't change the fact that people will get the content for free, and MORE people will get the content for free if they feel ripped off or cheated (regardless of how legitimate those feelings might be)
HBO can make a relatively simple change to capture a good deal of that market, or leave money on the table. Currently they're pursuing option #2 due to poor positioning.
I think people want to watch it sooner because they want to be able to discuss it in the present tense with all their friends in real life and on forums like reddit who all pirate it.
Also , if you watch something 10 months later you're going to have to find a way to navigate the internet for 10 months without tripping over spoilers everywhere.
Buying it via cable, assuming there aren't other shows you want to watch on cable , you are looking at $25 per episode.
I'd planned to buy Game of Thrones when it came out on iTunes a couple months ago but I realized that even that still indirectly supports the buzz around this property and the way it's primarily delivered.
Instead I'd suggest fellow cord cutters just skip Game of Thrones entirely, don't pirate it, don't even watch it. Instead spend your money and leisure time supporting content that's provided online.
When your friends talk about GoT you'll need to have a few canned response-pivots like "is that about orcs? Lawl, hey did you guys see Lilyhammer? It was totally not godawful."
I don't really get the anti TV people. Like any medium there is good and bad. TV definitely has its share of bad, but there is also some pretty good entertainment. Books, magazines, websites, etc... there is always going to be more crap than not, but for some reason I never read about people bragging about giving them up.
it's a form of signalling herd membership. compare people bragging that they are bad at maths - people are bad at all sorts of subjects, but mathematics is unusual in that people are proud of their ignorance of it, because they are essentially signalling that they are part of the "non-geek" tribe. similarly, people are uninterested in all sorts of media, but are proud of a lack of interest in tv because that signals their membership in the "non-mainstream" tribe.
It's not purely an issue of TV being "crap". Books, magazines and websites just aren't mass media in the same way TV is. For many people (maybe not for hackers), talking about TV shows is like talking about the weather — it's a common bond that helps you get comfortable with someone you've just met. I'd guess those of us who watch less/no TV feel left out of those conversations. But we still want to make connections, so we look for others who made the same no-TV-watching choice. It's a way to find reassurance that our choice didn't completely isolate us.
(I don't watch TV, but the above is my best attempt to explain the greater phenomenon behind posts like the GP's — not a personal statement.)
True... just like the thumpers vs atheists debate it may be a overreaction to the anti-anti-TV people.
I have real relatives who are incredulous when I tell them I don't know anything about American Idol or Snookey or Justin Bieber or the most-annoying current commercial (and don't care to know).
A bit infuriating and tempting to brag about not having a head filled with garbage.
There's decades of good TV to watch. You don't need the newest stuff. Who only reads books that came out last week? If you've never watched The Prisoner or Fawlty Towers, for instance, you can get access to them cheaply and watch a TV episode every day for about a month. And it'll be better than almost everything you could get with a TV subscription today.
There's a lot of enjoyment to be gained from watching the same shows as your friends at the same time, and that's easier to co-ordinate when that time is "when it airs".
I hardly watch TV. Basically because my entertainment demands are asynchronous. I need entertainment on-demand when I need it. I can't adjust my schedule to the TV's schedule.
TV is for people who can sacrifice something else for the sake of a show. I can't and I won't because my time is worth doing something else. And when I need entertainment there are other things that fill that need.
Its like the radio, I turn it on when I need it. If something interesting is playing I hear, else I have a whole hard disk full of songs to hear to.
Also the ads and breaks between shows, movies and songs. When uninterrupted entertainment is available at dirt cheap prices. Who likes to waste their time watching/hearing ads.
DVR has been out how long now? I can't remember the last time I adjusted my schedule to something on TV. The few shows I do watch I'm not even sure when they air. No auto-commercial skipping is annoying, but DVR helps with that even if it's a manual process.
I wouldn't care about the show at all (I haven't watched real TV, with the exception of Dr. Who at other people's houses because I'm impatient, for about 5 years), except that it has a genuine constructed language in it, and a darn good one. I'd like to watch it just for that; but just that isn't enough to make me go get cable, so I content myself mailing lists and David J. Peterson's blog.
My comment was more to point out that those same "I don't own a TV" people are now all obsessed with Mad Men and Game of Thrones (watched on their computers, mostly).
I have stopped watching it, as I find what they show just too aweful, and only delivered at certain times (and on most channels interupted by commercials).
The problem with voting with your wallet is that you and your friends are usually the only ones doing it. Feel free to vote with your wallet, but unless you have the momentum to overpower everybody else who consumes the show and doesn't care, it's not even going to bother HBO. Unfortunately, standing upon principle and not participating in HBO's distribution just ends up costing you some good entertainment, just as with taking a stand against DRM. Very noble efforts, which I used to be involved with, but ultimately there's just too much good stuff out there for me to keep letting it pass by. I guess I'm just unprincipled.
I respect Top Gear a lot, and Jeremy Clarkson was on 60 Minutes last year. I'm paraphrasing, but he said something similar to "if we paid attention to everybody that got offended, we'd make a bland show". I'm sure HBO is completely aware that you are offended by their distribution model. I'm also sure that for them to continue being as successful as they are, they simply cannot care. There's a lesson in that for entrepreneurs.
I still wish DRM wasn't a thing, but I enjoy the pants off of TF2 and most Steam games. I think you can be both, and it's not a binary world view.
Mm, I see where you're coming from but that's not really the point here. It's more a matter of here's a great show that I want to support. But, I don't want to support the cable companies charging an arm and a leg for junk. I solely want to support the content creator (HBO) and its distribution service (HBOGO). Both are excellent quality and I want to pay for it and it alone. But, I can't.
The message I get from posts like these: "I am entitled to watch show X right now. If the owner of show X won't sell it to me instantly, then I have the right to pirate it."
Is there money to be made here? Sure. I might even say that companies who don't offer popular shows on demand are making a dumb move. But nobody has the innate right to take whatever they want right now just because they can't wait until it's available legally.
You aren't taking it. You are copying it. The only reason not to be allowed to copy it is if it damages the copyright owner.
But since the product has zero economic value to the owner from you (they refuse to sell it to you), you are not causing them any damage, and therefor you can not make any argument about why it's wrong. (i.e. it makes no difference to the owner whether you copied it or not.)
One of the criteria for fair use is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work".
And if you also include "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes" you have met 2 out of 4 of the criteria for fair use, so you could make a strong argument that it's actually fully legal.
1 - But since the product has zero economic value to the owner from you (they refuse to sell it to you) -- In the case of Game of Thrones, you are refusing to buy it (either via HBO subscription, iTunes, physical media, etc.)
2 - Fair use is a legal defense used when you get charged with copyright infringement. It is not an excuse you give upfront. You can only claim fair use after you have been charged.
1: I have not checked, I assume it was impossible based on the post the parent made, I've never watched it myself or tried to buy (or download) it. I take his claim that he can not get it any other way at face value. Selling it a week later does not count BTW, (just in case that is what they are doing). If he wants it now, and they refuse then too bad for them - they lost his money. That was their choice and they should not complain.
2: Fair use is most definitely an "excuse" (as you call it). Fair use lets you decide if you are allowed to do something. You don't have to go to court before quoting a passage from a book in a review - fair use lets you do it without even asking.
If we want to get into semantics we should really pick some words that are more neutral. So.. you consumed it and did not compensate them for it. Better?
It is kind of funny when you think about the term leech used in the torrent world. If you download something and don't make it available for upload, you are leeching. You are taking but not giving back. So to consume someone's product and not compensate them for it... I guess that makes you a leech?
> So.. you consumed it and did not compensate them for it. Better?
Not really. Why do I need to compensate them? You give a creator money to encourage them to do more, not to compensate them. Compensate implies they loose in some way and you have to make them whole. That doesn't apply here.
In this case the author of the post want to encourage them to do more, but they refuse because they believe they can do better without his money. At that point his moral duty is complete, and they have no right to complain if he consumes (I hate that word since it implies destroy) their product.
You don't seem to get the point of copyright. You have it reversed - you think copyright lets creators prevent people from doing stuff - not so. The idea of copyright is to encourage creators. (It's right in the US constitution - check if you don't believe me.) If you try to encourage them, and they refuse, then you can do what you want and they can't complain (morally anyway). The restrictions only exist to serve the purpose of encouragement. If encouragement isn't possible then the restrictions are meaningless and are ignored.
A leech is only a leech if he doesn't try to give back, but in this case the author of the post tries, but his offer was not accepted. Even in the bittorrent world that is not called a leech, it's called a seeder.
> Why do I need to compensate them? [snip] Compensate implies they loose in some way
Compensate only implies that if that is the only way you choose to see it. If you have a job, the money you earn is compensation.... paying (someone) for work performed. Compensate means so much more. Also, consume means more than to destroy. But since those other definitions do not serve your purpose, it is convenient to turn a blind eye to them.
> A leech is only a leech if he doesn't try to give back, but in this case the author of the post tries, but his offer was not accepted.
But the author does not have the authority to dictate what offers must be accepted. If a creator is offering you a product and gives you Option A or Option B. It is not reasonable to assert that if you counter-offer him with Option C and he refuses that it gives you a right to still accept the product and neither of his chosen options.
Also, I didn't bring up anything about copyright. So I'm not sure how you know I have it all reversed.
> If you have a job, the money you earn is compensation.
It's compensation for the time you spent - they give you money, you give them time. The relationship to creative work is you give them money, they give you more. You do not pay for the existing work - you pay to encourage more work (not necessarily by them, also by someone else who sees that it's possible to make money this way). That's directly from the constitution of the USA.
If they don't want your money, then you can use the work (morally). What reason would there be to prevent you from using the work? People do not own creative works despite a lot of people really really really wishing they could. People simply have the right to demand encouragement, but if they refuse that encouragement then that was their choice.
I am well aware of the current usage of consume - I still don't like the word for this purpose (using something, where the original continues to exist). Check the dictionary - I will quote: "To destroy, as by decomposition, dissipation, waste, or fire; to use up; to expend; to waste; to burn up; to eat up; to devour." That was the only definition given, if you have others feel free to quote them.
> But the author does not have the authority to dictate what offers must be accepted.
Missed my point. Why does the creator of the work get to dictate that I can't watch it? He can't. He can only expect money as encouragement to create more. Once that is refused he doesn't get to tell me what to do.
> Also, I didn't bring up anything about copyright. So I'm not sure how you know I have it all reversed.
So do tell, besides copyright what give the creator of a work any right at all to tell someone else what to do? It was a reasonable assumption, if it's wrong then I have no idea what you are talking about.
But I would say the nature of this post is more along the lines of X is only available as A-Z at 10x$. If X were available as X for $, I would but it.
There are 2 types of pirates out there. Some really feel they have the right to do so. Some do it knowing it is wrong but they have no other way to access the content and if there were a Paypal set to donate to support the show would do so.
Not watching the show or waiting for the DVD to come out really is not an option. Waiting is not the point we're discussing.
Not watching the show is absolutely an option. Not one human being is obligated to watch any television show. I think what you mean is "these people really want to watch the show", and that's true. I know some people who really want to take oxycodone. The government won't let them buy it from a pharmacy legally, so I guess they should be justified in stealing it and then leave a donation for what they think is fair compensation.
Waiting for the DVD to come out is also an option unless you know for a fact that it will never happen (which neither of us does). It's not going to kill anyone to wait 6 months to see a show. Maybe they would lose interest in the show by then and not buy the DVD, sure. If that's the case, then who's going to care? Maybe it's not an ideal option, but it is an option nonetheless.
Again, is waiting really the point we're discussing? We're not talking about piracy in general. We're talking about HBO and GoT here. Not watching the show within a week of air is not watching it at all. If you participate in this at all, you'd know what I'm talking about. Waiting is NOT an option. If you're going go to an extreme analogy, I will say to some this is equivalent to watching the Superbowl a week later.
HBO should get paid for its viewership but it is not. With the whole HBO being part of Time Warner thing, I can agree that this issue really isn't solvable in an ideal way.
Personally, I watch shows based on their content, not when they air. Fortunately episode X will still have the same content if I download it tonight or buy it a year from now on a DVD. I won't enjoy it any less just because people aren't talking about it anymore, and I actually prefer it that way. So waiting is an option for me. I don't have some kind of irrational fear that I'll have an anxiety attack if I don't see a show within N days of its first broadcast like a lot of people seem to.
Right, and that's fine. But again, your argument really isn't part of the conversation then is it?
There are plenty of shows out there that I can wait until it shows up in the 5$ bargain bin and I'll pick it up and watch it. There are some shows that because I loved it I'll buy the entire collection edition.
But this conversation is for television watchers that watch things as they air. If there is a show that must be seen the moment it airs, there status quo is not a win-win situation and is a constant struggle between overpriced cable and cheap consumers resorting to piracy.
I actually discovered that I am able to pay HBO for Game of Thrones. HBO decided to air GoT here in Brazil simultaneously with USA. I called my television provider, added HBO for R$ 30,00/mo (around $15.00) and after the end of the season 2 I just called there and removed HBO again. I am planning to do the same for season 3. Is it so hard for people around the world to do the same? (real question, not being sarcastic)
Well, this season of GoT was 9 episodes. If you wanted HBO over the whole run so you could watch them live - you would need it for 3 months. However, if you're willing to hold off until last month, you could get by with waiting for the last episode to come out, buy one month, watch all episodes, then cancel.
You're ignoring the cost of the cable subscription in the first place (unless your 'television provider' is the government and you don't pay anything).
315 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 246 ms ] threadYeah I am not associating myself with that. Perhaps something like "We don't currently pay to see your content".
Honestly as an Australian I don't see this happening here, the cable here is an effective monopoly and unless they get a cut of the profits they're not going let HBO do this. It might be completely against their business model as well due to the fact GoT has received more publicity here than any other cable show in some time. This has likely been driving sales for them and so would be bad for their business.
To assure you I'm not trolling... take a look at this discussion before replying: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe...
I never understood this thing about "easily copy-able" being a reason to strip a business of their distribution rights. Yes, the actual string of 1's and 0's is easy to copy. But physically making a 60 minute episode of Game of Thrones is not so easy. I think the work they have put into making their product has earned them the right to control the distribution of their product just as much as any other business. If you don't like the way HBO distributes Game of Thrones... you don't go pirate it... you go film it yourself (although I suspect that would not be allowed either).
HBO Go puts the technical infrastructure in place to eliminate the cable companies as customers if this ever changes, so they have some chance of surviving the likely collapse of the cable industry
The piracy angle, or those particular programmes?
Could be because it's $3/episode or it's only standard def or it's a week late. My guess is people find it just as easy to torrent it so don't even bother to look at paid options.
So if Australia is being used by HBO as a test market (quite common for US companies in the past), the stats on offering a paid online option in parallel to cable to reduce piracy don't look compelling to me in this case.
A week later is one week too late - you need to be looking at hours after screening. Australia has a huge pirated TV culture because of how awful our free to air is (pay TV is only really starting to catch on due to exclusive sports licenses, and in terms of getting US content it is almost as terrible as free to air), and everyone just torrents what they want to watch.
The other thing is that on iiNet (Australia's #2 ISP), iTunes downloads aren't counted against download quota. So there's some incentive to buy for people on the basic plans.
You really would be paying the 'gold price' too as the $AUD is pretty strong due to the price of gold and other commodities mined here.
The quality fluctuates wildly. If its $60 unlimited from a good ISP like iinet then it's a good deal, if it's with TPG or Dodo then it's not worth the hassle.
Overall, I think the TV license is brilliant considering it provides us with an ad-free TV and news network. Plus, you only actually need a license if you watch TV "as it is aired." I.E. DVDs, recordings etc. don't require a license. It's less of a TV license, more of a live TV license. It always struck me as odd however that watching streamed live foreign TV on your computer counts under that however, and you need a TV license for that, to help fund the BBC.
But keep in mind that content production is a fixed cost, so if you increase the number of subscribers you can lower the cost per subscriber.
And is a black and white teevee cheaper?
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/media-centre/news/black-a...
Volume wins?
customers that pay for cable + HBO > customers with internet only.
Hence why they have no current desire to alienate big cable to cater to the small number of users who loudly complain they can't watch HBO online when they want.
For example, pick some otherwise random date a few weeks after the DVD set will be released and organize a concerted buying effort amongst "pirates" on that specific date.
The packaging of the videos is SHIT... there are ads, I have to sit through FBI warnings, I have to sift through bad menus to get to the content I want, and I have to deal with trying to find features when everything I select says "please insert disc X"
I paid $70 CND and with the exception of the actual quality of the picture (blu-ray is fantastic), the whole experience is VASTLY inferior to the piracy route.
That said, I'll still be purchasing the Season 2 Blu-Ray when it comes out, because I very much want to support the production of this series.
I spent good money on the fucking thing? Why couldn't they have given me a BETTER experience than the people who steal it?
Dubbed, too.
I pay $0/month to watch Game of Thrones, Veep, Girls, and True Blood. I will continue to pay $0 until there is an option that does not involve enriching evil cable executives.
Your move, HBO.
Wouldn't a standalone HBO GO subscription enrich cable executives? Wouldn't any paid solution enrich cable executives?
Even if you manage to perfectly align your beliefs with your purchasing habits, how do you ensure that those who profit from your purchases don't give their money to the evil cable or oil executives?
If you don't agree with their distribution methods then DON'T CONSUME THAT CONTENT.
I think this is what goes through most people's heads. When it's a choice between benefiting nobody and retaining moral high-ground and benefiting nobody and watching the show, they choose the latter, because they don't see any real rational reason not to.
Now, how about pirating the show, then buying the DVD when it comes out? Gets trickier, doesn't it...
Or is it just a bunch of geeks trying to get hbo for cheap? I know anti-piracy is not always popular but they are creating popular and original shows, why not support them?
If you look at the current tweets, people are offering up anywhere between $8 and $20, which I imagine is considerably more than HBO's take based on their current revenue model.
The whole point of this website, I gather, is to convince HBO that their product is worth considerably more to the end user than what they're currently making, and that they can tap into a lot more revenue if they let people subscribe to their products directly, without the cableco middleman.
[edit] My impression of HBO pricing is completely wrong. It doesn't seem like HBO would stand to gain a huge amount based on how much people are "pledging".
At the same time they don't provide an option for legitimate "over the top" Internet video users to watch their programming without a PayTV subscription.
I am pretty sure HBO charges money such that they hedge for losses that happen through piracy.
Few days back, I met a guy who runs a cab fleet. He pays his drivers once a week for the fuel they need. On further inquiry on home much he pays, it turned he always pays for atleast 4-5 litres of extra fuel a day. The drivers cheat, they say they need more fuel for lesser distance and cite mileage problems. But he was dead sure, that was not the case.
How did he hedge for all that. He takes fuel theft into consideration while billing his customers. Drivers don't loose out, the cab company doesn't. But consumers pay a little extra.
Worth reading before spouting the typical "I don't understand why HBO doesn't want my $5 a month."
Edit: This is a summary of one of HBO's arguments. The dcurtis post examines a couple of other arguments. Positioning is an interesting one: How does HBO convince viewers that $5/mo is reasonable for just a few shows when Netflix is $8/mo for far more content? There are some really tough issues here.
How much revenue does HBO get from that marketing?
Also.. their largest carriers also serve a lot of cable internet, for most it wouldn't be adding a competition so much as adding another way to get at subscribers money. I'm not so sure they would be in a huge rush to drop them.
The status quo is that the typical HBO sub has a cable bill over $150/mo, because he already has broadband. Helping that subscriber cut the cord and go Internet-only (while unbundling HBO) will therefore result in a lower cable bill for the subscriber. A portion of the money the subscriber saves comes out of the carrier's pocket. This is the classic trading of analog dollars for digital pennies, and carriers will resist it as long as they are able (in the absence of a new big revenue source).
Regarding positioning: HBO is very good at producing content, but so are a lot of the organizations that provide content to Netflix (e.g. CBS, NBC, TNT, Showtime, Disney, etc.) $8 gets you access to all of those vs. a hypothetical $5 to get the output of a single studio. It's going to be very hard for HBO to hold the line on pricing in that environment.
What I took away from it is this: A lot of our paying subscribers don't actually watch HBO, and we don't want to compete against the sources that deliver those subscribers to us.
(Every single discussion about this should always include a mention that Time Warner owns HBO, saves a lot of mental hamster wheeling.)
They forced a bad deal on competing networks via those networks' own customers. The prize was capturing margin and exporting cost of business.
The language about controlling the examples that consumers use as a frame of reference is telling. This is a business that has mastered the game of baiting 1st parties against 2nd parties while negotiating price as a 3rd party.
I would guess there's a lot of businesses that make money by charging people for things that they don't use.
Case in point , services that allow you to subscribe online but can only be canceled by telephone. Making a telephone call is not exactly difficult , but there must be a significant quantity of people who can't be bothered to do it in order to make it worth their while implementing that policy to begin with.
And then you don't watch HBO (or at least not as often as warrants the money you spent on it). It's like all those 'options' you get when buying a car (Only $200 for floormats? that sounds like a deal!). I think it's called the bundling effect or something similar.
Even a trial run, like pay $5 and watch S03E01, would be a really great test to see if the market is telling the truth here. (But the availability could NOT lag behind HBOGo or broadcast, it'd have to be simultaneous.)
Hurting 'Game of Thrones' Through Piracy Won’t Change HBO’s Business, It Will Just Get the Show Cancelled:
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/hurting-game-of-th...
Pirating, of course, won't change their business. But even if I really want to watch the show (I don't watch it), I wouldn't sign up for Cable TV, and sign up for HBO on top of it just for one show. I see this as less of an ultimatum and more of a "hey your business model is fucked so you're not getting my money" thing.
The other reason is that Time Warner wont risk their other channels being unbundled from the basic tier such as TNT, TBS, CNN, Cartoon, etc. They make more on some of those channels (Ads + subscriber fee) than HBO.
I would, on the other hand, pay $40 via iTunes per season of Game of Thrones.
Networks are outdated. Stop trying to change them and adapt like the rest of us.
i hate twitter.
my voice shall go unnoticed.
1) Premium price, instant gratification. If you're willing to pony up for cable TV + a HBO subscription, you're able to watch Game of Thrones the instant it comes out. Yes, you're paying a lot (~$100) - but - sometimes that's the price you have to pay for a premium service.
2) Pay a reasonable price, get it digitally, but I have to wait. If the $100/month subscription is a problem for you - no problem! You just have to wait. You can legally gain access to Game of Thrones on iTunes or BluRay for ~$40 for the whole season... about 10 months after it finishes airing.
When I hear someone say, "Why can't I just pay HBO directly for access? They're dumb! I'll just pirate it instead." - What they really mean is, "HBO charges too much for my tastes, and I don't want to wait... so I'll just download it." If that's your mentality, fine... but please don't think you're doing it for some higher reasoning. You just want the show now, and you don't want to pay what HBO is selling it. In every other medium (physical goods, food, dinner, cars) - you'd be SOL. But.. just because it's digital, you can copy it for free.
However, there seems to be a significant amount of people who want a third option, which HBO considers itself structurally prohibited from providing.
It is precisely no one's fault but HBO's that HBO has painted itself into a corner.
To assure you I'm not trolling... read this first: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe...
However, just because they may (or may not) be making a poor business decision, it doesn't excuse what people are doing: illegally pirating content.
Look at it from the other direction. Pirates are gonna pirate and there is fuck all anyone can do about it. Moralize about it all you want, it doesn't change the fact that people will get the content for free, and MORE people will get the content for free if they feel ripped off or cheated (regardless of how legitimate those feelings might be)
HBO can make a relatively simple change to capture a good deal of that market, or leave money on the table. Currently they're pursuing option #2 due to poor positioning.
>Our content, exclusive. It's the only place you can get it. And we believe there is value in exclusivity.
You say value, others say needless and overpriced hurdles. And there's nothing exclusive about the average torrent site :)
Also , if you watch something 10 months later you're going to have to find a way to navigate the internet for 10 months without tripping over spoilers everywhere.
Buying it via cable, assuming there aren't other shows you want to watch on cable , you are looking at $25 per episode.
Instead I'd suggest fellow cord cutters just skip Game of Thrones entirely, don't pirate it, don't even watch it. Instead spend your money and leisure time supporting content that's provided online.
When your friends talk about GoT you'll need to have a few canned response-pivots like "is that about orcs? Lawl, hey did you guys see Lilyhammer? It was totally not godawful."
http://xkcd.com/178/
(Am I the only one who still doesn't give two fucks about four fucks about television shows?)
I can't disagree this is relevant to HN's interests, as a specific instance of a broader trend that gets talked about a lot here.
(I don't watch TV, but the above is my best attempt to explain the greater phenomenon behind posts like the GP's — not a personal statement.)
TV is for people who can sacrifice something else for the sake of a show. I can't and I won't because my time is worth doing something else. And when I need entertainment there are other things that fill that need.
Its like the radio, I turn it on when I need it. If something interesting is playing I hear, else I have a whole hard disk full of songs to hear to.
Also the ads and breaks between shows, movies and songs. When uninterrupted entertainment is available at dirt cheap prices. Who likes to waste their time watching/hearing ads.
TV is becoming the new radio, basically.
But I have nothing against tv shows per see.
I respect Top Gear a lot, and Jeremy Clarkson was on 60 Minutes last year. I'm paraphrasing, but he said something similar to "if we paid attention to everybody that got offended, we'd make a bland show". I'm sure HBO is completely aware that you are offended by their distribution model. I'm also sure that for them to continue being as successful as they are, they simply cannot care. There's a lesson in that for entrepreneurs.
I still wish DRM wasn't a thing, but I enjoy the pants off of TF2 and most Steam games. I think you can be both, and it's not a binary world view.
Is there money to be made here? Sure. I might even say that companies who don't offer popular shows on demand are making a dumb move. But nobody has the innate right to take whatever they want right now just because they can't wait until it's available legally.
You aren't taking it. You are copying it. The only reason not to be allowed to copy it is if it damages the copyright owner.
But since the product has zero economic value to the owner from you (they refuse to sell it to you), you are not causing them any damage, and therefor you can not make any argument about why it's wrong. (i.e. it makes no difference to the owner whether you copied it or not.)
One of the criteria for fair use is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work".
And if you also include "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes" you have met 2 out of 4 of the criteria for fair use, so you could make a strong argument that it's actually fully legal.
1 - But since the product has zero economic value to the owner from you (they refuse to sell it to you) -- In the case of Game of Thrones, you are refusing to buy it (either via HBO subscription, iTunes, physical media, etc.)
2 - Fair use is a legal defense used when you get charged with copyright infringement. It is not an excuse you give upfront. You can only claim fair use after you have been charged.
2: Fair use is most definitely an "excuse" (as you call it). Fair use lets you decide if you are allowed to do something. You don't have to go to court before quoting a passage from a book in a review - fair use lets you do it without even asking.
If we want to get into semantics we should really pick some words that are more neutral. So.. you consumed it and did not compensate them for it. Better?
It is kind of funny when you think about the term leech used in the torrent world. If you download something and don't make it available for upload, you are leeching. You are taking but not giving back. So to consume someone's product and not compensate them for it... I guess that makes you a leech?
Not really. Why do I need to compensate them? You give a creator money to encourage them to do more, not to compensate them. Compensate implies they loose in some way and you have to make them whole. That doesn't apply here.
In this case the author of the post want to encourage them to do more, but they refuse because they believe they can do better without his money. At that point his moral duty is complete, and they have no right to complain if he consumes (I hate that word since it implies destroy) their product.
You don't seem to get the point of copyright. You have it reversed - you think copyright lets creators prevent people from doing stuff - not so. The idea of copyright is to encourage creators. (It's right in the US constitution - check if you don't believe me.) If you try to encourage them, and they refuse, then you can do what you want and they can't complain (morally anyway). The restrictions only exist to serve the purpose of encouragement. If encouragement isn't possible then the restrictions are meaningless and are ignored.
A leech is only a leech if he doesn't try to give back, but in this case the author of the post tries, but his offer was not accepted. Even in the bittorrent world that is not called a leech, it's called a seeder.
Compensate only implies that if that is the only way you choose to see it. If you have a job, the money you earn is compensation.... paying (someone) for work performed. Compensate means so much more. Also, consume means more than to destroy. But since those other definitions do not serve your purpose, it is convenient to turn a blind eye to them.
> A leech is only a leech if he doesn't try to give back, but in this case the author of the post tries, but his offer was not accepted.
But the author does not have the authority to dictate what offers must be accepted. If a creator is offering you a product and gives you Option A or Option B. It is not reasonable to assert that if you counter-offer him with Option C and he refuses that it gives you a right to still accept the product and neither of his chosen options.
Also, I didn't bring up anything about copyright. So I'm not sure how you know I have it all reversed.
It's compensation for the time you spent - they give you money, you give them time. The relationship to creative work is you give them money, they give you more. You do not pay for the existing work - you pay to encourage more work (not necessarily by them, also by someone else who sees that it's possible to make money this way). That's directly from the constitution of the USA.
If they don't want your money, then you can use the work (morally). What reason would there be to prevent you from using the work? People do not own creative works despite a lot of people really really really wishing they could. People simply have the right to demand encouragement, but if they refuse that encouragement then that was their choice.
I am well aware of the current usage of consume - I still don't like the word for this purpose (using something, where the original continues to exist). Check the dictionary - I will quote: "To destroy, as by decomposition, dissipation, waste, or fire; to use up; to expend; to waste; to burn up; to eat up; to devour." That was the only definition given, if you have others feel free to quote them.
> But the author does not have the authority to dictate what offers must be accepted.
Missed my point. Why does the creator of the work get to dictate that I can't watch it? He can't. He can only expect money as encouragement to create more. Once that is refused he doesn't get to tell me what to do.
> Also, I didn't bring up anything about copyright. So I'm not sure how you know I have it all reversed.
So do tell, besides copyright what give the creator of a work any right at all to tell someone else what to do? It was a reasonable assumption, if it's wrong then I have no idea what you are talking about.
There are 2 types of pirates out there. Some really feel they have the right to do so. Some do it knowing it is wrong but they have no other way to access the content and if there were a Paypal set to donate to support the show would do so.
Not watching the show or waiting for the DVD to come out really is not an option. Waiting is not the point we're discussing.
Waiting for the DVD to come out is also an option unless you know for a fact that it will never happen (which neither of us does). It's not going to kill anyone to wait 6 months to see a show. Maybe they would lose interest in the show by then and not buy the DVD, sure. If that's the case, then who's going to care? Maybe it's not an ideal option, but it is an option nonetheless.
HBO should get paid for its viewership but it is not. With the whole HBO being part of Time Warner thing, I can agree that this issue really isn't solvable in an ideal way.
There are plenty of shows out there that I can wait until it shows up in the 5$ bargain bin and I'll pick it up and watch it. There are some shows that because I loved it I'll buy the entire collection edition.
But this conversation is for television watchers that watch things as they air. If there is a show that must be seen the moment it airs, there status quo is not a win-win situation and is a constant struggle between overpriced cable and cheap consumers resorting to piracy.
Since people who are paying a sub are way less likely to cancel than people who make a 1 off purchase are willing to come back?
Perhaps they don't even care that much about piracy because their money is already in the bag from cable subscribers?
Once everyone stops using cable they will change their tune.