get VPN & stick to private trackers.
Or pay for your shit.
Canada will be next, I suppose.
This week, the five main Internet service providers will roll out a new system to curtail illegal downloading. Violators will get emails from their ISP, whether AT&T, Cablevision, Verizon, Time Warner Cable or Comcast. After six of those emails, the penalties get a bit stiffer, and your Internet speed could be throttled to 2002 levels for a couple of days.
MPAA and IRAA will be informed of the users which breach the 5th or 6th strike.
So looks like its time to use VPN. Or maybe we can use the same excuse the IRAA used when their IPs were caught illegally downloading content. It wasnt me, it was someone else.
get VPN & stick to private trackers.
Or pay for your shit.
Canada will be next, I suppose.
Don't see cox on there so I should be fine. They used to do a 3 strike policy but not anymore to my knowledge. Haven't been throttled by them since then either. I think they just gave up and said screw this tracking crap. Could be wrong though.
I read over the article but I didn't see anything about whether warnings will expire or not. For example, if I get 2 warnings this month, but then go till December till getting another warning, will that be warning 3 or will I start again at warning 1 after a certain amount of time?
I got a warning from Verizon a few years ago and after 3(?) months it was removed so I started downloading again.
No sympathy; pay for your shit.
I highly doubt this even concerns anyone on this forum. Everything I've read about this new system still sounds like it's only going to punish the 13 year old kids downloading shit off piratebay, and any kind of decent private tracker is going to just keep on trucking.
Sure, it's a shitty thing, and a bit worrisome as it could easily just be the first finger on the hand of the iron fist of big media coming down on the internet, but I really don't think this changes anything at all for anyone even remotely tech savvy.
I thought media groups were going pretty heavily after newsgroups already. The best indexing site just went under and new content gets removed so quickly that the "super secret" place to upload changes frequently.
There will always be a boogie man/reason/limitation that prevents companies from providing cheaper/better/easier access to content. The only way to force the change is to impact their prehistoric business models enough that they have no other options.
.America: Replacing bad internet speeds with the threat of even worse speeds.
this will all fall apart once someone goes to court. I don't see the RIAA & MPAA getting no-knock warrants to collect your HD. afaik nothing illegal about not securing your wireless.
So to download things illegally one now would have to use either a VPN or a seedbox service? Doesn't seem like this change will have any significant effect on the amount of pirated content which begs the question how much these enforcement efforts cost the various ISPs.
Also, your previous post makes it hard for people to ignore the margins some media companies are getting. When I can get a 1 hour standup from Louis CK for $5 or a just as funny 1 hour from HBO for many many more dollars per month for two years, you know there's a ton of margin. Which makes it hard to feel bad for them when you steal their shit.
And no, some media companies have not embraced the internet. Largely movies and tv companies though.
as someone who comes from a time of filling floppies with cracked software / media I got offa dial up BBSs, I for one will enjoy this latest expensive boondoggle that will go nowhere and do nothing, I have seen many just like it come and go.
First, the margins are irrelevant. The margins certainly don't change the legality of the act and they don't change the morality either when one is just keeping the content for his or herself. Second, the comparison isn't fair and doesn't illuminate the margins. Yes, an hour of comedy is cheaper than two years of (near?) 24/7 content.Also, your previous post makes it hard for people to ignore the margins some media companies are getting. When I can get a 1 hour standup from Louis CK for $5 or a just as funny 1 hour from HBO for many many more dollars per month for two years, you know there's a ton of margin. Which makes it hard to feel bad for them when you steal their shit.
To be sure, one can be upset that he or she must purchase two years of HBO (hypothetically) or wait until to DVD's are released to watch what shows he wants. Or one can be upset that he or she must purchase HBO in a package with Showtime etc. However, the proper response is not to illegally download the desired content. That increases the cost for paying customers. It provides a boogie man that legislature seek to fight with awful legislation like SOPA. Even accepting, for the sake of argument, that piracy is a vehicle of change for content distribution, its a pretty damn slow one. Piracy has been around since the beginning of the internet and yet the pirates are still unhappy.
What would it take for pirates to stop pirating? I'm curious to see the answers of some here. If you illegally download content, at what price would you buy, instead of download?
Which is why I just buy the BDs of shows/movies and rip those. Definitely less convenient than a true digital distribution method, but at least I know it works, free of restrictions.
If I legally have an entire band's discography and I want to put the entire thing on my ipod I need to pop in N amount of CD's, rip them, add them, etc. Or I could download them in about 3 minutes, not rip them, and continue.
What is the legality if I own the product already?
Some of those choices are incomplete. Here, I don't watch much tv. Find me a complete package that consists of these TV shows:
The Daily Show
The Colbert Report
I'm not arguing the legality of the act. I know it's illegal. On the morality part, not really arguing that either. But you have to stand in awe that it's still supposedly cheaper to keep prices the same and spend money to use blatant scare tactics than it is to reevaluate content distribution to get more subscribers.
I will agree the comparison isn't fair. It was more supposed to play on packaged nature of TV. Do you have a better one?
What is the proper response, btw?
I already gave you an example. I didn't pay for Louis CK's earlier standups(the one he did in Houston, 2006 I think). Payed for his more famous ones via netflix, and payed him directly for the one he did last year at Beacon Theatre.
You gave many examples too. Steam is a great example. I bet many people that pirate here, mainly do movies and tv shows. I know Steam has 100% stopped me from pirating video games.
I don't really know what price I would pay for television and movie content. First they'd have to come up with a delivery system that didn't suck and could provide same-day/live content seamlessly. At present though the only delivery option I have is On Demand through my cable company and the prices there are not doing it. $7 for an old movie, $60 for a UFC event? No thanks. I'm guessing it would need to be in the $1-4/movie (depending on age and how decent the movie is) and ~$.50/half hour for television shows.
I'll say this much though, I used to pirate games exclusively and since Steam came onto the scene I haven't pirated one. I'll even wait for a sale on a questionable title instead of downloading it from sketchy sources.
Steam type service with 0 day availability and reasonable prices would stop a lot of pirates. The rest wouldn't stop would have never bought your product anyways so content producers lose no money there.
I would stop all pirating if they offered the same material via the internet that you have at a movie theater and I would pay ticket price and maybe upwards of a few dollars higher. My cousin loves that I download these movies and make him a copy so he can watch because a trip to the theaters for him is always over $100 because he has four god damn kids, I promise you he would gladly pay 15 bucks to watch the new Iron Man at home or any other new release and so would I.
what happened to all the work that was being done on the next gen encrypted torrent system? I know they were working on it for while, all peers being blind to each other and the requested packets / destinations were invisible to all parties?
The big joke of all of this is the US isn't where the real loss of revenue from piracy is. Also for all the studios claims they are losing massive amounts of money, films make more now than they ever did. they are crying about theoretical money they pretend they would get. Studios keep trying to triple dip, and get paid again when you want to use the content in another format. As Zodiac said, there are people who wont pay for the content affordable or not.
Last edited by Merkins4Brazil; 02-27-2013 at 08:50 PM.
These "policies" don't really apply to you once you start talking about VPNs and encrypted traffic. This is more about people who download a dozen movies off a public tracker and don't even know they have a torrent client that starts with windows uploading everything they have ever downloaded.
An internet connection is not perfect. It won't get you everything you want on that list. But it's close. Basic cable will get you much more than you listed, much of which you may not want. I'm not a huge fan of that. I wish there was ala carte cable but the cable companies are, I suspect rightly, convinced that it would lose them money. Still, there are various options available.
I'm not saying the distribution system is ideal, only that it's not as bad as some make it out to be. It's certainly not so bad as to justify illegally downloading content.
I suspect pirates illegally download content because it's easy to do so and because it's reasonable to believe that there will be little to no consequences for doing so. All of rest is rationalization.
I am old now, I don't crave having content on day zero, waiting 4 months to have it pop up on my netflix queue isn't a problem. a lot of TV has figured out that they should make their shows available on demand via web at the same time as the broadcast.
Oh and the occasional back catalog of a musical artist. Again mostly for the convenience of downloading one Pink Floyd or Rush archive as opposed to 20+ individual albums. Otherwise I purchase the vast majority of my music from iTunes since it's at least DRM free. Made the mistake of buying a ski movie from iTunes that I now cannot fucking watch because iTunes/Quicktime continually loses audio sync and the DRM won't let me watch it with another player. How do I convert that shit to a useful format by the way?
Oh and since I'm Canadian, we have next to no online content delivery systems that are open to us, like Hulu. Even Netflix here is a fucking joke compared to in the US, with a far smaller selection. Can't use Pandora, could never get a Zune pass with Microsoft, and so on. We just get straight fucked in the ass when it comes to content, which of course drives piracy.
Last edited by Eomer; 02-27-2013 at 09:06 PM.
Yeah, that's an option, but those versions are never quite as good for quality as the original. I should have just fucking bought a Blu-Ray of it instead.
I don't pirate much, Netflix and Spotify take care of 90% of my music and tv needs, but when I want to grab something like GoT or Breaking Bad, I have always just got it off TPB. I guess that's a bad idea now. What is the safe way for me to get the occasional HBO/AMC/SHO series? Please forgive my internet ignorance.
Anyways I don't do as much downloading as I used to. I've started purchasing music through Google Play after moving my iTunes library over there last year. If it's not available on Google Play to purchase legitimately all bets are off and I personally don't give a shit about "pirating" it. If its not readily accessible through my choice of content delivery then fuck you.
As for television/movies I agree that I would probably pay $1.50 an episode for a show like How I Met Your Mother, and closer to $3-4 for an episode of Game of Thrones. I don't really have a complaint with TV/Movie prices. What really agitates me is the monopoly on areas by ISP's.
If I can't vote with my dollars to tell them to stop making Cupcake Wars and bring back Good Eats...they don't get any of my money at all. I will admit, my choice might be different if pirating wasn't so easy. But Chopped isn't that good. I've gone stints where the Eastern European pirates slack off for whole seasons of the show.
And then basic cable packages are bundled (see above). You end up paying for channels that suck dick just for the few you actually want. For example, a lot of the basic packages include channels like ABC Family, Animal Planet, BET, Biography, Hallmark, Lifetime, and Style. While I'm sure there's an occassional good show on one of these maybe every few years, I shouldn't have to pay to subsidize these channels when what I really want from a basic package is Discovery, HGTV, and Food Network. But I'm forced to pay $30-40 a month for a bunch of shit I don't really want.
Oh yeah, Google Music also doesn't work in Canada, at least not officially. It's like media companies want Canadians to pirate shit as much as possible.
Is HBO Go a standalone subscribe service? You could go that route. My friend has HBO Go and that shit is amazing.
So if I use Thepiratebay to download all kinds of shit with bitcommet and magnet links, should I be concerned about this? I thought the whole idea behind the magnet tech was that it made the info look binary to everyone so that you couldn't tell exactly tell what it is, legit or not.
I'll stop pirating tv shows/movies when they offer a distribution method that isn't ancient/retarded. I like being able to watch my shows when/where I want to without having to pay some crazy package cost that includes dozens of channels I don't give a shit about. I want to be able to watch Spartacus, Dexter, and Game of Thrones without spending a fortune every month paying for Starz, Showtime, and HBO packages. The VAST majority of shit on those networks doesn't interest me in the slightest. I also want to be able to watch Castle, and HGTV (home improvement shows are addicting, don't judge me). The cost of being able to view all of that content is a joke. TV is not worth triple digit bills when I only watch a handful of shows.
Things like Netflix, and Amazon Prime is a step in the right direction. I do pay for Netflix and it has slowed my downloading down quite a bit. Their selection is not anywhere near where it needs to be though. Take a look at a website like Icefilms. If that website charged a monthly fee, and was legal I'd sign up for life. Shows that I want to watch, when I want to watch them. It is NOT about the money with me. I'd happily pay for the content I love, but they have to be willing to be fair with it. Or I'm not playing ball.
I don't know enough about the cable business model to know how a la carte would work. To start, I'd want to know what price they would have to charge per channel to make the same amount of money they make with bundles. If it's $15 or $20 I think I'd rather just stay with the bundle. If you're saying you want them to let you choose any number of channels you want, for something like $3-5 a channel, I'd love that too. But I doubt its feasible. It is an empirical question though. We could look some shit up.
Of course, you, and another poster above further complicate the matter by wanting not only a la carte channels, but a la carte shows. I digress, but I'm weary of such a system because popular shows often subsidize unpopular shows. That makes sense when they are all bundled together on one network, but much less sense when each is sold individually. I
All of this is rather besides the point though. The market is not as robust as many would like and it doesn't provide exactly what some want. That's true of many markets (for me, clothing, food, and books come to mind). Sometimes what one wants is just not economically smart for a business. That doesn't engender my sympathy for pirates. It makes me think they feel too entitled. Pay for your shit. If not, take your licks.
Last edited by Simas; 02-27-2013 at 09:50 PM.
I agree Ranger, I already pay the cable company a shit ton of money each month and we only use like 1/20 of the crap they bundle it all with. Couple this with the overpriced shitty internet service and a land line (wife) , Im already paying $230 per month. Then there is netflix that I pay for, then prime amazon which Im a member of, I mean how much more of my fucking money do they want to watch a shitty show they do not offer? Or the odd fucking movie which is not on netflix that I feel like watching? Oh and BTW, why is it that we still have to watch commercials on cable networks if we pay for the fucking channels?
Games? Ill gladly pay $60 for a game which is not buggy mess which ends up sucking. Im sorry but thats about 80% of games. and I dont usually pirate games, but I see how some would to at least check them out first.
Last edited by mkopec; 02-27-2013 at 09:50 PM.
It'll be interesting to see where this goes from here too. I toss $160/month at my local ISP/Cable company and that doesn't even get me the top-tier stuff. This starts to feel annoying when I just don't watch much television and what I do watch is still pirated most of the time.
If it wasn't for football and hockey, the TV part could get cut and I wouldn't really care. Hell, the internet could get cut and I could just tether from my phone really, although I'd need to upgrade my plan so meh.
Heh, I just read that this shit doesn't apply to business class internet.
Oh man, I can't wait for digitized food so I can pirate me some authentic kobe beef!
You make valid points. I would like some hard numbers too. Because I seriously doubt cable company's margins are that slim. And even if they are, I think Steam has proven that electronic media can exist at multiple price points.
Last edited by Deathwing; 02-27-2013 at 10:00 PM.
Only channels I care about would be FX, AMC, HBO and all the sports stuff. A show-based pricing isn't realistic at all, but I feel a channel-based one could definitely happen.
REAL pirates who get their webs cut will just build a $10 wireless antenna, point it across the street and hack someones WPA / WEP. In fact smarts ones do it now so their webz wont get cut.
This gives them a disproportionate amount of power in the market--and it's why companies like HBO have to sell their content to these providers in packages, rather than offer their content directly to the consumer. Imagine if the roads to your house were owned by Fed-Ex, and the only way to receive a product is if you ALSO ordered other products from Fed-Ex approved manufacturers. And then what if Fedex only let you drive to shops it approved? (This is what cable companies are fighting for now) You'd be, rightfully, livid. This is because roads fall under public goods--they are a resource that's required by all, but also are inexhaustible. (Not quite, but enough so that they are a public good.)
The internet falls under this same paradigm. It's absolutely crazy that one of the largest commerce inducing distribution systems in the modern age is being run by private companies--and this is why you have such broad market irregularities such as packaged TV still--this is a relic from an age when we used airways and the government HAD to package them out because they were finite (Which means, it's not a public good). Now that the internet has come, the lack of government involvement (Except when it gave these guys money to lay line, ironic, I know.) it creates irrational market forces. Trying to use the market to defend this is absurd--don't. No capitalist worth their salt would look at the current information market and say it's functioning well.
This is why companies like Comcast are pushing for control over the internet, too. They'd love to be able to restrict you to only visiting the shopping sites that pay them. Again, imagine if a company controlled the roads in your area--imagine the power they would wield. Their ability to drain money through market irregularities would be unparallelled.
If this market was working, every area should be swamped with ISP's. But it isn't working, because these big fish exploited grants from governments to build last mile, and then turned around and bought up or crushed their competition (Seriously, go read about how Comcast stomps townships that try to get together to create public high speed access. No one should be defending this practice, especially not someone using a market defense.)
Last edited by Lithose; 02-28-2013 at 01:02 AM.
I mentioned clothes, food, and books earlier. I'm short. I have to roll up my 30 x 30 (cough 32 x 30 lately cough) pants or hem them. Paying for that extra fabric I don't want or need is annoying but it doesn't justify me shop lifting pants. If I did steal pants I wouldn't be fighting the power, lashing out at the system until it provides me with the 31 X 29 pants (in my desired style, color, and fit) that would most likely work best. That's absurd. I'm also a picky eater. I like my burgers with cheese and ketchup. That's how I order them. Yet I pay the same price as those who get their burgers with cheese, onions, pickles, tomatoes and so on. At a fast food place, those items, esp the tomatoes, make up a large portion of the cost of the product. It's not a reason to steal burgers. I wish books would come with coupons to download a digital copy, much like records come with coupons to download mp3's. For a lot of books I wish paper back were available at the same time as hard back. And in general I think a lot of books, esp classic ones, are overpriced. Still would not justify my taking them without paying for them.
Most of the rest of your post is dealing with issues beyond my lack of sympathy for pirates upset about this new six strikes program.
To be clear, I'm not saying I'm happy with the current cable market, that content distribution is currently optimal, or that people shouldn't work to change it. I'm saying complaints about all of that don't justify piracy and that piracy is not the appropriate vehicle for change.
Last edited by Simas; 02-28-2013 at 01:22 AM.
This is why when you talked about margins not being important, you were mistaken. If the margins on this extra fabric were as ridiculous as the margins in the current cable market--some small upstart would instantly be started and carve out some of that profit for themselves, making all profit slightly less. This is the *essence* of capitalism--whenever people talk about a market "working", they are speaking about the fact that when profits are high, it often creates room for more efficient suppliers. A large profit is actually the sign of a BROKEN market. (I know, weird huh?)I have to roll up my 30 x 30 (cough 32 x 30 lately cough) pants or hem them. Paying for that extra fabric I don't want or need is annoying but it doesn't justify me shop lifting pants.
Now, back to your pants. The margin on your pants is probably tiny, unless they are designer (We're talking very tiny). When a price point reaches this, it becomes irrational for the market to supply niche needs, because *THERE IS NO PROFIT IN IT!* If your department store is only making 50 cents on the pants, then the cost to run the lights at another store wouldn't allow for profits to be made by catering to the smaller demographic of people that need to hem (And trust me, margins in retail are RAZOR thin, Amazon sees to that.)
That's what you have to remember, profit motivation must exist. Right now, the margins cable companies are making shilling packaged content is, frankly, massive. Obviously there is large profit potential in directed sub-markets within this field. It's absolutely huge.
Yet few are exploiting it. That's the difference between your pants and this--it's about margins, Sim. When there is a phenomenon known as arbitrage, a market's health can actually be measured on how quickly it corrects the phenomenon. Arbitrage is essentially the transfer of a product from one to another, without risk because there is an imbalance in market forces--right now, Cable companies have that in transferring content. There should be legions of businesses looking to exploit this market by offering better services and cutting into this arbitrage.
There isn't, because of the monopolies cable companies which prevents businesses from competing in the field.
Honestly, these large companies have worked tirelessly to sap the ability for the government do--well, anything. Governments chief role in a market is insuring justice, making sure people are paid for work or services (Contract fulfillment). I find it delightfully ironic that the reason the government hasn't stepped in to end the monopolies, is also the reason why the pirates are allowed to take these companies to task.To be clear, I'm not saying I'm happy with the current cable market, that content distribution is currently optimal, or that people shouldn't work to change it. I'm saying complaints about all of that don't justify piracy and that piracy is not the appropriate vehicle for change.
You reap what you sow, I have no sympathy for the media companies who have, time and time again, used their money and power to paralyze legislation and stifle a growing economy in the name of maintaining their own control. These pirates are their just rewards--the pirates are the mad max/anarchist version of the government. They are an INEVITABILITY when government can't fulfill this role.
Fuck em, they don't like pirates, they should give up their last mile monopolies and not lobby for the local governments to be useless. But then their record breaking profits would disappear--they want to have their cake and eat it too.
Last edited by Lithose; 02-28-2013 at 06:11 PM.
Lithose for president. Or at least FCC chair.
Second, if it is so obvious, why hasn't someone exploited it? Yes, I get it, economies of scale and barriers to entry. But there isn't zero competition. There's satellite. Some places have multiple cable providers. If there's a ton of money to be made in supplying the demand for different bundles, or a la carte, or what have you, why isn't Dish (or another established competitor) doing it?
That's all numbers stuff and I'd love to see it shown that there is a lot of money to be made in supplying a la carte channels, or custom bundles, or whatever. If I could get 4 or 5 channels for 5% of the cost I pay for the 100 or so I have now, and everyone could win, then awesome.
What bugs me is the whole "pirates are their just rewards" revolutionary attitude stuff. It's bullshit rationalization. Pirates are not engaging in the proud tradition of civil disobedience, where they break the law and willingly suffer the punishment to highlight injustice. They're not downloading millions of articles off of JSTOR with an eye towards making them freely available to the public. They're not even stealing clothes because they were made in sweat shops . They're illegally downloading episodes of Game of Thrones because they don't want to pay $20 extra a month (or whatever it is) for premium cable or wait until they can buy the DVD. And then complaining about a six strike system.
Last edited by Simas; 02-28-2013 at 03:52 AM.
If they want people to stop pirating they need to stop being greedy fuckheads and all come to an agreement for one distributor for their media(Netflix, Hulu or whatever) and people would gladly pay for it, however, making people pay 5-15/month for 5 different streaming services so they can keep up with the shows they like is going to drive anyone to pirate them.
Also screw the RIAA for fucking us in the ass with CD inflation prices for the better part of a decade. I have no sympathy for them at all and hope they go down in flames.
Last edited by Famm; 02-28-2013 at 03:18 AM.
Really hate their failure attempts to simply curb it, from all ISP's and MPAA etc. I've received 2 C&D's from Comcast in about 10 years; Both times were for TV shows from channels that I had subscribed to and wanted to simply watch on my PC/portable device (not a phone at the time.) Yet not a single one for something that would have been a legit reason to send me one.
Last edited by Tarisk; 02-28-2013 at 03:27 AM.
Century Link refused to sign on to this.
Long story short, no one is innocent but anyone who feels bad or thinks its immoral to steal from these companies is kinda a moron imo.
I dropped AT&T, switched to Cox, and signed up for a VPN service in response to this.
I like how it's guilty until the accused proves otherwise - oh and btw you have to pay $35 to get someone to even look at it.
Delivery costs should be similar to shipping a product via fed ex (But as said, cheaper.)--but instead you have these artificial constructs charging for distribution because they own the last mile or collude with companies that do (Big media controlling last mile owners). Again, it's like owning all the roads between the highways and your home. You should not HAVE to pay for products you don't want, you wouldn't accept that in any other facet of life (Except, as said, if the margins were cheap)--the only reason you DO pay for this is because the distributors own the means of distribution. If it worked as an equitable market should, the government should own the means and these distributors, like Comcast or Media companies, should simply be the method. (Again, fed ex doesn't own the road--it and a few other companies compete to bring you the product on public roads.)
I'll go into how it's obvious there are profits and why no one does it in the next response.
People are attempting to exploit it, look at House of Cards--House of Cards is genuinely historic because it's the "first shot" in a long media battle that's coming. House of Cards is a high production series that is not funded by the monopoly owners who control the distribution networks. It represents the reason why Comcast and other companies were fighting so hard against Net Neutrality--because they know the allure of using programs like Netflix or HBO-Go to create sub markets is very high, because the margins are so high--and they are essentially a useless middleman exploiting artificially created arbitrage (Something markets constantly work to wipe out.) The fact is, ISP's want the internet to be more like your cable, where you pay premiums for sites like Amazon ect--the internet is the biggest threat to their little scam.Second, if it is so obvious, why hasn't someone exploited it? Yes, I get it, economies of scale and barriers to entry. But there isn't zero competition. There's satellite. Some places have multiple cable providers. If there's a ton of money to be made in supplying the demand for different bundles, or a la carte, or what have you, why isn't Dish (or another established competitor) doing it?
So why aren't there more house of cards or shows using netflix or amazon? Quite simply, the penetration of internet is not close to that of Dish or Cable, and since big media companies either own them, or collude with them, these are still the primary methods of delivery that every content producer needs. So going against these companies really limits your market, because they have this hold on distribution by controlling a public good (Again, something that the government should be providing.)...However, as ever year passes, you can see more and more companies are launching their own sites--and that is all because of the internet's growth.
In fact, if you saw government mandated free and open internet--you'd see far more shows like House of Cards or even things like HBOGO for sign up, because content delivery through the net would be as high, or higher, than the means by which media/cable companies deliver. Until that happens--you won't have people taking advantage, because, again, it's like Fed Ex controlling all the roads to people's homes. If Fed Ex could do that, then any manufacturer would be absolutely crazy not to make deals with Fed Ex. It's hard to even think about roads in that way, isn't it? But that's how the information field currently works, the "roads" for information are mostly controlled by private hands--and while the internet in circumventing this (Mostly because those private hands are tied by net neutrality--another little irony of government ineptness) it's slow going.
So, in short, people ARE exploiting it but not nearly the rate the profits in the field would dictate in a healthy market. However, this new exploitation is why networks are putting their shows on Amazon, or Netlflix. But the cable companies are using their monopolies (Or duopolies) to slow this down as much as possible AND still enforce their "take" (By threading the production studios if they don't pay up), and then using their money to lobby to further limit people, even other large companies, like google and especially "public" entities like townships (There are multiple stories of Comcast suing towns for trying to put in their own high speed lines--seriously, Comcast wouldn't offer it in their area but the courts actually said towns couldn't do it for themselves.). So the media companies are really doing everything they can to stop progress here. And given their size and profit capability, they have quite a bit of power.
As for why competition between say, Dish and Comcast hasn't stopped this? It's because the arbitrage of flipping content between producers and audience is the most important aspect of their market--competition is secondary. These companies collude in both their lobbying and their purchase power to prevent competition, and from what I remember, they've been fined by the FCC for doing so--but they gladly pay it from their enormous profits and simply write it out as the cost of doing business. (Seriously, look for a flow chart of media companies, I think there are like 4 separate entities in the U.S. that control hundreds of companies.)
There is nothing noble the spurned drug fiend who shoots the drug dealer that gave him baking powder. It's simply a side effect of not having contract enforcement. It's a natural side effect of a broken market where the government has been neutralized. In this case, these companies have worked hard to neutralize the government and further enforce their control--that's how they collude to bully production studios, and to buy up start up ISP's, or constantly break the rules in so far of how much market they own, or bully small governments (Towns) into not providing last mile service--because they've neutered the FCC and other government agencies meant to stop them.What bugs me is the whole "pirates are their just rewards" revolutionary attitude stuff. It's bullshit rationalization. Pirates are not engaging in the proud tradition of civil disobedience, where they break the law and willingly suffer the punishment to highlight injustice. They're not downloading millions of articles off of JSTOR with an eye towards making them freely available to the public. They're not even stealing clothes because they were made in sweat shops . They're illegally downloading episodes of Game of Thrones because they don't want to pay $20 extra a month (or whatever it is) for premium cable or wait until they can buy the DVD. And then complaining about a six strike system.
This neutering however means the government is also inept at going after pirates, or controlling how pirating happens on the networks (Again, imagine Fed Ex owned roads...where police were NOT allowed. Oops! Pirates!)...To make money these guys wanted the government out. Now they are crying for the government to help them--if you can't find that poetic justice, then you might be immune to irony.
In other words--the Pirates are no more or less noble than the media companies. They are a product of the media companies actions. Being angry at them is silly, when it's the media companies greed that created them in the first place. It's like someone paying off the cops so they can run a protection racket, and then being angry that the cops didn't show up when their forced clients fought back.
If media wants to be the robber barons of the internet-wild west, then they should suck it up and deal with the outlaws. Their other option is to back off and let the government in. But they won't do that, because then their entire business will be dead--and all the money will actually go to the people who MAKE and deliver the content, and not some fat cat who simply has the money to scare everyone into buying through him.
Last edited by Lithose; 02-28-2013 at 06:18 PM.
I go to the movies a lot and buy a lot of bluerays. I have purchased literally hundreds of movies. That said I still pirate things I'm not sure I would purchase and buy if it is good. I only get movies and tv shows. I was never much for pirating games but since Steam I have not pirated a single one. I'll just wait until a sale to risk it. To get me to risk more money on movies instead of pirating them first digital movies would need to not be the same fucking priceas physical media. 5 bucks or so for a movie 1-2 bucks for a tv show and all DRM free.
Simas, there simply is no competition for the ISPs, they have made sure of that. Anyone or any entity that has tried so far has just been lawyered in to the dirt.
Also this needs to be seen by basically everyone. The book is good too.
Last edited by Ronne; 02-28-2013 at 06:48 AM.
It's a shame, really--because it's constricting our whole economy. If producers got money directly, that industry would boom due to liquidity (Crazy idea, people who make stuff getting the profits). And the ad industry would also blow up--Companies like Google see this, but they don't really have the economic or lobbying power to do anything but stop the media companies from fucking things up even more.
Last edited by Lithose; 02-28-2013 at 07:09 AM.
Lithose, I think you and I will have to agree to disagree. I doubt we'll come to a meeting of the minds when you're on both sides of certain issues. First you say there are last mile problems and economies of scale problems, then you say distribution is essentially free. First you say no one is exploiting demand because of the strangle hold cable companies have, but then you say Netflix, Amazon and others are exploiting demand.
With that said, I'm no fan of the cable companies. Stuff like that which Ronne above linked below is lame. I'm all for fighting it in court, working to pass legislation, working to empower the FCC, and so on.
Ronne, you say there is no competition for ISP and then you link a story about an ISP upset with competition.
Because television is still the dominant market.
Simas, the point isn't that they are upset with competition, it's that they have the clout and money to combat competition not in the marketplace, but the courtroom.
A more precise analogy. Imagine if the companies paid to build the interstate system, had simply been made owners of said system. Imagine the power they could wield to dictate interstate commerce and sales. There would be nothing 'fair" or natural about such a market--because a public good was being exploited for gains. That's exactly what's happening here. Really, almost to a T--because the initial funds to lay lines for most of these networks, like Comcast, came from government grants.
I never said no one is exploiting demand. I said the market is artificially being held back through collusion. That given the profit potential, there should be an immense amount of competition--and comparing the profit potential in these markets, to say, your 3$ hamburger, which has a margin of pennies, is dumb.First you say no one is exploiting demand because of the strangle hold cable companies have, but then you say Netflix, Amazon and others are exploiting demand.
There are subtleties in economics, Simas--you don't get them. And that's fine, but it explains why media can be more profitable now, than anytime in history, while getting people like you to feel sorry for them. Because you simply don't understand the issues (And that's not a slight on you, it's complicated.)
Last edited by Lithose; 02-28-2013 at 10:33 AM.
But that's very recent, and even now, the internet's access is dwarfed by cable and satellite. The REASON the internet is dwarfed is because cable AND media providers have invested billions in lobbying to prevent other companies and/or local municipalities from building their own internet last mile structures. They've done this to keep a lock down on the home access entertainment market. The media companies then collude, or simply buy, these access providers (The FCC rules governing ownership are regularly violated)---And turn around to the producers and say "You sell through me, or get fucked." Without access to people's homes, the investment capital in projects simply isn't there.
Unfortunately, what this does is give them tremendous power to greatly increase their take on production. This is why artists see so little of actual sale--while at the same time, distributors only make pennies on each sale (Even Amazon or Itunes ect--because even going with Amazon, you have to make a deal to get into TV, which still has the biggest market). The lion's share of the profits go to the media companies that broker the deals, or perform the arbitrage between these markets. Their power is essentially based off of the control they have over the TV markets--which was originally given to them through the government, and they've kept through unfair practices.
Which is why the cost represents a type of monopoly, and is not a "fair market" price. But like I said, Netflix, Amazon, Google and a bunch of small studios are pushing for wider net access to cut these jokers out. As you kind of alluded to, they really do NOTHING for anyone except drive prices up by creating a middle man, and unlike standard retail, they have far, far more power with which to control prices (Again, due to their control of local infrastructure.)
Which is how this whole conversation started. Nothing about the price being demanded for HBO is "fair market" price. In an open, fair market--the companies which force HBO not to sell direct, wouldn't even exist, because everyone would have access to the modern "roads" (Internet) with which to buy from whomever they wish.
Last edited by Lithose; 02-28-2013 at 10:40 AM.
stop the cap has a lot of good articles about exactly what Lithose is speaking about. Content providers, like Comcast and AT&T are buying state legislatures to stop cities from creating their own fiber to the home network that provides faster, cheaper service. Going so far as to limit by the neighborhood where a city can and can not build. Its why I hope Google spreads out their fiber more or since they are testing a wireless network in the 2.4ghz range, that they roll that out nationwide eventually because they at least seem like they aren't out to fuck every consumer out of as much money as they can.
- Wait 4-12 Months for the DVD/BR to come out
- Wait 12-22 Months for "TV Channel if they have co-produced the movie"
- Wait 22-36 Months for "Other TV Channels"
- Wait 36 Months for Paying VOD
- Wait 48 Months for Free VOD
Basically, to see the Hobbit in VOD, i have to wait 36+ months after the moment it does "less than 200 entries after it has been on air for 4+ weeks".
So if the hobbit does 200+ entries per week "France wide" until July2013, i'll have to wait 36 Months after that day for Paying VOD.
To add insult to injury, want to know the real bullshit ? VOD does exist but it's complete bullshit, so i just download shit.
- Pay 3-5€ to have the privilege to watch ONCE, during a 48H delay, ONE EPISODE of a 12 Episode Season
- Pay 25-40€ to buy the DVD (when it comes out) with the entire season, and have to worry about RIP & DRM
- Go to Eztv click 12 times, wait 2H, have everything delivered on a silver plate in 352p or 720p
Where i can either "watch in streaming purely VOD" or "download locally to an encrypted file to watch later via SteamApp".
I think I have to agree with Lithose here. Just as a couple of recent examples look at Netflix and how it was treated last year (or year before?) when major movie studios started pulling content because they couldn't get Netflix to charge special prices instead of all you can eat buffet style pricing. Remember iTunes going through the same fight years ago? Amazon? It was because people started to realize they didn't need to pay 120$/month when they could pay $30 and get exactly what they wanted.
But the best example of how it should work is Steam. Seriously I pirated, you pirated, everyone you know pirated but Steam changed all that. Steam got us all addicted to paying for things again. For seeing a sale and buying games we would have never bought anyway. For making us buy games we already pirated and finished "because shit man it's ONLY FIVE BUCKS". Just look at how the PS4 is going to be offering every game as a download.
But I think things are changing. Look at how many shitty reality tv shows there are these days. Cheap to produce with high profit margin. TV is gradually moving itself out of the realm of true creative works and that is making room for quality shows like House of Cards to show up. And Roku channels will eventually produce a few gems, the law of statistics say so.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)