Beware illegal downloaders: Data is being collected on you to crack down on piracy in

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by polak

A pay per use model where Netflix doesn't pay AMC unless someone watches Breaking Bad would be ideal but I don't see how that would work economically unless you dramatically reduce the cost of making such shows and networks trim ALL of the "fat" that doesn't get great ratings.

Or you would get a network to vastly expand their programming choices and genres in order to attract a variety of viewers to that channel.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

www.purevpn.com

www.hidemyass.com

Either will get you started on the path to enlightenment.

One can't help but wonder, what happens if/when a court order forces these companies to turn over their client list? And do these companies keep logs that can identify users specific downloads?

[polak]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Or you would get a network to vastly expand their programming choices and genres in order to attract a variety of viewers to that channel.

How is that different then regular cable?

In a pay per use scenerio that wouldn't work because the unpopular stuff won't get enough uses and won't make any money?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by polak

I'm just saying that such a service already exists. It's called full cable.

Full cable gives viewers a whole slew of channels that most never watch. Not sure how you think we're getting the most bang for our buck there.

Netflix, Hulu, all of those guys pay to host the shows and movies that they have just like cable and dish providers do... The reason that the streaming services are so much cheaper is because they DON'T have every single tv episode and they pay less to air it after it airs live. How do you think they are going to make any money if they start offering the same thing as full cable but without charging as much?

Well if you would have bothered to actually READ my posts, you'd have noticed that I said a service should exist that airs the TV show episodes the DAY after they are shown on regular TV. As for on demand stuff when it is shown, I agree that you should pay to get it. Subscription channels are my idea, and they would work great on YouTube. HBO offers a channel for $10/month or whatever they want to charge, and you subscribe to it, and get to watch all the original content on YouTube whenever you can, and you have access to previously shown content.

Or they start their own service like Netflix. Problem is there are other channels that wouldn't do that as they don't have the delivery network like Netflix, Hulu or YouTube does.

They have to pay for Community, Mad Men, Walking Dead, Breaking Bad...etc regardless if you watch it or not. If they all of the sudden start offering EVERYTHING they still have to pay for the stupid TLC shows that you're not going to watch so they will have to charge more regardless and essentially, become a streaming version of full cable.

A pay per use model where Netflix doesn't pay AMC unless someone watches Breaking Bad would be ideal but I don't see how that would work economically unless you dramatically reduce the cost of making such shows.

How do you know Netflix doesn't already do that? I'm not sure how their business model works in terms of paying the original source, but perhaps they pay more for shows that more people watch, and less for shows that less people watch.

The point in all of this is that everything is moving to the internet. Nobody wants to be forced to sit down at 8PM every Thursday night to catch the latest episode of Breaking Bad. If we can PVR it, great, but not all of us have a PVR, or are even home to set it up. Plus, there are those of us who don't watch cable at all, outside of 3-4 shows, and I'll be damned if I pay $100/month to be able to watch those 3-4 shows.

With MLB I pay $100 bucks a year to watch the Mariners. Comes out to LESS than $10/month. NHL Gamecenter is around that too. So there are ways to fix the 'pirating' problem.

I don't even give a crap if they serve up ads. If YouTube bought the rights to show NHL games live, I wouldn't have a single problem watching the commercials if I meant I have an easy way to access the content.

Cable TV is a dated model. The fact that the industry is having such a hard time moving onto something better is pathetic.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by pylon

And I fully realize that, and am not denying the fact that it may be questionable. What I am arguing, is out and out stealing exclusive content.

Getting creative to get the best price on a product or service is one thing. Just Stuffing it in your pocket, and walking out the front door without paying is another.

Back in the day before the iTunes store there was a Russian website that sold albums digitally for pennies. They claimed some loophole in Russian copywrite law that allowed them to sell albums online. It was obviously stealing from the owners of the material but if the laws in their country allowed it would you feel it was stealing or getting creative to get the best price?

[Bob]

Originally Posted by zamler

One can't help but wonder, what happens if/when a court order forces these companies to turn over their client list? And do these companies keep logs that can identify users specific downloads?

HideMyAss is based in the UK, keeps logs, and does disclose them (for "illegal activity"). One of the Anonymous hackers found out the hard way.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

Back in the day before the iTunes store there was a Russian website that sold albums digitally for pennies. They claimed some loophole in Russian copywrite law that allowed them to sell albums online. It was obviously stealing from the owners of the material but if the laws in their country allowed it would you feel it was stealing or getting creative to get the best price?

I don't think the artist cares what country their royalty comes through. If I buy Anne Murray's 'ballads of the barnyard' from iTunes Canada or Google play USA, she is still getting her cut.

It sounds like your example is they are stealing her content, and selling it without cutting a royalty back to the artist. Which is wrong, since Anne Murray has such an angelic voice.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by pylon

I am still paying though.

If I buy a camera lens from BandH photo in the US, I am denying the Vistek or any other Canadian retailer and the Canadian distributor the right to profit. But I am still paying for the lens, just in a different country with a better pricing model.

VPN's are not illegal. They just alter the delivery method. Stealing however is.

Copyright infringement maybe (I don't think likely), more than likely you are violating Netflix's terms of service which isn't a law.

I agree with you Pylon stealing is stealing. Copyright infringement / theft / whatever. I would rather people admit what they were doing was immoral rather than justify in one of the several ways people have done in this thread (not theft, movies are expensive/crappy/make tons of money anyway, testing a product, don't like cable/movie model etc.). The people making the product didn't intend for you to watch it for free regardless how you've acquired it and what justification you've used. Just admit you are being an a-hole.*


*current write of this post might be included

[polak]

Originally Posted by Azure

How do you know Netflix doesn't already do that?

http://www.worldtvpc.com/blog/netfli...or-cw-content/

They pay up front for each show they host. If they were to offer EVERYTHING like you are suggesting, then they would have to pay for EVERYTHING. Which would make them the same thing as on demand cable.

Originally Posted by Azure

Cable TV is a dated model. The fact that the industry is having such a hard time moving onto something better is pathetic.

The reason the industry is having such a hard time moving on from it, is cause there is no feasable way for them to offer your ideal "pay per use" service while still mainatining the same level of revenue. These companies aren't charity and most aren't stupid. If there was a way to give the world this ideal service that everyone wants, they would. The people who do it first would be so filthy rich that they would wipe their butt with golden toilet paper.

You are starting to see individual networks take steps to offer their own subscription channels through the internet but if you were to try and do that with every show out there, you'd start another whole slew of problems with bandwith caps, internet speed, content laws and you'd end up paying the samething anyways. The only people who would benefit from the change are those that don't watch very much tv at all and only want sports and hbo, but guess what... Those are not the people the networks are trying to satisfy.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Since when did it become okay to commit any form of crime?

Again, by your logic, you are stealing your avatar. Should you be punished?

[pylon]

LOL, this thread is causing quite the stir with the hacked Apple TV XBMC users here at the store. One guy is saying it is perfectly legit to watch a movie released in the thatre the day before because otherwords, he would never watch it anyway.

Pylon: "Would you buy a pink VW Beetle?"

XBMC guy "No, I would never own a Beetle. I don't like the car in any colour."

Pylon: "So if the keys were left in the ignition of one on our lot, it would be OK for you to steal it, since you don't like it, and would never pay for it anyway? Right?

XBMC guy: *blank stare crickets.........*

[cDnStealth]

Originally Posted by pylon

And I fully realize that, and am not denying the fact that it may be questionable. What I am arguing, is out and out stealing exclusive content.

Getting creative to get the best price on a product or service is one thing. Just Stuffing it in your pocket, and walking out the front door without paying is another.

So I need to understand something because your line in the sand seems arbitrarily drawn. I pay for cable TV and if I miss an episode of a show and decide to illegally download that episode to watch is that stealing?

If I purchase a movie and then illegally download that same movie so I can watch it on my iPod is that stealing?

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by pylon

LOL, this thread is causing quite the stir with the hacked Apple TV XBMC users here at the store. One guy is saying it is perfectly legit to watch a movie released in the thatre the day before because otherwords, he would never watch it anyway.

Pylon: "Would you buy a pink VW Beetle?"

XBMC guy "No, I would never own a Beetle. I don't like the car in any colour."

Pylon: "So if the keys were left in the ignition of one on our lot, it would be OK for you to steal it, since you don't like it, and would never pay for it anyway? Right?

XBMC guy: *blank stare crickets.........*

Bad analogy IMO, but if you want to use it, then it's actually like you having a magic machine that duplicates the beetle for free and then put out there with the keys in the ignition.

The real loss isn't the fact that the beetle is gone. Its the opportunity cost associated with the fact that a paying customer can get the beetle for free rather than pay your dealership for one.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt" - Abe.

Definitely advice that should be followed by a few in this thread.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by cDnStealth

So I need to understand something because your line in the sand seems arbitrarily drawn. I pay for cable TV and if I miss an episode of a show and decide to illegally download that episode to watch is that stealing?

If I purchase a movie and then illegally download that same movie so I can watch it on my iPod is that stealing?

I don't think any human that has ever ventured on the internet can say they haven't violated a copyright law. Everyone, in some way shape or form, has watched something that violated something whether they like it or not. In principal, I would say if you are watching something you already paid for the right to watch, sure whatever. What is stopping you from recording it on your PVR. I am sure it violates some sort of law, but let's get real.

To me the line is really drawn at just straight up stealing it, knowing your stealing it. If you are watching Lincoln on your lap top right now, and you didn't pay, you are a thief. If you were playing Halo 4, 3 weeks before release, you deserve to get charged, and you deserve a bricked Xbox. There is no way to defend stuff like this with semantics about "But, but.... it is too expensive!"

[Jimmy Stang]

The thing that the industry doesn't understand (or want to admit) is that is isn't as black and white as they claim. They continue to insist that the internet is the bogey man and people will never pay for content unless they get to sue the pants off of someone.

The truth is, there are a lot of consumers who are more than happy to pay for content provided it is a) available to them right now over the internet, and b) available to them at a fair price. If it isn't, then people will either walk away and spend their money on something else, or they'll pirate it. Both scenarios are not a good way to run a business.

You can even extend this into rights for Flames games. Why can't someone buy a season subscription for all Flames games and watch them in HD over the internet. No blackouts, no geoblocks, etc. Instead, the consumer is forced to buy a cable package that subsidizes a bunch of other crap channels and keep afloat another outdated business model. The networks and the cable companies know that live sports is one of the only reason a lot of us even keep cable, and if an alternative existed where you could truly pay for what you watched, they'd be hooped.

I know that you can get around this somewhat by using a VPN or DNS service, but then you are entering a grey area. Why the hoops? I've got my money here to spend on your content - let me spend it!

[pylon]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Bad analogy IMO, but if you want to use it, then it's actually like you having a magic machine that duplicates the beetle for free and then put out there with the keys in the ignition.

The real loss isn't the fact that the beetle is gone. Its the opportunity cost associated with the fact that a paying customer can get the beetle for free rather than pay your dealership for one.

Duplicate the car with your magic machine, and see how fast VW slaps you with a gajillion dollar lawsuit.

[bradster57]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Bad analogy IMO, but if you want to use it, then it's actually like you having a magic machine that duplicates the beetle for free and then put out there with the keys in the ignition.

The real loss isn't the fact that the beetle is gone. Its the opportunity cost associated with the fact that a paying customer can get the beetle for free rather than pay your dealership for one.

The opportunity cost is a sliding scale too. The dealership offers the beetle for $30k and a customer would never buy a beetle for $30k. If the customer would only pay $10k for a beetle, that is the real opportunity cost.

In cases like Netflix, iTunes, or Steam, the ease and relatively low cost for consumers shows that if the entertainment industry changes their business strategies, they can survive and even grow.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I think a lot of piracy/sharing is laziness.

I used to download a ton of music. My options were:

1. Get in car. Drive to HMV. Pay $20 for album with 2 good songs on it.
2. Log onto iTunes. Album not available in Canada
3. Oink.cd. 3 minutes later, album.

Now I never torrent music.

1. Grab phone. Type 3 letters of band name. Preview to see if more than 2 songs worth getting. Buy album. Listen without ever turning on computer.

You made it easy, so now I use it.

I would happily just watch everything off of Netflix if it was on there. I'd also pay more than $10 for it.

Make a way so I can pay per NHL game? Yes please. See you Shaw. Take your HD Treehouse and whatever other crap you make me pay for and shove it.

This.

I want this model, an easily manageable way to download movies/TV shows (that I will pay for) that I can store in a central place in my home and make accessible to any device capable of playing that file in the house.

The movie industry and the TV industry refuse to make content available without digital locks and go aggressively after anyone (Kaleidescape) who tries to develop a model.

Once they realize this is what people want they will make the breakthrough, this is them treading water. I think the issue they see is what has happened to the Music industry. Since Apple rewrote the paradigm the recording industry has seen a huge decline in revenues, but I see that more as a realignment of the industry to the true economic realities.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by bradster57

The opportunity cost is a sliding scale too. The dealership offers the beetle for $30k and a customer would never buy a beetle for $30k. If the customer would only pay $10k for a beetle, that is the real opportunity cost.

Just because a $7500 Rolex is only worth $75 bucks to you, it doesn't make it's market value that. It is worth what the intended customer is willing to pay.