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

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

If the Louvre had a beautiful painting that could only be seen by people who show up in Paris and pay admission would it be the Louvre's fault if you broke in and took a picture to share with your friends.

Who said anything about breaking in? Someone could pay for admission, take a picture and post it on-line for people to view for free with out having to pay for a ticket to view said painting.

Now if the Louvre owned the painting, they could provide high res photos of the painting on-line for those who are not able to get to Paris to view the painting in person for a fraction of the admission cost.

Yes they are missing out on a financial stream as not everyone who has an interest in art is going to be able to get to Paris while the painting is on view.
They would make more money this way instead of just from gate admissions.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Another point to consider - perhaps someone can answer this for me.

I want to watch the first season of Friends. The first season is readily available to me (technically) skewn across the multitude of Cable channels I already subscribe to, and could probably be collected by me via PVR if I was not being lazy, over the course of a week or two.

Is that stealing if I download it illegally?

Prob not, but they should throw you in jail for wanting to watch the first season of Friends.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by psyang

That may be, but either the downloaders were HBO subscribers, and so already paid money to get access to the show, or they weren't, in which case I doubt that the majority of them paid for a streaming service or for the DVD release (which would be the only other way to pay). As a result, they were fans for a show that they paid nothing for. Easy to be a fan like that.

There have been studies done that P2P sharing can at times increase interest and REVENUE in a certain product that is illegally downloaded. This has been explained many times on here.

HBO does lose money if you consider that such people could have waited and purchased the show when it became available. As I said above, I doubt the majority of the downloaders actually paid any money for the show.

I do believe this is simply not true. People that are inclined to illegally download a certain 'product' wouldn't necessarily 'buy' that product if it weren't available for illegal download. But on the other hand, being able to illegally download a 'product' can lead to certain 'illegal down loaders' to pay for something, after they realize that what they downloaded is worth paying for. I have done this myself, as have many others on here and elsewhere.

Blaming HBO is a bit backwards too - sure, they didn't provide timely access. But really, it's their show, they can do what they want. Is it really someone's right to watch a show?

I never said it was a 'right' to watch the show. I said that if HBO doesn't provide timely access to the show, they shouldn't be surprised if people use illegal methods to watch it.

On the other hand, providing legal and 'easy' methods to watch movies/TV shows, or listen to music, has led to a decrease in piracy. These are FACTS.

So based on that, I think we can all assume that if HBO were available to Europeans and other countries throughout the world, people might actually subscribe to their service instead of just downloading the TV shows.

In fact, if the episodes were available on iTunes the day or week after they aired, I'm pretty sure many people would gladly pay the money.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

If the Louvre had a beautiful painting that could only be seen by people who show up in Paris and pay admission would it be the Louvre's fault if you broke in and took a picture to share with your friends.

Pretty much yes.

Assuming the situation is similar to piracy of course, which would mean that there was no way to put a door or security on Louvre, so basicly anybody could come in at any time and take as many pictures as they like. It would also be similar in that it would not really matter to them except on the basis of principle, and because they felt left out of some revenue, when they could be selling those pictures to anybody who wanted them.

There's just a certain point where you have to stop trying to change the world to your liking and start adjusting yourself to the way the world is.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by psyang

On a larger scale, no, it's not a good business model. But I'd be curious to know how many people are unable to buy a show vs. how many are willing to either subscribe to HBO (where available) or wait and purchase it when available? HBO may see an iTunes model (for example) as destroying their revenue stream from the cable companies. They're willing to make a small number of potential fans unhappy to sustain their tried+true business model.

And like I said in my original post, it's the same business model that is allowing them to make risks and produce shows of exceptional quality. An iTunes or similar model might not produce the same stable cashflow to allow innovatives/risky shows to even see the light of day.

Revenue streams from cable companies are dying with the creation of Netflix, Hulu and other 'cable cutting' services.

I have a hard time believing that if HBO worked together with a company that had the infastructure in place to deliver high quality on demand video, like YouTube, Netflix or Hulu, that they couldn't make a healthy profit.

HBO has around 30 million subscribers right now, and from what I've read, they get around $8/subscriber/month. If they charge $20/month to watch HBO on YouTube/Netflix/Hulu, I'd imagine a lot of people would sign up.

[polak]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Also if piracy was an issue for Hollywood you wouldn't see 6 of the top 10 all time grossing movies come from the last 10 years.

ahem...

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Not a single top 10 entry. Avatar is #14.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I really don't understand the logic.
If HBO creates something shouldn't they be able to control how it is distributed. They have decided that a paid subscription model with the cable companies is the way they want to go. Maybe it is a terrible business decision but it should be their terrible business decision to make.

If the Louvre had a beautiful painting that could only be seen by people who show up in Paris and pay admission would it be the Louvre's fault if you broke in and took a picture to share with your friends.

There are millions of people outside of North America that 'want' to watch the show. HBO chooses not to provide them an easy and legal method to do so, so they illegally download the shows and watch them.

I'm not saying it is right to pirate stuff, but if HBO chooses to operate with a 20th century business model, they shouldn't act so surprised if people pirate their stuff to get access.

[The Yen Man]

Honestly, if there weren't Flames and sporting events on cable, I would have cut my cable a long time ago. If they ever come up with a decent streaming service that lets me watch HD Flames games on my TV, I'm instantly cancelling my cable and paying for that subscription instead (provided it's a cheaper alternative of course).

Cable TV is starting to become archaic. On Demand TV shows / movies is on its way to replace it. Those cable companies better start thinking of a way to adapt, or they're going they're going to become irrelevant pretty quick.

[Azure]

I should also mention that the majority of the 29 million subscribers that HBO has are located in North America. As has been mentioned in this thread, there are potentially billions of subscribers elsewhere in the world that do not have any legal way to access HBO content. A 'smart' business model would try to figure out a way to offer the content to those 'billions' of other people, while still being able to maintain a healthy profit margin.

I'm not even saying that an online option is required. HBO isn't even offered through 'cable' in many countries.

Imagine how many more subscribers they could gain if they offered a way for people to watch.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Honestly, if there weren't Flames and sporting events on cable, I would have cut my cable a long time ago. If they ever come up with a decent streaming service that lets me watch HD Flames games on my TV, I'm instantly cancelling my cable and paying for that subscription instead (provided it's a cheaper alternative of course).

It's getting really damned close to sensible to just kill cable and buy a media PC, hook it up to the TV and use it for Gamecentre.

[polak]

It's really, really, simple guys.

If there was a way to make enough money to keep the same quality of programming and the same level of profit in a pay-per-use format, they would do it.

Do you guys really think you stumbled upon some great idea that the networks haven't found yet?

Baby boomers aren't going to start going on the youtwos and hudu's to watch their tv. You think that Joe "I only watch Hockey and Game Of Thrones" is the target market for these companies? They're not trying to cater to people who don't watch tv and they won't change the fundamentals of their industry until their target market refuses to consume TV the way it is now.

It will happen eventually but it won't be for a while. Until then... piratebay.se

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Itse

There's just a certain point where you have to stop trying to change the world to your liking and start adjusting yourself to the way the world is.

And that's really what it comes down to. Companies can go down in a flame of lobbying and lawsuits or they can adjust to the new reality.

[Azure]

According to TorrentFreak, Game of Thrones averages around 3.9 million pirated downloads per episode. According to the great Internet resource known as Wikipedia, only 3.8 million people watch Game of Thrones on HBO. That means more people pirate the show than actually watch the show on TV.

So HBO is losing out on potentially millions of 'customers.'

Obviously, HBO Go numbers don't apply here but the effect of HBO Go isn't nearly as powerful as we think. HBO told the NY Times that only 1% of its total viewership across its network is actually from HBO Go. [TorrentFreak]

http://ca.gizmodo.com/5916885/more-p...thrones-on-hbo

How many of those people would actually pay HBO to access their content without a cable subscription?

According to this site...

http://takemymoneyhbo.com/

163,000 people tweeted within the first 48 hours of the site being open that they would pay an average price of $12/month to watch HBO.

I'm not sure how many people have tweeted since then, but there are obviously hundreds of thousands of people that would pay to watch HBO online.

[polak]

What you guys don't realize is that HBO still makes money off of people who don't like HBO but like some other crap network they have an interest in. Keeping them bundled allows them to force everyone to pay for EVERYTHING which makes them a lot more money then just the one network.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Azure

There are millions of people outside of North America that 'want' to watch the show. HBO chooses not to provide them an easy and legal method to do so, so they illegally download the shows and watch them.

I'm not saying it is right to pirate stuff, but if HBO chooses to operate with a 20th century business model, they shouldn't act so surprised if people pirate their stuff to get access.

As long as we both agree that what they are doing is not right. I just don't like the attitude that some display stating the HBO deserves to have their work stolen (is copyright infringed a thing?)
My guess is that they are hesitant to open their shows up to new sources because they have a pretty cozy relationship with the cable companies. They don't have to do any advertising as the cable cos push it pretty hard. If they cut out the cable companies then they might find that they have a harder time negotiating the same rate next time or see a drop in advertising.

[psyang]

Originally Posted by Azure

So HBO is losing out on potentially millions of 'customers.'



http://ca.gizmodo.com/5916885/more-p...thrones-on-hbo

How many of those people would actually pay HBO to access their content without a cable subscription?

According to this site...

http://takemymoneyhbo.com/

163,000 people tweeted within the first 48 hours of the site being open that they would pay an average price of $12/month to watch HBO.

I'm not sure how many people have tweeted since then, but there are obviously hundreds of thousands of people that would pay to watch HBO online.

If HBO is getting around $8/subscriber and people are willing to pay $12/subscriber (I won't dispute the figure, though people do often exaggerate when they want something and do not have to back up their claim), there are two other factors to consider:

1) cost of infrastructure for distribution. The cable companies shoulder that burden right now.
2) cost of marketing/sales. Again, the cable companies shoulder that. Even more, they may bundle HBO with other channels, or they may give HBO free for 6 months, hoping that the subscriber keeps paying when the free period ends (a likely scenario) - all at no risk to HBO.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but there is a lot of risk there. I think HBO is looking hard at the numbers - it just isn't in their best interest now to jump to that model.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by polak

It's really, really, simple guys.

If there was a way to make enough money to keep the same quality of programming and the same level of profit in a pay-per-use format, they would do it.

Well finally someone explains it.

I mean it's obvious really. No company ever makes bad business decisions, and there have never been industries that have failed to keep up with the times before they were absolutely forced to.

EDIT: although to be fair, HBO might very well be doing the smart thing for them for now, we don't really know.

But there is more to TV than HBO.

I did pirate Spartacus: Blood and Sand. Also not available in Finland.

[GP_Matt]

I wonder if they would prosecute someone in a country that didn't have a legal way to watch the show?
I wouldn't think they would as the cost benefit equation really falls apart when the benefit is zero.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by polak

It's really, really, simple guys.

If there was a way to make enough money to keep the same quality of programming and the same level of profit in a pay-per-use format, they would do it.

No. Companies don't always have the internal expertise, nor the drive to invest, nor want to take percieved risk. Business as usual is standard operating procedure for a lot of companies.

Do you guys really think you stumbled upon some great idea that the networks haven't found yet?

Baby boomers aren't going to start going on the youtwos and hudu's to watch their tv. You think that Joe "I only watch Hockey and Game Of Thrones" is the target market for these companies? They're not trying to cater to people who don't watch tv and they won't change the fundamentals of their industry until their target market refuses to consume TV the way it is now.

I believe those were the famous last words of Blockbuster when Netflix approached them about partnering, and were laughed out of the room. The reality is that Blockbuster didn't have the expertise to implement a system like this and instead of trying to develop a distribution network or allow Netflix a cut of the profits, they decided to go their own path, which was to try to stop Netflix. Which ended up leading to their own destruction.

Don't assume for a second that companies are always smart.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by polak

ahem...

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Not a single top 10 entry. Avatar is #14.

Movies are competing with more forms of entertainment now.

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I wonder if they would prosecute someone in a country that didn't have a legal way to watch the show?

In a heartbeat.