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

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by psyang

I like the comic, but there are two things that come to mind when I read it. First, why does anyone feel they have the right to watch whatever show they want whenever they want just because it has been aired somewhere? That sense of entitlement is the source of a lot of the piracy justifications.

Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people are now at the point where they're used to getting easy access to shows. The internet has made it possible to watch whatever show people want almost instantly after it's been broadcast. The sense of entitlement has slowly been bred into a lot of people over the years, and I don't see them switching back. It's like opening Pandora's Box, you can't retract it now that the feeling is out there.

So instead of punishing and alienating more people, resisting inevitable change, and fighting a losing battle, the studios should really be coming up with more creative ways to deliver content in a manner that would make people not want to pirate.

[vektor]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

the studios should really be coming up with more creative ways to deliver content in a manner that would make people not want to pirate.

make an itunes kind of thing for tv, because I agree, that most of the reason people watch tv shows online is because it's way way more convenient. People said the music industry would completely die but companies like Apple that embraced mp3's and downloading have made a killing with their digital distribution formats while other companies go bankrupt because they are stubborn.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Dion

Back in the 80's the major chains had cheap nights on Tuesdays where one could see a movie for $2.50. If the movie turned out to be garbage you didn't complain. Now, when I pay over $12 plus the inflated popcorn and soda prices, I feel ripped off if the movie is crap. The cost of producing a movie may have risen but the quality of most movies hasn't.

Your $12 isn't simply to see a movie. It's actually for a night out of the house. That's something that gets lost on so many people. Take a look around at the people that are at a theatre next time. A large segment of their audience are teenagers who are getting away from their parents house or adults on dates or a ladies night out.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by polak

http://www.amazon.ca/Game-Thrones-Co...p_ob_title_dvd



If he really wanted to do it legally.

At the time the comic came out, Season 1 wasn't available to buy.

Nice try though.

[Azure]

If anything, the fact that people could download Game of Thrones illegally probably drove interest in the show to new heights.

If you look everywhere for a way to 'pay' to watch/buy the show, but you can't find anything, HBO technically doesn't lose any money if you download it illegally. If anything it is their fault for not offering a way for people to pay to watch it online.

[psyang]

Originally Posted by cDnStealth

Who cares about the morality of piracy? The guy wants to watch the show. He's willing to PAY and even goes to great lengths to obtain the show in a legitimate way. And he isn't saying he doesn't want to buy HBO. He even goes directly to their site. He doesn't want to sign up for antiquated cable, paying for a bunch of bundles he doesn't want or need just so he can watch one show. From a business standpoint, why wouldn't you want to provide an option for people like this to obtain your media in a legitimate way?

Do you honestly think that HBO is going to lose out by offering a digital online subscription to their channel? This isn't entitlement. It's an untapped and ignored market. Provide alternatives not roadblocks.

I actually agree that the moral argument is more of a theoretical argument - I've long ago accepted that piracy will happen, and legislation has not/will not stop it.

That said - and others have made the point - HBO would rather get their income from the large cable companies than from individuals. One could argue that offering the show to individuals soon after airing would actually eat into their value to the cable companies. You may see it as an untapped/ignored market, but it's very intentional. HBO is more than happy to offer the show on DVD, only well after the show's "value" has diminished, which is some time after it has aired.

Honestly, if there was enough of an uproar from the public to the point that it starts to hit HBO financially, they would look at alternatives. But nothing in your argument (which, I still maintain, is based more on entitlement than anything else) would make them blink an eye otherwise.

[psyang]

Originally Posted by Azure

If anything, the fact that people could download Game of Thrones illegally probably drove interest in the show to new heights.

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.

Originally Posted by Azure

If you look everywhere for a way to 'pay' to watch/buy the show, but you can't find anything, HBO technically doesn't lose any money if you download it illegally. If anything it is their fault for not offering a way for people to pay to watch it online.

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.

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?

[Itse]

I'd like to point out that I can't buy HBO if I wanted to. And most of their shows just aren't shown here in Finland.

They claim to be putting a service out here in Finland, but that was supposed to happen a month or two ago, and all is silent on that front.

And really, do you actually want to punish your customers for really really wanting to see your shows despite being unable to buy them because you chose to not sell it to them?

I can't even begin to understand how that is supposed to be a good and sustainable business model.

(For the record, I have never actually pirated an HBO show. That I can remember right now at least.)

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by psyang

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?

Nope. But HBO as a capitalist corporation should be maximizing profits. With the amount of people who have watched the show without subscribing to HBO or buying the DVD's they have obviously lost a lot of potential revenue.

The earlier poster has a point that they are obviously trying to base their model on subscription to their channel. Whether that model is the most successful model they could be applying is what a lot of us are questioning. Does HBO really think that allowing consumers to buy series on demand will cost them money in the long run? I think that is shortsighted personally. I'm not sure I know a single person who subscribes to HBO and yet I know of a ton of people who watch their shows via torrents.

In this case what would benefit the consumer (watching the shows on demand for money) would also seem to benefit the producer. So why isn't that a reality? Seems to be cable companies lack of adaptation to the changing world.

[Tinordi]

That said - and others have made the point - HBO would rather get their income from the large cable companies than from individuals. One could argue that offering the show to individuals soon after airing would actually eat into their value to the cable companies. You may see it as an untapped/ignored market, but it's very intentional. HBO is more than happy to offer the show on DVD, only well after the show's "value" has diminished, which is some time after it has aired.

That's great for HBO but it's not how a market economy works. You can be a company and favour income streams however which way you want. That doesn't mean it will be there or that you can dictate how that income comes in. The thing is that we've been so thoroughly embedded to this monopolistic system that we can't imagine a world where content delivery was actually gasp focused on providing consumers what they want. Like any other industry.

I don't go to Shopper's Drug Mart and be forced to buy a package of goods when all I want is a tooth brush. I also do go to the grocery store to have them tell me that I can only buy bread between specific hours of when they're open. The reason is is that there's market competition out there ensuring that consumers dictate the terms of what they want to buy.

The fact that we think it's okay to have a market delivery model pushed on us is just a sad testament to the state of the market.

[psyang]

Originally Posted by Itse

I'd like to point out that I can't buy HBO if I wanted to.

They claim to be putting a service out here in Finland, but that was supposed to happen a month or two ago, and all is silent on that front.

And really, do you actually want to punish your customers for really really wanting to see your shows despite being unable to buy them because you chose to not sell it to them?

I can't even begin to understand how that is supposed to be a good and sustainable business model.

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.

[cDnStealth]

Originally Posted by psyang

I actually agree that the moral argument is more of a theoretical argument - I've long ago accepted that piracy will happen, and legislation has not/will not stop it.

That said - and others have made the point - HBO would rather get their income from the large cable companies than from individuals. One could argue that offering the show to individuals soon after airing would actually eat into their value to the cable companies. You may see it as an untapped/ignored market, but it's very intentional. HBO is more than happy to offer the show on DVD, only well after the show's "value" has diminished, which is some time after it has aired.

Honestly, if there was enough of an uproar from the public to the point that it starts to hit HBO financially, they would look at alternatives. But nothing in your argument (which, I still maintain, is based more on entitlement than anything else) would make them blink an eye otherwise.

Do you want to know why there isn't an uproar? It's because people can simply pirate it. Why complain when you have instant easy access to something RIGHT NOW. The people who are complaining are the ones making and producing this content. They have two options. They can continue on with their heads in the sand wasting millions of dollars trying to prevent illegal downloading or they can adapt their business model and get themselves into the 21st century to try and make some money. Who do you blame for Blockbuster's bankruptcy? Their business tanked because they failed to see and to adapt to where the future of the industry was going. Likewise, if these studios can't see the writing on the wall then that's their problem.

[psyang]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Nope. But HBO as a capitalist corporation should be maximizing profits. With the amount of people who have watched the show without subscribing to HBO or buying the DVD's they have obviously lost a lot of potential revenue.

I agree. My guess is that HBO has been looking hard at their current and potential revenue streams, and have chosen this model for now, as is their right. It's hard to know how much revenue they have lost through piracy - I think a lot of the evidence presented is anecdotal, but I'm sure it's possible to get a rough number of pirated downloads and extrapolate. I'd also be surprised if HBO doesn't know the same numbers.

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

The earlier poster has a point that they are obviously trying to base their model on subscription to their channel. Whether that model is the most successful model they could be applying is what a lot of us are questioning. Does HBO really think that allowing consumers to buy series on demand will cost them money in the long run? I think that is shortsighted personally. I'm not sure I know a single person who subscribes to HBO and yet I know of a ton of people who watch their shows via torrents.

In this case what would benefit the consumer (watching the shows on demand for money) would also seem to benefit the producer. So why isn't that a reality? Seems to be cable companies lack of adaptation to the changing world.

Questioning a business model, and piracy are two different things. I, myself, don't know if HBO's business model is the best. But I do see how it benefits HBO, how it impacts the quality of the shows they can produce, and it doesn't seem wholly unreasonable to me. Allowing ondemand access to episodes to the general consumer lowers their value to the cable companies, and so it can impact their revenue stream in a big way. When individual downloads can make up for the loss from cable companies (who may be willing to pay a premium for exclusive access), I'm sure HBO will cater to the casual fan in this way.

[Wormius]

All I want out of a system is to be able to watch the shows I want, without having to set up a PVR or waiting for the show to air again. I don't mind watching commercials, and a good exmaple of this is how CTV and Global have set up online libraries of recently aired TV shows. What could be expanded to make this better is to be more of a Netflix style of content delivery, but if they wanted to include commercials or some form of advertising I would be okay with that. I think everybody is used to accepting advertising in exchange for free content (eg Angry Birds).

[psyang]

Originally Posted by cDnStealth

Do you want to know why there isn't an uproar? It's because people can simply pirate it. Why complain when you have instant easy access to something RIGHT NOW. The people who are complaining are the ones making and producing this content. They have two options. They can continue on with their heads in the sand wasting millions of dollars trying to prevent illegal downloading or they can adapt their business model and get themselves into the 21st century to try and make some money. Who do you blame for Blockbuster's bankruptcy? Their business tanked because they failed to see and to adapt to where the future of the industry was going. Likewise, if these studios can't see the writing on the wall then that's their problem.

The thing about HBO is that piracy isn't really their problem - it's the cable company's problem. That's the beauty of it - HBO has their cash regardless of piracy.

But you're right - if the whole cable infrastructure as we know it now comes crashing down (which I readily admit is a distinct possibility), HBO will have to adapt. But I could see them licensing their content out to online streaming vendors a la Hulu/Netflix, or get into the streaming game themselves at that time, or whenever they see that shift as beneficial to them.

[cDnStealth]

Originally Posted by psyang

The thing about HBO is that piracy isn't really their problem - it's the cable company's problem. That's the beauty of it - HBO has their cash regardless of piracy.

But you're right - if the whole cable infrastructure as we know it now comes crashing down (which I readily admit is a distinct possibility), HBO will have to adapt. But I could see them licensing their content out to online streaming vendors a la Hulu/Netflix, or get into the streaming game themselves at that time, or whenever they see that shift as beneficial to them.

Exactly. I think the only TV companies that need to worry about something like that are cable companies. Networks themselves could be perfectly fine. Sponsors have plenty of opportunites to run ads where ever they want. I don't think piracy is as big of an issue as Hollywood likes to make it. If they weren't still making money hand over fist we wouldn't see awful films like Battleship. With that said, if the industry is serious about tackling the issue of piracy then they should be looking at Netflix/Hulu/Steam/iTunes as a possible answer and not as a another problem or competition.

[psyang]

Originally Posted by cDnStealth

Exactly. I think the only TV companies that need to worry about something like that are cable companies. Networks themselves could be perfectly fine. Sponsors have plenty of opportunites to run ads where ever they want. I don't think piracy is as big of an issue as Hollywood likes to make it. If they weren't still making money hand over fist we wouldn't see awful films like Battleship. With that said, if the industry is serious about tackling the issue of piracy then they should be looking at Netflix/Hulu/Steam/iTunes as a possible answer and not as a another problem or competition.

Actually, Battleship grossed over $300 million with a production budget of around $200 million. Easy to justify garbage like Battleship when you make $100 million.

HBO wouldn't have produced Battleship. But take away their secure revenue source via cable companies, and they may have to produce at that level of mass-market-appeal-quality in order to make money.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by cDnStealth

Exactly. I think the only TV companies that need to worry about something like that are cable companies. Networks themselves could be perfectly fine. Sponsors have plenty of opportunites to run ads where ever they want. I don't think piracy is as big of an issue as Hollywood likes to make it. If they weren't still making money hand over fist we wouldn't see awful films like Battleship. With that said, if the industry is serious about tackling the issue of piracy then they should be looking at Netflix/Hulu/Steam/iTunes as a possible answer and not as a another problem or competition.

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.

[CaramonLS]

Why haven't cable companies offered to stream individual channels online yet for a set fee?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Azure

If anything, the fact that people could download Game of Thrones illegally probably drove interest in the show to new heights.

If you look everywhere for a way to 'pay' to watch/buy the show, but you can't find anything, HBO technically doesn't lose any money if you download it illegally. If anything it is their fault for not offering a way for people to pay to watch it online.

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.