Why People Pay More For Access To Infringing Content
from the the-way-they-want-it dept
It’s kind of funny to see the entertainment industry make totally contradictory statements about cyberlockers and usenet access providers in talking about infringement. On the one hand, they complain about how it’s “impossible to compete with free” because “pirates just want everything for free.” But, at the same time, they whine about how cyberlockers and usenet services often charge people for access, thus making them commercial enterprises who (according to the industry) “profit from piracy.” But those two things seem somewhat contradictory. If people who engage in unauthorized file sharing only want stuff for free, then why do they pay these providers to get access? And if it’s impossible to compete with free, then why does it look like these services have successfully done so? Correspondingly, why doesn’t the industry open up its own competitors?
All of this comes to mind as Glyn Moody points us to an “open letter” that Mark Goodge wrote to UK Culture Minister Ed Vaizey, in response to Vaizey’s statement that the blocking of access to Newzbin2 wasn’t a big deal, because users should simply go to services that offer “legal access to movie downloads at reasonable prices.”
However, as Goodge points out, he knows people who pay more for access to Usenet than it would cost to pay for a competing legitimate offering. And the reason is because their infringing activity has nothing to do with just “wanting everything for free,” but wanting more convenience, more selection and fewer restrictions:
The reason people will pay for Usenet+Newzbin is that they want to be able to obtain movies in a format that suits them, not a format which suits the provider. They want to be able to download them and watch them whenever they want, not have to be online in order to stream them (assuming, of course, they?ve got enough bandwidth to stream movies anyway). They want a download service that gives them the same ownership and flexibility as buying DVDs. And they want to be able to obtain the movies they want to see without artificial geographic restrictions.
So, apart from the fact that it simply isn?t true that services such as Lovefilm are a suitable solution, it?s pretty clear that there?s a whole untapped market here for legitimate online purchase of movies via download. People are willing to pay, and willing to pay a fair amount — provided that what they get in return is what they want.
At the moment, the only people making any money out of this market are those involved in infringement. As long as the movie industry maintains its outdated business practices and carries on treating its (potential) customers as the enemy, that?s how it will stay. Blocking Newzbin may result in a short-term drop in the number of people getting movies via Usenet, but it won?t lead to an increase in people getting them via legitimate means until there are suitable alternatives which provide the same level of convenience and functionality.Contrary to popular belief, most people who ?pirate? movies are not doing it for financial reasons. They?re doing it simply because nobody is offering them a product that they want to buy.
In other words, they’re happy to pay… if only the industry would offer it to them in the manner that customers want. This isn’t a surprise. For years, studies have pointed out that those who infringe really tend to be unserved consumers, who aren’t getting the offerings in the form that they most want it. Smart companies realize that this is a form of (free) market research, and look for ways to better satisfy their customer base.
Tragically, the entertainment industry instead looks to politicians and the courts to block consumers from doing what they want, and then pretend it’s for consumers’ own good.
Filed Under: access, content, convenience, infringement
Companies: newzbin
Comments on “Why People Pay More For Access To Infringing Content”
I never thought about that contradiction but it is completely true. I personally might not go so far as to pay more than the original content would cost, but I recently began paying for Spotify (even though there is a free version!) simply so that I can access it from my Android. There are cheaper ways but I like the mobile app much more than that of other companies.
I think there is a sub-culture of “I refuse to pay for anything I don’t have to”, but I really feel the American Way is “I will pay for what I want”. You see it other places as well including parking and internet access.
Media companies should hopefully learn quickly from these sites and adapt to meet their users’ desires.
Re: Re:
Learning and fast-adapting aren’t exactly terms you’d associate with media companies.
I think they pay for usenet because they have tricked themselves into thinking they are putting one over on “the man” and getting things cheap.
It’s on par with someone paying $1000 for a fancy ass computer and bunch of hard drives, paying $100 a month for a internet connection, so they can pirate a movie they could rent for $3.
They are idiots who have tricked themselves into thinking they are getting a bargain. It isn’t about convenience or anything like that, it’s about being stupid and not considering all the costs.
Re: Re:
Where do you live where a computer costs $1000 and an internet connection runs $100?
My computer only cost $200 and my internet connection is $20.
$3 to rent a movie? New releases are going for at least $7. No Redbox for this country.
So, if I illegally download 25 movies, I’ve paid for the cost of my computer.
Re: Re: Re:
In his defense, my desktop cost $1500 and my internet connection cost $90/m. However (because he’s still an idiot) I pay the big bucks so I can run a proper backup file server for my office. Piracy didn’t come into it.
But think about this, if AC’s right and piracy is getting people to pay $100/m and $1000 initially, how many jobs would be lost if piracy suddenly went away.
Re: Re:
It’s on par with someone paying $1000 for a fancy ass computer and bunch of hard drives, paying $100 a month for a internet connection, so they can pirate a movie they could rent for $3.
That may be true if you’re implying that the only reason someone would get a computer would be to pirate a single movie.
Or, why get a computer when you can browse the internet on the McDonald’s playplace terminal? Yeah, that’s really sticking it to Apple!
Re: Re:
Im pretty sure you’re an idiot who doesnt know what hes talking about.
A) The computer and internet costs are NOT infringement costs, unless you are seriously going to say that the internet and computers are ONLY good for piracy.
B) If your only mode of comparison to seamless downloading and watching of content is to rent a DVD, then my friend, the world has passed you by.
The simple matter is, people already have a 1000 dollar computer and a 100 dollar internet connection for other reasons, so why should they have to spend money on gas and lock themselves into a return commitment when they dont have to! Thats the sticking point, is that people dont HAVE to go to blockbuster and rent a movie anymore because technology has fixed that issue. The market has set the price for digital content extremely low, and the only people debating that are the sellers. Unfortunately for them the laws of capitalism have already told us 300 years ago that that doesnt work, sooooo ya.
Re: Re: Re:
A) they aren’t direct infringement costs, but I know plenty of people who have upgraded their PC to be able to output HD video, and are paying more for their internet connection so they can pirate more.
B) “rent a DVD” for me covered everything from actually renting a DVD to using a legal streaming service. But even the legal streaming service has it’s hidden internet costs built into the deal.
People had computers and internet connections. If they paid more (like buying another terabyte external drive) or whatnot, that is all costs directly related to obtaining pirated material.
it isn’t free.
Re: Re: Re: Digging yourself a bigger hole.
> who have upgraded their PC to be able to output HD video
That only takes a $20 “obsolete” video card.
Furthermore, a decent Internet connection costs a certain minimum amount of money and there’s just no getting around that.
A setup “suitable for piracy” is just the minimum buy in for modern computing.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know plenty of people who have upgraded their PC to be able to output HD video
The only reason I’ve known people to upgrade video hardware (aside from gaming…) is because they need to in order to play legal content (e.g. Blu-Ray discs with HDCP). They do not have to do this for “pirated” material, that does not come with such DRM.
and are paying more for their internet connection so they can pirate more.
I have never known anyone like that, and nearly everyone pirates nowadays. People want faster Internet connections so that they don’t have to wait two minutes for a webpage to load, or so that they have the ability to play online games or watch Netflix. It’s also rather convenient when you don’t have to wait hours to download (legally-obtained) software, patches or updates.
If they paid more (like buying another terabyte external drive) or whatnot, that is all costs directly related to obtaining pirated material.
Yes, because the only reason to get a bigger hard drive is to store “pirated material.”
Hell, I’ve got an external hard drive. Know what I use it for? Mainly Half-Life mods. It also stores my music collection – almost all of which is ripped from CD’s, LP’s, and tapes that I own. Of course, the hard drive also stores backups of my raw music tracks, which can take up a gigabyte per song.
Even if people do use it to store e.g. music and video, there’s no reason to believe that it is “pirated” content.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I have two terabyte hard drives. TWO!! How much do I pirate? Virtually nothing. The only thing I’ve pirated lately is Falling Skies, because I missed recording a few episodes at the beginning, and TNT offers no legal way to view them, at least for free (which is what I would have gotten from TV).
Re: Re:
“$1000 for a fancy ass computer and bunch of hard drives”
Which is probably one heck of a gaming/home theater rig.
“paying $100 a month for a internet connection”
To get a fat 200 Mbps internet connection, yes, go on.
“so they can pirate a movie they could rent for $3.”
Actually, I can get a truckload, with no DRM, that I can keep forever (big disks, remember?), but go on.
“They are idiots who have tricked themselves into thinking they are getting a bargain. It isn’t about convenience or anything like that, it’s about being stupid and not considering all the costs.”
And suddenly you train of though falls apart. I spent all that and have one heck of a gaming rig and one heck of an Internet connection. If I spend half of that on movies, all I would have are movies and nothing to watch them on.
I have a fat computer and Internet connection, and I am the stupid one?
But this raises another interesting point.
Piracy opponents say that piracy causes major damage to the economy and all that. Well, according to you, I spend WAY MORE to watch a lousy movie by being a pirate than I would otherwise. Which is it?
Re: Re: Re:
To add to that, if you spent a thousand on a computer, you’d have a computer. And the movies. What else could you do with the movies you rented after you sent them back? What else could you do with the computer?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Chop them into porndough?
Re: Re:
My (best, newest) computer cost $419.62. I have several terabytes of (encrypted, thank you) external hard drives.
There are no movies on any of them. (I’m not a movie fan.) There are some TV episodes, including Firefly — which I *paid for* on DVD, but the DVD version absolutely sucks, so I keep that on the shelf and watch the downloaded versions. But not many: I’m not really a TV fan either.
There’s a lot of music. But considering that I bought nearly all of it (a) on vinyl and/or (b) on cassette and/or (c) on CD — meaning that I’ve already PAID for this content at least once, some of twice — I’m not particularly concerned about paying for it yet again.
Bottom line? I have lots of other uses for those drives and that computer. The incremental expense of content that I’ve never paid for (in any format) is tiny, because that content is only a small fraction of what I’ve got.
Re: Re:
“It’s on par with someone paying $1000 for a fancy ass computer and bunch of hard drives, paying $100 a month for a internet connection, so they can pirate shitloads of movies, games, software while also accessing nice sources like Jamendo, Vodo and indie software producers and saving a few hundred dollars because you won’t buy crap content and spending more than you want because you discover tons of new artists/games/movies/etc.”
“They are wise ppl who have enlightened themselves into getting a bargain. It isn’t about convenience or anything like that, it’s about being smart and considering all the costs they won’t be having because of crap content.”
Fixed for you. Had to do some major overhaul in some parts but sounds perfect now.
Re: Re: Re:
You didn’t fix it at all. You just added a bunch of lies and misdirections.
If you want to fix something, fix your attitude.
As for the others in this thread, my point is only that plenty of people don’t consider the costs of their computer and the ongoing internet costs as part of the actual cost of content. Paying for a faster internet connection (so you can download more) is a great example. If you add $20 a month on your bill for it, it’s $20 you are spending for content.
What you people did here more than anything was prove the point, you are dismissing the costs of obtaining the content, tricking yourself into thinking it’s free.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So it’s cost you $1000 +$100/month to read Techdirt’s content for free?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
O wow, I got a reply from the troll! And it’s a trolling reply! The lulz
Lies? Misdirection? Dunno dude, I do exactly that and I know a bunch of some crazy nut bastards and dudettes that do exactly the same. Unfortunately we don’t drink rum/gin or speak “pirate talk”. So I’d guess it’s a lie only in your Neverland 😉
I obviously don’t consider the costs of my hardware and my connection. Sharing stuff is but a part of the goal. I could spend $200 on pc games instead of a good video card and have the crappiest gaming experience (low quality image AND/OR content) but instead I discover that part of the content is shit and I’ve saved $120 that I invested on better hardware. Pure win. Hardware manufacturer wins, I win, good game producer wins, crap game producer loses. Do I need to draw to explain to you?
But at least you have clarified things: you think the internet and computers exist only for infringing purposes. Go pass laws forbidding ppl from buying those and to shut down the internet. While you are at it extend the ban to mobile phones as I’ve download games I own to play on my mobile too (I’m a thief, I’ve downloaded it! Oh wait, I’ve already paid for the original). Good luck 😉
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wrong again there AC.
You see, people have spent their $1000 and $100/month (or whatever the numbers) for the convenience they afford to do many things (work from home, research and find information, communicate with family and friends, streaming music, watch porno).
So hopefully it’s more obvious to you: watching movies is a small part of that $1100 you’re talking about. YYou’ve fallen into the usual industry trap or assuming everything people do is because of the content.
Keep at it though, you’ll get it one day… probably around the time that you don’t have such a vested interest in the old ways of doing business anymore 🙂
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“What you people did here more than anything was prove the point, you are dismissing the costs of obtaining the content, tricking yourself into thinking it’s free.”
or maybe the article is right, we will happily pay money to get what we want the industry just refuses to offer us what we want so we dont give them the money and go elsewhere
Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL… Lets say i spend your 1000.00 on a Computer…I didnt my computer cost about 3x’s that. But what did I get, the ability to do my work from home, run Inventor, Solid Works, and every other modeling program i need (oh and those software vendors got paid a huge chunk of money). I can also listen to music, make phone calls, and with that 100 per month of the access move the big files my customer want me to work on, thus making me money.
The fact I can download TV/Movies/Music does not come into the equations, those are side notes of the actual usage.
So your just a small part of what i can do, and really that is Big Media’s problem, the internet has moved you from the front and top dog, to the small dog, you yip and yip for table scraps, and bite the hand that gives them to you. Well the internet and the world has a solution for dogs that like to bite… Old Media I name thee “old yeller” and its time to go to the woodshed….
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to be under that sad and most inaccurate impression that a computer’s primary (secondary, tertiary) role is to watch media from big media. Not only are you sadly mistaken but you’re so far off the mark that you’re a disgusting manifestation of ignorance.
Yes, my new car, you like it? It’s my movies ride. Check out my I
Re: Re: Re: Re:
God. I wish I could afford to spend $1000 on a computer! That would be a kickass gaming rig. And I’ve never payed more than about $45/mo on Internet.
But tricking myself into thinking it’s free? First of all, I never claimed it was free. Second of all, you’re tricking yourself into thinking that every byte I download costs me $1000 down and $100/mo because it’s how much (you assume) I paid for the rig and access, and you somehow seem to think that I pay those amounts for each use.
The fact is, the rig and the access came first. They’re an investment into — guess what? — Internet access. And among the things I can do with this rig is the ability to download stuff for no additional cost. The more I use the computer and the connection, the more those costs are amortized. So the more free stuff I download, the less it costs. Win/win!
But seriously, I didn’t go out and buy a computer so I could download movies without paying for them. Neither did anybody else. Your conclusions are based on a faulty premise and bad logic. We didn’t dismiss the cost; we evaluated it rationally instead of drinking your Kool-Aid. We dismissed your claim because it makes no sense.
I own a copy (I know, I’m just leasing it) of Short Time on Laserdisc. Ever heard of it? Probably not. My Laserdisc player has died; I’ve been unwilling to dent my budget by buying a replacement, though I suppose I should do that soon, before they’re no longer available. Of course, I just want the player so I can copy the movies to DVD. Which of course will cost the studios billions of dollars in unrealized profits.
Anyway, I wanted to show the movie to a friend — and while I’m sure I copied it to DVD before the player died, I can’t find the DVD. So I went to Netflix and Blockbuster and Redbox and… guess what? Nobody has it for rent. I went to Amazon and IMDB and discovered something: for Region 1 it was released on VHS (and Laserdisc) only; there’s a DVD, but it’s only Region 2.
This is a freakin’ 20-year-old movie, but it’s only Region 2. The purported reason for region coding is to allow the studios to make more money. Tell me: how does not selling the DVD make them money?
You know what I did? I bought the Region 2 disc and a DVD burner. I used the new burner to replace an old one that doesn’t burn any more, and I used one of my 5 region changes on that drive and changed it to Region 2 (and slapped a sticker on it). Then I used that drive to read the DVD, and played it on my computer with a composite TV output.
I’m sure I broke several laws by doing this, and if the MPAA catches me they’ll tell the courts I cost them at least a million dollars, so would they please fine me twenty million? Because of the poor starving artists that they won’t pay a red cent of that money anyway.
I bent over backwards to do right by this one, and it cost me more than downloading the movie would have. Cost more than it should have for an obscure, mediocre 20-year-old movie on DVD. Even if it does have Teri Garr and the best damned car chase scene I’ve ever watched. (Yes, I’ve seen the French Connection, before you ask.)
Go ahead, call me a freetard. Tell me to fix my attitude. The studios call me a thief even when I buy the same movie twice in spite of their heroic attempts to prevent it. Who has the attitude problem now?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You said: “how does not selling the DVD make them money?”
Me: simple – if they wanted to sell you that single DVD you really wanted, it would likely cost them hundreds of dollars to do so. If there is no distributor willing to pick up the stuff, if there is nobody willing to do the process to get them made and brought to market (with all the restrictions that exist in each country, regarding packaging, labeling, etc), then why should they be forced to sell at a loss just to make you happy?
It is a Tardian way of looking at things, they should be forced to be in business in your country because you and you alone want the product. How selfish is that?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
So it’s cool just to download the DVD then.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
To elaborate on AC, it’s a dick move at best to not serve a market (even if for a perfectly good reason) and complain (or worse, sue) over people getting the content illegally. If you choose not to serve a market, you have no losses from that market so should not have any problem with piracy there.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Nope, sorry. It’s a dick move to just pirate something because you would be unwilling to pay the price to get it into your marketplace. Do you honestly think this guy would spend $200-$500 for a single DVD, just to get it into his local market place, in the correct and legal packaging, with the correct and legal language, encoding, and the like?
Nope.
Just because you cannot buy it doesn’t give you some divine right to just take a copy anyway. That is the Tardian mentality at it’s finest. Enjoy it while you can.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
It’s a dick move to just pirate something because you would be unwilling to pay the price to get it into your marketplace. Do you honestly think this guy would spend $200-$500 for a single DVD, just to get it into his local market place, in the correct and legal packaging, with the correct and legal language, encoding, and the like?
They were not selling it in his market, at any price.
Just because you cannot buy it doesn’t give you some divine right to just take a copy anyway.
Just because you cannot buy it means nobody is losing any money, whether you copy it or not.
That is the Tardian mentality at it’s finest. Enjoy it while you can.
Oh, dang. I didn’t notice you’re a troll. Oops.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
It’s a dick move to just pirate something because you would be unwilling to pay the price to get it into your marketplace.
So, let’s say the guy doesn’t pirate anything, but simply doesn’t pay the asking price. In either case, it is a “lost sale.” The content holders failed to make money either way, so in that case piracy wouldn’t have any impact on their profits whatsoever.
All that has happened is that the content holders prevented a fan from seeing their content, even though it would have cost them nothing to allow that fan to do so. They are doing nothing but stealing from culture. That’s as least as much of a “dick move” as piracy. Depending upon how important you think that content is to culture, it’s more of a dick move.
Do you honestly think this guy would spend $200-$500 for a single DVD, just to get it into his local market place, in the correct and legal packaging, with the correct and legal language, encoding, and the like?
Nope.
Of course, with piracy, he wouldn’t have to – because pirate distributors would be doing all that for free.
Those copies may not have the packaging, but everything else can be done by anyone with a computer and a trivial amount of time on their hands. And they do it without the content holders having to pay them a dime.
Incidentally, it’s funny you should mention that pricing – because in some regions (e.g. third world countries), that’s about the equivalent of what consumers would have to pay for a legitimate copy of a CD or DVD.
Just because you cannot buy it doesn’t give you some divine right to just take a copy anyway.
Well, copyright only exists through the approval of the general public (and exists for their benefit). So if enough people believe it, then it does give them that right. Also, “take” is probably not the right word, since the original product doesn’t go anywhere – “make” would be a better choice.
But, regardless of all that, you’re still missing the point: if you, as the content producer, are not willing to supply the market with a product at an optimal price point on the demand curve, then you shouldn’t be surprised if someone else is. That’s what capitalism is all about, and it is primarily what makes a free market better than other economic systems.
Enjoy it while you can.
I’m not enjoying it at all. I’d rather piracy went away, so that more people would focus on open source and open culture instead, and our government wouldn’t listen to the constant bitching of whiny content industries who demand government solutions to their own economic incompetence.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I’d rather piracy went away
Well, perhaps not, for one reason. Because content producers have to compete with piracy, they make their products more valuable and cost less. It’s that ol’ free market at work again.
In that sense, piracy helps every consumer, even those that will never pirate anything in their entire lives.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Just because you cannot buy it doesn’t give you some divine right to just take a copy anyway.
By the way: I’ve talked to several artists, content producers, etc. Most aren’t so much against piracy, but a few are, and vehemently.
Even the ones who are completely against piracy have no problem with pirating something that isn’t in print. Even if they were the ones who released it originally. Why should they? They can’t make any money off of out-of-print releases anyway.
In fact, to the degree that I do “pirate” music, that is exactly what I do. There are a few blogs out there (which I won’t name for fear of ICE seizures) that do nothing but post obscure, out-of-print material, often from tiny labels that no longer exist. Not one person I’ve spoken to (even label owners) have any problem with these guys, in fact most think highly of them.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Yeah I do, god told me I could download whatever I like if I can find it ! Don’t divine rights supercede government mandated rights ?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Geez, man. It’s unbelievable how much you didn’t read this article. It’s talking about–I know this seems obvious, but you totally missed it–how people ARE willing to pay for things when those things are good ones. So your whole “freetard” screed is not only misplaced, it’s like you’re asleep while you’re typing–like your fingers only know one pattern and they just keep punching it out regardless of context.
Actually, I think I’m pretty close with that one. How about you save your crap nonsense for articles where it at least fits?
Re: Re:
Your actually the idiot, if you believe any thing in your comment
Re: Re:
As long as we’re making shit up, don’t forget the $400 blu-ray player you need to play the $3 rented movie.
Re: Re: Re:
There’s also $100 for pure coal-fired electricity sent straight to your $400,000 home. And a $32,000 car to get you to and from the rental place. As well as the gas for your car, the furniture you need to sit on to watch it, the television itself, and the cables to make all of this work. So that’s approaching half a million for a $3 rental…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You’re forgetting how much it cost to make the movie too!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You forgot the $200,000 for the college degree(s) you needed to get the job to pay for all that other stuff.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My birth wasn’t cheap. Next time, factor in all the costs, please.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You should have just pirated your birth, like I did.
Re: Re:
It’s the same thing as using Spotify for $10 a month, or any other similar service. Just because people listen to 1000 songs in a month, doesn’t mean they would spend $1000 per month. With the iTunes model they can spend $10 a month and listen to 10 songs. With the Spotify model, they can listen to 1000 songs a month and pay same amount. And they are both legal, but Spotify makes more sense in this day and age.
Times change. We used to pay for albums once every few months, then we started buying a few songs per month with $1 each, and now we’re paying a subscription per month.
Compare PPTV(Chinese) with Joost(Soul sold to the industry) and people will find out why other use pirate offering more often, that on the commercial front, because there is the “sharing” thing that ain’t going away ever no matter what others try to do.
It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
You’re again just ignoring “sunk (or fixed) costs” and treating the product as if already created and paid off, so marginal costs are zero. But that’s true ONLY for the pirates and filesharers!
Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
silly details…
Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
The content creation doesn’t matter to the consumer. At all.
If I’ve waited 2 months to watch Heroes, then I’ll watch something else. So when it comes out, and I don’t like it, do you think I want to pay for a series that just isn’t all that good? Do you think I’ll CARE if the producer found a new way to remake it, using more money?
All of that is based on advertising revenue, which the customer never sees anyway.
Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
Man, you are not in your best trolling form today. I’d take a break if I were you. But I’ll help you.
The prices of the CDs got cut by 50% here in my country due to use of cheaper material for the boxes and smaller covers and, words from the owner of a music shop, sales skyrocketed. Can you see the relation between getting more for selling quantity? And can you see that digital files have no replication costs? Oh you didn’t.
Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
The content investment isn’t in the deliverable medium, you silly buffoon.
Re: Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
The point is if they could cut prices in half and still make some profit per unit and the sales skyrocketed (and they haven’t changed back since) then if they charge sane prices for the digital media it should work wonders too.
Darn, I have to explain everything to those kids…
Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
The products are already created for customers of legal sources of media as well. How is that any different?
Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
For digital content the marginal cost *is* zero – that’s what the word means. Marginal doesn’t mean “the amount something costs including R&D”, it means the “the amount something costs to produce after you’ve *eliminated* R&D.”
Perhaps before you begin commenting, you might try to understand the basic terminology. You might then be able to comprehend the arguments made.
Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
Wait, are you the real one, or the fake one?
I’m not sure if should attribute this post to malice or stupidity.
Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
I have already TOLD you people that I now have an account to EXPOSE mike’s lies. — All you idiots might be fooled but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since he has you all wrapped around his finger.
Re: Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
Expose eh? Keep trying there, blue. The more you fight logic with ignorance the quicker people can see the real truth 🙂
Re: Re: Re:2 It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
If only that were true… most people want soothing, convincing easy to swallow lies & nonsense. Just look at the various religions if you need proof of this phenomenon.
Re: Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
This has to be the real one, just has to be
Re: Re: Re:2 It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
I’m starting to wonder if it’s actually the latest incarnation of The Anti-Mike. Blue used to be just wacky and off-topic, but now he vehemently disagrees with everything Mike says for no particular reason. Sounds familiar.
Re: Re: Re:3 It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
“Blue used to be just wacky and off-topic, but now he vehemently disagrees with everything Mike says for no particular reason. Sounds familiar.”
You know, that actually isn’t a bad theory. Perhaps Weird Harold has come back to us and let his proverbial hair down in favor of this new iteration.
Either way, I guess since it’s all ad-homs and accusations of the most horrific things, we can safely ignore ootb as we did Weird Harold, TAM, Darryl, etc.
Re: Re: Re:4 It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
“Either way, I guess since it’s all ad-homs and accusations of the most horrific things, we can safely ignore ootb as we did Weird Harold, TAM, Darryl, etc.”
Just do what I have always done: click “report” on ANY post by any of them without even bothering to read it. Its no less than they deserve.
Re: Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
Or you’re simply an abysmal failure given the fact that Mike is not lying.
Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
Attempting to add credibility to your sock puppet I see, MIKE!
Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
…..or a REALLY REALLY good impersonator
Re: Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
I’ve honestly never been more confused about anything ever on this site….
Re: Re: Re:2 It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
I’ve honestly never been more confused about anything ever on this site….
I’m sayin’. It’s like OOTB is using sock puppets to prove Mike is using sock puppets or something like that. I can’t quite grasp the twisted logic myself.
Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
what you said doesn’t make any sense at all in this context. nothing here is ignored, except the factual data by the content companies.
If they want to recoup their “sunk (or fixed) costs” they need only give people a reason to spend their money…which they aren’t….which is the point of this post.
Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
Obviously producers still not only recover costs but are making a profit – despite rampant piracy. Otherwise the content wouldn’t be created anymore, right?
Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
Obviously producers still not only recover costs but are making a profit – despite rampant piracy. Otherwise the content wouldn’t be created anymore, right?
BUT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!
Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
You really fail at basic economics.
I’m surprised no one has pointed this one out. Sunk costs are sunk. Your customers don’t pay them, you do.
You only make money on price vs marginal cost, and that price is only what your customers are willing to pay.
For digital copies, that price is pretty low.
Smartards!
If the media companies were smart, they’d start their own media-sharing site and cleverly disguise it as a “for pay” pirate site.
Like, duh.
Of course, if it’s going to work for the long term it’d have to actually work like a pirate site too–no DRM. no licensing bullshit, just easy movies & music & whatnot.
Re: Smartards!
This is both hilarious and insightful.
It could totally be gotten away with.
But it never will….
🙁
“the entertainment”
Masnick tries to poop this vitriol out so fast nowadays that the editing mistakes have become a regular thing…
Re: Re:
OH NOES A TYPO
IM MELTING
MELTING
melting
mel….
Re: Re:
Well, those that make some entertainments engage in some pretty entertaining antics.
Re: Re:
Weirdly I always read “Mansick” when you write his name. I have a hard wired typo in my head =(
been doing just this for 8 years now..
This article describes my content consumption behaviour to a tee. I cut cable/dish services off 8 years ago and watch digital content on my 52″ ‘monitor’, with over 10Tb of data. I can’t remember the last commercial I watched! My money goes towards HDDs, Internet connection, usenet account, and one big-ass monitor.
Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
Thanks for explaining why the entertainment industry is tired of the tech industry getting rich off their content!
Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
we are all very sorry that the entertainment industry hasnt been able to make it 1983 again yet
Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
Uh, isn’t it the other way around? You wouldn’t have an entertainment industry without tapes, CDs, DVDs or BluRays. Or their associated players.
You wouldn’t have dolby surround. You wouldn’t have 3D movies. You wouldn’t have gigantic screens. Heck, you wouldn’t even have movies.
So…who’s getting rich out of who? Or should we just agree that it is a symbiotic relationship?
Re: Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
It’s almost like some kind of ecosystem!
Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
oh noes our content! we spent 2 years sipping lattes and scribbling on papers, eventually put some people in front of a camera, and everyone walked away several million dollars richer! the show sucks balls, but itll kill half an hour, so you better pay the big bucks for it, do you know how much hookers and blow we went though to make this?
Re: Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
Sucks they live a cooler life than you, doesn’t it?
So you think you’re rebelling and making a difference by ripping them off?
Won’t change your situation.
You’ll still be a worthless, jealous douchebag.
Re: Re: Re:2 been doing just this for 8 years now..
?AAAH I SHOULDN’T FEED THEM! FORGIVE ME DEAR LORD!
They are so ripped off in their Ferraris. The entertainment industry is dying. Oh wait…
Re: Re: Re:2 been doing just this for 8 years now..
oh im so worthless and jealous, ohhhhhh it hurts us. i take it by your ‘they’ that your another worthless douchebag, have you been to any of the recent meetings?
Re: Re: Re:2 been doing just this for 8 years now..
In your version pirating will kill the industry. When that happens, who will you kneel in front of?
Re: Re: Re:2 been doing just this for 8 years now..
darryl? is that you?
Re: Re: Re:3 been doing just this for 8 years now..
Can’t be, no typos of spittle spatters.
Re: Re: Re:2 been doing just this for 8 years now..
No, if I wanted to rebel, I’d just buy a gun and shoot someone. That’s a genuinely rebellous act. Piracy is not (except in rare cases) about rebellion – it’s about the price of the content not meeting the valuation of said content.
Re: Re: Re:3 been doing just this for 8 years now..
Or the availability of the content not meeting the demand.
Re: Re: Re:2 Pathetic Hollywood shills...
What used to cost $90 now costs $5.
By your standards, we can already get things for free and we don’t even have to do anything illegal. We can just take advantage of the free market. We can take advantage of the First Sale Doctrine or the long tail. We can choose not to be a sucker and there’s not a d*mn thing you can do about it legally.
B*tch and moan all you like.
The current crop of whiners and bean counters can’t compete against the back catalog and a glut in content and ever decreasing prices.
Natural market forces have already depressed “legal” prices by 95%.
Re: Re: Re:2 been doing just this for 8 years now..
And none of your pathetic whining will ever change that.
Re: Re: Re:2 been doing just this for 8 years now..
Sucks they live a cooler life than you, doesn’t it?
What, you mean shooting speed balls, getting airtight with Lindsey Lohan, and catching crabs? No thank you.
Re: Re: Re:2 been doing just this for 8 years now..
Well, I actually do read lines. I actually have been on camera.
“they”?
Now that is the word of a shill. ???
Re: Re: Re:2 been doing just this for 8 years now..
This has to have been posted for sparring purposes only. If you think that the folks guarding content–i.e., lawyers for studios, the MPAA and RIAA–live cooler lives than…well…anyone else, that just proves to me you’ve never met one. They’re fucking miserable humans who work themselves sick trying to get corner offices. They mollify themselves by their rare drive home in a Porsche.
Please, don’t ever give me one of those cooler lives. I dodged that bullet twice already.
Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
It’s NOT, THEIR entertainment!!! It’s OURS! Really, they don’t watch it…they make it so we will pay for it. In America, we said they could have a short monopoly for making something we would pay for. WELL ALL THAT’S GONE TO HELL NOW HASN’T IT!!
Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
would you like some cheese with that whine?
Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
Wow. Actually admitting that you are jealous of innovation. Just Wow.
Oh, and by the way … as has been explained here countless times, the content is what people want … how about some access to it?
I was going to call you a troll, but I sincerely believe you are just an entrenched interest.
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT
the wildwest days are ending
if the content is cheap then the terrorists win
freetards
THEIVES!
its their content you don’t get to decide how they shove it up your ass
the pirates providers dont have to pay to make it so they can sell it cheaper, with a better service, and value
*Thought I would get that all out of the way, so maybe the trolls and shills can innovate a little*
This is exactly my situation. I subscribe to cyberlockers quite often, most of the time I pay for a month’s access, currently I have a year long Megaupload.
I don’t care that the content is deemed illegal. All I’m seeing is that I’m a customer, and this service is far superior to what the “legit” industry is willing to do, thus I’m getting more bang for my buck. Aren’t I doing what we’re all told to do, in seeking savings every chance we get?
What would be perfect would be if there were a single cyberlocker with fast speeds and gobs of storage, that every/most media creators upload to. Users pay for a subscription for high speed download and unlimited access, or go for a free account and a limited selection. Support it with ads, and you still make money off the people who opt for the free account. For every download, the content creator gets an agreed upon amount. So, the better your content, the more popular it becomes, the more money you make.
Yes, you would still have torrents. Yes, there would still be people who will never pay. Yes, there would have to be some sort of auditing system. But the above solution helps everybody and most importantly, doesn’t screw anyone over.
Re: Re:
You just admitted what everybody knows about the members of this site.
So why does Mike Masnick get so upset when this illegal behavior is taken on by government?
Because he supports piracy.
The end.
Re: Re: Re:
Do you get paid to hang out here or is your hate for mike more personal?
Did he steal your highschool sweetheart away or run over your dog or something?
Or did you make some piece of crap that no one bought and its all piracy fault you cant retire at 30?
Or do you get paid 8$ an hour to make a fool out of yourself?
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, Rikuo admitted they would rather hand the media industry GOBS OF CASH but can’t.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Precisely. Although, to be more accurate, I want to pay the content creators, but not while they’re waging war against their own customers.
Re: Re: Re:
Restless lil troll, you need urgent enlightening.
Did you read the comment? No? Have you noticed he/she/it is suggesting a model that actually exists but is severely capped by MAFIAA? No? Do I really have to draw to teach you?
So why do you support the aggressive litigation behavior of MAFIAA when it is harming every1 in the process?
Because you are a pedophile and a child raper.
The end.
PS: don’t blame me, I used your reasoning 😉
Re: Re: Re:
So, one person (me) confesses to infringing copyright and EVERY member on this site must therefore do it too? And Mike Masnick is a piracy supporter because of my “confession” (note, everything I said up there could also be complete hogwash).
People here have admitted to owning cars. Therefore, I must own one too, and that Masnick approves of DUI and running over grannies. Oh wait, that would be idiotic, wouldn’t it!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
couldn’t have said it better myself.
Re: @Rikuo: "I don't care that the content is deemed illegal."
Okay, on your “single cyberlocker”: now site B buys one unlimited account and charges its members HALF of what Site A charges. Site B doesn’t need anything except a bit of buffering: when a request comes in, they get the data from Site A, send it right out.
I trust that fully explains the flaw of your plan.
Re: Re: @Rikuo: "I don't care that the content is deemed illegal."
Alright, I may have used the word perfect in my post, but it is a good idea. I’d imagine the two would have an advertisement/price war
Site A would go “We have the latest and most up-to-date content, we give you what you want and you’re supporting the artists. Site B, though, they’re literally thieves, they’re the equivalent of the guy selling counterfeit CD’s on the street corner”.
I want to pay for access to as close to infinite content as is possible. The idea of paying for each individual piece of content, is in my opinion, an outdated idea, given the prevalence of high speed broadband and cheap hard drives.
Re: Re: @Rikuo: "I don't care that the content is deemed illegal."
yes, hundreds of users could use the same account and no one would ever know, thats why I share a netflix account with 10000000000000 of my closest friends
Re: Re:
What would be perfect would be if there were a single cyberlocker with fast speeds and gobs of storage, that every/most media creators upload to. Users pay for a subscription for high speed download and unlimited access, or go for a free account and a limited selection.
The problem is, each movie studio would demand more money from the cyberlocker operator than any user would be willing to pay for the whole service. So the licenses would cost them, say, $100 per month per user, and the users would only be willing to pay $20. The studios are just too stupid. They would rather get nothing and pay lawyers to sue, than get a small piece of a big pie.
Re: Re: Re:
True, but the hypothetical cyberlocker could do a take it or leave it attitude, offer X cents per single download.
I also note that this wouldn’t actually stop the mass lawsuits. Just my opinion that the media industry should have done something like this ten years ago, rather than let the “pirates” out-innovate them.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, but the hypothetical cyberlocker could do a take it or leave it attitude, offer X cents per single download.
I also note that this wouldn’t actually stop the mass lawsuits.
Right, it would be “take it or sue me”.
Just my opinion that the media industry should have done something like this ten years ago, rather than let the “pirates” out-innovate them.
So true.
People are willing to pay, and willing to pay a fair amount — provided that what they get in return is what they want.
Someone ought to write this in the sky, because it’s ulitmately a truth that gets overlooked by Big Content (in not a huge fan of the term, but it works).
I’m perfectly willing to part with my cash as long as I feel like I’m getting a good value for it. Nowadays I feel like the products I want to buy are getting hobbled with barriers and restrictions. That definitely does not make me feel like I’m getting my money’s worth.
Re: Re:
You are right, its not about paying or not paying its about what you get for the money. Not in terms of format/convenience but in terms of volume.
1 song at $1 = bad vaule
20 songs at $1 = better value
The spend is the same its about what you get for it. That is independent of format and convenience.
I’ve said on td for a long time that I’m willing to pay a reasonable price. The typical td response is that I should not have to pay because of infinate availability – while that may be true I’m still willing to pay, just not willing to get screwed.
Re: Re: Re:
20 songs for a dollar? I could see that possibly working for big catalog owners, selling pop hits. “Buy all the Billboard #1 singles from 1984!” for 2 or 3 bucks (52 weeks would seemingly be 52 songs, but many sit on the #1 spot for more than one week).
However, I don’t know that small-time independent artists could survive on such a slim margin. 20 songs would be at minimum 2 albums worth of songs, that’s going to be a year or two+ of writing, rehearsing, playing live to hone chops and rewrite the parts that don’t work, and then the whole recording process… It would be hard to let go of so much work for so cheap for people who will realistically sell less than 1000 downloads every 6 months.
Luckily, I notice that people in general don’t consider $1 too much to pay an independent artist. I could even see going as high as $2 a song. Personally, I think independent artists might want to consider marking up songs a little bit, but sell the album dirt cheap. $3-$5 for a whole bare bones digital album would certainly seem fair to me. And as an independent artist myself, my goal is generally to get as much of my music on a person’s mp3 player as possible, so it’s advantageous to make the album as tempting as possible.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And for me I’ll say that I value format and convenience more than volume. But that isn’t to say that any savvy seller can’t find ways to mix the two to reach as many customers as possible.
And not to mention there can be more to a product than format, convenience, and quantity.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That was just an example, not necessarily what would get me to buy. The point was that even if I got the format I wanted and it was quick and easy that might still not get me to buy if the price is too high. Also, the typical td stance is that with infinate copies I should pay nothing – at least I’m willing to pay at all.
More to your point, if you sell me 1 song for $2 but the whole album for $3-$5 then I will *never* just buy the single. I really don’t care if you don’t like what I’m willing to pay and I don’t care if you need to make more money – sounds like a marketing problem for you rather than a price point problem for me. Feel free to price yourself out of the market but understand that your price is why I’m not buying.
Perhaps I’m less picky or like more vareity than others but I have lots of storage and storage is cheap, so if filling the iPod costs $30K it will never get filled. If filling the iPod costs $1500 then there is a better chance your music might be in there.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? You are kidding me. Wow.
You must be so wrapped up in the industry that you don’t actually see the music world.
Ever seen “please buy me CD”?
Ever seen a 2 drink minimum?
Seriously …
You are a joke.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How do you find all the independent artists to pay those one-dollarses to? Oh, right: they don’t get the dollars–the labels do. They then trickle somewhere between a negative amount and a few pennies to your favorite artist. So…yeah: fail.
I would love a legit download service
I have to say that I would love nothing more than to have a content service where I pay a reasonable monthly fee(hell even $50 / month is reasonable, I used to spend more than that each month buying DVDs) and which allows access to a large quantity of content – music, movies, tv shows and unlimited access. The key is that I want to be able to choose how, when, where and on which device I wish to consume said content without the need to worry about DRM, expiration, arbitrary device / region specific restrictions, etc. In today’s digital world with high-speed internet and low cost computers, there should be no reason why this service shouldn’t exist… oh wait, it does, but not within the industry-written copyright laws, unfortunately.
If the media companies would get off their high horse and realize that yes, their shit does stink, and start listening to the demands of the consumer, instead of forcing the consumer to fit within their business model, they could stand to make a ton of money… (netflix anybody?) And to boot, they would save a ton of money on lawyers and litigation. DVDs are expensive, digital copies of a movie are free. And the beauty of this system, is that once I download a movie, it still exists on their servers for anybody else to download without any additional cost for the content company (at least nothing more than the trivial cost of bandwidth).
The sad reality is that we are still just a bunch of cattle to the media companies and they still, for whatever reason, have the power to herd us and drive us in whichever direction they want, usually using the government as their cattle herders. Until there is some sort of social boycott and the consumers began to realize that as a whole, we are much more powerful then the media companies, nothing is going to change anytime soon.
I for one have pretty much quit buying DVDs as I see no reason to still purchase content on outdated physical disks. It also saves the trip to the store/ paying shipping fees, etc. I do subscribe to netflix and love the service as it allows me unlimited access to their collection of content and I can consume it how, when, and on which device I want (for the most part). The biggest downside, they don’t offer a “Download Now” button such that I can take the content with me. The second biggest downside is the availability of content which the media companies won’t allow (for pointless arbitrary reasons) or want to change some outrageous licencing fee (see above: “shit does stink”).
Appendix: DVD – used as a generic term to describe the available technology of physical material which contains the digital representation of the analog and/or digial source material.
/rant
“impossible to compete with free”
You can grow apples for free. But there’s an industry built on that.
Interesting, huh?
Re: Re:
Uh, it costs $1000 for an apple tree and $100/month to access nature. So totally not free.
Re: Re: Re:
Where the hell are you buying your trees? You can buy apple trees for about $30, and my land taxes are no where near $100/per month!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your Sarc detector is broken, methinks. 🙂
“I think they pay for usenet because they have tricked themselves into thinking they are putting one over on “the man” and getting things cheap.
It’s on par with someone paying $1000 for a fancy ass computer and bunch of hard drives, paying $100 a month for a internet connection, so they can pirate a movie they could rent for $3.
They are idiots who have tricked themselves into thinking they are getting a bargain. It isn’t about convenience or anything like that, it’s about being stupid and not considering all the costs”
“…my point is only that plenty of people don’t consider the costs of their computer and the ongoing internet costs as part of the actual cost of content. Paying for a faster internet connection (so you can download more) is a great example. If you add $20 a month on your bill for it, it’s $20 you are spending for content.
What you people did here more than anything was prove the point, you are dismissing the costs of obtaining the content, tricking yourself into thinking it’s free.”
By that logic, It’s on par with someone paying $20,000 for a fancy ass car and bunch of insurance, paying $500 a month for gas, so they can rent a $3 movie they could ‘pirate’ for less without going out of your way.
It’s all about convenience. Renting your ways is stupid considering all the costs.
You see what you did here more than anything was prove yourself wrong, you are dismissing the costs of obtaining the content, tricking yourself into thinking it’s cheap.
Re: Re:
Sorry, but most people don’t buy a car just to drive to the video store. The video store run might be 0.001% of the car’s life.
The computer? The internet? They could spend half the computers life just downloading stuff (and the other half playing it). Most big file downloaders even buy an extra computer just for downloads and just to playback. The money is spent, like it or not.
If all you were doing was surfing the net, a netbook would do you fine. But a netbook isn’t the downloader’s tool of choice, is it?
Re: Re: Re:
What’s a “downloader”?
Isn’t everyone who uses a computer hooked up the the internet a “downloader”?
When visiting anywhere on the internet, your computer “downloads” a copy of the webpage to your computer.
Re: Re: Re:
No wait, I get it.
“Stupid downloaders! Pirates! Thieves! Downers! Yeah, that’s it. Freetard downers!”
Re: Re: Re:
If all you were doing was surfing the net, a netbook would do you fine.
So, the only two things computers are used for are surfing the net and piracy?
That’s the most idiotic thing I’ve heard in my entire life.
But a netbook isn’t the downloader’s tool of choice, is it?
Notice that you went from “pirate” to “downloader.” The two are not remotely the same.
Every computer user is a “downloader” nowadays. They have to be – otherwise they wouldn’t be able to install any software at all.
DH: Knock on my door! Knock next time! Did you see anything?
Sandurz: No, sir! I didn’t see you playing with your trolls again!
Just thought I’d interject a little humor since things seemed to be getting a little tense in here. Might do a world of good if some of our trolls would learn to lighten up. One can dream, at least.
It occurs to me that the music/movie/troll industries do not use computers for anything besides their content. They don’t billpay or Amazon or email or even Google. Their children still do homework by candlelight with a slate and chalk. this is why they are bent on destroying the tech industry through litigation and lobbying.
It even explains how they cook their books to “protect the artists” any accounting program would report them to the IRS.
I refuse to pay for anything with DRM. No movies, no TV shows, no music, no software. Anything with DRM, I download. I usually email the people asking if I could buy a DRM free version – the email is generally ignored unless they’re a minor or up & coming singer. I’ve emailed singers that have released their music exclusively on the DRM-riddled iTunes, saying I’d pay the same as what iTunes does if they let me give me a 320kbps MP3 version (Some of them I’ve had to tutor on how to transfer 100mb or so of data). I’ve bought about 8 CDs that way before and paid them via Paypal – and all the CDs I bought that way were available on BitTorrent if I wanted to get it that way.
Re: Re:
I should add. 2 of the 8 times, I downloaded their CD off BitTorrent and then contacted them saying I’d pay if they give me a payment method.
nice article!
I agree with your points totally.
I think Spotify have cracked it with the music service that’s better than piracy, but nobody has done it for movies yet (well, certainly not here in Germany) – iTunes do movie rentals but the selection is meh.
There’s a massive gap in the market for a company doing movies-on-demand properly – but I’m guessing it’s not likely to happen any time soon due to licensing issues. Shame.
Off base
To the poster who made the comment about me buying a computer and internet connection just to get one over on the big media company, it’s obvious you don’t know me. The only reason I hate and don’t buy dvd’s is that I cannot stand the time I have to wait through previews and piracy warnings that I CANNOT SKIP just to get to my movie for my kids who want to see it NOW.(without delay) Also, I don’t like getting off the couch to walk over to my blu ray player. A digital file is so much easier.
If there was one digital service who charged a reasonable fee and had access to most types of content, I’d definitely sign up. No question. I can’t stand the fact that I have to sign up for and pay for 100 different sources of content as it is right now. Such a pain and so expensive. And even the services I pay for keep changing the rules on me, so I can’t stay on top of what device I am supposed to be able to use or not use. Do big media companies actually talk to their customers at all?
Re: Off base
Do big media companies actually talk to their customers at all?
Of course not. They do not negotiate with terrorists.
Usenet is convenience
I definitely fall into this group. I pay 50 bucks a month for convenience. For 50 bucks I can instantly find a TV show or Movie in the format i want and a few minutes later watch it. Movie studios need get their act together and come up with a single portal where you can watch what ever movie you want for a decent price. This whole concept of delayed DVD release is silly. I have no interest buying a DVD’s but I’m willing to pay for convenience.