Kevin Spacey: Give Users Control, What They Want, When They Want It, At A Fair Price, And Stop Worrying About Piracy

from the well,-duh dept

It appears that Kevin Spacey gets what so many of us have been saying for over a decade: piracy isn't so much a problem as it is a statement of demand from users. And the way to "beat" piracy is to do a better job of offering fans what they want, in a manner they want it, at a reasonable price. Spacey recently gave a talk in Edinburgh in which he discussed the success of House of Cards, the "TV show" that he released via Netflix with all episodes coming out at once. First he discussed the ridiculous hoops that regular networks wanted them to go through, having to first film a pilot and go through the hell of "pilot season" that every network does each year, but then he made the same basic point that many of us have been making for so long:
Here's the key part:
Clearly the success of the Netflix model, releasing the entire season of House of Cards at once, proved one thing: the audience wants the control. They want the freedom. If they want to binge... we should let them binge.... And through this new form of distribution, we have demonstrated that we have learned the lesson that the music industry didn't learn: give people what they want, when they want it, in the form they want it in, at a reasonable price and they'll more likely pay for it rather than steal it. Well, some will still steal it, but I think we can take a bite out of piracy.
Ignoring the misleading use of "steal," he's making exactly the right point. Nothing (absolutely nothing) does away with all copyright infringement. But if you can get a huge number of people to give you money, it doesn't matter. And the best way to get more people to give you money (and, in fact, to give you more money) is to give people more of what they want. That includes good content, but also convenience, ease of use, and reasonable pricing.

He goes on to say a few more things worth listening too, including the fact that people want good stories, whether they're in movies, TV shows, video games or something else, and the entertainment industry has a real opportunity to deliver it.

The clip is five minutes long and worth watching. The point, as we've been saying for years, is not to justify "piracy" or infringement, but to show that the "piracy" problem might not be a problem at all if you can give people a good reason to buy. Spacey did that with House of Cards, and it's good to see more people realizing that piracy isn't the problem, but the symptom -- and the solution is a combination of good content, innovation, and recognizing that you need to treat the fans right, rather than as criminals.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Akari Mizunashi (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 6:49am

    Irony: House of Cards plays on Netflix, and the most "recent" movie they have is the Avengers (excluding the knock-off direct-to-stream).

    As much as Kevin's words make sense, those in Hollywood won't hear them because their fingers are so far pushed into their ears, they're blocking blood flow to the brain.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 9:03am

      Re:

      It really doesn't matter much if Hollywood gets it or not. There are others that DO get it, and they are laughing all the way to the bank. The Universals and Disneys of the world will not spearhead the change, but maybe, just maybe, they will eventually follow.

      The only question of importance is: "how much damage will Hollywood do to the law and to civil liberties before they get the point?"

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 9:27am

        Re: Re:

        The answer: As much as possible to take them down with the ship. The sadder thing is that they've more or less ensured their legacy with laws and agreements to ensure a constant flow of resources to swing the odds in their favour in a war of attrition.

        The upside of the aforementioned sadder thing is less people believing claims that Hollywood is dying.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 10:33am

      Re:

      Netflix has hundreds of more recent movies than Avengers.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2013 @ 4:54am

        Re: Re:

        The real question is who really cares?

        The back catalogue is great and has some real gems of films. Most of today's cinema is hardly worth watching anyway.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Aug 28th, 2013 @ 4:49am

      Re:

      "the most "recent" movie they have is the Avengers (excluding the knock-off direct-to-stream)"

      Not by a long shot actually, and if you truly believe this then you're part of the problem, ignoring any quality content out there if it wasn't force fed to you by a major studio's marketing department. You also have a major perception issue if you think that "recent" needs to be the be-all-and-end-all of their offerings.

      It's true that you won't find recent Hollywood blockbusters on the service 3 months after release, but that's all the more reason to take advantage of the content that is available - much of it better than the Hollywood production line to begin with. The best way to get them to treat these services with respect is for them to realise that they're competition and that potential customers will not necessarily follow them blindly into whatever service they prefer.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 9:00am

    And just like that. I'm going to support House of Cards. I'll get this on Blu-Ray or show my appreciation some other way.
    I'd only heard about it previously due to some PS Vita spot in it, but now I'll actually look into getting it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    NoahVail (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 9:05am

    Netflix shares a few of Hollywood's control freak issues

    Hollywood's war on consumers is more about content control than anything else.
    It's why MPAA Members sued CleanFlicks and other film sanitizers out of existence even though those services clearly benefited film makers' bottom line.

    Netflix has some of that same dysfunction by their decade long refusal to implement a search by rating, even though it's a top requested feature.

    Netflix may have looser reins but they still like to hang on to some of that "Just Because" control.

    ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CleanFlicks

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      DannyB (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 9:56am

      Re: Netflix shares a few of Hollywood's control freak issues

      I'm not defending Netflix, but let's give them some credit. They have done something very well that was visionary. First disks by mail. Then streaming. Others have streaming, but don't do it nearly as well.

      Netflix may have hundreds of possible features to implement. These have to be implemented at scale. It may be hard to believe, but Netflix may have limited resources and like most businesses must prioritize how it uses those resources. It is easy for you and I to underestimate the effort required to implement and test such a feature -- on all supported platforms.

      Just think about how many playback front ends Netflix has to maintain. (I mean the 'app' that plays back content to your eyeballs and allows you to navigate, search and select content.) They have at least:
      * TiVo
      * PS/3
      * Xbox
      * Android (which is probably quite a few variations of apps for different types of devices, OS releases)
      * Web browsers
      * others

      If Netflix changes their servers, the older versions of apps installed on client devices still must work -- and maybe work for a reasonable lifetime of the device without update.

      It probably takes an act of congress (so to speak) for Netflix to make a database design change. Then another to get it into production.

      Then there are the content copyright owners and lisensors. They probably have a hissy fit if Netflix does anything to enhance the value of content to end users -- just because that is the Hollywood way.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Jeff in Calgary, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 1:03pm

        Re: Re: Netflix shares a few of Hollywood's control freak issues

        *others
        - Windows Phone
        - iOS
        - Smart TVs (how many brands and models?)
        - DVD players

        I think that is Netflix biggest strong point is that almost everyone already has a device that will enable them to watch it now. They are not trying to control the users hardware.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 8:18pm

          Re: Re: Re: Netflix shares a few of Hollywood's control freak issues

          When my roommate got netflix, we started just by watching it on the TV through my roommates PS3. Then some of us wanted to watch it in our rooms so we streamed through our PC's. Then I found out there was an Ipod app and started putting show's on my ipod while doing dishes. Now I have two phones (one on a data plan, one not) and its on those.

          Netflix is awesome because its wherever I want it to be.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          techflaws (profile), Sep 2nd, 2013 @ 3:44am

          Re: Re: Re: Netflix shares a few of Hollywood's control freak issues

          WDTV Live ;)

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      PRMan, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 10:06am

      Re: Netflix shares a few of Hollywood's control freak issues

      You actually can search by rating. Under Watch Instantly v, pick a genre such as Action & Adventure. On the right, sort by Maturity Rating. They give you checkboxes to remove whatever ratings you don't want.

      This is relatively new, I think.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Aug 28th, 2013 @ 1:54pm

      Re: Netflix shares a few of Hollywood's control freak issues

      So, "control freak" = "not giving a specific search function requested by some morally uptight people who are scared of adult content". Hmmm....

      They already have a sanitised zone for kids, and all the information you're demanding is available both through the MPAA and on other services (e.g. instantwatcher lists ratings).

      Sorry dude, Netflix isn't there to service your every need and if you're that bothered about something you have to occasionally get up off your ass and do it yourself. Not bowing to your every need is not "controlling". Controlling would be if Netflix refused to stock content that childish wimps want censored because they can't handle it.

      Ironically, there's a documentary on Cleanflix on Netflix for you to stream if you so wish.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 9:06am

    I had never used Netflix until House of Cards. I signed up for a free subscription, binge watched it, loved it, and now pay my month Netflix bill, even though I don't watch all the much most months. I can't wait for season 2 and for more high quality shows from Netflix in the future.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 9:28am

    Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

    "more likely pay for it rather than steal it." -- Not if the pirate culture keeps pushing to remove guilt from stealing!

    "Well, some will still steal it, but I think we can take a bite out of piracy." -- Okay! Turns out Spacey agrees with me!

    Now, you still CAN'T COMPETE WITH FREE when that's your own product available -- without commercials and other drawbacks -- simply by clicking on a torrent link. [Except maybe for speed, but popular torrents are fast.] I'm sure Mike hasn't given up his totally wacky "core concept" that price of entertainments has anything to do with costs -- both that he's not concerned with recovering the up-front "sunk (or fixed) costs" AND that he thinks price will approach the very low costs of digital distribution -- so there's still a threshold that some people won't get over (for various reasons, not least that crap sometimes isn't even worth the cost of bandwidth).

    And despite the opinion of a guy who's already benefitted way beyond his actual value from the existing copyright system and so isn't concerned with success at the margins where most "artists" struggle merely to recover their costs and gain a subsistence, this isn't anything new.

    This opinion won't work if piracy keeps increasing.

    For example, Megaupload NEVER returned a cent to the producers of content. Commercialized piracy must definitely be stopped. Mike just doesn't acknowledge the costs of piracy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 9:31am

      Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

      You are not a credible person.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 10:24am

        Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

        Considering he doesn't use Netflix, neither is Pirate Mike Masnick.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 10:31am

          Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

          Yawn.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2013 @ 5:12am

          Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

          So... not having a Netflix account makes you a pirate? Even if you don't consume the content at all? You're a lousy anti-piracy spokestroll, you know that, right?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 9:36am

      Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

      Question, fool.

      "Now, you still CAN'T COMPETE WITH FREE "
      How many times are you going to repeat that falsehood on Techdirt? No-one who reads Techdirt believed you when you said it twelve months ago. No-one believed you when you said it six months ago, three months ago, and again today. You are literally wasting the time you use up when you type it. Simply repeating it over and over again will not change the result. That's a sign of insanity.
      We have given you hundreds of examples of artists "competing with free" and all of them are successful. However, you always and I do mean, always, handwave them away as anomalies, not to be considered. It doesn't matter to you that there's undeniable evidence that your statements are wrong, you still deny them anyway!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        crade (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 2:19pm

        Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

        It's not a question of belief. "Can't compete with free" is completing disproven. All sorts of companies compete with free, including netflix, microsoft, whatever and they've been doing it successfully for ages. It's just idiotic to still try to make the claim.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      silverscarcat (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 9:37am

      Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

      Coke-Cola makes most of their money selling bottle water.

      You know, the stuff that you can get from the tap for free?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 10:26am

        Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

        Awesome, I can get purified or spring water from the tap.

        Oh wait, no I can't.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 10:32am

          Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

          Awesome, I can get purified or spring water from the tap.

          Oh wait, no I can't.


          You do realize that the water Coca Cola sells, Dasani, comes from the tap, right?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasani#United_States

          Right.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
             
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 11:07am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

            And PURIFIES it.

            You're paying for that.

            Your willful ignorance is so convincing, Masnick.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Rikuo (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 11:12am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

              So your argument against those who download shows for free (which by the way, provide a superior service, since there's no DRM involved, and the files frequently come with multiple audio/subtitle tracks, all for free) is to say that people can get a superior product than what they can normally get for free by paying...which is the whole point Mike makes!

              Make your pay for products and services superior in some way to the copyright infringed files, and you will get customers.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                 
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 11:14am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

                Then why doesn't Masnick use Netflix, hmm?

                Why do you douchebags still pirate when the legal option exists?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Rikuo (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 11:16am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

                  I would suppose because Mike doesn't watch much, if any TV? I don't have Netflix, not because I prefer to pirate first, but simply because they don't have the shows I want to watch, or service them in the way I want (such as anime, they don't provide a Japanese dub).

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  silverscarcat (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 11:32am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

                  Where can I legally buy season 1 of Familiar of Zero at a reasonable price?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  That One Guy (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 12:37pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

                  A better question is why do you continue to project your actions on others by claiming that those that disagree with you must be pirates?

                  If you're going to go around downloading all sorts of shows/movies and music, whatever, but stop trying to shift the blame for your actions onto everyone around you.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  another mike (profile), Aug 27th, 2013 @ 2:22pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

                  Because the legal option is pants.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 11:36am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

              And PURIFIES it.

              i.e., runs it through a cheap filter that you can buy and attach to your own faucet for a tiny fraction of the price. Or use a Brita filter.

              So, uh, no. Keep trying though. You're amusing.

              You're paying for that.


              At a 100x markup.

              Your willful ignorance is so convincing, Masnick.


              Why is it every time you lash out with an insult, it's more accurately directed at you and your near total lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject at hand?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                 
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 3:29pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

                "i.e., runs it through a cheap filter that you can buy and attach to your own faucet for a tiny fraction of the price. Or use a Brita filter."

                Masnick answers a post pointing out his willful ignorance with... More willful ignorance.

                The other thing you pay for w bottled water is convenience. Not everyone has/wants a filter in their fridge/faucet, or a bottle lying around that they have to wash to keep their filtered. So they purchase bottled water. Obviously a lot of it.

                But you have a degree in econ and know this already. Your willful ignorance is just more of the intellectual dishonesty that people consider your trademark.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 4:52pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

                  The other thing you pay for w bottled water is convenience.

                  Um, which is the point *WE* have been making for years. There are all sorts of ways to compete with free -- such as by being more convenient.

                  Thanks for finally coming around to recognizing the point we make.

                  Not everyone has/wants a filter in their fridge/faucet, or a bottle lying around that they have to wash to keep their filtered. So they purchase bottled water. Obviously a lot of it.

                  Not everyone wants to figure out how to use BitTorrent or a cyberlocker. So, they buy authorized copies of music. Obviously a lot of it.

                  But you have a degree in econ and know this already. Your willful ignorance is just more of the intellectual dishonesty that people consider your trademark.

                  You just made our point for us. And then you insult me? Really?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Rikuo (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 7:46pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

                    "Um, which is the point *WE* have been making for years. There are all sorts of ways to compete with free -- such as by being more convenient."

                    Precisely. I am fully versed in torrenting and cyberlockers, but I still maintain a fully paid for Steam/Origin library, with the convenience and ease of downloading/patching from them being one of the main reasons I do so (with Steam/Origin, the game is installed automatically upon download, versus the manual install/manual patch I often have to do if I torrent the same game).

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                     
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2013 @ 3:57am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

                    "the point *WE* have been making for years."

                    ... is that you're angry about enforcement of copyright law. That's a "duh" to everyone.

                    Nice to see you actually respond to the daily ass kicking you get here, tho.
                    I'm aware that it can't be easy to be embarrassed on that kind of level.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2013 @ 5:01am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

                      "daily ass kicking"

                      Are you speaking to yourself again? I can't actually decide if this is aimed at yourself or mike?

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2013 @ 5:16am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

                      Over-protectionism and removal of basic consumer rights is not 'enforcement of copyright law.' It's corporatism. So which is it? Do you love yoru corporate masters, or do you truly rail against their excesses?

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2013 @ 6:18am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

                      The only embarrassment I see is your miserable example of humanity.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2013 @ 6:36am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

                      Your best excuse for copyright enforcement is John Steele. Except that he not only managed to piss off judges with his chutzpah, he's also managed to turn the spotlight how ridiculous the copyright enforcement model is.

                      Enjoy the ass-reaming, you parasite. Anonymous Coward just hates it when due process is enforced.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Derek Kerton (profile), Aug 27th, 2013 @ 2:52pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

                  Apparently, going to the store and buying a case of water, carrying it to the car, carrying it out of the car into the home, opening the plastic, then carrying an individual bottle...is more convenient than getting a cup and turning a tap.

                  No, sir. I use the tap over bottle water, mostly for the additional convenience.

                  Are you physically unable to say anything correct?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  techflaws (profile), Sep 2nd, 2013 @ 4:07am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

                  The other thing you pay for w bottled water is convenience.

                  Thanks for proving Mike's point, genius!

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 12:26pm

              Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

              Unless they are selling you distilled water it isn't "purified". In places where the quality of tap water is crap, places that sell tap passed through an industrial RO filter are a dime a dozen.

              Tap water in a reputable town is already "purified".

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Pragmatic, Sep 3rd, 2013 @ 5:25am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

              On 18 March 2004, UK authorities found a concentration of bromate, a suspected human carcinogen, in the product that could be considered harmful if consumed in large quantities. Coca-Cola immediately recalled half a million bottles and pulled the "Dasani" brand from the UK market.[10] Shortly after, plans to introduce the brand to Continental Europe were announced to have been cancelled as well. Bromate was not present in the water before Coca-Cola's treatment process. During that process the bromate was produced from the water's bromide.


              What's your definition of "purified"?

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasani#United_Kingdom

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Rikuo (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 10:34am

          Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

          Ever hear of Britta filters? Plenty of people have them, purify their own water, yet still go out and buy bottled water.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
             
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 11:10am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

            Yup, because cars and bikes don't come with Brita filters.

            The majority of bottled water is sold when the convenience of filtered water is taken away.

            Give it up. You guys look like fools on this one (again).

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Rikuo (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 11:19am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

              At my workplace, in the staff canteen, there is a large water purifier on one table, gives nice chilled water, all for free. About five feet away, is a bottled water dispenser you have to pay for. It still does a brisk trade, no chance of it disappearing any time soon. Even when the convenience of free filtered water is literally only five feet away, I and others will pay for a bottle of the exact same thing.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              silverscarcat (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 11:32am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

              What do cars and bikes have to do with Brita filters?

              You're making yourself look a bit stupid.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Rikuo (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 11:35am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

                I think he meant that people who are driving/cycling don't have Brita filters strapped to them...completely ignoring the very real possibility that they can take a used bottle and fill it up with water from their filters at home.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 12:25pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              JEDIDIAH, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 12:28pm

              Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

              > The majority of bottled water is sold when the convenience of filtered water is taken away.

              Get a bottle. Fill it up.

              You can even "recycle" a Disani bottle.

              Works very well.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 12:52pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

              You don't even know what point you're trying to prove.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          jupiterkansas (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 10:36am

          Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

          Tap water is purified.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 11:12am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

            No it isn't.

            I suggest you find out what is added to your tap water. Your health will benefit.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Rich, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 11:18am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

              Actually, you should read the studies. NYC municipal water is one of the cleanest in the world.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              silverscarcat (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 11:43am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se12y9hSOM0

              You should watch this.

              Destroys your argument within 1 minute.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              JEDIDIAH, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 12:32pm

              Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

              > I suggest you find out what is added to your tap water. Your health will benefit.

              Tap water is no less "purified" then most bottled water.

              My spouse has a degree in water treatment. I don't need some anonymous clueless net.idiot preaching about things he has no real clue about.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Ninja (profile), Aug 27th, 2013 @ 3:38am

                Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

                I work with water quality and amusingly some bottled water brands are worse than tap water. Amusing ;)

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                   
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2013 @ 4:49am

                  Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

                  No, you don't.

                  You sit in your mom's basement licking Pirate Mike Masnick's brown tunnel.

                  It's hilarious that you, someone that sits around all day trying to be the first to comment on whatever that world-class douchebag vomits here, would think that *anyone* could believe such a comical claim.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2013 @ 5:07am

                  Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

                  That's actually why Coca-Cola stopped selling Dasani in the UK. The bottled water they produced was actually carcinogenic with all the additives.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              jupiterkansas (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 2:33pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

              The very definition of tap water or potable water is that it's safe to drink, and I have yet to hear about anyone getting sick or dying from drinking it.

              That's different than distilled water which has all minerals removed.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                any moose cow word, Aug 27th, 2013 @ 2:57am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

                I had the unfortunate experience of having to spend about two weeks when I was in high school in a town with bad drinking water. The trip started out fine, but after about a day I was starting to feel a little queasy. I chalked it up to the bad cooking. However, after the next day I was quite ill. I even threw up at breakfast. Squirting milk and rice krispies out my nose in front of hundreds of my peers was not my finest moment. After my rather public display, people started talking to me at least. What I found out is that others were also getting sick, but only the ones who drank the local tap water. Ones who had brought bottled water, like my roommate and his friends, were perfectly fine.

                Sure, most of the bad drinking water also taste so bad that no one would drink it. The local tap water when I was in college was just undrinkable. The water I had on that trip, comparatively speaking, wasn't too bad. The taste was about average. However, being rather broke with no money to buy bottled water, which was much more expensive back then, I tried to stick to whatever beverages was served at meals. The "illness" soon passed.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              AzureSky (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 5:54pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

              http://youtu.be/38qLGsijOzc

              watch that, bottledwater is BULLSHIT....

              not saying i dont buy it at times but, most bottled water is not even reverse osmosis treated, so, if the water source used has floride or the like, its still there....

              I do buy water from a glacier vending unit (refill gallon containers) because the pipes in our house taste bad after some construction work was done, but i could just buy a decent home filter and get same result.....im just lazy enough that 35cents a gallon isnt a big deal....(no floride in our local water, the town is against it!!!)

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Rich, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 10:46am

          Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

          Most bottled water comes from a municipal source (i.e., tap water).

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          silverscarcat (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 11:30am

          Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

          Dunno where YOU live, but I know I can get spring water from the tap.

          Granted, I need to go to my grandmother's farm to do so, but she has spring water from the tap.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 9:39am

      Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

      "without commercials and other drawbacks"

      And this is why you're horrible at making convincing arguments. Why would I pay more money for a product that even the copyright fanaticist concedes is laden with drawbacks, faults and issues? By that argument, if someone had a business selling chairs with three legs that fall over each time you try to sit on them, anyone else who took said chairs and fixed them and sold them at a cheaper price is a thief by your definition.

      Your anti-corporate person is a complete and thorough joke, Hollywood cocksucker.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Dean William Barnes, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 9:51am

      Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

      Because something is "free" does not mean that it will be the preferred choice. Most people I know would rather pay a reasonable price and watch/hear content rather then deal with anything complicated. Sure there are those out there technically capable, but most are not. That is why Napster and Limewire took off in popularity, it made piracy easy. Many early uninformed users never even thought there was a problem with it. Most people do not want to "steal", and if it is not free, they would rather pay something reasonable and consume it at their convenience. The challenge for those users is the difficulty of getting what they want. The stats generally back it up. Look up the stats with Google/Bing/Yahoo if you want the stats. This is the key point of Kevin Spacey's comments. As for the Megaupload comment, that has nothing to do with the conversation, stay focused.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      DOlz (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 9:52am

      Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

      Yes, reasonable price does make a huge difference. A personel example. Warner Brothers will be releasing "Nichols", a short lived James Garner series from 1971 on their private store. I really would like to buy it, but at $49.95 for a 24 episode series no thanks. This is a lost sale for them whether I pirate it, buy it on the second hand market, or do without. I sure I am far from the only person that will make this decision. It doesn't matter how you lose a sale a lost sale means no money in your pocket.

      One more point if they were selling it thru Amazon (for example) the list price would probably be $29.95. So they are using their exclusive position to try and gouge their customers. That's their right to try, but don't blame piracy when you don't move the units you thought you would.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 9:56am

      Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

      I read this and was thinking, "Well obviously they didn't read any of the dozens of independent studies or anecdotal evidence that has been repeated over and over again." And then I saw that it was OOTB again. >

      I'll point it out. People are lazy. The vast majority of people will gladly pay for a product that has a reasonable cost and gives them the viewing options they want rather than going through the hassle of downloading.

      You are correct in one regard. most people do not like to pay for overpriced ad-laden crap that they wouldn't even go to a dollar show to watch.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 10:17am

      Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!

      If you can't compete with free, how does anyone stay in business?

      Because as you point out everything IS already free. The information is out there.

      http://torrentfreak.com/cbs-blackout-triggers-surge-in-tv-show-piracy-130807/

      Hell, the big time networks are the biggest promoters of free alternatives that bring them no money.

      Why weren't they pirating before the blackout?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 9:37am

    It's like magic

    Incantation of Hollywood turning

    Internet Wizard Level 2 spell

    Character utters the sentence "Give Users Control, What They Want, When They Want It, At A Fair Price, And Stop Worrying About Piracy".

    Effect:

    - Causes Hollywood execs, up to level 3, to flee.
    - Causes internet trolls to rage.


    Notes:
    - Be aware that often some creatures of low int automatically try to counter this spell with a spell similar to confusion (see: FUD spell). Physical retaliation is, however, unlikely.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Rich, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 10:47am

      Re: It's like magic

      Ha Ha! Is there a saving throw?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        beltorak (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 11:17am

        Re: Re: It's like magic

        yes, if the low level hollywood exec rolls under the average of [Intelligence] and [Wisdom], they do not flee, but become disoriented for 1d4 rounds, spewing memorized, tangentially related FUD spells.

        If the caster ignores the low level H.E., it may forget why it was there to begin with and wander back to corporate headquarters, not entirely sure of what happened.

        If the original caster attempts to counter any of the FUD spells, the H.E.'s disorientation dissipates as a new argument begins. Memory loss however prohibits the H.E. from realizing that the original argument was lost. The chaotic wash of energies may also unfortunately spill over to bystanders, making them unsure as to what the real argument is about, or who won.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 9:44am

    They don't like time shifting, let alone streaming

    You better put out that pilot at a specific time of our choosing.

    When you watch TV you better be on your couch at a specific time of our choosing -- or miss the show. Remember boys and girls, time shifting is evil piracy!

    Don't try to time shift the release of a pilot episode.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 9:45am

    So what does he mean with "Well, some will still steal it"? Does he mean some will still prefer to download the movie file to see it later comfortably without needing an Internet connection or the inherent issues that it may present? If so, WHY ISN'T THE INDUSTRY OFFERING SUCH OPTION FOR A REASONABLE FEE??? I mean he gets it half-assed right because he simply ignores the simple truth that it does not matter if it's streamed or downloaded, it's the SERVICE that matters and makes it easier and affordable for people to consume their entertainment. The catchy part is that they'll need to further monetize on that content via merchandise and exclusive content (the physical disc is an exclusive content that some will want, you know?).

    Well, it took 20 years for them to understand half of the way. Maybe in 2030 they'll understand the other half...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 9:46am

    There's another direction this goes besides piracy ootb. Because prices are so jacked up to all the traffic will bear, some drop completely out of the market. Add to it all these insane demands no one wants but those demanding a fortune off the 'product'. You wind up with those that just don't care. Doesn't matter to a cord cutter if your offer is with 4 less commercials, whether you want to release it in windows or all at once, nor any concern for what some studio or broadcaster demands when the bottom falls out of viewership.

    At that point margins don't matter cause you have to have viewers to begin with in order to get them. If you think you can't compete with free, try competing with a total lack of interest.

    Your idea that piracy keeps increasing only works if it is seen as valuable. Right now, music and movies aren't worth the waste of b/w it takes to download them.

    Now that's the cost the MPAA and RIAA have given the market. So successful no one wants them. When it is like that, it's not free you are competing with. It's lack of interest due poor quality, over price, and poor business practices. All of this reflected in what is happening to satellite and cable companies user base.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ChronoFish (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 12:24pm

    My Experience

    I'm not going to talk in the "royal we" form - just myself (and Wife).

    We gave up cable in 2001. Did the NetFlix disk for a year or so for a specific show - and then ditched NetFlix when we had binged all we could.

    Did Hulu+ for a bit because of the promise of up-to-date shows, but found that they weren't so up-to-date and couldn't binge-watch effectively for the shows we wanted. Plus paying for commercials just rubbed me the wrong way.

    Then NetFlix offered Arrested Development. Yes it was a disappointment (I enjoyed it, but only because I knew the first 3 seasons so well), but it got us to try NetFlix streaming...and then we started watching House Of Cards.

    The show is so well done that we were trapped. Then we started watching Orange is the New Black, and we binged-watched it. Trapped again. Along with some other fringe offerings that aren't available elsewhere (Portlandia) and typical collection of "last season shows" it seems I am hooked (happily) for a long time.

    Sports continues to be the Achilles heel of the Cable Cord Cutter. But I have ways of pirating that (wouldn't if I could find a similar offering (or in conjunction with) NetFlix). There is no need for me to spend $1000/year for mobile NFL access. But $7/month just for 1 or 2 teams in low-grade streaming I would do.

    -CF

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      DannyB (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 1:09pm

      Re: My Experience

      I am a Cable Cord Cutter. I don't miss the sports. In fact, I'm glad I'm no longer subsidizing it. Good riddance!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Aklyon (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 1:51pm

        Re: Re: Sports

        In the grim darkness of the indeterminate future, the only thing left on paid tv is subsidized sports with ads. The rest is in constant flux from war between the Cable and the non-Cable, though due to the size of both you can find it all anyway.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2013 @ 2:18pm

        Re: Re: My Experience

        Cable companies are now charging to cut the cord. If you want to retain your internet connection and drop your cable subscription, you have to pay a "reconnection" fee because they won't just drop the cable portion without disconnecting all service.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        jupiterkansas (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 2:25pm

        Re: Re: My Experience

        This country would be much better off if we played sports instead of watching sports.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    GEMont, Aug 28th, 2013 @ 2:30pm

    For the love of Mike, the "Piracy" problem was manufactured by the entertainment industry and its friends specifically to allow the entertainment industry and its friends to force lawmakers to give it the internet via such awful legislation as SOPA and PIPA.

    You cannot pass laws like these without first having a "serious" problem to solve and the Big Corporations simply created the problem by producing and giving away all of the first Peer To Peer software packages to the public and providing the first websites that allowed the downloading of copyrighted materials using these P2P software packages.

    This is simple internet history and the fact that nobody seems to know this is astounding.

    Once the "Piracy" problem had received enough bad press to make it appear as a rampant criminal activity, the same corporations rallied their lawyers and presented government with the laws needed to kill the free transfer of information on the web and give policing control to them through maximalist copyright laws.

    They saw the writing on the wall a decade or more ago and knew that they were soon to be replaced by smarter, smoother oeprations that offered good product, conveniently at a great price, and they decided to prevent this at any cost.

    And as long as the general population remains utterly ignorant of this simple bit of history, we all run the risk that these dinosaur industries will succeed in destroying the greatest tool for human advancement ever created.

    And I assume thus, that the internet's days are numbered, as the public appears to be getting dumber by the day.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This