Cultural hit that it is, I suppose it's not surprising that we've talked several times about the HBO series Game Of Thrones, including its status as the most pirated show on television. I can't speak to the merits of the show, having given it up after the first episode, but it was encouraging to hear HBO talk about how wider distribution options could be used to combat piracy, even if their implementation was somewhat lacking. To the shock of no one, of course, these changes haven't immediately eradicated piracy of the show's episodes. To no one that is except the American ambassador to Australia, Jeffrey Bleich, who is apparently willing to throw his official weight around in favor of this one particular show.

See, it was on Bleich's Facebook page, the one that identifies him as Ambassador Bleich, where he posted a rant entitled "Stopping the Game of Clones."

"As the Ambassador here in Australia, it was especially troubling to find out that Australian fans were some of the worst offenders with among the highest piracy rates of Game of Thrones in the world," wrote Ambassador Bleich. "While some people here used to claim that they used pirate sites only because of a delay in getting new episodes here, the show is now available from legitimate sources within hours of its broadcast in the United States."

Er, okay. Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but the post would have seemed ho-hum had he not decided to come out so strongly in favor of one particular show. This isn't a screed against piracy in general, but against piracy of GoT in particular. Seems kind of strange, especially when he then explained how he understood why it was pirated in the first place.

"I realize that fans of Game of Thrones who have used illegal file-sharing sites have reasons," continued Ambassador Bleich. "They will say it was much easier to access through these sites, or that they got frustrated by the delay in the first season, or their parents wouldn't pay for a subscription, or they will complain about some other issue with copyright laws." Continuing, he added, "But none of those reasons is an excuse—stealing is stealing."

That's true, stealing is stealing. And infringement is infringement, and strawberry yogurt is strawberry yogurt. Unfortunately, stealing isn't infringement, and an American ambassador purporting to speak to Australians on our behalf should really know the difference. Add to that a misunderstanding, apparently, of how fans of the show who were initially spurned with delayed, inefficient, or non-existent legitimate ways to get the content aren't going to give up the better methods they found for consumption now that HBO is kinda-sorta providing them with slightly less delayed, slightly more efficient, slightly more existing methods and we have the full-blown makings of a confused diatribe by a public official over a single cable network show. Kotaku sums things up nicely.

This is swell and all, but doesn't he have more important things to worry about than Australians pirating Game of Thrones? He is a U.S. Ambassador. Like, a real one, nominated by the President of the United States. And he's talking about Game of Thrones on the internet. Your tax dollars at work!

Or not at work, as the case may be.

In my recent post about the fragmentation of online television, there were a few aspects and details I left out because they seemed worthy of a separate, closer look. One is the oft-forgotten fact that HBO does indeed offer one lonely digital-only subscription service... to customers in Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway. That program was announced last year and seemed like a promising step for the notoriously cable-dedicated HBO—but the customer feedback is coming in, and the results are not encouraging:

A list of complaints include HD content is (was?) only available on Samsung Smart TVs, meaning you were only given SD quality when streaming through your computer or any other device. Same goes for surround sound and 5.1, which are only available through the Samsung TV app. Other complaints I've heard includes buffering problems with the Widevine plugin (at standard definition), and lack of Apple Airplay support. The product is available as iOS and Android apps, but Xbox and Playstation apps are still said to be under development.

The online UI is nice to look at but was poorly designed; initially HBO only allowed you to search for TV shows by alphabetical letter. The results were underwhelming and exaggerated how little content HBO was offering.

...

It should be noted that you're not given access to the full back catalogue, several classics are not available such as Deadwood and Oz, which apparently have some copyright restrictions.

Some might claim it's still a good deal at €9.95/month, considering most people can't access any of these shows legally without a full cable package. Of course, Netflix only costs €7.99/month in the region, and has a larger selection, which makes the price a little less impressive. Then there's the fact that HBO initially promised much, much more:

• Every episode of all HBO series available online
• All new episodes available within 24 hours of the US premiere, with local subtitles (dubbing is rare in the Nordics, foreign TV shows and movies are usually subtitled in the local language)
• Works on practically all devices: smartphones, tablets (Android, iOS), computers (Windows, Linux, Mac), video game consoles (PS3, Xbox), Samsung Smart TVs and Blu-ray players, and Sonera IPTV service
• Full HD 1080p picture quality
• Surround sound

Compare that to the list of complaints, and you realize HBO isn't doing a great job of living up to the expectations it created. Then there's the other truly insane catch: customers are locked into a 12-month contract, after which they must give 3-month notice for cancellation. Yeah. Moreover, the terms stated that simply logging into the service once waives your ability to cancel it because you're not satisfied (despite using the service being the only way to know if you are satisfied). After facing significant criticism for this move, HBO backtracked and offered subscribers the chance to use the service until the end of this month without a longer commitment—but only those subscribers who also signed up for the HBO Nordic newsletter. Classy.

It's no real surprise that HBO's first attempt at a standalone online offering is a disaster. HBO approaches the internet with extreme trepidation, but revolution requires gusto. Digital distribution—especially when it comes to competing with piracy—is a go big or go home endeavor. Or... go halfway, and watch your customers go elsewhere.

As surely as iPods will continue to outsell wax cylinders, the film and television industries are moving online. Really, the whole distinction of media that "is" or "isn't" online will sound ridiculous within a generation, and today's awkwardness is just an unavoidable transitional phase. Reluctance and momentum are keeping legacy structures intact, but in an increasingly ersatz manner that guarantees lots of anxiety at the big TV networks and movie studios. AVClub editor Todd VanDerWerff saw the signs everywhere during the recent Television Critics Association winter press tour:

For years, people who write about TV have been wondering just what the tipping point would be, when DVR usage, online streaming, and pirated viewing of TV broadcasts would become so significant that networks would essentially have to invent a new business model. The networks aren't at that point yet, but they're so close that everybody's talking about it with great confidence, as if the Internet hasn't thrown a great fear of the unknown into their souls. There's still far more money to be made in the old model, the sort of money that can still afford to produce big, ambitious shows like Revolution, as opposed to smaller-scale things like reality series and multi-camera sitcoms, than there is to be made under any new model. But the tipping point is almost here.

Is it ever. The news of big things happening with online service providers, especially Netflix, never stops pouring in. Though traditional analysts might recommend Disney start a cold war with Netflix, the companies instead recently entered an exclusive partnership to stream lots of content from Disney, Pixar and Marvel. There's only one part of that sentence I wish I didn't have to type: exclusive. It's a word that pops up all too much in recent news about evolving TV and movie business models.

Netflix has been stockpiling exclusive original content, including a lot of potential hits like the revival of Arrested Development, a new drama starring Kevin Spacey, a murder mystery produced by Eli Roth, a new Ricky Gervais series and more — all on top of deals like the one with Disney. Then there's the infamously closed-off HBO and its hoard of ultra-popular shows that can't be accessed without a full cable package plus an HBO subscription (and which also happen to be among the most pirated shows). HBO recently reached its own exclusive agreement, this time with Universal — to air the studio's films and keep them off of Netflix, along with the rest of the HBO catalogue. For at least ten years.

Paul Tassi has a good grasp on what this move really represents:

I think people are missing the larger idea of what's happening here, and that's HBO becoming the closest thing Netflix has to a direct competitor. The groundwork is already in place with the aforementioned Go service. Add in exclusive access to movies from all those studios, and $15 a month for HBO Go starts looking nearly as appealing as $15 a month for Netflix.

Basically, HBO is betting against cord-cutting, but also trying to compete in the online space, assuming that most people will keep their cable and pay extra for exclusive content plus digital access to that content. I can see that being true for a while (lots of people have both cable and Netflix), but it makes no sense in the long run. Eventually, HBO will be forced to offer some sort of online-only subscription.

But will even that be enough? Here's where we get back to the exclusivity problem. All these exclusive deals are serving to fragment a market that doesn't yet have clearly defined rules for delivery. Exclusivity is a great thing for creators to sell, and a great thing for businesses to leverage, but in this transitional phase for distribution models, it's harming everyone involved by making sure piracy retains its biggest advantage: comprehensive access. Networks have always had exclusive shows, but they all ended up in the same place — your television, delivered through a single antenna. Then later you needed not just an antenna, but a cable, to get everything. Then later you needed to pay more for specific cable channels to get certain shows — and lo and behold, those shows were among the first and most widely pirated.

The knee jerk reaction to piracy's unflagging popularity is to assume that, as the mantra goes, "people just want everything for free." But as the evidence that pirates buy more media has continued to pile up, that idea has been stripped of its credibility.

As some people have been pointing out for years, piracy's real advantage lies elsewhere: convenience, selection and availability. Piracy is currently the fullest realization of the internet's potential as a culture-machine: virtually any movie, any TV series, any song, any obscure documentary or bootlegged live performance, all accessible to anyone. No need to subscribe to multiple different providers; no release windows or geographical barriers. The fact is that no other means of obtaining media has matched piracy in terms of sheer selection and accessibility, so naturally it has never gone away, even though it has many significant flaws like spammy sites and spotty quality control.

I'm not saying everyone should hand everything to Netflix — only that service providers, studios, networks and everyone else involved need to employ a little game theory and figure out how to move the business forward to everyone's benefit. This means partnerships that allow more sharing of content, new infrastructures that make delivery and payment more seamless, and the undeniably challenging elimination of geographical restrictions and other obsolete licensing concerns. As the world moves away from the captive audience and towards a culture of infinite choice, expecting people who want comprehensive access to buy multiple different subscriptions from multiple different companies is tragically foolish. The culture machine has been built; pirates shouldn't be the only ones using it properly.

One of the most common new year's resolutions is to try to lose weight and stick to a diet in the coming year. It's an especially obvious resolution to make after eating way too much at family gatherings. Here are just a few links on the topic of eating too much and gaining more than a few extra pounds.

• Bags of snacks that contain just 100 calories worth of goodies are kind of annoying, so how about other ways to indicate calories? Imagine stacks of potato chips where every tenth chip was red -- subtly telling you how many servings you're consuming. [url]
• The Weight of The Nation is an HBO documentary that investigates the issues of obesity and the food industry in the US. Nearly 70% of American adults are overweight or obese, and obesity is a public health issue that can not be ignored. [url]
• An obesity-inducing microbe could be living in our intestines, making us fatter. Fight fire with fire... and ingest some tapeworms! [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

There's been plenty of talk about HBO and its ongoing refusal to offer a standalone internet offering for its content (unless you happen to live in the lovely Nordic region). A few months ago, this discussion took something of a viral turn with the website TakeMyMoneyHBO.com, which tried to calculate how much people would pay for standalone internet/mobile access to HBO content -- which suggested people would be willing to pay an average of about $12 per month. Now, we can all take online internet surveys with a pretty big grain of salt, but there clearly is a lot of interest in people getting such a service. The straight math says that at $12, it would be a good deal for HBO, which is rumored to actually get about $7 or $8 per subscriber via cable and satellite. But... as Ryan Lawler at TechCrunch wrote at the time, it's not that straightforward, and you can show how the math doesn't quite add up:

More importantly, it wouldn’t include the cost of sales, marketing, and support — and this is where HBO would really get screwed. Going direct to online customers by pitching HBO GO over-the-top would mean losing the support of its cable, satellite, and IPTV distributors. And since the Comcasts and the Time Warner Cables of the world are the top marketing channel for premium networks like HBO, it would be nearly impossible for HBO to make up for the loss of the cable provider’s marketing team or promotions.

Think about it: Every time someone signs up for cable or satellite service, one of the inevitable perks is a free six- or 12-month subscription to HBO. And those free subscriptions are rarely, if ever, cancelled once the trial period ends.

Lawler insists the math doesn't add up because without that marketing push, the number of subscribers would be much lower. HBO claimed that Lawler's math was right. And it may be. For now. But that's really dangerous thinking.

We've pointed out before that it's quite tempting for legacy players to think that they can wait out disruptive innovation. They talk about how the new products and services aren't good enough or don't make enough money to bother getting into that space. Often they'll directly talk about how the new services don't make the same amount of revenue as the old ones (or they'll make some crack about "dollars into dimes.") And, of course, they insist that when the money is there they'll make the switch. But, if you understand anything about the history of disruptive innovation, you know that if you wait until that point, you're already behind. Someone else has already taken over that market, and your "switch" is often seen as way too little, way too late (not to mention that it's often accompanied by massive bungling, as the slow entrance also means not really understanding enough about how that market works, while all your competitors spent all that time perfecting their solutions).

MG Siegler has a great post talking about this very concept as it relates to HBO, responding to Lawler (again) and his recent interview of an HBO exec during a panel at TechCrunch Disrupt. Once again, HBO insisted that Lawler was right and that "the math didn't make sense." But Siegler points out, correctly, that innovation beats math every single time. Siegler basically highlights the key point of Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Dilemma: it's really really tough for legacy players to eat their own cash cows and bet on something new. He points to another excellent article, by Farhad Manjoo at Slate, about how Apple actually does this really well, specifically how it totally cannibalized its cash-cow iPods with the iPhone:

Put it all together and you get remarkable story about a device that, under the normal rules of business, should not have been invented. Given the popularity of the iPod and its centrality to Apple’s bottom line, Apple should have been the last company on the planet to try to build something whose explicit purpose was to kill music players. Yet Apple’s inner circle knew that one day, a phone maker would solve the interface problem, creating a universal device that could make calls, play music and videos, and do everything else, too—a device that would eat the iPod’s lunch. Apple’s only chance at staving off that future was to invent the iPod killer itself. More than this simple business calculation, though, Apple’s brass saw the phone as an opportunity for real innovation.

That, in a nuthsell, is what most companies fail to do. It's why Clayton Christensen's book sells so well, even though very, very few companies have any idea how to do what Apple did and "eat its own." But the point is there. If you focus on "the math," you're going to miss the market and be way, way too late. Back to Siegler:

Moore's statement about HBO is correct. The math is not in favor of selling HBO access directly to consumers. But if we're just thinking about this from a pure product perspective, I don’t think anyone would disagree that this is what we all want. HBO is choosing not to build the service we will love, they're choosing the short-term money. The safe bet. The math.

But if they don’t diverge from this path, it will lead to their demise. Innovation always beats math, eventually. That, you can take to the bank.

He's right. And the more you look at the economics of innovation, the easier it is to understand why innovation always beats math. It's because "the math" that people do is of a static world, for the most part. They use past performance and metrics built on a different market. They don't understand how quickly a new market grows, and how much larger its overall potential is. And that's because we have difficulty in mentally dealing with non-zero sum markets, preferring to think that it's a one-for-one switch. But, it's not. Innovation expands markets in new and unexpected ways, often quite rapidly (though also, deceptively slowly at first, because the growth is often in a tangential market that people don't even recognize).

So they come up with spreadsheets and "models" that try to predict when the math says it's time to switch. And all of that time they're not innovating. But since the disruption is brewing in a much faster manner, and in a different spot than they really think it is, the time to switch is usually as soon as you realize the innovation is happening, not when the spreadsheet tells you to. It's not just about choosing "the safe bet" vs "the service we love." It's about how disruptive innovation guarantees that those who don't build for the markets of tomorrow, don't really have much of a market tomorrow.

Oh, HBO. You want so many people to love you. And they do, shelling out for additional offerings like HBO Go in order to take the shows they love with them on their mobile devices. And what do you do with this love? You crush it. You crush it like a heartless Lothario parting ways with a high-school girlfriend after a quick round under the bleachers, announcing "I'm going to college out of state. Call you sometime," leaving her half-dressed, teary-eyed and a bit dusty.

The issue has been knocking around for awhile, but today, the unfortunate high school girlfriend was Fred Wilson, respected blogger and venture capitalist.

I put the awesome HBO GO app on the family's iPad yesterday and tried to Airplay into our family room TV. I got audio on the TV but not video. I thought I was doing something wrong. So I rebooted everything and tried again. Same thing.

So I did a web search on the topic to see what was going on. Turns out HBO GO has disabled the video on Airplay but not the audio. That's right. They disabled the video but include an Airplay button in the app.

Why would someone do this? Why brick half the service and leave end users scratching their heads and casting about wildly over at the Apple support forums?

The "why" is the usual "why." Or rather, two usual "whys." The first "why" is somewhat of a licensing issue. HBO really doesn't want to do anything to jeopardize its relationship with the studios and cable companies, so it's limited the functionality of the Go app to mobile devices only. HBO wants you to use HBO On Demand if its current slate of programs isn't working for you. I would imagine there's a revenue stream hidden there, but taking advantage of it would mean damaging some valuable relationships. In HBO's view, Go isn't broken because fixing it would break something more valuable.

The second "why" is piracy, or rather, the fear of. From the comment thread at AVC:

Having developed these sort of systems before, I can tell you it's because AirPlay is considered an insecure protocol. It's too easy to capture the AirPlay stream and thus, in theory, create HD copies of the video. That's why they don't do it.

I've found that the cryptographic particularities don't always matter when you're in discussions with the studios. They have a list of approved DRMs and technologies and you're either on the list or you're not. Otherwise, you face at least a 6+ month in depth technical review of the stack.

TL;DR: The studios can be somewhat arbitrary in approving or disproving technologies. Last I heard, AirPlay was not approved.

Even if HBO wanted you to have this freedom (and it's not necessarily clear that it does), it still has to keep the upstream (studios) happy. And if the studios think there's a possibility that the TV you're streaming to is actually some sort of unauthorized recording device (like a VCR made out of hard drives?), it's never going to get the green light.

The next question is this: why put an Airplay button in your app if it's completely (or at least, mostly) unusable? No real answer is available. Perhaps the hope is that at some point the button will work. Or developer cruelty.

The whole situation is clearly ridiculous and highlights just how incestuous all these services (cable companies, movie studios, premium channels) are. HBO can't piss off the up and downstream sides of the equation, so it locks down anything that might be perceived as "leaving money on the table." The combined fear of piracy between these three entities (well, two of them anyway) is likely verging on "unmeasurable." This results in some very arbitrary restrictions created in the name of copy protection.

Caught in the middle is the cheerleader/consumer. HBO Go requires having an active cable account. The cable box (an additional monthly charge) only provides access to HBO On Demand (another additional monthly charge). Then there's HBO Go itself (another additional charge). It's tough to see much more than couch cushion change being left on the table in this situation.

And why do people want to stream HBO Go to their TVs? Because of HBO itself. HBO's On Demand selection is very limited as compared to HBO Go. On top of that, many users seem to feel that HBO Go's interface is better and more easily navigated. So, if it's all paid for, why is this feature bricked?

See above. Piracy fears. Fear of upsetting the balance between the three related parties. But further than that, it's the inability to recognize that users and customers will want to use your products and services in ways you never intended.

To HBO, it's likely inconceivable that someone would want to stream to a device and kick it right back to the TV set where its other content resides. But they do. And they're going to find ways to work around this limitation. When these roadblocks become easily circumvented, rather than realize that these efforts are made to make paid services work the way the customer wants them to, the content providers usually start worrying about their loss of distribution control. This worry leads to less innovation and more disabled features and bogus restrictions.

What they need to be doing (HBO, studios, cable providers) is taking long looks at these complaints and adjusting their offerings to better fit customer expectations. Consider yourself lucky you're still able to monetize nearly every aspect of these services and look to improve your current offerings. Do this often enough and you may learn to anticipate customer wants and needs. If you're looking to keep the food chain happy and trim down on "unauthorized" viewing, your best bet is to get to the "anticipation" point as quickly as you can. 

In response to Jimmy Wales reiterating the fact that Hollywood's own failings online are a major cause of infringement, the MPAA has hit back by saying: that's crazy! After all, the studios do Hulu and Netflix, so how can anyone complain?

Wales had used everyone's favorite example these days: the difficulty in finding a legitimate way to pay for Game of Thrones online...

Wales also argued that the entertainment industry needs to continue adjusting its business model so it offers people the content they want. Citing a personal example, Wales noted how he can’t watch HBO’s “Game of Thrones” series at home in London even though he’s willing to pay for it.

“I think that he media industry needs to say, 'Look, why don’t we sell people what they want to buy,’ and I think that will take care a huge proportion of the problem,” he said.

A smart and consumer-focused MPAA might note that they're trying their best but they realize there are still gaps and they hope to continue to improve. But, you know, that's not how the MPAA rolls. Instead, they send out spokesperson Kate Bedingfield -- who just recently joined the MPAA from the White House -- to insist that Wales was crazy for suggesting they need to make more efforts to please customers. You see, in the mind of the MPAA, as long as they've done something, they've clearly done enough.

“Our studios are constantly partnering and innovating new ways for audiences to watch the movies and TV shows they love: Hulu, HBO Go, Vudu, Crackle, UltraViolet, Epix, MUBI – and that just barely scratches the surface,” said Kate Bedingfield, a spokeswoman at the MPAA. “There are more legitimate avenues available today to watch movies and TV shows online than ever before, and our studios are continuing to innovate every day to bring audiences even more options.”

“At the end of the day, stealing shows and movies out of convenience still harms the people who work hard to make them,” Bedingfield added.

In other words, don't actually address what Wales said. Don't respond to his specific complaint. Insist that because you're doing something, even if it doesn't solve the problem he noted, you're clearly doing enough... and then revert back to talking point numero uno: oh, poor us, we're harmed! So harmed. Harmed into our best years ever at the box office... (oh wait, they leave that last part out).

Seriously, the MPAA needs to hire communications people who actually deal with consumers, rather than politically-focused ones. They seem to have absolutely zero sense of how to respond to the public on anything without making themselves look worse. The last two decades of RIAA/MPAA communications have been a long-term case study in exactly how to do everything wrong.

We've all heard the refrain from the MPAA a million times: profiting off of someone else's work is "theft" and we need new laws to stop that kind of thing. So, it struck me as interesting to see an article in the Wall Street Journal, claiming that multiple Hollywood studios are planning movies about Julian Assange and Wikileaks:

Among the studios with WikiLeaks movies in development are Time Warner Inc.'s HBO Films, DreamWorks Studios, Comcast Corp.'s Universal Pictures and Annapurna Pictures, the company run by Megan Ellison, daughter of Oracle Chief Executive Larry Ellison.

Most of the article talks about the difficulty of creating a movie based on a true story that's still very much in progress. However, they just barely touch on the question of paying for the story. After all, the story of Assange is based on "his work," right? There had been one project that sought to buy an option on Assange's own memoirs, which were due to be published by Random House, but apparently Assange failed to deliver and the deal fell through. Other projects did option different versions of the Assange story -- but not from Assange himself. One optioned the book from former WikiLeaks spokesman, turned Wikileaks critic, Daniel Domscheit-Berg. Another optioned a profile of Assange that was done in the New Yorker.

However, all of the actual stories focus on Assange and his work in building up Wikileaks. If Hollywood really believes so strongly in not "profiting off the works of others" without fairly compensating them, why aren't they lining up to pay Assange?

For quite some time now, we've been reporting on how the big television players were so upset that Hulu and Netflix were dragging them kicking and screaming into the 21st century (even though they owned Hulu) that they were working on plans to kill off both services -- or at least cripple them. Mostly, what this goes back to is the inevitable fact that the internet is going to subsume television. But, these days, there's so much money in TV, thanks to the ability to be a gatekeeper, that all efforts are on holding back the internet for as long as is humanly possible. Want to know why HBO refuses to offer a standalone internet streaming option? It's because of the monopolistic power of cable.

This has all been pretty obvious for years, but the Justice Department has finally begun investigating Comcast/NBC Universal and Time Warner Cable to see if any of their actions with regards to Netflix and Hulu trip the antitrust wire. In particular, they seem focused on whether or not tiered broadband plans are actually designed to keep people from using competing online services, and preventing people from cord cutting. For Comcast, the risk may be much higher. As part of the merger with NBC Universal, it made certain promises to the government concerning how it treats online services. If it's not living up to those promises, it could mean trouble.

Unlike some other antitrust investigations, this is one where you can make a strong case that these companies are making life worse for consumers, by using their natural monopoly positions to keep prices artificially high. That said, I have little faith that the DOJ will get things right with the investigation. I think it's likely that the natural economic pressure of cord cutting (which, despite denials from Hollywood and the cable industry, is very very real) is going to have much more of an impact on the eventual massive reconfiguration of the television market than any antitrust lawsuit.

There's been a lot of talk lately about the fact that HBO's insistence on only offering its shows to cable susbcribers is driving a lot of people to piracy—many of whom have repeatedly said that they would gladly pay if HBO offered an on-demand service that's separate from a cable package. By now you may have heard about the latest expression of this growing sentiment: the Take My Money, HBO! campaign, encouraging would-be customers to tweet HBO with the monthly amount they'd be wiling to pay for such a service, which has been getting quite a bit of attention since its launch.

It's a good idea with a catchy hook, and I don't write this post to condemn it—but I do think that, ultimately, the truth of the matter is a bit different: while there's definitely a bunch of money being left on the table, it's not there for the taking, it's there for the earning. If HBO offered an on-demand service and it sucked (like if it was encumbered with pointlessly restrictive DRM) then it wouldn't have any impact at all—because, just as with any other content industry, the true goal is to actually compete with piracy by offering a superior alternative with a genuine reason to buy.

Luckily for HBO, competing with piracy should be really, really easy in this case. The real message that comes from all these people asking HBO to "take" their money is that they aren't satisfied with the pirated product. There are all sorts of drawbacks to pirated television: bad links, spammy sites, crappy videos, and the seeming eternity between when a much-anticipated show finishes airing and when it hits torrent sites and video lockers (in reality only about 10 minutes—but to true fans who want to participate in a shared event, it matters). All the people joining the Twitter campaign aren't saying they want to pay for a worse option, or even a similar option; rather, they know that HBO can easily offer a far superior option, since it has the first-hand access to the material.

HBO has already done the job of earning people's attention with its programming. Indeed, it's clearly done a damn good job of that part. But at the end of the day it's still a matter of earning their money by offering some true competition. Pirate sources have one thing going for them: availability. And availability is worth so much (when compared to HBO's highly restricted access) that all HBO's other advantages aren't enough for it to compete. But the moment it met the pirates on their own field and matched them on that one thing, it would have every other advantage in the book, and could quickly supplant the competition—and earning that money might be very nearly as easy as taking it after all.