"I don't think that's really a fair comparison, after all they're looking at the price for a whole bundle and ascribing all the cost to just one part of it."
That is the actual point. People who defend HBO's tactics tend to pretend that it's only the HBO subscription fee that needs to be paid. But, there's many other costs in reality, unless you happen to already paying for everything else for other reasons. To obtain that one show, this is what is actually costs assuming that someone only wants to access the one show and not anything else included in the package.
Nobody's really going to do that, of course. This is just to illustrate the problem.
"You can do much better than $50 an episode by waiting for the DVD release."
But, that's delayed, usually long after the actual discussion has taken place. IIRC, is was nearly a year for the first season. Many are willing to pay more for quicker access, but not what they technically need to pay with the current offerings.
"If you are only counting ways to watch a series the instant it's released (ie no waiting for DVD release windows) then the cost could go up astronomically."
Unless you pirate. Which is ultimately the point with a lot of these services. HBO probably have their reasons, but many would-be customers have literally no choice other than piracy if they're not going to pay the $50/episode equivalent above.
"but for other shows you would need to factor in weekly flights to the US and a hotel which has access to the relevant cable channel"
Or a VPN service from the comfort of your own home. Just because the comparison seems silly, you don't have to go overboard ;)
"Would You Pay $50 Per Episode To See Game Of Thrones?"
I'd be willing to pay a reasonable subscription fee to HBO Go for their shows without a cable subscription, a premium add-on to my existing Netflix account, or any number of things that their business model is apparently allergic to.
But, as ever it's their right to do things their way. Just don't whine when people are left with no choice other than pay this sort of money for unnecessary services or pirate the show.
Well, there is one other choice, the one myself and many other I know have chosen - consume content by their competitors instead.
"Even with what you describe there is still NO LICENSE"
You know that copyright notice that everyone ignores or skips past at the beginning/end of every DVD you buy? That's the licence. Read it some time. You'd be amazed at what you're supposedly not allowed to do with that physical item you thought you owned. Most people ignore the restrictions as much as the notice itself, but it's there and technically enforceable by law (though until Napster et al provided full visibility about how many people ignore those warnings, they didn't bother going against individual infringers).
"There are technological measures that have been given the force of law by corporate lobbying."
To protect the LICENCE from being broken. There's no other reason for copying restrictions, region restrictions, etc. other than to "protect" the "licence". The DMCA might be a half-assed tool to try and make the licence enforceable, but I have VHS tapes with the same warnings, and similar warnings on paperback books.
We might not agree with the existence of the licence, but it's there.
"that plenty of people (including yourself) are hard at work undermining everyone's personal property rights too"
Oh, this should be good. Explain why you think *I'm* doing that. Is it because I don't pirate, or because I circumvent the restrictions I think shouldn't exist by, for example, using VLC to skip warnings and bypass region codes?
"the individuals prosecuted had shoplifted, didn't they?"
No they hadn't. Not even the ones sued successfully, even ignoring the dead, the children and the innocent who were sued. Stop using tortured, completely false analogies, and we might get somewhere with these debates.
Try listening to the actual arguments, because your little essay here didn't address one of them, let alone address facts.
"are an attack on the artists themselves"
When you get yourself off the cross, we can talk about the artists that many of us here support deliberately because they managed to get themselves away from your cults - or were clever enough to never join them. There's many of them, and they make a lot more from me than any RIAA member ever will at this point. And no, that doesn't mean I pirate the labels' shoddy output either.
You don't know what colluding is, do you? Let alone the history of the music industry.
"There is nothing wrong about aspiring and working towards fair rights for artists"
Indeed. So why are you trying so hard to defend the labels that have categorically screwed them over for decades?
"Screw Pandora for using their work? How is that possible?"
When you finally read about the history of the music industry, look into licencing. Particularly the part about how the labels are trying to make Pandora pay significantly more than other similar services do. You might learn what the actual argument is.
Re: Response to: Dirk Belligerent on Feb 21st, 2014 @ 10:47am
I agree with gaming, but opening OSX to other hardware would be a massive mistake. A lot of Apple's credibility is built on ease of use and stability. Many of Microsoft's problems have come from third party drivers for random bits of hardware, with Windows being blamed when those drivers cause crashes. If you want to see OSX turn quickly into an unstable piece of crap, just allow people to run it on whatever cheap hardware they find. They should concentrate on building better relationships with games developers and the likes of Aspyr who port popular titles to the platform.
"non-standard DOS command line"
Erm, it is a standard DOS command line, as in MS-DOS. Unless you're criticising it for not running a *NIX flavour. There's plenty to attack Windows for without making stuff up.
I'll never understand the mindset that leads someone to post 3 paragraphs of saying nothing other than "look at how stupid I am!".
You actually had one reasonable point to make:
"You know how a company might turn to an ex-hacker or ex-thief to consult on security?"
That's worth of discussion. But, you decided to wrap it in text that makes it look like a 9 year old football player wanted to get over the inferiority complex he gets every time he steps into a classroom.
Don't worry, once you get over puberty you'll learn how to communicate with adults and the nerds won't make you feel so impotent.
"When Spotify and Deezer started, we suddenly had to process reports of billions of streams."
Really? You instantly had billions of streams coming from Spotify's streaming launch in Sweden, and they didn't even negotiate streaming rights with you? Or, are you saying that you negotiated licences with them for their US launch with full knowledge of their European business and you didn't bother to check the figures for the last few years or ask them to wait until you had your own infrastructure in place? Call me unsympathetic on the latter, sceptical and requiring evidence of the former.
"The advent of streaming services cost music companies tens of millions of dollars in IT upgrade."
...and now the infrastructure is there and you can start to profit from it, just as Spotify's own infrastructure didn't come cheap and presumably had to be built before you even licenced them to do their business.
Just another dishonest person on the "side" of the music industry, but at least you're just attacking legal businesses and customers now instead of whining about piracy and pretending that nobody wants to give you money. Now you're just whining that it's too difficult to count the revenue that's flooding in.
"And you're telling us, day-to-day device users, consumers of legitimately purchased music, video games and applications - that it's all our fault, and you want money?"
He's basically whining that business is too hard and those pesky tech companies had to make them work too much. He's also a caricature with many different lies to fall back on (people won't use devices without our beloved content to put on them!) and false equivalence (artists don't get golden parachutes like tech entrepreneurs! - conveniently ignoring those given to entertainment industry executives and the fact that most artists get royalties on work they did decades ago). They created the industry with its mess of licences, restrictions, etc., and now they're whining that it's too hard to deal with the realities of the modern marketplace.
Just another dishonest asshole unwilling to get into a real debate based on facts...
"Windowing is a simple sequence to maximize revenue"
To *attempt* to maximise revenue. It no longer works like it did, mostly because it's so artificial and consumers recognise this. It's a big driver toward piracy as much as sales.
"which is the only responsible option for executives running publically held companies"
"hey simply need to pay for the negative cost of producing the first print"
Which they can do using many methods, many of them less expensive than the added cost of a theatrical run. Lots of people never go to the cinema, you're not getting more money from those people jsut because you make them wait 6 months before they can see your movie.
"The quality of streaming content being offered"
...is perfectly fine for most people. I hear many complaints about Netflix, but picture quality is never one of them. Not everyone wants or need a HD copy.
"And the only way to enjoy full quality Blu-ray is via physical disc."
So? Again, not everyone want or needs that. Some people watch your movie on a phone or portable TV where Blu makes no difference, and they are happy with that.
"The legality of downloading something is perfectly up to the discretion of the person providing the downloading service."
What? So, if I offer a service where I allow people to download the new Captain America movie, that's legal? If someone offers a restricted copy of Night Of The Living Dead, they can suddenly prosecute anyone downloading it for free? No.
"But you still can't walk in the shop and just take all the books with public domain content that you like."
No, because you're not just taking the work that's in the book, you're taking a new physical object that's not available for free. Totally different. You can still go and download the TEXT from Gutenberg for free, but you can't take that particular instance because it consists of more than just text and the non-text components are not public domain. Get it?
If you're going to offer an argument, at least ground it in the real world.
Yeah, pretty much - labels & publishers vs. artists and songwriters... and that's even ignoring other concerns like retailers, broadcasters, venue operators and so on. Of course, I expect them to be given as much thought as the end consumer in this.
"squabbling... will undermine broader initiatives to push for new legislation and regulatory reform"
Well, no shit. If the people working in the industry can't decide how things should work or what's best for themselves, you sure as hell shouldn't be having it enshrined in law.