HBO: The Key To Combating Piracy Is To Make Game Of Thrones More Available… Except Here
from the ah,-right dept
We’ve had a number of stories concerning the hit TV show Game of Thrones and the issue of people downloading unauthorized copies of the show. Due to a variety of reasons mostly centered around HBO’s cable relationships, HBO has not made the show available online, for the most part, unless you already have a cable TV subscription that includes HBO. The math here is a bit silly (due to the ridiculous nature of how pay TV works these days), but HBO more or less has done the math that says it’s better off losing out on people who are willing to pay and who will inevitably infringe instead, by not pissing off the pay TV folks who pay them a much bigger lump sum. I think this is short sighted, because while the math works out today, the trend is in the wrong direction, and if HBO doesn’t get in front of that trend, by the time the math “catches up,” they could be in a lot of trouble.
Indeed, HBO seems irked that Game of Thrones is the most “pirated” show on TV. And while it has tested out a standalone version of its HBOGo online offering, the reviews have not been great.
However, it appears that HBO is trying to do something about all of this, admitting that they need to and intend to make the show more widely available online:
According to Jeff Cusson, HBO’s senior vice president of corporate affairs, “We think the key to combating piracy is to make content like Game of Thrones available worldwide within the smallest window possible…to 176 territories within the week of the U.S. premiere.”
Cusson said, “HBO is also rolling out HBO Go internationally,” which means many viewers in Europe, Latin America, and in other locations like Hong Kong can watch Game of Thrones at their leisure on their iPad/iPhone, Roku, Xbox 360s, their Android devices, and selected Samsung Smart HDTVs.
First off, it’s great that they recognize that the key is making the show more widely available. That’s a step up from blaming fans who want to see the show but can’t. Of course, it’s still ridiculous that HBO Go can’t work on other TVs other than “selected Samsung” TVs. But… none of this seems to apply to the US.
When pressed on doing more in the US, Cusson begins answering by not answering.
When asked about the prevalence of piracy in America, Cusson said, “We utilized various tools to protect our copyright in 2012.” I countered that they didn’t work, because it was still the most downloaded show that year. Cusson responded, “We think the success of our business shows that our approach is relatively successful.”
Of course, at one level, he’s absolutely right. There’s no reason to “stop” piracy if it’s not actually harming the show (and, in fact, may very well be helping it). But, at some point, HBO is going to need to realize that it has to make the jump to providing authorized access to Americans who don’t have a traditional cable connection. And the longer they wait, the harder it becomes to get people to invest in HBO, because they’ll get used to unauthorized alternatives.
Filed Under: accessibility, game of thrones, hbo, piracy, windows
Comments on “HBO: The Key To Combating Piracy Is To Make Game Of Thrones More Available… Except Here”
Well, fine. While you offer non-services we’ll pirate. No need to worry. Tell us when you want our money =)
Honestly...
I have no idea what the big deal with Game of Thrones is.
I only heard about it when I heard people complaining about not being able to watch it and had to pirate it.
I haven’t even done that, so…
*Shrugs* IDK, I just haven’t found a reason to watch it, at all.
Re: Honestly...
Here’s a reason for you: Millions of people think its awesome.
Thats usually enough to make me want to check something out…
Re: Re: Honestly...
Millions of people also think American Idol, Jersey Shore and Honey Boo Boo are awesome… That doesn’t reflect on the quality of the show.
As for Game Of Thrones, I’ve not seen it myself either but my general impression seems to be that it’s a well made fantasy drama with an epic scope concentrating on a range of characters and political intruigue. If that sounds like your kind of thing, check it out. If not, and your reaction is “meh”, seek out something that appeals to you more. You don’t have to follow the crowd just because everyone else is talking about something.
Re: Re: Re: Honestly...
That doesn’t reflect on the quality of the show.
I agree, but they will usually give me a reason to check it out myself.
Re: Re: Re: Honestly...
It’s not all that muckin fuch, i watched the first and quickly lost interest. It is pretty much a mid-evil soap opera.
Re: Re: Re:2 Not his cup of tea...
At least you bothered to look into it rather than just dismissing it without even having seen it. That’s more than you can say for some people.
Re: Honestly...
It’s goddamn epic. I simply “ate” the first two books in less than 2 weeks. Haven’t seen the series yet but I watched part of an episode and it seems they did a decent job. I’ve downloaded the 1st and 2nd season already (I do have an hbo subscription currently but I can’t just watch when it airs and I don’t feel like going to their online service, downloading is easier and faster).
Re: Honestly...
” I just haven’t found a reason to watch it, at all.”
Then why are you commenting on something you haven’t even seen, boy?
Re: Re: Honestly...
“Then why are you commenting on something you haven’t even seen, boy?”
I’m not commenting on the series itself, am I?
I’m commenting on the fact that A: I haven’t seen it, B: I don’t see the big deal and C: I only found out about it because people were complaining they couldn’t watch it without pirating it.
Let me ask you something, isn’t that why certain shows/books/movies die off?
Because people don’t know about them.
Firefly is an example of such a series.
Re: Re: Re: Honestly...
“Firefly is an example of such a series.”
It’s not that people didn’t know about it, it’s just that series such as Firefly are aimed at a particular group of people overall, it’s a niche show. But with time and viewings it grows on the “average” television viewer.
However, Firefly’s demise is largely the fault of Fox, insofar as executive decisions made by those at Fox caused it to largely be missed by its core audience. It was originally aired out of the order for which Whedon intended it to be viewed, it was also shifted around in the airings schedule to the point that even most die hard fans gave up on trying to figure out when it would air, and it was also preempted several times by the MLB Playoffs (if memory serves me correctly).
Nor is this the first time Fox has done this. The same thing happened years before with the show Titus (of which I’m a huge fan of as well). And it did the same with Arrested Development. Both shows of which have gone on to have huge cult followings from people who largely missed the shows when they first aired, and only heard about them after the fact from die hard fans (like myself).
It’s reasons like that for which I’m glad we’re (very) slowly getting away from traditional television viewing methods. By which I specifically mean Netflix and Amazon’s Instant offerings. House of Cards is an amazing show that was released in its entirety on day one. Meaning all 13 episodes were released at the same time on the same day on Netflix. No waiting, no advertisements, watch at your convenience. Arrested Development (which Netflix is producing) is due to be released in the same manner. House of Cards has garnered rave reviews from critics and average people alike. I got hooked the day it came out and have slowly made fans of other people I know. Through such efforts, on the part of the new business models/corporations and fans like myself, we can hopefully show the legacy players how things can be done and how they can be monetized effectively, while still being done in a manner which gives the people exactly what they want and how they want it as soon as possible (without the dreaded “p” word raising it’s ugly head).
Re: Re: Re: Honestly...
While we’re all aware that you’re a redneck from the south, you should refrain from sharing your racist-tinged “boy” comments.
You ignorant fucking hayseed.
Re: Re: Re:2 Honestly...
Snorts
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!
your ignorance is stupendous!
I’m not from the south.
I’m not a redneck.
I might not be a west coast hippie or an elite New Englander, but I’m certainly no redneck.
Re: Re: Re:2 Honestly...
Look whose calling whom ignorant. silverscarcat didn’t say “boy”, it was quoted from an AC. You’re calling this person a racist for something someone else said, idiot. Learn to read.
Re: Re: Re:3 Honestly...
“Look whose calling whom ignorant. silverscarcat didn’t say “boy”, it was quoted from an AC. You’re calling this person a racist for something someone else said, idiot. Learn to read.”
Calling him “boy” was an indication of his apparent immaturity, not his race.
Learn to read, boy.
Re: Re: Re:2 Honestly...
“While we’re all aware that you’re a redneck from the south, you should refrain from sharing your racist-tinged “boy” comments.
You ignorant fucking hayseed.”
Is silverscarcat Black?
There’s nothing to indicate the ethnicity of either him or me.
(How do you know I’m not Black?)
The reference was to his immature attitude, boy.
Re: Re: Re: Honestly...
“I’m commenting on the fact that…I haven’t seen it…”
Which is commenting on something without seeing it.
“…I don’t see the big deal…”
Since you haven’t seen it.
“…I only found out about it because people were complaining they couldn’t watch it without pirating it…”
You…
Don’t go on-line?
Don’t watch TV?
Don’t go to bookstores or comic book shops?
Promo and publicity about the series has been all over the place.
Hell, the Simpsons spoofed the show’s opening in one of their own opening sequences…a sure sign of mainstream notice.
So, what basement without wi-fi have you been living in?
Re: Honestly...
your loss. it’s very entertaining. not watching it does not make you a hero
Re: Re: Honestly...
And watching it doesn’t make you one.
There a point there?
Maybe it is entertaining, I just haven’t seen it, that’s all.
That hard to understand?
Re: Honestly...
So why are you commenting on this post?
We cannae do it captian!
If only there was some kind of technology that could do that today, one that was fast, efficient and possibly peer-to-peer so it didn’t tax the bandwidth on their own servers.
Imagine the possibilities if that kind of technology existed?
Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
NO, you haven’t, you don’t do details, just repeat the “better business model” mantra.
Television is essentially advertising supported. Movies are mostly not. Therefore television shows can be successful in spite of this sort of theft. — However, there’s a tipping point: advertisers want their ads to be seen, and if shows are pirated with ads removed (likely more common in US), that scheme collapses too.
And of course for movies, because there’s no revenue without theaters and DVD sales, allowing rampant piracy is total non-starter.
So once again sum here is that Mike keeps implicitly pushing the notion that new ways are possible without advertising income, and he’s plainly wrong.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where arrogance meets ignorance to discuss what they’ll do with someone else’s 100 million dollar movie.
Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
Wrong, again.
Mike is pushing, as Cusson says himself, that legal, unhindered, online services that are user-friendly and easy to pay for (buy cards at stores with cash instead of only “enter credit card” for example).
Cusson admits that locking it down doesn’t work and that people WILL PAY when given the option, no windows, no restrictions.
That does NOT matter if it is a movie or a TV show.
You missed the big picture.
Re: Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
definitely right. this is why 7-Eleven has moved to its “open unlocked store, prices on products, put the money in the cash register if you feel like it” model. people WILL PAY when given the options, no windows, no restrictions.
Re: Re: Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
You realise that it’s still idiotic to directly compare physical finite goods and the infinite reproduction of digital files, right?
Re: Re: Re:2 Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
I agree: the infinite reproducibility of digital files means they should be given away for free. this will soon be applied to all sorts of infinitely reproducible digital goods like architectural plans, stocks and bonds, currency, and any services that are largely informational in nature (psychology, teaching, business consulting, financial advising). They are all infinitely copyable and reducible, and therefore it should be up to the consumer to decide whether to pay for them and how much. That’s why Microsoft is backing that big legislative pull to make DRM illegal, because it realizes how DRM is restricting its ability to give away its infinitely reproducible software for free, but hopefully some people will pay for it, like they do in China where there is virtually no IP enforcement. I think Microsoft should also be forced by law to produce its software and to give it away for free. That would be cool!
Re: Re: Re:3 Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
You’re acting like a pompous ass, and your disingenuous comments are really only making how you’re acting more obvious.
No one here advocates the future should be everything given away for free. But whatever. Changing your nickname from Ethical Fan to Video Fan doesn’t hide who you really are. Not to mention your drivel is exactly that, and not representative of what this site or its supporters promote.
But we support your right to act as a twat and try to be condescending towards people who stand up against bullshit enforcement methods that don’t work. You know what CastleLowery? If you had your way and enforcement stopped infringement completely, killing off all independent competition, you’d still be fucked over by the label and no one would buy your crap (or listen to your rants).
So you’d still be miserable and without income from your creative works.
No one will support a self-entitled artist who treats people (potential fans or not) like crap.
Re: Re: Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
“this is why 7-Eleven has moved to its”
Right here is the fundamental problem with so many self-proclaimed friends of the creator.
They insist bitterly that somebody “moved” media producers to a marketplace where their products had less market value.
Nobody “moved” producers to this new reality. They did not “move” themselves there.
Digital audio and video files simply have no market value, so they have less perceived value. Content on the Internet is not “free” – its value as a commodity is zero. TechDirt articles are worth exactly as much as Games of Thrones episodes.
Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
“NO, you haven’t, you don’t do details, just repeat the “better business model” mantra.”
Whereas as you spout a bunch of crap without informing anyone what the reality is we’re all missing. You attack people for not knowing “the truth”, but never bother to actually tell anyone what “the truth” is. I wonder why.
Come on, put money where your mouth is, post the business information and model data you’re basing your words on for everyone else to look at since we don’t know how things “really work”.
“Television is essentially advertising supported.”
HBO isn’t, from my understanding. Even if it is, the article is warning against the increasing trend for people to not watch “television” in its legacy form, thus fewer viewers, thus less advertising revenue. Thus the need to get content to people in forms where they will consume it. Even a mental midget such as yourself should be able to work this out.
“And of course for movies, because there’s no revenue without theaters and DVD sales”
The rental market doesn’t exist now? Streaming? Digital sales? Licencing to other media and other merchandise? No wonder your arguments are so dumb, you’ve literally rejected most of the movie industry before you started.
“allowing rampant piracy is total non-starter.”
Please link to the assertion that any revenue stream suggested here requires those to disappear (hint: you can’t because that’s never been stated). Oh, and according to you people we already have rampant piracy, yet theatrical grosses were at an all time high AGAIN this year.
Why do you insist on such blatant lies? At least pick a falsehood that can’t be proven wrong in 2 seconds with facts and logic.
“Mike keeps implicitly pushing the notion that new ways are possible without advertising income”
Aren’t you one of the morons who keeps attacking Mike for defending Google’s ad income because so many people make millions from it through piracy? Or does your bullshit just change depending on what happens to be more convenient at the given moment?
Re: Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
“Please link to the assertion that any revenue stream suggested here requires those to disappear (hint: you can’t because that’s never been stated). Oh, and according to you people we already have rampant piracy, yet theatrical grosses were at an all time high AGAIN this year.”
Or one might argue: piracy is currently in a grey area and heavily policed by content providers. Mike and others want the companies to back off, thus declaring it legal; the companies want to crack down and make it harder. It can’t stay in this grey area for long. If we follow Mike’s ideas and declare torrenting fully legal, the content providers might imagine that a lot more people would opt for the free content rather than pay for it. I’m sure you think otherwise, and also think that if 7-Eleven didn’t have staff, people would pay for their stuff willingly.
Re: Re: Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
The 7-Eleven you want would have barred windows, armed guards every 6 feet demanding to see your papers and $1.50 to move to the next “station” where another armed guard waits. Then, after spending 30 minutes just to get a slurpee, you pay $18 for said slurpee, go through 6 more check points, before exiting into the parking lot. Once in the parking lot someone follows you all the way to your car (or to the fenced gate if you walked) lecturing you how you’re a criminal, you and your pirates have devastated 7-Eleven’s profit margins and all the children’s baseball teams they supported. You paid $18 for that slurpee because you’re a dirty pirate and 7-Eleven lost potential revenue because of you.
Re: Re: Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
“Mike and others want the companies to back off, thus declaring it legal”
No. Mike and the others (including myself) want the companies to offer decent services that bear relation to the reality of the modern marketplace. A marketplace where regional windowing is ineffective, where people won’t pay a premium to route around artificial blocks and where customers won’t put up attempts to restrict them in ridiculous ways because some people find it more profitable. THEN they can start attacking piracy.
“the companies want to crack down and make it harder”
Indeed. the problem is, they make like more difficult for people who never pirate. Plus, if they don’t offer a reasonable alternative for people to go to when they stop pirating, they’re still not going to get people paying for their content.
Here’s a fact: the “policing” of piracy is not only ineffective, it’s giving content owners the excuse to pretend modern market realities don’t exist. This mean they’re not offering services that people want, so even if piracy were to disappear completely (an impossible goal), those “lost sales” caused by piracy won’t appear 100%. Rather than policing, they need to start offering customers a product they want – for example, being able to watch the HBO shows they want without having to subscribe to a full cable package before they’re even given the option to add HBO to it. Pointing this out is not supporting piracy.
“If we follow Mike’s ideas and declare torrenting fully legal”
Please link to the article where he’s stated this is the goal.
“I’m sure you think otherwise, and also think that if 7-Eleven didn’t have staff, people would pay for their stuff willingly.”
I’m sure I don’t have to point out again how stupid this kind of deflection is, and how little bearing it has on the actual argument being made. Repeating a total fallacy won’t make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Re: Re: Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
Torrenting already is fully legal. I think you’re referring to pirating, not using bittorrent.
Your analysis relies on a bunch of fallacious assumptions about the goals and intent of Mike and others here, regardless.
Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
He clearly states that the cable TV subscriptions currently SEEM to pay more (alternatives have not been tested to say they would do better or worse) but that this may be a long term stupidity. But you couldn’t care less, you have gone down from somewhat intelligent troll to simply attacking Mike and whatever without even bothering to do proper reading comprehension.
Television is essentially advertising supported. Movies are mostly not.
Another proof you don’t have a clue we are talking about a fucking tv show aired on cable. Idiot.
So once again sum here is that Mike keeps implicitly pushing the notion that new ways are possible without advertising income, and he’s plainly wrong.
Welcome to the future: Netflix, cable TV (YES, it should not be supported by advertisement)… Do us a favor and shut up. Actually it’s gonna be a favor to yourself. You’ll stop looking like a fool.
Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
Yup so many commercials on HBO. But if you register your mac address with them they stop displaying them so that’s cool.
The moron strikes again!
Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
“Television is essentially advertising supported.”
True for over-the-air tv, boy.
But HBO (and other “premium” channels) is subscriber-supported.
No ads.
Think before you keyboard…if you can.
Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
advertisers want their ads to be seen
And what’s stopping them from adding a small logo in the lower left right corner so even fileshares will see it?
Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
“Television is essentially advertising supported. Movies are mostly not. Therefore television shows can be successful in spite of this sort of theft. — However, there’s a tipping point: advertisers want their ads to be seen, and if shows are pirated with ads removed (likely more common in US), that scheme collapses too.”
says the troll about a show on a PAY CHANNEL that doesn’t even have ads.
And you wonder why you get auto-reported on EVERY post. It’s not “censoring,” it’s because you push your “copyright rah rah nothing bad ever comes of it” to the point of idiocy, even in the face of direct contradictory, provable evidence and then make comments like this that don’t even apply.
But “piracy” is the problem. Right.
Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
You’re absolutely full of shit. TV shows can make money without advertising. There are many ways to do it without ad money. Subscriptions are for one, selling episodes for two, crowd funding for three, and merchandising for another, but clearly those are all inferior to advertising and will all utterly fail because ad money is cruise control for profit. NOT!
Why don’t you take a loopy tour by shoving your head up your ass? See if talking out of your ass while talking into it has any interest effects. Nobody takes you seriously and nobody respects anything you say. You’re a complete joke and you get yourself reported every time you open your obnoxious mouth. Take a hint, you’re just an annoying little prick that nobody likes.
Re: Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
“TV shows can make money without advertising.”
I find it particularly silly that people are claiming that they need to do so, not only on an article where a premium cable channel is being discussed, but in an era where Netflix is being successful at delivering their own original content. If you need evidence that some people round here are full of crap, you only have top look at the news about the very industry they claim to be defending.
"Here"? Is Techdirt USA-only?
I read this every day. And I’m from Europe.
Re: "Here"? Is Techdirt USA-only?
So am I, But Americans seem to think that they are the most important people in the world, and that the rest of the world is an appendage to America. This might explain the attitude in trying to tell the rest of the world what they can do.
Re: Re: "Here"? Is Techdirt USA-only?
Way to be dramatic.
Re: Re: Re: "Here"? Is Techdirt USA-only?
Well the American government does seem to think it rules the world. As for dramatic, drone strikes rate way up there.
Re: "Here"? Is Techdirt USA-only?
No, but the site is based in the US, as is the author, despite the regular coverage of international stories. An American writes on an site based in the US and refers to his own location? Not exactly scandalous.
I’m more intrigued as to where this HBO Go I can use from Europe is hiding. If I try going there, I get told it’s only available in the US…
EDIT: Just before submitting this, I found the address http://www.hbogo.eu/, which appears to only service eastern Europe and the Netherlands. So, still nothing for me it seems.
great post
great post. I think you could go even further. I think Congress should pass legislation on this matter that specifies:
1) HBO should be required by law to produce Game of Thrones;
2) HBO should be prevented by law from charging for views, selling advertising, or otherwise receiving income from Game of Thrones.
call it “absolute media freedom”
Re: great post
That’s complete fallacy. You’re totally clueless. That’s not even close to what’s being said here. You just made up your own delusion of what’s going on and pretend that it’s reality.
Dear US TV companies
How about realising that the Internet is global and release your content everywhere at the same time. We have to wait several years in some cases for TV shows to arrive in the UK (I have a couple of favourites that have finished seasons 5 and 6 in the US but we are still waiting for season 3 and 4).
Windowed release models only feed piracy and there is no technical reason why we cannot be allowed to at least subscribe to US TV.
Just something to consider
Yours Sincerely
A concerned TV fan
Re: Re:
“How about realising that the Internet is global and release your content everywhere at the same time.”
They can’t get over the fact that releasing it Wednesday, it may still be Tuesday somewhere, therefore no one will watch it when they release it Wednesday.
Welcome to Imaginary Property land.
Broadcast the day after US screening in the UK
Some TV companies are realising that making other domains wait significantly for shows to air after the US air date leads to pirating.
This is why SKY (UK Satelitte broadcaster) is showing it only one day after the US (Sky Atlantic channel).
http://skyatlantic.sky.com/game-of-thrones/game-of-thrones-season-3-to-air-one-day-after-us
Re: Broadcast the day after US screening in the UK
In a way, that makes sense.
Since, if the Game of Thrones airs on, let’s say Sunday, because who would air programs on Saturday anyway? If the GoT airs on Sunday in the U.S., it would be like… Super Early morning Monday in the U.K. when it airs in the U.S.
That wouldn’t really work, would it?
If it airs at like 8 PM on Monday in the U.K., then people in the U.K. don’t lose out.
GOT widely available except for US
Great! If it’s widely available worldwide there will be plenty of cappers and seeders and I’ll click on a magnet link from TPB in North Korea, or wherever it is at the moment.
The people in charge of HBO have thought patterns guided by the idea that they must squeeze out every last cent. Ironically, this keeps them from making more money than they are making now.
🙂
I have HBO right now as a cable subscriber. I plan on dropping it after the third season is over and picking it back up next March when season four starts.
What I don’t understand is this, if someone doesn’t have cable or dish or direct tv, how would those providers even know that the person had an online on subscription to HBO?
Combating Piracy?
Whatever.. I’m enjoying game of throne.. One of my favorite..
oh boy:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2229349
Masnick is gonna be hitting the bottle early today.
Re: Re:
Wait for it to be peer reviewed first. What’s their methodology? That needs to be investigated.
One can easily conclude causality from coincidence, such as increase in movie quality or legal services expanding to new territories.
I wonder if their study takes into account of the indies who lost income because of Mega’s takedown?
Re: Re:
Correlation is not causation.
There are many more factors to consider here than just the shutting down of Megaupload.
Re: Re:
Oh boy, no need for new laws then, right?
Re: Re:
oh boy:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2229349
Masnick is gonna be hitting the bottle early today.
Sorry. That does not compute. Chicken Mike has already determined that all attempts at enforcement of IP are futile. People only react to incentives, not penalties. Every study Mike likes is perfect, while every study that disagrees with Mike’s predetermined conclusions are ipso facto debunked. Ergo, that paper is erroneous. QED.
Re: Re: Re:
It cracks me up that apparently there are people that actually pay Masnick for his transparent bullshit. I’d love to see the list of them. Somebody, somewhere in those companies needs to be fired, because they’re flushing money down the crapper.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think he’s right that making legal content more accessible is a good idea. That’s pretty obvious. What I’ll never understand is why he’s so opposed to anything being done to punish or dissuade infringers. But… but… mixtapes! lol
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“What I’ll never understand is why he’s so opposed to anything being done to punish or dissuade infringers.”
Perhaps because there’s nothing you can do to stop it and there never will be? Seriously, fighting against online infringement is like tearing open a pillow and tossing it to the wind. How the hell do you put the feathers back? How do you control that? Face it, the internet has rendered copyright obsolete. The war was fought and won a long time ago and the winner was the citizens of the internet. As time goes on, it will become far more difficult to deter infringement. Copying only gets easier.
What’s more, why should it be dissuaded? You assume that it’s somehow wrong and therefor a mandate to punish the action is implied. The internet is pure communication (i.e. speech), end of story. By demanding punishment for copyright infringement, you’re seeking to punish people for communicating information you don’t want them to. Punishing people for communicating, regardless of whether a price tag attached to it, is the very definition of censorship. I’d say it’s far more wrong to enforce copyright than it is to violate it. Illegal != wrong.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
That’s right, Greevar. All attempts to dissuade or punish infringers are completely useless and have no effect whatsoever. All evidence to the contrary is debunked from here to the end of time. I read that on Techdirt. Chicken Mike said it, so I know that it’s the gospel truth. There is no other possibility, and it is an absolute fact of the universe. By the way, have you seen what Amanda Palmer did? She proves that copyright is over. So are subscribers to cable and satellite services. Copyright is worthless and no one subscribes to those services. I read it on Techdirt so it’s reliable.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“All attempts to dissuade or punish infringers are completely useless and have no effect whatsoever.”
They can have an effect (pushing people to darknet, for example) and still be useless. And you know that.
At the end of the day, piracy is the fault of people like you who make the pro-copyright side look bad.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Totally. Piracy is the fault of the party who is having his rights violated. It’s certainly not the fault of the party that consciously decided to violate his rights. I read that on Techdirt, so it’s a lock.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“Piracy is the fault of the party who is having his rights violated.’
Piracy is often in the imagination of the party who falsely claims his rights are violated. And you don’t read that on TechDirt because the team likes to make trolls like you think you have a chance.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
You’re right. Piracy is an illusion. It doesn’t even happen. HBO is delusional. Kool-Aid much?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
If Mike Masnick is my cult leader, he sure has done a poor job of indoctrinating me. I often consider his viewpoints on copyright to be very conservative, almost complacent. He’s the diet cola of anti-copyright compared to me. However, that doesn’t imply that my desire to see copyright abolished follows a desire to get everything for free, unless you mean that I want to see it free of censorship, free of abuse, and free of monopoly. Then I do want free content. Give me lots of free content in that case.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
There is such a thing as an unconscionable law and this is a perfect example. Copyright is completely wrong. It’s nothing but a way to turn abundance into scarcity because capitalism can’t function without scarcity. They don’t need it and they sure as hell don’t deserve it. It serves no benefit to the people and is regularly abused. I see no reason why it shouldn’t be immediately revoked. And if you think that would “kill” the content industry, you’re completely devoid of vision and imagination. The content industry can exist just fine without their precious copyright and still make tons of money. It’s just going to require more thought and more effort to find a business model that works. Perish the thought, they might have to put some effort into it and take a risk on something new! And there are other perfectly valid business models that don’t require the government to hold their hand, kiss their little butts, and tell them they’re special little darlings. Poor babies! Boo hoo!
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Are rightsholders complete to blame for piracy? Of course not. But are they totally blameless? Not by a long shot, and HBO’s attitude to GoT is a classic example.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I’m sorry, I couldn’t understand anything you said. You must have some sort of aphasia. It came out as complete gibberish.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“All attempts to dissuade or punish infringers are completely useless and have no effect whatsoever. All evidence to the contrary is debunked from here to the end of time.”
You obviously weren’t on the debate team in high school…presuming you finished high school.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
the internet has rendered copyright obsolete.
lol
Go tell Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum that.
Maybe you’d like to pay their fines and legal bills with some fantasy-money as long as you’re in pretending mode.
As far as enforcement not working, how much internet infringement do you think those two are engaging in now, hmm?
You’re a fucking idiot, Greevar.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Oh wow! You just checkmated me! You cited the only two examples in the entire world where copyright enforcement actually won a battle. So what about millions of other people that get away with it every day? Two people out of fucking millions does not constitute a high success rate. That’s probably about a .00001% success rate at best.
You’re the idiot.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I think he’s right that making legal content more accessible is a good idea. That’s pretty obvious. What I’ll never understand is why he’s so opposed to anything being done to punish or dissuade infringers.
Making legal content more available IS HOW YOU DISSUADE INFRINGERS!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I love how you mindless dipshit robots think it’s the fault of the copyright holder that you consciously decide to violate his rights. Can I shit on your rights because I decided it’s OK? Cool. Let’s start with battery and see what happens.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
The industry you support and the enforcement you support IS shitting on our rights and that’s why people are pissed and don’t support the enforcement brought forth.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
The industry isn’t innocent. They’ve done plenty to earn our ire and indignation. They neutered fair use and they harass children and senior citizens that don’t even know how to infringe, much less how to use a computer. They ruin lives of fans and artists alike. They took away our right to return unsatisfactory products for a refund. They ensured we can’t make legitimate backups so they can double dip and make us buy another copy when we should be able to make our own copies. I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.
They’ve earned this and they’re getting what they deserve. If they want us to stop, they’re going to have to start treating us like actual customers and not a revenue resource to exploit. Give us universal access to everything for a reasonable cost. No region locks, no windows, no device restrictions, no circle jerk piracy PSA that imply the paying customer is a criminal, and no more abusing copyright to censor expression. I demand that I be able to enjoy the content I pay for at my convenience and on my terms. The content industry only has the right to say who gets a copy and how, but they do not have the right to tell me how I can experience it.
When I start censoring your speech and expression, I’ll concede that I deserve a beating for it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Enforcement isn't free.
Enforcement isn’t free. It comes with a very real social cost. That social cost must be weighed against actual damages that are trivial. The industry is unwilling to discuss real damages. They want to abuse both tort and criminal procedure.
Punishments are already way out of hand. If anything they need to be scaled back to something comparable to real world theft and actual damages.
You could go Robocop on jaywalking and speeding and it would make about as much sense.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Punish or dissuade? You mean how most of the people who are “punished” or “dissuaded” end up being the completely wrong people?
Newsflash: being consistent is only a good thing if you’re not a complete screwup.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you have no idea who Mike’s clients are, and whether or not they’re successful, but you just know they’re flushing money down the toilet. Coz you so smart. Why would anyone doubt such a strong argument…
Re: Re:
Why post that link?
It sure doesn’t seem like it’s telling the truth.
I seem to recall that, before Megaupload got taken down, there was a massive global recession going on.
And the economy is only starting to slowly stop going down hill now.
Hmm…
I think that it might be more accurate to say that people (in some areas) are making more money so they can spend more on movies than they were before.
But, no, of course, not, it’s all piracy’s fault that movies aren’t selling well.
Can’t be anything else.
Re: Re: Re:
A quick look at the CV’s of the researchers told me all I needed to know.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A quick look at the CV’s of the researchers told me all I needed to know.
When you can’t poke holes in the paper substantively, make vague assertions about the author’s credibility, right? Real convincing. Spoken like one of Mike’s Chosen.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I don’t bother picking holes in articles from the Onion either. I simply looked up who they were and saw that they had an agenda.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I don’t bother picking holes in articles from the Onion either. I simply looked up who they were and saw that they had an agenda.
Care to elaborate? I understand that you’re not able to discuss the paper on the merits. But are you also not able to explain how you determined that they have “an agenda”? I know this is TD, so chances are you live in your mom’s basement and ride a skateboard, but perhaps you’ll have something interesting to say. Do share.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Hmm. I own a small software company, so yeah, I live in my mom’s basement. All of their research and speaking engagements have been for IP maximalists and convincing companies that piracy is their biggest problem. Here are the links (you would have seen them at the bottom of your link)
http://academics.wellesley.edu/Economics/bdanaher/research.html
http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~mds/
Please go whine somewhere else.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I’m glad your mom is able to help you out. Let me see I understand the gist of your argument. So, despite their empirical evidence to the contrary, you think we should ignore their findings because they specialize in this area? So convincing! No wonder your mom lets you live there. Such a promising lad! I bet she’s proud.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
They don’t specialize in the area, they monetize in the area. They’re pushing for people to buy their product.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Have you looked at the cost of buying a house lately?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I know this is TD, so chances are you live in your mom’s basement and ride a skateboard, but perhaps you’ll have something interesting to say.
Ah, argumentum ad hominem. Always so convincing! Oh wait, isn’t that what you were complaining about too?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Just making an observation that Mike’s True Faithful tend to be idealistic idiots who are boys aged 12-25. You fit the bill rather well. Does your mommy do your laundry? I’m jealous.
Re: Re: Re:6 A big pile of bullsh*t
I have contributed to highly pirated creative works. Our collective success or failure in a business sense always depended primarily on the quality of our product. Bad product didn’t sell. Good product did sell. The fact that it was all pirated really didn’t matter.
You’ve got to offer something worth buying. You have to convince the customer to give you money. You are competing against EVERYTHING that can consume the customer’s time or money.
In general, business is tough and it’s not for everyone.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Wow, what an argument. You should create your own blog where you can cherry pick quotes, taking them out of context, create arguments where you claim to promote artists rights and a fair and ethical internet.
Maybe you could call it something bizarre like trichordist.com or something, and maybe create a few sister sites and link to them, cross posting frequently, and hope no one notices.
Then you can have your consensus and supporters.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“Just making an observation that Mike’s True Faithful tend to be idealistic idiots who are boys aged 12-25.”
Care to explain how you “observed” this?
For someone calling us all kids, you’re comments are incredibly childish. It shows how weak you think your own argument is.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Sounds like someone’s mad that their heroes in Prenda can only put on the Chicken Dance in performance for Judge Wright.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“Just making an observation”
…which just happens to be an outright lie based on laughable clich?s and blind assumptions rather than anything to do with verifiable facts or visible truth, topped with a nice bit of childish behaviour.
Wait, that explains everything now – that’s exactly how you come to your beliefs about piracy and new business models as well! Thanks for admitting your delusions.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Here’s an idea…
Get out of the 1950s and join the rest of us in the year 2013.
I get HBO I still download the show from a so called pirate site, it my dvr.
Well Kodak didn’t want to cannibalize their much more profitable film business by embracing digital technology and they did just fine.
You go HBO – be like Kodak!
A new business model
Would Game of Thrones be popular without piracy?
Seems to me that the message here is that the business model for addictive shows behind paywalls should include file-sharing, at least at first.
Isn’t it reasonable to assume that the show is popular, despite its being behind two paywalls, because people got the crack for free?
Now that people are addicted, HBO wants to convert them … makes sense. But that’s different from thinking piracy is empirically a problem for them. In a world without file-sharing, the show would probably be a DVD cult classic at best.
Re: A new business model
I think it’s certainly feasible to crowd fund popular works such as this. Get some investment capital to start it off, let them merchandise the hell out of it and the next season rides its own popular to Kickstarter. Rabid fans would throw whatever they can afford at it to get new episodes.
Nonavailability for paying members
“Watching Instantly Is Not Currently Available For Your Account. Unfortunately your account is restricted to streaming only within the 50 United States and its territories. You may still access your account, but you will not be able to play any title.” – Netflix
“To watch HBO Go, you must reside within the 50 states of the United States of America. ” – HBO Go. Anywhere
So even thoughsomeone is a paying subscriber, the use of the service is restricted. What about work or travel abroad where the local TV content either sucks or is limited to a language the subscriber can’t speak? Anywhere, my butt!