"There is no way they have any research that says consumers will pay $30 to $50 to rent a movie at home." This is the same industry which also believed consumer would shell out $100+ for a movie when they launched on VHS, nearly 12 years after the Betamax loss.
When they realize customers aren't going to pay this atrocious amount (falsely believing everyone still groups on the family couch to watch shows), they'll either whine to Congress we didn't "want" it or they'll reduce the price.
You are the one who misses the point. Jefferson gave you two distinct points, which you promptly ignored: 1) The use of the word "could" in the very title of the article.
2) He talks about the *future* of paid services, using the "now" only as an example.
Jefferson is right. Maybe not today, but it *will* happen: we'll be subscribing to sites, rather than bundles.
Why? Because distributors will always be the problem. ABC (read: Disney) is going to pull out of Hulu. Not only are they launching ESPN as a sub (which this site mentioned), they're also bundling their ABC networks into a service as well.
One company. _TWO_ services. Choices? Sure, we "have" them, but only if YOU and only YOU don't want either or neither. For those who DO want them: that's probably going to cost them $30-40/mo, piled onto their other subscriptions, such as gaming, movies, and music.
The point of your article makes sense, but you never bother to ask cord-cutters the white elephant in the room: "What did you have to give up to save money?"
*Every* cord cutter I've spoken to has mentioned they miss a program or two, but just live without (and there are no other options, otherwise, unless they wait a season or two to "show up on Netflix").
That's not choice. That's a problem, one in which Jefferson makes regarding trying to get "what we want".
I currently have 6 subscriptions. The total monthly cost ($8.99 + $11.99 + $11.99 + $19.99 + $14.99 + $9.99) for content _I_ want is $77.94.
There used to be a $50/yr subscription (about $4/mo) to this site, but I had to make choices of letting Techdirt and Ars subs lapse. Yes, Techdirt lost out because my wife wants to watch movies on disk.
I can't wait until distributors split their content, yet again, to push out another streaming service, *exactly the point Jefferson was making*.
Nice try on "debunking" the article, but your assessment isn't accurate and it removes the biggest problem of these streaming services.
Netflix and Amazon are two which are successful because they bundle as much as they can for a single price tag.
Well, not Neflix. To rent physical media that's not in their streaming service requires one of the payments above, which is overall still cheaper than "renting" a movie online since finding these movies anywhere else is impossible if we don't pirate them.
So maybe you should take off your rose-colored glasses about "cord cutting" and see the world for what it really is.
I may be conflating two separate issues in my post, but this troubling more for Google, but to those who use Google services who have been booted for "copyright infringement".
What's missing from the Td article is how much of these bogus claims go against users, doing nothing more than providing videos (mostly under Fair Use).
Even if this assessment conflates two separate issues, the reality is bogus DMCA takedowns affect everyone, at some point.
In 1990, when I was first introduce to the ramifications of copyright and software, I tried my best to voice my opposition at the vague threats issued by the entertainment industry, but could do nothing but what the knee-jerk protectionism of our government pass a bad bill into law.
I now fully understand why it's called "Checks" and balances.
I hope every state passes a similar, but tougher, bill of right to repair.
The last time I tried to change the air filter, the car slammed down the hood, locked itself, and the onboard computer said, in a nice female voice, "You can look, but cannot touch. For repairs, contact your local dealer. Have a nice day."
...which frankly should have been obvious Expect Disney to make a cartoon of the painter who worked with a 4000 year old Egyptian piece of art, so they can then claim transformative/derivative declaration of copyright and gain control of the image.
But the problem is that we’ve had regulation that’s unpredictable, and it’s interfering with how we’re designing products, how we enter markets. I love English because there's multiple ways to say the same thing, and confuse everyone.
I read this statement as "But the problem is that we've had regulation that's unpredictable, and it's preventing us from supporting our products, closing markets to competitors, taking from customers and giving to shareholders, to which I have a personal stake."
Every time I see the AT&T logo dressed up as the Death Star, I feel it's an insult to the Empire, because even they weren't as evil as AT&T.
The only "bright side" any of us has now is there will be only one major company, who'll get broken up into baby companies when it's "finally" realized the company is a monopoly (perhaps by then, with government oversight).
Move these addresses to your router and block them there. Windows ignores the hosts files (confirmed by many, including myself).
At the router, Microsoft has no control.
If your router doesn't give you the ability to administer IP addresses, buy a new router.
In addition: you can buy third party software which regulates internet traffic, blocking what you need to (regardless of what is trying to get through). The con to this type of software is you have to spend a good deal of time "Allowing" as most sites are turned off by default.