These distribution issues become even worse for us as there are time where content isn't even available when you want to go actually pay for it.
Then we have problems where content isn't available for months after its release. In a world where we are being involved in conversations that happen worldwide (eg, via Twitter), having to wait several months for that content to even become available (that's if it is available at all) is problematic at best and utterly stupid at worst. EDIT - because of spoilers
Pirating content is just so much more convenient (which I'd imagine is at least part of the reason why its rampant). It shouldn't be easier to get content for free than to pay for it.
Once you've paid for content, you shouldn't be made to feel like a criminal or have a reduced experience, which is what we are experiencing now with those "Pirating is stealing" unskippable ads at the beginning of those region locked DVD's they're so happy to sell us.
No wonder they think they're losing, its because they are - and its their own damn fault.
There are a total of 6 - The Walt Disney Company - Sony Pictures Entertainment - Paramount Pictures - Twentieth Century Fox - Universal Studios - Warner Bros. remaining movie studios who control the rights to nearly every popular movie / tv-show. What is mind blowing for me they rather sue mothers who torrent some music files then get their act together and create an iTunes Store for themselves.
It could be so easy for them to create a joint venture and buy Netflix and Spotify. Those companies, given the right tools, can easily figure out a consumer model that would work for the majority of us.
But no, they rather witch hunt for over a decade now and lobby more and more censorship laws in every country. I finally want to get to the point where i can watch what i want when i want.
By making it so you can only watch it on demand through your cable TV channel Fox gets money from you in a number of different ways;
The ads that screen before and during the show. The money the cable provider has to pay Fox to have the channel. The money the provider has to give Fox for the on demand service.
Plus it stops the majority of armchair hackers from putting it up on youtube etc. If it was made available on the web, then Fox would only get a very small percentage of the ad money. And of course you wouldn't have to watch it when it's on TV. The aim is to keep you watching your TV and taking your money. People watching on the web don't pay as much attention to the ads.
Fox doesn't promote piracy as much as it promotes getting you to sit on your couch most the evening, watching ads, eating Doritos and getting your daily dose of "Fair and Balanced" news.
So DirectTV isn't listed as an on demand provider? Then change your provider to one that pays Fox what they demand. So don't forget to set your calender for next weeks episode.
p.s. Life is better without a TV.
Yes. But when they make bad choices good people (who want to pay for the content) will mention those bad choices. And bad people (who don't want to pay for the content) will just pirate, sometimes using the bad choice as a justification.
> Fox gets money from you in a number of different ways
I don't know how it works so maybe I get this next part wrong, but limiting the ways that people can pay you is not a way to maximise income.
> Plus it stops the majority of armchair hackers from putting it up on youtube etc
I don't understand what you're saying; plenty of on-demand cable only content is available on torrents. Technical restrictions cause inconvenience to paying customers but have little to no affect on pirates.
I'm not sure. Copyright exists for the sole purpose of providing incentive for people to create works for the rest of the population to enjoy. If the population cannot reasonably access that work, the intent of copyright protection is lost.
The other half was that there was still ads, but that's an argument for a different day.
But buried at the end of the article he says:
"Now, if I really wanted to watch last week’s episode, on my TV. . . I could buy it from Amazon or Apple iTunes. But don’t you think paying four times for the same content is a bit much?"
Which I think is the more honest argument.
Yah, we'll pay for it if it's easy.
But not as much as you're asking, especially for network TV that you maybe forgot to TIvo.
Up to about 7 terabytes now..
That's like saying the high price of Porsches promotes car jacking. People are pro-theft or anti-theft. I'll never download copyrighted content without permission. It doesn't matter what anyone does. Having the Simpsons is a privilege, not a right.
It wasn't that long ago that shows would air once and never be seen again (as far as audiences knew at the time) and I don't remember people rioting or breaking into studios to steal the original tapes because shows only aired a single time.
When you steal copyrighted content, that's exactly what you're doing, even if you aren't busting down physical doors and rummaging through physical storage rooms.
Just my two cents.
The analogy is horrifically broken, because while it takes a non-trivial amount of effort to copy a Porsche (not 'steal' it, because piracy doesn't destroy the original -- but you knew that, right?) it takes a trivial amount of effort to copy digital media.
A $120+ a month privilege? If I was paying that much for TV, I'd be expecting to watch what I want when I want.
And it wasn't that long ago that no-one paid £120/month+ for their TV.
>I don't remember people rioting or breaking into studios to steal the original tapes because shows only aired a single time.
Firstly, can you not tell the difference between taking physical objects from someone thus depriving them of that object, and making a digital copy of an object that doesn't deprive anyone of anything? How is Rupert Murdoch worse off by someone downloading last week's episode from a torrent site than he would have been if they'd gone onto the official website and watched it there?
Secondly, I'm pretty sure there was a fairly large amount of video lending/copying back in the day - obviously far less than today's copying, but it was a hell of a lot less convenient to do it back then than it is now.
Since you didn't avail yourself of the opportunity to watch it the first few times you had the chance, you pay for the privilege. You might not like it, but that's how it goes. You can't walk up to an airline and buy the same seat at the same price the day before it leaves, either, so this sort of price discrimination is hardly remarkable.
First, as you say, you did have the chance to watch the over-the-air broadcast (for which Murdoch should pay you/the gov't for use of the airwaves; if you don't like the current financial arrangement, write your Congressman). You didn't avail yourself of that opportunity.
Next, you could have DVRd it, as you say. But you didn't, for whatever reason.
Now you are upset that Hulu Plus doesn't have it. Do you yell and scream when the public library doesn't happen to have purchased the book you want? Because you pay for those books too. Go get a refund from Hulu Plus, if you're unhappy, but it's an economic decision not to make it available on Hulu Plus or on Fox's website.
The fact is, you had several chances to watch without paying more out of pocket. You missed them, so now you have to pay, if it's important to you. That is no one's fault but your own.
Update: formatting
The fact is, I can have it on demand and for free if I want to watch it through my computer. Or hook my computer up to my TV. Fox provides it this way.
But if I want to watch it through a Roku or Google TV, from the same exact web site, from the same exact data stream, then I can't.
And I can't, because, Fox is afraid that if they do it that way, I won't pay all the money I'm already paying to DirecTV in the first place.
So lesson learned? I shouldn't bother with any of the payment options in the first place.
Anyway, I think we agree that Fox is making a business decision, just like you make a business decision to provide some of your content for free on the web and some for pay at your conferences.
So your quibble is with the choice of devices. But your post (and reaction above) counts up the amount you are paying, and implies that Fox is being atypically greedy (or myopic) for not making it available on the specific device you want at no additional charge.
My complaint is that you're couching an economic argument--you want to pay +$0, Fox wants $0.99--in moral terms, which smacks of the entitlement to which I object.
Many people on HN don't pay for any content. It's no secret how they do it but there is probably something in the rules that would see me stopped.
