Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   US Ambassador to Aussies: Keep pirating Game Of Thrones and we will cut off your freakin' sword hand   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line 360
    More: Dumbass, Ambassador to Aussies, U.S. Ambassador, Jeffrey Bleich, United States, Australians, pirated games, fictional universes, iTunes Store  
•       •       •

13582 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Apr 2013 at 12:14 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



360 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-26 02:33:17 PM  

Theaetetus: Both copyright infringement. Both with the infringer making money off of advertising. You're right, nothing at all similar there. [eyeroll]


Doesn't matter one bit if it's copyright infringement or not.  There is a huge different, morally and ethically speaking, between the two acts, even if they were both legally "copyright infringement".

Start thinking like a human being instead of a lawyer and you'll see that.

A person sitting down, deciding they want to watch Game of Thrones, getting frustrated that they can't download them legally, so they pirate them IS NOT morally or ethically equivalent to a website plagiarizing the works of another for profit, while omitting credit to the original author.

Just isn't.  Even if it's both a violation of the same law.  Guess what, illegal does NOT equal immoral or unjust.  I'm not trying to argue law here, I'm talking about morals and ethics, not legal and illegal.
 
2013-04-26 02:35:55 PM  

LasersHurt: Teiritzamna: but this argument would apply just as well to say a sports car.

No it wouldn't. That's absurd. If someone takes the car, they have removed it - it's gone, and nobody else can have it.


Sigh.  Did you see the part where i said the rivalrous nature of private goods is irrelevant to the discussion at hand?  and yet, alas, you brought up the unrelated point about the rivalrous distinction.

Besides, cars you CAN buy. Chances are, barring a few exceptions, anywhere in the world you can get whatever car you want.

And you can buy Game of Thrones.  It is stupidly expensive.  Prohibitively expensive.  Sphincter tighteningly expensive.  All true.  It is therefore (excluding its non-rivalrous nature) of much like a sports car - an expensive product that is not necessary.  Trust me when i say that most people cannot buy an expensive car.  Many more, refuse to because it is too impractical and costly.  such is the scenario here.

I mean I won't even get further into this - there is a huge difference between the items,  and your statements like this show me that you aren't comprehending what I write:

"It seems to miss the point that whatever the reason (personal distaste at the distribution system, lack of funds, hatred of HBO) if you do not want to pay for the offered good, the proper option is to forgo, not to obtain without paying. "

Who said don't WANT? I said "CAN'T." That is not the same! Clearly you are not understanding what I am saying, or you don't know the difference between "don't want" and "can't."


Of course you can buy it. I know lots of people who buy it.  Its sort of the whole point.  What you are saying is that you cannot buy it in the fashion that you want. You want it to be able to be bought ala carte, i assume, preferably for viewing over the internet so it has a level of portability, and for a cost that you think is commesurate with how much you personally value it.  Unfortunately it is not offered in that fashion. Do you see the difference between "can't" and "don't want to"?  You likely can't buy the crown Jjewels of England as they are owned by the state and not for sale.  You likley do not want to spend - for the sake of example - $100 a cup for civet poop coffee - it is stupidly pricy for an experience you do not think is worth it.  To say, in the face of the poo-cup, well i would totally drink it for 50 cents, so its really the coffee company;s fault for making it so expensive.  I shall just take some and they will learn a lesson.
 
2013-04-26 02:36:28 PM  

ha-ha-guy: bukijin: If there was a way of watching it without subscribing to fox cable or using an apple product then I would be very happy to pay for it.

But frankly GOT has bigger problems than illegal downloads...like how about finishing the books !! The TV series is just distracting the man from his writing. Back to work !

Honestly this season the people doing the writing for the show have started to prove they don't really need Martin to finish it up at this point.  They've made a lot of good decisions in terms of cutting out some of the secondary characters and streamlining the plot.  Odds are they can bring the series to a clean end even if Martin pulls a Robert Jordan.  Martin gets the credit for the world building, but he's only nice to have at this point.

/plus supposedly HBO made him provide an outline for the rest of the series before agreeing to film it, so they have the major plot lines all sketched out


And I'm totally cool with that. Martin isn't actually a very good writer. He created a rich world (stolen from real life, of course), and has interesting plots (stolen from real life, of course, but with dragons and magic), but as for actually making it interesting? Not so much. Good creator, boring writer.
 
2013-04-26 02:36:39 PM  

Infernalist: Also, mister Ambassador, here is the President of Programming for HBO, talking about the show you're so valiantly defending from downloaders:

. . . "I probably shouldn't be saying this, but it is a compliment of sorts," Lombardo said. "The demand is there. And it certainly didn't negatively impact the DVD sales. [Piracy is] something that comes along with having a wildly successful show on a subscription network."

That's Michael Lombardo, and he doesn't seem to have a problem with downloaders.


That's definitely an attitude you'd expect from someone who's near the top of an organization that's generally considered to be one of the top content creators in all of television.  The US specialty cable providers like HBO, Showtime, Starz and whoever else are really the only reason to watch narrative drama or comedy on tv except for the occasional accidental network show of quality.

My wife and I subscribe to our providers movie package which gets us The Movie Network and HBO.  It's $20 a month, but the value is definitely there.
 
2013-04-26 02:37:09 PM  

Teiritzamna: You likely can't buy the crown Jjewels of England as they are owned by the state and not for sale.  You likley do not want to spend - for the sake of example - $100 a cup for civet poop coffee - it is stupidly pricy for an experience you do not think is worth it.  To say, in the face of the poo-cup, well i would totally drink it for 50 cents, so its really the coffee company;s fault for making it so expensive.  I shall just take some and they will learn a lesson.


I am honestly amazed that you think this stuff is comparable in any way.
 
2013-04-26 02:37:10 PM  

Mercutio74: I'd happily pay to rent movies, but with Blockbuster gone there's no real option for a physical rental (they chased all the independents out years ago).


My town still has a local movie rental, and it's awesome. It has a lot of stuff that Blockbuster never got, including foreign stuff.

They will also rent you players, so you can watch the non-US-region stuff (if you can't watch that stuff on your own hardware). Also PAL, etc.

But it's an interesting point - streaming doesn't work so well for people in areas with crappy internet. Pirating does, though, because even if it takes two weeks for the file to download, you can watch it all at once. If places let you download the whole video at once to watch later.  Of course the pay places mostly don't let you download (only stream) because then you can share it, etc.

Ideally good quality internet expands.

/got fiber to the house now, municipal internet rocks
//bye bye cable company
 
2013-04-26 02:37:34 PM  

Ennuipoet: bukijin: But frankly GOT has bigger problems than illegal downloads...like how about finishing the books !! The TV series is just distracting the man from his writing. Back to work !

Tell the truth, considering the discombobulated mess that is the latter books, maybe this wouldn't be so bad.  The TV writers could finish the story without fifty pages of food porn and five hundred new and irrelevant characters.


Irrelevant to what? You got some crystal ball telling you where the story's going and how Archie and zombie Ser Hyle ain't a part of it?
 
2013-04-26 02:38:27 PM  

Theaetetus: Teufelaffe: It would only be ironic if in his comic about downloading GoT he had paid for doing so.  Then you have the irony of someone complaining about a third-party making money from illegally distributing their work while simultaneously helping a different third-party make money from illegally distributing work

He viewed the ads, which is how the different third-party makes money.

/he also illegally distributed GoT, making him similar to the Funnyjunk guys, but that's a whole 'nother conversation


A couple things... Did you miss where he specifically addressed that other 3rd parties were now making advertising dollars from people who visit torrent sites to improperly download it? Because he actually did mention that in his comic's critique of HBO's distribution of GOT.

Also, this is a cartoon he wrote to make a point and not necessarily a 100% accurate documentary record of him actually doing it.

And I'm not sure where you've been going with this in this whole thread. You seem almost conciously intent on missing the point of what Inman was actually saying in that comic. To whit, he wasn't saying people should pirate GOT, he was explaining how the old guard media companies have made things difficult for many customers like him to pay for the show legally in a timely fashion even if they want to quite a lot, and that is not only incentivising piracy for those people but actually going further and making it the best way for them to consume that media - with or without cash in hand. A totally valid critique.

I'm not sure why you're trying to conflate that perfectly reasonable critique with FunnyJunk's stealing of his content and passing it off as their own and refusing to take it down when he asked - and then siccing one of the world's oddest and least effective litigators on him. It's like comparing apples to ennui.
 
2013-04-26 02:38:39 PM  
gorgon38...At least that long. Took six years to write the last mess. It's been two years since that was completed and you can bet that very little has been completed on book six. Far to many conventions to go to and other way overdue projects. Can't blame him if I was that rich I'd do what I wanted too eff working.

"Last mess" is 100% accurate.  I felt bad for reading the books.   Martin can sculpt characters very well and I think that is what made me keep reading.

Unfortunately, those good characters wander around, lots of 'stuff' happens but without any discernable 'point' to any of it.   Here is a summary of all Sansa's chapters for Books 2 and 3:
"Sansa wandered through the castle.  She was sad.  Joffery was abusive again.   She wanted her life to be a fairytale, but it wasn't.  The End."

There, I just saved most of you from reading a few hundred pages of aimless prose.

Dani T went from being a very interesting character (Martin's pervertness aside -- dude is obsessed with thirteen year olds do it) in the first few books to being one of the most boring in the last two.

Then there is an entire subplot about one of the southern kingdoms in the last book (don't recall the name) that goes on for a long while, ends, and then you realize there was no need for the plot to begin with.

Grr,,, stop now.  Rage building....
 
2013-04-26 02:39:18 PM  

Infernalist: Also, mister Ambassador, here is the President of Programming for HBO, talking about the show you're so valiantly defending from downloaders:


Oh for the love of pete - read above.  I really am not attempting to lodge a valiant defense of Game of Thrones.  I am merely pointing out that the argument that HBO's stupidly expensive and silly distribution shenanigans in no way "forced" anyone to obtain it without paying.  It forced them to make the choice not to pay for it.  Obtaining it without paying for it, however, is because the parties in question still wanted it - or as is often implied here, felt they had a right to it.
 
2013-04-26 02:39:33 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-26 02:40:44 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: LowbrowDeluxe: Seriously, no one is debating what you said. No one has said that ever.

ha-ha-guy: GoT is the first show in awhile I've had to pirate. Almost everything else is up in iTunes, Play, or Amazon within 24 hours of its air date. Eventually I'll go back and buy the show off iTunes or perhaps physical DVDs, but I figure I'll let the digital media sales flag for a bit to voice my displeasure with HBO's model.

sounds like someone did


Thanks Stealth...sometimes trolls go fishing and sometimes people feel like they need to be hooked.

LowBrow's idiotic wharrbargghhll, oven mitt wearing typing aside, yes, there are people who feel as if they are compelled to download stuff that isn't available for whatever reason.

Don't get me wrong, I understand being pissed off if there was a show or mp3 I really wanted to watch / see but couldn't, I'd be pissed. I'm just saying that I wouldn't try to justify my pirating by shifting the blame to someone else. Nut up and just admit you're taking it for free.
 
2013-04-26 02:40:47 PM  

LasersHurt: I am honestly amazed that you think this stuff is comparable in any way.


Perhaps i am just not getting your argument.  Explain why they are not comparable, without invoking the irrelevant distinction between rivalrous private goods and non-rivalrous club goods.
 
2013-04-26 02:40:53 PM  

Endive Wombat: justtray: Maybe HBO should consider updating their distribution model and stop hiding behind copyright violations?

Novel thought, I know.

That's the thing that amazes me about TV Networks.  You've got a country full of people jumping up and down with fists full of cash, and yet, the US entertainment industry acts as if they are above needing their money and refuses to adapt with...quite frankly, the new generation that has grown up with the internet and instant gratification when it comes to entertainment.


It's more complicated than that. If HBO sells episodes the day after they air on iTunes and Amazon, they're likely to lose subscribers and canibalize home video sales. The lost revenue from those sources could easily be greater than the piracy.

And even selling HBO GO as a subscription service a la Netflix posses the same problem. If you suddenly have access to all episodes of HBO shows, why would you ever buy them on home video?
 
2013-04-26 02:41:25 PM  
In retaliation, I am going to download every Aussie movie I can without paying!

So...does anyone have a list?
 
2013-04-26 02:42:35 PM  

Mercutio74: I'm in the film industry and even I think that the bean counters need to come up with a reasonable business model.  I'd happily pay to rent movies, but with Blockbuster gone there's no real option for a physical rental (they chased all the independents out years ago).


Netflix. They don't just stream.
 
2013-04-26 02:42:37 PM  

AgentBang: Don't get me wrong, I understand being pissed off if there was a show or mp3 I really wanted to watch / see but couldn't, I'd be pissed. I'm just saying that I wouldn't try to justify my pirating by shifting the blame to someone else. Nut up and just admit you're taking it for free.


Once again, +1 for intellectual consistency.

images.intomobile.com
 
2013-04-26 02:42:50 PM  

Teiritzamna: Infernalist: Also, mister Ambassador, here is the President of Programming for HBO, talking about the show you're so valiantly defending from downloaders:

Oh for the love of pete - read above.  I really am not attempting to lodge a valiant defense of Game of Thrones.  I am merely pointing out that the argument that HBO's stupidly expensive and silly distribution shenanigans in no way "forced" anyone to obtain it without paying.  It forced them to make the choice not to pay for it.  Obtaining it without paying for it, however, is because the parties in question still wanted it - or as is often implied here, felt they had a right to it.


Are you the Ambassador to Australia, good sir?
 
2013-04-26 02:43:04 PM  

Teiritzamna: I am merely pointing out that the argument that HBO's stupidly expensive and silly distribution shenanigans in no way "forced" anyone to obtain it without paying.


People are criticizing HBO (and similar companies) for turning down easy money.

The important difference with the sports car is that sports cars are hard to steal.  Movies are pretty trivially easy to pirate. Like it or not, that definitely affects the market price of an item.  The music industry figured this out already.
 
2013-04-26 02:43:28 PM  
...because we just haven't reinforced that "corporate interests control our country" stereotype enough.
 
2013-04-26 02:43:33 PM  

Teiritzamna: StaleCoffee: So if the only way for you to buy that sports car where you are is to also buy four school buses, a Raiders-Themed RV, six Moroccan child slaves and a 64 ounce big gulp you wouldn't think of that as a somewhat flawed sales model? I don't contend that is grounds for theft of a sports car but I could understand why someone would steal the car and leave a bag of cash equal to 15% over the SMRP of the car in its place.

The answer would of course be to say: Hey car dealer (and HBO) you are a total moron and I would not buy all that crap.  Taking the car, however?  That is saying, hey your system of distribution is balls ass stupid (which trust me i think it is) but i have a right to that sweet sweet vehicle.


It's less about people feeling entitled to it and more about the options of driving away in a car where the dealership left the keys in the ignition, engine running, lot unlocked and unsupervised in the dead of night 50 miles from the nearest police station, no security cameras and a big sign on the road flashing "SPEND FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ON THIS STUPID PACKAGE DEAL THAT INCLUDES THIS CAR WE LEFT RUNNING IN THE LOT AFTER WE LEFT FOR THE DAY"

In the confusion of "WTF are they thinking" what ends up glaring to those faced with that choice is: spend five million dollars for sixteen things you don't want because there is no other option to buy that car, or drive off in the car consequence free.

Yeah it's still dishonest but most people are going to feel pretty farked by the dealerships attitude and flip them off right in return. It benefits nobody except the guy who drives off in the car. As well as the artist who built the car because it expands the vehicles popularity and increases its sales in more accessible venues, while stupid package lot cars sit there collecting dust.
 
2013-04-26 02:44:17 PM  

Teiritzamna: LasersHurt: I am honestly amazed that you think this stuff is comparable in any way.

Perhaps i am just not getting your argument.  Explain why they are not comparable, without invoking the irrelevant distinction between rivalrous private goods and non-rivalrous club goods.


So assume your point is correct, then argue how it's wrong? No thanks.
 
2013-04-26 02:44:40 PM  

falcon176: "If the 4 million people who watched 'Game of Thrones' legally had been illegal downloaders - the show would be off the air and there would never have been a season 3,"

our heroic pirate crusaders at fark say that pirating costs companies exactly $0 in losses so there's no way this statement could be true


No one, even on Fark, has ever seriously said that illegal downloading has cost content providers nothing.  What has been said is that when a content provider says that every illegal equals a lost sale, they're lying to you (or to themselves if they actually believe it).  In fact, a recent study has shown that people who illegally download music are 10 times more likely to pay for music.  Odds are, that also extends to people who illegally download movies & TV shows (probably to a lesser degree for those who download games, since most games are so much more expensive than most movies to purchase legally and thus more likely to be downloaded by people who can't pay for it).  Content providers' best customers are the very people that they're claiming are putting them out of business.

Now, as for the statement you quoted, it's farking stupid.  It's the equivalent of "If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle."
 
2013-04-26 02:44:46 PM  

thornhill: Endive Wombat: justtray: Maybe HBO should consider updating their distribution model and stop hiding behind copyright violations?

Novel thought, I know.

That's the thing that amazes me about TV Networks.  You've got a country full of people jumping up and down with fists full of cash, and yet, the US entertainment industry acts as if they are above needing their money and refuses to adapt with...quite frankly, the new generation that has grown up with the internet and instant gratification when it comes to entertainment.

It's more complicated than that. If HBO sells episodes the day after they air on iTunes and Amazon, they're likely to lose subscribers and canibalize home video sales. The lost revenue from those sources could easily be greater than the piracy.

And even selling HBO GO as a subscription service a la Netflix posses the same problem. If you suddenly have access to all episodes of HBO shows, why would you ever buy them on home video?


When I travel I don't always have access to HBO GO or even the internet. I was in Canada this week and could not log into HBO Go because I wasn't in the US. Having a physical copy of the media would have let me watch episodes from this season on my laptop. As it was, I had to rely on ripped episodes from my DVD from season 2 to watch any GOT content which I already pay for.
 
2013-04-26 02:45:49 PM  
Okay, I did a Google search, and the very first movie that came up in a list of the 25 best Australian movies was The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994)

www.stuff.tv

So you win *this* round, Australia.
 
2013-04-26 02:45:55 PM  

thornhill: Endive Wombat: justtray: Maybe HBO should consider updating their distribution model and stop hiding behind copyright violations?

Novel thought, I know.

That's the thing that amazes me about TV Networks.  You've got a country full of people jumping up and down with fists full of cash, and yet, the US entertainment industry acts as if they are above needing their money and refuses to adapt with...quite frankly, the new generation that has grown up with the internet and instant gratification when it comes to entertainment.

It's more complicated than that. If HBO sells episodes the day after they air on iTunes and Amazon, they're likely to lose subscribers and canibalize home video sales. The lost revenue from those sources could easily be greater than the piracy.

And even selling HBO GO as a subscription service a la Netflix posses the same problem. If you suddenly have access to all episodes of HBO shows, why would you ever buy them on home video?


psst.  Read my post.  The President of Programming for HBO has stated, point blank, that PIRACY has had a negligible impact on DVD sales.  And if people getting it for FREE isn't impacting DVD sales, how would SELLING the episodes legitimately impact DVD sales?

If outright STEALING the content isn't having a noticeable impact on DVD sales, how could HBO-GO have an impact on DVD sales?
 
2013-04-26 02:46:06 PM  

itazurakko: Teiritzamna: I am merely pointing out that the argument that HBO's stupidly expensive and silly distribution shenanigans in no way "forced" anyone to obtain it without paying.

People are criticizing HBO (and similar companies) for turning down easy money.

The important difference with the sports car is that sports cars are hard to steal.  Movies are pretty trivially easy to pirate. Like it or not, that definitely affects the market price of an item.  The music industry figured this out already.


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-26 02:48:15 PM  

Theaetetus: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Theaetetus:

Is The Oatmeal selling the pirated GoT episodes?  Or making money off of them?

No?

Is he distributing them?
Yes?


Then it has farking nothing at farking all to do with the funnyjunk thing and is not even close to being a similar situation or ironic in any way whatsoever.

Both copyright infringement. Both with the infringer making money off of advertising. You're right, nothing at all similar there. [eyeroll]



What?!?

Uhhhh, how exactly does him writing a comic about it being a pain in the ass for him to pay for GOT translate in to him distributing GOT? He wrote a comic about it, not posted a rip of it to his site for his visitors to download for free...

The only thing he made money from off of advertising is people viewing his own creation, the comic. Are you suggesting that anyone who mentions GOT in something they write is infringing on HBO's copyright? That's not how speech works in this country. Yet.
 
2013-04-26 02:48:24 PM  
Nobody is screwing anyone. If you think the price is too high, then don't buy it!!!! Jesus what a sense of entitlement in this country. Also, the Sansa chapters sucked and the Tyrion chapters ruled. That is all.
 
2013-04-26 02:49:50 PM  

BgJonson79: ha-ha-guy: Teiritzamna: ha-ha-guy: Now you're just playing the idiot. Most people with an IQ above a radish can read the implied context of "had to pirate due to lack of availability via digital distribution channels, unlike the vast majority of other current shows". If you can't, I feel sorry for you.

Translation: i have decided that i want a thing but i do not like the price point/distribution model that it is offered for.  Thus instead of doing without - which heaven forfend i could not possibly do for some reason -  I shall obtain it without paying.  I shall also indicate that this decision to obtain something that i wanted in an extra legal fashion was somehow someone else's fault.  Because damn it i have a right to watch that show the way i want to - its in the constitution or somethin'.

I'm just the invisible hand of the market and you're a troll, such is life.

So if you were a content provider, you'd be okay with people infringing your copyright?


If I were a content provider, I'd make it as easy as possible for people to access my content. You see, I'd want their money, so I'd want as many options as possible to distribute my content in exchange for their money. I'd want my content in as many countries and in as many formats as consumers showed an interest in. If a guy in Budapest wants DVD's, I want him to buy my stuff on DVD. If a guy in the U.S. wants to see my stuff on HBO via cable, I'd want my stuff on HBO. If a guy in Portugal wanted to download something I'd created I'd want him to be able to buy it and save it straight to his PC. If some guy traveling via ocean liner wants to watch my stuff while crossing the Pacific, I'd want my content streaming to him via satellite.

I can't say I'd be "ok" with people infringing my copyright, but I would do all I could to discourage it while accepting that I cannot entirely prevent it. I'd focus on making it more widely available and affordable in the hopes of maximizing legitimate purchases.
 
2013-04-26 02:49:53 PM  
BF gets HBO just for GoT and then cancels it (and I pay him half of the utilities). I buy the blu-rays when they come out.

I have noticed that a few days after the episode is aired, people post lots of clips on YouTube. I'm not saying you can get the entire unadulterated episode, but the best stuff is there for sure.

Am I the only one who has watched this S3 E4 sequence on YouTube like 20 times already?
Do not watch if you don't want to be spoiled by one of the most epic things ever shown on television.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afzEd-fCWq0
 
2013-04-26 02:50:02 PM  

Mantour: Lollipop165: Mantour: But Cersei Lannister (Lena Headey) is broke  : "Game of Thrones star Lena Headey has filed legal documents stating she is flat broke and has "less than $5 in her bank account".


http://www.torontosun.com/2013/04/04/game-of-thrones-star-lena-heade y- broke

A similar article was posted the other day. She's been in quite a few movies and TV shows. I gotta wonder how she became so broke.

Divorce Attorneys!


She could also just be an idiot about money. It wouldn't be the first time.
 
2013-04-26 02:50:09 PM  

LasersHurt: Teiritzamna: LasersHurt: I am honestly amazed that you think this stuff is comparable in any way.

Perhaps i am just not getting your argument.  Explain why they are not comparable, without invoking the irrelevant distinction between rivalrous private goods and non-rivalrous club goods.

So assume your point is correct, then argue how it's wrong? No thanks.


No good sir - you are conflating the distinction between whether a product is rivalrous  - i.e. can many people use the same thing without diminishing it, and whether it is excludable - i.e. are there mechanisms to prevent people from using the product without permission.

However, from your response it take it you are a believer in the concept that non-rivalrous goods should not be excludable - that you are in fact against the idea of club goods.  If that is the case, then i suppose the output is that you believe club goods like IP are always worth 0 (non-excludable goods are pretty much the definition of free).  I suppose then, sure fine, any price for, say a TV show would be too high, and any attempt to exclude would be improper.

is that your argument?
 
2013-04-26 02:50:52 PM  

thornhill: Mercutio74: I'm in the film industry and even I think that the bean counters need to come up with a reasonable business model.  I'd happily pay to rent movies, but with Blockbuster gone there's no real option for a physical rental (they chased all the independents out years ago).

Netflix. They don't just stream.


I'm in Canada.  Netflix sucks here.  There's no such thing as a "new release" for feature films.  Unless that's changed in the last year.
 
2013-04-26 02:51:21 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The show is better than the books. Yeah, I said it.


The show eliminated the purpose of characters like Sansa, Davos and Catelyn, but left them in for no reason. They exist only to show what's happening to other characters. Giving Cersei, Joffrey, Stannis and Robb POV means there's nothing for the aforementioned characters to do, making them more boring than they used to be. Arya and Tyrion are the same, but they're actually interesting.

So now they have to fill Catelyn's mouth with dumb shiat like "I wished Jon Snow was dead, then I swore I'd love him forever and didn't" and pack Sansa's scenes with action like staring at boats. And because of dumb shiat like this, they cut fluff like the Reeds' entire reason for being with Bran, and have to worm their way around it with weird shiat like them attacking his camp.
 
2013-04-26 02:51:23 PM  

Rex Kramer - Danger Seeker: Nobody is screwing anyone. If you think the price is too high, then don't buy it!!!! Jesus what a sense of entitlement in this country. Also, the Sansa chapters sucked and the Tyrion chapters ruled. That is all.


Nah, I'll keep on doing what I'm doing, instead of doing without.

When they offer an HBO-Go system where I can buy it direct through the internet, then I'll pay them legitimately.  Until then, screw it.  I'm not paying $65 a month with an extra $20 a month for premium channels for ONE show that only has ten episodes in a six month span.
 
2013-04-26 02:52:24 PM  

redmid17: itazurakko: Teiritzamna: I am merely pointing out that the argument that HBO's stupidly expensive and silly distribution shenanigans in no way "forced" anyone to obtain it without paying.

People are criticizing HBO (and similar companies) for turning down easy money.

The important difference with the sports car is that sports cars are hard to steal.  Movies are pretty trivially easy to pirate. Like it or not, that definitely affects the market price of an item.  The music industry figured this out already.

[24.media.tumblr.com image 495x337]


I always loved that picture because, fark yeah i totally would. I think if you asked most people if they could get private goods for free without any real risk of getting into trouble, would they do so, they would jump at it.

Its why i often think the conflation of rivalrousness and excludability is a herring that be red.
 
2013-04-26 02:52:26 PM  

Teiritzamna: LasersHurt: Teiritzamna: LasersHurt: I am honestly amazed that you think this stuff is comparable in any way.

Perhaps i am just not getting your argument.  Explain why they are not comparable, without invoking the irrelevant distinction between rivalrous private goods and non-rivalrous club goods.

So assume your point is correct, then argue how it's wrong? No thanks.

No good sir - you are conflating the distinction between whether a product is rivalrous  - i.e. can many people use the same thing without diminishing it, and whether it is excludable - i.e. are there mechanisms to prevent people from using the product without permission.

However, from your response it take it you are a believer in the concept that non-rivalrous goods should not be excludable - that you are in fact against the idea of club goods.  If that is the case, then i suppose the output is that you believe club goods like IP are always worth 0 (non-excludable goods are pretty much the definition of free).  I suppose then, sure fine, any price for, say a TV show would be too high, and any attempt to exclude would be improper.

is that your argument?


Yes, my argument is that this one situation should dictate an entire ideology on products, and it should be taken as far as you logically can in any direction for maximum ridiculousness.

/are you taking Econ this semester or something?
 
2013-04-26 02:53:55 PM  
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-04-26 02:54:30 PM  
In Canada, non-commercial acts of piracy are subject to a maximum $5000 fine (total, not per incident), the suer has to prove harm, and is responsible for their own court costs.

What that means is that it makes very little sense for a copyright holder to legally pursue downloading that is done for non-commercial purposes.  Even if successful, their maximum return is $5k, less legal costs, which would likely well exceed $5k.

Therefore, just like the oil company that has done its risk assessment and has decided that it's cheaper to kill people than maintain their pipelines, I've made the educated decision to accept that risk and download openly.

I am not pretending that what I am doing is not theft.  I am under no illusion that what I am doing is not immoral.  It's why, if I download from local, aspiring, or underfunded content sources, I remunerate those sources directly, usually in cash.

But for all other content, I've made a practical decision.
 
2013-04-26 02:55:10 PM  

Infernalist: Rex Kramer - Danger Seeker: Nobody is screwing anyone. If you think the price is too high, then don't buy it!!!! Jesus what a sense of entitlement in this country. Also, the Sansa chapters sucked and the Tyrion chapters ruled. That is all.

Nah, I'll keep on doing what I'm doing, instead of doing without.

When they offer an HBO-Go system where I can buy it direct through the internet, then I'll pay them legitimately.  Until then, screw it.  I'm not paying $65 a month with an extra $20 a month for premium channels for ONE show that only has ten episodes in a six month span.


Or you could, you know, wait.  You're not entitled to Game of Thrones on release day.  Just because you can access something illegally doesn't justify you getting it that way when the provider doesn't bend to your every whim.
 
2013-04-26 02:55:38 PM  

geek_mars: BgJonson79: ha-ha-guy: Teiritzamna: ha-ha-guy: Now you're just playing the idiot. Most people with an IQ above a radish can read the implied context of "had to pirate due to lack of availability via digital distribution channels, unlike the vast majority of other current shows". If you can't, I feel sorry for you.

Translation: i have decided that i want a thing but i do not like the price point/distribution model that it is offered for.  Thus instead of doing without - which heaven forfend i could not possibly do for some reason -  I shall obtain it without paying.  I shall also indicate that this decision to obtain something that i wanted in an extra legal fashion was somehow someone else's fault.  Because damn it i have a right to watch that show the way i want to - its in the constitution or somethin'.

I'm just the invisible hand of the market and you're a troll, such is life.

So if you were a content provider, you'd be okay with people infringing your copyright?

<tl;dr>

I can't say I'd be "ok" with people infringing my copyright, but I would do all I could to discourage it while accepting that I cannot entirely prevent it. I'd focus on making it more widely available and affordable in the hopes of maximizing legitimate purchases.

That's a perfectly honest and valid and even moral answer.  New here? ;-)

 
2013-04-26 02:56:02 PM  

Endive Wombat: justtray: Maybe HBO should consider updating their distribution model and stop hiding behind copyright violations?

Novel thought, I know.

That's the thing that amazes me about TV Networks.  You've got a country full of people jumping up and down with fists full of cash, and yet, the US entertainment industry acts as if they are above needing their money and refuses to adapt with...quite frankly, the new generation that has grown up with the internet and instant gratification when it comes to entertainment.


As soon as I moved out of my house I never got cable TV, most people my age never have or got very basic for football games.

The only thing I miss is stumbling upon a random show, sometimes that's all I want to do.
 
2013-04-26 02:56:13 PM  

LasersHurt: Teiritzamna: LasersHurt: Teiritzamna: LasersHurt: I am honestly amazed that you think this stuff is comparable in any way.

Perhaps i am just not getting your argument.  Explain why they are not comparable, without invoking the irrelevant distinction between rivalrous private goods and non-rivalrous club goods.

So assume your point is correct, then argue how it's wrong? No thanks.

No good sir - you are conflating the distinction between whether a product is rivalrous  - i.e. can many people use the same thing without diminishing it, and whether it is excludable - i.e. are there mechanisms to prevent people from using the product without permission.

However, from your response it take it you are a believer in the concept that non-rivalrous goods should not be excludable - that you are in fact against the idea of club goods.  If that is the case, then i suppose the output is that you believe club goods like IP are always worth 0 (non-excludable goods are pretty much the definition of free).  I suppose then, sure fine, any price for, say a TV show would be too high, and any attempt to exclude would be improper.

is that your argument?

Yes, my argument is that this one situation should dictate an entire ideology on products, and it should be taken as far as you logically can in any direction for maximum ridiculousness.

/are you taking Econ this semester or something?


I take it from your response this is not your argument.  Could you please explain where I am wrong?

/because you asked, I am an Intellectual Property Attorney.  I spend the bulk of my time figuring out how to breaking bad patents and thus broadening the public domain.  I also learned copyright from a professor who helped pretty much invent the modern idea of fair use.
 
2013-04-26 02:56:40 PM  

rugman11: Infernalist: Rex Kramer - Danger Seeker: Nobody is screwing anyone. If you think the price is too high, then don't buy it!!!! Jesus what a sense of entitlement in this country. Also, the Sansa chapters sucked and the Tyrion chapters ruled. That is all.

Nah, I'll keep on doing what I'm doing, instead of doing without.

When they offer an HBO-Go system where I can buy it direct through the internet, then I'll pay them legitimately.  Until then, screw it.  I'm not paying $65 a month with an extra $20 a month for premium channels for ONE show that only has ten episodes in a six month span.

Or you could, you know, wait.  You're not entitled to Game of Thrones on release day.  Just because you can access something illegally doesn't justify you getting it that way when the provider doesn't bend to your every whim.


Wait for what?  Does waiting a week before downloading it make it better somehow?  lol  'wait!'
 
2013-04-26 02:59:33 PM  

moothemagiccow: The Stealth Hippopotamus: The show is better than the books. Yeah, I said it.

The show eliminated the purpose of characters like Sansa, Davos and Catelyn, but left them in for no reason. They exist only to show what's happening to other characters. Giving Cersei, Joffrey, Stannis and Robb POV means there's nothing for the aforementioned characters to do, making them more boring than they used to be. Arya and Tyrion are the same, but they're actually interesting.

So now they have to fill Catelyn's mouth with dumb shiat like "I wished Jon Snow was dead, then I swore I'd love him forever and didn't" and pack Sansa's scenes with action like staring at boats. And because of dumb shiat like this, they cut fluff like the Reeds' entire reason for being with Bran, and have to worm their way around it with weird shiat like them attacking his camp.


I've read the books up until middle of the 4th where I stalled out. For the most part the TV version comes off as strongly tightened and I don't mind most of the changes. The producers have made Catelyn and Cersei more sympathetic and more fleshed out. Why not, they have good actresses playing the roles.

GRRM came up with some good stuff but his writing is uneven and some of it is at the level of fanfic. I stalled out because I'm annoyed at all these chapters introducing new people while the pre-existing characters are MIA or doing nothing - it's just flabby. I'm glad David Benioff and Dan Weiss came along and slapped this epic into shape.

One thing I learned from LotR and before that, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, is that anybody can come along and piss all over your fanboy/fangirl dreams, sometimes the creator him/herself. So try not to get too invested in some movie or TV show being exactly what you expect, it will always disappoint you.
 
2013-04-26 02:59:39 PM  

Teiritzamna: LasersHurt: Teiritzamna: LasersHurt: I am honestly amazed that you think this stuff is comparable in any way.

Perhaps i am just not getting your argument.  Explain why they are not comparable, without invoking the irrelevant distinction between rivalrous private goods and non-rivalrous club goods.

So assume your point is correct, then argue how it's wrong? No thanks.

No good sir - you are conflating the distinction between whether a product is rivalrous  - i.e. can many people use the same thing without diminishing it, and whether it is excludable - i.e. are there mechanisms to prevent people from using the product without permission.

However, from your response it take it you are a believer in the concept that non-rivalrous goods should not be excludable - that you are in fact against the idea of club goods.  If that is the case, then i suppose the output is that you believe club goods like IP are always worth 0 (non-excludable goods are pretty much the definition of free).  I suppose then, sure fine, any price for, say a TV show would be too high, and any attempt to exclude would be improper.

is that your argument?


I can tell you think you're smart, but you're failing miserably at communicating that to the rest of us.

People ITT: "A lot of people pirate the current season of GoT because HBO has made it difficult to get legally."
You: "Oh, so because HBO isn't catering to your desired delivery model you think everything should be free!?"
People ITT: "Uh, no, that's not what we said at all."
You: "Buying the crown jewels! Cat poop coffee! Club goods! Rivalrous goods!  LOOK AT MEEEEE...I WENT TO COLLEGE AND I'M SO SMAAART!"
 
2013-04-26 03:01:59 PM  

thornhill: If you suddenly have access to all episodes of HBO shows, why would you ever buy them on home video?


Why would you buy a movie when you can rent it whenever you want? Because renting it isn't owning it.
 
2013-04-26 03:03:01 PM  

Teiritzamna: I am an Intellectual Property Attorney.  I spend the bulk of my time figuring out how to breaking bad patents and thus broadening the public domain.  I also learned copyright from a professor who helped pretty much invent the modern idea of fair use.


It's actually good to know your background.

My argument... my argument is spiralling wildly out of control because we keep expanding it, which is what I am trying to stop from happening.

So my argument is that I am not trying to assess or inform the rules for an entire class of product, which is what you want me to do. That's FAR, FAR broader than I want to get into, or really have the qualifications to get into.

My argument is "make the product available, or get used to people getting it." If they want it, they will get it. If content producers made it EASY - come to HBO, buy the series to stream or download at a fair price, available to ANYONE who wants it. And if this moves us to "well international copyright is hard, which is why it's only available in some countries and furthermore..." - well, that's a poor argument.

Content producers 100% OWN the market and the laws on how it operates. Digitally distributed, infinitely reproducible content should be a money farm for producers, and all they need to do is make it easily available. Louis CK, Radiohead, and a huge host of others have found this out - make it easy to get and reasonably priced, and you will roll in money.

So I guess your argument of "you're not entitled to it if the owners don't offer you a way to buy it that doesn't suck horribly" sits very poorly with me. How about the content producers make it EASIER to get the content, so people do, money comes in, and everyone is happy?
 
2013-04-26 03:03:34 PM  

Infernalist: rugman11: Infernalist: Rex Kramer - Danger Seeker: Nobody is screwing anyone. If you think the price is too high, then don't buy it!!!! Jesus what a sense of entitlement in this country. Also, the Sansa chapters sucked and the Tyrion chapters ruled. That is all.

Nah, I'll keep on doing what I'm doing, instead of doing without.

When they offer an HBO-Go system where I can buy it direct through the internet, then I'll pay them legitimately.  Until then, screw it.  I'm not paying $65 a month with an extra $20 a month for premium channels for ONE show that only has ten episodes in a six month span.

Or you could, you know, wait.  You're not entitled to Game of Thrones on release day.  Just because you can access something illegally doesn't justify you getting it that way when the provider doesn't bend to your every whim.

Wait for what?  Does waiting a week before downloading it make it better somehow?  lol  'wait!'


There's a cost spectrum when it comes to HBO shows.  You want to watch it live, it'll cost you $255 (three months of cable plus three months of HBO.  If you're willing to wait six weeks, it'll cost you $95 (one month of cable plus one month of HBO).  If you're willing to wait ten months, it'll cost you $30 to stream or $40 for the DVD.  Wait a little longer than that and you can probably borrow it from your library for free.

If you don't want to pay through the nose for "one show that only has ten episodes," all you have to do is wait a little bit and it'll be cheap.  And you'll even be able to "buy it direct through the internet [and] pay them legitimately."

So yes, wait.
 
Displayed 50 of 360 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report