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
    More: Dumbass, Ambassador to Aussies, U.S. Ambassador, Jeffrey Bleich, United States, Australians, pirated games, fictional universes, iTunes Store  
•       •       •

13595 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Apr 2013 at 12:14 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-04-26 03:53:00 PM  

Strolpol: Brittabot: I refuse to pay close to $25 a month for a movie package just so I can watch one channel one hour a week.

That said, I'd be more than willing to pay per episode or per season if I could download the show the same night it plays on television.

Since I can't do that, my only other option is to use less than legal means to get the show.

/Canadian

Exactly this.

HBO could be making a massive killing if they just charged 5 bucks per episode, available to download without DRM when it airs. People would absolutely pay for that, and HBO would get 50 bucks for the season, which is right on par with a Blu-Ray/DVD set.

But no, they keep trying to wrangle everyone into buying the rest of their stuff, which pretty much NO ONE cares about.


The problem with that is their contracts with the cable companies.  Putting the episodes online would cost them subscribers and would really piss off the cable companies (who obviously make more money from HBO subscribers than HBO does).  And HBO isn't in a position where they can survive without the cable companies yet.
 
2013-04-26 03:55:57 PM  

Strolpol: Brittabot: I refuse to pay close to $25 a month for a movie package just so I can watch one channel one hour a week.

That said, I'd be more than willing to pay per episode or per season if I could download the show the same night it plays on television.

Since I can't do that, my only other option is to use less than legal means to get the show.

/Canadian

Exactly this.

HBO could be making a massive killing if they just charged 5 bucks per episode, available to download without DRM when it airs. People would absolutely pay for that, and HBO would get 50 bucks for the season, which is right on par with a Blu-Ray/DVD set.

But no, they keep trying to wrangle everyone into buying the rest of their stuff, which pretty much NO ONE cares about.


Shouldn't HBO, as a rule, want you to buy the rest of their stuff? They're not GoTBO. It would be like the grocery putting the milk next to the register, where the candy bars are.
 
2013-04-26 03:56:36 PM  

moothemagiccow: Strolpol: Brittabot: I refuse to pay close to $25 a month for a movie package just so I can watch one channel one hour a week.

That said, I'd be more than willing to pay per episode or per season if I could download the show the same night it plays on television.

Since I can't do that, my only other option is to use less than legal means to get the show.

/Canadian

Exactly this.

HBO could be making a massive killing if they just charged 5 bucks per episode, available to download without DRM when it airs. People would absolutely pay for that, and HBO would get 50 bucks for the season, which is right on par with a Blu-Ray/DVD set.

But no, they keep trying to wrangle everyone into buying the rest of their stuff, which pretty much NO ONE cares about.

Shouldn't HBO, as a rule, want you to buy the rest of their stuff? They're not GoTBO. It would be like the grocery putting the milk next to the register, where the candy bars are.


Not if it means less revenue for the company in general
 
2013-04-26 03:56:52 PM  

redmid17: Yes because it's easier and more convenient to photoshop an existing screenshot with minor modifications than it is to create one from scratch.


It's even easier to download the latest episode of GoT and take a screenshot. :)

/plus, if he were shooping or creating a screenshot from scratch, why would he include the upload rate anyway?
 
2013-04-26 03:57:32 PM  

rugman11: Some no-name Korean artist writes a weird but catchy song, sticks the video on YouTube for nothing and makes $10 million.


Dude had multiple kits in Korea and the backing of a large K-Pop label, plus his female vocals were coming from the lead singer of a popular girls group (Hyuna from 4 Minute).  Don't get me wrong, the label didn't design the song to blow up in America, but they did design to be a big hit in Korea.  It wasn't some indie artist that just produced Gangam Style though.

/cranks the Brown Eyed Girls back up and goes back to work
 
2013-04-26 03:58:09 PM  

Theaetetus: firefly212: Just like with video gamers who pirate because shelling out 60 bucks for a game is unreasonable when the market is absolutely flooded with bad titles with massive bugs or playability issues...

If the titles are so bad with massive bugs and playability issues, then why are they bothering to pirate them?


Because people will put up with a lot more crap if they're not paying for it.

Free game - "Man this is buggy and shiatty, but I didn't pay for it, so meh."
$60 game - "This is buggy and shiatty AND THAT IS WORSE THAN HITLER AND I MUST TELL EVERYONE I KNOW."

/I'm pretty sure that the EA forums are the largest concentration of butthurt on Earth.
 
2013-04-26 04:05:04 PM  

Theaetetus: redmid17: Yes because it's easier and more convenient to photoshop an existing screenshot with minor modifications than it is to create one from scratch.

It's even easier to download the latest episode of GoT and take a screenshot. :)

/plus, if he were shooping or creating a screenshot from scratch, why would he include the upload rate anyway?


He would also be committing a copyright violation, which is the exact thing he rails against. There is absolutely no reason to do think he did so, especially when he went to the trouble of making a completely fictitious website.
 
2013-04-26 04:10:12 PM  

redmid17: He would also be committing a copyright violation, which is the exact thing he rails against.


If you read what Inman had to say about the whole FunnyJunk situation, he wasn't railing against copyright violation.  He was pissed because FunnyJunk was posting his work,  with attribution removed, and making money from it.  IIRC, he even says at one point that if the stuff had been posted unmodified, he wouldn't have had an issue.

It wasn't, "OMG, they're violating my copyright!" it was "OMG, they're profiting off my work and hiding the fact that it's my work!"
 
2013-04-26 04:12:14 PM  

ha-ha-guy: rugman11: Some no-name Korean artist writes a weird but catchy song, sticks the video on YouTube for nothing and makes $10 million.

Dude had multiple kits in Korea and the backing of a large K-Pop label, plus his female vocals were coming from the lead singer of a popular girls group (Hyuna from 4 Minute).  Don't get me wrong, the label didn't design the song to blow up in America, but they did design to be a big hit in Korea.  It wasn't some indie artist that just produced Gangam Style though.

/cranks the Brown Eyed Girls back up and goes back to work


So Psy was a bad example.  But Bieber basically did the same thing and Karmin and Owl City and a whole host of other groups who just wrote music, put it out there, and found success.  TV writers, on the other hand, don't have $2-3 million to shoot a professional pilot, so they rely on networks and production companies to fund it.  And the networks and production companies relying on bundling a bunch of shows together because for every Bieber there's going to be a dozen shows that flame out and fail.
 
2013-04-26 04:13:09 PM  

Dr._Michael_Hfuhruhurr: http://throneroom.eu Just sayin'.

/always pays his debts


Not bookmarking. Not at all.
 
2013-04-26 04:14:17 PM  

I created this alt just for this thread: redmid17: He would also be committing a copyright violation, which is the exact thing he rails against.

If you read what Inman had to say about the whole FunnyJunk situation, he wasn't railing against copyright violation.  He was pissed because FunnyJunk was posting his work,  with attribution removed, and making money from it.  IIRC, he even says at one point that if the stuff had been posted unmodified, he wouldn't have had an issue.

It wasn't, "OMG, they're violating my copyright!" it was "OMG, they're profiting off my work and hiding the fact that it's my work!"


I did read the entire thing. There's a reason why I wasn't prefacing with that argument. It's completely different than what Thaetatus point was.
 
2013-04-26 04:14:44 PM  
This just goes to show that many companies aren't run by business people. An actual business person when presented with the opportunity to have their product distributed around the world at very little cost with the chance to make boatloads of revenue would be all over that opportunity like flies on shiat. If HBO was run by someone who had any clue about business they'd set up a site for people from around the world to be able to watch Game of Thrones for a few bucks a month, and it would be a huge cash cow.
 
2013-04-26 04:16:07 PM  

redmid17: I created this alt just for this thread: redmid17: He would also be committing a copyright violation, which is the exact thing he rails against.

If you read what Inman had to say about the whole FunnyJunk situation, he wasn't railing against copyright violation.  He was pissed because FunnyJunk was posting his work,  with attribution removed, and making money from it.  IIRC, he even says at one point that if the stuff had been posted unmodified, he wouldn't have had an issue.

It wasn't, "OMG, they're violating my copyright!" it was "OMG, they're profiting off my work and hiding the fact that it's my work!"

I did read the entire thing. There's a reason why I wasn't prefacing with that argument. It's completely different than what Thaetatus point was.


Well, yeah, that argument is really more about moral rights of attribution.
 
2013-04-26 04:20:38 PM  

WhyteRaven74: This just goes to show that many companies aren't run by business people. An actual business person when presented with the opportunity to have their product distributed around the world at very little cost with the chance to make boatloads of revenue would be all over that opportunity like flies on shiat. If HBO was run by someone who had any clue about business they'd set up a site for people from around the world to be able to watch Game of Thrones for a few bucks a month, and it would be a huge cash cow.


The issue for HBO at present is two-fold.

1) they are bound in a series of contracts to the cable companies, who would cry bloody murder if HBO tried to distribute directly (cry bloody murder of course means sue the crap out of).

2)  less importantly, they make a ton of money as it is, so rejiggering their distribution system appears to be more trouble than it is worth.
 
2013-04-26 04:22:04 PM  

WhyteRaven74: This just goes to show that many companies aren't run by business people. An actual business person when presented with the opportunity to have their product distributed around the world at very little cost with the chance to make boatloads of revenue would be all over that opportunity like flies on shiat. If HBO was run by someone who had any clue about business they'd set up a site for people from around the world to be able to watch Game of Thrones for a few bucks a month, and it would be a huge cash cow.


I can understand that they are 100% most likely constrained by distribution rights deals.

Example, Sky has rights in the UK. If HBO puts up a site and takes money from the UK, they'd be breaking that contract with Sky.

That doesn't excuse it. Distribution rights need to be altered to come to terms with this Internet thing.

We consumers all pay our fair share for the content we consume, the content makers get paid for making that content.

It blows that season 2 just came out on BluRay/DVD in March in the UK, season 3 will be out next March.

We're not dirty downloaders (but we know a guy), but HBO/Sky could be doubling their money on us by letting us buy the season as it airs, and we'll still be buying the Blu Ray when it gets released.

/oddly enough, if we like something, we buy it.
 
2013-04-26 04:23:30 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: impaler: The 90s called. They want your moronically inefficient distribution models back.

It's the content provider's call. I'm sure Fark isn't the only people that has told HBO that "hey if you sale your top rated show per episode people may buy it". You think that's an original idea?! No. I guess HBO has figured that there are enough people out there like me (who will just sign up for the service) to off set the people who would only buy it on demand.

I don't think I would buy it per episode anyway. I like watching things on the big screen in the living room and I haven't figured out how to get my tv to run my Itunes content on it. I know I could just get an Apple TV but those are like a hundred bucks. I have a Wifi Samsung Airplay thingy that I use for net flicks and I also have a PS3 but I'll be damn if I can get it to show me all my movies. Ran monitor cable (inside the walls) from my computer to my TV but it's so slow and not in HD! And I have to go to the computer room to pause, fast forward or rewind.

I have tech issues.


if you have an android device, get goldworm remote.  keyboard and mouse remote control.
 
2013-04-26 04:24:08 PM  
HBO is taking a rational approach to this problem.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/26/hands-off-game-of-throne_n_ 31 60786.html


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,"
 
2013-04-26 04:40:49 PM  

Theaetetus: firefly212: Just like with video gamers who pirate because shelling out 60 bucks for a game is unreasonable when the market is absolutely flooded with bad titles with massive bugs or playability issues...

If the titles are so bad with massive bugs and playability issues, then why are they bothering to pirate them?


Because once the package is opened/paid for online/etc, it cannot (or takes an act of farking congress to) be returned, no matter how large of a pile of shiat or how buggy the game actually is.
60 bucks is a big gamble with the way games are made now-a-days. I am not paying that kinda change to be a farking beta tester.
 
2013-04-26 04:41:02 PM  

Theaetetus: mongbiohazard: Theaetetus: See that torrent screenshot showing his upload rate?

"But that's just a comic!"

Yes, this whole discussion assumes the comic reflects reality. I'm certainly not suggesting HBO should rush off and file suit.


See the screenshot of http://www.bigtimeawesometorrentbucket.com/ ? That's not a real site. The Oatmeal makes webcomics, not documentaries.

See the screenshot of Transmission.app? That's a real app. The Oatmeal makes webcomics, not fake applications.



And where exactly do you see an app? All I see is a panel in a comic which looks like a screenshot of transmission.app.
 
2013-04-26 04:41:34 PM  

thisone: We're not dirty downloaders (but we know a guy), but HBO/Sky could be doubling their money on us by letting us buy the season as it airs, and we'll still be buying the Blu Ray when it gets released.

/oddly enough, if we like something, we buy it.


Do you really think that HBO doesn't have dozens of people on their staff whose sole job is to figure out how to make as much money as possible?  Right now, they're distributing their product through established means because that's the most profitable avenue.  Do you really think they wouldn't offer a way for downloaders to get the show legally if it wouldn't cost them already established customers?  The problem is that they can't change the model just for the illegal downloaders.  They have to change it for everybody.  And if they do that they risk losing some partners and customers.  I guarantee you that as soon as we reach the point where digital distribution becomes more profitable than the way it's being done now, HBO will jump.  But to claim that they're idiots who somehow don't understand how the world works and are leaving money on the table is just plain dumb.
 
2013-04-26 04:43:36 PM  

DeathCipris: Theaetetus: firefly212: Just like with video gamers who pirate because shelling out 60 bucks for a game is unreasonable when the market is absolutely flooded with bad titles with massive bugs or playability issues...

If the titles are so bad with massive bugs and playability issues, then why are they bothering to pirate them?

Because once the package is opened/paid for online/etc, it cannot (or takes an act of farking congress to) be returned, no matter how large of a pile of shiat or how buggy the game actually is.
60 bucks is a big gamble with the way games are made now-a-days. I am not paying that kinda change to be a farking beta tester.


I would also like to add I do not endorse piracy in such a public forum, but if a game IS actually good, THEN BUY IT. Support the devs.
 
2013-04-26 04:44:37 PM  

mongbiohazard: Theaetetus: mongbiohazard: Theaetetus: See that torrent screenshot showing his upload rate?

"But that's just a comic!"

Yes, this whole discussion assumes the comic reflects reality. I'm certainly not suggesting HBO should rush off and file suit.


See the screenshot of http://www.bigtimeawesometorrentbucket.com/ ? That's not a real site. The Oatmeal makes webcomics, not documentaries.

See the screenshot of Transmission.app? That's a real app. The Oatmeal makes webcomics, not fake applications.


And where exactly do you see an app? All I see is a panel in a comic which looks like a screenshot of transmission.app.


I hit add comment before I had the chance to add, "The Oatmeal makes webcomics, not applications. They do make plenty of fake screenshots though. Bears are real things too, that doesn't mean when he drew a picture of one having sex with that lawyer's mom that a bear really had sex with that lawyer's mom."
 
2013-04-26 04:45:33 PM  

firefly212: I criticize them for not being more price sensitive. The reality is that 35 bucks for one season of one show is an unrealistic market price... if they set it at 10 or 15 bucks, they'd have far more takers.  Just like with video gamers who pirate because shelling out 60 bucks for a game is unreasonable when the market is absolutely flooded with bad titles with massive bugs or playability issues... I fault the end users to some extent, but from the econ side of things where I live, I see this as a pretty easily fixable problems if people focused on market-based solutions instead of trying to get the government to do something unrealistic (stop piracy) so they can enhance information asymmetry about the quality of the product and charge above-market values.


Absolutely agreed.  Quit with the region segmentation, and charge a more rational a la carte price, and lots of the piraters would go legal.  There is such a thing as a reasonable price, and it doesn't need to be zero.

The music industry did eventually realize this - you sell by the song, and make the stuff easy to get at guaranteed quality from safe downloads.  They still have horrible problems with region segmentation, but at least on iTunes they're easy enough to circumvent.

Some of this really is about the "long tail" - the magic of the internet and digital media is that you CAN make money off of stuff that has a very small audience. But you have to give that audience a means to pay you for the stuff.

Meanwhile movies survive "unbundled."  In the modern world lots of people who don't bother owning a TV consider TV more akin to movies, you rent (on DVD even) the content you want. Even paying what would be feature film rates (say, $4 per hour) is cheaper than the crazy cable bundle charges if you're someone who doesn't watch much TV.  If you're going to watch hours a day, then sure, cable TV makes sense. But for one show? Not so much, so the buying by the season or episode makes sense.

If they want to charge a premium for the per-episode stuff so you don't have to wait until the end of the season, they'd still get takers. Everyone wants to whine about how supposedly no one talks TV around the water cooler at work anymore but in my experience they definitely do (or talk about it in forums online, maybe) and so people don't want to be left behind.  Adults with a decent income are probably willing to pay for that real-time experience.  It's STILL cheaper than cable TV, if you're just fans of a particular show.
 
2013-04-26 04:47:01 PM  

mongbiohazard: mongbiohazard: Theaetetus: mongbiohazard: Theaetetus: See that torrent screenshot showing his upload rate?

"But that's just a comic!"

Yes, this whole discussion assumes the comic reflects reality. I'm certainly not suggesting HBO should rush off and file suit.


See the screenshot of http://www.bigtimeawesometorrentbucket.com/ ? That's not a real site. The Oatmeal makes webcomics, not documentaries.

See the screenshot of Transmission.app? That's a real app. The Oatmeal makes webcomics, not fake applications.


And where exactly do you see an app? All I see is a panel in a comic which looks like a screenshot of transmission.app.

I hit add comment before I had the chance to add, "The Oatmeal makes webcomics, not applications. They do make plenty of fake screenshots though. Bears are real things too, that doesn't mean when he drew a picture of one having sex with that lawyer's mom that a bear really had sex with that lawyer's mom."


With what I've read about that lawyer, we definitely can't rule it out.
 
2013-04-26 04:52:38 PM  

rugman11: The problem is that they can't change the model just for the illegal downloaders.  They have to change it for everybody.  And if they do that they risk losing some partners and customers.  I guarantee you that as soon as we reach the point where digital distribution becomes more profitable than the way it's being done now, HBO will jump.  But to claim that they're idiots who somehow don't understand how the world works and are leaving money on the table is just plain dumb.


Then they should shut up about how piracy is harming them so terribly, because it isn't.

They can't make both arguments at the same time.  They either keep the current model and suck it up about the piracy, or they change their model, get a large chunk of the pirates paying, and possibly lose some other revenues.  THAT is the market situation they're in, now that broadband internet is a reality.  The ideal world of "we keep the current model but there's no piracy either" isn't a choice anymore.
 
2013-04-26 04:54:13 PM  

Nytfall: if you have an android device, get goldworm remote. keyboard and mouse remote control.


Apple Iphone throughout the household. But thanks anyway.


Really was hoping this would turn into a bunch of geeks arguing over the best way to solve my problem....

not so much
 
2013-04-26 04:59:30 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Apple Iphone throughout the household. But thanks anyway.


Really was hoping this would turn into a bunch of geeks arguing over the best way to solve my problem....

not so much


I occasionally watch movies on the big TV by just hooking my iPad up to the TV, you can get a cable to connect your iDevice to HDMI.  Then just fire up Netflix or AVPlayer or whatever else you use, and it will show on the TV.

Granted, I am not picky when it comes to super high def or whatever it is, so it's possible that's not okay for you, dunno.  If you download the HD movies though it looks pretty good to my eye?

Then your remote is right there by the TV, it's just your iPad/phone/whatever. At the end of the cable.
 
2013-04-26 04:59:48 PM  

rugman11: But to claim that they're idiots


I claimed they're idiots?

where?
 
2013-04-26 05:04:42 PM  

thisone: rugman11: But to claim that they're idiots

I claimed they're idiots?

where?


Your statement: "HBO/Sky could be doubling their money on us by letting us buy the season as it airs."

If that statement were actually true, they would be idiots.  You don't say they're idiots, but by claiming that they're needlessly leaving revenue on the table, you're implying that they're idiots.
 
2013-04-26 05:06:38 PM  

rugman11: thisone: rugman11: But to claim that they're idiots

I claimed they're idiots?

where?

Your statement: "HBO/Sky could be doubling their money on us by letting us buy the season as it airs."

If that statement were actually true, they would be idiots.  You don't say they're idiots, but by claiming that they're needlessly leaving revenue on the table, you're implying that they're idiots.


That's you claiming that they're idiots.  Not him.
 
2013-04-26 05:17:43 PM  

itazurakko: rugman11: The problem is that they can't change the model just for the illegal downloaders.  They have to change it for everybody.  And if they do that they risk losing some partners and customers.  I guarantee you that as soon as we reach the point where digital distribution becomes more profitable than the way it's being done now, HBO will jump.  But to claim that they're idiots who somehow don't understand how the world works and are leaving money on the table is just plain dumb.

Then they should shut up about how piracy is harming them so terribly, because it isn't.

They can't make both arguments at the same time.  They either keep the current model and suck it up about the piracy, or they change their model, get a large chunk of the pirates paying, and possibly lose some other revenues.  THAT is the market situation they're in, now that broadband internet is a reality.  The ideal world of "we keep the current model but there's no piracy either" isn't a choice anymore.


You're reversing the argument, though.  There's two separate issues at play here.  I was responding to the argument that HBO could be making more profit than they are now by offering their shows for legal download as they air.  My argument is that it's extremely likely that their maximum profit level is in the model they're in now.  That argument does not, however, say that HBO couldn't be making more revenue without illegal piracy.
 
2013-04-26 05:19:39 PM  
What did you expect from a penal colony?
 
2013-04-26 05:21:23 PM  

rugman11: That argument does not, however, say that HBO couldn't be making more revenue without illegal piracy.


Granted. But they can't have that world because technology has disrupted things.
 
2013-04-26 05:23:53 PM  

rugman11: You don't say they're idiots, but by claiming that they're needlessly leaving revenue on the table, you're implying that they're idiots.


nope.

I actually said that they were bound by distribution contracts. And that I believe those contracts do not take into account the existence of the Internet.

I actually believe that the people who are passing those contracts understand exactly what they are doing.

Seeing something that doesn't represent reality, ie the fact that the speed at which information travels has changed significantly since HBO was founded, and saying so, does not imply that people are "idiots"
 
2013-04-26 05:25:34 PM  
For the 3rd time in as many years comcast took away my ability to have access to basic news and public broadcasting because I refuse to pay them to advertise to me. Fark them and all corporate media. One can no longer buy an operating system, game, music, movie or any farking entertainmant with out a temporary rental agreement that expires? I can no longer own what I purchase? Fark them and the horse they rode in on. I will continue to watch GOT commercial free, guilt free,, and just plain free, along with anything else I can get my my righteous hands on. Let's see you package that comcast. I just spent like a hundred bucks on games I can't even play because of all the second party crap that refuses to let me even install them. It's farkin free from here on out with a smile.
 
2013-04-26 05:27:55 PM  

thisone: rugman11: You don't say they're idiots, but by claiming that they're needlessly leaving revenue on the table, you're implying that they're idiots.

nope.

I actually said that they were bound by distribution contracts. And that I believe those contracts do not take into account the existence of the Internet.

I actually believe that the people who are passing those contracts understand exactly what they are doing.

Seeing something that doesn't represent reality, ie the fact that the speed at which information travels has changed significantly since HBO was founded, and saying so, does not imply that people are "idiots"


I guess I misinterpreted your post.  Sorry about that.
 
2013-04-26 05:28:47 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-26 05:34:43 PM  

thisone: I actually said that they were bound by distribution contracts. And that I believe those contracts do not take into account the existence of the Internet.

I actually believe that the people who are passing those contracts understand exactly what they are doing.


I imagine, somewhere in the bowels of HBO HQ, an entire room full of lawyers & accountants are furiously reviewing contract law & profit margin calculations while waiting for the exact moment the profits for distributing a la carte shows (like GoT) match or exceed the cost of staying bound to companies like Comcast & TimeWarner.

/reminds me a little of the THX 1138 ending
 
2013-04-26 05:37:00 PM  

I_C_Weener: Dude!  Spoilers!

Also, I view Australia kind of like he wildlings north of the wall...lawless.


Do they have a lot of plowable redheads in Ozzieland these days?
 
2013-04-26 05:39:22 PM  
Aussies to US Ambassador: fark you.
 
2013-04-26 05:41:48 PM  
I'll continue to pay the iron price thank you! Kidding I have HBO.
 
2013-04-26 06:11:18 PM  

StandsWithAFist: I imagine, somewhere in the bowels of HBO HQ, an entire room full of lawyers & accountants are furiously reviewing contract law & profit margin calculations while waiting for the exact moment the profits for distributing a la carte shows (like GoT) match or exceed the cost of staying bound to companies like Comcast & TimeWarner.


It is creepy that I imagined the same thing.
 
2013-04-26 07:28:20 PM  
People who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones.
 
2013-04-26 07:32:28 PM  

Precision Boobery: suziequzie: But... they bring snacks and beer... so that's cool, right?

Oh wow, so not only are they getting to watch it without paying for it, but you're profiting off of it!  I bet you rebroadcast games without the express written consent of Major League Baseball, too.


I don't watch baseball.  And I don't even have a tivo or dvr.
 
2013-04-26 07:36:18 PM  

Aarontology: I thought they pretty much banned the internet in Australia.


What a bunch of Nazis!
 
2013-04-26 07:38:40 PM  

MugzyBrown: 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.

The question is, if HBO made available an episode for download at full resolution for say $2 per episode, would most of the 'pirates' decide to pay for the product or would they still just want it for free?


If the quality was good and it didn't have asinine draconian DRM protections (you installed a new monitor, sorry, you must re-purchase this episode) then yes, I think a lot of us would pay for it.  Even at $3 an episode it would work out to a lot less than what cable companies expect us to pay to get HBO, which is ultimately the deciding factor.

Yes, a lot of pirates pirate things because they can, but just as many pirate TV shows because they don't watch that much TV.  Certainly they don't watch enough TV to justify paying nearly a hundred dollars a month just for maybe a dozen TV shows they actually follow.  For most of those folks, the internet has replaced TV as what they do to waste time.  Why pay for cable if it's just going to be turned off for 23 hours out of the average day?

You know what would increase the number of people who would pay for it?  Do like Steam does, and allow us to preload the episode encrypted onto our computers.  When its finally release time, each person has to download some trivial amount of data to complete the install and then let their computer decrypt it.  That way even people with crappy internet connections could obtain episodes in HD and enjoy them without a huge delay.  That would be worth some extra money right there.
 
2013-04-26 07:51:44 PM  

MugzyBrown: 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.

The question is, if HBO made available an episode for download at full resolution for say $2 per episode, would most of the 'pirates' decide to pay for the product or would they still just want it for free?



They'll still want it for free. Just takes away the "I would totally pay for it if..." argument.
Just like when iTunes launched. Do you think that stopped illegal downloading of music?

For all the good it's done, the internet has birthed the "GIMMEGIMMEGIMMENOWNOWNOWNOW!!!!!!" generation. People feel entitled to entertainment.
 
2013-04-26 08:01:35 PM  
if they charge a premium for a la carte?

"wah they charge too much! unfair! I pirate them!"

you all can rationalize your theft all you want. you might even say you'd pay a $1 per hd episode a la carte while you torrent the stuff now. I'm saying the majority of you're full of it, and no better than the robber barons of the industry.
 
2013-04-26 08:05:15 PM  
I don't know about Australia, but here in New Zealand it is broadcast 6 hours after it screens in the US. Networks are getting more savvy about rapid distribution.

There's an argument that piracy is actually helping the series.
 
2013-04-26 08:19:02 PM  

stoli n coke: Just like when iTunes launched.


yeah, just like when iTunes launched, whereupon millions and millions of people started paying reasonable prices for music.
 
Displayed 50 of 360 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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