EU Telco Chief: Business Model Failure Leads To Piracy... Not The Other Way Around - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 49 Old 07-13-2009, 03:05 PM
Senior Member
 
Bozster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fpconvert View Post

You actually do not agree with me.

You in fact blame the the victim of the crime, the content owner, for the theft of intellectual property.
How is it the content owners problem that you can't schedule your time to view a program when it is presented or in subsequent re-runs or to purchase when available?

You let the consumer off with a pass because the content owner was "asking for it".

You let the file sharing site off the hook who made you complicit in their crimes.

Because something is not "bolted down" does not justify someone walking away with it.



I wasn't agreeing with you, I was agreeing with the article. If i have been addressing you, I would have quoted you.

And yes, It's their own fault that piracy is growing or affecting their profits because they refuse to provide content in timely fashion through legal channels that leaves people who are fans to try to find different ways to get that content. Nobody is a criminal here. If they provided shows for purchase like they do for some, I would gladly pay for it. But when you don't have access to it and you didn't DVR it or simply you missed it you are naturally trying to find a way to watch what you missed.

As I noted, I don't have any problems paying for content, but I want to be able to access their TV content through legal channels.

So their business model is flawed and is indeed increasing piracy. There's no one to blame but themselves.

XBL: Bozster | PSN: Bozster
Bozster is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 49 Old 07-13-2009, 03:07 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
ccotenj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: the toxic waste dumps of new jersey
Posts: 21,915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bozster View Post

:
And yes, It's their own fault that piracy is growing or affecting their profits because they refuse to provide content in timely fashion through legal channels that leaves people who are fans to try to find different ways to get that content. Nobody is a criminal here. If they provided shows for purchase like they do for some, I would gladly pay for it. But when you don't have access to it and you didn't DVR it or simply you missed it you are naturally trying to find a way to watch what you missed.

a) interestingly enough, i see nothing in the constitution nor bill of rights that guarantees you access to content.

b) ummm, yes, someone is a criminal... and it's not the content provider...

- chris

 

my build thread - updated 8-20-12 - new seating installed and projector isolation solution

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1332917/ccotenj-finally-gets-a-projector

ccotenj is offline  
post #33 of 49 Old 07-13-2009, 03:11 PM
Senior Member
 
Bozster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fpconvert View Post

They do offer options...just not the way some want it...free...w/o strings...right now.

Who says people want it free? Some maybe but most will pay for it and yes, we want it in realistic time period, meaning like next day to be available through legal channels. If they offered it, there would be no need to pirate for most people. Convenience always trumps torrents or whatever. I've spent so much money on iTunes alone that it's not even funny and I don't mind. I downloaded whole shows, season after season.

But example, HBO doesn't offer any real way of watching shows and on-demand is very limited too. Not everything is available. I watched Entourage and downloaded all 4 season on iTunes and wanted the fifth. But 5th season was nowhere to be found. No legal online way to download it and pay for it, no DVD, nothing.

So what are you left with? Bingo.

That's bad business model any way you look at it. All you have to do is look at the comments on iTunes and other services from users to understand that A LARGE percentage of people is ticked off they can't purchase it so they look for other venues. It's simple as that.

XBL: Bozster | PSN: Bozster
Bozster is offline  
post #34 of 49 Old 07-13-2009, 03:12 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
ccotenj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: the toxic waste dumps of new jersey
Posts: 21,915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 90
psound, i think we agree on one thing, that we both want access to content in a user friendly way... i don't have a problem with that... i'd be perfectly happy if i never had to do anything but log on to the net to get content...

my issues are with the stuff you quoted, stuff i read here on avs, the attempt by the author of the article to create a populist position where none exists (and that's coming from a "populist"), and so on...

i don't want new laws... i'd even go so far to say as i'd like to see some existing ones relaxed...

but i don't believe the way to get those laws relaxed are to break them...

as far as my "piracy" comment... sorry... but the majority of users of torrent sites would NOT use an equivalent "pay" site... YOU might... SOME might... but realistically, i'm not going to kid myself... imo, it's pretty naive to think otherwise...

- chris

 

my build thread - updated 8-20-12 - new seating installed and projector isolation solution

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1332917/ccotenj-finally-gets-a-projector

ccotenj is offline  
post #35 of 49 Old 07-13-2009, 03:15 PM
Senior Member
 
Bozster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

a) interestingly enough, i see nothing in the constitution nor bill of rights that guarantees you access to content.

b) ummm, yes, someone is a criminal... and it's not the content provider...

LOL.. it's not right of course, but if you are in that business don't complain that people are trying to find different ways to watch their favorite shows because you are too slow, unwilling or unable to provide your fan audience you rely on to begin with to make money and advertising.

Can't have it both ways. You are either in the business and offer stuff to your consumers in timely fashion and users will pay for it legally or you fuel piracy by not allowing the same content in timely manner and then you bitch and moan how piracy is killing your business. It's complete BS and a horrible business model because you can't lose money if you are not satisfying your primary audience to begin with.

XBL: Bozster | PSN: Bozster
Bozster is offline  
post #36 of 49 Old 07-13-2009, 03:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fpconvert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: w. mass
Posts: 1,499
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bozster View Post



I wasn't agreeing with you, I was agreeing with the article. If i have been addressing you, I would have quoted you.

And yes, It's their own fault that piracy is growing or affecting their profits because they refuse to provide content in timely fashion through legal channels that leaves people who are fans to try to find different ways to get that content. Nobody is a criminal here. If they provided shows for purchase like they do for some, I would gladly pay for it. But when you don't have access to it and you didn't DVR it or simply you missed it you are naturally trying to find a way to watch what you missed.

As I noted, I don't have any problems paying for content, but I want to be able to access their TV content through legal channels.
So their business model is flawed and is indeed increasing piracy. There's no one to blame but themselves.

My mistake...your post followed mine and you did not quote or reference the OP either.

So to sum it up, you blame the victim for their desire to control the content as they see fit.

Further, taking something that the owner has not given you permission to use is not criminal. Interesting perspective.
fpconvert is offline  
post #37 of 49 Old 07-13-2009, 03:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fpconvert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: w. mass
Posts: 1,499
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bozster View Post

Who says people want it free? Some maybe but most will pay for it and yes, we want it in realistic time period, meaning like next day to be available through legal channels. If they offered it, there would be no need to pirate for most people. Convenience always trumps torrents or whatever. I've spent so much money on iTunes alone that it's not even funny and I don't mind. I downloaded whole shows, season after season.

But example, HBO doesn't offer any real way of watching shows and on-demand is very limited too. Not everything is available. I watched Entourage and downloaded all 4 season on iTunes and wanted the fifth. But 5th season was nowhere to be found. No legal online way to download it and pay for it, no DVD, nothing.

So what are you left with? Bingo.

That's bad business model any way you look at it. All you have to do is look at the comments on iTunes and other services from users to understand that A LARGE percentage of people is ticked off they can't purchase it so they look for other venues. It's simple as that.

I subscribe to HBO and current shows are always repeated during the week. They offer VOD of older programs as well. Within a few months all programming is on DVD or BD which can be purchased or rented.
fpconvert is offline  
post #38 of 49 Old 07-13-2009, 03:30 PM - Thread Starter
 
PSound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fpconvert View Post

So to sum it up, you blame the victim for their desire to control the content as they see fit.

To even use the word "blame" suggests a poor understanding of the situation.

We are talking about a business. The content owners are going to lawmakers asking for help because their position is that they are suffering due to changes in technology and usage. We are finally seeing a policy maker hold up a mirror and ask them to take ownership of their own responsibility to react to the changing market.

There will still be reasonable protection and enforcement of the content owners rights. This policy maker is also pointing out that the content owners also must make moves to protect their content by serving customers desire to use the new technology.
PSound is offline  
post #39 of 49 Old 07-13-2009, 03:34 PM
Senior Member
 
Bozster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fpconvert View Post

My mistake...your post followed mine and you did not quote or reference the OP either.

So to sum it up, you blame the victim for their desire to control the content as they see fit.

Further, taking something that the owner has not given you permission to use is not criminal. Interesting perspective.

LOL.. criminal.. tell me what's the difference between a copy you DVR and the one you get online?

You can DVR the show but you can't download it? Do you see a problem in this logic?

Trust me, I'm well aware of copyright law as I'm a creative director so this side of the things is pretty much well known to me.

I never said it's not wrong to do it from moral perspective to begin with but they are simply not giving people choices. It's simple as that. It's their own fault because they are not able to supply people what they want and it's only natural for people to look at alternate ways to get those shows they are already used to getting one way.

We are discussing something different here. Piracy has increased because they are not able to fullfill market requests. If they did, piracy wouldn't be a problem at all because people would be able to get that content legally and are willing even to pay for it just so they can get it in timely manner.

It's about opportunity. In any market or industry if you are unable to provide your audience with quick response and ease of use you will lose out to other factors. In this case it's piracy because it's the only way you watch content they are already showing on TV and have sold parts previously somewhere online.

I mean what's to be expected? That people will watch show after show, allow them to make money of the audience and then not deliver what is wanted and then they go and are shocked that people look for that content anywhere else they can get it.

That's just completely stupid and you can't bitch about people and pirates. When there's a need for something alternate sources always appear. In this case it's piracy. You either step up or you fail and get steamed over. It's like that in every business.

XBL: Bozster | PSN: Bozster
Bozster is offline  
post #40 of 49 Old 07-13-2009, 03:44 PM - Thread Starter
 
PSound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

psound, i think we agree on one thing, that we both want access to content in a user friendly way... i don't have a problem with that... i'd be perfectly happy if i never had to do anything but log on to the net to get content...

my issues are with the stuff you quoted, stuff i read here on avs, the attempt by the author of the article to create a populist position where none exists (and that's coming from a "populist"), and so on...

i don't want new laws... i'd even go so far to say as i'd like to see some existing ones relaxed...

but i don't believe the way to get those laws relaxed are to break them...

I do not condone or participate in piracy. I also don't think the article was far off since it pointed out the false views that each extreme has of the other. I also do not think new laws are required, or will help. The desire to exert absolute control has caused content owners more harm than good (IMO).

Quote:


as far as my "piracy" comment... sorry... but the majority of users of torrent sites would NOT use an equivalent "pay" site... YOU might... SOME might... but realistically, i'm not going to kid myself... imo, it's pretty naive to think otherwise...

What I think this comes down to is what services are people going to use. First and foremost, they cannot use something that does not exist. If the only way to watch last night's episode of "The Tonight Show" is via torrent sites, then that is the ONLY solution that can be discussed among fans of the show.

If there is a legal option (like Hulu), then that is what is going to be discussed (I know I tell people to use Hulu to catch The Tonight Show, or Family Guy, or Kings, etc). Likewise, when an offering is compelling it will grow quickly of it's own accord. Hulu is a good example.

Netflix streaming is another great example. Once it was added to the XBox (and allowed an easy and convenient way for people to use it on their TV), it took off tremendously fast. It spurred large growth in streaming usage AND in new Netflix subscribers. Now when people talk about viewing movies over the internet, they can talk about their experience with Netflix... instead of torrent sites.

The problem that still exists is that the content released to these sites (especially movies), has not kept pace with customers desires. Let's face it... if you are very interested in streaming movies, you likely have Netflix (even at the 1 disc-at-a-time package). That means there is a legitimate revenue stream to the content owners. But when the content you want to stream is not available, then you look at alternatives.

That is where things start to get messy. Trends are started that way. A person may not go in thinking "I want stuff for free", but if that is the only way to get it....

Whether or not it is right is irrelevant to the business issue at hand. Do content owners want to be the gateway to their material, or do they want people doing a Google search to not find any legitimate (and revenue generating) way to view their content.
PSound is offline  
post #41 of 49 Old 07-13-2009, 04:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fpconvert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: w. mass
Posts: 1,499
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think in the case of piracy the content owner would go to those who enforce the law that the legislators enacted.
There are copyright laws that prohibit the unauthorized use or profiting...blah, blah...you know the drill.
You would approach a legislator to change a law.

By the way, I think I have good understanding of property rights and what violates those rights.
fpconvert is offline  
post #42 of 49 Old 07-13-2009, 04:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
ccotenj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: the toxic waste dumps of new jersey
Posts: 21,915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 90
i can't disagree with that post psound... all good points...

and yes, there are plenty of times when i wish netflix had more than what they are giving me... i figure that will happen in due time...

consider this... even the fact that we can stream limited titles at this point is a pretty big concession from the providers, and reading inbetween the lines of that concession, i see more and more of those concessions coming...

i also realize that i don't have a "right" to content... it sucks when you miss something, i understand that...

it will take time though... and cooperation from all...

i think there's two groups of people:

a) those like "us" (speaking for you and me and some others), who would pay for the ability to stream when/where we want to.

b) those who would rather take it for free. we don't get much of that talk on avs, since it's relatively verboten. but a few ventures on to some other sites will show that this is a pretty large group of people. much larger than group a.

actually, there's a third... those who are completely clueless as to what all this is about... at this point in time, that group represents the majority of people....

- chris

 

my build thread - updated 8-20-12 - new seating installed and projector isolation solution

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1332917/ccotenj-finally-gets-a-projector

ccotenj is offline  
post #43 of 49 Old 07-13-2009, 04:20 PM - Thread Starter
 
PSound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The first group (A) includes at least 1 million+ people using Netflix on their XBox 360.... ;-)

And it is that 3rd group that the battle will be for....

Those who want to try watching content online and will be presented either with legitimate sources providing good content (and quality) at a good value... or sites that have the content, from who know what source.

It is a growing market... the number of unique viewers and minutes spent watching video are consistently trending up. Within the next couple of years we will likely hit the breaking point where usage really skyrockets, and the model that people adopt will be very difficult to shift. I truly hope the content owners are in a position to provide people what they want.
PSound is offline  
post #44 of 49 Old 07-13-2009, 04:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fpconvert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: w. mass
Posts: 1,499
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have to go eat supper...but i'll leave you with one last thought.
Due to people with differing opinions this thread got 41 more responses than a thread in this section would normally get.
fpconvert is offline  
post #45 of 49 Old 07-13-2009, 04:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Bozster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post


i think there's two groups of people:

a) those like "us" (speaking for you and me and some others), who would pay for the ability to stream when/where we want to.

b) those who would rather take it for free. we don't get much of that talk on avs, since it's relatively verboten. but a few ventures on to some other sites will show that this is a pretty large group of people. much larger than group a.

actually, there's a third... those who are completely clueless as to what all this is about... at this point in time, that group represents the majority of people....

And if you combine groups a and c.. (and c will join a because of convenience like they do with netflix for example) then piracy really doesn't represent such problem because it would (and I'm just hypothetically speaking) 20%. Right now, you have group A that looks for alternate means as well (many do), group B and parts of group C who hear about torrent and download because that's what they see others doing.


We are not discussing here whether or not piracy is ok. It's not. We can all agree on that. But we are discussing "business model" that is current with networks and studios and as such is what drives huge percentage of people to piracy.

As PSound eloquently put, it's about what they are not doing that represents their bad and outdated business model. If they wanted to stop losing money they would step up with the times and offer that content through legal channels (even for a price) and in timely manner (meaning next day) and that business model would significantly affect piracy and ultimately kill it.

Music in general has been moving somewhat in the right way. Amazon.com and iTunes with DRM free music and enormous catalogs made people simply quit downloading music on torrents as much when it's cheap and so easy to get music through legal channels. I have never felt with music these days that I lack anything. I want the song I go to itunes or amazon and bam for $.79 or $.99 I get whatever I want. Done. These are good business models.

XBL: Bozster | PSN: Bozster
Bozster is offline  
post #46 of 49 Old 07-13-2009, 07:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
srw1000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 2,588
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bozster View Post

Music in general has been moving somewhat in the right way. Amazon.com and iTunes with DRM free music and enormous catalogs made people simply quit downloading music on torrents as much when it's cheap and so easy to get music through legal channels. I have never felt with music these days that I lack anything. I want the song I go to itunes or amazon and bam for $.79 or $.99 I get whatever I want. Done. These are good business models.

The music industry waited too long to embrace digital distribution. It's estimated that only one in forty downloads today is legal. By not offering a legitimate, reasonably-priced alternative to illegal downloads, they lost too much of the market. People became to accustomed to free fee downloads making it incredibly hard to win them back as paying customers.

The movie industry can't risk the same thing happening, which is why the need to act now, before a large segment of consumers have learned about and become accustomed to free content.

Scott

srw1000 is offline  
post #47 of 49 Old 07-14-2009, 05:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fpconvert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: w. mass
Posts: 1,499
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by srw1000 View Post

The music industry waited too long to embrace digital distribution. It's estimated that only one in forty downloads today is legal. By not offering a legitimate, reasonably-priced alternative to illegal downloads, they lost too much of the market. People became to accustomed to free fee downloads making it incredibly hard to win them back as paying customers.

The movie industry can't risk the same thing happening, which is why the need to act now, before a large segment of consumers have learned about and become accustomed to free content.

Scott

The chances of getting a person to pay for something as long as there is a free version right next to it is nil.
As long as sites are left to distribute someone elses property/work for free, w/o consequence, the creator will suffer the loss. When you throw in the chance to profit immensely from the sale of such a site you compound the problem.
The choice left for the creator of content is to charge more for those willing to pay or accept less income from their work.
fpconvert is offline  
post #48 of 49 Old 07-14-2009, 05:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localnet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Grass Lake, MI
Posts: 2,027
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSound View Post

It is not about letting someone off with a free pass. It is about the fact that how users consume their content is changing. Content owners can choose to offer a legit (and revenue generating) option... or not. Not offering an option means the ONLY way to stream/download that content is via sites that will not send revenue to th content owners. Not a wise business decision... and yes, a business model that ultimately increases piracy.

Exceedingly obvious.

Cannot disagree with that, and my feelings too. I just wish they would put out something worth stealing. (sarc)
localnet is offline  
post #49 of 49 Old 07-14-2009, 07:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
srw1000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 2,588
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by fpconvert View Post

The chances of getting a person to pay for something as long as there is a free version right next to it is nil.
As long as sites are left to distribute someone elses property/work for free, w/o consequence, the creator will suffer the loss. When you throw in the chance to profit immensely from the sale of such a site you compound the problem.
The choice left for the creator of content is to charge more for those willing to pay or accept less income from their work.

Yeah, that's their dilemma. The problem is that if they keep raising prices, the free option will become more and more attractive. That's a big problem.

Scott

srw1000 is offline  
Reply Video Download Services & Hardware

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off