Re: Oooh we are scared!!!


"Sean Black" <sean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ZtkWv9p7vO9HFwOW@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <65k3d4F2f1oc1U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, michael adams
<mjadams27@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

"Sean Black" <sean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0H$9VzNVBN9HFw5f@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <mdg9v39k06fp4d8f2tuock6i8s7k5rtob7@xxxxxxx>,
middlelight@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 11:49:10 +0100, Sean Black
<sean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <7jl7v356rcr3ul4t90ou2l3tj8ahmtpfjf@xxxxxxx>,
middlelight@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 04:00:49 -0700 (PDT), Jeff Lawrence
<jeff.lawrence@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 1 Apr, 12:41, "Carl Waring" <em...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dom Robinson wrote:
On 31 Mar, 22:41, Hugh Jardon <stortf...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Another limp attempt to halt the unstoppable!



http://www.cableforum.co.uk/article/394/virgin-media-first-uk-isp-to-...

Dear oh dear, if they really do try and enforce that then
have
no customers by a week after it starts.

Well they will; just not the ones that illegally download
And good
riddance to them.

Why is it wrong, or illegal, to download episodes of a TV show, watch
it, and then delete it? I do it often for
stuff that is shown in the US the night before. Is it any different to
recording it on my DVR?

But you're forgetting what and who pays for these shows. When a US
network sells the show that you downloaded, watched and deleted to a
broadcaster in your country, the price they charge will be affected by
a number of variables. One of those variables is whether your local
broadcaster is getting "first run" rights to the show in your country.
If we're talking about a high profile show like "Lost" or "Heroes"
then they'll be paying quite a bit for those rights. Obviously if a
lot of people are doing what you're doing, then they're not really
getting what they paid for, and this devalues the product. The US
network won't be very happy about that. There's also the issue of
commercials. They are a major revenue generator for the original US
network, but are chopped out of the bittorrent downloads you're
getting. Again, the US networks aren't too happy about that, as
you're getting the product without paying the "price" of watching the
commercials that support that product.

If the non-US broadcaster was to show stuff soon after the US broadcast
(like Sky do with Lost, 24, Battlestar etc...) then there'd be no need
to download them.

True, but then perhaps it costs them more to get them so close to the
US airings.

Nothing wrong with that, they pay more and get more viewers, they want
programmes on the cheap, then find out that by the time they show them a
percentage of people have already downloaded them, tough.

If they want to *** about with delaying showing stuff
until it suits them (as the C4 variants tend to do) then *** 'em.

If you watch a programme on DVR, you don't need to watch adverts, so
what's the difference between that and a torrent?

In practice there's no difference. TV companies don't seem to see it
that way, though. This article sheds some light on the rather unusual
way in which some of them see it.

http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/1113

Once again proving that certain people in the TV industry obviously live
on a different planet to the rest of us :-)

--
Sean Black



Whereas on your planet, you expect the TV industry to provide you
with free entertainment ?


Not at all, I pay a TV licence and a Sky subscription, that's hardly
free entertainment. I merely chose to download stuff to see it sooner.

The article refers to certain TV execs saying that if people didn't
watch the adverts they are in fact stealing the TV show, which is quite
obviously complete bollocks. They may one day be able to stop people FF
through ads, but they can hardly force people to sit and watch them,
whatever they may think.
--
Sean Black


Claiming the punters are "stealing" the TV show is clearly over the top.
As with the quibbles about people going to the lavatory or making
the tea during the commercial break

However once it becomes clear that TV commercials are no longer as
effective as was thought, then advertisers will no longer be willing
to pay top rates.*

And so the only alternative seems to be for TV subscriptions to rise
substantially. Making the present cost of a TV Licence seem a bargain
by comparison.

* They can hardly be paying top rates for commercials on Freeview right now,
but that doesn't make the ads any less of a pain in the *rse, as it is.


michael adams

....


.

Loading