UK 'pirates' face £20 appeal fee

[InKursion]

Why is that comedy gold? If you are watching primetime television a huge amountof that programming and its funding has been propped up advertisement and sponsor money. Adverts are a part of the television model. What would you rather have? Adverts or a much higher monthly/annual subscription fee, one that props up and funds all of the programs and pays the television writers and actors and crew and all staff involved?

Again it's an anti-piracy statement borne out of a wish to receive something (i.e. primetime television programming) for nothing (i.e. no adverts thank you). Adverts are a nuisance but they are part of the television financial model. Furthermore they are regulated and enforced by laws as to length, material, suitability etc. so they are very much a regulated and standardized part of the model, as well. If you don't want adverts, I suggest you pay for an exclusive cable channel / online service / dvd / some other form of watching. Although I will admit that advertisement is a necessary and inescapable evil of our current media culture; I still would rather have them than have everything be more expensive, or TV shows even worse.

 

[CaptainRAVE]

This discussion is OK, but you must not post any links to torrent sites or any other sites that contain illegal content. I have previously had these links removed from posts in this thread - this is the one and only warning on this subject.

 

[m4cc45]

Snip

Why is the UK the only country to have a TV licence? Why do we get TV shows so far behind America? Why are films in the cinema on months behind USA? Why do digital distribution, such as Flix, have to wait several months before making the same film / show that's on in America that's being distributed in the same way by the same firm available?

Make a good product at a good price and in a good time frame and it will sell.

I guarantee you that if you put a good Game / TV Series / Film available at the same time in the UK and make it available by all means (i.e. download, blu-ray, dvd) and, most importantly, at a good price then it will sell.

Back on topic it is ridiculous that you should pay. I remember that law company who went out of business (and will probably pop up from time to time in the future) sending letters and then getting old people who had no internet connection or just people without an internet connection. Causing them stress. Now to say it's going to cost to defend yourself is mad.


M.

 

[pete248]

Why is that comedy gold? If you are watching primetime television a huge amountof that programming and its funding has been propped up advertisement and sponsor money. Adverts are a part of the television model. What would you rather have? Adverts or a much higher monthly/annual subscription fee, one that props up and funds all of the programs and pays the television writers and actors and crew and all staff involved?

Again it's an anti-piracy statement borne out of a wish to receive something (i.e. primetime television programming) for nothing (i.e. no adverts thank you). Adverts are a nuisance but they are part of the television financial model. Furthermore they are regulated and enforced by laws as to length, material, suitability etc. so they are very much a regulated and standardized part of the model, as well. If you don't want adverts, I suggest you pay for an exclusive cable channel / online service / dvd / some other form of watching. Although I will admit that advertisement is a necessary and inescapable evil of our current media culture; I still would rather have them than have everything be more expensive, or TV shows even worse.

But it's just another example of these companies thinking they know best about how to distribute their content. When you say that all these piracy excuses are just over the top "anecdotes", they are actually the opinion of consumers who receive the content, which should be taken into account. It's just completely arrogant and a poor business decision to reject all opinions of the people who are unhappy with your service/product, thinking you know best all the time.

Anyway, i'd be VERY surprised if the increased advertising revenue would be more than the amount of subscribers they'd lose to piracy. We don't know how the system works yet, but there are numerous reasons why you'd want to seek in a recorded programme. This to me is a silly idea that would alienate people in the masses.

 

[Semple]

Didn't ACS law try something similar to this. Look what happened to him in the end, his reputation got ruined, he lost his licence to practice law and he also had to file for bankruptcy - I seem to also remember reading that his wife left him too.

Also slightly different point - when they reveal these statistics that people have illegally downloaded 5 million copies of this film or game, and then equating to them to lost sales, it's never a real figure because 5 million people would have never had the intentions of purchasing the product in the first place.

 

[InKursion]

But it's just another example of these companies thinking they know best about how to distribute their content. When you say that all these piracy excuses are just over the top "anecdotes", they are actually the opinion of consumers who receive the content, which should be taken into account. It's just completely arrogant and a poor business decision to reject all opinions of the people who are unhappy with your service/product, thinking you know best all the time.

Anyway, i'd be VERY surprised if the increased advertising revenue would be more than the amount of subscribers they'd lose to piracy. We don't know how the system works yet, but there are numerous reasons why you'd want to seek in a recorded programme. This to me is a silly idea that would alienate people in the masses.

No it's an example of a company trying to protect their business model, because they know if people start skipping adverts, advert money will dry up, and a huge amount of their funding will go with it. Do they need to catch up? Probably, but it is a huge part of their current business model. Advertisements aren't likely to go anywhere anytime soon - they feature prominently on 'next gen' online streaming services, too. Advertisement provides a large amount of funding and cash for the entertainment industry: what's new? This is part and parcel of it, unfortunately. I know you want some utopian world where you can have all the latest content immediately streamed to your livingroom in ultra-HD the day it has finished production in America, but unfortunately the production/distribution networks of TV are tied up intrinsically with regional/national television networks and their systems of funding (i.e. advertising). If these systems didn't exist, most of the shows wouldn't get commissioned and would never even exist in the first place.

So you have to sit through 2 minutes of adverts every 20 minutes. Don't watch TV if you don't like it and pay for the DVD boxset afterwards. I don't know what else to suggest. I can't reinvent the television entertainment industry for you. If you have any amazing ideas how they can fund and run a television network without advertising revenue, I'm sure they'd love to hear from you. For now, though, all you're doing about it is griping and leeching from honest hardworking people - through all stages of the industry - on the Internet.

 

[InKursion]

Also slightly different point - when they reveal these statistics that people have illegally downloaded 5 million copies of this film or game, and then equating to them to lost sales, it's never a real figure because 5 million people would have never had the intentions of purchasing the product in the first place.

This sort of logic is bandied about a lot... and to some extent, yes, I agree, it is a grey area of potential/doubtful purchase. This is where copyright infringement has a unique nature of its own, quite different from stealing (i.e. removing a physical copy) but then not yet always replicating and 'losing a chance' of purchase (because many people wouldn't have ever purchased it, anyway). What I will say though is that, for every guy that innocently downloads something he doesn't have much interest in, there are 10 that are huge fans of the show/series/film and would definitely have had to buy the DVD or go to the cinema or whatever, otherwise. People hide behind this "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" catch-all, which would be convincing if they were talking about the complete works of a 1950's jazz musician when they have no previous interest in jazz, but is less convicing when it's the latest 'must see' television series.

It's hard to form analogies because digital copyright infringement doesn't involve the 'taking' of anything per se, but the "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" excuse is a bit like trying to walk out of a clothes-store with a bunch of swiped clothing that you put on in the changing rooms, getting caught, and then saying "but I never would have paid for this clothes anyway, they're not to my taste". You are still in some way - however the technicalities of the process deem it - 'taking' something without giving any money to the people behind it.

 

[pete248]

No it's an example of a company trying to protect their business model, because they know if people start skipping adverts, advert money will dry up, and a huge amount of their funding will go with it. Do they need to catch up? Probably, but it is a huge part of their current business model. Advertisements aren't likely to go anywhere anytime soon - they feature prominently on 'next gen' online streaming services, too. Advertisement provides a large amount of funding and cash for the entertainment industry: what's new? This is part and parcel of it, unfortunately. I know you want some utopian world where you can have all the latest content immediately streamed to your livingroom in ultra-HD the day it has finished production in America, but unfortunately the production/distribution networks of TV are tied up intrinsically with regional/national television networks and their systems of funding (i.e. advertising). If these systems didn't exist, most of the shows wouldn't get commissioned and would never even exist in the first place.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree! I wouldn't mind adverts at all if it got most of the other things right, but unfortunately it doesn't (different release dates, inability just to download one show without a subscription (Game of Thrones example)). I just think the industry should stop rejecting the opinions of pirates so blankly!

Could you tell me where I can download legal FLACs from? The new Muse album is out soon and I will certainly be wanting to buy that!

 

[InKursion]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree! I wouldn't mind adverts at all if it got most of the other things right, but unfortunately it doesn't (different release dates, inability just to download one show without a subscription (Game of Thrones example)). I just think the industry should stop rejecting the opinions of pirates so blankly!

Could you tell me where I can download legal FLACs from? The new Muse album is out soon and I will certainly be wanting to buy that!

I don't know anything about Muse's new album (other than that horrific single) so I couldn't tell you if their site or label have a store to digital purchase music. I'm into electronic and indie music and there are plenty of stores (e.g. Bleep, Beatport, Boomkat) that offer 320/V0/FLAC/wav downloads as well as physical copies. If you genuinely can't find it anywhere then I am baffled, and really am surprised. If not though, surely you should still buy a CD or, better yet, the vinyl (so you can rip your own FLAC ) from them? At least as a tokenistic gesture of some sort of exchange. To say "there is no FLAC readily available on the internet, therefore I will download and pay nothing for the album" seems like a bit of a no-ball to me.

 

[pete248]

I don't know anything about Muse's new album (other than that horrific single) so I couldn't tell you if their site or label have a store to digital purchase music. I'm into electronic and indie music and there are plenty of stores (e.g. Bleep, Beatport, Boomkat) that offer 320/V0/FLAC/wav downloads as well as physical copies. If you genuinely can't find it anywhere then I am baffled, and really am surprised. If not though, surely you should still buy a CD or, better yet, the vinyl (so you can rip your own FLAC ) from them? At least as a tokenistic gesture of some sort of exchange. To say "there is no FLAC readily available on the internet, therefore I will download and pay nothing for the album" seems like a bit of a no-ball to me.

I have been searching for ages for an FLAC music store for more mainstream/common music but have yet to find one (so be surprised!). bandcamp.com looks like the best site for mainstream artists to start selling their music through but it's all mainly indie at the moment. As soon as big artists start selling things in a bandcamp fashion and break away from labels the better in my opinion. Labels are defunct, everything they used to do you can do yourself through the internet. I do pay for music, I just don't like the fact that if I buy an album most of the money goes to the label vs. if they sold it on a site like bandcamp where they get ~90%.

 

[George Hincapie]

So you have to sit through 2 minutes of adverts every 20 minutes. Don't watch TV if you don't like it and pay for the DVD boxset afterwards.

But you don't have to. You can download all US episodes, within 24 hrs of being aired there, without adverts. Perfect.

 

[InKursion]

But you don't have to. You can download all US episodes, within 24 hrs of being aired there, without adverts. Perfect.

And contribute nothing to any of the writing, acting or technicals that went into the production. Excellent morality. If you watch 12 hours where an actor makes you laugh and cry, why wouldn't you want to pay him for his talents? Entitled attitude yet again. What do you contribute?

 

[George Hincapie]

And contribute nothing to any of the writing, acting or technicals that went into the production. Excellent morality. If you watch 12 hours where an actor makes you laugh and cry, why wouldn't you want to pay him for his talents? Entitled attitude yet again. What do you contribute?

Not an entitled attitude, but an indifferent one. Why do I have to contribute anything? They are going to make the show regardless of whether or not I choose to pay to receive it.

 

[InKursion]

Not an entitled attitude, but an indifferent one. Why do I have to contribute anything? They are going to make the show regardless of whether or not I choose to pay to receive it.

Well not really. If everyone took that attitude they'd have no money and they wouldn't make any shows at all.

 

[George Hincapie]

Well not really. If everyone took that attitude they'd have no money and they wouldn't make any shows at all.

Nonsense.

 

[Nexus]

Why is the UK the only country to have a TV licence?

Err... we aren't.
The BBC however pioneered Public Service Broadcasting, something that many other countries replicated and have their own fee. Just a few are Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Iceland.

I'd also add that in a lot of countries, like the US, the television is poor unless you actually have a cable or satellite service, its pretty much a requirement.

Why do we get TV shows so far behind America?

I don't think you understand how the whole television industry actually works.

The majority of major shows are made in the US.
They are either funded by a television network, or bought by a television network based on how successful they think the show will be, which in turn then allows them to sell advertising slots and sponsorship deals. If the show proves to be a success, they can then sell the show to other territories... i.e. every other country in the world who has a TV station interested in buying it. They in turn can then schedule the show and the advertising slots around it.

Now I know many users on here tend to not agree with this model, they want it now, however thats just how it works. Advertising is what funds these shows and also kills them, if they aren't getting the audience figures. Despite the rise of streaming services and online players, the majority of the world still sit and watch a show when its on the television.

Why are films in the cinema on months behind USA?

That's not always the case.
We got The Avengers before the US did, as we did other films in the past.

The main reason why you don't get simultaneous releases unless its a huge film with a lot of money is because:

(a) Advertising, Promotion and Star Appearances on talk shows and such is what actually drives sales of the film. If you are going to have a Premiere and such Appearances, you can't be in every place at once.

(b) Many films just don't have the budget to release worldwide simultaneously. They use some of the Box Office takings to fund distribution to other countries.

(c) Films are on very tight deadlines, which means that generally there isn't always time to get prints and distributions done for the entire world before its release date. So while its launched in the US, they will be making copies for the rest of the world.

Why do digital distribution, such as Flix, have to wait several months before making the same film / show that's on in America that's being distributed in the same way by the same firm available?

That's down to agreements with the Studios, which are based on a per country basis. Netflix is huge in the US, so they tend to get the good stuff. In the UK, LoveFilm is the market leader, so they do more so here. Further to that, you won't get the latest releases on streaming subscription services because it kills the rental model which is a revenue stream for the Studios and the Rental Retailers. For example you can rent a film first from Blockbuster on the high-street, iTunes, Sky Box-Office, Hotel Pay-Per-View, even LoveFilm and Netflix. However, its only later down the line when that surge of rentals has started to dry up that they will allow it to be streamed on a subscription.

Make a good product at a good price and in a good time frame and it will sell.

I guarantee you that if you put a good Game / TV Series / Film available at the same time in the UK and make it available by all means (i.e. download, blu-ray, dvd) and, most importantly, at a good price then it will sell.

You can't operate the market like that though.
If you release across all mediums at once, it stagnates the entire lot. What advertiser is going to want to pay for exclusive sponsorship of a new show on Sky, if its available on every other medium possible at once? As I said before, advertising is what drives a lot of this, so if the advertisers aren't making their money, then less shows get funded.

 

[SB118]

And contribute nothing to any of the writing, acting or technicals that went into the production. Excellent morality. If you watch 12 hours where an actor makes you laugh and cry, why wouldn't you want to pay him for his talents? Entitled attitude yet again. What do you contribute?

But what if you're paying subs to the channel that will show it "eventually". The show has lost no money.

 

[Nexus]

But what if you're paying subs to the channel that will show it "eventually". The show has lost no money.

It doesn't work like that though.

If Sky buys a show that's been popular in the US, they need to sell advertising space to make it possible to show the programme and also justify the cost they paid for it.

If everyone went and downloaded it beforehand, even though they may have a subscription to Sky, it means that nobody would be tuning in, thus the advertiser doesn't get their figures. They then have to sell the space for less money and eventually may just scrap buying future series.

The US network then goes to Sky... "Hi, would you like to buy series 2?"... "Err no thanks ABC, nobody watched it".
ABC then isn't making much money from overseas sales, thus if their own advertising revenue falls, then boom, show gets canned.

 

[Tefal]

It doesn't work like that though.

If Sky buys a show that's been popular in the US, they need to sell advertising space to make it possible to show the programme and also justify the cost they paid for it.

If everyone went and downloaded it beforehand, even though they may have a subscription to Sky, it means that nobody would be tuning in, thus the advertiser doesn't get their figures. They then have to sell the space for less money and eventually may just scrap buying future series.
.

You know they get their viewing figures from people in survays etc right?

they don;t actually know what you're watching so it makes no difference unless the people downloading it are also doing Nealson ratings diaries etc which is probably unlikely.

 

[InKursion]

Very wise posts by Nexus, I agree completely. Advertising is annoying but it's a necessary evil for the industry. People that say "nonsense" and assume that these TV shows will be made forever with no consequence of them streaming them are extremely naive. You are just being morally lazy because there is no immediate consequence for you, it's that simple. I'm tired of pirates being in denial about what they do, or clouding it with some pointless tech-utopianism or aimless teenage anti-corporate rubbish. Be a responsible and mature consumer of culture! Pay the artists and writers!