Sigh. I don't want to, but...
- Thread starter FoxEye
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
some shows get shown in the US days, weeks and sometimes even months before they get shown over here.
i cannot even see when the new series of true blood is going to be aired over here, yet it's been showing in the US for quite a few weeks now.
i don't see why we can't get it shown on the same day?
the way the whole system is currently set up it is so much easier to just pirate everything.
same goes for movies, i own like over 400 dvd's, but only 3 or 4 blu ray's because it's so pointless now buying movies imo, due to newer versions coming out all the time.
do i really want to now start a blu ray collection, then in 5-10 years time start a 4K collection, then in 10-15 years time start a 8K collection, etc, etc.
e.g. i have a lot of good movies in dvd, but im so used to watching HD now that i couldn't watch them on the dvd i own so i will just download the blu ray instead.
would be stupid for me to buy the same movie in dvd, then blu ray, then 4K then 8K, etc.
they really need to have 1 store for all movies and if you buy a movie you can then watch it any current or future resolution it is released in forever, but that is never going to happen.
Having just watched season 2 on blu ray from them I can tell you you're wrong
We're talking VOD... streaming.
Lovefilm were always awful for discs anyhow. They'd never send the stuff I wanted to watch, only the crap that they forced me to pad out my rental list with, because you have to have a minimum of 10 titles on your list (so they can keep sending you crap you don't really want to watch, and string out your subscription).
Bit of a bad example really as those are exclusives to Netflix who funded and developed them out of their own pockets - other TV shows are licensed out to companies like itunes, etc.
I agree with the main sentinment its getting really silly trying to legally obtain TV shows when they are spread haphazardly between Lovefilm, Netflix, iTunes, Soney Entertainment Network, Blinkbox and a dozen other similiar services and often you have to wait ridiculous amounts of time post the original airing to even get hold of them legally.
Another thing I find annoying i.e. lovefilm and a few similiar are just there purely to make money and gives a pretty poor level of service and squeezes its customers, sony entertainment, iTunes, etc. are just fire and forget services, indifferent customer service and only netflix really seems to listen to their customers and have any passion in delivering the content and related services but their hands are tied quite a lot in terms of content licenses hence why they have been doing their own shows.
Last edited:
And I explained myself fully at the time, but as is often the case you only see your own side of the 'discussion'.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18515513
Regarding the actual thread, I haven't noticed too much that Sky hasn't got really. The main ones that UK networks seem hopeless as getting are AMC shows, other than The Walking Dead there seems to be relatively little interest for them. Netflix has the rights to Season 3 of The Killing and the final part of Breaking Bad, nobody seems to be picking up Hell on Wheels at the moment either although TCM showed seasons 1 and 2 earlier in the year.
I don't think you can really complain about Blinkbox, Lovefilm, Netflix etc having the rights to certain shows after they've been broadcast on TV. If you missed them when they aired, that's your own fault really. As far as Sky is concerned, they're usually available as catchup for weeks afterwards and earlier seasons are sometimes available on-demand (the first two seasons of GoT and TWD were just recently).
The main thing that does annoy me is the delay between US broadcast and UK broadcast. It's seemingly improved over the past few years to the point that the 'big' shows are shown within a few days, but there are still a lot of occasions where you're waiting weeks or months. On the other hand, the amount of other shows that I've gotten round to watching because they've been repeated from the start does outweigh that to some degree; I haven't ever had a time where I've sat down and had nothing on my Sky box to watch.
Sky + Netflix seems to be the ideal thing at the moment, but I'm reluctant to pay for Netflix simply because I'm not going to get as much use out of it as I used to before I had Sky, and my connection means I'm not going to get the best quality either.
This gets bogged down in a whole complex discussion of people having different lifestyles and so on but its not always possible for people to catch them when they are aired for very good reasons.
For sure, but that's why they give you a box with a hard-drive in it, or you catch it when it's repeated or made available on-demand.
Your not getting it
its a far too complicated topic and individual examples may be flawed and/or not represent well how diverse it can be but for instance if people are working a month on/off offshore, etc. it makes it quite difficult.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
Your not getting it
no it doesn't
sky has remote record, sky go, sky player, etc.
you would have to be in a cave basically to not be able to record or watch it nowadays basically.
Your not getting it
No I get it, but my point in the first place was largely in reference to FoxEye saying he's got Sky but wants to watch stuff that's already been aired. If you had Sky when those shows were broadcast, that was your chance to record them to watch whenever you like. If you weren't able to record them or didn't have Sky at the time, it's a different story, but then you also can't be surprised that different on-demand services will have the rights to different shows long after they've aired on whatever channel.
If anything, there's more choice as to how you watch stuff now than there ever was (broadcast, on-demand/streaming, DVD/Blu-ray) but there's never going to be one service that supplies everything as it airs and offers it for streaming indefinitely afterwards. If there was, it'd be ideal service at the worst possible price.
Ah missed the context of the post a bit.
Choice? What choice? I have absolutely no choice, beyond "watch/don't watch". You have no choice except to purchase a subscription to whichever company has the exclusive rights. You have no choice except to pay whatever price they demand. You have no choice but to accept their terms of service. Multiple times. Not that that's any different to everything else in life, because it isn't. But lets not start talking about choice.
You don't have a choice to pay your gas,water,TV,rent,groceries or anything else. Talking about choice is bogus. There isn't any.
I don't even have a choice of TV provider, btw. Down here it's Sky or Freeview (and Freeview sucks balls, don't you know). Which is fine since I'm happy with Sky anyhow.
But Sky is expensive enough without needing Netflix for show A, Lovefilm for show B, and Blinkbox, a.n.other for the rest.
Frankly, I don't think I'll bother downloading them. I'll just not watch them, as the rights holders intend. They don't want me watching their programmes, since they make it near impossible to do so, so I'll take the hint and do something else.
Some of the stuff I watch online is shown on our cable subscription, but I don't watch live TV, other members of the household do. I watch stuff on my PC, on my 42", kicked back in the chair I feel comfortable in when I want, paused when I want, or stopped for a later date should the need arise.
I cannot get any other service here(outside of online services - read on), no sky/satellite, we are stuck with one cable (nonHD) provider which has only 40 channels and is using 13 year old tech, which includes the standard BBC/ITV/4/5 and a bunch of other crap that's already paid for on a standard tv license
So what do I do? The channels that air some of my favorite shows are at times, seasons behind, but they will eventually air them. Whatever costs people think are being lost (they aren't) is going to be paid for anyway.
Which brings on the topic of ratings such as the US nielsen ratings; where it's an opt-in or offered service in tracking what you watch for view count extrapolation, which is flawed. People think everyone, everywhere are a statistic for viewerships/ads, but that simply is not true. Is it acceptable I pay exorbitant prices to watch those shows in advance, or at all under a subscription fee based services ontop of what our household has already?
This.
If a show is never going to come out in the UK or Jersey, then what's lost? It's rarer now than it used to be but still happens. Unless you count DVD/etc sales? But I'd rather it be on the channels I can only get than pay over the top prices. It sucks :/
I cannot get any other service here(outside of online services - read on), no sky/satellite, we are stuck with one cable (nonHD) provider which has only 40 channels and is using 13 year old tech, which includes the standard BBC/ITV/4/5 and a bunch of other crap that's already paid for on a standard tv license
So what do I do? The channels that air some of my favorite shows are at times, seasons behind, but they will eventually air them. Whatever costs people think are being lost (they aren't) is going to be paid for anyway.
Which brings on the topic of ratings such as the US nielsen ratings; where it's an opt-in or offered service in tracking what you watch for view count extrapolation, which is flawed. People think everyone, everywhere are a statistic for viewerships/ads, but that simply is not true. Is it acceptable I pay exorbitant prices to watch those shows in advance, or at all under a subscription fee based services ontop of what our household has already?
This.
If a show is never going to come out in the UK or Jersey, then what's lost? It's rarer now than it used to be but still happens. Unless you count DVD/etc sales? But I'd rather it be on the channels I can only get than pay over the top prices. It sucks :/
The choices I gave in my post. 10 years ago you either watched something when it was broadcast, or you'd have to buy the DVD or hope it'd be repeated at a later date. These days you can watch it, record it, stream it, buy it on a disc or rent/buy a downloadable version to watch on a phone or tablet.
Like I said, it gets annoying when there are new TV shows (e.g. the AMC stuff I mentioned) that end up on a competing service like Netflix before they're shown on TV, or stuff you want to watch that just doesn't seem to get to the UK at all (I've got a few of those myself), but the examples you gave earlier - The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones - were both shown on Sky at around the same time as the US broadcast and their earlier seasons were available on-demand around that time too.
If I'm completely missing your point then I apologise, but if you're paying for Sky and you've managed to miss a load of shows you want to watch, you can't really be surprised that other services have then picked them up. You're given more than ample opportunity to watch, record or download them at the time. It's not like the old days when you had to watch something as it was broadcast or else you missed it completely.
LOL. must be nice up there on that horse, can see your house from it?
It's not about "being on a high horse" at all.
Why exactly do you feel that you have the right to watch something for free that is available in the UK - however requires subscription to a particular channel?
I'm not going to get into the argument on things that are not available in the UK - there is certainly nothing in that category that interests me.
However if something is available in the UK but requires a Sky subscription and the obvious/legal and correct answer is "then buy a subscription to Sky" you suddenly feel this is someone getting on their "high horse"?
It isn't. It's somebody who actually feel that if they want to watch something then they should pay for the privilege of doing so.
I only pirate programs because.....blah...blah...blah....blahh......I don't want to have to pay for it - this is the bottom line for people pirating things which are available in the UK.
I want a burberry coat but I can't find it on Primark and at Primark prices.
I guess I'll have to steal it..they are forcing me because they are asking me to pay so much more than what I would like to pay. Why can't Burberry offer all their clothes at Primark prices and they keep forcing people to steal them?
inb4 it ain't theft..yeah whatever..
I guess I'll have to steal it..they are forcing me because they are asking me to pay so much more than what I would like to pay. Why can't Burberry offer all their clothes at Primark prices and they keep forcing people to steal them?
inb4 it ain't theft..yeah whatever..
My take on this thread is that there's frustration about where we currently are regarding media. We're in a position where we have multiple different services each with a different catalogue and each with a different distribution style.
On one side we have Sky, which is still a traditional live TV provider which offers a large catalogue but distributed as and when Sky determine. On the other side we've got Netflix, Blinkbox etc which are true on-demand but each have small individual catalogues (a small amount of content is probably shared across each).
To have access to the most content you'd have to purchase all services. This is costly and doesn't appeal to people who specifically like one service model over another (on-demand vs live TV).
Eventually, I reckon On-Demand TV will catch up with pay TV regarding the size of the catalogue and be no more expensive, even though it will likely require subscriptions to multiple service providers as they will offer unique catlogues. Until that day, people who have been early adopters of On-Demand TV will have to pay for both a traditional TV package and On-Demand in order to maximise the content available to them at a greater expense (or pirate stuff they can't get!)
Personally, I can't wait until On-Demand TV really takes off. It's already in a good situation (iPlayer, 4OD and the pay services) plus Netflix's recent transition to making original content is a further step in the right direction. Soon live TV will only be required for live events.
On one side we have Sky, which is still a traditional live TV provider which offers a large catalogue but distributed as and when Sky determine. On the other side we've got Netflix, Blinkbox etc which are true on-demand but each have small individual catalogues (a small amount of content is probably shared across each).
To have access to the most content you'd have to purchase all services. This is costly and doesn't appeal to people who specifically like one service model over another (on-demand vs live TV).
Eventually, I reckon On-Demand TV will catch up with pay TV regarding the size of the catalogue and be no more expensive, even though it will likely require subscriptions to multiple service providers as they will offer unique catlogues. Until that day, people who have been early adopters of On-Demand TV will have to pay for both a traditional TV package and On-Demand in order to maximise the content available to them at a greater expense (or pirate stuff they can't get!)
Personally, I can't wait until On-Demand TV really takes off. It's already in a good situation (iPlayer, 4OD and the pay services) plus Netflix's recent transition to making original content is a further step in the right direction. Soon live TV will only be required for live events.
Last edited:
Regarding piracy, these types of dicussions always highlight problems with the distribution methods of media. Statements like "you can't have it unless you pay for it" really miss the point for me. There is a proportion of people who pirate things as they don't want to pay for it, but also a proportion of people who pirate things because it's a far better method of distribution. These are the people who need to be targetted
Set up XBMC with access to Icefilms or 1 Channel and you have a very accessible but illegal distribution method. Now imagine that with guaranteed AV quality at a reasonable price and you're on to a massive winner. I'm not saying this is easy to achieve, but it's close to ideal and would target the people who pirate for logistical reasons.
Therefore, change the distribution to what people want and reduce the percentage of people pirating.
Set up XBMC with access to Icefilms or 1 Channel and you have a very accessible but illegal distribution method. Now imagine that with guaranteed AV quality at a reasonable price and you're on to a massive winner. I'm not saying this is easy to achieve, but it's close to ideal and would target the people who pirate for logistical reasons.
Therefore, change the distribution to what people want and reduce the percentage of people pirating.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,401
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I subscribe to love film and Netflix, silly really but what can you do if you want to watch things legally?
House of cards is good though. Perhaps worth a month's subscription on its own.
I also use Netflix to catch up with older TV shows that I've missed, Dexter, breaking bad, weeds etc.
Movie wise, love film is better.
House of cards is good though. Perhaps worth a month's subscription on its own.
I also use Netflix to catch up with older TV shows that I've missed, Dexter, breaking bad, weeds etc.
Movie wise, love film is better.
