Hacker News Reader

These are the types of people who bring back clothes 2 years after the purchase and get huffy when the store won't return them.

But in this case, it doesn't matter if the store accepts the return or not, he gets his money thanks to the pirates. When you are competing against free, it's bad business sense to turn away paying customers like this guy.

(The retail analogy is: this guy buys some clothes. He wants to return them, and you say no. The cash register opens and gives the guy his money back anyway. So you might as well take the clothes he's trying to return.)

Show your math. It's easy to say Fred's pirating is a net loss for the NBA, much harder to prove it. For example if they were to do away with League Pass blackouts (which I pay for, by the way), surely this would have a great negative effect the next time they negotiate with MSG, WGN, etc.

This whole 'entitlement' spiel is bogus.

People expect to be able to get stuff because they know it is available.

If each piece of TV/music/whatever had to be dug out of the ground, or hand-made, at great expense, they would not be available easily. People would want them, but hardly anyone would be providing them.

But that is just not the case here. These things are trivially available. It is that they are being witheld by certain providers -- because the whole market rests on a made-up artificial scarcity. That is the basic underlying physical fact, and people feel it.

If people expect to be able to easily get stuff that is actually easily available, they are absolutely right!

In the business world we call these entitled customers. These are the types of people who bring back clothes 2 years after the purchase and get huffy when the store won't return them.

Then Zappos comes along and eats your lunch.

The fact is that this is an outdated business model that is still around solely because of govt control and interference. If these laws were changed, dozens if not hundreds of people from this community alone would be eating their lunch.

You're missing my point and getting caught up in the fact that entitlement annoys you. Regardless of how you feel and regardless of the consumers state of mind, this is happening.

> No business can meet all demands.

Absolutely, but it isn't being met. The demand of universal access is being fulfilled elsewhere.

>They act like not getting what you want is unique to our times. Unique to the internet. It's not.

What's unique to our time and the internet is that I can get what I want and it's more convenient than the conventional way.

That's the problem I was trying to highlight, hopefully this doesn't come across as snarky.

Actually, he probably didn't have any other option to watch the game on TV. NYC (and especially Manhattan) residents very rarely have a choice of cable providers. If you're in a Time Warner building, no other cable company can provide service there, and it's very rare to live in a cable building where DirecTV or Dish service is also available.

So really, his choice is to move into a building with a different cable provider and hope that provider doesn't get into a similar spat.