Funny, I've been able to purchase and stream seasons 1 and 2 via Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BHASVQC
Looks like HBO was able to take my money just fine.
Looks like HBO was able to take my money just fine.
Works fine for me.
I'm not arguing any point here, I'm just providing one data-point. There are people like me who want to have fun discussing shows with his friends/family while they're watching it. Not 6+ months later.
Correction: there are people like you who feel ENTITLED to consume every piece of entertainment and will jump through whatever hoops necessary to do so. Because at the end of the day that's what it comes down to: entitlement.
So far I've been identified as entitled, absurd, in need of some perspective and unwilling to pay for content.
Notice how they completely dismiss my point of view with terms like "entitled","absurd","unwilling to pay",etc. and don't even begin to acknowledge the problem with the delay between cable-tv and legal internet availability. This pretty much happens with every major change that disturbs the status quo cash cow, but the change ultimately happens anyway ;)
And with that, I'm out of here!
So you're basically admitting to trolling? Nice.
>>and don't even begin to acknowledge the problem with the delay between cable-tv and legal internet availability.
We acknowledged it. We also pointed out that it is not a valid justification for you or anyone to pirate said content, because nobody is entitled to instant access to stuff that comes out. I don't know how to put it more simply than that.
You're acting like typing "http://thepiratebay.se into a web browser is somehow a Herculean feat that people are challenged with.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but it's actually easier than pretty much any other method of media consumption, by a fucking lot.
Also, frankly I'm tired of people using the word "entitlement" in situations where it's really far too strong of a word to be using. I download shit because it's fucking simple to do and because there's literally no other way to consume said content (since, before some imbecile starts throwing accusations around, I don't live in the US.) If there were a way to pay for it that was comparably simple to piracy, I probably would choose to do that some of the time.
I download shit because...there's literally no other way to consume said content
...you're making the assumption that you are entitled to consume that content simply because it exists, and that not consuming the content isn't even an option.
The content is right there, for the taking. So I take it. If it weren't there, I wouldn't take it. (Duh.) How's that "entitled" activity? Are you that obtuse, or are you just trolling?
I don't know what you mean. I'm trying to show you why people perceive you as having an unreasonable sense of entitlement: it's the things you say that makes people think that. If your own words strike you as unreasonable, you may be close to understanding why other people see them that way.
I don't know what context you want me to have included. The reasons you give (e.g. "I want it", "it's available" and "it's fucking simple to do") don't make you seem any less like you have an unreasonable sense of entitlement. It's like saying "I eat because I'm hungry and there is food." Those things are obvious. But neither of them explain why you feel justified in taking from somebody else's plate.
The difference stands out even more without the analogy: Hunger is an actual human need, whereas watching Game of Thrones the night it's first broadcast in another hemisphere is actually very far from being a need.
You know, seeing this level of sophistry in a post on Hacker News is fucking embarrassing.
"If it weren't there, I wouldn't take it." Are you fucking kidding me. Most human beings have their thought process extend a little further than this, but apparently not you. Mindlessly pirating content and not thinking about its moral implications is just a lot more convenient, right? And when people call you out on your fucking bullshit, just put the blame on the content provider for not making it available to you - even though it is, you know, their fucking content and their fucking choice.
If it's about the price of a cable subscription, then brown9-2 was exactly right to begin with: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5276396
I don't have, can't get, and don't want a US cable TV subscription. Even if I lived in the US, I wouldn't want to have to pay $100 a month for cable TV just for the privilege of paying an additional fee to stream HBO. (Feel free to now call me "selfish" or "entitled" or whatever the rest of the trolls in this thread have settled on to describe the actions of rational people.)
I never said you do, could, or did. I responded to a comment by smtddr. I had no way of knowing you trying to redirect the thread to be about yourself, personally. My reply was not directed to you, personally.
Even if I lived in the US, I wouldn't want to have to pay $100 a month for cable TV just for the privilege of paying an additional fee to stream HBO.
There are two things wrong with this.
One: HBO Go is free with the subscription. The cable subscription is why it's free. If you're going to get angry with me for even mentioning it, please try to familiarize yourself with what it is. Better yet: don't get angry with me.
Two: smtddr (the person I responded to initially) specifically said he was willing to buy something which sounds almost exactly like HBO Go. I don't understand why that option is overlooked by him, as it sounds very similar.
(Feel free to now call me "selfish" or "entitled" or whatever the rest of the trolls in this thread have settled on to describe the actions of rational people.)
I don't believe anybody has referred to you as selfish and I don't believe that anybody is trolling. I'm sorry you feel you've been attacked.
Your attitude is over the top self-entitled.
I'm over the top self-entitled? Because I don't think it's reasonable to discuss a TVshow with people who have probably forgotten the details months after they saw it?
I don't think it's fair for you to reach that conclusion. What's okay for you isn't okay for everyone. I think you're the one who's failing to see things from other people's view.
But again, I'm not here to debate. I'm just 1 tiny data-point. Provide me streamable/downloadable content the same time the CableTV gets it. That's what I need. That's all I came in this thread to say.Lost is among the worst examples you could have chosen. It was one of the first shows available for day-after purchase on iTunes, and from the third season on had free day-after streaming on ABC's own site. And it was literally broadcast over the air for free.
So to be clear: You really are saying that even eight hours is too much of a delay. You really are saying that you want exactly what cable TV customers get, but that you don't want to pay anything for it.
Since you like getting free things so much, here's some free advice: If your relationships with your friends and family can't transcend such a trivial incompatibility as having not watched the same television show at exactly the same moment, maybe you should try watching it with them. Surely between all of you, somebody is willing to actually pay for something that is allegedly so crucial to how you interact with one another. (If none are willing to pay for it, that raises the question of how any of you are able to afford the time involved.)
Great idea; let's all fly cross-country once a week to watch a TV show. (You really haven't considered the feasibility of your 'solution' very much, have you?)
If your relationships with distant friends and family depend on you watching television shows at the same time, and you're unwilling to pay the asked price for those television shows, then yeah, maybe you should fly cross-country to see them.
Because what does it say about how much you value those relationships if the thing that is allegedly so important to them is not only ephemeral and impersonal but also thought of as not worth paying for?
Personally, I think the better option is to not feel like you have to watch all the same television at the same time as other people, but that seems to be a wildly unpopular notion these days.
A practical solution is not to geographically exclude areas and markets and then argue that they should be flying to said countries to watch these shows.
This is the equivalent Republican style argument that the answer to poverty in the inner city is for students to obtain a MBA's.
And this post, at least, isn't 'astroturfing'.
M-W's third definition of entitlement, which is the only one that even remotely fits, goes something like this:
"3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges"
So, your contention is that people who torrent movies believe they deserve the privilege of watching them, rather than that they may be doing it for any of a number of other reasons, such as the ones I and others have mentioned all throughout this thread.
It's a real stretch to say that, because the content I want to watch is unavailable to me in any other format at any price, that I must be some sort of spoiled prima-donna for typing something into a search engine and downloading something with a BitTorrent client. Pretty laughable line of argument.
http://www.outofthefog.net/CommonBehaviors/Entitlement.html
Note the second-to-last example of a sense of entitlement:
* An irate customer demands products and services
that they have not paid for.
1) This movie is available for sale. 2) I want to purchase it. 3) Therefore, they are obligated to sell it to me. Or, alternatively, I feel I am entitled to purchase a copy.
This is what I fundamentally disagree with. I do not believe that you have any sort of right to purchase a product. Just because they make it available for sale does not mean that they are in any way obligated to sell it to you, even if you want it very badly and are willing to pay quite a lot of money.
I'm not actually talking about torrenting at all; that comes after the 'entitlement'.