Television in Britain has 3 main models:
1: BBC tv paid for by licence, no advertising.
2: ITV, paid for by ads, no subscription (much less advertising than sky)
3: Sky, big subscription and wall to wall ads.
Having been weaned on the former BBC, ITV duopoly there a distinct feeling that Sky are gougers and deserve to be punished.
These magazines went out of business years ago, back issues are difficult to find, and it's unlikely they'll ever be available digitally legitimately.
So yes, it's not always about getting it for free... in some cases, it's about getting it at all.
But on the "free" angle, it's not about that for me, or not entirely. I want to punish the copyright holders (and if only I could). They've subverted the system and turned into rent-seekers. It was never intended for them to set up their descendants with royalties for all eternity, nor is this an unintentional good thing that sane people should support.
I get your point but that's incorrect. Alternatives include:
- paying for the cable + HBO subscription and only watching GoT.
- waiting for the blu ray/dvd/iTunes release
Both those options allow you to watch GoT and nothing else. The problem is that people don't want to wait for an official release or want a cheaper way to get it 'right now' (i.e. a cheaper HBO only subscription). I think GoT is a big torrent is because it's not available on TV in a lot of countries or there is a big delay between the US airing and the local airing. Another reason is that people don't pay for something when they can get it for free. I would like to see how many people who torrent GoT (but say they would pay for it if it was available to them on their terms) would pay $3-5 for an episode via a torrent if there was a button to pay (and get it legally) and a button to get it for free (illegally).
I would like to say this is wrong, but I have no evidence to support my claims. However what I can say empirically is that myself and many other people I know have stopped pirating games and/or music ever since easy-to-use services like Steam and Google Music came out.
Personally, nowadays I find myself with so many legit games on Steam that my first thought when a new game comes out is "meh, I don't have time to play that, I'll buy it later when it goes on sale". Years ago it would've been "let's hop on XXXX to see if there's a torrent ready!".
It simply is not worth it, to me, to pirate games, set up cracks, be sure I have all the proper files, set up backups in case I want to replay it later, etc etc. With Steam I can just click "download" and it just works.
I firmly believe that if you make something easy-to-access, cheap enough (steam sales, anyone?) and immediate in delivery, you will soon realize piracy really does not matter. The market just needs to evolve and adapt to newer technologies.
I love how easy it is to get a book on my Kindle from Amazon at the click of a button, but given my voracious reading and the bill it generates it might be that I would consider looking at alternate sources for some of those books. So I might consider buying some and torrenting some. The alternative would be reducing the amount I read. And if I went the torrent route, I might suddenly notice that the volume of bought books might reduce from 5-10 legitimate purchases a month to 1 a month.
My guess: not everyone, but a lot of people.
Frankly, I do not believe those are viable alternatives. Suppose I put food in front of a hungry man. Formally, his options are eat or don't eat, but it's clear that they are not equal from his point of view. He might not eat if his conviction is strong enough (say a hunger strike) but this doesn't change the fact that the options are not equally balanced.
It is not fair or reasonable to assume that TV show aficionados have a strong enough moral conviction that copyright infringement is bad, compared to their desire to see more of the show. After all, in a way, the show is designed to make us want to watch more.
Okay, now on to the former alternative -- paying for cable and only watching GoT. The first thing that needs to be said that this alternative is not universal -- there are countries where HBO is unavailable. Even this simple fact has implications -- a non-trivial market for torrents, for instance. But let us ignore this and assume cable is available.
I think most people inside a capitalist society are trained to evaluate objects. This means that if you want to sell me a bundle, I divide the price based on the objects in the bundle. Usually, this is used by marketing in a devious, but smart way -- for instance by adding free modifications to a car, washing mashine, cell phone plan, what have you. In our case, it is detrimental -- people who only want to watch GoT and nothing else hardly see value in the entire HBO bundle. In fact, they actually see negative value in it, especially if they do all of their TV watching via their computer.
The reason why I say they see negative value in the bundle is this: If you are asked to buy a fairly pricey bundle but all of the things in it except one do not interest you, you again divide the price... and note that you pay a lot of money for something you don't need. That's not a feeling a seller should promote.
I think the smart move by HBO would be to offer individual shows for purchase on their website, and alongside them offer the HBO subscription as a discount on all the shows. This way the bundle feels like a discount again.
Which certainly seems fair enough - these things aren't just entertainment, they're culture. If you're a couple weeks behind GoT, chances are you're going to spoiled on it when some newspaper runs a damn headline about an episode.
For people in Australia, there is no other option: many shows simply never make it here. I remember trying to watch Battlestar Galactica on Channel 10 - by the end they really didn't care about that show, and by the time we got it season 2 was already starting in the US. They didn't pick it up.
If there is a good service and I have to pay no problems. I am willing to give out $10 to Amazon every time there is a ebook I want. Give me a better service so I can follow the 2-3 TV series I want, and watch the occasional movie, I will pay.
Option 2 will allow me to watch GoT, true, but I'd have to wait for the BR release.
It’s more like: Going into a bookstore, taking the encyclopedia britannica, reading the article about Elephants and the leaving again, without buying the encyclopedia.
Overall the store lost no sale. You wouldn’t have bought it otherwise anyway (For example as I had the choice between paying 20$/month just for Game of Thrones, or not watching it at all, I decided to just ignore that boring show).
It might even have made a sale, because as you were already there, you might have bought something else (Pirates tend to spend the most money on additional stuff like cinema tickets or merchandise).
And the store didn’t even lose anything, as you didn’t take something from them that they had, you actually didn’t even cost them any money.
I'm sure you would have a different attitude if your boss decided to randomly withhold part of your income whenever he wanted because he believes there are no moral consequences of doing so.
Person A states that you should pay X for their product. You don't. There isn't any other argument other than you are just cheap and only do it because you can get away with it. If the same happened to you and affected your income you would be on here whining about how terrible the situation is.
Again everyone would respect you much more if you just said: yeah I'm cheap and can take content for free, so I do.
I made no such argument
>Person A states that you should pay X for their product. You don't
Correct. I state you should pay me $20 for reading my post. Are you morally obligated to do so now? This is a serious question, your moral code is not clear to me. Mine is quite simple. I am not morally obligated to capitulate to random people's arbitrary demands of me.
>If the same happened to you and affected your income you would be on here whining about how terrible the situation is.
Yes, if I were a different person I would be a different person. That is not a very impressive insight.
>Again everyone would respect you much more if you just said: yeah I'm cheap and can take content for free, so I do.
I have no problem with how much respect I am given right now. Your need to try to rationalize your morality does not require making stupid assumptions about people you don't know.
These types of idiotic pretzel logic statements only appear since you are trying hard to justify not paying someone for the content they create, there isn't much more to say than that.
> There are no moral consequences of piracy.
So, their beliefs are not universal moral truths, but yours are?
Person A: Oranges taste good. Person B: No they do not.
These people are both making personal statements of their own beliefs/opinions. Even though the phrasing does not explicitly state "I personally believe oranges taste good", it is implied because it is a subjective statement and neither could reasonably make a universal claim.
Person A: Everyone like oranges. Person B: I do not like oranges.
Person A is trying to make a universal claim. Person B is not. "I do not like oranges" is a personal claim. "I do not have a moral obligation to give money to people just because they tell me to" is a personal claim.
It isn't very popular - partly because it is the same as a netflix subscription but so much less content, partly because it is a technical disaster (you can't use a tablet only, the ios app doesn't support streaming the pictures to a tv, no chromecast support while netflix has both) and partly because they launched slightly after Netflix with a much worse proposal.
That said if the same offer was available in the US, I think a lot more users would take it. And certainly HBO makes nothing from torrent users.
Finally users like buffet style content - it means you only suffer the pain of paying once, rather than every time you press the button.
Never mind that there is an aspect that keeps being overlooked, social interaction. A popular TV show or movie is not just about the experience itself, but also the chatter afterwards. Be it over the lunch room table, or over the net.
And the latter is what drives many to pirate even if they know the episode will eventually be broadcast locally. This because they are involved in the chatter about the show online, and there people will discuss the latest when it aired initially, not when it aired in some nation or other.
Demand is much larger when a product is free. I doubt HBO is missing out on a large amount of sales. Especially without the amount of free marketing illegal downloading has brought them.
If HBO doesn't provide their content, on-demand, on my country, it's not my problem.
Same goes to Walking Dead... Here in Brazil Netflix has it only till season 3... On popcorn time I can watch the last episode, with subtitles, only 2 or 3 days after it's aired.
I'm really willing to pay for content as far as it's available on my country!
Downloading pc games on Steam is absurdly easy, much easier than pirating. Yet, games available on Steam are downloaded in masse.
People download network TV shows that are available over the air for free, on the internet to stream on their networks website / hulu, or on Itunes for 1.99.
I think it's a bit naive to think that getting stuff for free isn't the main reason people torrent.
My guess is that there are a lot of people who purchase games on Steam but torrent shows/movies, particularly if they live outside the US. Surely they know these games are available for free as well?
I think it's a bit naive to think that getting stuff for free is the main reason people torrent.
I'd venture that people who buy a lot on steam yet don't pay for TV shows are mostly buying multiplayer games that cannot be pirated and still give the same experience.