REAL pirates who get their webs cut will just build a $10 wireless antenna, point it across the street and hack someones WPA / WEP. In fact smarts ones do it now so their webz wont get cut.
5 major ISPs roll out the "six strikes" policy regarding illegal downloads.
- Thread starter mkopec
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
Zodiac
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 1,200
- 14
Void
BAU BAU
- 9,919
- 11,930
Sweet, that's what I've got.
Still using a VPN though, just to be safe. $40 a year is worth it to me just to make sure.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
And that's the point you're not getting. The market not being able to offer precisely what people want, at the best price, is NOT a free market (Given proper demand for profit--which is a LOW bar to set, and a company like HBO certainly has the market there to exploit a profit). The market is currently irrational because there are monopolies on distribution due to "last mile" issues--issues which come up because said companies specifically fight the government in many areas to keep last mile internet from being a public good. They don't want the internet to be seen as roads are--where the government builds it and commerce is free to use it to build an economy. They want the roads to be private, and have people pay for access.
This gives them a disproportionate amount of power in the market--and it's why companies like HBO have to sell their content to these providers in packages, rather than offer their content directly to the consumer. Imagine if the roads to your house were owned by Fed-Ex, and the only way to receive a product is if you ALSO ordered other products from Fed-Ex approved manufacturers. And then what if Fedex only let you drive to shops it approved? (This is what cable companies are fighting for now) You'd be, rightfully, livid. This is because roads fall under public goods--they are aresource that's required by all, but also are inexhaustible. (Not quite, but enough so that they are a public good.)
The internet falls under this same paradigm. It's absolutely crazy that one of the largest commerce inducing distribution systems in the modern age is being run by private companies--and this is why you have such broad market irregularities such as packaged TV still--this is a relic from an age when we used airways and the government HAD to package them out because they were finite (Which means, it's not a public good). Now that the internet has come, the lack of government involvement (Except when it gave these guys money to lay line, ironic, I know.) it creates irrational market forces. Trying to use the market to defend this is absurd--don't. No capitalist worth their salt would look at the current information market and say it's functioning well.
As said above, a fair price would be negotiated between consumer and provider, with method of delivery adding charges to that. However, because method of delivery is controlled, and not a public good, the people who own the delivery method can dictate what gets sold. Absolutely absurd, and not at all a "fair price", at least not in the capitalist sense of the word.
This is why companies like Comcast are pushing for control over the internet, too. They'd love to be able to restrict you to only visiting the shopping sites that pay them. Again, imagine if a company controlled the roads in your area--imagine the power they would wield. Their ability to drain money through market irregularities would be unparallelled.
You list 3 last mile providers there--most areas have 2, one cable, one dish. Have you ever wondered why a market that is one of the most profitable on the planet in terms of cost of product vs sale (Bandwidth prices, look it up) isn't teeming with competition? Why isn't EVERY company out there competing for such a lucrative market? Oh, because last mile costs makes it a duopoly in most areas. Which again, goes back to the above--the choices that exist in terms of price aren't fair because a public good is being exploited.
If this market was working, every area should be swamped with ISP's. But it isn't working, because these big fish exploited grants from governments to build last mile, and then turned around and bought up or crushed their competition (Seriously, go read about how Comcast stomps townships that try to get together to create public high speed access. No one should be defending this practice, especially not someone using a market defense.)
I'm not the one trying to use the market to defend anything. People were using market failures to justify piracy. I wouldn't illegally download content if providers would make it available exactly how/when I want it at such and such a price, the argument goes. But the market not offering people precisely what they want isn't unusual and it's not a justification to not pay for things.
I mentioned clothes, food, and books earlier. I'm short. I have to roll up my 30 x 30 (cough 32 x 30 lately cough) pants or hem them. Paying for that extra fabric I don't want or need is annoying but it doesn't justify me shop lifting pants. If I did steal pants I wouldn't be fighting the power, lashing out at the system until it provides me with the 31 X 29 pants (in my desired style, color, and fit) that would most likely work best. That's absurd. I'm also a picky eater. I like my burgers with cheese and ketchup. That's how I order them. Yet I pay the same price as those who get their burgers with cheese, onions, pickles, tomatoes and so on. At a fast food place, those items, esp the tomatoes, make up a large portion of the cost of the product. It's not a reason to steal burgers. I wish books would come with coupons to download a digital copy, much like records come with coupons to download mp3's. For a lot of books I wish paper back were available at the same time as hard back. And in general I think a lot of books, esp classic ones, are overpriced. Still would not justify my taking them without paying for them.
Most of the rest of your post is dealing with issues beyond my lack of sympathy for pirates upset about this new six strikes program.
To be clear, I'm not saying I'm happy with the current cable market, that content distribution is currently optimal, or that people shouldn't work to change it. I'm saying complaints about all of that don't justify piracy and that piracy is not the appropriate vehicle for change.
agripa
Molten Core Raider
- 603
- 589
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
It's very unusual if there is a demand that justifies a profit. Your post is attempting to correlate markets that don't have enough demand to warrant profits for services--it's an absurd correlation considering the margins we are talking about in regards to cable service providers (Which indicate there is a HUGE amount of profits to be made from more niche services.)
This is why when you talked about margins not being important, you were mistaken. If the margins on this extra fabric were as ridiculous as the margins in the current cable market--some small upstart would instantly be started and carve out some of that profit for themselves, making all profit slightly less. This is the *essence* of capitalism--whenever people talk about a market "working", they are speaking about the fact that when profits are high, it often creates room for more efficient suppliers. A large profit is actually the sign of a BROKEN market. (I know, weird huh?)
Now, back to your pants. The margin on your pants is probablytiny, unless they are designer (We're talking very tiny). When a price point reaches this, it becomes irrational for the market to supply niche needs, because *THERE IS NO PROFIT IN IT!* If your department store is only making 50 cents on the pants, then the cost to run the lights at another store wouldn't allow for profits to be made by catering to the smaller demographic of people that need to hem (And trust me, margins in retail are RAZOR thin, Amazon sees to that.)
That's what you have to remember, profit motivation must exist. Right now, the margins cable companies are making shilling packaged content is, frankly,massive. Obviously there is large profit potential in directed sub-markets within this field. It's absolutely huge.
Yet few are exploiting it. That's the difference between your pants and this--it's about margins, Sim. When there is a phenomenon known as arbitrage, a market's health can actually be measured on how quickly it corrects the phenomenon. Arbitrage is essentially the transfer of a product from one to another, without risk because there is an imbalance in market forces--right now, Cable companies have that in transferring content. There should be legions of businesses looking to exploit this market by offering better services and cutting into this arbitrage.
There isn't, because of the monopolies cable companies which prevents businesses from competing in the field.
Honestly, these large companies have worked tirelessly to sap the ability for the government do--well, anything. Governments chief role in a market is insuring justice, making sure people are paid for work or services (Contract fulfillment). I find it delightfully ironic that the reason the government hasn't stepped in to end the monopolies, is also the reason why the pirates are allowed to take these companies to task.
You reap what you sow, I have no sympathy for the media companies who have, time and time again, used their money and power to paralyze legislation and stifle a growing economy in the name of maintaining their own control. These pirates are their just rewards--the pirates are the mad max/anarchist version of the government. They are an INEVITABILITY when government can't fulfill this role.
Fuck em, they don't like pirates, they should give up their last mile monopolies and not lobby for the local governments to be useless. But then their record breaking profits would disappear--they want to have their cake and eat it too.
Skanda
I'm Amod too!
- 6,662
- 4,506
This doesn't quite work as an analogy when talking about piracy. When you steal shit you deprive the shop owner the ability to sell that item. A more accurate analogy would be you walk into the store and use their pants to create another pair then walk out with that second pair.
Famm
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 11,041
- 794
Its more like you bought the jeans at the Gap, put them on craigs list for free, and the owner of the mall that the Gap is located in wants you to pay a surcharge for relisting them.
Intrinsic
Person of Whiteness
- 15,301
- 13,700
Chick-Fil-A discounts my deluxe sammich when I don't get pickles and tomatoes. Wish more places did that.
Few things. First, I don't think it's obvious what the profits of changing the content distribution system would be. Like I said earlier, I'd love to see some data re how much cable companies would have to charge to per channel if they offered them a la carte to make as much money as they do now. And to make 75% as much and so forth. I suspect there wouldn't be much profit in, unless they charged pretty high prices, because it's niche. Sure, let's assume most people only want 4 or 5 channels, so it's not niche in that sense. But they don't want the same channels. Everyone wants 4 or 5 different channels. What about the already niche channels, like the station that plays mostly high school sports in my area, how much would it cost a la carte? That's before even getting to a la carte shows.
Second, if it is so obvious, why hasn't someone exploited it? Yes, I get it, economies of scale and barriers to entry. But there isn't zero competition. There's satellite. Some places have multiple cable providers. If there's a ton of money to be made in supplying the demand for different bundles, or a la carte, or what have you, why isn't Dish (or another established competitor) doing it?
That's all numbers stuff and I'd love to see it shown that there is a lot of money to be made in supplying a la carte channels, or custom bundles, or whatever. If I could get 4 or 5 channels for 5% of the cost I pay for the 100 or so I have now, and everyone could win, then awesome.
What bugs me is the whole "pirates are their just rewards" revolutionary attitude stuff. It's bullshit rationalization. Pirates are not engaging in the proud tradition of civil disobedience, where they break the law and willingly suffer the punishment to highlight injustice. They're not downloading millions of articles off of JSTOR with an eye towards making them freely available to the public. They're not even stealing clothes because they were made in sweat shops . They're illegally downloading episodes of Game of Thrones because they don't want to pay $20 extra a month (or whatever it is) for premium cable or wait until they can buy the DVD. And then complaining about a six strike system.
Hekotat
FoH nuclear response team
- 12,389
- 12,183
If they want people to stop pirating they need to stop being greedy fuckheads and all come to an agreement for one distributor for their media(Netflix, Hulu or whatever) and people would gladly pay for it, however, making people pay 5-15/month for 5 different streaming services so they can keep up with the shows they like is going to drive anyone to pirate them.
Also screw the RIAA for fucking us in the ass with CD inflation prices for the better part of a decade. I have no sympathy for them at all and hope they go down in flames.
Also screw the RIAA for fucking us in the ass with CD inflation prices for the better part of a decade. I have no sympathy for them at all and hope they go down in flames.
Famm
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 11,041
- 794
I ran across this article recently. Its old. Its long. The author is a human trainwreck. Some of it is dated (MP3s having inferior sound). But much of it is sadly still relevant.
http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
Tarisk
Pathetic Reaction Bot
- 1,568
- 370
Really hate their failure attempts to simply curb it, from all ISP's and MPAA etc. I've received 2 C&D's from Comcast in about 10 years; Both times were for TV shows from channels that I had subscribed to and wanted to simply watch on my PC/portable device (not a phone at the time.) Yet not a single one for something that would have been a legit reason to send me one.
Gravel
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 40,334
- 133,655
For some reason I want to say it's the media companies that are for bundling, and not the distributors (cable/satellite). Viacom, for example, basically forcing the cable companies to offer all their shit channels in a package with the ones people want.
You are dealing with companies who don't really give a fuck if they break or subvert the law as long as they aren't penalized. And pirates who do the exact same shit. Then there are a bunch of BS chicken or the egg arguments about whether it was the companies fault for creating the pirates or whatever.
Long story short, no one is innocent but anyone who feels bad or thinks its immoral to steal from these companies is kinda a moron imo.