5 major ISPs roll out the "six strikes" policy regarding illegal downloads.

Elurin_sl said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is correct and the reason we will never see ala carte. Though I think cox just sued Viacom for forcing the bundling of their shit channels with their good ones.

I dropped AT&T, switched to Cox, and signed up for a VPN service in response to this.

I like how it's guilty until the accused proves otherwise - oh and btw you have to pay $35 to get someone to even look at it.

Simas_sl said:

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.

Click to expand...

The problem is, information distribution is essentially free. That's the reality these companies are looking to avoid. To distribute information, you pay for bandwith and storage--both are immensely cheap. Your question about charging for distribution is way off the mark. The only thing that there is a realistic market for is the content itself--that's the problem. The market for distribution is artificial, it's literally a construct due to the failure of government in this area.

Delivery costs should be similar to shipping a product via fed ex (But as said, cheaper.)--but instead you have these artificial constructs charging for distribution because they own the last mile or collude with companies that do (Big media controlling last mile owners). Again, it's like owning all the roads between the highways and your home. You should not HAVE to pay for products you don't want, you wouldn't accept that in any other facet of life (Except, as said, if the margins were cheap)--the only reason you DO pay for this is because the distributors own the means of distribution. If it worked as an equitable market should, the government should own the means and these distributors, like Comcast or Media companies, should simply be the method. (Again, fed ex doesn't own the road--it and a few other companies compete to bring you the product on public roads.)


I'll go into how it's obvious there are profits and why no one does it in the next response.

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?

Click to expand...

People are attempting to exploit it, look at House of Cards--House of Cards is genuinely historic because it's the "first shot" in a long media battle that's coming. House of Cards is a high production series that is not funded by the monopoly owners who control the distribution networks. It represents the reason why Comcast and other companies were fighting so hard against Net Neutrality--because they know the allure of using programs like Netflix or HBO-Go to create sub markets is very high, because the margins are so high--and they are essentially a useless middleman exploiting artificially created arbitrage (Something markets constantly work to wipe out.) The fact is, ISP's want the internet to be more like your cable, where you pay premiums for sites like Amazon ect--the internet is the biggest threat to their little scam.

So why aren't there more house of cards or shows using netflix or amazon? Quite simply, the penetration of internet is not close to that of Dish or Cable, and since big media companies either own them, or collude with them, these are still the primary methods of delivery that every content producer needs. So going against these companies really limits your market, because they have this hold on distribution by controlling a public good (Again, something that the government should be providing.)...However, as ever year passes, you can see more and more companies are launching their own sites--and that is all because of the internet's growth.

In fact, if you saw government mandated free and open internet--you'd see far more shows like House of Cards or even things like HBOGO for sign up, because content delivery through the net would be as high, or higher, than the means by which media/cable companies deliver. Until that happens--you won't have people taking advantage, because, again, it's like Fed Ex controlling all the roads to people's homes. If Fed Ex could do that, then any manufacturer would be absolutely crazy not to make deals with Fed Ex. It's hard to even think about roads in that way, isn't it? But that's how the information field currently works, the "roads" for information are mostly controlled by private hands--and while the internet in circumventing this (Mostly because those private hands are tied by net neutrality--another little irony of government ineptness) it's slow going.

So, in short, people ARE exploiting it but not nearly the rate the profits in the field would dictate in a healthy market. However, this new exploitation is why networks are putting their shows on Amazon, or Netlflix. But the cable companies are using their monopolies (Or duopolies) to slow this down as much as possible AND still enforce their "take" (By threading the production studios if they don't pay up), and then using their money to lobby to further limit people, even other large companies, like google and especially "public" entities like townships (There are multiple stories of Comcast suing towns for trying to put in their own high speed lines--seriously, Comcast wouldn't offer it in their area but the courts actually said towns couldn't do it for themselves.). So the media companies are really doing everything they can to stop progress here. And given their size and profit capability, they have quite a bit of power.

As for why competition between say, Dish and Comcast hasn't stopped this? It's because the arbitrage of flipping content between producers and audience is the most important aspect of their market--competition is secondary. These companies collude in both their lobbying and their purchase power to prevent competition, and from what I remember, they've been fined by the FCC for doing so--but they gladly pay it from their enormous profits and simply write it out as the cost of doing business. (Seriously, look for a flow chart of media companies, I think there are like 4 separate entities in the U.S. that control hundreds of companies.)

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.

Click to expand...

There is nothing noble the spurned drug fiend who shoots the drug dealer that gave him baking powder. It's simply a side effect of not having contract enforcement. It's a natural side effect of a broken market where the government has been neutralized. In this case, these companies have worked hard to neutralize the government and further enforce their control--that's how they collude to bully production studios, and to buy up start up ISP's, or constantly break the rules in so far of how much market they own, or bully small governments (Towns) into not providing last mile service--because they've neutered the FCC and other government agencies meant to stop them.

This neutering however means the government is also inept at going after pirates, or controlling how pirating happens on the networks (Again, imagine Fed Ex owned roads...where police were NOT allowed. Oops! Pirates!)...To make money these guys wanted the government out. Now they are crying for the government to help them--if you can't find that poetic justice, then you might be immune to irony.

In other words--the Pirates are no more or less noble than the media companies. They are a product of the media companies actions. Being angry at them is silly, when it's the media companies greed that created them in the first place. It's like someone paying off the cops so they can run a protection racket, and then being angry that the cops didn't show up when their forced clients fought back.

If media wants to be the robber barons of the internet-wild west, then they should suck it up and deal with the outlaws. Their other option is to back off and let the government in. But they won't do that, because then their entire business will be dead--and all the money will actually go to the people who MAKE and deliver the content, and not some fat cat who simply has the money to scare everyone into buying through him.

Elurin_sl said:

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.

Click to expand...

It really works both ways. A lot of those media companies, if you go high enough, are owned by the same entities. All the distributors are in an incestuous little circle--and even when they are "competing", they are still colluding to fuck over the end user. This collusion is illegal, of course, but these companies make so much money that the fines are seen as a tax--if they are ever caught in the first place, thanks to thirty years of essentially castrating the FCC and other government watch dogs. Which again, is why I find it ironic them bitching about pirates--these were the guys that destroyed government regulation in this area so they could maintain control.

Simas, there simply is no competition for the ISPs, they have made sure of that. Anyone or any entity that has tried so far has just been lawyered in to the dirt.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1273423/t...son-snip-cable

Also this needs to be seen by basically everyone. The book is good too.

Ronne_sl said:

Simas, there simply is no competition for the ISPs, they have made sure of that. Anyone or any entity that has tried so far has just been lawyered in to the dirt.

Click to expand...

I wish I could find the articles showing the absurd mark up for Bandwidth usage the ISP's get. I think it's something like half a penny a GB and falling year by year as networks improve. The average user is charged a 2000 times mark up. It's enough to make anyone angry. In a normal market there would be tons of competition, but in the end, it's like trying to be a trucking company competing with another trucking company thatowns the roads--it's doomed to fail. And because these end users have this monopoly the media middle men fuck over content producers and customers.

It's a shame, really--because it's constricting our whole economy. If producers got money directly, that industry would boom due to liquidity (Crazy idea, people who make stuff getting the profits). And the ad industry would also blow up--Companies like Google see this, but they don't really have the economic or lobbying power to do anything but stop the media companies from fucking things up even more.

Lithose, I think you and I will have to agree to disagree. I doubt we'll come to a meeting of the minds when you're on both sides of certain issues. First you say there are last mile problems and economies of scale problems, then you say distribution is essentially free. First you say no one is exploiting demand because of the strangle hold cable companies have, but then you say Netflix, Amazon and others are exploiting demand.

With that said, I'm no fan of the cable companies. Stuff like that which Ronne above linked below is lame. I'm all for fighting it in court, working to pass legislation, working to empower the FCC, and so on.

Ronne, you say there is no competition for ISP and then you link a story about an ISP upset with competition.

mkopec_sl said:

MPAA and IRAA will be informed of the users which breach the 5th or 6th strike.

Click to expand...

You should probably read a little closer. The article says exactly the opposite of this. Your info will not be sent to tha MAFIAA unless they subpoena it, meaning they have to have an active court case open. So nothing is changing there.

Because television is still the dominant market.

Simas, the point isn't that they are upset with competition, it's that they have the clout and money to combat competition not in the marketplace, but the courtroom.

Simas_sl said:

First you say there are last mile problems and economies of scale problems, then you say distribution is essentially free.
.

Click to expand...

Think about roads. This is like, basic economics. I'm not sure how you still don't get that the above statement does not cause a conflict, both statements, of a service being free and entry into service being prohibitive, can exist. It's the lighthouse principle, except someone found a way to charge for the light.

A more precise analogy. Imagine if the companies paid to build the interstate system, had simply been made owners of said system. Imagine the power they could wield to dictate interstate commerce and sales. There would be nothing 'fair" or natural about such a market--because a public good was being exploited for gains. That's exactly what's happening here. Really, almost to a T--because the initial funds to lay lines for most of these networks, like Comcast, came from government grants.

First you say no one is exploiting demand because of the strangle hold cable companies have, but then you say Netflix, Amazon and others are exploiting demand.

Click to expand...

I never said no one is exploiting demand. I said the market is artificially being held back through collusion. That given the profit potential, there should be an immense amount of competition--and comparing the profit potential in these markets, to say, your 3$ hamburger, which has a margin of pennies, is dumb.

There are subtleties in economics, Simas--you don't get them. And that's fine, but it explains why media can be more profitable now, than anytime in history, while getting people like you to feel sorry for them. Because you simply don't understand the issues (And that's not a slight on you, it's complicated.)

Big Phoenix_sl said:

What exactly is stopping content creators from directly releasing their content via channels like Steam/Netflix/Itunes aside from them willingly selling their souls to the big time publishers?

Click to expand...

As Ronne is saying, a big part was/is the market for TV is just huge. NOW internet has a reached a penetration point that it's market is wide enough to take the investment horizon of say, a TV show (A "Triple A" show) and make it so you can possibly reach a broad enough market through the internet to reliably recoup costs through advertising or fees. This is why you see House of Cards, or the new show Amazon is producing.

But that's very recent, and even now, the internet's access is dwarfed by cable and satellite. The REASON the internet is dwarfed is because cable AND media providers have invested billions in lobbying to prevent other companies and/or local municipalities from building their own internet last mile structures. They've done this to keep a lock down on the home access entertainment market. The media companies then collude, or simply buy, these access providers (The FCC rules governing ownership are regularly violated)---And turn around to the producers and say "You sell through me, or get fucked." Without access to people's homes, the investment capital in projects simply isn't there.

Unfortunately, what this does is give them tremendous power to greatly increase their take on production. This is why artists see so little of actual sale--while at the same time, distributors only make pennies on each sale (Even Amazon or Itunes ect--becauseeven going with Amazon, you have to make a deal to get into TV, which still has the biggest market). The lion's share of the profits go to the media companies that broker the deals, or perform the arbitrage between these markets. Their power is essentially based off of the control they have over the TV markets--which was originally given to them through the government, and they've kept through unfair practices.

Which is why the cost represents a type of monopoly, and isnota "fair market" price. But like I said, Netflix, Amazon, Google and a bunch of small studios are pushing for wider net access to cut these jokers out. As you kind of alluded to, they really do NOTHING for anyone except drive prices up by creating a middle man, and unlike standard retail, they have far, far more power with which to control prices (Again, due to their control of local infrastructure.)

Which is how this whole conversation started. Nothing about the price being demanded for HBO is "fair market" price. In an open, fair market--the companies which force HBO not to sell direct, wouldn't even exist, because everyone would have access to the modern "roads" (Internet) with which to buy from whomever they wish.

Simas_sl said:

What would it take for pirates to stop pirating? I'm curious to see the answers of some here. If you illegally download content, at what price would you buy, instead of download?

Click to expand...

Personally, I would love a subscription based service like Spotify, but for all forms of content (TV/movies/music etc). As long as it had almost all content produced and there wasn't any inconvenient DRM crap I would gladly pay a reasonable subscription fee for it (not sure what is reasonable, maybe ~$30/month). The main problem with the current offerings is that the content libraries are too small for them to be viable.

Big Phoenix_sl said:

What exactly is stopping content creators from directly releasing their content via channels like Steam/Netflix/Itunes aside from them willingly selling their souls to the big time publishers?

Click to expand...

Bandwidth caps. Which limit people from streaming unlimited from sites like netflix. They are doing it to protect their video profits. Hell they already have a 90% profit margin on the internet side and bandwidth caps allow them to charge more.

stop the cap has a lot of good articles about exactly what Lithose is speaking about. Content providers, like Comcast and AT&T are buying state legislatures to stop cities from creating their own fiber to the home network that provides faster, cheaper service. Going so far as to limit by the neighborhood where a city can and can not build. Its why I hope Google spreads out their fiber more or since they are testing a wireless network in the 2.4ghz range, that they roll that out nationwide eventually because they at least seem like they aren't out to fuck every consumer out of as much money as they can.
http://stopthecap.com/

Simas_sl said:

I would like more choice too, but you're downplaying the available options. There's your cable provider(s), Dish, Direct TV, Internet, Netflix, etc.

Click to expand...

I'm in France (where Hulu/Netflix don't exist) the choices given to me are (i'll only talk about Movies) today according to french law :
- Wait 4-12 Months for the DVD/BR to come out
- Wait 12-22 Months for "TV Channel if they have co-produced the movie"
- Wait 22-36 Months for "Other TV Channels"
- Wait 36 Months for Paying VOD
- Wait 48 Months for Free VOD

Basically, to see the Hobbit in VOD, i have to wait 36+ months after the moment it does "less than 200 entries after it has been on air for 4+ weeks".
So if the hobbit does 200+ entries per week "France wide" until July2013, i'll have to wait 36 Months after that day for Paying VOD.

To add insult to injury, want to know the real bullshit ? VOD does exist but it's complete bullshit, so i just download shit.
- Pay 3-5? to have the privilege to watch ONCE, during a 48H delay, ONE EPISODE of a 12 Episode Season
- Pay 25-40? to buy the DVD (when it comes out) with the entire season, and have to worry about RIP & DRM
- Go to Eztv click 12 times, wait 2H, have everything delivered on a silver plate in 352p or 720p

Simas_sl said:

What would it take for pirates to stop pirating? I'm curious to see the answers of some here. If you illegally download content, at what price would you buy, instead of download?

Click to expand...

Lower prices, Absence of DRM, Multi-platform availability, unrestricted selection... Like someone said, Steam for DIVX.

Where i can either "watch in streaming purely VOD" or "download locally to an encrypted file to watch later via SteamApp".

Big Phoenix_sl said:

What exactly is stopping content creators from directly releasing their content via channels like Steam/Netflix/Itunes aside from them willingly selling their souls to the big time publishers?

Click to expand...

Even in that circumstance, the content providers are essentially being "taxed" by ISP's since their inflated rates to access are a fixed cost for consumers. If I have to pay $60 for a $20 service, that's $40 I'm not spending on content. It's also a barrier to entry forconsumerswho want to access the content, but can't.

I think I have to agree with Lithose here. Just as a couple of recent examples look at Netflix and how it was treated last year (or year before?) when major movie studios started pulling content because they couldn't get Netflix to charge special prices instead of all you can eat buffet style pricing. Remember iTunes going through the same fight years ago? Amazon? It was because people started to realize they didn't need to pay 120$/month when they could pay $30 and get exactly what they wanted.

But the best example of how it should work is Steam. Seriously I pirated, you pirated, everyone you know pirated but Steam changed all that. Steam got us all addicted to paying for things again. For seeing a sale and buying games we would have never bought anyway. For making us buy games we already pirated and finished "because shit man it's ONLY FIVE BUCKS". Just look at how the PS4 is going to be offering every game as a download.

But I think things are changing. Look at how many shitty reality tv shows there are these days. Cheap to produce with high profit margin. TV is gradually moving itself out of the realm of true creative works and that is making room for quality shows like House of Cards to show up. And Roku channels will eventually produce a few gems, the law of statistics say so.