h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So long as you've paid your licence fee you can store and permanently store BBC content, without having to wait for the Sherlock DVD to hit the shops. Reasonable, yes? Or are we unfairly denying the BBC of revenue.

Would it also be reasonable to create an identical medium by downloading from a pirate site?

Same question for ad-funded material. Le's assume you can edit out the ads, even. Someone still gets paid, right? Just not as much as in their Business Plan. (Although I imagine business plans assume piracy).

*But* people will just grab it anyway if it's there.

You've entirely lost me there.

Or to put it another way - when the hell did I mention the BBC or license fees?

What I was talking about was say, an independent programme maker.

What revenue streams do they have if noone will pay for it, either hard copy or download and nooone will watch any advertising that goes along with it.
How do they raise funds to make any other programmes, pay for the actors, pay for infrastructure, cameramen etc.

I appreciate this is hypothetical but if *everyone* wants it now, wants it free and is not prepared to watch adverts then there is no way to pay for it that I can see - or is there? Please enlighten.
(and incidentally if you put the license fee up for being optional - watch noone pay for it )

I guess the point I'm making is that (for made-for-TV) content, the revenue streams are:
- Licence fee
- Subscriptions
- Advertising revenue - which is passed on to customers whether or not they even watch the content
- DVD and download sales.

Due to technological improvements, content providers have been able to bank on the last. But also due to technological improvements - less than they maybe thought.

Is it a moral issue that the benefits of technology have not been quite as one-sided as the content providers had hoped? See also Anthea's example of artists wishing to sell on line.

But mainly I'm just blethering around the topic. As ever.

>>Or to put it another way - when the hell did I mention the BBC or license fees?

No, that was me, by way of comparing and contrasting the various revenue streams.

>>What I was talking about was say, an independent programme maker.

Which would include where the BBC get most of its content from?

Yes but the 'pirates' will pay none of those things.

Many of the posts above are from people who don't live in the UK so don't have a license fee.

Won't pay a subscription (e.g. refusing to paying for Sky anything that has to do with Rupert Murdoch or 'big business')

Won't watch adverts (watch advertising revenue disappear if noone watches them)

These people aren't paying for DVD or download sales.


If *everyone* took this attitude then there is no business, no new shows etc.
So those who do pay are subsidising those selfish s who do not.
Is piracy a political statement or is it parasitic?

ooh I'm getting all strident again now.

And round we go back to the beginning.

I don't believe it's a political statement, no matter how I or anyone else dresses it up.

Parasitical? Another way to look a it is that it's a manifestation of market forces. If providers can't work out how to make money with current models then - yes - they'll go bust. Or else find better business models. I haven't heard of many unemployed film and TV folk yet, mind.

What they're trying to do at the moment is to use the full might of government powers to protect their business models and manipulate markets in their favour. The supervening power of the state reinforcing the mode of production and all that. It's hard to credit that somebody can be deported to protect 'kin DVD sales.

Otto, yep it might well be a short sighted strategy on their part. Indeed, many people are arguing this (including some of the companies to be fair).

Ed,

> But shouldn't the owners have the final word on whether and when they sell their intellectual property to you?

But I'm not arguing about what is right or wrong, just about what actually motivates people. In my case, I'm motivated to do the wrong thing because of convenience much more than money. I take it as a given that piracy is morally wrong in some sense, but a moral wrong that many people indulge in for reasons that we can understand. It goes back to my first post: people will pirate stuff unless you understand why they are pirating it and provide a service that better addresses what they want.

Of course, the companies are welcome to try to defeat piracy by technological and legal means, but they will fail. It's just not possible. And, the things you have to do to attempt to defeat it by technology are exactly the things that make it less convenient to use the legal than the illegal versions (DRM etc.). Given this, their strategy is exactly wrong, it actually encourages more piracy. I don't say that they're wrong to pursue their strategy, just that they're stupid.

Orcus,

> In this idyllic world where nobody pays for the shows bought, downloaded or otherwise, and no advertising revenue, how *do* you expect them to raise enough money to make any new shows?

It's a fair question. Two responses: first, as I said to Ed, I'm only talking about what people's actual motivations are - not the rights and wrongs of it. The system as it stands is broken, and it can't be fixed by legal/technological means so a new solutions has to be found. We can discuss what that solution should be, but to do so it's good to have a clear idea of what motivates people to pirate stuff.

Well, different people have different priorities. I particularly hate adverts, so for me having a version without adverts has a huge value. Most people don't seem to mind them. On Android (and iOS might be the same) you often get a free version of an app supported by adverts, but you can pay to have an advert free version. It's a good model. It's also a good model of convenience: the Android marketplace is incredibly simple and convenient, and so although I know pirated versions of some games exist, why would I bother given that they cost only a few quid at most?

So there are a diversity of approaches they could take. They can offer advert supported versions, premium ad-free versions, nice DVD box sets with extras (doesn't do it for me, but many people love them), etc. In other words, if they want money, they have to find out what would motivate people to spend it, and do it well. And to reiterate, I'm not saying what they are doing is 'wrong', just that it's not good enough to stop people from taking the (very) easy option of pirating.

Just wanted to comment on Ed's point:

> What they're trying to do at the moment is to use the full might of government powers to protect their business models and manipulate markets in their favour. The supervening power of the state reinforcing the mode of production and all that. It's hard to credit that somebody can be deported to protect 'kin DVD sales.

This is important. I don't mind companies trying to introduce DRM and whatever to stop piracy. Ultimately, I think they're shooting themselves in the foot but whatever, it's their mistake to make. However, once they successfully lobby governments to introduce ridiculous legislation that is damaging to the world as a whole, we do enter the world of what is right and what is wrong - and what the companies are doing here is wrong. And as well as the damage it causes, essentially it amounts to using general taxation to subsidise the profits of an industry that can't or won't adapt to a new situation. And I for one find that idea abhorrent.

Orcus,

> If *everyone* took this attitude then there is no business, no new shows etc.

Yeah, but not everyone has the exact same attitude, and there are ways they could make money.

On the subject of adverts, I actually hope that they will die. I hope that people will refuse to watch them whenever it is feasible for them to do so, and that this will force companies to find an alternative way of funding productions. Firstly, I find them incredibly unpleasant to watch, but that's just my own preference. Secondly, they distort what gets produced. Because the people paying TV production companies are advertisers, you have to consider that their primary customers are the advertisers - so of course they will work in their interests, and not the interests of the consumers of their product. This means we get a lot of very bland TV that avoids all controversy (because that would put off a segment of the audience).

DRM has huge practical problems though. Basically, it means you have computers which are artificially limited. And that means you need computers which the user cannot modify. And that means you need a Microsoft/Apple Duopoly.

And that means no Free Software.

And that's bad.

TRiG.

There was an interesting case with the BBC last year when they showed Torchwood: Miracle Day a week after the American broadcast, despite it being joint-funded by the Beeb. Given that I pay my license fee - the BBC's main income stream - is there any reason why downloading the programme after the American broadcast was illegitimate? I'd paid for the product, I just wanted to watch it sooner than some arbitrary wait the BBC had imposed.

More generally is there anything wrong with a license-payer downloading BBC products?

Trig, I agree that DRM limited computers are a threat. However, it's proved kind of tricky to really limit them. They've been trying/talking about it for years but they're not really any closer to it. The closest thing we have is something like iOS or Android, and they are fairly easily hacked to make all the functionality available to open source software writers.

How is any company supposed to survive without adverts?

OK,if you're an established brand you stand a chance without them.

But say - I'm starting a new company selling the latest version of hoojamaflips that are actually much more environmentally benign that the older generation of hoojamaflips.

But in order to save the planet (and heaven forbid make some money) with the latest generation then people need to buy them. And in order to sell them, I need people to be aware they exist.

How do I do that effectively without the abhorrent advertising?

>Orcus,

> If *everyone* took this attitude then there is no business, no new shows etc.

Yeah, but not everyone has the exact same attitude, and there are ways they could make money.<

Indeed so until that day, those who take the 'I don't care, I just take it' attitude are leaches bleeding the rest of us and contributing to the destruction of such businesses.
(and to the 'I'm not aware of any cameramen out work yet comment earlier - didn't ITV nearly go down recently? What's happened to EMI and other major record labels in recent years... not saying that's entirely down to internet piracy but I'd bet good money it wasn't insignificant).

Which was my point about commercial product. If I have a Sky subscription, what's wrong with me downloading 'Boardwalk Empire'?

If I buy supermarket products whose price takes advertising budgets into account, what's wrong with me downloading 'Downton Abbey'*?

What's wrong is that I'm also meant to pay for the DVDs as well as paying for my subscription and the advertising.

Right?

Now that's fair enough. I'm not naive - programme makers only make programmes to make money. However...for myself, I very rarely buy TV series DVDs simply because there are other demands on my wallet. Downloading amounts to a price negotiation. How much am I willing to pay? This is quite normal in a market economy, right?

I got 'The Wire' for my birthday, mind.








* Never watched it. Only I couldn't think of another ITV programme.

My last @ HI.

@Orcus:

Are you really saying that we should support content providers with really crappy, unsustainable business models because then they'd go bust and then we'd be sorry? This seems to me like saying we should continue to patronise an overpriced restaurant with crap service otherwise we won't get any dinner.

The usual assumption in a market economy is that it is down to the seller to find a product that people are willing to buy at a price they are willing to pay. It is not usually the buyer's role to tide them over while they work out how. I am unconvinced that there are not ways of making reasonable amounts of money out of entertainment.

Interesting article given the conversation:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17851822

"Science fiction publisher Tor UK is dropping digital rights management from its e-books alongside a similar move by its US partners."

Orcus,

> How is any company supposed to survive without adverts?

It's interesting that you give the example of a new company. I'd say one of the primary functions of advertising is to make it more difficult for the competition because they can't spend as much on advertising. I mean, what percentage of the adverts you see are for an existing company compared to a new one?

If we didn't have adverts, I think we would find ways to get information about new products. If I want to buy a new hifi, or computer, or whatever, I don't think about what adverts I've seen recently, I ask people I know, go on review sites, etc. All of these forms of disseminating information would still exist without advertising. As a new company, you can send free copies of your product to influential people / review sites, etc. If it's a good product, they'll talk about it. If it's not a good product, well, I'm glad they don't have an advertising budget.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting banning advertising or anything like that, just expressing a hope that it will die a natural death. In which case, people will find a way. Have some confidence in human creativity.

> Indeed so until that day, those who take the 'I don't care, I just take it' attitude are leaches bleeding the rest of us and contributing to the destruction of such businesses.

Well, I don't see it that way, but my argument in this thread is the same: it doesn't matter what you think about the rights and wrongs of it. Another way has to be found, and moaning about people being leeches won't change anything.

Anyway, I just refreshed and noticed Ed said what I had in mind better than I could put it so I'll stop there.

>>Anyway, I just refreshed and noticed Ed said what I had in mind better than I could put it so I'll stop there.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Post 67: "I haven't heard of many unemployed film and TV folk yet, mind."

Really?! As far as I can tell, the vast majority of all film and TV people are unemployed at any one time, even when business is good. Even high-end, famous actors and actresses openly admit to having to take any jobs they can get. People complimented Daniel Radcliffe on his shrewd career planning when he followed up his Harry Potter fame with The woman in Black. His response was that there had been no planning whatsoever: he had just been offered a part, and taken it.