Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Feb 2012 21:59 UTC
Multimedia, AV An interesting anecdote at MinimalMac about television being broken. The author's young daughter, who is growing up in a Netflix/Hulu/iTunes/etc. household, was confronted with actual TV for the first time, and wonders why she can't pick what to watch, why the shows are being interrupted all the time, and so on. Clearly - TV is broken.
Thread beginning with comment 508427
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Don't understand
by Treza on Sat 25th Feb 2012 05:25 UTC
Treza
Member since:
2006-01-11

I don't understand that sort of obsession about downloading TV series.
I can't imagine filling up my hard disks with that crap (I have a few movies)

I don't understand why it is important to have the latest US shows without delay. Really ? I watch on french TV 2 or 3 years old programs (translated), what does it really changes?

I'm actually a bit sad that a big part of the whole Internet infrastructure and a part of the legal pressure by majors against dowloading is due to people downloading TV series that will eventually be aired "for free".

I don't know about laws in Netherlands or US. What Thom is doing may or maybe not is legal.
The issue is, is it ethical ?
Do you think any smallest part of the money that you give for your ultrafast Internet connection goes in any people actually involved in the creation of those programs?
The fact that you don't like current legal options don't give you the right to download these torrents.
You're just deluding yourself.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Don't understand
by Bobthearch on Sat 25th Feb 2012 06:02 in reply to "Don't understand"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

So you don't think that access to commercial television shows and movies is a natural god-given Human Right?

LOL!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Don't understand
by henrikmk on Sat 25th Feb 2012 09:53 in reply to "Don't understand"
henrikmk Member since:
2005-07-10

I don't know about laws in Netherlands or US. What Thom is doing may or maybe not is legal.
The issue is, is it ethical ?
Do you think any smallest part of the money that you give for your ultrafast Internet connection goes in any people actually involved in the creation of those programs?
The fact that you don't like current legal options don't give you the right to download these torrents.
You're just deluding yourself.


Television is not financed that way. If it were, you wouldn't see so many great TV shows being cancelled or so much junk being produced. The money path between you and the producers is incredibly convoluted.

The thing is, that cable companies are a huge middleman that gets to decide what you get to watch and what box and which software you use to watch it with. They do that through putting together a business model centered around bundling different channels together from different providers. These providers then pay cable companies to bundle them in for greater exposure.

Then you buy the whole package of channels, of which, you may be able to use around 0.5 to 1% of. I'm not exaggerating. You're paying for content that you never get to watch.

You have a whole ecosystem of junk that you MUST pay for, in order to watch a single TV show, basically a signed contract, where you pay them to dump toxic waste outside your house, so you can get an icecream cone.

Then you have the whole debacle of having to replace your boxes every 2-3 years, which produces hazardous electronic waste, but it certainly does keep a lot of TV service people busy.

Who's unethical again?

I think the US economy would fare a lot better by cutting out the cable company middleman and let the film and television producers distribute their products directly via the internet and do it world wide simultaneously.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Don't understand
by Treza on Sat 25th Feb 2012 19:02 in reply to "RE: Don't understand"
Treza Member since:
2006-01-11

So, what ?

The situation is not the same in all countries, some countries use cable TV, others use satellites, or free to air UHF band, or through internet adapters.
In my country, for example, "cable TV" is almost nonexistant, people mostly use free to air or channels available through their internet connexion.

"Television is not financed that way. If it were, you wouldn't see so many great TV shows being cancelled or so much junk being produced.
....
Then you buy the whole package of channels, of which, you may be able to use around 0.5 to 1% of. I'm not exaggerating. You're paying for content that you never get to watch "

You know what ? What you consider as "great TV shows" is considered as junk by many people. But they are still paying for sponsoring the 1% you care, as you are sponsoring the 1% they want. For example, I need to accept that a lot of my money is spent for broadcasting sports, which I never, ever watch.

And, of course, few people speak fluently english, so simultaneous worldwide distribution is pointless.

TV is never free. Free to air channels are payed by commercials, marketing being a sort of hidden tax on every product sold, or, for government owned channels, by a public subvention, which is another tax.

The convoluted financing doesn't matter. It's just about paying for what you get.

The main part of my previous post relates my astonisment about people acting as drug addits for TV series, being able to do dirty things to get their shot, as fast as possible.
I'm a bit sad about them, actually.

Obviously Hollywood, Apple, Amazon and cable companies are evil. Nobody is arguing about that. But, just like Microsoft prefers Chinese to pirate Windows rather than trying anything else, the RIAA prefers torrents of world-wide-crap instead of local productions or people simply not caring.

Pirating conforts them in the illusion that with enough legal pressure, all these dowloads could be transformed into paying customers, whatever the price is.

And, as they are dealing with addicts, they may be right.

(Hope I don't seem condescending !)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Don't understand
by d3vi1 on Sat 25th Feb 2012 11:48 in reply to "Don't understand"
d3vi1 Member since:
2006-01-28

I don't know about laws in Netherlands or US. What Thom is doing may or maybe not is legal.
The issue is, is it ethical ?
Do you think any smallest part of the money that you give for your ultrafast Internet connection goes in any people actually involved in the creation of those programs?
The fact that you don't like current legal options don't give you the right to download these torrents.
You're just deluding yourself.

It's as ethical as them selling the same product in other countries for 3-4 times the price.
In a lot of countries there are no legal options at all except for occasionally buying DVDs. We need digital downloads not DVDs. My iPad can't play DVD's on the plane. Soon enough, my laptop won't be able to play DVD's anymore without a crappy external drive. DVD's kill battery.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Don't understand
by snowbender on Sat 25th Feb 2012 19:22 in reply to "Don't understand"
snowbender Member since:
2006-05-04

Do you think any smallest part of the money that you give for your ultrafast Internet connection goes in any people actually involved in the creation of those programs?


I don't know about the Netherlands, but in Belgium, I can tell you, that on our bill for tv+internet, there is a separate section which is a tax that was invented because people copy/download stuff illegally. It is supposed to go to the people that create content. I doubt that money ever arrives in the hands of the people that do create the content. Most likely it happens to get stuck in those organisations (SABAM). (see http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110209/04101413022/belgian-colle...)

Secondly, it does not make sense. Either it is illegal to copy/download movies and music, or either you collect a tax for those things, but then you can not forbid people to download, since we already pay for it.

Reply Parent Score: 3