

Dear Rupert Murdoch: Let’s Talk Piracy & “The Simpsons” - prsimp
http://daggle.com/dear-rupert-murdoch-talk-piracy-simpsons-2944

======
froo
This isn't a new argument. It's one we've been having in Australia (and
presumably the rest of the world) for years now.

These distribution issues become even worse for us as there are time where
content isn't even available when you want to go actually pay for it.

Then we have problems where content isn't available for months after its
release. In a world where we are being involved in conversations that happen
worldwide (eg, via Twitter), having to wait several months for that content to
even become available (that's if it is available at all) is problematic at
best and utterly stupid at worst. EDIT - because of spoilers

Pirating content is just so much more convenient (which I'd imagine is at
least part of the reason why its rampant). It shouldn't be easier to get
content for free than to pay for it.

Once you've paid for content, you shouldn't be made to feel like a criminal or
have a reduced experience, which is what we are experiencing now with those
"Pirating is stealing" unskippable ads at the beginning of those region locked
DVD's they're so happy to sell us.

No wonder they think they're losing, its because they are - and its their own
damn fault.

------
spdy
It`s 2012. I can get live footage of every event over the world within an hour
good or bad (Youtube / Twitter / TV ) but cant watch my favorite tv-shows when
i want.

There are a total of 6 \- The Walt Disney Company \- Sony Pictures
Entertainment \- Paramount Pictures \- Twentieth Century Fox \- Universal
Studios \- Warner Bros. remaining movie studios who control the rights to
nearly every popular movie / tv-show. What is mind blowing for me they rather
sue mothers who torrent some music files then get their act together and
create an iTunes Store for themselves.

It could be so easy for them to create a joint venture and buy Netflix and
Spotify. Those companies, given the right tools, can easily figure out a
consumer model that would work for the majority of us.

But no, they rather witch hunt for over a decade now and lobby more and more
censorship laws in every country. I finally want to get to the point where i
can watch what i want when i want.

------
philwelch
I think Rupert Murdoch's myopia can be summed up by the name of one of his
many businesses: "20th Century Fox".

------
tnuc
Shouldn't a content provider have choice as to how you get to watch something?

By making it so you can only watch it on demand through your cable TV channel
Fox gets money from you in a number of different ways;

The ads that screen before and during the show. The money the cable provider
has to pay Fox to have the channel. The money the provider has to give Fox for
the on demand service.

Plus it stops the majority of armchair hackers from putting it up on youtube
etc. If it was made available on the web, then Fox would only get a very small
percentage of the ad money. And of course you wouldn't have to watch it when
it's on TV. The aim is to keep you watching your TV and taking your money.
People watching on the web don't pay as much attention to the ads.

Fox doesn't promote piracy as much as it promotes getting you to sit on your
couch most the evening, watching ads, eating Doritos and getting your daily
dose of "Fair and Balanced" news.

So DirectTV isn't listed as an on demand provider? Then change your provider
to one that pays Fox what they demand. So don't forget to set your calender
for next weeks episode.

p.s. Life is better without a TV.

~~~
DanBC
> _Shouldn't a content provider have choice as to how you get to watch
> something?_

Yes. But when they make bad choices good people (who want to pay for the
content) will mention those bad choices. And bad people (who don't want to pay
for the content) will just pirate, sometimes using the bad choice as a
justification.

> _Fox gets money from you in a number of different ways_

I don't know how it works so maybe I get this next part wrong, but limiting
the ways that people can pay you is not a way to maximise income.

> _Plus it stops the majority of armchair hackers from putting it up on
> youtube etc_

I don't understand what you're saying; plenty of on-demand cable only content
is available on torrents. Technical restrictions cause inconvenience to paying
customers but have little to no affect on pirates.

------
MikeKusold
Content not being able to be played through my Xbox is half the reason I
didn't end up paying for Hulu when my free trial expired.

The other half was that there was still ads, but that's an argument for a
different day.

------
aresant
I thought he was leading up to "convenience", the du jour argument for piracy.

But buried at the end of the article he says:

"Now, if I really wanted to watch last week’s episode, on my TV. . . I could
buy it from Amazon or Apple iTunes. But don’t you think paying four times for
the same content is a bit much?"

Which I think is the more honest argument.

Yah, we'll pay for it if it's easy.

But not as much as you're asking, especially for network TV that you maybe
forgot to TIvo.

------
GigabyteCoin
All of my friends pay $120/month for satellite/digital TV... I pay $120/month
towards expanding my personal data storage space.

Up to about 7 terabytes now..

------
fedd
so when leasing airwaves Mr Murdoch is paying the OP? or i missed smth

~~~
dangrossman
It's a bit of a mental stretch, but... the airwaves our "ours" because we pay
taxes to fund the FCC to regulate them that way.

~~~
fedd
i thought vice versa, we pay taxes to operate/regulate anything that is in
public domain ("ours" already), not that we buy it with our taxes from
someone.

------
Tim-Boss
Rupert Murdoch loved MySpace and had no problem whatsoever with it's own
piracy ('unauthorised' music on profiles, music videos constantly ripped
etc)...until it failed!

------
bricestacey
I am not sure if it's possible on Roku, but on Boxee you could get around
these lame restrictions by spoofing your user-agent.

~~~
dangrossman
That worked on Google TV boxes for a week or two, years ago. Then they blocked
it by the Flash player ID string embedded in the browser, so user agent
spoofing doesn't work anymore.

------
resnamen
Murdoch just knows that post-Season 8 Simpsons isn't worth streaming. ;)

------
smoody
"Blocking TV Devices Promotes The Piracy You Hate"

That's like saying the high price of Porsches promotes car jacking. People are
pro-theft or anti-theft. I'll never download copyrighted content without
permission. It doesn't matter what anyone does. Having the Simpsons is a
privilege, not a right.

It wasn't that long ago that shows would air once and never be seen again (as
far as audiences knew at the time) and I don't remember people rioting or
breaking into studios to steal the original tapes because shows only aired a
single time.

When you steal copyrighted content, that's exactly what you're doing, even if
you aren't busting down physical doors and rummaging through physical storage
rooms.

Just my two cents.

~~~
thebooktocome
Ah, the "You wouldn't download a car" argument.

The analogy is horrifically broken, because while it takes a non-trivial
amount of effort to copy a Porsche (not 'steal' it, because piracy doesn't
destroy the original -- but you knew that, right?) it takes a trivial amount
of effort to copy digital media.

------
hncommenter13
I'm sorry but this is a classic episode of WMFS syndrome (aka, "where's my
free shit?"). You can't have exactly what you want, when you want it _for
free_ , so it's someone else's fault. If you wanted the show, you could watch
it right now. But you don't want it $3.99 (?) worth, or whatever iTunes/AMZN
charges for it.

Since you didn't avail yourself of the opportunity to watch it the first few
times you had the chance, you pay for the privilege. You might not like it,
but that's how it goes. You can't walk up to an airline and buy the same seat
at the same price the day before it leaves, either, so this sort of price
discrimination is hardly remarkable.

First, as you say, you did have the chance to watch the over-the-air broadcast
(for which Murdoch should pay you/the gov't for use of the airwaves; if you
don't like the current financial arrangement, write your Congressman). You
didn't avail yourself of that opportunity.

Next, you could have DVRd it, as you say. But you didn't, for whatever reason.

Now you are upset that Hulu Plus doesn't have it. Do you yell and scream when
the public library doesn't happen to have purchased the book you want? Because
you pay for those books too. Go get a refund from Hulu Plus, if you're
unhappy, but it's an economic decision not to make it available on Hulu Plus
or on Fox's website.

The fact is, you had several chances to watch without paying more out of
pocket. You missed them, so now you have to pay, if it's important to you.
That is no one's fault but your own.

Update: formatting

~~~
sullivandanny
$125 per month for DirecTV. $7 per month for Hulu Plus. $7 per month for
Netflix. Where do you see me saying I wanted it for free?

The fact is, I can have it on demand and for free if I want to watch it
through my computer. Or hook my computer up to my TV. Fox provides it this
way.

But if I want to watch it through a Roku or Google TV, from the same exact web
site, from the same exact data stream, then I can't.

And I can't, because, Fox is afraid that if they do it that way, I won't pay
all the money I'm already paying to DirecTV in the first place.

So lesson learned? I shouldn't bother with any of the payment options in the
first place.

~~~
hncommenter13
Forgive me. Your complaint is that you can't watch it _on the device_ you want
at exactly the time you want for free. (Though if it's on Neflix streaming,
one would think you could watch it via Roku.)

Anyway, I think we agree that Fox is making a business decision, just like you
make a business decision to provide some of your content for free on the web
and some for pay at your conferences.

So your quibble is with the choice of devices. But your post (and reaction
above) counts up the amount you are paying, and implies that Fox is being
atypically greedy (or myopic) for not making it available on the specific
device you want at no additional charge.

My complaint is that you're couching an economic argument--you want to pay
+$0, Fox wants $0.99--in moral terms, which smacks of the entitlement to which
I object.

~~~
DanBC
You appear to have missed the point.

OP wants to pay. OP is, in fact, paying. OP could easily get the content for
free, because that's how it's delivered by Fox. Except Fox, for some reason,
won't provide the free content in a form usable to the OP on the device where
OP is already paying for the content.

~~~
tomflack
"Except Fox, for some reason, won't provide the free content in a form usable
to the OP on the device"

I'd like to emphasize that Fox _actively have done work to make it unusable_
on his device. If they'd done nothing it'd work fine.

