
Take my money, HBO - krogsgard
http://takemymoneyhbo.com/
======
hospadam
I just don't understand what some people are thinking when it comes to this
issue. In my mind, HBO is offering people two options:

1) Premium price, instant gratification. If you're willing to pony up for
cable TV + a HBO subscription, you're able to watch Game of Thrones the
instant it comes out. Yes, you're paying a lot (~$100) - but - sometimes
that's the price you have to pay for a premium service.

2) Pay a reasonable price, get it digitally, but I have to wait. If the
$100/month subscription is a problem for you - no problem! You just have to
wait. You can legally gain access to Game of Thrones on iTunes or BluRay for
~$40 for the whole season... about 10 months after it finishes airing.

When I hear someone say, "Why can't I just pay HBO directly for access?
They're dumb! I'll just pirate it instead." - What they really mean is, "HBO
charges too much for my tastes, and I don't want to wait... so I'll just
download it." If that's your mentality, fine... but please don't think you're
doing it for some higher reasoning. You just want the show now, and you don't
want to pay what HBO is selling it. In every other medium (physical goods,
food, dinner, cars) - you'd be SOL. But.. just because it's digital, you can
copy it for free.

~~~
mfringel
You're correct. HBO is offering people two options.

However, there seems to be a significant amount of people who want a third
option, which HBO considers itself structurally prohibited from providing.

It is precisely no one's fault but HBO's that HBO has painted itself into a
corner.

~~~
hospadam
You're exactly right - there is a vocal set of people that want a third
option. My point is, however, no business has to offer the "third option".
Just because they don't offer the third option doesn't make downloading them
for free OK.

~~~
ckrailo
Why not?

To assure you I'm not trolling... read this first:
[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-
Gabe...](http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-
Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem)

~~~
hospadam
I've read the article - and I completely agree with Gabe. From a business
point of view - you (and Gabe) are probably right. It might be absolutely,
completely stupid of HBO to not offer GoT online, 24/7, for a reasonable
price.

However, just because they may (or may not) be making a poor business
decision, it doesn't excuse what people are doing: illegally pirating content.

~~~
Karunamon
>However, just because they may (or may not) be making a poor business
decision, it doesn't excuse what people are doing: illegally pirating content.

Look at it from the other direction. Pirates are gonna pirate and there is
_fuck all_ anyone can do about it. Moralize about it all you want, it doesn't
change the fact that people will get the content for free, and MORE people
will get the content for free if they feel ripped off or cheated (regardless
of how legitimate those feelings might be)

HBO can make a relatively simple change to capture a good deal of that market,
or leave money on the table. Currently they're pursuing option #2 due to poor
positioning.

~~~
res0nat0r
They can't make a relatively simple change and capture that market (read the
dcurtis article linked above).

~~~
Karunamon
I just read that. Interesting. One quote stood out at me though:

>Our content, exclusive. It's the only place you can get it. And we believe
there is value in exclusivity.

You say value, others say needless and overpriced hurdles. And there's nothing
exclusive about the average torrent site :)

~~~
c0ur7n3y
What they're really trying to say is that their's value in scarcity.
Unfortunately there is, in reality, very little scarcity thanks to the
Internet.

------
smackfu
This was a good write-up of an interview with the HBO co-CEO:
<http://dcurt.is/hbo-forbes-journalism>

Worth reading before spouting the typical "I don't understand why HBO doesn't
want my $5 a month."

~~~
AJ007
Very good blog post. Not sure I'd watch the full video interview, but it was
worth the time to read.

What I took away from it is this: A lot of our paying subscribers don't
actually watch HBO, and we don't want to compete against the sources that
deliver those subscribers to us.

(Every single discussion about this should always include a mention that Time
Warner owns HBO, saves a lot of mental hamster wheeling.)

~~~
andrewla
Also, every single discussion about Time Warner should always mention that
Time Warner does not own Time Warner Cable.

~~~
AJ007
That one passed over me. Time Warner spun off Time Warner Cable in 2009.
Someone knew what was coming, HBO has a better shot than I thought. HBO Go was
fantastic when I used it last year, when I still had Uverse.

------
hartror
"We pirate Game of Thrones, we use our friend's HBOGO login to watch True
Blood…"

Yeah I am not associating myself with that. Perhaps something like "We don't
currently pay to see your content".

Honestly as an Australian I don't see this happening here, the cable here is
an effective monopoly and unless they get a cut of the profits they're not
going let HBO do this. It might be completely against their business model as
well due to the fact GoT has received more publicity here than any other cable
show in some time. This has likely been driving sales for them and so would be
bad for their business.

~~~
tjmc
Interestingly GoT seasons 1 and 2 are available on iTunes in Australia. The
latest episodes only take an extra week to show up from when they're first
screened in the US. Even so, Australians apparently pirate the show in greater
numbers than elsewhere.

Could be because it's $3/episode or it's only standard def or it's a week
late. My guess is people find it just as easy to torrent it so don't even
bother to look at paid options.

So if Australia is being used by HBO as a test market (quite common for US
companies in the past), the stats on offering a paid online option in parallel
to cable to reduce piracy don't look compelling to me in this case.

~~~
ROFISH
Can somebody confirm if GoT Season 2 is available in Australia iTunes? US will
not get Season 2 until the disc release next year.

~~~
tjmc
If you were really determined to buy it outside Aus I suppose you could buy an
iTunes gift card from here and then login to iTunes via an Aussie proxy.
Happens surprisingly often in the other direction.

You really would be paying the 'gold price' too as the $AUD is pretty strong
due to the price of gold and other commodities mined here.

------
MBlume
It's not pirating if you download Game of Thrones -- it's paying The Iron
Price

~~~
lwat
I'm willing to pay the Gold Price but I don't want to wait several months
until they decide to air it in my local country.

~~~
masklinn
> until they decide to air it in my local country.

Dubbed, too.

------
rickmb
It's ironic that the amount in the form is in US dollars.

In much the rest of the world, it's already pretty much game over. A whole
generation has learned to "pirate" these shows because it's the only available
option.

This is the reality in 2012 outside the US: ordinary people in offices and on
schoolyards are discussing TV shows _that aren't legally available in those
countries_. It's not considered anything special anymore, it's no longer just
a small "secret" club of geeks. It has become so common it's hard to imagine
"legal" services will ever get a foot in the door after over a decade of
neglecting these markets.

~~~
icebraining
Where is this? Where I live, most people don't know English nearly well enough
to watch the shows without subtitles, and community created subs are very hit-
and-miss, both in availability and quality.

~~~
rickmb
The Netherlands, but I think the same goes for most of Western Europe,
especially the Northern half. Which unfortunately for HBO is also the primary
potential market outside North America, both in terms of disposable income and
the kind of audience that watches their shows.

HBO is actually now starting to enter the local cable market. Great offering:
"pay a premium price to see shows your friends talked about 6 months ago at an
inconvenient time". I suppose there's still a market for it, just like there's
still a market for getting yesterdays news printed on dead trees...

You have to remember that the practice of pirating TV shows started about _ten
years ago_ now. That's a whole generation that grew up watching their favorite
shows that way. Any time, anywhere, and for free. Try selling those people
premium cable subscriptions that offer no practical advantages whatsoever.

------
cletus
I certainly understand the motivation for this but HBO is actually in a
difficult position.

\- HBO drives a lot of cable purchase

\- Some of that money goes to the cable companies for data carriage

\- The cable companies know HBO sells cable

\- Any alternative distribution means risks the cable companies losing income

\- Cable companies losing income means that HBO risks either being dropped
from the cable companies or having to offer them a bigger slice of the pie
(since distribution is now non-exclusive)

It is a huge risk for HBO to jeopardize their cable subscriber income with a
direct-to-market model.

That being said, I won't pay $100+/month to watch just HBO so do the math on
that.

What really annoys me is that this goes so far as affecting, say, iTunes
releases. HBO only releases shows on iTunes (if they release it at all) just
prior to the next season starting to drum up more interest. That's a trap and
I'm not falling for it.

This all goes back to why a la carte cable will never happen (given the
current power structure and regulatory environment). It either means people
will spend less on cable or things will be more expensive so it won't be worth
it. Either way the cable companies lose. Content creators also lose because no
one wants to take the risk of losing what is otherwise guaranteed income (a
slice of every cable bill).

Years ago, Hollywood went through a shakeup splitting content creation from
distribution [1]. It's really time for the same thing to happen with all
content industries. We need to separate:

1\. Content creation: studios like HBO;

2\. Distribution: cable companies like Time Warner and Comcast; and

3\. Infrastructure: the actual last mile, cable or fibre infrastructure.

Of course the political likelihood of that happening is essentially zero.

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pict...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc).

EDIT: to clarify this point, I don't believe cable companies would pursue the
nuclear option of dropping HBO. However what the cable companies have now is
essentially an exclusive arrangement with HBO. With implied or otherwise, HBO
earns a premium for this in terms of how big a cut the companies get.
Providing a means to bypass the cable companies would sooner or later result
in a higher cut being paid to them, less marketing of HBO by the cable
companies to its customers, etc.

Basically there is an economic cost to breaking exclusivity whether it is
explicit or not.

~~~
charlieok
I will not buy cable tv. Any information service (tv, voice, whatever) is only
interesting to me if it's delivered over internet protocol.

If a lot more people made this decision, there would be no problem here.

~~~
romey
But, given that many of the larger ISPs (at least those available to
residential customers in my area -- Comcast and Verizon) are owned by
companies that also provide cable (and telephone) services, what's to stop
them from simply bundling cable service with your internet service and
charging a bunch extra? I realize that not everyone has this problem, but in
many areas there's almost an "information monopoly" with regards to web
service.

~~~
charlieok
That is a problem, I'd agree. In my case at least, those companies provide the
option to buy internet without having to buy the other crap.

Also, here's a moble MVNO which does a lot of things right:

<https://ting.com/>

Now if only you could easily bring your existing phone onto their service...

------
Steko
I'd planned to buy Game of Thrones when it came out on iTunes a couple months
ago but I realized that even that still indirectly supports the buzz around
this property and the way it's primarily delivered.

Instead I'd suggest fellow cord cutters just skip Game of Thrones entirely,
don't pirate it, don't even watch it. Instead spend your money and leisure
time supporting content that's provided online.

When your friends talk about GoT you'll need to have a few canned response-
pivots like "is that about orcs? Lawl, hey did you guys see Lilyhammer? It was
totally not godawful."

~~~
sneak
"Nah, I'm not really into Pokemon."

<http://xkcd.com/178/>

(Am I the only one who still doesn't give two fucks about four fucks about
television shows?)

~~~
matwood
I don't really get the anti TV people. Like any medium there is good and bad.
TV definitely has its share of bad, but there is also some pretty good
entertainment. Books, magazines, websites, etc... there is always going to be
more crap than not, but for some reason I never read about people bragging
about giving them up.

~~~
kamaal
I hardly watch TV. Basically because my entertainment demands are
asynchronous. I need entertainment on-demand when I need it. I can't adjust my
schedule to the TV's schedule.

TV is for people who can sacrifice something else for the sake of a show. I
can't and I won't because my time is worth doing something else. And when I
need entertainment there are other things that fill that need.

Its like the radio, I turn it on when I need it. If something interesting is
playing I hear, else I have a whole hard disk full of songs to hear to.

Also the ads and breaks between shows, movies and songs. When uninterrupted
entertainment is available at dirt cheap prices. Who likes to waste their time
watching/hearing ads.

TV is becoming the new radio, basically.

~~~
matwood
DVR has been out how long now? I can't remember the last time I adjusted my
schedule to something on TV. The few shows I do watch I'm not even sure when
they air. No auto-commercial skipping is annoying, but DVR helps with that
even if it's a manual process.

------
dbbolton
The message I get from posts like these: "I am entitled to watch show X right
now. If the owner of show X won't sell it to me instantly, then I have the
right to pirate it."

Is there money to be made here? Sure. I might even say that companies who
don't offer popular shows on demand are making a dumb move. But nobody has the
innate right to take whatever they want _right now_ just because they can't
wait until it's available legally.

~~~
ars
> has the innate right to take whatever they want

You aren't taking it. You are copying it. The only reason not to be allowed to
copy it is if it damages the copyright owner.

But since the product has zero economic value to the owner from you (they
refuse to sell it to you), you are not causing them any damage, and therefor
you can not make any argument about why it's wrong. (i.e. it makes no
difference to the owner whether you copied it or not.)

One of the criteria for fair use is "the effect of the use upon the potential
market for or value of the copyrighted work".

And if you also include "the purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
purposes" you have met 2 out of 4 of the criteria for fair use, so you could
make a strong argument that it's actually fully legal.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
> _You aren't taking it. You are copying it._

If we want to get into semantics we should really pick some words that are
more neutral. So.. you _consumed_ it and did not _compensate_ them for it.
Better?

It is kind of funny when you think about the term _leech_ used in the torrent
world. If you download something and don't make it available for upload, you
are leeching. You are taking but not giving back. So to consume someone's
product and not compensate them for it... I guess that makes you a leech?

~~~
ars
> So.. you consumed it and did not compensate them for it. Better?

Not really. Why do I need to compensate them? You give a creator money to
encourage them to do more, not to compensate them. Compensate implies they
loose in some way and you have to make them whole. That doesn't apply here.

In this case the author of the post want to encourage them to do more, but
they refuse because they believe they can do better without his money. At that
point his moral duty is complete, and they have no right to complain if he
consumes (I hate that word since it implies destroy) their product.

You don't seem to get the point of copyright. You have it reversed - you think
copyright lets creators prevent people from doing stuff - not so. The idea of
copyright is to encourage creators. (It's right in the US constitution - check
if you don't believe me.) If you try to encourage them, and they refuse, then
you can do what you want and they can't complain (morally anyway). The
restrictions only exist to serve the purpose of encouragement. If
encouragement isn't possible then the restrictions are meaningless and are
ignored.

A leech is only a leech if he doesn't try to give back, but in this case the
author of the post tries, but his offer was not accepted. Even in the
bittorrent world that is not called a leech, it's called a seeder.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
> _Why do I need to compensate them? [snip] Compensate implies they loose in
> some way_

Compensate only implies that if that is the only way you choose to see it. If
you have a job, the money you earn is compensation.... paying (someone) for
work performed. Compensate means so much more. Also, consume means more than
to destroy. But since those other definitions do not serve your purpose, it is
convenient to turn a blind eye to them.

> _A leech is only a leech if he doesn't try to give back, but in this case
> the author of the post tries, but his offer was not accepted._

But the author does not have the authority to dictate what offers must be
accepted. If a creator is offering you a product and gives you Option A or
Option B. It is not reasonable to assert that if you counter-offer him with
Option C and he refuses that it gives you a right to still accept the product
and neither of his chosen options.

Also, I didn't bring up anything about copyright. So I'm not sure how you know
I have it all reversed.

~~~
ars
> If you have a job, the money you earn is compensation.

It's compensation for the time you spent - they give you money, you give them
time. The relationship to creative work is you give them money, they give you
more. You do not pay for the existing work - you pay to encourage more work
(not necessarily by them, also by someone else who sees that it's possible to
make money this way). That's directly from the constitution of the USA.

If they don't want your money, then you can use the work (morally). What
reason would there be to prevent you from using the work? People do not own
creative works despite a lot of people really really really wishing they
could. People simply have the right to demand encouragement, but if they
refuse that encouragement then that was their choice.

I am well aware of the current usage of consume - I still don't like the word
for this purpose (using something, where the original continues to exist).
Check the dictionary - I will quote: "To destroy, as by decomposition,
dissipation, waste, or fire; to use up; to expend; to waste; to burn up; to
eat up; to devour." That was the only definition given, if you have others
feel free to quote them.

> But the author does not have the authority to dictate what offers must be
> accepted.

Missed my point. Why does the creator of the work get to dictate that I can't
watch it? He can't. He can only expect money as encouragement to create more.
Once that is refused he doesn't get to tell me what to do.

> Also, I didn't bring up anything about copyright. So I'm not sure how you
> know I have it all reversed.

So do tell, besides copyright what give the creator of a work any right at all
to tell someone else what to do? It was a reasonable assumption, if it's wrong
then I have no idea what you are talking about.

------
res0nat0r
Sigh. Not this ultimatum again...

Hurting 'Game of Thrones' Through Piracy Won’t Change HBO’s Business, It Will
Just Get the Show Cancelled:

[http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/hurting-game-of-
th...](http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/hurting-game-of-thrones-
through-piracy-wont-change-hbos-business-it-will-just-get-the-show-cancelled-
rfure.php)

~~~
ericdykstra
The most popular show on HBO will get cancelled because people are pirating
it? Definitely disagree. It's not just critically acclaimed, it's among the
most popular HBO original show in the network's history.

Pirating, of course, won't change their business. But even if I really want to
watch the show (I don't watch it), I wouldn't sign up for Cable TV, and sign
up for HBO on top of it just for one show. I see this as less of an ultimatum
and more of a "hey your business model is fucked so you're not getting my
money" thing.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
To be more correct... it is more of a "hey your product kicks total fucking
ass... but I disagree with you business model. I'm going to consume your kick
ass product anyway... but you're not getting my money" thing.

------
juliano_q
I actually discovered that I am able to pay HBO for Game of Thrones. HBO
decided to air GoT here in Brazil simultaneously with USA. I called my
television provider, added HBO for R$ 30,00/mo (around $15.00) and after the
end of the season 2 I just called there and removed HBO again. I am planning
to do the same for season 3. Is it so hard for people around the world to do
the same? (real question, not being sarcastic)

~~~
hospadam
Well, this season of GoT was 9 episodes. If you wanted HBO over the whole run
so you could watch them live - you would need it for 3 months. However, if
you're willing to hold off until last month, you could get by with waiting for
the last episode to come out, buy one month, watch all episodes, then cancel.

~~~
cpeterso
Season 2 has 10 episodes:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones_%28season_2%29>

------
ap3
Have you guys thought about how many people are already paying for HBO ? Is
HBO hurting for money?

Or is it just a bunch of geeks trying to get hbo for cheap? I know anti-piracy
is not always popular but they are creating popular and original shows, why
not support them?

~~~
potatolicious
The trouble is not that HBO is too expensive, but rather that there is no
_way_ for this "bunch of geeks" to pay HBO directly.

If you look at the current tweets, people are offering up anywhere between $8
and $20, which I imagine is considerably more than HBO's take based on their
current revenue model.

The whole point of this website, I gather, is to convince HBO that their
product is worth _considerably more_ to the end user than what they're
currently making, and that they can tap into a lot more revenue if they let
people subscribe to their products directly, without the cableco middleman.

[edit] My impression of HBO pricing is completely wrong. It doesn't seem like
HBO would stand to gain a huge amount based on how much people are "pledging".

------
dfc
As an American I'd rather sign up for "Take My Money BBC."

~~~
smackfu
Would you pay $225 a year? That's how much it costs a Briton. ("The annual
cost of a colour TV licence is £145.50")

~~~
WildUtah
Does $225 include radio, or is that a separate license?

And is a black and white teevee cheaper?

~~~
intranation
Not sure about radio, but black and white TVs are cheaper (£49 vs £145.50).

[http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/media-
centre/news/black-a...](http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/media-
centre/news/black-and-white-tv-still-going-strong-NEWS22/)

------
mmuro
HBO will gladly take your money...through cable. Just because you don't like
the delivery method doesn't mean there isn't a way to access the content you
want.

Compare this to movies. Is it the responsibility of studios to make sure you
can watch the movie at home the very instant it comes out? No. You go to the
theater and watch it if you want to see it as soon as it airs. Otherwise, you
wait.

HBO is following the same path: use cable subscriptions as the avenue to get
the content immediately, On Demand available soon thereafter, buy the DVDs or
download at a later date.

I'm really tired of this self-righteous attitude that you are owed something
from HBO. If you want to watch all of your TV through the internet, that's
fine. But you have to live with the tradeoffs. HBO is one of them.

------
trotsky
I worked on several commercial digital music projects in the time span between
early napster and entrenched itunes. One regularly repeated meme of the era
was that people didn't want to pirate music, they just wanted it "as easy" or
"no drm" or "ala carte" or "all you can eat".

While statistically these were all guaranteed to be true for at least some
users, in aggregate they were red herrings. The industry was in the process of
significant decline due at least in part to online infringement. Over the
course of several years mainstream services that more or less broke down all
these barriers appeared but they failed to reverse any of the macro trends.

While many of the reasons are nuanced and disputed, a number of observations
are relatively uncontested. Online sales severely cannibalized physical sales
but failed to significantly cut down on online infringement. ASP dropped much
faster than production and distribution costs. New, powerful intermediaries
formed that dictated sales practices to the labels instead of the other way
around.

Anecdotally, among friends and colleagues no one I knew significantly shifted
their behavior. Everyone bought at least some music, and I don't think I knew
anyone who refused to touch anything pirated. 12+ years on that really hasn't
changed much, I still get emailed songs from rights holders or people who sell
music and my friends with shared raid 5 arrays with all_the_music still buy
downloads from their favorite bands.

The thing that did change is the reasons for piracy. Instead of the previous
concerns people were now unwilling to support the majors, or wanted higher
quality encodes, or simply thought that IP sales were outdated and believed
that music acts should shift to solely making their money through touring and
merchandise sales.

Whether these are reasonable new barriers or not I'm not at all interested in
debating. I've thought many of them were compelling at various times. Rather
what I think is interesting is that some number of objections always seem to
exist.

There was an interview with a researcher on NPR yesterday that I caught. The
discussion was on cheating (on things like taxes, etc.) and how in controlled
settings almost all of us are small time cheats but few of us are huge cheats.
The researcher attributed a key part of this to the idea that we all want to
be the good guy - and that cheating within a tolerance allowed us to continue
to view ourselves that way, but cheating too much made it hard for us to view
ourselves that way.

While he didn't make any connection to reasons or extenuating circumstances,
it seemed to jibe well with my own unscholarly impressions. That many of the
reasons for intellectual property theft are constructed to allow a person to
continue to see themselves as the good guy while doing something they consider
immoral.

"Well, I want to pay them, but [barrier X] won't let me" is almost the perfect
storm of this type of mental construct - pretty much unassailable, at least
until barrier X is removed.

~~~
burke
I'm only one data point, but:

I used to pirate (all of my) music. I have bought a grand total of one CD
ever. Now I happily consume most of my music through a paid subscription to
Rdio.

Similarly, I pay for netflix. I (grudgingly) go to theatres occasionally. I
don't own and have no desire to own a dvd player, and pirate movies
occasionally when they're not conveniently available.

Similarly, I pirate Game of Thrones, but would happily pay up to $5 per
episode if it were an option. I will not buy the DVDs, as I have no desire to
see it again. If I could buy the DVDs at the same time as the show airs
(without getting off my couch), I would happily do so.

It is quite literally all about convenience for some people.

~~~
peeters
> Similarly, I pirate Game of Thrones, but would happily pay up to $5 per
> episode if it were an option. I will not buy the DVDs, as I have no desire
> to see it again. If I could buy the DVDs at the same time as the show airs
> (without getting off my couch), I would happily do so.

How about when you pirate the episode, you put the $5 aside, and when it's
released on DVD, buy the DVDs, regardless of whether you want to watch it
again? This has essentially the same result as buying the DVD "at the same
time as the show airs".

This is what I have done with shows that are cable-exclusive. And as a perk, I
end up with the DVDs.

~~~
egypturnash
Having stuff you don't want cluttering up your life is a perk?

~~~
AjithAntony
Then donate the discs to someone who likes to collect physical media.

~~~
stevetursi
Assuming the pirate bought the disc as a penance/feelgood/whatever for
downloading the media, this totally negates that whole motivation. To the
studio/network, two people got to see the content for the price of one.
Ironically, the giftee becomes the beneficiary of the piracy, but with none of
the risk. And the pirate, who assumed all the risk, was the person who paid
for it.

------
aidenn0
HBO is already taking my money: [http://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones-Complete-
Season-Blu-ray/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones-Complete-Season-Blu-
ray/dp/B003Y5HWMW/ref=sr_1_3?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1338949273&sr=1-3)

------
InclinedPlane
I'd rather see people put their money where their mouth is, in a non-
hypothetical way.

For example, pick some otherwise random date a few weeks after the DVD set
will be released and organize a concerted buying effort amongst "pirates" on
that specific date.

~~~
masmullin
As a purchaser of the season 1 blu-ray... lets get to the secondary issue of
buying.

The packaging of the videos is SHIT... there are ads, I have to sit through
FBI warnings, I have to sift through bad menus to get to the content I want,
and I have to deal with trying to find features when everything I select says
"please insert disc X"

I paid $70 CND and with the exception of the actual quality of the picture
(blu-ray is fantastic), the whole experience is VASTLY inferior to the piracy
route.

That said, I'll still be purchasing the Season 2 Blu-Ray when it comes out,
because I very much want to support the production of this series.

~~~
zem
buy the dvd, leave it in its box, and pirate the show. everyone wins.

~~~
masmullin
But why? Why couldn't they have just made a good Blu-Ray boxed set? Why does
disc three have nothing but one episode on it (no extra features... everything
I click while using disc3 says "please enter disc 5", while disc 4 has three
episodes on it? Why do I have to sit through an FBI warning when I dont even
live in the states? Why do I have to see ads for other HBO shows when I put in
disc 1?

I spent good money on the fucking thing? Why couldn't they have given me a
BETTER experience than the people who steal it?

~~~
zem
yeah, i fully agree with you, and i have for the most part opted out
altogether - i don't pirate and i don't buy the dvds due to the fundamental
brokenness of the model. however, if you _do_ want to watch the show, and if
you want to support the creators in some way (and, sadly, support their
multifarious parasites as well), the only real way to do it is to buy the dvd
(so you have paid your money to the smallest possible superset of people who
deserve it) and then pirate the show (so you actually have something
watchable).

------
hasker
Let me get this straight because I think this is what other sources are
implying: HBO sells a license to their channels to the cable companies for a
flat fee. The cable providers then recoup this by selling subscriptions to HBO
or pushing more customers to subscribe to cable. In that way, cable providers
actually pay more than the cable providers collect from consumers for HBO
subscriptions. This really makes the question not would you pay the same price
as HBO costs on cable for Game of Thrones access, but would you pay more? The
cable provider's contracts may even preclude directly collecting from
consumers. If this is true, I think the community needs to realize this
remains a lost cause and instead encourage Netflix's model of creating high
quality content directly for streaming.

~~~
sp332
HBO charges per-subscriber, not a flat rate. But the cable company deals with
billing, customer support, equipment costs, etc.

------
kenshi
There is a difference between people saying they will pay for something versus
all of those people actually handing over hard currency for it.

~~~
ckrailo
Unfortunately, the market works in such a way that unless you build a
mechanism for people to pay a reasonable price for a game at launch (see Steam
vs Piracy), then you lose out. Example:
[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-
Gabe...](http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-
Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem)

Even a trial run, like pay $5 and watch S03E01, would be a really great test
to see if the market is telling the truth here. (But the availability could
NOT lag behind HBOGo or broadcast, it'd have to be simultaneous.)

------
rhplus
Simply tweeting the intention is an empty gesture. How about setting up a
publically auditable escrow account with the recipient set to be HBO/Time
Warner. Deposit $20 (or whatever is fair compensation) and then go ahead an
acquire a copy of the video. That's what I thought this would be when I saw
"Take my money, HBO": a realizable offer of money.

Is there any legal precedent for this, i.e. attempting to pay for a product or
service, being ignored and then paying and taking it anyway?

~~~
guynamedloren
I attempted to buy your Porsche for $20. You ignored me so I took it anyway.

Obviously it's illegal.

~~~
IbJacked
Theft and copyright violation are not comparable. Both may be illegal, but
they aren't the same. Would it be illegal to build a replica of the Porsche
for myself?

The GP's example was bad because he mentioned taking a product or service,
rather than making a copy of something and keeping it. I'm assuming he didn't
mean it the way it reads.

~~~
rhplus
The part I tried to stress was "fair compensation", but perhaps that's not the
correct legal or contractual term. The closest real-world analogy I can think
of is this: you want to by a DVD but cashier is ignoring you. So, you slap a
$20 bill on the counter and walk out with the DVD. Of course, the analogy
fails because we're not talking about a physical product and the way copyright
is set up allows the copyright holder to decide who can and can't get access
to the media, even if two parties are offering practically the same price.

~~~
guynamedloren
> _The closest real-world analogy I can think of is this: you want to by a DVD
> but cashier is ignoring you. So, you slap a $20 bill on the counter and walk
> out with the DVD_

Wrong. In your scenario, the DVD in question is for sale, and is clearly
listed as such with a price and all. You know exactly how much it costs, and
you give that much money. And the transaction occurs in a place that is
designed for this very purpose. There is no confusion or grey area here.

------
shmerl
Did HBO ever consider asking some fixed price per simple download? No
streaming, no complicated subscription services. Just payments per files.
There can't be any logical reason not to offer it, if it's so widely pirated
already. They can only convince some of those who pirate not to do it, if they
provide the same level of simplicity and convenience. In any case, it can't
make it any worse for them, than it is now. It can probably only make it
better.

~~~
wmf
HBO is ~$15/month or ~$180/year if you don't cancel. A season of Game of
Thrones is $30-39 on iTunes. It seems pretty obvious.

~~~
shmerl
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to compare. Rather try to compare
those who simply pirate the stuff as soon as it's out with anything of the
above. I think if they'd offer something around $2-$3 per episode right away
(without any iTunes), they could gain more from those who don't pay anything
to them now.

~~~
wmf
I'm comparing the amount of money HBO would get from people who only watch
Game of Thrones. If you could get it without subscribing, a lot of people
_would_ cancel HBO.

------
koide
HBO (and others) should put a donation button, publicize it to pirates and
report findings. If money starts pouring then we get a win/win, HBO needs not
to invest in streaming technology / bandwidth / DRM / whatever and the pirates
can compensate the producers/artists.

What would be done with the money should be specified upfront and held to high
transparency levels and of course involve the artists.

------
jiggy2011
Perhaps the issue is that with their business model they want people to pay $x
per month for years on end?

Since people who are paying a sub are way less likely to cancel than people
who make a 1 off purchase are willing to come back?

Perhaps they don't even care that much about piracy because their money is
already in the bag from cable subscribers?

Once everyone stops using cable they will change their tune.

------
mhd
Next step: Take my European money, HBO.

------
thezilch
Or if you absolutely can't offer it standalone; what about as an option off
service(s) more reasonable and likely to already be in my pocket, as an anti-
cable viewer. For example, why can't I get some premium options off the back
of my Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Xbox Live, etc service(s)?

There are mentions of HBO having to foot the infrastructure if going away from
Big-TV providers, but the above can handle that now. Charge an extra $5 over
Big-TV, if these other services want you to foot some of their transport bill;
I'd be willing to pay more, while still paying less than needing a cable sub.

I'm already paying those other guys. Are they not playing ball? Tell us so,
and we can start focusing some of our internet hate at those greedy suits, as
well.

~~~
wmf
That has the same problem. For every Netflix+HBO subscriber gained, they could
lose several cable+HBO subscribers.

------
celerity
Not going to work IMHO. HBO is partly so successful because of its
exclusivity. It is THE premiere channel to get, and will give that away only
when the fall of traditional TV is apparent.

------
mortenjorck
The "recent tweets" widget shows people tweeting numbers like $10. Isn't HBO
as an _add-on_ to an existing cable subscription generally significantly more
than that?

~~~
frankydp
customers with internet > customers that pay for cable

Volume wins?

~~~
res0nat0r
Actually it is:

customers that pay for cable + HBO > customers with internet only.

Hence why they have no current desire to alienate big cable to cater to the
small number of users who loudly complain they can't watch HBO online when
they want.

~~~
frankydp
You are definitively right. But I meant to group the users with internet and
cable in with the internet only users.

------
sg214
HBO as an add-on to cable packages costs ~$20. If HBO were to offer it as a
standalone service, they would have to handle billing, subscription
management, increased marketing budget to make up for marketing that cable/sat
currently offers for them, etc. So unless a critical mass of people are
willing to pay AT LEAST $30 per month, this is a lost cause.

~~~
MiguelHudnandez
They cost around $20, but do we know what HBO's cut is?

~~~
sg214
HBO's cut is very small (< $3 I think). But the cable and satellite cos pay a
fixed fee per base cable/sat sub to HBO but then upsell their own customers
and recoup that cost. Using the $20 as a proxy for about what HBO gets, even
though it's a lot more complicated than that in reality.

~~~
sureshv
HBO gets around $8 per subscriber, ESPN for reference gets around $4 but its
on the basic tier so it has many more subscribers.

------
augusto_hp
Great and sound idea! But the pain is already aching if this kind of thing get
through: posts will be made, bootstraps distrubuted and sources will be opened
and the start of the era of "Please, Take my money whatever" will have began.
Lets hope for the best, take all our money HBO.

------
jquery
I pay $30/month to watch Starcraft 2 tournaments on GomTV.net.

I pay $0/month to watch Game of Thrones, Veep, Girls, and True Blood. I will
continue to pay $0 until there is an option that does not involve enriching
evil cable executives.

Your move, HBO.

~~~
citricsquid
How can you possibly claim some sort of moral high ground when you're saying
"I like the content you produce but don't agree with the methods you use to
charge for it so I'm going to steal it!".

If you don't agree with their distribution methods then DON'T CONSUME THAT
CONTENT.

~~~
antihero
Nope! Why would I do that? What good comes of it? Moral high-ground? Fuck
that, I'd prefer to watch the show.

I think this is what goes through most people's heads. When it's a choice
between benefiting nobody and retaining moral high-ground and benefiting
nobody and watching the show, they choose the latter, because they don't see
any real rational reason not to.

Now, how about pirating the show, then buying the DVD when it comes out? Gets
trickier, doesn't it...

------
wildster
This is the tweet showing on the page: @sgbakerr I would pay $0 a month for a
standalone @HBOGO subscription and pirate all my @HBO programming
takemymoneyhbo.com #takemymoneyHBO

------
jblock
HBO is a Time Warner subsidiary. Until that's not a thing, this just simply
won't happen. I'd like it to, but the business realities just make it
unfeasible.

------
swah
We pay around 100 USD/mo in Brazil for cable + 10Mbit internet, and HBO has
always been a premium I don't have access.

------
mmmmax
Love it. Pre-fill the field with hint text like "10" and you will increase the
number of tweets posted.

------
ZenPsycho
Why isn't HBO's business failing a palatable option? Businesses fail all the
time, why can't HBO?

~~~
notJim
I'm not sure if this answers your question, but HBO produces incredibly high-
quality content that a lot of people fear would go away.

------
zavulon
Kind of off-topic, but it's really use for HBO to bring this entire operation
down if they want: the domain name contains their trademark, "HBO". In these
cases it's much better to have a generic domain name (i.e. "takemymoneycable"
or something like that), than to do trademark violations.

I've had to learn this the hard way, unfortunately ...

~~~
shrikant
From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement>:

 _Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark
which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another
party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to
the products or services which the registration covers._

How is this a product or service similar to what HBO is offering..? Merely
invoking the name of a product/service is hardly a trademark violation --
otherwise every single HN commenter who has griped about
Apple/Google/Microsoft/Facebook products would be infringing.

------
DaNmarner
I want Game of Thrones on airplane trips.

------
divtxt
Also, take my money, Showtime!

~~~
kin
showtime has pretty good content but i'd definitely pay less for it. have you
seen hbo go? full seasons of all hbo content + great collection of new release
movies.

------
mutant
i can't tell hbo because I don't have twitter.

i hate twitter.

my voice shall go unnoticed.

------
shpoonj
I wouldn't pay a single cent to HBO.

I would, on the other hand, pay $40 via iTunes per season of Game of Thrones.

Networks are outdated. Stop trying to change them and adapt like the rest of
us.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
For an outdated network they sure have managed to create a product that is so
awesome that sane, rationale people can't even wait to get it.

------
marshall007
Nice try, HBO.

