bigV Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 We had similar problems in my country. For the longest time we had FTP sites, which offered 2GB of free space to anyone who wanted to register, provided they uploaded something interesting. There used to be at least ten different websites like that and each had a powerful search engine. Between them there was nothing you could not find. Eventually the law caught up with them and most were forced to close down. Others went the P2P way, offering torrents, and others made a "deal with the devil" and agreed to charge visitors to their website money, and all profits would go to organizations such as MPAA. One of the biggest websites of this type is currently charging 1 EUR per month, which allows you to use its search engine. For this country this is a perfectly balanced fee. Would you pay a monthly (or annual) fee to use a website like NiteShdw.com and how much would you be willing to part with? I think it should be taken under consideration that in some parts of the world credit cards are still something of a luxury and some of us might not be able to pay that way. Best regards, bigV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonHelton Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 The reason, IMHO, the MPAA is so successful is because everyone is afraid to fight. But, Philips was unsuccessful at protecting the "Compact Disk" format, so maybe no one can win. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magestorm Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 This would have to depend on the terms of usage for the place. Is it unlimited downloads, or a set limit of downloads per month? Unlimited content, or extremely limited content? If unlimited content and unlimited downloads, I would pay no more than $10 a month. More than that, and I could get a netflix pass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I already paid a monthly bill for such things. It's called my cable bill. I simply refuse to conform to their twisted timetables and schedules. I'm supposed to force myself to choose between, say, two shows I really love that come on the exact same night and same time? "Flipping" channels between them is not an option, you are bound to miss content from at least if not both shows. I feel that by paying my cable bill, which is quite high for the number of channels I get, I am entitled to all the potential content I could watch. Considering my options are only cable tv or satelite, and satelite gets piss poor quality in my area cable tv is my only option. To really drive it home, part of my cable package is the Sci Fi channel. So technically I'm paying to watch SG1, SGA, BSG and much more right? Theres my payment to use such sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magestorm Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Here's the issue with that argument. Cable doesn't charge you for shows. It charges you for choice. If you want to be able to access certain channels, you have to pay for the access. It's just like the internet, as you pay for ACCESS, not content. However, therein lays a problem in and of itself. Cable companies charge high prices for this access. But, I don't watch ESPN, Oxygen, or 90% of the other channels. Most of what I watch is some of the movie channels, Sci Fi Channel, and several Discovery Channels. However, I have to pay for these channels, which is a waste. But, there are groups working to change this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subspatial Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 It's funny to see e.g. the new TiVo approach of trying to prohibit users from fast-forwarding commercials. Even some Major Companies are looking at ways of making their ads more appealing to the pc/geek/d'load/nerd generation. KFC tries to combat nerds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magestorm Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Like this will work. You'll get one person actually watching the commercial, and they'll tell EVERYONE what the secret really is. Then you'll get a huge loss from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 True enough. But that is a problem between the cable providers and the actual networks. We know the networks make their money from advertisement. Higher rated shows garner more people viewing that latest Geico commerical, so Geico puts some phat cash into the networks pocket in exchange, their normal business practice. The cable company sees none of that so they take it out on us the customers. However there is one flaw to that; Not everyone, watches commericals. You know what I do when a commerical comes on during one of the favorite shows I watch? I turn the channel. Sure, I risk missing the first few seconds when the show comes back from commerical, but at least I'm not wasting anywhere from 3-5 minutes watching the latest soap detergent commerical or how to save money on my real estate tax. They already have issues with people who fast forward over the ads and commericals on dvds, it's only a matter of time before all TV's are DRM'ed so much that it will detect when a commerical is on and lock in the channel. Then when we turn off the tv completely to skip a commerical we'll end up having to unplug it from the wall cause the DRM will have it self lock the power buttons. Either way they are getting paid. The cable company just like us leases access to these channels. I will grant the cable companies pay alot less since they deal in bulk access, compared to the profit they bring in. So either way the network tv stations are being paid on both ends for their tv shows. Even after costs of production, which includes cast salary, they still make a profit, other wise they wouldn't make tv shows. They are being paid for their services. I think we've proven based on all the quality shows that have been cancelled, shows that fail to bring in the expected ratings and advertisement money don't stay. If we only knew the figures for the big time money shows like Big Brother or American Idol.. They need a show by show system of payment. I like several shows on ABC for example. Lost and Invasion mainly. Do I want any of their other services, aside from maybe the local news? Not at all. So why charge the cable company for all the stuff that channel airs, which they in turn place as part of the charge they give me? Think of it like iTunes but with every station avaible, every show, for a reasonable price ($1 = 1 episode, fair as you get), in any format you want. "hey I wanna use my iPod Video day, download...." or "Think I'll watch tonights Lost at home". We should have those options. We shouldnt be on their schedule, their time table. Maybe in the older days that was ok, people didn't have as much to do. These days, there is too much stuff to be done in a day to day life to honestly set your schedule by a tv show. Work, sleep, dinner, clean the house/apartment, wash your clothes, take your kids to school, take your kids to their little league game, spend some time with your wife or husband, who has time to sit back and think "Ok, ABC is airs Lost on Wednesdays. If I miss it, I'm frakked unless I catch that rerun. Now if I download it, I'm a criminal right up there with murderers and rapists as far as the law is concerned. So if I take Little Timmy to practice earlier, I can pick him up earlier, get home cook dinner, do the dishes, give them their bath put them to bed do the lanndry and catch the last thirty minutes of the show".. Come on..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigV Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 I already paid a monthly bill for such things. It's called my cable bill. I simply refuse to conform to their twisted timetables and schedules. I'm supposed to force myself to choose between, say, two shows I really love that come on the exact same night and same time? "Flipping" channels between them is not an option, you are bound to miss content from at least if not both shows. I feel that by paying my cable bill, which is quite high for the number of channels I get, I am entitled to all the potential content I could watch. Considering my options are only cable tv or satelite, and satelite gets piss poor quality in my area cable tv is my only option. To really drive it home, part of my cable package is the Sci Fi channel. So technically I'm paying to watch SG1, SGA, BSG and much more right? Theres my payment to use such sites. Okay, here's a question for you: If you had to choose between Cable and Internet, which would you pick? bigV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subspatial Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 two words: On Demand. But in my country the net is still not up to speed. For 'exspeediancy' it is much easier for us to get cable TV .. than wait for a DVD release of an episode. (wait period two years) I'd personally rather wait a day (d'load time) to see it online :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HamsterHuey Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I have to say I agree with Mav completely and I bet I am not the only one ... I got rid of my cable and my TV about 13 Years ago. The main reason being that I disliked paying riddiculous amounts of money for programs I never watched. First we had to pay to own a tv in the form of a licence. A fee wich was about £100.00 a year and at that time we got an amazing 4 channels, I think it's more now. Then cable came along and gave us another 40 channels for about £35.00 a month. Taking the cost for my TV to a massive £520.00 a year. I know I did not have to pay this but in order to have the choice of programs I wanted to watch I had to pay for several premium channels. So one day I thought I would work it out as to how much it cost to watch Star Trek and not Match of the Day or Babylon 5 against Eastenders . Would you beleive I could have bought both the entire sets on Video (Pre DVD days) for less money and would not have had to sit and vegitate through hours of mindless vomit. So the TV was dumped and I went without for years. Now I enjoy stuff on my PC that I choose, when I want it and as much as I want. I do not see this as stealing I would pay for such a service if one suitable was offered at a reasonable price. If we paid money directly to the people making the shows that we wanted to see maybe we would get rid of all the cr*ppy TV and money grabbing leeches and get more of what people want to see and pay for. Just an Idea I will get off my box and back in my cage now. Thank You Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quosego Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 two words: On Demand. But in my country the net is still not up to speed. For 'exspeediancy' it is much easier for us to get cable TV .. than wait for a DVD release of an episode. (wait period two years) I'd personally rather wait a day (d'load time) to see it online :) I agree, but I only have to wait ten minutes to see it... and untill the MPAA can beat the quality and speed of bittorrent I'm not yet paying. It's all about availabilty, qualitity and speed, only bittorrent has this so why would I buy out of date mediums to watch low quality stuff years after release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Okay, here's a question for you: If you had to choose between Cable and Internet, which would you pick? bigV Well my internet access is provided by the same company as my cable television. So essentially I'm using the same service for two different things. If I didn't use them as an ISP my options are rather, limited. My other options are Earthlink DSL which is also owned by my current ISP. Verison DSL and Bellsouth DSL. The kicker is I'm out of range for all DSL offered ISP's in my area. I could either choose AOL Broadband (which now AOL is also owned by my current ISP, a subsidary of Time Warner) or a variety of dial up options. If I had more than one computer, I would choose the internet. One of the biggest things I use my tv for is, I usually just turn on a random channel with something decent on, and leave it there while I'm doing something online. For example as I type this, there's a funny Bruce Campbell movie on Sci Fi. If I simply chose internet, with just one computer sure I could watch stuff (assuming you meant legally it would be ok) but then due to my low end PC I would not be able to do anything else at the same time, minus using IRC or Firefox. So whereas now I can say, watch my cable tv while I play a computer game or chat in IRC, I couldn't really do that if I just chose the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StitchInTime Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Okay' date=' here's a question for you: If you had to choose between Cable and Internet, which would you pick? [/quote'] I've already had to do that, since I can't afford cable, and dialup is all I have. Hence, as for whether I'd be willing to pay more, I couldn't anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Na, I am not gonna pay. I have dozens of other resources to exaust before I fall as low as to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motoxjesse Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I would consider it, if it was a small amount, after all someone has do do a little work to host em Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wannie Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 We shouldnt be on their schedule' date=' their time table. Maybe in the older days that was ok, people didn't have as much to do. These days, there is too much stuff to be done in a day to day life to honestly set your schedule by a tv show. Work, sleep, dinner, clean the house/apartment, wash your clothes, take your kids to school, take your kids to their little league game, spend some time with your wife or husband, who has time to sit back and think "Ok, ABC is airs Lost on Wednesdays. If I miss it, I'm frakked unless I catch that rerun. Come on.....[/quote'] I know it's off topic, I just kinda had an issue with this statement. Everything you mentioned people have been doing for at least hundreds of years (obviously with some differences). The main exception being that instead of throwing our clothes in a washing machine and forgetting about them for half an hour, they had to scrub them and soak them and scrub them and hang them, etc, for half a day or more. And instead of throwing fries in the oven, they had to make a fire and kill a pig, etc. I know it's not really relevant, I just think we have it MUCH better than people in the past. I think we shouldn't have to put up with ABC's, or whoever's, timetable in the present because now we have the technology that we don't have to. As for the initial question: I would definately pay to get shows I want to watch. I already had that ethical diliemma raging in my head for awhile now. We can say how stupid it is to pay all we want, but dear Niteshdw has been paying for all of us to freeload for some time now. I've been away from this site for awhile now (I came back pretty much just as this excrement hit the fan) but I was definately prepared to donate to the site. I know that seems convienient, but I did in fact just decide to donate to another favourite of mine (a site named after a certain internal organ). In fact wtf, I'm sure Niteshdw could use our support now more then ever. I think I'll donate right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wannie Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 In fact wtf' date=' I'm sure Niteshdw could use our support now more then ever. I think I'll donate right now. [/quote'] Actually, before I do that: I see the donate button is still there, so I assume it's ok, but is there some reason we're not supposed to donate now? I don't want to stir up any more trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wannie Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Ok, me again. I just saw Soulreaper's post imploring us to help Nite by donating. So, I guess the answer is definately yes, I would pay. I've already paid to two sites I love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StitchInTime Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 . . . instead of throwing our clothes in a washing machine and forgetting about them for half an hour' date=' they had to scrub them and soak them and scrub them and hang them, etc, for half a day or more.[/quote'] A large portion of the world still does it this way. In fact, a few years back, when I could not afford a washer or a laundrymat, I had to wash all my clothes by hand. I did it by agitating them with a stick in a large bucket, and hanging them up to dry. I used to console myself by thinking about how much exercise I was getting, and, in fact, during the four years I had to do this, I became very lean and fit indeed. So, if you want to lose weight, forget about the fad diets, tear up your health club membership, sell your washer, and go to it. ;) As for the initial question: I would definately pay to get shows I want to watch. So would I, if I could afford it, but for now I'll just have to settle for the unspeakable joy of listening to the sound of my washer singing its washing song (which reminds me, I've got laundry to do). :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now