Originally Posted by Guartho
Sorry about that. It's just the whole latch on to single word like a rabid terrier thing is getting really really old. I realize that this is the first time you've done.
Looks like you're still missing the point though. I do in fact have neither. What I do now is miss the shows. I tried watching Heroes on NBC's site, but it stutters like mad and tends to crash during the "limited commercial interruptions." The iTunes store was the only workable way for me to legally see these shows. I'm not subscribing to cable or satellite to watch 40 hours of TV a year.
My original post that started this tangent was in response to "Why is NBC the bad guy?," or "Why do you hate NBC so much." Well, I don't really hate them, but they have these two great shows that I really enjoyed and then they said I can't watch them anymore. That's why I don't like them. Of course they have a legal right to do that, but that doesn't change the whole "I'm taking my ball and going home." crap that they're pulling.
should be honest. Yours just happened to be the post where I ended up making a point that I've been wanting to make for quite a while.
It has troubled me for a while now: I would see a whole lot of posts gleefully pointing to "t.o.r.r.e.n.t" whenever an issue concerning a content provider not doing the consumers' bidding comes up. (I am not at all implying yours was in the same league; it just happened to be convenient). What the posts never seem to point out or realize is, how the heck does someone who lives off his/her content compete against 'free?' It is well nigh impossible.
The classic conundrum is, if we do not provide adequate returns to those who create intellectual property (IP), there is no incentive to create IP in the first place. I think you would agree with me that we would all be much worse off as consumers if there was no IP -- after all, that is the sole brain food we consume (and produce).
The real debate should really be about "what is/who has (Apple or NBC or whoever) an appropriate model for generating returns to the content provider," rather than the one I see most often, which is "if they can't or won't compete against free (or close to free), I'll go with free."
Again, I should point out that your post did not imply any of these, but just provided a hook that I latched on to.
(I should add: I have no self-interest in this point of view.)