Sure, it has always been that you could watch anything for free on a public station, on public airwaves. The networks provided "free" programming over the public airwaves. There was an inherent assumption between the government, the broadcaster, and the public about how the broadcaster would be paid.
This programming of course was not "free". It was based on the fact that people would naturally watch the commercials that paid the networks their revenue, because there previously was no practical way to skip past them."
So what if the networks come up to you and they say "Hey, Chris Culia. We have provided shows to you in the past with no obligation, but of course like all other businesses we have a RIGHT to get paid. For us to get paid you have to watch the commercials. We never intended to give you programming for "free" when we signed the broadcast deal with the government. A certain number of people watching the commercials has to follow. If you'd like to pay us 50 cents for the show you can, but if you just skip past the commercials, you invalidate how you have always paid us. Watching a certain amount of commercials, rather than just skipping through them is how you pay for the product."
So then what is your response going to be?
"Sorry pal, I don't know what you're talking about. Later"
"That's your problem. I never signed no contract and I ain't watching your commercials. It's your problem."
"I'm not a reasonable person and I can't take anything into account. All's I know is that I hate watching them commercials and this company figured out how I can skip past them so it looks like I'm in luck and your not."
"Sorry it was your RISK when you signed up. Times changed and you lose. I now get all my programs without every having to watch one commercial or pay one dime unless it just happens that way."
What's so complicated about this? People have a right to be paid for their show, and the commercials pay for it. You are just being selfish and saying the other guy is out of luck because you found a way to get out of the commercials.
If you'd like to pay us 50 cents for the show you can, but if you just skip past the commercials, you invalidate how you have always paid us. Watching a certain amount of commercials, rather than just skipping through them is how you pay for the product."
So then what is your response going to be?
Not over the public airwaves you don't. That is part of the risk you undertake when you ask the government for an exclusive, protected use of those airwaves to broadcast something.
Put simply, watching commercials is part of the deal. There isn't anything "free". You can do things like you always have. You can get up to get a soda. But to record shows and just skip past the commercials, without going to iTunes to pay for it, just skips past the basic idea of "You make interesting shows for me, and I pay the bills by watching some commercials.
Put simply, watching commercials is part of the deal.
Put simply, using your government granted and protected monopoly (over a certain portion of the RF spectrum) carries a risk that you will be providing something to some people that will not watch/listen in the way you hope or intend.
"Not over the public airwaves you don't. That is part of the risk you undertake when you ask the government for an exclusive, protected use of those airwaves to broadcast something."
OK. So then you are saying that NBC, CBS, and ABC are out of luck. They are the losers. They lose their revenue because someone invented a machine to skip past the commercials. Tough luck for them. They signed up on the idea that with great programs they'ed get twice as many viewers, and with twice as many viewers, they'ed make more money. This sounds like the old fashioned American way.
You yourself , as a THINKING HUMAN BEING, can't say to yourself that it just doesn't add up that you would get to watch 1000 hours of great shows a year WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT IN ANY WAY, because something was invented to skip past the commercials?
Never mind the specific legal deals or who signed what, just common sense.
You yourself, as a PERSON WITH A BRAIN, can't say to yourself that if The Simpsons is so great that it gets 10 times the audience that it should get ten times the revenue? That's how every other business on earth works, the more people you please, the more revenues you get and the more you go past the break even line.
Obviously this depends on getting paid by each person that your product has pleased.
You yourself, as a THINKING HUMAN BEING TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT IS FAIR, can't say "It just makes sense that each person who likes your song or show pays you for it."
If 1,000 people like your song because you have a little talent, you make $1000. If you have immense talent and 50,000,000 people like your song, you make $50,000,000.
You certainly have brain in your head, but you don't think that the people who made an episode of Friends that you enjoyed DESERVE to get paid for each episode you enjoyed? Not in some strange randomly related way. Not in some way where they might get $0 revenues this year because everyone can now skip past the commercials.
You think that you can watch 75 shows and really like them all, but only 5 random ones will get any revenue from you, because your commercial skipper was broken that day? Doesn't is seem like there is something missing in that picture? Doesn't that sound like communism?
So then you are saying that NBC, CBS, and ABC are out of luck. They are the losers. They lose their revenue because someone invented a machine to skip past the commercials. Tough luck for them.
As it turns out, in practical reality, no. The reality is that enough people do watch them that it works out for the broadcasters. They are still in business and still making money. The reward they gain compensates for the risk they undertake.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
if The Simpsons is so great that it gets 10 times the audience that it should get ten times the revenue?
And the reality is that (I'm just taking a wild guess here) that the shows that are viewed by more people do make proportionally more money than the shows that are watched less.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
but you don't think that the people who made an episode of Friends that you enjoyed DESERVE to get paid for each episode you enjoyed?
I never said (or even suggested) any such thing. Of course they deserve to get paid...and, guess what, they do get paid. Quite a lot in fact.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
Doesn't that sound like communism?
No more than forcing people to do something like watch commercials sounds like facism.
"As it turns out, in practical reality, no. The reality is that enough people do watch them that it works out for the broadcasters. They are still in business and still making money. The reward they gain compensates for the risk they undertake."
OK, just one more round for now. Quite obviously, as people buy DVRs and skip the commercials, there revenue will then go down quickly.
Now you DO agree that they have to get paid. Now why should this whole thing be so incredibly indirect? The way it worked before is that essentially 50% of people were watching the commercials.
So if 1,000,000 people are watching The Simpsons, do they deserve revenue from 500,000 people , or 300,000 people, or 2,019 people, or 17 people? How much revenue do they deserve? It seems quite obvious that their revenue will go into a free fall if people don't watch the commercials.
Why do you think there can be some incredibly loose connection between the number of people watching the show and the revenues they get? Why do you think it's OK that this gets chopped by 80% if 80% of people get DVRs.
Why is it so hard to simply say that "Commercials pay for the programs, and purposely skipping the commercials is cheating on how programs are realistically paid for. I don't have to sit through every commercial if I want to get a drink, but PURPOSELY SKIPPING THE COMMERCIAL is getting out of my basic end of the deal."
Why is the government, which I thought you hated so much, this middleman and dealmaker who takes all responsibility and leaves you with none?
Why is this so hard: They give you the TV shows, you pay them back by watching the commercials. Why do you need to refer to the deal they made with the government? Why do you have to refer to the "risk assumed when one enters a marketplace"? Why does their have to be middlemen between you, the person enjoying the product, and them, who provide the product?
Why isn't television like everything else? You want a nice wedding cake, you pay a little. You want the most beautiful one, you pay more for the skill and talent? Why isn't television like that? They spend $30 million trying to come up with a show you like. You then pay them for their product by watching a reasonable amount of commercials, or paying a fee to be commercial free. Why are you hiding behind "public airwaves"? Why are you claiming "They took the risk ..."? Why don't you just follow the idea that they provide a great product, and you pay for it? Why is it acceptable that they'll lose 40% of their revenues from DVRs but you have no obligation because "They took the risk"
When a guy makes a great pizza, does he charge $10 and then risk the other $5 only if you agree because you thought it was good enough? Why shouldn't each consumer pay for each show on a one-to-one basis, or something directly approaching that.
Well, I'm done for the day. But keep this in mind when you are trying to come up with middlemen and legal deals and business talk about risk:
"An honorable person doesn't take something off someone else's hands unless they are willing to meet what the other person is asking from them."
That would save the workd a whole lot of problems.
Quite obviously, as people buy DVRs and skip the commercials, there revenue will then go down quickly.
1. VCRs have this very same capability.
2. VCRs have been available for over 25 years.
3. The broadcasters are still in business.
This is the same argument made when VCRs arrived.
It seems that your hypothesis (and that of the broadcasters back then) has been shown to be wrong.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
Now you DO agree that they have to get paid.
I never said any differently. You claimed that I did (or thought) that.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
It seems quite obvious that their revenue will go into a free fall if people don't watch the commercials.
And the show will get dropped.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
Why do you think there can be some incredibly loose connection between the number of people watching the show and the revenues they get?
Well, it seems to be working. So...I guess...well...it works.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
Why is it so hard to simply say that "Commercials pay for the programs,
I understand this.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
PURPOSELY SKIPPING THE COMMERCIAL is getting out of my basic end of the deal.
If you feel this way, then don't.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
Why is the government, which I thought you hated so much, this middleman and dealmaker who takes all responsibility and leaves you with none?
I don't where you get any of that from me. I don't recall saying I hated the government, and I don't recall saying that they take all of the responsibility. Now you are imagining things.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
Why do you need to refer to the deal they made with the government?
Because, these broadcasters are using a part of the public space that has been granted to them for exclusive use (a monopoly) by the government. As I recall, even you argued that with a monopoly the rules change.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
Why do you have to refer to the "risk assumed when one enters a marketplace"?
Because it is the reality of the nature of the business model.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
Why does their have to be middlemen between you, the person enjoying the product, and them, who provide the product?
There doesn't. I have no idea where you are coming up with this "middleman" thing.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
Why isn't television like everything else?
Because it isn't (exactly). It has similarities and differences. Some of which are significant.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
Why are you hiding behind "public airwaves"?
I'm not "hiding" behind anything. Why are you ignoring this important aspect of the equation? It is important because what has happened is that some companies have asked the government for a protected use of the RF spectrum to broadcast something. In exchange, everyone is entitled to "tune in" and watch/listen...but not forced to listen for any length of or at any particular time. It's just out there. List/watch...don't listen/don't watch. Some of you might end up listening to/watching commercials...and even buying the products...some won't.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
But keep this in mind when you are trying to come up with middlemen
You invented the middleman. I have no idea what you are talking about with it.
NOTE: I totally don't get how you think walking away from the TV (snack, drink, bathroom) is "better" (in your moral algebra) than fast-forwarding. For that matter, what about switching channels during a commercial (TV or radio)? Is that morally wrong? Should it be illegal?
Contracts: Between the production companies and the consumer, there is no contract, implied or otherwise. If producers want to make a deal with me, I am willing to tell them how I want my entertainment media and we can come to a profitable arrangement. There can be no contract without two parties in agreement. It is like a company baking pizzas and delivering them to my door for free. Later, they send me a bill saying that I have to do 40 hrs of work for them. Sorry. I don't owe them anything. They are doing on the basis that they can intimidate enough people into doing what they want. Perhaps they are right. But that, does not a contract make. I did not agree to pay the broadcasters anything. They knowingly took a risk that enough people will do what they want. Those that don't capitulate are not breaking a contract.
Risk: You seem to have a problem with the concept of businesses taking a risk. This is what makes me think you are not from these parts. Here, risk is the nature of business. A newspaper takes a risk. They hire staff to seek out and report on newsworthy events. Unfortunately, news does not pay the bills. If news publications relied on people caring about the news and paying them a profitable margin, almost all papers would immediately go out of business. News does not sell. Advertising does. If a paper can't get enough advertisers to overpay for expensive ads, the paper goes out of business. The customer does not have an obligation to look at the ads. A paper that I worked for gave trial subscriptions away for free to try to entice people into becoming paid subscribers. There was no obligation on the part of the person getting the free paper to pay a dime ever. The publication takes a risk. Their business model may or may not work but that is not the consumer's problem or concern. When I go to a mall and they offer me a free sample of food, my taking it does not enter me into a contract. They are hoping to hook me into a business arrangement. If it happens, good for them. If not, their loss. Business models are not protected. A business model based on having a captive audience or being the only show in town is not protected. You talk of Communism and freedom. Communism suggests that the business model is protected and people must adhere to it. Capitalism gives us the freedom to choose the model that works for us, the consumer.
Commercials: Let's be clear about something that has been misstated several times. The no one makes money by us watching commercials. They make money from us purchasing items they advertise. Big difference. Therefore, your argument should state that we have an obligation to purchase what is sold to us by commercials. That is how they get paid. They have no guarantee that i am going to buy anything they try to sell me. I do not have have to buy or listen to their sales pitch just because they are basing their business model on it. If I base my business model on spamming your email, do you have to read it? If you get a piece of ad supported software, do you not have the right to use an ad blocker of other means to stop them or do you have a moral obligation to accept the spyware and key-loggers that come with the free stuff. Years ago, broadcasters based their business model on the technology that was available at the time. It worked for them because we could not do anything about it. Now that we can, we are starting to speak out with our choices. If the broadcasters want to do business with us in this century, they are going to have to take into account the current a future technology. They can't just ram a single option down our throats. They are going to have to come to the table with us for a change. Like the music industry is being forced to do, they are going to have to consider the consumer's desires or perish. I really don't care which they do. If they want to perish, I will be more than happy to help them do it.
I have a question for you two. Forgetting about the rest of the topic, here is a specific question. Your answer for why people can somehow watch a year's worth of television but have no responsibility towards the people who create it has to do with "deals" and "market risk".
OK. So if you want to live by the sword, you have to die by the sword. Let's say every network and cable channel let's their old deal expire and then goes exclusively over the internet to deliver stuff. Do you then believe that they have a right to sell their programming in any way they see fit? If that means $1 a show, or forced commercials, do they have a right? If that means Gilligan's Island expires in 2 weeks and then you have to pay for it again, do you think that is fair? If Sony puts out a machine that forces you to watch the commercials and some new network ABNBC decides to sell their programming only for that machine, are you going to bitch and say it's not "fair" that these new contracts and deals restrict you from what you want?
I hope you are willing to go with the free market even when it doesn't deliver the options you want, or else you're full of it. Unless you say yes, you remind me of the people who are always for the free market and supply and demand, until a union wants to form to drive up their wages, and then it's "unnatural and unAmerican".
"NOTE: I totally don't get how you think walking away from the TV (snack, drink, bathroom) is "better" (in your moral algebra) than fast-forwarding. For that matter, what about switching channels during a commercial (TV or radio)? Is that morally wrong? Should it be illegal?"
Well, let's follow this and try to see the two sides. I believe that you should be required to do what the seller wants you to, unless they have a monopoly. So if absolutely required, yes you should watch all the commercials. You could postpone them until after the show if you have to go to the bathroom.
But obviously this would be a major hindrance so we need some reasonable way where the networks get paid. This works if you watch 1/2 the commercials. They get paid DIRECTLY and you get to live a normal life.
If you Tivo past the commercials, you watch 0% of the commercials, and they don't get paid.
As for switching channels during a commercial, if the networks said that you should watch their commercials and not switch the channel, that would be reasonable. It turns out that you are going to see even more commercials when you switch, and you'll probably see like 5 as you turn, so advertisers come out ahead. "Budweiser" and "Tylenol" get buzzed in your brain and they more of an advantage of "Corona" or "Anacin".
And if you don't like to watch the commercials and your time is valuable, then pay 50 cents for the show. Don't claim people are "Using fascism to restrict your freedom.". You don't have to watch the commercials, you can just pay in cash.
So there's no contradictions to understand. Before you take those television programs from the seller, you have to reasonably pay for them. So I am in favor of any way that that reasonably works out.
I believe that you should be required to do what the seller wants you to, unless they have a monopoly.
1. What you are talking about is something different than a free-market capitalism then.
2. Broadcasters do have a monopoly...granted and protected by the government.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
If you Tivo past the commercials, you watch 0% of the commercials, and they don't get paid.
This is obviously not true (evidenced from the fact that many people have DVRs and VCRs and many people do fast-forward through commercials and the broadcasters are still in business and making a profit.)
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
As for switching channels during a commercial, if the networks said that you should watch their commercials and not switch the channel, that would be reasonable.
So, now you have two exceptions to your "moral rule" that I must watch the commercials because the broadcaster wants me to: bathroom breaks and switching the channel.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
Don't claim people are "Using fascism to restrict your freedom.".
I didn't claim it. I only said that trying to make people watch commercials is as much like facism as me excercising my right to view a program in the manner I desire is communism. Try to keep up.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
So there's no contradictions to understand. Before you take those television programs from the seller, you have to reasonably pay for them.
And if they are broadcast over the publica airwaves, I can record them, watch them later, and even fast-forward through the commercials. Case closed.
BTW...the case you (finally) cited essentially comes to this very same conclusion.
Let's say every network and cable channel let's[sic] their old deal expire and then goes exclusively over the internet to deliver stuff. Do you then believe that they have a right to sell their programming in any way they see fit? If that means $1 a show, or forced commercials, do they have a right?
Of course.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
If that means Gilligan's Island expires in 2 weeks and then you have to pay for it again, do you think that is fair?
Fair or not...it is what it is. I can choose to not pay and not watch. No problem.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
If Sony puts out a machine that forces you to watch the commercials
Let's be clear about something...no one is forcing anyone to watch anything. It ain't gonna happen.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
and some new network ABNBC decides to sell their programming only for that machine, are you going to bitch and say it's not "fair" that these new contracts and deals restrict you from what you want?
Not bitching now. I may not like the inability to FF through commercials and will choose my actions from that point (perhaps not watching at all). No problem.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
I hope you are willing to go with the free market even when it doesn't deliver the options you want
Of course. I have no problems with that. The question is (and this has been answered with a resounding "yes" so far) are content providers (specifically terrestrial broadcasters) willing to deal with the inherent business risks that exist in the business models they choose to operate under?
I believe that you should be required to do what the seller wants you to
That is enough to qualify you for the backward coat and a rubber walled room.
The seller in all commerce wants you to do lots of things that you don't have to do. I am not bound to the seller's whim. Just because RIAA does not want me to rip a CD that I purchased on to my computer does not mean that I am restricted by law or morals. By the way, where do you get your 50% figure? Why is it OK to watch only half of the commercials. By your own logic, should not I be able to skip through at least half of them. Who makes that decision? Also, I am not the buyer. Consumers of television have no buy/sell agreement with the producers of content. I can't make them film the shows I want to see and they can't make me watch ads. The buyer is actually the advertiser, not the end user. The broadcaster and the advertiser are in bed together. They are using us, not doing business with us. To the extent that I don't mind being used, I don't have a problem with that arrangement. But they have no rights to decide how, or if, I watch their program. When the seller decides they want to negotiate with me, then we can talk contracts.
You seem to have a problem with some people thinking that content should be free. Guess what? It is free. They do not charge me, they charge advertisers. I don't give a rip whether they get paid or not. The advertisers are willing to gamble on people actually watching their commercial and then buying something. If Joe from Joe's Car Wash spends a million dollars on a Super Bowl ad, he has no guarantee that anyone will watch it. I am not obligated to watch Joe's commercial just because he wants me to. I'm not obligated to look at it in the paper or pay attention to his billboard. Joe does not have a contract with me. A network cannot guarantee a certain number will see t;he ad. They can only guarantee when the ad will air. They can entice advertisers with high viewer numbers but that's it. They cannot guarantee or control my behavior with regard to their show. If I want to tune in to The Price Is Right for the last ten minutes to watch the Showcase Showdown, I am free to do that. It's my TV. I can turn it off when I like, mute it when I like, and if the capability is there, scrub through commercials if I like. Just because books are provided to me free of charge at a library does not mean I have to read the foreword. Just because a free paper is delivered does not mean I have to look at the ads. And just because the TV is on does not mean I have to watch the commercials. The only contract I have is with the Cable company. And they provide me with the box that allows me to record and skip commercials. Until they amend their box and their agreement, I will continue to fight any force commercial viewing technology.
"The seller in all commerce wants you to do lots of things that you don't have to do. I am not bound to the seller's whim. Just because RIAA does not want me to rip a CD that I purchased on to my computer does not mean that I am restricted by law or morals."
I'm not so much against ripping a CD that you bought, because the seller won't lose 1 cent, since you already paid for it, and obviously getting the revenue is why they are in business.
In general, the seller can't simply demand whatever he wants, because he has competition.
Let's say I make the best brownies in town and everyone loves my brownies. But I say to you that if you buy my brownies you must pledge on your honor to make sure you donate all the extra junk you have in your house to charity. That is what you have to do.
If you are willing to do that, then buy my brownies. If not, then don't. I can't force anyone to buy anything since other people can make brownies, too.
So now your probably thinking I'm a control freak for forcing you to do something to get my brownies. But it is my life. Maybe you don't know that it is a lot of work to make my brownies and I really only do it so that people will donate to charity. I don't have to explain anything to you, as long as I am not a monopoly.
Now, the same exact thing holds true with music. If you buy my CD, you have to agree to the promise that comes with the CD that you will not give it for free to anyone. If you don't want to agree to this, don't buy it.
Now, I am NOT holding you over a barrel. After all, some other band can sell their CD and allow everyone who buys it to coopy it freely. That would obviously make it a better deal than my CD. And I am competing with the other guy.
So why is no one improving their offering by allowing everyone to freely copy it to their friends? Because they think the will lose their shirt that way. If it takes 100,000 copies to break even, they aren't going to get their by giving away free copies.
Maybe I spent 2 years of my life in emotional hell to write that CD. That's my business and I don't have to explain to you why you can't give 20 free copies to your friends. Maybe I wasn't good at playing instruments naturally and I had to work for ten years just to get decent. It wasn't just three days to make the album.
See this is why I believe that you have to agree upon what the seller is asking or simply go somewhere else. HBO doesn't have to explain to you why they don't put out The Sopranos on DVD as soon as the season ends and you have no right to it until they decide to let it out.
"Not bitching now. I may not like the inability to FF through commercials and will choose my actions from that point (perhaps not watching at all). No problem."
OK. I will say that although there is a part of this I think you are missing, at least you are consistent in your beliefs. You think that the only thing that matters is the contract as determined by market forces, and you are willing to pay the price if the market forces go against you.
This is good. Many people just use the general argument "No one should be able to stop me from doing what I want." but that is not your argument. You aren't claiming there are any inherent rules that must exist that benefit you. You are simply going by the agreements, which ever way market forces take it.
I will give one more stab at it tomorrow though why market forces should NOT be the sole determinant here, but human behavior must be involved.
remember when MOVIES used to JUST HAVE PREVIEWS in the theaters and not COMMERCIALS beforehand? do you remember the first days of cable tv, the MAIN REASON to get cable was that it was COMMERCIAL FREE, since, you know, were ALREADY PAYING FOR IT?
and somewhere, along the way, they shoved them in, we all responded with a collective "whatever" and they haven't stopped since.
I agree that the commercials before movies are bad, but you can always just come a little later to skip them.
At one time, cable only had like 25 channels. Now you get much more programming for that same money. It's mostly trash, but it is trash people want. I remember how amazing it was that WTBS had repeats on all day long. But now there are like 8 channels that have popular repeats, so you are getting way more programs. Of course their mostly stupid, since people want stupid stuff.
Ho-le-crap! Now I have been quietly reading this for quite some time, but this just steps on my toes once too often. I am horrified of the direction TV is taking. Don't think for a second American Idol has anything to do with what viewers want. The real secret is the massive marketing campaign, "interactivity", and money (selling to show to networks), money (Advertising revenue), money (thousands of text messages). Just imagine the glow from the producers face when he realized how much money would be exchanged. They weren't thinking of us. (the original creator, maybe.)
Comments
Sure, it has always been that you could watch anything for free on a public station, on public airwaves. The networks provided "free" programming over the public airwaves. There was an inherent assumption between the government, the broadcaster, and the public about how the broadcaster would be paid.
This programming of course was not "free". It was based on the fact that people would naturally watch the commercials that paid the networks their revenue, because there previously was no practical way to skip past them."
So what if the networks come up to you and they say "Hey, Chris Culia. We have provided shows to you in the past with no obligation, but of course like all other businesses we have a RIGHT to get paid. For us to get paid you have to watch the commercials. We never intended to give you programming for "free" when we signed the broadcast deal with the government. A certain number of people watching the commercials has to follow. If you'd like to pay us 50 cents for the show you can, but if you just skip past the commercials, you invalidate how you have always paid us. Watching a certain amount of commercials, rather than just skipping through them is how you pay for the product."
So then what is your response going to be?
"Sorry pal, I don't know what you're talking about. Later"
"That's your problem. I never signed no contract and I ain't watching your commercials. It's your problem."
"I'm not a reasonable person and I can't take anything into account. All's I know is that I hate watching them commercials and this company figured out how I can skip past them so it looks like I'm in luck and your not."
"Sorry it was your RISK when you signed up. Times changed and you lose. I now get all my programs without every having to watch one commercial or pay one dime unless it just happens that way."
What's so complicated about this? People have a right to be paid for their show, and the commercials pay for it. You are just being selfish and saying the other guy is out of luck because you found a way to get out of the commercials.
Originally posted by spindler
If you'd like to pay us 50 cents for the show you can, but if you just skip past the commercials, you invalidate how you have always paid us. Watching a certain amount of commercials, rather than just skipping through them is how you pay for the product."
So then what is your response going to be?
Not over the public airwaves you don't. That is part of the risk you undertake when you ask the government for an exclusive, protected use of those airwaves to broadcast something.
Originally posted by spindler
Put simply, watching commercials is part of the deal.
Put simply, using your government granted and protected monopoly (over a certain portion of the RF spectrum) carries a risk that you will be providing something to some people that will not watch/listen in the way you hope or intend.
There is nothing illegal or immoral about it.
OK. So then you are saying that NBC, CBS, and ABC are out of luck. They are the losers. They lose their revenue because someone invented a machine to skip past the commercials. Tough luck for them. They signed up on the idea that with great programs they'ed get twice as many viewers, and with twice as many viewers, they'ed make more money. This sounds like the old fashioned American way.
You yourself , as a THINKING HUMAN BEING, can't say to yourself that it just doesn't add up that you would get to watch 1000 hours of great shows a year WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT IN ANY WAY, because something was invented to skip past the commercials?
Never mind the specific legal deals or who signed what, just common sense.
You yourself, as a PERSON WITH A BRAIN, can't say to yourself that if The Simpsons is so great that it gets 10 times the audience that it should get ten times the revenue? That's how every other business on earth works, the more people you please, the more revenues you get and the more you go past the break even line.
Obviously this depends on getting paid by each person that your product has pleased.
You yourself, as a THINKING HUMAN BEING TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT IS FAIR, can't say "It just makes sense that each person who likes your song or show pays you for it."
If 1,000 people like your song because you have a little talent, you make $1000. If you have immense talent and 50,000,000 people like your song, you make $50,000,000.
You certainly have brain in your head, but you don't think that the people who made an episode of Friends that you enjoyed DESERVE to get paid for each episode you enjoyed? Not in some strange randomly related way. Not in some way where they might get $0 revenues this year because everyone can now skip past the commercials.
You think that you can watch 75 shows and really like them all, but only 5 random ones will get any revenue from you, because your commercial skipper was broken that day? Doesn't is seem like there is something missing in that picture? Doesn't that sound like communism?
Originally posted by spindler
So then you are saying that NBC, CBS, and ABC are out of luck. They are the losers. They lose their revenue because someone invented a machine to skip past the commercials. Tough luck for them.
As it turns out, in practical reality, no. The reality is that enough people do watch them that it works out for the broadcasters. They are still in business and still making money. The reward they gain compensates for the risk they undertake.
Originally posted by spindler
if The Simpsons is so great that it gets 10 times the audience that it should get ten times the revenue?
And the reality is that (I'm just taking a wild guess here) that the shows that are viewed by more people do make proportionally more money than the shows that are watched less.
Originally posted by spindler
but you don't think that the people who made an episode of Friends that you enjoyed DESERVE to get paid for each episode you enjoyed?
I never said (or even suggested) any such thing. Of course they deserve to get paid...and, guess what, they do get paid. Quite a lot in fact.
Originally posted by spindler
Doesn't that sound like communism?
No more than forcing people to do something like watch commercials sounds like facism.
OK, just one more round for now. Quite obviously, as people buy DVRs and skip the commercials, there revenue will then go down quickly.
Now you DO agree that they have to get paid. Now why should this whole thing be so incredibly indirect? The way it worked before is that essentially 50% of people were watching the commercials.
So if 1,000,000 people are watching The Simpsons, do they deserve revenue from 500,000 people , or 300,000 people, or 2,019 people, or 17 people? How much revenue do they deserve? It seems quite obvious that their revenue will go into a free fall if people don't watch the commercials.
Why do you think there can be some incredibly loose connection between the number of people watching the show and the revenues they get? Why do you think it's OK that this gets chopped by 80% if 80% of people get DVRs.
Why is it so hard to simply say that "Commercials pay for the programs, and purposely skipping the commercials is cheating on how programs are realistically paid for. I don't have to sit through every commercial if I want to get a drink, but PURPOSELY SKIPPING THE COMMERCIAL is getting out of my basic end of the deal."
Why is the government, which I thought you hated so much, this middleman and dealmaker who takes all responsibility and leaves you with none?
Why is this so hard: They give you the TV shows, you pay them back by watching the commercials. Why do you need to refer to the deal they made with the government? Why do you have to refer to the "risk assumed when one enters a marketplace"? Why does their have to be middlemen between you, the person enjoying the product, and them, who provide the product?
Why isn't television like everything else? You want a nice wedding cake, you pay a little. You want the most beautiful one, you pay more for the skill and talent? Why isn't television like that? They spend $30 million trying to come up with a show you like. You then pay them for their product by watching a reasonable amount of commercials, or paying a fee to be commercial free. Why are you hiding behind "public airwaves"? Why are you claiming "They took the risk ..."? Why don't you just follow the idea that they provide a great product, and you pay for it? Why is it acceptable that they'll lose 40% of their revenues from DVRs but you have no obligation because "They took the risk"
When a guy makes a great pizza, does he charge $10 and then risk the other $5 only if you agree because you thought it was good enough? Why shouldn't each consumer pay for each show on a one-to-one basis, or something directly approaching that.
Well, I'm done for the day. But keep this in mind when you are trying to come up with middlemen and legal deals and business talk about risk:
"An honorable person doesn't take something off someone else's hands unless they are willing to meet what the other person is asking from them."
That would save the workd a whole lot of problems.
Originally posted by spindler
Quite obviously, as people buy DVRs and skip the commercials, there revenue will then go down quickly.
1. VCRs have this very same capability.
2. VCRs have been available for over 25 years.
3. The broadcasters are still in business.
This is the same argument made when VCRs arrived.
It seems that your hypothesis (and that of the broadcasters back then) has been shown to be wrong.
Originally posted by spindler
Now you DO agree that they have to get paid.
I never said any differently. You claimed that I did (or thought) that.
Originally posted by spindler
It seems quite obvious that their revenue will go into a free fall if people don't watch the commercials.
And the show will get dropped.
Originally posted by spindler
Why do you think there can be some incredibly loose connection between the number of people watching the show and the revenues they get?
Well, it seems to be working. So...I guess...well...it works.
Originally posted by spindler
Why is it so hard to simply say that "Commercials pay for the programs,
I understand this.
Originally posted by spindler
PURPOSELY SKIPPING THE COMMERCIAL is getting out of my basic end of the deal.
If you feel this way, then don't.
Originally posted by spindler
Why is the government, which I thought you hated so much, this middleman and dealmaker who takes all responsibility and leaves you with none?
I don't where you get any of that from me. I don't recall saying I hated the government, and I don't recall saying that they take all of the responsibility. Now you are imagining things.
Originally posted by spindler
Why do you need to refer to the deal they made with the government?
Because, these broadcasters are using a part of the public space that has been granted to them for exclusive use (a monopoly) by the government. As I recall, even you argued that with a monopoly the rules change.
Originally posted by spindler
Why do you have to refer to the "risk assumed when one enters a marketplace"?
Because it is the reality of the nature of the business model.
Originally posted by spindler
Why does their have to be middlemen between you, the person enjoying the product, and them, who provide the product?
There doesn't. I have no idea where you are coming up with this "middleman" thing.
Originally posted by spindler
Why isn't television like everything else?
Because it isn't (exactly). It has similarities and differences. Some of which are significant.
Originally posted by spindler
Why are you hiding behind "public airwaves"?
I'm not "hiding" behind anything. Why are you ignoring this important aspect of the equation? It is important because what has happened is that some companies have asked the government for a protected use of the RF spectrum to broadcast something. In exchange, everyone is entitled to "tune in" and watch/listen...but not forced to listen for any length of or at any particular time. It's just out there. List/watch...don't listen/don't watch. Some of you might end up listening to/watching commercials...and even buying the products...some won't.
Originally posted by spindler
But keep this in mind when you are trying to come up with middlemen
You invented the middleman. I have no idea what you are talking about with it.
Couple of points:
Contracts: Between the production companies and the consumer, there is no contract, implied or otherwise. If producers want to make a deal with me, I am willing to tell them how I want my entertainment media and we can come to a profitable arrangement. There can be no contract without two parties in agreement. It is like a company baking pizzas and delivering them to my door for free. Later, they send me a bill saying that I have to do 40 hrs of work for them. Sorry. I don't owe them anything. They are doing on the basis that they can intimidate enough people into doing what they want. Perhaps they are right. But that, does not a contract make. I did not agree to pay the broadcasters anything. They knowingly took a risk that enough people will do what they want. Those that don't capitulate are not breaking a contract.
Risk: You seem to have a problem with the concept of businesses taking a risk. This is what makes me think you are not from these parts. Here, risk is the nature of business. A newspaper takes a risk. They hire staff to seek out and report on newsworthy events. Unfortunately, news does not pay the bills. If news publications relied on people caring about the news and paying them a profitable margin, almost all papers would immediately go out of business. News does not sell. Advertising does. If a paper can't get enough advertisers to overpay for expensive ads, the paper goes out of business. The customer does not have an obligation to look at the ads. A paper that I worked for gave trial subscriptions away for free to try to entice people into becoming paid subscribers. There was no obligation on the part of the person getting the free paper to pay a dime ever. The publication takes a risk. Their business model may or may not work but that is not the consumer's problem or concern. When I go to a mall and they offer me a free sample of food, my taking it does not enter me into a contract. They are hoping to hook me into a business arrangement. If it happens, good for them. If not, their loss. Business models are not protected. A business model based on having a captive audience or being the only show in town is not protected. You talk of Communism and freedom. Communism suggests that the business model is protected and people must adhere to it. Capitalism gives us the freedom to choose the model that works for us, the consumer.
Commercials: Let's be clear about something that has been misstated several times. The no one makes money by us watching commercials. They make money from us purchasing items they advertise. Big difference. Therefore, your argument should state that we have an obligation to purchase what is sold to us by commercials. That is how they get paid. They have no guarantee that i am going to buy anything they try to sell me. I do not have have to buy or listen to their sales pitch just because they are basing their business model on it. If I base my business model on spamming your email, do you have to read it? If you get a piece of ad supported software, do you not have the right to use an ad blocker of other means to stop them or do you have a moral obligation to accept the spyware and key-loggers that come with the free stuff. Years ago, broadcasters based their business model on the technology that was available at the time. It worked for them because we could not do anything about it. Now that we can, we are starting to speak out with our choices. If the broadcasters want to do business with us in this century, they are going to have to take into account the current a future technology. They can't just ram a single option down our throats. They are going to have to come to the table with us for a change. Like the music industry is being forced to do, they are going to have to consider the consumer's desires or perish. I really don't care which they do. If they want to perish, I will be more than happy to help them do it.
Sorry about all the typos.
OK. So if you want to live by the sword, you have to die by the sword. Let's say every network and cable channel let's their old deal expire and then goes exclusively over the internet to deliver stuff. Do you then believe that they have a right to sell their programming in any way they see fit? If that means $1 a show, or forced commercials, do they have a right? If that means Gilligan's Island expires in 2 weeks and then you have to pay for it again, do you think that is fair? If Sony puts out a machine that forces you to watch the commercials and some new network ABNBC decides to sell their programming only for that machine, are you going to bitch and say it's not "fair" that these new contracts and deals restrict you from what you want?
I hope you are willing to go with the free market even when it doesn't deliver the options you want, or else you're full of it. Unless you say yes, you remind me of the people who are always for the free market and supply and demand, until a union wants to form to drive up their wages, and then it's "unnatural and unAmerican".
"NOTE: I totally don't get how you think walking away from the TV (snack, drink, bathroom) is "better" (in your moral algebra) than fast-forwarding. For that matter, what about switching channels during a commercial (TV or radio)? Is that morally wrong? Should it be illegal?"
Well, let's follow this and try to see the two sides. I believe that you should be required to do what the seller wants you to, unless they have a monopoly. So if absolutely required, yes you should watch all the commercials. You could postpone them until after the show if you have to go to the bathroom.
But obviously this would be a major hindrance so we need some reasonable way where the networks get paid. This works if you watch 1/2 the commercials. They get paid DIRECTLY and you get to live a normal life.
If you Tivo past the commercials, you watch 0% of the commercials, and they don't get paid.
As for switching channels during a commercial, if the networks said that you should watch their commercials and not switch the channel, that would be reasonable. It turns out that you are going to see even more commercials when you switch, and you'll probably see like 5 as you turn, so advertisers come out ahead. "Budweiser" and "Tylenol" get buzzed in your brain and they more of an advantage of "Corona" or "Anacin".
And if you don't like to watch the commercials and your time is valuable, then pay 50 cents for the show. Don't claim people are "Using fascism to restrict your freedom.". You don't have to watch the commercials, you can just pay in cash.
So there's no contradictions to understand. Before you take those television programs from the seller, you have to reasonably pay for them. So I am in favor of any way that that reasonably works out.
Originally posted by spindler
I believe that you should be required to do what the seller wants you to, unless they have a monopoly.
1. What you are talking about is something different than a free-market capitalism then.
2. Broadcasters do have a monopoly...granted and protected by the government.
Originally posted by spindler
If you Tivo past the commercials, you watch 0% of the commercials, and they don't get paid.
This is obviously not true (evidenced from the fact that many people have DVRs and VCRs and many people do fast-forward through commercials and the broadcasters are still in business and making a profit.)
Originally posted by spindler
As for switching channels during a commercial, if the networks said that you should watch their commercials and not switch the channel, that would be reasonable.
So, now you have two exceptions to your "moral rule" that I must watch the commercials because the broadcaster wants me to: bathroom breaks and switching the channel.
Originally posted by spindler
Don't claim people are "Using fascism to restrict your freedom.".
I didn't claim it. I only said that trying to make people watch commercials is as much like facism as me excercising my right to view a program in the manner I desire is communism. Try to keep up.
Originally posted by spindler
So there's no contradictions to understand. Before you take those television programs from the seller, you have to reasonably pay for them.
And if they are broadcast over the publica airwaves, I can record them, watch them later, and even fast-forward through the commercials. Case closed.
BTW...the case you (finally) cited essentially comes to this very same conclusion.
Originally posted by spindler
Let's say every network and cable channel let's[sic] their old deal expire and then goes exclusively over the internet to deliver stuff. Do you then believe that they have a right to sell their programming in any way they see fit? If that means $1 a show, or forced commercials, do they have a right?
Of course.
Originally posted by spindler
If that means Gilligan's Island expires in 2 weeks and then you have to pay for it again, do you think that is fair?
Fair or not...it is what it is. I can choose to not pay and not watch. No problem.
Originally posted by spindler
If Sony puts out a machine that forces you to watch the commercials
Let's be clear about something...no one is forcing anyone to watch anything. It ain't gonna happen.
Originally posted by spindler
and some new network ABNBC decides to sell their programming only for that machine, are you going to bitch and say it's not "fair" that these new contracts and deals restrict you from what you want?
Not bitching now. I may not like the inability to FF through commercials and will choose my actions from that point (perhaps not watching at all). No problem.
Originally posted by spindler
I hope you are willing to go with the free market even when it doesn't deliver the options you want
Of course. I have no problems with that. The question is (and this has been answered with a resounding "yes" so far) are content providers (specifically terrestrial broadcasters) willing to deal with the inherent business risks that exist in the business models they choose to operate under?
Originally posted by spindler
I believe that you should be required to do what the seller wants you to
That is enough to qualify you for the backward coat and a rubber walled room.
The seller in all commerce wants you to do lots of things that you don't have to do. I am not bound to the seller's whim. Just because RIAA does not want me to rip a CD that I purchased on to my computer does not mean that I am restricted by law or morals. By the way, where do you get your 50% figure? Why is it OK to watch only half of the commercials. By your own logic, should not I be able to skip through at least half of them. Who makes that decision? Also, I am not the buyer. Consumers of television have no buy/sell agreement with the producers of content. I can't make them film the shows I want to see and they can't make me watch ads. The buyer is actually the advertiser, not the end user. The broadcaster and the advertiser are in bed together. They are using us, not doing business with us. To the extent that I don't mind being used, I don't have a problem with that arrangement. But they have no rights to decide how, or if, I watch their program. When the seller decides they want to negotiate with me, then we can talk contracts.
You seem to have a problem with some people thinking that content should be free. Guess what? It is free. They do not charge me, they charge advertisers. I don't give a rip whether they get paid or not. The advertisers are willing to gamble on people actually watching their commercial and then buying something. If Joe from Joe's Car Wash spends a million dollars on a Super Bowl ad, he has no guarantee that anyone will watch it. I am not obligated to watch Joe's commercial just because he wants me to. I'm not obligated to look at it in the paper or pay attention to his billboard. Joe does not have a contract with me. A network cannot guarantee a certain number will see t;he ad. They can only guarantee when the ad will air. They can entice advertisers with high viewer numbers but that's it. They cannot guarantee or control my behavior with regard to their show. If I want to tune in to The Price Is Right for the last ten minutes to watch the Showcase Showdown, I am free to do that. It's my TV. I can turn it off when I like, mute it when I like, and if the capability is there, scrub through commercials if I like. Just because books are provided to me free of charge at a library does not mean I have to read the foreword. Just because a free paper is delivered does not mean I have to look at the ads. And just because the TV is on does not mean I have to watch the commercials. The only contract I have is with the Cable company. And they provide me with the box that allows me to record and skip commercials. Until they amend their box and their agreement, I will continue to fight any force commercial viewing technology.
I'm not so much against ripping a CD that you bought, because the seller won't lose 1 cent, since you already paid for it, and obviously getting the revenue is why they are in business.
In general, the seller can't simply demand whatever he wants, because he has competition.
Let's say I make the best brownies in town and everyone loves my brownies. But I say to you that if you buy my brownies you must pledge on your honor to make sure you donate all the extra junk you have in your house to charity. That is what you have to do.
If you are willing to do that, then buy my brownies. If not, then don't. I can't force anyone to buy anything since other people can make brownies, too.
So now your probably thinking I'm a control freak for forcing you to do something to get my brownies. But it is my life. Maybe you don't know that it is a lot of work to make my brownies and I really only do it so that people will donate to charity. I don't have to explain anything to you, as long as I am not a monopoly.
Now, the same exact thing holds true with music. If you buy my CD, you have to agree to the promise that comes with the CD that you will not give it for free to anyone. If you don't want to agree to this, don't buy it.
Now, I am NOT holding you over a barrel. After all, some other band can sell their CD and allow everyone who buys it to coopy it freely. That would obviously make it a better deal than my CD. And I am competing with the other guy.
So why is no one improving their offering by allowing everyone to freely copy it to their friends? Because they think the will lose their shirt that way. If it takes 100,000 copies to break even, they aren't going to get their by giving away free copies.
Maybe I spent 2 years of my life in emotional hell to write that CD. That's my business and I don't have to explain to you why you can't give 20 free copies to your friends. Maybe I wasn't good at playing instruments naturally and I had to work for ten years just to get decent. It wasn't just three days to make the album.
See this is why I believe that you have to agree upon what the seller is asking or simply go somewhere else. HBO doesn't have to explain to you why they don't put out The Sopranos on DVD as soon as the season ends and you have no right to it until they decide to let it out.
"Not bitching now. I may not like the inability to FF through commercials and will choose my actions from that point (perhaps not watching at all). No problem."
OK. I will say that although there is a part of this I think you are missing, at least you are consistent in your beliefs. You think that the only thing that matters is the contract as determined by market forces, and you are willing to pay the price if the market forces go against you.
This is good. Many people just use the general argument "No one should be able to stop me from doing what I want." but that is not your argument. You aren't claiming there are any inherent rules that must exist that benefit you. You are simply going by the agreements, which ever way market forces take it.
I will give one more stab at it tomorrow though why market forces should NOT be the sole determinant here, but human behavior must be involved.
and somewhere, along the way, they shoved them in, we all responded with a collective "whatever" and they haven't stopped since.
you can't say you didn't see this coming.
At one time, cable only had like 25 channels. Now you get much more programming for that same money. It's mostly trash, but it is trash people want. I remember how amazing it was that WTBS had repeats on all day long. But now there are like 8 channels that have popular repeats, so you are getting way more programs. Of course their mostly stupid, since people want stupid stuff.
Originally posted by spindler
but it is trash people want.
Death to cheap-arse reality hogwash!