Hello all! I know that Marquette games can be difficult to find sometimes, but here is a great website to steam games online if you need them.
firstrowsports.eu
It's a European website that streams games, no downloads necessary, no fees necessary. It's a pretty good site, as it offers many links to games if one doesn't work or has bad quality. Simply find the game, and click the links provided. It's a good website that is pretty safe (no viruses or any of that garbage). Hope you guys enjoy it! Go MU!
Agreed!!! I live in florida and have watched almost every game last year and this year so far on first row. Great site!!!!!
I thought the FBI should down these sites from an earlier sweep.
Good news then for our MU brethren!
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on December 29, 2012, 08:25:02 PM
I thought the FBI should down these sites from an earlier sweep.
Good news then for our MU brethren!
In the long run, bad news. People watching these types of streams mean lower ratings, mean lower conference fees in tv deals for schools like Marquette. I had to deal with a programmer recently that we were renewing and they, of course, wanted higher fees for us to carry their channel. I pointed to their ratings being not that strong. They came back with how their content is viewed illegally as one of the most popular programs on torrents, and such.
She was right. Unfortunately for her I had to ask the question: "so you want me to pay you all this money for the right to broadcast your channel for our customers who have to pay higher fees and all the while people are stealing it for free on the internet. Come again?"
i'm missing something? i would think the fact that people are accessing something online illegally just shows there's solid demand. dang near any channel or game can be "stolen" online...i'd be worried if i was adding programming currently not available that no one was accessing online.
i also don't understand why it would be bad news for MU...it's an equal playing field...if MU gets less so will all the other teams. not like the games from the other top conferences aren't available to "steal" online as well.
Indeed .. somewhat chicken and egg, but people are streaming because there's a lack of a legal alternative.
The quality of streams suck, especially illegal ones. They are a last resort.
I stand by my comparison of FrontRow.eu to Napster.
Music and film distribution have been revolutionized by piracy... Live TV is next.
Quote from: Benny B on December 30, 2012, 12:54:31 AM
I stand by my comparison of FrontRow.eu to Napster.
Music and film distribution have been revolutionized by piracy... Live TV is next.
here here
Music and movies can be pirated today almost as easy as before, it just takes a little more time to find a site operating outside of the laws of usa or other countries that try to regulate.
Look at www.1channel.ch
You can watch any movie you want some even before they are released to the big screen in the USA.....
Music is no different with a few sites out there that you can get any song you want and load it on your iPhone/pod if you know just a little as to what u are doing.
Next is live TV. Google tv and others is coming soon the question is who will take the first chance on it???? The catholic7????
Quote from: avid1010 on December 29, 2012, 10:34:19 PM
i'm missing something? i would think the fact that people are accessing something online illegally just shows there's solid demand. dang near any channel or game can be "stolen" online...i'd be worried if i was adding programming currently not available that no one was accessing online.
i also don't understand why it would be bad news for MU...it's an equal playing field...if MU gets less so will all the other teams. not like the games from the other top conferences aren't available to "steal" online as well.
I'm talking at a higher level and giving some real world examples. It becomes a vicious circle. The most highly pirated show is Dexter on Showtime, followed by Game of Thrones on HBO and then a number of others close behind. It's an interesting dynamic as those that pirate it aren't willing to pay for HBO but those that pirate it are driving up the cost for HBO because they are missing out on revenues from providers (Dish, Fios, Directv) because their ratings get hurt. So they raise their rates, and the circle becomes complete and even more troublesome. Costs a lot of money to make those shows.
As one studio exec told me about a month ago, they're going to start to go on the cheap on some stuff because it just isn't worth the battle. They can't keep creating great content and then have it stolen for free. We'll see if they follow through, but based on two series that were cancelled of high acclaim it does appear to be going that way.
Sports....yes, a different animal than shows. Absolutely. I'm merely pointing out how the negotiations work and ratings are a key part. Dilute ratings, you hurt the conference. It's the job of ESPN, NBC, or whomever to use every piece of data in their bag of tricks to get a good deal. Do I think it's material right now? Not really, but it will become more so over time. A lot of people in this country think stuff should be for free. It is truly amazing but that's where we are.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 30, 2012, 10:37:39 AM
It's an interesting dynamic as those that pirate it aren't willing to pay for HBO but those that pirate it are driving up the cost for HBO because they are missing out on revenues from providers (Dish, Fios, Directv) because their ratings get hurt. So they raise their rates, and the circle becomes complete and even more troublesome.
There are zero incremental costs to broadcasters. Just lost revenue. Big difference.
Perhaps it is the ridiculous rates charged by the likes of Dish and DirecTV?
God bless free enterprise and the entrepreneurial spirit!
TV should switch to select your own channel packages. It's bullcrap that the only channel I *really* want is Fox Soccer Channel, yet in order to get it, I have to pay $100 and get a bunch of other channels I could care less to watch. Not doing it so that I can watch one or two soccer games a week. So I will stream those instead.
Quote from: jutaw22mu on December 30, 2012, 12:03:05 PM
TV should switch to select your own channel packages. It's bullcrap that the only channel I *really* want is Fox Soccer Channel, yet in order to get it, I have to pay $100 and get a bunch of other channels I could care less to watch. Not doing it so that I can watch one or two soccer games a week. So I will stream those instead.
The big broadcast networks have morphed and continue to do so. The cable and satellite players must adapt to new realities too. Consumers rule. Vive l'anarchie! Vive la piraterie
Quote from: keefe on December 30, 2012, 11:49:39 AM
There are zero incremental costs to broadcasters. Just lost revenue. Big difference.
Perhaps it is the ridiculous rates charged by the likes of Dish and DirecTV?
God bless free enterprise and the entrepreneurial spirit!
+1. hbo's a failed business model in a market being hit with innovation. their shows are the only thing saving them...for now.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 30, 2012, 10:37:39 AM
I'm talking at a higher level and giving some real world examples. It becomes a vicious circle. The most highly pirated show is Dexter on Showtime, followed by Game of Thrones on HBO and then a number of others close behind. It's an interesting dynamic as those that pirate it aren't willing to pay for HBO but those that pirate it are driving up the cost for HBO because they are missing out on revenues from providers (Dish, Fios, Directv) because their ratings get hurt. So they raise their rates, and the circle becomes complete and even more troublesome. Costs a lot of money to make those shows.
As one studio exec told me about a month ago, they're going to start to go on the cheap on some stuff because it just isn't worth the battle. They can't keep creating great content and then have it stolen for free. We'll see if they follow through, but based on two series that were cancelled of high acclaim it does appear to be going that way.
Sports....yes, a different animal than shows. Absolutely. I'm merely pointing out how the negotiations work and ratings are a key part. Dilute ratings, you hurt the conference. It's the job of ESPN, NBC, or whomever to use every piece of data in their bag of tricks to get a good deal. Do I think it's material right now? Not really, but it will become more so over time. A lot of people in this country think stuff should be for free. It is truly amazing but that's where we are.
We've talked about it for sports and it goes the same for TV. Prices have peaked and the old format is broken. Things will go to all on-demand models soon. People just aren't willing to pay the prices and fees forever, especially when they are not watching the channels.
Even for many diehard sports fans if you showed them what they are paying each month for ESPN they would reconsider whether it is worth it.
There's gotta be a way to embed code to prevent duplication (i.e., create lines when someone tries to copy or stream illegally), no?
EDIT: Considering the last post, how much would you, MU fan, pay to watch MU BK to be streamed online with a higher quality than ESPN3 (which can be pretty cruddy at times)?
The ESPN stream on my xBox is much better than the one on my macbook, for whatever reason and FWIW.
Quote from: Benny B on December 30, 2012, 12:54:31 AM
I stand by my comparison of FrontRow.eu to Napster.
Music and film distribution have been revolutionized by piracy... Live TV is next.
Yes, because the resources it took to create a music album are close to those creating television (scripts, producers, directors, actors, production, etc). LOL. The answer is simple, if the money dries up there is nothing to create anymore...the differences are exponential.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 30, 2012, 02:40:01 PM
Yes, because the resources it took to create a music album are close to those creating television (scripts, producers, directors, actors, production, etc). LOL. The answer is simple, if the money dries up there is nothing to create anymore...the differences are exponential.
how about movies, software, etc.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 29, 2012, 09:23:30 PM
In the long run, bad news. People watching these types of streams mean lower ratings, mean lower conference fees in tv deals for schools like Marquette. I had to deal with a programmer recently that we were renewing and they, of course, wanted higher fees for us to carry their channel. I pointed to their ratings being not that strong. They came back with how their content is viewed illegally as one of the most popular programs on torrents, and such.
She was right. Unfortunately for her I had to ask the question: "so you want me to pay you all this money for the right to broadcast your channel for our customers who have to pay higher fees and all the while people are stealing it for free on the internet. Come again?"
If the cable networks were able to block all streaming, it would not mean that those that were illegally downloading would then pay to watch. In all likely hood they just would not watch.
Quote from: keefe on December 30, 2012, 11:49:39 AM
There are zero incremental costs to broadcasters. Just lost revenue. Big difference.
Perhaps it is the ridiculous rates charged by the likes of Dish and DirecTV?
God bless free enterprise and the entrepreneurial spirit!
The "ridiculous charges" are driven by those programming costs. When ESPN goes out and spends billions for Monday Night Football, who do you think pays for that? ESPN? ::) Dish, Directv, AT&T, Charter, Cox, TimeWarner pay for it. Guess what, who do you think has to pay for them? The customers. That over the air channel you can get for free from CBS with rabbit ears, Dish, Directv, Comcast, etc all have to pay several dollars per subscriber per month for something that is "free" to retransmit those feeds. I've seen some in the last 18 months where stations have demanded over 500% increase in fees.
Thievery isn't part of the free enterprise or the entrepreneurial spirit....it's thievery. It will continue to raise rates for honest folks, just like insurance fraud and others like it.
When the money dries up, it will be fun to watch what people will steal next. In the meantime, it's always interesting to read about the latest thief busted, the fines that these folks have to pay and the jail times they serve. That's the spirit. Da judge recently sent one guy up (a repeat offender) to do 4 years in the pokey and $100K fine. Most of the fines and punishments less severe.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on December 30, 2012, 02:16:30 PM
There's gotta be a way to embed code to prevent duplication (i.e., create lines when someone tries to copy or stream illegally), no?
EDIT: Considering the last post, how much would you, MU fan, pay to watch MU BK to be streamed online with a higher quality than ESPN3 (which can be pretty cruddy at times)?
That's exactly my point I would rather pay the $5 per month for quality MU broadcasts and jettison ESPN all together.
Quote from: forgetful on December 30, 2012, 02:11:28 PM
We've talked about it for sports and it goes the same for TV. Prices have peaked and the old format is broken. Things will go to all on-demand models soon. People just aren't willing to pay the prices and fees forever, especially when they are not watching the channels.
Even for many diehard sports fans if you showed them what they are paying each month for ESPN they would reconsider whether it is worth it.
I've heard this now for 10 years straight. Congress has heard it. Programmers have heard it. Distributors have heard it. Yup, you could do it, and basically for the $75 you pay today, you'll lower your bill to say $60 and cut your channels by at least 50% if not 70%. But if you like sports, your rates will actually INCREASE and you will still get most of your channels cut. Basically your per channel cost will go through the roof.
ESPN is on the hook for billions through 2023 to the various leagues. BILLIONS. They are penetrated at 88% through all tv services right now. About $5 to $6 of your monthly bill goes just to ESPN, even though half of that 88% doesn't give a damn about ESPN, sports, or anything associated with it. NOT. A. DAMN. Go a la carte, that $5 to $6 just became $12 to $15....at $12 to $15, many more check out and it now becomes $18 to $25. ESPN still has to get their revenue, they need to pay the NFL, MLB, SEC, ACC, NASCAR, etc, etc. That's just ESPN \ Disney. Now do the same for Viacom. HBO. Liberty. Turner. CBS. Universal. NewsCorp. A&E. Etc, etc, etc.
We'll see what happens, but some very bright minds at McKinsey, Deloitte, Accenture, Cap G., Stanford school of Business, Harvard school of Business, lawmakers, have looked, relooked, relooked again...there are disruptors like Apple, Google, etc that have looked, relooked, relooked again. Maybe someone comes up with a way to do it that doesn't destroy the innovation, creativity, the content, etc. We'll see.
Quote from: Marqevans on December 30, 2012, 02:48:15 PM
If the cable networks were able to block all streaming, it would not mean that those that were illegally downloading would then pay to watch. In all likely hood they just would not watch.
More like somewhere in between. HBO already knows that some people pirating used to pay for it. They know that from their own studies. Now, is it true that some would never watch it at all and no lost revenue? Of course. The answer lies in between.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 30, 2012, 02:51:50 PM
Thievery isn't part of the free enterprise or the entrepreneurial spirit....it's thievery. It will continue to raise rates for honest folks, just like insurance fraud and others like it.
are you talking about the insurance fraud that takes place when over-billing and unnecessary treatment is applied?
Quote from: forgetful on December 30, 2012, 02:59:02 PM
That's exactly my point I would rather pay the $5 per month for quality MU broadcasts and jettison ESPN all together.
But that's the problem...it wouldn't be $5 just for MU broadcasts. You lose all economies of scale. Would you pay $25 a month just for MU broadcasts?
Quote from: avid1010 on December 30, 2012, 02:47:37 PM
how about movies, software, etc.
Those two entities are fighting piracy like crazy right now. Latest device out of India actually has a blocking mechanism in place in a theater where if someone tries to record a movie with a handheld camera in a theatre and then put it on torrent, the recording is just a grey screen. It somehow renders the recording null. I'm sure the other side will figure a way around it, but that's the latest development the studios are going through.
On the video game side, I have two guys where one was former Sony and the other Microsoft and worked on the Xbox platform. Some very interesting things that they are doing with the PS4 and next gen XBox. Things like marrying the games to that specific box permanently. Meaning the used game market goes bye bye and puts a severe crimp on piracy. (You can imagine there are many in the gaming community that are not happy about this). It will use a conditional access system much like satellite tv does where the codes change all the time at the box level with an algorithm that is unbreakable in theory because it changes every few hours. If you break it, your window is open for such a short time you have to re-break it again with a totally different key. We'll see if they launch with this system or not, much controversy about it, but it can be done and has been developed.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 30, 2012, 03:10:45 PM
Those two entities are fighting piracy like crazy right now.
some embrace it...
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 30, 2012, 03:03:50 PM
More like somewhere in between. HBO already knows that some people pirating used to pay for it. They know that from their own studies. Now, is it true that some would never watch it at all and no lost revenue? Of course. The answer lies in between.
The question is how many dropped HBO because they no longer could afford it, versus they dropped it because they found it for free online.
People form their own opinions of what is a good law and what is not. Prohibition was largely ignored and was ultimately repealed. The prohibition against importing drugs from outside the US is a sham that no longer is recognized as against the public interest. There is another important distinction with music and software and streaming over the net. The products lack the distinction between the physicality of the item and the lack of the same by obtaining over the internet. People who would never go into Walmart and steal a disc have no compunction from using a torrent to obtain the same equivalent.
You want to stop pirating? Change people's attitudes. Meantime I'm not holding my breath. People are facing big conglomerates who lack sufficient competition. Look at the case of AT&T when their monopoly was broken up. Prices went down and services improved. Until the networks stop charging what many consider outrageous fees, expect the public to push back in ways they consider appropriate retribution.
When I had Directv, it included SNY and MSG and most MU games were televised that weren't available on the big networks. Now I have Xfinity and SNY is included. However, the games are blacked out because they say I need to buy another package at an additional fee. Is that fair? Not in my mind. So I choose to find another source for the games. If the blackout rules aren't fair with me, I choose my options to level the playing field.
We used to get all our sports for free. The only cost was watching commercials. Now we have to buy cable and still watch the same commercials. Meanwhile ball players get paid generation sustaining salaries while we pay through the nose for TV and the products we buy because they had to pay high advertising costs.
Speaking of illegally downloading Game of Thrones...
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
Quote from: warrior07 on December 30, 2012, 05:31:16 PM
Speaking of illegally downloading Game of Thrones...
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
That's good. It kind of reminds me of the initial response to Napster by the recording industry. It wasn't until iTunes made it relatively cheap and easy that the mainstream stopped resorting to piracy.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 30, 2012, 05:36:12 PM
That's good. It kind of reminds me of the initial response to Napster by the recording industry. It wasn't until iTunes made it relatively cheap and easy that the mainstream stopped resorting to piracy.
Liiiiiiiiight-bulb.
My only problem with the Oatmeal's logic is that you don't have an inherent right to any of that content both exactly when and how you want it. You can think it's dumb or pricing gouging or antiquated...but the sense of entitlement gets to me.
Quote from: DaCoach on December 30, 2012, 04:56:40 PMI have Xfinity and SNY is included. However, the games are blacked out because they say I need to buy another package at an additional fee. Is that fair?
Are you forced to purchase this cable package? Couldn't you go back to directv?
Quote from: DaCoach on December 30, 2012, 04:56:40 PMI choose to find another source for the games. If the blackout rules aren't fair with me, I choose my options to level the playing field.
I'm just curious how far this attitude goes. Are there other products you think are inappropriately priced that you choose to "level the playing field" with?
Quote from: Utile et Dulce on December 30, 2012, 09:21:16 PM
Are you forced to purchase this cable package? Couldn't you go back to directv?
I'm just curious how far this attitude goes. Are there other products you think are inappropriately priced that you choose to "level the playing field" with?
i don't think it's a product issue, it's a legal issue, and in this case people are breaking the law to save $$$. we all break laws on a daily basis, and we all have to decide if we can then look ourselves in the mirror, and decide if the risk is worth the reward.
the entitlement argument is interesting...i never thought of it through that lens, but i don't believe there is a cable or dish provider that wouldn't gladly screw me over if it were in their best interest. people post ESPN insider articles on here all the time..i don't see it as a sense of entitlement, and i surely don't feel bad for ESPN.
Quote from: Utile et Dulce on December 30, 2012, 09:21:16 PM
Are you forced to purchase this cable package? Couldn't you go back to directv?
I am not forced. However, one of the reasons I chose Xfinity was the SNY channel. They neglected to mention any blackout rules and there is a 1 year agreement involved.
I'm just curious how far this attitude goes. Are there other products you think are inappropriately priced that you choose to "level the playing field" with?
Let me ask if you ever leave work early or fudge on an expense account or taxes. How about speeding or crossing against the light? Listen, we all make ethical decisions that are questionable. If I chose to use a streaming source to watch games that I'd never pay for, how much money has the network lost? Now you can suggest my moral code doesn't meet your standards, but I can live with it.
When the Market availability and pricing models do not stay up to the consumer standards piracy happens.
I have have a "low social morality" when it comes to the media movie industry and believe that these powers (MPAA, RIAA, Ect) need to be challenged in order to change. Why should I not be able to watch any game regardless of blackouts if I pay for a service to watch games or other entertainment.
Things like Spotify have given consumers a model that benefits all and why I have not pirated music content since my first experience with it in Europe years ago. I have and will continue to pirate media until the industry can rise to the occasion or sink like blockbuster did. Don't hate the Player, Hate the Game!
Quote from: DaCoach on December 31, 2012, 02:29:05 AM
Let me ask if you ever leave work early or fudge on an expense account or taxes. How about speeding or crossing against the light? Listen, we all make ethical decisions that are questionable. If I chose to use a streaming source to watch games that I'd never pay for, how much money has the network lost? Now you can suggest my moral code doesn't meet your standards, but I can live with it.
Never fudge an expense account in my life. Never cheated on my taxes in my life.
Yes, we all have our own moral codes, no one denies that. There's a reason that honest folks pay more taxes than dishonest folks, because they're honest. There's a reason why honest folks pay higher insurance rates than dishonest ones that commit fraud, because they're honest. There's a reason why honest folks pay more for cable or television or music, because they're they're honest. Unfortunately, dishonesty drives up the prices for everyone else. You can live with it, that's fine. Unfortunate for others that are playing it straight.
Quote from: BostonMUaler on December 31, 2012, 09:47:13 AM
When the Market availability and pricing models do not stay up to the consumer standards piracy happens.
I have have a "low social morality" when it comes to the media movie industry and believe that these powers (MPAA, RIAA, Ect) need to be challenged in order to change. Why should I not be able to watch any game regardless of blackouts if I pay for a service to watch games or other entertainment.
Things like Spotify have given consumers a model that benefits all and why I have not pirated music content since my first experience with it in Europe years ago. I have and will continue to pirate media until the industry can rise to the occasion or sink like blockbuster did. Don't hate the Player, Hate the Game!
Justification...word. I don't like paying taxes and think it is absurd how the gov't spends money, I shall henceforth not pay them as a result. Welcome to the slippery slope. Happy New Year
Quote from: Benny B on December 30, 2012, 08:38:36 PM
Liiiiiiiiight-bulb.
(http://designthis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/designthis-apples.jpg)
Why is it apples and oranges? I think the point is that to provide an easy to use, relatively cheap model is probably going to maximize revenue because it keeps people away from privacy. It may not cover costs completely, but it may provide something that they aren't getting now.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 30, 2012, 03:10:45 PM
Those two entities are fighting piracy like crazy right now.
The Nazis fought hard too...
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 31, 2012, 11:01:53 AM
(http://designthis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/designthis-apples.jpg)
If you don't like the way the conversation is going, just say "apples vs oranges".
Music is entertainment, and the music companies are in the entertainment distribution business.
Television shows and movies are entertainment, and the production companies and networks are in the entertainment distribution business.
The idea that they are completely beyond comparison is shortsighted, and quite frankly, arrogant.
Sony had the Walkman and their own record label LONG before Apple ever thought of iTunes and the iPod. If Sony was more progressive and a little smarter, they would have been way out front of the digital music revolution.
They weren't. Somebody probably said something like: "We are in the music business, not the computer business. It's apples and oranges."
Idiots.
Chico's, I know you have a ton of insider knowledge on this topic, but I think you might be too close to it to see the bigger picture and the inevitable evolution of how content is distributed.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 31, 2012, 10:55:02 AM
Never fudge an expense account in my life. Never cheated on my taxes in my life.
And you never lie...
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on December 31, 2012, 11:15:47 AM
Chico's, I know you have a ton of insider knowledge on this topic, but I think you might be too close to it to see the bigger picture and the inevitable evolution of how content is distributed.
Guy claims to negotiate content deals then has hardware developers on his team too...Must be the Uber Jefe of DirecTV or...???
Stop with the personal attacks stuff. It never makes thread better.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on December 31, 2012, 11:26:24 AM
Stop with the personal attacks stuff. It never makes thread better.
Just pointing out the fact that someone here is claiming to do everything within one company to undermine the opinions of others ("I am an expert, here is the basis of that expertise, you are uninformed and therefore wrong...") for the sake of winning an argument. Funnily enough, I cannot understand why people need to "win" here. It is silly. It is easy to be an expert on a site like this. To get angry with others because they don't agree with your view, opinion, or alleged expertise is stupid and suggests a pretty shallow life.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on December 31, 2012, 11:26:24 AM
Stop with the personal attacks stuff. It never makes thread better.
You know what does make thread better?
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/d040c3abba05c5374f5f43012954a7f2/tumblr_mfc44jzIPq1qarjjvo1_400.gif)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 30, 2012, 02:51:50 PM
The "ridiculous charges" are driven by those programming costs. When ESPN goes out and spends billions for Monday Night Football, who do you think pays for that? ESPN? ::) Dish, Directv, AT&T, Charter, Cox, TimeWarner pay for it. Guess what, who do you think has to pay for them? The customers. That over the air channel you can get for free from CBS with rabbit ears, Dish, Directv, Comcast, etc all have to pay several dollars per subscriber per month for something that is "free" to retransmit those feeds. I've seen some in the last 18 months where stations have demanded over 500% increase in fees.
Thievery isn't part of the free enterprise or the entrepreneurial spirit....it's thievery. It will continue to raise rates for honest folks, just like insurance fraud and others like it.
When the money dries up, it will be fun to watch what people will steal next. In the meantime, it's always interesting to read about the latest thief busted, the fines that these folks have to pay and the jail times they serve. That's the spirit. Da judge recently sent one guy up (a repeat offender) to do 4 years in the pokey and $100K fine. Most of the fines and punishments less severe.
You should talk to many of our most famous entrepreneurs. Sorry, I'm rolling my eyes at the devastatingly poor situation our media conglomerates are in.
People have always stolen, and that has never stopped people from creating.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 31, 2012, 10:56:26 AM
Justification...word. I don't like paying taxes and think it is absurd how the gov't spends money, I shall henceforth not pay them as a result. Welcome to the slippery slope. Happy New Year
(http://designthis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/designthis-apples.jpg)
Benny, you do realize that on average now it costs more to buy music from iTunes than it does a CD at a store, right? About $1 to $2 more than buying the CD.
Buy a Kindle book, it's more than the paperback version.
It's funny how people think the digital versions are cheaper because "there is nothing to manufacture". LOL
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 31, 2012, 05:29:04 PM
Benny, you do realize that on average now it costs more to buy music from iTunes than it does a CD at a store, right? About $1 to $2 more than buying the CD.
Buy a Kindle book, it's more than the paperback version.
It's funny how people think the digital versions are cheaper because "there is nothing to manufacture". LOL
But I don't want to buy the CD (cable/satellite package)... I want to buy a single song (ESPN).
Who cares what the better "value" is, the "more-money-in-my-pocket" option is iTunes.
I'm sure this shortsightedness is prevalent throughout your organization... must be why DTV is on many traders' short lists.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 31, 2012, 05:29:04 PM
It's funny how people think the digital versions are cheaper because "there is nothing to manufacture". LOL
plenty of comparisons to be made to tv
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57412587-93/why-e-books-cost-so-much/
Quote from: avid1010 on December 30, 2012, 09:46:39 PMWe all break laws on a daily basis, and we all have to decide if we can then look ourselves in the mirror, and decide if the risk is worth the reward.
I just need to make the point that, other than my costs being a little higher, I really don't care about the "stealing" aspect. I care that people justify it because "the company won't give me exactly what I want when I want it."
Quote from: avid1010 on December 30, 2012, 09:46:39 PM
the entitlement argument is interesting...i never thought of it through that lens, but i don't believe there is a cable or dish provider that wouldn't gladly screw me over if it were in their best interest. people post ESPN insider articles on here all the time..i don't see it as a sense of entitlement, and i surely don't feel bad for ESPN.
I don't know about screwing you over, but they are all trying to maximize revenue. It's not about feeling bad for a faceless media conglomerate or their writers or the web guy. It's about the idea that content is worthless and justifying its "theft" (or whatever we want to call it) because its not being offered in the EXACT medium we want.
Is there a physical product that's analogous to this? I can't think of one.
Quote from: DaCoach on December 31, 2012, 02:29:05 AMIf I chose to use a streaming source to watch games that I'd never pay for, how much money has the network lost?
So I'm clear, the rule is "anything I don't find valuable is free for the taking"?
Regardless, we're talking about catching Marquette games, which is something you'd pay for. That's a real expense to the network.
Again, steal if you want, it really doesn't affect me...just enough with the making yourself feel better by justifying it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, thought it was technically illegal to stream a sport, but to watch it was technically legal. If not, erp.
Quote from: reinko on December 31, 2012, 08:38:14 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, thought it was technically illegal to stream a sport, but to watch it was technically legal. If not, erp.
I don't know about the legality of it, but the industries have shied away from taking consumers (watchers) to court, focusing on the providers (streamers). A big part of that strategy is probably just "cut off the head"—there are fewer streamers, and stopping them kills the problem.
Another part is pricing. Streamers are liable for more damages, since one stream can go out to thousands of people.
But I'd bet there's another component that's just good business. If they took a watcher to court, they'd have to explicitly put a value on their content. You'd go to court for watching the UConn/Marquette game, and they'd have to say that cost them $.30 in real damages (plus $500k in punitive damages, of course). I don't think anyone—negotiating teams, cable providers—wants those numbers out there.
Very appropriate article today.
http://gizmodo.com/5972517/the-future-of-tv-may-not-be-worth-it
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 02, 2013, 11:32:22 PM
Very appropriate article today.
http://gizmodo.com/5972517/the-future-of-tv-may-not-be-worth-it
There will be legislation soon at some point breaking up these companies. Things will be forced to change with the new generations just not getting cable at all. If it wasn't for the fact that the cable companies are also your only source for internet and the internet alone price is extreme we would have already gotten rid of cable in our house. Just not worth it in the current format.
Quote from: forgetful on January 03, 2013, 12:00:32 AM
There will be legislation soon at some point breaking up these companies. Things will be forced to change with the new generations just not getting cable at all. If it wasn't for the fact that the cable companies are also your only source for internet and the internet alone price is extreme we would have already gotten rid of cable in our house. Just not worth it in the current format.
Uhm, ok. Does that come before or after they ban cigarettes that kill people?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 03, 2013, 12:04:32 AM
Uhm, ok. Does that come before or after they ban cigarettes that kill people?
He has a point about a generational gap. I am in the under 25 but out of college crowd and I don't have a single friend who has cable. All of us subscribe to at least one streaming service and then fill in the gaps with DVDs, going to bars for sports, or finding a stream of somthing online.
Point is - it would seem to me that the writing is sort of on the walll. I don't think cable will collapse in the next few years, but dying a slow death seems sort of inevitable at this point (unless they innovate in the service delivery side).
How long is Google Fiber going to stay in KC only?
There are some good comments in that article—I especially agree with the topic of "discovery"—how does a new show or channel find an audience? I think we'll see some of the answer to that with "House of Cards" on Netflix. How do they spread the word about that show? If it's through TV advertising, that's a problem for the cord-cutting crowd.
I also think we need to look at where we are in the cord cutting lifecycle. Young people are not getting cable because there's tons to watch on Netflix. But Netflix is really just last year's cable. If there's no one around to pay for risks on new shows, Netflix's inventory dries up pretty quick.
* * *
I agree that the media companies will at some point be market-forced to change, but that won't necessarily mean for the better. I think à la carte will mean less programming (which might be an ok outcome), but also less risk-taking on expensive, niche shows like Game of Thrones.
Chicos -- Do you think you'll ever get to a world where DirecTV breaks apart their packages into provider chunks ... like the "Comcast package "or the "AMC Networks package" like HBO or Showtime are sold today?
Quote from: akmarq on January 03, 2013, 08:37:15 AMAll of us subscribe to at least one streaming service and then fill in the gaps with DVDs...
But you're really just watching time-delayed cable, right? Cable-subscribers are footing the bill for the companies to take risks on programming, and you get to choose the cream of the crop. Which is awesome for now (I'm in the same boat).
If cable-subscribers die off, where does our streaming content come from? Am I going to be forced to subscribe to 10 different streaming sites at $8+ a pop to watch a few shows a year?
It'll be interesting ... I just don't think it's nearly as simple as most cord-cutters (or cord-nevers) make it seem.
Quote from: akmarq on January 03, 2013, 08:37:15 AM
He has a point about a generational gap. I am in the under 25 but out of college crowd and I don't have a single friend who has cable. All of us subscribe to at least one streaming service and then fill in the gaps with DVDs, going to bars for sports, or finding a stream of somthing online.
Point is - it would seem to me that the writing is sort of on the walll. I don't think cable will collapse in the next few years, but dying a slow death seems sort of inevitable at this point (unless they innovate in the service delivery side).
How long is Google Fiber going to stay in KC only?
You guys continue to miss the point...it isn't technology, it is the RIGHTS to the programming and the cost to produce it. You guys keep focusing on delivery mechanisms and not on content creation, rights fees, licensing fees, etc. The providers (Comcast, Dish, Directv,etc) are forced by contract to bundle these services. The folks that demand this are Disney, HBO, Viacom, CBS, NewsCorp, etc, etc. ESPN, as an example, has absolutely no interest in allowing their channel to be purchased by 25% of the country when they can get 90%..especially when they have purchased sports rights based on the guarantee of 90% of the eyeballs. Congress knows this as well.
Google has said they are not going beyond KC. Costs way too much. Just as Fios, ATT have stopped expansion. Costs way too much.
On the generational gap...yes, we see it but we've always seen it. Eventually people get into their later 20's, early 30's and make some money and end up getting pay television. At the end of the day, the average American pays $2.34 a day for, on average, about 164 channels of 24 hour news, sports, entertainment, etc. You should see what the average American pays per day for mobile phone use, their coffee habit, etc.
Quote from: Utile et Dulce on January 03, 2013, 08:54:26 AM
But you're really just watching time-delayed cable, right? Cable-subscribers are footing the bill for the companies to take risks on programming, and you get to choose the cream of the crop. Which is awesome for now (I'm in the same boat).
It'll be interesting ... I just don't think it's nearly as simple as most cord-cutters (or cord-nevers) make it seem.
Exactly correct. Cord cutters view through a lens of SUCCESSFUL post launch of a show, not the prelaunch, the piloting, etc. Companies will be less inclined to develop niche programming, will do cookie cutter programmer moving forward because they will not be able to take the chance that they don't get enough of an audience. It takes a long time as it is to build up an audience and make a show profitable....many of the best shows, critically acclaimed ones don't even do well in the ratings.
It will be interesting. Hollywood is very much in bed with politicians, especially the current group. There's a reason why Google, Apple, etc have failed to break the code with content creators. Intel is trying now...it's never been about the technology, that can be worked out, it's about the content and the cost.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 03, 2013, 08:58:32 AM
You guys continue to miss the point...it isn't technology, it is the RIGHTS to the programming and the cost to produce it. You guys keep focusing on delivery mechanisms and not on content creation, rights fees, licensing fees, etc. The providers (Comcast, Dish, Directv,etc) are forced by contract to bundle these services. The folks that demand this are Disney, HBO, Viacom, CBS, NewsCorp, etc, etc. ESPN, as an example, has absolutely no interest in allowing their channel to be purchased by 25% of the country when they can get 90%..especially when they have purchased sports rights based on the guarantee of 90% of the eyeballs. Congress knows this as well.
Google has said they are not going beyond KC. Costs way too much. Just as Fios, ATT have stopped expansion. Costs way too much.
On the generational gap...yes, we see it but we've always seen it. Eventually people get into their later 20's, early 30's and make some money and end up getting pay television. At the end of the day, the average American pays $2.34 a day for, on average, about 164 channels of 24 hour news, sports, entertainment, etc. You should see what the average American pays per day for mobile phone use, their coffee habit, etc.
You bring up some valid points here. In reality, cable is pretty cheap for the amount of entertainment we get. Hours and hours and hours of entertainment for not a lot of money.
However, we've seen people under 30 abandon land line telephones in mass, and people under 20 might be doing the same with traditional cable.
Chicos, you are correct that it's about licensing and rights, but the distribution model is a big part of that. If Disney can develop a children's show and sell it for $5 for 10 episodes on itunes, do you think that would be worth it? Maybe not for Disney... but you can bet somebody will figure out how to do it.
How long before several shows/mini-series are developed exclusively for a streaming service? Certainly the distribution isn't as wide, but a streaming company might offer a more targeted approach to it's advertisers based upon the consumers previous viewing habits. That can't be tracked on traditional cable/dish without a Nielson box, right?
Right now you have standard television advertising which is essentially like billboards and unsolicited direct mail. The eyeball numbers are great, but it's not particularly targeted or effective. We know roughly who watches what/when, but you could be marketing Miller Lite to a guy whose into homebrewing. Wasted dollars.
If a different distribution model offers less eyeballs, but I can tell you EXACTLY who is watching, then advertisers are going to be interested. This doesn't have value for Pepsi, but it has great value for a more targeted product, like homebrewing equipment.
I'm not talking about 5 years in the future, I'm talking about 15-20 years. The distribution model is changing, and smart marketers will figure out new ways to reach their target.
Quote from: akmarq on January 03, 2013, 08:37:15 AM
He has a point about a generational gap. I am in the under 25 but out of college crowd and I don't have a single friend who has cable. All of us subscribe to at least one streaming service and then fill in the gaps with DVDs, going to bars for sports, or finding a stream of somthing online.
I'm in the same place. 28. I haven't had cable since I was living with my parents. For me, the value is just too little compared to the cost. I work FT, have a commute, hobbies and a social life. Not worth spending $100++ per month for an entertainment option that doesn't give me much entertainment. Especially not when my internet and phone bills already combine for over $100.
Obviously, I'm in the minority nationwide. Is it the trend for more younger people never to sign up? Maybe. If that continues, and people become sick enough of watching television programs with 50% commercials, etc., the market is going to demand reform or simply give up on responding to consumer demand that is right now left on the table.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 03, 2013, 08:58:32 AM
You guys continue to miss the point...it isn't technology, it is the RIGHTS to the programming and the cost to produce it. You guys keep focusing on delivery mechanisms and not on content creation, rights fees, licensing fees, etc. The providers (Comcast, Dish, Directv,etc) are forced by contract to bundle these services. The folks that demand this are Disney, HBO, Viacom, CBS, NewsCorp, etc, etc. ESPN, as an example, has absolutely no interest in allowing their channel to be purchased by 25% of the country when they can get 90%..especially when they have purchased sports rights based on the guarantee of 90% of the eyeballs. Congress knows this as well.
Google has said they are not going beyond KC. Costs way too much. Just as Fios, ATT have stopped expansion. Costs way too much.
On the generational gap...yes, we see it but we've always seen it. Eventually people get into their later 20's, early 30's and make some money and end up getting pay television. At the end of the day, the average American pays $2.34 a day for, on average, about 164 channels of 24 hour news, sports, entertainment, etc. You should see what the average American pays per day for mobile phone use, their coffee habit, etc.
I see your point about rights, but when the demand drys up, it's sort of irrelavent. My generation stops buying cable so there is less money to produce shows. I get that. But then you seem to be saying that cable will just pull content until we come storming back? What market has worked that way historically? (Avoiding nerdy talk of market asymmetry right now). What seems more likely is that people turn from cable so there is less money for content. That pushes cable companies to find new ways to court customers via new packages or delivery.
Maybe I was unclear about cable companies 'dying.' I don' think they will. I do think that market forces will force them to change their model and evolve. The ones who see this will be in the best position to thrive. Like your article said, it's not the same as music, but it's not completely different either (notice that movies and video games are also going this route).
QuoteGoogle has said they are not going beyond KC. Costs way too much. Just as Fios, ATT have stopped expansion. Costs way too much.
Eric Schmidt also seems to disagre with you as of 12.12.12
http://www.wired.com/business/2012/12/google-fiber-not-just-kansas-city/