HBO considering offering HBO GO w/o cable

[Spotcheck Billy]

5 industries that millennials are destroying

There’s a lot to be said for watching demographic shifts as you craft your long-term investing strategy.

And while Baby Boomer stocks like health care and insurance get a lot of attention, long-term investors should also consider the impact Millennials will have on businesses — and their portfolios.

There are about 80 million Americans who were born between 1980 and 1995. And while much has been made about the challenges for Millennials to get good jobs or contribute to the economy, that is sure to change. As the Boomer population starts its inevitable decline, the power of this age group will grow substantially in the years ahead.

Some of that will be good, as the tech talents of younger Americans are put to work in the economy and as they grow into a powerful consumer class.
But for some stocks, the rise of Millennials is assuredly bad news. Which picks? Well, here are five specific businesses that Millennials are shunning, which could cause a lot of pain for investors over the long-term if current trends continue.

2. Cable TV
It’s unclear where streaming video is headed in the next several years. But it’s clear that the future is likely with Netflix (NFLX) or Google (GOOG) property YouTube and not an old-guard cable company.

Consider that for the first time ever, the number of pay-TV lines in the U.S. fell last year — with a drop of about 250,000 subscriptions over the calendar year. That’s a big number, and a number that seems to be growing at an alarming rate.

Alarming, at least, if you’re a company like Comcast (CMCSA) or Time Warner Cable (TWC).

Part of the problem is “cord cutting” as folks with cable TV find options on Netflix or other streaming providers at a fair price. But increasingly, traditional cable-TV businesses are going to face the big pressure of Millennials and so-called “cord nevers” who haven’t ever had an affinity to cable and see no reason to start anytime soon when so much of their entertainment is consumed via laptop, tablet or smartphone.

Clearly the industry is circling the wagons, with Comcast bidding for Time Warner Cable (TWC). Similarly, AT&T (XNYS:T) is looking to snap up DirecTV (DTV) — not just to bolster its U-Verse pay-TV business but also to help the company transition into a new content delivery company in the Internet age.

There are big pressures ahead for those that can’t evolve with the times. So while investors may like the dividends of some previously reliable telecoms, it’s important not to forget the long-term headwinds for anything related to cable TV.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-industries-millennials-destroying-132117647.html

[reinko]

Ain't about the pipes.  The ruling still gets down to content.  Problem was, Aereo offered a "cheap" solution by essentially stealing (not paying the content providers) for their copyrighted content.  That's what this and the future is all about.  Cloud DVR, how it is delivered, etc, that will change...technology isn't the issue.  Disney, NewsCorp, CBS, etc want to be paid.  The reason they don't go after all the distributors is because all the distributors are paying for those rights.  All Aereo had to do was compensate the content creators, of course to do that means they couldn't offer a product like this because it costs money, lots of money, for content.

As mentioned here months ago, I was pretty certain this was going to be how SCOTUS ruled today.  Surprised to see Scalia, Thomas and Alito in the dissent, but even reading their dissent they were not crazy about the copyright infringement going on.

If people want cheaper television or video, my mantra continues.  You need to crack the code with those that make the content and sell it at such a high cost.  The source product is very expensive, very very expensive.  Solve that issue, and video becomes cheaper.  Delivery mechanism isn't the issue, it is content cost.

This is more of a general question, asked it earlier in the thread...but the AMOUNT of TV has surely increased the past 15 years, more channels, more content...but hasn't the most dramatic increase of TV content been reality-based programming (which has to be sooooo much cheaper to produce), my best guess, of original programming on TV, take any random day on my fantastic DirecTV setup, 30-40% reality-based?  So while all of this ne TV is cheaper to produce, that money has to be going somewhere, I am just curious where.

You have talked about this in the past, yes, some truly expensive TV exists (GoT, live sports, big dramas, big comedies with high salaries)...but all in all, don't tell me Real World/Rules Challenge or Chopped is what drives my bill going up about 5-7% a year.

[jesmu84]

Ain't about the pipes.  The ruling still gets down to content.  Problem was, Aereo offered a "cheap" solution by essentially stealing (not paying the content providers) for their copyrighted content.  That's what this and the future is all about.  Cloud DVR, how it is delivered, etc, that will change...technology isn't the issue.  Disney, NewsCorp, CBS, etc want to be paid.  The reason they don't go after all the distributors is because all the distributors are paying for those rights.  All Aereo had to do was compensate the content creators, of course to do that means they couldn't offer a product like this because it costs money, lots of money, for content.

As mentioned here months ago, I was pretty certain this was going to be how SCOTUS ruled today.  Surprised to see Scalia, Thomas and Alito in the dissent, but even reading their dissent they were not crazy about the copyright infringement going on.

If people want cheaper television or video, my mantra continues.  You need to crack the code with those that make the content and sell it at such a high cost.  The source product is very expensive, very very expensive.  Solve that issue, and video becomes cheaper.  Delivery mechanism isn't the issue, it is content cost.

No disagreement here at all. Just all seems very, very weak though. Like a house of cards. A bubble. Similar to sports, how much more money can really be out there?

[ChicosBailBonds]

5 industries that millennials are destroying

There’s a lot to be said for watching demographic shifts as you craft your long-term investing strategy.

And while Baby Boomer stocks like health care and insurance get a lot of attention, long-term investors should also consider the impact Millennials will have on businesses — and their portfolios.

There are about 80 million Americans who were born between 1980 and 1995. And while much has been made about the challenges for Millennials to get good jobs or contribute to the economy, that is sure to change. As the Boomer population starts its inevitable decline, the power of this age group will grow substantially in the years ahead.

Some of that will be good, as the tech talents of younger Americans are put to work in the economy and as they grow into a powerful consumer class.
But for some stocks, the rise of Millennials is assuredly bad news. Which picks? Well, here are five specific businesses that Millennials are shunning, which could cause a lot of pain for investors over the long-term if current trends continue.

2. Cable TV
It’s unclear where streaming video is headed in the next several years. But it’s clear that the future is likely with Netflix (NFLX) or Google (GOOG) property YouTube and not an old-guard cable company.

Consider that for the first time ever, the number of pay-TV lines in the U.S. fell last year — with a drop of about 250,000 subscriptions over the calendar year. That’s a big number, and a number that seems to be growing at an alarming rate.

Alarming, at least, if you’re a company like Comcast (CMCSA) or Time Warner Cable (TWC).

Part of the problem is “cord cutting” as folks with cable TV find options on Netflix or other streaming providers at a fair price. But increasingly, traditional cable-TV businesses are going to face the big pressure of Millennials and so-called “cord nevers” who haven’t ever had an affinity to cable and see no reason to start anytime soon when so much of their entertainment is consumed via laptop, tablet or smartphone.

Clearly the industry is circling the wagons, with Comcast bidding for Time Warner Cable (TWC). Similarly, AT&T (XNYS:T) is looking to snap up DirecTV (DTV) — not just to bolster its U-Verse pay-TV business but also to help the company transition into a new content delivery company in the Internet age.

There are big pressures ahead for those that can’t evolve with the times. So while investors may like the dividends of some previously reliable telecoms, it’s important not to forget the long-term headwinds for anything related to cable TV.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-industries-millennials-destroying-132117647.html

Number of pay tv subscribers actually up in Q1.   For them to say 250,000 is a big number or alarming rate is kind of funny.  It's a small number, and as stated, the number actually increased in Q1.  Will that happen forever, of course not.  But the number of death articles over the years has been quite humorous.

And yes, delivery will change, that's never been the issue.  But it ain't coming free like millenials want.  Sorry to burst their bubble.  They will pay for it one way or another....whether its via pay tv, pay mobile, pay cloud, whatever the pipe delivery mechanism is, it will be paid for.

[brandx]

And yes, delivery will change, that's never been the issue.  But it ain't coming free like millenials want.  Sorry to burst their bubble.  They will pay for it one way or another....whether its via pay tv, pay mobile, pay cloud, whatever the pipe delivery mechanism is, it will be paid for.

Making up an argument to argue against yourself again.

I have never heard any "millenials" say they want cable content for free. Hard to take anything you say seriously when you make such silly statements.

[Benny B]

Number of pay tv subscribers actually up in Q1.   For them to say 250,000 is a big number or alarming rate is kind of funny.  It's a small number, and as stated, the number actually increased in Q1.  Will that happen forever, of course not.  But the number of death articles over the years has been quite humorous.

And yes, delivery will change, that's never been the issue.  But it ain't coming free like millenials want.  Sorry to burst their bubble.  They will pay for it one way or another....whether its via pay tv, pay mobile, pay cloud, whatever the pipe delivery mechanism is, it will be paid for.

Most millennials don't have a problem paying 1.09 for a song on iTunes.  But if they're forced to buy the entire album, they will seek an alternative path.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This is more of a general question, asked it earlier in the thread...but the AMOUNT of TV has surely increased the past 15 years, more channels, more content...but hasn't the most dramatic increase of TV content been reality-based programming (which has to be sooooo much cheaper to produce), my best guess, of original programming on TV, take any random day on my fantastic DirecTV setup, 30-40% reality-based?  So while all of this ne TV is cheaper to produce, that money has to be going somewhere, I am just curious where.

You have talked about this in the past, yes, some truly expensive TV exists (GoT, live sports, big dramas, big comedies with high salaries)...but all in all, don't tell me Real World/Rules Challenge or Chopped is what drives my bill going up about 5-7% a year.

I don't know the percentage, but of course everyone is looking to cut costs and reality programming was one way to do it.  People don't want to admit it, but they also watch the stuff in droves.  But the cost of reality programming has also gone up a lot, because everyone is trying to out perform the next guy. 

I know our programming costs go up 8% to 10% per year, mostly because there are escalators built into contracts.  Added features like apps, new technology costs money like HD, 4K, 3D, new encoding, streaming capabilities, etc.  Customers want all this stuff, it costs money.  All new contracts, those are wonderful and they come usually with huge resets.  What is passed on to consumers has been 4% to 6% on average, so margins actually shrinking in some cases. Some cable providers have hit customers with an 8% to 10% increase each year to fully cover their costs, we haven't.  Your local channels....I have seen increases at 500% percent asked for in one year by channels.  I remember years ago having to pay $0.05 for a broadcast network are now over $1.00 per, that's a 2000% increase in a decade.  Those costs are passed on.  Lots of actors, directors, producers, writers, camera guys, sound guys, editing guys, unions, ad sales market tanking, etc, that those guys are charging for. 

Sports rights are the most expensive, but nothing is cheap when it comes to video in comparison to other forms of entertainment. 

[reinko]

I don't know the percentage, but of course everyone is looking to cut costs and reality programming was one way to do it.  People don't want to admit it, but they also watch the stuff in droves.  But the cost of reality programming has also gone up a lot, because everyone is trying to out perform the next guy. 

I know our programming costs go up 8% to 10% per year, mostly because there are escalators built into contracts.  Added features like apps, new technology costs money like HD, 4K, 3D, new encoding, streaming capabilities, etc.  Customers want all this stuff, it costs money.  All new contracts, those are wonderful and they come usually with huge resets.  What is passed on to consumers has been 4% to 6% on average, so margins actually shrinking in some cases. Some cable providers have hit customers with an 8% to 10% increase each year to fully cover their costs, we haven't.  Your local channels....I have seen increases at 500% percent asked for in one year by channels.  I remember years ago having to pay $0.05 for a broadcast network are now over $1.00 per, that's a 2000% increase in a decade.  Those costs are passed on.  Lots of actors, directors, producers, writers, camera guys, sound guys, editing guys, unions, ad sales market tanking, etc, that those guys are charging for. 

Sports rights are the most expensive, but nothing is cheap when it comes to video in comparison to other forms of entertainment. 

Thanks for the insight, very appreciated.  Hope to re-sign with DTV when my contract is up in a month, but have to weigh some other options before reupping.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Making up an argument to argue against yourself again.

I have never heard any "millenials" say they want cable content for free. Hard to take anything you say seriously when you make such silly statements.

I have studies after studies that suggest otherwise.  I'm not making up anything Brandx.  Stop on by, can show you about 500 pages of data if you wish.  It's not a silly statement at all.  It is the number one justification millenials and young millenials give for stealing stuff on Bit Torrent and sharing passwords on Netflix, HBO Go, etc.  I have two separate surveys done on that, both by independent groups.

Literally hundreds of pages of research and feelings about what should be charged and what shouldn't.  Now, do all millenials think this way?  Of course not.  Do a scary number?  Yes.  Do a scary number think it is wrong to go steal a car, but perfectly fine to steal something else because they think it is a victimless crime?  Yup. 

Here's a random few from the latest. I love the argument the airwaves are free, especially when this guy thinks the "airwaves" apply to a non broadcaster like HBO.  Wow, I weep for the future sometimes.


Q: "Do you feel watching Game of Thrones on Bit Torrent is stealing?"

A:  No

Q:  Why or why not?

A:  Because it should be free.  The airwaves are free for the people


Different millenial

Q:  Do you pay for Netflix service?

A:  No

Q:  Do you use Netflix service?

A:  Yes

Q:  If you are not paying for it, how are you using it?

A:  My friends and I share the account and only one pays for it

Q:  Do you feel that is stealing?  Why or Why Not?

A:  No.  They make enough money already and we are paying for it.  It's not my fault they don't limit who can use it

Q:  Do you help to pay for the service with your friends?

A:  No.


Interesting times.

[Spotcheck Billy]

A bit mis-leading ain't it? You make up that 'margin' on the fees charged for extra boxes, High Definition fees or as you now call them 'Advanced equipment'

I know our programming costs go up 8% to 10% per year, mostly because there are escalators built into contracts.  Added features like apps, new technology costs money like HD, 4K, 3D, new encoding, streaming capabilities, etc.  Customers want all this stuff, it costs money.  All new contracts, those are wonderful and they come usually with huge resets.  What is passed on to consumers has been 4% to 6% on average, so margins actually shrinking in some cases.   Lots of actors, directors, producers, writers, camera guys, sound guys, editing guys, unions, ad sales market tanking, etc, that those guys are charging for. 
 

or as Reinko put it, how much does it really cost and how many actually watch shows like "Searching for Sasquatch"?

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

I'm not sure I buy that they say they should get it for free. That's a bit like saying I should be able to get away with crime.

I think the problem is that they don't see it as a crime in the first place. In fact, most have probably gone their entire lives without any moral education whatsoever.

Edit: In other words, there's no difference between paying for something if a legal purchase is a requirement of consumption and downloading it for free if there is no other obstacle to consumption.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Making up an argument to argue against yourself again.

I have never heard any "millenials" say they want cable content for free. Hard to take anything you say seriously when you make such silly statements.

As usual.

Most millennials don't have a problem paying 1.09 for a song on iTunes.  But if they're forced to buy the entire album, they will seek an alternative path.

Yep. A la carte means "pay for what I want," not "give it to me for free."

[Spotcheck Billy]

I have studies after studies that suggest otherwise.  I'm not making up anything Brandx.  Stop on by, can show you about 500 pages of data if you wish.  It's not a silly statement at all.  It is the number one justification millenials and young millenials give for stealing stuff on Bit Torrent and sharing passwords on Netflix, HBO Go, etc.  I have two separate surveys done on that, both by independent groups.

Literally hundreds of pages of research and feelings about what should be charged and what shouldn't.  Now, do all millenials think this way?  Of course not.  Do a scary number?  Yes.  Do a scary number think it is wrong to go steal a car, but perfectly fine to steal something else because they think it is a victimless crime?  Yup. 

Here's a random few from the latest. I love the argument the airwaves are free, especially when this guy thinks the "airwaves" apply to a non broadcaster like HBO.  Wow, I weep for the future sometimes.


Q: "Do you feel watching Game of Thrones on Bit Torrent is stealing?"

A:  No

Q:  Why or why not?

A:  Because it should be free.  The airwaves are free for the people


Different millenial

Q:  Do you pay for Netflix service?

A:  No

Q:  Do you use Netflix service?

A:  Yes

Q:  If you are not paying for it, how are you using it?

A:  My friends and I share the account and only one pays for it

Q:  Do you feel that is stealing?  Why or Why Not?

A:  No.  They make enough money already and we are paying for it.  It's not my fault they don't limit who can use it

Q:  Do you help to pay for the service with your friends?

A:  No.


Interesting times.

reads like a Jay Walking bit on the Tonight Show, i.e. cleverly edited to make a point

[Benny B]

Q: "Do you feel watching Game of Thrones on Bit Torrent is stealing?"

A:  No

Q:  Why or why not?

A:  Because it should be free.  The airwaves are free for the people

Congratulations, you found the one nut job in your 500 pages of data.  That is random 

Different millenial

Q:  Do you pay for Netflix service?

A:  No

Q:  Do you use Netflix service?

A:  Yes

Q:  If you are not paying for it, how are you using it?

A:  My friends and I share the account and only one pays for it

Q:  Do you feel that is stealing?  Why or Why Not?

A:  No.  They make enough money already and we are paying for it.  It's not my fault they don't limit who can use it

Q:  Do you help to pay for the service with your friends?

A:  No.

Not sure why you cite this... Netflix and HBO have already acknowledge - and embraced - this phenomenon.

[ChicosBailBonds]

A bit mis-leading ain't it? You make up that 'margin' on the fees charged for extra boxes, High Definition fees or as you now call them 'Advanced equipment'

or as Reinko put it, how much does it really cost and how many actually watch shows like "Searching for Sasquatch"?

You can make it up elsewhere, but I don't think it is misleading.  You either introduce new services to sell, like home security and such.  You try to claw back cost increases by raising prices that directly impact those costs, which right now that can't be done at the rate programming costs are going up, or yes you can try to increase costs elsewhere.  The other challenge is with a large cohort of customers and a wide range of services, you actually make no money on some, some money on others, etc.  It's all over the board, so price increases are difficult to pass through because everyone gets the programming, not everyone has a DVR, or HD, or MRV, etc.

Nothing is incorrect about the statement that programming costs go up 8% to 10% a year, and those are found on the record.  Nor are the 4% to 6% price increases, also on the record for the FCC, SEC, consumer groups, etc to see.  Content costs this year alone, over $10 billion.  Single largest cost.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm not sure I buy that they say they should get it for free. That's a bit like saying I should be able to get away with crime.

I think the problem is that they don't see it as a crime in the first place. In fact, most have probably gone their entire lives without any moral education whatsoever.

Edit: In other words, there's no difference between paying for something if a legal purchase is a requirement of consumption and downloading it for free if there is no other obstacle to consumption.

I agree, but that's one of the problems.  If you read some of their answers, they are absolutely saying they should get away with a crime.  Why?  Because they don't view it as a crime as you mentioned.  Some of these folks don't pause one second to think watching something on Bit Torrent is a crime, not one nanosecond, but that doesn't make it so.

[Spotcheck Billy]

nm

[brandx]

Yep. A la carte means "pay for what I want," not "give it to me for free."

+1000

This is the argument many of us have made here - over and over again.

We are completely willing to pay for content that we want. We have a problem being forced to pay for content we do not want.

[Silkk the Shaka]

+1000

This is the argument many of us have made here - over and over again.

We are completely willing to pay for content that we want. We have a problem being forced to pay for content we do not want.

I have an antenna, Netflix, Hulu Plus, and Amazon Prime (all paid). Give me HBO GO for the same price as those, as well as FS1 streaming for games (or even PPV for MU games) and I'm all set. Right now HBO and FS1 get zero dollars from me. They could be getting ~$100/year each. Their loss.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Congratulations, you found the one nut job in your 500 pages of data.  That is random 

Not sure why you cite this... Netflix and HBO have already acknowledge - and embraced - this phenomenon.

Actually, not one nutjob.  There are countless answers like this by many folks that if the demo, that was the point. The examples I gave were of two different people.  I can open these binders up and come up with 100's of other examples.


HBO's CEO has said it isn't a big deal, the day to day people I have to deal with that are actually responsible for numbers don't agree with their CEO.  That is also why they are changing their college marketing and college operation where HBO is offered.  A major test going on this Fall as a result.  Should be interesting to say the least.

[ChicosBailBonds]

+1000

This is the argument many of us have made here - over and over again.

We are completely willing to pay for content that we want. We have a problem being forced to pay for content we do not want.

Understood.  Talk to Disney, Newscorp, CBS, etc.  That's where the issue resides.   I'm curious, do you hate it when you buy Marquette tickets that some of the money is going to the men's soccer team or women's tennis team?  Perhaps you don't, as a MU alum.  For a person in Milwaukee that isn't an alum, only wants the help the basketball program should he\she be upset that some of the money is supporting something he doesn't want?

I hate that my taxes are being spent on things I don't want to support.  I want an OS on my computer that does only X, Y and Z, not A, B and C.  I get your argument and I support it, but this happens in the world all the time with products and services across the spectrum.  Petition those that force it, those that create it.  Their answer will be simple.  You only want ESPN, ok...$20 a month for ESPN only.  

[chapman]

I have an antenna, Netflix, Hulu Plus, and Amazon Prime (all paid). Give me HBO GO for the same price as those, as well as FS1 streaming for games (or even PPV for MU games) and I'm all set. Right now HBO and FS1 get zero dollars from me. They could be getting ~$100/year each. Their loss.

Also close to that boat.  A way for FS1 to get to me and I would never watch regular television.  I'm paying to have something I use for maybe an hour per month seven months out of the year, probably would be year round if FS1 didn't have crummy distribution.  Had a family member rant about the same thing to me when she called to cancel cable and they completely missed the point (cost) in trying to dissuade her - offered to add more channels and some feature on her home phone...she said she didn't want to hear about getting 200 more channels; if she had 10,000 channels she would still only watch the same two and there is no need to add features to an obsolete home phone.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Also close to that boat.  A way for FS1 to get to me and I would never watch regular television.  I'm paying to have something I use for maybe an hour per month seven months out of the year, probably would be year round if FS1 didn't have crummy distribution.  Had a family member rant about the same thing to me when she called to cancel cable and they completely missed the point (cost) in trying to dissuade her - offered to add more channels and some feature on her home phone...she said she didn't want to hear about getting 200 more channels; if she had 10,000 channels she would still only watch the same two and there is no need to add features to an obsolete home phone.

Thanks for quoting Jujuman otherwise I never would have seen it.  Sure, FS1 is getting zero dollars from Jujuman.  Problem is, if they sold it direct like he wants, they would pick up his dollars and lose 50% to 70% of all the other dollars they get from everyone else.  They aren't stupid which is why they aren't going to do that.  They can't offer to set it to JuJuman direct and require everyone else to buy it in a bundle.  So they're going for the larger buy, obviously.  They aren't going to give up their dollars for dimes, not anytime soon at least.  They know the second they offer it direct, every single distributor has the ability to sell it that way as well, which means they immediately lose tons of viewers and tons of subscribers.  It's why they don't do it, because they cannot afford to.  All their rights are based on that large number of subscribers, which helps to pay the Big East, which helps to fund the MU athletic department.

Would love for it to happen, but right now it isn't allowed.  Maybe this lawsuit will change things.  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/cablevision-bid-to-end-viacoms-forced-channel-bundling-survives-challenge/

[Spotcheck Billy]

I agree, but that's one of the problems.  If you read some of their answers, they are absolutely saying they should get away with a crime.  Why?  Because they don't view it as a crime as you mentioned.  Some of these folks don't pause one second to think watching something on Bit Torrent is a crime, not one nanosecond, but that doesn't make it so.

Maybe that's because many of us don't think the show is worth paying much for but don't mind taking a chance on it if its free to check out. I only watch Game of Thrones because I can download it(BT), if the only way to see current episodes is to subscribe to HBO I will pass on seeing it until I can rent the blu-rays instead. IOW, many people do BT shows like that only because its possible but they wouldn't watch it at all if BT wasn't possible = HBO not really losing those subscribers to BT since they would never watch it otherwise.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Maybe that's because many of us don't think the show is worth paying much for but don't mind taking a chance on it if its free to check out. I only watch Game of Thrones because I can download it(BT), if the only way to see current episodes is to subscribe to HBO I will pass on seeing it until I can rent the blu-rays instead. IOW, many people do BT shows like that only because its possible but they wouldn't watch it at all if BT wasn't possible = HBO not really losing those subscribers to BT since they would never watch it otherwise.

Doesn't justify it, stealing is stealing.  You can rationalize it all you want, but if you watch it via BT, you aren't paying them subscriber fees or DVD sales.  Not a victimless crime.  The rationalization you mention is similar to the studies I've seen.  They feel if it isn't something like a car, a computer, an iphone, or something tangible, it's not really stealing.  "It's just data".  That's where we are as a society. Fortunately there is some very good work being done on the law enforcement side that will finally be helping.  One of the rare instances that the left actually cares about "petty criminal" behavior because it's costing their buddies in Hollywood a ton of money, and that includes down to the rank and file union guy that is a sound person, camera guy, lighting guy, etc.  Yes, things do trickle down.