DandNHill

I would be happy to pay a monthly subscription to avoid pigeons and Rick Astley!!!

But last time we had Shaw TV, paid over $100/mth and still had to watch commercials every 10/15 minutes it wore a bit thin.

If actors got paid a sensible wage instead of $1,000s per episode surely everything would become more affordable and we could all gravitate back to the distributors.

How can they stop it anyway with all the streaming devices available to us?

BristolUK

See that's the lack of recognition of reality that I'm talking about.

It's like abolishing contraception or drug advisory services for young people on the basis they should just say no.

It's not going to go away the same as people taping music was never going to go away. The music business finally recognised it and made some adjustments. Now you don't have to buy a whole LP when all you want is a couple of tracks. You are actually encouraged and enabled to make your own collections legally.

Those people responsible will similarly get around to it one day.

Sooner or later they'll realise that people are spending small fortunes on smart TVs, Android boxes, Apple TVs and other gadgets along with associated apps, VPN fees, subscriptions to things like FilmOn and all the rest in order to access what they want to see.

R I C H

I think what's sometimes forgotten, and particularly relevant to sporting and sponsored events, is that the commercial interests of the sponsors are all part of negotiation made about broadcasting rights. Those interests are hugely valuable in terms of brand exposure. Compromising those rights may have negative business implications for a brand. Many products are regionally branded, not globally, so sponsors choose where it's appropriate for their branding to be broadcast to. They've every right to do that as without their financial support many of the events would never happen.

Many dramas and movies are part-funded by product placement, so the same issues mentioned above are relevant.

Broadcasters will continue to protect their content and fight illegal downloads/streaming - if you equate a TV show to a physical product purchased in a store it's no different, other than the distribution method, which seems to give individuals some sort of assumed right to access it, just because technology provides loopholes.

R I C H

Again, a spurious comparison. Like contraception, really?

It's nothing to do with lack of recognition, it's to do with how broadcasting rights are negotiated, purchased and sold. Music is a different media, and is far less complicated as a business - rarely influenced by sponsors and product placement. Intellectual property is also far more easily managed. If you'd ever worked in a digital environment and had to try to protect your content you might understand.

You don't think the broadcast industry understand what's going on?

BristolUK

Well people said the same thing when the music industry were still trying to stop people taping music.

Of course as with advertisers and other associated parts you mention, don't forget that records also have associated parts, it's not just the writers and performers, there are/were also the concert promoters, record sleeve designers, advertisers, printers, record shops and all the rest. They all had to be satisfied with their 'take' too.

I'll bet all the points you're making were brought up when someone first had the idea for Netflix. "An organisation making money from subscribers by selling them access to movies and TV shows that we make? Preposterous idea. It'll never happen."