R I C H

Shouldn't the content creators/owners have the right to determine who/where they're sold to? Just like any other product?

BristolUK

If I added the two sports channels I'd like, then it would certainly be around that mark but for the promotion period. So I make do with streaming for when those channels have something I want to see.
That's my atitude too. We have a big saving with BellAliant only compared to what we used to pay them and Shaw.

Once the three year promotion is up it will be a similar amount although we do get more of what we want now. Still too much, though, so I'll be looking again when that time comes.

Hopefully by then, there may be a "skinny-plus" package that meets our wants better.
I think there are laws about discriminatory practices like that.

Seriously, it's about time they recognised times have changed.

Remember when Spycatcher was banned in the UK? It was daft enough then as the book was freely available in Australia and the USA for example, but at least it was more difficult to get hold of it and UK newspapers were at least prevented from publishing excerpts.

Restricting things where access is not actually restricted is even more pointless. Just recognise the new reality and make the best of it. The music industry had similar issues but eventually came to terms with the modern world quite well in comparison.

R I C H

If a content producer can't get what they deem to be an appropriate return from a marketplace, why should they be forced to distribute it there? Perhaps the marketplace is too small/niche/ethnically different or whatever. I don't think demanding unrestricted access worldwide to a product is reasonable or necessarily cost-effective for any business. Just because it's digital, doesn't mean the content owner has to distribute it to suit everybody that demands it.

plasticcanuck

I have an acquaintance who as a hobby loads "the box" with so much good stuff, it's incredible. He doesn't charge anything other than the cost of the box so makes no money from his efforts. . The quality of the pictures is very good. Almost any live TV channel is available, including most U.K. channels, multi sports channels for whatever sport takes your fancy and a list of serial type shows that's gigantic and movies galore
One could easily cancel cable TV and not miss it. The only problem I can think of is one of learning where everything is. There is a definite learning curve.

magnumpi

If android boxes are banned then what's to stop people using a laptop or tablet, or should they be banned too, and while we are at it smart phones banned, only Nokia clam phones can be used.

BristolUK

I'm not sure I understand the logic of creating something for sale and then not selling it.
How does that come into it? Someone somewhere is able to access the product and distribute it. It matters not how, the fact is it's done. The creator/rights owner incurs no cost in that distribution so why not take a share.

As for the owner distributing it themselves, for example the BBC, they already have the costs of putting it on iPLayer. They are actually doing extra stuff to restrict the access.
It's the natural conclusion

Almost Canadian

What I fail to understand from those that want everything to be free is how they expect the producers to produce it on such a basis.

R I C H

I think you're just being obtuse. A program costs $x to make, and there's an expectation to make profit from selling/distributing it. No different from any other product. Imagine a widget - just because it's been sold successfully and profitably in one market, should it then be distributed for nothing in a different location, just to appease individuals that feel they've a right to access it? A program maker has the legitimate right to sell it where there's a reasonable expectation of profit, and if that can't be met, why should they provide it for free?

You're making an irrelevant comparison based on physical goods and products. Just because digital stuff is less expensive to distribute/ship, doesn't mean it has less value, or should be perceived as being rightfully available to everyone's convenience. We don't get free software just because it's downloadable and the UK market might have already provided a business with profit margins, nor do we get free $ in our accounts just because it can be credited digitally.

So what? They've no right to protect content they've commissioned and paid for? It's no different to locking the doors on a store to prevent theft.

Maybe in your world of wanting stuff for free.

magnumpi

Advertising is the future

Almost Canadian

The future? I thought that that was one of the main reasons why people use such systems.

magnumpi

It is, I like the Broadchurch no advert version myself, but programme makers will have to smarten up to keep up with the free streaming sites.

Obviously I hope they don't, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them catch up, like YouTube are doing.

calman014

Many of the Android boxes in circulation will soon become obsolete as they will not be able to upgrade to later versions of Android. That's why there are so many on the market right now for about €30,-.

Kodi is actually the software platform, not the box and there are legal and illegal "plugins" that allow you to access all kinds of stuff being streamed from regular sources, protected networks or illegal sources. Premier Football in UK for example are clamping down on the streamers..but I am no football fan so I am not worried.

There are however legal streams and plugins too..and the software can be installed on just about anything from a Raspberry Pi, an old Apple TV, a PC or even an old laptop.

In addition you can use it as a media player for your photo or music collection from a hard drive, check the weather forecast or even surf the web.

It's also one of the best ways to stream YouTube content.

Netflix and Amazon offer a lot of stuff for a low fee..and in much better quality than a lot of the freely streamed stuff.. don't waste your money.

BristolUK

Er....should I remind you that I said bugger all about distributing it for nothing?
How did you miss "I'm not sure I understand the logic of creating something for sale and then not selling it."
or "Someone somewhere is able to access the product and distribute it. It matters not how, the fact is it's done. The creator/rights owner incurs no cost in that distribution so why not take a share."
Or the bit about the BBC having already incurred the costs so why not make it available
Those are three clear references to to the makers having already made something and how they could sell what they've already made.
And somehow you interpret that as me thinking they should give stuff away Strewth.

Just to be extra clear, I am not suggesting they give it away for free. I am suggesting that someone else has accessed it legitimately or otherwise and distributed it and either charged other customers for it (via VPN fees or some other subscription) or given it away for free. The makers are losing out as illustrated by the fact that people want to pay for it but the money goes to someone else.

Oh they have every right to do that. The reality is that the content still becomes available and they're not getting the return they could.
Maybe in your world of completely misunderstanding clear references to them charging for it.

BristolUK

Perhaps I missed it but did someone say they want it for free? I thought I saw specific references to people wanting to pay a licence type fee
Here you go:

R I C H

You're presenting a case that content makers should effectively pull up their socks and distribute content for specific markets because illegal distribution already makes it available. Sorta like blackmail - we've access to it already, so you must make it available and create a payment process for an audience it wasn't intended for.

Why the hell should they? Why not just take personal responsibility and not access content for which you've no entitlement? If there was a big enough audience and a justifiable marketplace (in the content makers eyes/opinion, not yours), then it would have been sold/distributed already.



Maybe it's not a return they feel is justified, fair, appropriate etc etc. Why would they want to sell themselves short or at a discounted price just because their product is being hacked? If fair market value is gained by TV network distribution and couldn't be negotiated satisfactorily, they have every right to protect their product. Seems an odd sense of entitlement to feel aggrieved that you should be able to access anything you like for the reasons you've outlined.