VF and Sky?

Forums › Off topic › VF and Sky?

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1575219 16-Jun-2016 18:24

Your argument is full of holes and apart from that it is crap. You are just repeating the 'you wouldn't steal a (whatever)' litany of the content producers. Theft is depriving someone of something by removing it from their possession. Piracy is watching someone else's TV through the window. No way is there any similarity between these two things, however hard the industry and its shills try to convince us otherwise. You (and your proxy) have repeatedly maintained that the market is determined by what the content producers want and see fit to do, but it is in fact determined entirely by what customers are prepared to pay their money for. What they are prepared to pay for is unfettered access to whatever they want to watch whenever they want to watch it for a price they find reasonable.

Things are presently in transition. When the shake-out is complete, the dinosaurs will be extinct and a new order will define the relationship between producer and consumer. It will have nothing at all to do with your 'piracy is theft' mantra.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1575238 16-Jun-2016 18:48

Rikkitic:

Your argument is full of holes and apart from that it is crap. You are just repeating the 'you wouldn't steal a (whatever)' litany of the content producers. Theft is depriving someone of something by removing it from their possession. Piracy is watching someone else's TV through the window. No way is there any similarity between these two things, however hard the industry and its shills try to convince us otherwise. You (and your proxy) have repeatedly maintained that the market is determined by what the content producers want and see fit to do, but it is in fact determined entirely by what customers are prepared to pay their money for. What they are prepared to pay for is unfettered access to whatever they want to watch whenever they want to watch it for a price they find reasonable.

Things are presently in transition. When the shake-out is complete, the dinosaurs will be extinct and a new order will define the relationship between producer and consumer. It will have nothing at all to do with your 'piracy is theft' mantra.

Piracy is theft. Consumers can choose a myriad of ways to pay - but there are those that choose not to pay and use whatever excuse they feel justifies their common theft. Taking something that is not your property without the intention to pay for it (and you'll not that there is no intention to pay) is theft. Theft is theft. You're nothing more than a common thief. Live with it. There are plenty of people that thieve and live with it. And they too dont care what anyones opinion is of them either. Be a thief.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

kiwifidget

"Cookie"
3421 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1575239 16-Jun-2016 18:52

Lias:

kiwifidget:

I'm a Vodafone ADSL customer, a Vodafone mobile customer, and a SkyTV(thru Vodafone) customer.

The one reason why I am not yet a Vodafone fibre customer is because Vodafone wont offer SkyTV with fibre, only with ADSL and VDSL.

I would hope this merger removes this stupid restriction.

Someone over at GPForums posted that if you moan loud enough, and are in a dual UFC/HFC area, Vodafone will give in and provision you with a UFB connection in an HFC area, but I don't know how accurate that is.

I'll be switching in a heartbeat if I get confirmation it's possible!

Sorry, please explain what UFC and HFC stand for?

Delete cookies?! Are you insane?!

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1575268 16-Jun-2016 19:47

Lias:

ockel:

Oh the irony. The much ridiculed, much maligned, non-HD Neon with similar numbers to Lightbox. The really sad aspect is that with everyone rallying hard for internet-delivered content, and especially the millienals, the reality is that the only way that these services will grow is by giving away the content for nothing. In other words we want, nay expect, but we wont pay for it. And thats a truly unsustainable model.

I think we will pay for it.. but we're only willing to pay for it when it gives us ALL the content. When the streaming video market becomes like the NZ ISP market, and you can get every single program anywhere on your account for $13 a month, and you just choose which dumb streaming interface you want to get it through.. Then we will pay. When its $13 for this top show, $12 for these two top shows, etc we're just going to pirate it..

Personally I pay the sky tax, but I almost never watch it, I just download whatever I want from TPB or KAT. I'd rather pay $13 to *flix instead of 4 times that to Sky but SWMBO and the kids like the sky box.

There you go, Ockel was right. Your not interested in paying the cost to provide, you want to pay $13 bucks. Im fine with paying for the content I also do except to pay for what its worth? Whats it worth? Why doesnt Netflix add a sports channel and add everything, for another 45c? Why not?

And why don't you introduce SWMBO and the kids to Netflix?

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1575300 16-Jun-2016 19:52

Rikkitic:

Your argument is full of holes and apart from that it is crap. You are just repeating the 'you wouldn't steal a (whatever)' litany of the content producers. Theft is depriving someone of something by removing it from their possession. Piracy is watching someone else's TV through the window. No way is there any similarity between these two things, however hard the industry and its shills try to convince us otherwise. You (and your proxy) have repeatedly maintained that the market is determined by what the content producers want and see fit to do, but it is in fact determined entirely by what customers are prepared to pay their money for. What they are prepared to pay for is unfettered access to whatever they want to watch whenever they want to watch it for a price they find reasonable.

Things are presently in transition. When the shake-out is complete, the dinosaurs will be extinct and a new order will define the relationship between producer and consumer. It will have nothing at all to do with your 'piracy is theft' mantra.

Im poor, I feel $8-54 per month for everything in the world is fair. Help me. I'm, not sure what planet you are on but this is a capitalist society, people do stuff to earn an income.

That applies to Apple, it also applies to Joe Blogs in his day job. If bananas are $8 per kg ad you feel that $2 per kg is fair, do you tell Countdown its 2 bucks?

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1575304 16-Jun-2016 20:03

Rikkitic:

Your argument is full of holes and apart from that it is crap. You are just repeating the 'you wouldn't steal a (whatever)' litany of the content producers. Theft is depriving someone of something by removing it from their possession. Piracy is watching someone else's TV through the window. No way is there any similarity between these two things, however hard the industry and its shills try to convince us otherwise. You (and your proxy) have repeatedly maintained that the market is determined by what the content producers want and see fit to do, but it is in fact determined entirely by what customers are prepared to pay their money for. What they are prepared to pay for is unfettered access to whatever they want to watch whenever they want to watch it for a price they find reasonable.

Things are presently in transition. When the shake-out is complete, the dinosaurs will be extinct and a new order will define the relationship between producer and consumer. It will have nothing at all to do with your 'piracy is theft' mantra.

Answer me this. Are you prepared to pay what it costs?

Do you feel that the costs are too high? Ignore Sky in this, this is not a Sky issue. The costs are the costs to create TV, create movies. Are those costs too high?

Are you prepared to pay what it costs to watch soccer? Ignore that fact that you may not like soccer. Are you prepared to pay?

When you buy a dishwasher, do you feel that the price is $1199 but I can only afford $399, so $399 is the fair price??

Thats where I feel you are coming from. A dishwasher costs $899 to manufacture, they sell it for $1199 whats the issue?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1575305 16-Jun-2016 20:03

Rikkitic:
Your argument is full of holes and apart from that it is crap. You are just repeating the 'you wouldn't steal a (whatever)' litany of the content producers. Theft is depriving someone of something by removing it from their possession. Piracy is watching someone else's TV through the window. No way is there any similarity between these two things, however hard the industry and its shills try to convince us otherwise. You (and your proxy) have repeatedly maintained that the market is determined by what the content producers want and see fit to do, but it is in fact determined entirely by what customers are prepared to pay their money for. What they are prepared to pay for is unfettered access to whatever they want to watch whenever they want to watch it for a price they find reasonable.

Things are presently in transition. When the shake-out is complete, the dinosaurs will be extinct and a new order will define the relationship between producer and consumer. It will have nothing at all to do with your 'piracy is theft' mantra.

The piracy thing will never be answered here, the venue for that is the Courts. Can we just park it .

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1575306 16-Jun-2016 20:06

MikeB4:
Rikkitic:

Your argument is full of holes and apart from that it is crap. You are just repeating the 'you wouldn't steal a (whatever)' litany of the content producers. Theft is depriving someone of something by removing it from their possession. Piracy is watching someone else's TV through the window. No way is there any similarity between these two things, however hard the industry and its shills try to convince us otherwise. You (and your proxy) have repeatedly maintained that the market is determined by what the content producers want and see fit to do, but it is in fact determined entirely by what customers are prepared to pay their money for. What they are prepared to pay for is unfettered access to whatever they want to watch whenever they want to watch it for a price they find reasonable.

Things are presently in transition. When the shake-out is complete, the dinosaurs will be extinct and a new order will define the relationship between producer and consumer. It will have nothing at all to do with your 'piracy is theft' mantra.

The piracy thing will never be answered here, the venue for that is the Courts. Can we just park it .

Please. Park it. Its a conspiracy theory that everything video cost 12cents to produce

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1575312 16-Jun-2016 20:17

I am happy to park it. The only point I was trying to make is precisely because this is a capitalist society, the market will determine the price, not the providers. If the provider can not or will not provide what consumers want at the price they want, the market will die. Otherwise it will settle at a point both sides can live with. Usually in a free market when consumers aren't willing to pay the asking price, providers find a way to do it cheaper and still make enough to stay in business. That is what the capitalist market society is all about.

Edit: I meant to add this is my last post on the subject. Everything else is just repetition of what has already been said.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1575314 16-Jun-2016 20:26

Rikkitic:

I am happy to park it. The only point I was trying to make is precisely because this is a capitalist society, the market will determine the price, not the providers. If the provider can not or will not provide what consumers want at the price they want, the market will die. Otherwise it will settle at a point both sides can live with. Usually in a free market when consumers aren't willing to pay the asking price, providers find a way to do it cheaper and still make enough to stay in business. That is what the capitalist market society is all about.

Edit: I meant to add this is my last post on the subject. Everything else is just repetition of what has already been said.

Thats precisely the point. Cost plus margin. If providers, whether they be Netflix or Fisher and Paykel, they will, find a way to add revenue, but it HAS to be profitable.

I earn a salary. Thats virtually no different to a business. They earn a salary as well, its called profit. Thats capitalism. Socialism or communism are other options

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1575330 16-Jun-2016 20:42

If prices drop too far profits turn into losses and everyone misses out.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1575349 16-Jun-2016 21:12

MikeB4:

The piracy thing will never be answered here, the venue for that is the Courts. Can we just park it .

I don't personally have much time of the day for the off-topic rantings by Ockel and Rikkitic. But on this issue there actually isn't a debate: legally, piracy isn't theft. "Theft" is very specifically defined under the Crimes Act. One of the required elements is the thieve must intend to permanently deprive the owner of the property or interest in it. That doesn't fit with piracy.

What the status of copyright infringement is philosophically speaking, I have my own views. But the risk of igniting another boring, off-topic debate by Ockel and Rikkitic isn't worth it.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1575355 16-Jun-2016 21:22

dejadeadnz:
MikeB4:

The piracy thing will never be answered here, the venue for that is the Courts. Can we just park it .

I don't personally have much time of the day for the off-topic rantings by Ockel and Rikkitic. But on this issue there actually isn't a debate: legally, piracy isn't theft. "Theft" is very specifically defined under the Crimes Act. One of the required elements is the thieve must intend to permanently deprive the owner of the property or interest in it. That doesn't fit with piracy.

What the status of copyright infringement is philosophically speaking, I have my own views. But the risk of igniting another boring, off-topic debate by Ockel and Rikkitic isn't worth it.

I am not a lawyer and know sod all but my mind tells me it's a civil action or possibly fractures some law somewhere. I am probably horribly wrong.

What I do feel is that piracy affects income and puts jobs at risk and that sucks. But I thinks it's another topic for another day that would reach 50 pages in a few days with no resolve in sight.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1575356 16-Jun-2016 21:25

dejadeadnz:

MikeB4:

The piracy thing will never be answered here, the venue for that is the Courts. Can we just park it .

I don't personally have much time of the day for the off-topic rantings by Ockel and Rikkitic. But on this issue there actually isn't a debate: legally, piracy isn't theft. "Theft" is very specifically defined under the Crimes Act. One of the required elements is the thieve must intend to permanently deprive the owner of the property or interest in it. That doesn't fit with piracy.

What the status of copyright infringement is philosophically speaking, I have my own views. But the risk of igniting another boring, off-topic debate by Ockel and Rikkitic isn't worth it.

What if the content is an asset? A car? Piracy is taking the car and the value that the car has. Ockel does not favour piracy. Rikkitic does.

A movie is an asset. It took cost to create it. It takes a sale to realise revenue, to hopefully create a profit. Thats no different to a dishwasher.

Rikkitic does not agree with cost +margin = price. She believes price is what we will pay for it, irregardless of the cost to create.

Also I don't regard Ockel and Rikkitic as rantings, they are comments, opinions. beliefs. You have already passed on yours. So If I was prepared to buy or rent this movies but pirated it, thats ok? But when that rule falls under the Crimes Act, then thats now not ok? Statutes as we all know, are behind technology, does that make it right? Or does that justify taking the asset and justifying not saying for it?

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1575357 16-Jun-2016 21:27

MikeB4:
dejadeadnz:

MikeB4:

The piracy thing will never be answered here, the venue for that is the Courts. Can we just park it .

I don't personally have much time of the day for the off-topic rantings by Ockel and Rikkitic. But on this issue there actually isn't a debate: legally, piracy isn't theft. "Theft" is very specifically defined under the Crimes Act. One of the required elements is the thieve must intend to permanently deprive the owner of the property or interest in it. That doesn't fit with piracy.

What the status of copyright infringement is philosophically speaking, I have my own views. But the risk of igniting another boring, off-topic debate by Ockel and Rikkitic isn't worth it.

I am not a lawyer and know sod all but my mind tells me it's a civil action or possibly fractures some law somewhere. I am probably horribly wrong.

What I do feel is that piracy affects income and puts jobs at risk and that sucks. But I thinks it's another topic for another day that would reach 50 pages in a few days with no resolve in sight.

Agree. The issue is twofold. I am ok to buy/rent this movie but I can torrent it, on TPB or KAT. Or, on the other hand the rights owners, say it was downloaded 24.637 gazzilion times so we are owed 25 trillion. In the middle, is the answer.

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13