Sign in to follow this  
Scotty

A possible therory about this lead?

Recommended Posts

There have been plenty of shows on network TV that have been worth watching.  Right now alone, CW had 4 great superhero shows.  And that's one network currently.  Fox has Empire.  Lucifer is a fun show as well.  CBS has Hawaii Five 0, BBT, and more.  Fox also has Simpsons and Family Guy. 

 

As for pirating, I don't blame anyone given the lack of bang for the buck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

There have been plenty of shows on network TV that have been worth watching.  Right now alone, CW had 4 great superhero shows.  And that's one network currently.  Fox has Empire.  Lucifer is a fun show as well.  CBS has Hawaii Five 0, BBT, and more.  Fox also has Simpsons and Family Guy. 

 

As for pirating, I don't blame anyone given the lack of bang for the buck.

I do blame people for pirating stuff.  Because you see, the world doesn't work that way. If you want something...you have to pay for it.  If you don't feel it is worth it for one show?  Don't buy and miss the show. That is the way this works. It doesn't work in a "but I still want it!" kind of way...because that is the way children behave. 

As to shows on networks? Occasionally they make something I like...often they don't really. I don't pay for cable, but I pay for things that have some cable programming on it, so I can see many shows.  I am forced to wait for season 2 of Better Call Saul to show up on Netflix...a shame, but it is what it is.  The only shows I realyl like on network right now are Bob's Burgers and Last Man on Earth.  I can sit through the Simpsons again (there was a good chunk of time where I could not), but I certainly don't seek it out like I did in it's heydey (I mostly see it because I work at a Fox affiliate on Sunday nights).  My wife and I still watch Modern Family and New Girl...but even those I feel are beginning to show signs of being past their prime.  I haven't watched anything on CBS in years, they tend not to be shows I am interested in (though the wife enjoyed the Good Wife), and my wife likes some other network programs.  For the most part, I feel Networks create more misses than hits for me...cable and streaming have had a better track record in recent years, but that doesn't mean they don't have misses...but it just seems their hits are far stronger shows than their misses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been plenty of shows on network TV that have been worth watching.  Right now alone, CW had 4 great superhero shows.  And that's one network currently.  Fox has Empire.  Lucifer is a fun show as well.  CBS has Hawaii Five 0, BBT, and more.  Fox also has Simpsons and Family Guy. 

 

As for pirating, I don't blame anyone given the lack of bang for the buck.

The CW is barely a network. It only has 65% national coverage, which is why a show on it can get a .7 in the demo and stay on the air.

Put "The Flash" or "Arrow" on an actual network and it'd die.SHEILD would have died years ago if it weren't a pet project of the mouse house.

I do blame people for pirating stuff.  Because you see, the world doesn't work that way. If you want something...you have to pay for it.  If you don't feel it is worth it for one show?  Don't buy and miss the show. That is the way this works. It doesn't work in a "but I still want it!" kind of way...because that is the way children behave. 

This. "I want it and you're not being fair by selling it at that price, so I get to steal it." doesn't work for stealing a car, and it doesn't work for Game of Thrones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

There have been plenty of shows on network TV that have been worth watching.  Right now alone, CW had 4 great superhero shows.  And that's one network currently.  Fox has Empire.  Lucifer is a fun show as well.  CBS has Hawaii Five 0, BBT, and more.  Fox also has Simpsons and Family Guy. 

 

As for pirating, I don't blame anyone given the lack of bang for the buck.

The CW is barely a network. It only has 65% national coverage, which is why a show on it can get a .7 in the demo and stay on the air.

Put "The Flash" or "Arrow" on an actual network and it'd die.SHEILD would have died years ago if it weren't a pet project of the mouse house.

I do blame people for pirating stuff.  Because you see, the world doesn't work that way. If you want something...you have to pay for it.  If you don't feel it is worth it for one show?  Don't buy and miss the show. That is the way this works. It doesn't work in a "but I still want it!" kind of way...because that is the way children behave. 

This. "I want it and you're not being fair by selling it at that price, so I get to steal it." doesn't work for stealing a car, and it doesn't work for Game of Thrones.

For the most part I agree but ethics are kind of slippery. I paid for HBO for years and then suddenly they change it so that not only do I have to pay for HBO, I have 6 other things totaling another $50 a month that I have to pay for if I want to keep it. It's like the cable companies are drug dealers. They give you a sample, get you used to it and then crank up the price. Its difficult to have sympathy for companies that consistently behave like drug dealers. When people are surrounded by companies that year after year behave irresponsible and immoral, it's easy for the small person to follows suit. In many ways, pirating tv is the little persons version of the company that buys the rights to a life saving drug and then triples the price over the next 3 years. Its wrong as hell but its an easy way to make(save) money.  Two wrongs don't make a right but its difficult to be right in a sea of wrong. 

If you work in a big company, you have to do things that are legal but immoral every day. Its like when children see their parents drink daily and are regularly drunk in front of the children and then they shocked when their children become alcoholics. Companies brag about being unethical. Politicians take pride unethical things. Religious groups take pride in unethical things.  The powerful in America have set the example that being unethical is good. It's not surprising that many of the little people have followed suit. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

 

I do blame people for pirating stuff.  Because you see, the world doesn't work that way. If you want something...you have to pay for it.  If you don't feel it is worth it for one show?  Don't buy and miss the show. That is the way this works. It doesn't work in a "but I still want it!" kind of way...because that is the way children behave. 

This. "I want it and you're not being fair by selling it at that price, so I get to steal it." doesn't work for stealing a car, and it doesn't work for Game of Thrones.

Well, morally, you are right, of course.

But for a large number of people, pirating is not worse an offense than smoking weed, drinking in public or parking in the wrong lot -- people WILL do it, no matter what you feel about it. It's just a fact.

And actually, I am glad for that. Because it's the only thing consumers have in their hands against corporate monopoly. It's the only incentive there is for big media corporations to make better offers, to increase quality for that people actually feel the product is worth paying for, and for coming up with new sales models. If it weren't for Napster 15 years ago, we still wouldn't have legal music downloads even today -- and perhaps not even streaming/pay-per-view. The only reason why these business models exist, is because of the pressure pirating is putting on the corporations. I'm glad the times are over when you still had to pay $20+ for a single music album on CD, or $150 for a single season of a show on DVD.

Personally, I haven't been pirating in years, as I feel I want to support stuff that's worth purchasing. And streaming is a convenient and satisfying *legal* alternative that makes pirating totally superfluous. But I'm glad there was that kind of "consumer union" that made these good legal offers possible.

Not going into the question whether art and culture should be a branded product in general, in order to avoid accusations of communism. But I do find it funny that some people who are hardcore commies when it comes to general politics, suddenly turn into robber-baron supporting hardcore libertarians, the moment it's about media piracy. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really all that slippery, save someone trying to justify their own unethical actions against said company. One doesn't need Game of Thrones or HBO. If you don't want to get jacked by Time/Warner for that, then you kill your subscription and wait a couple of months for the DVDs. Time/Warner upcharged me unfairly, so I can steal from them. Not really.

Two wrongs don't make a right but its difficult to be right in a sea of wrong. 

No, it's not. And this sound suspiciously like, "Well, everyone else does it, so don't blame me for doing it, too.

But for a large number of people, pirating is not worse an offense than smoking weed, drinking in public or parking in the wrong lot -- people WILL do it, no matter what you feel about it. It's just a fact.

 And I never suggested people were going to stop because I said so.

And the people who think it's not a big deal are, generally never talking about, their music or their book they want money out of.

When it's someone else's thing, other rules apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a company is so greedy and makes something inaccessible, then they run the risk of piracy.  One of the reasons Netflix works is they have a large library that it's worth NOT pirating.  DVRs also--no reason to pirate. 

 

If a studio is going to make something so difficult to see, especially with a name brand like Star Trek, they are basically saying, "pirate it." 

 

Think of all the international pirating that went on with STB. 

Doctor Who used to be pirated all the time in the US--until they got smart and released it on the same day.

 

Different people have different tastes on networks.  I think Star Trek would do well on CW.  I don't mind the streaming, but it makes much more sense to license it to the largest streaming site out there, which they are doing everywhere in the world EXCEPT the US and I think Canada.

So the US is where they will likely get pirated the most.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

It's not really all that slippery, save someone trying to justify their own unethical actions against said company. One doesn't need Game of Thrones or HBO. If you don't want to get jacked by Time/Warner for that, then you kill your subscription and wait a couple of months for the DVDs. Time/Warner upcharged me unfairly, so I can steal from them. Not really.

Two wrongs don't make a right but its difficult to be right in a sea of wrong. 

No, it's not. And this sound suspiciously like, "Well, everyone else does it, so don't blame me for doing it, too.

But for a large number of people, pirating is not worse an offense than smoking weed, drinking in public or parking in the wrong lot -- people WILL do it, no matter what you feel about it. It's just a fact.

 And I never suggested people were going to stop because I said so.

And the people who think it's not a big deal are, generally never talking about, their music or their book they want money out of.

When it's someone else's thing, other rules apply.

In parts of america it's considered immoral to be gay. If you want to be gay in this world it can be very difficult. If you want to go against the grain and support someone who is gay it can be difficult.  I can be very difficult to be right in a sea of wrong. 

If everyone around you is acting unethically and even groups that should be the standard bearers of ethical behavior, like religion, are acting immoral, it is difficult not to try to blend in with the group. 

There's a scientific experiment where a "scientist" straps a patient to a chair and puts electrodes on them. Then they have another person give the "patient" electric shocks. More than 75% of people will keep shocking the person into the zone that says very dangerous if they are told to do so by "the scientist." People want to follow the crowd. Its in our DNA to follow the crowd. If everyone around you is unethical, its difficult not to be unethical too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Difficult. But not impossible. Rosa Parks didn't give up her seat.

And to attempt to conflate the situation to create a moral equivalency between downloading a bootleg of Civil War opening weekend to staking a gay teenager to a field in Wyoming before beating him to death or torturing someone displays the weakness of the initial position to start with. 

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're getting a bit off the grid here;  but I do agree with one point.

Piracy is theft.  Plain and simple. 

I was once part of a business where piracy directly affected our bottom line and we went under, so yeah, it's personal for me.   
If cars suddenly became too expensive, would you get a bus pass or would you become a car thief?

Piracy in the home seems 'harmless' because we don't see the person's income that you're stealing from, but make no mistake: you ARE stealing, nevertheless. 

:soapbox:

*  .... end of rant.

 

So if $6-$8 is a deal breaker?  Fine.  Don't pay it.   If you buy two drinks at Starbucks that month?  Just saying you could've had new Star Trek instead.

Edit: And to what prometheus said upthread a ways; ST is a business.   It exists to make money and to entertain.   It's not a civil right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

We're getting a bit off the grid here;  but I do agree with one point.

Piracy is theft.  Plain and simple. 

I was once part of a business where piracy directly affected our bottom line and we went under, so yeah, it's personal for me.   
If cars suddenly became too expensive, would you get a bus pass or would you become a car thief?

Piracy in the home seems 'harmless' because we don't see the person's income that you're stealing from, but make no mistake: you ARE stealing, nevertheless. 

:soapbox:

*  .... end of rant.

 

So if $6-$8 is a deal breaker?  Fine.  Don't pay it.   If you buy two drinks at Starbucks that month?  Just saying you could've had new Star Trek instead.

Edit: And to what prometheus said upthread a ways; ST is a business.   It exists to make money and to entertain.   It's not a civil right. 

I agree with all of your points. They are offering ST at a good price. There is NO ethical reason to pirate it. Companies that treat consumers fairly, should get a fair shake. But if CBS all access says that they charge $6 a month and then when you get the bill its $45 a month because of the fine print, expect piracy. 

I love mst3k. There is a spin off show that I would like to see but don't want to spend the $10 an ep. It is a fair price which goes to the people that made the show so I will never pirate it. If another company bought it out and then charged $200 an episode and the people who actually made the show didn't get a dime for it, I would feel much less moral outrage for illegal downloading. 

I do think that there are situations where the ethics are more fuzzy. When I used the Gay example it was not intended as a moral equivalent. It is just that people follow the crowd and the examples of role models. If the crowd and your role models consistently act immoral, it is difficult to stand out from the crowd. When people blindly follow the crowd, its not an example of "Its okay because every ones doing it." Its because people tend to want to follow the crowd. People will do things that they feel are wrong if they think that every one around them is doing it. 

There are situations where a companies ethics are so bad that they are as much pirates as pirates are. A privateer takes a ship kills all the people on it, moral. A pirate takes a ship, kills all the people on it, immoral. 

Piracy is not a black and white, right or wrong thing. There are shades of gray. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

 

So if $6-$8 is a deal breaker?  Fine.  Don't pay it.   If you buy two drinks at Starbucks that month?  Just saying you could've had new Star Trek instead.

 

^ This, very much.

Under these conditions, this price, I don't see how anybody could justify pirating "because they rip us off". It's not that you have to buy a cable bundle for $100 or so. I mean seriously, when Star Trek is so important for you, as it supposedly is for all of us here on this board, I don't see how $6-$8/month are too much.

I mean, I spend more per month on Star Trek novels, for example, and if I was really short of money, I'd rather skip one novel/month in favor of being able to watch fresh new Star Trek. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So if $6-$8 is a deal breaker?  Fine.  Don't pay it.   If you buy two drinks at Starbucks that month?  Just saying you could've had new Star Trek instead.

 

^ This, very much.

Under these conditions, this price, I don't see how anybody could justify pirating "because they rip us off". It's not that you have to buy a cable bundle for $100 or so. I mean seriously, when Star Trek is so important for you, as it supposedly is for all of us here on this board, I don't see how $6-$8/month are too much.

I mean, I spend more per month on Star Trek novels, for example, and if I was really short of money, I'd rather skip one novel/month in favor of being able to watch fresh new Star Trek. :)

It really isn't too much. It's literally cheaper in the US than a Trek novel.

"Gimmie $8 and you can have this book...or 4 episodes of a new Trek series."

The math ain't that hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

 

Piracy is not a black and white, right or wrong thing. There are shades of gray. 

It's also a matter of being used to how things work, vs. new technological possibilities and realities.

Back in analog days, it was perfectly legal to make copies on tape from a new vinyl or CD, in order to give it to your friends. There was that great tradition of mix tapes. I remember when one of my buddies at high school got a brand new album on CD, the others would make a copy onto tape so we all got it. Likewise, it was fine to copy VHS tapes and give it to friends.

Today, the legal situation is that the moment you circumvent a copy protection, even when it exists just formally, is illegal. In theory, it's even illegal to import my CDs onto my computer. In theory, I'm not legally allowed to import my DVDs or BDs onto my personal, private home server, let alone giving a copy to friends.

And when you legally use online content today, music, video, e-books -- you often don't even purchase the stuff. You just acquire the right to temporarily use it. If some day, the service takes it off their library, bad for you, you have no right to access it anymore even when you've paid for it.

 

Now I see how it's different today than it used to be: Since there is digital copying, you can make copies without quality loss. The copy is just as good as the original. And due to the internet, you don't just give it to a small handful of friends, but spread it all over the globe to thousands of people. Of course the copyright owners had to find answers to that problem.

But when new answers are given to new technical realities, I'd like to see the interests of the consumer to be taken into account at least as much as the interests of the producers.

And while I don't think Star Trek is a civil right per se, I do think access to art and education is indeed a human right. Now of course all of that wouldn't be a problem anymore, if our entire society eliminated the extreme of poverty, because everybody would have enough money to spend on culture -- but I stop here in order not to go into KM territory. ;)

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think access to art is indeed a human right. 

The caveat for me is...not for free if the person(s) who created the art wants to try and sell it. As a product of their effort, they get to dictate the terms of consumption. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

I do think access to art is indeed a human right. 

The caveat for me is...not for free if the person(s) who created the art wants to try and sell it. As a product of their effort, they get to dictate the terms of consumption. 

That's certainly a reasonable distinction that might help to determine the exact line on this question, if one wanted to do so here.

I can't say I have it fully thought through, about where to draw the line ... it's pretty easy when life or health are at stake, for example, to say it's immoral when an inventor/developer of a certain medicine turns it into a business model that excludes many people in need of it. But what if there had been no incentive for developing the medicine in the first place, if there was no financial reward? ... what about scientific findings? Can the patent holder on a scientific discovery claim fees when the findings are taught in schools? And art is even much harder to define, which particular piece of art is so important and shaping for a society it should be considered public domain?

I don't feel capable of answering all these questions right from the top of my head.

But yeah, if Star Trek became public domain, we'd probably no longer get any new at all, short of fan fiction.

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

I do think access to art is indeed a human right. 

The caveat for me is...not for free if the person(s) who created the art wants to try and sell it. As a product of their effort, they get to dictate the terms of consumption. 

But its rarely the person who create the art who gets the money. Its the company they worked for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think access to art is indeed a human right. 

The caveat for me is...not for free if the person(s) who created the art wants to try and sell it. As a product of their effort, they get to dictate the terms of consumption. 

But its rarely the person who create the art who gets the money. Its the company they worked for. 

That's something to be resolved between them and the company.

Taylor Swift's label has no doubt made national budgets worth of money off of her, but she doesn't seem all that poor to me.

Taylor's rich, her label's richer; doesn't make for a free pass for me to take her albums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

An album is pretty cheap anyway. You don't have the right to steal it. If I record the Grammy's on TV and then burn a DVD is it piracy if they come out with a DVD of the Grammy's? That's what I've been told multiple times by my cable company. 

What about a software package that sells for $200 and people buy it without any problem. It becomes a very important part of tens of thousands of small companies. A big company does a hostile takeover of the small company, and pays the people who created the program 10 cents on the dollar for the program. Then they introduce a new version that eliminates half the features of the original program, including many of the features that most of the companies bought the program for. They demand that all of the companies immediately stop using the current software and upgrade to the new version for $10,000. They also download a patch with automatically deletes the original, useful version of the program if you don't upgrade by a certain date. 

Thousands of small companies are now faced with piracy or go out of business. 

I've had several programs over the years that I bought for a specific feature that was eliminated with the next version. I chose not to upgrade and got e-mails telling me that I had to upgrade or stop using the old version. Continuing to use the old program was considered piracy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

An album is pretty cheap anyway. You don't have the right to steal it. If I record the Grammy's on TV and then burn a DVD is it piracy if they come out with a DVD of the Grammy's? That's what I've been told multiple times by my cable company. 

What about a software package that sells for $200 and people buy it without any problem. It becomes a very important part of tens of thousands of small companies. A big company does a hostile takeover of the small company, and pays the people who created the program 10 cents on the dollar for the program. Then they introduce a new version that eliminates half the features of the original program, including many of the features that most of the companies bought the program for. They demand that all of the companies immediately stop using the current software and upgrade to the new version for $10,000. They also download a patch with automatically deletes the original, useful version of the program if you don't upgrade by a certain date. 

Thousands of small companies are now faced with piracy or go out of business. 

I've had several programs over the years that I bought for a specific feature that was eliminated with the next version. I chose not to upgrade and got e-mails telling me that I had to upgrade or stop using the old version. Continuing to use the old program was considered piracy. 

Guess that happens when lawmakers who allow such business models are very deep in the pockets of corporate money, rather than representing the interests of their constituencies, as they are supposed to. Lawmakers re supposed to act in the interest of the consumers, too.

There are just business models or offers that are basically a big finger to the consumers. There is one individual product that's of great importance or interest -- yet producers only offer it in an overpriced bundle that costs ten times the individual product would cost on its own, although there is absolutely no technical reason for the bundle? How can you not feel screwed?

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think access to art is indeed a human right. 

The caveat for me is...not for free if the person(s) who created the art wants to try and sell it. As a product of their effort, they get to dictate the terms of consumption. 

Even in an art gallery, one is expected to pay an admission fee.

Access to popular art is not necessarily a 'right'; it is a privilege.   It shouldn't be priced so high as to deny people access to culture, but if it's just free on the street?  Then how does this benefit the presenters or the artists?  ST is popular art; a blend of art and commerce.  It's designed with profit in mind; it's already owned by CBS/Paramount before the first frames are exposed to the camera.  It's not the work of some lone artist working tirelessly through the night in their studio apartment outside of Paris.   ST is corporate-owned product; made by a select team of skilled craftsmen and technicians, hand-picked by the studio.   Others make it, but they own it.  

That's why I look at Star Trek more as a nice new car in a dealer showroom rather than a piece hanging in the Louvre; artistic, even innovative perhaps.  But still commercially driven.   If one wouldn't steal a car for ethical reasons, then I can't see how they can feel alright 'stealing' Star Trek.  Especially when it's already at a very fair price.  

I was listening to a podcast with one of my favorite comics of all time, Louis CK.   He said something very interesting; the reason he personally oversees pricing on his concerts and the reasons he offers his work as cheap downloads directly off of his site are to "close the gap" between sale and piracy.   Make it so cheap that piracy isn't viable.   He 'sells' downloads and DVDs of his performances at his own prices, because he owns the material and his site.   He is the closest thing the commercial entertainment industry has to that lone artist working tirelessly in his studio... 

But I think that CBS is offering a decent compromise, to be honest.   $6-$8 (depending on which package you get, I believe) is a small monthly fee for new Star Trek. I pay less than that for memorabilia any day of the week.  

I'm ashamed to admit how much I've spent on toys, books and videos/CDs over the years.

I think CBS is doing its corporate best to make money off of ST Discovery, but without price gauging.  If they'd charged $10-$20 an episode?  Then I'd skip it.  But at $6-$8 for a month's worth?  That's a bargain, folks.   These things aren't cheap to make.  And if we want good product, then we need to support it. 

I also pay donations to Star Trek Continues, because I want them to keep making their product.   If my X amount of $$ can help?  I'm glad to do it.   It's no different to me than paying $10-$13 to see Star Trek Beyond (multiple times) in the theatre.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

There is a legal term called usury. The government sets limits on how much companies can charge for interest. The idea is to eliminate behavior that is basically loan sharking. Star Trek for $6 a month is a very reasonable charge. But $35 an episode is usury. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a legal term called usury. The government sets limits on how much companies can charge for interest. The idea is to eliminate behavior that is basically loan sharking. Star Trek for $6 a month is a very reasonable charge. But $35 an episode is usury. 

And a month gets you roughly 4 episodes; so do the math and it's only $1.50 an episode (!).

And that's not including all of the other CBS content that'll be included in that package... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s why I love this vision of the future more than TNG’s “we solved it all” vision, because it doesn’t just offer us the comfort of “brothers gonna work it out,” it calls on us as individuals to work it out. It tells us that there’s a hopeful future where humans will stop being en masse assholes to one another, but it also tells us that it’s our responsibility to get there. 

This is where I've been for a long time. TNG often had this holier-than-thou air to it that really comes off as arrogance, that I find hard to stomach. It was at its worst early on, but it's not something that every completely left it.

As for the theory...I guess we just don't know and won't for a while yet, but, if it's true it works for me and makes more sense than the likes of Number One. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this