Dear Rupert Murdoch: Let’s Talk Piracy & “The Simpsons”

Rupert, my son had a simple request. “Daddy, can we watch last week’s episode of The Simpsons?” No, son, we can’t. You can blame Rupert Murdoch for that.

Rupert, I know you’re all upset about all those SOPA & PIPA protests last week. Why, without them, how will you keep all your shows from being accessible to people who just want to pirate them for free through things like Google TV.

Here’s the thing. Go look in a mirror. See that guy looking back at you? Put a big dose of the blame on him. Because he makes people like me, who are already paying you three times to watch The Simpsons, to end up thinking maybe you just really want us to watch pirated content instead.

Pay You Three Times, Shame On Me

That’s right. I pay you three times for The Simpsons. First, I get it broadcast over the air. That’s me paying you for it, because the airwaves are mine — not yours. You’re simply allowed to lease them from the public. You’re getting a piece of that spectrum from me. In return, I expect you to deliver me valuable content through it. Well done with The Simpsons.

But you know, it’s easy to miss things broadcast live over the air. Also, my signal is pretty bad. So I pay a second time, to DirecTV, to get exactly the same content you send over the air to me through satellite TV. I get a better picture. I get the ability to DVR episodes to watch later. And I pay something like $125 per month for my subscription, some of which goes into your pocket.

That brings me to my third way of paying: Hulu Plus. I don’t DVR everything. Somehow, I missed The Simpsons when it started up again this fall. But Hulu Plus has turned into a lifesaver in these cases. It has let me catch-up on programs. It’s been well worth the $7 per month I pay for it, some of which, again, goes directly into your pocket.

The Simpsons: Web Only?

And now to tonight. My son fired up Hulu Plus, so we could watch The Simpsons, as we have in the past. But no luck — he got a “web only” message. Turns out, I discovered after doing a little searching with your least favorite search engine, last year you started limited next-day episodes.

Whatever you did, it’s clearly gotten worse. Apparently, I can’t watch it on Hulu at all through my TV:

Despite paying for Hulu Plus, I cannot watch The Simpson on any device like my Roku player that is designed to play The Simpsons direct to my TV.

I gather this is because you don’t want me to buy Hulu Plus and stop paying for DirecTV, right? I get that. But it’s not like I have the same option to watch archived episodes on DirecTV, If they’re offered on demand, they are impossible to find.

I can’t even authorize my Hulu account to know that I’m paying DirecTV already, as I apparently could if I had a Dish account. Why not? Who knows. You or DirecTV or Hulu are all probably fighting with each other over rights issues.

But hey, it’s not like I can get HBO GO on my Hulu, either. Despite paying for HBO through DirecTV, they don’t let me enable my Roku with it, either.

Lesson? Search For TV On The Web

Now what have you taught my 13 year old, who wants to watch last week’s episode? That he should fire up his computer, because if he does that — and sits through the 2 minute load time for The Simpsons web site, you’ll give him the episode for free.

Why would you do this? Think. What’s a teenager like him likely to do, if they’re looking for The Simpsons, if you don’t offer it through easy, safe, direct-to-TV options like my Roku? He’ll search for it through things like Google and perhaps find it, in this case. But if you don’t offer it, since you’ve driven him and other kids to think they should search, maybe they’ll keep searching until they find some place that does offer it.

Now, if I really wanted to watch last week’s episode, on my TV and without firing up my laptop and digging out the HDMI cable, I could buy it from Amazon or Apple iTunes. But don’t you think paying four times for the same content is a bit much?

Blocking TV Devices Promotes The Piracy You Hate

Let me end with Google TV. Remember at CES? How upset you were to learn (you’re just learning this?), that if someone searches for video content on Google TV, they might reach pirated content?

Hey, I’ve used Google TV from the beginning, from before you and the other networks blocked it. Before you did this, the Google TV search results sent me directly to your web site, where I could watch your content directly from you, exactly as I could if I wanted to hook-up my computer to my TV. That’s because, after all, Google TV is really just a really small computer.

Thanks to your blocking, they don’t even bother to list your site, because why do it? It’s not like it works for those who use it. Instead, it pretty much searches the web — which lists things you might not like.

It’s not right, Rupert. Finding the TV content I want shouldn’t be this complicated, especially for someone who is actually paying you. Fix it.


Comments

  1. Jeff says

    Excellent article. Small typo: Finding the TV content I want *SHOULDN’T* be this complicated, especially for someone who is actually paying you.

  2. Myles Eftos says

    Well at least you can GET Hulu Plus. Over here in Australia, regional IP locking stops us from even streaming this stuff which out an elaborate mixture of VPNs and other such hacks. I’m not sure why – maybe the bits swirl a different way down here or something.

    This means we get to see shows weeks, if not months after you guys do. And they wonder why we download…

  3. says

    Myles, I know it sucks. Believe me, trying to catch up on Sea Patrol beyond the first season that’s offered on Hulu — well, you can’t do it legally from the US. They don’t offer the additional seasons here in any way, shape or form even though in Australia, if I were there, I could watch them all for free.

  4. Chuck says

    I couldn’t agree with you more, Danny Sullivan. Very well written, with almost unbiased arguments.

    You’re pointing out a very huge (in my opinion) gap in the market.
    Any products or services which fixes (makes it easier) these issues the least will be heroes for Murdoch; because it saves his medium, and for us; as we can watch what we pay for without too much hastle.

    Thank you for raising the issue

    - Chuck

  5. Ant says

    Not sure how you figure that you’re paying three times. Specifically, how does the spectrum argument work? I appreciate the RF is yours, a public asset, at the outset, but you’re not paying for that. And if Murdoch, one of his companies or partners leases that spectrum, surely they’re paying you?
    You are paying three times if you take into account that you are paying for a broadband or cable connection that I will grant you. In essence you are paying for the network capacity for him to send you stuff he makes money on (postage and packing for the products you are buying).
    And then there’s the forth cost- an insidious one this- advertising. Yes, you pay in advertising. You pay in a broken up media experience, you pay in the hidden ‘tax’ of the marketing budget of every product and service you buy on the high street, and you pay in terms of a consumer culture where every public transaction is conducted in a moral sphere defined by the aspirational avarice promoted by the modern ‘lifestyle’ myth promulgated by advertisers.
    You pay a lot for The Simpsons.
    Just not for the broadcast spectrum.

  6. says

    I explained how I figure I’m paying three times. I gather you don’t agree wit the first. I get that. Paying twice is still a lot. Three times if you factor in my Netflix subscription that gives me access to lots of Simpsons content, too. But you’re adding in all types of other ways I’m paying that I’m happy to go with :)

    I think the main point is this. I actually pay for the same television that Murdoch gives away for free through the airwaves and through his own web site. I’m paying him on top of that through DirecTV. So why penalize me for this, say that I can’t have the same episodes he’s giving away for free on the the web simply because I want to get them through a computer that lacks a keyboard?

  7. TJ says

    Just last week I watched the whole (or I thought it was whole) SNL episode featuring Daniel Radcliffe on Hulu. You can imagine my surprise when I realized that the “Delaware Boys” skit wasn’t included in the Hulu streaming broadcast. I found out about the skit via an embedded YouTube video on FB. The video was recorded from someone’s home television, bootleg style – with a camera. The easiest way for me to consume that content was via a “pirated” video – despite my willingness to pay for the content as a HuluPlus member. To be fair, there is a “disclaimer” on the SNL page of Hulu saying that there may be some skits that aren’t included in the streaming version. However, there are many people who only get their television content via the web. If networks don’t find ways to distribute ALL of their content via the web ON DEMAND legally, then people will the unavailable content illegally.

  8. Bernard says

    A few bones to pick with your logic: The waves belong to the people BUT he paid a pretty penny for them. Money that went to do whatever for you, ask your Congressman :) So Murdoch owes you not much, just general “good content” and of course to obey the laws.
    What he does is for his own profit. He can even cancel Simpsons and burn all previous tapes tomorrow if he wants.

    Your other point are ridiculous: if your reception is bad how is it his problem? Or that you don’t DVR or VCR? Do it or pay for the convenience–if you can get it.

    Your last point is the worst. Content belongs to HIM, if he doesn’t want to put it on Hulu or Shmulu that is HIS decision and each comes with it’s own price and restrictions. Some overlap but paying $7 for Hulu or Netflix to see everything does seem too cheap, no? You have no right, legal or moral, to hit bittorrent to “pirate” because of that. Imagine if I said “Danny, I’d pay $10 for your spiffy software you have but since you aren’t giving it to me for $10, I’ll just hack and get it for free.”

    A better point would have been: Robert you can make a lot more money and cut piracy if you do this and that because we are willing to pay for easily accessible content.

    He owes you the same thing you owe him: jack! You can cancel cable and Hulu tomorrow and he cannot come to your house demanding that you sign up.

  9. Bernard says

    So why penalize me for this, say that I can’t have the same episodes he’s giving away for free on the the web simply because I want to get them through a computer that lacks a keyboard?”

    Should have known. Is this a Sponsored by GoogleTv post? They do not want Google to do that because it cuts them out of advertising when they spent millions to create a 60 minute show. Google, believe it or not, is doing it to sell ads, in an interface that NewsCorp does not control. They control the NewsCorp site and can put ads on top, bottom, before, after or no ads. On GoogleTV, Google wants them to be the “dumb content provider.” Well, they aren’t that dumb.

  10. Eeko says

    In Europe, they don’t allow us to pay for it even once.

    And they think I would risk abstaining from online-discussion and fan-community for two years…

  11. says

    TJ, thanks for that story. Another good illustration.

    Aaron, thanks, will get it fixed.

    Bernard, I wasn’t demanding a right, either moral or legal for Murdoch to change his ways. I was saying it’s bad business.

    Part of what I pay to DirecTV goes to Fox, so that I get their programming. That’s a fact. In return for actually paying Fox, I’m getting no on-demand option to view recent episodes. But if I want to pay absolutely nothing to Fox, I can watch episodes on demand that they provide through the web.

    That’s a terrible way to convince moe I should be paying for anything. Paying is getting me less, not more.

    And I thought I was making the better point. He can cut piracy by making things more accessible, for instance, through Roku or Google TV. But deliberately cutting those things off, he drives people to doing general web searches.

    As for the “is this sponsored by Google TV post” question. No. Google TV is a piece of crap. Here’s my most recent unrecommendation of it:

    http://marketingland.com/lg-vizio-to-debut-google-tv-devices-at-ces-sony-back-for-more-2665

    “It’s encouraging that Google’s managed to get new partners to commit to its platform. It shows that Google is still standing behind the project and even able to win third-party support. But the platform itself needs major upgrades to how you use the hardware, and content deals need to be ironed out, if Google TV is ever really going to take off.”

    Google’s failure to get those deals makes the platform a joke compared to Roku. But had Murdoch and the other networks not started blocking it, it wouldn’t have cut them out of advertising.

    See, all Google TV does is stream what they were already putting on the web. All their ads were showing exactly as they were showing if you watched the stream through your computer. You can see exactly how this worked in my review of when Google TV first launched:

    http://searchengineland.com/life-with-google-tv-my-first-day-impressions-53471

    Now, of course, you can’t watch the shows from the major networks. That’s transformed Google TV, for the tiny number who have it, into an excellent platform for doing YouTube searches to find the pirated content that people can’t get on the open web freely from the networks, because they want to block the Google TV browser.

    Eeko, no, they don’t. Just like the BBC doesn’t allow us to simply pay for watching what we want here. Content providers are living as it the world is still easily segmented by regions, where they can control releases and divvy up rights as if audiences won’t find ways to get what they want, when they want it.

    For the most part, that’s still working. But it’s frustrating consumers and wasting opportunities to evolve into a better way forward.

  12. Jason says

    What’s worse is that I as a non-sports fan missed all of my favorite shows on Fox last week due to sports related programming. And the were all set to record on my dvr. That makes another good reason to pirate tv shows imo.

  13. says

    I want to pay for content, but outside of the US we can’t even do that. I tried to pay for media on Amazon and iTunes, I even lied about my address which is essentially like begging to pay, but as soon as I tried to pay with my Israeli credit card, I was booted out.

    We literally have no legal options for watching tv shows here, except cable, which in an always-on, instant world, seems so antiquated and limited.

    Media companies, we want to watch your stuff. We even want to pay you for your stuff. You could support your stuff with local ads – I’d happily sit through those. Whatever – just please, give us some options here.

  14. says

    Thank you for talking about this. People at the top of these large media companies need to either start thinking big picture or find someone that does. They make decisions with little competence and zero care for the end-user experience.

    I would even gladly ditch Hulu in exchange for a pay-by-channel model where I get everything, easily, and without ever having to bump into botched negotiation efforts that end with a patchwork of availability scenarios. Last 3 only, 1 week delay, web only… screw all that nonsense, pick one and deliver, otherwise just shut your service down until you get a clue.

    Because here’s the rub, I’m not paying 3 or 4 times. If a show starts to be hard to watch, I stop watching. There is a ton of content out there, I am in no way going to go out of my way to try and stay as current as possible for something as relatively meaningless as a television show. If you want my eyeballs, put your content in front of me, no hoops, period.

  15. says

    Hah! I wrote an article last night on piracy with near the same name (Let’s Talk About Piracy) which has now had “(More)” added to the middle of it to avoid confusion. Good article! I certainly hope all of this business with SOPA and PIPA is the beginning of the end for stuff like this.

  16. SOPASUX says

    Bottom Line is Congess has no business operating on behalf of private industry! Piracy is not a good thing, but the RIAA and Motion Picture industry need to figure out how to deal with it on their own. They want to have legislation written that gives themselves and the government far reaching control and authority that is not rightfully theirs.

  17. says

    Interestingly, it appears to be available at xfinity.comcast.net. And it only asks for a login for the premium channels. I don’t know if that’s based on location or what.

  18. says

    Danny,

    If it were only the Simpsons! Hulu and Netflix have a fair amount of issues in terms of availability. See this post I did over the weekend about legal streams availability for top 2011 TV shows:

    a href=”http://www.tnl.net/blog/2012/01/21/the-2011-state-of-internet-vod-tv/” title=”Legal streams for 2011 TV hits”>Legal streams for 2011 TV hits

    It looks like the model many show providers want now is a pay-per-episode one…

  19. Dale King says

    I’ve never understood the logic of the limitations on Hulu. Supposedly what they want is for me to watch the program when it is aired, not on DVR and not on Hulu. But the restrictions they put on Hulu promote just the opposite.

    Many shows you watch kind of need to be watched in episode order and watching them out of order would be a major problem. So explain to me why if I miss an episode, does it make sense for Hulu to not let me see it until after the next episode has aired. It actually prevents me from going back to watching the episodes when they air.

    The restriction of only going back 5 episodes has meant that there are many series I never watched because I did not find out about them until after they were 6 episodes in. Since I could not go back and catch up I just decided not to watch that series.

    And I know they complain about ad revenues on Hulu, but I’m actually more likely to watch an ad on Hulu, but do they capitalize on that and give me as many ads as possible? No, instead they give me the same ad repeatedly in the same show!

  20. C. Puffer says

    I agree entirely. Moreover, I refuse to pay per episode. (1.99, which seems to be the going rate, is ridiculously inflated and for a 12 to 30 episode season stupidly expensive; even .99 is too much since, let’s be honest, most people don’t just casually watch 1 or 2 shows at time. People want a cable/Netflix/Hulu model without unreasonable restrictions.)

    You do see that this is precisely what SOPA/PIPA/ACTA (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/23/if-you-thought-sopa-was-bad-just-wait-until-you-meet-acta/) are designed to address: providing big content a means to protect their monopolies by giving them ultimate control over the internet. They know that without regulatory muscle behind them they are powerless to continue to squeeze maximum profits out of artificial barriers and rights management. They will tear it down and construct a system they can control, or so they believe. Free speech arguments are lost on them (MPAA, RIAA, Fox, UMG, et al); they already have all the voice they need since they have unimaginable reserves of cash and all the channels of distribution and media outlets. They absolutely will stand in the way of technical innovation if it is outside their control, if it means they have to adapt a business model that has been obscenely profitable for them.

    I fear this war has been lost. They will just keep throwing money and politicians and law enforcement at the problem until the internet is cable television. You don’t think Murdoch doesn’t want to charge you each time you watch a Simpson’s episode? He absolutely does.

  21. says

    Hulu Plus is an especially adept example of idiot decision making. 30 Rock was available last season with all previous episodes and new episodes came out before the next one would air live. My wife and I watched a few, were hooked, saw every episode leading up to the latest and then we’d watch live on the air when we could, or catch them later in the week on Hulu. Either way we were seeing ads and they were able to develop our fandom through the old episodes. Win-Win. We’ve been eagerly awaiting the new season, have even been watching the shorts they put on Hulu to get us excited, new episode airs… we now get the “Web Only” message over 30 Rocks entry in our subscribed list. WTF? Talk about a complete slap in the face of a loyal fan.

    A similar thing happened with me with Fringe. I watched a few episodes online at Hulu on the desktop at the recommendation of a friend. I loved it, got hooked, and when we bought a Roku I immediately signed up for Hulu Plus so I could continue to enjoy my favorite shows. Fringe… Web only. Another WTF moment. So, did I scramble try and catch the show when it airs or force myself to watch on my laptop only? No, I discovered the new Dr. Who on Netflix and forgot all about Fringe. Win for BBC, lose for Fox.

    If anybody should be pushing for getting the kinks worked out it’s the content creators. They are losing viewers and fans for no other reason than network execs are crippled by FUD and can’t make the correct decisions.

  22. Ric says

    Spot on piece Danny! It amazes me that someone big enough to build his empire wouldnt be smart enough to understand the new convenience paradigm! Supply and demand is dead and the ecosystems that ensure the death will deliver but wont do it as well as they content providers that understand the new paradigm and serve it the way consumers want it to be served and should they get it that way would be glad to pay for it!

    They might not be willing to be gouged to for it but pay a fair price in any case. Get over your greed murdoch and embrace the obvious future!

  23. says

    Danny,

    Excellent post! In a bit of synchronicity, I wrote a similar post this morning related to my frustration with not being able to PAY to view the US football playoff game yesterday. The fundamental issue here is the entertainment industry’s failure to evolve to provide the content consumers want in the channels they want for a reasonable cost. Your son wanted a Simpson’s episode. I wanted a sports game. TJ in an earlier comment wanted a complete SNL episode.

    We as consumers WANT this content, and we’re willing to pay for it. Yet the entertainment industry can’t get it to us.

    And they are then surprised when people turn to pirate sites?

  24. says

    The Rupert Murdoch’s of the world are slowly being to forced to face is that content is actually fairly plentiful, and getting more so all the time. Therefore, prices are falling. Traditional video stores can’t maintain the inventory at the price points they need to stay in business, so they are getting completely subsumed by Redbox and Netflix. All you can eat streaming makes it idiotic to buy individual episodes or seasons, or even DVDs. I pay $8 a month for Netflix. I pay in excess of $100 a month for Comcast cable. Because Netflix carries old television shows which I might have missed, I generally watch more Netflix, to the extent that I’ve considered dropping all premium content on Comcast. It’s simply not a very good buy anymore.

    What Murdoch wants to do is to create artificial scarcity to stabilize the price of media at the price points that his old media companies need to maintain themselves, and they are willing to wreck the Internet to do it. Good luck with that, Rupert.

  25. says

    Re: Dan York’s comment: I feel the same way about MLB.TV. If I lived in Wyoming or someplace, I would be able to subscribe to MLB.TV and view all the games of the teams I follow (Athletics and Giants). But because I live in the Bay Area, there is no way I can pay to receive those games live. What’s more absurd: I can’t even get their away games (presumably the rules were meant to keep those who could attend games live from staying home and watching them on TV, but it seems silly to apply that logic to away games as well).

    They are practically begging me to use a pirate source, when I’d rather just pay them. It’s crazy.

  26. says

    Media is used to dictating the terms of the sale to the end consumer. Times have changed, they haven’t. I still have money in hand ready to pay for entertainment, but you damn well better come to the table with a good service and value or you can take a hike. I already cut the cable TV cord (and Danny, if you have a digital antenna, the quality of HD air broadcast is actually superior to cable due to not having the loss from compression) and now have just Netflix and Hulu Plus with a smattering of Amazon On Demand for must have first runs like Mythbusters and Walking Dead. I’m about to give Hulu Plus it’s walking papers as well since nearly everything went web only recently. That monthly price is a little steep for effectively only Modern Family and Parks & Rec now.

    So if these guys want to continue to be in business, they need to meet the consumer at the table and stop pretending they have the power.

  27. Matt says

    Don’t forget that despite paying Direct TV, you still have to sit through commercials, which in my opinion, is paying for the show again.

  28. says

    As a consumer, I want what you want. We all do. Heck, I’d wager mr murdoch does as well.

    As a tv tech veteran, the mere fact that this article fails to discuss the deal terms which bind content companies, broadcasters, networks, affiliates, etc all together, shows the gaping void between the tech industry and the content one. There is no 1 person, in fact, there’s no 10 people, who could choose to offer you this. It’s just not possible.

    But you really should stop thinking the same folks are linked between things like SOPA and those who actually do get you the content itself. They aren’t. Moreso, you actually don’t triple pay for content, which is actually, for the most part, priced quite reasonably.

    And again, I too would choose to pay to access much more content online than is available. I also would choose to learn how to fly a Pegasus, but the option just doesn’t seem to be there…

  29. fjpoblam says

    Face it, Danny. I’ve seen it in some of the comments here, and I’ve seen the analogue in response to Google’s SPYW, and lots of other things. A sort of argument for which there’s no comfortable rebuttal. You don’t have to watch the Simpsons. You don’t have to use Google. America: love it or leave it. Like it or lump it.

    Your choice to associate yourself with or be in the neighborhood of any sphere of human activity, implies your acceptance of all human conduct in that arena. Don’t let me hear you yelling, “Down in front!”

  30. says

    Great point. If you go on YouTube, you see many people complaining that they can’t see their favorite artist on VEVO. Music videos are pretty much advertisements anyways, to convince people to buy the single.

    I’m going to Tweet this and consider putting it in my weekly round-up. Even though I run a writer’s blog, this is an issue that affects all entertainment.

  31. Tim Higgins says

    Well said, Danny. I was thinking of writing a similar rant SNB, but you took care of it. Comcast is up to the same tricks. 30 Rock, which was accessible via HuluPlus last season, is now “web only”. I’m sure there are other examples. HuluPlus gets less worth it every day, even at $8 per month.

    I also tried to watch last night’s NBC newscast on Roku Newscaster this morning. I was told that NBC now has its own Roku app, which I installed. Guess what? The app lets you watch only *clips*, not the whole newscast.

    Keep it up, guys. You’ll drive everyone over to the Torrents.

  32. Matt Wolfe says

    You know, a much simpler way of looking at it is that really – you should never make it difficult for your audience/customers to find the product you make. As soon as you do that, people give up and stop caring about what you create.

    This is, of course, only compounded by the ease at which we can now access information and entertainment via the internet. The fact is that I have billions of sites at my fingertips now… along with games, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, camera apps, travel planning tools – you name it – all on a phone/tablet/computer. Why am I going to pay attention to a TV show if its so difficult to find when I can do a multitude of over things with ease?

    Of course, I agree with your thoughts regarding piracy… I just think that many people are giving up on TV all-together as well.

  33. says

    Hi Danny,

    A great article man, you make some very valid points in which TV and movie companies are pushing people to stream and even download videos from sites which they are not meant to simple because free services from them have been stopped for now reason other then the fact they want to make more money!

    For example, in the UK we have 4OD which is channel 4′s online video site etc where you can view last weeks shows etc just like another catch up service. But why do they all stop viewing so soon? I think you only get like 1 week to catch up on missed shows, but what if you go on holiday for a month and want to catch up with what you missed on your fav sitcom? Now you have to go a view or download those missed episodes for so called “pirate” sites.

    But if something has already been aired on TV for everyone to view, how can downloading it for free be a bad thing? Its just the same as people recording it of the TV surely? Thats the way I see it anyway, or are they going to try and stop people from recording TV shows next?

    P.S. “Now what have you taught my 13 year old” should that not say “Now that you have taught my 13 year old”?

    Thanks again for another great article :)

  34. says

    I have a background from the land-line telephone industry, and some of that experience may make sense here. In 1968 the Carterfone decision opened up the AT&T network to non-AT&T devices. Could we imagine a telecommunications world for the past 44 years where every telecom-related device was owned and distributed by AT&T??? I’m certain we’d have far fewer choices and being paying much more.

    If Rupert wants to be a Monopolist or member of a Cartel, he should also be willing to face more regulation on his prices and such. Unfortunately for us, the USA has become lax with respect to anti-trust enforcement.

  35. PaulTT says

    Danny,

    Great article! I agree completely.

    TO THE NAYSAYERS LIKE Bernard above,
    The public airwaves are owned by US, leased to guys like Murdoch. Yes he pays us, but is able to sell ads that makes him money and he is obligated to “serve the public” for the license he pays for – READ the license agreements!

    NEXT the entire POINT you seem to be missing in this post IS that IF they do not make the content available legally and easier, that DO NOT COMPLAIN YOUR CONTENT IS BEING PIRATED!

    Shoving horrible flawed legislation down our throats is not the answer. Paying off legislators is also not a recipe for success either. These people work for us, we can replace them and rid ourselves of flawed laws that were bought and paid. MPAA should not tell us objecting and protesting to the flawed laws they are willing to bribe our representatives with is somehow “an abuse of power.” The power is called democracy!

  36. says

    The broadcast industry is trying to learn from the music industry’s mistakes. Instead of attacking the pirates individually they’re going to try and get the government to do it for them (SOPA IPPA). My thoughts were that cable as we know it would be dead within the decade, this assuming all the parties involved can get their heads on straight. They need to embrace the medium or they’ll face resistance from the masses indefinitely.

    There’s no reason why they can’t come up with a solution that maximizes their profits while making user experience easy. They’ve simply created a bureaucratic mess for themselves with their resistance to change. Instead of working to come up with a solution that is innovative they’re screwing the consumer to keep shareholders happy.

    Signed,
    -Mr. Cynic

  37. Mouse says

    $125 a month for DirectTV. Good God! When I think of all the fantastic things I could do with $1,500 a year besides watch TV. Danny, you are totally wasting your money.

    Stop complaining to Murdoch. He didn’t force you to buy the Simpsons three times. In fact he made it available three different ways, and you bought all three. You are the sucker.

    Spend that $1,500 a year on local theatre, going to concerts, buying books, charity or traveling. You and your community will be better off.

    (oh, and you don’t have to pay for Hulu to watch the Simpsons. It’s offered there for free!)

  38. observer_007 says

    And now comes the interesting twist: They pirated the keys to their pay TV rivals, made sure they were available on the internet and bingo, their market share grew and grew. French Canal+ had a lawsuit and someone made them drop it, but ITV bit the dust. In Italy and Australia their rivals fared only marginally better. So you can read in the various news. Who protects the Murdoch empire?

    Well, well, well – boot now getting on other foot? What the attraction with the Simpsons is, has so far escaped me, but it’s a wide world. We used to be bombarded with letters from Murdoch’s pay TV to subscribe, until I sent several back ‘Return to Sender – No interest’.

  39. says

    They should be able to figure out a way to make this easier than it is. I think it’ll get more consolidated, eventually… it’s just when.