Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, Fox, ESPN, and WB are launching a joint venture sports streaming service

[Brooklyn 3.0]

3 minutes ago, SOJA said:

me thinks this may come back with a vengeance 

For the younger crowd, probably. Most adults just don't have the energy lol.

[Tbe]

2 hours ago, scpanther22 said:

can't tell if joking or not

No, I’m 100% for bypassing compensation mechanisms to steal from those who are trying to feed their families with their content.

Same with ad blockers. Totally ethical. Whatever is best for me and my wallet.

 

[PanthersATL]

7 minutes ago, SOJA said:

I really hope this doesn't affect youtube tv 

It probably will.

YouTubeTV continues to grow, with the largest number of subscribers for a "cable alternative" (aka "skinny bundle") vs Hulu+Live TV or others. If things keep going the way it has been, expect to see YouTubeTV surpass satellite in terms of subscriber count in a few years.

But the differentiator is going to be whether YouTubeTV has anything to offer that's different.

They allegedly gained 1m subscriptions last year with Sunday Ticket. But that's not sustainable long-term if there aren't any other exclusives to the platform or differentiator

If the new Sports-Only bundle takes off in popularity, we may see YouTubeTV subs dropped by those people who really only wanted sports programming and didn't care about local channels or whatever else YTTV brought to the table that isnt available elsewhere

 

[scpanther22]

7 minutes ago, Tbe said:

No, I’m 100% for bypassing compensation mechanisms to steal from those who are trying to feed their families with their content.

Same with ad blockers. Totally ethical. Whatever is best for me and my wallet.

 

Your entire argument hinges on the entertainment industry being equitable and its not 

The record profits are not making it to the content creators, its going to the executives so I feel very little remorse in people seeking other means to get content

[scpanther22]

2 hours ago, PanthersATL said:

not a joke, it's true.

Somebody has to pay for the content creation/licensing. if you're paying for a pirate stream (either via money or their own overlayed advertising), then that's money that doesn't go to the content creators.

Buying a bootleg t-shirt outside a concert doesn't pay the band performing inside.

Companies are paying for it by going into massive amounts of dept, not turning a profit then firing 10% of their entire work force after they raise subscription prices when their plan doesn't work 

Paying creators is an afterthought 

 

[djp14]

29 minutes ago, PanthersATL said:

It probably will.

YouTubeTV continues to grow, with the largest number of subscribers for a "cable alternative" (aka "skinny bundle") vs Hulu+Live TV or others. If things keep going the way it has been, expect to see YouTubeTV surpass satellite in terms of subscriber count in a few years.

But the differentiator is going to be whether YouTubeTV has anything to offer that's different.

They allegedly gained 1m subscriptions last year with Sunday Ticket. But that's not sustainable long-term if there aren't any other exclusives to the platform or differentiator

If the new Sports-Only bundle takes off in popularity, we may see YouTubeTV subs dropped by those people who really only wanted sports programming and didn't care about local channels or whatever else YTTV brought to the table that isnt available elsewhere

 

I think YTTV is pretty well positioned right now. It's basically cable tv for people who don't want to pay cable tv prices.  I'd guess that the "sports progamming only" market isn't huge.  The problem for YTTV is if any of this stuff becomes exclusive, or if ESPN/Fox decide to jack up whatever carriage prices they're currently paying.

[Tbe]

36 minutes ago, scpanther22 said:

Your entire argument hinges on the entertainment industry being equitable and its not 

The record profits are not making it to the content creators, its going to the executives so I feel very little remorse in people seeking other means to get content

Theft is theft. Even if the people you’re stealing from aren’t compensated fairly.

“Yeah, it’s 100% cool to rob that store. Most of the profit goes to the manufacturers anyway.”

Your theft ensures those creators get nothing.

If you don’t like it, then don’t consume the content. That’s the ethical thing to do.

[Tbe]

42 minutes ago, scpanther22 said:

Companies are paying for it by going into massive amounts of dept, not turning a profit then firing 10% of their entire work force after they raise subscription prices when their plan doesn't work 

Paying creators is an afterthought 

 

Wait…you’re saying they are spending billions for content but paying creators is an after thought?

So who are they paying then?

[PanthersATL]

5 minutes ago, Tbe said:

Wait…you’re saying they are spending billions for content but paying creators is an after thought?

So who are they paying then?

HBO paid approx $5m per episode for Game of Thrones. Some episodes cost more than that. But all the $ came from HBO (more than 85% of HBO's revenue comes from subscriber fees). 

Streamers are cutting shows from their lineups that they don't have the IP rights for. MAX cutting MINX this season is one example, as it eliminates an (unnecessary) license fee from their budget. 
 

[Zaximus]

2 hours ago, Tbe said:

Theft is theft. Even if the people you’re stealing from aren’t compensated fairly.

“Yeah, it’s 100% cool to rob that store. Most of the profit goes to the manufacturers anyway.”

Your theft ensures those creators get nothing.

If you don’t like it, then don’t consume the content. That’s the ethical thing to do.

I get what you are saying but when it comes to piracy a large, very large percentage of folks wouldn't have consumed that content in other ways so it's not exactly "lost" if it wouldn't have happened anyway.  In fact it may benefit the content creators when word of mouth and advertising from the viewer helps get others to watch legit.  I remember early 2000's when it came to PC game piracy this was generally what studies found etc.  

[scpanther22]

23 minutes ago, Zaximus said:

I get what you are saying but when it comes to piracy a large, very large percentage of folks wouldn't have consumed that content in other ways so it's not exactly "lost" if it wouldn't have happened anyway.  In fact it may benefit the content creators when word of mouth and advertising from the viewer helps get others to watch legit.  I remember early 2000's when it came to PC game piracy this was generally what studies found etc.  

I remember the creator of Breaking Bad pretty much saying piracy is what spread the word about the show because no one at the time was watching AMC

[RumHam]

20 hours ago, 45catfan said:

It's a la carte consumption.  I prefer that that to a one size fits all cable or satellite service. I did both (one or the other) for years.  Before I cut the cord, my BASIC--BARE BONES-- Direct TV bill got up to $180 per month.

cool. pay for six services that are $30 a month. i'll end up streaming to the east 

[Tbe]

1 hour ago, Zaximus said:

I get what you are saying but when it comes to piracy a large, very large percentage of folks wouldn't have consumed that content in other ways so it's not exactly "lost" if it wouldn't have happened anyway.  In fact it may benefit the content creators when word of mouth and advertising from the viewer helps get others to watch legit.  I remember early 2000's when it came to PC game piracy this was generally what studies found etc.  

 

Those studies said people wouldn’t have consumed most of those games/movies/songs had they not pirated them BUT the studies also made it clear that those people were not buying anything BUT would have purchased something if downloading for free wasn’t an option.

Basically, people downloaded everything they could when it was free and never intended to pay for anything.

Once they had to pay, they purchased what they really wanted and didn’t consume what they didn’t care enough to buy.

Long story short, pirating stuff and saying it’s ok because the creator ‘gets exposure’ is wrong unless that creator is ok with it.

 

[PanthersATL]

49 minutes ago, RumHam said:

cool. pay for six services that are $30 a month. i'll end up streaming to the east 

As mentioned earlier, majority of households only subscribe to Netflix and at most one other service per month. Majority of households are not 6x$30/month