Poll: Do you think that people should pay to D/L something that was aired for free?

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: LeiZaK

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
1 - true if it is P2P and not from a single server like iTunes

2 - it is depriving the network of ad revenue, so I'd say it's up to the network whether they turn a blind eye or start suing grannies. "Use at your own risk" if you want it ad- and cost-free.

3 - you're not Homer stopping to read all the new billboards (klown kollege!) but you almost certainly have been influenced by commercials. Regardless the point is you're taking away the basis on which the network allowed you to view the content for free (ads).

Commercials do not influence my purchasing decisions.

That's what they want you to think. What's the billboard say? Come and play. Come and play. Forget about the movement.

The simple fact is that they don't. I purchase things based on research and brand-loyalty. Brand-loyalty meaning personal experience with a brand that I know to be good and has served me well in the past.

Commercials do influence your purchasing, they influence everyone...trust me.

I do not hold to that assumption.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: DAGTA
Somehow the company hosting the videos needs to pay for the servers and bandwidth used.

Not to mention that the OTA or cable broadcast was partially financed by commercials. Now, I hate commercials more than most people, so I'm more than willing to pay for downloads or DVD sets.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: simms

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
1 - true if it is P2P and not from a single server like iTunes

2 - it is depriving the network of ad revenue, so I'd say it's up to the network whether they turn a blind eye or start suing grannies. "Use at your own risk" if you want it ad- and cost-free.

3 - you're not Homer stopping to read all the new billboards (klown kollege!) but you almost certainly have been influenced by commercials. Regardless the point is you're taking away the basis on which the network allowed you to view the content for free (ads).

Commercials do not influence my purchasing decisions.

For some reason or another I doubt that. But I read your sig and I'll assume that's the case.

I can honestly say that commercials have no impact on my purchasing decisions. I haven't watched real TV in years. I just buy the DVD sets and/or download what I want to watch. BlockBuster Online is a great thing. I'm just waiting for the studios to let me buy a season of a show and just let me download the episodes as it airs...listening, studio execs? If they made the prices reasonable, I'd even buy a DVD set if the season was good...

 

[Toonces]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: quasarsky
yes!

greed begets greed, thank u riaa, mpaa, bush, dick, cheaney

anyone else? lol

i want my IQ points back

Agreed. Since when has business not been about making money? What are you, communist?

oh no! not a communist! they're the pinnacle of evil standing against free enterprise! :disgust:

 

[Satchel]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: OdiN
Commercials do not influence my purchasing decisions.

That's irrelevent. People labored to produce what you want and the cost they charge is that you view the commercials.

Two of the three TVs in my house are hooked up to Tivos with lifetime subscriptions. I very rarely ever even see a commercial, let alone actually pay attention to them when I do see them. Am I stealing by not paying (in your words) the cost they charge? Should there be a law that I am required to watch commercials in order to view certain programs? Vic, I think you know better than to travel down that slippery slope. 😉

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: ntdz

Commercials do influence your purchasing, they influence everyone...trust me.

I do not hold to that assumption.

Yes, but you're wrong. Regardless, it makes no difference. You don't get to decide how someone else's work is used just because you believe they would never make money off you.

 

[Gravity]

No, but the fact that it IS illega, makes many sheeple criminals. I think we should go the way of the Aussies that have legalized downloading and recording televised content.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: ntdz

Commercials do influence your purchasing, they influence everyone...trust me.

I do not hold to that assumption.

Yes, but you're wrong. Regardless, it makes no difference. You don't get to decide how someone else's work is used just because you believe they would never make money off you.

No I'm not wrong. They don't inflence my purchasing.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: OdiN
The simple fact is that they don't. I purchase things based on research and brand-loyalty. Brand-loyalty meaning personal experience with a brand that I know to be good and has served me well in the past.

Regardless of what you may think, marketing does work, and has worked on you.

Prove it.

Bose is built completely on Commercials. Monster Cable copied that model.

 

[Xyclone]

Originally posted by: harobikes333
I agree. If its broadcasted to the public for free, aka, nbc, cbs, abc, fox, etc. then it should stay free. Though ya mabe a small cost to cover bandwith etc.

or instead maybe a little 10 second commercial in the beginning of it or something like that.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: tangent1138
nothing is ever free.

with broadcast tv, you "pay" by watching the commercials. this helps pay to make the show; pay the writers, pay the actors, pay for the film stock.

with cable tv, you pay for the added broadcast quality and for the smaller quality cable channels that couldn't survive on ad revenue.

with dvds you pay to have access to all the episodes at once, the dvd extras, the commentary tracks.


we're in the midst of a shift to downloadable content. but it's easy to get them for free on bittorrent. of course, you have to admit it's a tenuous position. after all, if everyone downloaded their shows from bittorrent, sans commercials without supporting them financially, then the shows they love couldn't survive and would cease to exist.

as a society we need to find a balance between cheap/easy/immediate media balanced with a responsible, ethical, respect for copyright.

What about when I download a movie using a stolen connection with a stolen computer? That's all free... for me at least 😉

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: LeiZaK

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
1 - true if it is P2P and not from a single server like iTunes

2 - it is depriving the network of ad revenue, so I'd say it's up to the network whether they turn a blind eye or start suing grannies. "Use at your own risk" if you want it ad- and cost-free.

3 - you're not Homer stopping to read all the new billboards (klown kollege!) but you almost certainly have been influenced by commercials. Regardless the point is you're taking away the basis on which the network allowed you to view the content for free (ads).

Commercials do not influence my purchasing decisions.

That's what they want you to think. What's the billboard say? Come and play. Come and play. Forget about the movement.

The simple fact is that they don't. I purchase things based on research and brand-loyalty. Brand-loyalty meaning personal experience with a brand that I know to be good and has served me well in the past.

Commercials do influence your purchasing, they influence everyone...trust me.

I've seen 10 million pepsi and coke commercials, but I don't buy pepsi OR coke. I've seen millions of breakfast cereal commercials, yet I never buy breakfast cereal.

In fact, the only stuff I buy is Fry's or Costco brand, and I have yet to see a Fry's or Costco commercial. Occasionally I'll buy Omaha - again, having never seen an Omaha commercial.

You can't win this argument because you are wrong. You probably read a textbook stating that ads generate revenue, and this is true. However, it does not mean that everyone that sees an ad will purchase the advertised product. One in a thousand people might go out and purchase that product, and maybe 5 in a thousand will choose the better advertised product over some other product. These people are known as sheep, and the ad revenue system would not exist without them.

Most of us here on ATOT are less likely to be influenced by commercials advertising things that we don't want. How many people on Anandtech purchase Dell or Gateway systems regardless of the constant commercial bombardment? We know better, and we refuse to pay more for less. Take ONE glance at the Hot Deals forum and tell me that the people there are easily influenced by commercials telling them to buy overpriced products. Case closed

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: OdiN
The simple fact is that they don't. I purchase things based on research and brand-loyalty. Brand-loyalty meaning personal experience with a brand that I know to be good and has served me well in the past.

Regardless of what you may think, marketing does work, and has worked on you.

Prove it.

Easy. You want what they're selling. You just don't want to pay for it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: OdiN
Commercials do not influence my purchasing decisions.

That's irrelevent. People labored to produce what you want and the cost they charge is that you view the commercials.

Two of the three TVs in my house are hooked up to Tivos with lifetime subscriptions. I very rarely ever even see a commercial, let alone actually pay attention to them when I do see them. Am I stealing by not paying (in your words) the cost they charge? Should there be a law that I am required to watch commercials in order to view certain programs? Vic, I think you know better than to travel down that slippery slope. 😉

Your TiVO'ed content still contains the commercials. You just fast-forward through them. Time shifting is legal fair use, and different from what the OP was referring to.
It's not that that the viewer is forced to view the commericals, but that the content is still unaltered that counts here. The "price of admission" is that the content contain the commercials or that the viewer is forced to jump through some hoop (i.e. FF) in order to avoid viewing the commercials. This is how the people who worked to provide us the content get paid for their services.

edit: Just to restate for emphasis, whether the viewer actually buys or not, or whether the viewing of the commercials actually effects their buying habits or not, is irrelevent.

 

[ultimatebob]

I think someone needs to release a DRM technology that can force viewers to watch downloadable TV shows without fast forwarding the commercials. Once someone pulls that off (without it being easy to hack), more TV networks will be willing to offer their content on the net for free.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: OdiN
The simple fact is that they don't. I purchase things based on research and brand-loyalty. Brand-loyalty meaning personal experience with a brand that I know to be good and has served me well in the past.

Regardless of what you may think, marketing does work, and has worked on you.

Prove it.

Easy. You want what they're selling. You just don't want to pay for it.

Be careful here. The point of ads is to convince people to buy products. If you don't want to pay for it in order to have it, then the ad has failed.

You've failed to prove anything 😉

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: OdiN
The simple fact is that they don't. I purchase things based on research and brand-loyalty. Brand-loyalty meaning personal experience with a brand that I know to be good and has served me well in the past.

Regardless of what you may think, marketing does work, and has worked on you.

Prove it.

Easy. You want what they're selling. You just don't want to pay for it.

What is it that I want that they are selling? Maybe a 4x4....but I've wanted one of those before seeing any commercial for them. I want to get one to go on some off-road places for my photography....commercials have had nothing to do with me wanting that.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: OdiN
The simple fact is that they don't. I purchase things based on research and brand-loyalty. Brand-loyalty meaning personal experience with a brand that I know to be good and has served me well in the past.

Regardless of what you may think, marketing does work, and has worked on you.

Prove it.

Bose is built completely on Commercials. Monster Cable copied that model.

I own neither and have no desire for either.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: OdiN
The simple fact is that they don't. I purchase things based on research and brand-loyalty. Brand-loyalty meaning personal experience with a brand that I know to be good and has served me well in the past.

Regardless of what you may think, marketing does work, and has worked on you.

Prove it.

Easy. You want what they're selling. You just don't want to pay for it.

Be careful here. The point of ads is to convince people to buy products. If you don't want to pay for it in order to have it, then the ad has failed.

You've failed to prove anything 😉

Oh hell no. The point of the ads is to convince people to want products. It is by force of law that they are convinced to buy.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: OdiN
The simple fact is that they don't. I purchase things based on research and brand-loyalty. Brand-loyalty meaning personal experience with a brand that I know to be good and has served me well in the past.

Regardless of what you may think, marketing does work, and has worked on you.

Prove it.

Easy. You want what they're selling. You just don't want to pay for it.

What is it that I want that they are selling? Maybe a 4x4....but I've wanted one of those before seeing any commercial for them. I want to get one to go on some off-road places for my photography....commercials have had nothing to do with me wanting that.

The entertainment content itself. In case you hadn't noticed, a very large part of commercials are advertising the content that sells the commercials. Turn on your TV right now, flip to a channel running commercials, and pay attention to how many of the commercials are for upcoming shows, features, and channels.

BUT... as I have already argued, whether YOU actually buy or not is irrelevent. Commercials are the "price of admission." Without them, another way would have to be found to pay for the content. And personally, I like this means that really doesn't cost me anything (as I'm not much of a consumer myself nor am I influenced much by marketing except as an information source).

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: OdiN
The simple fact is that they don't. I purchase things based on research and brand-loyalty. Brand-loyalty meaning personal experience with a brand that I know to be good and has served me well in the past.

Regardless of what you may think, marketing does work, and has worked on you.

Prove it.

Easy. You want what they're selling. You just don't want to pay for it.

What is it that I want that they are selling? Maybe a 4x4....but I've wanted one of those before seeing any commercial for them. I want to get one to go on some off-road places for my photography....commercials have had nothing to do with me wanting that.

The entertainment content itself. In case you hadn't noticed, a very large part of commercials are advertising the content that sells the commercials. Turn on your TV right now, flip to a channel running commercials, and pay attention to how many of the commercials are for upcoming shows, features, and channels.

BUT... as I have already argued, whether YOU actually buy or not is irrelevent. Commercials are the "price of admission." Without them, another way would have to be found to pay for the content. And personally, I like this means that really doesn't cost me anything (as I'm not much of a consumer myself nor am I influenced much by marketing except as an information source).

Well yeah and I agree that they need to pay for costs and such. I'm not saying that I d/l everything and all. If I miss a show I will d/l and watch it, but I usually will catch it on air.


So how about this...I pay for cable TV. With that payment I get the Sci-Fi channel (otherwise unavailable). Does that mean that I should still have to watch the commercials on it or should I be able to d/l shows from there since I do pay to actually get the content they provide?

There are still many cable channels which have commercials. Very few of them do not and are mostly movie channels like HBO/Starz, etc. though they may have a few spots between movies.

 

[intogamer]

thats true..... they have commericals to make up for it.

 

[Kenazo]

I think they should do away w/ commercials all together and just do more product placement. If the script is good enough, I'm fine w/ only Coke being shown in a show.

 

[Satchel]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: OdiN
Commercials do not influence my purchasing decisions.

That's irrelevent. People labored to produce what you want and the cost they charge is that you view the commercials.

Two of the three TVs in my house are hooked up to Tivos with lifetime subscriptions. I very rarely ever even see a commercial, let alone actually pay attention to them when I do see them. Am I stealing by not paying (in your words) the cost they charge? Should there be a law that I am required to watch commercials in order to view certain programs? Vic, I think you know better than to travel down that slippery slope. 😉

Your TiVO'ed content still contains the commercials. You just fast-forward through them. Time shifting is legal fair use, and different from what the OP was referring to.
It's not that that the viewer is forced to view the commericals, but that the content is still unaltered that counts here. The "price of admission" is that the content contain the commercials or that the viewer is forced to jump through some hoop (i.e. FF) in order to avoid viewing the commercials. This is how the people who worked to provide us the content get paid for their services.

edit: Just to restate for emphasis, whether the viewer actually buys or not, or whether the viewing of the commercials actually effects their buying habits or not, is irrelevent.

Fair enough. But let me put a little spin on this discussion. Hopefully it isn't too much of a tangent. I also own Sirius Satellite radio which has no commercials. How does that play into this? I pay a monthly subscription fee much like I do with cable tv. The monthly fee for satellite radio is the "price of admission" and not the commercials. Why can't the same be said for cable tv?