HBO Getting Serious About Game Of Thrones Piracy

NeoNemesis

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
2,466

You're wrong though. The problem is that the content (HBO Canada) is owned by the content distributor (Bell Canada), which also owns the streaming service I do pay for (CraveTV).

They use GoT and other programs as a method of enticing people to sign up to their cable service, which costs $100+ a month.

Is it legal for them to do this? Sure. But I cancelled my streaming service in protest and then proceeded to stream the first few episodes of GoT online for free.

Which, brings me to my second point: while downloading (uploading) a torrent is illegal, free online streaming site aren't (for the viewer).
 
Last edited:

MadMurdock

n00b
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
26
He said he was paying for the service in general, with GoT being excluded, not that he bought it specifically for GoT.
I don't blame him for pirating it, it's not like he has many options. Then he's the bad guy, yet the providers charging out of the ass aren't?

Don't act like there hasn't been shit you've not wanted on day one, whether it be a product or show, because everyone has something they enjoy. You're full of shit if you say otherwise.

There is all kinds of things I wanted on day 1, well except for games, since they seemed to be shipped in pretty rough states on day 1, but sure there are plenty of shows that I was excited to see the series premiere. Still not sure where that "entitles" him to get it by any means he wants. The Canada example is a little more palpable, but I game with people who download it simply because they don't want to pay for it period. $15 a month for HBO Now is too much to pay and they use the same greedy company X argument. I rarely join these pirating threads, because I already know ahead of time, no one who pirates will ever think they are doing anything wrong. They are just sticking it to the evil corporations!
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,481
He pays for *A* service that is *NOT* HBO, explain to me again why he should be upset? HBO owns the rights to the show they produce, they get to dictate the terms at which it gets distributed, and the cable companies get to dictate how much of a package you need to have to watch. Again it's a god damn TV show, his life will go on if he doesn't watch it regardless of how good people feel it might be.

Lets just look at it this way, I just paid $20 to get into a national park, you're telling me Disneyland isn't included in that ticket price? WTF, I'm climbing the gates!

I don't think you understand... bells streaming service INCLUDES almost all HBO shows... accept GOT.

Its there way of trying to sell their customers another package. One way to get HBO shows with a bell sub is their streaming service... Bell pays for the Canadian rights to a bunch of shows, its why Canadian Netflix is subpar compared to American Netflix for instance. (because bell and our other monopolies that split the country up pay for exclusive rights to a ton of stuff) HBO Now has stayed out of Canada, because make no mistake Bell and HBO are working together in a monopoly situation. They hold back GOT from the Canadian streaming service... meaning there is no way to legally obtain the show unless you double purchase from Bell. (purchasing their streaming service which includes HBO with a big * or not ) the only option for GOT HBO is having to sub to HBO with your cable package.

It would be like HBO in the US removing GOT from HBO Now... and saying this show is only for Cable subscribers. I'm sure that wouldn't drive piracy or anything. :)
 
Last edited:

Lord Nassirbannipal

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
1,155
Actually yes, ChadD was very clearly trying to say it was not illegal. I refer you to post #43. Also I was not arguing that Copyright Infringement was theft or stealing. I was saying that it was illegal. That my point was the legality of the action. EDIT: I did originally mention stealing, which sent us down this rabbit hole, but the point was the legality of the action.

Again here are a bunch of people arguing over semantics trying to take away from the point which was that it was illegal and the suggestion was that someone do something illegal because they cannot obtain the content they want right now for a price they deemed fair. Really all the arguments to the contrary are getting completely ridiculous.

He said this: "People need to understand in what way it is "Illegal""

The point that he was making is that it's not a criminal offense. There are forms of copyright infringement which are but this isn't one of them.

No one here is arguing semantics. You keep trying to equate it to theft but thee fact of that matter is that it isn't so you're wrong. The same legal system we're talking about ruled on this a long time ago. If you took someone to court for copyright infringement and referred to it as theft then their attorney would object and it would be upheld. If you continued to do it then you'd be held in contempt.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,481
He said this: "People need to understand in what way it is "Illegal""

The point that he was making is that it's not a criminal offense. There are forms of copyright infringement which are but this isn't one of them.

No one here is arguing semantics. You keep trying to equate it to theft but thee fact of that matter is that it isn't so you're wrong. The same legal system we're talking about ruled on this a long time ago. If you took someone to court for copyright infringement and referred to it as theft then their attorney would object and it would be upheld. If you continued to do it then you'd be held in contempt.

That is pretty simple explanation yes. I think it likely applies in most of the US. In Canada I know you also can't call it illegal behaviour in front of a judge unless you are also looking to be corrected. Its liable no doubt, but not everything that is liable is illegal. There is nothing illegal about downloading copyrighted material in Canada, you can be "sued for liable" by the rights holder. If you are they must play by our civil laws which right now is the Copyright Modernization Act. The CMA is due to be reviewed next year I believe, I don't expect it will be changed much. (the law is required to be reviewed every 5 years to account for any changes in tech)

PS the movie industry has done a real number propaganda wise with the "theft" bit. I didn't think people would buy into that junk so hard. I admit to not being super informed about every US law regarding copyright. I know they protect the copyright holder more... but to be honest I was under the impression the US laws where still very much Civil. The federal... if you copy this you face a 10000 bazzilion dollar fine and a life time in Folsom messages only really apply to distribution rings (not that they tell you that... your suppoed to believe if you copy a VHS you'll have the FBI kicking in your door), as individual use falls completely into a civil proceeding it isn't really illegal behaviour. I might have to do some reading later and try and understand the US law better... if that's possible I mean your courts did award the Hulkster over 100 million in a liable case. haha
 
Last edited:

ruffbytes

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
447
And that should be a perfectly fine decision that the executives at HBO get to make. He does not get to make the call on how HBO markets.

The executives can make the decision and NeoNemesis can complain about it on HardForms. There is nothing wrong with either of those things.
 

Shotglass01

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
1,960
Many people and companies are slow to adapt, mostly because no one really knows what a new system is going to look like. It would be nice if the whole entertainment industry could more easily transition to a different model. At least we are starting to see more of that with Twitch and Youtube and the like. Also with Amazon and Netflix creating their own content, I believe that is also helping push the industry a bit. But the problem is there is a lot of money going into producing something as high quality as Game of Thrones on HBO. I don't think anyone has found a safe way to monetize that in a different format than the current subscription models.

HBO would then have to pay for all the resources to either stream that themselves, or for someone else to stream it for them. And if the major cable companies aren't on board, that could really hurt their relationship with the hand that has been feeding them for decades.

I did parse out some bits from your original post, but I still have the same response and attitude. This is not my problem. Tech allows me to steal, copy, ripoff, kill babies, drown kittens- I don't care what it's called or how evil some people think it is, it's possible, widespread, and mostly guiltless. Music lost the war and is now finding profit again from paid streaming. TV and movies need to get on-board.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,821
I did parse out some bits from your original post, but I still have the same response and attitude. This is not my problem. Tech allows me to steal, copy, ripoff, kill babies, drown kittens- I don't care what it's called or how evil some people think it is, it's possible, widespread, and mostly guiltless. Music lost the war and is now finding profit again from paid streaming. TV and movies need to get on-board.
The Music business has been in free fall for more than 15 years and bands are the big losers, because unless you're Beyonce or the Beatles, you're not making much from streaming. If you don't think stealing matters, then you probably don't know working musicians. Streaming can't make up for the fact that we pay less/person for music than we have at pretty much any point at least the last 40 years.
 

NeoNemesis

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
2,466
The Music business has been in free fall for more than 15 years and bands are the big losers, because unless you're Beyonce or the Beatles, you're not making much from streaming. If you don't think stealing matters, then you probably don't know working musicians. Streaming can't make up for the fact that we pay less/person for music than we have at pretty much any point at least the last 40 years.

We are paying less because we are no longer forced to pay $20 for 1-2 good songs and 14 garbage songs. Could it be that not ever two-bit musician needs to be a multi-millionaire?

Besides, artists have always made the bulk of their money from concerts. It's the bureaucrats and desk jockeys that are suffering.

I pay my 9.95 a month and will never go back.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,821
We are paying less because we are no longer forced to pay $20 for 1-2 good songs and 14 garbage songs. Could it be that not ever two-bit musician needs to be a multi-millionaire?

Besides, artists have always made the bulk of their money from concerts. It's the bureaucrats and desk jockeys that are suffering.

I pay my 9.95 a month and will never go back.
Anyone who spent 20 bucks for a CD was fucking stupid. I cannot remember ever paying more than 15 for a CD and that was mostly in the 80s. You could easily buy CDs at Best Buy and Circuit City for 12-13 bucks.

As for the quality of the albums, if your albums only had 2 good songs, you had terrible taste in music..
Your assertion about money for artists, depends on the level of artist. If you didn't sell music, then yes, touring was it. But for everyone else, touring was done to promote the album. What? you thought Pink Floyd performed 12 Wall shows at 15 bucks a ticket (or less) to make money? It was a contractual obligation.

Touring only became the way to make money for Dino bands in the 90s (late 80s if you count the Stones). Once consolidation took over, then touring became the way to make money. Before then, a Rush concert was about 20 bucks. I think in 97 it was a bit over 30. 2002 it was 100. When U2 toured on ZooTV, after 2 years on the road, they broke even.

So no, bands didn't live off of touring. And at this point, if you're not a top act, you're not making money from albums (and maybe not from touring either). The old system allowed labels to invest in artists for years without necessarily making money off the artist.
 

NeoNemesis

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
2,466
The old system allowed labels to invest in artists for years without necessarily making money off the artist.

And this is good, why?

I can't speak for how it was in the 70s and 80s as I believe Ace of Base was probably my first album, so I can only go off of what I experienced in the mid 90s, where CDs DID cost 19.95 (in Canada) + tax (or more).
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
What's funny is that there is no legal way to watch GoT in Canada without having a 100+ dollar a month cable package with Bell (who owns HBO Canada).

I even pay $10 a month to subscribe to Bell's online streaming service, but they surreptitiously left out Game of Thrones, despite all other shows being included with the service.

There is literally no way for me to watch this show without pirating it or signing a $2400 two year contract with the most detestable TV provider in Canada.

Let me finish up by saying that I would be MORE than happy to pay $15 a month for the entire HBO catalog.

I agree Bells package is silly expensive.

But you just need patience. Wait and get the Blu Ray. I have only watched Season 1 of GoT. I decided to wait until the whole thing is finished and then watch it all on Blu Ray.

Much less expensive and better quality.
 

choppedliver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
479
this is a dead horse. Make it more accessible at reasonable prices with or without cable packages, and you'll sell a shit load more and wont be worried about the lawbreakers.
You will never get every last dime out the pockets of infringers. Those people are probably your best advertising anyway.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,481
The Music business has been in free fall for more than 15 years and bands are the big losers, because unless you're Beyonce or the Beatles, you're not making much from streaming. If you don't think stealing matters, then you probably don't know working musicians. Streaming can't make up for the fact that we pay less/person for music than we have at pretty much any point at least the last 40 years.

As a sometimes "working" musician, I think I can safely say bands and musicians in general where hardly getting rich before either. The only difference is the Apples of the world are taking the pie now instead of some other fat cats.

The music industry was never doing all that badly no matter what propaganda you wanna listen to... the fat cats where still getting fat every single year. Last year streaming profits where up over 40% and they are likely to tip upwards this year as well. Because yes they have finally realized they can profit from changing user habits. Its hardly the users fault if they came along kicking and screaming.

Having said all that for unsigned musicians this is the best it has ever been. We are no longer dependent on fat cats to drop thousands on recording, no longer do we need fat cats to drop thousands pressing vinyl and plastic, no longer do we need their pockets at all to market our music. Anyone with some talent and a mid range PC can record and market themselves. Will you make Beyonce or Beatles type bank... highly unlikely. But lets all get real that was always highly unlikely... and if you had talent you where going to get used to write songs, and perhaps get paid to record session work for untalent hacks that happen to be pretty or fit the look of the latest fat cat boy band.

There are plenty of real artists out there, recording work, marketing it, and not being turned into slaves of the record industry... if they where lucky enough to make it that far. There are also new avenues to express yourself... there is good money in scoring video games, films and even TV. I mean not everyone is Ramin Djawadi (who scores GOT) I mean before GOT he did score Iron man and person of interest. Anyway I only bring him up to bring it back to GOT. :)

For musicians the industry is fairer now then it has ever been. Its no shock the people that have always made the money are still finding ways to screw their chosen few. If you wanna rebel against that system don't sub to the streaming services and seek out all the great ways to discover real artists online. If you wanna support artists direct there are plenty of ways, that don't involve the slime that control the streaming services as they used to control the physical sales.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
this is a dead horse. Make it more accessible at reasonable prices with or without cable packages, and you'll sell a shit load more and wont be worried about the lawbreakers.
You will never get every last dime out the pockets of infringers. Those people are probably your best advertising anyway.

This actually isn't true. Look at all the excuses that have been used over and over in this thread alone. People will keep doing it because they can. Just look at this post:

I did parse out some bits from your original post, but I still have the same response and attitude. This is not my problem. Tech allows me to steal, copy, ripoff, kill babies, drown kittens- I don't care what it's called or how evil some people think it is, it's possible, widespread, and mostly guiltless. Music lost the war and is now finding profit again from paid streaming. TV and movies need to get on-board.

Basically he is going to do something illegal because he can. That is the mentality of society today.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
You have not read the Copyright modernization act it would seem. There are only 2 references to the criminal code of Canada in that document. They both apply to security, it amounts to someone using copyrighted material to further facilitate criminal behaviour. Just as someone brought up speeding earlier... which isn't a criminal code violation unless it is in furtherance of another crime. In other words speeding is not a criminal code offense... but it becomes one if your evading capture, driving a get away car ect.

We did make it easier for right holders to serve notices of infringing actions... as those noticed can now be passed on by ISPs with out the ISPs having to name users. (they still don't have to name names unless a court orders it) Those notices have no teeth at all of course... as they still can't get a name to bring a suit unless they first bring suit against the ISP, in Canadian history ONE company has won against an ISP, and the judge found that in order to get the information the plaintiff would have to reimburse all costs to said ISP. Another company that was using the notice system to send illegal pay or else letters had their case tossed and was warned if they didn't discontinue the practice, the judge was going to press the crown to bring extortion charges. (they used a loop hole in the Notification legislation to add demands, when the law did attempt to avoid that happening... I don't know about US judges but our Judges in Canada tend to get annoyed when people exploit technical holes in legislation, no judge wants to be the one to set a bad precedent in those cases and they tend to toss them)

So far what has happened in courts is what matters... and the simple fact is one small ISP lost a naming names case... and the judge slapped on costs for the ISP. Meaning the complaining company, everyones fav Voltage, simply went away. As for our larger ISPs... honestly I don't think any of the big American companies want to touch them, there all cozy in bed doing things like tying HBO to insane packages cause they can. They aren't going to start bringing suits against those guys (our major ISPs are also our major content distributors), with all the "piracy" they claim to be upset about in Canada... the truth is per capita Canadians subscribe and buy their content as much as Amercians, only we do it at 10-40% more profit. For the most part they don't want to rock that boat. If our gov ever strikes down the power of the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) which protects their monopoly, then perhaps they would be more willing to push our laws.

I don't think you read it, plus the acts preceding it, or the refinements to it. First the act itself is a change to previous acts, it stipulates the changes, which is stated right at the beginning, "An Act to amend the Copyright Act". It is not whole unto itself. There have also been several changes to it. There are dozens of legal breakdowns of it too, which I took the time to read through. Your assumptions about it are not correct. Statistics have also shown that since the passing of the act and its follow ups pirating in Canada has gone down by quite a bit.
 

Shotglass01

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
1,960
Basically he is going to do something illegal because he can. That is the mentality of society today.

And, there, right there sir, is your market. IP and copyright laws aren't going to save the business model they've been using for decades while hiding behind laws drafted for the printing press era.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,481
I don't think you read it, plus the acts preceding it, or the refinements to it. First the act itself is a change to previous acts, it stipulates the changes, which is stated right at the beginning, "An Act to amend the Copyright Act". It is not whole unto itself. There have also been several changes to it. There are dozens of legal breakdowns of it too, which I took the time to read through. Your assumptions about it are not correct. Statistics have also shown that since the passing of the act and its follow ups pirating in Canada has gone down by quite a bit.

Pirating EVERYWHERE has gone down it has nothing at all to do with this law. It has gone down because... #1 Netflix has gotten very popular in Canada, because Netflix Canada may not have as great a line up of Television as Netflix US but to make up for it Netflix has been very good about getting new release movies. Also in the last year 2 Canadian streaming services have launched tied to Bell and Shaw our two largest ISPs... well in fairness the Shaw service has been around a few years, but in the last year they opened it up. They have allowed people to sub to the service with out a cable package. So yes pirating is down cause as many people from Canada including myself have said... all we have ever wanted was a reasonable option to pay them to begin with. I still have issues with the Canadian streaming services myself, but I am a netflix sub, I "pirate" a good 50% less then I ever have. So I guess pirating is down.

As for the law, I won't argue the semantics of Canadian Civil law with you further. Trust me I am a member of the CBA (Canadian Bar) I have a law degree, our Copyright laws are civil laws. They propose civil remedies. There is a handful of mentions of criminal code violations, and they cover large scale distribution of material with rights owned by someone else (the same people the FBI warnings on VHS tapes where aimed at), and in our newer add ons they also cover people using digital security to break copyrighted encryption methods in furtherance of additional crimes. Although just breaking a copyrighted encryption is NOT illegal in Canada people have protections based on "research" which was intended to protect security workers and universities. (when I say digital encryption read Blu Ray disc type encryption... it is not illegal in canada to break that encryption and make a copy of a disk you own for your own use for instance. That I know drives the industry nuts but its true. Fair use exists in Canada, its not our fault the rest of the world is so easily bought. It is however illegal to break that encryption and then sell software to allow others to break it... that is profiting from a product that uses copyrighted material and could end you up with charges laid by the Queen instead of a rights holder. (criminal not civil)

EDIT just to prove my point... Netflix Canada in 2011 1 million subs. In 2016 its around 4.5 million (there are only 35 million Canadians fyi) meaning 13% of Canadians have a netflix sub, and seeing as my sub gets used by the wife and kids I think you can assume the real number is 30% (at least) of Canadians have access to. reading (this article claims 30% penetration in Canadian homes) We sub to netflix more per capita then even the US. Cause as many of us have said we HATE the Canadian monopolies with a passion. HBO has been a big part of that monopoly so we don't feel to bad about pirating their stuff.
 
Last edited:

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
Pirating EVERYWHERE has gone down it has nothing at all to do with this law. It has gone down because... #1 Netflix has gotten very popular in Canada...

People are lazy. Netflix is easy and reasonably priced. At one time BitTorrent was dominating internet traffic. Today:

Media-downstream-volume-share2.png


It's almost insignificant now, and it is easy to see why.

I bet most Video Entertainment execs are more concerned about Netflix than BitTorrent.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,481
People are lazy. Netflix is easy and reasonably priced. At one time BitTorrent was dominating internet traffic. Today:

It's almost insignificant now, and it is easy to see why.

I bet most Video Entertainment execs are more concerned about Netflix than BitTorrent.

Yes in Canada they have been trying very hard to squash netflix for a few years now. They have been pushing netflix to chase VPN users (which they do half hearted) I don't blame them for chasing the VPNs and most Canadians don't we know the pressure they are under from the cable monopolies. We just move our numbers around. The truth is I mostly stick to the Canadian version these days anyway. I have watched most of the netflix US shows worth watching already. Netflix has done a great job with the Canadian content as well, they have dished out some $ to get a good selection of newer release movies, and they have signed some good deals to bring a handful of shows to Canadian flix that air day and date with the TV. For instance "The 100" for 2 seasons now shows up on netflix at the same time it airs in Canada on the cable networks. They have also mined the UK version for Canada... most of us in Canada where raised just as much on UK Television as US, so we get a good selection of UK TV and movies on our Netflix as well which is great.

If HBO was smart they wouldn't have bothered trying to make HBO now work they would have just had netflix offer HBO as a $15 add on the same way the cable providers do (well some do anyway). I would gladly add another 15 to my netflix package to have the HBO content added.
 

NeoNemesis

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
2,466
If HBO was smart they wouldn't have bothered trying to make HBO now work they would have just had netflix offer HBO as a $15 add on the same way the cable providers do (well some do anyway). I would gladly add another 15 to my netflix package to have the HBO content added.

The problem is that HBO Canada is actually owned by Bell, which would be fine, except for the fact that Bell doesn't put the most popular HBO shows on its own streaming service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this

acquacow

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 7, 2016
Messages
451
Why Canada no US Proxy + HBO 2 Go?

Us folks in the US use Canadian proxies to watch Canadian shows...
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,104
Is it legal for them to do this? Sure. But I cancelled my streaming service in protest and then proceeded to stream the first few episodes of GoT online for free.
Awesome, problem solved then. As any good consumer should do, someone offers a service and you don't like the terms/price/whatever, you should not pay someone to keep giving you a service you do not want. However, and I'm not trying to bust balls here or go into the technicalities of downloading vs. streaming vs. whatever else, but it sounds from the beginning that you are unwilling to pay the price that it cost so you can see one particular show, and that is justification for anyone else who watches the show for free.

It is irrelevant that you are willing to pay $15/month for HBO, that's not what it cost to see that show. I would love to go to Disneyland for the price of a churro (which I always have to have), but that is not the way things work, and I'm not going to use the price of admission as a justification to make what I want happen.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,481
Why Canada no US Proxy + HBO 2 Go?

Us folks in the US use Canadian proxies to watch Canadian shows...

Canadian companies don't much care if someone from another country wants to pay us for our products.

In the case of HBO they do very much care. First you have to find away to PAY them for access. The only option I know of is lying and creating a US itunes account... and then going through the hassle of trying to pay for the service with itunes gift cards to avoid the, hey your really a Canadian your CANCELED issue. You think being hassled and threatened makes you wanna pirate, wait until you have a service you paid for canceled 3 days into the month.

HBO views VPNS as just as bad as torrenting... so why even try and pay them. They are bought and paid for by Bell who use the cream of the HBO line up to push people into stupid expensive cable plans. (as others have pointed out Bells own streaming service includes many HBO shows, accept the most popular ones like GOT... the only way to legally get GOT is to pretty much have a couple hundred dollar bell bill)

Before you say it... yes plenty of Canadians use VPNs and SmartDNS setups to access Netflix US. The difference is we do it with out Canadian Netflix accounts which we pay for with our Canadian credit cards, and Netflix treats us with respect, like actual paying customers.

Quote from the linked CBC article;
"HBO Canada is available as a package that includes other channels like The Movie Network from providers like Bell and Rogers, and costs $20 on top of base TV subscription packages, which start from around $40 and can climb to more than $100 a month.

Older HBO programming is available on CraveTV, Bell's streaming service, but you can only pay for it if you're already a Bell TV subscriber. In other words, if you're looking for a low-cost equivalent to HBO Now in Canada without being tethered to the television set, you're out of luck.
HBO Canada is available as a package that includes other channels like The Movie Network from providers like Bell and Rogers, and costs $20 on top of base TV subscription packages, which start from around $40 and can climb to more than $100 a month.

Older HBO programming is available on CraveTV, Bell's streaming service, but you can only pay for it if you're already a Bell TV subscriber. In other words, if you're looking for a low-cost equivalent to HBO Now in Canada without being tethered to the television set, you're out of luck."


Counting being forced to rent hardware ect... its pretty much impossible to legally get access to GOT in Canada with out spending around $70 not counting taxes... which bring the total to more like $85 in most provinces. That is for a very basic cable package (like 15-20 channels) + the stupid movie package which includes HBO Canada. If your a cable cutter in Canada GOT is simply not on offer in any legal way at all period. (ok correction you can wait a year and buy the discs... I have purchased the first few seasons btw even though I torrented them when they where new, its hard to feel sorry for HBO) One more thing I have to add on the costs... even if you go the up and up route and pay Bell, if like most people you would prefer to DVR the show and watch it when you like, Bell charges a fee to use their DVR hardware, they rent you the hardware and then charge you another fee to use it.
 
Last edited:

NeoNemesis

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
2,466
Awesome, problem solved then. As any good consumer should do, someone offers a service and you don't like the terms/price/whatever, you should not pay someone to keep giving you a service you do not want. However, and I'm not trying to bust balls here or go into the technicalities of downloading vs. streaming vs. whatever else, but it sounds from the beginning that you are unwilling to pay the price that it cost so you can see one particular show, and that is justification for anyone else who watches the show for free.

It is irrelevant that you are willing to pay $15/month for HBO, that's not what it cost to see that show. I would love to go to Disneyland for the price of a churro (which I always have to have), but that is not the way things work, and I'm not going to use the price of admission as a justification to make what I want happen.

$15 a month IS the price that people pay to watch the show with HBO Now. It's only available to Americans though.
 

Saturn_V

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
1,869
I've been on HBO Now for a year. (totally cord-cut) But most people still think $15 / month is too high. They only have 800K subscribers after a full year. It isn't surprising that HBO is playing hardball now. They used to treat GoT's #1 torrent ranking as a mild amusement.
 

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
6,229
They shouldn't waste their time with this sort of thing. Rather, they should find ways to encourage more users to subscribe to HBO Now. Roll it out in new areas. Make it more accessible based on technology (ie HTML 5, allow 1080, 1440, 4K resolutions when possible, using Firefox and Chrome at least, viable Android apps etc ). Most importantly, make it affordable! Realize that $15 a month for a single channel is a LOT of money; hell, even most people like myself who have a maxed-out cable subscription with all the movie channels (and I do appreciate the web clients for them, but they need some improvements. - there's no reason to have HBO Go versus HBO Now! ) end up getting discounts off the MSRP both as a package, and by asking (or threatening) our provider. The "standard" single premium new subscriber discount is $7 as opposed to $15 MSRP., I get ALL the HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Movie Channel, Starz, Epix channels for around $20 added to my cable package after some negotiation. Cord-cutters and those with basic cable may have something like Netflix or maybe Hulu, for like $8 a month at most - and that's for LOTS of content from various sources. Maybe they have some things added to Amazon Prime's video.

THIS is where HBO and other premium channels should focus instead. Make it so people can buy the channel a la carte for cheap - say $3-6per network. And that would mean getting the entire catalog as if I had it as a cable channel pack. All the on demand movies as they rotate , all the original series and a complete back catalog all the time etc... Everything from HBO, HBO2, HBO Signature, HBO Latino. Also, partner with Netflix and Amazon and allow them to sell an "addon" for each premium channel and possibly a package for more than one. Many people would subscribe to Netflix for $8, and add on HBO for $3-4, Showtime for another $3 etc.. If you want to counter piracy, you have to give people things affordably and in great quality. Sure, some will always pirate, can't afford it even at that rate etc.. but you aren't going to lose any money because of them. That kind of behavior only makes people more hostile and less willing to pay.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,821
And this is good, why?

I can't speak for how it was in the 70s and 80s as I believe Ace of Base was probably my first album, so I can only go off of what I experienced in the mid 90s, where CDs DID cost 19.95 (in Canada) + tax (or more).

I never lived in Canada, so I don't know, but that even then the price was around 13-16 USD. Adjusted for inflation, an album cost more in the 70s than it did then (and I suspect if I had reliable prices from the 60s it'd still be true. I'm sure you cherry pick your years, you could find a time when that's not true, but for the most part music has been going down in price since the late 80s/early 90s.
 

tazeat

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
1,268
Damn I'm glad I don't deal with any of this. I dont have 10,000 places where I get shows and movies from, I have one. I don't deal with multiple subscription fees, ads and commercials, DRM, region restrictions, content delays/wait times, limited device availability, various networks with different offers, network contract restrictions, etc. I just fucking download the show, double click it and watch it. Soooo much easier.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,104
$15 a month IS the price that people pay to watch the show with HBO Now. It's only available to Americans though.
Here let me list the items that can be bought in another country for a cheaper rate than I can get in my country...

<overflow error>
 

Krazy925

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
6,504
There is the $15 a month HBO Now option. That doesn't require a cable subscription, what am I missing?

Still at the end of the day it doesn't matter how much you "want' an item. If its not available in your area, it's not available. In America, We'll see the same thing in a few months when all the people start crossing state lines to buy fireworks that are banned in their state and then read complaints about how the police are wrong for setting up checkpoints catching those people.
I didn't realize GoT is a fire hazard. Holy terrible comparisons batman.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,513
Lol, I love how you guys get so far off track. Again there was not equating of the severity, just the legality. Someone was arguing that piracy was not illegal. My point was that it was illegal. Where you guys get off trying to bring in severity and murder and rape and all that crap is laughable.
I never argued that piracy is legal, even trough it is technically allowed where I live. You're arguing against your own strawman. I only ever argued against it being equated to theft or stealing. And I will continue to until everyone gets this stupidity out of their head that was planted by the propaganda machine of the big publishers.
 

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,607
if you build an entertainment product and people manage to enjoy it without paying, how is that not theft? The creation of the product cost money. The intent is to earn that money back through the viewing of the product. You can claim that the actual value of the product was not diminished, but there is 0 actual tangible value. The value is in the demand to view it, and by satisfying your demand you have diminished the value.
 

nvgrim

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
1,747
Just lol at the peopel getting mad at pirating a show. Like who cares honestly? Do you work for HBO and its cutting into your paycheck? Telling someone on a forum how much you think its wrong to pirate is going to make them change their minds.
 

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,607
if you want to pirate that is fine. but be honest about it. you are stealing shit. It is not a moral gray area. The content cost money to produce. You are not paying any of those costs while reaping all of the benefits.

Just lol at the peopel getting mad at pirating a show. Like who cares honestly? Do you work for HBO and its cutting into your paycheck?

content costs money to produce. the less money the less content that will be made. and yeah, I like to consume content so there are consequences even if they are not immediately apparent
 
Last edited:

DocSavage

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
2,409
if you want to pirate that is fine. but be honest about it. you are stealing shit. It is not a moral gray area. The content cost money to produce. You are not paying any of those costs while reaping all of the benefits.



content costs money to produce. the less money the less content that will be made. and yeah, I like to consume content so there are consequences even if they are not immediately apparent
But when the only way to get this one series is to pay $120/mo for a complete package or pay $0 for an illegal torrent, the moral equation is whether he should rip off the content providers a theoretical $15/mo x 3 months = $45 for a typical got season or get ripped off by the cable company for $120 x 12 - $45 = $1195 (assuming 12 month contract). I'd say a person stealing got is by far the more ethical solution.
 

nvgrim

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
1,747
if you want to pirate that is fine. but be honest about it. you are stealing shit. It is not a moral gray area. The content cost money to produce. You are not paying any of those costs while reaping all of the benefits.



content costs money to produce. the less money the less content that will be made. and yeah, I like to consume content so there are consequences even if they are not immediately apparent
But if i never had the intention of watching the show then nothing was lost because i wouldnt have been a potential customer from the start. And im not ashamed to say i pirate stuff, games not so much anymore since steam is cheap enough and i like getting regular updates. But there is some hard to find music or movies out there that are generally only on torrent sites.
 

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,607
But when the only way to get this one series is to pay $120/mo for a complete package or pay $0 for an illegal torrent, the moral equation is whether he should rip off the content providers a theoretical $15/mo x 3 months = $45 for a typical got season or get ripped off by the cable company for $120 x 12 - $45 = $1195 (assuming 12 month contract). I'd say a person stealing got is by far the more ethical solution.

you can't base morality on dollar signs. You can get a free month trial of hbonow and watch everything and your expenditure is $0,

But if i never had the intention of watching the show then nothing was lost because i wouldnt have been a potential customer from the start.

I don't know what this means. if you watched the shows then that is intent, desire which was fulfilled. Much of our society functions based on fulfillment of desires. There has to be a give and take for society to function. If there is only take then things break. If a few have to pay for the many then yeah, same problem.
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
641
Canadian companies don't much care if someone from another country wants to pay us for our products.

In the case of HBO they do very much care. First you have to find away to PAY them for access. The only option I know of is lying and creating a US itunes account... and then going through the hassle of trying to pay for the service with itunes gift cards to avoid the, hey your really a Canadian your CANCELED issue. You think being hassled and threatened makes you wanna pirate, wait until you have a service you paid for canceled 3 days into the month.

HBO views VPNS as just as bad as torrenting... so why even try and pay them. They are bought and paid for by Bell who use the cream of the HBO line up to push people into stupid expensive cable plans. (as others have pointed out Bells own streaming service includes many HBO shows, accept the most popular ones like GOT... the only way to legally get GOT is to pretty much have a couple hundred dollar bell bill)

Before you say it... yes plenty of Canadians use VPNs and SmartDNS setups to access Netflix US. The difference is we do it with out Canadian Netflix accounts which we pay for with our Canadian credit cards, and Netflix treats us with respect, like actual paying customers.

Quote from the linked CBC article;
"HBO Canada is available as a package that includes other channels like The Movie Network from providers like Bell and Rogers, and costs $20 on top of base TV subscription packages, which start from around $40 and can climb to more than $100 a month.

Older HBO programming is available on CraveTV, Bell's streaming service, but you can only pay for it if you're already a Bell TV subscriber. In other words, if you're looking for a low-cost equivalent to HBO Now in Canada without being tethered to the television set, you're out of luck.
HBO Canada is available as a package that includes other channels like The Movie Network from providers like Bell and Rogers, and costs $20 on top of base TV subscription packages, which start from around $40 and can climb to more than $100 a month.

Older HBO programming is available on CraveTV, Bell's streaming service, but you can only pay for it if you're already a Bell TV subscriber. In other words, if you're looking for a low-cost equivalent to HBO Now in Canada without being tethered to the television set, you're out of luck."


Counting being forced to rent hardware ect... its pretty much impossible to legally get access to GOT in Canada with out spending around $70 not counting taxes... which bring the total to more like $85 in most provinces. That is for a very basic cable package (like 15-20 channels) + the stupid movie package which includes HBO Canada. If your a cable cutter in Canada GOT is simply not on offer in any legal way at all period. (ok correction you can wait a year and buy the discs... I have purchased the first few seasons btw even though I torrented them when they where new, its hard to feel sorry for HBO) One more thing I have to add on the costs... even if you go the up and up route and pay Bell, if like most people you would prefer to DVR the show and watch it when you like, Bell charges a fee to use their DVR hardware, they rent you the hardware and then charge you another fee to use it.

This whole scenario almost makes me wonder why people insist on screaming at people torrenting GoT, when the only other option to be to be fucked by the cable companies, when their clear intent here is to fuck the customer.
No winning, folks. Personally, I don't give a shit who downloads it and would love to see Bell/most other US cable companies burn.
 

FireBean

Gawd
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
994
So don't watch the show. it is not uncommon to need some cable package before you can get hbo
What? Cox here in Kansas allows me to pay for basic cable and add HBO, Starz, Encore for $10 more a month. When I see the next flyer, I'll post a SS.
 
Top