3 ms·
He pays for a copy and then streams it so everyone at the bar can see it. Similiar to how he pays for cable and everyone at the bar can see it on all of their
by wolco 7y ago
He pays for a copy and then streams it so everyone at the bar can see it.
Similiar to how he pays for cable and everyone at the bar can see it on all of their tvs.
I understand the soccer people want more money. But cost to create and produce is paid for by the subscription already or they couldn't afford to offer the service in the first place. The hardship doesn't exist on the producer's side. We could debate whether the producer should be able to extract as much money as possible on bar owners holding them up to Oracle type liceases. It reminds me of the music industry clamping down on people singing Happy Birthday.
- goto11 7y ago> But cost to create and produce is paid for by the subscription already or they couldn't afford to offer the service in the first place. That logic only holds if the majority of the consumers are paying though.
- wolco 7y agoIt goes both ways. I get the soccer game through cable but would never watch it. It is part of a bundled package. If I walk into a bar I may get a partial view of a screen / sometimes sound. That isn't worth the cost of a monthly subcription. Pro rated if the account is worth 10 dollars a month I would expect the actual usage to be around 10 cents per person. Not to discount the added ad revenue/tsheet sales/increased individual subscriptions/increased ticket buying. It's hard to make the case that this revenue is critical to the survival of the game. I would say the opposite is true, the more bars offering the game the bigger and more valuable the game becomes. It's free advertising and if you could get my local little league into all of these bars on single subscriptions I would be the next unicorn.