12 ms·

Take my money, HBO

425 points by krogsgard 14y ago

hartror 14y ago
"We pirate Game of Thrones, we use our friend's HBOGO login to watch True Blood…" Yeah I am not associating myself with that. Perhaps something like "We don't currently pay to see your content". Honestly as an Australian I don't see this happening here, the cable here is an effective monopoly and unless they get a cut of the profits they're not going let HBO do this. It might be completely against their business model as well due to the fact GoT has received more publicity here than any other cable show in some time. This has likely been driving sales for them and so would be bad for their business.
- sabathmt 14y ago
  It's an attention grabber, sheesh.
  - aidenn0 14y ago
    No it says "I think I'm entitled to your content and so I'm going to probably be a shitty customer"
    - ckrailo 14y ago
      So you're anti-entitlement to very easily copyable things? Why? To assure you I'm not trolling... take a look at this discussion before replying: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe...
      - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
        That really isn't a discussion. It is one CEO explaining their decision to make their products available online. Kessler has a different idea of how HBO is going to position themselves online. Why is Newell's opinion on his business model any more valid than Kessler's? I never understood this thing about "easily copy-able" being a reason to strip a business of their distribution rights. Yes, the actual string of 1's and 0's is easy to copy. But physically making a 60 minute episode of Game of Thrones is not so easy. I think the work they have put into making their product has earned them the right to control the distribution of their product just as much as any other business. If you don't like the way HBO distributes Game of Thrones... you don't go pirate it... you go film it yourself (although I suspect that would not be allowed either).
      - aidenn0 14y ago
        I think right now, HBO makes more money from selling to the cable companies than they could selling directly to people. The cable companies are very good customers of them, and I think that HBO as a company is better off not taking the money of people that feel entitled to their content. HBO Go puts the technical infrastructure in place to eliminate the cable companies as customers if this ever changes, so they have some chance of surviving the likely collapse of the cable industry
    - marekmroz 14y ago
      No, it says "everyone is finding a way to watch it whether it is on HBO or by pirating, so why don't you figure out how to enable everyone to watch it without infringing on copyright and make some money in the process?"
- ktizo 14y ago
  Yeah I am not associating myself with that. The piracy angle, or those particular programmes?
  - hartror 14y ago
    Piracy of course.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      Just checking. (sorry, was just the first thought that entered my head and it made me giggle)
- tjmc 14y ago
  Interestingly GoT seasons 1 and 2 are available on iTunes in Australia. The latest episodes only take an extra week to show up from when they're first screened in the US. Even so, Australians apparently pirate the show in greater numbers than elsewhere. Could be because it's $3/episode or it's only standard def or it's a week late. My guess is people find it just as easy to torrent it so don't even bother to look at paid options. So if Australia is being used by HBO as a test market (quite common for US companies in the past), the stats on offering a paid online option in parallel to cable to reduce piracy don't look compelling to me in this case.
  - batiudrami 14y ago
    GoT is absolutely huge in Australia - I am continually surprised at the people I know who are well outside the target demographic and watch it. Monday is Game of Thrones night, where everyone watches it, and then talks about it with their mates, which seems to be a significant part of the experience (I'm not a fan of the show personally). A week later is one week too late - you need to be looking at hours after screening. Australia has a huge pirated TV culture because of how awful our free to air is (pay TV is only really starting to catch on due to exclusive sports licenses, and in terms of getting US content it is almost as terrible as free to air), and everyone just torrents what they want to watch.
    - tjmc 14y ago
      Guess we'll find out next week if it's the screening time because season 2 just finished. So from next Monday will there be a drop in Australian GoT torrents because the show is equally available on iTunes? It'd be interesting to see the stats. The other thing is that on iiNet (Australia's #2 ISP), iTunes downloads aren't counted against download quota. So there's some incentive to buy for people on the basic plans.
      - petitmiam 14y ago
        iTunes only has SD though right?
  - 14y ago
- codexon 14y ago
  Australian bandwidth is atrociously expensive too.
  - skeletonjelly 14y ago
    Unlimited for $60 isn't too bad (including line rental)
    - lengarvey 14y ago
      From which ISP? The quality fluctuates wildly. If its $60 unlimited from a good ISP like iinet then it's a good deal, if it's with TPG or Dodo then it's not worth the hassle.
    - codexon 14y ago
      I'm not talking about residential lines. I'm talking about servers.
      - skeletonjelly 14y ago
        Right you are! I've had both colo in the US a number of years ago and current colo here in Australia. Couldn't agree more. Do you think that's due to the cost of "shipment" or just greedy men in the middle?
        codexon 14y ago
        I have no idea. Haven't bothered to look into it.
mhd 14y ago
Next step: Take my European money, HBO.
augusto_hp 14y ago
Great and sound idea! But the pain is already aching if this kind of thing get through: posts will be made, bootstraps distrubuted and sources will be opened and the start of the era of "Please, Take my money whatever" will have began. Lets hope for the best, take all our money HBO.
dfc 14y ago
As an American I'd rather sign up for "Take My Money BBC."
- smackfu 14y ago
  Would you pay $225 a year? That's how much it costs a Briton. ("The annual cost of a colour TV licence is £145.50")
  - Game_Ender 14y ago
    If it was the only way my wife and I could get the content we would pay. We would even pay a lesser fee for the ability to stream some of their shows they don't allow to stream outside of Britain.
  - bascule 14y ago
    Would I pay $19/mo for BBC content? Yes
    - veb 14y ago
      I would too. Absolutely love BBC stuff.
  - MiguelHudnandez 14y ago
    I would pay that in monthly installments, provided it is ad-free.
  - DeepDuh 14y ago
    It's hilarious that they apparently need to specify "colour" ;).
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      You can get a discount if you are using either a black and white TV, a TV under a certain screen size or if you are deaf/blind.
mortenjorck 14y ago
The "recent tweets" widget shows people tweeting numbers like $10. Isn't HBO as an add-on to an existing cable subscription generally significantly more than that?
- tptacek 14y ago
  $14/month on AT&T. But in some instances they may be cross-subsidized by basic cable, too.
- melvinmt 14y ago
  It costs $14.99/mo to add it to AT&T U-Verse if it isn't included in your package already.
- SigmundA 14y ago
  $16.99/mo on Fios for HBO in FL if you don't the cable box/ cable card rental free required to access the encrypted channel.
  - reustle 14y ago
    I think you a word.
- Casc 14y ago
  Not significantly more, at the end of the day I'd have to guess HBO likely sees less than $10/sub.
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    Yea, but plenty of the cut the network takes of that $20 is going to infrastructure- and marketing-type costs that HBO would have to shoulder if they struck out alone.
    - Casc 14y ago
      Their distribution and infrastructure cost is significantly higher than HBO's would be to support their own content delivery.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
I'd rather see people put their money where their mouth is, in a non-hypothetical way. For example, pick some otherwise random date a few weeks after the DVD set will be released and organize a concerted buying effort amongst "pirates" on that specific date.
- masmullin 14y ago
  As a purchaser of the season 1 blu-ray... lets get to the secondary issue of buying. The packaging of the videos is SHIT... there are ads, I have to sit through FBI warnings, I have to sift through bad menus to get to the content I want, and I have to deal with trying to find features when everything I select says "please insert disc X" I paid $70 CND and with the exception of the actual quality of the picture (blu-ray is fantastic), the whole experience is VASTLY inferior to the piracy route. That said, I'll still be purchasing the Season 2 Blu-Ray when it comes out, because I very much want to support the production of this series.
  - zem 14y ago
    buy the dvd, leave it in its box, and pirate the show. everyone wins.
    - masmullin 14y ago
      But why? Why couldn't they have just made a good Blu-Ray boxed set? Why does disc three have nothing but one episode on it (no extra features... everything I click while using disc3 says "please enter disc 5", while disc 4 has three episodes on it? Why do I have to sit through an FBI warning when I dont even live in the states? Why do I have to see ads for other HBO shows when I put in disc 1? I spent good money on the fucking thing? Why couldn't they have given me a BETTER experience than the people who steal it?
      - zem 14y ago
        yeah, i fully agree with you, and i have for the most part opted out altogether - i don't pirate and i don't buy the dvds due to the fundamental brokenness of the model. however, if you do want to watch the show, and if you want to support the creators in some way (and, sadly, support their multifarious parasites as well), the only real way to do it is to buy the dvd (so you have paid your money to the smallest possible superset of people who deserve it) and then pirate the show (so you actually have something watchable).
MBlume 14y ago
It's not pirating if you download Game of Thrones -- it's paying The Iron Price
- lwat 14y ago
  I'm willing to pay the Gold Price but I don't want to wait several months until they decide to air it in my local country.
  - silentscope 14y ago
    ^^^clearly a lannister!
  - masklinn 14y ago
    > until they decide to air it in my local country. Dubbed, too.
jquery 14y ago
I pay $30/month to watch Starcraft 2 tournaments on GomTV.net. I pay $0/month to watch Game of Thrones, Veep, Girls, and True Blood. I will continue to pay $0 until there is an option that does not involve enriching evil cable executives. Your move, HBO.
- res0nat0r 14y ago
  You do realize that without those evil cable executives and their funding these shows wouldn't be on the air right now?
- Game_Ender 14y ago
  I up voted you, but don't really support the "evil cable executives" line.
- david_shaw 14y ago
  > I will continue to pay $0 until there is an option that does not involve enriching evil cable executives. Wouldn't a standalone HBO GO subscription enrich cable executives? Wouldn't any paid solution enrich cable executives?
  - randomdata 14y ago
    Profit isn't inherently evil, so I assume by his comment that the "evil cable executives" would cease to be evil if they offered a product considered reasonable by him.
    - philwelch 14y ago
      Aside from the "Time Warner owns HBO" issue, it makes sense to distinguish content producers like HBO from, say, Comcast (who are far more evil).
- biot 14y ago
  Do you always analyze who gets enriched before making purchases? For example, how do you purchase anything without enriching the evil oil executives who sell the petroleum products used to transport goods used in the production of the products and services you consume? Even if you manage to perfectly align your beliefs with your purchasing habits, how do you ensure that those who profit from your purchases don't give their money to the evil cable or oil executives?
ap3 14y ago
Have you guys thought about how many people are already paying for HBO ? Is HBO hurting for money? Or is it just a bunch of geeks trying to get hbo for cheap? I know anti-piracy is not always popular but they are creating popular and original shows, why not support them?
- patrickpkt 14y ago
  I don't think the issue is that HBO costs $10-15/month right now, but that there's also the cost of the cable subscription and the cable box. Aside from the programs on HBO, the vast majority of what I watch is over-the-air, so it's not too much of a stretch to say I'm paying $60+/month to get HBO legally.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  The trouble is not that HBO is too expensive, but rather that there is no way for this "bunch of geeks" to pay HBO directly. If you look at the current tweets, people are offering up anywhere between $8 and $20, which I imagine is considerably more than HBO's take based on their current revenue model. The whole point of this website, I gather, is to convince HBO that their product is worth considerably more to the end user than what they're currently making, and that they can tap into a lot more revenue if they let people subscribe to their products directly, without the cableco middleman. [edit] My impression of HBO pricing is completely wrong. It doesn't seem like HBO would stand to gain a huge amount based on how much people are "pledging".
- bascule 14y ago
  HBO definitely thinks piracy is enough of a problem they're willing to hurt paying customers to try to stop it: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120418/08405618545/hbo-decides-it-still-isnt-difficult-enough-to-watch-hbo-shows.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120418/08405618545/hbo-de... At the same time they don't provide an option for legitimate "over the top" Internet video users to watch their programming without a PayTV subscription.
- ckrailo 14y ago
  It's not cheap, really. HBO costs <$20 on DirectTV. Source: http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/premiums/hbo http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/premiums/hbo
divtxt 14y ago
Also, take my money, Showtime!
- kin 14y ago
  showtime has pretty good content but i'd definitely pay less for it. have you seen hbo go? full seasons of all hbo content + great collection of new release movies.
smackfu 14y ago
This was a good write-up of an interview with the HBO co-CEO: http://dcurt.is/hbo-forbes-journalism http://dcurt.is/hbo-forbes-journalism Worth reading before spouting the typical "I don't understand why HBO doesn't want my $5 a month."
- akira2501 14y ago
  I see his argument.. but why not just partner with ISPs? If HBO doesn't want my $8 directly, then why not let AT&T (or whoever) charge me an extra $8/mo along with my DSL (or whatever) bill and get HBOGO? It would be nearly identical to their current model, but with different types of subscriber organizations distributing their content for them.
  - runako 14y ago
    Because this is an act of war against other carries that currently carry HBO. Those carriers can drop HBO and cause revenue to drop much faster than broadband-only HBOGO subscribers will bring in new revenue. It's trading an existing, stable, proven revenue source for one that is none of the above at scale. Edit: This is a summary of one of HBO's arguments. The dcurtis post examines a couple of other arguments. Positioning is an interesting one: How does HBO convince viewers that $5/mo is reasonable for just a few shows when Netflix is $8/mo for far more content? There are some really tough issues here.
    - fjabre 14y ago
      They would not be able to drop HBO. It's too valuable to their customers
      - aidenn0 14y ago
        They don't have to drop HBO, they just have to stop advertising it. A large fraction of cable ads I see have the not-so-subtle message of: "BUY HBO! IF YOU DONT HAVE HBO THAN YOU ARE MISSING OUT AND YOUR FRIENDS WILL THINK YOU ARE UNCOOL" How much revenue does HBO get from that marketing?
kenshi 14y ago
There is a difference between people saying they will pay for something versus all of those people actually handing over hard currency for it.
- ckrailo 14y ago
  Unfortunately, the market works in such a way that unless you build a mechanism for people to pay a reasonable price for a game at launch (see Steam vs Piracy), then you lose out. Example: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe... Even a trial run, like pay $5 and watch S03E01, would be a really great test to see if the market is telling the truth here. (But the availability could NOT lag behind HBOGo or broadcast, it'd have to be simultaneous.)
swah 14y ago
We pay around 100 USD/mo in Brazil for cable + 10Mbit internet, and HBO has always been a premium I don't have access.
res0nat0r 14y ago
Sigh. Not this ultimatum again... Hurting 'Game of Thrones' Through Piracy Won’t Change HBO’s Business, It Will Just Get the Show Cancelled: http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/hurting-game-of-thrones-through-piracy-wont-change-hbos-business-it-will-just-get-the-show-cancelled-rfure.php http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/hurting-game-of-th...
- ericdykstra 14y ago
  The most popular show on HBO will get cancelled because people are pirating it? Definitely disagree. It's not just critically acclaimed, it's among the most popular HBO original show in the network's history. Pirating, of course, won't change their business. But even if I really want to watch the show (I don't watch it), I wouldn't sign up for Cable TV, and sign up for HBO on top of it just for one show. I see this as less of an ultimatum and more of a "hey your business model is fucked so you're not getting my money" thing.
  - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
    To be more correct... it is more of a "hey your product kicks total fucking ass... but I disagree with you business model. I'm going to consume your kick ass product anyway... but you're not getting my money" thing.
sg214 14y ago
HBO as an add-on to cable packages costs ~$20. If HBO were to offer it as a standalone service, they would have to handle billing, subscription management, increased marketing budget to make up for marketing that cable/sat currently offers for them, etc. So unless a critical mass of people are willing to pay AT LEAST $30 per month, this is a lost cause.
- MiguelHudnandez 14y ago
  They cost around $20, but do we know what HBO's cut is?
  - sg214 14y ago
    HBO's cut is very small (< $3 I think). But the cable and satellite cos pay a fixed fee per base cable/sat sub to HBO but then upsell their own customers and recoup that cost. Using the $20 as a proxy for about what HBO gets, even though it's a lot more complicated than that in reality.
    - sureshv 14y ago
      HBO gets around $8 per subscriber, ESPN for reference gets around $4 but its on the basic tier so it has many more subscribers.
- wmf 14y ago
  As several people have said, Netflix or Hulu would probably be happy to do the billing and management. The marketing is definitely an issue, since cable companies can efficiently market HBO to existing cable subscribers.
- sureshv 14y ago
  HBO currently gets around $8 per subscriber, typically you are paying double that to the cable company so unless the overhead is 100% I doubt they would need to charge more than $15 per subscriber. The real problem is distribution and making up for the fact that cable companies are guaranteeing a certain number of subscribers (in the millions). The other reason is that Time Warner wont risk their other channels being unbundled from the basic tier such as TNT, TBS, CNN, Cartoon, etc. They make more on some of those channels (Ads + subscriber fee) than HBO.
shpoonj 14y ago
I wouldn't pay a single cent to HBO. I would, on the other hand, pay $40 via iTunes per season of Game of Thrones. Networks are outdated. Stop trying to change them and adapt like the rest of us.
- duaneb 14y ago
  On the contrary, I would much rather pay HBO directly rather than go through Apple as an intermediary.
- jack-r-abbit 14y ago
  For an outdated network they sure have managed to create a product that is so awesome that sane, rationale people can't even wait to get it.
- brown9-2 14y ago
  When you pay $40 to iTunes, where do you think a significant chunk of that money goes to? HBO produces the show. They aren't just the broadcaster.
shmerl 14y ago
Did HBO ever consider asking some fixed price per simple download? No streaming, no complicated subscription services. Just payments per files. There can't be any logical reason not to offer it, if it's so widely pirated already. They can only convince some of those who pirate not to do it, if they provide the same level of simplicity and convenience. In any case, it can't make it any worse for them, than it is now. It can probably only make it better.
- wmf 14y ago
  HBO is ~$15/month or ~$180/year if you don't cancel. A season of Game of Thrones is $30-39 on iTunes. It seems pretty obvious.
  - shmerl 14y ago
    I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to compare. Rather try to compare those who simply pirate the stuff as soon as it's out with anything of the above. I think if they'd offer something around $2-$3 per episode right away (without any iTunes), they could gain more from those who don't pay anything to them now.
    - wmf 14y ago
      I'm comparing the amount of money HBO would get from people who only watch Game of Thrones. If you could get it without subscribing, a lot of people would cancel HBO.
- sp332 14y ago
  Sure, you can get it on iTunes that way.
  - shmerl 14y ago
    Not right away, and not without DRM (i.e. as a portable file). So it can't compete with pirated copies that way.
mutant 14y ago
i can't tell hbo because I don't have twitter. i hate twitter. my voice shall go unnoticed.
hospadam 14y ago
I just don't understand what some people are thinking when it comes to this issue. In my mind, HBO is offering people two options: 1) Premium price, instant gratification. If you're willing to pony up for cable TV + a HBO subscription, you're able to watch Game of Thrones the instant it comes out. Yes, you're paying a lot (~$100) - but - sometimes that's the price you have to pay for a premium service. 2) Pay a reasonable price, get it digitally, but I have to wait. If the $100/month subscription is a problem for you - no problem! You just have to wait. You can legally gain access to Game of Thrones on iTunes or BluRay for ~$40 for the whole season... about 10 months after it finishes airing. When I hear someone say, "Why can't I just pay HBO directly for access? They're dumb! I'll just pirate it instead." - What they really mean is, "HBO charges too much for my tastes, and I don't want to wait... so I'll just download it." If that's your mentality, fine... but please don't think you're doing it for some higher reasoning. You just want the show now, and you don't want to pay what HBO is selling it. In every other medium (physical goods, food, dinner, cars) - you'd be SOL. But.. just because it's digital, you can copy it for free.
- mfringel 14y ago
  You're correct. HBO is offering people two options. However, there seems to be a significant amount of people who want a third option, which HBO considers itself structurally prohibited from providing. It is precisely no one's fault but HBO's that HBO has painted itself into a corner.
  - hospadam 14y ago
    You're exactly right - there is a vocal set of people that want a third option. My point is, however, no business has to offer the "third option". Just because they don't offer the third option doesn't make downloading them for free OK.
    - ckrailo 14y ago
      Why not? To assure you I'm not trolling... read this first: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe...
Steko 14y ago
I'd planned to buy Game of Thrones when it came out on iTunes a couple months ago but I realized that even that still indirectly supports the buzz around this property and the way it's primarily delivered. Instead I'd suggest fellow cord cutters just skip Game of Thrones entirely, don't pirate it, don't even watch it. Instead spend your money and leisure time supporting content that's provided online. When your friends talk about GoT you'll need to have a few canned response-pivots like "is that about orcs? Lawl, hey did you guys see Lilyhammer? It was totally not godawful."
- GigabyteCoin 14y ago
  Not watching game of thrones isn't really an option for anybody I know...
- sneak 14y ago
  "Nah, I'm not really into Pokemon." http://xkcd.com/178/ http://xkcd.com/178/ (Am I the only one who still doesn't give two fucks about four fucks about television shows?)
  - jerf 14y ago
    No, but as we don't really have anything to say on this topic, we don't. Selection bias. I can't disagree this is relevant to HN's interests, as a specific instance of a broader trend that gets talked about a lot here.
  - matwood 14y ago
    I don't really get the anti TV people. Like any medium there is good and bad. TV definitely has its share of bad, but there is also some pretty good entertainment. Books, magazines, websites, etc... there is always going to be more crap than not, but for some reason I never read about people bragging about giving them up.
    - zem 14y ago
      it's a form of signalling herd membership. compare people bragging that they are bad at maths - people are bad at all sorts of subjects, but mathematics is unusual in that people are proud of their ignorance of it, because they are essentially signalling that they are part of the "non-geek" tribe. similarly, people are uninterested in all sorts of media, but are proud of a lack of interest in tv because that signals their membership in the "non-mainstream" tribe.
aidenn0 14y ago
HBO is already taking my money: http://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones-Complete-Season-Blu-ray/dp/B003Y5HWMW/ref=sr_1_3?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1338949273&sr=1-3 http://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones-Complete-Season-Blu-ray/d...
mmmmax 14y ago
Love it. Pre-fill the field with hint text like "10" and you will increase the number of tweets posted.
dbbolton 14y ago
The message I get from posts like these: "I am entitled to watch show X right now. If the owner of show X won't sell it to me instantly, then I have the right to pirate it." Is there money to be made here? Sure. I might even say that companies who don't offer popular shows on demand are making a dumb move. But nobody has the innate right to take whatever they want right now just because they can't wait until it's available legally.
- ars 14y ago
  > has the innate right to take whatever they want You aren't taking it. You are copying it. The only reason not to be allowed to copy it is if it damages the copyright owner. But since the product has zero economic value to the owner from you (they refuse to sell it to you), you are not causing them any damage, and therefor you can not make any argument about why it's wrong. (i.e. it makes no difference to the owner whether you copied it or not.) One of the criteria for fair use is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". And if you also include "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes" you have met 2 out of 4 of the criteria for fair use, so you could make a strong argument that it's actually fully legal.
  - gee_totes 14y ago
    2 things) 1 - But since the product has zero economic value to the owner from you (they refuse to sell it to you) -- In the case of Game of Thrones, you are refusing to buy it (either via HBO subscription, iTunes, physical media, etc.) 2 - Fair use is a legal defense used when you get charged with copyright infringement. It is not an excuse you give upfront. You can only claim fair use after you have been charged.
    - ars 14y ago
      1: I have not checked, I assume it was impossible based on the post the parent made, I've never watched it myself or tried to buy (or download) it. I take his claim that he can not get it any other way at face value. Selling it a week later does not count BTW, (just in case that is what they are doing). If he wants it now, and they refuse then too bad for them - they lost his money. That was their choice and they should not complain. 2: Fair use is most definitely an "excuse" (as you call it). Fair use lets you decide if you are allowed to do something. You don't have to go to court before quoting a passage from a book in a review - fair use lets you do it without even asking.
jiggy2011 14y ago
Perhaps the issue is that with their business model they want people to pay $x per month for years on end? Since people who are paying a sub are way less likely to cancel than people who make a 1 off purchase are willing to come back? Perhaps they don't even care that much about piracy because their money is already in the bag from cable subscribers? Once everyone stops using cable they will change their tune.
juliano_q 14y ago
I actually discovered that I am able to pay HBO for Game of Thrones. HBO decided to air GoT here in Brazil simultaneously with USA. I called my television provider, added HBO for R$ 30,00/mo (around $15.00) and after the end of the season 2 I just called there and removed HBO again. I am planning to do the same for season 3. Is it so hard for people around the world to do the same? (real question, not being sarcastic)
- hospadam 14y ago
  Well, this season of GoT was 9 episodes. If you wanted HBO over the whole run so you could watch them live - you would need it for 3 months. However, if you're willing to hold off until last month, you could get by with waiting for the last episode to come out, buy one month, watch all episodes, then cancel.
  - cpeterso 14y ago
    Season 2 has 10 episodes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones_%28season_2%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones_%28season_2%29
- wmf 14y ago
  The people who are complaining don't have cable, so they'd have to pay $50+$15 per month for three months.
- pyre 14y ago
  You're ignoring the cost of the cable subscription in the first place (unless your 'television provider' is the government and you don't pay anything).
- duaneb 14y ago
  I don't even own a TV, let alone a TV subscription. At the bare minimum, I'd be looking at $65 a month for a single TV show.
marshall007 14y ago
Nice try, HBO.
rhplus 14y ago
Simply tweeting the intention is an empty gesture. How about setting up a publically auditable escrow account with the recipient set to be HBO/Time Warner. Deposit $20 (or whatever is fair compensation) and then go ahead an acquire a copy of the video. That's what I thought this would be when I saw "Take my money, HBO": a realizable offer of money. Is there any legal precedent for this, i.e. attempting to pay for a product or service, being ignored and then paying and taking it anyway?
- guynamedloren 14y ago
  I attempted to buy your Porsche for $20. You ignored me so I took it anyway. Obviously it's illegal.
  - IbJacked 14y ago
    Theft and copyright violation are not comparable. Both may be illegal, but they aren't the same. Would it be illegal to build a replica of the Porsche for myself? The GP's example was bad because he mentioned taking a product or service, rather than making a copy of something and keeping it. I'm assuming he didn't mean it the way it reads.
    - rhplus 14y ago
      The part I tried to stress was "fair compensation", but perhaps that's not the correct legal or contractual term. The closest real-world analogy I can think of is this: you want to by a DVD but cashier is ignoring you. So, you slap a $20 bill on the counter and walk out with the DVD. Of course, the analogy fails because we're not talking about a physical product and the way copyright is set up allows the copyright holder to decide who can and can't get access to the media, even if two parties are offering practically the same price.
      - guynamedloren 14y ago
        > The closest real-world analogy I can think of is this: you want to by a DVD but cashier is ignoring you. So, you slap a $20 bill on the counter and walk out with the DVD Wrong. In your scenario, the DVD in question is for sale, and is clearly listed as such with a price and all. You know exactly how much it costs, and you give that much money. And the transaction occurs in a place that is designed for this very purpose. There is no confusion or grey area here.
hasker 14y ago
Let me get this straight because I think this is what other sources are implying: HBO sells a license to their channels to the cable companies for a flat fee. The cable providers then recoup this by selling subscriptions to HBO or pushing more customers to subscribe to cable. In that way, cable providers actually pay more than the cable providers collect from consumers for HBO subscriptions. This really makes the question not would you pay the same price as HBO costs on cable for Game of Thrones access, but would you pay more? The cable provider's contracts may even preclude directly collecting from consumers. If this is true, I think the community needs to realize this remains a lost cause and instead encourage Netflix's model of creating high quality content directly for streaming.
- sp332 14y ago
  HBO charges per-subscriber, not a flat rate. But the cable company deals with billing, customer support, equipment costs, etc.
thezilch 14y ago
Or if you absolutely can't offer it standalone; what about as an option off service(s) more reasonable and likely to already be in my pocket, as an anti-cable viewer. For example, why can't I get some premium options off the back of my Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Xbox Live, etc service(s)? There are mentions of HBO having to foot the infrastructure if going away from Big-TV providers, but the above can handle that now. Charge an extra $5 over Big-TV, if these other services want you to foot some of their transport bill; I'd be willing to pay more, while still paying less than needing a cable sub. I'm already paying those other guys. Are they not playing ball? Tell us so, and we can start focusing some of our internet hate at those greedy suits, as well.
- wmf 14y ago
  That has the same problem. For every Netflix+HBO subscriber gained, they could lose several cable+HBO subscribers.
celerity 14y ago
Not going to work IMHO. HBO is partly so successful because of its exclusivity. It is THE premiere channel to get, and will give that away only when the fall of traditional TV is apparent.
trotsky 14y ago
I worked on several commercial digital music projects in the time span between early napster and entrenched itunes. One regularly repeated meme of the era was that people didn't want to pirate music, they just wanted it "as easy" or "no drm" or "ala carte" or "all you can eat". While statistically these were all guaranteed to be true for at least some users, in aggregate they were red herrings. The industry was in the process of significant decline due at least in part to online infringement. Over the course of several years mainstream services that more or less broke down all these barriers appeared but they failed to reverse any of the macro trends. While many of the reasons are nuanced and disputed, a number of observations are relatively uncontested. Online sales severely cannibalized physical sales but failed to significantly cut down on online infringement. ASP dropped much faster than production and distribution costs. New, powerful intermediaries formed that dictated sales practices to the labels instead of the other way around. Anecdotally, among friends and colleagues no one I knew significantly shifted their behavior. Everyone bought at least some music, and I don't think I knew anyone who refused to touch anything pirated. 12+ years on that really hasn't changed much, I still get emailed songs from rights holders or people who sell music and my friends with shared raid 5 arrays with all_the_music still buy downloads from their favorite bands. The thing that did change is the reasons for piracy. Instead of the previous concerns people were now unwilling to support the majors, or wanted higher quality encodes, or simply thought that IP sales were outdated and believed that music acts should shift to solely making their money through touring and merchandise sales. Whether these are reasonable new barriers or not I'm not at all interested in debating. I've thought many of them were compelling at various times. Rather what I think is interesting is that some number of objections always seem to exist. There was an interview with a researcher on NPR yesterday that I caught. The discussion was on cheating (on things like taxes, etc.) and how in controlled settings almost all of us are small time cheats but few of us are huge cheats. The researcher attributed a key part of this to the idea that we all want to be the good guy - and that cheating within a tolerance allowed us to continue to view ourselves that way, but cheating too much made it hard for us to view ourselves that way. While he didn't make any connection to reasons or extenuating circumstances, it seemed to jibe well with my own unscholarly impressions. That many of the reasons for intellectual property theft are constructed to allow a person to continue to see themselves as the good guy while doing something they consider immoral. "Well, I want to pay them, but [barrier X] won't let me" is almost the perfect storm of this type of mental construct - pretty much unassailable, at least until barrier X is removed.
zavulon 14y ago
Kind of off-topic, but it's really use for HBO to bring this entire operation down if they want: the domain name contains their trademark, "HBO". In these cases it's much better to have a generic domain name (i.e. "takemymoneycable" or something like that), than to do trademark violations. I've had to learn this the hard way, unfortunately ...
- shrikant 14y ago
  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement: Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers. How is this a product or service similar to what HBO is offering..? Merely invoking the name of a product/service is hardly a trademark violation -- otherwise every single HN commenter who has griped about Apple/Google/Microsoft/Facebook products would be infringing.
ZenPsycho 14y ago
Why isn't HBO's business failing a palatable option? Businesses fail all the time, why can't HBO?
- notJim 14y ago
  I'm not sure if this answers your question, but HBO produces incredibly high-quality content that a lot of people fear would go away.
iamgilesbowkett 14y ago
it's not going to happen for a while. this web site won't make it happen. the detailed reasons start here: http://johnaugust.com/2012/why-you-cant-get-hbo-go-by-itself http://johnaugust.com/2012/why-you-cant-get-hbo-go-by-itself the short version: "to say Comcast buys HBO in bulk is an understatement. Other cable companies, too, (and satellite and AT&T/Verizon/other telecoms doing video) have profound purchasing power. They also heavily promote HBO to their hundreds of millions of customers. So HBO gets a lot more from Comcast for its $7.27 (or whatever it is Comcast might pay) than it would get from me or you for our $10. HBO costs $10 per month because it’s bundled. It’s not the fair market price. Untie that knot, and you have to untie everything." not going to happen, kids.
cletus 14y ago
I certainly understand the motivation for this but HBO is actually in a difficult position. - HBO drives a lot of cable purchase - Some of that money goes to the cable companies for data carriage - The cable companies know HBO sells cable - Any alternative distribution means risks the cable companies losing income - Cable companies losing income means that HBO risks either being dropped from the cable companies or having to offer them a bigger slice of the pie (since distribution is now non-exclusive) It is a huge risk for HBO to jeopardize their cable subscriber income with a direct-to-market model. That being said, I won't pay $100+/month to watch just HBO so do the math on that. What really annoys me is that this goes so far as affecting, say, iTunes releases. HBO only releases shows on iTunes (if they release it at all) just prior to the next season starting to drum up more interest. That's a trap and I'm not falling for it. This all goes back to why a la carte cable will never happen (given the current power structure and regulatory environment). It either means people will spend less on cable or things will be more expensive so it won't be worth it. Either way the cable companies lose. Content creators also lose because no one wants to take the risk of losing what is otherwise guaranteed income (a slice of every cable bill). Years ago, Hollywood went through a shakeup splitting content creation from distribution [1]. It's really time for the same thing to happen with all content industries. We need to separate: 1. Content creation: studios like HBO; 2. Distribution: cable companies like Time Warner and Comcast; and 3. Infrastructure: the actual last mile, cable or fibre infrastructure. Of course the political likelihood of that happening is essentially zero. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pict.... EDIT: to clarify this point, I don't believe cable companies would pursue the nuclear option of dropping HBO. However what the cable companies have now is essentially an exclusive arrangement with HBO. With implied or otherwise, HBO earns a premium for this in terms of how big a cut the companies get. Providing a means to bypass the cable companies would sooner or later result in a higher cut being paid to them, less marketing of HBO by the cable companies to its customers, etc. Basically there is an economic cost to breaking exclusivity whether it is explicit or not.
- technoslut 14y ago
  I doubt that cable companies will drop HBO. They are the primary channel that cable companies have in pushing higher priced channel packages and would have to deal with consumer revolt.
jblock 14y ago
HBO is a Time Warner subsidiary. Until that's not a thing, this just simply won't happen. I'd like it to, but the business realities just make it unfeasible.
wildster 14y ago
This is the tweet showing on the page: @sgbakerr I would pay $0 a month for a standalone @HBOGO subscription and pirate all my @HBO programming takemymoneyhbo.com #takemymoneyHBO
rickmb 14y ago
It's ironic that the amount in the form is in US dollars. In much the rest of the world, it's already pretty much game over. A whole generation has learned to "pirate" these shows because it's the only available option. This is the reality in 2012 outside the US: ordinary people in offices and on schoolyards are discussing TV shows that aren't legally available in those countries. It's not considered anything special anymore, it's no longer just a small "secret" club of geeks. It has become so common it's hard to imagine "legal" services will ever get a foot in the door after over a decade of neglecting these markets.
- akurilin 14y ago
  Pirating these shows in the US often leads to nasty threatening letters from the content owners, and that's the best case scenario. You learn pretty fast not to do that again. Maybe I'm just an awful pirate. I have been willing to pay HBO anywhere between 10 and 30 a month for years to get access to all of their content on demand on the web. Really glad someone took the initiative to let them know about it. Not that it will necessarily do anything, but at least the customer desires will be very visible.
- icebraining 14y ago
  Where is this? Where I live, most people don't know English nearly well enough to watch the shows without subtitles, and community created subs are very hit-and-miss, both in availability and quality.
  - rickmb 14y ago
    The Netherlands, but I think the same goes for most of Western Europe, especially the Northern half. Which unfortunately for HBO is also the primary potential market outside North America, both in terms of disposable income and the kind of audience that watches their shows. HBO is actually now starting to enter the local cable market. Great offering: "pay a premium price to see shows your friends talked about 6 months ago at an inconvenient time". I suppose there's still a market for it, just like there's still a market for getting yesterdays news printed on dead trees... You have to remember that the practice of pirating TV shows started about ten years ago now. That's a whole generation that grew up watching their favorite shows that way. Any time, anywhere, and for free. Try selling those people premium cable subscriptions that offer no practical advantages whatsoever.
DaNmarner 14y ago
I want Game of Thrones on airplane trips.
koide 14y ago
HBO (and others) should put a donation button, publicize it to pirates and report findings. If money starts pouring then we get a win/win, HBO needs not to invest in streaming technology / bandwidth / DRM / whatever and the pirates can compensate the producers/artists. What would be done with the money should be specified upfront and held to high transparency levels and of course involve the artists.
mmuro 14y ago
HBO will gladly take your money...through cable. Just because you don't like the delivery method doesn't mean there isn't a way to access the content you want. Compare this to movies. Is it the responsibility of studios to make sure you can watch the movie at home the very instant it comes out? No. You go to the theater and watch it if you want to see it as soon as it airs. Otherwise, you wait. HBO is following the same path: use cable subscriptions as the avenue to get the content immediately, On Demand available soon thereafter, buy the DVDs or download at a later date. I'm really tired of this self-righteous attitude that you are owed something from HBO. If you want to watch all of your TV through the internet, that's fine. But you have to live with the tradeoffs. HBO is one of them.

425 points by krogsgard 14y ago

"We pirate Game of Thrones, we use our friend's HBOGO login to watch True Blood…" Yeah I am not associating myself with that. Perhaps something like "We don't currently pay to see your content". Honestly as an Australian I don't see this happening here, the cable here is an effective monopoly and unless they get a cut of the profits they're not going let HBO do this. It might be completely against their business model as well due to the fact GoT has received more publicity here than any other cable show in some time. This has likely been driving sales for them and so would be bad for their business.

sabathmt 14y ago
It's an attention grabber, sheesh.
- aidenn0 14y ago
  No it says "I think I'm entitled to your content and so I'm going to probably be a shitty customer"
  - ckrailo 14y ago
    So you're anti-entitlement to very easily copyable things? Why? To assure you I'm not trolling... take a look at this discussion before replying: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe...
    - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
      That really isn't a discussion. It is one CEO explaining their decision to make their products available online. Kessler has a different idea of how HBO is going to position themselves online. Why is Newell's opinion on his business model any more valid than Kessler's? I never understood this thing about "easily copy-able" being a reason to strip a business of their distribution rights. Yes, the actual string of 1's and 0's is easy to copy. But physically making a 60 minute episode of Game of Thrones is not so easy. I think the work they have put into making their product has earned them the right to control the distribution of their product just as much as any other business. If you don't like the way HBO distributes Game of Thrones... you don't go pirate it... you go film it yourself (although I suspect that would not be allowed either).
    - aidenn0 14y ago
      I think right now, HBO makes more money from selling to the cable companies than they could selling directly to people. The cable companies are very good customers of them, and I think that HBO as a company is better off not taking the money of people that feel entitled to their content. HBO Go puts the technical infrastructure in place to eliminate the cable companies as customers if this ever changes, so they have some chance of surviving the likely collapse of the cable industry
  - marekmroz 14y ago
    No, it says "everyone is finding a way to watch it whether it is on HBO or by pirating, so why don't you figure out how to enable everyone to watch it without infringing on copyright and make some money in the process?"
ktizo 14y ago
Yeah I am not associating myself with that. The piracy angle, or those particular programmes?
- hartror 14y ago
  Piracy of course.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    Just checking. (sorry, was just the first thought that entered my head and it made me giggle)
tjmc 14y ago
Interestingly GoT seasons 1 and 2 are available on iTunes in Australia. The latest episodes only take an extra week to show up from when they're first screened in the US. Even so, Australians apparently pirate the show in greater numbers than elsewhere. Could be because it's $3/episode or it's only standard def or it's a week late. My guess is people find it just as easy to torrent it so don't even bother to look at paid options. So if Australia is being used by HBO as a test market (quite common for US companies in the past), the stats on offering a paid online option in parallel to cable to reduce piracy don't look compelling to me in this case.
- batiudrami 14y ago
  GoT is absolutely huge in Australia - I am continually surprised at the people I know who are well outside the target demographic and watch it. Monday is Game of Thrones night, where everyone watches it, and then talks about it with their mates, which seems to be a significant part of the experience (I'm not a fan of the show personally). A week later is one week too late - you need to be looking at hours after screening. Australia has a huge pirated TV culture because of how awful our free to air is (pay TV is only really starting to catch on due to exclusive sports licenses, and in terms of getting US content it is almost as terrible as free to air), and everyone just torrents what they want to watch.
  - tjmc 14y ago
    Guess we'll find out next week if it's the screening time because season 2 just finished. So from next Monday will there be a drop in Australian GoT torrents because the show is equally available on iTunes? It'd be interesting to see the stats. The other thing is that on iiNet (Australia's #2 ISP), iTunes downloads aren't counted against download quota. So there's some incentive to buy for people on the basic plans.
    - petitmiam 14y ago
      iTunes only has SD though right?
- 14y ago
codexon 14y ago
Australian bandwidth is atrociously expensive too.
- skeletonjelly 14y ago
  Unlimited for $60 isn't too bad (including line rental)
  - lengarvey 14y ago
    From which ISP? The quality fluctuates wildly. If its $60 unlimited from a good ISP like iinet then it's a good deal, if it's with TPG or Dodo then it's not worth the hassle.
  - codexon 14y ago
    I'm not talking about residential lines. I'm talking about servers.
    - skeletonjelly 14y ago
      Right you are! I've had both colo in the US a number of years ago and current colo here in Australia. Couldn't agree more. Do you think that's due to the cost of "shipment" or just greedy men in the middle?
      - codexon 14y ago
        I have no idea. Haven't bothered to look into it.

mhd 14y ago

Next step: Take my European money, HBO.

augusto_hp 14y ago

Great and sound idea! But the pain is already aching if this kind of thing get through: posts will be made, bootstraps distrubuted and sources will be opened and the start of the era of "Please, Take my money whatever" will have began. Lets hope for the best, take all our money HBO.

dfc 14y ago

As an American I'd rather sign up for "Take My Money BBC."

smackfu 14y ago
Would you pay $225 a year? That's how much it costs a Briton. ("The annual cost of a colour TV licence is £145.50")
- Game_Ender 14y ago
  If it was the only way my wife and I could get the content we would pay. We would even pay a lesser fee for the ability to stream some of their shows they don't allow to stream outside of Britain.
- bascule 14y ago
  Would I pay $19/mo for BBC content? Yes
  - veb 14y ago
    I would too. Absolutely love BBC stuff.
- MiguelHudnandez 14y ago
  I would pay that in monthly installments, provided it is ad-free.
- DeepDuh 14y ago
  It's hilarious that they apparently need to specify "colour" ;).
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    You can get a discount if you are using either a black and white TV, a TV under a certain screen size or if you are deaf/blind.

mortenjorck 14y ago

The "recent tweets" widget shows people tweeting numbers like $10. Isn't HBO as an add-on to an existing cable subscription generally significantly more than that?

tptacek 14y ago
$14/month on AT&T. But in some instances they may be cross-subsidized by basic cable, too.
melvinmt 14y ago
It costs $14.99/mo to add it to AT&T U-Verse if it isn't included in your package already.
SigmundA 14y ago
$16.99/mo on Fios for HBO in FL if you don't the cable box/ cable card rental free required to access the encrypted channel.
- reustle 14y ago
  I think you a word.
Casc 14y ago
Not significantly more, at the end of the day I'd have to guess HBO likely sees less than $10/sub.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  Yea, but plenty of the cut the network takes of that $20 is going to infrastructure- and marketing-type costs that HBO would have to shoulder if they struck out alone.
  - Casc 14y ago
    Their distribution and infrastructure cost is significantly higher than HBO's would be to support their own content delivery.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

I'd rather see people put their money where their mouth is, in a non-hypothetical way. For example, pick some otherwise random date a few weeks after the DVD set will be released and organize a concerted buying effort amongst "pirates" on that specific date.

masmullin 14y ago
As a purchaser of the season 1 blu-ray... lets get to the secondary issue of buying. The packaging of the videos is SHIT... there are ads, I have to sit through FBI warnings, I have to sift through bad menus to get to the content I want, and I have to deal with trying to find features when everything I select says "please insert disc X" I paid $70 CND and with the exception of the actual quality of the picture (blu-ray is fantastic), the whole experience is VASTLY inferior to the piracy route. That said, I'll still be purchasing the Season 2 Blu-Ray when it comes out, because I very much want to support the production of this series.
- zem 14y ago
  buy the dvd, leave it in its box, and pirate the show. everyone wins.
  - masmullin 14y ago
    But why? Why couldn't they have just made a good Blu-Ray boxed set? Why does disc three have nothing but one episode on it (no extra features... everything I click while using disc3 says "please enter disc 5", while disc 4 has three episodes on it? Why do I have to sit through an FBI warning when I dont even live in the states? Why do I have to see ads for other HBO shows when I put in disc 1? I spent good money on the fucking thing? Why couldn't they have given me a BETTER experience than the people who steal it?
    - zem 14y ago
      yeah, i fully agree with you, and i have for the most part opted out altogether - i don't pirate and i don't buy the dvds due to the fundamental brokenness of the model. however, if you do want to watch the show, and if you want to support the creators in some way (and, sadly, support their multifarious parasites as well), the only real way to do it is to buy the dvd (so you have paid your money to the smallest possible superset of people who deserve it) and then pirate the show (so you actually have something watchable).

MBlume 14y ago

It's not pirating if you download Game of Thrones -- it's paying The Iron Price

lwat 14y ago
I'm willing to pay the Gold Price but I don't want to wait several months until they decide to air it in my local country.
- silentscope 14y ago
  ^^^clearly a lannister!
- masklinn 14y ago
  > until they decide to air it in my local country. Dubbed, too.

jquery 14y ago

I pay $30/month to watch Starcraft 2 tournaments on GomTV.net. I pay $0/month to watch Game of Thrones, Veep, Girls, and True Blood. I will continue to pay $0 until there is an option that does not involve enriching evil cable executives. Your move, HBO.

res0nat0r 14y ago
You do realize that without those evil cable executives and their funding these shows wouldn't be on the air right now?
Game_Ender 14y ago
I up voted you, but don't really support the "evil cable executives" line.
david_shaw 14y ago
> I will continue to pay $0 until there is an option that does not involve enriching evil cable executives. Wouldn't a standalone HBO GO subscription enrich cable executives? Wouldn't any paid solution enrich cable executives?
- randomdata 14y ago
  Profit isn't inherently evil, so I assume by his comment that the "evil cable executives" would cease to be evil if they offered a product considered reasonable by him.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    Aside from the "Time Warner owns HBO" issue, it makes sense to distinguish content producers like HBO from, say, Comcast (who are far more evil).
biot 14y ago
Do you always analyze who gets enriched before making purchases? For example, how do you purchase anything without enriching the evil oil executives who sell the petroleum products used to transport goods used in the production of the products and services you consume? Even if you manage to perfectly align your beliefs with your purchasing habits, how do you ensure that those who profit from your purchases don't give their money to the evil cable or oil executives?

ap3 14y ago

Have you guys thought about how many people are already paying for HBO ? Is HBO hurting for money? Or is it just a bunch of geeks trying to get hbo for cheap? I know anti-piracy is not always popular but they are creating popular and original shows, why not support them?

patrickpkt 14y ago
I don't think the issue is that HBO costs $10-15/month right now, but that there's also the cost of the cable subscription and the cable box. Aside from the programs on HBO, the vast majority of what I watch is over-the-air, so it's not too much of a stretch to say I'm paying $60+/month to get HBO legally.
potatolicious 14y ago
The trouble is not that HBO is too expensive, but rather that there is no way for this "bunch of geeks" to pay HBO directly. If you look at the current tweets, people are offering up anywhere between $8 and $20, which I imagine is considerably more than HBO's take based on their current revenue model. The whole point of this website, I gather, is to convince HBO that their product is worth considerably more to the end user than what they're currently making, and that they can tap into a lot more revenue if they let people subscribe to their products directly, without the cableco middleman. [edit] My impression of HBO pricing is completely wrong. It doesn't seem like HBO would stand to gain a huge amount based on how much people are "pledging".
bascule 14y ago
HBO definitely thinks piracy is enough of a problem they're willing to hurt paying customers to try to stop it: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120418/08405618545/hbo-decides-it-still-isnt-difficult-enough-to-watch-hbo-shows.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120418/08405618545/hbo-de... At the same time they don't provide an option for legitimate "over the top" Internet video users to watch their programming without a PayTV subscription.
ckrailo 14y ago
It's not cheap, really. HBO costs <$20 on DirectTV. Source: http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/premiums/hbo http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/premiums/hbo

divtxt 14y ago

Also, take my money, Showtime!

kin 14y ago
showtime has pretty good content but i'd definitely pay less for it. have you seen hbo go? full seasons of all hbo content + great collection of new release movies.

smackfu 14y ago

This was a good write-up of an interview with the HBO co-CEO: http://dcurt.is/hbo-forbes-journalism http://dcurt.is/hbo-forbes-journalism Worth reading before spouting the typical "I don't understand why HBO doesn't want my $5 a month."

akira2501 14y ago
I see his argument.. but why not just partner with ISPs? If HBO doesn't want my $8 directly, then why not let AT&T (or whoever) charge me an extra $8/mo along with my DSL (or whatever) bill and get HBOGO? It would be nearly identical to their current model, but with different types of subscriber organizations distributing their content for them.
- runako 14y ago
  Because this is an act of war against other carries that currently carry HBO. Those carriers can drop HBO and cause revenue to drop much faster than broadband-only HBOGO subscribers will bring in new revenue. It's trading an existing, stable, proven revenue source for one that is none of the above at scale. Edit: This is a summary of one of HBO's arguments. The dcurtis post examines a couple of other arguments. Positioning is an interesting one: How does HBO convince viewers that $5/mo is reasonable for just a few shows when Netflix is $8/mo for far more content? There are some really tough issues here.
  - fjabre 14y ago
    They would not be able to drop HBO. It's too valuable to their customers
    - aidenn0 14y ago
      They don't have to drop HBO, they just have to stop advertising it. A large fraction of cable ads I see have the not-so-subtle message of: "BUY HBO! IF YOU DONT HAVE HBO THAN YOU ARE MISSING OUT AND YOUR FRIENDS WILL THINK YOU ARE UNCOOL" How much revenue does HBO get from that marketing?

kenshi 14y ago

There is a difference between people saying they will pay for something versus all of those people actually handing over hard currency for it.

ckrailo 14y ago
Unfortunately, the market works in such a way that unless you build a mechanism for people to pay a reasonable price for a game at launch (see Steam vs Piracy), then you lose out. Example: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe... Even a trial run, like pay $5 and watch S03E01, would be a really great test to see if the market is telling the truth here. (But the availability could NOT lag behind HBOGo or broadcast, it'd have to be simultaneous.)

swah 14y ago

We pay around 100 USD/mo in Brazil for cable + 10Mbit internet, and HBO has always been a premium I don't have access.

res0nat0r 14y ago

Sigh. Not this ultimatum again... Hurting 'Game of Thrones' Through Piracy Won’t Change HBO’s Business, It Will Just Get the Show Cancelled: http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/hurting-game-of-thrones-through-piracy-wont-change-hbos-business-it-will-just-get-the-show-cancelled-rfure.php http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/hurting-game-of-th...

ericdykstra 14y ago
The most popular show on HBO will get cancelled because people are pirating it? Definitely disagree. It's not just critically acclaimed, it's among the most popular HBO original show in the network's history. Pirating, of course, won't change their business. But even if I really want to watch the show (I don't watch it), I wouldn't sign up for Cable TV, and sign up for HBO on top of it just for one show. I see this as less of an ultimatum and more of a "hey your business model is fucked so you're not getting my money" thing.
- jack-r-abbit 14y ago
  To be more correct... it is more of a "hey your product kicks total fucking ass... but I disagree with you business model. I'm going to consume your kick ass product anyway... but you're not getting my money" thing.

sg214 14y ago

HBO as an add-on to cable packages costs ~$20. If HBO were to offer it as a standalone service, they would have to handle billing, subscription management, increased marketing budget to make up for marketing that cable/sat currently offers for them, etc. So unless a critical mass of people are willing to pay AT LEAST $30 per month, this is a lost cause.

MiguelHudnandez 14y ago
They cost around $20, but do we know what HBO's cut is?
- sg214 14y ago
  HBO's cut is very small (< $3 I think). But the cable and satellite cos pay a fixed fee per base cable/sat sub to HBO but then upsell their own customers and recoup that cost. Using the $20 as a proxy for about what HBO gets, even though it's a lot more complicated than that in reality.
  - sureshv 14y ago
    HBO gets around $8 per subscriber, ESPN for reference gets around $4 but its on the basic tier so it has many more subscribers.
wmf 14y ago
As several people have said, Netflix or Hulu would probably be happy to do the billing and management. The marketing is definitely an issue, since cable companies can efficiently market HBO to existing cable subscribers.
sureshv 14y ago
HBO currently gets around $8 per subscriber, typically you are paying double that to the cable company so unless the overhead is 100% I doubt they would need to charge more than $15 per subscriber. The real problem is distribution and making up for the fact that cable companies are guaranteeing a certain number of subscribers (in the millions). The other reason is that Time Warner wont risk their other channels being unbundled from the basic tier such as TNT, TBS, CNN, Cartoon, etc. They make more on some of those channels (Ads + subscriber fee) than HBO.

shpoonj 14y ago

I wouldn't pay a single cent to HBO. I would, on the other hand, pay $40 via iTunes per season of Game of Thrones. Networks are outdated. Stop trying to change them and adapt like the rest of us.

duaneb 14y ago
On the contrary, I would much rather pay HBO directly rather than go through Apple as an intermediary.
jack-r-abbit 14y ago
For an outdated network they sure have managed to create a product that is so awesome that sane, rationale people can't even wait to get it.
brown9-2 14y ago
When you pay $40 to iTunes, where do you think a significant chunk of that money goes to? HBO produces the show. They aren't just the broadcaster.

shmerl 14y ago

Did HBO ever consider asking some fixed price per simple download? No streaming, no complicated subscription services. Just payments per files. There can't be any logical reason not to offer it, if it's so widely pirated already. They can only convince some of those who pirate not to do it, if they provide the same level of simplicity and convenience. In any case, it can't make it any worse for them, than it is now. It can probably only make it better.

wmf 14y ago
HBO is ~$15/month or ~$180/year if you don't cancel. A season of Game of Thrones is $30-39 on iTunes. It seems pretty obvious.
- shmerl 14y ago
  I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to compare. Rather try to compare those who simply pirate the stuff as soon as it's out with anything of the above. I think if they'd offer something around $2-$3 per episode right away (without any iTunes), they could gain more from those who don't pay anything to them now.
  - wmf 14y ago
    I'm comparing the amount of money HBO would get from people who only watch Game of Thrones. If you could get it without subscribing, a lot of people would cancel HBO.
sp332 14y ago
Sure, you can get it on iTunes that way.
- shmerl 14y ago
  Not right away, and not without DRM (i.e. as a portable file). So it can't compete with pirated copies that way.

mutant 14y ago

i can't tell hbo because I don't have twitter. i hate twitter. my voice shall go unnoticed.

hospadam 14y ago

I just don't understand what some people are thinking when it comes to this issue. In my mind, HBO is offering people two options: 1) Premium price, instant gratification. If you're willing to pony up for cable TV + a HBO subscription, you're able to watch Game of Thrones the instant it comes out. Yes, you're paying a lot (~$100) - but - sometimes that's the price you have to pay for a premium service. 2) Pay a reasonable price, get it digitally, but I have to wait. If the $100/month subscription is a problem for you - no problem! You just have to wait. You can legally gain access to Game of Thrones on iTunes or BluRay for ~$40 for the whole season... about 10 months after it finishes airing. When I hear someone say, "Why can't I just pay HBO directly for access? They're dumb! I'll just pirate it instead." - What they really mean is, "HBO charges too much for my tastes, and I don't want to wait... so I'll just download it." If that's your mentality, fine... but please don't think you're doing it for some higher reasoning. You just want the show now, and you don't want to pay what HBO is selling it. In every other medium (physical goods, food, dinner, cars) - you'd be SOL. But.. just because it's digital, you can copy it for free.

mfringel 14y ago
You're correct. HBO is offering people two options. However, there seems to be a significant amount of people who want a third option, which HBO considers itself structurally prohibited from providing. It is precisely no one's fault but HBO's that HBO has painted itself into a corner.
- hospadam 14y ago
  You're exactly right - there is a vocal set of people that want a third option. My point is, however, no business has to offer the "third option". Just because they don't offer the third option doesn't make downloading them for free OK.
  - ckrailo 14y ago
    Why not? To assure you I'm not trolling... read this first: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe...

Steko 14y ago

I'd planned to buy Game of Thrones when it came out on iTunes a couple months ago but I realized that even that still indirectly supports the buzz around this property and the way it's primarily delivered. Instead I'd suggest fellow cord cutters just skip Game of Thrones entirely, don't pirate it, don't even watch it. Instead spend your money and leisure time supporting content that's provided online. When your friends talk about GoT you'll need to have a few canned response-pivots like "is that about orcs? Lawl, hey did you guys see Lilyhammer? It was totally not godawful."

GigabyteCoin 14y ago
Not watching game of thrones isn't really an option for anybody I know...
sneak 14y ago
"Nah, I'm not really into Pokemon." http://xkcd.com/178/ http://xkcd.com/178/ (Am I the only one who still doesn't give two fucks about four fucks about television shows?)
- jerf 14y ago
  No, but as we don't really have anything to say on this topic, we don't. Selection bias. I can't disagree this is relevant to HN's interests, as a specific instance of a broader trend that gets talked about a lot here.
- matwood 14y ago
  I don't really get the anti TV people. Like any medium there is good and bad. TV definitely has its share of bad, but there is also some pretty good entertainment. Books, magazines, websites, etc... there is always going to be more crap than not, but for some reason I never read about people bragging about giving them up.
  - zem 14y ago
    it's a form of signalling herd membership. compare people bragging that they are bad at maths - people are bad at all sorts of subjects, but mathematics is unusual in that people are proud of their ignorance of it, because they are essentially signalling that they are part of the "non-geek" tribe. similarly, people are uninterested in all sorts of media, but are proud of a lack of interest in tv because that signals their membership in the "non-mainstream" tribe.

aidenn0 14y ago

HBO is already taking my money: http://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones-Complete-Season-Blu-ray/dp/B003Y5HWMW/ref=sr_1_3?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1338949273&sr=1-3 http://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones-Complete-Season-Blu-ray/d...

mmmmax 14y ago

Love it. Pre-fill the field with hint text like "10" and you will increase the number of tweets posted.

dbbolton 14y ago

The message I get from posts like these: "I am entitled to watch show X right now. If the owner of show X won't sell it to me instantly, then I have the right to pirate it." Is there money to be made here? Sure. I might even say that companies who don't offer popular shows on demand are making a dumb move. But nobody has the innate right to take whatever they want right now just because they can't wait until it's available legally.

ars 14y ago
> has the innate right to take whatever they want You aren't taking it. You are copying it. The only reason not to be allowed to copy it is if it damages the copyright owner. But since the product has zero economic value to the owner from you (they refuse to sell it to you), you are not causing them any damage, and therefor you can not make any argument about why it's wrong. (i.e. it makes no difference to the owner whether you copied it or not.) One of the criteria for fair use is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". And if you also include "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes" you have met 2 out of 4 of the criteria for fair use, so you could make a strong argument that it's actually fully legal.
- gee_totes 14y ago
  2 things) 1 - But since the product has zero economic value to the owner from you (they refuse to sell it to you) -- In the case of Game of Thrones, you are refusing to buy it (either via HBO subscription, iTunes, physical media, etc.) 2 - Fair use is a legal defense used when you get charged with copyright infringement. It is not an excuse you give upfront. You can only claim fair use after you have been charged.
  - ars 14y ago
    1: I have not checked, I assume it was impossible based on the post the parent made, I've never watched it myself or tried to buy (or download) it. I take his claim that he can not get it any other way at face value. Selling it a week later does not count BTW, (just in case that is what they are doing). If he wants it now, and they refuse then too bad for them - they lost his money. That was their choice and they should not complain. 2: Fair use is most definitely an "excuse" (as you call it). Fair use lets you decide if you are allowed to do something. You don't have to go to court before quoting a passage from a book in a review - fair use lets you do it without even asking.

jiggy2011 14y ago

Perhaps the issue is that with their business model they want people to pay $x per month for years on end? Since people who are paying a sub are way less likely to cancel than people who make a 1 off purchase are willing to come back? Perhaps they don't even care that much about piracy because their money is already in the bag from cable subscribers? Once everyone stops using cable they will change their tune.

juliano_q 14y ago

I actually discovered that I am able to pay HBO for Game of Thrones. HBO decided to air GoT here in Brazil simultaneously with USA. I called my television provider, added HBO for R$ 30,00/mo (around $15.00) and after the end of the season 2 I just called there and removed HBO again. I am planning to do the same for season 3. Is it so hard for people around the world to do the same? (real question, not being sarcastic)

hospadam 14y ago
Well, this season of GoT was 9 episodes. If you wanted HBO over the whole run so you could watch them live - you would need it for 3 months. However, if you're willing to hold off until last month, you could get by with waiting for the last episode to come out, buy one month, watch all episodes, then cancel.
- cpeterso 14y ago
  Season 2 has 10 episodes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones_%28season_2%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones_%28season_2%29
wmf 14y ago
The people who are complaining don't have cable, so they'd have to pay $50+$15 per month for three months.
pyre 14y ago
You're ignoring the cost of the cable subscription in the first place (unless your 'television provider' is the government and you don't pay anything).
duaneb 14y ago
I don't even own a TV, let alone a TV subscription. At the bare minimum, I'd be looking at $65 a month for a single TV show.

marshall007 14y ago

Nice try, HBO.

rhplus 14y ago

Simply tweeting the intention is an empty gesture. How about setting up a publically auditable escrow account with the recipient set to be HBO/Time Warner. Deposit $20 (or whatever is fair compensation) and then go ahead an acquire a copy of the video. That's what I thought this would be when I saw "Take my money, HBO": a realizable offer of money. Is there any legal precedent for this, i.e. attempting to pay for a product or service, being ignored and then paying and taking it anyway?

guynamedloren 14y ago
I attempted to buy your Porsche for $20. You ignored me so I took it anyway. Obviously it's illegal.
- IbJacked 14y ago
  Theft and copyright violation are not comparable. Both may be illegal, but they aren't the same. Would it be illegal to build a replica of the Porsche for myself? The GP's example was bad because he mentioned taking a product or service, rather than making a copy of something and keeping it. I'm assuming he didn't mean it the way it reads.
  - rhplus 14y ago
    The part I tried to stress was "fair compensation", but perhaps that's not the correct legal or contractual term. The closest real-world analogy I can think of is this: you want to by a DVD but cashier is ignoring you. So, you slap a $20 bill on the counter and walk out with the DVD. Of course, the analogy fails because we're not talking about a physical product and the way copyright is set up allows the copyright holder to decide who can and can't get access to the media, even if two parties are offering practically the same price.
    - guynamedloren 14y ago
      > The closest real-world analogy I can think of is this: you want to by a DVD but cashier is ignoring you. So, you slap a $20 bill on the counter and walk out with the DVD Wrong. In your scenario, the DVD in question is for sale, and is clearly listed as such with a price and all. You know exactly how much it costs, and you give that much money. And the transaction occurs in a place that is designed for this very purpose. There is no confusion or grey area here.

hasker 14y ago

Let me get this straight because I think this is what other sources are implying: HBO sells a license to their channels to the cable companies for a flat fee. The cable providers then recoup this by selling subscriptions to HBO or pushing more customers to subscribe to cable. In that way, cable providers actually pay more than the cable providers collect from consumers for HBO subscriptions. This really makes the question not would you pay the same price as HBO costs on cable for Game of Thrones access, but would you pay more? The cable provider's contracts may even preclude directly collecting from consumers. If this is true, I think the community needs to realize this remains a lost cause and instead encourage Netflix's model of creating high quality content directly for streaming.

sp332 14y ago
HBO charges per-subscriber, not a flat rate. But the cable company deals with billing, customer support, equipment costs, etc.

thezilch 14y ago

Or if you absolutely can't offer it standalone; what about as an option off service(s) more reasonable and likely to already be in my pocket, as an anti-cable viewer. For example, why can't I get some premium options off the back of my Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Xbox Live, etc service(s)? There are mentions of HBO having to foot the infrastructure if going away from Big-TV providers, but the above can handle that now. Charge an extra $5 over Big-TV, if these other services want you to foot some of their transport bill; I'd be willing to pay more, while still paying less than needing a cable sub. I'm already paying those other guys. Are they not playing ball? Tell us so, and we can start focusing some of our internet hate at those greedy suits, as well.

wmf 14y ago
That has the same problem. For every Netflix+HBO subscriber gained, they could lose several cable+HBO subscribers.

celerity 14y ago

Not going to work IMHO. HBO is partly so successful because of its exclusivity. It is THE premiere channel to get, and will give that away only when the fall of traditional TV is apparent.

trotsky 14y ago

I worked on several commercial digital music projects in the time span between early napster and entrenched itunes. One regularly repeated meme of the era was that people didn't want to pirate music, they just wanted it "as easy" or "no drm" or "ala carte" or "all you can eat". While statistically these were all guaranteed to be true for at least some users, in aggregate they were red herrings. The industry was in the process of significant decline due at least in part to online infringement. Over the course of several years mainstream services that more or less broke down all these barriers appeared but they failed to reverse any of the macro trends. While many of the reasons are nuanced and disputed, a number of observations are relatively uncontested. Online sales severely cannibalized physical sales but failed to significantly cut down on online infringement. ASP dropped much faster than production and distribution costs. New, powerful intermediaries formed that dictated sales practices to the labels instead of the other way around. Anecdotally, among friends and colleagues no one I knew significantly shifted their behavior. Everyone bought at least some music, and I don't think I knew anyone who refused to touch anything pirated. 12+ years on that really hasn't changed much, I still get emailed songs from rights holders or people who sell music and my friends with shared raid 5 arrays with all_the_music still buy downloads from their favorite bands. The thing that did change is the reasons for piracy. Instead of the previous concerns people were now unwilling to support the majors, or wanted higher quality encodes, or simply thought that IP sales were outdated and believed that music acts should shift to solely making their money through touring and merchandise sales. Whether these are reasonable new barriers or not I'm not at all interested in debating. I've thought many of them were compelling at various times. Rather what I think is interesting is that some number of objections always seem to exist. There was an interview with a researcher on NPR yesterday that I caught. The discussion was on cheating (on things like taxes, etc.) and how in controlled settings almost all of us are small time cheats but few of us are huge cheats. The researcher attributed a key part of this to the idea that we all want to be the good guy - and that cheating within a tolerance allowed us to continue to view ourselves that way, but cheating too much made it hard for us to view ourselves that way. While he didn't make any connection to reasons or extenuating circumstances, it seemed to jibe well with my own unscholarly impressions. That many of the reasons for intellectual property theft are constructed to allow a person to continue to see themselves as the good guy while doing something they consider immoral. "Well, I want to pay them, but [barrier X] won't let me" is almost the perfect storm of this type of mental construct - pretty much unassailable, at least until barrier X is removed.

zavulon 14y ago

Kind of off-topic, but it's really use for HBO to bring this entire operation down if they want: the domain name contains their trademark, "HBO". In these cases it's much better to have a generic domain name (i.e. "takemymoneycable" or something like that), than to do trademark violations. I've had to learn this the hard way, unfortunately ...

shrikant 14y ago
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement: Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers. How is this a product or service similar to what HBO is offering..? Merely invoking the name of a product/service is hardly a trademark violation -- otherwise every single HN commenter who has griped about Apple/Google/Microsoft/Facebook products would be infringing.

ZenPsycho 14y ago

Why isn't HBO's business failing a palatable option? Businesses fail all the time, why can't HBO?

notJim 14y ago
I'm not sure if this answers your question, but HBO produces incredibly high-quality content that a lot of people fear would go away.

iamgilesbowkett 14y ago

it's not going to happen for a while. this web site won't make it happen. the detailed reasons start here: http://johnaugust.com/2012/why-you-cant-get-hbo-go-by-itself http://johnaugust.com/2012/why-you-cant-get-hbo-go-by-itself the short version: "to say Comcast buys HBO in bulk is an understatement. Other cable companies, too, (and satellite and AT&T/Verizon/other telecoms doing video) have profound purchasing power. They also heavily promote HBO to their hundreds of millions of customers. So HBO gets a lot more from Comcast for its $7.27 (or whatever it is Comcast might pay) than it would get from me or you for our $10. HBO costs $10 per month because it’s bundled. It’s not the fair market price. Untie that knot, and you have to untie everything." not going to happen, kids.

cletus 14y ago

I certainly understand the motivation for this but HBO is actually in a difficult position. - HBO drives a lot of cable purchase - Some of that money goes to the cable companies for data carriage - The cable companies know HBO sells cable - Any alternative distribution means risks the cable companies losing income - Cable companies losing income means that HBO risks either being dropped from the cable companies or having to offer them a bigger slice of the pie (since distribution is now non-exclusive) It is a huge risk for HBO to jeopardize their cable subscriber income with a direct-to-market model. That being said, I won't pay $100+/month to watch just HBO so do the math on that. What really annoys me is that this goes so far as affecting, say, iTunes releases. HBO only releases shows on iTunes (if they release it at all) just prior to the next season starting to drum up more interest. That's a trap and I'm not falling for it. This all goes back to why a la carte cable will never happen (given the current power structure and regulatory environment). It either means people will spend less on cable or things will be more expensive so it won't be worth it. Either way the cable companies lose. Content creators also lose because no one wants to take the risk of losing what is otherwise guaranteed income (a slice of every cable bill). Years ago, Hollywood went through a shakeup splitting content creation from distribution [1]. It's really time for the same thing to happen with all content industries. We need to separate: 1. Content creation: studios like HBO; 2. Distribution: cable companies like Time Warner and Comcast; and 3. Infrastructure: the actual last mile, cable or fibre infrastructure. Of course the political likelihood of that happening is essentially zero. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pict.... EDIT: to clarify this point, I don't believe cable companies would pursue the nuclear option of dropping HBO. However what the cable companies have now is essentially an exclusive arrangement with HBO. With implied or otherwise, HBO earns a premium for this in terms of how big a cut the companies get. Providing a means to bypass the cable companies would sooner or later result in a higher cut being paid to them, less marketing of HBO by the cable companies to its customers, etc. Basically there is an economic cost to breaking exclusivity whether it is explicit or not.

technoslut 14y ago
I doubt that cable companies will drop HBO. They are the primary channel that cable companies have in pushing higher priced channel packages and would have to deal with consumer revolt.

jblock 14y ago

HBO is a Time Warner subsidiary. Until that's not a thing, this just simply won't happen. I'd like it to, but the business realities just make it unfeasible.

wildster 14y ago

This is the tweet showing on the page: @sgbakerr I would pay $0 a month for a standalone @HBOGO subscription and pirate all my @HBO programming takemymoneyhbo.com #takemymoneyHBO

rickmb 14y ago

It's ironic that the amount in the form is in US dollars. In much the rest of the world, it's already pretty much game over. A whole generation has learned to "pirate" these shows because it's the only available option. This is the reality in 2012 outside the US: ordinary people in offices and on schoolyards are discussing TV shows that aren't legally available in those countries. It's not considered anything special anymore, it's no longer just a small "secret" club of geeks. It has become so common it's hard to imagine "legal" services will ever get a foot in the door after over a decade of neglecting these markets.

akurilin 14y ago
Pirating these shows in the US often leads to nasty threatening letters from the content owners, and that's the best case scenario. You learn pretty fast not to do that again. Maybe I'm just an awful pirate. I have been willing to pay HBO anywhere between 10 and 30 a month for years to get access to all of their content on demand on the web. Really glad someone took the initiative to let them know about it. Not that it will necessarily do anything, but at least the customer desires will be very visible.
icebraining 14y ago
Where is this? Where I live, most people don't know English nearly well enough to watch the shows without subtitles, and community created subs are very hit-and-miss, both in availability and quality.
- rickmb 14y ago
  The Netherlands, but I think the same goes for most of Western Europe, especially the Northern half. Which unfortunately for HBO is also the primary potential market outside North America, both in terms of disposable income and the kind of audience that watches their shows. HBO is actually now starting to enter the local cable market. Great offering: "pay a premium price to see shows your friends talked about 6 months ago at an inconvenient time". I suppose there's still a market for it, just like there's still a market for getting yesterdays news printed on dead trees... You have to remember that the practice of pirating TV shows started about ten years ago now. That's a whole generation that grew up watching their favorite shows that way. Any time, anywhere, and for free. Try selling those people premium cable subscriptions that offer no practical advantages whatsoever.

DaNmarner 14y ago

I want Game of Thrones on airplane trips.

koide 14y ago

HBO (and others) should put a donation button, publicize it to pirates and report findings. If money starts pouring then we get a win/win, HBO needs not to invest in streaming technology / bandwidth / DRM / whatever and the pirates can compensate the producers/artists. What would be done with the money should be specified upfront and held to high transparency levels and of course involve the artists.

mmuro 14y ago

HBO will gladly take your money...through cable. Just because you don't like the delivery method doesn't mean there isn't a way to access the content you want. Compare this to movies. Is it the responsibility of studios to make sure you can watch the movie at home the very instant it comes out? No. You go to the theater and watch it if you want to see it as soon as it airs. Otherwise, you wait. HBO is following the same path: use cable subscriptions as the avenue to get the content immediately, On Demand available soon thereafter, buy the DVDs or download at a later date. I'm really tired of this self-righteous attitude that you are owed something from HBO. If you want to watch all of your TV through the internet, that's fine. But you have to live with the tradeoffs. HBO is one of them.