?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Piracy - John C. Kirk — LiveJournal

Jul. 27th, 2006

04:52 pm - Piracy

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:elvum
Date:July 31st, 2006 07:58 pm (UTC)
(Link)
http://www.eff.org/effector/HTML/effect15.15.html#II
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:johnckirk
Date:July 31st, 2006 08:13 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Leaving aside the hyperbole of the headline, I'd say that he has a point - the fewer people who actually watch an advert, the less value it has to an advertiser, so that comes back to the cascade effect of money. On the other hand, adverts can be quite a time sink; assuming that a 45 minute program gets stretched out to 1 hour, it's the difference between watching 3 or 4 episodes in a 3 hour period. My own trade-off is that I normally record programs through the Sky digibox, and then fast forward through the adverts when I play it back; if I see something that looks interesting then I may rewind to find out what it was. Or alternately I watch stuff on DVD, which avoids the ads altogether.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:elvum
Date:August 1st, 2006 08:41 am (UTC)
(Link)
Out of interest, who do you think should have the right to profit from DVD sales etc? The broadcaster that provided the cash to make the programme, or the production company that actually made it?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:johnckirk
Date:August 1st, 2006 09:36 am (UTC)
(Link)
I don't have any strong feelings on that issue. I'm inclined to say that the production company would start out being the beneficiaries, but that they would be entitled to share that with other people/companies if they chose to, e.g. paying an actor a lower salary but also giving them X% of the DVD sales.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)