All they're waiting for is the tipping point in consumption habits. Today, most of their subscribers are paying $17+/month via bundling with cable TV, and every major cable provider in the country is heavily advertising them for free. The moment they can go independent and accept subscribers without going through a cable company is the moment the trickle of people dropping cable TV in favor of internet media turns into a tide. It's not today. If they split from cable today, they'd lose free advertising to hundreds of millions of people a year, and they'd likely earn far less per month from each subscriber they pick up.

  HBO knows it's 2013. It's built a Netflix competitor.
  They have the whole tech stack for subscription internet
  streaming running and proven.

I love a couple of TV series. In Germany everything is dubbed (Yeah, Sheldon Cooper sucks if he talks German.. Don't even get me started on Dexter, who sounds like the most uninteresting guy ever on the German show). I'd love to pay for timely access to good content, in its original language.

All of Netflix, Hulu (and, with the disclaimer that I couldn't check yet, probably HBO as well) play that braindead, stupid 'Not in your country' game. Which isn't 2013 and something I have problems to accept since the 90s.

There's no way, to the best of my knowledge to legally watch Game of Thrones, besides buying it on DVD/Blu-Ray or actually subscribing to HBO (and using that subscription to watch it on-line).

OT: I've seen a few of these dubbed shows across Europe and Asia. And you know what I found fascinating? Most of these dubbed shows from Europe are done really well. Of particular note is how much pains go in choosing the the dialogues in order to lip-sync with how the original is spoken (Check some HK action films to see the contrast (-;)...

>> who sounds like the most uninteresting guy

In most cases, I noticed they take pains to get similar sounding actors/actresses from the original, perhaps this was one of those occasional poor choices.

- Bruce Willis in any movie - Kirk - Dexter

These samples are picked for being quite different. While one might argue that Kirk is an improvement (cue the protest!), Bruce Willis has a very different voice and Dexter sounds so. damn. boring.

The production quality is usually alright. Still, depending on the content a lot of context/humor is lost and voices regularly don't match the original, at all.

Edit: For fun - someone on Youtube allows you to compare Bruce (and more.. ;-p) directly here [1]. So these voices are ~fixed~ in our heads as the normal voices of the actors. It's actually pretty hard to find non-dubbed content here (TV? No way, unless on discs. Cinema? Hardly. Some movie theater show originals, but usually just a very limited/blockbuster selection. And I'm living in/near a 1000000 citizen city here, so that's already the bright side).

1: http://youtu.be/kc0NRc0qaws

Would it be more profitable to pair up with Netflix or to sell their shows drm free easily online? I know I'd pay for that service in a heartbeat, and I wonder how many people who own cable (I don't) would switch to paying for the few channels they actually want. However, I don't want to buy cable for one or two channels / shows, so they lose out from all money I'd willingly give them. I don't want them to cancel an amazing show because of the perceived lack of profit (Spartacus) if they could in fact double their profit from people who would buy their shows directly.

I'm hoping the idea of exclusives goes away - as long as the producer gets paid, who cares how the actual video was delivered (cable, iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, Vudu, DVD etc). Unfortunately in the battle for market share it is worth some of those video deliverers to pay more to lock out competitors, but it doesn't benefit the consumers.

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/news-corp-reports-100-incre...

Looks like HBO was able to take my money just fine.

Works fine for me.

I'm not arguing any point here, I'm just providing one data-point. There are people like me who want to have fun discussing shows with his friends/family while they're watching it. Not 6+ months later.

Correction: there are people like you who feel ENTITLED to consume every piece of entertainment and will jump through whatever hoops necessary to do so. Because at the end of the day that's what it comes down to: entitlement.

You're acting like typing "http://thepiratebay.se into a web browser is somehow a Herculean feat that people are challenged with.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but it's actually easier than pretty much any other method of media consumption, by a fucking lot.

Also, frankly I'm tired of people using the word "entitlement" in situations where it's really far too strong of a word to be using. I download shit because it's fucking simple to do and because there's literally no other way to consume said content (since, before some imbecile starts throwing accusations around, I don't live in the US.) If there were a way to pay for it that was comparably simple to piracy, I probably would choose to do that some of the time.

I download shit because...there's literally no other way to consume said content

...you're making the assumption that you are entitled to consume that content simply because it exists, and that not consuming the content isn't even an option.

The content is right there, for the taking. So I take it. If it weren't there, I wouldn't take it. (Duh.) How's that "entitled" activity? Are you that obtuse, or are you just trolling?

I don't know what you mean. I'm trying to show you why people perceive you as having an unreasonable sense of entitlement: it's the things you say that makes people think that. If your own words strike you as unreasonable, you may be close to understanding why other people see them that way.

I don't know what context you want me to have included. The reasons you give (e.g. "I want it", "it's available" and "it's fucking simple to do") don't make you seem any less like you have an unreasonable sense of entitlement. It's like saying "I eat because I'm hungry and there is food." Those things are obvious. But neither of them explain why you feel justified in taking from somebody else's plate.

The difference stands out even more without the analogy: Hunger is an actual human need, whereas watching Game of Thrones the night it's first broadcast in another hemisphere is actually very far from being a need.

You know, seeing this level of sophistry in a post on Hacker News is fucking embarrassing.

"If it weren't there, I wouldn't take it." Are you fucking kidding me. Most human beings have their thought process extend a little further than this, but apparently not you. Mindlessly pirating content and not thinking about its moral implications is just a lot more convenient, right? And when people call you out on your fucking bullshit, just put the blame on the content provider for not making it available to you - even though it is, you know, their fucking content and their fucking choice.

So far I've been identified as entitled, absurd, in need of some perspective and unwilling to pay for content.

Notice how they completely dismiss my point of view with terms like "entitled","absurd","unwilling to pay",etc. and don't even begin to acknowledge the problem with the delay between cable-tv and legal internet availability. This pretty much happens with every major change that disturbs the status quo cash cow, but the change ultimately happens anyway ;)

And with that, I'm out of here!

So you're basically admitting to trolling? Nice.

>>and don't even begin to acknowledge the problem with the delay between cable-tv and legal internet availability.

We acknowledged it. We also pointed out that it is not a valid justification for you or anyone to pirate said content, because nobody is entitled to instant access to stuff that comes out. I don't know how to put it more simply than that.

If it's about the price of a cable subscription, then brown9-2 was exactly right to begin with: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5276396

I don't have, can't get, and don't want a US cable TV subscription. Even if I lived in the US, I wouldn't want to have to pay $100 a month for cable TV just for the privilege of paying an additional fee to stream HBO. (Feel free to now call me "selfish" or "entitled" or whatever the rest of the trolls in this thread have settled on to describe the actions of rational people.)

I never said you do, could, or did. I responded to a comment by smtddr. I had no way of knowing you trying to redirect the thread to be about yourself, personally. My reply was not directed to you, personally.

Even if I lived in the US, I wouldn't want to have to pay $100 a month for cable TV just for the privilege of paying an additional fee to stream HBO.

There are two things wrong with this.

One: HBO Go is free with the subscription. The cable subscription is why it's free. If you're going to get angry with me for even mentioning it, please try to familiarize yourself with what it is. Better yet: don't get angry with me.

Two: smtddr (the person I responded to initially) specifically said he was willing to buy something which sounds almost exactly like HBO Go. I don't understand why that option is overlooked by him, as it sounds very similar.

(Feel free to now call me "selfish" or "entitled" or whatever the rest of the trolls in this thread have settled on to describe the actions of rational people.)

I don't believe anybody has referred to you as selfish and I don't believe that anybody is trolling. I'm sorry you feel you've been attacked.

Your attitude is over the top self-entitled.

  I'm over the top self-entitled? Because I don't think it's reasonable to discuss a TVshow with people who have probably forgotten the details months after they saw it?
  I don't think it's fair for you to reach that conclusion. What's okay for you isn't okay for everyone. I think you're the one who's failing to see things from other people's view.
  But again, I'm not here to debate. I'm just 1 tiny data-point. Provide me streamable/downloadable content the same time the CableTV gets it. That's what I need. That's all I came in this thread to say.

Lost is among the worst examples you could have chosen. It was one of the first shows available for day-after purchase on iTunes, and from the third season on had free day-after streaming on ABC's own site. And it was literally broadcast over the air for free.

So to be clear: You really are saying that even eight hours is too much of a delay. You really are saying that you want exactly what cable TV customers get, but that you don't want to pay anything for it.

Since you like getting free things so much, here's some free advice: If your relationships with your friends and family can't transcend such a trivial incompatibility as having not watched the same television show at exactly the same moment, maybe you should try watching it with them. Surely between all of you, somebody is willing to actually pay for something that is allegedly so crucial to how you interact with one another. (If none are willing to pay for it, that raises the question of how any of you are able to afford the time involved.)

Great idea; let's all fly cross-country once a week to watch a TV show. (You really haven't considered the feasibility of your 'solution' very much, have you?)

If your relationships with distant friends and family depend on you watching television shows at the same time, and you're unwilling to pay the asked price for those television shows, then yeah, maybe you should fly cross-country to see them.

Because what does it say about how much you value those relationships if the thing that is allegedly so important to them is not only ephemeral and impersonal but also thought of as not worth paying for?

Personally, I think the better option is to not feel like you have to watch all the same television at the same time as other people, but that seems to be a wildly unpopular notion these days.

A practical solution is not to geographically exclude areas and markets and then argue that they should be flying to said countries to watch these shows.

This is the equivalent Republican style argument that the answer to poverty in the inner city is for students to obtain a MBA's.

And this post, at least, isn't 'astroturfing'.

M-W's third definition of entitlement, which is the only one that even remotely fits, goes something like this:

"3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges"

So, your contention is that people who torrent movies believe they deserve the privilege of watching them, rather than that they may be doing it for any of a number of other reasons, such as the ones I and others have mentioned all throughout this thread.

It's a real stretch to say that, because the content I want to watch is unavailable to me in any other format at any price, that I must be some sort of spoiled prima-donna for typing something into a search engine and downloading something with a BitTorrent client. Pretty laughable line of argument.

http://www.outofthefog.net/CommonBehaviors/Entitlement.html

Note the second-to-last example of a sense of entitlement:

  * An irate customer demands products and services
    that they have not paid for.

1) This movie is available for sale. 2) I want to purchase it. 3) Therefore, they are obligated to sell it to me. Or, alternatively, I feel I am entitled to purchase a copy.

This is what I fundamentally disagree with. I do not believe that you have any sort of right to purchase a product. Just because they make it available for sale does not mean that they are in any way obligated to sell it to you, even if you want it very badly and are willing to pay quite a lot of money.

I'm not actually talking about torrenting at all; that comes after the 'entitlement'.

I've purchased seasons 1 and 2 of Game of Thrones on Bluray. I don't have cable yet HBO managed to take my money just fine. I bet those seasons are still heavily pirated despite being available for purchase, just as people pirate movies, TV shows, and music that has been available for legal purchase for years or decades. People just want to get shit without paying for it.

There are large and influential companies that have come to recognize the piracy is the result of failures of distribution, not pricing. The prime example would be Valve, which since it made Steam its primary distribution channel, had paid very little attention to piracy (compare to EA). The CEO, Gabe Newell, has discussed this publicly, and you can find him discussing it on YouTube.

His example, which is particular to the gaming industry, but applies also to feature films, is that it is not reasonable to think that individuals who can afford $40/month internet connections and $2000 gaming rigs are pirating games because of money. They pirate games because they cannot get them legally conveniently and readily. This is particularly true in countries where English is not spoken. It takes months for a game to be released in Russia in Russian after the game is released in the United States. If a gamer can get a version in Russian faster via piracy, he's going to do it. The same rule holds for feature films, where again, release dates are not universal.

As to your second point, if you cannot see the common sense in the idea that the millions of American and foreign young people who do subscribe to cable or to HBO but who enjoy Game of Thrones want to be able to watch it online in high def the same way that they watch every other show, I think you're just trying to argue for the sake of it. Even if only 10% of these people paid to watch it on HBO/iTunes/Amazon, that is money that HBO is not getting now. Being able to pay a few bucks to watch the episode the same night that it is released in high-definition is well worth it. To take just one demographic, college students living in dorms do not have cable subscriptions. They all watch the show by streaming from sites that violate copyright or via file-sharing.

Perhaps you do not know this, but it is trivial to watch shows online. You can stream video from dozens of sites, with more of these appearing every month. These sites upload new episodes with hours of their original airing. That being said, Netflix has millions of subscribers, including very many young people who know how to watch shows like this. Young people also spend lots of money renting movies and television shows on iTunes that they could find for free online with a little effort. People pay for a high quality stream without the annoyance of pop-up ads and banners, and they like fast downloads and ease of use.

Here's Gabe talking about piracy, so don't take my word for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLC_zZ5fqFk

Last time I checked the backbone of the early release scene was still Usenet - clearly the playground of the hip, young & funky - no old people there.

[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsite_(warez)

If HBO is not making as much money as before, it's proof that their business model is dumb and stupid and they need to adapt to me.

If HBO is making more money than ever, it's proof that the pirates aren't hurting them at all, and they need to get off our backs, man!

Piracy is older than the internet. Some of us don't have the moral flexibility -- or quite honestly the time or the inconvenience -- to pirate. If you do, good for you, but the notion that it's new is utter hubris.

It took me less than two minutes to get the latest episode of the walking dead from a torrent site in 1080p quality about 20 minutes after it aired on cable tv tonight (commercial free).

I think your argument really highlights your advanced age and disconnect with modern technology.

I think your argument really highlights that you are an obnoxious, ignorant prat, with an extremely loose sense of morals (people trust you with their business? Tell them that you proudly thieve. Worse, on a completely public network that literally screams your identity). There are a lot of people whose time is much more important and valuable than yours, so your experience differs. Exult in your worthlessness.

I made the age distinction because many older think piracy means that these people are using filesharing and bittorrent to watch these shows. These technologies are obsolete when it comes to television and movies. You can do it all directly through the browser. It is as easy and convenient as YouTube.

That takes me to a site that has endless scamware ads, tries to get me to download a hilarious dubious "codec" from a third party site, has various false-starts while it solicits memberships, etc.

That is easy? In contrast if I want to watch GoT on my cable box, it's right there under on-demand (included with premium services).

After having dealt with the fallout when people "easily" watched videos online, I have become suspicious of any notion about the easiness of piracy.

It is hardly a common practice, and such sites usually operate on the edges of criminality, with all that such entails (scamware, trojans, etc. There is no honor among thieves and all). Now there are a lot of very ignorant people who think it's great, completely oblivious to the fact that they've completely compromised their PC.

Which really is the point. You can talk about how "easy" it is if you have all the time in the world to filter and find appropriate sites between take downs, and avoid all of the bullshit that comes along with them. I'd rather just watch it on HBO, and have zero troubles with that. The other guy referred to a show that you can buy an iTunes season pass, which is how I watched the last season of Mad Men. Zero risk or hassle, and episodes appear after one ten second purchase. Time is money.

People pay to subscribe to HBO (tv). If people could get a lot of that content by subscribing online, for cheaper, then lots of people will switch over. Which means HBO disrupts it's own cashcow moneymaker with something that makes less money.

The problem is not HBO, the problem is Comcast. If HBO offered all their premium content a la carte over the internet for competitive prices, HBO would be fine. They would make even more money than they do now -- except that the cable companies would collectively go berserk and retaliate, the fear of which is what stops them.

If the DoJ had any interest in not looking like a collection of apathetic former RIAA lawyers there would be an antitrust probe into this sort of thing by now.

No. People would ridicule them.

The primary problem is that HBO would have to transition their subscribers to their internet service all at once or they would lose subscriptions. There are still plenty of HBO subscribers watching on analog TVs with no internet attached to them, and HBO can't take steps to make itself independent from the cable companies without causing them to retaliate by depriving it of all that subscription revenue.

I'm not about to wait a year to watch shows here in Australia that aired ages ago in the US. Get with the fucking times, HBO.

It's at Costco for $33.

"Still not for sale at any price..." which is 100% false.

The problem is, you want it now... because, well, you are entitled to it when and how you want it.

The only issue is you aren't willing to pay the price. So, instead of availability, this because one of pricing. You feel the product costs too much, and you want the lower price to come sooner.

Another problem is you are looking at GoT as the product. It's not. It's a feature of the entire product: HBO.

My issue is that if I could subscribe to just HBO, I would. It's the other 200 channels of DishTV's slops that I don't want coming into my house.

HBO is just a publisher, their expertise is sifting through and finding great creative talent to produce great shows. There's not a big difference between cable TV and internet, they share the same last mile, even. It just takes a long time for incumbents to adapt to change.