Homegrown remembers when...

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

When I grew up TV was "Free." We had an antenna, and a rotor, and we were forced to watch 10 minutes per hour in commercials to "pay" for the content. Now, people pay upwards of $200/month for this same "free" TV model, with 20+ minutes of commercials. Who is complaining about THAT rip off?

Point being, markets change, adapt or die. But don't blame the public that wants something for free because we taught them that. You might as well shake your fist at the sun for giving you a sunburn.

(Nobody is gonna like this, but it's true)

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on the TV thing. First off, TV was never "FREE!", it was just without apparent cost. But first, you had to buy a receiver (often expensive), and you have to power it, and then you had to sit through commercials. You paid for TV with your attention.

Plenty of people are complaining about paying high dollars for "FREE!" tv, usually until you tell them to stick an antenna outside and see what they get. They would miss their A&E, FX, ESPN, CNN, and all those other channels that they get.

Cable or Sat isn't selling you TV, they are selling you reception.

As for "markets change", I get in to this discussion often enough in the mainstream world. The simple fact is if nobody is paying for porn, porn will no longer be made at the same level it is made now. The current situation is untenable for both sides, because the tubes are entirely reliant on low to no cost high quality porn they can push to sell their dating and cam shows, and the porn companies aren't making enough money to keep making the porn. If and when the porn business can no longer supply the content, both sides fail.

As I have said to many before, I can't help but thinking that porn (and news, and other things) will all move to "pay per view" or "pay per use" environments, and get out of the types of "FREE!" promotions that aren't doing anything but helping other industries who have no intention of paying for the content to start with.

[Far-L]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on the TV thing. First off, TV was never "FREE!", it was just without apparent cost. But first, you had to buy a receiver (often expensive), and you have to power it, and then you had to sit through commercials. You paid for TV with your attention.

Plenty of people are complaining about paying high dollars for "FREE!" tv, usually until you tell them to stick an antenna outside and see what they get. They would miss their A&E, FX, ESPN, CNN, and all those other channels that they get.

Cable or Sat isn't selling you TV, they are selling you reception.

As for "markets change", I get in to this discussion often enough in the mainstream world. The simple fact is if nobody is paying for porn, porn will no longer be made at the same level it is made now. The current situation is untenable for both sides, because the tubes are entirely reliant on low to no cost high quality porn they can push to sell their dating and cam shows, and the porn companies aren't making enough money to keep making the porn. If and when the porn business can no longer supply the content, both sides fail.

As I have said to many before, I can't help but thinking that porn (and news, and other things) will all move to "pay per view" or "pay per use" environments, and get out of the types of "FREE!" promotions that aren't doing anything but helping other industries who have no intention of paying for the content to start with.

In your assessment of "free tv" you claim that it wasn't free because you had to pay for the reciever, antenna, etc. and that is essentially "paying for reception" too, right? Well, cable makes you pay a premium for reception AND content. However, also in your example the content providers never profited from which tv or antenna you bought, while cable operators do pay the content providers for subscriptions, even if they are collected as "packages" or "bundles" of content including the channels you named.

I agree that pay per use or view will always be strong, but I also think that a premium can be charged for a quality member experience... as long as membership has its privileges so to speak. I believe it is human nature to strive for elite and privileged experiences, entertainment or otherwise.

C'mon... after sex can be free, right? So why do people pay for it. Even billionaires. Even movie stars. And so on, throughout history.