For Aussie cricket fans who don't have Foxtel ...

For Aussie cricket fans who don't have Foxtel ...

Post by ColinKynoc » Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:53:42



that the world would be a better place for knowing the following:

Quote:



>> that the world would be a better place for knowing the following:



>> >> that the world would be a better place for knowing the following:

<snip>

Quote:
>> >> So where do you draw the line wrt to theft Fran?

>> >You ask the wrong question here. The relevant questions are:

>> >Do Murdoch and his cohorts have a legitimate claim to the assets in
>> >question?

>> Yes they do.

>Not in my opinion, which is one of the things you were implicitly
>asking.

They paid for the rights therefore they have a legitimate claim.

Quote:
>> >(If not, it's not theft)

>> They do so therefore it is theft.
>No -- these things ought to be provided FTA as part of their licencing
>agreement to hold the bandwidth.

They aren't and the Australian Law supports this.

Quote:
> It's only because they and the
>government have cooked up a scheme to suit themsleves that has allowed
>them to get away with this.

Then exercise your displeasure at the ballot box, but the alternatives
wont change the laws.

Quote:
>These crims are all in bed.

That will make it easier for the cops to catch them then.

Quote:
> And if while they are canoodling, people help themselves to some of the product they
>ought not to have, then they don't have any business complaining, IMO.

They do, and I understand the fines are in the order of up to $55,000
and/or 2 years jail per offence.

It is theft pure and simple.

Quote:
>> >Is it theft if someone isn't deprived of something they possess?

>> Copyright laws make what you are doing illegal.

>> You are depriving them of revenue that is rightfully theirs.

>No I'm not.

They paid for the right to produce a product, therefore they have a
right to expect some sort of payment for use of their product.

Quote:
>I'd never intended to pay.

So you always intended to act dishonestly.

Quote:
> Had they been in a position to
>make that condition absolute, I'd have gone without. So I haven't cost
>them anything.

By choosing not to go without you have chosen to steal from them.

Your action is no different to someone going into a supermarket and
taking a can of soft drink and drinking it without paying.

They are both theft.

The penalties for your type of theft are generally higher though than
those for the person who steals a can of soft drink.

Quote:
>>  It is no
>> different to viewing pirated films, listening to pirated music or
>> using pirated software.

>It depends.

No it doesn't.

Quote:
> In Murdoch's case, he is a pirate, his stuff is contraband,
>and he has no rights to property that bind me, IMO.

How so?

He paid for the rights to show what he shows.

You are a thief.

Colin Kynoch

 
 
 

For Aussie cricket fans who don't have Foxtel ...

Post by ColinKynoc » Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:54:28

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:05:06 +1100, Geoff Muldoon

better place for knowing the following:

Quote:
>Now I am *not* a fan Murdoch, but ....


>> > >Do Murdoch and his cohorts have a legitimate claim to the assets in
>> > >question?

>> > Yes they do.

>> Not in my opinion, which is one of the things you were implicitly
>> asking.

>Why not?  They paid perfectly good money to Cricket Australia for those
>broadcast rights.

>> >  It is no
>> > different to viewing pirated films, listening to pirated music or
>> > using pirated software.

>> It depends. In Murdoch's case, he is a pirate, his stuff is contraband,
>> and he has no rights to property that bind me, IMO.

>You're shooting at the wrong target, Fran.  

>Murdoch's product is *not* contraband, it was legitimately purchased from
>Cricket Australia.  Perhaps you believe that CA should not have entered
>into an agreement which left free-to-air viewer out in the cold (or
>perhaps that they should not have been *allowed* to do so by legislation),
>but that's a different thing.

>Take your anger out on CA (and/or the government) rather than Murdoch.

Fran as usual is off target.

But then she is a self confessed thief

Colin Kynoch

 
 
 

For Aussie cricket fans who don't have Foxtel ...

Post by ColinKynoc » Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:06:55


that the world would be a better place for knowing the following:

Quote:


>> Now I am *not* a fan Murdoch, but ....


>> > > >Do Murdoch and his cohorts have a legitimate claim to the assets in
>> > > >question?

>> > > Yes they do.

>> > Not in my opinion, which is one of the things you were implicitly
>> > asking.

>> Why not?  They paid perfectly good money to Cricket Australia for those
>> broadcast rights.

>But they got them through a whole system which is a cartel -- between
>themselves as broadcasters and the government. The government gives
>them what they want, and Murdoch's papers spend years extolling
>Howard's virtues in return.

The anti-siphoning legislation was enacted when Labor were in power.
The act was enacted in 1992.

Whilst I am no fan of the Howard government you are giving them too
much credit.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>> > >  It is no
>> > > different to viewing pirated films, listening to pirated music or
>> > > using pirated software.

>> > It depends. In Murdoch's case, he is a pirate, his stuff is contraband,
>> > and he has no rights to property that bind me, IMO.

>> You're shooting at the wrong target, Fran.

>> Murdoch's product is *not* contraband, it was legitimately purchased from
>> Cricket Australia.

>They can purchase what they like. The broadcast service obligations
>should not permit them to siphon it off in an attempt to force people
>into their service.

But they do.

Far better for it to be available on Pay TV, than not available at
all.

Quote:
> They should be required to supply a feed to FTA, or
>at the very least, a highlights package of about an hour from each day
>of play.

Why?

I am sure they would sell that if the FTA networks were interested.

I for one am happy that they are on Pay TV, because I have great
difficulty getting a FTA reception, yet I pick up PAY TV Digital
perfectly

Quote:
>> Perhaps you believe that CA should not have entered
>> into an agreement which left free-to-air viewer out in the cold (or
>> perhaps that they should not have been *allowed* to do so by legislation),
>> but that's a different thing.
>That too, but I remember Wapping and Murdoch and Thatcher and as far as
>I'm concerned he and whoever is in bed with him can go hang before I'll
>pay them.

If you remember Murdoch and Wapping I cannot see what you have against
the man.  He took on the unions whose work inefficient and restrictive
work practices had greatly contributed to making the British
newspapers unprofitable.

Quote:
> If his thugs pressed the muzzle of an Uzi into my face, I
>might part with a coin or two, but I'd wait to hear them squeeze down
>on the trigger to pay the folding stuff to him. If the *only* way I
>could see moving images on any screen were to pay him, I'd become an
>Amish in preference as the lesser evil.

Well clearly you have no problem with theft, given that you have
admitted to doing it.

Quote:
>> Take your anger out on CA (and/or the government) rather than Murdoch.

>> GM

>Nah .. hell will freeze over before I pay him. (And I don't even
>believe in hell)

>He is, without doubt, one of the nastiest pieces of work amongst the
>seriously influential on the face of the planet

He has been very successful.  I think there is a great deal of envy in
your animosity towards Murdoch.

Quote:
>  Perhaps, three years
>after he went bankrupt, his enterprises seized by people who really
>hated him, if I came upon him sleeping rough on a park bench, I might
>run out and buy a bootleg of one of his cricket games and gift wrap it
>for him to trade for coffee. Until then, he gets nothing from me.

You go on with your theft then Fran.

Colin Kynoch

 
 
 

For Aussie cricket fans who don't have Foxtel ...

Post by FRAN » Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:19:16

Quote:

> fran,

> no fta tv station wants the cricket, remember the ashes? took a last minute
> intervention to even get it on tv here. and sbs at that. even if the SA was
> offered up for free to a tv network they wouldnt want it as it eats into
> prime time. havent done for years and years , never will again.

> all overseas tours are offered up to fta and they ignore them time and
> again.

Well then they need to open up more bandwidth for competitors --
someone must want it, surely? Or maybe they should pass it on to an ISP
if that's the easiest vehicle for delivering it.

As things stand, I haven't bothered getting pirated copies. I slip down
to one of the friend's places and check their video out. A couple have
PVRs and it's easy enough.

Fran

 
 
 

For Aussie cricket fans who don't have Foxtel ...

Post by ColinKynoc » Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:54:14


that the world would be a better place for knowing the following:

Quote:


>> fran,

>> no fta tv station wants the cricket, remember the ashes? took a last minute
>> intervention to even get it on tv here. and sbs at that. even if the SA was
>> offered up for free to a tv network they wouldnt want it as it eats into
>> prime time. havent done for years and years , never will again.

>> all overseas tours are offered up to fta and they ignore them time and
>> again.

>Well then they need to open up more bandwidth for competitors --
>someone must want it, surely?

FTA?

It is unlikely to be a profitable venture, particularly given what the
Government would want for an additional licence.

Quote:
> Or maybe they should pass it on to an ISP
>if that's the easiest vehicle for delivering it.

So you have no problems with and ISP charging for the content, or for
a reasonable section of the non city community being unable to access
it due to not having access to broadband, or being unable to afford
it.  That would be no different to Pay TV having it.

Quote:
>As things stand, I haven't bothered getting pirated copies.

At least you acknowledge it is theft.

Quote:
>I slip down
>to one of the friend's places and check their video out. A couple have
>PVRs and it's easy enough.

Which is a different thing altogether.

Colin Kynoch

 
 
 

For Aussie cricket fans who don't have Foxtel ...

Post by FRAN » Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:06:42

Quote:


> that the world would be a better place for knowing the following:


> >> fran,

> >> no fta tv station wants the cricket, remember the ashes? took a last minute
> >> intervention to even get it on tv here. and sbs at that. even if the SA was
> >> offered up for free to a tv network they wouldnt want it as it eats into
> >> prime time. havent done for years and years , never will again.

> >> all overseas tours are offered up to fta and they ignore them time and
> >> again.

> >Well then they need to open up more bandwidth for competitors --
> >someone must want it, surely?

> FTA?

> It is unlikely to be a profitable venture, particularly given what the
> Government would want for an additional licence.

They could hand it to a communioty TV operator for free.

Quote:
> > Or maybe they should pass it on to an ISP
> >if that's the easiest vehicle for delivering it.

> So you have no problems with and ISP charging for the content, or for
> a reasonable section of the non city community being unable to access
> it due to not having access to broadband, or being unable to afford
> it.  That would be no different to Pay TV having it.

It would be different if Murdoch wasn't getting any of the action. I am
in favour of support for broadband in country areas. And it isn't
necessarily the case that it would be pay for view. If it was handed
out free, then you'd pay for download but that's different.

Quote:

> >As things stand, I haven't bothered getting pirated copies.

> At least you acknowledge it is theft.

No, that's the term. I also used "bootleg" but that doesn't mean I
acknowledge it's theft. Theft is when you take something someone
rightfully owns. Murdoch doesn't rightfully own anything, and so anyone
who takes it is not stealing from him. Someone who takes it and returns
it to its rightful owner (in this case the public) may actually be
something of a hero.

Quote:
> >I slip down
> >to one of the friend's places and check their video out. A couple have
> >PVRs and it's easy enough.

> Which is a different thing altogether.

True. One of them works for a media consultancy and they get their
Foxtel gratis so I figure that's OK.

Fran

 
 
 

For Aussie cricket fans who don't have Foxtel ...

Post by ColinKynoc » Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:37:29


that the world would be a better place for knowing the following:

Quote:



>> that the world would be a better place for knowing the following:


>> >> fran,

>> >> no fta tv station wants the cricket, remember the ashes? took a last minute
>> >> intervention to even get it on tv here. and sbs at that. even if the SA was
>> >> offered up for free to a tv network they wouldnt want it as it eats into
>> >> prime time. havent done for years and years , never will again.

>> >> all overseas tours are offered up to fta and they ignore them time and
>> >> again.

>> >Well then they need to open up more bandwidth for competitors --
>> >someone must want it, surely?

>> FTA?

>> It is unlikely to be a profitable venture, particularly given what the
>> Government would want for an additional licence.

>They could hand it to a communioty TV operator for free.

And from where will they get their money for all the infrastructure?

We already have two community operators in ABC and SBS.

Quote:
>> > Or maybe they should pass it on to an ISP
>> >if that's the easiest vehicle for delivering it.

>> So you have no problems with and ISP charging for the content, or for
>> a reasonable section of the non city community being unable to access
>> it due to not having access to broadband, or being unable to afford
>> it.  That would be no different to Pay TV having it.
>It would be different if Murdoch wasn't getting any of the action.

You would still have to pay, and you can be pretty sure if that he has
his fingers well and truly into the Internet pie.

Quote:
> I am in favour of support for broadband in country areas. And it isn't
>necessarily the case that it would be pay for view. If it was handed
>out free,

So why would a cricketing body from another country give away
broadcast rights for free?  

Quote:
>then you'd pay for download but that's different.

Well my plan has unlimited download for about $40 per month.  problem
is it is only ISDN and 128k

I would far sooner pay approx $100 per month for a complete package of
Pay TV and have a far greater choice of programming than is available
on FTA and have my Internet for doing things other than watching TV.

Quote:
>> >As things stand, I haven't bothered getting pirated copies.

>> At least you acknowledge it is theft.
>No, that's the term.

So pirates didn't steal?

Quote:
>I also used "bootleg" but that doesn't mean I
>acknowledge it's theft.

By using the term piracy or bootleg you are acknowledging the
illegality of your action.

Quote:
> Theft is when you take something someone
>rightfully owns.

Which as Murdoch or more specifically a company which his company owns
25% of  (Murdoch only owns about 12% of the capital of Newscorp, so
his effective interest in Pay TV in Australia is in the order of 3%)

Quote:
> Murdoch doesn't rightfully own anything,

He rightfully owns about 12% of the Newscorp capital, or do you
suggest he ***ed his father and stole a whole lot of companies?

Quote:
> and so anyone
>who takes it is not stealing from him.

What an extreme left wing view.

Quote:
> Someone who takes it and returns
>it to its rightful owner (in this case the public) may actually be
>something of a hero.

Another extreme left wing view.

Sport is a commodity and entertainment.

Quote:
>> >I slip down
>> >to one of the friend's places and check their video out. A couple have
>> >PVRs and it's easy enough.

>> Which is a different thing altogether.
>True. One of them works for a media consultancy and they get their
>Foxtel gratis so I figure that's OK.

But you are condoning Rupert getting his 3%

Colin Kynoch

 
 
 

For Aussie cricket fans who don't have Foxtel ...

Post by FRAN » Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:06:20

Quote:


> that the world would be a better place for knowing the following:



> >> that the world would be a better place for knowing the following:


> >> >> fran,

> >> >> no fta tv station wants the cricket, remember the ashes? took a last minute
> >> >> intervention to even get it on tv here. and sbs at that. even if the SA was
> >> >> offered up for free to a tv network they wouldnt want it as it eats into
> >> >> prime time. havent done for years and years , never will again.

> >> >> all overseas tours are offered up to fta and they ignore them time and
> >> >> again.

> >> >Well then they need to open up more bandwidth for competitors --
> >> >someone must want it, surely?

> >> FTA?

> >> It is unlikely to be a profitable venture, particularly given what the
> >> Government would want for an additional licence.

> >They could hand it to a communioty TV operator for free.

> And from where will they get their money for all the infrastructure?

What infrastructure? Channel 31 for example have a low power
transmitter -- and of course a network of duplicates could be set up to
boost the signal. It's not THAT expensive. I'm sure there are cricket
fans who'd chip in.

Quote:
> We already have two community operators in ABC and SBS.

So give it to them free or concessional

Quote:

> >> > Or maybe they should pass it on to an ISP
> >> >if that's the easiest vehicle for delivering it.

> >> So you have no problems with and ISP charging for the content, or for
> >> a reasonable section of the non city community being unable to access
> >> it due to not having access to broadband, or being unable to afford
> >> it.  That would be no different to Pay TV having it.

> >It would be different if Murdoch wasn't getting any of the action.

> You would still have to pay, and you can be pretty sure if that he has
> his fingers well and truly into the Internet pie.

Not my part of it

Quote:
> > I am in favour of support for broadband in country areas. And it isn't
> >necessarily the case that it would be pay for view. If it was handed
> >out free,

> So why would a cricketing body from another country give away
> broadcast rights for free?

> >then you'd pay for download but that's different.

> Well my plan has unlimited download for about $40 per month.  problem
> is it is only ISDN and 128k

Well I pay $39 and I get cable

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> I would far sooner pay approx $100 per month for a complete package of
> Pay TV and have a far greater choice of programming than is available
> on FTA and have my Internet for doing things other than watching TV.

> >> >As things stand, I haven't bothered getting pirated copies.

> >> At least you acknowledge it is theft.

> >No, that's the term.

> So pirates didn't steal?

> >I also used "bootleg" but that doesn't mean I
> >acknowledge it's theft.

> By using the term piracy or bootleg you are acknowledging the
> illegality of your action.

No, I'm acknowledging it would be unauthorised by the thieves who are
hoarding it.

Quote:
> > Theft is when you take something someone
> >rightfully owns.

> Which as Murdoch or more specifically a company which his company owns
> 25% of  (Murdoch only owns about 12% of the capital of Newscorp, so
> his effective interest in Pay TV in Australia is in the order of 3%)

3% too much

Quote:
> > Murdoch doesn't rightfully own anything,

> He rightfully owns about 12% of the Newscorp capital, or do you
> suggest he ***ed his father and stole a whole lot of companies?

> > and so anyone
> >who takes it is not stealing from him.

> What an extreme left wing view.

But I'm an extreme left winger, so that's understandable.

Quote:
> > Someone who takes it and returns
> >it to its rightful owner (in this case the public) may actually be
> >something of a hero.

> Another extreme left wing view.

Exactly. I think there's the spirit of the Robin Hood story in all of
us -- whatever he was in reality.

Quote:
> Sport is a commodity and entertainment.

Uh huh

Quote:

> >> >I slip down
> >> >to one of the friend's places and check their video out. A couple have
> >> >PVRs and it's easy enough.

> >> Which is a different thing altogether.

> >True. One of them works for a media consultancy and they get their
> >Foxtel gratis so I figure that's OK.

> But you are condoning Rupert getting his 3%

No I'm not. I'm stowing away in the back of his car. It's like saying
Jack Kerouac condoned the railroads.

Fran

 
 
 

For Aussie cricket fans who don't have Foxtel ...

Post by ColinKynoc » Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:29:12


that the world would be a better place for knowing the following:

Quote:



>> that the world would be a better place for knowing the following:



>> >> that the world would be a better place for knowing the following:


>> >> >> fran,

>> >> >> no fta tv station wants the cricket, remember the ashes? took a last minute
>> >> >> intervention to even get it on tv here. and sbs at that. even if the SA was
>> >> >> offered up for free to a tv network they wouldnt want it as it eats into
>> >> >> prime time. havent done for years and years , never will again.

>> >> >> all overseas tours are offered up to fta and they ignore them time and
>> >> >> again.

>> >> >Well then they need to open up more bandwidth for competitors --
>> >> >someone must want it, surely?

>> >> FTA?

>> >> It is unlikely to be a profitable venture, particularly given what the
>> >> Government would want for an additional licence.

>> >They could hand it to a communioty TV operator for free.

>> And from where will they get their money for all the infrastructure?

>What infrastructure? Channel 31 for example have a low power
>transmitter --

And in Melbourne a very limited coverage area.

Quote:
>and of course a network of duplicates could be set up to
>boost the signal.

All of which costs.

Quote:
> It's not THAT expensive.

It isn't that cheap either.

Quote:
>I'm sure there are cricket
>fans who'd chip in.

I would prefer to pay and get digital coverage on Pay TV.  I imagine
given the high penetration of Pay TV that I am not alone.

Quote:
>> We already have two community operators in ABC and SBS.

>So give it to them free or concessional

It isn't the government's to give.

For example Fox Sports will have paid the UCBSA for the rights to air
the South Africa series.

Quote:
>> >> > Or maybe they should pass it on to an ISP
>> >> >if that's the easiest vehicle for delivering it.

>> >> So you have no problems with and ISP charging for the content, or for
>> >> a reasonable section of the non city community being unable to access
>> >> it due to not having access to broadband, or being unable to afford
>> >> it.  That would be no different to Pay TV having it.

>> >It would be different if Murdoch wasn't getting any of the action.

>> You would still have to pay, and you can be pretty sure if that he has
>> his fingers well and truly into the Internet pie.
>Not my part of it

Probably not mine either as I use Bigpond

But that sort of right is likely to be purchased by a content provider
and then on sold.

Quote:
>> > I am in favour of support for broadband in country areas. And it isn't
>> >necessarily the case that it would be pay for view. If it was handed
>> >out free,

>> So why would a cricketing body from another country give away
>> broadcast rights for free?

>> >then you'd pay for download but that's different.

>> Well my plan has unlimited download for about $40 per month.  problem
>> is it is only ISDN and 128k

>Well I pay $39 and I get cable

But you pay for downloads.

I had cable in Melbourne.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>> I would far sooner pay approx $100 per month for a complete package of
>> Pay TV and have a far greater choice of programming than is available
>> on FTA and have my Internet for doing things other than watching TV.

>> >> >As things stand, I haven't bothered getting pirated copies.

>> >> At least you acknowledge it is theft.

>> >No, that's the term.

>> So pirates didn't steal?

>> >I also used "bootleg" but that doesn't mean I
>> >acknowledge it's theft.

>> By using the term piracy or bootleg you are acknowledging the
>> illegality of your action.

>No, I'm acknowledging it would be unauthorised by the thieves who are
>hoarding it.

It is illegal in this country

Quote:
>> > Theft is when you take something someone
>> >rightfully owns.

>> Which as Murdoch or more specifically a company which his company owns
>> 25% of  (Murdoch only owns about 12% of the capital of Newscorp, so
>> his effective interest in Pay TV in Australia is in the order of 3%)
>3% too much

You really have it in for Murdoch.  Why?

Quote:
>> > Murdoch doesn't rightfully own anything,

>> He rightfully owns about 12% of the Newscorp capital, or do you
>> suggest he ***ed his father and stole a whole lot of companies?

>> > and so anyone
>> >who takes it is not stealing from him.

>> What an extreme left wing view.
>But I'm an extreme left winger, so that's understandable.

Your views make Marx look right wing.

Quote:
>> > Someone who takes it and returns
>> >it to its rightful owner (in this case the public) may actually be
>> >something of a hero.

>> Another extreme left wing view.
>Exactly. I think there's the spirit of the Robin Hood story in all of
>us -- whatever he was in reality.

So tell me Fran do you walk past homeless people in the street or do
you invite them into your home until they can get back on their feet?

Or are you a selective Communist?

Quote:
>> Sport is a commodity and entertainment.

>Uh huh

And the sporting bodies realise that they have a commodity that people
will pay large sums of money to watch.

The AFL rights were recently sold for roughly what the Indian cricket
rights were sold for.  Rugby League does quite well.  I think cricket
in this country will catch up soon, and from a purely selfish point of
view I would love all cricket to be on Pay TV.  If that was the case I
could watch both the cricket here in Australia as well as the cricket
overseas.  I would also have the advantage of turning the commentary
off whilst still having the crowd sounds etc able to be heard.  I
could come in and choose to watch teh highlights whilst still having
the game going on in the background as well.  Digital Pay TV leaves
FTA coverage for dead.

Quote:
>> >> >I slip down
>> >> >to one of the friend's places and check their video out. A couple have
>> >> >PVRs and it's easy enough.

>> >> Which is a different thing altogether.

>> >True. One of them works for a media consultancy and they get their
>> >Foxtel gratis so I figure that's OK.

>> But you are condoning Rupert getting his 3%
>No I'm not. I'm stowing away in the back of his car. It's like saying
>Jack Kerouac condoned the railroads.

By watching it at a friends who has legitimately come by the product
and watching it legally you are condoning him getting his 3%.  Stowing
in his car is another illegal act, so is therefore not comparable.

Colin Kynoch

 
 
 

For Aussie cricket fans who don't have Foxtel ...

Post by FRAN » Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:38:23

Quote:


> that the world would be a better place for knowing the following:



> >> that the world would be a better place for knowing the following:



> >> >> that the world would be a better place for knowing the following:


> >> >> >> fran,

> >> >> >> no fta tv station wants the cricket, remember the ashes? took a last minute
> >> >> >> intervention to even get it on tv here. and sbs at that. even if the SA was
> >> >> >> offered up for free to a tv network they wouldnt want it as it eats into
> >> >> >> prime time. havent done for years and years , never will again.

> >> >> >> all overseas tours are offered up to fta and they ignore them time and
> >> >> >> again.

> >> >> >Well then they need to open up more bandwidth for competitors --
> >> >> >someone must want it, surely?

> >> >> FTA?

> >> >> It is unlikely to be a profitable venture, particularly given what the
> >> >> Government would want for an additional licence.

> >> >They could hand it to a communioty TV operator for free.

> >> And from where will they get their money for all the infrastructure?

> >What infrastructure? Channel 31 for example have a low power
> >transmitter --

> And in Melbourne a very limited coverage area.

There's got to be an equivalent in Melbourne

Quote:
> >and of course a network of duplicates could be set up to
> >boost the signal.

> All of which costs.

> > It's not THAT expensive.

> It isn't that cheap either.

> >I'm sure there are cricket
> >fans who'd chip in.

> I would prefer to pay and get digital coverage on Pay TV.  I imagine
> given the high penetration of Pay TV that I am not alone.

Your choice

Quote:

> >> We already have two community operators in ABC and SBS.

> >So give it to them free or concessional

> It isn't the government's to give.

Subject to licence ...

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> For example Fox Sports will have paid the UCBSA for the rights to air
> the South Africa series.

> >> >> > Or maybe they should pass it on to an ISP
> >> >> >if that's the easiest vehicle for delivering it.

> >> >> So you have no problems with and ISP charging for the content, or for
> >> >> a reasonable section of the non city community being unable to access
> >> >> it due to not having access to broadband, or being unable to afford
> >> >> it.  That would be no different to Pay TV having it.

> >> >It would be different if Murdoch wasn't getting any of the action.

> >> You would still have to pay, and you can be pretty sure if that he has
> >> his fingers well and truly into the Internet pie.

> >Not my part of it

> Probably not mine either as I use Bigpond

> But that sort of right is likely to be purchased by a content provider
> and then on sold.

Not if they were offering it as part of their licence commitment

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> >> > I am in favour of support for broadband in country areas. And it isn't
> >> >necessarily the case that it would be pay for view. If it was handed
> >> >out free,

> >> So why would a cricketing body from another country give away
> >> broadcast rights for free?

> >> >then you'd pay for download but that's different.

> >> Well my plan has unlimited download for about $40 per month.  problem
> >> is it is only ISDN and 128k

> >Well I pay $39 and I get cable

> But you pay for downloads.

Above 3GB in peak and 6GB off-peak

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> I had cable in Melbourne.

> >> I would far sooner pay approx $100 per month for a complete package of
> >> Pay TV and have a far greater choice of programming than is available
> >> on FTA and have my Internet for doing things other than watching TV.

> >> >> >As things stand, I haven't bothered getting pirated copies.

> >> >> At least you acknowledge it is theft.

> >> >No, that's the term.

> >> So pirates didn't steal?

> >> >I also used "bootleg" but that doesn't mean I
> >> >acknowledge it's theft.

> >> By using the term piracy or bootleg you are acknowledging the
> >> illegality of your action.

> >No, I'm acknowledging it would be unauthorised by the thieves who are
> >hoarding it.

> It is illegal in this country

But if the arrangements are crooked ...

Quote:

> >> > Theft is when you take something someone
> >> >rightfully owns.

> >> Which as Murdoch or more specifically a company which his company owns
> >> 25% of  (Murdoch only owns about 12% of the capital of Newscorp, so
> >> his effective interest in Pay TV in Australia is in the order of 3%)

> >3% too much

> You really have it in for Murdoch.  Why?

He's a union-bashing scumbag

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> >> > Murdoch doesn't rightfully own anything,

> >> He rightfully owns about 12% of the Newscorp capital, or do you
> >> suggest he ***ed his father and stole a whole lot of companies?

> >> > and so anyone
> >> >who takes it is not stealing from him.

> >> What an extreme left wing view.

> >But I'm an extreme left winger, so that's understandable.

> Your views make Marx look right wing.

Thanks! Though Marx wasn't.

Quote:

> >> > Someone who takes it and returns
> >> >it to its rightful owner (in this case the public) may actually be
> >> >something of a hero.

> >> Another extreme left wing view.

> >Exactly. I think there's the spirit of the Robin Hood story in all of
> >us -- whatever he was in reality.

> So tell me Fran do you walk past homeless people in the street or do
> you invite them into your home until they can get back on their feet?

I've coordinated a social contact service for older people getting them
to the shops and social gatherings -- including doing frontline work,
I'm involved with a pets-as-therapy program visiting chronic mental
patients, and also do work for a service rescuing dumped dogs. I have
from time to time worked with homeless people's shelters as well.

Quote:
> Or are you a selective Communist?

No

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> >> Sport is a commodity and entertainment.

> >Uh huh

> And the sporting bodies realise that they have a commodity that people
> will pay large sums of money to watch.

> The AFL rights were recently sold for roughly what the Indian cricket
> rights were sold for.  Rugby League does quite well.  I think cricket
> in this country will catch up soon, and from a purely selfish point of
> view I would love all cricket to be on Pay TV.  If that was the case I
> could watch both the cricket here in Australia as well as the cricket
> overseas.  I would also have the advantage of turning the commentary
> off whilst still having the crowd sounds etc able to be heard.  I
> could come in and choose to watch teh highlights whilst still having
> the game going on in the background as well.  Digital Pay TV leaves
> FTA coverage for dead.

> >> >> >I slip down
> >> >> >to one of the friend's places and check their video out. A couple have
> >> >> >PVRs and it's easy enough.

> >> >> Which is a different thing altogether.

> >> >True. One of them works for a media consultancy and they get their
> >> >Foxtel gratis so I figure that's OK.

> >> But you are condoning Rupert getting his 3%

> >No I'm not. I'm stowing away in the back of his car. It's like saying
> >Jack Kerouac condoned the railroads.

> By watching it at a friends who has legitimately come by the product
> and watching it legally you are condoning him getting his 3%.

Just as long as I don't pay him anything

Quote:
> Stowing
> in his car is another illegal act, so is therefore not comparable.

If it makes you feel better.

Fran

 
 
 

For Aussie cricket fans who don't have Foxtel ...

Post by ColinKynoc » Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:53:29


that the world would be a better place for knowing the following:

Quote:



>> that the world would be a better place for knowing the following:



>> >> that the world would be a better place for knowing the following:

<snip>

Quote:
>> >> >They could hand it to a communioty TV operator for free.

>> >> And from where will they get their money for all the infrastructure?

>> >What infrastructure? Channel 31 for example have a low power
>> >transmitter --

>> And in Melbourne a very limited coverage area.

>There's got to be an equivalent in Melbourne

To Channel 31 in Melbourne?

No there isn't, there is only Channel 31 and the level of coverage is
quite limited

<snip>

Quote:
>> >> We already have two community operators in ABC and SBS.

>> >So give it to them free or concessional

>> It isn't the government's to give.

>Subject to licence ...

How can the government licence a sporting event in another country?

Quote:
>> For example Fox Sports will have paid the UCBSA for the rights to air
>> the South Africa series.

How exactly would the government licence this sporting event?

Quote:
>> >> >> > Or maybe they should pass it on to an ISP
>> >> >> >if that's the easiest vehicle for delivering it.

>> >> >> So you have no problems with and ISP charging for the content, or for
>> >> >> a reasonable section of the non city community being unable to access
>> >> >> it due to not having access to broadband, or being unable to afford
>> >> >> it.  That would be no different to Pay TV having it.

>> >> >It would be different if Murdoch wasn't getting any of the action.

>> >> You would still have to pay, and you can be pretty sure if that he has
>> >> his fingers well and truly into the Internet pie.

>> >Not my part of it

>> Probably not mine either as I use Bigpond

>> But that sort of right is likely to be purchased by a content provider
>> and then on sold.
>Not if they were offering it as part of their licence commitment

Anyone can be an ISP, there is no licensing

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>> >> > I am in favour of support for broadband in country areas. And it isn't
>> >> >necessarily the case that it would be pay for view. If it was handed
>> >> >out free,

>> >> So why would a cricketing body from another country give away
>> >> broadcast rights for free?

>> >> >then you'd pay for download but that's different.

>> >> Well my plan has unlimited download for about $40 per month.  problem
>> >> is it is only ISDN and 128k

>> >Well I pay $39 and I get cable

>> But you pay for downloads.

>Above 3GB in peak and 6GB off-peak

Geez, how much does your Internet really cost then?  And define Peak

<snip>

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>> >> >> >As things stand, I haven't bothered getting pirated copies.

>> >> >> At least you acknowledge it is theft.

>> >> >No, that's the term.

>> >> So pirates didn't steal?

>> >> >I also used "bootleg" but that doesn't mean I
>> >> >acknowledge it's theft.

>> >> By using the term piracy or bootleg you are acknowledging the
>> >> illegality of your action.

>> >No, I'm acknowledging it would be unauthorised by the thieves who are
>> >hoarding it.

>> It is illegal in this country
>But if the arrangements are crooked ...

Which they aren't.

Quote:
>> >> > Theft is when you take something someone
>> >> >rightfully owns.

>> >> Which as Murdoch or more specifically a company which his company owns
>> >> 25% of  (Murdoch only owns about 12% of the capital of Newscorp, so
>> >> his effective interest in Pay TV in Australia is in the order of 3%)

>> >3% too much

>> You really have it in for Murdoch.  Why?
>He's a union-bashing scumbag

He bashed unions that needed to be bashed.

Unions often get to a point where they make the businesses that employ
their members can't afford to do so.  The printing union in the UK
that had a cartel on the printing of newspapers had such restrictive
and inefficient work practices they got what was coming for them.

When I have been an employee I developed a disdain for the unions that
supposedly had my interests at heart.

One of them advised me not to sign an individual contract as they were
fighting for "better" conditions, when I asked what they were, they
showed me and they were fighting for an agreement that offered reduced
terms to the ones I was offered in my contract.  Sure with an
individual contract I became responsible for making sure I kept my
side of the bargain, but hey if you aren't willing to do that then you
don't deserve the job.

I have spoken to the Labor party several time about becoming a member,
but whilst they require that I employ only union labour as a condition
of my membership I wont join.  I believe in employing the best person
for the job, if they are in a union so be it, but if they aren't I
shouldn't discriminate against them just because they don't want to
join one.

I don't pay award conditions, as they are a disincentive to work well.
I pay more than award, and give employees incentives to improve the
profitability of the business.  Unions generally stand for conformity,
and mediocrity.  

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>> >> > Murdoch doesn't rightfully own anything,

>> >> He rightfully owns about 12% of the Newscorp capital, or do you
>> >> suggest he ***ed his father and stole a whole lot of companies?

>> >> > and so anyone
>> >> >who takes it is not stealing from him.

>> >> What an extreme left wing view.

>> >But I'm an extreme left winger, so that's understandable.

>> Your views make Marx look right wing.
>Thanks! Though Marx wasn't.

Marx was for efficiency, the unions that Murdoch took on were against
efficiency.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>> >> > Someone who takes it and returns
>> >> >it to its rightful owner (in this case the public) may actually be
>> >> >something of a hero.

>> >> Another extreme left wing view.

>> >Exactly. I think there's the spirit of the Robin Hood story in all of
>> >us -- whatever he was in reality.

>> So tell me Fran do you walk past homeless people in the street or do
>> you invite them into your home until they can get back on their feet?
>I've coordinated a social contact service for older people getting them
>to the shops and social gatherings -- including doing frontline work,
>I'm involved with a pets-as-therapy program visiting chronic mental
>patients, and also do work for a service rescuing dumped dogs. I have
>from time to time worked with homeless people's shelters as well.

So the answer is no.

Quote:
>> Or are you a selective Communist?
>No

Do you own any property?

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>> >> Sport is a commodity and entertainment.

>> >Uh huh

>> And the sporting bodies realise that they have a commodity that people
>> will pay large sums of money to watch.

>> The AFL rights were recently sold for roughly what the Indian cricket
>> rights were sold for.  Rugby League does quite well.  I think cricket
>> in this country will catch up soon, and from a purely selfish point of
>> view I would love all cricket to be on Pay TV.  If that was the case I
>> could watch both the cricket here in Australia as well as the cricket
>> overseas.  I would also have the advantage of turning the commentary
>> off whilst still having the crowd sounds etc able to be heard.  I
>> could come in and choose to watch teh highlights whilst still having
>> the game going on in the background as well.  Digital Pay TV leaves
>> FTA coverage for dead.

>> >> >> >I slip down
>> >> >> >to one of the friend's places and check their video out. A couple have
>> >> >> >PVRs and it's easy enough.

>> >> >> Which is a different thing altogether.

>> >> >True. One of them works for a media consultancy and they get their
>> >> >Foxtel gratis so I figure that's OK.

>> >> But you are condoning Rupert getting his 3%

>> >No I'm not. I'm stowing away in the back of his car. It's like saying
>> >Jack Kerouac condoned the railroads.

>> By watching it at a friends who has legitimately come by the product
>> and watching it legally you are condoning him getting his 3%.

>Just as long as I don't pay him anything

>> Stowing
>> in his car is another illegal act, so is therefore not comparable.

>If it makes you feel better.

So you think trespass is legal?

Colin Kynoch

 
 
 

For Aussie cricket fans who don't have Foxtel ...

Post by Andrew Dunfor » Sat, 18 Mar 2006 07:40:56


<snip>

Quote:
> As things stand, I haven't bothered getting pirated copies. I slip down
> to one of the friend's places and check their video out.

How many places does your singular friend have?

<snip>

Andrew

 
 
 

For Aussie cricket fans who don't have Foxtel ...

Post by FRAN » Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:42:19

Quote:



> <snip>

> > As things stand, I haven't bothered getting pirated copies. I slip down
> > to one of the friend's places and check their video out.

> How many places does your singular friend have?

> <snip>

> Andrew

Well spotted!

You must be a leopard.

:-)

Fran