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:
>> >> >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
>> >> 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?
>> 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?
>> >> >> > 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
>> >> > 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
>> >> >> >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.
>> >> > 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
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,
>> >> > 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
>> >> > 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.
>> Or are you a selective Communist?
Do you own any property?
>> >> 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
>> in his car is another illegal act, so is therefore not comparable.
>If it makes you feel better.
So you think trespass is legal?