The fair price of entertainment

[Hadel]

Originally Posted by twobits

Why should people be forced to support through taxes tv shows that they won't directly. If people want it they will pay, if not what does it matter if it goes away? It would probably become more expensive then it is now. They would create tv lobbyist, tv bureaucrats, tv studies, and probably even tv police all funded through these taxes. Just another expense we would have no control over. Seems a pretty bad idea.

Actually BBC is quite a good TV company. I'd say it is probably the best in West Europe that I can watch. They have good quality shows, nice documentaries.
The subsidies give some form of freedom. The artists there are able to live comfortably and not obey the profit mantra all the time.

Income re-destribution is not really that bad! I know that a lot of USA people think that capitalism is the way to go and that any govermnet intervention is just nasty socializm creeping in.
The truth is that you just have to balance between the two. I lived in both systems and I can assure you - event the USSR type of socialism had its positive sides.

[Hadel]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

So what you're saying is that you are a skinflint, a miser, a Scrooge, a tightwad, stop me somewhere along the line.

Well, I have lived poorly and not so poorly. So my value for the money is dufferent.
There is another point to be made. The prices that the advanced economies demand are not that affordable in countries with different income.
How can one pay 200 USD for a copy of Windows if the average salary in the country is 150USD?

So maybe my bisness is not worth having - after all I am just a single person.
But what about the 3 bln people that live in Asia? Does anyone in his right mind expect them to buy legitimate copies of Windows or pay for legal DVD's?!

Isn't it smarter to allow 300 mil of those to watch a movie for 0.50 with practically no cost of distribution (e.g. p2p technology).

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by Hadel

Well, I have lived poorly and not so poorly. So my value for the money is dufferent.
There is another point to be made. The prices that the advanced economies demand are not that affordable in countries with different income.
How can one pay 200 USD for a copy of Windows if the average salary in the country is 150USD?

So maybe my bisness is not worth having - after all I am just a single person.
But what about the 3 bln people that live in Asia? Does anyone in his right mind expect them to buy legitimate copies of Windows or pay for legal DVD's?!

Isn't it smarter to allow 300 mil of those to watch a movie for 0.50 with practically no cost of distribution (e.g. p2p technology).

It's smarter to charge whatever the market will bear. So charge less in poor countries; charge more in more affluent countries. That's what many industries already do. You don't pay the same price for meds in every country, for instance. People will try to gray market, of course. Industries will do their best to prevent that. Doesn't work fully, of course.

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

It's up to each individual how to spend time, of course. No matter the content of TV, though, your brain basically flatlines when watching it. (You can find studies online.) So I figure, even if I were to read crappy books, I'd still be better off than watching TV. I choose not to read crappy books, so reading is an even better choice for me.

I disagree that your brain "flatlines" while watching TV -- or movies. Good entertainment is good entertainment because it engages you. I don't believe that watching QVC is the same as watching Mad Men, for example, any more than I believe reading a cheap romance novel is the same as reading Shakespeare.

Of course each person has the right to decide for themselves what to watch and consume as entertainment. What nobody has the right to do is call me a brainless idiot for enjoying TV or movies, or tell me I'm watching "too much." That's judgmental snobbery, pure and simple. It's also judgment based on ignorance, since someone who claims they never watch TV has no idea if what I'm watching is worthwhile or not.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

I disagree that your brain "flatlines" while watching TV -- or movies. Good entertainment is good entertainment because it engages you. I don't believe that watching QVC is the same as watching Mad Men, for example, any more than I believe reading a cheap romance novel is the same as reading Shakespeare.

Of course you have the right to decide for yourself what to watch and consume as entertainment. What you don't have the right to do is call me a brainless idiot for enjoying TV or movies, or tell me I'm watching "too much." That's judgmental snobbery, pure and simple.

The flatlining I mentioned comes from brainwave studies. I wasn't posing it as an opinion. You are free to disagree with the science, of course. For me, it's about not wanting to get stupider. I already wish I were smarter, lol. I don't think that qualifies as snobbery.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by twobits

Why should people be forced to support through taxes tv shows that they won't directly. If people want it they will pay, if not what does it matter if it goes away? It would probably become more expensive then it is now. They would create tv lobbyist, tv bureaucrats, tv studies, and probably even tv police all funded through these taxes. Just another expense we would have no control over. Seems a pretty bad idea.

The fact that the BBC is funded by the state means that it can make programmes that would not be commercially viable - documentaries, costume drama, etc. In addition to which they have what are, IMHO, the best news channel and web site around. Personally I think it's money very well spent. I don't think you'd find very many people in Britain who don't regard the BBC as a good thing.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Hadel

Isn't it smarter to allow 300 mil of those to watch a movie for 0.50 with practically no cost of distribution (e.g. p2p technology).

Maggie is correct that there are different prices for developing countries. However, WRT your example, it seems to me that if 300 mln people can afford: (1) computers; (2) internet connections fast enough to download movies; and (3) vid cards for their computers that are good enough to show movies;
then they can probably afford the $3-$4 dollars it costs *me* in the US to rent a movie through iTunes or Amazon.

[twobits]

Originally Posted by Hadel

Actually BBC is quite a good TV company. I'd say it is probably the best in West Europe that I can watch. They have good quality shows, nice documentaries.
The subsidies give some form of freedom. The artists there are able to live comfortably and not obey the profit mantra all the time.

Originally Posted by HarryT

The fact that the BBC is funded by the state means that it can make programmes that would not be commercially viable - documentaries, costume drama, etc. In addition to which they have what are, IMHO, the best news channel and web site around. Personally I think it's money very well spent. I don't think you'd find very many people in Britain who don't regard the BBC as a good thing.

If this is true (and I am not saying it is not) then why would people not be willing to fund it as a private membership organization? Do they have advertising also? I know some shows already are produced direct to DVD and thus supported only by the people that watch the show (some recent stargates for example). What will be interesting to see is if the Hulu, Amazon or Netflix video on demand systems are able to generate the production of new content. So far it seems we have only had two real models for new tv shows, public funding or paying for it with our time and watching advertising. Now we are getting in show product placements due to the dvrs and such even. I think I would be willing to pay more for a vod show if I knew somehow it was keeping it in production, and I would prefer to help pay per show rather then into a large generic pot.

Originally Posted by Hadel

those to watch a movie for 0.50 with practically no cost of distribution (e.g. p2p technology).

This can work, as long as it does not cause a lot of bad will if your higher paying customers find out about it and refuse to keep paying the higher prices.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by twobits

If this is true (and I am not saying it is not) then why would people not be willing to fund it as a private membership organization? Do they have advertising also? I know some shows already are produced direct to DVD and thus supported only by the people that watch the show (some recent stargates for example).

I think part of the merit of the BBC, even more so than American PBS (Which in fairness gets a rather large percentage of its programming from the BBC!), is that it provides a forum that allows shows to be produced that can serve every potential audience regardless of any sort of commercial interest. In addition, it would give them a voice that would be independent of those commercial interests.

Now in fairness, the biggest issue with the BBC is that it could, in theory at least, be subject to pressures by the political bodies that fund it (i.e., the British Parliament).

--
Bill

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by twobits

If this is true (and I am not saying it is not) then why would people not be willing to fund it as a private membership organization? Do they have advertising also?

The BBC has an annual budget of about £4.6bn (about US$7.4bn) - that would be one heck of a private membership organisation! About £3.4bn of that comes from the tax payer; the other £1.2bn from the BBC's commercial businesses (eg selling programmes to overseas broadcasters).

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

The flatlining I mentioned comes from brainwave studies. I wasn't posing it as an opinion. You are free to disagree with the science, of course. For me, it's about not wanting to get stupider. I already wish I were smarter, lol. I don't think that qualifies as snobbery.

If you truly believe that watching any TV show or movie makes you "stupider," then I'm sorry, but I believe that is snobbery, because it is totally without regard to the quality of what you are watching. It's putting the form of the medium above the quality of the content.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

If you truly believe that watching any TV show or movie makes you "stupider," then I'm sorry, but I believe that is snobbery, because it is totally without regard to the quality of what you are watching. It's putting the form of the medium above the quality of the content.

From what I've read, content doesn't matter. It's the medium that determines the brainwaves. I dunno how much TV you hafta watch to become stupider, lol. I read that your waves flatten out after a few minutes of TV time, to a point where it's the same as staring at a blank wall. I can't validate any of that for myself, but I don't miss TV, so it doesn't matter. Even when I had a connection, I didn't follow programs.

If you consider me a snob, OK. Shrug.

[twobits]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The BBC has an annual budget of about £4.6bn (about US$7.4bn) - that would be one heck of a private membership organisation! About £3.4bn of that comes from the tax payer; the other £1.2bn from the BBC's commercial businesses (eg selling programmes to overseas broadcasters).

Sure, it would be a large organisation, but is size the factor that determines if something should be done through taxes or not? If people feel it is a good use of their money, wouldn't it be alble to grow even larger as a private orginisation? I am sure it would still be dwarfed by other organisations such as the catholic church.

[foghat]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

From what I've read, content doesn't matter. It's the medium that determines the brainwaves. I dunno how much TV you hafta watch to become stupider, lol. I read that your waves flatten out after a few minutes of TV time, to a point where it's the same as staring at a blank wall. I can't validate any of that for myself, but I don't miss TV, so it doesn't matter. Even when I had a connection, I didn't follow programs.

If you consider me a snob, OK. Shrug.

If content truly does not matter, then one cannot correlate 'flat' brainwaves to becoming more stupid. There are plenty of educational shows out there where the viewer is certainly learning something.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by foghat

If content truly does not matter, then one cannot correlate 'flat' brainwaves to becoming more stupid. There are plenty of educational shows out there where the viewer is certainly learning something.

There's more to it than that. I'm going on memory, but the stuff I read said that flatlining damages key parts of your brain after prolonged exposure.

I suggest you research if interested. I don't see the point of debating it further. I'm not a scientist and probably would mangle the info, and I don't see a need to convert others to ditching TV. I brought it up because I think it's interesting and compelling, but to each his own entertainment and learning.