Net Neutrality and piracy....

[Cuda1447]

Just had a random thought. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the issues a bit, but.....


If ISP's start to throttle traffic from certain sources (e.g. Netflix, hulu, etc) and consumers are forced to either pay more for it or download lower quality/less of it, won't that just promote more piracy thus hurting the movie business even more?


Think about it. If Netflix raises their prices because Verizon is charging netflix more money to stream their service over X amount of GB per month per customer, then as a customer I'll just say F' it and download that movie via torrent in the same quality (still using Verizons network to do so, but them not knowing what I am downloading) and stream it to my tv myself.


*shrugs* seems stupid to me?

 

[amdhunter]

I can't afford a Lamborghini so I am just going to steal one.

 

[cKGunslinger]

I can't afford a Lamborghini so I am just going to steal one press this button that magically causes an accurate copy to be instantly made from parts I already own.

Hmm..

 

[GlacierFreeze]

Just had a random thought. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the issues a bit, but.....


If ISP's start to throttle traffic from certain sources (e.g. Netflix, hulu, etc) and consumers are forced to either pay more for it or download lower quality/less of it, won't that just promote more piracy thus hurting the movie business even more?

Sure they could. Then ISPs can just throttle (or block) P2P traffic. :awe:

We need Net Neutrality regardless of any pirating issue. Those are 2 separate discussions as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Barfo]

I can't afford a Lamborghini so I am just going to steal one.

It it was possible to download pirated cars I would definitely get a Lambo.

 

[techs]

Well, eventually in order to cut "piracy" we will only be allowed to visit our ISP's approved sites.

 

[Cuda1447]

I can't afford a Lamborghini so I am just going to steal one.

I don't think anybody downloaded music because they couldn't afford it. They downloaded music because to them it wasn't worth paying $15 for 9 songs 2 of which they liked. They probably would have NEVER purchased the cd. But since they could get the 2 songs they liked for free, ah it was worth it.


Now streaming services are cheap. Netflix is well worth the money and convenient. People are willing to pay $x for that service. They get sufficient enjoyment out of it. They would not have purchased most of those movies otherwise, but at this price sure why not. If the price goes up though, it won't be worth it to pay for it anymore. Sure, they could still afford it but it won't be worth it. So they'll just stop. Until a cheaper or free source comes around that makes it worthwhile again. Get my point?


If the price isn't to bad and is worthwhile, people WILL pay it. Regardless of whether piracy is easy. Look at the Zunepass for example. A lot of people will pay $10-15 a month for music. Its worthwhile. Even though it is still EXTREMELY easy to get any song you want for free. If it was $50 a month though, people would go back to pirating.

 

[ShawnD1]

Sure they could. Then ISPs can just throttle (or block) P2P traffic. :awe:

Lots of them already do this.

When there's not enough bandwidth to go around, they'll throttle the ones that appear to be caused by file sharing.

 

[caspur]

Verizon knows what you are downloading. It's their network.

Throttling is nearly always combined with caps + overage fees, so the OP scenario does not apply.

People pay what the content is worth. If it has little/no perceived value, or is priced in a retaliatory manner (Adobe/MS office etc.) then people will pirate.