dsgrue3 said:
Munkeh111 said:
dsgrue3 said:
I didn't see a rebuttal to my counter=argument. Just some off-point banter.
Cool that you do that, but you have yet to explain how avoiding commericals is fleecing anyone. And using a DRV to avoid them is not conducive to your argument.
Have you abandoned it?
|
Do you not see a clear difference between streaming stuff illegally and not looking at the adverts?
I am more concerned about the attitude, that people thing that they can make their own rules. I have a friend who has decided that they can watch a whole series of TV, then decide if it is worth it to buy the DVD, that is not the way the system works
|
Lol, you're so focused on the legality of it.
There is literally no difference between me NOT watching a commerical because I chose to access the show online versus me NOT watching the commercial because I went to take a piss.
And that's the fundamental issue I have with your complaint.
Tell me, who is losing out here?
|
That is precisely my problem. The precise theory of how TV companies work out whether or not to cancel a show is viewship figures (beyond premium cable) as then they can work out how much to charge from adverts. These are worked out by people having boxes in their house measuring what they watch and then this is extrapolated. Now this is clearly a very flawed system, but it is the system.
So in theory, you not watching makes no difference, unless you happen to have a Nielsen box in your house. In the long term, the companies advertising will realise that nobody is watching TV and thus their ad money is wasted, but that is more complicated. So in this precise case, what you are doing makes no difference
The problem is more broad than this. The problem is that people fundamentally don't think they need to pay for TV whether or not it is just them "skipping the adverts." In some cases is doesn't make any difference, in some cases it does. It is not up to you to decide whether or not you watching tv illegally effects the makers of the programme.
