Unfairness to Council Telly viewers

[NAE NOOKIE]

Following SKY buying the rights to 'Lost' less than half way through its run on Cooncil Telly my partner ( who loves the show ) now tells me that SKY have the rights to future seasons of True Blood, which has been showing on Channel 4 up till now.

Unfair, unfair, unfair says I for those of us with just Cooncil Telly or ( as we have ) The SKY poverty package.

Its obviously SKY's policy to wait for a show to become popular on Cooncil telly and then buy it up in the hope that folk will be forced to buy one of their packages if they want to see the rest of the shows episodes.

Shouldnt be allowed !!!

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

The internet is a handy thing in such circumstances!

[GhostofBolivar]

Following SKY buying the rights to 'Lost' less than half way through its run on Cooncil Telly my partner ( who loves the show ) now tells me that SKY have the rights to future seasons of True Blood, which has been showing on Channel 4 up till now.

Unfair, unfair, unfair says I for those of us with just Cooncil Telly or ( as we have ) The SKY poverty package.

Its obviously SKY's policy to wait for a show to become popular on Cooncil telly and then buy it up in the hope that folk will be forced to buy one of their packages if they want to see the rest of the shows episodes.

Shouldnt be allowed !!!

The move will be part of Sky's agreement to show HBO programming on Sky Atlantic for which they paid HBO £150m. I doubt the fact it was on Channel 4 came into it at all. Personally, I don't see the point of having a Sky package and not having Sky Atlantic.

Obviously they want to grow their subscriber base and having popular programming on their channel is a pretty good way to do it. That's why they spent so much on football rights and it's why they paid so much to HBO.

It should be allowed as well. Selling shows overseas is a significant source of revenue for the BBC, for example. If another channel is willing to pay more for a show, then why wouldn't they take that deal. It's simply good business.

[VickMackie]

I used to watch lost all the time on council telly. It went to sky and I never seen another episode.

However, all 5 series of breaking bad, prison break(same happened I think), breaking bad, suits and boardwalk empire all came free.

[NAE NOOKIE]

The move will be part of Sky's agreement to show HBO programming on Sky Atlantic for which they paid HBO £150m. I doubt the fact it was on Channel 4 came into it at all. Personally, I don't see the point of having a Sky package and not having Sky Atlantic.

Obviously they want to grow their subscriber base and having popular programming on their channel is a pretty good way to do it. That's why they spent so much on football rights and it's why they paid so much to HBO.

It should be allowed as well. Selling shows overseas is a significant source of revenue for the BBC, for example. If another channel is willing to pay more for a show, then why wouldn't they take that deal. It's simply good business.

Nae problem with any company bidding high enough to get a show .... but not half way through its run ,,, thats unfair to folk who cant afford SKY TV ... Its in the same ball park that certain sporting events are stopped from being the preserve of SKY.

[danhibees1875]

It's business. As you've said they're hoping to increase subscription/customer loyalty. The only way it could have been avoided would be for channel 4 to have taken a massive gamble on the series and bought up a load of series in advance - which isn't going to happen.

[derekHFC]

Am i right in saying that Virgin Media don't have Sky Atlantic?

[Jack]

It's business. As you've said they're hoping to increase subscription/customer loyalty. The only way it could have been avoided would be for channel 4 to have taken a massive gamble on the series and bought up a load of series in advance - which isn't going to happen.

I think it’s a bit morally corrupt for Sky (and I do see the problem here) to sit back and watch other channels gamble on foreign imports and if/once they become popular outbid them.

IIRC Channel 4 was kept afloat for sometime on the back of Friends.

IMO Sky are doing the dirty its certainly not the first time they stand accused, I doubt it will be the last.



Am i right in saying that Virgin Media don't have Sky Atlantic?

Your'e right.

[GhostofBolivar]

Nae problem with any company bidding high enough to get a show .... but not half way through its run ,,, thats unfair to folk who cant afford SKY TV ... Its in the same ball park that certain sporting events are stopped from being the preserve of SKY.

So you'd have been okay with it if it'd had gone the other way and it was Channel 4 outbidding Sky? Wouldn't that be unfair to folk who paid for Sky thinking they were getting an exclusive service?

[NAE NOOKIE]

So you'd have been okay with it if it'd had gone the other way and it was Channel 4 outbidding Sky? Wouldn't that be unfair to folk who paid for Sky thinking they were getting an exclusive service?

Maybe on the planet you live on.

But seriously ... If such things are important to a person I.E. that if you pay for something nobody else should get a shot of it, thats fine I suppose.

But that wasnt really my complaint .. If SKY buy a series from the outset and stop it being shown on cooncil telly as a result, fine. Its this practice of taking up shows half way through their run which annoys me and there can be only one of two reasons for it.

Either they didnt realise that a show would be popular and are jumping on the bandwagon. Unlikely as both the shows I have mentioned were no doubt popular in the USA before coming to the UK.

Or worse .... They deliberately wait until a couple of seasons have been shown on terrestrial TV and then buy up the rest in a shameless attempt to get people to subscribe to SKY. That IMO is a bloody shoddy way to conduct business, obviously not illegal ... but to my mind definately unethical. Not everybody can afford SKY T.V. or for that matter pay £60 or so for the box set when it comes out on DVD.

[RyeSloan]

Maybe on the planet you live on.

But seriously ... If such things are important to a person I.E. that if you pay for something nobody else should get a shot of it, thats fine I suppose.

But that wasnt really my complaint .. If SKY buy a series from the outset and stop it being shown on cooncil telly as a result, fine. Its this practice of taking up shows half way through their run which annoys me and there can be only one of two reasons for it.

Either they didnt realise that a show would be popular and are jumping on the bandwagon. Unlikely as both the shows I have mentioned were no doubt popular in the USA before coming to the UK.

Or worse .... They deliberately wait until a couple of seasons have been shown on terrestrial TV and then buy up the rest in a shameless attempt to get people to subscribe to SKY. That IMO is a bloody shoddy way to conduct business, obviously not illegal ... but to my mind definately unethical. Not everybody can afford SKY T.V. or for that matter pay £60 or so for the box set when it comes out on DVD.

Imagine a pay TV company buying popular shows!

How is this any different from Hibs buying a Div 1 player in January that has performed well for the first part of the season? Is that shameless and shoddy?

I get your point about buying shows half way through a season but that sounds more like C4 or whoever not making sure they have UK rights for a whole season...would seem to be a bit of an oversight or a cost saving measure.

Fact is that a lot of good TV costs a lot of money..if it wasn't for TV companies (of all sorts) paying good money for a series then less good TV would be made...you really can't have it both ways.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Imagine a pay TV company buying popular shows!

How is this any different from Hibs buying a Div 1 player in January that has performed well for the first part of the season? Is that shameless and shoddy?

I get your point about buying shows half way through a season but that sounds more like C4 or whoever not making sure they have UK rights for a whole season...would seem to be a bit of an oversight or a cost saving measure.

Fact is that a lot of good TV costs a lot of money..if it wasn't for TV companies (of all sorts) paying good money for a series then less good TV would be made...you really can't have it both ways.

The Div 1 player analogy only works if Hibs are hoping that the fans of the team he was playing for will start to follow Hibs as a result of signing him.

So basically what you are saying is that the folk who cant afford to pay for SKY are goosed in this scenario and its just tough. Kind of like the government putting up the price of petrol to stop folk using their cars so much ... not a problem for the rich, but tough on the poor.

[danhibees1875]

The Div 1 player analogy only works if Hibs are hoping that the fans of the team he was playing for will start to follow Hibs as a result of signing him.

So basically what you are saying is that the folk who cant afford to pay for SKY are goosed in this scenario and its just tough. Kind of like the government putting up the price of petrol to stop folk using their cars so much ... not a problem for the rich, but tough
on the poor.



But it just makes good business sense and has to happen that way. Sky is a premium package and so will have the premium shows (unless they're classed as a public interest event).

It sucks, I Was in the same position when lost changed to sky. But it's how everyone makes money - channel 4 are just effectively a shows stepping stone if they do well - I also think a lot of shows only run marginally ahead of us in the U.S. So they wouldn't know how successful they were going to be at first.

[RyeSloan]

The Div 1 player analogy only works if Hibs are hoping that the fans of the team he was playing for will start to follow Hibs as a result of signing him.

So basically what you are saying is that the folk who cant afford to pay for SKY are goosed in this scenario and its just tough. Kind of like the government putting up the price of petrol to stop folk using their cars so much ... not a problem for the rich, but tough on the poor.


Oh OK so this is all about the 'rich' and the 'poor'.

The fact is that by paying the TV licence you get access to multiple 'free' channels through Freeview or the like...there is a lot of choice and variety in there including one of the most repsected public broadcasters in the world...is that not enough? Are you really suggesting that pay TV should be banned because it is 'unfair' on the poor....maybe we should cap cinema ticket prices to make sure the 'poor' can afford to go to the movies just like the 'rich' as well then otherwise how is it fair that all these 'rich' people can pay for their entertainment when 'poor' people are forced out?

[Beefster]

The Div 1 player analogy only works if Hibs are hoping that the fans of the team he was playing for will start to follow Hibs as a result of signing him.

So basically what you are saying is that the folk who cant afford to pay for SKY are goosed in this scenario and its just tough. Kind of like the government putting up the price of petrol to stop folk using their cars so much ... not a problem for the rich, but tough on the poor.

Isn't that the same for everything? I'd like an Audi S4 but I can't afford one at the moment. Rich folk can though.