One thing that we have learned is that piracy is not a pricing issue. It's a service issue.
Piracy is almost always a service problem.
There are some people who cannot watch every film because of age. They might watch only three films in a year.
The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting antipiracy technology to work. It's by giving those people a service that's better than what they're receiving from the pirates.
Instead of fostering investment and innovation through deregulation, the FCC will be devoting its resources to adopting new rules without any evidence that consumers are unable to access the content of their choice.
We live in a world with "free" content, and this freedom is not an imperfection. We listen to the radio without paying for the songs we hear; we hear friends humming tunes that they have not licensed. We tell jokes that reference movie plots without the permission of the directors. We read our children books, borrowed from a library, without paying the original copyright holder for the performance rights.
If you wake up in the morning and your favorite artist isn't on the service that you're paying ten dollars a month for, sooner or later you lose faith in the subscription model.
Obviously with the Internet and increased access to other means of watching shows, the audience has dispersed and is all over the place and that is a challenge.
I like to protect children. I mean, there's nothing wrong with having adult programming for mature adults that can selectively decide what they want to watch and what they don't want to watch.
Customer freedom! Don't dictate how I want to watch my TV!
Instapaper does support paywall sites. I have a list of them, that when someone saves something it sends a copy of the page as they are viewing it only to them. If you subscribe to a paid site, you can save the content. I'm not really touching the money.
What's the right way to think about the distribution part of Steam? You need to worry about viruses and people trying to publish other people's content, but the underlying thing is to eliminate that barrier between people who create stuff and people who want to have access to it.
You don't want everyone to see a piece of content. You want the people who are really excited about the content to see it.
People are really into on-demand consumption. I watch everything myself on demand.
You can get any film now basically for free, and that's where I think the model we're talking about is - if you give people what they want, how they want it and when they want it, they're more likely to pay for it.
I have no plans to get an iPad. I know it will do more things than my Kindle, but I don’t want more things. If I want other stuff - movies, TV shows, weather forecasts, the forthcoming Josh Ritter album - I have my Mac.
What hasn't surprised me is that audiences, as we found starting with box sets, want control, to decide how they watch it. Appointment viewing is slowly being put slightly behind.
Technology is changing, so the viewership is getting broken up. My kids watch everything downloaded; they have no idea what the numbers or the names of the channels mean, except 'FX makes the show that I see on my computer.'
Purchasing and downloading a book on to your e-reader won't necessarily protect it from disappearing.
Hard paywalls will never work because, just like at a newsstand, the reader likes to browse the cover and a few articles before choosing to buy. Even if the material is truly unique, a consumer likes to try a little before buying.
I think Comedy Central and probably all channels are on their way toward being apps accessible on whatever the Roku of the future is.
We want to give our audiences flexibility in the way they're commercially engaged in the content.
The best way to really make the VPN issue a completely nonissue is through global licensing that we are continuing to pursue with our partners.
There's no such thing as 'too much TV,' unless we're all spending more and not watching more.
Network neutrality protects the ability of users to access the lawful content, applications, and services of their choice. In other words, it lets users determine who wins and loses in the marketplace, and that's the way it should be.
