We are all family. The only media income model that is slightly fair, is advertising based revenue where the actual watcher is exposed to the actual product/service offer, which is funding the media and distribution thereof. imo charging per eyeball watching and basing costs on whatever definition of "family" is applied and/or per unit and/or per device is all evil and never fair (and then sometimes still being exposed to marketing in the media itself...) Where there is 'consumption' charges or costs, for infrastructure use or where infrastructure has not been paid twenty times over, some sort of use or measurement of use is fine, I guess - but forever use charges are also evil. Many cable providers, in many high density areas have already received back their capital many times over, this does not stop them from charging on forever based milking income models. Artists: many artists do receive decent income and many receive good recurring for revenue for content created in minutes (specifically some xmas songs, comes to mind) That all said, artists sometimes do not even receive enough money to literally buy a bread (not figuratively) where other parasites in the media train earn millions in "revenue". A .za example would be "Brenda Fassie" - and there are many in .ca as well, I expect. I think that predatory media services will be milking cows and shearing sheep forever, same as many "providers" of forever services. (Where spectrum has been "allocated", given, bought and/or sold, for example. Other examples are where IP numbers were received and are now worth $$+ each. So, was I stupid not to hold onto 000 000's of ipv4 numbers that I was not using at the time? or am I too anal to get money for something that was never 'mine' in my mind? hmm, yeah, I am just stupid, I guess.) Last thought: we all are also "family" of sorts as I do really love some of you and I am sure that if I knew the rest of you, I would probably love you too :) On Tue, 30 May 2023 23:16:39 -0400 Lennart Sorensen via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 05:49:20PM -0400, Karen Lewellen wrote:
Hi, While this answers my specific question, your comment about sharing services creates a different one. If you have a large house with more than one television, it is often the case that this second television has its own cable box, say to allow other members of your household to watch what they wish. How is indeed sharing the Internet with the basement of your house different?
They seem to realize that not letting one household share wouldn't get them many customers, while two households in one house they can claim isn't allowed.
Is it really different? One could certainly argue that it isn't, but then the same argument could apply to all the units in a 20 story building. Where do you draw the line and they seem to go by household. Of course is someone renting a room really different than someone renting a basement apartment with it's own entryway?