General : Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2014) Vol. 3

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, they have the legal right, but that doesn't make it acceptable. The law should be changed so that one company cannot monopolise all the best shows.

I am surprised that the law is so intrusive these days and yet fails to deal with the issues that really annoy so many people.

It was due to Michael Jackson buying the rights to all that Beatles material that their works have been denied us on TV for all these years. Just one person can achieve this. Clearly wrong.

I never knew that! Can't someone buy the rights from his estate now that he's dead?

Originally Posted by DJ-SWITCH

14 new channels and the first hd channel has been added to virgin tv anywhere

Which channel is it?

[DJ-SWITCH]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I never knew that! Can't someone buy the rights from his estate now that he's dead?



Which channel is it?

if you meen the hd one its a news channel NHK WORLD HD

[vincerooney]

Originally Posted by Stop It

While I sympathise, you are aware of what you're saying, right?

Outside of the PSB's, no services are legally mandated to be available to everyone. if a Content host or provider wants to keep a channel or programming to themselves, it is their right to do so. If people voted with their wallets, the likes of Sky and VM would not be able to afford to charge "whatever they liked" which in reality, is mere market prices.

BT Sport has been a disrupter, as is Netflix etc and the upcoming WWE Network too. People should be able to pay for the content they want, but that requires Ofcom to tackle the supply side, and encourage the likes of the EPL to create products for consumers to watch content directly. That way people can pay for what they want, and not packages like Sky Sports where much of the content is of no interest.

You cannot blame Sky/VM/BT for wanting to protect what they've paid for, however you can certainly ask why the content producers don't offer consumers direct solutions. The tech is there, they should be using it.

i'm not blaming them i'm just saying it shouldnt be the case. TV should be regarded as a public service. There should be a body with powers to stop spiteful withholding of channels.

There should also be bodies to stop the uncontrolled abuse of sport subscription channels.

"new sports deal coming up lads what shall we bid?"
murdoch: well lads i charge ridiculous prices compared to mainland europe. this is a fine gravy train and the government won't stop or control me! so throw billions at it to get the most rights"
"we'd need to increase prices to keep making our million pound profits?"
murdoch: yeah?
"costs are pretty high though rupert?"
"no one will stop me tho or havent so far!! LOL!"

P.S yes im bitter and angry and very unreasonable hahha apologies.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I would love it if Sky, BT and VM would reduce prices to make it easy for consumers to choos what to have.

Fot example, l was stopped by a Sky rep in Hounslow. And he asked me if l was interested in going to Sky.

I told hime with a smile that l was with Sky, for a very long time. But VM gave me a deal, which l took.

He said that he could equal that deal. But l said that within my deal l get Phone, BB and TV for a certain price.

He said 'you might as well stay with VM. Howabout that.

We needed cheaper services.

[Mad Max]

That's very enlightening Arthur, thanks for sharing.

[Dave42]

More chance of it snowing in hell forever than prices going down

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I never knew that! Can't someone buy the rights from his estate now that he's dead?

Regarding the Beatles music publishing, Michael Jackson lost control of it way back in 1995 when he merged Northern Songs (owners of the rights to the Beatles' songs) into Sony ATV Music Publishing in return for a 50% stake in the combined company plus $59m. His stake was reduced to just 25% in 2006.

I'm not sure what is meant by the songs being denied us on TV all these years. They've featured in adverts (Help and Revolution) and "A Hard Day's Night" was on TV this year. The recent ITV drama doc "Cilla" featured tracks written by The Beatles too.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by DJ-SWITCH

if you meen the hd one its a news channel NHK WORLD HD

Yes, I meant the HD one- thanks.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Regarding the Beatles music publishing, Michael Jackson lost control of it way back in 1995 when he merged Northern Songs (owners of the rights to the Beatles' songs) into Sony ATV Music Publishing in return for a 50% stake in the combined company plus $59m. His stake was reduced to just 25% in 2006.

I'm not sure what is meant by the songs being denied us on TV all these years. They've featured in adverts (Help and Revolution) and "A Hard Day's Night" was on TV this year. The recent ITV drama doc "Cilla" featured tracks written by The Beatles too.

Cheers, I never knew of his past ownership of this material.

[MutleyF]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I would love it if Sky, BT and VM would reduce prices to make it easy for consumers to choos what to have.

Fot example, l was stopped by a Sky rep in Hounslow. And he asked me if l was interested in going to Sky.

I told hime with a smile that l was with Sky, for a very long time. But VM gave me a deal, which l took.

He said that he could equal that deal. But l said that within my deal l get Phone, BB and TV for a certain price.

He said 'you might as well stay with VM. Howabout that.

We needed cheaper services.

reduce prices = lost profit. will never happen (IMHO)

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Stop It

So long as there is competition in the market, this will not happen. In fact as we have seen competition for the content has driven prices UP not down at the supply side, and the market appetite for the content has not been diminished either. There is not a media monopoly in this country, and so long as there isn't, Ofcom should not interfere with the business of content procurement and distribution.

As for buying the rights to a single act/content source and doing what they want with it, I have to disagree that it is "clearly wrong". You should not, and can not force an owner of any good to share it, sell it, or do anything they don't want with it. You may not like that fact, but such is life.

As consumers the best thing we can do is show the demand for it and make it an offer they cannot refuse. Asking for legislation to control market forces is completely absurd.

I respect your opinion, but the precedent has already been set that you can legislate to restrict these rights. For example, there are certain sports which must be made available across all platforms. Sky was forced to play ball in respect of their exclusive rights to films and were told to charge a given level of wholesale price. Microsoft was told it couldn't have its software added to computers and that it should be purchased as a separate package to let other suppliers in.

Competition should work in favour of the consumer and at the same time ensure that the supplier was still able to make a fair profit from it. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the balance is right.

---------- Post added at 12:34 ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 ----------

Originally Posted by vincerooney

i'm not blaming them i'm just saying it shouldnt be the case. TV should be regarded as a public service. There should be a body with powers to stop spiteful withholding of channels.

There should also be bodies to stop the uncontrolled abuse of sport subscription channels.

"new sports deal coming up lads what shall we bid?"
murdoch: well lads i charge ridiculous prices compared to mainland europe. this is a fine gravy train and the government won't stop or control me! so throw billions at it to get the most rights"
"we'd need to increase prices to keep making our million pound profits?"
murdoch: yeah?
"costs are pretty high though rupert?"
"no one will stop me tho or havent so far!! LOL!"

P.S yes im bitter and angry and very unreasonable hahha apologies.

I don't mind them withholding channels as long as they don't withhold material that is shown on those channels. Exclusive deals should be banned in my view, unless they are for a short period of time (say two years) after they have been released. After that time, they should be made available to other media outlets at the market rate.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by MutleyF

reduce prices = lost profit. will never happen (IMHO)

same reason sky will never get rid of it HD charge

[DaMac]

Just as a foot note on the Jacko thing it was the other way around, at the time Macca tried in vain to re-buy the rights to the Beatles songs so they wouldn't be cheapened by being used in TV adverts, but Jacko outbid him igniting a feud which lasted till the "bad" singer died.

[Media Boy UK]

I have just seen on twitter that ITVBe will be on Virgin Channel 119 from Wednesday.

Info thanks to a516digital.

http://www.a516digital.com/2014/09/faq-itvbe.html#more

---------- Post added at 15:39 ---------- Previous post was at 15:28 ----------

Sky Movies will rebrand Sky Movies Greats HD as Sky Movies Superhero HD on Virgin Media from Monday.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Dave42

same reason sky will never get rid of it HD charge

Whatever way packages are sold everyone pays for HD.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Dave42

same reason sky will never get rid of it HD charge

I'm not sure about this. On the one hand when HD becomes the norm (perhaps when SD channels no longer exist), they may not be able to justify continuation of the HD charge.

On the other hand, the BBC introduced a higher TV licence for receiving programmes in colour in the 1960's to fund the extra costs of production and this remains to this day.

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Whatever way packages are sold everyone pays for HD.

Absolutely. As I stated above, maybe when HD is the norm and the cost of HD equipment falls, we might see a change- but I won't be holding my breathe.