# The Consumer Thread



## SirRumpole (29 April 2016)

I thought I'd start this thread up because we are all consumers and have an interest in how corporations are ripping us off.


It's obvious that the corporate culture these days is "anything goes". and if they get caught the fines are miniscule compared to their profits.

Colgate-Palmolive to pay $18m penalty for laundry detergent cartel

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-...enalised-for-laundry-detergent-cartel/7367394


----------



## CanOz (29 April 2016)

Nice thread mate, if there's one thing i hate its the expensive prices you Aussies pay "just because you'll pay it". 

Itunes i think it was, or just the music industry in general, admitted to charging Australians 40% more or something like that for CDs (going back a while) just because "they'll pay more"....made me furious at the time.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 April 2016)

Commonwealth Bank customer denied payout after being sold wrong insurance by planner

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-...sold-wrong-insurance/7367134?section=business


----------



## SirRumpole (30 April 2016)

One for Canoz

Geoblocking: Consumers not breaching copyright by circumventing with VPN, Government agency says.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-...not-breach-copyright-by-circumventing/7369714


----------



## Value Collector (30 April 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> One for Canoz
> 
> Geoblocking: Consumers not breaching copyright by circumventing with VPN, Government agency says.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-...not-breach-copyright-by-circumventing/7369714




The main reason for Geo blocking, is that the distributors (eg Netflix) are trying to abide by their deals with the content creators (eg the studios)

When a studio creates content, they own the content, and will monetise this by licencing its use to various distributors around the world.

Take the Seinfeld show for example, it is owned by Fox studios(I think), Now Fox will enter into deals with a range of distributors around the world where the distributor pays the studio for the right to show it in that region a set number of times over a set period time.

If Fox studios has a pre existing deal With channel 10 or Foxtel etc, in Australia they won't/can't give Netflix the right to show the product here.

So the fact that certain shows are on Netflix US site, but not the Australian one is not that Netflix are doing something wrong, its that Netflix probably doesn't have the right to take payment for and show that content here, because another distributor already has an exclusive local deal for that content.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 April 2016)

Value Collector said:


> The main reason for Geo blocking, is that the distributors (eg Netflix) are trying to abide by their deals with the content creators (eg the studios)
> 
> When a studio creates content, they own the content, and will monetise this by licencing its use to various distributors around the world.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I get all that, but the end result is that if a show/film/series is more expensive here than in other locations (eg Netflix USA) then that just encourages piracy by Australians and so the distributors lose out in the end by treating viewers in Oz as cash cows by expecting us to pay more for stuff than they do in other markets.

And if people use VPNs to access streaming services in other countries it appears from the article that the distributors don't have a comeback because they don't know who is using the VPNs.


----------



## Value Collector (30 April 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yeah, I get all that, but the end result is that if a show/film/series is more expensive here than in other locations (eg Netflix USA) then that just encourages piracy by Australians and so the distributors lose out in the end by treating viewers in Oz as cash cows by expecting us to pay more for stuff than they do in other markets.
> 
> .




firstly, content is pretty cheap, I mean it costs $15/month to get the Aussie version of Netflix, and that's unlimited movies/tv shows. (remember paying $7 for over night rentals at video easy)

Secondly, it costs Netflix a certain amount of money to operate in Australia and to generate Australian specific programing etc, its probably not that much cheaper to create the Australian version than it is the US version, but the US versions costs are spread across a much larger subscriber base, so you can expect a smaller nation like us to have slightly higher costs.



> And if people use VPNs to access streaming services in other countries it appears from the article that the distributors don't have a comeback because they don't know who is using the VPNs



The content creator probably doesn't care, they are getting paid for their content either way, so its not piracy.

The distributor you are paying doesn't really care, they are getting paid, (they just have to appear to be trying to uphold their distribution contract)

the real losers are the distrubutors who actually paid for the exclusive local deal, that consumers are going around, if channel ten paid for the rights to Seinfeld, but you watched it on Netflix instead, they lose out.

Also, the less people that subscribe to the "Aussie" version, the smaller the base of people that need to absorb the costs and the more upward pressure on pricing, a lot of the cost of supplying Netflix in Australia are fixed, so if there is 1Million subs, they can offer the service cheaper than if there was 1000 subs, and if you sign up to the US version, you are actually reducing its cost base per sub and widening the gap.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 April 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Also, the less people that subscribe to the "Aussie" version, the smaller the base of people that need to absorb the costs and the more upward pressure on pricing, a lot of the cost of supplying Netflix in Australia are fixed, so if there is 1Million subs, they can offer the service cheaper than if there was 1000 subs, and if you sign up to the US version, you are actually reducing its cost base per sub and widening the gap.




Sure, but isn't that point of the article ?

If the studio sold the world wide rights to Netflix and this could could be accessed from Australia without geo blocking, the middleman of Fox as a local distributor would not be needed and so everyone would be happy (except Fox Australia but who cares about them ?  )


----------



## Value Collector (30 April 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Sure, but isn't that point of the article ?
> 
> If the studio sold the world wide rights to Netflix and this could could be accessed from Australia without geo blocking, the middleman of Fox as a local distributor would not be needed and so everyone would be happy (except Fox Australia but who cares about them ?  )




Netflix is the middle man, Netflix is just a distributor of content (although they are also making some content too)

When I mentioned Fox (20th century fox the studio owner of Seinfeld(I think)) above, I was talking about Fox the studio.

Netflix is just one Distributor, there are many distributors ranging from local free tv networks (broad casters) and pay tv networks(satellite and cable providers etc) through to global streaming services (iTunes, google play and Netflix etc)

The types of distribution deals the studios work out with distributors vary dramatically, some aren't exclusive others are, some are for long time frames others aren't, some cover content that hasn't even been generated yet.

What we are seeing in Australia now is a run off of long term legacy deals that were signed before digital distribution really was a factor, I think the new deals being created will suit the new world of digital distribution better.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 April 2016)

With the push for competition and globalisation, surely it goes against those principles if consumers in any particular country aren't able to shop around for the best deal globally?

The music and film industries have always shot themselves in the foot and ended up encouraging illegal downloads etc so far as I can tell. I recall a long time ago, circa year 2000, a local radio station quite openly saying that they'd downloaded (almost certainly illegally at that time) a new release song simply because for whatever reason it had been released overseas but not yet in Australia and they were getting calls to play it.

At the very least the studios need to accept reality - once it's released then that's global, the idea that they can stagger the dates over a period of weeks or even months is pretty much redundant these days due to technology. Either they need to accept that or consumers and others will for practical purposes take it out of their hands and cost the studios revenue in doing so.

As was the case with music, the studios really have only two choices. Make it available legally (same time everywhere and at comparable pricing) or consumers will take it illegally and that's a far worse outcome for the studios.


----------



## Value Collector (30 April 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> With the push for competition and globalisation, surely it goes against those principles if consumers in any particular country aren't able to shop around for the best deal globally?
> 
> The music and film industries have always shot themselves in the foot and ended up encouraging illegal downloads etc so far as I can tell. I recall a long time ago, circa year 2000, a local radio station quite openly saying that they'd downloaded (almost certainly illegally at that time) a new release song simply because for whatever reason it had been released overseas but not yet in Australia and they were getting calls to play it.
> 
> ...




I think there has never been a time in history that so much content is available, so cheaply and on demand as it is now.

Think back 20 years ago, if a Movie wasn't playing on TV and it wasn't available at the video shop you had no way of getting it.

Now you can stream practically any movie you want for $4 or $6 or you can sign up to a streaming service for $15/month, plus you still have the traditional network broad casters or you can buy the DVD from JB hi fi.

I don't think there is any legitimate reason for piracy, the content is cheaper than ever (adjust the 1996 video easy over night rental for inflation) and you can access it more ways than ever when you want.

When I hear one of my friends or family gloat that they pirated some movie that's available in HD on demand for $4, I just think why bother, why steal it, just pay the $4 and contribute back into the system generating the content.

--------------------------------------


----------



## Value Collector (30 April 2016)

The other thing is we can kiss any local industry good bye if all we want is the generic USA version of Netflix etc, if the local version of Netflix died in favor of a US based one, it just takes another distribution platform away from local content creators.


-----------------------
That wouldn't bother me, at the end of the day I have a large share holding in Disney, so if people watch "modern family" episodes rather Melbourne based "upper middle bogan" or some other Aussie content, more power to me.

But, even though I personally benefit from US based programing, I still would like to see a local industry thrive.


----------



## luutzu (30 April 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I think there has never been a time in history that so much content is available, so cheaply and on demand as it is now.
> 
> Think back 20 years ago, if a Movie wasn't playing on TV and it wasn't available at the video shop you had no way of getting it.
> 
> ...




You are an idealist (owning Disney) man (that's a compliment ).

But seriously, why would anyone pay $4 when they can pay zero. And it won't be $4 either, it's $4 times x number of films they would see. They do add up.

Like Smurf was saying, these studios have got to get real and catch up with the tech reality. That and they have got to change their business model. They can't be that greedy and expect others to be honest.

Back in the old days where VideoEzy and Blockbusters were still around, sure it costs a lot more to buy the copies, rent the shop and so $4 or $2 overnight... that's reasonable to charge. 

With internet streaming, it now costs them practically nothing and they charge slightly less or the same? Add to that the studio dominance, able to distribute their product everywhere at the speed of light... economy of scale, new tech for distribution, the same story with the same CGI characters etc., mean it costs much less to do business - pass it on to consumers and they'll buy it.

Or put it on YouTube and they'd more than make back their money from ad revenues. 

Can't want everything then expect others to pay it to you right?

Sure it costs studios and producers money, risks and all that to produce content. But even if it's pirated the privateer argubably aren't stealing or taking the content for free either. 

First, if they like the film/show enough, they would buy those blue ray version, collector's items, toys and gadgets, pass the words around.

Second, good films, film people like to see, they'd go to the cinema and pay the gouging fee to watch it.

Should we begrudge a person to paid $20+ a ticket (x family/friend members) to then get a free copy later for a rewind?


And of course my thinking in no way reflect personal experience. I just have a talent for feeling other people's pain 

btw, Captain America (Avengers part 3) was awesome.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 April 2016)

The issue I see is one of availability more than cost.

I'm not sure if it's still going on but in the past the studios have often used a strategy of releasing films at different times in different countries so as to maximise revenue. Music industry did the same although the time gaps were generally a lot smaller.

That game doesn't really work anymore. There were different markets in the past but now there's only two - planet Earth and any country that blocks access to the internet (most of which won't be too keen on "western" forms of entertainment anyway). That's it. For the "free" world it's a single market.

If a film that people are anticipating is released in the US but not in Australia then that simply encourages downloading from US sites. If that's blocked by whatever means then that's the trigger for piracy.

For services such as Netflix, I can't see any real reason why all content shouldn't be available in all countries. It's not like a physical store renting VHS / DVD (or Beta for those old enough...) which has a real cost for floor space which when combined with the cost of the physical media itself limited the range of tapes / DVD's they could economically have available and lead to a natural focus on films that would be popular and rented frequently. But with it all online, there's no real reason why Aussie films shouldn't be available in (for example) Canada if someone there wants to watch them. That only 100 people actually end up watching it in that country doesn't really matter when there's basically no cost to make it available in the first place.

As I see it, the internet is one of the 3 things which have in some way affected practically every business upon its mass adoption. The others were electricity and motorised transport. There's basically nothing that was around at the time that wasn't impacted by those three in some way. 

In the case of the internet and entertainment, well it has basically changed the market from what's popular enough to warrant being sold in shops to a situation where literally anything's available to anyone. To the extent that anyone persists with blocking things based on location, that's just waving the proverbial red flag to the bull in terms of encouraging workarounds including piracy.


----------



## Value Collector (1 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> You are an idealist (owning Disney) man (that's a compliment ).
> 
> But seriously, why would anyone pay $4 when they can pay zero. And it won't be $4 either, it's $4 times x number of films they would see. They do add up.
> 
> ...




why pay $4??? Ahh because that's very little for the value you are getting, 

Tonight, Gave $21.95 to Pizza Hut for two pizzas, chicken wings, garlic bread and Pepsi, $16 to the bottle shop for a 6 pack, and $4.90 to Bp for some m+m's (for Mrs. Vc), now adding $6 to that for both of us to watch a movie adds a lot of value to our evening, and the cost is small.

Yes, there is a lot of risk in making movies, and you generally invest millions.

--------------------------------

I guess you can say why pay for anything, why pay for electricity etc, why not just steal everything?


----------



## Value Collector (1 May 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> The issue I see is one of availability more than cost.
> 
> I'm not sure if it's still going on but in the past the studios have often used a strategy of releasing films at different times in different countries so as to maximise revenue. Music industry did the same although the time gaps were generally a lot smaller.
> 
> ...




I already explained that, 

If channel ten has bought the rights in Australia for Seinfeld for 20years, Netflix will not have the right to distribute it to Australia.

There is a bunch of legacy deals for certain content, Netflix is just one distributor, it can only show content it have negotiated and paid for the right to show, so it's programming will be different from country to country.

It's programming in Australia includes some local Aussie content and therefore can't include all of the same programs the USA Version does, also as I said the their cost base to operate here per subscriber is higher.

--------------------

Also just remember, no one has a "right" to see content just because the content exists, studios have a right to control their content and decide where and how it will be distributed, they can make a film and leave it in the can on a shelf if they want, because it's theirs, just like your home movies or photos are yours.


----------



## luutzu (1 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> why pay $4??? Ahh because that's very little for the value you are getting,
> 
> Tonight, Gave $21.95 to Pizza Hut for two pizzas, chicken wings, garlic bread and Pepsi, $16 to the bottle shop for a 6 pack, and $4.90 to Bp for some m+m's (for Mrs. Vc), now adding $6 to that for both of us to watch a movie adds a lot of value to our evening, and the cost is small.
> 
> ...




If there's a lot of value at $4, there's infinite value at $0.

People, and movie studios, will steal or otherwise get things and not pay for them if they can get away with it.

Disney practically built its entire empire on stolen intellectual properties: stories, from practically all cultures. 

All the fairy tales, the classics of world literature... If Disney (and movie studios) want to be fair, may want to pay some commission to the country and people they stole those stories from.

So we're not talking about moral issue here. We're talking legal - what is copyrighted and owned; what is owned but not copyrighted and are free to profit off.

---

Yes it is risky and costs a lot to produce content/movies. But most pirated movies/music/content are not from struggling artists or small time producers - to see any documentary or Indie films, you'd have to either pay through Netflix/streaming or go to some independent cinema, or those film festival....

And how often do studios risk on new artists or risk on a new movie?

Star Wars: Force Awaken is practically the same story as the original trilogy. Even George Lucas took more risk with his prequels.

Or Hollywood's White-washing of beloved movies and stories from other cultures. The Last Air Bender; Gods of Egypt; that Moses movie; the new Japanese manga classic starring Scarlett Johansen in the lead.

So piracy is not sticking it to the struggling artists. It's not even getting movies for free either - even though maybe making a few hundred or billion dollar ought to be enough on one movie.

As I implied before... most people who pirated movies have either already paid, or will pay, with cash for it. Paid for already seeing it at the movies, paid for when they recommend it to friends or buy collectibles.

Sure it'd be nice for studios if people were to pay each and everytime they rewatch a movie or want to re-watch or re-listen... 

It's also nice too if American workers on minimum wage were to earn $15 an hour, a fair number of them work like heck at Disneyland wearing those customes, sing and dance in all weather.... Or those Chinese and sweatshop kids getting more than a couple bucks a day cranking out those toys and whatnot.

Be nice too if Arab/Muslim/Persian refugees get some commission on Alladin's story; or those poor Chinese a few buck from Mulan.


So it's a bit much for multi-billion dollar corporations to cry foul when modern technology allow some people to get away with not paying them all they wanted like the good old days.


----------



## Value Collector (1 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> If there's a lot of value at $4, there's infinite value at $0.
> 
> People, and movie studios, will steal or otherwise get things and not pay for them if they can get away with it.
> 
> ...




Disney didn't steal intellectual property by making feature anamations based on old stories, for the stories are often changed quite a bit, all the artwork is original Disney artwork, musical scores and voice acting is original etc etc. it's not like they are just photocopying some old stories and selling them, they are creating real value generating a new product that's what they get paid for.

Not to mention that over the years Disney has paid out billions of dollars to buy The rights to certain characters.

-------------------

Part of what you are saying sounds like you are saying stealing is ok as long as it's from a big company, I don't see the logic there.

Remember big companies still have small share holders, so when you steal from a big company, you are still affecting how much that little investors will earn on their hard won savings.


----------



## luutzu (1 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Disney didn't steal intellectual property by making feature anamations based on old stories, for the stories are often changed quite a bit, all the artwork is original Disney artwork, musical scores and voice acting is original etc etc. it's not like that are just photocopying some old stories and selling them, they are creating real value, that's what they get paid for.
> 
> -------------------
> 
> ...




No, I didn't say that stealing is OK. Not even if it's from big corporations - they too are people, apparently 

What I am saying is that if people can steal, or can get things for free, they will. Human nature, capitalism, way of the world and what Disney is very good at doing - and getting away with it too.

Further, what Disney does is considered "adaptation". They adapt the original story/tale. 

Say I could sing, or could start a dancing on ice company. If I want Mickey on Ice or want Cinderella on Ice... do I need to pay Disney? For Mickey I better or be shut down; Cinderella - just don't make her blond or wear blue dress etc. right? I think Disney also own that "happy birthday" song right?

I could make a case that Mickey was never on ice in any Disney version (assuming they didn't think of it before); that I put my own money out, hired ice skaters etc. etc. Micky will either want a cut... will probably shut me down, then steal my idea for it too.

So, why is it that anyone else have to pay Disney to "adapt" their characters and story to other medium; but it's not really stealing for Disney to adapt other people's work? Copyright law didn't exist then so it's fair game?

Good for the goose, good for the gander. As they say - without copyright 

OK. too much coffee... a VB to neutralise it and off to bed we go.


----------



## Value Collector (1 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> No, I didn't say that stealing is OK. Not even if it's from big corporations - they too are people, apparently
> 
> What I am saying is that if people can steal, or can get things for free, they will. Human nature, capitalism, way of the world and what Disney is very good at doing - and getting away with it too.
> 
> ...




Mickey Mouse is a different story, he is not just a copyrighted character, he is a trade mark, as are some other Disney characters.

Trade marks and brands are used to distinguish and identify companies and products.

you can't make a drink and call it Coca Cola and use the Coca Cola ribbon logo, because that is a trade mark of the Coca Cola company, you are misleading consumers if you do.

Certain standards of quality and product content are associated with certain brands, when people here the word Disney it brings up an idea about the type of product etc, some one that tries to use a trade mark of Disney to increase their sales is actually misleading consumers and stealing from Disney who have done the hard yards for decades to build their brand and public image.

Now if The Walt Disney company died tommorrow, and it's characters were abandoned for 100years, it would be a different story, you would be within your rights to use Micky, to put in the hard yards and rebuild his public image, but as long as Disney is still working and investing and using him as a trade mark, you can't use him without unfairly benefiting from their work at their expense and misleading consumers

Eg, you can use my organs after I die and have abandoned them and you are creating value, but try taking my kidneys while I am still alive and that's called stealing (or murder)


----------



## SirRumpole (1 May 2016)

Hypothetically, if Disney went completely out of business tomorrow who would own Mickey Mouse ?

Companies don't have descendants if they are wound up.


----------



## Value Collector (1 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Hypothetically, if Disney went completely out of business tomorrow who would own Mickey Mouse ?
> 
> Companies don't have descendants if they are wound up.




Their creditors probably, or who ever bought him in the winding up of assets.

He is to valuable to be forgotten tomorrow, some one would buy him for a dollar (or 100million dollars)

Man if Disney went bankrupt, it would be the biggest Intellectual property auction of the of all time, they have some many characters and Franchises, and hundreds of films in the can, if you cut that cake up and sold it in pieces you would bring in millions.

You could sell existing stars wars films to one group, rights to make future movies to another, merchandise rights to another group, and rights for video game usage to another, do the same with marvel, Mickey and friends, princesses, toy story, nemo, cars etc, break up the music library, sell off the film library piece by piece.


----------



## luutzu (1 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Mickey Mouse is a different story, he is not just a copyrighted character, he is a trade mark, as are some other Disney characters.
> 
> Trade marks and brands are used to distinguish and identify companies and products.
> 
> ...





How much of Disney do you own? 

There's the private ownership, then there's the national ownership. Cultural heritage and what not. Passing from one generation of story tellers and adapted from one to the next to better suit taste and evolution.

If Disney and the studio look hard enough, I'm sure they can find descendants of the Grimms; or Charles Dickens; or relatives of Jane Austin etc. etc.

From what I notice over the years, most if not all movies/content have nothing done to them since original release - where they would have had made their money already. Nothing done beside reprinting it on different format.

But since that constitute effort and copyright ownership for the studios... Why can't ownership of other culture's or long dead artists and poet's work whose relatives did nothing but somehow are not paid a cent by Disney and friends?

OK, the law is there to protect our interests so stuff other people's ownership and royalties if their law aren't as advanced as ours. It's the market, so go sue somebody.

----
I read somewhere that MicroSoft is aware of the pirating of their software but doesn't mind it so much if it's for personal use. Why? It help entrench MS product acceptance when those kids grow up, get a job and decide what software/platform to use at the office.

Got to give some to win some.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> If channel ten has bought the rights in Australia for Seinfeld for 20years, Netflix will not have the right to distribute it to Australia.




If Ten make it available online as soon as it's released overseas then that's no problem. If they try the old trick of holding things back until it suits them then that'll eventually put them out of business as consumers find workarounds (legal or illegal).

It's like the music industry when MP3 became a popular format. They spent far too much time trying to prop up the previous format (CD) rather than embracing the new one and effectively forced piracy as for many years that was the only real means of actually using the MP3 format. The industry spent a lot of time complaining about piracy but seemed to miss the point that they were the ones effectively forcing it (well, unless they thought the Discman was still going to be popular in 2016 and that devices such as smart phones would never be developed). 

Ten etc would be making a rather large blunder if they did the same thing and tried to prop up broadcast TV at the expense of embracing their new role as online content providers with a "heritage" sideline in broadcasting that will likely disappear altogether at some point.

Does anyone seriously think that broadcast TV will be of any relevance in 2030? Will it even still exist?


----------



## SirRumpole (1 May 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> Does anyone seriously think that broadcast TV will be of any relevance in 2030? Will it even still exist?




That depends on how good the Internet is.

With wireless only and a 9Gb package, watching tv on internet is a pipe dream for me.

I don't pirate stuff either. 

TV is rubbish these days, I rarely watch anything apart from news and sport or documentaries and if something good does come along I will shell out for the DVD/BlueRay whatever. 

But maybe I'm just lazy, too much effort in pirating when there is so little worth watching.


----------



## Value Collector (1 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> How much of Disney do you own?
> 
> There's the private ownership, then there's the national ownership. Cultural heritage and what not. Passing from one generation of story tellers and adapted from one to the next to better suit taste and evolution.
> 
> ...




You can rationalise away your piracy all you want, if you want to pirate stuff, nothing I say is going to stop you, I am just saying content is available in so many different forms now, and it's cheaper and in more abundance than in any time in history, why not just pay for the content and keep the system going.

If something means so much to you that you seek it out and go through the hoops of obtaining a low quality pirate, why not just pay the $6 or $4, and if you don't have enough money to buy indivual movies, subscribe to Netflix or some other cheap unlimited package or take advantage of the many routes to obtain free content advert based distribution.


----------



## luutzu (1 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> You can rationalise away your piracy all you want, if you want to pirate stuff, nothing I say is going to stop you, I am just saying content is available in so many different forms now, and it's cheaper and in more abundance than in any time in history, why not just pay for the content and keep the system going.
> 
> If something means so much to you that you seek it out and go through the hoops of obtaining a low quality pirate, why not just pay the $6 or $4, and if you don't have enough money to buy indivual movies, subscribe to Netflix or some other cheap unlimited package or take advantage of the many routes to obtain free content advert based distribution.




I do pay for my content. I just paid some $30 to watch Captain American. Abot $100 on the new Star Wars. Also subscribing to Presto. But will be canceling it and get that free Stan offer with my new Vodafone plan.

But point is, it's not rationalising theft or whatever with piracy with (other) people; it's just the fact that people and corporations will take advantage if it's out there - legal or not legal.

Like I said, if Disney and the studios want people to feel sorry and play fair, maybe they should set a good example and pay a fair and living wage to their employees; or donate to refugees or charitable foundations in countries whose stories they took and profit handsomely from all these decades.

They can't use the law that they also help push for and say well... we Disney don't have to pay for stuff in the public domain; we don't have to pay a living wage when the law said it's fine to exploit people. 

So Disney and the studios should get off that high moral horse and hire some lawyer to scare to heck out of those kids stealing and sharing the files.


----------



## Value Collector (1 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> I do pay for my content. I just paid some $30 to watch Captain American. Abot $100 on the new Star Wars. Also subscribing to Presto. But will be canceling it and get that free Stan offer with my new Vodafone plan.
> 
> But point is, it's not rationalising theft or whatever with piracy with (other) people; it's just the fact that people and corporations will take advantage if it's out there - legal or not legal.
> 
> ...




What percentage of Disney staff earn minimum wage? I bet it's almost none, except trainees etc. 

Disney already does make a lot charity contributions.

-------------------------------

how did Star Wars cost $100?


----------



## luutzu (1 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> What percentage of Disney staff earn minimum wage? I bet it's almost none, except trainees etc.
> 
> Disney already does make a lot charity contributions.
> 
> ...




I went there three times. Two of it taking family members. So it's like watching it 6 times (get it? 6 from 3 visits because it's 3 viewing the new but being told the same story as the original 3. Wait, that should be 12 times ... it's a good movie, no complaint.    Will definitely go watch that Rouge One spin-off/expansion.

No, Disney might/will pay minimum legal wage of $9.50 an hour end this July 2016, and topped-out, or max of $13.57 if certain conditions are met. But if you work for Disney for 40 years, you'd be glad to know you can earn $14.07 an hour by 2017.

Living the dream - just that dream is considered a living wage if you're single, but poverty wage if you got a kid or two.

http://themeparkuniversity.com/disney/depth-look-walt-disney-world-employee-wages/

btw, if American corp. play fair and not lobbied the people's gov't, the people's minimum wage would be $22 an hour, not the $15 they are currently fighting for.



----

VC, don't go over to the Dark Side bro. Just take their money and give it to charities on your own.


----------



## Value Collector (1 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> I went there three times. Two of it taking family members. So it's like watching it 6 times (get it? 6 from 3 visits because it's 3 viewing the new but being told the same story as the original 3. Wait, that should be 12 times ... it's a good movie, no complaint.    Will definitely go watch that Rouge One spin-off/expansion.
> 
> No, Disney might/will pay minimum legal wage of $9.50 an hour end this July 2016, and topped-out, or max of $13.57 if certain conditions are met. But if you work for Disney for 40 years, you'd be glad to know you can earn $14.07 an hour by 2017.
> 
> ...





You are quoting stating wages, for entry level theme park jobs, these jobs are mainly for students and retirees looking for a fun job for some extra spending money. If you think the imagineers, fireworks technicians, ride Maintance crews, animators, show directors, lighting, music, head chefs, hotel management, advertising, and all the other specialist workers are being paid the same as the street sweepers and popcorn guys you are crazy.

Seriously who plans on working a career in an entry level job??? Disney is a huge organisation with plenty of scope for advancement into areas paying very good wages, the head of animation started as a street sweeper, now not everyone is going to become head of animation, but if you looked at figures of what percentage of people that had worked at disney for 5 years or more on average they would be earning a lot more than minimum wage.

---------------

Also I looked it up, Disney gave away $333,000,000 in 2015 to charity, that's a third of a billion, that's a lot.

So trying to make them out as


----------



## luutzu (1 May 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> If Ten make it available online as soon as it's released overseas then that's no problem. If they try the old trick of holding things back until it suits them then that'll eventually put them out of business as consumers find workarounds (legal or illegal).
> 
> It's like the music industry when MP3 became a popular format. They spent far too much time trying to prop up the previous format (CD) rather than embracing the new one and effectively forced piracy as for many years that was the only real means of actually using the MP3 format. The industry spent a lot of time complaining about piracy but seemed to miss the point that they were the ones effectively forcing it (well, unless they thought the Discman was still going to be popular in 2016 and that devices such as smart phones would never be developed).
> 
> ...





Thinking about it, I would be very suprise if the current studio/production/distribution model are still around by 2030. May be around, but won't be as dominant.

News media are dying as we speak. Independent news network on the internet are growing in popularity.. and they are more informed and more progressive and honest in calling out the politicians.

Not many people trust corporate news media... it's on its way out.


Taking news as a model, Netflix being able to produce and distribute their own high quality movies and series... more and more independent artists, documentarians will be able to make quality movies/doco and cheaply distribute it across the world.


----------



## luutzu (1 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> You are quoting stating wages, for entry level theme park jobs, these jobs are mainly for students and retirees looking for a fun job for some extra spending money. If you think the imagineers, fireworks technicians, ride Maintance crews, animators, show directors, lighting, music, head chefs, hotel management, advertising, and all the other specialist workers are being paid the same as the street sweepers and popcorn guys you are crazy.
> 
> Seriously who plans on working a career in an entry level job??? Disney is a huge organisation with plenty of scope for advancement into areas paying very good wages, the head of animation started as a street sweeper, now not everyone is going to become head of animation, but if you looked at figures of what percentage of people that had worked at disney for 5 years or more on average they would be earning a lot more than minimum wage.
> 
> ...




I haven't look but willing to bet that the majority of Disney's staff are those on the $10 going to $13 per hour wage.

$333M sounds like a lot, and good for them to have done it. But what's that in relation to Disney's $52.46 Billion in revenue?

333/52460 = 0.6% of revenue?

What if, let say, all the stories and music and dead creators of work have to be paid for by Disney and studios who adapt them. 

What would the average royalty be? 

A relative unknown author would be paid, from memory, $1 a book for their book sold. Average $30 a book, so 3%?

How much does Buffett get paid for just authorising his biography? $10M up front... probably plus royalties too.

----

If Disney were forced to pay the culture or people whose stories they use... and they only pick famous, well established great work with brand and that moat of mind etc.... 5% royalty sounds fair?

But anyway... that's just for argument's sake.

For the reality of things... pay workers, all workers, at least a living wage. If they can't be asked and make rationalisations to pay as little as possible, and possible partly through them doing lobbying... then they shouldn't complaint when others are taking advantage of loopholes and dark corners against them.

We all believe in free enterprise right? Doesn't always mean corporations get to screw people all of the time.


----------



## Value Collector (1 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> I haven't look but willing to bet that the majority of Disney's staff are those on the $10 going to $13 per hour wage.
> 
> $333M sounds like a lot, and good for them to have done it. But what's that in relation to Disney's $52.46 Billion in revenue?
> 
> ...




Why would you compare a companies charity donations to total revenue? If anything you should be comparing it to their net profit after tax.

but either way, why try and down play charitable giving of a third of a billion dollars?

----------------------------

Any way I think you are clutching at straws here trying to make them look bad, and we have probably gone off topic enough, you have the right to be wrong, so I will leave you with your thoughts.


----------



## luutzu (1 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Why would you compare a companies charity donations to total revenue? If anything you should be comparing it to their net profit after tax.
> 
> but either way, why try and down play charitable giving of a third of a billion dollars?
> 
> ...




Don't companies claim tax on their givings? So more appropriate to compare to revenue than net profit.

I'm not saying Disney is bad or make light of their charity or deny their rights to make profit from their investment.

All I'm saying is that if we, and Disney & Co., believes in the free market and all that... if people are able to take other people's creative work without paying for it, that road will be taken.

And companies like Disney doesn't have any high road or moral authority because they too take things for free when they can; they too exploit loopholes and pay their people the barest minimum etc. etc.

That's just capitalism. Two edge sword.


----------



## Value Collector (1 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Don't companies claim tax on their givings? So more appropriate to compare to revenue than net profit.
> 
> .





No, you should compare it to the amount that would have been available for shareholders if they didn't make the donation.

You don't "claim" tax on donations, you just don't have to pay tax on the dollars you donate.

If I donated $10 to a charity, what's the point of you saving "oh, but your business had revenue of $2000", the revenue is not even close to the profit, which is what the charity payment has to come from.

From the $2000 revenue, I have to pay wages, rent, insurances, cost of goods sold, etc etc, my profit might end up being 5% of the revenue, and the donation might be a large portion of that.


----------



## luutzu (2 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> No, you should compare it to the amount that would have been available for shareholders if they didn't make the donation.
> 
> You don't "claim" tax on donations, you just don't have to pay tax on the dollars you donate.
> 
> ...




Corporations aren't people when it come to giving to charity. Beside Berkshire, and even then the shareholders would still have their own motives and intersts... but in general, corporations "give" to charities for ulterior motives.

One, they can claim, alright, expense or whatever, the amount they "donate" right off the bat.

Two, donations can be kickbacks; free advertising etc. Hello Children, this is Mickey Mouse... these are his friends and we hope you enjoy this one room in this ward, room full of Disney toys and Disney characters plastered all over the walls with this massive Disneyland picture so that you can guilt your parents into taking you and your siblings to the Magic Kingdom, watch Disney movies and enjoy the toys and books and stickers... life is short children. Very very short for some... 

too much? 

Don't mean to bag Disney, or its shareholders, just goose and gander stuff.


----------



## Value Collector (2 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> too much?
> 
> .




Yeah, it makes you out to be a bit of a douche bag


----------



## SirRumpole (2 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Corporations aren't people when it come to giving to charity. Beside Berkshire, and even then the shareholders would still have their own motives and intersts... but in general, corporations "give" to charities for ulterior motives.
> 
> One, they can claim, alright, expense or whatever, the amount they "donate" right off the bat.
> 
> ...




How should we view companies like MacDonalds that invest in places like Ronald MacDonald House for Cancer sufferers and of course they make sure people know who gave the money.

Are these actions altruistic or just advertising ? If they were altruistic then they could obviously give the money anonymously.

Would we allow the investment if it was from say Tooheys, and came with pictures of grog bottles all over the walls ?

Probably having Mickey mouse on the wall isn't as bad as a Ronald McDonald but where should we draw the line ?


----------



## Value Collector (2 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> How should we view companies like MacDonalds that invest in places like Ronald MacDonald House for Cancer sufferers and of course they make sure people know who gave the money.
> 
> Are these actions altruistic or just advertising ? If they were altruistic then they could obviously give the money anonymously.
> 
> ...




I must say it is a bit of a pet hate of mine when people down play good charitable work, it seems organisations are damned if they do and damned if they don't. 

If they don't give back they are "Greedy corporations" if they do give back they must have some other motive or evil plan, or are trying to "profit" from tax credits.

---------------------------------

I find the "They are just doing it to reduce tax" the most annoying argument, it's like the person saying it thinks that a person can donate $1 and some how profit from that and get $1.10 back from the government, that's just stupid.

If a person donates a $1, all that happens from the tax side is that they don't have to pay tax on that $1, So if they earned $100K and gave away $10K, they will pay tax as if they only earned $90K, but they aren't profiting, they still gave away money they could have spent on themselves.

And not all charities are tax deductable, so some people will still pay tax on the full 100K even though they gave away $10K


----------



## SirRumpole (2 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I must say it is a bit of a pet hate of mine when people down play good charitable work, it seems organisations are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
> 
> If they don't give back they are "Greedy corporations" if they do give back they must have some other motive or evil plan, of are trying to "profit" from tax credits.
> 
> ...




I have no problem with organisations making charitable donations, and I applaud them for it , it's a matter of how they go about it. They can give anonymously and deduct it from their tax like individuals and that's fine.

So, I cited the example of Ronald MacDonald House. It's a very visible "donation" and it could be reasonably said that it is advertising in disguise to attract kids to a product which isn't particularly good for them.

You and I don't derive any benefit apart from a reduction in tax for charitable donations, so why should companies ? Maybe they can deduct such things twice, once for charitable donation and again for advertising.


----------



## bellenuit (2 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> They can give anonymously and deduct it from their tax like individuals and that's fine.




I don't think publicly help corporations should be allowed to donate anonymously. Shareholders should have a right to know where their money is going, particularly if it is to a cause that may be controversial and against the wishes of many shareholders.


----------



## Value Collector (2 May 2016)

> I have no problem with organisations making charitable donations, and I applaud them for it , it's a matter of how they go about it. They can give anonymously and deduct it from their tax like individuals and that's fine.



Why would donations have to be anonymous? I think if you made a law making donations anonymous, corporations and indivduals would give less, and less good would be done.



> So, I cited the example of Ronald MacDonald House. It's a very visible "donation" and it could be reasonably said that it is advertising in disguise to attract kids to a product which isn't particularly good for them.




Well it wouldn't be the most effective advertising, I mean there is better use for advertising dollars that get you more exposure, spending large amounts of dollars to target what is a small group of people (small compared to say a footy statium of people watching a team you sponsor)

And remember a lot of those kids you are targeting die.

I mean Luutz accused Disney of only doing charity work to brain wash kids into their brand, How does that work when you are giving holidays to kids with terminal cancer etc, I guess you good say they are trying to build a future customer base from their family, but I think you are really clutching at straws there, a radio competition would get you more exposure.




> You and I don't derive any benefit apart from a reduction in tax for charitable donations, so why should companies ?




I don't know you personally, But I am pretty sure neither you or I has ever given $333 Million away, and I don't think I will ever be able too, So I am not going to do anything to try and stop companies doing good work of that scale, just because there is a chance they may get a slight reward for it





> Maybe they can deduct such things twice, once for charitable donation and again for advertising




Nope, you are operating in fantasyland if you think that.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 May 2016)

bellenuit said:


> I don't think publicly help corporations should be allowed to donate anonymously. Shareholders should have a right to know where their money is going, particularly if it is to a cause that may be controversial and against the wishes of many shareholders.




Donations should certainly appear in P/L accounts, I'm just saying they should not use them to push products.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 May 2016)

> Why would donations have to be anonymous? I think if you made a law making donations anonymous, less corporations and indivduals would give less, and less good would be done.




Would you accept the same from Tooheys or British Tobacco ?

The Rothmans Cancer Care Centre say ?


----------



## Value Collector (2 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Would you accept the same from Tooheys or British Tobacco ?
> 
> The Rothmans Cancer Care Centre say ?




Why not,  I think it would be great if the tobacco companies supported cancer patients, after all they are causing the cancer.

It's not like a Ronald McDonald house is covered in Mc Donalds advertising, and feeding kids happy meals, google some images.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Why not,  I think it would be great if the tobacco companies supported cancer patients, after all they are causing the cancer.




Next you'll be saying that the cigarette companies are great national benefactors because they kill people off so they spend less time on the Old Age Pension !


----------



## luutzu (2 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Yeah, it makes you out to be a bit of a douche bag





Oi, that hurt my feelings. There is a heart in this empty space 

But as McDonald's Ray Kroc said (in a trailer for The Founder), hearts are made to be broke.


Since we're getting musical, a nice little song from Barrett Strong: Money (That's what I want). 




In some other clip, heard he was saying how he was a struggling musician and two of his gf left him because he's dead broke. Then came this song.

With that context, The Flying Lizzard's 1979 version with the lead singer's smugness fits better. The Beatle's version is just too happy.


----------



## luutzu (2 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> How should we view companies like MacDonalds that invest in places like Ronald MacDonald House for Cancer sufferers and of course they make sure people know who gave the money.
> 
> Are these actions altruistic or just advertising ? If they were altruistic then they could obviously give the money anonymously.
> 
> ...




There's a reason why McDonald's House "... mission is to create, find, and support programs that directly improve the health and well being of *children*."

They're not donating to the elderly. Why? Same reason why there's those jungle gym and happy meals with toys.

McDonalds, and I read this in a psychological textbook, have done studies and found that when family goes out, the kids are most influential in deciding where to eat. Parents don't really mind.

So... let's help the children then shall we? Bugger the old folks with their diet restriction and home cooked meals.

Nothing's free I guess.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Oi, that hurt my feelings. There is a heart in this empty space
> 
> .




You took that very well luu, I thought the Vc's post was out of place.


----------



## Value Collector (2 May 2016)

```

```



SirRumpole said:


> I thought the Vc's post was out of place.




I put a smiley face on it, so you can't get offended.


----------



## luutzu (2 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Next you'll be saying that the cigarette companies are great national benefactors because they kill people off so they spend less time on the Old Age Pension !




That's why in poor third world countries with no national healthcare scheme, smoking is good for you. The gov't collect the taxes on it but pays nothing to take care of the sick. 

Australia only got serious about anti-smoking when the tax revenue collected does not cover the health costs they have to fork out.

Got to admire how some people think in Canberra.


----------



## luutzu (2 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You took that very well luu, I thought the Vc's post was out of place.




na, it's his way of saying I'm right. Right VC?


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 May 2016)

So far as corporate donations are concerned, they fit into 3 categories from what I've seen.

1. The very obvious ones eg Ronald McDonald House.

2. Situations where there's some brief mention of where the money's coming from but that's it. Mining company puts a small sign at the entrance to the playground they funded but that's it. Retailer and fuel company puts a sticker on the door of the van they donated and fuel they're supplying which is used to distribute donated food to the homeless. Etc. Tells you who's funding it but it's not much in terms of actual advertising.

3. Anonymous at least without reading the company's reports etc. Those simply using whatever has been funded would have no idea where the money came from.

Personally I don't have a problem with any of those approaches provided that anyone claiming to be sponsoring something is actually doing so. If a car dealer claims to have donated a van to a charity then I expect them to have genuinely donated it. It shouldn't be that they just gave them a 5% discount on the price etc and then mislead people into thinking they gave it away. Etc. Same concept with anything.

There's one company that comes to mind which if you read the fine print "donates a % of profits to charity" or words to that effect. Hmm.... There are others providing the same products which are genuine charity fundraisers as such, all the profit goes to the charity, but this one's just giving an unstated % of profits and hoping that most don't realise it's actually a commercial enterprise retaining whatever % of the profit itself. I'd rather support the others since I never like it when someone aims to mislead.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 May 2016)

Just wondering why people use bitcoin ?

Is it a tax issue, convenience, a way of hiding expenses, what's it for ?


----------



## Tisme (5 May 2016)

bellenuit said:


> I don't think publicly help corporations should be allowed to donate anonymously. Shareholders should have a right to know where their money is going, particularly if it is to a cause that may be controversial and against the wishes of many shareholders.




Absolutely. However it is in business' best interests to seed both the majors to keep stable govt. I remember in the eighties we gave out vast sums to the LNP and Labs in equal amounts and did handshakes for our company newsletters. The shareholder knew exactly what was going on because it was overt and public. They were the days when there was still some esprit de corps in the warring factions ...... then hate visited Canberra in the late 90's and hasn't left town since.


----------



## Tisme (5 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Just wondering why people use bitcoin ?
> 
> Is it a tax issue, convenience, a way of hiding expenses, what's it for ?




It's basically a trade/barter medium, but it also provides a reputation rating of the parties. So if you deliberately do the dirty on someone you are cactus.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 May 2016)

Plain packaging laws survive international court as Philip Morris warned over 'abuse of rights'




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-...l-battle-against-plain-packaging-laws/7420356


----------



## pixel (17 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Plain packaging laws survive international court as Philip Morris warned over 'abuse of rights'
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-...l-battle-against-plain-packaging-laws/7420356




Great news! 
But why does the ruling have to be kept secret? Is the Law such an Ass that the verdict must not become known? Or is it to protect Philip Morris' reputation and avoid embarrassing them even more? Just along the lines of common criminals being mollycoddled and their "rights" protected far above those of their victims?


----------



## SirRumpole (17 May 2016)

pixel said:


> Great news!
> But why does the ruling have to be kept secret? Is the Law such an Ass that the verdict must not become known? Or is it to protect Philip Morris' reputation and avoid embarrassing them even more? Just along the lines of common criminals being mollycoddled and their "rights" protected far above those of their victims?




You are right.

 This shows the danger of International Treaties where things are done behind the scenes. It's one reason I have serious doubts about the TPP where such secrecy will be entrenched.

If the Phillip Morris case was decided in Australian courts, the whole process would have been public (one hopes).


----------



## pixel (17 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You are right.
> 
> This shows the danger of International Treaties where things are done behind the scenes. It's one reason I have serious doubts about the TPP where such secrecy will be entrenched.
> 
> If the Phillip Morris case was decided in Australian courts, the whole process would have been public* (one hopes).*




yeah - about as public as the goings-on in Nauru and other places of "National Security" :1zhelp:
Lawyers! Who needs them!


----------



## SirRumpole (17 May 2016)

pixel said:


> yeah - about as public as the goings-on in Nauru and other places of "National Security" :1zhelp:
> Lawyers! Who needs them!




Agreed, but there is still the principle that independent countries should be able to make their own internal laws without international busybodies sticking their noses in.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 May 2016)

Melbourne Uber driver beats fine in landmark case effectively legalising service in Victoria

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-...er-wins-appeal-for-operating-in-state/7425116


----------



## SirRumpole (19 May 2016)

Ford faces class action over potentially dangerous transmission used in some Fiesta, Focus models


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-...ver-powershift-automatic-transmission/7425098


----------



## pixel (19 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Melbourne Uber driver beats fine in landmark case effectively legalising service in Victoria
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-...er-wins-appeal-for-operating-in-state/7425116




This simply highlights another example of the perils of "Big Government".
*You simply cannot regulate every facet of public life!* Trying to do so will only lead to more bureaucracy, red tape and restrictions that do not contribute anything but higher taxes and charges.

Uber drivers simply prove how much cheaper a "taxi service" could be if Big Government didn't syphon-off hundreds of thousands of Dollars for special licenses, which are then traded even higher by profiteers. If two adults consent to share a drive from A to B in whose car, what more is there to "regulate"? 

The only dispute that could possibly concern the Government would arise if one party comes to grief. But we already have laws and procedures covering both criminal and accidental damage. Taking sexual assault or robbery as examples, it should make no difference whether the crime is committed in someone's home or car, nor whether the victim was a friend, relative, or client of the perpetrator.
But Lawyers thrive on artificial differentiation, and our parliaments are dominated by them. Therefore it's unlikely that common sense will ever prevail.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 May 2016)

pixel said:


> This simply highlights another example of the perils of "Big Government".
> *You simply cannot regulate every facet of public life!* Trying to do so will only lead to more bureaucracy, red tape and restrictions that do not contribute anything but higher taxes and charges.
> 
> Uber drivers simply prove how much cheaper a "taxi service" could be if Big Government didn't syphon-off hundreds of thousands of Dollars for special licenses, which are then traded even higher by profiteers. If two adults consent to share a drive from A to B in whose car, what more is there to "regulate"?
> ...




I completely agree.

 There are areas where government regulation is necessary to prevent rip-offs, but Uber doesn't appear to be one as far as I can see. I think the consumers are capable of deciding for themselves which service they prefer, all you need to know is whether you got a good deal.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 July 2016)

Consumer watchdog fines junk food giants over misleading 'healthy' kids food

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-...ined-over-misleading-kids-health-food/7586108


----------



## SirRumpole (26 July 2016)

Couldn't agree more.

ACCC boss says privatisation costing consumers and damaging economic reform

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-26/accc-boss-says-privatisation-costing-consumers/7662194


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 July 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Couldn't agree more.
> 
> ACCC boss says privatisation costing consumers and damaging economic reform






> The whole idea of asset sales is that the private sector can run them more cheaply than the public sector.




That's a theory that isn't always borne out in practice.

The public sector has its productivity downsides but it also does have its good points and they tend to be overlooked in neo-liberal economic thinking which promotes privatisation as the answer to everything.

Public sector - tends to do things properly in terms of the actual physical things being done. Downside is the "cant get sacked" aspect which leads to some "problem" employees if the relevant department isn't well run. Some departments are run well in that regard but others aren't.

Private sector - tends to work efficiently as such (not always) but is often doing things that are fundamentally inefficient to start with because that's the best way to make a profit through generating future work.

Been there, seen both and in my opinion there's good and bad points in both but it was never true that private could always do it cheaper.

A public servant doing physical work is motivated to do it right so that they don't have to do it again. They get paid the same regardless so may as well get it right rather than having to come back.

Private sector makes more profit if the work lasts 5 years instead of 10. That way they get to come back twice as often, doing each job at 20% less than if public, but the end result is it costs 60% more over the long term (figures are hypothetical but are order of magnitude correct in my experience).

Then there's that old trick of pushing the costs up. Private operator approaches government with a promise of huge savings, say 50%. Whatever it is then gets privatised. Then the private operator waits a year or two and starts ratcheting up the prices. A decade later the price is higher than where it started but work that used to last 20 years now lasts half that time at best because they did everything at the lowest possible cost in the short term in order to maximise profit. 

With the "in house" experience long gone, government now has no choice other than to keep handing your taxes over to the private "provider" of the service no matter what the cost. And don't kid yourself that competition will keep prices down. Sometimes yes, but it's hard to keep the quality up and if it's something specialised then in practice it ends up with at most two or three private suppliers and they're not going to send each other broke that's for sure. Easy money!

The supposedly "inefficient" state-run utilities gave Australia the third cheapest electricity in the OECD, beaten only by Canada and NZ with their large hydro resources. Now Australia is among the most expensive places on earth when it comes to power and there's more cost rises to come. That's the wonders of competition and privatisation for you right there and it hasn't worked. Theory says it works, practice says it's a disaster that has undermined our entire economic competitiveness.

Don't even mention gas, that's probably the biggest blunder I'll see in my lifetime. A key competitive advantage completely thrown away and the private operators aren't even making much profit in doing so. Incredible.


----------



## Tisme (27 July 2016)

The Newman Govt in QLD was appalling in the way it thumped residents with an electricity upward spiral ... the current crowd have had to resort to amalgamation and forced reduction in infrastructure spend on electrical distribution to slow the trajectory. I remember the days of Joh, sure QLD was like a 2nd world country, but electricity was $2/3 of others cheap, water was free, petrol was cheap, hospital treatment was free, weekends were for people and beaches not for retail barons,  cops by and large minded their own lucrative business and left the roads to drivers, .....and there were lots of native bears which are now almost extinct.


----------



## luutzu (27 July 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> That's a theory that isn't always borne out in practice.
> 
> The public sector has its productivity downsides but it also does have its good points and they tend to be overlooked in neo-liberal economic thinking which promotes privatisation as the answer to everything.
> 
> ...


----------



## SirRumpole (31 July 2016)

Consumers warned after complaints surge against solar companies


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-30/surge-of-complaints-against-solar-companies/7666816


----------



## SirRumpole (1 September 2016)

IBM stuffs up another country

80,000 people suffer pay crisis in Canada after IBM system debacle

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-01/canada-ibm-payroll-debacle-echoes-queensland-health/7802944


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2016)

Will our devices kill us ?


Samsung mobile phone explosion prompts mum's concern people are walking around with 'time bombs'


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-07/samsung-phone-explodes-middle-of-night/7823284


----------



## SirRumpole (6 December 2016)

How airlines are ripping us off



> Australia's domestic airlines ripping consumers off, Choice says
> By Lily Mayers
> 
> Consumer group Choice has listed six ways it believes Australia's domestic airlines have been ripping off their passengers and has called on the consumer watchdog to intervene.
> ...


----------



## SirRumpole (27 June 2017)

Buyer beware or lack of regulation ?

Aviation expert warns travellers to think twice before booking with "budget" airlines.

I'm sure most travellers think that if an airline is allowed to fly it is therefore safe, but apparently not so.

Are the regulators falling down on the job ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-...-rethink-on-budget-air-travel-airasia/8653278


----------



## Tisme (27 June 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Buyer beware or lack of regulation ?
> 
> Aviation expert warns travellers to think twice before booking with "budget" airlines.
> 
> ...




The airlines are not in the maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) business and tend to outsource as much of it as they can. MRO is broken down into heavy maintenance, engines, components and line maintenance.

Unfortunately Australia seems to be shy when it comes to gearing up as an outsource destination, so companies like HAECO in Hong Kong cleanup

I would hazard a guess that AirAsia is not unlike Qantas and exposed to the same quality of condition monitoring and prescribed maintenance task, by the same suite of providers.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 June 2017)

Ever get the feeling that you are being watched and ripped off by retailers ?

Well, you are.

*Dynamic pricing: Retailers using artificial intelligence to predict top price you'll pay*



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-...tailers-using-artificial-intelligence/8638340


----------



## SirRumpole (27 June 2017)

Another "market failure" of privatisation ?

*Careers Australia used notorious sales broker Acquire Learning to boost taxpayer-funded student numbers*

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-...ue-sales-broker-boost-student-numbers/8655484


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2018)

Does anyone know of this device (the ad flashed up on ASF). Sounds good if I can cancel my Foxtel sub.

http://thefoxinsider.com/page1/topg...t=94e655045539d2d41749b84aac7c80de&creative=D


----------



## bellenuit (24 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Does anyone know of this device (the ad flashed up on ASF). Sounds good if I can cancel my Foxtel sub.
> 
> http://thefoxinsider.com/page1/topg...t=94e655045539d2d41749b84aac7c80de&creative=D



I think I have seen it pop up on my Facebook newsfeed a few time and when I read the comments, most seemed to indicate it didn't work as advertised. If I see it again, I will post here.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> I think I have seen it pop up on my Facebook newsfeed a few time and when I read the comments, most seemed to indicate it didn't work as advertised. If I see it again, I will post here.




Here is a review of it, but personal experience is better.

http://best-hd-antenna.com/tvfox-antenna-review-2017/


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Here is a review of it, but personal experience is better.
> 
> http://best-hd-antenna.com/tvfox-antenna-review-2017/



I just watched a review and it said it’s a great antenna, and will make a Hd tv work really well.

But, the part about it being able to pick up channels you normally have to pay for is a scam, it’s just a really good antenna, that’s it.

Saying that even if it worked and allowed you to access paid channels for free, that wouldn’t be he right thing to do.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Saying that even if it worked and allowed you to access paid channels for free, that wouldn’t be he right thing to do.




Yes, it's a bit of a moral poser isn't it ? 

Pay $1000 a year for satellite Fox, when I could say give the money to charity or spend on other products like food. It's a problem which I will have to think deeply about. 

<emoticon for deep thought>


----------



## Tisme (25 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Here is a review of it, but personal experience is better.
> 
> http://best-hd-antenna.com/tvfox-antenna-review-2017/




It's just an antenna that might get some free to air cable in the US, but I think you'll find it's a complete dud here.

Aren't you already getting HDtv through your house antenna. Does your TV have a tuner that actually scans the supposedly extra low frequency which is an anathema to HD.

I'm guessing you are still a victim of the NBN so you can't set up a virtual network and stream direct from the US?  Putlocker not work for you?


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2018)

Aren't you already getting HDtv through your house antenna. *Yes *

Does your TV have a tuner that actually scans the supposedly extra low frequency which is an anathema to HD. *Don't know what it scans. What is the extra low frequency range ?*

I'm guessing you are still a victim of the NBN so you can't set up a virtual network and stream direct from the US?  Putlocker not work for you?  *With an 8Gb data limit on mobile wireless and no sign of upgraded phone lines I'm not streaming anything. I'm already pi$$ed off with the lack of good content on Foxtel, I only watch sports on it really.*


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Aren't you already getting HDtv through your house antenna. *Yes *
> 
> Does your TV have a tuner that actually scans the supposedly extra low frequency which is an anathema to HD. *Don't know what it scans. What is the extra low frequency range ?*




Basically all it is doing is picking up the free to air tv channels that might be available in close by cities, that you can't usually pick up because the signal is too weak, so it probably wouldn't be any use in australia, because we are to spread out.

It might help if you need a good antenna though.

I watch this full review, basically the guy said its a good antenna, but it doesn't give you any paid for content.





> Pay $1000 a year for satellite Fox, when I could say give the money to charity or spend on other products like food. It's a problem which I will have to think deeply about.




get the pay tv service, it will boost my dividends.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Basically all it is doing is picking up the free to air tv channels that might be available in close by cities, that you can't usually pick up because the signal is too weak, so it probably wouldn't be any use in australia, because we are to spread out.
> 
> It might help if you need a good antenna though.
> 
> ...





I've had Foxtel for about 10 years, so your daily champagne and caviar is safe.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> so it probably wouldn't be any use in australia, because we are to spread out.



Plus even if someone in Melbourne did manage to receive a signal from Adelaide, Canberra or Tasmania then apart from the evening news the programs will be exactly the same anyway.

The mainland capitals all have 7, 9, 10 and their secondary channels whilst the various regional broadcasters just take a bulk feed from one of the majors and put their own ads and news in (most of which will be sourced from the affiliated major network anyway) plus maybe some local sports coverage.

So an antenna that picks up distant signals is really only of use is you can't presently receive the ABC, SBS, 7, 9 & 10 from a local source.


----------



## bellenuit (25 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Here is a review of it, but personal experience is better.
> 
> http://best-hd-antenna.com/tvfox-antenna-review-2017/




I wouldn't rely on those reviews. They seem to be just an advert for the product and lack independence. Look at the description for that website at the bottom of that page: _Best HD Antenna is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.
_
Personally I would be interested in the product if it provided free to air with a quality as good as a proper outdoor antenna.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> I wouldn't rely on those reviews. They seem to be just an advert for the product and lack independence. Look at the description for that website at the bottom of that page: _Best HD Antenna is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.
> _
> Personally I would be interested in the product if it provided free to air with a quality as good as a proper outdoor antenna.




There's only one way to find out I suppose...


----------



## bellenuit (25 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> There's only one way to find out I suppose...




If you buy it can you post your review here please.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 February 2018)

Who does this guy think he is ? 

Damn cheek.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-...ir-property-at-less-than-market-value/9404078


----------



## Tisme (18 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Who does this guy think he is ?
> 
> Damn cheek.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-...ir-property-at-less-than-market-value/9404078





I was doing that 14 years ago. It's a different feeling ... not one of charity, more like sharing a fortunate situation without fanfare ...... old school I guess.


----------



## bellenuit (18 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> I was doing that 14 years ago. It's a different feeling ... not one of charity, more like sharing a fortunate situation without fanfare ...... old school I guess.




Would the ATO take a dim view of it, particularly if you are not reducing claimable expenses to match rent forgone vs market rent, or does that only apply to mates rates?


----------



## Tisme (18 February 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Would the ATO take a dim view of it, particularly if you are not reducing claimable expenses to match rent forgone vs market rent, or does that only apply to mates rates?





I just paid/pay tax.  I don't negatively gear if that is what you are getting at


----------



## bellenuit (18 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> I just paid/pay tax.  I don't negatively gear if that is what you are getting at




No, that is not what I meant. If you have a rental property that should command a market rent of $12,000 pa and you rent it to a friend or family member for just $8,000 pa say, then if your total rental expenses come to $6,000 pa, the ATO will say that only $4,000 of your rental expenses are deductible. You are renting for 2/3rd it’s market value, so you can only claim 2/3rd of the rental expense. This is to ensure that not-at-arms-length tenants aren’t used to abuse the system.

I was just wondering if the same applied if you are doing it for charitable reasons especially when the tenant is not friend or family.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 February 2018)

bellenuit said:


> No, that is not what I meant. If you have a rental property that should command a market rent of $12,000 pa and you rent it to a friend or family member for just $8,000 pa say, then if your total rental expenses come to $6,000 pa, the ATO will say that only $4,000 of your rental expenses are deductible. You are renting for 2/3rd it’s market value, so you can only claim 2/3rd of the rental expense. This is to ensure that not-at-arms-length tenants aren’t used to abuse the system.
> 
> I was just wondering if the same applied if you are doing it for charitable reasons especially when the tenant is not friend or family.




So in that case, investors who leave properties vacant and therefore collect no rent but still try and deduct interest expenses should not be allowed any deductions ?


----------



## bellenuit (18 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So in that case, investors who leave properties vacant and therefore collect no rent but still try and deduct interest expenses should not be allowed any deductions ?




Yes, that's the law. They cannot claim rental expenses if the property is available for rent and they deliberately do not rent it. If for instance it is a holiday property that is periodically rented and periodically used by the owner, they can only claim that portion of rental expense attributable to the times it is rented (as a portion of the year). If not rented at all for the full year, then they cannot claim any rental expense.

However, in general, any expense or portion of expense not claimed against rental income because of the above, gets added to the cost base of the house and will reduce capital gain when the property is sold.


----------



## basilio (18 February 2018)

The defination of "market rate" for a property is flexible. Real Estate agents will attempt to convince owners they should extract the maximum dollar from tenanats. Many property owners (myself included) take a different perspective and decide that good tenants are worth keeping and don't  accept the advice to maximise rental income. The difference  can be anything between 5 and 15% but after one has been done over by poor tenants or poor agents quality and certainty usually win out.

The proposal to persuade some investors to drop $30 a week  for "worthy" tenants sems feasible.


----------



## bellenuit (18 February 2018)

basilio said:


> The defination of "market rate" for a property is flexible. Real Estate agents will attempt to convince owners they should extract the maximum dollar from tenanats. Many property owners (myself included) take a different perspective and decide that good tenants are worth keeping and don't  accept the advice to maximise rental income. The difference  can be anything between 5 and 15% but after one has been done over by poor tenants or poor agents quality and certainty usually win out.
> 
> The proposal to persuade some investors to drop $30 a week  for "worthy" tenants sems feasible.




I agree, it is flexible. And one could well argue that a 15% discount to the maximum attainable is still a market rate taking into account quality of tenants etc and would not fall foul of the ATO. But my question was purely inquisitive. I was simply wondering if a substantial discount to market rates for the purpose of providing a charitable community service would be viewed by the ATO in the same way they view mates rates, where the purpose of the latter is to provide assistance to a family member or friend at the expense of ATO revenue and is also open to abuse (the tenant and owner splitting the amount of tax saved between them).


----------



## SirRumpole (19 February 2018)

bellenuit said:


> I was simply wondering if a substantial discount to market rates for the purpose of providing a charitable community service would be viewed by the ATO in the same way they view mates rates, where the purpose of the latter is to provide assistance to a family member or friend at the expense of ATO revenue and is also open to abuse (the tenant and owner splitting the amount of tax saved between them).





Such people are providing a service to the community by providing housing to those who can't afford to pay the market rate, they are reducing the need for social housing and taking the pressure off government, why on earth would you want to discourage such generosity ?


----------



## Tisme (19 February 2018)

bellenuit said:


> No, that is not what I meant. If you have a rental property that should command a market rent of $12,000 pa and you rent it to a friend or family member for just $8,000 pa say, then if your total rental expenses come to $6,000 pa, the ATO will say that only $4,000 of your rental expenses are deductible. You are renting for 2/3rd it’s market value, so you can only claim 2/3rd of the rental expense. This is to ensure that not-at-arms-length tenants aren’t used to abuse the system.
> 
> I was just wondering if the same applied if you are doing it for charitable reasons especially when the tenant is not friend or family.




I'm fairly lazy when it come to deductibles. I don't bullsh!t improvements and then depreciate them like the other 2 million public servants whose bank owns their negatively geared, simple interest loans. I improve and tend to just pay for a lot of it out of pocket.

I have professional CPAs to do my accounts who are quick to point out how I'm not allowed to do things, even when I'm not even contemplating doing them... score keepers are boring t1ts.


----------



## bellenuit (19 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Such people are providing a service to the community by providing housing to those who can't afford to pay the market rate, they are reducing the need for social housing and taking the pressure off government, why on earth would you want to discourage such generosity ?




I never said I am trying to discourage it, I was simply asking the question whether the ATO has issues with it. Even though you are doing a charitable act, that doesn't mean the ATO will accept it. If I give $100 to a homeless person on the street, I cannot claim that as a deduction, because charitable deductions only apply to donations to recognised charities.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 February 2018)

If you buy something, you don't have the right to repair it apparently.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/20...s-in-the-us-fight-for-right-to-repair/9470658


----------

