[mankash666]

Yes indeed. There era of entitlement is upon us - "unless CBS gives away all their free content without tracking and monetizing me, I'll illegally pirate their content - because in 2018 I'm entitled to CBS content without frills"

[chris_wot]

I’m not saying I’ll be doing this - but All-Access consumers pay money to access content. Why should they be tracked to an inch of their lives?

There’s nothing “entitled” about wanting to maintain your privacy.

[chris_mc]

The problem is that there's no alternative to "free plus ads or tracking" for most services. If I could pay a reasonable fee for all the content and services I need, I'd do it. I can do it some places, but other things just aren't available.

[SargeZT]

That's not the case with CBS. You can absolutely pay for CBS All Access.

[acdha]

Do they turn off the ads if you pay? Many sites don’t offer a no-ad option at any price.

[monochromatic]

Even if they don’t display the ads, I’d expect them to keep tracking.

[eslaught]

For the record there is a level you can pay for CBS All Access that turns off the ads (at least on original content, which is I assume the only reason anyone would sign up for it anyway). It costs more than the ad-full version, but that's basically what you're asking for, right?

But like sibling said, they are presumably still tracking you. I don't think consumers have really become aware enough of tracking for "no ads, no tracking" to be a viable thing yet.

[myWindoonn]

Hi! You're part of today's Lucky 10000.

CBS, whose 'B' stands for 'Broadcasting', historically has used electromagnetic radiation ("radio waves") to transmit a variety of media, more-or-less continuously, for many decades. As a result, they have become known for publishing large amounts of content under a fairly permissive and flexible scheme.

Since CBS's content is already widely publicized, by the nature of broadcasting, CBS is effectively but one of many republishers of their already-broadcast media. While CBS is free to charge a premium for access to their archives, there's no good reason why other members of the public must charge or force users to jump through hoops.

I will grant you that the law gives CBS some ability to remove competitors from the market, but since CBS does not charge for access to their initial broadcasting, it does not follow that delayed rebroadcasts which do not charge are inherently violating the spirit of copyright. It seems particularly insulting to imagine that my entitlement to something broadcast decades ago might rest solely on whether or not I had remembered to program the VHS tape deck as a teenager.

[mankash666]

What's this bull-shittery supposed to evoke? Sympathy for your lack of understand of copyright law, or your bull-shit entitlement to CBS' content, or just how disconnected you are from content economics?

Ever run a content business? I bet no. Ever run any business? I guess not - fundamental rules of economics relies on a quid-pro-quo transaction that you seem to not understand.

Or, since geniuses like you have cracked the media market - you should start your own channel - where content is free of copyright and there's zero need for return on investment. Apply to YC while you're at it

[dang]

Since you've persisted in posting flamewar-style comments after we asked you several times to stop, we've banned this account.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [e-mail] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. That means posting civilly and substantively, or not at all.

[andybak]

I have my occasional niggles (mostly about pedantic editing of post titles) but goddamit sometimes I love the mods on HN.