[hncommenter13]

I'm sorry but this is a classic episode of WMFS syndrome (aka, "where's my free shit?"). You can't have exactly what you want, when you want it for free, so it's someone else's fault. If you wanted the show, you could watch it right now. But you don't want it $3.99 (?) worth, or whatever iTunes/AMZN charges for it.

Since you didn't avail yourself of the opportunity to watch it the first few times you had the chance, you pay for the privilege. You might not like it, but that's how it goes. You can't walk up to an airline and buy the same seat at the same price the day before it leaves, either, so this sort of price discrimination is hardly remarkable.

First, as you say, you did have the chance to watch the over-the-air broadcast (for which Murdoch should pay you/the gov't for use of the airwaves; if you don't like the current financial arrangement, write your Congressman). You didn't avail yourself of that opportunity.

Next, you could have DVRd it, as you say. But you didn't, for whatever reason.

Now you are upset that Hulu Plus doesn't have it. Do you yell and scream when the public library doesn't happen to have purchased the book you want? Because you pay for those books too. Go get a refund from Hulu Plus, if you're unhappy, but it's an economic decision not to make it available on Hulu Plus or on Fox's website.

The fact is, you had several chances to watch without paying more out of pocket. You missed them, so now you have to pay, if it's important to you. That is no one's fault but your own.

Update: formatting

[sullivandanny]

$125 per month for DirecTV. $7 per month for Hulu Plus. $7 per month for Netflix. Where do you see me saying I wanted it for free?

The fact is, I can have it on demand and for free if I want to watch it through my computer. Or hook my computer up to my TV. Fox provides it this way.

But if I want to watch it through a Roku or Google TV, from the same exact web site, from the same exact data stream, then I can't.

And I can't, because, Fox is afraid that if they do it that way, I won't pay all the money I'm already paying to DirecTV in the first place.

So lesson learned? I shouldn't bother with any of the payment options in the first place.

[hncommenter13]

Forgive me. Your complaint is that you can't watch it on the device you want at exactly the time you want for free. (Though if it's on Neflix streaming, one would think you could watch it via Roku.)

Anyway, I think we agree that Fox is making a business decision, just like you make a business decision to provide some of your content for free on the web and some for pay at your conferences.

So your quibble is with the choice of devices. But your post (and reaction above) counts up the amount you are paying, and implies that Fox is being atypically greedy (or myopic) for not making it available on the specific device you want at no additional charge.

My complaint is that you're couching an economic argument--you want to pay +$0, Fox wants $0.99--in moral terms, which smacks of the entitlement to which I object.

[sullivandanny]

I'm not saying Fox is being greedy. I didn't argue that they shouldn't charge me anything. I didn't argue that I should get anything for free.

I argued that I'm already paying them at least once with cold hard cash for that content, twice if you want to count Hulu Plus, where until last year, they also distributed the content. Three times, if you want to count my Netflix subscription.

Despite all of this, I cannot get last week's episode from them through any device I use where I actually have paid them cash.

But if I want to open my laptop, they'll give me or anyone who has paid nothing the episode for free -- and if I want to hook my laptop up to my TV, then it's on my TV.

That's the argument: despite paying them, I'm getting less than if I paid them nothing at all. That's a broken business model, to me.

They "gain" only two things by doing this. One, it's less convenient to stream from my laptop to my TV, so potentially I will prefer to buy some type of cable or satellite TV subscription. But I already have that.

Two, they potentially prevent me from abandoning cable or satellite TV -- cutting the cord -- and going with all web streaming. But that's a false assumption. If anything, they're encouraging me to cut the cord more. That's because with Netflix and their own web site, I'm getting better service than if I didn't have DirecTV at all.

[DanBC]

You appear to have missed the point.

OP wants to pay. OP is, in fact, paying. OP could easily get the content for free, because that's how it's delivered by Fox. Except Fox, for some reason, won't provide the free content in a form usable to the OP on the device where OP is already paying for the content.

[tomflack]

"Except Fox, for some reason, won't provide the free content in a form usable to the OP on the device"

I'd like to emphasize that Fox actively have done work to make it unusable on his device. If they'd done nothing it'd work fine.

[tnuc]

>I shouldn't bother with any of the payment options in the first place.

Many people on HN don't pay for any content. It's no secret how they do it but there is probably something in the rules that would see me stopped.