Ron Paul Channel Monthly Fee...

[brandon]

Is he gonna issue DMCA takedowns to people who try to republish his content outside of the paywall?

 

[randpaul2016]

Probably would have been better to ask for donations rather than a fee.

stupid idea

Jeepers. $9.95/12 episodes = $.83/episode. That's 83 Cents. Just skip buying a pop 3X per week.

If $.83 cents 3 times per week is gonna break the bank then you've got real problems. See if you can put it on your EBT card. lol

was about to post something like this hahaha

keep paying for you xboxlive, HBO subscription, NETFLIX...it makes you think...

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Is he gonna issue DMCA takedowns to people who try to republish his content outside of the paywall?

He should. It is his property.

 

[randpaul2016]

yo guys ronpauldotcom posted that ronpaulchannel episode on youtube



didnt ron paul and them at ronpauldotcom have beef? any updates?

looks like this is a shot at ron paul? But in their video descriptions they are supporting him, I am confused.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRonPaulChannel1?feature=watch

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

yo guys ronpauldotcom is posted that ronpaulchannel episodes



didnt ron paul and them at ronpauldotcom have beef? any updates?

looks like this is a shot at ron paul

Ron Paul lost his case against ronpaul.com. There are details somewhere on this site, I think it is in HT. As I recall (and I could be wrong here), but the panel decided that Ron Paul did not have any claim to the domain and that the owners of ronpaul.com were not acting in bad faith.

 

[Matt Collins]

Is he gonna issue DMCA takedowns to people who try to republish his content outside of the paywall?

It's possible he may not even own the content, especially if he is using a company.

He should. It is his property.

Actually it's not "property" (at the risk of starting another "IP" debate).

 

[dannno]

He should. It is his property.

His goal is to distribute the program to as many people as possible so that it grows in popularity, so no he shouldn't necessarily do that.

However shows need a source of funding to remain on - so there is a balance of how to achieve both the funding and the audience.

Remember that Facebook became popular because it was free AND had no advertising. If you saw the movie, the theme was how the guy who helped to try and fund it wanted money back early on but Zuckerburg refused to place ads on the site because he wanted Facebook to be the biggest thing imaginable at the expense of short term profits. So he put off profits until later and eventually became a billionaire. Something to think about.

 

[McChronagle]

"Infuriatingly, we have seen some whining from what Thomas E. Woods Jr. so aptly calls the libertarian moochers over the fact that there is a subscription fee to access the Ron Paul Channel. Do people think that television studios and equipment and producers and researchers, etc. grow on trees? That a news source not beholden to the usual military industrial complex related big advertisers should be sustained by pixie dust somehow? The idea that paying the equivalent of one six-pack of beer — two McValue meals — per month to enjoy and support this unique and valuable venture is just too outrageous? Really? It should be free?" says Daniel McAdams.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/ron-paul-channel-what-a-blast/

 

[randpaul2016]

Ron Paul lost his case against ronpaul.com. There are details somewhere on this site, I think it is in HT. As I recall (and I could be wrong here), but the panel decided that Ron Paul did not have any claim to the domain and that the owners of ronpaul.com were not acting in bad faith.

okay but THEY are posting up his episodes and made a RONPAULCHANNEL youtube....


can you say 'copyright'?

 

[fr33]

Yeah I'm such a "moocher"

 

[supermario21]

How much material on this channel is going to be different than the stuff we can read at mises.org, lewrockwell.com, TST, or even on the mises youtube channel or other youtube searches? I can hear Judge Nap on Fox and read him online, same with Tom Woods and the others who will probably be heavily featured on Ron's TV channel.

 

[MelissaWV]

I'm saying it's too much money. I might change my mind if subscribers convince me the content is that good. But I say that as "Charter Member" of the Ron Paul Institute. (means I donated a couple hundred bucks to it) Don't you think those of us who would make such a donation should get a free membership to his tv channel? I feel like emailing them about this but gosh... it's basic customer service as opposed to what could be suspected as skimming money from supporters.

The best thing about Congressman Ron Paul is that he had a public stage available to spread the message. I wouldn't say he's the best speaker. In fact I do think there are better speakers who are spreading the same message in online media, for free.

I'm focusing on it being too much money only because I don't want to pay for it. I can find a better value elsewhere. Ron is just going to be telling me what I can hear in any liberty media.

Now if he want's to make the channel free and take donations, I'll likely donate. Not for myself but to help such an organization reach OTHER PEOPLE.

In all fairness, you're saying you should get a credit towards the subscription fee, not that $10/month is too much for a Ron Paul Channel. It's a little different. The post is spot-on, though.

"Infuriatingly, we have seen some whining from what Thomas E. Woods Jr. so aptly calls the libertarian moochers over the fact that there is a subscription fee to access the Ron Paul Channel. Do people think that television studios and equipment and producers and researchers, etc. grow on trees? That a news source not beholden to the usual military industrial complex related big advertisers should be sustained by pixie dust somehow? The idea that paying the equivalent of one six-pack of beer — two McValue meals — per month to enjoy and support this unique and valuable venture is just too outrageous? Really? It should be free?" says Daniel McAdams.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/ron-paul-channel-what-a-blast/

Jeepers. $9.95/12 episodes = $.83/episode. That's 83 Cents. Just skip buying a pop 3X per week.

If $.83 cents 3 times per week is gonna break the bank then you've got real problems. See if you can put it on your EBT card. lol

was about to post something like this hahaha

keep paying for you xboxlive, HBO subscription, NETFLIX...it makes you think...

Yes, it does make you think. It makes me wonder why people don't pause and really think of the point. You will absolutely get enough people subscribing to self-sustain the project. I have no doubt about that. $10/month is not a lot to hear from Ron since I LOVE RON PAUL. $10/month would be a lot to pay to get to hear anything from, say, Elizabeth Jane Sanders. Who's she? Well you have to pay $10/month to find out. See how that works... which is to say, how it doesn't? People who don't know about Ron, or who only have a bad or lukewarm impression of him, might hear people talking about an episode on some subject or another. They are not going to subscribe to watch it. They are either going to look for the free YouTube of it (oh look! one has reliably appeared!), or they will get over the momentary inclination to watch it at all.

That's okay, though. So we have it narrowed down to a few choices already, then? If you don't subscribe, then you are either poor, a libertarian moocher, too stupid to "get it," or a total NeoCon or something.

No idea why this movement doesn't inspire a large influx of people.

 

[FreedomRings]

1. Make it free.
2. Encourage viewers to spread the show in any way they can.
3. Ask for donations at the end of each episode.
4. Don't insult your potential audience. (That's for you, Daniel McAdams)
5. Profit.

 

[fr33]

In all fairness, you're saying you should get a credit towards the subscription fee, not that $10/month is too much for a Ron Paul Channel. It's a little different. The post is spot-on, though.

Instead I've been called a "moocher" by the asshole that calls himself the Executive of RPI. Apparently I've made a mistake in donating. Ignoring me would have made more sense. Instead I've been inspired to never donate again to such a cause. They are nothing but crooks.

 

[jjdoyle]

The campaign ended with more than a million on hand, still has more than a million on hand as of the end of June.

If nobody in Ron Paul 2012 or Ron Paul's family that is helping with this have a clue that you can make money off of YouTube videos THAT's a big problem. Again, as some have rightly pointed out, if this is for those that are brainwashed by the mainstream media (MSM), I doubt they're going to pay for it.

As for comparing this to Netflix, and other subscription models, it's pretty bad actually. This is a very limited deal. Three shows a week, about 45 minutes each for $10 a month? Hearing Ron Paul's thoughts on regurgitated news as already reported on by the MSM?

Netflix's subscription is only $8 a month, HuluPlus is only $8 a month. Why does Ron Paul Channel need to $2 more than well established streaming services that provide more content, and even documentaries with Ron Paul in them?
Does Ron Paul Channel have kids cartoons or a program about politics for kids? I think GBTV has that.

Here's what I would like to know. Why, after running Ron Paul 2012, and ending the campaign with more than one million cash on hand, would you want to continue to ask supporters that gave their all for more money? I mean, this is clearly for the "core" Ron Paul supporters, and not those that are brainwashed by the MSM, so what is the point of this exactly and why does paying for it make sense?

I'm guessing Ron Paul could probably get a weekly segment on a radio station and do these same things with interviews, even get paid for it, and have it go out to the masses for "free" at the very least. Now, it's going to be up people to "steal" the content over to YouTube.

MAYBE, just MAYBE they'll put the episodes up on something like a Netflix or HuluPlus service? At least then the audience becomes much bigger for them, and has potential to reach more of the MSM crowd.

 

[Keith and stuff]

keep paying for you xboxlive, HBO subscription, NETFLIX...it makes you think...

Isn't RPC 25% more expensive than Netflix with a million times less content?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Isn't Netflix 25% less expensive with a million times the content?

For $10 a month, shows like Tom Woods' upcoming radio/podcast show need to be hosted and featured. I love Ron, but 3 episodes of 45 minutes a week just isn't going to cut it at that price. This needs to be a liberty channel at this price, with several different programs and on-air talent.

 

[Matt Collins]

The campaign ended with more than a million on hand, still has more than a million on hand as of the end of June.

​In your short amount of time that you've been here, have any of your posts been positive at all, or are you just a detractor who is trolling?

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

okay but THEY are posting up his episodes and made a RONPAULCHANNEL youtube....


can you say 'copyright'?

Oh I totally agree with you. I was just giving you the quick info on the .com case.

 

[jjdoyle]

​In your short amount of time that you've been here, have any of your posts been positive at all, or are you just a detractor who is trolling?

You continuously are attacking people, calling them dense, trolls, slow, etc. Lying about the campaign, and trying to defend its lies throughout. I like how you try and continue ad hominem attacks, because you don't like the truth apparently. The campaign still has more than a million on hand, well, at least just over a month ago they did in June 2013.

If you're concerned with my posts, perhaps you should look at my history. Then again, you are one to deny history and make excuses for and defend a campaign that was actively lying to supporters.