If the actors/actresses didn't get these ridiculous salaries there'd be no need for so many ads.
I think that's a catch 22. If you where the star of a show making $5000 per episode and found out that each episode was turning a profit of $3,000,000 then you'd probably want a higher salary since your effort is making someone else so much money. Just like with movie actor's salaries if an actor becomes more popular more people come to see their movies and the movies make progressively more money and of course the actor would want a higher salary.
If you could subscribe only to the specific programs that you wanted, and in doing so receive them free of advertising, but pay all costs via your fees, , what would your cost per hour be?
As good as this seems on paper, along with the idea of being able to only subscribe to the channels you want I think the reality of it would suck. I believe that if the revenue model for television had always been a subscription per show or even channel basis then a lot of shows/channels would have never existed. If you look at what shows are popular now then I hope you LOVE reality TV and want to watch all 17 variations of Survivor and American Idol that would come to be. I hope you don't like sci-fi because there wouldn't be enough money in it to make any of those shows. The fact is I (and probably a lot of others) watch a LOT of TV we wouldn't pay specifically for.
If the shoes you bought were subsidized with taxpayer money would you still feel right about it? What if you go get free food from the homeless shelter and then turn around and sell it for profit?
A lot of countries subsidize textbooks so they cost next to nothing for the general public. This guy is profiting off of public good will.
If that's true then the sale of those items should be better controlled. If I walk into a government subsidized bookstore and they let me buy 1000 copies of the same book and walk out the door then there is a problem.
The absence of labels [in ECL] is probably a good thing. -- T. Cheatham