Thunderdome 2015 » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: Internet Links
Topic: fox broadcasting hates you
started by: Malcolm

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 22 2013,10:40

< Fuck you, Fox >.

Posted by Cakedaddy on Feb. 22 2013,10:45

Even more interesting is was CBS did. CNET found the hopper to be best in show for something. CBS owns CNET and said "No, they don't get that award because we are suing them too". So, CNET changes their opinion and it's not best now? Awesome. CBS controls what CNET thinks is cool. . . .

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 22 2013,11:00

And the major networks wonder why most of their intellectual "property" gets pirated left and right.

Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 22 2013,11:38

If I were in charge at Dish, I'd disable those particular channels from working through that Hopper service and instead have them transmit an image saying something like "Fox has determined that you may not watch this program that you have paid for access to in the manner you wish. Please email peter.rice@fox.com with any questions on this topic."

(Peter Rice is the CEO of Fox)

Change as appropriate for CBS, etc.

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 22 2013,11:41

Fuck, I might actually switch to Dish if they did that. As it stands, Dish up where I live still sucks magnitudes of order harder than Comcast.

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 22 2013,12:33

Dish sucks period. I equate DISH subscribers with Apple cultists.

I'm actually with Fox and CBS here.

Let me clarify:
-No, I don't agree with what CBS did with CNET.
-I also don't have enough information on the "on the go" feature to know how that's hurting the networks.

However, DISH should not assume it has the right to rebroadcast said programs. More importantly, they certainly shouldn't assume they have the right to help their customers skip commercials.

You hippies can scream to the heavens that you should get everything for free or that corporations should have the right to sell another corporation's property, but I didn't vote for Obama.

Commercials are important. They fund the shows you watch. FF through them, sure, but there's no record of that. Now if DISH has x number of subscribers, and 90% of them use the commercial skipping tech, then advertisers can pay less. That means the next Star Trek series will look more like TOS than Enterprise.

With profits from commercials already falling, networks are in trouble. It's why you see more and more reality shows rather than things like Chuck. I'm sure FOX will allow DISH to use the "on the go" feature, they probably just want to charge them licensing fees for it. Personally, I think they should have the right to do that.

End of the day, FOX isn't suing because they hate you. They're suing because someone else is making profit off of their shows without FOX seeing a dime of it. If DISH doesn't hate you, they'll go to FOX, offer them 50% of the profits from "on the go", and FOX will drop their objection.

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 22 2013,13:10

QUOTE

Fine, they pay less. Then I say distribute the commercial-skipping tech to everyone. Even if I have time to watch something live, I DVR it because I refuse to watch commercials anymore; they're overly long and obnoxious. It doesn't matter the show or sporting event, I will not watch it live. The end result is I don't see the adverts. If someone removes them for me, I'm all for it.

If Show X is broadcast with fewer/less frequent/shorter commercials whereas Show Y has modern day prime time broadcast commercial interruptions, I'll pick X every time. Instead of several minutes of bullshit make-believe scenarios to make me buy a product, how about a handful of five- to ten-second sound blurbs to remind me every 15-20 minutes that various sponsors that forked out cash to make the entertainment happen? In short, commercials as they sit nowadays are things that make want to watch live TV less. If Dish beams out shows in a way that makes me want to watch them more, I'm not going to begrudge them. I consider it quality control on advertisers. Now, if they force the commercial skippage, then that's another matter.

QUOTE

More importantly, they certainly shouldn't assume they have the right to help their customers skip commercials.

Fuck that. They're helping me do something I already do myself. Not DISH's fault the advertisers can't seem to make up commercials that don't annoy the piss out of the audience to the extent of making them zip through said shit.

QUOTE

With profits from commercials already falling, networks are in trouble. It's why you see more and more reality shows rather than things like Chuck.

I'm sorry the bloated network budgets for shows can't handle shit like writing, preparation, rehearsal, and a host of other things equated with a fully staged dramatic production since the dawn of theatre. Maybe they should spend less time pissing off their screen-watching consumers by letting them fast-forward through shitty adverts.

Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 22 2013,14:38

QUOTE

Commercials are important.

Your argument is essentially that if we pretend that people still watch commercials, then it'll all be okay. Screw that, it annoys viewers like me and it's bad for the advertisers as well. The only people that have any right to be happy with commercials anymore are the Nielsen Ratings guys, because they're still getting away with their scam.

No, it's better to be truthful. The idea that you can force a viewer to watch an ad in the middle of your show is done. No one below retirement age is still watching those ads, and certainly not the coveted 18-34 demo. Move on and find other better ways to fund entertainment, ways that don't scam advertisers and annoy viewers.

This is just yet another case of the entertainment industry trying to continue to do business as if we're in the 1900s, when in reality the world of entertainment delivery has just gone through the single largest technological shake-up in history in the last decade. They can fight it all they want, but if they don't change then they will go out of business, and sooner rather than later. That's not opinion, that's just simple economic fact.

Posted by Cakedaddy on Feb. 22 2013,15:12

What's the difference if I save the program on my DVR and watch it upstairs as apposed to watching it on my phone? It's not being rebroadcast. It's being watched on a device other than the one it was recorded on. I'm not piping it into the sports bar's network so everyone at the bar can watch the programming.

And how are dish subscribers like apple people? I've never been exposed to that. I was with dish for a number of years, but recently switched to WOW, and now to. . . hell, I don't even know. I honestly would have to turn my TV on to see who I'm paying. I don't think it's direct TV though, because I don't remember them installing a new dish. But anyways, I've never heard anyone worship a cable provider before. And, for the record, I never really had a problem with dish. I switched because I got cheaper prices and better tech (bigger DVR on more TVs) than dish. They all seem to leapfrog each other with tech offerings.

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 23 2013,12:31

QUOTE

Fine, they pay less. Then I say distribute the commercial-skipping tech to everyone. Even if I have time to watch something live, I DVR it because I refuse to watch commercials anymore; they're overly long and obnoxious. It doesn't matter the show or sporting event, I will not watch it live. The end result is I don't see the adverts. If someone removes them for me, I'm all for it.

If Show X is broadcast with fewer/less frequent/shorter commercials whereas Show Y has modern day prime time broadcast commercial interruptions, I'll pick X every time. Instead of several minutes of bullshit make-believe scenarios to make me buy a product, how about a handful of five- to ten-second sound blurbs to remind me every 15-20 minutes that various sponsors that forked out cash to make the entertainment happen? In short, commercials as they sit nowadays are things that make want to watch live TV less. If Dish beams out shows in a way that makes me want to watch them more, I'm not going to begrudge them. I consider it quality control on advertisers. Now, if they force the commercial skippage, then that's another matter.

Mr. Malcolm, what you've just said, is one of the most insanely, idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point, in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to ANYTHING that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

(That was straight from memory. How'd I do?)

Now seriously, let me break down your core points:
1. You don't want to watch commercials and support DISH because they help you skip them.
2. If advertisers want you to watch them, they should make them more interesting.

QUOTE

I'm just going to assume you were drunk when you posted all that because...W...O...W...

Without wasting a lot of time trying to debate you on your "logic", let me just say that you're 100% correct.

BUT only IF networks make money based on who watches their shows, and not who watches their commercials. Oh, and it's free or ultra cheap to make TV shows, hire good writers, directors, actors, etc. Let's not forget the marketing and broadcasting of said shows.

And how the hell are you seeing that commercials are getting better if you're always skipping them?

Let me apply your argument to another product:
Swanson should try making the food in their TV dinners more edible like cooks have been doing since the dawn of time. Until then, I'm going to support Giant Eagle because they let me take Swanson TV dinners home without paying a single dime for them.

Now before you get your fingers flying in response, keep reading.

QUOTE

This is the argument I was hoping someone would make.

There is NOTHING is your argument that is wrong. In fact, search this site and you'll see me making the exact same argument several times. I've worked in TV, I know exactly how advertising works, what it pays for, and how the numbers are complete bullshit. I also know that advertisers are finally realizing it too.

However, in this case, that argument doesn't apply.

Look, we can talk until we're blue in the face about how commercials are old school, don't work, nobody watches them, the Nielsen ratings are a fraud, etc. Nobody here is arguing that commercials are awesome and work perfectly.

But how does that give DISH the right to market a technology that allows customers of someone else's product to not pay for said product? And that's essentially what is happening. (Just talking about the skip commercials feature.)

Things are changing there, but until commercials don't represent revenue, I think networks (the major ones and/or cable) have the right to defend their revenue source.

By the way, don't think ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX are the only ones waging this war. Cable networks are fighting this fight as well.

QUOTE

Like I said, I don't know enough about the technology to see what's really going on, but as I said, I'm betting it's a potential revenue stream.

For example, look at ESPN and ABC's mobile networking apps and how they work. I assume that FOX, CBS, and NBC will be following suit.

The networks used to not care if their shows were re-broadcast by websites. Did you know that? Then they realized those websites were making money off their shows. I think this is basically the same thing.

Like I said, FOX might not even be developing a mobile app for viewing their shows, but they might want the right to charge DISH a bit more to broadcast their shows via similar apps.

Everything I've written boils down to companies protecting their revenue sources, and preventing other people from profiting on their work without getting their piece of it. This is all Business 101.

Please don't come back arguing how the networks need to hire Spielberg to direct commercials and make them interesting because that's not the issue, let alone reality.

And don't come back arguing about how networks need to change their business model. That's also not the issue at hand, despite the truth in it.

QUOTE

And how are dish subscribers like apple people? I've never been exposed to that.

I've been exposed to it a lot lately. FB is full of posts with people asking about cable providers, dish providers, etc. and nobody is more irrationally vocal than folks with a dish in their yard.

The thing that drives me nuts about it is just incredibly ignorant they are about the technology and how their service compares to cable providers. ESPECIALLY when internet service is brought up.

On top of that, when I did work in TV, let's just say that I didn't see the best of dish subscribers (any dish based service). I was there during the "local broadcasting rights" fiasco when the dish services were blatantly lying to their customers about their rights to broadcast the major networks. But that's a story for another day.

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 23 2013,13:09

QUOTE

Things are changing there, but until commercials don't represent revenue, I think networks (the major ones and/or cable) have the right to defend their revenue source.

By that logic VCRs never would have been legal. Fuck those things. If you want to watch your favourite flick, pay for it at the vid store, the cinema, the on-demand channel, or wait until a major network shows it, you know, so they don't get cheated out of their money and the advertisers don't lose those precious, precious seconds of their dancing shit parading in front of my eyes again.

I can't remember the last time I bought some shit because I saw it on TV. Quite the opposite in fact. Subaru's constant barrage of annoying adverts is precisely what made me boot them from consideration when I was going to buy a car. I refuse to support media that won't adapt to the current century. This isn't the '50s where there are only six fucking channels and no internet.

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 23 2013,18:03

QUOTE

By that logic VCRs never would have been legal.

How did you reach that conclusion?

There's a HUGE difference between "Fast Forward" and "Commercial Skipper". Where that difference matters the most is in court.

Nothing else you typed has anything to do with the topic at hand, but since you typed it up...

QUOTE

If you want to watch your favourite flick, pay for it at the vid store, the cinema, the on-demand channel, or wait until a major network shows it, you know, so they don't get cheated out of their money and the advertisers don't lose those precious, precious seconds of their dancing shit parading in front of my eyes again.

I honestly don't really understand your point here, but I will say that you ranting on and on about advertising is pretty interesting. What do you think pays for a show or determines if it stays on the air? What do you expect to be the revenue model for networks (cable and major)?

I mean, it seriously just seems like you're mad that you're not getting something for free and it REALLY pisses you off that they have the gaul to try and protect their intellectual property so they can make money. Did you vote for Obama?

QUOTE

I can't remember the last time I bought some shit because I saw it on TV. Quite the opposite in fact. Subaru's constant barrage of annoying adverts is precisely what made me boot them from consideration when I was going to buy a car.

Again, I have no idea how this applies to the current debate, but good for you! Take a stand! However, I'd like to point out that nobody notices unless you write in or you actually have a Nielsen book.

QUOTE

I refuse to support media that won't adapt to the current century. This isn't the '50s where there are only six fucking channels and no internet.

But you do support them. Watching another channel? You're supporting the system, just another operator in that system. Using Netflix, On Demand, Hulu, or anything like those services? Then you're supporting it.

Do you watch live sports? ESPN? Then you're supporting the system.

The only way to not support this system is to never watch anything, and write in to everyone to complain, and start a non-profit to spread the word on how dumb the system is...

OR you could work within the system and show networks and sponsors that you ARE watching shows you like, and give those shows more life. Again, go wiki Chuck and see how viewers saved that show by campaigning a show sponsor.

You're arguing everything from a very emotional, and honestly, unrealistic point of view. Entertainment is a business. Someone has to make money. If the folks in charge can't make money, then you don't get entertainment because nobody is paying to have it made.

You're pro-capitalism. I really don't understand the stance you're taking here. I mean, I think the system sucks too, and really needs to change, but I'm firmly grounded in the reality of the situation.

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 23 2013,18:08

By the way, this is a movie quote that I thought would be funny to say there. So hope you didn't think I was being offensive:

QUOTE

Anyone know the movie?

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 23 2013,18:24

It's that one flick with that talentless dude from SNL and Airheads and that chick that married Pete Sampras.

EDIT: I realized "talentless dude from SNL" isn't exactly narrowing it down.

Posted by GORDON on Feb. 23 2013,18:49

(Leisher @ Feb. 23 2013,21:08)

QUOTE

By the way, this is a movie quote that I thought would be funny to say there. So hope you didn't think I was being offensive:

QUOTE

Anyone know the movie?

Billy Madison

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 23 2013,19:23

QUOTE

that chick that married Pete Sampras.

I thought she married Ben Stiller...?

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 23 2013,20:50

(Leisher @ Feb. 23 2013,21:23)

QUOTE

that chick that married Pete Sampras.

I thought she married Ben Stiller...?

< Ben wishes >. He married the chick from Zoolander.

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 24 2013,09:47

< Advertising >. In fact, this link is doubly awesome. Not only does the comic hate on the biz, but you see plenty of advertising on that website that doesn't take up your entire viewing space for minutes on end.

QUOTE

What do you think pays for a show or determines if it stays on the air? What do you expect to be the revenue model for networks (cable and major)?

I'll give a definition specific to TV here. What pays for a show is stupid suits thinking that renting time in a staggered fashion on other people's eyeballs is viable economics. When a commercial comes on, the response is:

1) flip to another channel (if live)
2) fast forward (if recorded)
3) refill the chips, take a piss, grab another round of drinks, etc.

Not to bust the secret out, but shit no one watches is not a viable economic model.

QUOTE

Entertainment is a business. Someone has to make money.

Yep. And if TV can't handle the concept of not trying to make me buy shit every 7-13 minutes, then I suppose other forms of entertainment get to step in and fill the void.

Does any MMO piss you off every 10 minutes with by jacking your screen with a car insurance commercial? No.

Does the latest album you bought contain random audio ads for Coke in between tracks? No.

When I'm reading a website, does my screen occasionally get popups that suck up the entirety of my view? Sure, but in a few seconds, they're gone. Not minutes.

Hell, even movie theatres, who are becoming increasingly large bastards, even block all the commercial bullshit at the beginning. Why can't TV even fucking do that?

And let's talk about entertainment. It's easier to be entertained if you're more immersed in something. Know what's anti-immersing? Fucking ads every 15 minutes. There isn't even a Broadway play that's had the balls to call intermission four times an hour in the hopes of boosting concession stand sales.

Posted by GORDON on Feb. 24 2013,10:15

I get the "free" nature of broadcast TV needing advertising revenues to pay for production.

I don't get pay channels still having commercials, and a magnitude worse, a for-pay internet TV streaming service like Hulu Plus charging you $10/month, and STILL FUCKING PUTTING COMMERCIALS IN THE SHOWS.

Which is why I don't have Hulu Plus.

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 24 2013,11:29

QUOTE

Which is why I don't have Hulu Plus.

Probably saving that feature for Hulu Double Plus Premium.

Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 25 2013,07:17

QUOTE

But how does that give DISH the right to market a technology that allows customers of someone else's product to not pay for said product?

Clearly under our current laws they don't. There's no debate about that.

You are talking about what the law is. What the law is is completely outdated and irrelevant to our modern world and there's no point in discussing it. I'm talking about what should be.

The bottom line is thanks to modern technology I now have the freedom to enjoy my entertainment when and where and how I see fit. Whenever those preferences match up to what the content corporations are offering then I will happily watch it legally. When they do not I shamelessly pirate. I would be happy to pay to watch all of it legally in my preferred manner, but if they will not offer that option then I will steal it. They've made their choice, and I've made mine, and if they don't want my money then so be it.

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 25 2013,09:53

As i said earlier in this thread:

QUOTE

Please don't come back arguing how the networks need to hire Spielberg to direct commercials and make them interesting because that's not the issue, let alone reality.

And don't come back arguing about how networks need to change their business model. That's also not the issue at hand, despite the truth in it.

So you're way off topic, but I'll respond anyway. Just understand that I don't disagree with you that commercials are out of date, and nobody watches them. However, you need to understand that until the whole business embraces change, they're necessary to pay for the creation of the shows you watch.

Now onto the post...

QUOTE

Actually, it seems to be working pretty well for them.

Is it stupid? Yes.
Do people watch commercials? More than you think, less than they claim. (You even watch them more than you think...)
Is this model out dated? Yes.
Are there better ways of doing this? Yes.

Again, none of which relate to the topic at hand. You should start a new thread called, "Why TV commercials are stupid, and how they should be done." (We could do a separate one on ads in magazines.)

QUOTE

Does any MMO piss you off every 10 minutes with by jacking your screen with a car insurance commercial? No.

You are actually incorrect here. Several MMO and F2P games have advertising. Not only is in game advertising a thing, but entire games have been created around marketing icons.

QUOTE

Does the latest album you bought contain random audio ads for Coke in between tracks? No.

Really? Trying to reference another out dated business model to support your argument?

Well, for the record you're comparing apples to oranges here because one is free, while the other is a product you purchase. However, aren't advertising inserts pretty much standard for albums these days? So you're paying AND getting advertising.

QUOTE

When I'm reading a website, does my screen occasionally get popups that suck up the entirety of my view? Sure, but in a few seconds, they're gone. Not minutes.

Pop ups and ads all over the place. This is probably your worst example because you're essentially saying you're ok with advertising perpetually in your face as long as it doesn't last minutes.

QUOTE

Hell, even movie theatres, who are becoming increasingly large bastards, even block all the commercial bullshit at the beginning.

What are you talking about? Those commercials at the beginning of movies are there because of the theater, not the movie makers. That's been the number one new source of revenue for theaters over the past few years.

QUOTE

Why can't TV even fucking do that?

I honestly don't know how else to explain it.

If advertisers didn't think people were watching their commercials, they wouldn't give money to the networks and TV stations to air them. Thus, the networks and stations wouldn't have money to spend on programming. If they don't have money to spend on programming, then fewer shows are made, and they'll lean heavily on the really cheap ones. So in your world, it's all Honey Boo Boo and Housewives of [insert city name here] all the time.

Networks have toyed with commercials since forever. They're thought about moving them all to the bottom and top of the hour, but they know people would tune out. More importantly, advertisers know that, and thus, wouldn't pay for those slots.

QUOTE

And let's talk about entertainment. It's easier to be entertained if you're more immersed in something. Know what's anti-immersing? Fucking ads every 15 minutes. There isn't even a Broadway play that's had the balls to call intermission four times an hour in the hopes of boosting concession stand sales.

And yet millions tune into the Super Bowl excited more about the ads than the game.

Millions tuned in last night to watch the Oscars and The Walking Dead.

You know I can do this all day.

The point is that this is how it currently works. Is it dumb and out dated? Yes. However, you can scream until your blue in the face, but it's not going to change anytime soon, and it CAN'T until new revenue models are in place.

QUOTE

You are talking about what the law is. What the law is is completely outdated and irrelevant to our modern world and there's no point in discussing it. I'm talking about what should be.

Well, first please revisit where I said don't come at me with how things should be because that's not the issue at hand...

It's not fair to talk about a topic that exists in the now, and apply the future to it as if that's a fair comparison. It's also not fair to say that just because something that is still in use is outdated, we shouldn't even be discussing it. Such an attitude is ridiculous, and isn't going to help change things.

It'd be like my arm getting cut off, and then me bitching to my doctor that he isn't using nanobots to recreate my arm, instead of discussing my actual alternatives.

QUOTE

The bottom line is thanks to modern technology I now have the freedom to enjoy my entertainment when and where and how I see fit. Whenever those preferences match up to what the content corporations are offering then I will happily watch it legally. When they do not I shamelessly pirate. I would be happy to pay to watch all of it legally in my preferred manner, but if they will not offer that option then I will steal it. They've made their choice, and I've made mine, and if they don't want my money then so be it.

As an individual user, I do not begrudge you the right to get your content through whatever means you wish.

Although, I liken your choice to able bodied adults sitting home collecting welfare while others work and have their pay taxed to pay for it.

A bit harsh, yes, but honestly, you pirate the content to skip all the ads, and if everyone did it, piracy wouldn't be an issue anymore because there wouldn't be anything to steal. That makes the folks who do watch the commercials, the workers who pay taxes.

So please don't attempt to pretend that your piracy is on some higher ground morally.

Also, nothing you said addresses what you find acceptable in terms of advertising (the current revenue stream) or what you'd change it to...

Personally, I prefer commercials to product placement. Using Chuck and Psych as my examples, their product placement moments are not only jarring, but they make the show seem cheap.

I think shows should all have a major sponsor like the old days. "Chuck is brought to you by Microsoft. Check out the new Surface Pro." Then during the show, the characters can use the Surface and Windows, but not go over the top talking about them. Once a show has a major sponsor, allow the sponsor a one minute commercial break at 15 and 45 minutes (or 4 30 seconds ads at 10,20,40, and 50 past the hour), and a 3 minutes break at the top and bottom of each hour for other advertisers.

Until NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC, and all the cable networks that are currently "free" (technically, they aren't) start charging for their shows, we're going to have to deal with some advertising.

And AGAIN, I'm on your side. I think the way advertising works right now is stupid. The advertisers have a hunch that it's not as effective as it's sold, while the TV people don't want to admit that. It's a big lie that everyone smiles and pretends isn't an issue because that's what they have right now. Does it need to change? Yes. Is technology forcing the issue? Yes.

However, as it stands right now, my position is the reality. It's inarguable. We're not going to change it by pirating or bitching.

You want to change it? Write advertisers. Either tell them their commercials stop you from buying a product, or if they discover a subtle way to advertise (like the Microsoft one I proposed), tell them you really appreciate it, and you'll strongly consider buying their products now.

NBC kept Chuck on the air because Chuck's fans went to Subway and bought subs and said they were there for Chuck. Subway responded by putting money into Chuck to keep it on air.

Your wallet talks a lot louder than your mouth (or fingers).

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 25 2013,10:39

QUOTE

Do people watch commercials? More than you think, less than they claim. (You even watch them more than you think...)

I doubt it. Back in the day, I somehow got on the list of "survey folk for pilot TV shows." Every now and again, some potential pilot for some god-awful sitcom would get shipped out to me. The questions post-viewing were always related to the ads. Describe the ad to me in terms of persons, places, things, etc., I'll recall it. Start mentioning brand names, logos, etc.? Blank.

QUOTE

Several MMO and F2P games have advertising. Not only is in game advertising a thing, but entire games have been created around marketing icons.

Yes, but fucking WoW, in game, doesn't have a 30-second cutscene in which Blizzard tries to sell me their other games. I didn't say "no adverts" I said, they aren't taking away the primary reason I'm interacting with the media being advertised on. To use an analogy, the flick Mac and Me was clearly created to cash in on the E.T. craze and sell certain product. The entire movie is an advertisement; however, they aren't actually inserting McDonald's commercials straight into it, so you can theoretically watch it as a (shitty) film.

QUOTE

I think shows should all have a major sponsor like the old days. "Chuck is brought to you by Microsoft. Check out the new Surface Pro." Then during the show, the characters can use the Surface and Windows, but not go over the top talking about them.

If this gets overall commercial time and frequency down, I'd be for it. It's far less invasive than the status quo.

QUOTE

And yet millions tune into the Super Bowl excited more about the ads than the game.

Obscene amounts of cash and planning go into those ads, certainly more than the budgets for single 30-minute episodes of a show, and it all gets blown in 30 seconds.

QUOTE

However, aren't advertising inserts pretty much standard for albums these days? So you're paying AND getting advertising.

What album insert gets into my mp3 downloads?

QUOTE

This is probably your worst example because you're essentially saying you're ok with advertising perpetually in your face as long as it doesn't last minutes.

Perpetually? Not even close. My browser, my connectivity rules. In addition, people develop plug-ins for the browsers to block/skip annoying popup ads. It takes me two seconds to close a popup ad if it does get through.

QUOTE

So please don't attempt to pretend that your piracy is on some higher ground morally.

Fuck morality, this is pragmatism. It means the veto power is on my side. I will find the content, someway, somehow. If all of TV shuts down due to lack of advertising revenue and innovation, fuck them, it's their fault for sticking to a philosophy that's been outdated. I have other media I can turn to for amusement.

Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 25 2013,10:46

QUOTE

A bit harsh, yes, but honestly, you pirate the content to skip all the ads...

Not really. I watch a lot of YouTube shows, and I don't begrudge them the ads. I don't pay attention, but that's no different from with regular TV.

I pirate because I don't want to watch these shows at a particular time or in a particular place or on a particular piece of equipment that they insist I use. I watch it at my times in my place how I wish. This usually means no ads, but I don't do it because there are no ads. There are plenty of other reasons.

Also, whenever possible I still often find a way to pay the content creators, especially in the case of independent artists. Sometimes I buy DVDs that I immediately throw away. Sometimes I buy t-shirts that I don't give a shipping address for because I don't want it. I just want to give them money.

Sometimes that can be harder than you'd imagine it would be.

QUOTE

So please don't attempt to pretend that your piracy is on some higher ground morally.

Never even hinted that it was.

It isn't about right and wrong. It's about what technology does and does not allow. And they can't stuff everything back into Pandora's iPod.

Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 25 2013,10:56

QUOTE

It's not fair to talk about a topic that exists in the now, and apply the future to it as if that's a fair comparison. ... It'd be like my arm getting cut off, and then me bitching to my doctor that he isn't using nanobots to recreate my arm, instead of discussing my actual alternatives.

Hardly. It's more like bitching because your doctor isn't helping you get a modern prosthetic but instead insisting that you need to have one of those old Victorian style sculpture prosthetics because he knows a guy that makes them and selling them to you is how he makes his money.

QUOTE

It's also not fair to say that just because something that is still in use is outdated, we shouldn't even be discussing it.

Of course we can discuss this if you want to. It's pointless, though, the way you've outlined it. What is the case here is clearly that Dish can only show programs to their customers in the way that the content providers approve of, because the providers can cut them off at any time for any reason they desire because they own the rights to the content. What's to discuss about that? That just leaves discussing how things should be, but that's not allowed in this thread. So, nothing left to discuss.

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 25 2013,11:22

Seriously Malcolm, you're so far off topic we might as well be talking about League of Legends.

QUOTE

So your experience = the experience of all human life.

Ok.

Let's just completely ignore the fact that advertisements are still water cooler topics.

QUOTE

Remember loading screens? Remember how companies would put ads in them? Now it's all product placement (racing games are the best at this), and ads on their sites, and ads in their launchers, etc. Don't forget commercials prior to their videos, ala YouTube.

They don't currently have traditional commercial breaks, but don't think they can't implement them.

Also, why do you insist upon comparing apples to oranges? Maybe I should write my car's manufacturer and ask why the top speed isn't equal to an F-16's?

QUOTE

Obscene amounts of cash and planning go into those ads, certainly more than the budgets for single 30-minute episodes of a show, and it all gets blown in 30 seconds.

Depends on the year, commercial, and show. (Don't forget about salaries...)

But again, wtf does that have to do with the issue at hand? Or anything for that matter? I've seen fucking brilliant commercials made for peanuts during the summer, and terrible commercials that cost millions during the Super Bowl.

QUOTE

What album insert gets into my mp3 downloads?

And of course your album just turned into a download...

Fine, there's no insert in your album, but you know all those ads on the website or app you purchased from? That's advertising. Oh, and again, apples to oranges. Paid versus free.

QUOTE

*sigh* Yes, perpetually. If it wasn't perpetually, you wouldn't need the plug in now would you? And since you haven't put 2 and 2 together yet, what happens if courts rule DISH can't block ads? Aren't pop up blockers doing the same thing? Haven't you noticed how advertisers are hiding the "X" these days? And did you know they consider it a win if you find the "X"? It means you're looking at their ad.

QUOTE

Reality
Malcolm's head

Great, you're willing to let all TV shows cease to exist because you can't be bothered to PRETEND to watch 3 minutes of ads. Good for you. You're like Ghandi!

Thank goodness everyone sees things exactly like you do, and those other forms of media/entertainment don't have any similar issues in their future...

QUOTE

So when FOX releases their mobile app that allows you to watch their shows, with commercials, but you have to pay some additional fee, you're going to sign right up?

Again, there's a bullshit justification going on here. I understand what you're saying, and I don't completely disagree, but there's a lot of horseshit too. Because Hulu, Netflix, DVRs, etc... The technology is there to fit within their model while viewing what you want, when you want, but you choose not to do so.

Again, I don't give a fuck. Just pointing shit out.

QUOTE

Also, whenever possible I still often find a way to pay the content creators, especially in the case of independent artists. Sometimes I buy DVDs that I immediately throw away. Sometimes I buy t-shirts that I don't give a shipping address for because I don't want it. I just want to give them money.

Sometimes that can be harder than you'd imagine it would be.

No, I know EXACTLY how hard that can be...

You do nothing most of us haven't done...except the t-shirt thing. That's a bit odd.

Again, I don't disagree with much of what you and Malcolm are saying, I'm simply pointing out the reality of the business.

QUOTE

However, as it stands right now, my position is the reality. It's inarguable. We're not going to change it by pirating or bitching.

You want to change it? Write advertisers. Either tell them their commercials stop you from buying a product, or if they discover a subtle way to advertise (like the Microsoft one I proposed), tell them you really appreciate it, and you'll strongly consider buying their products now.

NBC kept Chuck on the air because Chuck's fans went to Subway and bought subs and said they were there for Chuck. Subway responded by putting money into Chuck to keep it on air.

Your wallet talks a lot louder than your mouth (or fingers).

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 25 2013,11:31

Dammit. I hate it when you work on a post and then someone else posts while you're writing.

QUOTE

I straight up disagree with you there. Your example is completely incorrect. In your example, the technology exists, is proven, and properly used.

That simply isn't true. Yes, the technology exists...maybe?...however nothing is in place, it isn't tested, etc.

Maybe if you had said, experimental prosthetic...

QUOTE

Actually, I didn't start the thread, nor was I responsible for taking it off point...

And yes, the way "I've outlined it". Because simply not examining the current system, ignoring that there are no proven systems in place to replace the revenue, providing no realistic solutions, and just saying "fuck them, I'm stealing everything" is a "discussion".

My bad.

Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 25 2013,11:42

QUOTE

I understand what you're saying, and I don't completely disagree, but there's a lot of horseshit too. Because Hulu, Netflix, DVRs, etc... The technology is there to fit within their model while viewing what you want, when you want, but you choose not to do so.

Not really. I'm not willing to spend money on specific hardware just to make them happy. If I can watch it on my Raspberry Pi (running RaspBMC) then that's what matters to me. Hulu? Fuck no. Netflix? Already got it. Fox's theoretical ap? Not a chance in hell they'll release it to XBMC.

There are no justifications here. No excuses, no bullshit. I watch it when I want and how I want. I pay for it where I can pay for it to get it how I want when I want, but sometimes I can't and when I can't I don't let that stop me. I'm not willing to play their bullshit games with platforms and DMCA protections and whatnot. And certainly I don't lose any sleep over it. If they aren't willing to join the modern world, that's their choice.

If in your eyes that makes me a bad person, then I still don't give a shit. *shrug*

But I thought we weren't supposed to discuss things like that in this thread...

EDIT:

QUOTE

I hate it when you work on a post and then someone else posts while you're writing.

Heh, same to you.

Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 25 2013,11:49

(Leisher @ Feb. 25 2013,13:31)

QUOTE

Yes, the technology exists...maybe?

Of course it does. It's on office desktops across America. It's called a computer. Technology is not a road-block here in the slightest, it's business practices that are the problem.

I'm not saying there are industry accepted tried-and-true alternate models of revenue generation in place that they should use but aren't. Of course not. But there are literally dozens of different models that other people besides the giant corporations have been using quite successfully. Perhaps they should look into those and find what might work for them.

But until they give up on trying to sue everyone on the planet into submission they won't ever start to consider alternate models.

EDIT:

QUOTE

You do nothing most of us haven't done...except the t-shirt thing. That's a bit odd.

Comes from those independent artists, mostly. More than once the only way I could find to give someone money is they were selling t-shirts. T-shirts I didn't like or want. But that I ordered and paid for and then gave them their own address as the shipping address or no address at all.

Oh, and in one case it was shot glasses. I don't really drink.

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 25 2013,12:17

QUOTE

There are justifications, you're just trying to convince yourself that there aren't. No matter what, you're justifying your actions to yourself or you wouldn't do them. That's human nature.

"I'm not willing to play their bullshit games with platforms and DMCA protections and whatnot."

Justification.

However, that's beside the point.

What I'm saying is that the current system needs to have its flaws exposed, new solutions proposed and put in place, and then we can move forward and get away from this false system of Nielsen ratings and intrusive commercials. That's where discussions need to occur. That's where consumers, who want to see change, need to be vocal, and that involves discussing the situation as it stands and realistic possibilities to replace it. So far in this thread, I'm the only one doing either.

Malcolm is just ranting at "the man", and you're just talking about how you don't need to care about any of this because you'll just pirate what you want. So forgive me, but I don't really consider that a good discussion of the topic at hand.

QUOTE

But I thought we weren't supposed to discuss things like that in this thread...

It's funny that you typed that. I deleted it, but at the end of my last post I had quoted your previous statement along that line of thought and wrote the following:
"Ever notice how people lose debates on forums, and then drag it out, try to confuse the issue, and then "win" on a technicality that doesn't even relate to the original debate?"

QUOTE

That's fair, but not...

We don't know what the networks are doing. I mean realistically, we have no fucking idea. FOX might be suing because they have a huge new technology driven initiative coming out later this year. So it's unfair to judge their lawsuit with anything but speculation.

I will say that more than you can believe, these networks are driven by viewers. They're not on Myspace creating pages for their anchors because the public isn't on Myspace. They're huge corporations, and you might think one email doesn't mean shit, but it can mean everything. Try writing FOX and telling them how you'd like to see their content delivered. Malcolm, you write whomever, and tell them you would like to see less commercials, and more product placement or up front show sponsors.

And no, I don't think the technology currently exists for every solution. The means might exist, but not the actual hardware or application.

I wonder if a major network would be willing to try my idea of having a major sponsor get behind a show, and then have very limited commercial interruptions?

By the way, I realize DVR exists, but did you know most households still don't have it? Thus, commercial breaks still exist for those folks.

That's a BIG factor we forget on these forums. We are far more technologically advanced than your average person. Thus, we see things in a different light. This thread is a great example because we're talking about stuff the networks can literally just be developing because the vast majority of their audience isn't anywhere near ready for it yet. Meanwhile, for us, the networks are behind the times.

QUOTE

If you honestly do that, I respect it.

I hear a lot of folks talk about piracy and how they get the game later, and yada yada. I don't buy it for a second.

It's exactly why I'll typically wait until I can get something I KNOW I'll love. I don't want to pirate it, love it, and then lose my luster for supporting the devs. By making that purchase up front, it's out of the way, and I know I'm supporting good folks/ideas.

QUOTE

If in your eyes that makes me a bad person, then I still don't give a shit. *shrug*

Never said you were a bad person. I don't assume that at all.

Although, I think you should take a portion of the effort you used to try and debate me, and send a mass email to every network you can get an email address for and let them know to pull their heads out of their asses. I think your efforts would do more good there, then here arguing with me.

Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 25 2013,12:49

Hmmm, do you have a difference between the meaning of the words "justification" and "reason"?

QUOTE

We are far more technologically advanced than your average person.

I disagree. I think for our general age group we're a pretty typical spectrum, technologically. Younger folks trend slightly more tech savvy, and older folks trend a lot more "why's the screen gone all fuzzy?!"

QUOTE

...send a mass email to every network you can get an email address for and let them know to pull their heads out of their asses...

Here's somewhere we certainly disagree. I'm pretty sure I would have an exceptionally hard time finding one entertainment exec that gave a damn about what I think.

QUOTE

I hear a lot of folks talk about piracy and how they get the game later, and yada yada. I don't buy it for a second.

I don't know if it applies to games, but it certainly does to music. There've been a few studies along these lines, and in many cases (not all, but a large enough amount to be very statistically significant) when people stumble across an artist they like through their illegal mp3 downloads, they have a stronger tendency to purchase more music from that artist in the future instead of stealing it. There really are a lot of people treating torrents as a free sample before purchase sort of thing. Not as many as just steal it, but way more than the content corporations would ever be willing to admit to.

I don't really torrent music or games, myself. Just video.

Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 25 2013,16:33

Oh, and books. I also torrent some e-books because my preferred e-reader doesn't play nice with most DRM. There I'm most diligent of all about making sure to pay for it somehow, but that's probably because it's easier to identify the single individual most responsible (the author).

Anyway, it occurred to me on the drive home that the difference we may be having about the word "justification" may be related to morality. I don't consider what I'm doing to be immoral, or at worst about as immoral is driving five miles per hour over the speed limit. It's certainly illegal, but illegality and immorality are two different things. These days they're barely related at all.

Despite what the software companies tried to teach you in the 80's, copying is not theft. The key part of theft is not that you now have something you shouldn't, it's that whoever had it before you no longer does. That denial of ownership to the rightful owner is the most egregious part of theft. When something is copied, it is not taken away from the originator. They still have it.

If it were something you would have paid for - all other circumstances being equal - then it is indeed slightly immoral because the content creator is not getting paid. Not as immoral as theft, but a lesser immorality. About on par with speeding and not turning yourself in to pay the fine, which takes away potential ticket revenue from the local constabulary. Or about as bad as someone in a high-rise apartment building sitting on the balcony and watching the baseball game going on in the stadium below them, because they aren't paying the ticket price. In none of these cases is the crime as egregious as breaking into someone's house and taking away their stuff. It barely registers as wrong at all, and certainly not enough to require someone to "justify" why they did it.

Now distributing copyrighted material to others is indeed a bit more immoral. The people seeding the files for anyone to take are doing a bigger wrong to the content creators. Still not as big as theft, though. Those who make copies and turn around and sell them for monetary gain, those are very much in the wrong and up there with theft in terms of immorality. That's digital piracy in it's original definition before the corporations started smearing everyone with the word, and it's actually causing damage to the industry. Individuals copying for their own use is not piracy, it's not theft, it's something else we don't really have a word for yet as far as I know. And it's not particularly immoral.

Of course you are going to say this is all more justification, but I will disagree with that. I don't spend any more time "justifying" to myself why I am content to copy stuff when other means are too inconvenient than I do justifying why I didn't slow down for the yellow light and ended up running the red this morning. I hadn't really considered it in detail at all until trying to explain it here.

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 25 2013,17:05

The Man? Whatever. TV isn't the only video entertainment media/interface around anymore. I look forward to the demise of its advertising as more and more people fast forward or are automatically skipped past the audiovisual hostage takers, fifteen to thirty seconds at a time. Entertainment, with fewer commercial interruptions and shorter fucking durations. I can see the ad campaign now...

"The difference between us and our competitors? Our commercials only waste five seconds of your time."

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 04 2013,12:09

< PA's post >.

QUOTE

So, imagine that advertising and those who are made to look at advertising are locked in a constant struggle not unlike that between infectious organisms and organisms that don’t want to get infected. They co-evolve in various ways; they circle each other in a tense orbit, until a development on either side alters the board. Susceptibility to traditional commercial messages has been almost completely bred out of the stock. You have to hide it now, like when you secret a massive pill in a glistening heap of Fancy Feast.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 04 2013,12:21

I don't think the struggle is that bad. I think a TON of people watch ads. I know I do when watching live sports, for example. I don't like it, but I watch them.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 04 2013,12:29

And since I don't watch live sports, and 99% of everything else I watch is DVR'd and streamed over the internet, then I get to watch TV for free.... after I pay the $150/month for cable modem and satellite TV w/DVR, that is.

And that is why I am personally offended by commercials when I already pay a shitload of money to watch TV.