|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
Malcolm 
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
 |
Posted on: Feb. 22 2013,10:40 |
|
   |
Fuck you, Fox.
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Cakedaddy
Group: "Members"
Posts: 6241
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted 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. . . .
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 22 2013,11:00 |
|
|
And the major networks wonder why most of their intellectual "property" gets pirated left and right.
Edited by Malcolm on Feb. 22 2013,11:02
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
TPRJones
I saw The Fault in our Stars opening night.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 12384
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted 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.
--------------
Vidi Perfutui Veni
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 22 2013,11:41 |
|
|
Fuck, I might actually switch to Dish if they did that. Â As it stands, Dish up where I live still sucks magnitudes of order harder than Comcast.
Edited by Malcolm on Feb. 22 2013,11:42
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted 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. Â 
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.
Edited by Leisher on Feb. 22 2013,12:33
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 22 2013,13:10 |
|
|
QUOTE 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.
Fine, they pay less. Â Then I say distribute the commercial-skipping tech to everyone. Â 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. Â It doesn't matter the show or sporting event, I will not watch it live. Â The end result is I don't see the adverts. Â If someone removes them for me, I'm all for it. Â
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. Â 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? Â In short, commercials as they sit nowadays are things that make want to watch live TV less. Â If Dish beams out shows in a way that makes me want to watch them more, I'm not going to begrudge them. Â I consider it quality control on advertisers. Â 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. Â They're helping me do something I already do myself. Â 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. Â Maybe they should spend less time pissing off their screen-watching consumers by letting them fast-forward through shitty adverts.
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
TPRJones
I saw The Fault in our Stars opening night.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 12384
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted 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. Â Screw that, it annoys viewers like me and it's bad for the advertisers as well. Â 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. Â The idea that you can force a viewer to watch an ad in the middle of your show is done. Â No one below retirement age is still watching those ads, and certainly not the coveted 18-34 demo. Â 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.
Edited by TPRJones on Feb. 22 2013,14:44
--------------
Vidi Perfutui Veni
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
Cakedaddy
Group: "Members"
Posts: 6241
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted 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.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted 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 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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted 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. Â Quite the opposite in fact. Â Subaru's constant barrage of annoying adverts is precisely what made me boot them from consideration when I was going to buy a car. Â I refuse to support media that won't adapt to the current century. Â This isn't the '50s where there are only six fucking channels and no internet.
Edited by Malcolm on Feb. 23 2013,13:20
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted 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.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted 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.
Edited by Malcolm on Feb. 23 2013,18:27
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted 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 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. Anyone know the movie?
Billy Madison
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 23 2013,20:50 |
|
|
(Leisher @ Feb. 23 2013,21:23)
QUOTE QUOTE that chick that married Pete Sampras. I thought she married Ben Stiller...?
Ben wishes. He married the chick from Zoolander.
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 24 2013,09:47 |
|
|
Advertising. Â In fact, this link is doubly awesome. Â 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. Â What pays for a show is stupid suits thinking that renting time in a staggered fashion on other people's eyeballs is viable economics. Â 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. Â 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? Â No.
Does the latest album you bought contain random audio ads for Coke in between tracks? Â No.
When I'm reading a website, does my screen occasionally get popups that suck up the entirety of my view? Â Sure, but in a few seconds, they're gone. Â Not minutes.
Hell, even movie theatres, who are becoming increasingly large bastards, even block all the commercial bullshit at the beginning. Â Why can't TV even fucking do that?
And let's talk about entertainment. Â It's easier to be entertained if you're more immersed in something. Â Know what's anti-immersing? Â Fucking ads every 15 minutes. Â 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.
Edited by Malcolm on Feb. 24 2013,09:48
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted 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.
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
|
|
|
|
|
