Welcome to Thunderdome

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 What the law is is completely outdated and irrelevant to our modern world and there's no point in discussing it.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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What album insert gets into my mp3 downloads?

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

Leisher wrote:Yes, the technology exists...maybe?

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

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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.

We are far more technologically advanced than your average person.

...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 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.

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.