Jon Stewart Blasts Viacom For Stupid Blackout; Viacom Sheepishly Turns Web Streams Back On

from the do-they-have-no-one-who-thinks-this-through? dept

Tue, Jul 17th 2012 12:35pm — Mike Masnick

Last week, we wrote about Viacom's really short-sighted decision to use its fans as hostages in a silly dispute with DirecTV over fees. To prevent any DirecTV customer from seeing any of its key shows, Viacom stopped streaming them online... for all customers, meaning that even those who had nothing to do with any of this couldn't legally watch the shows they liked. As we noted, this would likely only serve to drive more people to find unauthorized versions. Late in the week, we saw AMC smartly take the opposite approach and provide more online access to customers disrupted by a similar fight it was having with Dish Network.

Of course, one of Viacom's most popular shows -- and one of the key ones turned off from streaming -- is The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, which had been on break last week anyway. However, it returned last night with a vengeance, and target number one: his corporate masters at Viacom for acting as if they were China in blocking the internet, and likely driving more fans to unauthorized streams. You can watch it here (if you're in the US) complete with Viacom appending a commercial bitching about DirecTV beforehand: When we wrote about this last week, one of our usual critics told us, in some of the most angry language imaginable, how objectionable it was that we dared to mention the obvious fact that if you don't make things available legally, people might find unauthorized versions. However, Stewart made the exact same point in his discussion of the situation.

"You're pulling the shows from the internet?!? What are you, China?!? And by the way, you don't think the kids already have a workaround? This morning, when I woke up, my 8-year-old son was watching Dark Knight Rises in 3D. They're already figuring it out. So basically you're blocking old people from watching the show, and just giving people a chance to discover that there's other entertaining s**t in the world...."

In response, Viacom has somewhat sheepishly backed down and put the Daily Show & Colbert back online (though it seems some others may be blocked). It tried to make a joke of this a bit by pointing to Stewart's mocking and noting that "The Daily Show continues to exercise the creative and editorial freedom that makes it consistently great." In other words, someone at Viacom realized they totally screwed up and even their own high profile employees were calling them on it publicly. It really makes you wonder if they have anyone at Viacom who thinks how the world will react to its crazy moves.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: blackout, dispute, fans as hostages, jon stewart, the daily show
Companies: directv, viacom

88 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

DannyB (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 12:46pm

Isn't Viacom the company suing Google/Yahoo?
> It really makes you wonder if they have anyone
> at Viacom who thinks how the world will react
> to its crazy moves.

Viacom seems to think that Google can magically determine if something online is infringing, even though Viacom itself is unable to do so.

Viacom thinks that Google should be liable for third party activity -- because Google has money and teenage kids do not.

Like all old timers, the people at Viacom are out of touch with reality.

Hey you kids, get off my lawn!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 12:51pm
  
  Re: Isn't Viacom the company suing Google/Yahoo?
  Viacom thinks end users are too stupid to realize that they are the ones who ultimately will be paying higher DirecTV bills because of Viacom's dispute with DirecTV over being entitled to more money.
  
  So let's run an ad to convince people that DirecTV is in the wrong for not wanting to charge its viewers more money to go into the pockets of Viacom execs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rodd, 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:22pm
  
  Re: Isn't Viacom the company suing Google/Yahoo?
  "Like all old timers,..."
  
  ALL? WTF?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ruben, 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:32pm
    
    Re: Re: Isn't Viacom the company suing Google/Yahoo?
    Well maybe not all.
    
    It's probably around 98%.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Isn't Viacom the company suing Google/Yahoo?
      Try closer to 75%, old timer!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:58pm
    
    Re: Re: Isn't Viacom the company suing Google/Yahoo?
    > ALL? WTF?
    
    You are right. I should have chosen my language more carefully. I'll remember that in my scramble to get first pest. I'm getting to be somewhat of an old timer myself.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
dfed (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 12:48pm

...and when Jon got home, his kid had been subpoenaed for copyright infringement.

Way to go Jon. Throwing your kid under the bus for your fans. Will his allowance cover MPAA thuggery?

Actually, probably so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pixelpusher220 (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:53pm
  
  Re:
  Artistic license...perhaps you've heard of it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 2:00pm
  
  Re:
  I'd love to see the MPAA go after his kid.
  
  Can you imagine the hilarity that would ensue with Jon Stewart fighting it out in public on his show, rather than knuckling under to the threat letters?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 2:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Hey, Jon got the 9/11 first responders bill passed by Congress...
    
    Maybe he could bring enough attention to the MPAA, RIAA and copyright to get some new laws passed.
    
    After all, he called out Viacom during the SOPA blackouts for SUPPORTING SOPA.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jurco, 17 Jul 2012 @ 6:32pm
  
  LOL
  Hey, here's a new literary invention for you: Sarcasm! WOW! You can even use it to get a point across by exaggerating something and altering your tone of voice.
  
  Jon employs it almost everyday. You must not be a frequent viewer, which begs the question: �Why are you even bothering to comment?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- djGUERRILLA, 17 Jul 2012 @ 11:13pm
  
  Re:
  Really? It was a joke you moron. His kid did not download the movie, it won't even be release in 3D (it's going to be IMAX or regular). Jeez. Take that outrage and apply it to something that actually matters. Thanks for wasting my time with your idiotic comment
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 17 Jul 2012 @ 11:43pm
  
  Re:
  Yea, because he was totally being serious, and that sentence is grounds for the fbi to go bust down his door. Idiot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- wowdfedisdumb, 18 Jul 2012 @ 8:31am
  
  Re:
  You must be as dumb as Viacom to believe he was serious about that.
  
  It's called being a comedian and not taking everything they fucking say as literal.
  
  Jesus, how do you survive on the internet?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doug D (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 12:58pm

Yeah, I found out about this when DirecTV tweeted links to the content.

I wish I could believe they're going to end up with what I *really* want: unbundling of the Viacom channels, so I can buy Comedy Central and ignore MTV/VH1.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- fogbugzd (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:20pm
  
  Re:
  >>...what I *really* want: unbundling of the Viacom channels, so I can buy Comedy Central and ignore MTV/VH1.
  
  I have been half expecting Jon Stewart and a few others like Colbert to bolt from their Viacom overlords. Those two probably have the fan base and the clout that would allow them to establish their own network or take Comedy Central from under the Viacom umbrella. Obviously Viacom would not want to see them go, but those two plus South Park are about all CC has going for it at the moment. If two of the three or all three threatened to walk away Viacom would not have much bargaining power.
  
  I realize that it didn't work out so well for Oprah, but I have a feeling Stewart and Colbert are smart enough and ruthless enough to make it work.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "but those two plus South Park are about all CC has going for it at the moment"
    
    Hey, what about Futurama? I'd count that in there too. I mean they did save it. Some of the episodes have been lackluster, but the majority overall have been great.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Now, if only I could watch the bastards shortly after they came out in the US legally...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ltlw0lf (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 2:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Now, if only I could watch the bastards shortly after they came out in the US legally...
        
        I'd love to see them streaming on a website like South Park, and I am in the US. Even streaming to Hulu Plus would be good. Instead, I sit waiting for the season to come out on DVD (which I do with South Park too, but I get the value added of being able to see what it is I am waiting for before it comes out.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 2:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I personally don't think Futurama has come back with anywhere near the same quality and charm overall. Could just be looking back on the episodes before the show was canceled with rose tinted glasses though.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - silverscarcat (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 3:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Admittedly, some of the episodes could have been better...
        
        Though, over-all, they've been really good...
        
        I LOVED how they took a stab at the stupidity of "birthers" in that one episode.
        
        It involved time travel paradoxes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 17 Jul 2012 @ 3:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My personal favorite thus far was the eyePhone episode.
        
        "Okay, it's $500, you have no choice of carrier, the battery can't hold a charge and the reception isn't very..."
        
        That seriously cracked me up the first time I saw it. And of course Mom's comment at the end of the episode was priceless (until they edited it out in later airings).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 3:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Family Guy seemed like it sucked after returning for a couple seasons too, but it got back on track.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
scuttlemonkey, 17 Jul 2012 @ 12:59pm

Execs don't think like humans...
"It really makes you wonder if they have anyone at Viacom who thinks how the world will react to its crazy moves."

Except most execs, especially media execs, don't think in terms of consumers, community, or viral adoption. They think about the bottom line and (usually) the best way to make it look good in the immediate future. It's really sad to see amazing viral and community building success stories come up time and again and yet the old-school execs can't break away from their bondage and discipline approach to forcing communities to behave in a manner they think is appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sehlat (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:04pm
  
  Re: Execs don't think like humans...
  The correct view of content executives is: they think like medieval noblemen, as I've commented here before:
  
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120314/01453118097/does-anyone-who-develops-new-produc ts-hollywood-ask-would-i-ever-actually-use-this.shtml#c169
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:02pm

How true
00:40 - 01:12. What else is on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Miles Barnett (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:04pm

I watched it Last Night
I watched it last night (I've got Comcast). It was pretty funny. BTW, it's already available in all the usual illegal places.

P.S. Your buddy Louis CK was on too. Very funny guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ltlw0lf (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:11pm

Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
Kills me that they added an ad which said DirectTV blocked 26 channels, when in fact it was Viacom that blocked them. Which is exactly what Jon talked about within the first few seconds of the clip.

Wish Jon would move his show off of Viacom/Comedy Central to a network that isn't idiotic. But then again, if he did that, he'd likely lose all of his good material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Keii (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:15pm
  
  Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
  I wonder just how much the difference is between the extra money they wanted for the deal they refused and how much they pumped into the DirecTV smear campaign they're running.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ltlw0lf (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:38pm
    
    Re: Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
    I wonder just how much the difference is between the extra money they wanted for the deal they refused and how much they pumped into the DirecTV smear campaign they're running.
    
    Don't know. Since this ad was served from their website, probably not much. However, I've seen their smear campaigns on my cable connection too. They may have deals with the competitors of DirectTV to have a lower price for commercials, but I suspect you are probably right that they wasted more money on this than they would have pulled in.
    
    What would be interesting to see is if they threaten to raise prices on cable again. Cable is already too expensive (though I think it is all pretty relative at the moment,) and I expect far more cable cord cutters would make things difficult for both the cable company and ultimately Viacom, who will call for another raise in prices because they aren't getting the funding they need from advertisers because of lack of viewership.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Keii (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
      Well the ad spot is also on Hulu and on the old fashioned radio. I imagine they had to pay for the radio ad spot at least.
      I wouldn't know if it's on TV.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ltlw0lf (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
        Well the ad spot is also on Hulu and on the old fashioned radio. I imagine they had to pay for the radio ad spot at least. I wouldn't know if it's on TV.
        
        I don't know if it is still on TV, as all I get now is OTA, but it was back when this whole thing started and I hadn't cut the cable. I think you're right though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:35pm
  
  Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
  Is there a network that isn't idiotic?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A Non-Mouse, 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:37pm
    
    Re: Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
    "Is there a network that isn't idiotic?"
    
    NetFlix?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jupiterkansas (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
      Not a network. It's a service.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - A Non-Mouse, 17 Jul 2012 @ 2:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
        "Not a network. It's a service."
        
        Semantics. In today's "on demand" world, networks (at least in their traditional sense) are a thing of the past. Thanks to the DVR, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what channel/network a program is released on, or even what time slot it airs in. Anything I care to watch is recorded and presented to me in a simple "here's the stuff you wanted to watch" list. Network & original air date/time are irrelevant. NetFlix/Hulu/Amazon/etc are all just extensions of that same "on demand" mentality. Just another source of recordings to be added to my "wanted to watch" list.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ltlw0lf (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 2:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
        Semantics. In today's "on demand" world, networks (at least in their traditional sense) are a thing of the past.
        
        Didn't NetFlix announce a while back that they would be making exclusive content available on NetFlix Streaming? Oh Yeah, Lilyhammer. So in a way, they are kinda a channel now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 4:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
        Didn't NetFlix announce a while back that they would be making exclusive content available on NetFlix Streaming?
        
        They're also bringing back Arrested Development.
        
        Personally, I love this move. Not only are they showing how to succeed and beat piracy (price + convenience), they're also showing how that can lead to more shows being produced.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pitabred (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
      Mostly. They still bear large scars from industry shenanigans
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 2:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
      How soon you forget their idiocy when they decided to split their DVD and streaming services into two seperate (sorta0 companies.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Memphis Slim.ru, 17 Jul 2012 @ 8:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
        Actually, it was the perfect move. Just bad timing. Perhaps by years...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ltlw0lf (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:45pm
    
    Re: Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
    Is there a network that isn't idiotic?
    
    PBS? One of the OTA networks?
    
    I don't know, I think they are all pretty idiotic. I believe AMC wasn't as idiotic in their approach of opening their channels up to bring in more viewers and thus ultimately putting pressure on Dish (since the Dish customers couldn't get it from Dish, but could just go to the internet and get it instead.) It was in Dish's best interest to keep their customers on Dish TV instead of going elsewhere.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jupiterkansas (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
      Jon Stewart on PBS? I'm all for that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ltlw0lf (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 2:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
        Jon Stewart on PBS? I'm all for that.
        
        If he would agree to some sort of a Kickstarter venture, or if they could get enough in donations to make the move, it could be possible. Would take a lot of money, I am afraid, but I wonder where the breakeven point would be for him to move to PBS. Also, without commercials, 22 minutes might be incredibly short.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Baldaur Regis (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 2:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
        I too would enjoy Jon Stewart on PBS, so long as he wore cardigan sweaters and used the old Mr. Rogers set.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 2:06pm
  
  Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
  Move to PBS & go on kickstarter.
  I would gladly Donate to help this out and so would many others.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeremy, 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:21pm

Based on what I see in the comments section, I tend to think that Techdirt has a "fan following" of entertainment industry brass that likes to come here and troll. They see this site as enemy number 1. They likely refuse to acknowledge that their business model might need revision.

Some of the points made in comments in response to reasonable suggestions of customer satisfaction are just beyond human comprehension to the point of only possibly originating from the cult-like inner-circle that is the entertainment industry executives.

What children. They're kids with publishing power who think their existence is somehow important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:59pm
  
  Re:
  I tend to think that Techdirt has a "fan following" of entertainment industry brass that likes to come here and troll. They see this site as enemy number 1. They likely refuse to acknowledge that their business model might need revision.
  
  Yes, I think this is pretty blatantly obvious. It's also very encouraging. If the movement to decriminalize culture wasn't effective, they wouldn't bother with the trolling. The troll count can be used as a rough barometer of our effectiveness.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 2:15pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win."
    ― Mahatma Gandhi
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beech, 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:26pm

"When we wrote about this last week, one of our usual critics told us, in some of the most angry language imaginable, how objectionable it was that we dared to mention the obvious fact that if you don't make things available legally, people might find unauthorized versions. However, Stewart made the exact same point in his discussion of the situation."

OH. I see. So because Pirate Jon Stewart talks about it that makes it ok for you to talk about it too?! I think not slimebag! What if Pirate Jon started talking about jumping off a bridge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:36pm
  
  Re:
  Then you should jump off a bridge... since you don't seem to understand much
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:41pm
  
  Re:
  Pirate Jon wouldn't do that because Pirate Jon merely points out the stupidity and hypocrisy of those in power, just like Pirate Mike. The sad thing is they've both been able able to do this for years thanks to the likes of you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ltlw0lf (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:50pm
  
  Re:
  OH. I see. So because Pirate Jon Stewart talks about it that makes it ok for you to talk about it too?! I think not slimebag! What if Pirate Jon started talking about jumping off a bridge?
  
  Sarcasm guys, sarcasm. I thought it was funny.
  
  Somehow I can see in my mind a picture of Jon Stewart with the pirate hat, peg-leg, hook, and parrot, saying "Yarr," a lot. It's a stretch, but it is possible.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 2:26pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Closest I could find: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_b3F3671vra8/TFjw-t-wXkI/AAAAAAAAA5E/_OYxbKGjgTs/s1600/jon+stewart.jpg
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ltlw0lf (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 4:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Closest I could find
      
      Close enough. Added the parrot and my brain exploded...thanks. Going to have to clean up now.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:54pm
  
  Re:
  I would follow Jon Stewart into the Depths of Hell itself* for the glorious cause of IP!
  
  *By which I mean, The Colbert Report.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:28pm

Watching Viacom and Direct TV battle this out with ad campaigns is far more entertaining than any of their programming. Get some popcorn everyone, this is going to be interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:36pm

Well at least I know Jon Stewart is smart enough to know that removing the show from the internet will just result in greater piracy leading to less money anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:42pm

Fuck Them - DON'T PAY
What - you can't get the shit you paid the fuckers for?

Do you have no self-respect at all? People used to get shot for this sort of bullshit. But you just sit there and take it?

Do you really think that your life should be fucked with by the childish ego of some hideously overpaid useless IQ 14 asshole sonofabitch jerk-off at Fuck Co Inc?

The bastards must die ASAP. Starving them to death is legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:42pm

Fuck Them - DON'T PAY
What - you can't get the shit you paid the fuckers for?

Do you have no self-respect at all? People used to get shot for this sort of bullshit. But you just sit there and take it?

Do you really think that your life should be fucked with by the childish ego of some hideously overpaid useless IQ 14 asshole sonofabitch jerk-off at Fuck Co Inc?

The bastards must die ASAP. Starving them to death is legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:42pm

It meant they weren't making any money from this and I'm good with it. I was hoping they would not come to their senses before they went bankrupt.

What a fine missed opportunity...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:43pm

When we wrote about this last week, one of our usual critics told us, in some of the most angry language imaginable, how objectionable it was that we dared to mention the obvious fact that if you don't make things available legally, people might find unauthorized versions. However, Stewart made the exact same point in his discussion of the situation.

When I get under your skin, I really get under your skin, eh, Pirate Mike. Yes, a comedian made a joke about it. There's a difference between his having mentioned it in a joke and your cult-like repetition of the mantra. He's not trying to apologize for the basement-dwellers like you are. He doesn't have a blog dedicated to hardcore pirate-apologism like you do. But yeah, he mentioned in a joke something that you say all the time to your legions. Yippee! I'm happy for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:49pm
  
  Re:
  Jon didn't just make a joke, he pointed out how stupid, arrogant, and pointless Viacom's actions were and said it was bad for business - his own business.
  
  But I guess you can just demean him as a comedian the same way you seem to get enormous pleasure from constantly demeaning Mike.
  
  What, did Mike steal your lunch money in grade school or something?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:56pm
  
  Re:
  Do you know how scathing Jon Stewart is? And he holds back. And he made precisel;y the same point that has been made here for the past 4 years and beyond: the market will always find a way if the demand is there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pitabred (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 2:00pm
  
  Re:
  Uhh... apologize? Saying "Hey, the sky is blue" isn't apologizing, it's recognizing reality. In this case, Mike is just recognizing the reality of human behavior.
  
  News flash... human nature controls people MUCH more strongly than any amount of law. If you want to succeed, basing your business on law and ignoring human nature is a very silly proposition.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 9:26pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Especially when you write the laws in your favor to counter the natural behavior you observe but don't like.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 2:07pm
  
  Re:
  You know you just outed yourself as said critic. A bit hilarious considering if Mike were to quote your exact words you'd be having a fit saying he cross referenced your IP and violated your right to anonymity and privacy.
  
  You really aren't good at the game are you? That being "keep your mouth shut so no one actually knows who you are".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 5:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    A person deciding to reference their own anonymous posts is different than Pirate Mike looking at the IP addresses and doing the same. For a guy who whines so very much about privacy on the internet, when you get on his bad side, he starts chomping at the bit for a chance to violate his commentator's privacy. He's just too immature to have the responsibility that comes with having a website that allows anonymous comment. When it's his own honor on the line, he'll do anything.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 6:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      violate his commentator's privacy
      
      He has never once revealed your name, where you're from, or any other personal information. Nothing about your privacy has been violated.
      
      It's pretty telling (and sad) when you have to invent personal insults in order to excuse your tirelessly vindictive attacks. Then again, I should expect nothing less than someone who uses the phrase "Pirate Mike."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2012 @ 4:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, he uses that insult in every other post and yet is surprised that we know who he is.
        
        I wonder if he does it so those ho don't look into it will wrongly assume that Mike is using his IP to out him
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 7:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's not violating your privacy. If he cross referenced IPs between sites in any way, correlated the IP with any information other than to associate it with the activity on this single self contained site, or otherwise engaged in correlations that intrude on privacy, you'd have a strong point. As it is, you got nothing.
      
      No one knows anything except publicly made comment A and publicly made comment B, both made on web site, have the same author. That does not violate anyone's privacy. Get a grip.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Bastage, 17 Jul 2012 @ 9:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. I don't have money, but what I do have are a very particular set of skills. Skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you.
      
      If you stop fucking typing "Pirate Mike", that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will nimp you and make your children watch 2 kids in a sandbox.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 9:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dude, I don't like the guy either, but that wasn't funny.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws (profile), 18 Jul 2012 @ 12:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      he starts chomping at the bit for a chance to violate his commentator's privacy
      
      By doing what? Singling out the one jackass from all the other ACs? Taking him up on his word? Gosh, at least you are consistent, obvious bullshit no matter what topic you're rambling on about.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2012 @ 3:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      On come on, who else posts like you do?
      
      I can identify your past posts just fine by typing "pirate mike" into the techdirt comment search box
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 9:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I think as a child, he was made fun for being a loser at hide and seek. Because he doesn't need to type in a pseudonym; his raucous rants of "Pirate Mike" do all the naming for him more than IP addresses could ever do.
    
    This topic isn't even worth the debate he's trying to call Mike out on. Stewart's show was ridiculously blocked from paying customers, he complained, show back on - how the hell is that Techdirt's fault?
    
    I think this guy is locked in a dank room with a computer and given the instructions "It goes to Techdirt and insults Pirate Mike or it gets the hose again" or something.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 2:09pm
  
  Re:
  Your delusion is astounding.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 18 Jul 2012 @ 12:46am
  
  Re:
  When I get under your skin, I really get under your skin, eh, Pirate Mike.
  
  LOL, keep dreaming skintube. IMO he's giving jackasses like you far too much attention. Cause anyone new coming to this site spots you morons for what you are immediately.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 18 Jul 2012 @ 1:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    PITIFUL MEATBAG! TROLLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! RHHHHHARRRRRRRRRRG!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 18 Jul 2012 @ 6:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Mike isn't doing it on purpose. It's so damn amusing that I'd be giving him fuel if I were Mike lmao. You know, like those clowns in the Middle Ages. Actually, I think Mike is starting to be mean to the guy. Mike, you big bully =(
    
    lmao
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2012 @ 3:05pm
  
  Re:
  Good FSM man, do you ever bother to think about what you say?
  
  Mike points out facts that the content industry needs to understand and you call it "pirate apoligy"
  
  What's next? Mike will point out that people don't like porn on TV channels children can view and you will call him a parent apologist?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:50pm

I'm really butthurt about missing out on dvr'd workaholics re-runs. Guess I'll have to download a few seasons and MediaTomb it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vog (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 2:03pm

[Viacom] tried to make a joke of this a bit by pointing to Stewart's mocking and noting that "The Daily Show continues to exercise the creative and editorial freedom that makes it consistently great."

Now if only they could apply this logic to... oh, I don't know, DMCA takedowns...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 2:43pm

Come on shills, we have an eight year old here, bless him, who happens to be a criminal, wheres the slander, COME ON, its copyright infringement god dammit, the law is the law, lock the littlle bliter up and throw away the key.

God bless America, where the young are not free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 3:16pm
  
  Re:
  Gee, laws are always sacred, eh? When the laws are written by and for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, just how sacred is that? Just because armed robbery by the content industry is legalized doesn't make it either ethical or moral.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 5:33pm

...complete with Viacom appending a commercial bitching about DirecTV beforehand:
FYI that's called prepending
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 8:06pm
  
  Re:
  on a similar but not really related note: not only is it forbidden to end a sentence with a preposition, It's Impossible. the moment you put it after the noun it goes with it's a post-position. (all pre and post positions collectively are adpositions.) ... English is just really erratic about the proper placement of it's adverbial and ad-positional phrases.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2012 @ 6:03pm

viacom did the same shit in 2008 with comcast. They received a billion dollar or so contract with comcast after this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]