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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
So the real question is, why don't we just enforce the rules that we have and quit adding stupid nit picky ones on top of them?
Because our representatives are paid by the law. They have to justify their existence, and the more laws they introduce, the more they can use that to "prove" to their constituents they are doing something about the problem, unlike the other guy.
The language is fluid, things do change, but I believe the correct word should have been maximalize. Mike was being cute. I like it though, it works for me.
As I mentioned in my notice to you about the story, I am not surprised to see you trying to spin it. You missed the best line, which is the court basically saying the site is called Rapid SHARE, not Rapid STORE, which sort of points out that they aren't a file locker, just a way to share stuff with everyone.
Spoken like someone who has never played an online MMO as part of a corporation/guild/team who need to pass perfectly legal information back and forth when the game doesn't allow transfer of large image files or docs. Legal as in stuff we created ourselves and shared with our teammates. I even have that need for Minecraft now too.
We used Megaupload and Rapidshare all the time, until we discovered Google Docs, at which point we used the lockers to just place archived information.
Make a tool and people will find use for it, legitimate or illegitimate. I am really surprised you're not pushing for the outlaw of hammers, axes, guns, etc. as all those tools have legitimate and illegitimate uses too.
I have a lot of things around the house I want to keep people from stealing, this seems like a good way to do it.
I'd just be happy to see an FBI agent show up at my house after it is burgled (not going to happen, but a great ideal.)
City cops will just show up and write a quick report, and very little investigation is ever done, no matter how much evidence is lying around. Take the report and notify the insurance company. Unless they catch them in action, it is likely the bad guys ever get caught. Yet I throw a warning up on a movie and apparently the FBI can investigate and prosecute infringement better than burglars get investigated and prosecuted. (They don't, it is a hollow warning, and the best you get is a letter from the RIAA/MPAA or your ISP telling you that you're about to be sued out of existence.)
Mike is screwing around with the word "WORK" here. Assange's "work" is as leader of Wikileaks. He hasn't produced a "work" about his life.
First, as has been said before, Mike doesn't say that he is against the industry creating works about Assange. He is saying that they are being hypocritical (which I agree) when they say that you must pay them for every use, but then they don't pay for use.
Second, none of the MLB/NBA/NFL players "work" by creating scripts or similar, so according to you, they shouldn't complain when someone uses their likeness in a video game. There is no "work" to license in their case either, yet they demand payment for the use of their likeness in a video game.
The 20x 'over-run' is what you & I purchase as counterfeits.
What kills me is that a good businessman would look at this and realize that there is a very simple fix for this. They would realize that some people would pay $300 for something while others would only pay $40, and thus would produce a certain amount to be sold at $300 and a bunch more to be sold at $40. Then, they would own both the "white" and "gray" markets. An even better businessman would realize that $300 is 9,999,999% profit and would reduce the cost to $240, which would be more acceptable for their market price, and while they wouldn't be bringing in such an obscene profit, they would be making the product obtainable by more people.
I actually know companies that compete with themselves on the gray market and do extremely well. They don't reply on pie-in-the-sky laws to protect their profit. They instead spend their time innovating, and by splitting their margins between white and gray, they pull in a lot more money that those who despise the gray and only sell official and overpriced items.
In this case, it isn't globalism that kills...it is the standard unwillingness to innovate and compete in the open market that kills.
He's pointing out the hypocrisy and contradiction in Hollywood's position. Hollywood believes in someone being paid for others profiting off of their work when Hollywood is the one getting paid.
I vote for an involuntary name change for MPAA to "Mega Piracy Association of America", given their past as patent infringers who escaped prosecution by moving to the wild west, and now using the same laws which they skirted in the past to ram their idealistic bullshit down our throats. I don't think the MPAA has ever not been hypocritical.
I remember the last time someone tried to make a "true story" about someone who the government vilified; a chap by the name of Kevin Mitnick, and the industry didn't even try to make the crap close to reality. And it flopped. Which hopefully this one will too.
Oh yeah btw I just canceled my Guardian sub. I can't believe you people let assholes that want to end freedom work for you.
Oh, don't do that. We want idiots and assholes to say publicly that they want to end freedoms. It helps us know who our enemies are. The funny thing is that these guys show their true hypocritical colors when they push to end everyone elses freedoms while retaining their own.
My father used to say that the three most dreaded words in modern society were "That offends me." I think I believe it has changed to "There should be a law..." since what comes after that usually is so evil, so unnecessary and so hypocritical.
How do you think the "pirates" get the material to make illegal copies? SOMEONE has to go and pay to see the movie so they can pull their cam out and record it in the theater...
I had an interesting dream about this once. I dreamt that I was in a movie theater, where every seat was full, watching a movie, and then noticed that everyone except me was filming the movie. Then I realized that every seat was full at every screening of the movie and everyone was recording everywhere except for me. Then I wondered why it was such a big deal that I wasn't recording it, because everyone else was. Man, I do have strange dreams.
The funny thing is that the MPAA wouldn't have been happy that every seat was full for every showing of the movie, and they were raking in billions, but because everyone was filming the movie. Yet, the way the brain works, we are all kinda "filming" the movie when we watch it, and just knowing myself, I find myself spouting off memorable quotes from movies all the time.
When does Polanski "face US justice" as you call it?
Drat, PRMan beat me to it...
As much as I hate to agree with Anonymous Coward on this one, because I don't, but he does have a point that those in power (mainly the *AAs,) deem that running a corporation that competes with them is more dangerous than statutory rape.
Yes, there was a reason. None of these services hired name recognition "muscle" and were preparing to launch a directly competing service to the major labels (and later studios).
What service has the label/studios provided to compete directly with Megaupload or any of the other services like Veoh, Napster, etc.?
I'm still waiting for them to provide access to the entire catalog of works, for a fair price, and which doesn't saddle the user with a locked-in operating system or provider. If I want to reboot my system and install Windows (god forbid,) I still should get access to the stuff I bought. Likewise if I want to switch from Ting to Verizon (again, god forbid.) All the labels/studios have provided is crap that doesn't work if you change operating systems or providers, or happen to want music or movies from a back catalog or from a provider that isn't "part" of their network.
as long as he didn't mind waiting to be paid. i'm sure it would be similar to the wait the entertainment industries own artists have to endure
A wait caused entirely by the actions, or inactions, of said entertainment industries. However, I suspect that if he was to win a court case against the USG or the entertainment industries, then his wait would take precedence and thus he would be paid before said artists, unless they have also sued and were able to obtain judgement against the entertainment industry first, at which point they would be paid first so long as said industry didn't funnel it out of the country to off-shore bank accounts and holdings and then promptly declare bankruptcy and solvency (which I suspect they would be evil enough to do just to spite said artists and Dotcom.)
On the post: Jon Stewart Blasts Viacom For Stupid Blackout; Viacom Sheepishly Turns Web Streams Back On
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.)
On the post: Jon Stewart Blasts Viacom For Stupid Blackout; Viacom Sheepishly Turns Web Streams Back On
Re: Re: Re: Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
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.
On the post: Jon Stewart Blasts Viacom For Stupid Blackout; Viacom Sheepishly Turns Web Streams Back On
Re: Re: Re: Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
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.
On the post: Jon Stewart Blasts Viacom For Stupid Blackout; Viacom Sheepishly Turns Web Streams Back On
Re:
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.
On the post: Jon Stewart Blasts Viacom For Stupid Blackout; Viacom Sheepishly Turns Web Streams Back On
Re: Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
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.
On the post: Jon Stewart Blasts Viacom For Stupid Blackout; Viacom Sheepishly Turns Web Streams Back On
Re: Re: Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
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.
On the post: Jon Stewart Blasts Viacom For Stupid Blackout; Viacom Sheepishly Turns Web Streams Back On
Link to DailyShow had ad beforehand blaming DirectTV
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.
On the post: California Legalizes Some Texting While Driving, Sort Of
Re:
Because our representatives are paid by the law. They have to justify their existence, and the more laws they introduce, the more they can use that to "prove" to their constituents they are doing something about the problem, unlike the other guy.
On the post: Dilbert Takes On Patent Trolls; Will Congress?
Re: Doubleplus ungood.
The language is fluid, things do change, but I believe the correct word should have been maximalize. Mike was being cute. I like it though, it works for me.
On the post: German Supreme Court Suggests Cyber Lockers Need To Filter Content If Alerted To Copyright Infringement
Re:
Spoken like someone who has never played an online MMO as part of a corporation/guild/team who need to pass perfectly legal information back and forth when the game doesn't allow transfer of large image files or docs. Legal as in stuff we created ourselves and shared with our teammates. I even have that need for Minecraft now too.
We used Megaupload and Rapidshare all the time, until we discovered Google Docs, at which point we used the lockers to just place archived information.
Make a tool and people will find use for it, legitimate or illegitimate. I am really surprised you're not pushing for the outlaw of hammers, axes, guns, etc. as all those tools have legitimate and illegitimate uses too.
On the post: Chuck Close Succeeds In Stifling A Creative Homage... But Only For Another 100 Years Or So!
Re: Chuck Who
Never heard of Chuck Close myself, but I think he should change his name because it's too similar to Chuck Nice, who is an artist I love and respect.
/sarc (well, except for the Chuck Nice part, he really is a great guy. Happy that he is now a regular on Startalk Radio.)
On the post: FBI Wants To Make It Easier For You To Tell Your Customers They Might Be Felonious Pirates
Re: Can I get the poster and stickers?
I'd just be happy to see an FBI agent show up at my house after it is burgled (not going to happen, but a great ideal.)
City cops will just show up and write a quick report, and very little investigation is ever done, no matter how much evidence is lying around. Take the report and notify the insurance company. Unless they catch them in action, it is likely the bad guys ever get caught. Yet I throw a warning up on a movie and apparently the FBI can investigate and prosecute infringement better than burglars get investigated and prosecuted. (They don't, it is a hollow warning, and the best you get is a letter from the RIAA/MPAA or your ISP telling you that you're about to be sued out of existence.)
On the post: Multiple Hollywood Studios Making Movies About Julian Assange; How Many Will Pay Him For His Story?
Re: Re: Re: are you high mike?
First, as has been said before, Mike doesn't say that he is against the industry creating works about Assange. He is saying that they are being hypocritical (which I agree) when they say that you must pay them for every use, but then they don't pay for use.
Second, none of the MLB/NBA/NFL players "work" by creating scripts or similar, so according to you, they shouldn't complain when someone uses their likeness in a video game. There is no "work" to license in their case either, yet they demand payment for the use of their likeness in a video game.
On the post: Who's Running A Big Counterfeit Ring For Hermes Bags? Apparently Hermes Employees
Re: Re: Globalism kills
What kills me is that a good businessman would look at this and realize that there is a very simple fix for this. They would realize that some people would pay $300 for something while others would only pay $40, and thus would produce a certain amount to be sold at $300 and a bunch more to be sold at $40. Then, they would own both the "white" and "gray" markets. An even better businessman would realize that $300 is 9,999,999% profit and would reduce the cost to $240, which would be more acceptable for their market price, and while they wouldn't be bringing in such an obscene profit, they would be making the product obtainable by more people.
I actually know companies that compete with themselves on the gray market and do extremely well. They don't reply on pie-in-the-sky laws to protect their profit. They instead spend their time innovating, and by splitting their margins between white and gray, they pull in a lot more money that those who despise the gray and only sell official and overpriced items.
In this case, it isn't globalism that kills...it is the standard unwillingness to innovate and compete in the open market that kills.
On the post: Multiple Hollywood Studios Making Movies About Julian Assange; How Many Will Pay Him For His Story?
Re: Re: are you high mike?
I vote for an involuntary name change for MPAA to "Mega Piracy Association of America", given their past as patent infringers who escaped prosecution by moving to the wild west, and now using the same laws which they skirted in the past to ram their idealistic bullshit down our throats. I don't think the MPAA has ever not been hypocritical.
I remember the last time someone tried to make a "true story" about someone who the government vilified; a chap by the name of Kevin Mitnick, and the industry didn't even try to make the crap close to reality. And it flopped. Which hopefully this one will too.
On the post: ACTA Failure Inspires The Most Clueless Column Ever
Re:
Oh, don't do that. We want idiots and assholes to say publicly that they want to end freedoms. It helps us know who our enemies are. The funny thing is that these guys show their true hypocritical colors when they push to end everyone elses freedoms while retaining their own.
My father used to say that the three most dreaded words in modern society were "That offends me." I think I believe it has changed to "There should be a law..." since what comes after that usually is so evil, so unnecessary and so hypocritical.
On the post: ACTA Failure Inspires The Most Clueless Column Ever
Re: Re: Re:
I had an interesting dream about this once. I dreamt that I was in a movie theater, where every seat was full, watching a movie, and then noticed that everyone except me was filming the movie. Then I realized that every seat was full at every screening of the movie and everyone was recording everywhere except for me. Then I wondered why it was such a big deal that I wasn't recording it, because everyone else was. Man, I do have strange dreams.
The funny thing is that the MPAA wouldn't have been happy that every seat was full for every showing of the movie, and they were raking in billions, but because everyone was filming the movie. Yet, the way the brain works, we are all kinda "filming" the movie when we watch it, and just knowing myself, I find myself spouting off memorable quotes from movies all the time.
On the post: Kim Dotcom Offers To Come To The US, If DOJ Releases Funds For Legal Defense
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Drat, PRMan beat me to it...
As much as I hate to agree with Anonymous Coward on this one, because I don't, but he does have a point that those in power (mainly the *AAs,) deem that running a corporation that competes with them is more dangerous than statutory rape.
On the post: Megaupload Extradition Hearing Postponed Until At Least Spring Of 2013
Re:
What service has the label/studios provided to compete directly with Megaupload or any of the other services like Veoh, Napster, etc.?
I'm still waiting for them to provide access to the entire catalog of works, for a fair price, and which doesn't saddle the user with a locked-in operating system or provider. If I want to reboot my system and install Windows (god forbid,) I still should get access to the stuff I bought. Likewise if I want to switch from Ting to Verizon (again, god forbid.) All the labels/studios have provided is crap that doesn't work if you change operating systems or providers, or happen to want music or movies from a back catalog or from a provider that isn't "part" of their network.
On the post: Megaupload Extradition Hearing Postponed Until At Least Spring Of 2013
Re: Re:
A wait caused entirely by the actions, or inactions, of said entertainment industries. However, I suspect that if he was to win a court case against the USG or the entertainment industries, then his wait would take precedence and thus he would be paid before said artists, unless they have also sued and were able to obtain judgement against the entertainment industry first, at which point they would be paid first so long as said industry didn't funnel it out of the country to off-shore bank accounts and holdings and then promptly declare bankruptcy and solvency (which I suspect they would be evil enough to do just to spite said artists and Dotcom.)
Next >>