March Madness on Linux?

Welcome to new New, Balkanzied, Locked-Down, DRM'd World Wide Web

If they don't want our eyes, then screw 'em.

Is turning away intelligent, educated, financially viable viewers a good business model?

We are BEYOND the point of merely being annoyed- we need to demonstrate ANGER.

Why was ad-supported content (whether broadcast sports or TV shows) sufficient from 1950 through the 1990's (over the air content), with zero DRM, and now they want pay-to-watch, WITH ads on most cable/sat networks!?

IMO, everyone are fools for paying into this scheme.

You pay your cable/sat/ISP bill, then the cable/sat/ISP provider turns around and gives a significant portion of your money to each network for the "right" to carry their content WITH ADS!? You're PAYING THEM to carry ads that make them MORE money!?

At MINUMUM, the networks and cable/sat carriers TRIPLE DIP-

(1) The EXCESSIVE ad breaks, which are now 30% or more of the broadcast time of the program- about 20 minutes per hour for a typical new network show. In the late 1960's, a program like the original Star Trek had 52 minutes of program per hour- now down to less than 40 minutes. You do the math- over 24 extra 30 second ad spots per hour, times the cost of a 30 second ad...

(2) They put product placements in the program for MORE ad revenue

(3) They destroy the program's art/cultural/functional value with a THIRD ad revenue source- screen bugs and screen banners during the program!

That 52 minutes of program material in the late 1960's was FULLY funded by the 8 minutes of ads (plus syndication, merchandising, etc, which still exist today). That was WITHOUT product placement or screen bugs/banners!

Why doesn't the 20+ minutes of ads, plus product placements, plus on screen bug ads, fully cover the costs?

They are actually QUADRUPLE dipping if you count the money you pay them for the luxury of delivering these ad sources to you.

And production costs have DECREASED by any meaningful measure.

Is it reasonable to even be involved in this scheme?

...and that's not even considering the scam that is major college/pro sports. Same issue with ads during the game, in the game, on the players uniforms, and the same issue with your ticket money/sports channel money going to pay overinflated player's salaries and their owners. There is ZERO reason for ANY player to have a salary more than a few hundred thousand/year max for the BEST players. The best players can always earn their 10's of millions on endorsement deals if they are good enough/popular enough. That way, ticket prices for consumers/fans would be minimized. But broadcast sports should be 100% covered with ad revenue.

Updated rant with data points...

...so yes, it *is* pure Madness to want to partake in these ad Ponzi schemes or vendor lock-in scams (Silverlight), whether March or any other month of the year

I'm hearing you loud and clear on this one. I've watched MMOD every year at CBSSports.com since it went live, and this year, I have completely dissolved all my remaining Windows boxes, only to find that without Silverlight and IE, I'm stuck.

Why didn't we just elect Steve Ballmer for president...he's practically running the country, anyway...

...I hope you don't weaken and fall for their trap....

Timely-

http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?s...4253&art_pos=4

...then why partake in the scheme at all?

Well said, I haven't owned a TV for the past 9 years and I don't miss it at all, my home theatre is exclusively for playback of media files (sourced from DVDs and from other sources).

I have no interest anymore in watching any professional sports events (which are just a huge money making industry these days, not games as it's supposed to be) and I could never go back to watching movies on TV or TV series with constant ad breaks.

EXACTLY!

Unbelievable how many gullible people there are- but then again, we're talking about people who make the WWF ("pro" wrestling in the US) a viable business

I can only speak for myself but I don't think that rgb was intentionally offending you, I guess it's partially my fault as I sort of hi-jacked this thread with my personal rant against TV and professional sports, I apologize for that.

I personally think everyone should do whatever they want, I just expressed my point of view.

But I agree with you, I find 'Microsoft only' websites annoying too (fortunately they are rare these days, compared to, say, 5 years ago), but because of that I would simply boycott them (and if I find the website really useful to be worth the hassle, email them telling them it doesn't work with Linux, they might not even have realised it and maybe they do something about it).

OK. I've held my tongue for long enough on this one.

Let me begin by telling you that I know from experience that the entire entertainment industry is comprised 100% of crooks (liars, thieves, rapists, murderers, cannibals) -- tens of thousands of them, few of which are less intelligent than you or I.

As an artist, I also realize that art is communication, and speech should always be free, so there is inherently something wrong with selling it. The fact that we have to pay to listen to a criminal's twisted point of view disgusts me more than words can express.

I can, however, say that I would rather have these abominations of human nature segregated from society and bound by the prison of fame than have them running about loosely throughout the streets. This, of course, requires money.

And, so we must pay for it, and it is expensive.

To rebel against this fact of life would be fatal, and no amount of idealism would be able to overcome it.

Money is a minuscule sacrifice.

/drama

I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular with the "gullible" comment- just a continuation of my rhetorical rant. More commentary on the average American consumer. If you post on avsforum, by definition you're "above average"

I agree that ad-supported content is fine- that was the point of my rant- the ads should be fully covering the costs involved. The problem is the ratio of ads to content has been *increasing*, while production costs *decrease*, ad revenue *increases*, all the while cable/sat/ticket prices keep *increasing*. By any logic, cable/sat/ticket prices should be stable or *decreasing*- it is only the corruption within the system (greed, excessive actor/studio/player/owner salaries, etc) creating the imbalance. IF content/sports *were* fully ad supported, cable/sat/ticket prices would be a token amount at best.

But it *is* being gullible (no one in particular) falling for these vendor lock-in tricks like the Silverlight stunts Microsoft has been pulling since the Summer 2008 Olympics.

Excellent summary of the whole point and purpose of Flash and Silverlight based video feeds- to wrest control from us and back to the content owners.

You (anyone reading, no one in particular) won't control your browser/computer any more with these web feeds. Unlike the mpg/avi/rm/qt/wmv feeds of yore, where WE maintained control of the media (pause, restart, save to disk, etc), Flash and Silverlight lets the guys on the other end take control from you. They have the power over you.

Why willingly partake in the ruse? (addressing everyone)

...don't be so shy- tell us what you REALLY think

But seriously, at the rate we're going, we'll be the only two left on this forum if we don't contain ourselves

Don't worry, it's all out of my system now.

I hope we haven't lost SS -- he's a good contributor.

lolz

I think it depends on how much people value the content. So there are some shows and programs, that I think are worth the ads, or price... those I'll put up with the ridiculous content. For programs that I like but not enough to deal with the hassle, I won't.

DRM as a concept doesn't bother, it's the implementation that ends up lowering the value of the content to me and makes me less likely to participate. But in general, I don't get overly worked up over it.