Slashdot Mirror
Baseball Fans Must Pay To Listen Online
blair1q writes: "The AP is reporting that MLB and RealNetworks have formed a cartel to embargo broadcasts of baseball games, charging listeners $9.99 for the season. No word on whether they will continue to broadcast the commercials along with the games. No word on whether you will be forced to pay $29.95 for a registered copy of RealNetworks' software. No word on whether RealNetworks will improve the quality and reliability, or MLB will guarantee availability of the feeds, or you can move from machine to machine with your access intact. The words 'suck' and 'criminal' want to appear here in the worst way." Especially after team owners extort taxpayers to help build their stadiums. Of course, pay-per-view events aren't new, but pay-per-listen sports broadcasting? Webcams, laptops and Ricochet (in participating cities) seem appropriate.
Do you at least get a baseball cap or bat with your purchase?
Please. MLB wants to make money off a valuble franchise and Real has a stock price in the single digits. Get over it, everyone needs to get paid.
Hockey is free to listen too, listen to it instead.
It's easy to avoid problems with this new cartel: avoid watching major league baseball. Go watch (and support!) smaller, local teams. Hell, beer tastes better there anyway!
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
Ballster?
--
Je t'aime Stéphanie
How many people actually listen to MLB over internet feeds anyway. Just turn on the radio.
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
Major League Baseball was granted an exemption from antitrust laws by congress.
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
Ok, so I pay $500-$1000 for a system with a 17" monitor. Then, I pay $25-50/month for broadband internet access. After all this, I have the honor of paying $10/month to watch baseball in a puny screen with piss poor audio?
I think an $80 13" TV from Target and the rabbit ear antenna will do nicely instead.
Memo to MLB and any other media outlets: The "neato" aspect of streaming video expired in about Q3 1997.
No sig is worth reading.
...called a radio. It's really cool. You can listen to sports broadcasts on the go, or sit back and listen to some tunes! You can even be intellectually stimulated by some talk radio! Think of the possibilities!
--
--
#nohup cat
I'm usually in the minority on things like this, but I think it's pretty irresponsible to assume the worst about something like this.
Sports broadcasts are usually paid for by radio stations which then recoup the expense through ad sales. Assuming the $9.95/season gives you the rights to listen to every game, sans-ads, how is this "unethical", "criminal" or "immoral"?
Why is the slashdot community so vehemently opposed to companies making money through honest means? This stuff costs money. Deal with it.
Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
If I got evevry single game that every team plays, not just my local teams, $9.95 per year would be a very good price.
This is commercialism. That's the way it is. Pay to hear or don't pay and don't hear.
This is supposed to be surprising to someone?
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
i will admit i don't follow sports of any kind, but, aren't these the same kind of people that just stopped playing because they felt they weren't making enough money? well that was the players, but are these the same people? I think these people should be stripped of all their worldy possesions, and forced to live in poverty for a few years, so that their sense of reality can be re-adjusted.
-deuxdrop
And so we see another once-proud institution fall victim to the delusion that paying more attention to the business end, while paying less attention to the customers' enjoyment of and utility from the product/content, will always give bigger returns in the long run, just because it might (or might not) in the short run.
Recant in as many shorter forms as you like. "Screw-balling the fans" seems apt.
Ummm. Yea.
The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
Don't like it, don't buy it. That simple. Or are you implying that this service is evil and we should crush it under a torrent of flamebait posts, which won't weigh on real networks any heavier than a slightly uncomfortable hat?
If something's broadcasted over the net, someone has to pay for it, and it's surely not going to be them. They are trying to make money offering streaming, a unpopular thing at slashdot but a necessary thing none the less.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Hmm, that little blurb had less info than the slashdot intro, even. This doesn't make clear whether the fee is supposed to apply to fans directly, or rebroadcasters like radio stations. Since the fee is so low, I'm guessing it's supposed to be the fans paying. Which leaves unanswered the question about radio stations which broadcast online: do they have to black out the games, or pay more, or what?
If this means I can listen to any MLB game I want, I think $9.99 is a great deal.
here you will see that this does in fact require the "Gold Pass" service. And that yes you do in fact have to have the non-free player to use the gold pass service.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
I hope that the MLB will get a clue and correct their mistakes. The player's union clearly needs to be disbanded, and most of the owners forced out. Same goes for the umpire's union. Those organisations have outlived their usefullness. Perhaps I am a tad harsh, but MLB is in serious need of some radical changes.
How many teams will try to gouge the citizenry to build new stadium? And now, for what is free to listen to on TV and radio, you now have to pay for to listen to on the internet? This is absurd, and only further shows MLB's lack of savvy and understanding of the real world.
Impatiently awaiting the Arrival of a new Lover!
Seriously Timmy, I hardly think this garbage qualifies as 'News for Nerds' let alone 'Stuff that matters.' Most nerds I know (myself included) are extremely averse to sports of any kind. This is probably due to the ridicule that was endured during years of public education, in which the instigators were commonly involved in said athletic activities.
Can't this kind of cheap trite find a weblog of it's own where a bunch of slope-headed, beer bellied, 40-somthings who call each other "Coach" can sit and grunt with one another about why this sucks?
I thought I read this site to gather pertinent information that caters to my demographic. Not so I can learn about why the meat-head in the other office is going to have a restless night's sleep.
they could form a cartel to pay players LESS. Sure these guys bring in tons on ticket sales, merchandising and advertising, but they're replacable. If they strike, just fire a few and bring in some of the guys from the minor leagues.
Douglas Adams
1952-2001 :(
I'm not a big MLB fan, so I'm probably less concerned about this than I would be if it was a different issue, but let's be realistic.
This is entertainment, and people will pay a large amount of money for entertainment. MLB is in business to make money while entertaining.
If people want MLB coverage, and it's offered for a fee, then they can pay the fee or not get the entertainment.
In many ways this is analagous to cable carrying local TV stations. "Why would I pay for what I can get for free?"
Because picture quality and signal strength are much better, that's why. Don't like it? Get out the rabbit ears.
So, WRT MLB for a fee...Don't want to pay? Find free entertainment.
Free MLB is not a right guaranteed by the constitution. Deal with it.
Regards,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you.
If you would like to know more about this, please email me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Im not a real big baseball fan, but one of my really good friends is. Being a fan of many teams, none of them in his state, he gets most of his baseball action using realplayer and the MLB website.
While it isnt the end of the world or anything, Im sure there are a ton of people like him, who are going to be very disappointed that they have to pay for what has been a free service for quite a while now. Im sure there are also quite a few that will no longer be using the service because of this. A shame if you ask me
Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
Well, it was $10 per SEASON, not per month. But yeah, I think you've got the right idea with the TV and rabbit ears.
Anyway, consider how fortunate you are:
Until recently the only way you'd get something *close* to broadband was a real T1 for $1-3k per month depending on where you are and who you get it from.
My first 17" monitor cost $1450 (just the tube, no PC with it!) My first 4 PCs were over $3k each, and I've gone through about 12 of them from '90 to '00.
Oh, and I dropped $8K on a really nice Amiga in '87. Granted it had a touch-sensitive tablet, video digitizers, genlock, etc. etc., but still...
So you may not want to bitch about the money *too* much.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Oh no! they want to charge for a service! run away!
the new york times quite clearly says you get the Plus version of realplayer FREE with your freaknig 10$/YEAR payment. this isn't much to ask for a great service.
blair1q used the word "cartel" to describe their pact, making it sound like some illegal organized crime deal. The fact is, MLB is there to make money. People on the net only want to leech things for free and not listen to commercials. I'm sure MLB must be experiencing this, which is why they want to now charge money for the service, one that you can get for free on the radio.
I think a major factor for charging is the bandwidth cost. It costs them tons of money to support these thousands of hour-long listeners, something they'd avoid over the radio.
You see people. The "free everything fever" on the net is over. Reality is setting in. Too bad for all you leechers who just want free stuff and offer absofscking nothing in return for the hard work of the providers. Bah humbug!
---------
Did you just fart? Or do you always smell like that?
eTrade SUCKS
$9.99 sounds reasonable for a whole season. Of course this better be ad free.
However, I don't believe I will bother paying them since I don't watch baseball when it is free on TV
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
look at it this way, it's probably aimed primarily at people who are located outside of the broadcast area of the team they are interested in, e.g., NY Yankee fans living in California. Satellite TV season sports packages easily cost upwards of 100 dollars per season, if not more. People living within the broadcast market will just watch Tv/listen to the radio. Even if I were on a business trip and wanted to catch the action of the latest home team's game, 9 bucks is quite reasonable even for a one time fee, heck that's about how much it costs for a couple of pr0n flicks in a hotel pay-per-view. As far as commercials go, in baseball it's not even an issue considering they have commercial breaks anyway between innings. It's a pity it won't be free anymore but servers and bandwidth cost money. I think 9 bucks is a pretty reasonable price.
NO CARRIER
Can't this kind of cheap trite find a weblog of it's own where a bunch of slope-headed, beer bellied, 40-somthings who call each other "Coach" can sit and grunt with one another about why this sucks?
hey, look! katz finally made himself a troller account!
--saint----
I can see it now:
...
FBI officials have arrested Paul "Paulie Packets" Pastarelli for running one of the biggest internet packet bookie rings in history.
The FBI alleges Paulie Packets took bets on networking information from listeners of Internet sports sites with an ingenious plot to make money.
Taking bets on dropped packets, fragmented packets, DF bits set on a packet, Paulie Packets earned himself a spot on Americas Most Wanted for being such a dangerous criminal.
Officials at the FBI arrested the 12 year old after he hacked into everything you can think of in order to pull of the crime of the century, and investigators are concerned that Paulie's actions may be rubbing off on his junior high school classmates.
more to come
360 degrees of Karma
This is a service that is worth it, that I have no other way of getting. Baseball is under no obligation to give away radio broadcasts. If they want to force people to pay for them then so be it.
--Mike--
What we used to do was tune in the radio to listen to the good play-by-play, while simultaneously watching the tv with the sound turned off, so we didn't have to listen to the clueless tv guys (who were usually biased for the other side anyway).
Ok, so it's not "computerized," but does everything have to be? Uh, oh. I'm gonna get SO flamed for saying that...
BTW...Anyone know if Tom Cheek and Jerry Howarth still announce the Blue Jays games on radio? If you know the answer, you know where to find me.
?!
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
E.g., but out of date: WTOP (D.C.) used to broadcast Orioles games (they don't anymore because it kept getting in the way of traffic reports that listeners REALLY wanted), but while they did, they also did over their feed on the internet. The feed on the 'net still gets commercials. In fact, WTOP was able to raise their rates by showing the number of internet listeners. From that improved rating, WTOP has a standard rate that they would pay to the Orioles network (modified by the fact that the rating affects direct sponsors like Eskay hot dogs that go through the network), which in turn paid the Orioles a cut and the rest to MLB to give to the other teams involved in games against the O's.
NOW, what MLB wants is an additional $10.00 per listener per season, ON TOP OF THE FACT that the rates MLB gets paid by the stations ALREADY REFLECTS internet listeners.
That is somthing that doth royally suck the big one...MLB is going to Real for a sense of exclusivity (thinking they might get more) and bypassing the radio stations -- what it does is send more money directly to MLB, at the expense of the local radio stations (that lose that added rating share for internet broadcasting games), and more importantly at the expense of the individual teams that have stronger radio listenerships -- MLB would distribute an even cut of the money to each team, even though some teams like the O's have stronger radio audiences than others (by virtue of being close to 2 major and 4 minor cities within radio-range). Broadcasts through Real would likely go through exclusivities -- local stations that broadcast would be forced to blackout their internet broadcasting during a game, and that would cut into their overall internet listenership, since the reliability of the internet distribution would be shaken in the view of their listeners.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Why bother when I can see the Brewers play IN PERSON for $1?
Sure, the seats suck, being behind the only two posts in the park (hence the name "Uecker seating") , but nobody said you have to actually sit in them...
And the Brewers suck too.
But still, $1 per ticket is a better bargain.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
I don't agree that "criminal" should have appeared in this story, but I do agree with the word "suck". It's not a terribly high price, but probably higher than I would be willing to pay for crappy, unreliable feed. I would rather have some assurance of an improved quality.
You mean people CARE about this sport?
-----------------------------
1,2,3,4 Moderation has to Go!
I guess that I have mixed feelings about this. Conrary to the implication of the article, it sounds as though part of the deal is that this is a move to centralize broadcast by MLB specifically so that they _can_ guarantee availability of feeds. Honestly $10 per season isn't that much to a true baseball junkie, considering that I already spend something like $50 a year on various baseball reference books and the like- and I'm nowhere near the worst in that department. $10 is OK, that is, provided that it guarantees access to any game I want on any computer I want to listen to it from.
I just have a terrible feeling that eliminating ads from the mix just isn't going to be part of the deal. That's particularly true because of the insidious way in which announcers will toss in a short advertizement between pitches, but I have a feeling that this is also going to be a pioneer in targeted advertizing. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that they're going to replace the radio ads with special internet ones, and possibly even target them specifically for particular listeners. You're already going to have to provide authentication just to get the feed, so targeted advertizing (and demographic profiling) is going to be part of the story.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
NO WAY! ITS NOT FREE! NO WAY!
If it is a bad product, don't buy it. If you don't buy it, then they will have to improve their product if they want to increase sales.
Honestly, some fucking people need to get a clue about living in a free market economy. Sure, it'd be nice if MLB broadcast all the games commercial free in an open patent-unencumbered format, but then they'd lose a ton of money. Great idea! Really, if i were in MLB's marketing department, I'd sure be looking to do some kind of loss-leader campaign like that because, well hell, we need to keep our fans loyal before they start watching some other country's professional baseball!!!!!
~GoRK
Oh the humanity!! $10 for easy, one-click access to 2430 games/year plus playoffs. What are they thinking? That's $.000457 an inning for crying outloud! And God forbid a business try to make some revenue on something they own and operate. For those of you that have never watched/listened to a baseball game for 9 innings, the broadcasts are owned and regulated by MLB.
Companies need to make money, that's the only reason they exist.
:-) But not a much as a certain Jon Katz.
It does not suprise me that Timmy posted this, does this guy have a real job/life? Take a look at his history of postings maybe one in five is news for nerds stuff that matters. The rest is like this garbage.
God it makes me seeth
If someone wants to extort money from me, I would give them none. No matter it is MLB or MPAA, there are plenty of other FUN things to do with my life.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
anytime soon, pay-per-breathe!!
What is it about Inter-Tainment that people want it all for free?
I'd rather complain that sports franchises bilk communities out of massive amounts of tax dollars and yet still charge local residents to attend games. Why not let locals come free, or at a reduced fare?
If Yahoo started charging for views: so what? Don't like it? Don't pay. Where is the crime? What's that sucking sound?
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
OK, from the Times article, all I can gather is that the MLB wants to charge for access to feeds that were (until now) available for free. So what? Are they not allowed to do whatever they want with their own content?
I can see one potential problem that was not addressed by the short article. Usually local radio stations broadcast the games, and often they webcast as well. If MLB is trying to block them from webcasting the games, that is ridiculous, and a problem... But I don't see that in the article.
But if your only problem is that it's not for free anymore, tough, deal with it. It's THEIR content and they can charge whatever the want for it... if they charge too much watch or listen to someone else.
-rt-
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
But, as a frequent listener of games over the Web, I've come to the conclusion that $10 isn't really that much, provided the following things happen:
- I want my home team's announcers, even when that team is on the road. It always pissed me off that broadcast.com always gave you the home team's radio feed. You had to look for that feed yourself if they're on the road.
- I want some reasonably guarantee of quality for $10. As in, let's put some of that money into the server farm, and don't just give it all to A-Rod.
- I don't want some lamebrain executive to decide to raise the subscription prices every year, like they do with ticket prices.
- Finally, I also want to abolish the DH, but that has nothing to do with streaming games.
If all these things happen, I'll have no problem paying my $10 every year. After all, just because something's on the Internet, doesn't mean it has to be free!
Don't dis real - their server and codec technology rock in comparison to wmp or my open source efforts. Sure - they're expensive, if you want a free server then Icecast + Vorbis/Mp3 is fine for radio. We've not got decent video yet but we're working on it. Real's speed sensing technology is usperioir to MS's, and no Open source porject has worked on this much.
Where real sucks is the client, it just does nasty things and keeps breaking stuff.
I'll have real over MS any day.
1. Paying an ungodly sum for satellite TV, then another ungodly sum for Season Ticket,
2. Flying to Green Bay for all of the games, or
3. Getting my dad to tape the games and send them to me, which loses something despite getting to fast-forward the commercials.
Of course, I can also wait for them to play the Niners once every few years, or to play on Monday night. Still, that's pretty lousy. So hey, I'd pay $10 a year to hear all the games.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
If they wanna charge $9.99 a season, fine. I don't care because I don't keep up with baseball (football, basketball, etc) and it's not going to bother me. The thing that *really* pisses me off is when these team owners start demanding things like a new stadium from tax payers. It's one thing if it's an optional fee, like $9.99 a season if you want a sportslink. But it's pretty rotten when money that should be doing some common good, ends up going to the weird sports religion.
No wonder public schools suck out loud in New Orleans.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
In Canada, I'm told, there's laws allowing anyone to rebroadcast a radio/TV signal, unmodified. iCraveTV was fighting on those grounds, but lost due to lawyer prices and the fact their rebroadcast included extra advertising.
Would it be illegal to rebroadcast over the internet a non-modified radio stream from a local radio station that has the game on for free? I wonder...
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Companies such as Real are hurting, and unless they start striking deals such as this.. we are not going to have companies such as Real left.
Get used to this trend, the free ride is over.
--------------------
Would you like a Python based alternative to PHP/ASP/JSP?
Wasn't this already debated with RedHats intentions to offer a service to provide freely available updates in a proffessional manor?
I don't get you Timothy. Please don't write anymore slashdot headlines. You don't make sense when you express your opinions on something as simple as a service.
My lord, should i quit paying for my ISP? Should i not pay for Palm.net? Do i need to cancel my cell phone WAP services?
Wholy crap, i don't even run linux. What am i doing here?
Dunno. Just thought i'd rant about how i'm happy someone is providing a real service that people will utilize for a change. I know tons of people who would kill to throw on some headphones, fireup realplayer and listen to the games while working a latenighter.
The NBA has been doing this for 2 seasons now, but they give you one game free per night.
For a few happy years there, the 'net was the best the to happen to sports fans, when many teams, both college and pro, began to broadcast their games for free on the Internet. No longer did you have to be in a team's broadcast area to follow a that team. From my home in Texas, I listened to broadcasts of Atlanta Braves baseball and Auburn (my alma mater) football. I could even listen in on interesting games in other regions, like I did when McGwire and Sosa were chasing Maris two or three seasons ago.
When will we get a Slashdot topic about Mc Donald's charging money for their hamburgers?
But they don't reach phoenix AZ, so 9.95 will be fine for me.
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
who besides americans cares about this ... kghm ... baseball ?
:), then yes, it is time to cry. "CNBC: Profit from it. Do you want to hear second part of GS speech ? $9.99. We accept Visa, Mastercard, ....".
If something like this will be instituted on some really global events like Olympic games, or I dunno, Greenspan's speeches about rates
- Restaurants Charge For Food, Require Additional Charge for Coffee and Alcoholic Beverages
- Money-Grubbing ISPs Charge More for High-Bandwidth Lines, Even Though They're Used for Napster, Gnutella, and Freenet
- ThinkGeek Charges Hundreds for MP3 Players, which are Critical to Your Rights Online
I know, it's shocking. But it's true!
sulli
RTFJ.
You would have no problem, then, if I were to offer a RealAudio AM radio feed of Yankees games to others from my own machine? Do you think MLB would? Should I bother to ask before I set it up?
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
radio tuner + web server
Honestly. I haven't watched baseball since the strike in '94..I think it was '94. Anyway, those ballplayers and the team owners are nothing but a bunch of greedy, overpaid slobs. I don't care how much training they have or whatever. It makes no difference to me. They're nothing but slaves to their own greed and incompetence. The days when ballplayers played for love of the game have been gone since the '70s, never to return.
I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that you're an idiot!
Whether you're at the park or watching on TV at home, you're paying the bill somehow (tickets, cable bill, commercials, whatever).
Just like people are paying for their internet connection?
The problem is that they haven't stated that they will be turning off the advertisements.
TV and Radio broadcasts are subsidized through advertising. The current internet feeds are also subsidized through advertising.
what kind of moral/legal/ethical arguments can youpossibly make to condemn them?
The argument is simple: people shouldn't have to pay money to be forced to listen to advertising.
If the 'pay' feeds are advertising-free, then you're right - however nobody has said that this was going to happen.. (in all fairness, they haven't said it wouldn't either..)
This looks like a proof of concept at the moment, rather than an attempt to make real money. If even 1 million subscribers cough up for each of the three years, that's still only $30 million. Remind me what the average player's salary is? Cynics may say that it's priced so cheap (and $10/annum *is* cheap) because they already know the service will be crap and punters won't fork over big bucks for crappy audio and the promise of some video highlights. I prefer to believe that there is a desire to build up an audience for this service over three years, by which time the tech will enable it to be an even more comprehensive service. Then you can expect to pay $10 / week.
I also found this intriguing:
In addition, RealNetworks and MLBAM plan to offer subscribers the ability to search for and create customizable video highlights of daily game coverage--providing a flexible way for baseball fans and fantasy-league enthusiasts to compile and review footage of their favorite teams and players on a daily basis. By providing archival access to every pitch from every game, this personalized video service will let individual subscribers choose the exact game highlights they want to watch.
Is this a tacit recognition of traditional "fair use" rights? Will MLBAM chase down fan/fantasy websites that use excerpts from the paid-for service?
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
The NBA has been doing this for a couple of years now. You can see it in the "Audio League Pass" section of the NBA.com site.
Corby
Rush Limbaugh has always stated that he doesn't stream audio because he wants his listeners to listen to the radio stations that carry his broadcasts. The stations need listeners so they can sell advertising so they have the money to pay Rush for the content. A free stream means stations won't have listeners and won't pay Rush.
However, he has recently changed his mind. For $39.95 you can join Rush 24/7 and get the last two weeks of his broadcasts.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com
I am not endorsing Rush Limbaugh, but pointing out that other content providers do not want to give away for free what they currently sell to radio stations.
Sucks, doesn't it?
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
They don't have to achieve their alleged goals through vendorlock, locking out other broadcasters, or enforcing a subscription scheme. All of those are purely gratuitious. These actions taken together are infact indications of bad faith. One also has to wonder how much further MLB will push things and how far consumers will let them.
...a great excuse to patronize the farm teams.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You know what, if you don't like it -- don't buy it. They're not really doing you any disservice by offering this to you. Are they supposed to put in the capital to set up something like this and offer it as a free public service? Would you? Or, maybe they're supposed to generate revenue off of the ever effective revenue model of advertising. Yeah, that's been working out real well... Its things like this that capitalism, that our country is built off of. Come up with a product. Come up with a price. Offer it to the public. If its well recieved, stick with it. If its not, change the product offered or the price. We watch tech stocks dive because they can't make money by offering free services, and then we complain when a new idea comes out and actually tries to make money....
Gee I gave up watching baseball sooo many years ago. At least I don't have to pay anything to NOT listen! Least... Not yet anyway... :P
I always thought the rights of broadcast were of the team along with Major League Baseball. A certain few games are broadcast (inter)nationally and the rest are at the say of the team. In fact, I believe that if a local station broadcasts a game and a national outlet also broadcasts it, there is a blackout imposed on the national broadcast in favor of the local broadcast. I would assume this would also apply here and teams would not be able to stop this pay broadcast, but they could also do their own broadcast, and free if need be. Add to this that possibly they could impose a blackout of sorts and require local ISPs to block the MLB broadcast in favor of the local one. If a team did this, it would certainly raise a fuss from Selig's office, it wouldn't go over well, they might fine them, but each team operates as an autonomous entity in terms of selling tickets and over local broadcasts, so I don't see how the teams couldn't provide a free broadcast locally to fans. Will this happen? Probably not. But I'd like to see a franchise have the guts and care about fans enough to try this, even if MLB and the other owners don't like it.
I demand a manual recount of my karma!
I hook up my radio and set up a Shoutcast server to broadcast the games. Sure this isn't legal (or is it?), but I'm wondering about enforcement of this . . .
The feds are one thing, but you don't want to fuck with Major League Baseball, my friend. When they take your ass down, they take you down HARD. There's a reason this is anonymous...
Sadly, the general "everything should be free as in beer" attitude of the general Slashdot populace infects yet another story. These people are providing a service. The service costs them money. Cameras and bandwidth at least, and I imagine they have announcers of some kind as well. Advertising revenues are likely not adequate for covering costs, so they charge for it. How does this "suck" and how is it "criminal"? 10 bucks gets you the entire season worth of games; compare to the cost of going to see a movie. From the article: As part of its agreement with baseball, RealNetworks also will offer subscribers the ability to search for and create customized video highlights. Hey, sounds cool to me. If I liked baseball, I'd love to create my own little highlight reel, especially if I could pass it around to some friends. Making money, and indeed, just breaking even is not a crime. It's not inherently morally or ethically objectionable either. This isn't Star Trek; we pay for things because we can't conjure them out of thin air without cost. It's amazing that there is as much free stuff available as there is. You have no obligation to feel that the service is worth the 10 bucks a year, but this doesn't mean that what they are doing is somehow wrong. I imagine that this will get moderated as a troll too. Sigh.
No email addy, so I can't take this off list. Sorry for going OT. Check out the place in the strip mall on the corner of Tasman and North First, along the San Jose/Santa Clara border. It's called "Greek Castle" or something to that effect. Decent food.
Sweet mother of god, I'd pay out the nose for access to video of the Redskins preseason and regular season games. Instead I'm stuck with Rams coverage in the town where they aren't (LA).
--
OliverWillis.Com
OliverWillis.Com
An Operative with an Agenda
How about radio stations that pay for the rights to the games, and also stream online. How can MLB justify that even though they have paid for the right to broadcast the games over the air, they are not allowed to broadcast over the Internet. And again about enforcement - if these radio stations just plug in their output to a computer to stream, what is the MLB going to do? Deny them broadcasting rights (aka lose revenue)? Hmm . . .
Karma whorin' since 1999
Are these two announcements a coincidence? I say that they aren't. Essentially, the Red Sox and the Bruins are charging all the cable subscribers a $10 per month fee, which means that $120 per year per cable subscriber goes directly to the two teams. To make matters worse, the Bruins haven't won a Stanley Cup in 30 years, and the Red Sox haven't won a World Series in over 80 years. And neither team looks promising for the future (the Bruins just might get into the playoffs by the skin of their teeth, but probably won't hold up so well if they do get a playoff spot; the Red Sox won't be seeing Nomar Garciaparra on the field for at least three months due to an aggravated wrist injury). In my opinion, all of the New England cable subscribers have become the victims of two evil organisations that never deliver on their promises.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Currently I use nhl.com to listen to the Real Audio broadcasts of out of town hockey games. (Free) Radio is an advertising model, right? So why wouldn't they want as many people as possible listening? I had hoped eventually I would be able to watch out of town hockey in streaming video free, now it looks like I may lose radio! Previously I've toyed with the idea of having someone where the game is broadcast hook up the cable to a TV in card and broadcast it to (just me) using real video so I could watch. Anyone tried that?
Basically we're at the point now where web sports broadcasts are like meatspace sports broadcasts. In meatspace, if you want the broadcasts for your home team, you can more or less do it on local radio or local television for free. If you want to watch out-of-town games, you pay for cable or satellite access so you can watch games on ESPN or DirecTV or whatever. I mean, come on... (as other posters have noted) if you only want to hear your home team's games... why are you getting it over the web anyway? Just turn on the radio. :)
You have to remember how this works from a business perspective. No matter how many people listen to a radio broadcast, it costs the station the same amount of money to broadcast it. That's NOT the case with a RealAudio broadcast because each user consumes additional bandwidth and additional CPU time on the broadcaster's side!
Still, it would be nice if we could get to the point where online advertisers and businesses could have deals where the advertisers basically pay per online viewer... that way hopefully as the amount of users increases, the amount of ad revenue would increase at the same rate as the bandwidth/cpu costs and then maybe online broadcasts could be free again? I think the only thing holding this back as cluelessness/skittishness on the part of the advertisers....
http://www.bootyproject.org
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
But the story says $10 for the full season, not per game.
But even then, it's overpriced. The only reason to go to a baseball game these days is to get fscking drunk and taunt the center-fielder.
I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that you're an idiot!
This is just annoying. No, I'm not suggesting what they are doing is unethical or illegal. MLB definitely has the right to license its broadcasts to whoever it chooses.
I work in an office building and radio reception on my walkman is pretty shitty. I remember last year when the Mariners were making a playoff run, we'd tune in to 710kiro.com which had all the Mariners game broadcasts online and follow the game that way. This was great for the radio station because they just got more listeners than they could cover otherwise - all listening to the same commercials, etc.
I'm guessing I won't be able to do that anymore. My interest in MLB is guaranteed to suffer as a result. I'm really not sure what MLB is getting out of this deal - they are offering $10 in gift certificates to make up for the cost of buying the broadcast. I might even have considered this if Realaudio wasn't such a piece of crap software.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Because, as Bart Simpson elucidated for us all, Major League Baseball is spying on us all, and they will track the pirates down and kill them!
-- Nerds on toast in the new millenium
Well it wasn't funny so I'm going to assume it wasn't a joke. What kind of magical radio do you have that can pickup any baseball game? The only reason people use internet radio is to listen to games that aren't broadcast in their area.
--
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
The whole point of this article is that streaming sites like the above link will be blacked out during baseball games.
--
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Not sure where that one came from, as I can't see how anyone can force me to pay $29.95 for a registered copy of RealNetworks' software. Of course, if I choose to use the software then I'll expect to pay for it. But if I choose not to use it, I won't be forced to pay for it.
I am a longtime baseball fan, but I had no problem boycotting the game for 4 years following the last strike. There are other things in life that are important, and if MLB makes business decisions that are not in my best interest as a fan then I'll act accordingly. Offering a full season for $9.95 hardly seems like such a big deal.
Baseball has bigger problems than this, such as the lack of pension benefits for old-timers. My heroes are mostly gone these days, and it seems like such a long time ago that I had any degree of respect for a professional athlete. I find it kinda sad when I relate more to the coaches and managers than to the guys my own age (the players).
So MLB charges $9.95 to listen to a seasons' worth of broadcasts online. BFD. It's not like they're cancelling the World Series or initiating a work stoppage. Those, in my not-so-humble opinion, are issues worth raising a stink over.
Wow, you had a radio that happened to have the game on! CLEVER! But does this magical radio have every game that is currently being played? The internet used to, and the whole fucking point of this article, pretty soon it might not have any.
--
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Their goes my last 9 bucks. I look at my bills and these little charges here and little charges there are starting to take a toll on the bigger picture. Alas in this case I must have my LA Dodgers baseball -- and if they (real) can make a nice consolidated site where I can listen to the game and maybe few real time stats -- then maybe this will be one of the better Johnny come lately -- please keep my poor dot com alive -- pathetic cash grabs I have sprung for in the last few months....
Don't get me wrong -- I don't believe in a free lunch -- but usually I only have to pay for lunch once a day -- and then I am full....In this case I am having to pay a service charge for an alarming amount of sites I frequent now days.
How much longer until I get charged a quarter each time I want to check me email?
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
The Tribune Company owns both the Chicago Cubs and WGN Broadcasting. I wish I could hear their laughter when they get your letter.
Cheers,
broadcast games on the internet. Believe me, radio stations report internet listeners when it comes time to sell ads. Radio stations pay the MLB(or whatever the hell it is) based on their ratings, and internet users were already counted in their ratings. Basically MLB is taking away radio station's ability to broadcast their station on the web. If you live somewhere where a team you like is not on the radio, you used to be able to stream a radio station from somewhere where the game WAS on the radio. The MLB sees that many people miss out on games so they figure they will charge $10 for something that was free (and as the radio stations pay the MLB based on ratings, it was already paid for at a regular rate, now the MLB is just abusing its power to get every buck it can possibly get).
--
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
I imagine this is grossly redundant, not to mention overly obvious, but what does this really matter?
I have been a loyal Tigers fan for a generation (They'll be good someday!), and I have always either watched them on TV (Tele-vision for those that don't know) or listened to them on the radio (a box that receives radio waves. These radio waves carry news, music, and sports). These mediums are generally free-of-charge, particularly radio. Why would one want to download Real Player (and actually install it), pay $30 or whatever for "Gold Service" (screwed in style) and then pay a flat fee for games. We can already listen to these games for free. Common sense folks, there's a world outside the box (no flames, get up and look).
Chazzf
No statement is true, not even this one.
You could get every single game every team plays for FREE. No longer will this be possible. Btw, the MLB was getting paid for what you listened to "free." Radio stations publish ratings and beleive me they include internet users. For a radio station to broadcast a game they have to pay the MLB based on ratings. This is just an example of a giant compan.. blah blah blah blah if you don't get the point by now do yourself a favor and end it,your life, now.
--
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Splearch
"when i can't stop fiddlin', i just takes me ritalin, i'm poppin' and sailin', man!"
[toot toot]
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
Maybe the title of this story should be "Baseball fans must pay to use service", because that's exactly what it is. Doesn't sound so bad when worded like that, does it? Why shouldn't MLB charge for a service which they are providing?
Damn them.
Aren't you a person who owns a computer? Jeez you must make lots of money. I wish you would be stipped of all of your worldly possesions, and be forced to live in poverty for a few years, maybe afterwards your sense of reality can be re-adjusted.
Yeah. Sure. Don't you realize that wealth is just jealousy? I garuntee you that your possesions are more entertaining, more comfortable, than anything kings had thousands of years ago. Think about it. Most of us have cars, TVs, etc. etc. Imagine being somewhere without a lightbulb yet still be considered a king; why? Because you have more than anyone else. Because of jealousy. Blah blah blah blah blah etc. etc. etc.
--
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Oh, well...I guess MLB can afford to lose another fan.
No worse you are going to have to listen to stories of the sexual exploits of 80 year old play by play guy.
Seeing as he obviously missed the entire point of the story, I don't think this should be a 5... or even a 2.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The dollars involved in MLB might be large enough to help make SSM multicast mainstream in the USA public internet -- which would be a positive development for everyone, not just baseball fans.
Cabal? There is no cabal!
I won't be following baseball. I think hockey makes a *much* better national pastime, and NASCAR too.
In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
Also agreed. Public blackmail for stadia isn't going to stop until we give teams the collective finger. It's a game of prisoners' dilemma on a grand scale. The optimum solution is all cities saying no, but each city will tend to get greedy and say yes because they think they'll be better of if their team has the nice facility. The result is that all of the cities build new facilities and everything is just as it was before.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
In the Fall, they will not broadcast the local football team locally, or on cable. Your only option to view the game is in person, at a sports bar, or using the Sunday Ticket on the sat. These are the options for me to view a game that is being played less then a mile from my apartment. I can, however, listen to the game live on the net, or watch games from other parts of the country on TV. (But somehow it looses something when I can hear fireworks outside my window and then wait 45 seconds or so to find out what happened on the net broadcast).
Now that it's basketball season, I can watch most away games on broadcast TV, but can only see home games if I subsribe to cable (home games are shown on a special Cox channel). Any other broadcast is blocked out, meaning if I have Sat and they are showing the game on TNT, TNT will be blocked for three hours. It costs money to hear it on the net.
The result: more often then not, I find my self chatting with people from other states to find out how my home town teams are doing. Somehow I'm missing the logic of pro-sports marketers here.
The Internet is generally stupid
Too bad they couldn't charge $9.95 for commercial or radio-personality free, radio stations. That might be worth it. And make the commute to work so much more enjoyable. If they charge for the $9.95 they should provide it commerce free. So if Vin Scully says one thing about Oscar Meyer hot dogs, and I do pay for the $9.95 broadcasts, I'm gonna blow up Real Networks...
"If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten."
-- George Carlin
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
In another sport, on the other side of the planet.. called Australian Rules Football. 3 years ago, radio stations down there (MMM, 3AW, and I believe JJJ) gave us int'l fans who couldn't afford to fly down there every week to watch a game, or turn on the TV, live RealAudio feeds of the game, including Ch. 7 (TV station) giving a live feed of the Grand Final. That was when the AFL found out "wow... there's money to be made in internet broadcasts!" So they started to offer it at a subscription price, and for AFL members only. Members and fans alike complained, and I believe they suffered a drop in membership, and are involved in a battle for Internet and broadcast rights, with the football clubs. clubs claim it's their property, since they're doing the playing, AFL believe it's theirs for it being their league.
This is still going on with the clubs and the AFL, but with MLB, it could get worse. Who will have the rights to the coverage? Remains to be seen.
BL.
I live out in Boston, and miss catching Pistons game. I used to be able to listen to them over real audio, from links that were available on ESPN's web site. It was a nice, you could get either teams' radio broad cast. That was around 1996 or 1997. The next year, that feature was gone, and you had to sign up some NBA subscription. I didn't bother. It is sad to see MLB following in the foot steps of the NBA.
Cartel? Embargo? Geeze, guys, let's not be too paranoid.
-Chris
...More Powerful than Otto Preminger...
baseball? how bout some coverage of a topic thats actually interesting
I don't necessarily think this is a bad idea. For years, I have listened to the Real Audio broadcasts of New York Mets games. Though I live in NY, the SUNY New Paltz campus is kind of a radio black hole due to the mountains and the buildings on campus. My question is, what will we hear in-between innings? Advertisements? Silence? Or even better, commentary on the game. Radio is paid for through the ads. This should have some added benefit over radio, such as commentary regarding the game, updates/news about other games going on at the same time, etc. I don't want to pay AND get ads, but to be honest I probably will anyway. I listen to these games enough that I wouldn't mind the fee at all. I just don't want to have to buy Real Player Plus as well...
you need to stop watching ESPN too. And any broadcasts. The increasing bidding wars for the rights to broadcast is the bigger factor in player salaries (because they see how big the pie is). This won't change because while certain media choices (drama, comedy, news) are being spread out among a number of sources, sports broadcasts are special since they create their own events. They will always have a good core audience no matter how many other channels of crap are on out there.
--
+&x
If your satellite provider believes you live in Alaska, they will not blackout any Arizona games...
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
It's just like a monopoly, except that many different parties are collaborating. Put it this way: Microsoft is a monopoly, the RIAA and MPAA are cartels.
I have a shotgun, a shovel and 30 acres behind the barn.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Why not just listen to the games on your favorite AM radio broadcast through the web? In the DC area WMAL broadcasts sports through their web site and it don't cost notin'! Surely there are other stations co-broadcasting baseball through their web sites.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
If the strikes didn't turn you off it, theres probably some thing wrong with you.
Its a pretty gay sport, in any case. Australian rules rugby - thats a sport.
I smell flame or a mod down - go ahead . . .
I have a shotgun, a shovel and 30 acres behind the barn.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
All MLB Baseball games should be Free
Groups of independent fans could build their own stadiums whereever they please, so long as everyone is able to sit there at no charge.
You could have your own MLB games anytime, as long as you made the players available to everyone!
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Basically, you're paying 10 bucks to have every game be available in english, spanish, and french with either the home or visiting broadcaster. In many cases, these options were available before. I don't think its worth it, but as a Yankee fan in Ohio I don't have much of a choice and I'll pay it.
The video highlight service they describe is completely different. It sounds as though that is what you need GoldPass (and therefore non-free RealPlayer) for. Also, it won't even launch until May and promises to give you access to every pitch of every game throughout the season. That seems like a pretty powerful tool, although when it comes through RealPooper software who knows what it will be like.
------- Was it just a coincidence I got moderator points the first time I logged on to
I wouldn't pay for this. Paying to listen to radio? I can do that for free right now. I wouldn't pay for this. This should be free.
For more information, click here.
Science Boy Bobby: It's time to learn about crack, boys and girls!
Science Girl Gena: Crack is a substance that is issued with moderator points. All smart moderators get rid of the crack, but a few decide to smoke it all at once.
Science Boy Bobby: Now, let's take a look at the parent post.
Science Girl Gena: Oh my! It currently seems to be moderated as (4, Offtopic).
Science Boy Bobby: That's right. But, it's talking about listening to sports broadcasts, comparing methods of transmission.
Science Girl Gena: And the article is about what, Science Boy Bobby?
Science Boy Bobby: Why, listening to sports broadcasts using various technological means, Science Girl Gena!
Science Girl Gena: So, why would it be considered Offtopic?
Science Boy Bobby: Because the moderator was smoking crack at the time.
Science Girl Gena: Hmm. That leads me to the conclusion that the last moderator of that post was a complete fucking retard, and a crackhead to boot!
Science Boy Bobby: How astute, Science Girl Gena!
Science Girl Gena and Science Boy Bobby: Until next time! Bye-bye!
Radio -- Free
Television -- Free
Internet -- $9.99 (and shitty quality)
Ok, this must be redundant, but is there anything else to be said on this topic? Pure lunacy.
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
I think this is an incredibly short sighted move on the part of MLB - but, hey, it's not like these buffoons are blessed with intelligence to match their riches ... I can't see this being a successful venture, other than a small contingency of losers who are even bigger morons than Baseball's Lords of the Realm ... meantime, you shut the young kids out that already are flocking as far away from as a baseball diamond ...
I think the "new economy" is eventually going to humble the present-day professional sport franchise realm ... licenses and IP rights go only so far - I mean it was nice when the video game Madden 93 was the craze but the only way you could tell it was Walter Payton running with the rock was the #34 graphic showing above his pixelated image ... now, we have authentic simulation creations that don't necessarily need the pro league license, only the ability for you to add a #34 and custom name ...
I have a dish and I subscribe to the hockey and football deals but I won't be renewing those next season ... Why? - well, for a number of reasons - the yearly subscription price is indeed reasonable (little over $100) but a number of things really bug me - [1] I pay for the games but I don't get my favorite team announcers and I don't understand why that can't be provided - they can sub in the same ad space they sell for the dish package deals - it wouldn't matter to me ... [2] I can't watch all the games at the same time - not being a smart-ass but I wish they would use the channel real estate that I donate my hard earned credits for replays and maybe put together some highlight reels (NFL really only one that does this and even theirs is a half-hearted endeaver - the NBA channel is merely a placeholder for nba.com ...) of present and past action, or for goodness sake, air some of them Don Cherry rock-em sock-em videos ... and [3] the state of sports on the dish in general - early dish days would get me all the sports channels from all across USA and each one had its own flavor and lots of minor league action was carried - now they've all been swallowed up by Fox Sports and the programming is all the same, and stuff like minor league hockey, college hockey, minor league baseball, roller hockey, etc. was dropped for the likes of Bob Ley, Keith Olberman - the regional sportscasts are a feeble attempt to restore the homebrewed flavor that has been painfully sterilized ...
So, if I "jones" for some sports action, I guess I'll have to settle for the local teams or the ESPN game of the week ... if it's not available in the chosen recreational time slot, perhaps I'll live vicariously and engage in some sporting activity myself, or maybe I'll put the finishing touches on that massively multiplayer sports role playing game that everyone has been clamoring for ...
AZspot
I thought this was "News For Nerds"
Since when are nerds and geeks into sports?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
and they love cricket. sometimes they spend the night in the office (grad students) so they can watch cricket matches (which can last days) back in india. evidently it is here and it is free. if they were to be charged for it they would bitch about it like they have some right to see it for free.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
i'm not sure of this, but i think the radio stations purchased the rights to broadcast the games over the radio waves. they had been broadcasting the games over the internet, but didnt have the right to do so. now the MLB wants to sell internet broadcast rights to real networks. in doing this they have to guarantee realnetworks exclusivity, so they have to stop the free broadcast by the radio stations.
weather or not it is a good idea is up for speculation. alot of people think that because they were given something for free once they eternally have the right to have that something for free for ever. this is another example.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
Cable has ads. Why shouldn't this?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The reason why your Indian buddies were glued to the cricket is because India played an incredbly exciting and close series of matches against Australia, and very narrowly won the deciding game of the series, after some of the most outstanding individual performances by several players in years (or in a couple of cases, ever).
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I've seen the "everone needs to get paid" chorus in this. While I would agree with something that is a service there is nothing wrong with charging a fee, a la RedHat's update, this seems different. I mean, the NHL and NFL webcasts are just webified versions of Radio broadcasts, complete w/ commercials. If MLB is going to do this, it seems that the "service" is already being paid for by the commercial time. If MLB broadcasts w/o commercials what exactly am I spending 10 bucks on? Some chatter between innings? To listen to the broadcasters talk about what they REALLY think (actually, that may just be worth it sometimes...)? Criminal may be too strong a word, but "low class" seems to fit. MLB is taking the "Broadcast Rights" a little to strongly in doing this. It's going to fail miserably, and it should.
"charging listeners $9.99 for the season."
They have to pay for the bandwidth somehow.
"No word on whether you will be forced to pay $29.95 for a registered copy of RealNetworks' software."
Forced? Not likely. The last time I checked paying for RealPlayer was just as voluntary as listening to a baseball game on the radio.
"The words 'suck' and 'criminal' want to appear here in the worst way."
Of course they do. After all, the constitution demands a right to hear a baseball game for free, doesn't it?
"Especially after team owners extort taxpayers to help build their stadiums."
Extort? The taxpayers can let the teams go elsewhere. No town needs a baseball team, and taxpayers can always watch the game on TV for free.
Seems to me that someone is testy over *shock* a for profit corporation attempting to make money! heaven forbid!
My god! All of $9.95 for the whole season! MY GOD! The evils of capitalism! They are ripping us off!
^ Hbreast reduction surgery.
And to pay another $20+ for the full version of Real Player, maybe, OMFG! NO! Jesus H. Christ! I haven't been this depressed since Chris Farley died. I haven't been this sad since Loni Anderson had breast implant removal^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Dumbass, did I say they were down now? I don't believe I did! Right now most of America is still stuck in the modem age. A few years from now broadband will be everywhere. Downloading an mp3 will take a minute or two compared with the half hour to 20 minutes now. MP3 trading services will continue to grow as more people get computers and connect to the net. As more people see that they can download an entire cd and burn it for the .30 that a cdr costs. When that happens sales will start to drop! Why the heck would someone shell out $13 for a cd when they can download it FREE?
Right now there aren't enough people doing it. There's probably only 10-20 million people who regularly use these services now. What happens in 3 years when that might be 75-100 million? Then cd sales could take a hit! When artist can't sell enough cd's to justify making them there's no point in producers making them. I know at least 5 people who use napster, bearshare, and open-nap and they download entire cd's as opposed to buying them. I've heard all your lame arrguments that this is legal, but you know it's not! There's no justification for taking someone's work without compensation. If you own it, fine! If you don't, it's theft. The RIAA isn't "VERY GREEDY" they're just trying to take care of their intrests. $13 for a cd isn't that bad. People pay $50 for a video game, $20 for a DVD, $8 to go to a movie. I don't think $11-15 for a cd that you can listen to forever is "GREEDY!"
actually, it is closer to $159.34 for the mlb fee, the program, and the subscription to the gold service from realplayer. That is a lot of $ to me, and defintely a lot to my friend, who is less well off than I.
You can keep saying it still shouldnt be a big deal if he is a hardcore fan if you want, I guess it is just relative.
Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
$9.99 a season just isn't that much. Of course quality and bandwidth can't be guarenteed,that's the nature of the interenet. Of course they won't provide you with a free copy of a $30.00 program, since there's already a free version available. Tax payers money goes into building stadiums because it helps stimulate the local economy, especially if the team is doing good, but internet broadcasts do nothing to help the economies of anyone involved, until you factor in the $9.99 a YEAR charge...
That's not much... If the interenet is affordable at $20 to $40 a month, if napster will be affordable at $9.95 a month, then certainly a seasons full of broadcasts at $9.99 a year isn't that bad. If you think so, just buy your self a set of FM headphones, and you'll recoup your investment in only 3 or 4 years....
Ba$eball has sucked for years .Why do I want to spend my money on a sport thats only goal is to get my money.10$ for a autograph or 20$ for a seat.I have grown sick of the Greed from Sports !
Or any other "ML" sport, for that matter. Why pay anything (including time spent listening to ads) to watch a bunch of overpaid, overmuscled, arrogant lunkheads of the same types who made High School such hell for most of us?
10 bux for an entire season of games, guaranteed, is not bad, I guess.
However, MLB can go suck eggs. As a used and abused New England Sports Fan (Redsox, Bruins, Celtics, and Patriots). From the scandalous machinations between certain owners and their home states/cities (redsox, patriots) and the insane ticket prices (all of the above) and the outrageous salaries paid to people who do NOT deserve them (see ticket prices), they can all just _blow me_
Seriously. I don't think I'm alone in being completely alienated from pro sports. I'd rather go down to the local highschool, college, or *sand lot softball field* than even listen to a Redsox game on the radio. You know what? It's far more fun than dealing with the madness of trying to get a decent seat at Fenway, or the boredom of listening to a game on the radio.
Seriously.
Couple this with the utter lack of sportsmanship among the pro players these days, and you'll have to drag me, kicking and screaming, to get me to go to a Game.
So yeah, if you really really need to listen to the games, even if they're blacked out, 9.95 for the whole season isn't all that bad, considering how much it costs to subscribe to ESPN or something. But I'm one of those guys who has been turned off so much by the behaviour of the players and the owners that even 10 bux a year is too much for something that churns my stomach.
in europe some cable companies are starting to charge a pay-per-view fee for national soccer matches (or football is they call it here)
"the suns not yellow its chicken" -bob dylan
-greg
--
I don't know about anyone else, but I have a real like of the broadcasters in my town (Joe Castiglione and Jerry Trupiano in Boston) and didn't much like listening to the other team's home broadcasts. The opponents broadcasters never felt as comfortable to me, and they were unable to satisfy my need for coherency between broadcasts, as they needed to provide information to their home audience primarily, and leave Red Sox Nation infos out (if they knew them at all).
I have a feeling that this policy may change, but if MLB maintains the status quo, and weei.com is forbidden from broadcasting games over the internet, I will be rather peeved.
It does actually cost the broadcasters money to do this. Yes, perhaps their revenue stream does currently come from advertising, but I've got a hunch that the New Jersey Eye clinic won't want to pay more so that someone in England can be made aware of their services. Therefore the only option the broadcasters have to cover their costs is to charge listeners, and if it's either that or they pull the plug I'm happy to pay the 10 bucks. Sure, it might go up and in the future I'll re-evaluate whether or not it's worth it, but compared to the 20ish dollars a month I currently pay for sports channels on satellite TV every month, 10 dollars a year is reasonable.
This coupon for the MLB online site thing annoys me though. In an interview on MLB radio one of their people said that it makes it effectively free. Erm, no, I have never bought anything from MLB online. Mainly because they only ship to USA and Canada. Perhaps I should ask for the value of this useless gift voucher to be deducted from my subscription. Great, MLB owes me 5 cents!
The games are more exciting, the fans actually like to be there, the prices are cheap, the stadiums are better, and you get some fresh air.
All comments are my own (Unless I am having a out-of-body experience).
[begin offtopic rant]
Now that AOL/TimeWarner have sunk their grubby hands into the Braves operations they are beginning to dismantle the scout system that has served the Braves so well over the years. For the sake of saving an insignificant amount of $$ towards the bottom line, especially when you consider that the player payroll is near 90 million $, some bean counter has decided that having a decent scout operation is unnecessary.
[end offtopic rant]
This just another revenue stream for baseball owners who can't control their own finances. I believe the arizona diamondbacks owe about $200 million dollars to banks b/c they overpaid for players. Many of the baseball owners are crying poverty to the players association. however, there are some teams that don't earn that much money compared to larger market teams. Yankees get at least $55-$60 million in local cable broadcast alone. While smaller market teams barely get $10 million for radio rights to their games. I hope that this subscription helps even out the revenues of smaller and larger market teams.
HELLO???? That's what advertising is for.
...and I don't see hardware/bandwidth costs to the broadcaster as a legitimate excuse for a $10 fee to listeners. FM and AM stations got around this problem decades ago - what makes the current regime think they're too good to do the same?
Ads pay for my newspaper, the major tv networks, and the radio stations I listen to...all paid for by advertising. Why would anyone want to go to the trouble of paying to listen to a poor-quality RealAudio 'radio' broadcast of a game when they could just use a standard radio?
If I'm out of the broadcase range, I could see the point in listening to a netcast, but there's no way in hell I'd pay $10 to listen to something that's aired for free to anyone within range.
It's just the idea that "we can make them pay for it, so we will. The issue of wether or not we SHOULD means nothing."
There was a sentence in the AP story about 'customized video highlights'. Somehow, if the video broadcasts cost me, that doesn't bother me - just so long as audio remains free. Living in Boston that has been true on TV for a long time. to get many games on TV you have to subscribe to NESN, a pay cable channel, but all those games are broadcast on WEEI radio for free. If audio requires payment, I find that just depressing. Commercials should be more than enough to cover the costs of audio broadcasts.
Those fucking assholes in MLB. First they refuse to lower ticket prices, and then fuck the tax payer for stadiums, and this! MLB is going in the toilet. It will die a sad death. Owners won't share revenue (as the NFL does) and won't institute a salary cap (as the other 3 major sports do). So, only the top 5 or 6 teams will be in the post season every year, making baseball that much more predictable and pathetic. This is stupid what they are doing. Hope it accelerates their death! And yes, I was almost a fan before the 94 season. They fucked themselves and continue to do so.
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
Makes me wonder if the radio stations are going to mind Realnetworks copying their broadcasts for profit. Or do the radio stations get a cut of the $20 million? The broadcasts aren't the exclusive property of MLB, they are jointly owned by the broadcaster and MLB.
I have the same question. Perhaps MLB does have an agreement that allows them to use to use the broadcasts for mediums other than the live radio broadcast (like NFL Films has an agreement to use the radio broadcasts in its videos), but unless this is an agreement on paper, if I were a radio announcer, especially one as popular and well known to the fans as many of the players themselves (such as Harry Carey was), then I think you could have a lot of bargaining power to withhold your consent to use your voice for commercial gain without your consent.
Anyway, no way is Real going to get close to pulling $20 million out of subscribers for thewir crappy service.
From the article I read, it sounded like they will be adding a lot on-screen content to the broadcasts, however, unless the audio streams themselvs are available in 28.8k and 56k and ad breaks are filled with value-added content, I can't see paying for the games. At night you can get AM broadcasts from anywhere within 500 miles, which usually allows you to pull in at least one affiliate of your favorite team (or of the team they are playing that night), the broadcast quality isn't wonderful, but neither is the 8kbs streams that had been free last year.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
In the old days, all the games were on Ch. 38 in Boston, and it was on cable systems througout New England. This was good.
Then came NESN (as an extra-cost "premium" channel), and most of the games were not on free TV anymore.
Then we had the player strike, which eliminated the value of NESN. As if by magic, NESN became a pseudo-free channel (included with extended basic service), which brings us back to where we started.
People forget how hard MLB had to work to re-establish interest in the game after the strike was over -- people found other things to do with their time.
I predict the fees for on-line audio will magically disappear after the next strike. The greedier these people get, the more they will have to give away to get the fans back.
None of the media has mentioned that Rob Glaser, Real CEO, is a part owner of the Seattle Mariners. So his company gets an exclusive contract with MLB and he's one of the owners!
This is completely worthless. I have to pay to listen to a game if I listen through real player. So I'll use another media player, Windows Media Player if need be *shudder* and I'll simply visit WFAN's web site and get all the Met's games I want.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
$10 for an entire season isn't unreasonable. But forcing me to use a proprietary $30 player to listen to the games in a proprietary format is. I think MLB is attempting to crop its listening audience to localized regions and failing that, making a quick buck. No big deal though I refuse to use any RealNetworks product if possible.
I personally enjoy listening to streaming audio of MLB in my office at work...
"Look where we worship" -- Jim Morrison
Of course, pay-per-view events aren't new, but pay-per-listen sports broadcasting
Isn't a sports broadcast an event? And isn't listening to a broadcast the equivilient of viewing a ppv event?
These are the same thing. This is PPV baseball. The only difference is that it's already free by radio and tv. That may make this a doomed business plan, but it's not "criminal".
IMO, some of us need to calm down. No one is trying to commandeer technology or control from us here. When you react this way, as if someone is doing something wrong or evil whenever they peddle IP in any form, isn't going to win anybody over to your side.
Now that the XFL is using Pacific Bell Park in San Francisco, maybe baseball can be phased out. Add some games to the XFL season (maybe let the cheerleaders play) and that should replace the baseball revenue.
Just watch tv.
MLB: All your base are belong to us
--Do you even know what it's for?--