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?
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!
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
...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".
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
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?
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'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?
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.
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
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
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.
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
I really hate it when people make statements like this. No one is going to buy a computer system just to listen to MLB
Like hell they won't. You have obviosly never been exposed to the evils of retail computer sales.
"I want a computer. I need to Internet." or "I want to use online banking" or "I want to watch TV on my computer."
All real phrases uttered by hapless fish driven to a marketing frenzy by gong-pounding blue men.
No sig is worth reading.
anytime soon, pay-per-breathe!!
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.
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?
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.
- 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 is probably more expensive than streaming, in the long run. Bandwidth is getting so cheap that pretty soon it won't be economical to pay for a spectrum license (both in dollars and FCC hassel) and the tower, broadcast equipment, etc. Just have your server farm and a few big pipes. My big problem is that they got rid of all the individual team web sites and replaced them with an ugly template for every team. Presumably blockading individual teams from streaming the games if they choose is all part of the plan to bring the teams completely within the MLB brand. Sheesh.
Walt
- 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.
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
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?"
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.
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
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
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 like the Yankees[1]. WABC 770 AM in NYC is the official broadcast station of the NY Yankees. They always broadcast over the internet in RealAudio, whether there's a game going on or not. There is no added cost to MLB or RealNetworks in this case. WABC pays to broadcast the games, so MLB get's paid, they paid for their RealServer so RealNetworks gets paid. WABC makes their money through advertising so they make back their investment. Why the hell should I have to pay MLB/RealAudio again?
Let me guess, they're "innovating."
It's bad enough that you need an EE degree to download and install the RealPlayer without all the valuable advertising and privacy infringing "features." I remember when RealNetworks were the good guys...
[1] yes I know, it's like rooting for Microsoft
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.
Except that MLB took over ALL of the web sites for baseball teams and if a team wished to broadcast its feed over the net, they no longer can.
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 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.
Ironically, Baseball has one of the only exemptions from anti-trust law. It doesnt make it a cartel, but it definately makes it a monopoly with out legal control. In fact, during the last strike, one of the threats laid on MLB was the removal of its anti trust status. If there is another work stoppage, it might be time to pull the plug on it.
"My head hurts, My feet stink, and I dont love Jesus." -Jimmy Buffett
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?)
"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!
What do these cities really get out of having a major league sports team anyway? Do they actually bring in enough revenue to justify the public spending hundreds of millions of dollars on stadiums or arenas? I don't watch sports on TV and I only go to local games when I get free tickets. The metro area I'm unfortunately in seems to have some sort of inferiority complex when it comes to professional sports. The elected officials & top business leaders seem perfectly willing to prostitute themselves and volunteer tax dollars for the building of a sports facility, but balk at spending money on a court ordered new jail or improve the crappy schools. I guess we're in the bread & circuses phase: don't worry about society crumbling around you, just watch the bouncing ball......
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
$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....
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
I would say maybe a few hundred...a couple thousand sounds like it's pushing it. Real estate taxes probably don't come into play since exclusions for not paying them are usually included in the sales pitch. I know what the politicians are getting out of it: bragging rights and kickbacks. I wanted to know what the cities get out of it besides having to pay higher taxes for sports complexes so some barely literate jocks can play ball while the owners rake in skybox loot (then gripe a few years down the road how crappy their facility is and demand the tax payers build a new one) I don't see how they make the city better..safer, more livable. IMHO, they just provide a distraction from the real things that need attention so they can get fixed.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
I'm from Seattle, and last year taxpayer's paid hundreds of millions of dollars for a new baseball stadium, and I don't even like baseball, and now the owners have to audacity to get after fan site for re-broadcasting the stream. It kinda makes me sick.
exactly...
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!
I agree that the broadcaster deserves to be able to cover the added costs of internet broadcasting. However, in this case the broadcaster is WABC radio in NY. They're the ones who pay for the servers, they're the ones who pay the announcers etc. They give the Yankees a bunch of money to be allowed to broadcast. If they want to raise their ad rates, or yes, even charge listeners, it's their prerogative. Here we have RealNetworks and MLB demanding money for me to listen to WABC's broadcast. Everything was fine before they came along demanding money for nothing.
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.
Personally, I'd rather have people be proud of their community because it has good schools, a low amount of crime, clean, etc. In this case, the diversion helps people ignore problems that need fixing. Having a new stadium doesn't help much that much when the city already has at least two sports/entertainment complexes that are hardly used, but not up to 'major-league' standards (ie. not enough skyboxes). IMHO, this is just an example of a pissing contest for politicians & business leaders and they're using the taxpayers to fund it.
Besides, do you really want me to base my opinion on Hollywood fiction (bad fiction at that)? Does LA feel like less of a city because they lost two NFL teams? Do the people of Chicago feel better when the Bulls win a championship and the fans riot? I don't have a problem with sports. But they are just _games_ and if you like a sport, it's more fun to actually play it with your friends/collegues than to watch some overpaid moron do it while you sit and get drunk.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Not everyone in the city may go to the pro sports games, but the people who do actually get something from the stadium construction.
And I get the 'benefit' of higher taxes. Oh boy!
At least a museum or symphony hall can be educational and cost no where near the amount a new stadium does. If it didn't cost so much it would be funny: politicians drag their feet on funding essential services & infrastructure, but jump at spending millions for entertainment. The schools are crappy, streets, bridges, etc are run down, but by God, everything's better because they have a team to cheer for! No wonder this country is so screwed up.
IMHO, if there are so many people who get fired up over having a team, then they should make the team community property similar to what Green Bay has done. Or at least have the owners & business partners fund a large majority of the construction.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
It all boils down to bread and circuses. History has a nasty way of repeating itself.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
"From what I've been told, we will not be able to make our broadcast available on our website. The only way to access it will be through MLB and their deal with Real Networks. This decision was made by MLB and we have no control over it."
--Mike--