Slashdot Mirror


Viacom Puts the Daily Show Archive Online

tburton writes "Viacom has put the entire eight year run of the Daily Show with John Stewart online. The content is available from the official Daily Show site, and features clip rating, tags, and numerous community features. The whole thing is supported by relatively unobtrusive contextual ads. 'Viacom's decision to post its entire archive--while fighting YouTube in the courts--sets the scene for a battle between the established media players and their high profile entertainment brands against the user generated content sites, most notable YouTube. Also watching closely the Viacom experiment will be the telco IPTV industry which has seen the market place change rapidly as the quality of online video continues to improve, with at least one platform/site, Vimeo, already offering 1280X720 HD quality direct from the browser.'"

153 comments

  1. Should have guessed by cucumberjones · · Score: 2, Informative

    It got Slashdotted.

    1. Re:Should have guessed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess that's one thing youtube has over this: capable servers.

    2. Re:Should have guessed by wpanderson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Service unavailable - Fail to connect

      Kinda demonstrates the case for p2p file transfers, huh.

      --
      neuro at well dot com (when I post, it's my opinions, no-one elses)
    3. Re:Should have guessed by vishbar · · Score: 1

      The whole thing is support by relatively unobtrusive contextual ads.

      Kinda demonstrates the case against p2p file transfers...

      --
      Ride the skies
    4. Re:Should have guessed by shinmai · · Score: 4, Informative

      And this is what people kept telling viacom, when they decided to sue youtube, to get more people to use their own video service.

      Many of the companies that threatened to, or did sue youtube, seemed to do so to get more users on their own video-sites. Funny thing is (albeit I might not be what one would describe as an average user) I for one haven't. I like YouTube because it knows what it wants to do, and does it well. It wants to host videos, and it's doing a good job at that. Instead of suing, these companies should've (IMHO, of course) have partnered up with Google & Co. and use the existing fanbase their content had on Youtube, instead of removing the material and hoping people would like to, instead of watching cool videos from one site, wade through half a dozen different sites to do the same..
      I'm not too hot on Comedy Centrals own video player, for instance, and as such, have stopped watching clips of Daily Show and the Report, and instead reverted back to my old habit of downloading the whole episodes from tvrss (Only one channel shows either of the two here in Finland: CNBC shows Daily Show Global Edition, which is a shortened version of the original, with a different moment of zen). Was going to post AC, but what the hell..

    5. Re:Should have guessed by Endymion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      so instead of leaving things be on gootube, and letting google pay for the bandwidth, they decide to setup their own site so they can pay for the bandwidth themselves?

      This "we must have control at all costs" never makes sense to me, especially when there's a financial reason not too...

      --
      Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
    6. Re:Should have guessed by Xizer · · Score: 1

      Of course they have a financial reason for this. Perhaps you missed the part where they are integrating advertisements?

    7. Re:Should have guessed by jkabbe · · Score: 1

      Viacom not only pays for the bandwidth, but they also earn the ad revenue.

      If revenue > bandwidth charges, Viacom gets to go to Step 3.

    8. Re:Should have guessed by davester666 · · Score: 1

      This is so close to being something I would like to use. The ads aren't too bad [they have them both before the clip and/or along the bottom], but did they have to chop up each show into so many tiny, unordered pieces? I'd like to see the show for day X, not just the 5 second "moment of zen", then load another page for a 20 second joke about Bush...

      Of course, I realize that other people would want to also have access to specific clips like this, to forward to other people...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    9. Re:Should have guessed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure seems like you own google stock.

    10. Re:Should have guessed by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      You mean

      3) ???

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    11. Re:Should have guessed by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      Why don't they just put up a torrent with the Hyundai commercials plastered on top like they have on the site? As long as they make it disappear when it'd be covering up part of the joke, someone's name, or other things like that it'd seem like a pretty good deal to me. A single source that I could setup to automatically download via RSS, they'd get their ad money, and I wouldn't have to subscribe to cable TV or put up with their shitty servers to watch the show legit.

      I guess a web-based player is nice for looking up specific segments from the archives, but not so great for watching the program.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    12. Re:Should have guessed by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Experience working for a major webportal taught me that sales, and more moderately marketing, still consider pageviews to be at least as important as revenue.

      Bandwidth is relatively cheap for those who buy it in bulk. Salesdroids get to sell more ads to their clients based on how much imprints the ads are likely to get over a given period.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    13. Re:Should have guessed by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      It's a shame you can't link into the middle of video files, e.g. http//server.com/video.avi?start=1_05&end=2_20 would start playing at 1 min 5 seconds of some video file and stop playing at 2 min 20 sec.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    14. Re:Should have guessed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it so hard for people to understand that Google may foot the bill for the bandwidth, but they also reap ALL of the advertising revenue generated by people trying to view other people's content. That is why content creators get so angry about YouTube-- Google is profiting from the work of others. By having people come directly to their own website to see eps. of TDS, Viacom captures the advertising revenue from that.

      Now, I don't know if there's a program such as this in place, but what would make the most sense is a revenue-sharing model where the distributor (YouTube) splits the advertising profits with the content creators.

  2. I'd enjoy this but... by truthsearch · · Score: 1

    I don't like it when my TV / VCR gets Slashdotted.

    1. Re:I'd enjoy this but... by eneville · · Score: 1

      ok... where's the links to the .avis? i just want to download and watch full screen on my pc - but this seems to be a bit naff really.

  3. They will never learn! by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is for one reason and one reason only, because GooTube exists. If there was no such thing available to so many people, the media companies wouldn't give a flying rats ass.

    But because people are obviously interested in this medium and they are pissed that Viacom is being a bunch of fucking litigious bastards, they had to do something... We'll see just how it stacks up but based on the other networks' actions, I doubt it will be nearly as popular as the content available in one place - YouTube.

    I realize they want to control the content they own and all, but seriously, isn't it just easier to have someone else foot the bandwidth bills and to have your viewership get it the way they want? They will never learn :(

    1. Re:They will never learn! by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They will never learn :(

      Uhhh, yeah, I'm all about "sticking it to the man" too and I get rather pissed off when media outfits try to use DRM to lock down content that I've paid for, but what exactly is the problem with this?

      They are putting the entire archive of a fairly popular TV show online, at no expense. Even if you have to watch commercials with it (do you? You did on their old site, but TFA seems to suggest you won't) how can you complain about that?

      I would love to see an online archive of Babylon 5, Star Trek:TNG, Law & Order, 24, or any of the other TV shows that I watch. If I could go back and watch my favorite episode at the click of a button and the only downside was a few ads (that I'd see on TV anyway) how am I losing?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:They will never learn! by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Maybe if Google paid them a large percentage of the ad money, they'd consider it. Probably a lot larger percentage than the folks at Google would ever listen to without laughing.

      What needs to happen for us to get quality programming online is that people like John Kricfalusi who hate how TV networks are run need to do exactly what he did with The Goddamn George Liquor Program and some of his other work. They need to self-distribute online or direct to DVD. If Google let people with professionally produced, serialized shows capable of getting a following out of the draconian YouTube user policy then it might be the online distribution network of choice. The show's producers could put ads in the video stream. Google would have the page ads, and it's worth everyone's while.

    3. Re:They will never learn! by compro01 · · Score: 3, Funny

      how can you complain about that?

      when their server becomes a pile of molten slag?

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    4. Re:They will never learn! by speaker+of+the+truth · · Score: 1

      I realize they want to control the content they own and all, but seriously, isn't it just easier to have someone else foot the bandwidth bills and to have your viewership get it the way they want? Cheaper? Yes. More profitable? Uncertain. A company tries to make a profit by hosting their content online and people at slashdot are still unhappy? Some of you people truly are just pirates at heart aren't you?
      --
      Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
    5. Re:They will never learn! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't do business with Viacom, so as long as I can find episodes ripped to avi or mpeg, "elsewhere" on the Internet, I will watch them that way.

      In 2007, personal consumption has become politicized. We have learned that most corporations, given any opportunity to screw their customers, will enthusiastically do so.

      So, when I can identify a corporation that is engaged in practices that I find offensive, and I have any small opening to thwart them (even though any effect of my personal actions will be very tiny), I'm going to do it.

      Since the laws of our country are increasingly designed exclusively for the benefit of those corporations (especially, it seems, those most offensive) and to enhance their profits, my behavior will almost certainly be illegal to some extent.

      So be it.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:They will never learn! by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      when their server becomes a pile of molten slag?

      One would assume that they are using some sort of distributed solution, like Akamai. One would also assume that Viacom has enough resources to pull this off if they decide to do so. I'm not having any problems watching (well, downloading, cuz I'm reading /.) videos on that site. Maxed out my 10.0mbit connection as a matter of fact. And that's AFTER a /. article about it....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:They will never learn! by ucblockhead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't get your hopes up. They won't put those shows up. They might put up topical shows like "The Daily Show" because they are essentially worthless a week or so after air. You will never see "The Daily Show" DVDs or year old "The Daily Show" reruns on late night TV because no one would buy/watch. Episodic television, on the other hand, are worth money decades after release.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    8. Re:They will never learn! by ravenspear · · Score: 1

      I would love to see an online archive of Babylon 5, Star Trek:TNG, Law & Order, 24, or any of the other TV shows that I watch. If I could go back and watch my favorite episode at the click of a button and the only downside was a few ads (that I'd see on TV anyway) how am I losing? www.tv-links.co.uk
    9. Re:They will never learn! by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I realize they want to control the content they own and all, but

      Stop. Stop right there. No "buts." Quit while your ahead.

      Lookit, all the non-creators and non-artists of the world said "We want the professional distributors to provide your work online, and on-demand! If you don't give it to us the way we want it, we'll just make copies of it and distribute it ourselves." And along came Napster, and [finally] Youtube.

      So now the creators and distributors (Viacom happens to be both) finally begin to steer their gigantic battleship around and begin to offer some shows on the Net. OF COURSE they're going to use their own site to do so (DUH!). Yet you still find a reason to complain because... why? You've already got Youtube bookmarked and it's too much work to mark a new site?

      No, the reason (one of them) is that YouTube had a great leveling effect on video. It was the one site where a professionally produced 30-minute sitcom sat on the shelf next to a webcam vid of a coupla 14-year-olds lip-synching to "Barbie Girl." And this was a source of great satisfaction to the lip-synchers. Now, as more and more of the professional content melts away from YouTube and gets archived on the artists' and distributors' own sites, YouTube reverts to the Major Bowes Amateur Hour status from whence it started, like that Flowers from Algernon guy when the drugs wore off. Meanwhile, the semi-pro artists, not quite ready for Viacom, feeling the great sucking cold draft in the room left by the professional content going bye-bye, begin to glance nervously at the barbie-girlers on their left and the exploding Mentos lunatics on their right, and they begin to bail off to online distribution environs that aren't, um, painted in such primary colors. Youtube begins to garner that odiferous MySpace cachet, other distribution sites erupt to fill the want/need, and a new era of entertainment distribution arises, putting content at the fingertips of anyone with a cellphone or PC, and money in the pockets of the content creators.

      Youtube is dying. Long live online video distribution!!

    10. Re:They will never learn! by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is a online archive of those. it's called Netflix.

      and I get to watch them in low compression 720X480 resolution instead of 320X240 incredibly high compressed.
      Incredibly high bandwidth, very high latency. and no DRM... well no drm that isn't easily circumvented.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:They will never learn! by Sonivius · · Score: 3, Informative

      I bought a collection of shrinkwrapped 'Daily Show' DVDs at Best Buy.

    12. Re:They will never learn! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Episodic television, on the other hand, are worth money decades after release.

      Eh, your probably right. But I guess if I was the executive at [INSERT MAJOR MEDIA COMPANY HERE] I'd be doing studies to see whether or not I'd make more money releasing them online with ads or solely releasing them via the DVD channel.

      I would make the assumption that releasing them online would NOT undercut DVD sales, as the hard-core followers are still going to buy them and the rest wouldn't have bothered anyway. Of course I'm probably a lot more logical then most executives at [INSERT MAJOR MEDIA COMPANY HERE] :(

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:They will never learn! by dangitman · · Score: 1

      You will never see "The Daily Show" DVDs or year old "The Daily Show" reruns on late night TV because no one would buy/watch.

      I would, if they were a reasonable price. I love watching old episodes of The Daily Show. I guess what you are hinting at is one of the biggest problems of modern culture - stuff gets forgotten immediately. How are we supposed to learn from the past if everybody wants to forget it immediately, and move on to the next shiny distraction? No wonder people keep getting screwed over and falling for the same old tricks. No wonder it's so easy for politicians to make people forget what they actually did in the past.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    14. Re:They will never learn! by Jthon · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would love to see an online archive of Babylon 5, Star Trek:TNG, Law & Order, 24, or any of the other TV shows that I watch. If I could go back and watch my favorite episode at the click of a button and the only downside was a few ads (that I'd see on TV anyway) how am I losing?

      I see you haven't heard of AOL's In2TV which just happens to let you watch and stream every episode of Babylon 5, along with some other classic shows (you can even download high quality episodes of some shows). Check it out at http://television.aol.com/in2tv. (This is probably the only good thing I've ever seen come out of AOL.)

    15. Re:They will never learn! by Jthon · · Score: 1

      Because Netflix actually offers TV shows I want to watch. Ohh wait, no they don't.

      The selection for streaming TV is still very limited on Netflix, and for the few TV series I'd want to stream they usually only have every other episode available online to watch.

    16. Re:They will never learn! by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      You will never see "The Daily Show" DVDs


      On the contrary, the first Daily Show DVD set (The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: Indecision 2004 was released in 2005.
    17. Re:They will never learn! by RobBebop · · Score: 1

      The first part of you post is absolutely correct. This exists because of competition and an evolving market. Good for Google. Good for Viacom.

      The second part of you post is selfish, and overlooks the value of what Viacom is doing (emphasis mine).

      I realize they want to control the content they own and all, but seriously, isn't it just easier to have someone else foot the bandwidth bills and to have your viewership get it the way they want? They will never learn :(

      Your first observation was brilliant. They own it. They paid for it. They created it. It is *theirs* to do what they want. Google, NBC, and yourself have the rights of fair use. Beyond fair use, nobody can do anything without a contract from the creators.

      This is how it should be. If you have a problem with creators who hoard their rights, that's another issue (I do, too). In my opinion, Viacom has been an evil company in the past. Because of this move, I think they just bought their way into my good graces. As it turns out, the Daily Show is one of the only shows that I watch on television. Because of this move, I can be very happy about a future decision not to pay Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner, DirectTV, or Dish. And *that* is good news.

      As far as your point at "getting it my way", I have two issues. (A) is that you are suggesting that Google should be entitled to ad revenue for Viacom's property, and (B) the effort of digitizing the content should fall into the hands of the commons. In regard to issue (A), I want Viacom to earn a profit on the production of the Daily Show so they can renew it year after year because it is a great show. For issue (B), I would prefer that they flex their creative and professional muscle by handling their content in their way. I don't want to login to YouTube to see 6 different clips of the same segment from the Daily Show (and have each one be a different length).

      If this is a sign of things to come from Viacom (CBS), then let them evolve. Their internet distribution methods will improve as they gain more experience. And soon you'll been able to stream through the internet straight to your TV in full HD while your cable company is still trying to fit 200 HD channels that nobody wants in their pipes.

      --
      Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
    18. Re:They will never learn! by RobBebop · · Score: 1

      I would love to see an online archive of Babylon 5, Star Trek:TNG, Law & Order, 24, or any of the other TV shows that I watch.

      Babylon 5 is owned by Warner Bros. Star Trek is syndicated by Gene Roddenberry. Law & Order is owned by NBC whose parent company is General Electric Corporation. 24 is owned by Fox whose parent company is News Corporation.

      Having established who owns what... write these fine organizations letters to let them know they should be like Viacom (who is the parent company of Paramount and CBS Broadcasting (among others)).

      Frankly, I would love to see a Who's Who of who owns what. With mega-corporations these days, it is so hard to keep track of all the brands.

      --
      Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
    19. Re:They will never learn! by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      I can now watch Heroes 2 days after it airs on Netflix (with no commercials). That's a pretty good deal to me.

    20. Re:They will never learn! by red314159 · · Score: 1
      We'll see just how it stacks up but based on the other networks' actions, I doubt it will be nearly as popular as the content available in one place - YouTube.

      Have you used the new Daily Show video site yet? (I know, it was slashdotted, but it's working well now.) There are still some bugs, but clips have been consistently and accurately tagged, the video search function works well (although not the "search this site" one in the upper right), and they also have everything organized by date. I've been able to quickly find nearly every clip I was looking for. Even if TDS clips were also still on YouTube, I would never go back.

    21. Re:They will never learn! by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 1

      the problem is not with viacom offering the shows on their website. that is a good thing. the problem is the stupidity of it all. watching the daily show on youtube means that youtube pays for the bandwidth. watching the daily show on viacom's website means that viacom pays for the bandwidth. because they seem determined to hold on to the distribution of their content with an iron fist, they have to PAY money, when a completly free alternative exists. the problem is not viacom's service, its more of a question, "why the hell are you spending money to do something, when people were already doing all the work for you, on a system that cost you nothing?" i guess viacom wants more detailed demographics on its viewers than youtube can provide.

      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
    22. Re:They will never learn! by ben+there... · · Score: 1

      They might put up topical shows like "The Daily Show" because they are essentially worthless a week or so after air. You will never see "The Daily Show" DVDs or year old "The Daily Show" reruns on late night TV because no one would buy/watch. It's a ridiculous idea to try to regularly catch up with episodes you missed and wanted to see of the Daily Show, too. It's the Daily show, meaning almost 250 episodes a year. One season would fit on ~70 DVDs. At typical per-disc, boxed set rates, it would cost like $350, or some other exorbitant amount of money.

      iTunes could work, but they only offer 15 future episodes including the current one for $10, or $2/episode for the past 8. Neither option is very appealing for a regular viewer.
    23. Re:They will never learn! by tt077183 · · Score: 1

      Agree with you all the way mate... Rather than suing Youtube, it is probably better to combine force with them

    24. Re:They will never learn! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      But if everyone that likes the Daily Show refused to do business with Viacom, Viacom might stop making it.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    25. Re:They will never learn! by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that Ten Steven's series of tubes isn't going to be mocked for all eternity?

      Make sure you watch the next video, too... the Play button at the end of the video plays the next video.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    26. Re:They will never learn! by Xanthis · · Score: 1

      How is this for timing: TV Links Raided, Operator Arrested

    27. Re:They will never learn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shows like "The Daily Show" because they are essentially worthless a week or so after air. You will never see "The Daily Show" DVDs or year old "The Daily Show" reruns on late night TV because no one would buy/watch.

      You bring up an interesting point. Watching the Daily Show in the context of current events was funny and, yes, a few years later the funniness will probably wear off.

      Meanwhile, there are the right wing rant shows that I don't find funny at the time. These shows, view years later, are wonderful comedy "Hans Blix is blind as a bat!" given the unwinding of historical context.

  4. Nitpick by dorsey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hasn't the Daily Show been on tv for more than eight years? Or do they just consider the Craig Kilborn years to be a completely different show?

    --
    hinderfreude ('hin-dur-"froi-d&), n. The feeling of joy derived from being in the way.
    1. Re:Nitpick by The+Cheez-Czar · · Score: 5, Informative

      Both this article and the original LA Times says its an archive of "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart", Which started in 1999.
      So I guess they do considerer "The Daily Show With Craig Kilborn" to be a different show.

      --
      This Signature does Not Exist !! FNORD
    2. Re:Nitpick by vux984 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or do they just consider the Craig Kilborn years to be a completely different show?

      I know I consider them to be a completely different show.

      Not that I have anything against Craig Kilborn or the show while he hosted it, but Jon really did take the show in a significantly different direction. And I think its a significantly better show as a result.

    3. Re:Nitpick by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      Maybe the correct title would be "Viacom Puts the Entire Daily Show with Jon Stewart Archive Online as I think the show is technically called that now? But you're right, the show began in 1996 and Craig Kilborn was the host until 1999.

    4. Re:Nitpick by audi100quattro · · Score: 1

      The "10 f&*king years" segment didn't get that memo.

    5. Re:Nitpick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glam band? What glam band? "Cowboys From Hell" is Pantera's first album. That's their story and they're sticking to it!

    6. Re:Nitpick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in this day and time of metal magic
      we need rock and roll
      we need PANTERA!

      I didn't wanna touch you
      since we were both sixteen
      didn't wanna take you down
      and show you what love means
      now is the time
      this is the place
      get ready to take a chance
      we don't have a minute to waste

      ride my rocket
      wear me out
      ride my rocket
      make me twist and shout
      ride my rocket
      give me all of your love
      ride my rocket
      I just can't get enough.

      You leave me breathless
      when you walk by
      the way you move it girl
      makes you satisfy
      You might be the best
      that i've ever had
      it's gotta be good girl
      cuz it looks so bad

      ride my rocket
      wear me out
      ride my rocket
      make me twist and shout
      ride my rocket
      give me all of your love
      ride my rocket
      I just can't get enough.

      [*guitar solo*]

      feels so good
      makes my heart break
      every time you touch me
      i explode into flames

      ride my rocket
      wear me out
      ride my rocket
      make me twist and shout
      ride my rocket
      give me all of your love
      ride my rocket
      I just can't get enough.
      And yes... the music is as cheesy as the lyrics.
    7. Re:Nitpick by halcyon1234 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think that "Viacom Puts the Entire Daily Show with Jon Stewart Archive Online as I think the show is technically called that now? But you're right, the show began in 1996 and Craig Kilborn was the host until 1999" is too long of a title for a Slashdot article.

    8. Re:Nitpick by Blackhalo · · Score: 1

      I agree, one that was not as funny.

      --
      "There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper
    9. Re:Nitpick by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I believe they have all of the John Stewart shows online now and plan on getting the Kilborn ones up by early 2008. Plus, The Colbert Report will get a similar treatment in 2008.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  5. I'm concerned by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Funny

    That sounds cool and all but something inside of me is screaming "It's a tarp!" But seriously, whenever a gigacorp does something that seems like a good thing, it just means they're distracting you from the lawyer sneaking up behind with the Urotsukidji razor dildo assault cock. "Oh, wow, this looks interest---YEEEIEEEEEOOWW!!!"

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:I'm concerned by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      It was a "Nazi Death Rape Machine." Get it right.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  6. ABC by Huitzlopochtli · · Score: 2, Informative

    ABC.com also offers streaming, 1280X1024 HD full episodes on their website. It's still in beta, but works fine.

    1. Re:ABC by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 1

      Sadly, they don't seem to have any programming that doesn't completely suck.

    2. Re:ABC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Add to that the fact that they only allow Windoze or Macshits to use their player.

      Oops
      Our new video player is only available for:
      Windows 2000/XP/Vista - Internet Explorer, Firefox
      Mac - Firefox, Safari
      To watch, please download the appropriate browser.


      FUCK you, ABC.
    3. Re:ABC by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      That's OK... the last time I tried using their site with Firefox on Windows, it didn't work with that either despite claiming to.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  7. Not the entire run by skintigh2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Daily Show has been around since 1996, but 8 years does cover all the Jon Stewart years.

    Also, full shows are not available, just clips, though supposedly you can piece together most episodes.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071018/wr_nm/dailyshow_dc_2

    1. Re:Not the entire run by Hatta · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah it's a pretty weak gesture. I've got an RSS feed dumping torrents in a watch directory shared on my lan. All I have to do is turn on my xbox and watch. If I have to sit in my computer chair and click a bunch of shit I'm not even going to bother.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Not the entire run by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Funny

      If I have to sit in my computer chair and click a bunch of shit I'm not even going to bother.

      Do you also have a meat paste drip in one arm, and a Mountain Dew drip in the other arm? God forbid you actually have to go through that huge motion of 'clicking' something.

    3. Re:Not the entire run by Prien715 · · Score: 1

      Sleep is for the week

      Is the spelling of "week" in your sig intentional? If so it's hilarious;)

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    4. Re:Not the entire run by jZnat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Computers are supposed to automate things for us, not make us work for the computer. Having to jump through a bunch of hoops just to do something is completely unacceptable when there are far easier and more efficient ways of doing things.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    5. Re:Not the entire run by Xinef+Jyinaer · · Score: 1

      Way to ruin his pun, jackass.

      --
      Some days I just get bored and Troll post all the memes I can think of...
    6. Re:Not the entire run by skintigh2 · · Score: 1

      The first time I wrote that (at the end of a rambling 5AM email about yet another all-nighter in college) it was not.

      Then it became a way of life.

      Then I got a job.

    7. Re:Not the entire run by modecx · · Score: 1

      Mmmmm... Meat Paste...

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    8. Re:Not the entire run by geekoid · · Score: 0

      You know, I was going to point out the flaws in your statement, and explain(using small words, of course) why what you posted makes no sense, but then read your sig.:
      "'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'"

      If you don't know what a woman or two can do with a pop up, then you need to get out more often.
      Woman can fondle, grasp, suck, lick, etc ... a pop up. Let me know when firefox can do that.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Not the entire run by uofitorn · · Score: 1

      While I get your point, did you even check out TFS?

      The clips are only a couple minutes long and give no indication where, chronologically, they exist during an episode. Maybe clicking back, clicking to start the next 1 minute clip, watching another commercial, and rinse & repeat 10 times is fine with you, but I think that goes beyond what most people would consider reasonable should they want to watch an entire show.

      --
      "What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
      "Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
    10. Re:Not the entire run by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      I just went and watched a segment. Doesn't look like a bunch of hoops to me. Find which one you want (oh look...you can search the metadata tags), and click play. Poof...it plays.
      Now...you could make the valid argument about watching on the PC vs the TV, but many people output to the TV direct from the PC anyway. I often do. Yes, it is rather annoying that they've broken it up into small segments, but the search feature outweighs this, IMHO, anyway. What did Jon say about China, or the Air Force. All neatly sorted by date.
      Plus, I don't have to devote storage space to it.

      Is it perfect? No. It's a start, though. And no one particular method will ever be perfect for everyone.

  8. Nice start... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1
    Not a real fan of the Daily Show (what? I rarely watch the damned TV as it is), but I like that larger companies are at least beginning to make a serious effort (and not just post 380-by-tiny-as-hell resolution clips, then call 'em episodes).

    I just wonder what, say, DirecTV and (to a lesser extent due to bundled broadband) Cable TV operators will do once enough people start ditching their video TV subscriptions, or at least curtailing them to a sizeable extent (I realize this is quite a long ways off, but still, I can see more than a couple of operators getting nervous about it).

    /P

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:Nice start... by szyzyg · · Score: 1

      You know youtube posts all its; stuff in even tinier than hell 320x240 resolution at a partly 300kbit encoding bandwidth.

      Even though almost every other site uses better video quality people are still stuck on youtube. Hell I see people attaching music to a single image so they can upload it to youtube and share their favourite tracks - all that effort when there's sites like imeem.com that let you post and share the mp3's, and do it legally.

      So, viacom has added one more media site to the mix.

  9. Might Cut Down on Copyright Violations by dprovine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One thing this does is solve the problem that people want to share in community something from The Daily Show that they found really funny, but there's no legal way to do it. Now, you can just link to the right clip from your blog, and put your comments, and welcome others.

    There may be less need to sue YouTube, because there will be far less reason for anyone to grab a clip and upload it to YouTube in the first place.

    It's like the old "common-sense-test" question: if you go into the bathroom and the tub is overflowing, what do you do first? Answer: shut off the water. So they should stop making The Daily Show, and there'd be no problem.

    Wait, that wasn't my point at all. This common sense question has nothing to do with the problem. Drat, my analogies never work out!

    1. Re:Might Cut Down on Copyright Violations by AeroIllini · · Score: 1

      That's because your analogy didn't include a car.

      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
  10. Not the "Entire" Daily Show archive... by Tetsujin · · Score: 3, Informative

    Where are the Craig Kilborn eps?

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
    1. Re:Not the "Entire" Daily Show archive... by IPFreely · · Score: 1

      Where are the Craig Kilborn eps?
      I guess the news broke...

      and he didn't fix it.

      --
      There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
    2. Re:Not the "Entire" Daily Show archive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary is wrong. They aren't putting up 'The Daily Show', they're putting up 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'. I don't believe Craig Killborn was in 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'.

    3. Re:Not the "Entire" Daily Show archive... by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      The summary is wrong. They aren't putting up 'The Daily Show', they're putting up 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'. I don't believe Craig Kilborn was in 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'. Wow. You sure burned me on that one.
      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    4. Re:Not the "Entire" Daily Show archive... by ultramk · · Score: 2, Funny

      In Hell. That's what the devil makes c-list celebrities watch for the rest of eternity.

      --
      You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
    5. Re:Not the "Entire" Daily Show archive... by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      In Hell. That's what the devil makes c-list celebrities watch for the rest of eternity. It's doubly effective for the c-list celebrities who were actually on the show... As they are forced to re-live the humiliation of having "ten questions" injected into their interview again, and again...

      Still, there was some funny shit on the Daily Show even in the old days. That, rather than a love of Craig Kilborn's work, is why I take exception to this being proclaimed the "entire" archive...
      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    6. Re:Not the "Entire" Daily Show archive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Kilborn days were great IMO. The slant was decidedly less political, but there was a lot more emphasis on correspondent reports, which were often great.

  11. Now that's news! by jessiej · · Score: 1

    But for this to really have an effect, Viacom is going to have to tackle some bandwidth issues.

  12. I Also Hope by eldavojohn · · Score: 1

    I also hope that someone puts the entire testimony of Stephen Colbert & John Stewart online from the youtube/viacom trial. I believe they are just as sarcastic and realistic in real life as they are in their shows.

    It would be nice to watch the exxpression on the judge and juror's faces as they hear what John & Steve have to say.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:I Also Hope by Lynxara · · Score: 1

      I would hope most things in real life are realistic...

  13. that's nice by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

    That's nice, but the Daily Show has been on for 11 years now.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  14. Only reason they're doing this: by SpectreBlofeld · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Because nobody will buy DVDs of old news programs and they know it.

  15. wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I have control of my content, I have control of the costs and benefits. It appears to me they took their copyrighted videos off youtube in order to start up their own service. They'll control the look, feel and ad revenue. That's the big key here. Comedy Central (et al) will get money in return. Maybe not a profit but Google will see little to no profit.

    I think it's a good business decision provided they can keep up with the demand.

    1. Re:wrong. by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think it's a good business decision provided they can keep up with the demand.

      And if they can't keep up with the demand then they can always partner with Google/Youtube and have them foot the bandwidth bill. And Viacom would still get get a slice of the revenue because it's their content.

      Although something tells me that Viacom won't have major problems paying the bandwidth bill or hiring people smart enough to manage this for them.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:wrong. by truthsearch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Didn't Google just start a new revenue-sharing plan on YouTube? Viacom should upload complete episodes as soon as they air so they can beat the other uploaders and still turn a profit.

  16. I loves me some daily show but... by sdkramer · · Score: 0

    In an era of unparalleled access to data and information and an easy means of transporting it. I wonder if future generations will condemn us for using so much of our resources solely to entertain ourselves.

    Just a thought,

    Debby Downer

    --
    "I wish to God these calculations would have been made by steam." -Charles Babbage
  17. Why is it cut up into 3 minute clips then? by MikeUW · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe it's just me, but I don't really like watching a show that's been sliced and diced into little pieces...I generally prefer the whole thing. I'm sure that having individual parts reduces overall bandwidth for their servers, but could there at least be an option for the whole show? Otherwise, I don't see how this is any better than if someone were to download it at a higher resolution/bitrate from a torrent site.

    1. Re:Why is it cut up into 3 minute clips then? by Sarcasmooo! · · Score: 1

      Are they at least back to back clips? I can't load it obviously, but if they're cutting anything at all, I'll just go to a torrent site. I'm not interested in a highlights reel.

    2. Re:Why is it cut up into 3 minute clips then? by Whyte+Panther · · Score: 1

      By slicing it into 3 minute chunks, they add places to stick ads into the middle of the show. That said, most of the video sites that do this choose horrible places to put those divisions, when they could just go where the commercials already go... except then they'd have to be larger chunks.

  18. I watch on my TV, not my computer by kherr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is nice and all, but this Flash video crap is stupid. Not only is it not cached properly by web browsers, but people don't watch TV on their tiny computer screens. I watch content via my Apple TV on my gigantic HDTV home theater, I have no interest in sitting at a keyboard waiting for video snippets to load in some Flash video player with a poor user interface.

    At least with YouTube I can access the content directly from my Apple TV (not that YouTube has much to offer in their typical 3-second or whatever clips). I suspect if MySpace gets enough video content Apple will eventually add support for that as well. But companies like Viacom and NBC who decide to offer their own site of Flash video are going to find themselves unnecessarily limiting their potential audience. They'd be much smarter to figure out a way to centralize distribution.

    1. Re:I watch on my TV, not my computer by Babbster · · Score: 1

      I won't argue with you about Flash video, which varies wildly from unwatchable to acceptable, but is it Viacom's fault that your AppleTV doesn't support their site (or, apparently, MySpace), or is it Apple's?

    2. Re:I watch on my TV, not my computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I watch content via my Apple TV"

      Oh, So you are the one who bought Apple TV. Do you know who the other 3 guys are?

    3. Re:I watch on my TV, not my computer by MWoody · · Score: 1

      You're totally right, this youtube thing will never catch on.

    4. Re:I watch on my TV, not my computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yup, it's Flash 9 hindered. Which isn't available for my Opera browser, so I can't watch the ads they're trying to sell. I'll wait and catch up on the past episodes when I get the DVDs at a garage sale in 20 years.

    5. Re:I watch on my TV, not my computer by shish · · Score: 1

      Which isn't available for my Opera browser Are you sure it's not available? I seem to have it not only existing, but working just fine under both linux and windows...
      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    6. Re:I watch on my TV, not my computer by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It might be a CPU speed issue. I don't really care much about the picture; most of the humour is audio, and so I played them on the machine I had connected to my HiFi. This is a 1.5GHz PowerPC G4. With no other programs running, the CPU usage was 100% and the player was showing about 5 frames per second. Note that this same machine only drops the occasional frame when showing 1280p H.264 movie trailers from the Apple site.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  19. Re:Viacom makes me hate the Daily Show by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't care how good the actual program is, any more than I care how good an RIAA-backed CD is. It may be ad hominem (ad corporatem?) but if they want to take their ball and go home I'm not going to follow begging.

    Give me a fucking break! They aren't CHARGING YOU FOR THIS. THEY ARE GIVING IT AWAY. There is no way in hell that you can compare them wanting videos removed from Youtube while GIVING AWAY THE CONTENT FOR FREE to the bullshit that RIAA is trying to pull.

    Either I watch on YouTube, or I don't watch at all. I'm not bookmarking 5,000,000 video sites to do casual browsing. That's stupid.

    Again, grow the hell up. It's really that much harder to do a Google search for 'The Daily Show' and following the first link as opposed to doing a search on YouTube for 'The Daily Show'? If you owned the content would you want YouTube raking in the ad dollars for something THAT YOU CREATED?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  20. Re:Viacom makes me hate the Daily Show by speaker+of+the+truth · · Score: 1

    I'm not bookmarking 5,000,000 video sites to do casual browsing. That's stupid. If you watch 5,000,0000 different shows/clips in a month then I'd say that's not the only thing stupid.
    --
    Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
  21. Who's the idiot that told slashdot? by spikexyz · · Score: 1

    I was happily watching eposides till some goof submitted it to slashdot. Daft fool!

    1. Re:Who's the idiot that told slashdot? by wizkid · · Score: 1

      Don't blame me! I went to the site and it was SLASHDOT'ED
      Bummer!

      --
      I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)
  22. In a word... by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes.

    --
    The game.
  23. Why bother with old shows? by mmcuh · · Score: 1

    The Daily Show is news satire. It's relevant for about one or two weeks. Why would anyone want to watch 8 year old episodes?

    1. Re:Why bother with old shows? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      People watch old SNLs, which have (esp in Weekend Update) then-topical jokes.

      I wish this were full episodes (AND contained the Kilborn years).

    2. Re:Why bother with old shows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For one thing, it eventually becomes a historical document. As soon as I can get to site, I want to look for the sketch colbert did on Bush's first inaugeration. I remember some things from it that turned out to be dead on a few years later. Surely you can see the value of thumbing through decades old editorials.

    3. Re:Why bother with old shows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, this segment is a pretty valuable history lesson for all time.

    4. Re:Why bother with old shows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  24. Re:Cool by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

    Viacom isn't that far off from vacuum. The daily Bush rants are all part of the suck.

    --
    The game.
  25. Re:Viacom makes me hate the Daily Show by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

    As long as the content is available for direct linking there's no reason to complain about this. When the market has enough entrants then you'll see google video turn into something that directly searches a bunch of video sites and links you directly to the video you want.

    That said is there already some kind of aggregrator site that links directly to videos. The rate that these new video sites open up make it hard to keep track of.

  26. Win Arguments on the Internet by hardburn · · Score: 1

    This is great. Now when conservatives say that the Daily Show will fail if Hillary gets elected, we can point directly to how badly they ripped into the first Clinton administration.

    --
    Not a typewriter
  27. So... by trrwilson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How long do you think it will be before someone comes up with a way to automatically view, save, and organize/categorize all these clips? Open DShowDL Wait X hours Ding! Everything!

  28. Re:Viacom makes me hate the Daily Show by Faylone · · Score: 1

    Considering that to pull that off, you'd need to make two bookmarks every second for a full month, I would say making 5 million bookmarks in a month would be quite a feat.

  29. Yes, thats the ticket, duplicate infrastructures! by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

    I wonder what idiot had the idea to fund this project of Viacoms?

    Even if they ended up cash positive, it would have been more efficient (not to mention more user friendly!) to have been integrated with a pre-existing online video distribution system.

    Of course if YouTube was just unwilling to talk to Viacom, then it is Google who needs to beat someone on the head.

  30. redirected? proxy.org to the rescue! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    They will never learn :(

    Uhhh, yeah, I'm all about "sticking it to the man" too and I get rather pissed off when media outfits try to use DRM to lock down content that I've paid for, but what exactly is the problem with this?

    Try to access it from Canada, and you'll see what the problem is: As of noon today [10/17/2007], Canadian visitors to Comedy Central's website will now be redirected to thecomedynetwork.ca
    Their fucking site needs some obscure bullshit app from Microsoft to work, too. It's bad enough they're trying to keep me away from the sites I want to visit, but they just had to have it use some non-standard crap too, just to add insult to injury.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:redirected? proxy.org to the rescue! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Their fucking site needs some obscure bullshit app from Microsoft to work, too

      Uhh, what part of the site is that exactly? I've never had a problem using Firefox to watch TDS vids. Friends of mine watch them on their Macs. I would also assume that the site works just fine under Linux...

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:redirected? proxy.org to the rescue! by malocite · · Score: 1

      When you try to watch the clips using Firefox in Linux it says "Your Operating System is not Supported, we recommend Windowx XP or 2000" Also, linux users can't use Microsoft's silverlight app.

      --
      --malocite My Blog All Things TV... and
    3. Re:redirected? proxy.org to the rescue! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Their fucking site needs some obscure bullshit app from Microsoft to work, too

      Uhh, what part of the site is that exactly? I've never had a problem using Firefox to watch TDS vids. Friends of mine watch them on their Macs. I would also assume that the site works just fine under Linux...

      The part that makes a link to go download a bit of microsoft .net-integretated plug-in to watch.
      You DID notice the part about redirection starting at a given date, right? You,re offering me evidence that since tuesday, noonn, you haven't heard of it?
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:redirected? proxy.org to the rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The part that makes a link to go download a bit of microsoft .net-integretated plug-in to watch.

      I've never seen that.

      You DID notice the part about redirection starting at a given date, right

      Where?

  31. OMFGSEX by Sarcasmooo! · · Score: 1

    My math is terrible and my method was roughly estimated, but not counting commercial time or the last 2 years (which I remember well enough) I'd say I still have about 400 hours of daily show to watch. Maybe someone not as lazy as me can give a better number.

  32. It's Apple's "fault" but bad for business by kherr · · Score: 1

    It's technically Apple's fault, and as I said in my original comment Apple can add support for more sites when they feel the need. My point was that, by balkanizing video distribution, companies such as Viacom and NBC run the risk of creating a fractured consumer market. Sure they get some benefits from distributing their own content, but is it enough to offset the loss of viewers? It may be for now, but how about three years from now, or five? How many people won't have integrated internet viewing with their big TVs as opposed to resorting to viewing from a web browser on a computer display?

    1. Re:It's Apple's "fault" but bad for business by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Couldn't the same be said of any content distribution, though? Why would we want all of our video coming from one source? As long as the providers support standards (and, love it or hate it, Flash is very much a standard), consumers shouldn't want all their content coming from the same place. That's the definition of a monopoly and it's counterproductive in an environment with so much room for competition. All Apple would have to do is support a variety of standards in the AppleTV and you too wouldn't care if you were typing in "www.youtube.com" or "www.comedycentral.com." Instead, Apple wants your primary source of video to be iTunes and they'll grudgingly support YouTube since it's dealing more Internet video than anybody else and lacking it would be considered by their customer base - even the die-hard Mac fans - to be a defect.

  33. Ooh, Ooh! Saturday Night Live, next? by WheelDweller · · Score: 0

    SNL hasn't been funny for 25 years...and...the Daily Show? Honestly, how many high schoolers ARE there? :>

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
  34. more like by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1

    ""The whole thing is support by relatively unobtrusive contextual ads."
    Kinda demonstrates the case against p2p file transfers..."

    Kinda demonstrates the case against relatively unobtrusive contextual adds.

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    1. Re:more like by vishbar · · Score: 1

      Agreed, they're annoying...but Viacom's gotta make money somehow. Better this than commercials, I'd say.

      --
      Ride the skies
  35. Big Browser Window by dangitman · · Score: 1

    Vimeo, already offering 1280X720 HD quality direct from the browser.

    Why would I want to watch HD video in my browser? I'd rather watch it full-screen with software designed for playing back video.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  36. DivX's Stage6 by serodores · · Score: 1

    DivX's Stage 6 (also in beta) has also offered HD quality flicks for quite some time. Given YouTube never seems to have quality or length even remotely close, I can only guess how long they'll last at their current resolutions.

  37. Re:Viacom makes me hate the Daily Show by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Why not get payed from youtube to post the show in it's entirety?

    Drop the video hosting part of the business all together.

    Embed advertising intelligently

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  38. 5,000,000 video sites by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Funny

    And STILL nothing on!

    --
    What?
  39. Re:I Still Won't Watch It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, that's why there is Mind of Mencia for folks like you. You don't get tricked by nuanced or subtle humor and it makes almost no viable points or observations whatsoever.

  40. This is what qualifies for insight these days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Profanity-and-caps-filled screeds that barely express a coherent opinion at all?

    Seems the younger generation really is taking over. Too bad.

  41. Re:Viacom makes me hate the Daily Show by Hairy1 · · Score: 1

    The thing is that you could enter a deal with YouTube in which ad dollars are given to you. However, unlike rolling your own site you don't have to buy thousands of servers, you don't have to manage the infrastructure, and you get to be in the place where a whole heap of people are already viewing video online. Your viewers get a better experience and feel free, while you profit. The key to the online world is community. If we don't feel that there is community around a site we won't be interested.

    That said, increasingly YouTube has been censoring content critical of Bush and the war. It seems that their 'brave' efforts to stop people posting video's damaging to The Administration have been somewhat in vein, as the video's keep getting uploaded, but to be honest I'm not sure I want to support a video site that claims to allow uploads and then closes accounts which upload uncopyrighted material critical of The Administration.

  42. Motherload? by Rhesusmonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You guys are all wrapped up in the legality and whatnot when the greater issue is right in front of you: Motherload, the comedy central content delivery system is abysmal. It forgets what it's doing, fails to load reliably, spams the same video ads over and over while simultaneously showing you photo and text ads for the exact same product (seeing the Starbucks logo in 3 places at once does nothing to affect my buying habits, sorry) It's just a pain in the hinder. I'll go anywhere, youtube, gootube, even myfreepaysite if I can find a user friendly interface that isn't going to abuse me more than the dirty television does.

    --
    You need more psychedelic art in your life. rhesusmonkey.deviantart.com
  43. What about "The Daily Show"? by cnj · · Score: 1

    I'm probably only one of three people in the world who even remembers it, but what about the 2.5 years with Kilborn?

    Most people I talk to about the show don't even know it existed before Stewart, or what the lira was. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the rights owners would rather put those days behind them.

    --
    Never trust anyone over 90000.
  44. Re:Viacom makes me hate the Daily Show by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

    Again, grow the hell up. It's really that much harder to do a Google search for 'The Daily Show' and following the first link as opposed to doing a search on YouTube for 'The Daily Show'? If you owned the content would you want YouTube raking in the ad dollars for something THAT YOU CREATED?



    Actually, it's better than YouTube. It's got all the episodes, and I assume that they'll have some sort of method of ordering them or some kind of consistent naming. Especially with clip ratings and quality tagging, it'll be a lot easier to find the right episode on the official site than on YouTube, even assuming there's no take-down issues.
  45. Re:I Still Won't Watch It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mencia is even worse. That show projects racism in the form of humor.

    If elitists like yourself want to claim that the Daily Show is highbrow humor then the "intellectuals" have seriously degenerated in this country. What you are really consuming is well branded propaganda.

    The Daily Show formula is the same technique over and over.

    1) State a real fact or event surrounding a public figure.

    2) Make a joke that creates a straw man of the person's position.

    3) Tie the straw man to a position that everyone disagrees with. (ex. racism, warmongering, gluttony)

    4) Rinse and repeat.

    The Daily Show is the shepherd for sheep who not only eat grass, but enjoy smoking it.

  46. 7,134? by mqduck · · Score: 1

    Uh... it claims to have 7,134 videos, but it only shows 55. Where are the rest?

    --
    Property is theft.
    1. Re:7,134? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      The main page has both a search box and Flash navigation for selecting a year, month, and day. Keep in mind that the Daily Show only has new episodes 4 days a week.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    2. Re:7,134? by mqduck · · Score: 1

      I see the search bar, but the closest thing I can find to any sort of "navigation" is the Most Popular Videos box...

      --
      Property is theft.
  47. The only link *I* wanted by charleste · · Score: 1

    ...to the explanation (with graphics) of internet tubes.

  48. Re:I Still Won't Watch It by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    Limbaugh is an ignorant liar, and Stewart is anything but. They are not equivalent. The truth isn't in between the "extremes" of two maniac political groups. A fact is true, or it is not. It doesn't care about your opinion, or some arbitrary spectrum erected by public figures, mostly "news"people, to shield their asses from having to form an intelligent judgement about the news they present.

    Bush lied, we are in a stupid war of aggression against an innocent nation for its oil; Bush fucked up and we were attacked on 9-11; Bush fucked up by obsessing about his daddy's would-be killer and committing our resources to Iraq while bin Laden left and formed a proto-state in NW Pakistan, which BTW DOES have working nuclear weapons; Bush lied and established a total-surveillance police state while he and his cronies brazenly destroyed all records of presidential communications by routing them through Republican mail servers (we can see YOU bitches but you will never see US); Bush did in fact dodge his service and then destroyed a good journalist who dared to out him (story told for a third time, its just that America ignored the Boston Globe and BBC Newsnight investigations); he's out to start a war with Iran; he's bankrupted us by borrowing from the future to steal his oil now; he's gutted health care, environmental and consumer laws, privatized military, intelligence, and government functions into corporations who don't have to obey laws; frankly immunized said corporations from prosecution, turning ANY American corporation into a auxillery of the unitary executive, effectively making the corporate world a branch of the Executive, immune from the Justice Department, thus creating a classic fascist hegemony; corrupted and coopted the Justice Department into a private rubber stamp for his political assassinations (what the fuck, we imprisoned TOMMY CHONG?) while at the same time creating a vaccuum in which he need not fear charges or convictions on ANY crime (compare this to a stained dress and six blowjobs); let's not forget a million dead people and the annihilation of the cradle of civilization, though everyone does.

    Limbaugh actively denies or obfuscates, actually admitted being a torchbearer for Bush. He has no cred, as he has damned himself with his own mouth. Stewart has met an astounding standard of journalistic (!) excellence by refusing to accept bullshit, refusing to bow to the UE. They are not equivalent, just because they talk on microphones. And Limbaugh is, in fact, a big fat idiot.

  49. Overuse of BETA by mgcarley · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else notice the little "BETA" tag in the logo/image? Not just on Video, but the site itself. WHY? All websites are in beta now, whether they need to be or not - this is a relatively "simple" website with some content streaming, not a big RIA.

    --
    Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley