MTV Takes on P2P by Making South Park Free

thefickler writes "MTV Networks, the biggest division of Viacom Inc., has announced plans to make every South Park episode available online for free as part of a plan to make the show available to a larger audience." This is apparently largely because of the success of a similar project where they put every episode of The Daily Show on-line a few months back. This action didn't hurt ratings, and it may have actually helped them.

Comments

too late

[Azeroth48]

http://www.southparkzone.com/ been there done that Oo

Re:too late

[rHBa]

Or here:

http://www.mrtwig.net/

Re:too late

[RealGrouchy]

Shortly after Comedy Central put its archives online, Canadian viewers trying to access Comedy Central's website were blocked. In response (?) to this, the (Canadian) Comedy Network has put up this page to catch those users.

The Comedy Network's website has full episodes of South Park all the way back to season 1, as well as full episodes of TDS and TCR (not just clips you can watch here and there). You're also able to view it in full screen, which I can't recall whether the Comedy Central page let you do.

- RG>

Re:too late

[g4pengts]

This is getting off topic, but I must dispute this thinking that makes Comedy Network some sort of good guy. According to this, CTV and Comedy Network got exclusive right for Comedy Central programing over electronic format with a deal with Viacom. This is why Canadian users are being redirected to Comedy Network.

Personally, I stopped watching anything on Comedy Network and Comedy Central once I found out about this.

Re:too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Southparkzone has terrible streaming video that can't be saved and thus can't be played on the Xbox Media Center, the best media center there is. http://www.southparkfiles.com/ has torrents of every episode in addition to streaming video. Don't bother ever going to the zone.

Re:too late

[Elite_Warrior]

It was already free on p2p :)

Re:too late

[drsquare]

If you spent more than one second looking at the site, you'd find that you can download the episodes as wmvs. And you don't need that bittorrent which is blocked or throttled by many ISPs.

Re:too late

[jgarra23]

Or here:


I know this has been done to death but the first rule about fight club is, You DON'T Talk About Fight Club.

Gosh in people's rush to sound like they know something others didn't, or share info, or whatever your motivation is, sometimes it's really effing stupid.

Re:too late

[rHBa]

Actually, the official Southpark website has happily mentioned and linked to MrTwig.net for years so I'm quite happy to talk about fight club, in this case.

Re:too late

[achenaar]

I hadn't heard of southparkzone.com so let me say:
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I CBA torrenting them and it's not like the quality is a huge issue so the streaming format is perfect.
Sweet!
Thanks again :)

Who the fuck cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

About the fucking blog reporting the story? Link to the free episodes please. For fuck sakes editors.

Did they consult their customers?

[Opportunist]

No, don't be silly. Not the people watching TV.

I was talking about the various networks around the globe that license Southpark, often first of all having to dub it. That this takes time is a given (it's gotten better in the past years, but it's still about a season difference, give or take).

When I can watch a show online, why bother waiting for our networks to dub it? Yes, I "have to" watch it in English, but then again, usually that's the better version anyway. Anyone who has ever watched The Simpsons in German will agree.

So, any response from the networks? I mean, I don't know about the Daily Show (never heard of it, actually, and possibly not as much an export as SP is), but a show like Southpark which is being licensed widely might cause some negative reaction from the networks licensing it.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[garett_spencley]

When I can watch a show online, why bother waiting for our networks to dub it? Yes, I "have to" watch it in English, but then again, usually that's the better version anyway. Anyone who has ever watched The Simpsons in German will agree.

Surely there are Germans who can't speak English that wouldn't agree ?

I know that I get completely lost when I watch a show in say, Japanese, and I have no idea what the dialogue is saying. While bi/multi-lingual people who also understand English undoubtedly feel the same way as you, there has to be a market for dubs, still, comprised of people who don't speak English.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[krazytekn0]

But see, as an American run enterprise MTV does not know this will happen since in America it is rare for someone to have a grasp on more than one language.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[EvanED]

There are also subtitles, which very well may be being made anyway, for the deaf. Then you "just" need to translate them.

A lot of people say original language + subtitles is better than dubbing, though I'm not sure I agree.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Opportunist]

Generally, everyone under the age of 40 had mandatory English classes during their school time. This means between 6 and 12 years of English courses. I'd say it's sufficient to follow an episode of SP.

And the age range above 40 is hardly the target group for the show.

Of course there are people who don't know enough English to follow it, and they will probably have to wait for the dub. Still, I'd guess the group of people who're able to follow the show is sizable enough to cause an outcry amongst the networks here (and in other countries, I'm sure).

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[meringuoid]

Surely there are Germans who can't speak English that wouldn't agree ?

Yes, there'll be plenty, but especially among the South Park target demographic the English language is widespread. Certainly enough for this service to have the potential to make a huge dent in DVD sales.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Elsapotk421]

well, sure the grasp of conversational English is available to most if you're of the age group of people that watches the simpsons. Another reason to consider dubbing is because alot of the references or jokes are lost if you aren't exposed as often to the things that they're referencing. At times you'll have them replaced by things that they would know. ie: Calvin Klein being replace by levi strauss in Back to the Future when it showed in france.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[mdwh2]

Whilst I can see the networks being annoyed,

often first of all having to dub it. That this takes time is a given

Yes, I "have to" watch it in English, but then again, usually that's the better version anyway.

I'm not sure why we should have sympathy for the hard work they put in dubbing it, when you say you prefer the English versions anyway? If those networks aren't giving what their customers want, when MTV can, that's tough.

People who want the dubbed versions won't be affected by this. People who want the English versions will get what they want. Or should the latter group be forced to watch the dubbed versions, so the network companies can make more money?

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Chiaro Meratilo]

Surely there are Germans who can't speak English that wouldn't agree ? They can't disagree or agree, they don't speak English.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Anonymous Coward]

For the most part, it is, dubbed voices suck just about always. The total lack of lipsync and generally crappy voice acting (overacting!) makes me hurt.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. I love to watch South Park in English and then in Spanish. I actually like the Simpsons better in Spanish than in English. Most good translators not only translate the language spoken, many times they translate the jokes into a more cultural specific context. A good example is the Volcano episode of South Park. In the original version, Scuzzlebutt had Patrick Duffy as a leg, in Spanish it was translated as Ricky Martin...complete with Martin's music. This sort of thing happens all the time in good translated shows.

I for one, download the original episodes and then eagerly wait for the local networks to show the same episode in Spanish.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Karzz1]

"Certainly enough for this service to have the potential to make a huge dent in DVD sales."

I wouldn't think this would have a lot of impact on DVD sales. Generally downloadable content such as this is hugely inferior to a DVD. Granted, South Park may not be the best example of this as the rudimentary animation used to make the show can be shrunk down quite a bit before it is really noticeable. Regardless, I am sure the quality available for download will not translate well to the size of your average TV.

Also, many people (myself included) prefer to own the DVDs. I have downloaded a lot of content however, contrary to what the MPAA/RIAA might say, I end up buying 90% of what I download. The other 10% is such complete crap that it gets deleted after the first (partial) viewing.

OK, this post is full of anecdote and supposition but in my limited experience I don't think DVD sales would be harmed much. I would have thought that TV broadcasts might be affected, however the publisher claims otherwise.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, any response from the networks?

Unlikely to be made publicly too soon, but considering licensees/affiliates, most likely a web service will be permitted only to certain geographically distinct (US only) IP ranges - which means to get the episodes for users in Europe for example, is a massive hassle of connecting through a slow open proxy with results dubious quality (i.e. video stalls every 30 seconds) - for a service which will probably be bookended by advertisements every 7 minutes.

Even in the case of non-localised content reproduction such as South Park in the UK, re-broadcasters are unlikely to have real grounds for complaint about this service.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Anonymous Coward]

If people like it in English just fine, why do they bother dubbing it at all? Why not just show it in English?

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Stewie241]

Right... because if you don't speak English, you can't have an opinion, right?

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Scrameustache]

There are also subtitles, which very well may be being made anyway, for the deaf. Then you "just" need to translate them.

A lot of people say original language + subtitles is better than dubbing, though I'm not sure I agree. That depends on the quality of the dubbing and on whether or not you mind reading your TV shows.
Some people don't like to read, they would rather watch TV. Some people can't read fast enough to follow the rhythm of the spoken word, and some people can't read at all.

Personally: "Original language (if understood)" > "original + subtitles in a language I understand" > "dubbed well" > "on mute" > "dubbed badly";

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Scrameustache]

"Original language (if understood)" > "original + subtitles in a language I understand" > "dubbed well" > "on mute" > "dubbed badly"; I forgot one case:

"Original language (if understood)" > "original + subtitles in a language I understand" > "dubbed well" > "original language (not understood, but you get the tone of the voices)" > "on mute" > "dubbed badly";

Unless the bad dub is funny, but then that's an ironic approach.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[hax0r_this]

No, because if you can't read the great grandparent post then you can't respond very effectively to it.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[owlnation]

Anyone who has ever watched The Simpsons in German will agree.

Seconded! The Simpsons dubbed into German is not funny. Most things dubbed into German are not funny. The quality of the actors doing the dubbing varies, but the German networks seem to consistently hire very poor quality translators.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[mstahl]

the Daily Show (never heard of it, actually, and possibly not as much an export as SP is)

The Daily Show is a parody news program shown on Comedy Central here in the US. Ironically enough, studies have shown that viewers of The Daily Show are more informed about world events than viewers of Fox News.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[meringuoid]

A lot of people say original language + subtitles is better than dubbing, though I'm not sure I agree.

Dubbing of foreign language shows is definitely the best! Believe it!

(That... actually did hurt to write.)

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[porpnorber]

With a cartoon, of course, the original is 'dubbed'. So the question becomes largely one of which version has the better voice acting. That's still usually the original because of matters of budget, access to the original creators, and because of timing (human languages can take surprisingly different amounts of speech to encode the same information, especially when differences in cultural context are taken into account). But at least in principle one could prefer a second language version. With live action, however, the chance of the voice actor catching the emotion and timing of the original actor, who you can see, is close to nil, even aside from any cognitive difficulties with broken lip synch. Finally, of course, subtitles and dubbing will typically have different translations, and all bets are off as to which is better.

So I usually try cartoons both ways and see which one I like, but for live action, I'd almost rather watch an unsubtitled film in a language I don't know than something dubbed.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[InvalidError]

Personally: "Original language (if understood)" > "original + subtitles in a language I understand" > "dubbed well" > "on mute" > "dubbed badly";

I second that.

Me and a bunch of my friends watch anime and asian movies together (mix of fansubs and rentals) once a month and we always watch with original audio (usually japanese) and english subs... 90% of english dubs miserably fail to carry over any of the character from the original voice acting.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Mex]

How can you possibly have never heard of The Daily Show? It's the most trustworthy newscast in the USA.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[vidarh]

This might be a problem in countries where people are used to dubbed content, but I find myself often turning subtitles on even when watching movies etc. in languages I understand, because it lets me be lazy and not pay full attention... If you grow up in a country where subtitles are common, you'll quickly learn to read fast enough that a glance on the screen every now and again is enough to get the full dialogue whenever whats happening is boring you and you don't pay full attention (talk to someone else in the room or whatever).

I doubt I've ever had a problem following subtitles since I was maybe 8 or 9.

But then I grew up in Norway, and all foreign shows except programs for small children would be subtitled rather than dubbed. Seeing as a fairly significant percentage of programs shown are English language movies and series, it amounts to a lot of exposure to reading.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[ghyd]

If you are curious (learn languages) there's no reason at all to prefer translations. I learned most of my English in Asimov stories and Futurama episodes. But then, seen from an Imperial eye, I'm sure it seems much less important ;)

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Porkzilla]

in America it is rare for someone to have a grasp on more than one language. And sometimes they have some trouble with the first one, especially on the internet.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Joe Tie.]

Because God forbid anyone actually be aware of a world outside their own town. That entire concept is just sad and a little scary. Of needing a third party to protect you from learning things.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Ifni]

Anyone who has ever watched The Simpsons in German will agree.

Or anything dubbed by the Vietnamese. They don't even try. There is ONE person doing the parts for ALL characters. And they have NO inflection - they read it in a near-perfect monotone. It is unlikely you could dub it worse if you tried. And nowhere near 100% of the lines are translated and the dubbed voice is frequently nowhere near the actual speaking part (you can hear the English actor speak most of his part in English before the Vietnamese dub kicks in - yes, they leave the original audio in place and merely talk over it). The overall effect is like having a translator there watching it with you, translating live without a script. Which is probably how they do it - simply recording the translator as they watch the program for the first time.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Knowmadification]

When I can watch a show online, why bother waiting for our networks to dub it? Yes, I "have to" watch it in English, but then again, usually that's the better version anyway. Anyone who has ever watched The Simpsons in German will agree. Surely there are Germans who can't speak English that wouldn't agree ?

No, actually the simpsons really is better in English, the Germans who watch it in German often don't get the jokes cause they are translated poorly, things Americans laugh at when told in English are funny and when translated are just kinda dumb. But the bigger reason is the Simpsons is humor based on American culture, innuendos, situational contrast, ect. For example Americans find the character of Ned Flanders to be funny because they can identify with a conservative fundamentalist being in the given situation, when your culture is devoid (or nearly) of Neds, well you just have a clown with no makeup on. And yes there is a market for dubbed shows, it's much smaller than the native language market, and the reason is, dubs are just not that good.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Opportunist]

But say what you want, "Backstroke of the West" certainly improved the movie experience!

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[keanpedersen]

You forgot another case:

MST3K version > original language > etc...

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm.... You _do_ know that Texan isn't a different language do ye?

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Opportunist]

That's quite logic when you think about it.

To enjoy political satire, you have to know politics. Else you don't get it and it's just boring. And that it is supposedly entertaining is quite obvious (it's on CC, duh). So only people who know their world events will watch it.

On the other hand, it doesn't take much of a brain to follow Fox News. They don't require you to think or draw conclusions. That's done for you.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[jsiren]

I concur from Finland. Subtitles were originally selected here as a cheaper alternative to dubbing. In the late eighties or early nineties one commercial channel tried dubbing The Bold and the Beautiful, but it wasn't popular. Around the same time, give or take a few years, on the same channel, one children's cartoon was originally subtitled (if memory serves), then dubbed, then narrated, (as in, narrator speaks in a pompous voice over a muted cartoon), then cancelled. Good riddance: it sucked to begin with...

Subtitles enable the viewer to experience the original soundscape and the actors' voices, tones, and emotions while providing a summary of the lines. I think it's a good balance, but of course it's a matter of taste.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[EvanED]

Some people don't like to read, they would rather watch TV.

This is my problem with subtitles. If I'm watching TV, I can do stuff like have it on in the background and pay half attention to it, following along with the audio and sometimes looking away for other stuff. Subtitles bind you to putting all of you attention to the screen. If you want to do this, that's fine, but my TV and movie watching habits are often not amenable to that.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[amRadioHed]

Finally, of course, subtitles and dubbing will typically have different translations, and all bets are off as to which is better. The subtitles will have a better translation typically. The reason is that the translation on dubbed movies will be changed around a bit in order to make the translated words fit the mouth movements on the screen.

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Scrameustache]

Some people don't like to read, they would rather watch TV.

This is my problem with subtitles. If I'm watching TV, I can do stuff like have it on in the background and pay half attention to it, following along with the audio and sometimes looking away for other stuff. Subtitles bind you to putting all of you attention to the screen. If you want to do this, that's fine, but my TV and movie watching habits are often not amenable to that. Have you ever sought treatment or diagnosis for an attention deficit disorder? :)

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Eternauta3k]

I find that, with South Park, the Spanish voices are better than the original ones, because it's translated with all sort of hilarious Spanish mannerisms

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[TheThiefMaster]

A lot of people say original language + subtitles is better than dubbing, though I'm not sure I agree. Look up the English versions of some Japanese animé (like Naruto), then put your hands over your ears. Gah, the horrible horrible voice acting, the screeching, it hurts...

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Uerige]

Surely there are Germans who can't speak English that wouldn't agree ?
As a German, I say screw them. They're the reason why I have to either pay way too much to get everything on DVD or watch it all (relatively illegally) on the internet where video and audio quality is crappy.
Selfish bastards!

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[Fjandr]

This is a bit short-sighted. While learning information about other cultures is a plus, it's hard to get enough exposure to a culture you don't belong to that you learn a majority of the subtle cultural cues that those immersed in that culture pick up.

Knowing about a culture you do not live in and being able to pick up on a majority of jokes or subtle statements that are derived from that culture are two different things. Those silly French, not learning about Calvin Kleins and their impact on US culture. For shame!

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[The One and Only]

What about bad subtitiles (e.g. "do not want")?

Re:Did they consult their customers?

[42forty-two42]

The Japanese dub of south park is surprisingly good, actually. Then again the Japanese dub of the simpsons is horrible, so there you go.

if it's not available off-line

[Anonymous Coward]

then it is useless. i don't wan't to sit at my computer desk and watch it, i want to burn it and watch it from my couch.

Re:if it's not available off-line

[Wayne247]

It's not useless, it's your method that is useless! Just do like many people do instead of burning cds/dvds for the living room, get a TV out card and connect the TV setup to your PC.

Added bonus, you get to also view every other streaming available, including NBC shows on their site, youtube and whatnot. *AND*, it saves some plastic trees :)

Re:if it's not available off-line

[JamesTRexx]

How about if I just want to watch a video on my laptop while I'm travelling, or when I feel ill and stay in bed? Mighty good a tv card will do that I can't attach to my laptop or for which I have no cable connection available...
And don't forget about all the people who are still on dial-up. Not everyone has the fortune of having a 100MB fiber connection at home.
Downloadable videos provides the most freedom to watch video when someone wants to. (which is the reason VCRs were invented, remember?)

Re:if it's not available off-line

[Anonymous Coward]

> Added bonus, you get to also view every other streaming available, including NBC shows on their site, youtube and whatnot. *AND*, it saves some plastic trees :)

I'm not the original AC, but I think you missed his point.

He doesn't want to stream it, he wants to download it so that he can watch it offline, that is, without TCP/IP connectivity.

Streamed video is not merely inelegantly wasteful of bandwidth (why re-download something just to watch it next week?), it's highly vulnerable to factors outside of your control, such as the performance of the network between your PC (or your friend's PC when you want to show him something).

Worst of all - and this is the dealbreaker - it's entirely dependent on the whim of the content provider to keep hosting it. That's an implicit form of DRM: When MTV decides it's not making enough money, the content disappears forever, or worse -- when MTV decides that it doesn't want to risk being sued by the Cult of $cientology for Season 9, Episode 12 (The OT III story) or bombed for Season 10, Episode 4 ("Remember the time I got a salmon helmet from Mohammed while wearing a toga?"), the episodes get censored server-side, and you never get to know that the originals existed.

Ever watch Warner Bros. cartoons on broadcast TV these days, as opposed to the remastered and uncensored originals being released on the annual 4-disc DVD collections?

In the case of Looney Toons, I've "downloaded" (by containershipnet, trucknet, and sneakernet) that content, and I can archive that content to a RAID array should the DVDs eventually fall victim to scratches) and enjoy it forever. The "streamed video" equivalent was called "network TV", and it had been censored to the point of unwatchability as far back as the 1980s.

Re:if it's not available off-line

[Christophotron]

I didn't realize it was such a problem to save a streaming video to your hsrd drive for offline viewing.. Let's see, you could use tube hunter. Or you could capture the video off your screen using some kind of video capture software. Or there's always the analog hole. If they are streaming it to you, they are essentially giving it to you. If you must archive it for whatever reason, just record it. Just like you would have done with a VCR.

DVD Sales

[Paralizer]

As far as I know the Daily Show is not available on DVD, whereas South Park is. So if you wanted to watch the Daily Show and you didn't have Comedy Central, your only option was to pirate the episodes; making them available for free online made sense. But with South Park you can buy the DVDs, so making them available for free online would only hurt their DVD sales (unless of course the downloads are of very poor quality).

Re:DVD Sales

[Opportunist]

Yeah, because the artistic quality of Southpark is a definite selling point. Watching that in YouTube quality would certainly hurt the show.

Re:DVD Sales

[EvanED]

That struck me too. But it's an experiment, so we can watch how it turns out. If it hurts DVD sales, then the studios get an additional argument for why they should take down YouTube videos and such. If it doesn't, then maybe other studios will get less protective about their content appearing online.

Re:DVD Sales

[pla]

Yeah, because the artistic quality of Southpark is a definite selling point.

Smoothly animated stop-motion cardboard cutouts (which IIRC, SP hasn't actually used since the second season) still beat low-framerate stop-motion cardboard cutouts with macroblocking, stream errors, buffering, and loss of audio sync.

Re:DVD Sales

[Oriumpor]

Since before the days of divx SP has been distributed via the net. I've got copies of the original real audio/video files from the first season when that was the only way to get em. Shotgunning 56k's ftw.

Ahh those were the days.

Re:DVD Sales

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

As far as I know the Daily Show is not available on DVD, whereas South Park is. So if you wanted to watch the Daily Show and you didn't have Comedy Central, your only option was to pirate the episodes; making them available for free online made sense. But with South Park you can buy the DVDs, so making them available for free online would only hurt their DVD sales (unless of course the downloads are of very poor quality). Mm maybe. There's a flip-side, though. I don't catch South Park when it's on anymore. Yet, once in a while, my coworkers talk about something funny they saw. That makes me want to see it, but I'm not buying a season of DVDs or waiting until it comes around again to see it. If I could just go download the episode, I may find it amusing. If that happens, I'm more likely to catch the next one when it airs. In short, what I'm saying is that making them available on-line could increase their fan base. Maybe they won't buy the earlier DVDs, but it's likely more will watch the show. That keeps them in business to make new seasons.

It could shorten sales in one aspect and create more in another.

torrents

[overcaffein8d]

i hope they put them on (legal) torrents so they are just as easy to download.

but more likely, they will just make it an embedded player, so we can't FF through the commercials.

Re:torrents

[Dunbal]

Stream decrypted, saved to your hard- drive and commercials removed in 5, 4, 3...

This is the internet, remember?

Re:torrents

[Secrity]

The episodes are Flash, I didn't see any advertising, and you can randomly access any part of the video. I didn't try, but I suspect that the files can be downloaded.

Re:I wouldn't watch the shit even if I were paid

[Alphager]

South Park is the worst fucking piece of shit out there. The only ones who watch it are the fucktarded sheeple who should be eliminated from the gene pool. Interestingly enough, that could have been a quote fromS outhpark.

Incidentally...

[lpangelrob]

...if you were wondering why the Writers Guild of America are still on strike, this is why.

No advertising, no residual payments... not fair?

Re:Incidentally...

[krazytekn0]

Well, isn't the issue that the companies ARE making advertising revenue from this, and that's what they tell their stock holders, but they are telling the writers that they aren't making anything so they don't need to be paid for online shows...I'm probably wrong but that's how I understand it

Re:Incidentally...

[ShieldW0lf]

Isn't it great? My girlfriend started downloading documentaries to make up for the lack, and we've learned about a whole host of different things. It's amazing how little you miss the crap they churn out.

Did you hear the one about the crack dealer who went on strike? Where all his clients cleaned themselves up and the market disappeared?

No, me neither. Guess crack dealers are smarter than the Writers Guild.

Re:Incidentally...

[SydShamino]

I'm an engineer. It takes a lot of skill and creativity to make products work on first revision. Guess what? I don't get residuals for work I did last year, last month, or any time before my last paycheck. I don't need residuals to retire because I, you know, save money.

Both of my parents were writers and editors at one point, for the newspaper industry. Neither of them got any residuals, either. I don't suppose you continue to write residual checks to the artists that designed your car, or your sofa, or you house, either?

No advertising, no residual payments... not fair?

Go on strike and get a better contract. The law allows you to do that. But in no way do most of the working world consider this "unfair" to the special subset of people who feel that they need to be paid for the rest of their life for one momentary spark years ago. And when the time comes around that we can finally change copyright back to 50 years, thereby cutting off residuals for thousands of older writers or their descendants, you won't find me or most other people on Slashdot complaining.

Re:Incidentally...

[kithrup]

Apples and oranges. First, South Park isn't a union show, so the WGA has no impact on it. (The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are, because Jon Stewart was in a superior negotiation position a few years ago, and that was one of his demands.)

Second, if there's no advertising, and the episode isn't paid for by the viewer... the WGA's current demands would still mean they get nothing in this case. It would be "promoational," and, unlike what the major networks are doing, truly seems to be.

The problem the WGA has, which is certainly reasonable, is when a network claims a showing is "promotional," but they've sold advertising for it. So the network makes money, but the writers (and -- I believe -- actors, and director) don't get anything for it.

For situations where the user pays (e.g., buying from iTunes), the writers currently do get paid, I believe on the same scale that they do for DVDs.

Re:Incidentally...

[mdwh2]

I agree - I can understand getting rights if it's something you've written and then gone to a company. But I don't see why writers employed by a company aren't treated as working "for hire". I don't get rights or royalties for the software I write for my company - because I get a steady salary instead.

Maybe we need to have a "Geeks Guild" - just think of the effects on the country if we all went on strike...

Re:Incidentally...

[langelgjm]

But in no way do most of the working world consider this "unfair" to the special subset of people who feel that they need to be paid for the rest of their life for one momentary spark years ago.

I think the issue is that, unlike you, writers aren't paid up front what the distributors believe their work to be worth. To avoid the risk of paying for scripts and shows that bomb, they pay only a small amount, then pay for further showings. That way, if a show does extremely well, the writer is rewarded, and if a show bombs, the distributor didn't waste a lot of money.

A better analogy to your situation: imagine if you developed a product, but were only paid a small amount, and told that you would be paid well later on if the product sells well. Then, you find out that the distributor is selling your product but not holding up their end of the bargain by giving you payments. I dare say you wouldn't be as sanguine as you are now about the whole thing.

Re:Incidentally...

[Vellmont]

No, me neither. Guess crack dealers are smarter than the Writers Guild.

I guess you don't consider that the producers have a lot more to lose than the writers guild. The writers can always find some other medium to write for, or if worse comes to worse, become truck drivers, or whatever. If the producers lose the audience, they're quite screwed.

Re:Incidentally...

[ockfener]

While I'm usually prone to documentary viewing over TV "fiction" as is, I would like to point out that the folks on strike (writers) aren't solely in charge of content, them, character, etc. Network people (producers, PR people, etc) play a huge role in creating and churning out the crap. If they would pay/promote for quality, the writers would produce it. This is about stopping certain folks from not paying royalties for content as the medium shifts from TV to Internet. A closer look shows that the stars involved in a lot of TV/movie production are getting huge cuts that shrink the pie as well. So, while I'm not missing their work much, the Writers Guild has a solid case.

Re:Incidentally...

[Sparks23]

Add to that that, unlike engineers, newspaper reporters/editors, script-writers do not have steady work. Even within writing, a reporter (or an editor) knows that the paper keeps coming out, and thus they are still needed. Many times the reporter is paid a salary, or at least not paid some small per-article fee and told they will get more money if that issue of the paper sells well. And they certainly don't wonder 'will this paper be renewed for next season?' or whatever. They have more permanence to their job.

Script-writers have a project to work on, then may go 6 months to a year without another project being available; since they do get paid so little to start with (as the parent post notes), many writers do rely on their residuals to still pay rent and so on. Unlike newspaper reporters and editors, they do not have a guaranteed job.

A better example would be novel writers, I think; if you end up in a 2-3 year dry spell without another novel published, you darn well still want royalty payments on any copies of the last one that are still being sold! If you were a novelist and your publisher somehow decided to sell the book as an eBook and went 'oh, but we're not going to pay you for that,' there would be outcry, dismay and rage. (This is why novel/story rights get laid out pretty clearly in a given contract!)

Re:Incidentally...

[Anonymous Coward]

 
If aliens landed tomorrow, and said that they wanted to buy TV and movies, do you think the writers should stop working, go on strike, and demand more money?

As markets open up, the writers want more money. It doesn't mean they get should get it. We do live in a free market. It's up to the movie studios and media companies, and ultimately the buying public to decide.

If Southpark goes free, I'm all for it. I like free content. I don't want advertising-supported content either. I'll pay a little extra to do without advertising.

Re:Incidentally...

[Anonymous Coward]

...if you were wondering why the Writers Guild of America are still on strike, this is why.

No advertising, no residual payments... not fair?

Oh, you mean because technology has outpaced their business model? I see.

Re:Incidentally...

[antiMStroll]

You hit on what so many miss by not thinking past the limited context maintained by media cartels to the larger principles involved. At its base artists and writers feel entitled to a portion of any income that makes use of their works. Sounds reasonable but it begs the question, why just the arts? Truly important works, works which literally changed the face of society beyond recognition, have been created by scientists and engineers for generations. They are infinitely more important to society's health and yet most, Shockley for example, never see returns greater than the most forgettable and transitory media darling. Songwriters would scream blue murder if forced to pay back a percentage of their earnings to Intel, Logitech and Samsung for use of the engineering IP in creating their works yet see no conflict in chasing taxi companies and restaurants for playing a radio. Until they demand to reimburse society for taking from the common weal of sentence structures, forms of literature, words and phrases to lock into their 'IP', it's hypocritical opportunism and an unquestionable corruption of copyright's intent.

Re:Incidentally...

[ivan256]

Your "better" analogy is shit.

Why? Simple. It's because the writers could be asking for a fair wage up-front. It seems like the logical way to go, since that means the corporation is taking the risk, rather than the individual writers, that a show will be successful.

But they're not asking for that. They're asking for residuals until the end of time (or until copyright expires, but we all know which will come first).

Re:Incidentally...

[laird]

The key issue is who owns the material. Usually in the writing world, the author is not an employee of the publisher, but indepently owns his own work, which he licenses to a publisher in return for the right to publish it, usually paid royalties based on sales. TV show writers used to be paid this way, until years ago the producers changed the rules such that they owned the work (instead of the writers), in return for which they paid negotiated license fees. Now (IMO) they want to retain the ownership of the work, and have fixed instead of negotiated rates, but avoid paying the writers for it to a large degree, by changing the distribution channel from DVD's to the internet.

The appropriate comparison in the software world is to an independent developer who writes a game that he licenses to a publisher. The publisher wants to license the game by paying 4 cents/box sold in stores, with downloads free, and the ability to declare an unlimited number of boxes as "promotional" with no payment. Would you agree to those terms?

Re:Incidentally...

[Adambomb]

You mean they will incurr expenses above and beyond the interest they make off the funds they already have?

Somehow, I don't hear any boots within which producers are shaking.

Re:Incidentally...

[langelgjm]

If you had read the GP, you would know that I didn't make the analogy in the first place - I simply tried to make his analogy more appropriate to the situation.

Furthermore, it's easy for us to say "Why don't they ask for a fair wage up front," but they're not exactly negotiating with the most equitably-minded people. What makes you think they'll be able to wring such a concession from distributors? They're unwilling to pay up front precisely because they don't want to take the risk of a show bombing.

I also don't think this has as much to do with copyright as the /. crowd would like. If you think that IP rights are being abused here, it's the distributors who are doing the abusing. You seem to want to make an analogy between writers seeking to be fairly compensated for the economic exploitation of their scripts ($0.08 a DVD isn't all that much to ask, IMO), and the record companies wanting to handsomely profit off of distributing someone else's music. Now that's a shitty analogy.

Re:Incidentally...

[bull3000]

So, when was the last time any of you were "guaranteed" to have a job? Not sure that's a relevant point... Also, how many of us have worked on projects that have made hundreds of millions of dollars for the parent company. Were we compensated for what the job was worth? I would rely on residuals too, if I had them...

Re:Incidentally...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

This is apparently largely because of the success of a similar project where they put every episode of The Daily Show on-line a few months back. This action didn't hurt ratings, and it may have actually helped them.

Coincidentally, this site launched the day before the writer's strike. So, I'm amazed the reruns didn't hurt ratings and the website get blamed. Or maybe they are comparing it to other reruns' ratings?

No advertising, no residual payments... not fair?

Actually, thedailyshow.com has enourmous numbers of adversiments, mostly leaning towards the Air Force or AT#&T/Cingular.

Re:Incidentally...

[Scrameustache]

South Park isn't a union show, so the WGA has no impact on it. (The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are, because Jon Stewart was in a superior negotiation position a few years ago, and that was one of his demands.)

Seriously?
That's interesting, got more on that?

Re:Incidentally...

[MotorMachineMercenar]

Your lack of understanding on what people actually get paid for is appalling. We don't live in a communist utopia you seem to refer to.

I'm at a loss for words. Do you really believe what you wrote? Do you really think that writers' pay structure is a result of some feel-good "oh those poor souls don't have work for six months?"

And most writers have two jobs: one to pay the bills, one to write. Yes, even WGA writers.

And I can't believe you got a 5 for that drivel.

Re:Incidentally...

[Anonymous Coward]

A better example would be novel writers, I think; if you end up in a 2-3 year dry spell without another novel published, you darn well still want royalty payments on any copies of the last one that are still being sold! If you were a novelist and your publisher somehow decided to sell the book as an eBook and went 'oh, but we're not going to pay you for that,' there would be outcry, dismay and rage. (This is why novel/story rights get laid out pretty clearly in a given contract!)

Books, fiction and non-fiction, have a highly variable market. The author enters a partnership with a publisher and they both need a way establish fair renumeration for sales that could be anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000 units, across months and years, hence they use royalties. As does any business agreement where nobody really knows what the sales will be.

Newspaper writers and engineers tend to operate in a market that's far more predictable, so regular employment rather than partnership can be offered and accepted.

It's not about a "special subset of people who feel that they need to be paid for the rest of their life for one momentary spark years ago", and who apparently don't feel they need to save for retirement. There are plenty of authors who are appalled by the current extensions of copyright, and if that poster will get off his high horse for a moment and quit muddling the issue with his strawman star-hatred, he'll find the bulk of those authors live very modestly and are definitely part of the "working world".

Re:Incidentally...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the problem is too many writers? Perhaps people shouldn't use "novelist" as their only income-producing career? I'm just playing devil's advocate, but it may be that art and writing (aside from regular work such as a periodical) should be done on the side instead of as a sole source of income. Perhaps people shouldn't expect to make a lifelong living off of a few brilliant moments of creativity.

Re:Incidentally...

[kithrup]

It's a bit of reading between the lines. Wikipedia has some links to press releases about Comedy Central shows becoming unionized; the story (based on various comments made over the years, sorry I don't have a hard reference) seems to be that Stewart's conract with Comedy Central was up, and the multiple networks were trying to woo him. CC couldn't afford the cash others were offering, so Stewart and his production company got other concessions, including allowing the writers to join the union.

It's apocryphal, but does match the public actions and comments by Stewart and company. (And this includes CC, who does seem to be going up on the coolness scale :).)

Re:Incidentally...

[TehZorroness]

...we can finally change copyright back to 50 years...

why not 17? Or even shorter. Seriously. The reason why copyright was established (to recuperate publishing costs) is a non-issue in modern society. It only makes sense to abolish copyright laws.

Re:Incidentally...

[Anonymous Coward]

unlike engineers, newspaper reporters/editors, script-writers do not have steady work.

Um, I think you mean

unlike employees, contractors do not have steady work.

There, fixed it for you.

Re:Incidentally...

[Anonymous Coward]

WGA - but I thought that the Slashdot crowd was against this?

Re:Incidentally...

[The One and Only]

For situations where the user pays (e.g., buying from iTunes), the writers currently do get paid, I believe on the same scale that they do for DVDs.

Another issue of the strike: that scale was last negotiated in 1988, when DVD didn't exist and VHS was not as widespread a method of TV distribution as DVD and iTunes are today.

Re:Incidentally...

[ivan256]

You seem to want to make an analogy between writers seeking to be fairly compensated for the economic exploitation of their scripts ($0.08 a DVD isn't all that much to ask, IMO), and the record companies wanting to handsomely profit off of distributing someone else's music. Now that's a shitty analogy.

I don't want to make an analogy. I want to point out that you can be guilty by association.

You want me to be sympathetic to a group of people who see their bosses doing something bad, and instead of saying "let's do this the right way", they say "I want me a cut of that action!"? Since when do two wrongs make a right? Not only is that what they're doing, but they're doing it in such a way as to cause the problem to be further entrenched. If the writers get download royalties, you can bet your ass that when some bill comes up in congress to fix copyright, the television and movie studio lobbiests will be saying "you can't take that away from us, because we won't be able to cover our residuals".

Re:Incidentally...

[aadvancedGIR]

Except that a crack dealer has to replace each of his client within a quarter. It doesn't change that much if they die or get clean, he still need an other victim.

Maybe the crack dealers are silly and should learn from show biz, perhaps they could have arrangement with the burial grounds for giving them clients and ask their victim's family to compensate the lost revenue for 70 years.

Re:Incidentally...

[SydShamino]

I think the issue is that, unlike you, writers aren't paid up front what the distributors believe their work to be worth. To avoid the risk of paying for scripts and shows that bomb, they pay only a small amount, then pay for further showings. That way, if a show does extremely well, the writer is rewarded, and if a show bombs, the distributor didn't waste a lot of money.

Sounds like the writers should be striking not to earn more royalties that rely on oppressive copyright law and draconian DRM to enforce, but instead should be striking to get a fair wage for a purchased script at time of sale, or to be hired as staff writers with a steady and adequate salary.

Re:Incidentally...

[SydShamino]

Script-writers have a project to work on, then may go 6 months to a year without another project being available; since they do get paid so little to start with (as the parent post notes), many writers do rely on their residuals to still pay rent and so on. Unlike newspaper reporters and editors, they do not have a guaranteed job.

No one in the country has a guaranteed job. Everyone needs to be saving for emergencies and for retirement.

If it's not possible to live as a staff or freelance script writer? Then it's not a viable occupation, sorry, get a job as a waiter. I tried to get a job as a school crossing guard, working two hours a day during school days for just $500 a day (enough, you know, so that I could survive through the summer). But for some reason a lot of parents volunteered for the work, and I couldn't find anyone to pay me a decent wage.

Cool

[Cracked Pottery]

I think I go to Amazon and buy another couple of seasons.

Daily Show

[RonnyJ]

This is apparently largely because of the success of a similar project where they put every episode of The Daily Show on-line a few months back. This action didn't hurt ratings, and it may have actually helped them.

Two weeks after all the past episodes were put online, The Daily Show had to shut down production due to the writers strike. I doubt those two weeks are really enough to make any solid conclusions from. It's strange though, I'd have expected ratings to drop considerably after that, considering there weren't any new episodes to air (or are the ratings referencing only those two weeks?)

I'm sure that putting them online wouldn't noticably hurt ratings (or perhaps could even increase them), but I don't think that you can evidence much from those two weeks.

I bet NBC will quickly counter

[Anonymous Coward]

by releasing the complete "Golden Girls" archive.

South Park is just awful, the kind of stuff you and your buddies congratulated yourselves on coming up with at about age 12, only more skillfully drawn.

Re:I bet NBC will quickly counter

[couchslug]

"by releasing the complete "Golden Girls" archive."

Fap, fap, fap... :)

Re:I bet NBC will quickly counter

[Anonymous Coward]

> > "by releasing the complete "Golden Girls" archive."
>
>Fap, fap, fap... :)

It's all about Bea Arthur, baby.

/Nothing is obscure on Slashiedot.

Re:I bet NBC will quickly counter

[Anonymous Coward]

by releasing the complete "Golden Girls" archive.

South Park is just awful, the kind of stuff you and your buddies congratulated yourselves on coming up with at about age 12, only more skillfully drawn. Bea Arthur is the man!

Re:I bet NBC will quickly counter

[Anonymous Coward]

Bea Arthur is the man! He was better in Maude, though...

Re:I bet NBC will quickly counter

[Anonymous Coward]

only more skillfully drawn. Last time I heard, Maya was used. 3D animation software makes wonders to your productivity and you can focus on the story.

Credit where credit is due

[billcopc]

I think this is less about MTV and more about Trey Parker and Matt Stone. They've already expressed a pro-P2P stance, and considering the nature of their show, this move fits in quite nicely with their "libertarian" attitude.

Re:Credit where credit is due

[insertwackynamehere]

They've stated that they don't care how people watch their episodes (downloaded or not) as long as they get to see them or something to that extent. That's why South Park episodes are much easier to find online; legal action isn't taken against sites that host South Park content.

Re:Credit where credit is due

[billcopc]

And you know that helps tremendously, especially with the odd time slots they tend to have. It's far more convenient for me to download the episodes every few weeks and have a mini-marathon at my convenience.

In fact, South Park is one of the few shows I'd actually pay to download. They can be hit-or-miss, but it's one of the few shows I'm willing to make time for.

creators take on unprecedented evile

[Anonymous Coward]

the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population initiative kode is absolutely free, in every sense of the word. see you there?

Re:I wouldn't watch the shit even if I were paid

[meringuoid]

South Park is the worst fucking piece of shit out there. The only ones who watch it are the fucktarded sheeple who should be eliminated from the gene pool.

You forgot to say 'Screw you guys, I'm going home'.

How does the WGA strike factor in?

[Ignorant Aardvark]

I'm wondering how the WGA strike factors in. Matt Stone and Trey Parker are obviously two of the important writers on the show, and they stand to make residuals from DVD sales. But now, if all back episodes are available for free on the site, are they going to get a cut of the advertising that goes along with it?

From the networkhead's perspective, P2P is screwing them over because they aren't getting any money for it. But from a show creator's perspective, having the company put it up for free online (with advertising) is screwing them over.

Re:How does the WGA strike factor in?

[dq5 studios]

South Park is a non-union, creator owned show. The WGA doesn't factor into it. Consequently MTV could not have done this without Matt & Trey's permission.

Re:How does the WGA strike factor in?

[Kredal]

South Park is a non-union shop.. Matt and Trey aren't walking the picket line, and any contract they enter into is specific to them, and not dictated by the WGA.

Re:How does the WGA strike factor in?

[vcalzone]

Actually, South Park Studios is not part of the WGA. Very few of the animation writers are. Only FOX animation writers are in the guild because they lobbied for it a few years back.

P2P? So Comcast users can't get it?

[Doug52392]

What about people with Comcast? Comcast don't give a damn about the legitimate uses of P2P programs, so they'll probably block it. On the plus side, this does pave the way for an MTV vs. Comcast lawsuit!!!

Re:I wouldn't watch the shit even if I were paid

[Dunbal]

wait, you forgot!

SOXMAS.MPG

[linebackn]

Wow, I have been downloading SouthPark since the days of SOXMAS.MPG. I regularly downloaded them until our cable provider at the time finally got Comedy Central.

(SOXMAS.MPG, The Spirit of Christmas was a widely distributed copy of the original 5 minute South Park short, well technically second short)

Re:SOXMAS.MPG

[KillerBob]

I come seeking... retribution....

Yes... what would Brian Boitano do?

Re:SOXMAS.MPG

[Bake]

That's easy.

He'd make a plan and he'd follow through, that's what Brian Boitano would do.

Of course it would help them. Did TV hurt them?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Networks have been giving away their shows for free for years on TV. You just had to sit through the commercials. For years people could record the TV shows and do whatever they wanted with them... did this hurt the networks then? No.

The only thing different now is they sell TV shows on DVD more than they ever sold TV series on VHS. This is mainly because of the storage capacity increases and size factor of the storage... but people watch those shows for free... and even go to the lengths of buying them on DVD. Thats a pretty dam good base of consumers to treat fairly, because they like your shows, and have already seen them for free for which they could easily record themselves... AND they still want to buy them.

Giving away the shows for free online is not going to hurt them one bit. In a day with so many online distractions, so may cable tv stations... It is better to capture a wider audience anyway possible, rather than try to clamp down on consumers that would rather just go to youtube, or find something else to do. There are just too many options out there... and options have always been a good thing.

It's never too late to advertise.

[twitter]

Fresh news generates fresh interest and that's what this is about. Traditional broadcasters are having a hard time building new audiences because we've all gone to the greener pastures of the internet. Cable subscription rates will plummet if they don't keep the interest of young audiences. Somehow they have to convince you to pay $60/month for the advertisement saturated shows someone else chooses to broadcast.

I'm not going to cry for them when they are gone. The businesses involved have been given considerable public resources, exclusive franchises and other unfair advantages. Instead of building out their networks they done everything possible to hold back the future.

someone @ riaa..

[surfi]

oh my god! they'r killing the recording industry! You BASTARDS!

Re:I wouldn't watch the shit even if I were paid

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG HE'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!

Idea is Comcastic

[troll -1]

So if Viamcom is going to put shows on the Internet then it would make sense for them to recommend BitTorrent as a distribution method, even though Viacom is also an ISP, the total bandwidth is the same whether downloaded directly from a Viacom site or using a torrent. But using a torrent is the least expensive and most efficient method for the distributor.

OK, so assuming Viacom, as a content producer and an ISP, prefers BitTorrent, where does that put Comcast? I wonder if this will also encourage competition?

Re:Idea is Comcastic

[a_nonamiss]

I wonder if they're part of, or getting kickbacks from Rapidshare? I'm hit with about 10,000 opportunities to get a premium rapidshare account when I click on the link at southparkzone.com. Could be a reason they aren't using BT...

Re:Idea is Comcastic

[a_nonamiss]

OK, my bad. For some reason, I was convinced that southparkzone.com was the "official" viacom distribution site. Apparently, it is not...

So we'll see what comes up on the official site, which to the best of my knowledge, isn't up yet.

Re:Idea is Comcastic

[finiteSet]

So we'll see what comes up on the official site, which to the best of my knowledge, isn't up yet.

This excerpt is taken from the

In August, Comedy Central signed an extension of a deal with South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker, and agreed to create a new joint venture to spread South Park materials across the Web, on mobile phones and video games. So far, the venture, SouthParkStudios.com, features a small collection of video clips from the show.

I didn't notice anything claiming one way or the other, so I'm just speculating, but maybe they'll just expand the content here? Does anyone know?

Re:Idea is Comcastic

[zippthorne]

No, it'd make sense for them to recommend multicast as a distribution method. If you actually own the infrastructure, there's nothing bittorrent can do that multicast can't do better.

Re:Idea is Comcastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast is exactly where they were to begin with, free to go fuck themselves.

Re:Idea is Comcastic

[NothingMore]

These episodes, Most likely, will not be available for download. Only available for streaming. This puts the standard version of BitTorrent out of the picture.

Those aren't cardboard cutouts

[Anonymous Coward]

The show is done in Alias/Wavefront's Maya - SOFTWARE.

Re:Those aren't cardboard cutouts

[pla]

Those aren't cardboard cutouts

"The show is based on construction paper, which was used for the pilot," says Eric Stough, animation director at South Park. "All the pieces had to be cut out of construction paper. When we wanted to scale a character, we had to cut new pieces."

Though in fairness, apparently they did "switch" for the first season, not the second as I had thought.

Re:Those aren't cardboard cutouts

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like overkill. The first time I saw South Park, I figured it was PowerPoint.

Yeah, both of them

[Anonymous Coward]

"Surely there are Germans who can't speak English that wouldn't agree ?"

Everybody in Germany speaks English. Last time I was there, I travelled a month through the country and I ran into one older woman running a B&B who couldn't speak english. She didn't seem to be the target audience for Southpark.

Re:Yeah, both of them

[Ash-Fox]

Everybody in Germany speaks English.

A vast large amount of people in Berlin do not speak English. I know this from personal experience of repeated visits there. I also know English isn't very prevalent elsewhere in Germany.

Last time I was there, I travelled a month through the country and I ran into one older woman running a B&B who couldn't speak english.

I used to live smack dead next to Germany.

Re:Yeah, both of them

[The One and Only]

Maybe they pretended not to speak English because they don't like you. (Don't know if the Germans do that, but the French sure do.)

Re:Yeah, both of them

[juan2074]

That's fair. I pretended not to speak French when I was there.

(Maybe it was more than just pretending, since I barely understand French, and I definitely can't produce some of the sounds.)

It really pisses off the French if you speak Arabic as if it is the lingua franca.

different market segments, tradeoffs.

[Vellmont]

But with South Park you can buy the DVDs, so making them available for free online would only hurt their DVD sales


I doubt it, or at best it would affect them only a little. People don't buy the DVDs because they haven't seen the show, those people will just rent it. The people who buy the DVD want to watch it over and over.

The other thing is, the episodes are still going to contain ads. Ads which you can't easily skip over. Comedy Central is going to make direct profits from those ads. The people who buy DVDs buy them partially because they don't contain ads. Even if it does make a small dent in DVD sales, the profits from selling ads will likely make up for that.

Re:different market segments, tradeoffs.

[Ifni]

Since the people modding you insightful cannot post in this forum without losing said modding ability, I would like to ATTEMPT to speak for them: This is absolutely the truth. Both points are more accurate by far than any projection or reason that any MPAA affiliate has ever made against P2P. DVDs are sold to collectors. There may be the odd birthday or Christmas gift given to introduce someone to the series that the company will miss out on, but the uptake from people who would have otherwise never been exposed will make that insignificant. I have NEVER been asked to take a survey on why I buy DVDs of TV shows, nor read here about such a survey, and yet I would think that if the content providers were really interested in meeting their customers needs, they might at least ask that question to determine what new product formats might impact those sales.

Making episodes available for free DOES NOT impact DVD sales. Sure, I don't have the numbers or research to back that up, but I have explained above that the content providers don't either. I have at least asked that question to people I know and discovered exactly what the parent post pointed out. Letting people download episodes and burn them to CD or DVD MIGHT impact DVD sales, hence the effort to put them up in a streaming format to combat P2P distribution by pirates, though the argument for P2P hurting DVD sales is highly debatable for similar reasons to the arguments against P2P distribution of music - most importantly that the bulk of people that keep music they have downloaded and like and listen to it regularly are unlikely to have purchased it at full price anyway because they are financially unable or unwilling to do so. Without a massive change to the music/TV/movie distribution system, these people are highly unlikely to have been "converted" to customers anyway. This is NOT a defense of "piracy", just a simple fact that the whole "lost profits due to Internet piracy" is largely a fallacy do to poor market research and an unwillingness to investigate new revenue streams that might impact their main method of distribution.

On the flip side, they can't just ignore Internet distribution or that would be perceived as an implicit endorsement of it, but at least in the case of television programming a change in the distribution model is needed. MTV seems to get it, or at least be willing to investigate it rather than just hope that this is a phase they can just ignore or litigate into oblivion and then go merrily on their way with last generation's distribution model.

A bold move, but not as bold as The Music Business

[illectro]

So MTV networks appear to get it, but if you're interested in the whole 'free content to beat p2p story' you need to look at imeem.com and spiralfrog - both are allowing users free access to music. now I can hear the imagined caveats now

"It'll be low quality" - No - both sites deliver CD quality audio

"It'll be some crappy indie bands that nobody has heard of" - No both sites have signed deals with most of the major labels - Sony, BMG, Warner, EMI and Universal - this is on top of all the indie labels who sign on

"It'll be only a few free tracks - everythign else witll cost" - nope it's all free with a few exceptions (like the beatles) imeem even played host to the first legal Led Zeppelin video on the internet

"It won't be on demand - you won't be able to control what you listen to" - nope it's entirely on demand, I think the only restriction I see is the slow downloads from spiralfrog that force you to watch advertising

"It'll have tonnes of spyware/DRM/evil" - well no spyware as far as I can tell, imeem.com is streaming only and provides everything via a neat little flash player that works on any flash enabled browser. Spiralfrog however uses and active X control and windows DRM, so that's Windows/IE only

OK so why is this a bolder move than this story? Well TV shows primary channel is still considered to be broadcast, a TV show has to make money on its TV run otherwise it's not considered viable. However, music revenue has primarily been generated through sales of the media, radio broadcast earns the record labels nothing, in fact it may be costing them to get this free advertising.

In my mind the celestial jukebox that's offered by imeem is a hugely radical move by the record business, imeem has become the youtube for music that the tech bloggers keep talking about - except nobody in the tech blogging world has noticed it.

Re:I wouldn't watch the shit even if I were paid

[fermion]

Absolutely.

1. create a the worst fucking show on the planet based on cock sucking uncle fuckers that fuck their own uncles all day instead of boring show based on mowing the lawn or driving to work
2. ?
3. Profit

Subtitles make easy?

[adioe3]

Isn't it easier to subtitle the episodes instead of dubbing it? When not dubbed movies/whatever seems better whilst you have subs to figure out what's goin on. I mean, anime in spanish just isn't quality anime ^_^

Re:Subtitles make easy?

[zombie_striptease]

anime in spanish just isn't quality anime ^_^

What about anime in German?

This will be in the U.S. only

[Scott Tracy]

What everyone is ignoring is the fact that this will be geo-targeted to the U.S. only - I guarantee it. (I can say that with confidence because the place I work pays Comedy Central good money for the online rights to South Park in our country.)

And no way this will go on any peer-to-peer network, or be downloadable without DRM. Content owners are still eager to divide up their rights (TV, broadband, mobile, whatever) by geographic location.

Re:This will be in the U.S. only

[CSMatt]

Then just use a proxy located in the US. It's an annoyance, but it isn't as bad as delaying DVD releases or TV show debuts.

I hope other networks follow suit

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully, SP isn't affected by the writers' strike, but I think a model like this could do well for many other networks. With the strike, new episodes of shows are ceasing to air and inevitably viewers will lose interest and stop watching television en masse. And since networks that syndicate these shows seem to only show about the same 20 or so in a loop, viewers will quickly turn to the Internet for their entertainment.

What better way to maintain some interest in your show, than by releasing the entire series for free on the Web? You can have the ad-supported revenue that you get from television, a market test for how well online television shows can do, and maintain some goodwill with viewers.

It's a win all around.

Re:I wouldn't watch the shit even if I were paid

[Anonymous Coward]

sheeple

Disqualified.

Re:I wouldn't watch the shit even if I were paid

[SaDan]

Oh my god! You killed Kenny!

You bastard!

Re:I wouldn't watch the shit even if I were paid

[AsnFkr]

South Park is the worst fucking piece of shit out there. The only ones who watch it are the fucktarded sheeple who should be eliminated from the gene pool. Oh, I see where you are confused. This conversation isn't about Family Guy.

Re:A bold move, but not as bold as The Music Busin

[Anonymous Coward]

just a note: it's http://www.spiralfrog.com/ and not http://spiralfrog.com/ (which appears to be a ... typosquat?).

Re:I wouldn't watch the shit even if I were paid

[Anonymous Coward]

Well this fucktarded sheeple sings to Troll Bitch:
        Say everybody, have you seen my balls?
        They're big and salty and brown.
        If you ever need a quick pick-me-up
        Just put my balls in your mouth.

        Oooh, suck on my chocolate, salty balls.
                (Put 'em in your mouth!)
        Put 'em in your mouth and suck 'em and suck 'em...

Time to take a ride on Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride.

Subtitles?

[Xenographic]

The voice acting in dubs sucks, as a rule, unless they have the budget to hire voice actors. If you watch enough of these things, you learn to appreciate subtitles, because dubs get painful to listen to.

I guess some people can't read quickly enough to pay attention to the action, but I can and I can't stand dubs with the exception of a few that were professionally done. But some people I know really can't manage dubs, and in that person's case, it's pretty much because they're not able to both read and pay attention.

As for me, I don't like dubs at all. And one of these days, I hope to be able to turn the subtitles off, but I'm not quite there just yet.

Where to find it?

[DoofusOfDeath]

When I heard about the Daly Show being free, I looked for it. All I could on the show's website was a string of Flash clips, pretty much one per segment of the show. I'm pretty sure I wasn't able to see even close to the whole show.

Did I find what people are talking about? Because to be honest I found it pretty clunky and unsatisfying.

Eh yeah, what is your salary mate?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Residuals are part of the income for writers. I am SURE writers would MUCH prefer to get an engineers (you are a proper one and not one of the MSCE's I hope) salary then their own highly complex contracts.

The entertainment industry just does not work that simple. The "real" salary, is kept very low and entertainers then have to negiotate for a percentages of virtually everything all of it designed to 'officially' keep the costs down in case it is a flop and reward success, but really is there so the studio can screw everyone.

Check such cases as the Spiderman movie not actually making a profit. Yes that blockbuster hit. Sadly the original creator had signed a contract that gave him a percentage of profits so there weren't any.

Perhaps it would be better to have simple straight forward contracts X money for X hours work, but currently the industry just doesn't work that way.

Say that as an engineer you work on a bridge and instead of just getting a big pile of cash based on the amount of work you get 1% of toll proceeds. Would you then not have the right to complain if they suddenly decide to exclude passenger cars from paying toll on that bridge?

this is really cool!

[purpleraison]

I am happy they understand that making shows like this available online (and free) is a good promotional/ marketing tool. However I am sad because I have already bought the DVD collections for the past 10 seasons...

ethics and business

[oliphaunt]

1. Did you ever ask for residuals? Did your parents? Do you have a union to help you negotiate?

Business isn't about getting what you deserve. It's about deserving as much as you can get. Unions help little people get more.

2. The studios are going to get paid for the rest of the writers lives for that one momentary spark years ago. Copyright protects works for 95 years. If the studios are going to get paid, why shouldn't the writers? The alternative is to come up with an estimate for the total 95-year revenue stream for a given product, an estimate for the interest and inflation rates over that 95 years, and then discount the future value back to additional dollars in the present day. Residuals are actually a much cleaner way of getting the job done- the studios only pay if they actually end up making money. Long copyright terms and no residuals is just another example of big business trying to have their cake and kick the writers in the nuts too.

Re:ethics and business

[SydShamino]

1. Did you ever ask for residuals? Did your parents? Do you have a union to help you negotiate?

Business isn't about getting what you deserve. It's about deserving as much as you can get. Unions help little people get more.

I work an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. I don't need residuals for my labor. I value unions in their ability to correct unsafe working conditions and drastically unfair wage exploitation, but I don't agree with most modern labor unions that only seem to exist to squeeze money when the workers are already well compensated.

The studios are going to get paid for the rest of the writers lives for that one momentary spark years ago. Copyright protects works for 95 years. If the studios are going to get paid, why shouldn't the writers?

Why should the studio? Cut copyright back to a reasonable length - like 50 years (or maybe just 20, same as patents). And my company makes millions of dollars each year selling products I've designed, but I don't get compensated on a percentage of sales and wouldn't want to be. Why don't the writers sell their script for the price they think it's worth and be happy with an honest day's pay? Movie rights for major books go for multiple millions of dollars. Are writers so unsure about their own work that they think it's worth nothing unless and until the public happens to like it?

Re:ethics and business

[oliphaunt]

1. I think your point about reducing the length of copyright protection is spot-on. I'd love to see it happen. But until then, it is patently unfair for the studios to continue to make money from the writer's work without compensating them fairly for it. The first law of thermodynamics says you can't get something for nothing. The studios are trying to defy the laws of physics; the writers are just pointing out that they can't get away with it.

2. why don't the writers sell their script for the price they think it's worth?

This is the crux of the matter. Outside of the union contract, they *can't*, because the studio will take their script and hire some other writer to do the same thing but cheaper, and then it becomes a race to the bottom where writers simply can't make a living doing their jobs. The power distribution between the writers and the studios does not allow writers to bargain fairly. Without the union, the writers would effectively be McDonalds employees- fungible, disposable, no rights whatsoever, making minimum wage. Sure, people would still do it. But lots of people made sausage in Chicago before there were unions too. I for one am glad that my chances of finding human body parts in my packaged meat products are much lower than they were in the early 1900s. The same kind of thing applies to TV and movies. Corporations are sociopathic in nature becuase there is essentially no financial reward for ethical corporate behavior. The only way to force corporations to treat people like... people... is to flex a little muscle, and that's exactly what the union is doing.

more piracy - lower prices

[oliphaunt]

So the real message here is that they've realized they can't stop people from copying it without paying them. And they're going to try to compete by offering content at higher consistent quality, and making money from ad revenue. There is huge demand for downloadable video, and some revenue is better than no revenue.

Isn't this what the copyfighters have been saying will happen, ever since Napster? And this makes it clear that DMCA and longer copyright protections are not going to help. You can't fight the tides with a bucket.

For anyone looking to cause and effect, the cause is widespread piracy. The effect is the official distribution channels are forced to compete with free by lowering their prices and improving their quality. And this isn't the first time in the last six months that a studio has decided to fight piracy by lowering prices. Maybe the're finally starting to get the message.

Warner Home Video said Wednesday it will begin selling low-priced DVDs of movies from two major Hollywood studios in China in a bid to curb widespread sales of pirated versions.

The DVDs, priced at 22 yuan (2.90 dollars) each, will be distributed in over 50 major Chinese cities beginning this month, according to the agreement that Warner Home Video signed with Paramount and Dreamworks Animation.

Re:more piracy - lower prices

[CSMatt]

Did you read tekel's comments on the press release in your link? It sounds like the studios still have a lot of progress to make if they really do intend to adjust not only to the digital age but also the globalized economy.

Re:more piracy - lower prices

[oliphaunt]

Yeah. Confession: "tekel" is me. I'm not sock-puppeting though, honest- this is the only account I have here, because I had the UID from back in the day. "tekel" is the name I use to post most other places.

Alternatives

[DynaSoar]

"One of these things is not like the others. See if you can guess which one."

MTV Takes On P2P By Making South Park Free Online

MTV takes on North Korea by Making South Park Free Online

MTV takes on water and sinks after hitting iceberg by Making South Park Free Online

MTV Makes South Park Free Online and some blogger happened to mention P2P and said nothing about "taking on" anything, while MTV did not even mention P2P.

A double layer misstatement by inclusions of /. buzz words. This is becoming all too common. Mod editor -1 for sleeping while approving articles.

Re:A bold move, but not as bold as The Music Busin

[MostAwesomeDude]

Spiral Frog only distributes WMA. I'm on Linux. There's a small problem here; can you guess what it is?

No

[wanderingknight]

Of course "cartoons" (or animation, as it is usually called when you try to talk about it in a serious manner ;) are "dubbed", but the whole script was done in the ORIGINAL language, and thus it retains the conventions and mannerisms proper of that language.

Let's take a simple example: Japanese people refer to other persons by their name a lot. When I say a lot, I say A LOT. The usage of vocatives in a common Japanese dialog is absurdly high when compared to a regular English dialog. When you make an English dub of a Japanese dialog, the result is incredibly awkward-sounding, not only in the wording, but also in the intonation... and that's because the script was originally adapted to the Japanese language, and thus it's a lot more difficult to make it fit in the conventions and mannerisms of the English language. In fact, you'd have to rewrite the whole script just to make it sound a bit more natural.

Closer languages such as Spanish, French, Italian and English may suffer a bit less of this, but when comparing two completely different ones, the result is really impressive.

Re:No

[porpnorber]

I am boggled, O knight. Because I use a different word than you when talking about animated cartoons, you decide that I'm an idiot and you need not bother to read the rest of my post? Under the title 'No', you are reiterating my point, you silly person. For many reasons, including the one you give, a good dubbed cartoon is indeed a rare thing, but it is still more likely than good dubbed live action, for all the very same reasons. Everyone will have different personal levels of emotional sensitivity and concern about textual and artistic integrity, but for any given set of parameters, dubbed live action will always be less satisfactory than dubbed animation, because faces are very high bandwidth channels, and we spend much of our lives focussed on them—there is just more skew between face and voice available to experience.

Oh, and on the subject of using the wrong word, it's 'proper to,' not 'proper of.'

Ah, and one other thing. You are, I think, confusing the cultural and linguistic levels. Now, I forgive you, because they are interrelated, and it's very clear that the entertainment industry is actively exacerbating the problem. Why someone should 'translate,' let's say, 'noodles' as 'pizza,' I just can't imagine. And if vocatives were left alone, people would just come off as sounding like they come from a culture with a lot of vocatives. But somehow, cultural erasure becomes one of the goals of translators. This I don't understand, and, yes, this is one of the forces opposing competent translation of anything. Why would you want to be unfaithful to the original, when the experience of the original is what the customers are paying for?

Re:No

[wanderingknight]

Nice way of grabbing yourself from a single phrase (my small comment on the usage of the word 'cartoon' which actually didn't address any of your points at all) and ignoring the rest of my argument. Then you go on rambling about things that I don't really understand what the hell have to do with what I posted.

Perhaps I should have cleared what was I criticizing in your post:

"With a cartoon, of course, the original is 'dubbed'. So the question becomes largely one of which version has the better voice acting. That's still usually the original because of matters of budget, access to the original creators, and because of timing (human languages can take surprisingly different amounts of speech to encode the same information, especially when differences in cultural context are taken into account)."

I criticized the fact that you seemed to ignore that, in a "cartoon", the people are acting, too, and they're also directed (in a particular language--the original one) in order to match with what is being animated. The script is in the original language, and thus the whole animation is thought and created as if it were spoken in the original language. This is a VERY important point... language is determinant in the way of conveying information, and art is nothing other than a way of conveying information in the form of emotions generated in the viewer. Most of times, the whole development of a particular scene depends a lot on the language being spoken. As I said, Japanese people use an absurd amount of vocatives in a regular dialog when compared to English people, thus making many scenes in dubbed anime appear quite awkward.

Re:No

[Pharmboy]

That is why you have to add "ha ha" to the end of every piece of dialog when translating Japanese animation into English, to eat up the extra words movements the character is generating, as in:

First guy "I will defeat you, ha ha!"
Second guy "No you won't, ha ha!"

Or maybe I only watch really ooold 'toons and parodies.

Three cheers for...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

... less consumer choice!

Yay! Yay! Yaaaaaaaay!

What I learned about documentaries...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Is that these days they all SUCK!

It used to be that you could watch a dry-but-informative Brit doco, safe in the knowledge that it was probably about as fair and objective as possible, not to mention highly enlightening.

Now even the UK documentaries have styled themselves on the ever-laughable American ones, with cheesy "dramatisations" and "reenactments", complete with shitty acting, overwrought musical accompaniment and a narrator who seems to think nobody but himself is more than three-and-a-half years old.

And, like all American documentaries, the very content itself is now questionable: we always have to ask ourselves, "I wonder which pharmaceutical or religious corporation paid for this one?"

If I want to watch fictional "drama" which is so appalling that I can actually feel my braincells committing suicide, there's reality tv or, in fact, just about any other tv for that matter. But documentaries used to be the last refuge of those of us with an IQ significantly greater than that of a medium-sized block of wood. Now documentaries are as stupid and unwatchable as everything else on televison.

Gee, thanks a lot America!

Viacom "Satanists"

[Johann Public]

and not the good kind either Brain poison sold as comedy (not that the show and Parker and Stone aren't funny...they do approach some "deep" topics as well, so some points)

Re:Viacom "Satanists"

[CSMatt]

If you're referring to the bulk of Comedy Central's content, I agree, but it really isn't fair to lump South Park in with the network's failures, most of which thankfully never make it past the first season.

I do worry that Parker and Stone have now entered this pot of failed shows with Kenny vs. Spenny though. At least South Park and Team America have a greater meaning to them beyond what otherwise looks like shallow dumb comedy, but Kenny vs. Spenny, judging from the commercials alone, looks like it might knock 20 points off of my IQ.

Sounds a bit like a stupid attack on P2P.

[Aleksej]

it is nice to finally see a network starting to implement a way to work with today's want of free content without the legal repercussions that can come along with P2P sharing.

Do they mean to say that P2P would be notably dangerous even if MTV would choose it to distribute its free content (well, it would, at least in Russia, because the laws do not care about people, so legally you are supposed to pay money for software no matter what)? Or that BitTorrent = Gnutella, or something?
Or that files on a website is a new, innovative, never seen before, method of distributing files???

Re:I wouldn't watch the shit even if I were paid

[Anonymous Coward]

South Park is the worst fucking piece of shit out there. The only ones who watch it are the fucktarded sheeple who should be eliminated from the gene pool.

But.... I've got a golden tic-ket! I've got a go-oold-en tic-ket!

TITTY SPRINKLES!

Sorry, my tourets is acting up.

Kidding aside, anyone that finds they can not laugh until their sides hurt at many of the southpark episodes needs to have a labotimy.

Guilt

[Goobergunch]

So does this mean I no longer have to feel guilty about all the South Park I've acquired through...alternative means? >_<

It says "All your base are belong to us"

[billstewart]

My hovercraft! It's full of Eels!

Re:A bold move, but not as bold as The Music Busin

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is the link wasn't to spiralfrog, it was to "spiralforg" ... methinks someone downloads from sourceforge too much.

Re:A bold move, but not as bold as The Music Busin

[illectro]

Oops sorry there, yes I got that wrong. In addition to imeem and spiralfrog there's also qtrax which has been 'coming soon' forever, and deezer which is basicly a french clone of imeem and is currently suffering some legal challenges as to its legitimacy. Earlier in the year imeem was sued by Warner brothers for, but I guess that lawsuit is resolved now that Warner has signed a deal with them. I hear that one of the biggest challenges to imeem is the fact that myspace.com automaticly censors anyone mentioning 'imeem.com', much in the same way that they did with youtube, and photobucket.

Look! Another way to screw the WGA!

[jra]

DVD's pay writers.

Syndie pays writers.

Reruns pay writers.

"Promotional" online airings don't. Even if they contain commercials.

Need any more on this?

Re:A bold move, but not as bold as The Music Busin

[illectro]

Yes, it looks like imeem is the place for you, which means you have to confine your listening to about 9082359083920984 tracks.....

What Does "Free Access to Music" Mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

I visited the sites that you listed above. The UI is confusing at best. If "free access to music" means playing it through an embedded player on the website, then sure. To me, free access to music means accessing it wherever I like: my iPod, 360, et. al. I cannot do this with these services. The term "download" doesn't even seem to mean anything on these websites. Yeah, I guess, technically, I'm downloading the music by playing it on the website, but I can't keep it. I managed to get a few select songs in Windows Media format. *eyes roll*

I doubt ISP's are too keen on this concept, either. This model requires a lot of throughput. I think that they'd rather deal with P2P. At least then you would only have to request the media data once.

These services will never take off on a large scale. If I can't do what I want with the media, it's not really free. We need more free as in freedom. Free as in beer is great, but it should come secondary to the other.

Re:What Does "Free Access to Music" Mean?

[illectro]

"These services will never take off on a large scale. If I can't do what I want with the media, it's not really free. We need more free as in freedom. Free as in beer is great, but it should come secondary to the other." That's right people would much prefer to download a high quality video via bittorrent which they can watch on their iPod rather than going to a website and streaming it, and that's exactly why youtube will never be as popular as thepiratebay.... Oh well there goes that theory

Re:What Does "Free Access to Music" Mean?

[CSMatt]

That's video. This is music. The current trend among music customers is portability. One of the most common complaints on SprialFrog's Facebook group is its incompatibility with the iPod. And imeem is streaming only; you need a PC to listen to the tracks. These services are great for listening to new music, but not so much for listening to it on a regular basis.

Re:What Does "Free Access to Music" Mean?

[totally bogus dude]

When people start watching TV shows and movies on YouTube, you might have a point. Most of the stuff on youtube is "filler". You browse around and watch some funny things or whatever for a while when you're bored and at your computer. It's not that surprising that a lot of people do this; a lot of people get bored. But when these people want to watch a particular TV show or movie, do you think they go to YouTube?

Not to mention the fact there isn't high-quality video available on bittorrent for most of what's on YouTube, or that YouTube does a lot of marketing and has vastly more exposure than TPB.

Somebody mod this fella insightful

[mstahl]

I'm actually surprised at myself for not noticing that connection! The viewership of the two are fundamentally different, although believe it or not I have met people who actively view both (not sure how...). Also, since the Daily Show and especially the Colbert Report exist mostly to lampoon our state-sponsored news service (Fox), you can absorb the best of content from the one by viewing the more hilarious alternative.

On a somewhat related note, I am constantly surprised by people dense enough to think that Colbert is sincere. The irreverence of the whole show is completely lost on some, and it's actually fairly brilliant. The two both are, actually, quite brilliant. To all the people who criticize them for liberal bias... wtf is wrong with you? Of course it's liberal biased. The same way that The Wall Street Journal tends to skew conservative and the New York Times tends not to. It's news. Watch it if you want to; watch something else if you don't. People tend to watch or read news that already agrees with their view of the world, though, so whatever.

Eh... so... in short, I agree.

Re:Somebody mod this fella insightful

[Belial6]

While I am a fan of the Colbert Report, I have really started to lose interest in the Daily show. I think they have lost their way. They used to be good satire, but recently, they lost the wit, and just started resorting to name calling. The last episode I saw was doing a 'satire' on a Fox news clip, and the only thing they had was making fun of the guys hair. Given how much material there is to do real satire, I can only assume that all of their good writer were moved to the Colbert Report.

Re:Somebody mod this fella insightful

[Opportunist]

Actually I tend to read/watch news that conflict with my world view instead of supporting it. It's like getting a "second opinion" on a subject, to test my point of view. The only thing important is that you get some quality paper, because with "I say so and it's right 'cause I say so, here, we even print it" it's hard to argue.

Re:Somebody mod this fella insightful

[mstahl]

That's why I read the wall street journal still as well as the Chicago Tribune and the New York times. Its important to keep those critical thinking skills going.

Great News

[WebmasterNeal]

This is really good news in my opinion. I have all the episodes downloaded already via bit torrent but for people who don't I think they will take advantage of it. I haven't watched an episode on tv for many seasons now. I would assume that there will be commercials included somehow in these versions. Does anybody have a link to the website they are on or is it not available yet?

It's on iTunes

[CSMatt]

Episodes of both the Daily Show and the Colbert Report have been available in the iTunes Store for a while now. Hell, the credits for both shows even say that you can purchase the episode there. Last time I checked they kept the most recent 5-7 episodes up for sale.

However, The Daily Show/Colbert Report is unique in that most of the time people are looking for specific clips instead of complete episodes. This is why both shows have been so prosperous on YouTube. Comedy Central for a while now has offered the same service on Motherload, but the headlines would get deleted after a week or so, only leaving clips from the reporters and interviews. YouTube has every clip of the show submitted (often with several submissions of the same clip), and in some cases with better search tags, so you are almost guaranteed to find what you are looking for. There's also the issue of YouTube being so popular that nowadays that's the first place most people go when looking for online video, as opposed to checking the network's or producer's site directly. OTOH, people who want to watch South Park on demand want to see the whole episode, which is why Comedy Central's Motherload clips haven't satisfied the masses.

It is funny in fact

[Ilgaz]

So, they insist on paying millions of dollars to hosting companies instead of using already established technology such as Bittorrent.

They could even make money if they licensed the Vuze (Azureus) engine and put couple of animated gifs/flash while downloading with virtually zero cost to them.

I am sure the hosts, even if they are Akamai will choke and people will end up hitting Pirate bay to download them. See that happened on Radiohead, people downloaded their paid content from P2P.

Re:A bold move, but not as bold as The Music Busin

[Anonymous Coward]

Spiral Frog only distributes WMA. I'm on Linux. There's a small problem here; can you guess what it is?

Yes, the problem is that you were too lazy to read the whole post. The parent did acknowledge that Spiralfrog uses an Active X control and is IE/Win-only. Or did you think you were being witty?

To quote Cartman...

[CarpetShark]

I didn't know they were that P2P friendly, for sure. It's great to see people getting it, and doing the right thing. Anyway, I there's only one appropriate response to news like this, and that's:

Shhweeeeet.

My name is Slowpoke Rodriguez

[Anonymous Coward]

I just love that episode where Speedy Gonzales' cousin comes over singing a whole stanza of the song "La cucaracha", which ends with "porque no tiene, porque se falta marijuana que fumar" (basically "The poor cockroach can't walk, cause it's got no marijuana to smoke anymore"). It's really funny to watch because "Slowpoke" himself seems to be a stoner and walks veeery slowly, but, like his cousin, never gets caught by the pussy cat either..

Thank god we're no longer bound by stupid TV station execs who try to serve us crap with ads.

Thedailyshow.com didn't hurt ratings?

[An Onerous Coward]

The Schmaily Schmow had good ratings a few months back, before they put their archives online.

Today, everyone I know has stopped watching it.

Coincidence? I think not!