Viacom: Pass SOPA Or Spongebob Dies
from the seriously dept
It’s the most unintentionally hilarious video of the year… Viacom has put out one of the most ridiculous “anti-piracy” propaganda videos yet, complete with debunked stats, ridiculous claims, ominous music… and lots and lots of Viacom employees admitting that they’re too clueless to adapt to a changing marketplace, and begging you to give them money so they can keep their jobs. Seriously. As the video goes on, the claims get more and more ridiculous, to the point where someone even threatens that if you don’t keep buying Viacom products, Spongebob might no longer exist. And, really, that’s the hilarious part. So much of the video is just people begging others to save them. They beg people to give them money. They beg the government to save their jobs. Nowhere, however, do they talk about actually adapting. Nowhere do they talk about making use of what the internet provides to build bigger audiences, to promote better, and to better monetize. Because that’s the kind of stuff that Viacom just doesn’t do. It just begs others to cover up for its own business failures.
Remember, this is the same company where the CEO made $84.5 million last year (a $50 million raise). I’d embed the video here, but remember that Viacom is trying to sue YouTube out of existence, so they didn’t put it up on YouTube… in fact, they didn’t put it up in a manner that lets you embed it anywhere. So you’ll just have to go to Viacom’s website and watch the video directly there yourself… costing Viacom’s bandwidth. They could have gotten that bandwidth for free if they’d just posted the video to YouTube… but, as we’re told in the video, “free” is “stealing.” And it destroys jobs. Except for Viacom’s CEO. He’s doing okay.
Filed Under: business models, exaggeration, jobs, sopa, spongebob
Companies: viacom
Comments on “Viacom: Pass SOPA Or Spongebob Dies”
If there ever was a reason to pirate, it is so that “Spongebob might no longer exist”.
Re: Re:
Are you sure Viacom didn’t just pull a Patrick on us?
Re: Re: Re:
More like a Mr. Crabs.
Re: Re:
Wait…So if I no longer want to see Spongebob everywhere, I just keep “pirating”? Sweet!!! Sign me up!
Re: Re:
While I agree with you, I do know some kids that really enjoy that show. This makes Viacom evil in my opinion.
Blackmailing children is low..
The hypocrisy...
“It’s incredibly frustrating when something that I’ve worked on is being used to other people’s advantage”
Becky Mair – Editor VH1’s Basketball Wives
So… Becky wants to use the story of Shaquille O’ Neal without any regard to the other people that her story might influence. And yet, her show appears on VH1 free of charge to be watched and recorded through a Tivo or DVR.
“The theft is happening at such a level that major corporations are benefitting from it”
Keri Flint – Production Management
Then what the hell is Viacom doing and why aren’t they paying you as much as your CEO?
I have to laugh at this. Their boss gets a raise and they’re complaining about competition from overseas instead of figuring out ways to make their own attractions more appealing.
Where’s the people that say “we need to make a cyberlocker of our own?” Where’s the innovators in Viacom that have said “this is how we compete”? All I’m hearing is a bunch of whiners and defeatists that have given up the battle and don’t even know how to fight. They show a picture of the dolls and products that they sell, but I have no way of knowing how they compete in different markets. I don’t know the Competitive Price Points if they sell in China nor do I know the economics of their situation.
And I’m supposed to feel sympathy because people feel like their website is either outdated or they have no way of showing off their work? WTF?
The logic train is truly derailed with this video.
Are you going to keep up the bullshit about the confusing the stock options with actual salary?
Are you going to admit that the “raise” is entirely the stock options, and nothing more?
If you are going to attack people, at least try to be honest.
Re: Re:
SpongeBob SquarePants is impossible to destroy. The only way to destroy SpongeBob is to destroy the entire human race. Like it or not, SpongeBob is here to stay, forever.
Re: Re:
Stocks are pretty liquid, I’m sure if I had $50M in stock options I could figure out a way to be set for life! Especially since that’s on top of his $30M+ compensation.
Let’s try to be honest – $50M is $50M, and $50M on top of $30M should not leave the rest of the staff crying about losing their jobs.
Just saying, when the money gets obscene, you have long gone past the problem.
Re: Re: Re:
Just saying, when the money gets obscene, you have long gone past the problem.
This can be summed up in three words.
I’m RICH, BIATCH!
Re: Re:
Your company is going down the tubes due to piracy, your firing people left and right (At least that’s what Viacom wants us to believe), yet you get an $11mill bonus, a $2mill salary, plus the stock value of your company goes up enough for you to get $50mill?
Re: Re: Re:
The stock didn’t have to “go up enough” to get 50 million. He could have easily signed that deal when he came on board, with a vesting date in 2011.
The stock price in 2008 was 13.xx, today it is over 40. If I was a stock holder, I would say whatever he has done has made me a whole lot of money. I don’t think it is particularly fair to blame someone for being successful.
Past success is also not an indication of future performance either, and his 50 million of stock could be worthless in a couple of years if piracy wipes them out.
So I just think that might is being a little dishonest in suggesting he got a pay raise (he did not) when in fact he had stock options that vested.
Mike knows that, he just chooses to ignore it and yell “censorship” every chance he gets instead.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The stock price in 2008 was 13.xx, today it is over 40. If I was a stock holder, I would say whatever he has done has made me a whole lot of money.
Oops. I guess Viacom is doing well after all. Never mind about that doom and gloom stuff…
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
yeah poor guys, it looks like this whole piracy thing is really crippling them, I mean if it wasn’t for piracy those stocks could be worth billions a piece
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So after watching their video claiming looming financial doom, and then stating the company’s value has tripled in three years, it’s Mike you want to accuse of dishonesty? Wow, cognitive dissonance much?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Past success is also not an indication of future performance either, and his 50 million of stock could be worthless in a couple of years if piracy wipes them out.”
All indications are that piracy is helping his stocks grow over 300% in value since 2008…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
>>and his 50 million of stock could be worthless in a couple of years if piracy wipes them out.
Yes, because as we all know, there was absolutely NO PIRACY AT ALL between 2008 and 2011, which is why the company tripled its valuation.
Re: Re:
Are you so confused about how cash flows through a corporation to not understand that the money for the stock options and the salary have the same source, the customer?
Buying stocks only gives them working capital, sometimes a lot of working capital, but those stocks impact the companies cash on hand,(not profit) and are responsible to the market, not the company. The stock capitalization does not go to the bottom line. The options might be valuable if the stock holds its price.
Oh wait…the stocks hold their price? The board is happy enough with performance to give out bonuses? Then how is the company hurting?
Re: Re:
Of COURSE he is paid in stock. He holds the stock for a year and then pays 15 percent capital gains rather than 35 percent income tax.
Just to be honest
Re: Re:
“Are you going to keep up the bullshit about the confusing the stock options with actual salary?
Are you going to admit that the “raise” is entirely the stock options, and nothing more?
If you are going to attack people, at least try to be honest.”
I had no idea Philippe P. Dauman read this blog!
Wow!
Re: Re:
If by honest you mean more like you I prefer he be always dishonest 🙂
whiningaboutSOPA.com
Sorry Masnick, but if your dorky tech buddies can’t make money unless it’s off of illegal infringement, then they need to adapt and find a better business model.
Mike, so what stops someone from linking to the video in the comments?
They are taking a play from Walt Disney. Get the kids, and you get the parents.
Sounds like the 99% of Viacom need to fire the 1%.
“It’s become socially acceptable to watch pirated material on the Internet.”
Yep, yep it has. And that’s all I need from the video to know it’s acceptable morally. Period.
Re: @Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2011 @ 10:04am
“It’s become socially acceptable to watch pirated material on the Internet.”
Yep, yep it has. And that’s all I need from the video to know it’s acceptable morally. Period.
—————–
False equation: what’s “socially acceptable” isn’t a moral absolute. Slavery was once “socially acceptable” in the USA. You can find any number of horrors that were or are “socially acceptable” yet are morally repugnant.
Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2011 @ 10:04am
Copyright, for example.
Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2011 @ 10:04am
Actual, “moral” and “socially acceptable” are pretty much the same thing. Seriously, look it up.
Just because somethings deemed “morally repugnant” in our allegedly enlightened day and age doesn’t mean jack squat–the important part is it was moral at the time.
#1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
And here’s Mike /promoting/ their video. I don’t believe that he knows much about advertising. And suggesting that a few more views will run up their bandwidth bill: apparently Mike doesn’t grasp how cheap that is now.
“begging you to give them money so they can keep their jobs” — isn’t that what “crowd funding” is?
Anyway, Mike, as I’ve said before: your fame and fortune is assured if you’ll just give a clue to “clueless” executives on how to make money in the new age that you posit.
Let’s say Viacom has just spent $100M on a brand new movie. Now tell them how they can put it on Youtube so don’t pay even bandwidth, and then how they recover their “sunk (or fixed) costs”.
Re: #1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
Adverting as nothing to do with propaganda like this. Look up Adverting in Dictionary.com.
Re: #1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
“how they recover their “sunk (or fixed) costs” release the movie on all cinemas in the same time not months apart, release the DVD after 2-3 months at a reasonable price not 100 EUR and not after 9 months.
You can find a YouTube alternative where they can charge for commercial time during the movie like cable TV.
If the movie is good people will buy the DVD/BlueRay because YouTube dose not look good on a 42 inch LED TV.
My point make it available to the masses when everybody is talking about it not after an year, and make it cheap, they will get the money from the sales. I bought a movie which was released in 2003 last week because it was 8 euro and I saw the movie in cinema and file shared more than 6 times and I never got bored of it, but the original is something that I can store and show of to my friends what a wonderful collection I have. hahaha
Re: Re: #1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
Ohhh sorry scratch the YouTube thing because they will have complains that they are killing the TV industry
A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero. (Albert Einstein)
Re: #1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
“crowd funding” enforced by government agencies is called a “tax”. It’s usually employed when society needs the people in question to keep those jobs. “over 2.4 million” entertainers is a bit more than required.
Re: #1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
you really love spending 100M on things. I just spent 100M on Oreos how am I suppose to recover the costs if I let everyone lick the frosting!
Re: #1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
“begging you to give them money so they can keep their jobs” — isn’t that what “crowd funding” is?”
No crowd-funded project has a CEO making millions.
Viacom does.
Viacom's CEO's pay package
Believe it or not, Viacom’s CEO got lots more than just stock options-he got a huge bonus, as well.
Bonuses are given out as cash, and they’re not taxed at the usual rates as income. They’re covered by capital gains, which is why CEO’s prefer them-the tax is much lower than ordinary income tax.
You want to see how much money he really made? Try this chart at the NY Times:
http://projects.nytimes.com/executive_compensation
To be specific-
He got a salary of $2,625,000.000
a bonus of $11,250,000.00
perks of $ 141,000.00
Stock of $41,833,309.00
Options of $28,620,000.00
Nice paycheck, huh?
Re: Viacom's CEO's pay package
Bonuses are given out as cash, and they’re not taxed at the usual rates as income. They’re covered by capital gains, which is why CEO’s prefer them-the tax is much lower than ordinary income tax.
Bonuses are taxed as income, not capital gains.
http://www.savingadvice.com/forums/taxes/26640-bonuses-taxes.html
http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/federal-taxes-on-bonus-pay/
Why?
I wish the law itself would just quit tearing shit up for everyone.
“We’re makers, not takers. We’re not trying to take away anyone’s first amendment’s rights”
You are LIARS!! Our first amendment rights have already been taken away, through the wrongful establishment of broadcasting and cableco monopolies into the sole hands of big giant corporations. Mike would probably never get the opportunity to criticize our outrageous IP laws and to discuss all of the substantial harm they cause and to discuss what the founding fathers felt about IP (that it’s a privilege, not a right, and that it should only be used to promote the progress and benefit society, not because anyone is rightfully or naturally entitled to these privileges and not to compensate IP holders because they rightfully deserve compensation, that’s not their purpose) on national television, yet the government established mainstream media is more than happy to broadcast pro-IP propaganda. Our first amendment rights have already been denied to us in many ways.
Restaurants and other venues can’t even host independent performers without receiving legal threats demanding payments under the pretext that someone ‘might’ infringe and this deters independent performers from independently building their own audience.
The OWS movement (though I do think they are being ambiguous and will probably accomplish little because of this) can’t even protest without the government denying them access.
Outside of the Internet, bad laws have already been used to take away our first amendment rights. So don’t come here and lie and claim that our first amendment rights aren’t being taken away. They are and they already have been.
Re: Re:
and if Viacom got its way, Youtube wouldn’t exist. These people are indeed takers. It’s not that they just want to stop piracy, they wan to ban competition.
Re: Re: Re:
want to *
Unintentional?
Am I the only one who laughed through the whole thing? With the sad piano music and the “poor content creators” sitting in multi-million dollar offices wearing designer clothing whining about people downloading their stuff? I was literally 1/3 of the way through the video before I realized they weren’t kidding.
Oh, and if you want me to feel bad for the “makeup artist without a job” or the “guy who hangs the lights”, then maybe you should try to find one to talk about how piracy is affecting them. Good luck. All of those with useful talents (and no, “marketing” or “director of programming” don’t count) have as much work as they always have, and have only felt the sting of the economy as much as every other industry in the country
Re: Unintentional?
Exactly, if this is about hiring more people, why doesn’t the CEO take a pay cut?
Re: Re: Unintentional?
and yes, they don’t legally have to and it’s not for us to dictate how much they get paid in a free market, I know some IP maximist is going to bring up this argument, but the point is that when they take such huge bonuses under free market capitalistic pretexts then their claims of needing more government protectionism to create more jobs holds less merit. They only want free market capitalism when it suits the CEO and those who are highly paid, but when it comes to hiring more workers the free market capitalism argument quickly gets forgotten and suddenly they want government protectionism. The free market capitalism argument only applies when it’s convenient for them, otherwise, it doesn’t apply.
Only one way to kill Spongebob
http://wins.failblog.org/2011/11/14/epic-win-photos-hacked-irl-cleanup-under-the-sea/
Spongebob Will NEVER Die!
Any eejit who believes a company will kill-off their cash cow maybe doesn’t deserve the glory of free internet.
Can someone edit the video so that when they talk about it costing so much money to create “quality” content that it starts flashing all the re-made movies and TV shows of late.
It more likely seems that the executives have found that they don’t have to pay creative people to write new stuff because they can just recycle and reuse old stuff.
Pass SOPA or Spongebob dies, sounds like a mob threat. Maybe that’s what groups like the RIAA/etc have become lately.
I sincerely don’t understand why they bothered to film the video. The point is conveyed perfectly in the first seconds of opening sequence. It basically reads:
A cartoon everyone loves has been watched over 1.6 billion times by people who would rather break the law than not watch it and we didn’t bother to cash in a dime on that audience, even though simply uploading them to YouTube legally would bring at least millions without any effort at all. Please kill YouTube for not offering us more.
With all that talk about cyberlockers making millions and people selling 50,000 units of a knockoff product, it really just makes it sound like Viacom isn’t good at their job. Lots of people are apparently making money from their content, why can’t they figure it out?
spongebob will die? oh noes!
So long Spongebob
I’m a huge fan of Spongebob, but If I’ve got to choose Spongebob + SOPA or No SOPA, No Spongebob, I guess it’s so long Spongebob.
They’d better be careful here. I have 3 kids who watch a lot of Nickelodeon. Keep uttering more crap like this, and I’ll delete the channel from the lineup.
Note to media companies: Runing the Internet that my job depends upon will cause me to never buy anything from you again…. EVER.
The execution of Spongebob
Hey, I’d pay to watch that.
Re:
Well, they think they should make more. Not just more than zero, which is what they think unauthorized viewing gets them, but more than the imaginary number they think not earning means they’ve lost.
#1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
“Let’s say Viacom has just spent $100M on a brand new movie. Now tell them how they can put it on Youtube so don’t pay even bandwidth, and then how they recover their “sunk (or fixed) costs”.”
The same way they been doing for their entire existence, charging $0.20/month from everyone?
Re:
Why not?
They keep trying to lay the blame for their own personal failings to others, I think it is only fair that we point out that despite claims to the contrary they continue to be successful.
Awesome, their site runs on Sharepoint, a free microsoft product (unless they use the MOSS version), which runs on IIS, a free microsoft product, which runs on Windows Server, a pay product.
I love that they don’t understand the concept of promotion, loss leaders, hooks, etc. and yet are running their website based on free tools designed to lure you into purchasing a different product.
Re:
didn’t you know? Mr Krabs is the owner of Viacom
vote Sandy Cheeks for president of Viacom!
Re:
aka owner/leader, whatever, she might actually know what the internet is
Why do I care about these people?
Some guy making a million bucks a year playing with SpongeBob toys in his Hollywood office? Sorry, but not on the top of my list for credibility.
“60 gazillion people watched Jon Stewart… ILLEGALLY!”
Oh… my? Huh, what was that again? Felonious viewers of Jon freakin’ Stewart? It looks like a parody that one might see on Jon Stewart…
Yes, we REALLY need to protect the jobs of some of the most useless members of “the 1%” with this garbage. This is going to go over real well with Joe Sixpack…
I’m trying to figure out how someone “steals” the Daily Show. It’s free on their website. Do they mean someone watching it free on another website? Or sneakily watching it from a foreign country? Either way, how are they losing money? Or am I a pirate simply for blocking ads?
I can’t watch that video, it requires me to download the FREE Adobe Flash player. Free is bad!
Seriously, WHAT?! Do these employees really have their heads up their rear ends they can’t see how horribly this will be abused? Do they really think Viacom would not use this new “tool” to crush a new competitor that is starting to take business away from Viacom? Do they not know this will make everybody who builds a business online guilty until proven innocent?
I'd like to point out......
That spongebob has been viewed 1,360,000,000 more times than the stated views for BET AND MTV related media. This, I submit, proves that MTV SUCKS. :p
Re:
I agree, please, for the IQ of your children and the sanity of their parents, go pirate something.
It may be the only way to get rid of the cultural scourge that is Spongebob.
Re:
Sadly it didn’t kill Metallica or Prince…. maybe if we all download harder.
#1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
Why are you spending $100 million on a movie?
Forget my question. Others beside me have asked this question a ton of times and not once have you come up with a satisfactory response.
NOT interesting
And in all of this, they dont point out the HARD part of making a new show..
The CREATORS make a show..
They shop it around to all the major corps..(they control it ALL)
Once a corp purchases the rights to show the SHOW..
They market it, to TV channels, and find a Slot and commercials to PAY for it..
Popular shows get better slots, and cost more if you want to show your commercials.
If a show gets REAL popular, it gets power to RAISE the price to the corp..as its making money for the CORP.
It comes down to DISTRIBUTION. and the CORP has that power.
For those that dont know.
I like watch/seeing cartoons, so I wonder the net to LEGAL SITES to watch a few. YOU CANT. most of the major corp sites(cartoon network) require you to be a cable TV customer, and ONLY certain cable companies..
It used to be fun and easy to goto the sites and watch some old/new cartoons..but if you know much about your cable/sat TV…7 corps OWN 99% of the channels.
Another point
I will point out something I sent to CN.
With all the Cable/Sat networks. You can only get a saturation of 60-70% of all the people in the USA.
Many are quitting cable/sat.
YOU pay for things you dont want to watch. $50-100 for things you DONT wish to see/hear. The most expensive is the sports channels. about $2-5 per channel.
THIS from corps that WANT YOU TO WATCH COMMERCIALS.
They charge the cable/SAT who charges YOU, to make money on commercials. that they GET PAID FOR..
Ever watch a sports event..count the commercials.
I went to broadcast TV, and get 20 channels, OUT in the boonies. I wonder how many channels you get in Major cities.
I shouldnt need to PAY to watch corps make money on Commercials..
The hypocrisy...
The innovators… They fired them, didn’t they?
Daily Show
The Daily Show has been viewed 200 million times… illegally.
I’m sorry Viacom, I don’t get it and it sounds like you just “made shit up”. TDS is freely available. Comedy Central posts the entire episode a little while after it airs.
What a crock of shit.
If only...
If the BS they talk about WAS true, I would pirate more.
Sorry Viacom - FAIL
Part way into the video, my BS meter went way off the charts.
(paraphrasing) “You can’t steal a 30 cent pack of gum, or a 30,000 dollar car, but it’s acceptable to steal a 30,000,000 dollar movie.”
They really shifted into dishonest rhetoric with that one. The gum sells for 30 cents, the car for 30,000, but the movie doesn’t sell for 30M. All products have costs associated with them, R&D, manufacturing, etc. Those aren’t the selling prices, though. For Viacom to compare selling prices to their creation cost is one big poor-fucking-me smoke screen
Sorry Viacom - FAIL
Precisely. Its the one thing Viacom (and Out_of_the_blue) don’t understand – the market doesn’t give a hoot how much money you’ve sunk into your product. The market will only pay the price they think is fair and is willing to pay.
See this? It’s a bicycle. Steel frame and rubber wheels. Let’s say it cost you 50 bucks to make (just picking a number at random, I have no idea of the costs involved). You want to sell it to me and make a profit. You say $1000. The market says no and your product goes unsold. Eventually, you hit upon the magic number and your product is sold.
See this? It’s a bicycle. It’s made of adamantium and the wheels are nuclear missile proof. You’ve sunk the GDP of a small nation into research, development and building it. You charge an amount equal to the U.S. National Debt. As part of the selling point, you say it cost you millions to build, therefore its automatically valuable. The market says no. The market wants a bike that goes from A to B. All these extra features aren’t needed. Your bike goes unsold.
See this? It’s the latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie. Big name actors are involved. Lots of special effects. You’ve sunk hundreds of millions into it and somehow feel entitled to getting that money back. However, you haven’t counted on the age of the internet. The customers don’t value your movie the same way you do. The customer wants to sit down for two hours, watch something and then walk away. Beyond that, the movie has no value to them. At most, they want to cough up a few bucks, because that is all the movie is worth to them. They may not even pay the few bucks, because someone else is offering it for free, with no catch.
But, you say you’re special. You MUST recoup all of your costs – to say otherwise is heresy. You MUST overcharge and overvalue your content, far beyond what the market wants. You MUST threaten to cut jobs (that’s what it is, blackmail, because its Viacom that has to go the employees and say “you’re fired”). You MUST subvert the democratic process.
Now what’s this? It’s a movie…wait? The budget? It’s not $100 million? But…that can’t be! It’s one of the Ten Commandments, the Eleventh Commandment ‘Thou shalt throw money needlessly when making a movie’.
The actors…I don’t recognize them. Perhaps they’re good. Perhaps they’re not. I’ll give it a watch. How much? Free? How will you make money?
Oh I see. Merchandise. One to one chats with the production crew. Other scarcities.
So…I guess in the end, the future is that you don’t pay for movies at all. You pay for the scarcities and get the movie for free. After all, its market forces at work. The customer wins: they get something scarce, they get something not scarce and their civil liberties aren’t harmed. The movie producers win: they’ve sold something, they’ve made a movie and they have a reputation for doing some good. They haven’t tried to destroy anyone’s lives for copying 1’s and 0’s.
Off Squarebritches
Hear Hear!!! Now we just have to A) defeat that dastardly bill, abd B) make sure Viacommie keeps their promise to kill Ol’Bob, along with that disgusting purple dragon thingy.
i LIKE IT..
“That spongebob has been viewed 1,360,000,000 more times than the stated views for BET AND MTV related media. This, I submit, proves that MTV SUCKS.”
NICE NUMBER..with 300million in the USA, and LESS then a 70% saturation to EVERY man/women/child in the USA(about 200 million)it shows MORE problems Outside the USA then inside..
Saturation in other countries, is MUCH less. I will GUESS
IPv6
IPv6 is a fact it will happen, why are people so panicing about the IP changeover between v4 and v6 that they need a protect IP bill? Companies need to adapt!
#1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
You’re a fucking puppet, right? i don’t give three shits about what viacom thinks or about the corporations petty scwables for that matter. This bill will kill more tech companies than save entertainment companies. This bill will also kill off civil liberties. Thats all that i need to know. Fuck you.
IPv6
Why mention IPv6? It has nothing to do with the bill, at all.
@Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2011 @ 10:04am
“Slavery was once “socially acceptable” in the USA.”
…and having a child out of wedlock was once something that could cause you to be ostracised from your family, even killed in some cases, same with admitting to being homosexual or having an interracial relationship. It was considered moral to burn people suspected of witchcraft.
Morality is a fluid concept and totally subjective. We should not be making laws based purely on morality, but even if you do then the laws will be useless if a majority of the population decide to ignore them.
#1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
“Let’s say Viacom has just spent $100M on a brand new movie.”
If they can’t make money from that movie, they’ve overspent and they deserve to fail. Plenty of movies are made for less, and they turn a healthy profit.
You’re obsessed with the $100 million figure, but it’s only very recently that movies have cost anything like that, and most of those that do have no business costing that much if the industry was more controlled.
IPv6
Why mention IPv6? It has nothing to do with the bill, at all.
It was something closely related to humor, known as a pun.
Another point
Not really a major city, but we can barely get the 4 majors around here. They towers are not located at the studios, but rather 5 miles outside the city and connected via microwave.
stock options
Stock options are worth money, that’s why he takes them. If the stock options are really as worthless as you say, he would be willing to sell them for a dollar. After all, a dollar is worth more than nothing, right? Think he will take it? Hah!
Now on Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qqBDE7S28M
Ironically, the video shows footage of some guy who supposedly had something to do with South Park (which is one of Viacom’s properties). Every episode of South Park is available at Southparkstudios.com to watch streaming for free. Legally, on any device which has Flash (which still kind of sucks but it sure beats the hell out of having to torrent everything). There are also 15-second ads every so often in the episodes, but that’s a small chunk of time compared to commercial breaks which can sometimes take a few minutes. I’m sure no small amount of profit is made from those ads, too.
South park is a perfect example of everything Viacom should be doing with the rest of its media. If Viacom would put up a website that streamed every spongebob episode for free, this would effectively eliminate one of the biggest reasons people pirate stuff: cost. As mentioned before, revenue could be collected from ads, making Viacom more money. Also not to mention that episodes could be viewed at will rather than at a predetermined, scheduled time, opening up the show to a wider audience.
Viacom is just one of those companies who had it MADE in the mid 1990s… with a near monopoly on some of the most fondly remembered cartoons and shows of our youths. However, the times have changed. They don’t have it made anymore. Viacom could easily reposition themselves back at the top of the game by adapting to a new business model — not unlike that of Southparkstudios.com –, but instead of going through the trouble to adapt to the changing times, they’d rather use litigation and legislation to cling to the past with a broken and outdated business model.
Beating a dead sponge.
SpongeBob SquarePants died after season four. This is nothing new.
More like, “Pass Your Butt Or Your Penis Will Die”