As I said at the beginning, it feels trite to list the examples, because everyone's already heard them. But, if you like, here some personal (but hardly unexpected) favourites that I'd make a case for as high-quality creative fiction (both serious and comedic) that deserves attention:
- Breaking Bad
- Mad Men
- The Wire
- The Office (UK edition and the first two-thirds or so of the US edition)
- Arrested Development
- Lucky Louie and, even moreso, Louie
- Peep Show
We're not necessarily disagreeing, I'm just saying it's not always obvious when a specific channel or a specific show is "worthwhile" -- when Adult Swim started piggybacking on the Cartoon Network, it was a block of shows that are never going to be financially viable for cable television -- and it still mostly is, just subsidized by syndicated hits. There are business benefits to being the leader in a particular genre of television, and that can mean subsidizing stuff that couldn't stand alone for years because it's still worth it.
The cost/benefit analysis isn't always so direct, though. If AMC didn't put all its weight behind prestige shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad, which despite all their buzz, don't consistently pull particularly huge audiences, it's questionable whether they ever would have built the brand and image that allowed them to make and put out a huge moneymaker like The Walking Dead. NBC has been struggling with ratings for years now, and their only decent moneymaker at the moment is The Voice -- which they smartly use to subsidize critically-praised but low- or unevenly-rated comedies, the high quality of which are pretty much the only thing that kept anyone talking about NBC or thinking of it as more than "that shitty channel with the olympics"
Fox uses its deep pockets to run the FX Network, which has a bunch of niche original shows that have gotten fantastic receptions -- Fox found a way to capture the audience of people who hate everything on Fox. Plus The Simpsons has fuelled the Sunday night animation block forever now, and Fox got to experiment with a tonne of niche shows around it, eventually finding sturdy syndication fare like King Of The Hill and (though they almost missed it) the moneymaker of Seth MacFarlane.
Adult Swim airs those syndicated KOTHs and Family Guys and Futuramas as a lead-in to the block of extremely niche animated programming, where they've supported all sorts of wild experiments and made themselves one of the biggest names in modern animation in the world -- and the cult following allowed them to branch out into music and a sizeable web presence with reasonable success.
There are lots of reasons to subsidize shows that, on paper at a glance, appear to lose money or break even.
Re: Re: "share the cultural experience" -- TV? -- HA, HA! & OY.
It seems trite at this point to just list off the usual suspects of quality television, but seriously, you should check out what's out there. Whatever kind of fiction you are interested in, there's a show either on now or from within the past 10 years that has done something new, interesting and creative with it. TV is by nature a fluid and dynamic medium for storytelling, and it does have some business constraints, so TV shows aren't "perfected" the way supposedly higher forms of art sometimes are -- which means you can argue that there are some things they can't achieve. But there are also great things that only they can achieve, and it really would be stupid to ignore the contributions they make to art and storytelling.
As for culture, that's really a much bigger thing than just what's good art. I don't think reality television is good art but it's certainly a real element of our culture, like it or not -- and dismissing the medium of television because of it is as silly as dismissing magazines because the most popular ones are vapid ad-rags.
Sure, let's role with it: A marriage is defined as a man and woman. And a faggot is defined as a bundle of sticks. Some people invent new definitions out of love, others out of hate. Which group are you closer to, Michael?
Re: The FIVE PERCENT that Kickstarter skims is reason!
....and yet a great rate for a relatively robust marketing and customer communications platform, access to a large community of active backers, and exposure through on-site and third-party discovery tools.
So... all this effort has been expended making a point nobody cares about to disprove an argument you only think the other side is making?
- Infringement is not theft
- Pirating a song is in no way analogous to shoplifting a CD
- A pirate copy is not a lost sale
Those are the key points. All are demonstrable both legally and economically, and by your own admission, you've offered nothing to counter any of them, instead citing a bunch of unrelated laws to prove an inconsequential point...
Re: DRM is just technology, Mike. Accept it without question.
DRM is not a technological inevitability. It has never, ever worked (all DRM is cracked within hours or days) because its fundamental goal is impossible. DRM only exists because there are laws that allow companies to block the real technological inevitability: openness and interoperability.
DRM derives what little power it has from law, not technology.