Wow, you really don't know what went on. EMI didn't dump OK Go because OK Go wanted to do some progressive stuff, OK Go dumped EMI because EMI wouldn't let them do it. OK Go obviously feels that the drop in sales because they no longer are with EMI is offset by the increase in sales because they are implementing CwF + RtB.
I would tend to agree. In fact, I only whitelisted Escapist because Zero Punctuation won't play while I have adblock enabled, and if I could get by without a full whitelist (I probably could), I would. I don't use the site for anything else. The simple fact is if you want me to see your ads, then host them yourself and don't make them so that I'm all but forced to look at them. Others have managed to do this and do it well.
No, 1 million views gets you word of mouth, which gets you another 10 million views, which gets you a few hundred thousand sales between iTunes, Amazon, and brick and mortar stores, which gets you a a nice paycheck in order to buy that $4 coffee at Starbucks.
I don't see how you can say that considering that their latest album and the singles that have come with it have been relatively successful. When you consider that they produced not one but two single shot videos for the same song, the first with over a million views, and the second with over 11 million in under 2 months, it's hard to say that they have failed. On the contrary, now that they have more freedom to to do what they want, and do what will impress they're fans, means that they can pretty much only get bigger over the next little while.
You seem to be missing something. Each time a series is renewed, they re-evaluate the market worth of the series. Yes, there are typically options in the contracts that cap the market value increase for the network, but they only extend a few seasons. After that, a new contract needs to be written (or reused, whatever), and the cap no longer applies. If the producers feel that they didn't get a fair deal at this last renegotiation, and that the negotiation itself wasn't conducted properly, then they have every right to be upset and ask for pack pay.
Our elected officials may be lay people when it comes to the sciences, engineering, and technology, but we expect them to be problem solvers. Guess what the primary skill of an engineer is. We also expect critical thinking out of them. Norton obviously wasn't thinking critically. What she should have asked is why does Toyota need to replicate the problem. Then she would have understood that in order to solve the problem, they need to know what caused it. This is why software developers and testers start the second paragraph of a bug report with three words: Steps to replicate. No, I don't expect elected officials to understand this when they first enter office, but if Norton had asked why instead of putting Toyoda on the defensive, everyone would have gotten a lot more out of the hearing.
In the past, I've held the position that jurisdiction is determined by the location of the physical server (which I believe is the case in Canada, although don't quote me on that). However, an issue arises with the introduction of cloud computing. A single server instance can be spread across many physical servers across many states or provinces, possibly across many countries. Which instance a particular user interacts with is usually determined by where they are, but for the purpose of jurisdiction, which physical server do you use?
There's also pressure from various US lobby groups to plug the "wooden hole" and force everyone to upgrade to silicon cooking utensils. Even though wooden utensils are sometimes grainy and usually technically inferior to their silicon (or even plastic) counterparts, many people still rely on them during their daily cooking.
The issue is that false advertising is much more serious here than it is in the US. That's partly why statements like "the next leading competitor" are so common in Canadian commercials. Subjective statements are frowned upon already, but when they can be reasonably challenged by a competitor is when companies start to get in trouble.
The fact that NBC is loosing money on this Olympics (for the first time ever) is proof enough that they have not made smart business decisions. They are hemorrhaging viewers to Canadian proxy servers so they can watch CTV's online coverage.
As for the exciting part, half-pipe, snowboard cross, ski cross, and moguls are all pretty exciting too.
Realize that with Sydney and Beijing, they could broadcast primetime completely live because of the time zone differences. With Athens and Turin, you could show live coverage all through the night, because live Olympic coverage, regardless of the time of day, will bring in more than infomercials will, and then they could show a nice neat package of the days events during primetime. This in no way stopped the papers from printing gold medal winners on the front page, even if they only got the news 20 minutes before printing. Some editors in chief didn't even know what would be on their front page in the morning.
Yes, but my point is that the DVRers don't care about spoilers to begin with. They know there's a high likelihood, especially with sporting events, that they'll be spoiled some way or another. They live with this fact and move on. The dinosaurs, OTOH, don't understand that if they don't want to be spoiled, they have to actively avoid situations where they could be spoiled. DVRers do understand this, and will say things like "I haven't seen that episode yet, don't spoil it for me" when the topic comes up in casual conversations.
"Mike, your argument that by broadcasting Olympic events live, NBC would avoid some of these problems may be valid for diehard fans that would watch the events in off hours, but what about the people who DVR the events for viewing the next day? You have the exact same problem of Olympic events being spoiled by overzealous news organizations.
Maybe you should read the post again, because it's not the people who DVR the events that are complaining about the newspapers posting results early. These people realize that there is a high likelihood that they'll see the results before they watch the event later. The people who are complaining are the ones that don't know any better.
With three full time English and one or two full time French broadcasters, along with a number of part time specialty broadcasters, showing mostly live coverage, Canadians can watch pretty much any event featuring a Canadian live on TV, and if they can't do that, they can watch it live online. Yes, there's a lot of fluff on CTV (Olympic Morning is basically four or five hours of fluff before the events start each day), but there's a balance struck between live coverage, important highlights, and the human aspect (interviews with the athletes, short biopics, etc) that even CBC, who had done numerous Olympics before CTV was picked for this year, would be hard pressed to beat.
Compare this to NBC, where they aren't showing any live coverage (as far as I can tell), are only streaming hockey and curling online (because no American will ever want to watch something online [/sarcasm]), and are already crowding out their Olympic coverage with other useless programming (an hour and a half or more of evening news each night, and I think I saw Oprah listed last night). Yes, CTV does show the news each night, but then you just switch over to TSN or SportsNet.
NBC needs to be showing the events live throughout the day, even if nobody's watching, and then in the evening can show a compressed version consisting of Americans, top qualifiers, and medal favourites. You don't need to show the full two qualifying runs of each boarder in the half pipe competition before showing the semis and finals, yet NBC seems to think that you do.
Suffice it to say that I'll stick with the Canadian broadcasters, even if it means missing some events live, even if it means I have to stream it at work, even if I have to sit through delays due to weather, timing equipment, or spectators making sounds similar to the starter's whistle.
You just have to go to Vimeo to do it. They don't have the ridiculous licensing agreement with EMI that YouTube does. Ok Go hates to have to use them, since they have a much (much much) smaller market share than YouTube has.
Just to play devils advocate, WRT your comment after the first quote, "Free access to the internet" could be construed as Free (as in speech) access and not Free (as in beer) access. The former is how I initially read it.