According to a report from AdAge, every single network drama that aired on Tuesday night experienced a double-digit decline in ratings. And aside from a decent showing from The Muppets, the report relays that there have been few bright spots to the start of this year's fall TV lineup.
[...] All told, cumulative viewership during "Premiere Week", as it's called, is down 8% compared to the same period a year-ago. More worrisome for TV networks is that viewership from the highly sought-after 18-24 demographic is down 20% year over year, with male viewership within that demographic falling by 24%.
Males in the 18-24 demographic are the most coveted in advertising because that's when studies show brand preferences are formed. 24% is a catastrophic decline for TV.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @12:51PM
And yet they'll continue to ignore the actual reasons causing people to want to axe their connections in favor of alternatives as they try to find things to blame. From excessive advertising breaks to high monthly package costs to a simple lack of quality in the eyes of some people...
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Sunday September 27 2015, @12:57PM
I'm running into sites where adblock doesn't work anymore, on any of my machines. Expect that hell to follow us to the internet.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Sunday September 27 2015, @01:06PM
I'm running into sites where adblock doesn't work anymore
Adblock has become corrupt, as it now accepts payment from advertisers to bypass blocking. NoScript is much better.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Techwolf on Sunday September 27 2015, @04:34PM
AdBlock does not. But Adblock Plus (a seperate company and product) does this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdBlock [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday September 27 2015, @05:56PM
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Sunday September 27 2015, @06:01PM
Sure enough, I got the two confused.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday September 27 2015, @09:47PM
AdBlock does not. But Adblock Plus (a seperate company and product) does this.
" rel="url2html-3543">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdBlock
" rel="url2html-3543">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus
What you say is true. AdBlockPlus Does have a whitelist for "acceptable" ads [adblockplus.org] (N.B., I don't consider *any* ads to be acceptable -- That's ABP's term), however it is easily disabled with a check box. Which is mentioned in the Wikipedia link [wikipedia.org] you posted.
As such, unless you're allergic to checkboxes, it's not a big deal, IMHO.
P.S. It's "separate" not "seperate [wiktionary.org]"
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by kadal on Sunday September 27 2015, @01:07PM
Try bluhell firewall. Hosts file is an option too
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @09:48PM
Hosts file is an option too
APK, is that you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @11:51PM
If it is APK, you don't need to ask.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2015, @01:22PM
NoScript
CanvasBlocker
Privacy Badger
Request Policy
uBlock
FlashBlock
VPN
You may object that it's redundant, but it works.
I see almost no advertising at all. The advertising that is hosted onsite usually shows up, but there is so little of it.
I will note that Amazon appears to be able to see where I go, and to know some of my interests. A recent search on duckduckgo somehow generated an email from Amazon, advertising almost exactly what I searched for. Which seems odd, because Amazon's marketing has almost always been very off-target. Prenatal vitamins for a male, in his late 50's? Come on, that is so VERY off-target!
And, of course, if the site doesn't work unless/until I disable my addons, I just move on, to better content hosted elsewhere. Not only did they lose an advertising opportunity, but they lost some unquantified page views, which ultimately hurts their ability to sell advertising.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Sunday September 27 2015, @02:44PM
Try using ublock origin (not in conjunction with AB). It seems a bit leaner than AB[P] and the list customization is insane. It also seems like it's better in general at blocking on the socket level. Which is a little weird.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 3, Informative) by Justin Case on Sunday September 27 2015, @05:15PM
Another vote for NoScript. In one easy package you also get
No ads (well almost none)
No malware
No auto play videos
No popups, popunders, side scrollers, page covering crap etc.
A heckuva lot less tracking
Much faster page loads
And at no extra charge...
A quick way to recognize web sites designed by incompetents (which would be most of them).
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Sunday September 27 2015, @07:26PM
Can you link to one? Perhaps it is because you aren't using a "modern" blocker like uBlock and are using an older blocker or hosts file?
It's impossible to stop ad blocking because you can't control the client. Worst comes to worst, they start distributing their websites with the ads instead of the other way around, blockers will use randomized profiles to fetch the page, discard the ads, and display the content.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @08:04PM
Advertising sites are using the Vimeo model to stifle Flashblock. There are ads that load, but have multiple play buttons sitting over them. They do it with overlays.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @04:11AM
Privoxy works in addition to other suggestions you've gotten.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mcgrew on Monday September 28 2015, @03:48PM
Indeed. When cable first started it was great - local channels had no show, static, or ghosting. Almost all of the dozen cable networks ranged from good to excellent, had no advertising, wasn't censored, and it was only ten bucks, and that included HBO.
Now, with digital TV an antenna gives as good or better sound and picture than cable. Meanwhile the content of cable channels has declined badly. MTV had rock and roll, now they have no music and the programming is moronic. Discovery has gone from science to "trick my truck", and so on. There are hundreds of channels now, almost none of which I'd actually watch, all are chock full of ads, even while the content is playing, and they want a hundred bucks for it.
I haven't had cable for a decade and can't figure out why anyone has it any more.
Plus, the internet gives us even more shows.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2015, @01:33PM
I would like to believe that the kids are getting smarter. My early youth was spent in front of the boob tube, unless the sun was shining. Later youth in front of the television, unless I could sneak out the door. Adolescence saw very little television. There were countless times that I left the family clustered around that glowing magic box, so that I could do ANYTHING else. Read a book. Go hunting. Mow a lawn. (my pocket money came from lawn work, shoveling snow, and other odd jobs) Work on a freind's car. Walk anywhere. (That's a lie - back then, I never walked if I could run.)
Television has been just plain stupid for as long as I can remember. Archie Bunker, and his bigoted bullshit? Or, that other guy, the black Archie Bunker, what was his name?
I remember getting flyers in the mail, asking me to subscribe to - ohhhh maybe 150 channels. Or more. I actually looked at them. MTV was the most interesting thing (at that time) but I couldn't justify spending thirty or forty bucks a month on it. Little interest in sports, no interest in soaps, less interest in moronic action channels - and MTV wasn't worth it.
So, I would LIKE to think that the kids are getting smarter.
But, alas, the truth is, the kids have found that they can find all that same simple minded "entertainment" cheaper on the internet. Better yet, they can have 4chan on the internet, without paying the cable companies for the privilege.
So, maybe they aren't any smarter, but at least they haven't gotten stupider!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday September 27 2015, @01:48PM
Or, that other guy, the black Archie Bunker, what was his name?
Bill Cosby?
You can't be thinking of Gary Coleman, can you?
Will Smith/Fresh Prince of Bel Aire? For a good laugh check out the "Thomas the dank engine" remix of that theme song on youtube.
Mr T? Not seeing it.
The pool's kinda thin on the ground for the late 70s/early 80s.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2015, @01:57PM
Gimme a minute - I'll find him . . . The Jefferson's. From the wikipedia,
"The show focuses on George and Louise Jefferson, an affluent African-American couple living in New York City. The show was launched as the second spin-off of All in the Family, on which the Jeffersons had been the neighbors of Archie and Edith Bunker."
George Jefferson was actually a little funnier than Archie was, although that's not saying much.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @02:35PM
Back in the '70s I saw Sherman Helmsley (George Jefferson) in the Broadway show Purlie! (all black cast). (Junior hs field trip).
I don't remember much about the play other than the song "First thing Monday Mornin'" and Helmsley, who projected controlled high energy.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2015, @03:15PM
Add to the AC profile, he's an old bastard. Junior high field trip, he saw Helmsley on Broadway. Old, old bastard . . . .
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @03:55PM
You spent your youth watching Archie Bunker, so that makes you a spring chicken?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2015, @04:33PM
ROFLMAO - https://soylentnews.org/~Runaway1956/ [soylentnews.org]
Runaway1956 (2926)
Runaway1956
Grouchy Old Bastard
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Monday September 28 2015, @02:06PM
Don't forget that "All in the Family" wasn't an original idea.
Also from the wikipedia,
"The inspiration for Archie Bunker was Alf Garnett, the character from the BBC1 sitcom Till Death Us Do Part, on which All in the Family was based". "The Bunker character was portrayed as somewhat more likable than Garnett ever was".
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @03:49PM
> Television has been just plain stupid for as long as I can remember. Archie Bunker, and his bigoted bullshit?
Sometimes I think you are doing a caricature of yourself. No one can honestly be that clueless, right?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2015, @04:40PM
So - give us a few clues, alright?
Did you even read the wikipedia link I offered? Right there in black and white (no racism intended, I hope) it states that a SJW company employed these actors to highlight social issues of the time. The actor played the part of a highly bigoted white man who hated blacks, and looked down on almost everyone else, including Polacks and Degos. No matter who or what the actor was, no matter the intentions of the SJW executives, the CHARACTER was a bigoted asshole. In fact, I think that he was so much a bigoted asshole, that he embarrassed a few million real bigots enough to make them take stock of their bigotry.
So, now, you add a few insightful clues for all the rest of us, since you're so very smart.
Oh - wait - maybe I'm reading you wrong. Surely Archie wasn't one of your heroes, was he? Maybe you are the bigot that the show was aimed at? Did Archie embarrass you, or not?
Give us some clues, AC - or maybe you are Whiskey Fueled himself?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @06:00PM
Wow, you are so amazingly disconnected from the real world that you can literally explain why All in the Family was brilliant social criticism using Archie Bunker as a foil but your take away from the very same words is that it was "just plain stupid." Holy crap! I never really believed that the "conservative mind" was different, but you are making a fantastic case for proving me wrong.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2015, @07:39PM
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the "conservative mind" really is different than that of a liberal mind. You might read Vox Day's writing, beginning with 'SJW's always lie'. Sometimes, I'm surprised that the two can interbreed.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @07:51PM
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but the "conservative mind" really is different than that of a liberal mind.
Anyone who thinks that a tv show which convinced millions of bigots to reconsider their bigotry was a bad thing is either insane or profoundly evil. There is no place in the world for someone like that.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2015, @08:19PM
I might suggest that you go back and actually READ MY POSTS. Nowhere did I use the words "bad thing". The worst thing I said about the show is, it was so much mindless drivel. Like all other sitcoms, it's aimed at the Lowest Common Denominator. People with the IQ of a turnip could watch it and be amused. Most people with IQ's at least as high as a household pet have to use mental tricks to get down on that level. Pretty much everything that comes out of Hollyweird is aimed at that Lowest Common Denominator.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday September 27 2015, @07:11PM
Archie was no hero. What he was is a product of his time being forced to slowly evolve and loath to admit it. Likewise, he was no villain.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2015, @07:41PM
Not a villian - just an obnoxious old asshole. I saw a lot of Archie in my own father, and many of the people around me as I was growing up. They weren't villians, but many of them were most definitely assholes.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @07:53PM
Dude, you are an Archie Bunker for the modern day.
Just like all those assholes couldn't recognize their own asshole nature that Archie illustrated back then, neither can you now.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2015, @08:14PM
It's just so thrilling to see my devoted fan club hanging on my every word.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @02:14PM
By using "SJW" to refer to an era well before Tumblr and Twitter existed you're just cheapening it and proving the real SJWs right when they claim it's nothing but a snarl word used to shut down discussion.
Words have meanings, try learning them.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 28 2015, @02:24PM
What nonsense. The phenomenon wasn't invented on Tumblr or Twitter. SJW's have existed since the day of that Sanger broad, who wanted abortion legalized, so that she could get rid of the "weeds of humanity". What do you think, the new generation INVENTED social justice ideals? Remember Marx? Google Karl Marx.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday September 27 2015, @05:16PM
My early youth was spent in front of the boob tube
And your even earlier youth was spent in front of just the boob.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2015, @05:32PM
Below it, I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiqJL9BGuXU [youtube.com]
By the time a child can stand in front of it, he doesn't need it so much.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 5, Funny) by VLM on Sunday September 27 2015, @01:44PM
Males in the 18-24 demographic are the most coveted in advertising
OK lets look at the lineup. Google tuesday TV schedule. I don't watch TV (too young) so I had to look it up.
ABC leads off with "the muppets" which was cool for about a year in their grandpa's generation, when Dad was a kid. Its like leading off in the 80s with Lawrence Whelk and being surprised the kids aren't tuning in. They actually call it a "mockumentary style" which appeals to about 5% of the snarky reddit demographic for about two months. It'll be gone and forgotten by thanksgiving. I'll wait for the nostalgia hit from Mr Belvedere and 227 and the love boat rather than the Fing muppets.
CBS leads off with weirdo Fox News paranoia cop worship shows. This is a narrowcasting genre which will slowly die off season after season, while the average viewer ages about one year per year. I'd bet no one under 40 watches this stuff, its not a sequel but continuously on since the 90s.
CW can just rename itself to the "WTF" network.
FOX has "Life changes for a womanizing bachelor who learns that he fathered a son who in turn has a daughter of his own." which is probably supposed to be a shitcom but to a 20 year old male that sounds more like a horror movie. Followed by a show called "grinder" which to 20 year old makes means "grindr" even though it has nothing to do with grindr, uh, probably. Its like having a show named 2G1C or goatse.cx that is actually a cooking show. I'm sure the out of touch 60 year old baby boomers who run the network don't even know what grindr is.
NBC has a wanna be american idol for women and flamboyantly out young men (not that there's anything wrong with that). Its not going to sell well to "majority 18-24 males". They'd get better young male viewing numbers by trying to telemarket a home castration kit.
It clearly isn't the most coveted ad segment because NOTHING they're offering would appeal to an 18-24 stereotypical male. Tuesday night is completely emasculated and aimed at old people, old women, and to a much lesser extent, gay men.
If they wanted stereotypical 18-24 males they would have sports, extreme sports, adventure-type stuff, reality TV with hot young women, ultra soft pr0n like Baywatch... instead they ship emasculated crap and act surprised guys don't watch.
On the bright side, Tuesday is the worst TV schedule... Even Sunday appears better, at least during football season.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2015, @01:53PM
I laughed my way through your post - good work!
Then I had the most ridiculous idea. Do you think that the left-leaning SJW agenda of the networks may finally spell their doom? Or, more likely, the networks are being secretly subsidized, so they don't really need the advertising money?
All seriousness aside, I'd like to hear more about your home castration kit.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @02:16PM
What's this story about, TV ratings?
It's those TV executives trying to impose their SJW values on the rest of America, I tell you!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @02:42PM
I was about to make my own post titled "Crap" but you got the idea right. There's nothing but stinking crap coming out of Hollywood. BBC is coming out with a streaming service for the US soon, and I'll be getting that as I like their shows a helluva lot more than the steaming piles of gastrointestinal refuse coming from shittywood.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday September 28 2015, @12:11PM
Oh there's nothing financially wrong with selling to old people, flamboyantly gay men, and women, they as a collection probably outnumber 18-24 year old males by 10 to 1, the problem is the mythology that advertisers give a F about 18-24 yr old men. Maybe because of SJW stuff, but more likely because they never gave a F and its a mythology from the boomer era in the 70s or whatever "we love you young boomers, we love you so much and you're our only important customers, now buy our stuff because we love you youthful people" and it sounds so appealing that people have been falling for it ever since.
I mean seriously, such manure spread about brand indoctrination... if the average consumer life of a human is a half century and the average life of a brand is like five years...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ledow on Sunday September 27 2015, @03:15PM
UK TV isn't much better.
For years now I've just cherry-picked the best and honestly waited unless everyone is still talking about a series years later before I even trial it. Seriously, I've only just picked up House and started watching that, and yet I've watched Hugh Laurie on English TV since I was a kid. It's just all so shit that until something had its entire run and you can go back and trial a handful of random episode (my minimum is 2, if I don't like it after 2, I'll probably never like it). Then I tend to buy the whole thing - or at the very least series by series until it deteriorates - on DVD / streaming services that don't have ads (I like Google Play and Amazon Prime Instant Video).
The random brainless stuff? I only watch when I need random brainless - I wouldn't *PAY* for it.
I'm waiting for the days that when you like a series, you can just buy it direct from the people who make it. No fuss, one click, purchase, done. No ads, no networks, no waiting for it to arrive in your area, no waiting for the big channels or distributors to pick it up.
Same with movies.
TV's dead. Scheduled TV is definitely dead. My TV is literally nothing more than a display device, I bought it to be so and not to be tied to types of content or methods of delivery. I'm just as likely to ChromeCast an episode from Amazon or Google as I am dig out something from the DVD shelf.
In its dying throes it might throw us a bone or two, but my cable connection is the prime source of entertainment not because of the set-top-box on the end (which comes for free with the connection) but for the Internet bandwidth it provides. And I do it all legitimately. If you're going to invent stupid rules, I'm not going to break the law to get around them, I'll just not consume your content - it's so much easier and cheaper and I already have been through the period where I couldn't afford to watch anything for years anyway, so I don't feel I've missed out if there's a series I've never heard of or similar.
The day my streaming is more difficult or annoying than necessary, I stop doing it.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday September 28 2015, @12:04PM
Scheduled TV is definitely dead.
My kids cry when we watch something live and
1) it has ads, which the streaming services do not, and "shared" media has ads stripped out.
2) I can't skip the ads like on the legacy DVR (mythtv for the last 13 years now)
scheduled TV is for pro sports, and pro sports is for boomers and older.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 28 2015, @02:21AM
I have seen a lot of articles over the last decade that point to dropping interest in sports. (Sorry, don't have a link handy and I'm too lazy to google it now.) But the porn/soft porn stuff is a joke, right? Why would a young male waste time on a network-produced pile of soft porn when they can have real porn instantly? For that matter, why bother with porn at all when they can pull up any number of hook-up apps? Maybe technology is bending the interests of the young male demographic back toward real life.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday September 28 2015, @11:54AM
In retrospect I was tired when I posted having been up unusually late on the weekend and you're 100% correct with two minor corrections, one simple one is "the young guys" at work seem more interested in extreme sports type stuff than, say, major league baseball, then you add the guys who will watch jet propelled speedboats to the legacy jocks and you've got enough demographic to keep it alive, it'll get much better viewership than boomer cooking/lifestyle shows on PBS, for example.
The soft pr0n thing is for decades I've heard it said that there's no such thing as female-acceptable pr0n, etc. However, prime time network TV provides us with endless shows that boil down to college girls in bikinis suntanning, maybe a shirtless guy for the ladies lifting weights, and some idiotic game show that can more or less be ignored bracketing it. Think of "Big Brother" TV show, or the non-all stars Survivor. I haven't watched the amazing race yet this season but historically they always have at least one female model team who only packed tiny swim suits and yoga pants to wear. By myself I wouldn't watch that, but if my wife's willing to watch while I get a good look, well that's OK.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @07:20PM
Great post,
Being mid-40's I can say The Muppets used to be an actually good show. Guest stars, musical numbers, decent jokes, and odd characters. What this mocumentary styled thing is... is crap with no where to go but down. Two script writers needed some suckers to bring their drivel to life, and used the muppets (on the verge of taking off again) were dragged under and drowned. I hope this re-write show dies quick. The only "TV" show I've watched over the air in years... now back to my cut cord entertainment!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @02:51PM
The article is about viewership drop across the major networks. What does that have to do with cord cutting? You get all those network over the air.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Sunday September 27 2015, @03:04PM
I know for me OTA broadcasts are nearly worthless since it loses the signal intermittently. I'm not even sure if I get NBC or not.
I'm not sure that all of the cord cutters are keeping OTA as a viewing option. I know I only infrequently use it.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Sunday September 27 2015, @02:55PM
The finger-pointing, blame-shifting continues! Yes, that's right, it's not the record labels' fault. It's not the TV industry's fault. It's not the movie industry's fault. It's never the publishing industry's fault. The blame never lies with them for producing stuff no one wants. No, these industries are victims of forces beyond their control. Piracy! Cord cutting! From year to year, there's always something to blame for these industries in their pell-mell crash into the white cliffs of Dover. The engines have stalled. They're losing altitude. The rocky cliffs are visible in the cockpit window. Yet, they're not doing anything to stop the crash and burn. They're not producing entertainment people actually want to buy. Has any industry ever been so oblivious? Remember those Ford ads? Ford was about to go kaput and eventually started saying quality was job #1. Even Ford got a clue before it was too late.
See, really it's YouTube's fault. The service has all kinds of quality stuff that's worth watching that would never appear on TV. Could people really want to learn and educate themselves with quality information? Watch music like concerts by bands that would never appear on radio? Inconceivable!
Hey, maybe it's our fault. Maybe there should be a new tax to support the entertainment industry. Like how if you don't get health insurance, you have to pay a penalty. Maybe everyone who decides to avoid the entertainment industry should have to pay a penalty. After all, this is our fault for being discriminating and wanting quality. Society should exact a penalty from people who don't buy a copy of All About That Bass and watch Hannah Montana. If you don't watch the new Disney Star Wars film, it ought to cost you more than the price of a ticket. Draconian measures are all that's left to save the entertainment industry.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @03:03PM
It's those whiny TV executives blaming piracy for their ratings problems, I tell you!
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Sunday September 27 2015, @05:30PM
Maybe there should be a new tax to support the entertainment industry. Like how if you don't get health insurance, you have to pay a penalty.
Of course you're joking (I hope!!) to make a point, but what's to stop this now? Obamacare broke new ground by establishing that the government can force you to purchase something. Frankly I'm surprised that beachhead hasn't been swarmed by every Fascist corporation out there by now. Everybody must get an NSA tracker^W^Wsmartphone, solar powered car, personal recycling system (composter), exercise bike, electric toothbrush etc. etc.... Why not? It's all for your own good you know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @12:26PM
Not a joke, but a reality in Canada. A tax of sorts is built into the price of blank media (e.g. a pack of DVD-R's) specifically to recompense the poor suffering music / move industries for the assumed piracy you bought them for. No joke.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Sunday September 27 2015, @03:38PM
Especially as winter is coming, it's gonna get dark earlier, and I've got 2 horror titles just waiting to be played. Can't play a horror game in the bright sunshine :)
I'm 57 years old, as I get older I have less and less patience for watching TV. Too many ads, those damned bugs they put on during the show, often blocking something important, and often taking up over 1/4 of the screen. You know what? You treat me like crap and I'll go elsewhere.
Off topic as it's a niche cable channel that did this, but I tried to watch an old Gunsmoke on I think TVLand a while back. Seemed to have way too many commercials. And sure enough, each ep was taking 90 minutes to air. They took an hour long show and tacked on an extra 30 minutes of ads. I took that channel out of my channel lineup, anyone that sleazy doesn't have a shot at my business.
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @03:57PM
Have you noticed how some older shows are sped up to make it still fit a time slot with extra commercial time? That frigging pisses me off.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2015, @04:54PM
btdigg.org - and many others.
The one show that I watched most often in years past, was MASH 4077. I stumbled over an episode on youtube some time ago, and watched it. I dug out the wife's copy of the movie that ended the series. I wanted to watch more, and looked around. I didn't like any of the alternatives, so I just torrented the entire series. Every episode, as well as the movie that launched the series, and the movie that ended the series. Then, I spent two months watching all of it.
Call me a cheap bastard.
A quick search for Gunsmoke shows that you would have to download each season separately. Twenty seasons, ranginge from 8 to 16 GB each - better have lots of room on one of your hard drives!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Sunday September 27 2015, @05:13PM
I've got 7 TB storage on my network, I'm using maybe 500 gig (mostly MP3s). I think I can handle Gunsmoke :)
I can't believe I've got 7 TB (2 laptops and a NAS), when I think I started with a 16k TRS-80 and a cassette deck it boggles my mind.
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2015, @05:18PM
"I started with a 16k TRS-80 and a cassette deck"
Ditto here. All those years ago, I thought the "Trash 80" was awesome. Then they came up with those newfangled floppy drives, then a hard drive - it just never ends . . .
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by ncc74656 on Tuesday September 29 2015, @09:10PM
At least they were still giving you the full episode. Back when it was in broadcast syndication, Star Trek was frequently cut down from its original 50-51 minutes (or whatever it was) to the 42 minutes more typical of a "1-hour" show today. That's basically a fifth of the show cut out so they can squeeze in more ads for crap you don't need. If I hadn't lived overseas as a kid (where I watched it on BBC 2 (IIRC) and AFN), I most likely would've never seen full episodes until I bought the DVD sets.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by BananaPhone on Sunday September 27 2015, @05:13PM
Why bother getting attached to a show only to see it get cancelled.
Why bother going through the online/cable-box "recording" that you can't fast-forward to where you left off. (imagine 2 hour episodes and you missed the ending!)
The Cable / media corps have also priced themselves out of their market.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Sunday September 27 2015, @07:09PM
This. All TV series these days seem to follow the same basic formula. Start out with some vaguely interesting premise, string it along pulling random WTF crap out of their butts, send the story going in all kinds of wild unrelated directions, randomly kill of characters on whim, just to get canceled with no resolution. Even if one has any kind of "ending" it will be intentionally ambiguous just in case they get the money to milk it for another season.
Well, except for the episodic "comedies", which are just random fart jokes pasted together by some 2-year old.
And don't get me started on the sorry excuses for what they call "news" these days. (Five minute hate followed by the weather!)
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday September 27 2015, @06:13PM
After a couple years of complaining and saying I was going to do it I finally cut the cord this week. I was greatly helped by the fact that the roofers took off the satellite dish and left it dangling off the side of the house. I realized that it was mostly on as background while I was on the computer and there are few shows that I am interested in pursuing on the internet. It does feel strange not having that thing blaring away all the time. If I miss it I still have a pile of movies on VHS and a few on DVD. There is also a chance to rediscover college radio on the internet.
An off topic question: Has anyone here ever hacked a DVR and attempted to use the hard drive on it? They are not interested in getting it back so it is mine to mess with now.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @08:15PM
After having spent a horrible year working for a company that makes the set top boxes for a sateliite provider, I can say that no, you can't get the stuff off it. Their agreements with the content providers means that they have to implement strong security on any recorded media. Now you and I both know they spend as little time as possible implementing it, so there may be something exploitable, but most likely you just won't have access to that data.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @02:07AM
He didn't specifically say he wanted to view the videos that he'd already recorded on the DVR. I would think that transplanting the hard drive into a PC would be almost certain to succeed. I don't know enough about the subject to say whether the DVR could be used to record from other sources than the satellite, but it seems unlikely. Check the input connectors, check the manual, find the model number, the specifications and forum discussions online?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 28 2015, @02:37AM
I think I finally reached the end of TV, myself. I cut the cord about, oh, 8 years ago. For me it was the infinite commercials with the sound level that would jump an order of magnitude. Friends and colleagues told me, oh, go get a DVR and you can fast-forward through commercials; I thought to myself, what the hell kind of improvement is that over taping shows on a VCR? You still have to fast-forward through them to get back to the show. Then I saw those friends and colleagues forget to fast-forward through the commercials on their DVR'ed shows one too many times and, yep, it was exactly the same thing as having it taped on VHS. No thanks.
So I switched to Netflix, pre-streaming days, and watched every blessed thing I might have had interest in. I even watched a lot of foreign films and shows, but ultimately there were only a handful of those relative to everything else. Then streaming arrived and I watched that for a while, too. Then Netflix and the copyright holders started playing tug-o-war over the shows and stuff would show up, you'd put it in your queue, then it'd be yanked before you got around to watching it.
Last month my wife and I were going through the DVD New Releases and realized we had no interest in any of it, and that we hadn't put a DVD in our queue for the last 18 months. So we cancelled that part of the service. But the past week we've been having the same experience with the streaming options. There is just nothing interesting to watch. Even my kids, who are far too young to be jaded with all that content already, can't be bothered to sit still and watch any of it.
It seems our household has crashed into the wall that surrounds the TV universe. Time to turn the device off and do something entirely different. Will the last ones out please switch off the lights?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Sunday September 27 2015, @06:50PM
These articles are missing the prevailing conditions that the media market is completely saturated. It is irrelevant what is released *this* season, when a large fraction of the population either:
a) Have no TV, and therefore no synchronised schedule.
b) Only watch when all of the episodes are available.
c) Still watching the *previous* material of the last 50 years.
Hence, any statistics collected are probably incomplete, since there is no way to know what fraction of the population is in what (highly incomplete list!!) state of viewing (a,b or c).