3 ms·

I also don't believe in "intellectual property", but in a legal regime that isn't so enlightened it isn't surprising that we have to go to some small amount of

I also don't believe in "intellectual property", but in a legal regime that isn't so enlightened it isn't surprising that we have to go to some small amount of trouble and pay some small amount of money to see non-shit coverage of a ridiculously costly sporting event.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
It has nothing to do with intellectual property or a less enlightened legal regime. It is just a dying legacy business that has been obviated by the internet trying to milk whatever they can before they are gone.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  Yeah, sure, we all wish we were living in the future. In the meantime, someone has to pay for the cameras and streaming. I agree that no one should pay for some of the "personalities" involved in some of the NBC coverage. You've implied that the currently available terms of payment are not appealing to you. However, lots of real people still have subscriptions to cable, satellite, Hulu, Sling, etc.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    The only way we get to the future is if sufficient people stop rewarding the unnecessary middlemen. I am just trying to do my part.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      Olympics is already on thin ice. Everyone involved is losing big money on it this time around, and the locals are in revolt. If they can't find more cities foolish enough to host, Olympics will be toast. Future host cities will demand more money from networks up-front. At some point they're just going to drop the whole thing and fill the airtime with minor league women's soccer or rollerblade lacrosse or something. Sure, Olympics started without television networks and it could continue without them, broadcasting over YouTube or whatever. However the show would be very different. We'd still have track and field, but basketball would be played without pros, many fewer "weird" sports and many fewer events in some of the overdone sports like swimming. Which could be OK...

lotsofpulp 5y ago

It has nothing to do with intellectual property or a less enlightened legal regime. It is just a dying legacy business that has been obviated by the internet trying to milk whatever they can before they are gone.

jessaustin 5y ago
Yeah, sure, we all wish we were living in the future. In the meantime, someone has to pay for the cameras and streaming. I agree that no one should pay for some of the "personalities" involved in some of the NBC coverage. You've implied that the currently available terms of payment are not appealing to you. However, lots of real people still have subscriptions to cable, satellite, Hulu, Sling, etc.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  The only way we get to the future is if sufficient people stop rewarding the unnecessary middlemen. I am just trying to do my part.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    Olympics is already on thin ice. Everyone involved is losing big money on it this time around, and the locals are in revolt. If they can't find more cities foolish enough to host, Olympics will be toast. Future host cities will demand more money from networks up-front. At some point they're just going to drop the whole thing and fill the airtime with minor league women's soccer or rollerblade lacrosse or something. Sure, Olympics started without television networks and it could continue without them, broadcasting over YouTube or whatever. However the show would be very different. We'd still have track and field, but basketball would be played without pros, many fewer "weird" sports and many fewer events in some of the overdone sports like swimming. Which could be OK...