Baseball Fans Must Pay To Listen Online 319
blair1q writes: "The AP is reporting that MLB and RealNetworks have formed a cartel to embargo broadcasts of baseball games, charging listeners $9.99 for the season. No word on whether they will continue to broadcast the commercials along with the games. No word on whether you will be forced to pay $29.95 for a registered copy of RealNetworks' software. No word on whether RealNetworks will improve the quality and reliability, or MLB will guarantee availability of the feeds, or you can move from machine to machine with your access intact. The words 'suck' and 'criminal' want to appear here in the worst way." Especially after team owners extort taxpayers to help build their stadiums. Of course, pay-per-view events aren't new, but pay-per-listen sports broadcasting? Webcams, laptops and Ricochet (in participating cities) seem appropriate.
freebies (Score:3)
Suck and Criminal? (Score:1)
Hockey (Score:1)
Solution: Stop Watching Major League Baseball! (Score:2)
or you could just turn on a radio (Score:2)
How many people actually listen to MLB over internet feeds anyway. Just turn on the radio.
Second Baseball Strike (Score:2)
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
actually, no... (Score:4)
There's this great thing... (Score:5)
--
I don't see any problems with this. (Score:5)
Sports broadcasts are usually paid for by radio stations which then recoup the expense through ad sales. Assuming the $9.95/season gives you the rights to listen to every game, sans-ads, how is this "unethical", "criminal" or "immoral"?
Why is the slashdot community so vehemently opposed to companies making money through honest means? This stuff costs money. Deal with it.
If it's not on radio (Score:2)
This is supposed to be surprising to someone?
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page [cavalrypilot.com]
Re:freebies (Score:3)
No, but it does include the audio-only swimsuit edition.
cartel? (Score:4)
Don't like it, don't buy it. That simple. Or are you implying that this service is evil and we should crush it under a torrent of flamebait posts, which won't weigh on real networks any heavier than a slightly uncomfortable hat?
If something's broadcasted over the net, someone has to pay for it, and it's surely not going to be them. They are trying to make money offering streaming, a unpopular thing at slashdot but a necessary thing none the less.
full article? (Score:2)
Re:There's this great thing... (Score:2)
If you look (Score:5)
There's value in MLB coverage (Score:3)
This is entertainment, and people will pay a large amount of money for entertainment. MLB is in business to make money while entertaining.
If people want MLB coverage, and it's offered for a fee, then they can pay the fee or not get the entertainment.
In many ways this is analagous to cable carrying local TV stations. "Why would I pay for what I can get for free?"
Because picture quality and signal strength are much better, that's why. Don't like it? Get out the rabbit ears.
So, WRT MLB for a fee...Don't want to pay? Find free entertainment.
Free MLB is not a right guaranteed by the constitution. Deal with it.
Regards,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you.
If you would like to know more about this, please email me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com.
Re:If it's not on radio (Score:4)
$10... that's just over $0.06/game if you listen to all of your favorite team's games... not too shabby... for those that listen to even more, a real bonus.
--
Re:actually, no... (Score:2)
geez man... (Score:2)
the new york times quite clearly says you get the Plus version of realplayer FREE with your freaknig 10$/YEAR payment. this isn't much to ask for a great service.
9 bucks for the entire season is not so bad (Score:3)
crime wave grows (Score:2)
FBI officials have arrested Paul "Paulie Packets" Pastarelli for running one of the biggest internet packet bookie rings in history.
The FBI alleges Paulie Packets took bets on networking information from listeners of Internet sports sites with an ingenious plot to make money.
Taking bets on dropped packets, fragmented packets, DF bits set on a packet, Paulie Packets earned himself a spot on Americas Most Wanted for being such a dangerous criminal.
Officials at the FBI arrested the 12 year old after he hacked into everything you can think of in order to pull of the crime of the century, and investigators are concerned that Paulie's actions may be rubbing off on his junior high school classmates.
more to come
Oh Well (Score:2)
This is a service that is worth it, that I have no other way of getting. Baseball is under no obligation to give away radio broadcasts. If they want to force people to pay for them then so be it.
I bet WGN isn't going to like this. (Score:2)
--Mike--
Multimedia, even! (Score:2)
Ok, so it's not "computerized," but does everything have to be? Uh, oh. I'm gonna get SO flamed for saying that...
BTW...Anyone know if Tom Cheek and Jerry Howarth still announce the Blue Jays games on radio? If you know the answer, you know where to find me.
?!
It will hurt internet radio in a BIG way... (Score:2)
E.g., but out of date: WTOP (D.C.) used to broadcast Orioles games (they don't anymore because it kept getting in the way of traffic reports that listeners REALLY wanted), but while they did, they also did over their feed on the internet. The feed on the 'net still gets commercials. In fact, WTOP was able to raise their rates by showing the number of internet listeners. From that improved rating, WTOP has a standard rate that they would pay to the Orioles network (modified by the fact that the rating affects direct sponsors like Eskay hot dogs that go through the network), which in turn paid the Orioles a cut and the rest to MLB to give to the other teams involved in games against the O's.
NOW, what MLB wants is an additional $10.00 per listener per season, ON TOP OF THE FACT that the rates MLB gets paid by the stations ALREADY REFLECTS internet listeners.
That is somthing that doth royally suck the big one...MLB is going to Real for a sense of exclusivity (thinking they might get more) and bypassing the radio stations -- what it does is send more money directly to MLB, at the expense of the local radio stations (that lose that added rating share for internet broadcasting games), and more importantly at the expense of the individual teams that have stronger radio listenerships -- MLB would distribute an even cut of the money to each team, even though some teams like the O's have stronger radio audiences than others (by virtue of being close to 2 major and 4 minor cities within radio-range). Broadcasts through Real would likely go through exclusivities -- local stations that broadcast would be forced to blackout their internet broadcasting during a game, and that would cut into their overall internet listenership, since the reliability of the internet distribution would be shaken in the view of their listeners.
"broadcasting on baseball Web sites"? (Score:2)
I don't agree that "criminal" should have appeared in this story, but I do agree with the word "suck". It's not a terribly high price, but probably higher than I would be willing to pay for crappy, unreliable feed. I would rather have some assurance of an improved quality.
Re:actually, no... (Score:5)
Congress has "granted" baseball an exemption insofar as it has not corrected the Supreme Court's decision, a decision which subsequent Supreme Court cases have treated as binding though they have more or less acknowledged that the original decision was wrong.
Mixed Feelings (Score:2)
I guess that I have mixed feelings about this. Conrary to the implication of the article, it sounds as though part of the deal is that this is a move to centralize broadcast by MLB specifically so that they _can_ guarantee availability of feeds. Honestly $10 per season isn't that much to a true baseball junkie, considering that I already spend something like $50 a year on various baseball reference books and the like- and I'm nowhere near the worst in that department. $10 is OK, that is, provided that it guarantees access to any game I want on any computer I want to listen to it from.
I just have a terrible feeling that eliminating ads from the mix just isn't going to be part of the deal. That's particularly true because of the insidious way in which announcers will toss in a short advertizement between pitches, but I have a feeling that this is also going to be a pioneer in targeted advertizing. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that they're going to replace the radio ads with special internet ones, and possibly even target them specifically for particular listeners. You're already going to have to provide authentication just to get the feed, so targeted advertizing (and demographic profiling) is going to be part of the story.
OH MY GOD! (Score:2)
If it is a bad product, don't buy it. If you don't buy it, then they will have to improve their product if they want to increase sales.
Honestly, some fucking people need to get a clue about living in a free market economy. Sure, it'd be nice if MLB broadcast all the games commercial free in an open patent-unencumbered format, but then they'd lose a ton of money. Great idea! Really, if i were in MLB's marketing department, I'd sure be looking to do some kind of loss-leader campaign like that because, well hell, we need to keep our fans loyal before they start watching some other country's professional baseball!!!!!
~GoRK
Re:Hardly a deal at all (Score:2)
Like hell they won't. You have obviosly never been exposed to the evils of retail computer sales.
"I want a computer. I need to Internet." or "I want to use online banking" or "I want to watch TV on my computer."
All real phrases uttered by hapless fish driven to a marketing frenzy by gong-pounding blue men.
Re:Solution: Stop Watching Major League Baseball! (Score:2)
We are getting to it... (Score:2)
Quality & Reliability (Score:2)
Where real sucks is the client, it just does nasty things and keeps breaking stuff.
I'll have real over MS any day.
I'd pay for the Packers (Score:2)
1. Paying an ungodly sum for satellite TV, then another ungodly sum for Season Ticket,
2. Flying to Green Bay for all of the games, or
3. Getting my dad to tape the games and send them to me, which loses something despite getting to fast-forward the commercials.
Of course, I can also wait for them to play the Niners once every few years, or to play on Monday night. Still, that's pretty lousy. So hey, I'd pay $10 a year to hear all the games.
----
Canadian rebroadcasting laws (Score:2)
Would it be illegal to rebroadcast over the internet a non-modified radio stream from a local radio station that has the game on for free? I wonder...
Welcome to reality - Need to make money (Score:2)
Companies such as Real are hurting, and unless they start striking deals such as this.. we are not going to have companies such as Real left.
Get used to this trend, the free ride is over.
--------------------
Would you like a Python based alternative to PHP/ASP/JSP?
How to fix Internet Baseball (Score:2)
Re:I don't see any problems with this. (Score:3)
Sounds perfectly normal to me!
Re:cartel? (Score:2)
Streaming is only cheap to offer for free while streaming is a fringe market. If the whole of the baseball fanbase was to switch over to streaming they'd bankrupt the radio stations with bandwidth bills. Bringing in new fans is great and all but it doesn't pay the bills.
Re:Quality & Reliability (Score:2)
Another Solution. (Score:2)
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
Re:It will hurt internet radio in a BIG way... (Score:2)
Re:If you don't like it (Score:2)
Walt
New Slashdot Stories (Almighty Buck category) (Score:5)
- Restaurants Charge For Food, Require Additional Charge for Coffee and Alcoholic Beverages
- Money-Grubbing ISPs Charge More for High-Bandwidth Lines, Even Though They're Used for Napster, Gnutella, and Freenet
- ThinkGeek Charges Hundreds for MP3 Players, which are Critical to Your Rights Online
I know, it's shocking. But it's true!
Re:How to fix Internet Baseball (Score:2)
Many of the Braves games were available on the "Superstation" WTBS, which I get as part of my cable service, but TBS doesn't carry as many of the games as does the radio broadcast (which has nearly 100% of a season's games). Furthermore, I didn't have to be near a TV to listen, which means I could listen at work to the day games. Best of all, during playoffs, I could listen to the Brave's play-by-play instead of having to listen to those network blabbermouths.
But last year things began to change. Atlanta's baseball games were no longer broadcast on the Internet out of the web site of WSB, the home station of the radio program. Instead, I had to listen by going through broadcast.com. I really hated this because they only carried the broadcast of the home team, so when Atlanta played on the road, I had to listen to the "other guy's" announcers, even though I would much rather hear Skip Carey and Company.
Now, it sounds like things are going to get still worse if I have to pay both MLB for the broadcast and Real for the Gold Pass player. I'd just as soon go back to watching what games I can on the TV.
But it doesn't have to be this way. Why not treat the Internet broadcast as just another affiliate station? Insert advertisements targeted to an Internet audience. The technology already exists to do this -- it's in every radio station in their system. It's the way affiliate stations insert their own local advertisements into the broadcast. Or go one step further, and treat the Internet as a kind of super-affiliate that replaces all the advertisements (not just those designated "local").
Get paying customers -- it shouldn't be that hard. You've got a regional broadcast going to a worldwide audience. You should be able to sell ads to the local tourist and convention industry: concert promoters, sporting event promoters, travel agencies, the local Visitors/Tourist Bureau, and the like. Likewise you can sell to the local chamber of commerce, which is always trying to attract business to town. Sell ads to local headhunters -- they're always trying to attract talent to town.
If that doesn't sell enough ads, go to mass-market advertisers who have national campaigns: Budweiser, Chevy, Nike, etc., etc., etc. Surely you can sell enough ad time to more than make up for the cost of running the server.
Unless, of course, MLB and Real are offering a buttload more. Well, here's hoping their plan fails, and in a few years the local sports clubs and broadcast stations can revert to a revenue model that both makes sense, and is fan-friendly. Cause this one is neither.
--Jim
Proof of Concept, not a money-spinner (Score:2)
This looks like a proof of concept at the moment, rather than an attempt to make real money. If even 1 million subscribers cough up for each of the three years, that's still only $30 million. Remind me what the average player's salary is? Cynics may say that it's priced so cheap (and $10/annum *is* cheap) because they already know the service will be crap and punters won't fork over big bucks for crappy audio and the promise of some video highlights. I prefer to believe that there is a desire to build up an audience for this service over three years, by which time the tech will enable it to be an even more comprehensive service. Then you can expect to pay $10 / week.
I also found this intriguing:
In addition, RealNetworks and MLBAM plan to offer subscribers the ability to search for and create customizable video highlights of daily game coverage--providing a flexible way for baseball fans and fantasy-league enthusiasts to compile and review footage of their favorite teams and players on a daily basis. By providing archival access to every pitch from every game, this personalized video service will let individual subscribers choose the exact game highlights they want to watch.
Is this a tacit recognition of traditional "fair use" rights? Will MLBAM chase down fan/fantasy websites that use excerpts from the paid-for service?
WSB will be prohibited. (Score:2)
Sucks, doesn't it?
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
Re:There's this great thing... (Score:3)
Re:I don't see any problems with this. (Score:2)
1) Why would anyone pay for an internet broadcast when radio is free?
2) Why does the radio station know/care if I use a registered version of real-audio?
Re:It will hurt internet radio in a BIG way... (Score:2)
One could argue that that's a good thing, as teams with large radio audiences would seem to be teams with large local support, and thus far more money than smaller teams anyway. (ie. New York)
--
Assume that there are valid arguments against your position.
If you think that's bad... (Score:2)
Are these two announcements a coincidence? I say that they aren't. Essentially, the Red Sox and the Bruins are charging all the cable subscribers a $10 per month fee, which means that $120 per year per cable subscriber goes directly to the two teams. To make matters worse, the Bruins haven't won a Stanley Cup in 30 years, and the Red Sox haven't won a World Series in over 80 years. And neither team looks promising for the future (the Bruins just might get into the playoffs by the skin of their teeth, but probably won't hold up so well if they do get a playoff spot; the Red Sox won't be seeing Nomar Garciaparra on the field for at least three months due to an aggravated wrist injury). In my opinion, all of the New England cable subscribers have become the victims of two evil organisations that never deliver on their promises.
Others will follow suit, I'm sure... (Score:2)
Works Like This in Meatspace Too... (Score:3)
You have to remember how this works from a business perspective. No matter how many people listen to a radio broadcast, it costs the station the same amount of money to broadcast it. That's NOT the case with a RealAudio broadcast because each user consumes additional bandwidth and additional CPU time on the broadcaster's side!
Still, it would be nice if we could get to the point where online advertisers and businesses could have deals where the advertisers basically pay per online viewer... that way hopefully as the amount of users increases, the amount of ad revenue would increase at the same rate as the bandwidth/cpu costs and then maybe online broadcasts could be free again? I think the only thing holding this back as cluelessness/skittishness on the part of the advertisers....
http://www.bootyproject.org [bootyproject.org]
This sucks (Score:2)
I work in an office building and radio reception on my walkman is pretty shitty. I remember last year when the Mariners were making a playoff run, we'd tune in to 710kiro.com which had all the Mariners game broadcasts online and follow the game that way. This was great for the radio station because they just got more listeners than they could cover otherwise - all listening to the same commercials, etc.
I'm guessing I won't be able to do that anymore. My interest in MLB is guaranteed to suffer as a result. I'm really not sure what MLB is getting out of this deal - they are offering $10 in gift certificates to make up for the cost of buying the broadcast. I might even have considered this if Realaudio wasn't such a piece of crap software.
Re:There's value in MLB coverage (Score:2)
This is, IMO, why we keep finding ourselves paying more and getting less. We seem to have a gene that vetos us whenever we ought to say "no" to some new scam^w scheme that worsens our position as a consumer.
Consumers have enormous power over producers, but very rarely use it in the most basic self-interested manner. Oddly, rabble rousers can whip us up into a boycotting frenzy when there's not really anything at stake (e.g., getting the 13 stars off the Arm & Hammer logo), but we very rarely exercise it from the grassroots up on saner issues.
I suppose lots of
--
Re:I don't see any problems with this. (Score:2)
1) People might want to listen to games that aren't broadcasted locally. I live in Scotland (I'm American). Oddly enough, there aren't any locally broadcast MLB games. Now cricket is another matter. But, even in the States, many people live in a location different than "their" baseball team.
2) The article makes no mention of whether or not they will require a registered version of real-audio. Your comment is a non-sequitor that is likely caused by blair1q's non-sequitor in the slashdot post.
Besides, is $9.99 really that much money? I mean, there are 162 games per team per year. There's no mention whether that fee will cover all teams or just one team, but in either case, this is not a lot of money for a baseball enthusiast. And, if you don't like paying, you can still listen for free on your existing radio.
Circumvention of this service is a BAD idea (Score:2)
Re:I don't see any problems with this. (Score:2)
And sorry for being pedantic. I would prefer that the quality of English for slashdot posts improve, and I've got to start at home. I'll preview next time...
Re:actually, no... (Score:3)
--
Re:I don't see any problems with this. (Score:2)
Just like I'd bet there'd be a fairly decent market for streamed cricket broadcasts for expats from cricket-playing nations living in the US. I'm amazed no-one's tried it, frankly.
Re:I don't see any problems with this. (Score:2)
Because my favorite team is on the other coast. Was great when it was free, but it's probably not going to be worth the hassle if it's a pay thing, even at a cheap price.
Why does the radio station know/care if I use a registered version of real-audio?
The radio stations are the losers here. Previously, they had paid for the broadcast rights, and had gotten a wider audience by sending the stuff out over the 'net. Now, MLB is saying, hey... that's not part of what you paid for.
From the looks of it, what happened here is that Real paid for broadcast rights that used to be part of the radio stations' deals. MLB said sure, we'll take your money. Real probably figures they'll recoup the costs by selling subscriptions and/or software.
I expect the radio stations to complain.
Adventures in Sports Logic (Score:4)
In the Fall, they will not broadcast the local football team locally, or on cable. Your only option to view the game is in person, at a sports bar, or using the Sunday Ticket on the sat. These are the options for me to view a game that is being played less then a mile from my apartment. I can, however, listen to the game live on the net, or watch games from other parts of the country on TV. (But somehow it looses something when I can hear fireworks outside my window and then wait 45 seconds or so to find out what happened on the net broadcast).
Now that it's basketball season, I can watch most away games on broadcast TV, but can only see home games if I subsribe to cable (home games are shown on a special Cox channel). Any other broadcast is blocked out, meaning if I have Sat and they are showing the game on TNT, TNT will be blocked for three hours. It costs money to hear it on the net.
The result: more often then not, I find my self chatting with people from other states to find out how my home town teams are doing. Somehow I'm missing the logic of pro-sports marketers here.
Re:cartel? (Score:2)
Why would bringing in new streaming listeners increase the broadcast station listeners? Most of them probably arn't within the broadcast range. Even if it did, is the increase in advertising revenue going to justify the bandwidth expense?
This was done before, and could lead to worse... (Score:2)
This is still going on with the clubs and the AFL, but with MLB, it could get worse. Who will have the rights to the coverage? Remains to be seen.
BL.
Re:Suck and Criminal? (Score:2)
I like the Yankees[1]. WABC 770 AM in NYC is the official broadcast station of the NY Yankees. They always broadcast over the internet in RealAudio, whether there's a game going on or not. There is no added cost to MLB or RealNetworks in this case. WABC pays to broadcast the games, so MLB get's paid, they paid for their RealServer so RealNetworks gets paid. WABC makes their money through advertising so they make back their investment. Why the hell should I have to pay MLB/RealAudio again?
Let me guess, they're "innovating."
It's bad enough that you need an EE degree to download and install the RealPlayer without all the valuable advertising and privacy infringing "features." I remember when RealNetworks were the good guys...
[1] yes I know, it's like rooting for Microsoft
Re:9 bucks for the entire season is not so bad (Score:2)
if you want player salaries to come down... (Score:2)
--
Spatial Displacement and DirecTV (Score:2)
If your satellite provider believes you live in Alaska, they will not blackout any Arizona games...
Re:Suck and Criminal? (Score:2)
It's time for the GPL of Basball (Score:3)
Groups of independent fans could build their own stadiums whereever they please, so long as everyone is able to sit there at no charge.
You could have your own MLB games anytime, as long as you made the players available to everyone!
helpful clarifications (Score:4)
Basically, you're paying 10 bucks to have every game be available in english, spanish, and french with either the home or visiting broadcaster. In many cases, these options were available before. I don't think its worth it, but as a Yankee fan in Ohio I don't have much of a choice and I'll pay it.
The video highlight service they describe is completely different. It sounds as though that is what you need GoldPass (and therefore non-free RealPlayer) for. Also, it won't even launch until May and promises to give you access to every pitch of every game throughout the season. That seems like a pretty powerful tool, although when it comes through RealPooper software who knows what it will be like.
Re:If you look (Score:3)
In addition, you get $10 off at mlb.com's online store, which is a cute way to attract shoppers.
All in all, 10 dollars a year for streaming baseball games is a good deal for any but the most casual fan of realaudio games. It's not like they went with Windows Media, so count your blessings.
Just say no. (Score:2)
I think this is an incredibly short sighted move on the part of MLB - but, hey, it's not like these buffoons are blessed with intelligence to match their riches ... I can't see this being a successful venture, other than a small contingency of losers who are even bigger morons than Baseball's Lords of the Realm ... meantime, you shut the young kids out that already are flocking as far away from as a baseball diamond ...
I think the "new economy" is eventually going to humble the present-day professional sport franchise realm ... licenses and IP rights go only so far - I mean it was nice when the video game Madden 93 was the craze but the only way you could tell it was Walter Payton running with the rock was the #34 graphic showing above his pixelated image ... now, we have authentic simulation creations that don't necessarily need the pro league license, only the ability for you to add a #34 and custom name ...
I have a dish and I subscribe to the hockey and football deals but I won't be renewing those next season ... Why? - well, for a number of reasons - the yearly subscription price is indeed reasonable (little over $100) but a number of things really bug me - [1] I pay for the games but I don't get my favorite team announcers and I don't understand why that can't be provided - they can sub in the same ad space they sell for the dish package deals - it wouldn't matter to me ... [2] I can't watch all the games at the same time - not being a smart-ass but I wish they would use the channel real estate that I donate my hard earned credits for replays and maybe put together some highlight reels (NFL really only one that does this and even theirs is a half-hearted endeaver - the NBA channel is merely a placeholder for nba.com ...) of present and past action, or for goodness sake, air some of them Don Cherry rock-em sock-em videos ... and [3] the state of sports on the dish in general - early dish days would get me all the sports channels from all across USA and each one had its own flavor and lots of minor league action was carried - now they've all been swallowed up by Fox Sports and the programming is all the same, and stuff like minor league hockey, college hockey, minor league baseball, roller hockey, etc. was dropped for the likes of Bob Ley, Keith Olberman - the regional sportscasts are a feeble attempt to restore the homebrewed flavor that has been painfully sterilized ...
So, if I "jones" for some sports action, I guess I'll have to settle for the local teams or the ESPN game of the week ... if it's not available in the chosen recreational time slot, perhaps I'll live vicariously and engage in some sporting activity myself, or maybe I'll put the finishing touches on that massively multiplayer sports role playing game that everyone has been clamoring for ...
Re:I don't see any problems with this. (Score:2)
If you didn't understand that baseball is All About Money Then - the only previous time a WS wasn't held was during WWII - and fans be damned because we are such loyal saps that they can do anything to them and we'll always come back, then you never will.
BTW, don't you think this will fall flat on it's e-face? Does anybody have any figures on how the NBA revenue is faring?
Sports News Matters? (Score:5)
Since when are nerds and geeks into sports?
Re:Adventures in Sports Logic (Score:2)
The NFL has a rule that, unless a game sells 60,000 tickets, that game cannot be shown live in that home market. The purpose of the rule is to prevent TV from cutting into the ticket revenue. In cases where tems are particularly crappy (such as Arizona), many games are blacked out because of poor attendance.
I even believe that a few playoff games over the years have been blacked out.
Re:blair1q get a life (Score:2)
So What If It Has Ads? (Score:2)
Cable has ads. Why shouldn't this?
Cricket is one of the world's biggest sports (Score:2)
The reason why your Indian buddies were glued to the cricket is because India played an incredbly exciting and close series of matches against Australia, and very narrowly won the deciding game of the series, after some of the most outstanding individual performances by several players in years (or in a couple of cases, ever).
Sour grapes (Score:2)
They have to pay for the bandwidth somehow.
"No word on whether you will be forced to pay $29.95 for a registered copy of RealNetworks' software."
Forced? Not likely. The last time I checked paying for RealPlayer was just as voluntary as listening to a baseball game on the radio.
"The words 'suck' and 'criminal' want to appear here in the worst way."
Of course they do. After all, the constitution demands a right to hear a baseball game for free, doesn't it?
"Especially after team owners extort taxpayers to help build their stadiums."
Extort? The taxpayers can let the teams go elsewhere. No town needs a baseball team, and taxpayers can always watch the game on TV for free.
Seems to me that someone is testy over *shock* a for profit corporation attempting to make money! heaven forbid!
Re:Just say no! (Score:2)
Come off of it... (Score:2)
That's not much... If the interenet is affordable at $20 to $40 a month, if napster will be affordable at $9.95 a month, then certainly a seasons full of broadcasts at $9.99 a year isn't that bad. If you think so, just buy your self a set of FM headphones, and you'll recoup your investment in only 3 or 4 years....
Re:Solution: Stop Watching Major League Baseball! (Score:2)
Re:Cricket is one of the world's biggest sports (Score:2)
too right. though we'll forget about England v Sri Lanka.
anyway, www.cricinfo.org is a masterclass in how to do sport on the web - live, text commentaries..
Re:Just say no! (Score:2)
Re:Just say no! (Score:2)
I would say maybe a few hundred...a couple thousand sounds like it's pushing it. Real estate taxes probably don't come into play since exclusions for not paying them are usually included in the sales pitch. I know what the politicians are getting out of it: bragging rights and kickbacks. I wanted to know what the cities get out of it besides having to pay higher taxes for sports complexes so some barely literate jocks can play ball while the owners rake in skybox loot (then gripe a few years down the road how crappy their facility is and demand the tax payers build a new one) I don't see how they make the city better..safer, more livable. IMHO, they just provide a distraction from the real things that need attention so they can get fixed.
Re:Suck and Criminal? (Score:2)
Re:Just say no! (Score:2)
exactly...
Re:I don't see any problems with this. (Score:2)
I mean, look at Rush Limbaugh's site--Rush has said that the US$39.95/year Rush 24/7 premium access program is selling like hotcakes.
Re:helpful clarifications (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I don't mean to flame, but I find this statement indicative of the mindset of a lot of my fellow Americans. I just have to say,
"BULLSHIT!!!"
You have a great deal of choice. We're talking about paying to hear someone talk about a bunch of grown men being payed to play a child's game. We're not talking about listening to a discussion on what politicians are doing to regulate our lives. We're not talking about listening to someone discuss how science and technology are changing how we live and work. We're talking about paying to hear someone talk about a bunch of grown men being payed to play a child's game.
I doubt you meant your statement as I've interpreted it. I'm sure you realize that your life would go on tomorrow without MLB. But I run into so many people who think I'm from another planet because I don't give a shit about who won the 'World Series' (which only allows American teams?), or who is playing in the 'Final Four' (oh, how I really wish it were the final four so that everyone would shut the hell up about it!)
People, these are grown men (or nearly so) playing games. They are not 'local' teams (how many of the players from the 'local' team are even from your state), and they will not let you play. What stake do you have in the outcome of any of the games?
Stop appointing yourselves kings and rulers. Entertainers are not royalty, and do not deserve to live like it.
RE: Will the Radio Stations Get a Cut? (Score:2)
I have the same question. Perhaps MLB does have an agreement that allows them to use to use the broadcasts for mediums other than the live radio broadcast (like NFL Films has an agreement to use the radio broadcasts in its videos), but unless this is an agreement on paper, if I were a radio announcer, especially one as popular and well known to the fans as many of the players themselves (such as Harry Carey was), then I think you could have a lot of bargaining power to withhold your consent to use your voice for commercial gain without your consent.
Anyway, no way is Real going to get close to pulling $20 million out of subscribers for thewir crappy service.
From the article I read, it sounded like they will be adding a lot on-screen content to the broadcasts, however, unless the audio streams themselvs are available in 28.8k and 56k and ad breaks are filled with value-added content, I can't see paying for the games. At night you can get AM broadcasts from anywhere within 500 miles, which usually allows you to pull in at least one affiliate of your favorite team (or of the team they are playing that night), the broadcast quality isn't wonderful, but neither is the 8kbs streams that had been free last year.
Re:Sports News Matters? (Score:2)
Re:If you think that's bad... (Score:2)
Re:Suck and Criminal? (Score:2)
I agree that the broadcaster deserves to be able to cover the added costs of internet broadcasting. However, in this case the broadcaster is WABC radio in NY. They're the ones who pay for the servers, they're the ones who pay the announcers etc. They give the Yankees a bunch of money to be allowed to broadcast. If they want to raise their ad rates, or yes, even charge listeners, it's their prerogative. Here we have RealNetworks and MLB demanding money for me to listen to WABC's broadcast. Everything was fine before they came along demanding money for nothing.
Re:Sports News Matters? (Score:2)
Carl Sagan was captain of a championship college basketball team.
You don't get much nerdier than old Carl (may he rest in peace (and not return from the grave hungry for human brains)).
Baseball phaseout (Score:2)
Re:Just say no! (Score:2)
Personally, I'd rather have people be proud of their community because it has good schools, a low amount of crime, clean, etc. In this case, the diversion helps people ignore problems that need fixing. Having a new stadium doesn't help much that much when the city already has at least two sports/entertainment complexes that are hardly used, but not up to 'major-league' standards (ie. not enough skyboxes). IMHO, this is just an example of a pissing contest for politicians & business leaders and they're using the taxpayers to fund it.
Besides, do you really want me to base my opinion on Hollywood fiction (bad fiction at that)? Does LA feel like less of a city because they lost two NFL teams? Do the people of Chicago feel better when the Bulls win a championship and the fans riot? I don't have a problem with sports. But they are just _games_ and if you like a sport, it's more fun to actually play it with your friends/collegues than to watch some overpaid moron do it while you sit and get drunk.
Re:Just say no! (Score:2)
Not everyone in the city may go to the pro sports games, but the people who do actually get something from the stadium construction.
And I get the 'benefit' of higher taxes. Oh boy!
At least a museum or symphony hall can be educational and cost no where near the amount a new stadium does. If it didn't cost so much it would be funny: politicians drag their feet on funding essential services & infrastructure, but jump at spending millions for entertainment. The schools are crappy, streets, bridges, etc are run down, but by God, everything's better because they have a team to cheer for! No wonder this country is so screwed up.
IMHO, if there are so many people who get fired up over having a team, then they should make the team community property similar to what Green Bay has done. Or at least have the owners & business partners fund a large majority of the construction.
Re:Just say no! (Score:2)
Re:Get a clue (Score:2)
"From what I've been told, we will not be able to make our broadcast available on our website. The only way to access it will be through MLB and their deal with Real Networks. This decision was made by MLB and we have no control over it."
--Mike--