ChannelSurfing

[Nidaros]

Re: ChannelSurfing

I've had a "Free to Me Lunch"...does that count?

Yeah they count. Do you go to a lot of funerals and catch the afterwards lunch? Those are usually free.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: ChannelSurfing

so what like season tix plus say... $40?

I see your point.

[slosho]

Re: ChannelSurfing

That would be like giving away the farm. I gave something like $1600 this year and I am force to be a alleged thief and use channelsurfing on occasion.

Thank you for the generosity, I wish I was in a situation to do the same.

I Actually think it is a great idea, but I like to try and be funny from time to time.. and was trying to point out that if you were to donate $40 above season tix you could just purchase both.

I hope the weather in Darlington is better then I hear.


Happy new year to you sir.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: ChannelSurfing

That would be like giving away the farm. I gave something like $1600 this year and I am force to be an alleged thief and use channelsurfing on occasion.

Out of curiosity, why not spend the extra $40 and just get Extra?

[mitchell]

Re: ChannelSurfing

I think what it comes down to is that the people who watch the games on Channelsurfing are people who would't typically spend the money to watch on Jackrabbit Extra. I'd have to think it's better that people are watching the games for free than not watching at all. Maybe getting fans to watch the games for free will eventually mean that they spend money going to a game or getting excited about the program.

I don't think Jackrabbit Extra is really provided to make money but instead is there to get access to as many people as possible.

If SDSU wants to take a look at it, they can figure out how much money they lose to people watching the game on Channelsurfing (which I would guess isn't much since they split profits and most of these people aren't going to pay for Jackrabbit Extra) and than see how much it would cost to have a programmer encrypt their feed so that it can't be redirected.

If the programmer is cheaper than they can pull the trigger, but in my opinion, losing the number of people able to watch a Jacks game would be a bigger loss.

[mitchellrabbit]

Re: ChannelSurfing

I think what it comes down to is that the people who watch the games on Channelsurfing are people who would't typically spend the money to watch on Jackrabbit Extra. I'd have to think it's better that people are watching the games for free than not watching at all. Maybe getting fans to watch the games for free will eventually mean that they spend money going to a game or getting excited about the program.

I don't think Jackrabbit Extra is really provided to make money but instead is there to get access to as many people as possible.

If SDSU wants to take a look at it, they can figure out how much money they lose to people watching the game on Channelsurfing (which I would guess isn't much since they split profits and most of these people aren't going to pay for Jackrabbit Extra) and than see how much it would cost to have a programmer encrypt their feed so that it can't be redirected.

If the programmer is cheaper than they can pull the trigger, but in my opinion, losing the number of people able to watch a Jacks game would be a bigger loss.

youre right. if channelsurfing didnt exist, i wouldnt pay $40 to watch the games. i would listen to them free on wnax. i watch the nfl games on channelsurfing, the ones that we dont get locally. if chanelsurfing didnt exist, i wouldnt pay to watch the games. i watch channelsurfing cause it exists and its free.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: ChannelSurfing

So far, I've watched 10 games, and there will be at least 10 more. That's for men's basketball alone. Some of those games were/will be on channelsurfing, some won't. None of the women's games will be on channelsurfing.

Not paying $2 a game seems a little chintzy to me. But that's just me.

[mitchellrabbit]

Re: ChannelSurfing

So far, I've watched 10 games, and there will be at least 10 more. That's for men's basketball alone. Some of those games were/will be on channelsurfing, some won't. None of the women's games will be on channelsurfing.

Not paying $2 a game seems a little chintzy to me. But that's just me.

i guess im a cheapskate. im already pressing my luck with my wife buying season football tickets, summit tourney tickets and basketball tickets. dont know if she would think $40 would be worth it when we have other things we need more.

[Nidaros]

Re: ChannelSurfing

Out of curiosity, why not spend the extra $40 and just get Extra?

MEH I rather be an alleged thief.

[Hoopsdude18]

Re: ChannelSurfing

see how much it would cost to have a programmer encrypt their feed so that it can't be redirected.

This is the key here. The schools need to adapt and get more secure streams to prevent leeching.

On a similar note, I just wish the Summit League would adopt the Horizon League's "all games are free" method for conference games. If you are an HL fan/supporter, you can watch every conference game on their website free of charge, with production value (replays, different angles, etc), and featuring the home team's announcers fed through the radio stream. It is a brilliant concept. Yes, there are some folks who pay for that content but in my mind it might attract a few people who wouldn't and expand the product. As an Oakland fan, I pay for our equivalent of the subscription service but would really like to watch other Summit League games throughout the season. In the Horizon, that is possible!

[SturgisJeff]

Re: ChannelSurfing

I only watch Channelsurfing if I have to. I pay for Jackrabbit Extra. What works for me is watching channelsurfing if its an away game and their homer announcers and listening to our great broadcasters on Extra. For some reason this year I cant do both on Extra even in different windows. Plus I get channelsurfing on my phone but not Extra. As far as Big Brother getting involved with the internet. They can leave it alone and stick to the important issues.

[JimmyJack]

Re: ChannelSurfing

Not sure if you're suggesting channelsurfing or others who redirect streams avoid copyright protections...I don't think they do.

No, not suggesting that at all.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act says (or has been interpreted to say for now) that with a couple of limited exceptions it isn't the responsibility of sites like Channelsurfing.net to assure that the materials it links to are copyright-free. Remember that channelsurfing and justin.tv don't HOST anything.

For example, it may not be legal to be in possession of certain government documents. But it's not illegal for your site to provide a link to an illegal document hosted on somebody else's server. The host where the file physically resides is the one in jeopardy.

The DMCA says the copyright violators are the people who hijack and host those streams, not the people who publish links to them.

[JackJD]

Re: ChannelSurfing

It would be fun to have the right set of facts to see how a court would interpret some of that law. As a society, we're still trying to figure out all the rules with the Internet...I remember some of Napster's early arguments.

[JackJD]

Re: ChannelSurfing

This has been an interesting discussion. I had not taken the time to think about using channelsurfing and it's impact on SDSU and the Jackrabbit Extra. I recall some people being upset with quality issues in past years but I'm not reading many complaints like that now. Guess I'd better get the Jackrabbit Extra.

Hoopsdude's comments on the Horizon League's approach is interesting. There should be a way for the conference to sell ads and make money...does the conference revenue share with the schools to make up for lost revenue because the conference plan replaces plans like Jackrabbit Extra?

[JimmyJack]

Re: ChannelSurfing

It would be fun to have the right set of facts to see how a court would interpret some of that law. As a society, we're still trying to figure out all the rules with the Internet...I remember some of Napster's early arguments.

There have been some cases that have dealt with this. The limits I alluded to were the results of those.

Personally, I think understandings of copyright will evolve into a looser system that reflects the reality of digital communication. The Internet creates an information economy based on ubiquity, not scarcity. Walled gardens don't work financially on the Internet. Some content creators have figured that out and embraced new models of copyright (e.g. Creative Commons). Others are clinging to the old model, not understanding the implications of making people who consume their content into criminals. The old economic assumptions just don't fit in the new paradigm. The winners will be the ones who recognize the differences and take advantage of a different, but not necessarily less profitable, reality.