Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Viacom Puts the Daily Show Archive Online

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the lewis-black-catches-it-for-a-segment-we-call-back-in-black dept.

Media 153

tburton writes "Viacom has put the entire eight year run of the Daily Show with John Stewart online. The content is available from the official Daily Show site, and features clip rating, tags, and numerous community features. The whole thing is supported by relatively unobtrusive contextual ads. 'Viacom's decision to post its entire archive--while fighting YouTube in the courts--sets the scene for a battle between the established media players and their high profile entertainment brands against the user generated content sites, most notable YouTube. Also watching closely the Viacom experiment will be the telco IPTV industry which has seen the market place change rapidly as the quality of online video continues to improve, with at least one platform/site, Vimeo, already offering 1280X720 HD quality direct from the browser.'"

cancel ×

153 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Should have guessed (2, Informative)

cucumberjones (1089979) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031071)

It got Slashdotted.

Re:Should have guessed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21031181)

I guess that's one thing youtube has over this: capable servers.

Re:Should have guessed (4, Informative)

shinmai (632532) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031665)

And this is what people kept telling viacom, when they decided to sue youtube, to get more people to use their own video service.

Many of the companies that threatened to, or did sue youtube, seemed to do so to get more users on their own video-sites. Funny thing is (albeit I might not be what one would describe as an average user) I for one haven't. I like YouTube because it knows what it wants to do, and does it well. It wants to host videos, and it's doing a good job at that. Instead of suing, these companies should've (IMHO, of course) have partnered up with Google & Co. and use the existing fanbase their content had on Youtube, instead of removing the material and hoping people would like to, instead of watching cool videos from one site, wade through half a dozen different sites to do the same..
I'm not too hot on Comedy Centrals own video player, for instance, and as such, have stopped watching clips of Daily Show and the Report, and instead reverted back to my old habit of downloading the whole episodes from tvrss (Only one channel shows either of the two here in Finland: CNBC shows Daily Show Global Edition, which is a shortened version of the original, with a different moment of zen). Was going to post AC, but what the hell..

Re:Should have guessed (4, Insightful)

wpanderson (67273) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031183)

Service unavailable - Fail to connect

Kinda demonstrates the case for p2p file transfers, huh.

Re:Should have guessed (1)

vishbar (862440) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031553)

The whole thing is support by relatively unobtrusive contextual ads.

Kinda demonstrates the case against p2p file transfers...

more like (1)

themusicgod1 (241799) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032547)

""The whole thing is support by relatively unobtrusive contextual ads."
Kinda demonstrates the case against p2p file transfers..."

Kinda demonstrates the case against relatively unobtrusive contextual adds.

Re:more like (1)

vishbar (862440) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033083)

Agreed, they're annoying...but Viacom's gotta make money somehow. Better this than commercials, I'd say.

Re:Should have guessed (3, Insightful)

Endymion (12816) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031779)

so instead of leaving things be on gootube, and letting google pay for the bandwidth, they decide to setup their own site so they can pay for the bandwidth themselves?

This "we must have control at all costs" never makes sense to me, especially when there's a financial reason not too...

Re:Should have guessed (1)

Xizer (794030) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031869)

Of course they have a financial reason for this. Perhaps you missed the part where they are integrating advertisements?

Re:Should have guessed (1)

jkabbe (631234) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031985)

Viacom not only pays for the bandwidth, but they also earn the ad revenue.

If revenue > bandwidth charges, Viacom gets to go to Step 3.

Re:Should have guessed (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032977)

This is so close to being something I would like to use. The ads aren't too bad [they have them both before the clip and/or along the bottom], but did they have to chop up each show into so many tiny, unordered pieces? I'd like to see the show for day X, not just the 5 second "moment of zen", then load another page for a 20 second joke about Bush...

Of course, I realize that other people would want to also have access to specific clips like this, to forward to other people...

I'd enjoy this but... (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031077)

I don't like it when my TV / VCR gets Slashdotted.

Waste of Bandwidth and Disk Space (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21031083)

You heard me.

Re:Waste of Bandwidth and Disk Space (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21032093)

Silence, Heathen!

Re:Waste of Bandwidth and Disk Space (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21032253)

I refuse to stop baiting my Slashdot Overlords.

They will never learn! (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031115)

This is for one reason and one reason only, because GooTube exists. If there was no such thing available to so many people, the media companies wouldn't give a flying rats ass.

But because people are obviously interested in this medium and they are pissed that Viacom is being a bunch of fucking litigious bastards, they had to do something... We'll see just how it stacks up but based on the other networks' actions, I doubt it will be nearly as popular as the content available in one place - YouTube.

I realize they want to control the content they own and all, but seriously, isn't it just easier to have someone else foot the bandwidth bills and to have your viewership get it the way they want? They will never learn :(

Re:They will never learn! (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031309)

They will never learn :(

Uhhh, yeah, I'm all about "sticking it to the man" too and I get rather pissed off when media outfits try to use DRM to lock down content that I've paid for, but what exactly is the problem with this?

They are putting the entire archive of a fairly popular TV show online, at no expense. Even if you have to watch commercials with it (do you? You did on their old site, but TFA seems to suggest you won't) how can you complain about that?

I would love to see an online archive of Babylon 5, Star Trek:TNG, Law & Order, 24, or any of the other TV shows that I watch. If I could go back and watch my favorite episode at the click of a button and the only downside was a few ads (that I'd see on TV anyway) how am I losing?

Re:They will never learn! (3, Funny)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031411)

how can you complain about that?

when their server becomes a pile of molten slag?

Re:They will never learn! (2, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031531)

when their server becomes a pile of molten slag?

One would assume that they are using some sort of distributed solution, like Akamai. One would also assume that Viacom has enough resources to pull this off if they decide to do so. I'm not having any problems watching (well, downloading, cuz I'm reading /.) videos on that site. Maxed out my 10.0mbit connection as a matter of fact. And that's AFTER a /. article about it....

Re:They will never learn! (5, Insightful)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031709)

Don't get your hopes up. They won't put those shows up. They might put up topical shows like "The Daily Show" because they are essentially worthless a week or so after air. You will never see "The Daily Show" DVDs or year old "The Daily Show" reruns on late night TV because no one would buy/watch. Episodic television, on the other hand, are worth money decades after release.

Re:They will never learn! (3, Informative)

Sonivius (1164447) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032331)

I bought a collection of shrinkwrapped 'Daily Show' DVDs at Best Buy.

Re:They will never learn! (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032569)

Episodic television, on the other hand, are worth money decades after release.

Eh, your probably right. But I guess if I was the executive at [INSERT MAJOR MEDIA COMPANY HERE] I'd be doing studies to see whether or not I'd make more money releasing them online with ads or solely releasing them via the DVD channel.

I would make the assumption that releasing them online would NOT undercut DVD sales, as the hard-core followers are still going to buy them and the rest wouldn't have bothered anyway. Of course I'm probably a lot more logical then most executives at [INSERT MAJOR MEDIA COMPANY HERE] :(

Re:They will never learn! (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032793)

You will never see "The Daily Show" DVDs or year old "The Daily Show" reruns on late night TV because no one would buy/watch.

I would, if they were a reasonable price. I love watching old episodes of The Daily Show. I guess what you are hinting at is one of the biggest problems of modern culture - stuff gets forgotten immediately. How are we supposed to learn from the past if everybody wants to forget it immediately, and move on to the next shiny distraction? No wonder people keep getting screwed over and falling for the same old tricks. No wonder it's so easy for politicians to make people forget what they actually did in the past.

Re:They will never learn! (1)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031903)

I would love to see an online archive of Babylon 5, Star Trek:TNG, Law & Order, 24, or any of the other TV shows that I watch. If I could go back and watch my favorite episode at the click of a button and the only downside was a few ads (that I'd see on TV anyway) how am I losing?
www.tv-links.co.uk [tv-links.co.uk]

redirected? proxy.org to the rescue! (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032237)

They will never learn :(

Uhhh, yeah, I'm all about "sticking it to the man" too and I get rather pissed off when media outfits try to use DRM to lock down content that I've paid for, but what exactly is the problem with this?

Try to access it from Canada, and you'll see what the problem is: As of noon today [10/17/2007], Canadian visitors to Comedy Central's website will now be redirected to thecomedynetwork.ca
Their fucking site needs some obscure bullshit app from Microsoft to work, too. It's bad enough they're trying to keep me away from the sites I want to visit, but they just had to have it use some non-standard crap too, just to add insult to injury.

Re:redirected? proxy.org to the rescue! (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032537)

Their fucking site needs some obscure bullshit app from Microsoft to work, too

Uhh, what part of the site is that exactly? I've never had a problem using Firefox to watch TDS vids. Friends of mine watch them on their Macs. I would also assume that the site works just fine under Linux...

Re:They will never learn! (2, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032247)

There is a online archive of those. it's called Netflix.

and I get to watch them in low compression 720X480 resolution instead of 320X240 incredibly high compressed.
Incredibly high bandwidth, very high latency. and no DRM... well no drm that isn't easily circumvented.

wrong. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21031323)

When I have control of my content, I have control of the costs and benefits. It appears to me they took their copyrighted videos off youtube in order to start up their own service. They'll control the look, feel and ad revenue. That's the big key here. Comedy Central (et al) will get money in return. Maybe not a profit but Google will see little to no profit.

I think it's a good business decision provided they can keep up with the demand.

Re:wrong. (2, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031403)

I think it's a good business decision provided they can keep up with the demand.

And if they can't keep up with the demand then they can always partner with Google/Youtube and have them foot the bandwidth bill. And Viacom would still get get a slice of the revenue because it's their content.

Although something tells me that Viacom won't have major problems paying the bandwidth bill or hiring people smart enough to manage this for them.

Re:wrong. (2, Interesting)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031643)

Didn't Google just start a new revenue-sharing plan on YouTube? Viacom should upload complete episodes as soon as they air so they can beat the other uploaders and still turn a profit.

Re:They will never learn! (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031401)

Maybe if Google paid them a large percentage of the ad money, they'd consider it. Probably a lot larger percentage than the folks at Google would ever listen to without laughing.

What needs to happen for us to get quality programming online is that people like John Kricfalusi who hate how TV networks are run need to do exactly what he did with The Goddamn George Liquor Program and some of his other work. They need to self-distribute online or direct to DVD. If Google let people with professionally produced, serialized shows capable of getting a following out of the draconian YouTube user policy then it might be the online distribution network of choice. The show's producers could put ads in the video stream. Google would have the page ads, and it's worth everyone's while.

Re:They will never learn! (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031471)

I realize they want to control the content they own and all, but seriously, isn't it just easier to have someone else foot the bandwidth bills and to have your viewership get it the way they want?
Cheaper? Yes. More profitable? Uncertain. A company tries to make a profit by hosting their content online and people at slashdot are still unhappy? Some of you people truly are just pirates at heart aren't you?

Re:They will never learn! (2, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031487)

I don't do business with Viacom, so as long as I can find episodes ripped to avi or mpeg, "elsewhere" on the Internet, I will watch them that way.

In 2007, personal consumption has become politicized. We have learned that most corporations, given any opportunity to screw their customers, will enthusiastically do so.

So, when I can identify a corporation that is engaged in practices that I find offensive, and I have any small opening to thwart them (even though any effect of my personal actions will be very tiny), I'm going to do it.

Since the laws of our country are increasingly designed exclusively for the benefit of those corporations (especially, it seems, those most offensive) and to enhance their profits, my behavior will almost certainly be illegal to some extent.

So be it.

Re:They will never learn! (5, Interesting)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031987)

I realize they want to control the content they own and all, but

Stop. Stop right there. No "buts." Quit while your ahead.

Lookit, all the non-creators and non-artists of the world said "We want the professional distributors to provide your work online, and on-demand! If you don't give it to us the way we want it, we'll just make copies of it and distribute it ourselves." And along came Napster, and [finally] Youtube.

So now the creators and distributors (Viacom happens to be both) finally begin to steer their gigantic battleship around and begin to offer some shows on the Net. OF COURSE they're going to use their own site to do so (DUH!). Yet you still find a reason to complain because... why? You've already got Youtube bookmarked and it's too much work to mark a new site?

No, the reason (one of them) is that YouTube had a great leveling effect on video. It was the one site where a professionally produced 30-minute sitcom sat on the shelf next to a webcam vid of a coupla 14-year-olds lip-synching to "Barbie Girl." And this was a source of great satisfaction to the lip-synchers. Now, as more and more of the professional content melts away from YouTube and gets archived on the artists' and distributors' own sites, YouTube reverts to the Major Bowes Amateur Hour status from whence it started, like that Flowers from Algernon guy when the drugs wore off. Meanwhile, the semi-pro artists, not quite ready for Viacom, feeling the great sucking cold draft in the room left by the professional content going bye-bye, begin to glance nervously at the barbie-girlers on their left and the exploding Mentos lunatics on their right, and they begin to bail off to online distribution environs that aren't, um, painted in such primary colors. Youtube begins to garner that odiferous MySpace cachet, other distribution sites erupt to fill the want/need, and a new era of entertainment distribution arises, putting content at the fingertips of anyone with a cellphone or PC, and money in the pockets of the content creators.

Youtube is dying. Long live online video distribution!!

Nitpick (2, Insightful)

dorsey (119963) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031147)

Hasn't the Daily Show been on tv for more than eight years? Or do they just consider the Craig Kilborn years to be a completely different show?

Re:Nitpick (5, Informative)

The Cheez-Czar (4124) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031279)

Both this article and the original LA Times says its an archive of "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart", Which started in 1999.
So I guess they do considerer "The Daily Show With Craig Kilborn" to be a different show.

Re:Nitpick (1)

audi100quattro (869429) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031423)

The "10 f&*king years" segment didn't get that memo.

Re:Nitpick (3, Interesting)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031319)

Or do they just consider the Craig Kilborn years to be a completely different show?

I know I consider them to be a completely different show.

Not that I have anything against Craig Kilborn or the show while he hosted it, but Jon really did take the show in a significantly different direction. And I think its a significantly better show as a result.

Re:Nitpick (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031339)

Maybe the correct title would be "Viacom Puts the Entire Daily Show with Jon Stewart Archive Online as I think the show is technically called that now? But you're right, the show began in 1996 and Craig Kilborn was the host until 1999.

Re:Nitpick (4, Funny)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031757)

I think that "Viacom Puts the Entire Daily Show with Jon Stewart Archive Online as I think the show is technically called that now? But you're right, the show began in 1996 and Craig Kilborn was the host until 1999" is too long of a title for a Slashdot article.

Re:Nitpick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21031573)

Glam band? What glam band? "Cowboys From Hell" is Pantera's first album. That's their story and they're sticking to it!

Re:Nitpick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21031667)

in this day and time of metal magic
we need rock and roll
we need PANTERA!

I didn't wanna touch you
since we were both sixteen
didn't wanna take you down
and show you what love means
now is the time
this is the place
get ready to take a chance
we don't have a minute to waste

ride my rocket
wear me out
ride my rocket
make me twist and shout
ride my rocket
give me all of your love
ride my rocket
I just can't get enough.

You leave me breathless
when you walk by
the way you move it girl
makes you satisfy
You might be the best
that i've ever had
it's gotta be good girl
cuz it looks so bad

ride my rocket
wear me out
ride my rocket
make me twist and shout
ride my rocket
give me all of your love
ride my rocket
I just can't get enough.

[*guitar solo*]

feels so good
makes my heart break
every time you touch me
i explode into flames

ride my rocket
wear me out
ride my rocket
make me twist and shout
ride my rocket
give me all of your love
ride my rocket
I just can't get enough.
And yes... the music is as cheesy as the lyrics.

In a word... (2, Insightful)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031663)

Yes.

Viacom makes me hate the Daily Show (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21031149)

Fine, they funded the IP and want to act all pissy about asserting their "control"... do it without my viewership or support.

I don't care how good the actual program is, any more than I care how good an RIAA-backed CD is. It may be ad hominem (ad corporatem?) but if they want to take their ball and go home I'm not going to follow begging.

Either I watch on YouTube, or I don't watch at all. I'm not bookmarking 5,000,000 video sites to do casual browsing. That's stupid.

Re:Viacom makes me hate the Daily Show (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031497)

I don't care how good the actual program is, any more than I care how good an RIAA-backed CD is. It may be ad hominem (ad corporatem?) but if they want to take their ball and go home I'm not going to follow begging.

Give me a fucking break! They aren't CHARGING YOU FOR THIS. THEY ARE GIVING IT AWAY. There is no way in hell that you can compare them wanting videos removed from Youtube while GIVING AWAY THE CONTENT FOR FREE to the bullshit that RIAA is trying to pull.

Either I watch on YouTube, or I don't watch at all. I'm not bookmarking 5,000,000 video sites to do casual browsing. That's stupid.

Again, grow the hell up. It's really that much harder to do a Google search for 'The Daily Show' and following the first link as opposed to doing a search on YouTube for 'The Daily Show'? If you owned the content would you want YouTube raking in the ad dollars for something THAT YOU CREATED?

Re:Viacom makes me hate the Daily Show (1)

Stray7Xi (698337) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031819)

As long as the content is available for direct linking there's no reason to complain about this. When the market has enough entrants then you'll see google video turn into something that directly searches a bunch of video sites and links you directly to the video you want.

That said is there already some kind of aggregrator site that links directly to videos. The rate that these new video sites open up make it hard to keep track of.

Re:Viacom makes me hate the Daily Show (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032919)

Why not get payed from youtube to post the show in it's entirety?

Drop the video hosting part of the business all together.

Embed advertising intelligently

Re:Viacom makes me hate the Daily Show (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031549)

I'm not bookmarking 5,000,000 video sites to do casual browsing. That's stupid.
If you watch 5,000,0000 different shows/clips in a month then I'd say that's not the only thing stupid.

Re:Viacom makes me hate the Daily Show (1)

Faylone (880739) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032163)

Considering that to pull that off, you'd need to make two bookmarks every second for a full month, I would say making 5 million bookmarks in a month would be quite a feat.

5,000,000 video sites (2, Funny)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033085)

And STILL nothing on!

Cool (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21031163)

Now I can watch some episodes that aren't a daily rant on the Bush Administration.

Re:Cool (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031807)

Viacom isn't that far off from vacuum. The daily Bush rants are all part of the suck.

I'm concerned (3, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031165)

That sounds cool and all but something inside of me is screaming "It's a tarp! [velvetcache.org] " But seriously, whenever a gigacorp does something that seems like a good thing, it just means they're distracting you from the lawyer sneaking up behind with the Urotsukidji razor dildo assault cock. "Oh, wow, this looks interest---YEEEIEEEEEOOWW!!!"

Re:I'm concerned (1)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033001)

It was a "Nazi Death Rape Machine." Get it right.

ABC (2, Informative)

Huitzlopochtli (824537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031173)

ABC.com also offers streaming, 1280X1024 HD full episodes on their website. It's still in beta, but works fine.

Re:ABC (1)

JUSTONEMORELATTE (584508) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032435)

Sadly, they don't seem to have any programming that doesn't completely suck.

Re:ABC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21032885)

Add to that the fact that they only allow Windoze or Macshits to use their player.

Oops
Our new video player is only available for:
Windows 2000/XP/Vista - Internet Explorer, Firefox
Mac - Firefox, Safari
To watch, please download the appropriate browser.


FUCK you, ABC.

DivX's Stage6 (1)

serodores (526546) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032687)

DivX's Stage 6 [stage6.com] (also in beta) has also offered HD quality flicks for quite some time. Given YouTube never seems to have quality or length even remotely close, I can only guess how long they'll last at their current resolutions.

Not the entire run (3, Informative)

skintigh2 (456496) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031175)

The Daily Show has been around since 1996, but 8 years does cover all the Jon Stewart years.

Also, full shows are not available, just clips, though supposedly you can piece together most episodes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071018/wr_nm/dailyshow_dc_2 [yahoo.com]

Re:Not the entire run (2, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031361)

Yeah it's a pretty weak gesture. I've got an RSS feed dumping torrents in a watch directory shared on my lan. All I have to do is turn on my xbox and watch. If I have to sit in my computer chair and click a bunch of shit I'm not even going to bother.

Re:Not the entire run (4, Funny)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031813)

If I have to sit in my computer chair and click a bunch of shit I'm not even going to bother.

Do you also have a meat paste drip in one arm, and a Mountain Dew drip in the other arm? God forbid you actually have to go through that huge motion of 'clicking' something.

Re:Not the entire run (2, Insightful)

jZnat (793348) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032225)

Computers are supposed to automate things for us, not make us work for the computer. Having to jump through a bunch of hoops just to do something is completely unacceptable when there are far easier and more efficient ways of doing things.

Re:Not the entire run (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032871)

You know, I was going to point out the flaws in your statement, and explain(using small words, of course) why what you posted makes no sense, but then read your sig.:
"'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'"

If you don't know what a woman or two can do with a pop up, then you need to get out more often.
Woman can fondle, grasp, suck, lick, etc ... a pop up. Let me know when firefox can do that.

Re:Not the entire run (1)

modecx (130548) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032375)

Mmmmm... Meat Paste...

Re:Not the entire run (1)

Prien715 (251944) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032041)

Sleep is for the week

Is the spelling of "week" in your sig intentional? If so it's hilarious;)

Re:Not the entire run (1)

Xinef Jyinaer (1044268) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032233)

Way to ruin his pun, jackass.

Re:Not the entire run (1)

skintigh2 (456496) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032275)

The first time I wrote that (at the end of a rambling 5AM email about yet another all-nighter in college) it was not.

Then it became a way of life.

Then I got a job.

Nice start... (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031191)

Not a real fan of the Daily Show (what? I rarely watch the damned TV as it is), but I like that larger companies are at least beginning to make a serious effort (and not just post 380-by-tiny-as-hell resolution clips, then call 'em episodes).

I just wonder what, say, DirecTV and (to a lesser extent due to bundled broadband) Cable TV operators will do once enough people start ditching their video TV subscriptions, or at least curtailing them to a sizeable extent (I realize this is quite a long ways off, but still, I can see more than a couple of operators getting nervous about it).

/P

Might Cut Down on Copyright Violations (2, Interesting)

dprovine (140134) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031195)

One thing this does is solve the problem that people want to share in community something from The Daily Show that they found really funny, but there's no legal way to do it. Now, you can just link to the right clip from your blog, and put your comments, and welcome others.

There may be less need to sue YouTube, because there will be far less reason for anyone to grab a clip and upload it to YouTube in the first place.

It's like the old "common-sense-test" question: if you go into the bathroom and the tub is overflowing, what do you do first? Answer: shut off the water. So they should stop making The Daily Show, and there'd be no problem.

Wait, that wasn't my point at all. This common sense question has nothing to do with the problem. Drat, my analogies never work out!

Not the "Entire" Daily Show archive... (3, Informative)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031203)

Where are the Craig Kilborn eps?

Re:Not the "Entire" Daily Show archive... (1)

IPFreely (47576) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031353)

Where are the Craig Kilborn eps?
I guess the news broke...

and he didn't fix it.

Re:Not the "Entire" Daily Show archive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21031515)

The summary is wrong. They aren't putting up 'The Daily Show', they're putting up 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'. I don't believe Craig Killborn was in 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'.

Re:Not the "Entire" Daily Show archive... (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032649)

The summary is wrong. They aren't putting up 'The Daily Show', they're putting up 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'. I don't believe Craig Kilborn was in 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'.
Wow. You sure burned me on that one.

Now that's news! (1)

jessiej (1019654) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031215)

But for this to really have an effect, Viacom is going to have to tackle some bandwidth issues.

I Also Hope (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031225)

I also hope that someone puts the entire testimony of Stephen Colbert & John Stewart [reuters.com] online from the youtube/viacom trial. I believe they are just as sarcastic and realistic in real life as they are in their shows.

It would be nice to watch the exxpression on the judge and juror's faces as they hear what John & Steve have to say.

that's nice (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031227)

That's nice, but the Daily Show has been on for 11 years now.

Only reason they're doing this: (4, Interesting)

SpectreBlofeld (886224) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031289)

Because nobody will buy DVDs of old news programs and they know it.

I loves me some daily show but... (1)

sdkramer (411640) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031363)

In an era of unparalleled access to data and information and an easy means of transporting it. I wonder if future generations will condemn us for using so much of our resources solely to entertain ourselves.

Just a thought,

Debby Downer

Why is it cut up into 3 minute clips then? (2, Insightful)

MikeUW (999162) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031389)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't really like watching a show that's been sliced and diced into little pieces...I generally prefer the whole thing. I'm sure that having individual parts reduces overall bandwidth for their servers, but could there at least be an option for the whole show? Otherwise, I don't see how this is any better than if someone were to download it at a higher resolution/bitrate from a torrent site.

Re:Why is it cut up into 3 minute clips then? (1)

Sarcasmooo! (267601) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032419)

Are they at least back to back clips? I can't load it obviously, but if they're cutting anything at all, I'll just go to a torrent site. I'm not interested in a highlights reel.

Re:Why is it cut up into 3 minute clips then? (1)

Whyte Panther (868438) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032657)

By slicing it into 3 minute chunks, they add places to stick ads into the middle of the show. That said, most of the video sites that do this choose horrible places to put those divisions, when they could just go where the commercials already go... except then they'd have to be larger chunks.

I watch on my TV, not my computer (5, Interesting)

kherr (602366) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031407)

This is nice and all, but this Flash video crap is stupid. Not only is it not cached properly by web browsers, but people don't watch TV on their tiny computer screens. I watch content via my Apple TV on my gigantic HDTV home theater, I have no interest in sitting at a keyboard waiting for video snippets to load in some Flash video player with a poor user interface.

At least with YouTube I can access the content directly from my Apple TV (not that YouTube has much to offer in their typical 3-second or whatever clips). I suspect if MySpace gets enough video content Apple will eventually add support for that as well. But companies like Viacom and NBC who decide to offer their own site of Flash video are going to find themselves unnecessarily limiting their potential audience. They'd be much smarter to figure out a way to centralize distribution.

Re:I watch on my TV, not my computer (1)

Babbster (107076) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031851)

I won't argue with you about Flash video, which varies wildly from unwatchable to acceptable, but is it Viacom's fault that your AppleTV doesn't support their site (or, apparently, MySpace), or is it Apple's?

It's Apple's "fault" but bad for business (1)

kherr (602366) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032313)

It's technically Apple's fault, and as I said in my original comment Apple can add support for more sites when they feel the need. My point was that, by balkanizing video distribution, companies such as Viacom and NBC run the risk of creating a fractured consumer market. Sure they get some benefits from distributing their own content, but is it enough to offset the loss of viewers? It may be for now, but how about three years from now, or five? How many people won't have integrated internet viewing with their big TVs as opposed to resorting to viewing from a web browser on a computer display?

Re:I watch on my TV, not my computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21032395)

"I watch content via my Apple TV"

Oh, So you are the one who bought Apple TV. Do you know who the other 3 guys are?

Re:I watch on my TV, not my computer (1)

MWoody (222806) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032915)

You're totally right, this youtube thing will never catch on.

Re:I watch on my TV, not my computer (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21033061)

Yup, it's Flash 9 hindered. Which isn't available for my Opera browser, so I can't watch the ads they're trying to sell. I'll wait and catch up on the past episodes when I get the DVDs at a garage sale in 20 years.

Who's the idiot that told slashdot? (1)

spikexyz (403776) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031587)

I was happily watching eposides till some goof submitted it to slashdot. Daft fool!

Re:Who's the idiot that told slashdot? (1)

wizkid (13692) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032235)

Don't blame me! I went to the site and it was SLASHDOT'ED
Bummer!

I Still Won't Watch It (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21031625)

You could tie bows on this show, present it to me on the bare breast of Jessica Alba, and I still wouldn't watch it. I prefer my disinformation from late night radio shows, and not injected under the subtle guise of humor. It's almost like listening to Rush Limbaugh for three hours straight.

Not that you cared, but I am hoping someone out there feels the comfort of solidarity.

Re:I Still Won't Watch It (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21033109)

Ah, that's why there is Mind of Mencia for folks like you. You don't get tricked by nuanced or subtle humor and it makes almost no viable points or observations whatsoever.

Why bother with old shows? (1)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031705)

The Daily Show is news satire. It's relevant for about one or two weeks. Why would anyone want to watch 8 year old episodes?

Re:Why bother with old shows? (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 6 years ago | (#21031989)

People watch old SNLs, which have (esp in Weekend Update) then-topical jokes.

I wish this were full episodes (AND contained the Kilborn years).

Re:Why bother with old shows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21032133)

For one thing, it eventually becomes a historical document. As soon as I can get to site, I want to look for the sketch colbert did on Bush's first inaugeration. I remember some things from it that turned out to be dead on a few years later. Surely you can see the value of thumbing through decades old editorials.

Win Arguments on the Internet (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032057)

This is great. Now when conservatives say that the Daily Show will fail if Hillary gets elected, we can point directly to how badly they ripped into the first Clinton administration.

So... (2, Insightful)

trrwilson (1096985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032063)

How long do you think it will be before someone comes up with a way to automatically view, save, and organize/categorize all these clips? Open DShowDL Wait X hours Ding! Everything!

Yes, thats the ticket, duplicate infrastructures! (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032205)

I wonder what idiot had the idea to fund this project of Viacoms?

Even if they ended up cash positive, it would have been more efficient (not to mention more user friendly!) to have been integrated with a pre-existing online video distribution system.

Of course if YouTube was just unwilling to talk to Viacom, then it is Google who needs to beat someone on the head.

OMFGSEX (1)

Sarcasmooo! (267601) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032281)

My math is terrible and my method was roughly estimated, but not counting commercial time or the last 2 years (which I remember well enough) I'd say I still have about 400 hours of daily show to watch. Maybe someone not as lazy as me can give a better number.

Ooh, Ooh! Saturday Night Live, next? (0)

WheelDweller (108946) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032451)

SNL hasn't been funny for 25 years...and...the Daily Show? Honestly, how many high schoolers ARE there? :>

Big Browser Window (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032677)

Vimeo, already offering 1280X720 HD quality direct from the browser.

Why would I want to watch HD video in my browser? I'd rather watch it full-screen with software designed for playing back video.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>