DISQUS

Bad joke and bollocksed url, 2 for 2.

I know you don't read the blog but according to [url=http://digihub.theage.com.au/node/275]this[/url] Freeview-branded DVRs won't allow ad skipping. Bang, there's the motive.

It's interesting to hear Tom's ideas about networks offering cheap television downloads to combat file-sharing. The obvious barriers to that are:

1. Such an offering would have to be worldwide, and offered simultaneously *to* everyone worldwide. Copyright laws are such that it simply cant happen without getting ridiculous amounts of permission for just about every piece of content that's to be distributed.

2. No distribution model in the world is currently sufficient. iView and the BBC iPlayer are close, but neither addresses worldwide demand and neither is broadcast quality.

3. I can't think of a single content owner that's willing to give users indefinite access to content without charging a significant fee. Perhaps Apple does through iTunes, but Apple's not the content owner and is facing enough resistance as it is.

4. Too many distributors still believe in divide-and-conquer.

Thing is, though, that file-sharing will actually kill the industry if these issues are not sorted very, very quickly. The above set of points is not a wish list, it's a collection of criteria that must be met if the industry is to survive. We're in an unusual position in which the consumer wields the power.

Oh, and Josh, please announce prematurely the deaths of the following people:

- John Howard
- Stephen Conroy
- Naomi Robson

Seems a bit anachronistic to say 'a huge choice of 12 channels!!' with Foxtel/TiVo/Channel BT doing a better job at television for 23872398749 years now.

I read in an opinion piece somewhere (APC?) that iinet's big enough to make an impact in the press but small enough to be taken down easily.

Sorry to spam but iiNet's response to Conroy's hilarious internet filtering plan is here:

http://iinet.net.au/about/news/internet_filteri...

The statement on the website omits the word 'stupid,' but in principle it's the same as the statement issued to the press a few days ago.

I could spew all manner of invective about whatever the hell Freeview is, but we all know what a disaster that's been. Again, content providers completely clueless about the best way to provide content.

iiNet's IPTV plan sounds nice, but we don't know anything about the content yet.

When most industries identify demand, they create supply to meet it. Not entertainment. Oh, no. The demand for what-you-want-when-you-want it is there, and it's growing because it's very very wonderful, but instead of exploiting the new market and making loads and loads of money, they're suing people and trying to cripple the internet.

But it's more than that. The internet means we can all discuss any content the day it hits screens anywhere in the world. If we play the game the way the industry wants us to, everything is spoiled months before we see it. Obvoiusly, that hurts the industry as well as consumers.

The technology is in place and has been for several years. The content is available in abundance. It's actually happening, and it works extremely well, and 'illegal' file-sharing will continue until a model is put in place that meets this demand, such as a subscription service that does exactly the same job legally. Until that happens, people will continue to nick stuff off the web simply because it's the best service available.

Nutbars.

I quite enjoyed forgetting completely about Still the Beaver. Picking up a turgid mess of a show that just happened to resonate with people in the '60s and reviving it as a turgid mess of a show that would have resonated with people in the '60s if it weren't already the '80s is bad enough an idea, but filling it with wall-to-wall mawkish plots and non-jokes served only to highlight the horrifically rubbish acting by the Beaver guy who - believe it or not - was actually upstaged by the guy who played his older brother so badly in the '60s.

I am stoked. Ross will be missed, though.

Interesting to compare the incesty Neighbous plot with this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/762201...

Obviously Ross is missed, but if John Richards were to stay on as a regular I'd be stoked.

KMJvet1: Is your dislike for Top Gear due to Clarkson's political stance? I'm not casting aspersions, just curious.

Coupling definitely went off the boil. That last season was just awful.

Excellent news. Davies was good, but it's time for a fresh direction.

Incidentally, Moffat's two-parter for this year begins this Sunday in the UK.

Ahhh Queen Josie, as wonderful as ever.

This is apropos of nothing, but I just saw an old (2007) Today Tonight ad complaining that 'NO AUSTRALIANS' are allowed to get a job collecting supermarket trolleys. The ad claims they're all being hogged by (in big red letters) 'SUDANESE' and 'INDIANS' and 'AFRICANS' and 'ASIANS.'

If this were genuine current affairs (yes I know but let's pretend), wouldn't they know that Sudan is in Africa and India is in Asia?

Her existence is totally mystifying. She adds nothing to anything.

Also, the thing about Big Brother that few people (particularly Endemol, apparently) seem to understand about the format is how well a matriarchal host counters the Big Brother character. Despite all her weird moments, Gretel did this very well. Kyle, on the other hand, couldn't be less warm or detached. He doesn't seem to care about the housemates at all. The balance is wrong.

The other enormous problem is how controversy is courted in a show like this. It needs to happen organically. Last year's UK celebrity version hit nerves because two housemates just happened to clash over a few quasi-racist exchanges. This year the Aus version (a) is putting people like Terri and that Corey party boy in the house, in the hope that these actions alone will generate ratings, and (b) has a host who wants to cause controversy. Kyle should be responding to the controversy within the house, not causing it himself.

I've not mentioned Jackie Ho because what's the point.

From TVTonight:

Naomi Robson is heading back to Channel Seven, to narrate the second season of Surf Patrol.

"For me it was a no-brainer," she said.

This woman just walks into these things.

Shareholders don't like risk. That also has a lot to do with it.

Spod Corner (sorry): The BBC only puts a BBC logo on shows it produced in-house. Hartswood produced Jekyll, which is why it didn't have one.

ABC3 has a digital LCN (23), which currently is mapped to a straight ABC1 feed. That's all so far. It's supposed to become a kids' channel.

If what I read last week isn't lying, the ABC has already appointed two people to manage ABC3, a confidence move which will only pay off if Labor gives the channel some money.

Seconded. Too much crap at once in those watermarks.

At least Aunty's not hiding the fact that all this rebranding is copied wholesale from the BBC.

I don't know where to put this. The ABC's new station idents are buried 3-4 minutes into a corporate video here: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newtv/

Really, really impressive. Genuinely.