CrunchyTenor Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Aw, c'mon Stu. You NEVER challenge anyone about anything! EVER! :-) Garry in Vegas 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranintothedoor Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Kind of like my brother using my FN subscription, eh? I read this and I thought, "So, Google... is like... big brother?" I think Fan Network is a fantastic service that is getting better and better, and I have grown to rely on it instead of wasting all kinds of time finding shows on youtube, etc. when I was pinching pennies more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Aw, c'mon Stu. You NEVER challenge anyone about anything! EVER! :-) Garry in Vegas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted June 1, 2013 Author Share Posted June 1, 2013 Just trying to make the off-season on DCP a little more 'spicy'. And by the way, I will always question when a person posts a definitive statement based on a generalization. I DEFINITELY think that generally everyone on DCP think you argue too much. :tongue:/> (Sorry, couldn't resist. We love you, Stu.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted June 1, 2013 Author Share Posted June 1, 2013 I read this and I thought, "So, Google... is like... big brother?" I think Fan Network is a fantastic service that is getting better and better, and I have grown to rely on it instead of wasting all kinds of time finding shows on youtube, etc. when I was pinching pennies more. Nah, nothing that sinister (although your Google comment is true, IMO). Rather, that as there are holes in the WSJ model, there are also holes in the FN. Although, I'm pretty sure there's money moving between Google and the WSJ site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifuarian Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 (edited) The meat and potatoes of the Fan Network - the live streaming - absolutely belongs behind a pay wall. Stuff from the current season - APDs, etc. - too, of course. But I feel the video archives would be of more use to DCI and drum corps as a whole if they were on YouTube. Edited June 1, 2013 by Rifuarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 (edited) Nah, nothing that sinister (although your Google comment is true, IMO). Rather, that as there are holes in the WSJ model, there are also holes in the FN. Although, I'm pretty sure there's money moving between Google and the WSJ site. The hole is no accident. The WSJ wants/needs the click-throughs to their content. Because if people don't know about their content they will starve behind their walls. The parallel with the DCI's fan network is youtube. Finally (after years of inexplicable refusal) DCI figured out that putting their content on Youtube drives interest in the activity and (they hope) more subscriptions to the FN. The intertubes are *still* all about content. The WSJ's content is valueless if no one sees it. As for people sharing a FN account, there's absolutely no harm to DCI in this. You still have only a single PC viewing at a time. This is critical as much of the value of FN is in the live streams. Watching old content is nice and all -- but people give their card number to DCI in order to see those live events. Edited June 1, 2013 by corpsband Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 I DEFINITELY think that generally everyone on DCP think you argue too much. :tongue:/>/> (Sorry, couldn't resist. We love you, Stu.) Aw shucks; I love y'all too; but as Popeye stated' "I yam what I yam". And besides, poking bears in this forum is not only irresistibly fun, it also allows us to not take ourselves too seriously 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 While the public is aware of the few journalists they see on TV or read in the headlines of a Newspaper, most on-the-ground journalists and photographers, the ones who do the actual grunt work, are independent contractors scrambling 60+ hours a week to make a living. So, if we 'all' follow your philosophy, and we 'all' stop paying for news, these journeymen/women will not be able to secure any funding whatsoever to travel to events, research for accuracy, multi-source for verification, and to get paid for their work. Interesting concept in that you want these noble people to do all this work without you helping to pay them so that you can get your 'free' news. well, if the news is really good, they get people to watch and make money off ads... right? btw a lot of news people do not travel to events, research for accuracy, or find multiple sources. There is a lot of terrible reporting out there. You can just look at the Boston bombing situation for one recent high profile example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 well, if the news is really good, they get people to watch and make money off ads... right? Got it; you want other people to pay for ad space so that you can get your free news. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts