10 comments

• 

  Adam D

  7 months ago

  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.
  reply
• 

  Adam D

  7 months 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.
  reply
• 

  Adam D

  7 months ago

  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.
  reply
• 

  westivan

  7 months ago

  According to the Freeview website, the 15 channels will be 3 channels from each of the 5 networks: ABC1, ABC2, ABCHD, 7, 7HD, 7SD, 9, 9HD, 9SD, and so on. There's no mention of anything "exclusive" or "unique", they're the same as anyone else who has HD equipment will watch.
  
  Oooh, wait, if I get a Freeview-branded TV, STB or PVR, no doubt paying a huge premium on top of the price of a non-Freeview-branded equivalent, I'll get their EPG. Wow. I'm going to go and queue up at Hardly Normal right now so I don't miss out. Not.
  
  On a side note, we play "guess the voice-over artiste" at our place, and we reckon Teo Gebert from Play School does the Freeview ad.
  reply
• 

  Mike Beckham

  7 months ago

  My hidden shame is actually Swift & Shift. I know what it is, but I some how find myself attracted to it. Maybe I just like Ian Turpie in shorts?
  reply
• 

  alex boxcutter

  7 months ago

  You know I don't think that was the UK stig on oz top gear.
  I base this on no known facts just the way stiggy was in the cars doing his laps.
  
  In UK top gear he seems to sit straight and still. whereas in the 2 eps I watched of oz top gear he was shifting in his seat and was leaning his head forward.
  
  Doesn't mean a thing to anyone but if anyone has any time go and watch some footage of the UK stig then watch a few of the oz stig and tell me if you think it's the same person going solely by his body language/driving position.
  reply
• 

  iann

  7 months ago

  I like Eureka. The first season was very good, and you can play a quick game at the start of each episode of 'spot the plot source' (which book/film/idea they've taken this week's story from). Kind of a nerdy version of spot the pop culture reference.
  
  The second season was a bit less so, but had a better story arc, and the third looked like they were getting desperate for a good plot line. I had the same thoughts about Dark Angel.
  
  Top Gear Australia is taking too long to develop its own personality. The hosts try to emulate Clarkson &co, but don't seem to believe even their own rants, and some of the segments in the first season were, to use their phrase "what were they thinking?" It's OK, but it can only get better.
  reply
• 

  Brett Cropley

  7 months ago

  @alex: I didn't really pay that much attention to the Stig's driving position but I figure there's going to be a bit of difference caused by the track - namely: being so short; going in and out of gullies; avoiding livestock wandering over the track from the neighbouring paddocks; and trying to keep out of the take-off paths of the light planes using the track/airport at the time.
  
  He was probably also cringing, as I was, at the names of the various elements of the track - "The Question Mark", "Clarkson", "4", "The Chicane" - not actually a chicane at all but a couple of plastic barriers stuck in the middle of the track - "06" and "The Bus Stop" - on top of Cox's inane commentary.
  
  @iann: The 'What were they thinking' board was so painful, not only for the forced audience participation in chanting the name of the board - complete with incorrect emphasis - but also the floppy photo printouts attached to the board by a single pin - often resulting in the picture not hanging straight.
  
  As for only getting better, I think Charlie Cox passed any semblance of usefulness sometime back in the 80s and the show doesn't have a hope until they dump that dead weight. There are issues with the other two but they're salvageable.
  reply
• 

  Noodlez

  7 months ago

  I realise this is a week late, stupid shaping, but I am pretty sure the reasoning to sue iiNet came down to a few factors.
  
  1) iinet is not a small company. Since it has purchased Westnet, I am pretty sure it makes it the number 3 telco in Australia, so if they can win against iinet, then they have grounds to start on all the other ISPs.
  
  2) Optus do infact pass on the cease and desist orders and have closed down several accounts for multiple infringements.
  
  3) If they went after Telstra, their army of lawyers would just put it in hold pretty much indefinitely, so there is no point trying there.
  
  Heres hoping that common sense wins for once and iiNet win this, otherwise I think out already crap internet will get even worse.
  reply
• 

  Adam D

  7 months ago

  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.
  reply