It was announced earlier this year that Cardinal baseball would once again be back on it's parent station, KMOX, a station that at one time had a signal so strong it could be heard principally coast to coast though it was based in St. Louis, MO.
With the announcement, I was overjoyed. Since I moved to Wisconsin, I've missed listening to the Cardinals play on the radio because a smaller station, the Big 550, had the rights to broadcast the games so in order to listen to the games I had to pay for MLB.com Gameday. With the move, I was under the impression that once again I would be able to listen for free at KMOX.com.
That unfortunately, that is not the case. Today, I found out that instead of the game on KMOX.com, they'll be airing Rush Limbaugh, I have several problems with that but chief among them, is that you used to have to pay to listen to him on the computer, I think. (At least, that's what the Big 550 said on their website when I was looking for the Cardinal games last year.)
Now, I realize that Major League Baseball is a money making operation but I find it hard to swallow that a station like KMOX buys the rights to broadcast the games but can't broadcast them over the internet like their other programs such as Rush Limbaugh. This is something seriously wrong with that. The MLB made their money when they sold the rights to broadcast to KMOX. Why do they feel, they should feel entitled to make more money from the fans.
It's just rediculous. I mean I'll probably pay for them but I remember when I didn't have to and that's what sucks (for me anyway).
Thanks for reading this and feel free to share your opinions on the change to radio to be like TV. Or anything along those lines. We already have a thread about Rush and programs like his, so we don't need another.
I mean, you don't pay for it, but sponsors do.
*shrug*
I don't listen to anything except Talk on the radio anyway... and Rush is one of my favorites.
I know it's well within the rights of MLB to limit the rights of those they sell the airing rights to but it seems extremely greedy to me.
I know it's well within the rights of MLB to limit the rights of those they sell the airing rights to but it seems extremely greedy to me.
Agreed.
It does seem that way.
Thanks ZB. I've always felt satisfied with free radio and so felt no need to go XM, though I've heard its pretty awesome without being held to the same censorship as free radio. Maybe it's something I'll look into. It's hard for an old dog to learn new tricks though, as the saying goes.
There's still rule, just less. And not every channel allows explicit content. Only those with the 'XL' label do. I prefer those.
We'll be right back after a few words from out sponsors.
(three minutes of commericals later)
And we're back. Now what was it I was saying again?
Radio wasn't free. I've already said I realized that. But whatever, seems like everyone wants to pick apart my posts and take the most literal meaning. Okay, that's great.
I'm done. You all can keep this stuff. I'm outta here.
Been nice talkin' to ya'll but I've had enough.
But whatever, seems like everyone wants to pick apart my posts and take the most literal meaning. Okay, that's great.But whatever, seems like everyone wants to pick apart my posts and take the most literal meaning. Okay, that's great.
Welcome to the OTT...
I'm done. You all can keep this stuff. I'm outta here.
Been nice talkin' to ya'll but I've had enough.
You're a teepee. You're a wigwam. You're a teepee. You're a wigwam.
It makes sense from the MLB's perspective. They sell local rights to some stations, then sell more rights to national stations, then sell more to satelite radio stations, then sell rights to local TV....you see where I'm going with this.
Anyone who broadcasts the game over the internet for free is directly affecting MLB's bottom line.
Point made.
Radio wasn't free. I've already said I realized that. But whatever, seems like everyone wants to pick apart my posts and take the most literal meaning. Okay, that's great.
I'm done. You all can keep this stuff. I'm outta here.
Been nice talkin' to ya'll but I've had enough.
If you were having a face-to-face conversation with someone and said "radio used to be free", and they responded "but what about commercials", would you say "seems like everyone wants to pick apart my posts and take the most literal meaning. I'm done. You all can keep this stuff. I'm outta here"?
Despite all the jackholes who treat this place like a junior debate club is is a discussion forum. It is like a friendly conversation where we each take turns talking. Getting bent out of shape about it and taking everything so personally is both uncalled for and, I'm sorry to say, a little immature.
And yes, before you get really upset about that and feel like you're being picked on, it is not directed exclusively towards you.
Thanks ZB. I've always felt satisfied with free radio and so felt no need to go XM, though I've heard its pretty awesome without being held to the same censorship as free radio. Maybe it's something I'll look into. It's hard for an old dog to learn new tricks though, as the saying goes.
If you have something like DirectTV (specifically mentioned because I know they offer this) or some other Satellite TV provider, look around. Sometimes the standard package they have includes music channels that are actually the satellite radio channels. DirectTV uses Sirius/XM; and I'm actually pretty satisfied with them.
"radio used to be free", and they responded "but what about commercials",
Funny, where I live, you can still listen to the radio without paying yourself for anything but the electricity - because of the commersials. So what's this about "used to be"?
Of course, now you have additional choices. Your Cable TV service might come with commercial-free music channels. And there are subscription "Internet Radio" services - which, I presume was what was being bewailed by the comparison with real radio - which, of course, still exists.
Why are Internet radio services not paid for by commercials? Perhaps because they're not big and well-known enough? Something to do with people finding it more convenient to record the music from these services? The bandwidth being limited, so that commercials would be too wasteful in that environment?
So I will agree that it's not really that legitimate a complaint. Subscription radio - over the Internet, or through satellite services - is an additional choice. It hasn't killed off regular radio, it just lets people pay for a pure music experience with more choices in the kind of music you hear. But it isn't for everyone, and so preferring the old-fashioned free radio isn't wrong either (and the fact that sponsors pay for it is irrelevant to that preference).
But, R_H already pointed to commercials saying it isn't free. However, listening to the radio doesn't cost the person listening to it anything but the time required to listen to the commercials. Saying that radio isn't free is like saying the ipods a store decides to give away aren't free because you had to stand in line to recieve them.
It's true but you didn't have to pay money for the item you recieved, someone else did. That's what I was saying and I thought it was apparent.
And on another note, I said that I think a show seems to be for pervs and two people decided I was calling my wife a perv for watching it.
Using your example, if someone called my wife a perv while standing face to face with them, I'd punch them in the frickin' mouth. I implied nothing with the "seems like a show for pervs". People made an inferance and said something they shouldn't have but I'm the guy in the wrong for defending my wife.
I don't know anyone that would stand by and let their wife be insulted but apparently that's exactly what I was supposed to do simply because this is the frickin' internet.
Yup. Cuz people on the internet don't matter.
QFT.
Thanks ZB, I needed that.
And on another note, I said that I think a show seems to be for pervs and two people decided I was calling my wife a perv for watching it.
The first time I met one of my friend's fiancée I called her a pervert. But I had proof: she laughed at my jokes.
I don't know anyone that would stand by and let their wife be insulted but apparently that's exactly what I was supposed to do simply because this is the frickin' internet.
Heh...
Last time I stood up for myself and threatened violence, I was called an internet tough guy...but not to my face of course...
I feel ya buddy, I really do...
And on another note, I said that I think a show seems to be for pervs and two people decided I was calling my wife a perv for watching it.
The first time I met one of my friend's fiancée I called her a pervert. But I had proof: she laughed at my jokes.
You got jokes?!
Real jokes, or goldo-jokes?
Fair enough, Boraxe.
But, R_H already pointed to commercials saying it isn't free. However, listening to the radio doesn't cost the person listening to it anything but the time required to listen to the commercials. Saying that radio isn't free is like saying the ipods a store decides to give away aren't free because you had to stand in line to recieve them.
It's true but you didn't have to pay money for the item you recieved, someone else did. That's what I was saying and I thought it was apparent.
And on another note, I said that I think a show seems to be for pervs and two people decided I was calling my wife a perv for watching it.
Using your example, if someone called my wife a perv while standing face to face with them, I'd punch them in the frickin' mouth. I implied nothing with the "seems like a show for pervs". People made an inferance and said something they shouldn't have but I'm the guy in the wrong for defending my wife.
I don't know anyone that would stand by and let their wife be insulted but apparently that's exactly what I was supposed to do simply because this is the frickin' internet.
I think you are taking it way too seriously. All I said was call the cops on your wife. It was a silly little joke. You just got all riled up... the same way you did here. I'm sorry for making the joke. Didn't meanto upset you so much. I thought you would have been able to take it as the joke that it was.
You got jokes?!
Real jokes, or goldo-jokes?
... Goldo has jokes?
Fair enough, Boraxe.
But, R_H already pointed to commercials saying it isn't free. However, listening to the radio doesn't cost the person listening to it anything but the time required to listen to the commercials. Saying that radio isn't free is like saying the ipods a store decides to give away aren't free because you had to stand in line to recieve them.
It's true but you didn't have to pay money for the item you recieved, someone else did. That's what I was saying and I thought it was apparent.
And on another note, I said that I think a show seems to be for pervs and two people decided I was calling my wife a perv for watching it.
Using your example, if someone called my wife a perv while standing face to face with them, I'd punch them in the frickin' mouth. I implied nothing with the "seems like a show for pervs". People made an inferance and said something they shouldn't have but I'm the guy in the wrong for defending my wife.
I don't know anyone that would stand by and let their wife be insulted but apparently that's exactly what I was supposed to do simply because this is the frickin' internet.
Or you could recognize an obvious joke when you see one, such as the "perv" ones and the one I made earlier in this thread.
Seriously man, you need to lighten up.
You got jokes?!
Real jokes, or goldo-jokes?
... Goldo has jokes?
Well...
no.
It's not very nice to insult everyone that enjoys said show, and then get violent when people state that since your wife watches it, you are stating she must be a perv herself.
I don't find the joke very funny but I guess that doesn't matter. But hey, I have been asked more than once to drop it, so I will. No biggy. I'll just refrain from posting anything about my wife on this board. Problem solved.
I am sorry dude. This place sucks sometimes.
...
*decides not to go there*
*walks away*