As we move more and more into a digital world where we get just about everything we need from the Internet, well entertainment wise at least, we are finding the more traditional outlets for our entertainment needs taking a hit. We have seen it happen with music as digital downloads have surpassed the sale of physical media, like CDs, for the first time ever and we are starting to see it happening in other mediums as well with the increasing sale of e-books as a strong indicator.

One of the buzz words that is making the rounds in this changing landscape is ‘cord cutters’ and it refers to those people who have ditched the standard way of getting their television entertainment courtesy of cable companies, and instead, rely on getting their television show fix via the Web using services like Netflix and Hulu.

This of course has cable companies and television networks more than a little concerned but as much as tech pundits might like to think otherwise, and as Nielsen’s new report show, traditional television isn’t going anywhere. That isn’t to say that ‘cord cutting’ isn’t on the rise, it is, but traditional cable television subscriptions are still the way that 90% of Americans get their TV fix.

One of the interesting interpretation of the numbers from Nielsen is that is would appear that those people who are sticking with cable subscriptions watch more television, at 4 hours and 39 minutes per day, than those who have cut the cord and rely on the Web for their ‘television’ fix; which according to Nielsen is about half the time than traditional TV viewers.

As Frederic Lardinois at Silicon Filter noted on the news this ‘cord cutting’ demographic will likely change as younger viewers grow up.

What will definitely matter in the long run, though, is that younger Americans (12-34) now watch less TV per day than before. Teenagers in 2011 watched nine minutes fewer day than in 2010, for example, and young adults between 18 and 24 watch six fewer minutes per day. The only reason overall TV watching is up, according to the NYTimes’ Brian Stelter, is because those over 65 are watching more TV “than ever before.”

As these younger viewers grow up, traditional TV will likely never quite play the same role for today’s teenagers and young adults as for their parents. Video content, after all, is video content, no matter whether you stream it to a tablet, a Boxee box or your phone. Indeed, watching live TV probably feels rather antiquated to many younger Internet users.

Personally if it wasn’t for my wife telling me that I had better sleep with one eye open if I cut the cord I’d be getting all my entertainment strictly from the web.

Nielsen says cord cutters on the rise but traditional television not going anywhere is a post from: The Inquisitr

Nichelle Nichols has a lot to say about her life as Lt. Nyota Uhura on television’s Star Trek.

Star Trek was launched in 1966.  During that time the Civil Rights movement had really began to take hold.  Martin Luther King Junior was leading a boycott of the Alabama bus system and southern blacks were beginning to see some level of change.

When Nichols took the role on Star Trek she had no idea the level of history she was making for a black women in Hollywood.

Nichols told the Huffington Post,

“It didn’t hit me at the time until somebody told me. I splashed onto the TV screen at a propitious historical moment. Black people were marching all over the South. Dr. King was leading people to freedom, and here I was, in the 23rd century, fourth in command of the Enterprise.”

Nichols went on to tell the HuffPost what was going on in the country when she took the role,

“Oh, man, there were parts of the South that wouldn’t show ‘Star Trek’ because this was an African American woman in a powerful position, and she wasn’t a maid or tap dancer.”

While she was filming episodes of Star Trek she said she never faced any adversity on set but she did when she was forced to use a separate gate from the white actors.

“That’s right. There were instances where I was turned away from entering the studio at the walk-on gate, and I had to go all the way around to the front gate, sign-in and come back. A guard on the set told me I had no right being there — that they had replaced a blue-eyed blonde with me. I went through crap, man. Racism was alive and rampant there. Some people said I wasn’t good enough, saying things like, ‘I don’t know how you got this role.’ And they kept waiting for me to complain and raise hell about it, but I decided to ignore it. I never went to Gene [Roddenberry] about it.”

She even said that the show photographer was a racist on the set.

But it all change3d when she had the first interracial kiss ever with Captain Kirk.  This had never been seen before on American Television sets.

Do you think Nichelle Nichols was a groundbreaking figure?

Watch an interview with Nichelle Nichols

Nichelle Nichols on Having First Televised Interacial Kiss on Star Trek [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

With the start of January comes another round of a scoop filled month at the Television Critics Association’s winter press tour, with highly anticipated insider info from the creators and writers of some of the best television shows in prime time.

At the same token there’s also some insight from studio executives who are usually unseen figures (with the exception of the Upfronts in May) that make the big calls usually around this time  for renewals, premature cancellations and show shuffles.

Earlier today ABC president Paul Lee said that Courteney Cox’s (is she still an Arquette these days?) Cougar Town may be benched, but it certainly isn’t out for the count, stating that “The reality is I think Cougar Town is having one of its best [seasons].We haven’t yet landed on where it’s going to go, but it’s tentatively in there for March. We’re going to give it a good launching pad… We will be [announcing a premiere date] in a couple weeks.”

Sounds promising. Unlike the case for the lone soap opera show General Hospital whose future remains uncertain. Regarding its future Lee went on to say that he doesn’t have a time frame to make the call for cancellation yet.

In terms of experimenting with its schedule Lee isn’t shying away from anything out of the ordinary. A whole new comedy night will be created and don’t be surprised if you see Cougar Town in the mix along with Happy Endings and midseason newcomer Don’t Trust the B—- in  the James Van Der Beek’s satirized comedy Apartment 23. “It will be great to have a group of great irreverent comedies together. That’s the dream.”

The shuffling around doesn’t stop there! Thursday night’s 10pm slot is going to get either pretty interesting or remain dead very quickly with a new series from Grey’s Anatomy/Private Practice creator Shonda Rhimes called Scandal. The creator’s Private Practice will move from its regularly scheduled time slot to Tuesday’s at 10pm following the Dancing With The Stars results show.

Latsly, if you’re bored with what’s already on your television screen, ABC has a slew of midseason replacements and spring replacements with Apartment 23 premiering on April 11th on Wednesday’s at 9:30pm,  and Scandal which premieres on April 5th on Thursday’s at 10pm.

ABC President Talks Cougar Town, Private Practice, General Hospital is a post from: The Inquisitr

This is likely to be a TV first, two TV show hosts in the Netherlands decided this week to see what human meat tastes like by devouring each others flesh in front of a live studio audience.

The feat took place on Preojfkonijen hosted by Dennis Storm and Valerio Zeno. 

The shows name translates to Test Rabbits so I can’t say I’m surprised to hear about such a weird act of depravity.

Speaking with ABCNews.com Storm said of the show:

“The punchline of the show is to get really simple answers on stupid questions, such as, ‘Can you shave with ketchup’ or ‘Can you drive blind?’” while adding, “And we wanted to find out how human flesh tasted.”

The human meat was taken from Storm’s buttock and Zeno’s abdomen (by way of professional surgery) and then fried in a pan with sunflower oil, salt and a dash of pepper to preserve the meat’s natural flavoring.

Storm said of the excursion:

“We went to the butcher, the surgeon and the studio, then we looked at each other and just ate it …The special thing was, it was his flesh, of course.”

Speaking with ABC Storm said he wasn’t impressed with the taste of the meet:

“Nothing is really that special when you’re talking about the taste of meat … But it is weird to look into the eyes of a friend when you are chewing on his belly.”

Each host only ate approximately one centimeter of flesh, hardly enough to go with a baked potato and glazed carrots plate.

The show will air in the Netherlands on Wednesday.

Would you be willing to try a taste of human meat?

TV Show Hosts Eat Each Others Flesh On Live Television is a post from: The Inquisitr

I just finished getting my own copy of the recent comedy show that Louis CK put on and then made available via the web for the amazing price of $5; and you know what .. it was one of the best online buying experiences that I have had. I mean it only took entering in my email address, paying for the video via PayPal, and then selecting the quality of the video I wanted to download, and with no DRM included.

It is a process that the television would do well to mimic and maybe then we wouldn’t be seeing Top 10 Most Pirated TV-Shows of <insert year here> type posts showing up this time of the year. Oh sure it wouldn’t get rid of them entirely, just as Louis CK’s experiment didn’t stop some idiots from uploading and sharing the video via torrent sites.

As for what television shows did get pirated this past year TorrentFreak has put together a list of the top 10 victims which are:

Interestingly TorrentFreak also made note that TV-show downloads in the United States has actually been declining; but of course the networks say otherwise.

Television 2011 and the top 10 most pirated television shows is a post from: The Inquisitr

Talk about art mimicking life here.

Apparently the television show Law & Order: SVU was down at the Zuccotti Park to film a segment of an upcoming show that included a whole “Occupy” theme, and it seems that the real occupiers didn’t appreciate the art aspect of this.

This lead to members of the Occupy Wall Street movement heading down to their old stomping grounds to have a little bit of fun as they toted signs saying that they were a movement not some silly television plot line. All this was also being chanted while the NBC crews were trying to film some scene of the show.

According to a report on Huffington Post this was all meant in good fun.

“People did it in the spirit of absurdity and fun,” said Han Shan. “We like to come together in public space and share ideas and show our vision through our action and we’re doing that tonight with a good bit of jest and big fat smiles on our faces.”

Needless to say NBC wasn’t seeing much humor in the spectacle because within an hour the area was flooded with NYPD’s finest who announced that the city had rescinded the filming permit.

via Hollywood Reporter

Law & Order SVU gets “Occupied” during filming [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Television networks and advertising companies already do a lot of monitoring of our television habits but for the most part the current methods are archaic given all the technology we have but a new company in San Francisco looks to change all that.

The company, Flingo, has come up with a technology referred to as “Sync Apps” that TV companies are hoping to feature in televsions buy the end of the year and it looks to change how our television usage is monitored. I twill be able to report your viewing to websites and online advertisers in realtime.

Here’s how it works:

 A television equipped with Sync Apps keeps tabs on everything you’re watching in real time (this could be anything from cable television, to DVDs, to video files shared over your home network). Then Sync Apps sends the information to a server that identifies whatever you’re watching. Computers, laptops, tablets, mobile devices — anything sharing the same network connection as your television — can then tap into that information to display relevant web content on the fly. If the channel on your television changes, so does what you see on the web. And here’s where the money is: Data collected and analyzed by Sync Apps will also be made available to social networking sites and advertising companies.

via io9

While this technology can supposedly turned off by the consumer I still get a bad feeling when I read about technology like this.

A technology that monitors your television usage isn’t science fiction anymore is a post from: The Inquisitr

Netflix is a major force on the web as they continue to grow and take a large percentage of our online viewing time. The company is constantly looking at ways to grow its audience  but the one thing that the company has stayed away from, especially after shutting down its Red Envelope indie film division, is getting behind original content made just for Netflix.

Well according to a report out of Deadline Hollywood this could be about to change given that Netflix has outbid several traditional old media networks for the series “House of Cards”. The deal is reported to be in the neighborhood of $100 million,or more.

For a company that has only 20 million subscribers, in contrast to the cable networks which have 127 million subscribers, this could be a huge gamble but one that if it pays off could hold big dividends for Netflix. Not to mention giving the cable executives yet another reason to be stocking up on cases of aspirins.

The $100 Million bet by Netflix to get into the original content game is a post from: The Inquisitr

If you like Glee, you’ll totally be into a threesome.

Dig weight-loss shamefest The Biggest Loser? Not so creative then, are you? Into The Office? You’re probably very self-satisfied and think you’re cleverer than you actually are. People who dig Family Guy are anti-authority, according to the market research, and those who like Dancing With The Stars are the opposite, as well as being totally into celebrity gossip.

The research was conducted by Mindset Media on 25,000 viewers about 70 shows. The data was examined in response to marketers who “already use their data online to target customers by psychographics or personality mindset online” to see if it could be extrapolated to “offline media, like TV.” Ad Age got to see the data on seven shows:

They shared data with Ad Age from seven shows that are on many media buyers’ short lists already. Mindset detailed not only what common personality traits they claim each show is more likely to attract, but offered a sample of advertisers that it believes are more likely, or less likely, to appeal to people with those personalities.

You can peep the whole list here, and see if your brand loyalties match up with your favorite shows.

[via Gawker]

What your favorite shows tell marketers about you is a post from: The Inquisitr

There is no doubt that the Internet has forever changed our entertainment industry. Even though the power brokers in the industry are doing everything they can to keep their talons wrapped tightly around the creation and distribution of what we watch and listen to the world of entertainment is in a total state of flux.

From things like the Roku box, Boxee, Netflix, Amazon and Apple the landscape of how we find and watch our entertainment, be it television shows or movies, has shifted and continues to shift. Rather than having to watch the things we like at a time and day that the entertainment companies think we should we are able to pick when, and just importantly – where, we watch what we want to watch.

Except, what about serendipity?

What about those favorite programs that we came across totally by accident the first time because we were surfing the channels out of boredom?

This was a point that David Worthington at Technologizer raised a few days ago in a post and it got me thinking about this whole thing.

I know many people who have “unplugged” themselves from the shackles of costly year-long contracts. Why pay for channels that you don’t watch? Those people are typically more technically savvy than most of the population. I just recently upgraded my mother’s 1980s big screen TV to an HDTV.

My mother and I find what’s on TV in much the same way: we channel surf or use a “guide.” There are more than a few shows that drew me in by happenstance. AMC’s “Breaking Bad” is my favorite “accident.” Internet TV is surfing with a net, keeping us in the familiar, and not venturing out into the unexplored.

Sure, Internet TV has media guides that showcase featured content, but where does that leave programs that aren’t already in the spotlight? Would Internet TV allow me to stumble onto a “Twilight Zone” rerun at 3 AM? Sometimes randomness is nice – I don’t always like to know exactly what I’m looking for.

Would Mad Men be the hit it is if not first discovered by accident by some folks who then shared it with all their friends? How about Glee, or Dexter, or Sons of Anarchy?

There is something to be said for the joy of finding something totally by chance and instantly realizing that you have a new favorite show, which you then share with all your friends.

So one has to wonder if by removing that option to boredom surf if we aren’t actually having a negative impact on the quality of the shows we discover and watch. By removing that serendipitous moment because watching entertainment has become a ‘destination’ rather than a winding road are we removing the chances of finding that next great hit?

Is the Internet actually destroying the ‘surprise’ of television? is a post from: The Inquisitr

I think just about every geek, science or otherwise, has heard of the Bad Astronomy blog which is the home of Dr. Phil Plait and where he goes about debunking a lot of our science related myths and urban legends.

Well it looks like Discovery is going to be bring the good doctor to television in a show called Bad Universe that looks to be structured along the lines of the ever popular Mythbusters show. I definitely think I’;ll be dialling into watch this one.

Like Bad Astronomy? You’ll love the live version of it. is a post from: The Inquisitr

One doesn’t think of emotion when watching ads regardless of how much spin advertisers might like to to wrap their usual dreck in. Nor does one think of seeing a homeless man as the center piece of an ad unless of course it is for some goodie two shoes charity.

While Momentos might not be considered an ad in the typical sense it is one of those new style of ads that we are seeing in a growing number on the web. The only indication that it might even be an ad is that the televisions used are all LG’s but even then it is really a muted appearance.

In truth this is a beautiful human moment that regardless of the fact that it is an extended advertisement for LG is touching and lets you forget that you are being advertised to. Nicely done.

hat tip to Random Good Stuff

One of the most touching ‘ads’ you will ever see is a post from: The Inquisitr

I realize that it was inevitable; in light of the predictable let’s turn every movie 3D move by the movie companies, that the television manufactures would jump on the 3D bandwagon. In both cases however the idea, while interesting in moderation is nothing but a pain in the ass money grabbing move.

As far as I am concerned there is almost nothing stupider than think that 3D television is going to be the greatest thing to hit home entertainment. Sure the idea of being the first on the block with the next great thing might be enough of a reason to rush out to Best Buy the moment these beaut’s hit the shelves but the cost of the actual television is only the first attack on your wallet.

Fellow Canuck Kris Abel has a nice list of some of the things you are going to need to keep in mind as you sign away your first born for this crap.

1. There Are Five Pieces Of Equipment Involved

You cannot watch a 3D movie without:

a 3D television

a transmitter

at least one pair of 3D glasses

a 3D blu-ray player

and a 3D blu-ray movie disc

2. Samsung 3D Glasses Will Not Work On A Panasonic 3D Television

3. Some Televisions Are “3D Ready” or “3D Capable”

In other words cha-ching cha-ching as manufacturers head off to the bank laughing their collective asses off at the rubes conned once more into parting with their money. I bet they are wishing this could come in 3D – they’d probably post it on their office walls.

top image courtesy of danorbit Flickrstream

That sucking sound you hear as 3D television makers laugh all the way to the bank? It’s your wallet crying. is a post from: The Inquisitr

One of the biggest things that both the freetard and the Web 2.0 warm and fuzzy crowd have been trying to implant in our heads is that the future of media is online and it will be free. Not free as in beer but rather geotargeted social media data-mined we know what you really want type of advertising.

It’s kinda cute to watch all the hype fly by but really when you stop and give your head a shake – to get rid of the hot air that has built up around you – the reality is far different from the propaganda.

For all the talk about openness and sharing we are slowly finding ourselves being sucked into the same game that has played itself in our real world.

Which considering that this is all happening within a landscape where battles have been fought over everything from operating systems to browsers this spineless walk like a lamb into the wolves dens is both sad and hilarious to see happen.

Facebook has become the defacto center of the social media world with it’s brain sucking games and never ending sucking up of user data. Google still remains the only way to get on the Internet for a large number of people. Newspapers and magazines are planning a return to paywalls while they trace the cross on their Armani covered chests in the desperate hope Apple will save their collective asses.

Television – not long ago thought to be the latest conquest by geotarded web start-ups – is finding that things are better in the warm embrace of their longtime masters the cable companies. After all why anger those already paying billions of dollars per year just because some nubile start-ups is promising untold fortunes.

It is true that the future of media will be on the Web – that is inevitable – but the thought that it will be free and dominated by a new breed of whiz kids flush with money from some web start-up sale to a dinosaur is looking to be more of a fantasy.

Sure it’s a nice fantasy to have but as broadband providers implement caps and more expensive packages, not to mention the wireless carriers rubbing their hands in glee over the rise in smartphones as they charge for both data and voice, even getting to the Web is getting costly. Once there it is all about subscription this and subscription that. It’s about playing games that suck up all your data and market it to advertisers and companies.

We might like to believe the garbage hype about how everything is new on the Web but the fact is for the most part it is just a rehash of the same old stuff we’ve been doing for as long as we can remember only now – in the end – we’ll have less choice.

Our online media world is beginning to look like .. well .. our offline media world is a post from: The Inquisitr

As broadband get faster and more people are switching their viewing habits to the web television networks are beginning to seriously look at moving their television shows to services like iTunes. A lot of noise has been made recently due to the announcement of the iPad from Apple about a 99 cent pricing scheme for television series episodes.

On the surface this sounds like a great deal right?

Sure for the occasional viewer of television it is a great deal but if you are an avid television watcher and have your favorite shows that you just can’t miss this is gonna be another case of being nickeled and dimed to death.

To give you an idea of how quickly all these 99 cent deals can add up let’s use my television viewing preferences (and I really don’t watch all that much) and see just how much this will really cost. Here’s my current list of favorite shows and the number of episodes per season:

• CSI – 24 EP
• CSI: New York – 25 EP
• Criminal Minds – 19 EP
• Bones – 26 EP
• NCIS – 25 EP
• NCIS: Los Angeles – 18 EP
• Fringe – 20 EP
• Castle – 17 EP
• Lie To Me  - 16 EP
• Numb3rs – 23 EP
• Flashpoint – 13 EP
• The Mentalist – 17 EP
• Sanctuary – 13 EP

This isn’t even taking into account the television shows that my wife watches; which is a lot more than I do, but as it stands this totals out to 256 episodes.

So what would this cost me if I was able to buy them from iTunes works out to $253 but when you take into account my wife’s viewing habits I could safely double this to $506 for one season of television shows.

Now add onto this all the movies that we’re suddenly suppose to want to download and watch and we can safely add on another hundred bucks over the year – or more.

The other cost that isn’t being taken into account here is our ISP costs which given that they want to start instituting bandwidth and or download caps based on tiers we will see those costs go up as well.

Sure the idea of getting all our entertainment via the Internet might seem like a great idea but you can be sure that it isn’t gonna be a cheap one.

The facts about those 99cent TV shows on the web – it’s gonna be expensive is a post from: The Inquisitr

The last really big shake-up that came to television was the advent of cable but since that point it has really subsided back into business as usual. The same crap but on 500 channels that we are forced to buy into as the good is bundled with the bad. There has been a lot of talk about a la carte style programming which is suppose to allow subscribers to pay for only the channels they want but to this point both networks and cable companies have been resistant.

Then along comes broadband speeds and an increasing willingness of people to turn to the Web for their video fix. Even though heavily geotarded sites like Hulu show us that it is possible to find a growing audience for series type television shows. This of course followed on the heels of sites like iTunes where you could download shows for a set price.

Now I might not agree with the idea that Apple is anywhere near knee-capping the cable companies but any discussions that entail consumers being able to have control over their own viewing habits is one we should be having. It is in this environment that we are finding ourselves and the television networks and cable companies may not have the control they think they do over the whole scenario.

Since word broke that Apple is talking to television networks about some sort of subscription service that would see consumers being able to subscribe to individual show series’ the cable companies are making noises that they want the same kind of deal.

“If Disney and CBS believe this is the model to embrace, it’s worth pondering whether they’ll embrace that for all distributors,” said Melinda Witmer, Time Warner Cable’s chief programming officer.

The Time Warner Cable comments underscore how much Apple’s possible subscription service threatens to fray the television ecosystem. TV companies make money by selling bundles of channels to Time Warner Cable, Comcast Corp., DirecTV Group Inc. and other distributors through which roughly nine out of ten American households watch TV.

If TV programmers agree to let distributors select piecemeal channels to sell to consumers, it could threaten smaller cable channels such as News Corp.’s Fuel TV and Lifetime Movie Network, owned by Disney,  Hearst Corp.  and NBC Universal.  It also could push down the overall payments TV-network owners receive from cable-TV, satellite and telecom companies.

Source: Wall Street Journal

This transition to consumer choice in television viewing via Internet isn’t a matter of ‘if’ anymore but rather of ‘when’ and who is going to be the first to cross that line. It will result in the biggest transition in television that we have ever seen and it scares the hell out of the networks because they will not have the same control anymore.

For consumers it will truly be television on demand and only what you want to watch without being burden by a bunch of stuff you will never end up watching. It will also have a profound effect on the very television shows that we watch and this is worrisome to the networks as well because it is no longer a world of national blockbuster shows but rather niche blockbusters.

For advertisers this will only be an extension of the hell that they are already going through with the transition of print to web. The last bastion of their dominance really is the television world as it is now. As television changes, as print has, advertisers are going to find that ad fragmentation and the importance of niche groups will only increase as will the difficulty in finding ways to maximize this new territory.

There is one bottleneck to this transition though that no-body is addressing and that is the cable companies, as well as the telecommunication companies, hold the keys to this new television landscape. It is interesting that at the very time that companies like Netflix are increasing their availability of streaming movies and television companies are looking to do the same thing with their products the broadband providers are increasingly capping consumer accounts.

On one hand the cable companies are wanting to offer up the same kind of subscription deals as well as provide the pipe for other companies providing such a deal but on the other hand they are telling consumers that they are going to need more expensive plans to enjoy these new services. It is one thing to offer up television series’ subscriptions but all those shows will count against any caps you might now have imposed. Caps that once you go over will either have you paying extra for every byte over or you could see your account degraded to dial-up speeds.

As it stands right now both the television industry and the broadband provider business are trying to position themselves where they are still in control and they are making more money than before. In effect it isn’t about giving the consumer real choice but rather about stalling as long as possible until they can be sure that the status quo doesn’t change all that much and they can still screw the consumer.

There might indeed be a shake-up coming but I’d be willing to bet that when all is said and done the consumer will still be getting the short end of the stick.

The big shake-up coming to television is a post from: The Inquisitr

There is a rumor being floated around the web today that Apple has been approaching the television networks with an eye to creating television subscriptions through their iTunes service. Word has it that the price of the subscription will be around the $30.00 range.

Sure you can already get complete seasons of individual shows through iTunes but this is a totally different beast. You would be getting the networks whole output of network programming.

All I can say to this is – I sure hope they pull it off.

While Martin Bryant at The Next Web points out that network executives might be a tad reluctant to walk down the same path that the music industry has with Apple this would be a big win for the consumer and in the end it could be a win for the networks.

However there’s a real big problem that would need to be overcome for this to be a major game changer in the television industry and it all boils down to one word.

Geotarding.

For those of you who may not have heard of the term before it basically boils down to being able to view or listen to content based on your geographical location. The best example to give regarding geotarding would be Hulu for video and Pandora for music. With either service if you live primarily outside of the US you are shit out of luck.

Now recently Hulu has been making deals with broadcasting companies outside of the US principally England and I understand that Pandora is continually trying to work deals to expand their user base in other countries.

Sure we might like to yell and scream at companies like Hulu and Pandora for doing this geotarding but in reality it’s not totally their fault. In many cases it is a combination of country laws and copyright laws that stop us from being able to access these services.

I can’t talk about other countries but I know here in Canada that when it comes to both television and radio, which companies like Hulu and Pandora would fall under, our country has some exceptionally archaic laws that were enacted back in the 1970′s. These laws were originally intended to protect our cultural identity by forcing Canadian radio and television companies to carry a certain percentage of Canadian made content.

For example any US television networks that wants to make it’s content available to Canadians has to sell it, or go through, a Canadian broadcaster. If a cable network wants to show it’s content in whole above the 49th parallel then it must have a Canadian company. This is why you have Discovery Canada, or SyFy opening up in Canada as Space TV, it was also the reason why CourtTV (before changing their name to truTV) got yanked from Canadian cable and had to open up CourtTV Canada.

When it gets to music things get a little murkier as it becomes a combination of regulations and copyrights. When it comes to the copyrights part it is important to remember that in most cases there is no one single global copyright system – each country has their own copyrights so for a US radio station to play music in Canada they need to pay for Canadian copyright licence on top of already buying a US copyright license.

In the case of Pandora they tried to do this but the Canadian copyright holders were asking such exorbitant amounts of money that Pandora had to walk away from the table. No multiple this problem for all the countries in the world where you want people to be able to hear your music or see your video.

So what does all this have to do with Apple?

Well it all boils down to what a good friend of mine refers to a might makes right. In the case of music Apple is the current powerhouse that everyone in the industry knows that they will have to play with. As much as I may not like Apple they have brought a leveling of the playing field to the downloadable music business. The consumer for the most part has been the big winner in this.

There is no denying that our copyright and governmental regulations surrounding are behind the times and desperately need to be changed. The problem is that the way it is now is benefiting everyone except the consumer.

So here we have Apple, the powerhouse that has help to change the music industry, now interested in getting into provide television network programming at what has to be admittedly a reasonable price. If anyone could possibly influence change in at least the copyright part of the problem it would have to be Apple. Definitely the regulation part – especially in Canada would be the hard nut to crack.

However in this move I am definitely rooting for Jobs and company to at least start the roller coaster of change that would come about with an iTunes TV subscription.

In the end it could be a big win for the consumer.

note: I got Martin’s name wrong but have now corrected it. I knew it wasn’t Michael especially since I had his post open at the time of writing. Sorry about that Martin.

Apple TV Subscriptions? Oh man I really hope so! is a post from: The Inquisitr

Never mind that Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. Ignore that Victoria Secret’s catalogue you have hidden in the garage. Walk away from that most excellent beer fridge you and your buddies like to hang around at on the weekends. They will all pale in comparison to what I am about to present to you so prepare your drool towels gentlemen for I bring you ……

The Man Wall

Okay … take a deep breath … here take this paper bag … breathe …. breathe …..

Feeling better?

Good. Now just to let you know what the good people from Hybrid Space furniture have brought together in order to provide you with this nirvana here’s a list of the Man’s Wall features.

• 52″ Vizio Flat Panel LCD HDTV
• 2 – 26″ Vizio Flat Panel LCD HDTVs
• 1200 watt Panasonic 5.1 Home Theater System
• DVD player with 5-CD changer
• 2 – Wireless surround sound speakers
• Live 7-foot sports ticker with built-in computer
• 1 year free service for sport’s ticker

But wait that’s not all.

How about a 1000 watt microwave oven and a 32-bottle wine rack (what no wine chiller ?? tsk tsk)

Add to that a full-size built-in beer refrigerated beer keg with tap

Then there is the iPod docking station for those times when only music will suffice.

Oh and for those times you and your buddies just want to chill with a fine cigar to go with the wine you have your own cigar humidors complete with temperature gauges.

Now for the bad news my friends so prepare your drool towel to become a crying towel for this thing of male testosterone beauty will cost you $14,900. However if that is something you are willing to forego a child’s education for you can find out more here at the Man Wall site. Enjoy.

hat tip to My Modern Metropolis

WARNING: All men should get their drool towels now! is a post from: The Inquisitr

The life of a reporter who does live crosses can sometimes be a difficult one. There’s always the chance that hecklers will magically appear behind you, or in front of you trying to interrupt your report.

Having said that, seasoned reporters usually know how to handle the situation because it happens regularly, but what if you’re not a seasoned reporter?

Steve Ryan for ABC 13 in Las Vegas was doing a live cross from the Vegas strip on Michael Jackson’s death when a drunk heckler decided that he’d like to be on television as well. Ryan tried repeatedly to move away from the heckler until finally he’d had enough…and hit the guy on live television.

The classic moment in television as follows. Watch for the look on the news teams face after they cut the feed for added value.

Reporter hits heckler on live television is a post from: The Inquisitr

Like others in old media cable companies and media content producers are in a race – a race for survival in a world that they show just about every day that they don’t understand. A perfect example of this is a joining of Comcast and Time Warner to their cable content to the web but under restrictions that are designed to maintain, or increase, the revenue streams for their programs.

Their thinking is that if they provide “television” shows of their choosing from their various networks or cable suppliers under a subscription basis, and as long as you are already a cable subscriber, you will be willing to fork over extra money to watch those shows from the web. This will over course require some sort of authentication method to guarantee that non-cable subscribers will be able to see those same shows on the web.

With the pervasiveness of broadband and easy availability of tools that allow web video to leap onto your television, cable companies see that their video distribution pipes are becoming less relevant. So they want to control how you watch premium content online and want to impose fees via an authentication system.  Time Warner and Bewkes have been championing this concept — essentially an authentication system that requires viewers to have cable, telco or satellite subscriptions in order to watch certain premium content online or on other platforms. Bewkes recently said he wanted to launch the system during the second half of 2009. (NewTeeVee has just published a great FAQ on TV Everywhere.) Time Warner spun out its cable business as a separate company. Time Warner owns premium services such as HBO.

Source: Om Malik – GigaOM :: Comcast, Time Warner Team Up to Control TV on the Internet

Authentication. Hmm … I wonder how many times we have heard this battle cry before?

How many different DRM methods, which really is authentication under a different name, have we seen come and go in the last few years. They arrive with much trumpeting and fanfare proclaiming a new era in safe media that can’t be pirated by those nasty consumers out there that want to be able to use the media they pay for as they wish. Then just as quickly those great new methods fail leaving those nasty consumers with unusable media as the authentication engines are turned off.

No matter how many time or how many different ways old media tries authentication, or DRM, won’t work for one simple reason – they no longer control the exclusive access to their products. In the past if you wanted to watch a television show, listen to music or watch a movie the only access you had to that content was through corporate controlled access points. These might have been a television with a cable box, a radio station dictating the playlist, a store selling CD or a movie theater picking what gets played.

The only problem is that now these old media content providers are discovering that just because you make the content it doesn’t mean you control the distribution of that content anymore. All it takes is one person with a TV capture card and access to that show is now Internet wide. Sure it’s illegal but when you place onerous restrictions on content access there are those who will rail against it. As hard as old media might try to control their content the harder the consumer will fight against that control, and today they have tools that are as good as old media’s.

But this is only one reason that old media wants to bring its content to the web because not only can they make increased profits from that addition web distribution but they also increase their profits from the additional demands on their pipes. We have seen an attempt recently to bring back speed and data caps on broadband access. Comcast likes to suggest that even at their top tier no-one would likely every go over those caps of 250 gig but it only takes some simple math to show the bullshit of this idea.

I asked Comcast CEO Brian Roberts if the content being streamed as part of this new effort would be free from the 250GB-a-month bandwidth quota his company has started imposing on this customers.

His answer: No. You’re not going to get close enough to hitting the monthly quota anyway, he said, so why worry? We (and many of our readers) disagree. We feel that while 250GB might look very generous today, it isn’t much when you start streaming or downloading HD-quality video.

Source: Om Malik – GigaOM :: Comcast: TV Everywhere Will Eat Into Your Metered Broadband

A quick check of the file size for a DivX version of an hour long HD television show (which is actually only 40 minutes or so if you’re lucky) can run anywhere from 1.5 Gig to 2.0 Gig. If you move up in video format quality (H.264, HD .ts, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray) you will start seeing file sizes ranging from 2 Gig to over 5 Gig for a regular one-hour television show. All these files sizes count against download cap you might have.

So assume you want to watch your regular television show via the web and on an average of two show a night, 7 days a week, and 30 days a month you would watch a total of 60 shows. Now your watching all these in HiDef at 5 Gig a show only to find yourself now at 300 Gig for the month – you’ve gone over your cap for which you will be charged extra on your Internet bill.

So on top of that nice extra subscription that companies like Time Warner and Comcast what to charge you for the privilege of watching regular television on the web you stand a very good chance of blowing the bottom out of your Internet access bill. For what?

As much as companies like Time Warner and Comcast like to think that their are in the content providers driving seat the fact is – they aren’t. Just as authentication has failed for other types of content providers on the web. In the end the consumer will decide how they want to access their content on the web and if past experience is any indication this is just another attempt that will fail.

Are Comcast and Time Warner ‘authenticating’ themselves right into another failure? is a post from: The Inquisitr