Mixed Emotions!

rmeden
SD Board Member
Posts: 1526
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:31 pm
Location: Cedar Hill, TX
Contact:

Re: Mixed Emotions!

Post by rmeden » Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:29 pm

Hmmm sounds like what we need is a bunch of 8x10 color glossy photographs with circles, arrows and a description on the back of each one to be used as evidence against us.

:)

shrink
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:31 am

Re: Mixed Emotions!

Post by shrink » Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:51 am

rmeden wrote:Hmmm sounds like what we need is a bunch of 8x10 color glossy photographs with circles, arrows and a description on the back of each one to be used as evidence against us.

:)
Sounds like a bunch of adolescent "whimper whineys". Hopefully you guys have developed a thick skin ;)
No mix here. You all are doing a great job. As Wendy said, we're talking about TV listings here, not Creationism.
alan
Alan B.
Ocean New Jersey

rshendershot
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:19 am

Re: Mixed Emotions!

Post by rshendershot » Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:36 am

slim, Robert, Alan, wensail, abigail - Is it then that, unlike me, you do think it's reasonable for an American or Canadian to pay for listings information? No troll - I stated in previous post a position based on this assumption and I'm curious to check it. Obviously the idea of lobbying to change that interests me and you all have taken the time to respond in some kind.

W/R/T the current environment, and to illustrate my position clearly, I pledge $100.00 USD to the charitable part of SchedulesDirect immediately upon their obtaining 501(c)(3). No strings. That's not apology as I made that commitment before I realized I'd gotten folks chafed (1Oct07).

Robert and Daniel (especially), xris, et al- I came on real strong and want to offer clear apology. I realize I could simply have asked the question "Is it possible for SD to lobby at the federal level to have the feed information required so that, in effect, SD would become obsolete?". I expect I would have gained the same information as I have, but in a much less confrontational manner.

Robert, I don't know if your comment was directed at me or slim or just generally. If you are feeling targeted on any account of mine I truly hope this clears that. I don't get the "evidence" reference.

spoiler - the following is not-nice mode....

abigail, wensail - "effectively free" is a sophist strawman. There is no such thing. Free or Not Free. I don't know the economic perspectives nor ages of the people who have emailed our list, or posted here, that they just will not pay. I do not know their reasons. My guess is your ad hominem of "kiddies" is inaccurate. Certainly in my case it is.

wensail - this is General Discussions. Reasonable Courtesy includes to not try to exclude thoughtful debate. I'm not going to limit the size nor style of my posts except as guided by my own morals and certainly not when confronted by bullying tactics. You were "bored" enough to exude 340 words. OK. But, somehow -before hitting reply- did it occur to you to use the scroll wheel? You know... to, like, get the extra verbiage with which you were having trouble out of the way? How does a mature exchange of ideas NOT result in egression to the grander topics? So I'll put it in terms you understand; Bite Me. Or better. snark! (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snark)

slim - I disagree. posts like that one from wensail are the kind that make one want to just check it in and be done.

rmeden
SD Board Member
Posts: 1526
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:31 pm
Location: Cedar Hill, TX
Contact:

Re: Mixed Emotions!

Post by rmeden » Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:53 am

rshendershot wrote:slim, Robert, Alan, wensail, abigail - Is it then that, unlike me, you do think it's reasonable for an American or Canadian to pay for listings information? No troll - I stated in previous post a position based on this assumption and I'm curious to check it. Obviously the idea of lobbying to change that interests me and you all have taken the time to respond in some kind.
(my personal opinion follows)

Yes I think it's reasonable to pay for listings to aggregators. The task is not trivial and adds value.

It would be nice if every station would follow a standard way to publish their information for free. It's in their best interest. For whatever reason they're not doing it now and I don't see that changing. If nothing else, it would make aggregation easier (hence cheaper). I don't think government regulation is the way to get this done. Maybe some industry groups?

I for one have not been seriously offended by your posts, at least that I remember. :) I (as anyone who participates in open discussion or leads a project) have a pretty think skin.

We didn't form SD to last forever. We formed it so we could get data on 9/1. We're keeping it so we can continue to get data. If SD's purpose goes away, I expect the current board would be happy to transition it out (less work for us!), so long as our projects have at least the quality of data we're trying to provide and we meet all our obligations. We don't see that happening in the near future.

Robert

slim
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:07 pm

Re: Mixed Emotions!

Post by slim » Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:49 pm

rshendershot wrote:slim, Robert, Alan, wensail, abigail - Is it then that, unlike me, you do think it's reasonable for an American or Canadian to pay for listings information? No troll - I stated in previous post a position based on this assumption and I'm curious to check it. Obviously the idea of lobbying to change that interests me and you all have taken the time to respond in some kind.
I would rather pay a non-profit to support a project such as this then to have to worry as to when they will have to stop for cost reasons.

How can you expect them to spend tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket.

Lobbying someone who is donating their time is insulting to them.

If you think the listings should be free then go for it.

Nobody is going to object if you do this. Of course you would need to make it open source and not non-profit and on your own without using TMS or similar.

If on the other hand you don't know how to do it then maybe you don't understand that a non-profit has expenses.


Again if TMS owns the data and couldn't do this for free, what makes you think anyone else could.

If you think the listings should be free then by all means do so but don't disrespect others efforts by saying listings should be free.

The same for the complaints of betrayal that some are doing. Why are they interested in using the service if they think this way.

This is not...not...not a commercial venture. Quit treating it like one.

rshendershot
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:19 am

Re: Mixed Emotions!

Post by rshendershot » Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:49 pm

Slim, I don't expect anyone to do it at a loss. But I told you that already.

Donated time is a cost. And in a sense a loss. Off book at least. I also hope that there is near-term end for the need for anyone of SD to out-of-pocket, and should by now be receiving remunerations! If that's not possible because of the low pricing then, well, I'd personally be OK with higher pricing.

I don't think lobbying for change in how the information is sourced (eg. before TMS even gets it) is disrespectful or insulting. It's an honest question.

If the providers were required to source the data as part of their licensing or something like that? So that XMLTV could pull from those feeds. So that the actual commercial ventures (TMS and the like) would value-add in some other way besides just the core act of the listings themselves...

In such a scenario I expect a lot of the description detail would be the value add. I'd want that so would continue to subscribe to SD.

I don't know; in such a parallel world perhaps it wouldn't be significantly less "cost" (resource intensive, infrastructure needs, manual effort, etc.) to add the detail. It's possible even that it might become more difficult as the providers could present that they had met their obligation and TMS would not exist in its present form. It's those kinds of issues I was interested in.

Instead I got an education in how constrained such an effort as SD can be. Xris told me "If all we do is provide TV listings data for even a small fee, the IRS won't see us as a nonprofit," about which I was really surprised. I had the naive concept that it was simply operating without profit. And Daniel showed me that (paraphrasing) any lobbying had to, basically, link back to the core mission that qualified for 'social good' that Xris explained. Hugely eye-opening and very much appreciated.

Anyway, I've learned the position SD holds in this matter and accept that fully. Today I was interested in what knowledgeable folks thought about the basic assumption (Thanks Robert!).

btw- I'm also not going to be intimidated in my postings by constant misrepresentation of my position. You didn't actually address my question. Please stop acting like I want SD to give it away for free. Some may have said that. I did not.

rshendershot
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:19 am

Re: Mixed Emotions!

Post by rshendershot » Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:05 pm

Robert,

Thanks! Yes it does seem to be in their own best interest. Are there any rumblings among the industry groups that they seem amenable to standardizing the data? That would be a great first step.

Another assumption I should check. My understanding is in the UK and elsewhere the listings are provided by a different model and the need for a TMS is not present. True? If so, I'm still woefully ignorant of the specifics so any comments you have time to share in this regard are also greatly appreciated.

-Rick

ps- I did find this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_listings which mentions the Press Association and that the BBC is driving a redefinition of how this is done in the UK but I still don't know how it is sourced to that association/how that maps to our model.

slim
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:07 pm

Re: Mixed Emotions!

Post by slim » Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:58 pm

rshendershot wrote: btw- I'm also not going to be intimidated in my postings by constant misrepresentation of my position. You didn't actually address my question. Please stop acting like I want SD to give it away for free. Some may have said that. I did not.
Then your statements are too indirect to understand because Robert appeared to see your statement the same way I did.

If you were not saying you were lobbying for free listings then it sure appeared like you were.

Your post took several times reading it before I began to see an interpretation that meant you might not be meaning this.

My translation to your post (simplified) was "we shouldn't have to pay for listings but I did give a hundred bucks". Which did seem illogical, but I only had your words to go by.

If you read my statements their is no doubt what I am saying. That would be the following.

If you are complaining about listings not being free then give it a try doing it yourself.

If you are not complaining about listings not being free then I read your post wrong.

But after several post you seem to keep saying they should be free. Why bring up price at all when the folks at SD have had price reductions so fast that it made my head spin.

I never saw anyone other than SD bend so far over backwards to keep the price this low.

The price of the SD service is only an issue for someone who wants the listings for free. If you are not saying this then why are you still saying we are on the other side opposing you.

In short. This service is about as ideal as anyone being objective could imagine. SD is the best non-profit I have seen. I would be hard pressed to find one better.

If I am wrong about were you stand then the only issue is my error. SD would not have a problem. Only my misreading your statement would be a problem. But you appeared to be asking for opinions on if the listings should be free.

To that question I say the listings should be what ever SD decides them to be based on what they can do them for and $20 is more than fair.

rshendershot
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:19 am

Re: Mixed Emotions!

Post by rshendershot » Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:55 am

More like SD shouldn't have to pay for listings either. There shouldn't be a TMS that "owns" the data. Because.... The providers (cable, network and broadcast stations who determine what will be on) should be required to provide listings in this modern world in a modern way. Or should they not. That was what I was asking as is it reasonable. Put another way, is it reasonable that SD should pay for listings information (what is on and where). Should it be allowed that a couple of large media conglomerates hold such a tight grip.

And so if it were changed what might be the collateral issues.

Slim my point about free isn't at all about the current situation and is not about what SD is currently doing in the current environment. I thought that was clear by now... And if I must; What should also be clear is I support SD in everything they are doing 100%.

That doesn't mean I don't wish that the need for SD were different or nonexistent. And from Robert's comments they're not tied to permanency either. They don't, apparently, expect anything to change near-term or even medium-term and I have to agree with that. Fine. But we shouldn't be prevented from entertaining some thought about how it could be different. eh?

TMS provides a valuable service also in the current way things work. I'm not knocking them either and I'm not implying any wrong-doing on their part. I imagine their place in the scheme of things would be largely unchanged should they be able to aggregate the information in more modern and standardized way. So I don't see a lot of downside.

I can understand Robert's hesitancy towards government intervention and I share that. It would be a low-impact requirement though, easily policed, plenty of leverage... and they already must, by definition, provide listings information to someone, somehow. It's the somehow I'm considering. It should be more open and standardized and not provided primarily to a commercial media conglomerate.

Well this is already much longer than I'd intended. Still, going back to the original post- There is this sense from regular folks that the listings should be free. From the providers, not a comment on SD. Everytime the word FREE comes up though someone jumps on it with a diatribe that SD is nearly giving listings away now! Yes, they are. But that's irrelevant to the point. Some take the misconception so far as to accuse the holders of this point of view of being childish. That's like misconception-squared.

Should listings information be free as in free beer? probably not. even if providers offered basic information on a multitude of web services that we could use XMLTV to grab, there would still be information that a lot of folks would want included that someone would have to add and that should be recoverable. And there's a lot of folks who can't do XMLTV or MythTV and would need someone who could roll it all up into a nice package, which should also be recoverable.

Should listings information be free as in free speech? I think so. Look at how constrained SD is in offering this service. TMS is accepted to "own" the information because they basically create it out of a bunch of disparate pieces. SD must then prevent its use beyond a very small window. It's not free-speech-like because you cannot share it.

Should it be required for those who set the schedules that they must share those schedules (in free speech context).? I think so. Should it be government that requires it? I don't think the industry groups want to help those of us who use XMLTV and MythTV.

sorry again for the length.
-Rick

slim
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:07 pm

Re: Mixed Emotions!

Post by slim » Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:42 am

rshendershot wrote:More like SD shouldn't have to pay for listings either. There shouldn't be a TMS that "owns" the data. Because.... The providers (cable, network and broadcast stations who determine what will be on) should be required to provide listings in this modern world in a modern way. Or should they not. That was what I was asking as is it reasonable. Put another way, is it reasonable that SD should pay for listings information (what is on and where). Should it be allowed that a couple of large media conglomerates hold such a tight grip.
I will admit that I did not understand your question and position before. Like I said I don't really think your statements were very clear. You seemed to say one thing and then the opposite. I stand corrected.

As far as the commercial ventures like TMS they do get the listings free form the networks and stations. It isn't cheap to put it all together in one package and it is not reasonable to think that can be done for free either. We are talking station lineups and not just network lineups. There are a lot of those.

That would mean the government would have to gather it all together because that would leave any other method with too high of a price tag to even consider doing the gathering required.

In a way free or not TMS provides a needed service and should be paid for that. Since what they do can't be done on the cheap I am fine with them.

I would close with the fact that TMS provided us free data for years and should have our respect just as much as SD. I get just as upset when I see folks disrespect them. Not that you are but some are.

Post Reply