|
CNN Online News Vid Clips 4 Free?
CNN now charges $12.99 a month for video as part of the Real SuperPass package from RealNetworks Inc. The site is switching to rival Microsoft Corp.'s Windows Media Player 9 to deliver the free video...
SOURCE
-----
Even from this "teaser" that many of the "big" media outlets are touting today it is somewhat obvious that they don't really mean the same definition of the word "free" that the rest of us do when we use the word.
Conditions still apply! (ESPECIALLY "windows media player 9" which may as well be synonymous with "DRM infected".)
Why can't the major media just go back to the old days of sticking a few ads on there and just letting it go?
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
godless-heathen
|
Date: May 17, 2005 @ 7:45 PM
I've been pretty unimpressed with everything Real has done, ever, to "compete" with the other players. Their proprietary format just drives me up a wall, and their stupid "super pass" is the biggest insult of all.
Far be it for CNN to just give people the news like a responsible agency, they have to charge people extra to watch the clips online. Nevermind that I've already paid my cable company for the privilage of CNN I suppose.
The kind of content grabbing bs that the news agencies indulge in makes me want to vomit. Free societies should have free media (with commercials/ads to defray the cost to the public). Information, especially news information, should flow, not get locked up behind drm and subscription fees. And compulsory registration, that's also bs, thank goodness for sites like bugmenot. |
|
pinemikey
|
Date: May 17, 2005 @ 9:03 PM
CNN used to show video for free, just like you used to be able to listen to baseball, hockey, football and basketball online for free. Then some little MBA assholes decided to sell the idea of charging extra for content. I'm sure those little wonders have already moved on, leaving these money losing propositions to their producers. Some news websites are even starting to charge $$$ to read their crap. I personally don't see how any of them can be making money. I am certainly never going to subscribe to any of these sites and I'm willing to bet that 95% of most web surfers feel the same. I think CNN is shoving this out there to actually find out the difference from paying for video visitors (all three or four of them) and the websurfing public who would like the video service but are naturally unwilling to be nickel and dimed. Like Godless-heathen, I'm already paying for CNN on cable, why the hell would I pay more for itty bitty choppy video news highlights? |
|
awehr
|
Date: May 18, 2005 @ 8:54 AM
if only they would abandon stupid WMV3 and RM and use a REAL codec eh?
and enough with the stupid "player applets".
I'm getting really tired of sifting through 3 different javascript files to dig out the url of the "actual" video content. |
|
autodidact
|
Date: May 18, 2005 @ 1:41 PM
The New York Times is planning to take some of their content out of the "free access" category, and try charging $50 per year for it.
Like I would pay to read their opinion columnists? The only one who says anything remotely sensible is Tom Friedman. Safire is gone.
This is a trend, and I predict it will end in disaster for all the media who want to charge for what was once as free as water at a drinking fountain. $50 for NYTimes opinion columns? $12 monthly for CNN? Who are they kidding? If I want fiction, the library is open seven days a week. |
|
|
Navigation
