North by North Quahog: GI Joe

When Flint popped out of the stall and did the PSA on drinking, I about pissed my pants!

Family Guy is back! This episode is gonna make a lot of people VEEEEEERY happy!

"Blowfly" wrote in message news:[email]...

Who is Flint?

Yeah, thanks for waiting till Sunday.....it was just one more week......

Fucking internet... Greg

"Blowfly" wrote in message news:[email]...

Sweet Zombie Jesus wrote:

Oh please. It doesn't hurt anything. I'm sure the real fans will watch it again on Sunday also.

On 4/30/05 1:54 PM, in article 4273f07b$0$921$[email], "NuQ" wrote:

Actually, I don't download episodes off the 'net. Instead, I'll be seeing it for the first time when it officially airs. As such, it would be cool if you would label spoiler info accordingly. Thanks.

Stu (who was taught to be polite)

NP: Find The Fox by XTC

My reply was assuming SZJ was referring to the fact that people were able to view it before it's offical airing on Sunday. If he was talking about the spoiler part, then I agree. That's why I removed the spoiler part of the subject line like Gui did.

You fucking cry babies.

What does your diaper smell like? Servitude?

In article , Stu Mark wrote:

NuQ wrote in news:4273f07b$0$921$[email]:

It hurts the Family Guy fans who are don't want the new episode to be spoiled before they see it for the first time.

My reply was assuming SZJ was referring to the fact that people were able to view it before it's offical airing on Sunday. If he was talking about the spoiler part, then I agree. That's why I removed the spoiler part of the subject line like Gui did.

"NuQ" wrote in message news:4273f07b$0$921$

it

I know - but it's a real slap in the face to those of us who've been working our asses off to make this show happen....when someone tries to be an "internet hero" and does something like this, it's just very douche-baggy. A re-premiere is very exciting...and this leak really annoyed the crap out of us.

Greg

Greg Colton wrote:

If you want to prevent leaks, I suggest urging Fox not to issue untagged screeners.

As for your hard work, it's much appreciated. I hope that you appreciate the fans' commitment, without which the series never would've been resurrected. I'm sorry, but the opportunity to see the episode early (and without the crap that Fox dumps on top) was too great a temptation to resist. And yes, I did re-watch the show last night (commercials and all).

Frankly, it's when this sort of thing stops happening that you should begin to worry.

Amen.

In article , "Gui

Okay, well I can understand that. But look at this way, only a teeny tiny fraction the people actually downloaded it before Sunday and were able to see it before the premiere. 99.5% of the fans watched in on Sunday for the first time.

On 5/2/05 9:14 AM, in article 427651f5$0$20932$[email], "NuQ" wrote:

Ok, so what if 99.5% of the fans didn't go to your house, crawl through a window, and steal money from your dresser?

Stu (who thinks that shit stinks)

NP: Heart Of Gold by Tori Amos

Is that a fair comparison? Did Greg and the staff get money stolen from them? Was there a DVD unpurchased because the re-debut episode was downloaded by a tiny fraction of people and that fraction of die-hard fans watched it again Sunday?

On 5/2/05 12:34 PM, in article 427680b1$0$19448$[email], "NuQ" wrote:

First off, I don't have statistics on how many people watched the leaked show and then, based on that viewing, decided not to watch the network broadcast on Fox. But if even one person didn't watch it on Fox because they saw a pirated version, then that is calculable lost revenue. Would you be ok if one person broke into your house and stole $5 from your wallet? Sure, it's only $5. Or is it more than just the money? Ethics/Morals aren't just talk when they effect real people in real ways.

Stu (who appreciates your reading this)

NP: Good Girls Don't by The Knack

I don't the stats either, but I do know that advertising is effective when the target is exposed to the ad multiple times. If you calculate the small number of people that didn't watch Sunday because they watched the downloaded version, then factor in the viewing multiple times bit mentioned above, then factor in the even smaller ratio of people who are actually persuaded to purchase the advertised product, the loss is very very tiny. But you're right, it *is* calculatable :-)

In your opinion, is it immoral to download the episode and watch it, then watch it again on Sunday? Or is it only immoral if you downloaded it, but didn't watch it again on Sunday?

"It hurts!" ;-)

On 5/3/05 8:53 AM, in article 42779e7d$0$921$[email], "NuQ" wrote:

I would be interested in stats that show just how tiny, but on the other hand, the amount isn't the matter. If my 9-year old stole a quarter from someone, well, let's just say that there would be a punishment (right now my favorite punishment is taking tv away for a week at a time)...

The downloading itself is immoral. If you steal a quarter from the church plate, it's immoral, even if you then give that same quarter to a homeless person.

Stu (who is not without sin)

NP: News by Dire Straits

Well, of course. You are trying to teach her right from wrong.

Yeah, but you can't use that comparison. If you want to argue that downloading is wrong you need to frame the way the music industry lawyers have. It's wrong because the content belongs to the creator/owner. It is theirs to distribute as they wish. If the content is distributed by someone other than the legal owner without the owner's permission, then it is wrong.

This is why I would never tell Greg that he is wrong for feeling the way he does about it. He created it...and if he doesn't want it being distributed he has every legal and moral right to hold that view, period.

I was just pointing out that I didn't think much damage was done in this case. The fact that the original episodes were being shared all over the internet actually *helped* build the buzz that was further built upon once the Cartoon Network started showing it during its newly created Adult Swim programming block. Let's face it, the ratings of the original run on Fox were not that great.

Blowfly wrote:

[snip]

Well, slightly fewer, now that you've posted a spoiler in your message's subject line and a detailed elaboration in the body.