Comedy Central is coming to shut everyone down

Just like Geffen did recently with Nirvana sites. Used to be you could get all sorts of MP3 files with versions of songs that were sometimes better than the album. No more. Geffen went after the sites ISPs and made them delete the files off their web servers. How fucking gay.

Anyway, some jerk named Lieberman at Comedy Central is gearing up to do the same to South Park sites. It really sucks, you won't even get the chance to say "fuck you, Lieberman, you pigfucker". One day you'll wake up, check your site, and discover that there's nothing there. Welcome to the New Internet.

Comedy Central sucks anyway. Remeber what they did with AbFab? Great show. CC made it disappear at the height of its popularity. Some trick. South Park should move to Fox. Trey, if you're reading this, Defect! Comedy Central is too Disney to understand South Park. They'll make you change the show. They've done it already, haven't they? Defect to Fox! Demand that South Park be shown between the Simpsons and King of the Hill on Sunday nights. Fox can move the X-Files back a half hour. That way, I won't have to see our lame-ass local 10 o'clock news.

Yeah. South Park on Fox. Kick ass.

Robert St. James

Right on. I mean, I don't understand why Parker and Stone chose CC out of all of the offers that they got...CC isn't even a nationwide thing. Where I am, we didn't even get CC until like a month ago. True - perhaps the big networks were too mainstream - but they could have done a bit better than CC in my opinion.

-=j=-

"Bloody apathetic planet, I've no sympathy at all."

Nimroderie wrote:

i am not defending CC but how many other stations do you think have enough balls to play something like SP other than MTV

They still make MTV? It was such a yawn 5 years ago I thought it would have died by now..

CC Rules when it comes to guffaws===

M

It should. All they show is thug-rap music and those stupid shows[ The Real World, Road Rules, etc.] that have nothing to do with music anyway.

enough balls to

Fox, UPN, WB

Any network that wants ratings and doesn't care how it gets them

Plain and Simple Cronan wrote:

i really doubt FOX would the WB would just screw up southpark and the UPN probably doesnt even know what SP is

I don't think CC had anything to do with AbFab "disappearing"....it's still on weekends, first of all, if you like the show. But it was the producers in England that stopped production, not CC.

I>

Yeah. God forbid that someone want to control the distribution of creative works to which they own the rights. I mean why don't they just turn it over to public domain rather than attempt to make money off it? Who the hell do they think they are?

As a musician, you better believe that if you're going to play my songs somewhere, I expect to be paid for it. If I were an artist or writer, I would expect the same. I think the creators and/or rightsholders of "South Park" have a right to expect that people who want to use their images, sounds, etc. will seek a license to do so, since they do have the right to charge for use of those images and can't do so if someone is giving away unlicensed images and sounds for free.

Phil Dennison wrote in message ... <...> : :Yeah. God forbid that someone want to control the distribution of creative :works to which they own the rights. I mean why don't they just turn it :over to public domain rather than attempt to make money off it? Who the :hell do they think they are?

So maybe they should charge a buck every time they show SP on TV. And they should go after the home tapers too. Or are you going to tell me you've never taped an ep? Well? Have you paid for the "right" to tape a South Park ep? I didn't think so.

:As a musician, you better believe that if you're going to play my songs :somewhere, I expect to be paid for it.

So every time I play Lennon's "Come Together" at a gig, I should send Yoko some money? What a stupid argument. Do you work for Comedy Central?

If I were an artist or writer, I :would expect the same. I think the creators and/or rightsholders of "South :Park" have a right to expect that people who want to use their images, :sounds, etc. will seek a license to do so, since they do have the right to :charge for use of those images and can't do so if someone is giving away :unlicensed images and sounds for free.

Yeah, why can't they? They're charging plenty for CC's right to show SP on cable, while there's at least half a dozen sites with full eps on them right now. So that's yet another hole in your argument. It's the same stupid argument I heard back when VCRs were introduced: "they'll take audiences out of theaters". Well, they didn't. Theater revenues actually *increased*. So what do you make of that?

Robert St. James (The Mystery of Quetzalcoatl) http://www.rjames.com/Toltec/MainPage.htm

:

In article , "Robert says...

No, he hasn't paid for the right to tape an episode, because recording for home use is protected under the Home Recording Act. However, selling or distributing tapes of South Park, even for no profit, would be illegal.

Gee, what a stupid argument, citing the law. The club you play at has to pay an annual blanket fee to BMI or ASCAP for the right to have you play any copyrighted songs in that club. A portion of this then goes back to the artist. If you wanted to release a cover of "Come Together" on an album, then you'd have to send Yoko some money or get her permission.

Charge eight bucks for a ticket, and hell yeah your theater revenues are going to increase. but your point is that pictures and sound bites don't cut into South Park's ratings or T-shirt sales. You're probably right. But full episodes over the net could conceivably hurt ratings, (I didn't say probably, I said conceivably) and you can bet that will be the first thing Comedy Central will come after.

Copyright law is, IMHO, one of the few things the government has gotten right (although it took them long enough). It gives very strong protection to the artist, whether rich or poor. I figure the same laws that keep me from putting whole Nirvana songs on my web site are also keeping some record company from ripping off my songs, so I'm not complaining.

In article , [email] says...

I don't have to. As long as I watch it in my own home, don't charge others to view it, and don't distribute it, I'm covered. (Hint: see "copyright laws" and "home recording")

She already gets paid. The club pays a fee to ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and a few other performing-rights organizations to cover this sort of thing. Just like all clubs, radio stations, jukebox users, karoake bars, and anyone else who uses live or recorded music for commercial purposes or to enhance a commercial establishment. As a member of BMI, I'm very grateful for this, thank you.

But did attendance increase? X people times $Y is probably less than .80X times 1.50$Y. Revenue can increase without attendance increasing (and although I'd have to look it up, I think this is largely what's happened. See "concession stand sales.").

Some people really have difficulty understanding the idea that songwriters, performers, artists and writers have a right to control the distribution of things they create. If they think they stand to lose money form unlicensed distribution, they have every right to shut down those avenues of distribution. That's what "copyright" *is*. Authors especially dread finding their entire works published on the Internet, because then people don't have to buy their books (see James Gleick's (author of "Chaos") site "No Thank's, I'd Rather Have The Money.")

Phil Dennison sez:

Well, I do agree with you there about controlling the distribution. However, to some extent (keyword here is to some extent), fan publicity is a good thing. So I really hope that they don't take everything - that is, they would be gracious enough to leave some of the good sites.

Thanks,
       -=j=-

"Is all the world jails and churches?"

Lieberman, Lieberman.....OH CRAP! He's Connecticut's most powerful Senator! That means my state will be the first to be South Park-free (if this is true)!

I quote (from Anal Probe): Crap.
��� �hr�B

"Engelbert Humperdink was the first man on the moon who was the second?" -- Mr. Hat

���th ��rk R�Lɧ because it does!

www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1479 Pip's Pipperific Page!

G�T �H�ʧ� ��؃�������

Let's think here. First of all, AbFab sucks to begin with, so no matter whose doing it was, it's no longer being made, and the world is a better place. With that out of the way, let's think about cable TV. The only reason CC gets away with showing SP is because it's a cable station. FOX has certain restrictions for it's shows, and SP would have to be toned way down to make it on the air. I don't wanna see that.

That's a loophole in the copyright laws. You can tape for your own use, but you cannot copy, distribute, or hold public showings. Trust me, the copyright holders have every right to stop the people swapping tapes here, it's just that they don't until the tapes are available commercially.

In this case, it's the club that booked you that's sending the money. It's called ASCAP and SESAC licensing.

No, it's just that as a creator, he has the same feelings I do. Well, sort of the same feelings. Comedy Central is stupid to go after fan sites, since they're free publicity and better than some of the advertising they could pay for (especially since most are better than the official CC web page), but they have every right to.

They can.

They aren't charging you. They're charging advertisers, and in return those advertisers place their announcements in the show. Redistributing the episode without those ads is robbing the advertisers, not to mention robbing the channel since it could (in theory) affect ratings and thus future ad revenues.

They did. For a while.

The difference is that VCR's offer something that theaters do not: immediate choice. But it's generally held that convenience will always hold sway in these matters. (It's a sort of entertainment version of Gresham's Law.) Pay Per View On Demand is hurting the video rental business right now; the "black box" illegal cable decoders are also helping PPV kill the stores off.

The simple fact is that Comedy Central and Braniff Airlines have the right to control distribution of their material. Other than fair use (which entire episodes on the 'net is NOT) using it in any other way is taking money out of Trey and Matt's pockets. Sure, they're barely getting paid boobydick now, but it's still hurting them.

*** THE READER V4.50 [freeware]

 Pab Sungenis                                                Vineland, NJ
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
          My opinions!  You can't have 'em!  MINE!  MINE!  MINE!
  Illegal to use this address for unsolicited commercial E-Mail: 47 USC

If it's one thing we should do, we should silence Liebermann. Liebermann is a parent's politician, and will stop at nothing to censor and ban everything that has sex and blood on it. In 1993, he tried to ban video games just because of games like Mortal Kombat, Doom, and Night Trap (Sega CD). Us gamers fought to the death to keep video games on market. I have to tell you, as both a South Park maniac, and an anti-censorship person, I will fight, if anyone tried to ban or censor SP in anyway, and that includes banning the websites. Instead of banning them, why put blocking software to good use? Any kind of censorship harms individuals that are old enough to visualize certain material, and whose parents have no problem with their children watching the show, such as me for instance. My parents do not hide me from the reality of life. It is the parent's responsibility to make sure their children don't watch certain programs. We do not need the law interfering with television. So we need to fight Liebermann, for the sake of people who CAN view this stuff. Psychogamer128

mattman wrote in message ...

In article , "Robert L. Reed" wrote:

Whoa whoa whoa there, Bobby, let's not mix our metaphors here.  First of
all, the Lieberman(sp?) that you're talking about and the Lieberman that
we're talking about are two totally different guys; one's a video-gamer's
Joe McCarthy and the other is the head of Comedy Central.
   Secondly, if these two fellows were indeed the same person, I doubt
that Comedy Central would've picked up South Park or any of the other
kinda risque shows in its lineup in the first place.  A censorous prude in
control of a cable channel?  You do the math.
   Thirdly, your definition of what constitutes "censorship" seems to be a
bit off.  Removing fanmade SP websites is not the same as censoring SP.
South Park is a show made by two guys named Trey and Matt, who are
reimbursed quite handsomely for giving part of their ownership of the show
to Comedy Central, who in turn is reimbursed quite handsomely by
advertisers during airings of the show.  South Park is NOT MADE by some
12-year-old fan who decided to put some pictures of Cartman on his
webpage; nor is it made by college students who send out entire episodes
in RealVideo, thereby damaging CC's ability to do business.  Therefore,
asking people to remove websites featuring properties that are not theirs
is NOT the same as censoring South Park.  It is, however, censoring
self-expression by limiting the kinds of things that can be placed on
one's page.  However, this is purely a legal-ownership issue, and NOT an
issue of whether or not we can watch cartoon characters say the word
"ass-master" on TV.
   Lastly, I don't care if this "parent's politician" Lieberman is a
300-foot-tall Hitler with death-ray-eyes, the little "violence in video
games" controversy from five years ago didn't pose any threat to the
existence of video games or even to the content therein; video gaming is a
multi-billion-dollar industry--trying to take it out is like trying to
take out the McDonald's Corporation 10 times over.  The brief political
scuffle served only to draw more attention to the industry and create
bigger profits, nothing more.
   Sorry for the length of my reply, but I saw a huge amount of
mis-information in this post that could've been dangerous if allowed to go
on unchecked.  No hard feelings, just be sure you know what you're talking
about before you go posting.

--Jim

mattman wrote in message ...

Fox touched it breifly. :)

South Park lasted for ONE episode on Fox 29 in Buffalo, NY. It was a 9:30pm Friday time slot and it also aired this time here in Toronto,ON on Global TV. The following week in was gone from Fox 29 and on Global TV it moved it to midnight but all ten episodes aired on Global and they are currently rerunning them.

Hopefully the wait for new episodes won't be too long.

Ken Hartlen

Where did you get this info? Is this supposed to happen soon? I don't see any sites disappearing...

they can't delete your site without you knowing about it. They would send you an email requesting that you take it down, and if you refuse, then they would sue you.

Read the article in Yahoo! Internet Life...Lieberman doesn't have a problem w/the SP sites. He just doesn't like people showing full episodes in streaming Real Video. But he doesn't have a problem w/the frosty or Spirit of Christmas shorts. In other words, he's ok with it.-Nick

Well, that actually sounds quite fair to me. I had a feeling something was being blown out of proportion.

julie e

Actually, it wasn't a "premature demise". Most shows in Britain only go for a few seasons, and call it quits before they start running out of new ideas. (which you have to admit should have been done for quite a few shows in the US - Home Improvement, Roseanne, and quite a few others) Most shows in Britain have a pretty short life. (with the exception of Dr. WHo and others)

So? Cheers to CC for having the balls to air South Park. The worst case senario would be South Park goes to HBO or some other pay site where they can actually say "fuck". If you like the show as much as I do, you would get HBO. Anyway that senator Lieb or whatever his name is has been trying to kill videogames for many years now and all that has happend is nothing. Some people need a cause so that the public wont realize that there not doing shit in office that actually helps the public.

You recommend that South Park moves to FOX. In case you didn't know it, moron, FOX banned all Simpsons sounds from the internet a long time ago. There is no difference between The Comedy Central policy on internet sounds and the FOX network policy on internet sounds. Think before you praise a network that doesn't deserve the praise. FOX sucks.

The Leiberman that works for Comedy Central is NOT the same person as Congressman Leiberman. I wish you idiots would realize that there can be more than one person in the World who has the last name- Leiberman. GEESH!

WNowotny44 wrote:

how do you think i feel people always start chatting with me or mailing me because they know someone named frank rizzo

my real name is NOT frank rizzo and i am NOT the frank rizzo from alt.flame.niggers

i guess all one can do i hope that some day people will start using common sense

On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:15:15 -0600, Frank Rizzo offered this unto Shub-Internet:

That's what a sig is for, Frank. You can put all sorts of nifty messages and disclaimers in it. BTW, what's this new policy I keep hearing so much about? Has CC completely banned all South Park stuff from the Net or is it all a big scare?

[email] (Reverend Bob) AKA The Soul Crusher questions:

Bob, I know you may find this rather hard to believe, but a brainiac in this newsgroup actually heard a "rumor" that CC was arriving to an internet near you, flying black helicopter gun ships with the sights locked on to bootleg SP material. Good sense and relevant posts took a back seat to the panic that ensued. So far we have obtained as much verification on this as the "I love girls with big..." saga.

Stay tuned...

Steve *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~**~ Humans are the only species to protect their stupid from natural selection

HEY!!! I'm a dirty little bastard, too! (Stan)

On 29 Jan 1998 03:57:16 GMT, [email] (Fyrcanine) offered this unto Shub-Internet:

Ahhhh, the infamous Usenet Rumor, destroyer of nations & defilers of little boys. I guess I should activate my anti-black helicopter device once more.

I know nothing about this but .... it could happen. Playboy recently began a campaign to shut down all sites that use pics from their mags. This includes all Jenny McCarthy and Pam Anderson shrines and things of that sort. It is entirely possible that Comedy Central could do the same to anyone using South Park without permission. And if the sites charge for anything - - they could get in BIG time lawsuit trouble.

Like I said, I don't know if they are doing it, but that is what they can legally do.

Rock

On 30 Jan 1998 08:16:43 GMT, [email] (Rocker1018) wrote:

Sure, but think about this. Right now, the popularity of SP on the net is fueling the popularity of the show. You can talk copyright violations this, and stealing and thievery that, but right now the 'net is helping bring viewership to a first rate show on a second rate cable network.

For now, it's probably best for CC to leave it the way it is and let the fanbase continue to grow (by any means necessary).

-Jason

If replying via email, do yourself a big favor and remove the exclamation point from my address.

Of course Comedy Central can go and do it, but is it in their best interests? it would be the equivalent of biting the hand that feeds them. Thru 'bootlegged' (er, Realvideoed, heh heh) video's i got on the internet, i became interested in the show. I still watch it on tv also. Because of all these bootlegs, i also have told many many people who are now also devoted SP fans, and i'm sure they have too. So SP is being spread via word of mouth, and internet -- and not even CC has to pay for all the bandwidth being squandered on video transmissions -- it amounts to a whole crapload of free advertising that CC could never duplicate.

Lets just see what the idiot network executives decide. They probably will ban all the sites, and SP will decrease in popularity for sure . Ah well.

"Money can't buy happiness but it can certainly rent it for a couple of hours. "

Alex Tomic atomicATrogers.wave.ca (yes i'm that paranoid, heh) http://home.on.rogers.wave.ca/atomic

Remove the "DIEGODDAMNSPAMBOTS" from email to reply!