Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Viacom Puts the Daily Show Archive Online

Posted by Zonk on Thu Oct 18, 2007 03:31 PM
from the lewis-black-catches-it-for-a-segment-we-call-back-in-black dept.
tburton writes "Viacom has put the entire eight year run of the Daily Show with John Stewart online. The content is available from the official Daily Show site, and features clip rating, tags, and numerous community features. The whole thing is supported by relatively unobtrusive contextual ads. 'Viacom's decision to post its entire archive--while fighting YouTube in the courts--sets the scene for a battle between the established media players and their high profile entertainment brands against the user generated content sites, most notable YouTube. Also watching closely the Viacom experiment will be the telco IPTV industry which has seen the market place change rapidly as the quality of online video continues to improve, with at least one platform/site, Vimeo, already offering 1280X720 HD quality direct from the browser.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Games: Eight Years of Games On the Daily Show 22 comments
In the wake of the release of eight years of Daily Show clips onto the internet, Joystiq has done us the great favour of tracking down almost every game reference during the show's run. Check out the embedded videos to see John Stewart talk Pac-man in Baghdad, Ice Cube's enthusiasm for the Dreamcast, and Lewis Black's take on DOA Extreme Beach Volleyball
[+] MTV Takes on P2P by Making South Park Free 206 comments
thefickler writes "MTV Networks, the biggest division of Viacom Inc., has announced plans to make every South Park episode available online for free as part of a plan to make the show available to a larger audience." This is apparently largely because of the success of a similar project where they put every episode of The Daily Show on-line a few months back. This action didn't hurt ratings, and it may have actually helped them.
[+] Entertainment: South Park To Be Available Online Free and Legal 277 comments
garnetlion writes "South Park is coming online, free and legal. My brief research has not indicated if it will use DRM, require some silly Windows-only software or be otherwise substandard. According to a Wired blog article, 'Parker and Stone said they were inspired to start the site when they got 'really sick of having to download our own show illegally all the time. So we gave ourselves a legal alternative.'" In this regard South Park joins fellow Comedy Central notable The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, whose archive was made freely available online late last year.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • It got Slashdotted.
    • by wpanderson (67273) on Thursday October 18 2007, @03:38PM (#21031183)

      Service unavailable - Fail to connect

      Kinda demonstrates the case for p2p file transfers, huh.

      • The whole thing is support by relatively unobtrusive contextual ads.

        Kinda demonstrates the case against p2p file transfers...

    • by Endymion (12816) <slashdot@org.thoughtnoise@net> on Thursday October 18 2007, @04:13PM (#21031779) Homepage
      so instead of leaving things be on gootube, and letting google pay for the bandwidth, they decide to setup their own site so they can pay for the bandwidth themselves?

      This "we must have control at all costs" never makes sense to me, especially when there's a financial reason not too...
      • by shinmai (632532) <aapo.saaristo@gmai l . c om> on Thursday October 18 2007, @04:06PM (#21031665) Homepage
        And this is what people kept telling viacom, when they decided to sue youtube, to get more people to use their own video service.

        Many of the companies that threatened to, or did sue youtube, seemed to do so to get more users on their own video-sites. Funny thing is (albeit I might not be what one would describe as an average user) I for one haven't. I like YouTube because it knows what it wants to do, and does it well. It wants to host videos, and it's doing a good job at that. Instead of suing, these companies should've (IMHO, of course) have partnered up with Google & Co. and use the existing fanbase their content had on Youtube, instead of removing the material and hoping people would like to, instead of watching cool videos from one site, wade through half a dozen different sites to do the same..
        I'm not too hot on Comedy Centrals own video player, for instance, and as such, have stopped watching clips of Daily Show and the Report, and instead reverted back to my old habit of downloading the whole episodes from tvrss (Only one channel shows either of the two here in Finland: CNBC shows Daily Show Global Edition, which is a shortened version of the original, with a different moment of zen). Was going to post AC, but what the hell..
  • I don't like it when my TV / VCR gets Slashdotted.
  • by garcia (6573) on Thursday October 18 2007, @03:34PM (#21031115) Homepage
    This is for one reason and one reason only, because GooTube exists. If there was no such thing available to so many people, the media companies wouldn't give a flying rats ass.

    But because people are obviously interested in this medium and they are pissed that Viacom is being a bunch of fucking litigious bastards, they had to do something... We'll see just how it stacks up but based on the other networks' actions, I doubt it will be nearly as popular as the content available in one place - YouTube.

    I realize they want to control the content they own and all, but seriously, isn't it just easier to have someone else foot the bandwidth bills and to have your viewership get it the way they want? They will never learn :(
    • by Shakrai (717556) on Thursday October 18 2007, @03:45PM (#21031309) Journal

      They will never learn :(

      Uhhh, yeah, I'm all about "sticking it to the man" too and I get rather pissed off when media outfits try to use DRM to lock down content that I've paid for, but what exactly is the problem with this?

      They are putting the entire archive of a fairly popular TV show online, at no expense. Even if you have to watch commercials with it (do you? You did on their old site, but TFA seems to suggest you won't) how can you complain about that?

      I would love to see an online archive of Babylon 5, Star Trek:TNG, Law & Order, 24, or any of the other TV shows that I watch. If I could go back and watch my favorite episode at the click of a button and the only downside was a few ads (that I'd see on TV anyway) how am I losing?

      • by compro01 (777531) on Thursday October 18 2007, @03:51PM (#21031411)
        how can you complain about that?

        when their server becomes a pile of molten slag?
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          when their server becomes a pile of molten slag?

          One would assume that they are using some sort of distributed solution, like Akamai. One would also assume that Viacom has enough resources to pull this off if they decide to do so. I'm not having any problems watching (well, downloading, cuz I'm reading /.) videos on that site. Maxed out my 10.0mbit connection as a matter of fact. And that's AFTER a /. article about it....

      • by ucblockhead (63650) on Thursday October 18 2007, @04:09PM (#21031709) Homepage Journal
        Don't get your hopes up. They won't put those shows up. They might put up topical shows like "The Daily Show" because they are essentially worthless a week or so after air. You will never see "The Daily Show" DVDs or year old "The Daily Show" reruns on late night TV because no one would buy/watch. Episodic television, on the other hand, are worth money decades after release.
      • I would love to see an online archive of Babylon 5, Star Trek:TNG, Law & Order, 24, or any of the other TV shows that I watch. If I could go back and watch my favorite episode at the click of a button and the only downside was a few ads (that I'd see on TV anyway) how am I losing?
        www.tv-links.co.uk [tv-links.co.uk]
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        There is a online archive of those. it's called Netflix.

        and I get to watch them in low compression 720X480 resolution instead of 320X240 incredibly high compressed.
        Incredibly high bandwidth, very high latency. and no DRM... well no drm that isn't easily circumvented.
    • wrong. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      When I have control of my content, I have control of the costs and benefits. It appears to me they took their copyrighted videos off youtube in order to start up their own service. They'll control the look, feel and ad revenue. That's the big key here. Comedy Central (et al) will get money in return. Maybe not a profit but Google will see little to no profit.

      I think it's a good business decision provided they can keep up with the demand.
      • I think it's a good business decision provided they can keep up with the demand.

        And if they can't keep up with the demand then they can always partner with Google/Youtube and have them foot the bandwidth bill. And Viacom would still get get a slice of the revenue because it's their content.

        Although something tells me that Viacom won't have major problems paying the bandwidth bill or hiring people smart enough to manage this for them.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Didn't Google just start a new revenue-sharing plan on YouTube? Viacom should upload complete episodes as soon as they air so they can beat the other uploaders and still turn a profit.
    • Maybe if Google paid them a large percentage of the ad money, they'd consider it. Probably a lot larger percentage than the folks at Google would ever listen to without laughing.

      What needs to happen for us to get quality programming online is that people like John Kricfalusi who hate how TV networks are run need to do exactly what he did with The Goddamn George Liquor Program and some of his other work. They need to self-distribute online or direct to DVD. If Google let people with professionally produced,
    • I realize they want to control the content they own and all, but seriously, isn't it just easier to have someone else foot the bandwidth bills and to have your viewership get it the way they want?
      Cheaper? Yes. More profitable? Uncertain. A company tries to make a profit by hosting their content online and people at slashdot are still unhappy? Some of you people truly are just pirates at heart aren't you?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I don't do business with Viacom, so as long as I can find episodes ripped to avi or mpeg, "elsewhere" on the Internet, I will watch them that way.

      In 2007, personal consumption has become politicized. We have learned that most corporations, given any opportunity to screw their customers, will enthusiastically do so.

      So, when I can identify a corporation that is engaged in practices that I find offensive, and I have any small opening to thwart them (even though any effect of my personal actions will be very t
    • by RobotRunAmok (595286) on Thursday October 18 2007, @04:28PM (#21031987)
      I realize they want to control the content they own and all, but

      Stop. Stop right there. No "buts." Quit while your ahead.

      Lookit, all the non-creators and non-artists of the world said "We want the professional distributors to provide your work online, and on-demand! If you don't give it to us the way we want it, we'll just make copies of it and distribute it ourselves." And along came Napster, and [finally] Youtube.

      So now the creators and distributors (Viacom happens to be both) finally begin to steer their gigantic battleship around and begin to offer some shows on the Net. OF COURSE they're going to use their own site to do so (DUH!). Yet you still find a reason to complain because... why? You've already got Youtube bookmarked and it's too much work to mark a new site?

      No, the reason (one of them) is that YouTube had a great leveling effect on video. It was the one site where a professionally produced 30-minute sitcom sat on the shelf next to a webcam vid of a coupla 14-year-olds lip-synching to "Barbie Girl." And this was a source of great satisfaction to the lip-synchers. Now, as more and more of the professional content melts away from YouTube and gets archived on the artists' and distributors' own sites, YouTube reverts to the Major Bowes Amateur Hour status from whence it started, like that Flowers from Algernon guy when the drugs wore off. Meanwhile, the semi-pro artists, not quite ready for Viacom, feeling the great sucking cold draft in the room left by the professional content going bye-bye, begin to glance nervously at the barbie-girlers on their left and the exploding Mentos lunatics on their right, and they begin to bail off to online distribution environs that aren't, um, painted in such primary colors. Youtube begins to garner that odiferous MySpace cachet, other distribution sites erupt to fill the want/need, and a new era of entertainment distribution arises, putting content at the fingertips of anyone with a cellphone or PC, and money in the pockets of the content creators.

      Youtube is dying. Long live online video distribution!!
  • Nitpick (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dorsey (119963) on Thursday October 18 2007, @03:36PM (#21031147)
    Hasn't the Daily Show been on tv for more than eight years? Or do they just consider the Craig Kilborn years to be a completely different show?
    • Re:Nitpick (Score:5, Informative)

      by The Cheez-Czar (4124) <cabrubak@acm.org> on Thursday October 18 2007, @03:43PM (#21031279) Homepage
      Both this article and the original LA Times says its an archive of "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart", Which started in 1999.
      So I guess they do considerer "The Daily Show With Craig Kilborn" to be a different show.

    • Re:Nitpick (Score:4, Interesting)

      by vux984 (928602) on Thursday October 18 2007, @03:46PM (#21031319)
      Or do they just consider the Craig Kilborn years to be a completely different show?

      I know I consider them to be a completely different show.

      Not that I have anything against Craig Kilborn or the show while he hosted it, but Jon really did take the show in a significantly different direction. And I think its a significantly better show as a result.
    • Maybe the correct title would be "Viacom Puts the Entire Daily Show with Jon Stewart Archive Online as I think the show is technically called that now? But you're right, the show began in 1996 and Craig Kilborn was the host until 1999.
      • Re:Nitpick (Score:5, Funny)

        by halcyon1234 (834388) on Thursday October 18 2007, @04:12PM (#21031757) Journal
        I think that "Viacom Puts the Entire Daily Show with Jon Stewart Archive Online as I think the show is technically called that now? But you're right, the show began in 1996 and Craig Kilborn was the host until 1999" is too long of a title for a Slashdot article.
  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Thursday October 18 2007, @03:37PM (#21031165)
    That sounds cool and all but something inside of me is screaming "It's a tarp! [velvetcache.org]" But seriously, whenever a gigacorp does something that seems like a good thing, it just means they're distracting you from the lawyer sneaking up behind with the Urotsukidji razor dildo assault cock. "Oh, wow, this looks interest---YEEEIEEEEEOOWW!!!"
  • ABC (Score:2, Informative)

    ABC.com also offers streaming, 1280X1024 HD full episodes on their website. It's still in beta, but works fine.
  • Not the entire run (Score:4, Informative)

    by skintigh2 (456496) on Thursday October 18 2007, @03:37PM (#21031175)
    The Daily Show has been around since 1996, but 8 years does cover all the Jon Stewart years.

    Also, full shows are not available, just clips, though supposedly you can piece together most episodes.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071018/wr_nm/dailyshow_dc_2 [yahoo.com]
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Yeah it's a pretty weak gesture. I've got an RSS feed dumping torrents in a watch directory shared on my lan. All I have to do is turn on my xbox and watch. If I have to sit in my computer chair and click a bunch of shit I'm not even going to bother.
      • by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Thursday October 18 2007, @04:15PM (#21031813)
        If I have to sit in my computer chair and click a bunch of shit I'm not even going to bother.

        Do you also have a meat paste drip in one arm, and a Mountain Dew drip in the other arm? God forbid you actually have to go through that huge motion of 'clicking' something.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Computers are supposed to automate things for us, not make us work for the computer. Having to jump through a bunch of hoops just to do something is completely unacceptable when there are far easier and more efficient ways of doing things.
  • Not a real fan of the Daily Show (what? I rarely watch the damned TV as it is), but I like that larger companies are at least beginning to make a serious effort (and not just post 380-by-tiny-as-hell resolution clips, then call 'em episodes).

    I just wonder what, say, DirecTV and (to a lesser extent due to bundled broadband) Cable TV operators will do once enough people start ditching their video TV subscriptions, or at least curtailing them to a sizeable extent (I realize this is quite a long ways off, but

  • by dprovine (140134) on Thursday October 18 2007, @03:38PM (#21031195)

    One thing this does is solve the problem that people want to share in community something from The Daily Show that they found really funny, but there's no legal way to do it. Now, you can just link to the right clip from your blog, and put your comments, and welcome others.

    There may be less need to sue YouTube, because there will be far less reason for anyone to grab a clip and upload it to YouTube in the first place.

    It's like the old "common-sense-test" question: if you go into the bathroom and the tub is overflowing, what do you do first? Answer: shut off the water. So they should stop making The Daily Show, and there'd be no problem.

    Wait, that wasn't my point at all. This common sense question has nothing to do with the problem. Drat, my analogies never work out!

  • by Tetsujin (103070) on Thursday October 18 2007, @03:39PM (#21031203) Homepage Journal
    Where are the Craig Kilborn eps?
  • I also hope that someone puts the entire testimony of Stephen Colbert & John Stewart [reuters.com] online from the youtube/viacom trial. I believe they are just as sarcastic and realistic in real life as they are in their shows.

    It would be nice to watch the exxpression on the judge and juror's faces as they hear what John & Steve have to say.
  • That's nice, but the Daily Show has been on for 11 years now.
  • by SpectreBlofeld (886224) on Thursday October 18 2007, @03:44PM (#21031289)
    Because nobody will buy DVDs of old news programs and they know it.
  • Maybe it's just me, but I don't really like watching a show that's been sliced and diced into little pieces...I generally prefer the whole thing. I'm sure that having individual parts reduces overall bandwidth for their servers, but could there at least be an option for the whole show? Otherwise, I don't see how this is any better than if someone were to download it at a higher resolution/bitrate from a torrent site.
  • by kherr (602366) <kevinNO@SPAMpuppethead.com> on Thursday October 18 2007, @03:51PM (#21031407) Homepage
    This is nice and all, but this Flash video crap is stupid. Not only is it not cached properly by web browsers, but people don't watch TV on their tiny computer screens. I watch content via my Apple TV on my gigantic HDTV home theater, I have no interest in sitting at a keyboard waiting for video snippets to load in some Flash video player with a poor user interface.

    At least with YouTube I can access the content directly from my Apple TV (not that YouTube has much to offer in their typical 3-second or whatever clips). I suspect if MySpace gets enough video content Apple will eventually add support for that as well. But companies like Viacom and NBC who decide to offer their own site of Flash video are going to find themselves unnecessarily limiting their potential audience. They'd be much smarter to figure out a way to centralize distribution.
    • I won't argue with you about Flash video, which varies wildly from unwatchable to acceptable, but is it Viacom's fault that your AppleTV doesn't support their site (or, apparently, MySpace), or is it Apple's?
  • I was happily watching eposides till some goof submitted it to slashdot. Daft fool!
  • The Daily Show is news satire. It's relevant for about one or two weeks. Why would anyone want to watch 8 year old episodes?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I don't care how good the actual program is, any more than I care how good an RIAA-backed CD is. It may be ad hominem (ad corporatem?) but if they want to take their ball and go home I'm not going to follow begging.

      Give me a fucking break! They aren't CHARGING YOU FOR THIS. THEY ARE GIVING IT AWAY. There is no way in hell that you can compare them wanting videos removed from Youtube while GIVING AWAY THE CONTENT FOR FREE to the bullshit that RIAA is trying to pull.

      Either I watch on YouTube, or I don't watch at all. I'm not bookmarking 5,000,000 video sites to do casual browsing. That's stupid.

      Again, grow the hell up. It's really that much harder to do a Google search for 'The Daily Show' and following the f

      • As long as the content is available for direct linking there's no reason to complain about this. When the market has enough entrants then you'll see google video turn into something that directly searches a bunch of video sites and links you directly to the video you want.

        That said is there already some kind of aggregrator site that links directly to videos. The rate that these new video sites open up make it hard to keep track of.
    • I'm not bookmarking 5,000,000 video sites to do casual browsing. That's stupid.
      If you watch 5,000,0000 different shows/clips in a month then I'd say that's not the only thing stupid.