| 1:42 am on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Wow that site would not even let me access it with one of the proxy services I use but did allow another....I don't get the point you would think they would geo locate and serve an appropriate page rather then a f you page.
| 3:00 am on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Maybe for the internet in America (part of the fortress mentality). I can't see it being the future for everyone else.
| 3:08 am on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
What's the point when seeing the content is as easy as checking it's cache?
I think that there can not be any logical justification for a general non-inclusive IP blocking. I can understand a regional block of some areas which are reputed with high Spam incidents.
| 3:25 am on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Corporate America going Chinese...?
It doesnt realy matter for what reason information walls are build...its just sad and a sign of an inmature angst of loosing control.
Promotional information about a US TV show needs to be protected from aliens (non US people)?
God shave the queen!
| 3:30 am on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
On second thought...
Maybe there is reason to assume some asian copyright infringers steal the idea (plot) of the show and produce a duplicate content show without paying royalties...
| 3:30 am on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It is a sad thing to think that some companies are doing that. It's not the future though, just corporate types trying to hang on to the idea of restricting access to everything (e.g. regional dvds). Sooner or later they'll realize they're shooting themselves in the foot.
| 3:44 am on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Maybe they feel that this info doesn't apply enough to foreigners, so they'd rather save bandwidth and $$$? Is Showtime offered in other countries? If yes, does it have it's own site separate from the American site?
| 6:24 am on Nov 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Looks more like a publicity stunt?
| 12:53 pm on Nov 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Ok, I tried several of my anonymous proxies located in the USA to get in, and I am still blocked.
This does not make sense, if im using an anonymous proxy from the USA, it looks like im coming from a US computer.
Are these showtime folks, so an*l, they are updating denied locations by scanning public anonymous proxy servers, to keep people out.
Does anybody subscribe to one of those anomimizer type services, and can you get in with this service?
| 1:10 pm on Nov 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
When sites like this come up in Google's search results, I just use Google's feedback form to complain - Google directing me to a site I can't access is a waste of my time.
| 1:34 pm on Nov 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I guess the future internet will be more "high concept" rather than 'high tech'.
| 1:37 pm on Nov 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There's a few pages if it cached in Google cache.
| 1:43 pm on Nov 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Finally got in. I had to use FireFox and a high-anonmitity proxy address in the USA.
The web admin has received a really nasty feedback response from me, for trying to block content.
| 8:18 am on Nov 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You need better proxies. ;) I could get there from Japan.
| 12:02 am on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Geeze, now I'm curious as to what you all are seeing.
All I see is a boring tv show website about some psychiatrist...nice intro flash though.
| 12:27 am on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Mind you - The BBC is trialling showing it's terrestrial TV shows online for 7 days after emission, but limiting views to UK viewers only.
So, no US bashing you lads! Pretty soon all UK expats will be gnashing our teeth!
| 12:29 am on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|The BBC is trialling showing it's terrestrial TV shows online for 7 days after emission, but limiting views to UK viewers only. |
BBC is funded by the UK taxpayers so its reasonable to limit access to those who do pay for it.
| 2:07 am on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|BBC is funded by the UK taxpayers so its reasonable to limit access to those who do pay for it. |
So, sho.com is financed by American advertizers so it is reasonable to limit access to the target audience of those who pay for it. ;)
Or I suspect that both media companies are hit with the same problems surrounding digital rights: this area is extremely convoluted, and rights are usually issued geographically - the BBC might have the rights to advertize a show in the UK but not elsewhere. Same goes with Showtime.
It is sadly just another in a long line of cases where the media producers have no real sense of grip of the current reality of global access to digital content. Legislation enforces phony barriers which are always technologically fallible.
| 2:36 am on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|So, sho.com is financed by American advertizers so it is reasonable to limit access to the target audience of those who pay for it. |
But there is a big difference -- advertisers would want their ads to be seen by as many people as possible, even if they are outside of their primary market - it won't hurt for the same fixed ad price! But in case of BBC there are actually no ads, just pure content funded by the taxpayer, in this case taxpayers are not gaining anything by people watching ad-free content without paying for it.
| 2:45 am on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|taxpayers are not gaining anything by people watching ad-free content without paying for it |
But the BBC still have to restrict access, even to their own programs in many cases, to an audience outside the UK. Take a widely-syndicated BBC-produced show such as the Teletubbies (yes, I know, but I have a 2-year-old!). The BBC have sold the North American rights to PBS - so they have given up the right to advertize or broadcast it there.
Successful US shows are sold in multiple deals to multiple countries, often with exclusivity in a particular geographical area. Internet has broken this system, but the media companies prefer the path of digital rights enforcement, whatever the ineffectiveness, rather than give up on the concept itself.
| 3:06 am on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|But the BBC still have to restrict access, even to their own programs in many cases, to an audience outside the UK. |
But that's the idea -- free access to ad-free BBC content is not available to those who don't pay it, this is no different to pretty much anything else - those who pay for content get it.
In some cases BBC does license its content to foreign TV stations, but this is paid for and normally carries ads for those who buy it to make up back their money.
Personally I don't mind this system, but what I want is to have an option for those who want to buy content to buy it there and then easily and cheaply, say if it cost $1 for an episode of "Red Dwarf" then I'd gladly buy it (if I did not remember almost all of them by heart) :)
| 7:02 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Maybe I'm missing something (big surprise) but perhaps there is another reason for this.
A corporate site like Showtime is going to be a prime target for hackers. One of the biggest problems with hackers is that a lot of them are based in foreign shores and out of U.S. jurisdiction to prosecute. So if Showtime is basically only selling to US customers, they are eliminating a very large percentage of vulnerability by refusing access to non-US IP's.
As has been proven in this thread, this tact is by no means bulletproof but it does make it more difficult, even at the cost of valid visitors.
I don't watch TV, period. So if Showtime is international, well, color me ignorant. :-)
| 7:06 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Actually, I think it's probably because they have other properties in other countries and they want the right information getting out to the right countries.
What's with the conspiracy theories here today?
| 7:49 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
> What's with the conspiracy theories here today?
.oO(weren't enuf of same in da update threads?)Oo. :)
| 8:29 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|One of the biggest problems with hackers is that a lot of them are based in foreign shores and out of U.S. jurisdiction to prosecute. |
I have a regional site and would happily block all foriegn IP's of trouble places. Would save a lot of time and worry. It would also clean a lot of crap out of my logs. Would be much easier to keep track of traffic if most of it wasn't garbage.
| 12:16 am on Nov 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|What's with the conspiracy theories here today? |
Hey! Just because we're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not after us! :-D