The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Blanquepage on November 27, 2011, 11:02:03 PM
-
I hope the mods don't mind me creating a new thread for GSV since the old thread is just that...old.
Finally settled into a new place, things have calmed down at work, and most of my videos are now here in my new apartment. So now updates will recommence!
The WoF & TTD Theater pages have been eliminated; the only thing to get a dedicated theater will be the B&W game shows later in December.
The Christmas stunt will feature a number of hour-long TPiR episodes, along with a few Cullen episodes as well. After this coming week, updates will occur on Fridays going forward, although this week will be the exception since I have a lot of content lined up and uploading as we speak.
Enjoy!
--Jamie
-
I can sum this up in two words:
Great Stuff!
-
Oooooooooohhhhhhhh, Jane Nelson. Mahalo, Cool Brit Guy.
-
Great stuff Jamie. BTW, anybody, what was the rundown for the Tattletales week with Gene & Helen Rayburn, John McCook & Juliet Prowse and Leslie Nielsen(the rookie for that week)? I realized that it was taped in Apr. 1976 and I'm thinking that it was aired in April/May '76 but can anybody help me with the actual rundown? And now we know that Wink & Sandy Martindale's first week on that show's rundown was January 23-29, 1976.
-
Great stuff Jamie. BTW, anybody, what was the rundown for the Tattletales week with Gene & Helen Rayburn, John McCook & Juliet Prowse and Leslie Nielsen(the rookie for that week)? I realized that it was taped in Apr. 1976 and I'm thinking that it was aired in April/May '76 but can anybody help me with the actual rundown? And now we know that Wink & Sandy Martindale's first week on that show's rundown was January 23-29, 1976.
Rundown? Since when did Tattletales become a news show?
/Realizing the source...
//Reporting the celeb gossip of the day, I'm Mary Hart's legs
-
Hates jwplayer because it's not iOS friendly. But glad Jamie is posting again.
-
Hates jwplayer because it's not iOS friendly.
Don't hate the player, hate the dead guy who had a hardon for killing Flash.
-
Oh but that's the fun part -- jwplayer has an HTML5 component. But it doesn't like iOS much. So it starts downloading the flv file, and then asks what I'd like to open it with. (Again, this isn't a throw at Jamie. I see this problem a lot with this player.)
-
Hates jwplayer because it's not iOS friendly.
Don't hate the player, hate the dead guy who had a hardon for is killing Flash.
FTFY. (http://"http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/11/adobe-kills-mobile-flash/")
-
Anyone else notice that in the second "Go!" episode, they give an incorrect final total for one of the teams (based on winnings from the other posted episode)?
-
Hates jwplayer because it's not iOS friendly. But glad Jamie is posting again.
The problem for me is that you can't pause the program without having to reload.
-
Travis--in order to return to the show after hitting Pause, click the "X" at the top left hand side of the "share screen."
As far as a compatible player for iOS, an alternate version of the site is being worked on! No ETA of when that'll be completed though.
--Jamie
-
My only complaint is that the "gray share screen" is already accessible by clicking Menu (which also pauses the video). When I pause the video by clicking the pause button itself, I expect to see the picture frozen so I can remember where I was and/or examine something onscreen at the time I paused it.
Having two buttons that do the exact same thing seems pretty redundant to me.
-
Everyone clear their cache; I uploaded another version of the player with no share screen!
New shows are coming today, incidentally...
--Jamie
-
Travis--in order to return to the show after hitting Pause, click the "X" at the top left hand side of the "share screen."
Cool beans, Guy. Thank you for all the work you do in uploading content that you don't own so that we can all watch the content we want when we want to watch which we also do not own.
:)
-
Everyone clear their cache; I uploaded another version of the player with no share screen!
I thank you, Jamie. :) And I wish to echo Travis' thanks to you for pulling out cool stuff time and again.
-
A few new shows added before retiring for the night: $20k Pyramid w/ David Letterman & Anita Gillette, The Gong Show, WoF '92, and 50 Grand Slam.
More will be coming tomorrow!
--Jamie
-
8 new items posted. Since I've scrapped The Scrapbook, a new little feature I'll be throwing in there are "Snippets;" although there will be mostly full episodes on the playlist, some fun clips will be sprinkled in there too.
Enjoy!
--Jamie
-
In the RealPlayer mode now, the JW Player is not loading up, with Firefox and Google Chrome and IE, the JW player is loaded, but neither one of them can get me to archive the individual video of that page. Will you help the RealPlayer users out Jamie when they want to archives the episodes from your page? Because we know that WinRar is required.
-
Will you help the RealPlayer users out Jamie when they want to archives the episodes from your page?
No.
In other news, an iPhone / iPad friendly version of the site should be launched within the next couple of weeks!
--Jamie
-
No.
Bless you, sir.
-
Anyone who still uses Real Player is soooooooooooo still stuck in the 90s.
-
I'm enjoying the content, Jamie. 95% of them seem to be up my alley. Keep up the great postings.
-
Thanks for posting the obscure shows(Diamond Head, The Fun Factory) you posted so far Jamie! Now with Pass The Buck, the "Sue has the flu" episode from May 8, 1978, was that the last episode to air on GSN? Also, I'm assuming that the Soap Opera College Challenge WOF episode was from November 24, 1992, if there's no reference to Thanksgiving. For The Fun Factory, only 80 episodes were aired on NBC but only 2 of them were aired on GSN and I'm not too sure if the UCLA TV & Radio Archives Center has the same 2 Fun Factory episodes that appeared on GSN, but the one you posted happened to be from one of the early episodes, if not, the series premiere week and for The Gong Show 1978 episode, that was from the 8th-to-last week of the NBC run, but I'll leave that to the folks who have old TV Guides for Gong Show and also the 1976 Tattletales episode with Gene & Helen Rayburn and Leslie Nielsen but pyrfan is an expert so far on those.
-
Avocado.
-
Will you help the RealPlayer users out Jamie when they want to archives the episodes from your page?
In other news, an iPhone / iPad friendly version of the site should be launched within the next couple of weeks!
http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_liuzbqmmPk1qbvc38o1_250.png
-
Hi all, sorry for the delay in the updating process. I'm going to have to make the update days on Saturdays and Sundays due to work stuff. This weekend's update will be initiated tonight, around 10 or 11 CST, and will complete tomorrow afternoon.
--Jamie
-
Irismason needs to get his head out of that POS RealPlayer, and learn how to get with the times. Most of us use VLC nowadays.
-
Hi all, sorry for the delay in the updating process. I'm going to have to make the update days on Saturdays and Sundays due to work stuff. This weekend's update will be initiated tonight, around 10 or 11 CST, and will complete tomorrow afternoon.
It is my solemn pledge to you that I will never bitch and/or moan about your "tardiness" in uploading content that you don't own so that we can all watch the content we want when we want to watch which we also do not own.
So there's that. :)
-
In a sense, though, content that is broadcast over the public airwaves should belong to the public. I know it doesn't work that way, but it should. Companies are granted a license by the FCC because of limited broadcast spectrum.
-
In a sense, though, content that is broadcast over the public airwaves should belong to the public.
But isn't that like saying that I shouldn't own the rights to the content of a speech I have written and presented because I used the same air everyone else breathes to do so?
-
In a sense, though, content that is broadcast over the public airwaves should belong to the public.
Whoo-hoo! I'm going to BitTorrent every song that's ever been broadcast on the radio!
-
Whoo-hoo! I'm going to BitTorrent every song that's ever been broadcast on the radio!
And after you're done doing that, would you send the torrents my way? I sure do love music, but that pesky paying for it model is a relic of the dark ages. I want free.
/Jeebus, what a lame argument.
-
Whoo-hoo! I'm going to BitTorrent every song that's ever been broadcast on the radio!
While this is another one of those times I'm pretty certain that Jimmy's trolling, I have to point out the logical hole here. When you're BitTorrenting, usually what you are getting is the song in question ripped from the CD, which is not the radio transmission; it is by definition much cleaner than the radio transmission. Now, if someone recorded the song off of the direct radio transmission, and then posted THAT, I could see this being a justifiable argument.
-
In a sense, though, content that is broadcast over the public airwaves should belong to the public.
But isn't that like saying that I shouldn't own the rights to the content of a speech I have written and presented because I used the same air everyone else breathes to do so?
Not quite the same, but if I am forced to provide you with the pen and paper to write it and you presented it in my house, I should be able to keep the paper on which you wrote it (or a copy of it) to use as I see fit. That does not prevent you as the writer from trying to sell copies yourself.
-
New shows are up! 4 more coming, including some black and white goodies.
--Jamie
-
Not quite the same, but if I am forced to provide you with the pen and paper to write it and you presented it in my house, I should be able to keep the paper on which you wrote it (or a copy of it) to use as I see fit. That does not prevent you as the writer from trying to sell copies yourself.
According to what case law?
-
Not quite the same, but if I am forced to provide you with the pen and paper to write it and you presented it in my house, I should be able to keep the paper on which you wrote it (or a copy of it) to use as I see fit. That does not prevent you as the writer from trying to sell copies yourself.
According to what case law?
Well, Sony v. Universal made it totally legal to record broadcasts for time-shifting. Of course, that was before Sony owned Columbia, so they may have changed their point of view. :)
-
Well, Sony v. Universal made it totally legal to record broadcasts for time-shifting. Of course, that was before Sony owned Columbia, so they may have changed their point of view. :)
Huh?
-
Well, Sony v. Universal made it totally legal to record broadcasts for time-shifting. Of course, that was before Sony owned Columbia, so they may have changed their point of view. :)
Huh?
Look it up.
-
Well, Sony v. Universal made it totally legal to record broadcasts for time-shifting. Of course, that was before Sony owned Columbia, so they may have changed their point of view. :)
Huh?
Look it up.
Right. The Betamax case. So what?
-
I know it doesn't work that way, but it should.
Not quite the same, but if I am forced to provide you with the pen and paper to write it and you presented it in my house, I should be able to keep the paper on which you wrote it (or a copy of it) to use as I see fit. That does not prevent you as the writer from trying to sell copies yourself.
Well, Sony v. Universal made it totally legal to record broadcasts for time-shifting. Of course, that was before Sony owned Columbia, so they may have changed their point of view. :)
I think the solution is Jimmy needs to upgrade his phone.
-
Right. The Betamax case. So what?
I believe Jimmy is saying that now that Sony has transformed from a mere consumer electronics company into a major content producer, their views on fair use may have changed.
How pertinent that is to the immediate discussion, I leave for everyone to decide for themselves.
-
Right. The Betamax case. So what?
I believe Jimmy is saying that now that Sony has transformed from a mere consumer electronics company into a major content producer, their views on fair use may have changed.
How pertinent that is to the immediate discussion, I leave for everyone to decide for themselves.
Don't forget there's other case law (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc.") which appears to at least contradict Sony v. Universal a bit.
But yeah, open to interpretation.
-
I was watching Match Game a while ago, and all the goodwill that had been accumulating (Michael Burger is a good host, a few of the questions were decent) was pissed away at the hands of Judy Tenuta and Jerry Springer.
/$250 and a color television also was miles away from cutting it, too.
-
I was watching Match Game a while ago, and all the goodwill that had been accumulating (Michael Burger is a good host, a few of the questions were decent) was pissed away at the hands of Judy Tenuta and Jerry Springer.
I've got 9 more of that run...haven't seen any of them in years, but maybe there'll be one more worth posting.
In other news, there are now 4 Christmas-themed TPiR episodes up, and a couple more are in the works to be encoded and uploaded later tonight, along with a Cullen episode or two. Enjoy!
--Jamie
-
/$250 and a color television also was miles away from cutting it, too.
I never had a problem with this aspect. It's a comedy game show where a contestant only has to answer, at most, four "questions". Frankly, when I watch the later episodes of Match Game PM, as exciting as the wins sometimes were, I occasionally asked myself, "They got $20,000 for that?"
-
/$250 and a color television also was miles away from cutting it, too.
I never had a problem with this aspect. It's a comedy game show where a contestant only has to answer, at most, four "questions". Frankly, when I watch the later episodes of Match Game PM, as exciting as the wins sometimes were, I occasionally asked myself, "They got $20,000 for that?"
It was '70's prime access, where every non-spoof show gave out at least a chance at $20,000. There were no returning contestants on prime access shows, so it had to be that way.
-
]I never had a problem with this aspect. It's a comedy game show where a contestant only has to answer, at most, four "questions". Frankly, when I watch the later episodes of Match Game PM, as exciting as the wins sometimes were, I occasionally asked myself, "They got $20,000 for that?"
It was '70's prime access, where every non-spoof show gave out at least a chance at $20,000. There were no returning contestants on prime access shows, so it had to be that way.
Other than $25,000 Pyramid, which was MUCH harder to take for top money, Match Game PM was probably the single highest cash total that could be earned in one appearance in prime access. Compare to Family Feud ($10,000 split five ways) or Cross-Wits (a trip). Meanwhile, Joker's Wild and Tic Tac Dough managed returning champions just fine.
Sorry, but your argument doesn't really hold.
-
]I never had a problem with this aspect. It's a comedy game show where a contestant only has to answer, at most, four "questions". Frankly, when I watch the later episodes of Match Game PM, as exciting as the wins sometimes were, I occasionally asked myself, "They got $20,000 for that?"
It was '70's prime access, where every non-spoof show gave out at least a chance at $20,000. There were no returning contestants on prime access shows, so it had to be that way.
Other than $25,000 Pyramid, which was MUCH harder to take for top money, Match Game PM was probably the single highest cash total that could be earned in one appearance in prime access. Compare to Family Feud ($10,000 split five ways) or Cross-Wits (a trip). Meanwhile, Joker's Wild and Tic Tac Dough managed returning champions just fine.
Sorry, but your argument doesn't really hold.
Well, CW, TJW and TTD were strips which could air anytime, I'm talking about once-a-week shows designed for prime-access, like Treasure Hunt, James Price Is Right, etc. That's why the big money on MGPM.
-
Hi!
After about a quarter of absence from the site due to work and life in general, my next update is in progress with the first two shows up already.
I have about 20 shows that I'll be gradually uploading over the next few days.
Enjoy!
--Jamie
-
On behalf of Iris Mason, we thank you.
-
Two TJW questions and a comment
1 did they have different piles of questions for 50-100-200 dollar questions>
2 when did they have the joker jackpot
jack barry really did keep it moving
-
Jamie, the first CBS TJW you've recently uploaded was from February 7, 1973 according to Tammy Warner, now as for the second episode, it's the week of March 19-23, 1973. Now it's getting complicated from here, but this year, Child's Play and Fantasy are also celebrating 30 years this calendar year. Now there's a lesser-known game show that's also celebrating that milestone this year, do you know what it was Jamie? Jim Lange was the host of that one fresh from his Bullseye stint.
-
Hi!
After about a quarter of absence from the site due to work and life in general, my next update is in progress with the first two shows up already.
I have about 20 shows that I'll be gradually uploading over the next few days.
Enjoy!
--Jamie
Very much looking forward to it. Thanks for sharing.
-
Two TJW questions and a comment
1 did they have different piles of questions for 50-100-200 dollar questions>
2 when did they have the joker jackpot
1. I'm 99% certain they did not. (100% certain with the Mystery category, as the contestant chose a question from seven cards on the front of Jack's podium.)
2. It started with the first episode. For the first 10 shows, you needed four wins, but one of the changes made on the 11th show (along with "triples are worth $200 instead of $150", "if you get three Jokers, you don't automatically win, but you have to answer a question first", and switching the bonus round to "Jokers and Devil") was to reduce the number needed to three.
-
4 new shows added, with 5 more coming...including an It's Academic episode with Art James!
--Jamie
-
Happily the watermark ownership bugs are nicely inconspicuous.
-
Is it me, or was Tom Campbell's entrance the most dangerous GS emcee entrance of all time?
-
Is it me, or was Tom Campbell's entrance the most dangerous GS emcee entrance of all time?
I don't know if I'd say dangerous, but certainly most contrived.
-
Man was Camouflage bad...from Tom's faux suspense and borderline pornographic lines ("Don't stop now...") to the excitement over the money up for play ("$650!!!") to the trippy synth music. Yet, it had some charm somewhere, and is still better than so many shows on TV today. Maybe it's because it took itself a little too seriously, yet knew when to add the trademark Barris goofiness.
Contestant Jim could've used a little valium there too...
-
When you hear Johnny Jacobs talking about the contestants winning "HUNDREDS of dollars in cash!", you know you are dealing with a seriously cheap-ass production. :)
-
When you hear Johnny Jacobs talking about the contestants winning "HUNDREDS of dollars in cash!",
I am so glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.
/Did Tom get fifty bucks every time he said "A brand new Chevrolet"?
-
/Did Tom get fifty bucks every time he said "A brand new Chevrolet"?
I believe you have him mixed up with Tim McCarver.
-
Maybe it's because it took itself a little too seriously, yet knew when to add the trademark Barris goofiness.
It was the inverse of Show Me the Money. Camouflage had no reason to be laying on suspense and tension because you're playing for fifty bucks a question (and not exactly brain burners at that) and hundreds of dollars per game. It doesn't compute. Show Me was answering simple questions for tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars, but didn't take itself seriously enough. "Sorry, you didn't answer the Killer Question correctly so that knocks you out of the game. Everybody dance!"
-
Two TJW questions and a comment
1 did they have different piles of questions for 50-100-200 dollar questions>
2 when did they have the joker jackpot
1. I'm 99% certain they did not. (100% certain with the Mystery category, as the contestant chose a question from seven cards on the front of Jack's podium.)
2. It started with the first episode. For the first 10 shows, you needed four wins, but one of the changes made on the 11th show (along with "triples are worth $200 instead of $150", "if you get three Jokers, you don't automatically win, but you have to answer a question first", and switching the bonus round to "Jokers and Devil") was to reduce the number needed to three.
In response to #2, any idea when the Joker's Jackpot was dropped? From what I understand, both it and the "Jokers and Devils" endgame went at the same time, and that is when "Money and Devils" started (the one used for the duration of the 1977-1986 run). Also, I've heard that the switch was purportedly sometime in 1974...
My own question about CBS-era TJW: Any idea when Perrey & Kingsley's "The Savers" would have been axed as theme music and replaced by Alan Thicke's "Joker's Jive"? Once again, I've heard sometime around 1974, but nothing more precise... Thank you in advance!
-
Bryce, I think the Joker's Jackpot was axed when the show started its syndicated run (IIRC).
-
Small update today, starting with the premiere of The Movie Masters. By no means a great show, but still interesting to see Gene's last show.
Happy Easter!
--Jamie
-
In response to #2, any idea when the Joker's Jackpot was dropped? From what I understand, both it and the "Jokers and Devils" endgame went at the same time, and that is when "Money and Devils" started (the one used for the duration of the 1977-1986 run). Also, I've heard that the switch was purportedly sometime in 1974...
My own question about CBS-era TJW: Any idea when Perrey & Kingsley's "The Savers" would have been axed as theme music and replaced by Alan Thicke's "Joker's Jive"? Once again, I've heard sometime around 1974, but nothing more precise... Thank you in advance!
Going by hazy memories from when I was a kid...but to the best of my recollection, the theme was changed sometime during the last season. I want to say late summer of 1974, or it could have been sometime that fall. I remember tuning into the show one day and heard this new theme and I was surprised, so it could have been on Columbus Day when there was no school (and having not seen the show since Labor Day) - but I'm sure it was sometime around that time.
As for the Joker's Jackpot, when GSN ran the first 8 months of the CBS version a decade ago, I was surprised to see the JJ lasted as long as it did. I thought it was only the first few months. I do remember several contestants racking up the $25,000 limit (and Jack making a big deal about it) sometime in '73 - late summer (just before school started, maybe) and I was sure there was no Joker's Jackpot then. I think they could stay on as long as they won, or until they reached $25K. So I'm saying by summer '73 it was gone.
Anyone have any clearer memories than that?
-
In response to #2, any idea when the Joker's Jackpot was dropped? From what I understand, both it and the "Jokers and Devils" endgame went at the same time, and that is when "Money and Devils" started (the one used for the duration of the 1977-1986 run). Also, I've heard that the switch was purportedly sometime in 1974...
My own question about CBS-era TJW: Any idea when Perrey & Kingsley's "The Savers" would have been axed as theme music and replaced by Alan Thicke's "Joker's Jive"? Once again, I've heard sometime around 1974, but nothing more precise... Thank you in advance!
Going by hazy memories from when I was a kid...but to the best of my recollection, the theme was changed sometime during the last season. I want to say late summer of 1974, or it could have been sometime that fall. I remember tuning into the show one day and heard this new theme and I was surprised, so it could have been on Columbus Day when there was no school (and having not seen the show since Labor Day) - but I'm sure it was sometime around that time.
As for the Joker's Jackpot, when GSN ran the first 8 months of the CBS version a decade ago, I was surprised to see the JJ lasted as long as it did. I thought it was only the first few months. I do remember several contestants racking up the $25,000 limit (and Jack making a big deal about it) sometime in '73 - late summer (just before school started, maybe) and I was sure there was no Joker's Jackpot then. I think they could stay on as long as they won, or until they reached $25K. So I'm saying by summer '73 it was gone.
Anyone have any clearer memories than that?
Based on clips that were shown during the TOC held in the first syndicated season, the Joker's Jackpot was in place as late as Dec. 1973. Jack showed a clip of one of the 25k winners from her initial appearance and the jackpot amount was clearly illuminated on Jack's podium. Same TOC, we see another playing the bonus we are all familiar with and that was dated June 1974. That narrows it a bit.
-
Small update with a nice complete edition of the 8/9/74 episode of Winning Streak, which includes Don Pardo's fee plugs, plus a 1955 episode of The Name's The Same with Mike Wallace on the panel.
I was going to upload the episode of The Big Surprise, but I then found late in the game that videoarchives1000 has a much nicer clean copy on his Youtube page.
I'm off tomorrow and Wednesday and plan to continue making up for the 3 months of no updates. :-)
--Jamie
-
I'm piloting a new playlist style that I thought would be more visually appealing and colorful. Just click the logo of the series to play the available episode. The textual playlist is on the right part of the page.
Feedback on it here or through email would be highly appreciated!
And yes, I'm still working on the iPod / iPhone / iPad version...
Thanks,
--Jamie
-
Why not just put them on YouTube?
-
Why not just put them on YouTube?
For starters I recently renewed the site for another 12 months, so it would be a waste of money if I did that. Furthermore, the ad revenue that the site generated easily paid for the aforementioned renewal. I can't monetize my videos on Youtube because I don't own the material.
So for now the current plan is to use my Youtube page for clips and attracting the audience, and reserving really good stuff for the main site.
Ask me that again in 2013 when it comes time for me to decide if I can keep it going.
--Jamie
-
I can't monetize my videos on Youtube because I don't own the material.
But you're fine with monetizing them on your own site, even though you STILL don't own the material.
Don't ever change, man.
-
I can't monetize my videos on Youtube because I don't own the material.
But you're fine with monetizing them on your own site, even though you STILL don't own the material.
Don't ever change, man.
I honestly never thought that putting 3 ads on the site would be a problem in the 8 years it's been up; I accurately specified the website & content type before obtaining the ads and have never gotten any sort of TOS warnings for putting these ads on the site in the years that it's been up.
Of course I acknowledge that I don't own the material, and make sure it states so on the site, nor would I make the mistake again of charging memberships for any portion of the site or for the content contained therein. I still figured that 3 ads were harmless to contribute to the bandwidth and hosting upkeep.
I'm not running this site to make a profit; that's why it's gone weeks or months without an update before this month.
I realize that the way I phrased it in response to Jimmy made it sound like that was a priority, but it's not. That was a mistake I made in the past.
It's just a personal preference of mine to want to continue enjoying working on a project I've built from scratch where I completely control every aspect of how these video files are presented, the look of them, don't have to worry about bandwidth limits, and don't have to break my own budget in the long run. The ads this past year covered the costs of the domain & bandwidth plus bought a couple of 16mm game show films to be shared on the site. Anything extra other than the bandwidth / hosting has gone directly to something directly relevant to the site itself.
If the ads are such a problem and so reprehensible after all these years, I'll remove them.
--Jamie
-
1) there were ads?
2) Every time I see one of the yinzers post "No copyright infringement intended," I roll my eyes because that's a golden flood of boolsh. Obviously they intend to violate the rights of the holder, else why would you upload the episode?
Here's the problem. You don't own the content. Even if the money you're getting is just to break even, it isn't your call to make. I think it is terrific that you're sharing these gems with us, but you seem to irritate people when you make money off of things you ought'na.
-
1) there were ads?
2) Every time I see one of the yinzers post "No copyright infringement intended," I roll my eyes because that's a golden flood of boolsh. Obviously they intend to violate the rights of the holder, else why would you upload the episode?
Here's the problem. You don't own the content. Even if the money you're getting is just to break even, it isn't your call to make. I think it is terrific that you're sharing these gems with us, but you seem to irritate people when you make money off of things you ought'na.
Fair enough Travis & Chris. The ads are gone as of now.
--Jamie
-
I didn't even know where they were! I was too focused on the content.
-
Every time I see one of the yinzers post "No copyright infringement intended," I roll my eyes because that's a golden flood of boolsh. Obviously they intend to violate the rights of the holder, else why would you upload the episode?
Even when the video does not have a watermark tacked on there by the uploader?
-
I'm actually having an issue deleting the ad codes, but they'll be gone shortly. The site layout gets screwed up.
That watermarks stay to drive traffic over to the site in case they end up elsewhere.
--Jamie
-
Even when the video does not have a watermark tacked on there by the uploader?
Absolutely. The watermark doesn't enter into it. The problem isn't the watermark, it is that someone is taking something they don't own and displaying it. We nod and wink and ignore that because we get to see some old game shows, and who is materially harmed by us watching an episode of Three on a Match. At least be honest about it, as opposed to what they normally do.
-
I'll figure out how to fix the layout of the site without the ad codes tomorrow. Each time I delete them, the layout becomes messed up. I've published the backed up version of the site. This isn't to make an extra $1.00, I'm just tired.
Sorry if anyone else found them offensive or irritating.
EDIT 11:51PM: Before retiring to bed, I posted a poll to obtain more input about how those ads make visitors feel. This can easily drag out on the forum, so if anyone wishes send whatever additional negative feedback on them, feel free to email me directly. Any and all is appreciated.
Thanks,
--Jamie
-
Sorry if anyone else found them offensive or irritating.
Let me make it clear: I neither found them offensive or irritating, in fact, since my adblocker works, I never even saw then. I don't care what you do about them. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of telling Jimmy that YouTube isn't an option because you can't monetize the content you don't own when clearly you meant that as a technical limitation and not a moral / legal one.
You carry on however you see fit.
-
Jimmy, I don't think anyone here was telling you to remove the ads. This isn't like before, when people were sending you money and you were having a hard time giving them the product you promised and they paid for. It's true that the correct response to "I can't make any money off these videos if they're on YouTube" is "You shouldn't be making any money off these videos in the first place", and that remains true regardless of the results of your new poll. You, more than any other collector here, have a reputation for dragging money into the conversation when it comes to collecting videos, whereas others of us go out of our way to avoid it. At a time when "videoarchives1000" is becoming a folk hero in these parts by giving away amazingly rare stuff for free, your YouTube explanation comes off as clumsy at best.
Still, a handful of harmless ads to defray the cost of the website isn't exactly a crime against humanity, and taking them down because a fan or two called you on it really isn't proving anything to anybody. It's certainly not going to win you any sympathy points. It's your site and ultimately none of our business what you do with it. You gain nothing by overreacting to our criticisms.
-
Not an excuse by any means nor to trivialize anything I typed, but last night was the product of me in front of a computer after overindulging on Absolut Pears with apple juice. Total loss of reason and rationality. I agree Matt that I overreacted to the criticism in removing, or trying to remove, the ads because of 2 pieces of feedback. As far as my reason for maintaining my own site instead of YouTube, even now I really can't articulate my preference well. I guess it's the fulfillment of building a site from scratch on a subject I actually care about, having others enjoy it, and the liberty I have with it that I like so much. Clumsy as it sounds, that's my reason. It just makes me feel happy doing it this way.
Sorry all for making a scene. Won't happen again. I'll be removing that poll when I'm back in front of my home computer too.
In other news, I'll be posting more CBS TJW today, so stick around for that...
-
Clumsy as it sounds, that's my reason. It just makes me feel happy doing it this way.
And it's a 100% perfectly legitimate reason, and I am sure that everyone appreciates the efforts you are going to and the content you are sharing as a result. You could have simply said "I don't want Google's paws in my long-form content; I like maintaining control over the whole process" and I don't think anybody would have said boo.
-
Clumsy as it sounds, that's my reason. It just makes me feel happy doing it this way.
And it's a 100% perfectly legitimate reason, and I am sure that everyone appreciates the efforts you are going to and the content you are sharing as a result. You could have simply said "I don't want Google's paws in my long-form content; I like maintaining control over the whole process" and I don't think anybody would have said boo.
Well said by both of you! I just wish I could give ya'll both a cookie!
<totally serious and 100% snark-free>
JakeT
-
At a time when "videoarchives1000" is becoming a folk hero in these parts by giving away amazingly rare stuff for free, your YouTube explanation comes off as clumsy at best.
A big part of it for me is that he's just there, sometimes he uncorks a gem and that's it. He doesn't do anything else. Nothing extra, just good content.
Clumsy as it sounds, that's my reason. It just makes me feel happy doing it this way.
Hey, that absolutely makes sense. I prefer to curate my own stuff too. The problem is that there's more to the issue than putting up the content.
This reminds me years ago of some guy who was on the receiving end of a CTE letter and got his website shut down. Instead of taking his lumps and realizing where he went wrong, he said "Hey, Lawyer guy, you should shut down THAT site too!" And when we told him what a reprobate turdling he was, he said "Well, fine, to redeem myself I'll donate to his website fund." And he had already lost any credibility he had built up, and he went away.
If you look over the thread, you'll see that I'm first in line to say that I enjoy what you post, because you're able to do something I'm not, and you're so willing to share it with everyone. Just do it for the right reasons.
-
This reminds me years ago of some guy who was on the receiving end of a CTE letter and got his website shut down. Instead of taking his lumps and realizing where he went wrong, he said "Hey, Lawyer guy, you should shut down THAT site too!" And when we told him what a reprobate turdling he was, he said "Well, fine, to redeem myself I'll donate to his website fund." And he had already lost any credibility he had built up, and he went away.
Ah yes, rjsbird's narc-ing on BigJon and FLASHGames. Remembered well.
-
Ah yes, rjsbird's narc-ing on BigJon and FLASHGames. Remembered well.
And if anybody forgot you have either Chris P. or me to remind you. :)
-
Ah yes, rjsbird's narc-ing on BigJon and FLASHGames. Remembered well.
And if anybody forgot you have either Chris P. or me to remind you. :)
Out of sheer curiosity, remind me.
-
Ah yes, rjsbird's narc-ing on BigJon and FLASHGames. Remembered well.
And if anybody forgot you have either Chris P. or me to remind you. :)
Out of sheer curiosity, remind me.
I give you the entire thread to refer to how it started and where it really started to turn ugly. (http://"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10282")
-
I give you the entire thread to refer to how it started and where it really started to turn ugly. (http://"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10282")
The juicy bits begin here (http://"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10282&view=findpost&p=135835").
-
Password is one of the most searched words on the internet. It's either Allen Ludden fans or people looking for pron.
-
Or it's one of the old-fashioned ways of saving your process in a video game that, at the time, looked like you couldn't beat in just one sitting.
-
I give you the entire thread to refer to how it started and where it really started to turn ugly. (http://"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10282")
The juicy bits begin here (http://"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10282&view=findpost&p=135835").
O_O. Wow. Just, wow.
-
I give you the entire thread to refer to how it started and where it really started to turn ugly. (http://"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10282")
The sad thing is he was building some serious cred thanks to his ability to listen to criticisms, bug reports and suggestions and do whatever it took to please his "customers". The polar opposite of BigJon.
It is almost surreal that people went from vigorously defending him (Chris L's is especially and unusually passionate*), to making him a despised pariah thanks to a single post. On my set up, the swerve is on the same page.
*Don't take that as a slam, Chris. It's just that I've never seen you get that "worked-up" over something like that.
-
*Don't take that as a slam, Chris. It's just that I've never seen you get that "worked-up" over something like that.
I'm assuming you're talking about the legal strongarming over the domain name. You want to get me ranting, get me talking about our farked-up legal system.
-
I found the Winning Streak money round completely playable. Strip out the six least used letters. I've played with three ways to score: powers-of-two, Fibonacci sequence and Scrabble-style. Everyone I know has enjoyed it to a degree.
-
Damn, I missed Jonsy's postings in that one...those were quite interesting.
-
I like the fact that Jamie's copy of that one surviving, full episode of Winning Streak, is from the original studio master, with all of the original parting gift/be right back bumpers.
That, to me, has always been part of the fun of seeing an episode of a game show (especially from the 70's and 80's) EXACTLY in its original form.
/And, if it's available, the production slate.
-
Based on clips that were shown during the TOC held in the first syndicated season, the Joker's Jackpot was in place as late as Dec. 1973. Jack showed a clip of one of the 25k winners from her initial appearance and the jackpot amount was clearly illuminated on Jack's podium. Same TOC, we see another playing the bonus we are all familiar with and that was dated June 1974. That narrows it a bit.
Good catch! It's been a long time since I've seen those '77 tournament episodes.
Based on that information, I'll try to narrow it down a bit more. In January 1974, they had a special celebrity week, which some of us here say was a one-week try-out of the original pilot version with the stars asking the questions. I don't think I ever saw that week so I'll have to go with what others have said. I'm thinking the format changes of eliminating the Joker's Jackpot and the switch to the Money and Devils bonus round might have taken place immediately after that week. If that's the case, that would place the changes in mid-January 1974.
-
Based on clips that were shown during the TOC held in the first syndicated season, the Joker's Jackpot was in place as late as Dec. 1973. Jack showed a clip of one of the 25k winners from her initial appearance and the jackpot amount was clearly illuminated on Jack's podium. Same TOC, we see another playing the bonus we are all familiar with and that was dated June 1974. That narrows it a bit.
Good catch! It's been a long time since I've seen those '77 tournament episodes.
Based on that information, I'll try to narrow it down a bit more. In January 1974, they had a special celebrity week, which some of us here say was a one-week try-out of the original pilot version with the stars asking the questions. I don't think I ever saw that week so I'll have to go with what others have said. I'm thinking the format changes of eliminating the Joker's Jackpot and the switch to the Money and Devils bonus round might have taken place immediately after that week. If that's the case, that would place the changes in mid-January 1974.
And at that point, 5 games were needed to win the car, but Ian if you can estimate a guess, I'm thinking it's the same Chevrolet car that was offered to the people who break the Joker's Jackpot is that correct?