Red Mosquito • View topic

rich · **Posted:** Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:27 pm

I just went to the link and all of the other artists are listed, but no mention of Pearl Jam tonight. I know that they're playing the show, but are they not allowing their show to be shown online? If so that pretty much sucks. I mean DMB is allowing their sets to be put on tomorrow night. I hope it's just an oversite, but i'm guessing it's not.

Fraidformyrear · **Joined:** Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:23 pm **Posts:** 104

It appears like they are not included in the live stream. Some have pointed out the AT&T connection - bunch o'pussies at AT&T took it upon themselves to censor the bands performance at LaLa - and perhaps PJ doesn't want that to happen again. But who knows, I'm sure there are many other possibilities as to why they are not on the live stream.

I've seen other live streams at festivals that haven't included all performances and not all headliners. Bonneroo 08?

flavdave · **Posted:** Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:54 pm

I wonder if the fact the stream is presented by T-Mobile has anything to do with it. I'm sure Verizon wouldn't be too happy about that.

Iowaska_Experience · **Joined:** Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:56 pm **Posts:** 1158

flavdave wrote:

I wonder if the fact the stream is presented by T-Mobile has anything to do with it. I'm sure Verizon wouldn't be too happy about that.

Yep, big corporations own their asses now. Ed prolly can't even buy Pampers for his kids at Sam's Club without incurring the wrath of Tar-zhay!

Coach · **Posted:** Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:54 pm

I would love to watch this tonight. Darn. Someone send an email!

BrandonVaughn · **Posted:** Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:17 pm

Iowaska_Experience wrote:

flavdave wrote:

I wonder if the fact the stream is presented by T-Mobile has anything to do with it. I'm sure Verizon wouldn't be too happy about that.

Yep, big corporations own their asses now. Ed prolly can't even buy Pampers for his kids at Sam's Club without incurring the wrath of Tar-zhay!

you're a tard.

Iowaska_Experience · **Joined:** Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:56 pm **Posts:** 1158

BrandonVaughn wrote:

Iowaska_Experience wrote:

flavdave wrote:

I wonder if the fact the stream is presented by T-Mobile has anything to do with it. I'm sure Verizon wouldn't be too happy about that.

Yep, big corporations own their asses now. Ed prolly can't even buy Pampers for his kids at Sam's Club without incurring the wrath of Tar-zhay!

you're a tard.

Welcome to the board!!

Spoiler: show

Dillsnufus · **Posted:** Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:30 am

i don't know i'd look anyway when they're suppose to be on because someone on the twitter said they're filming pearl jam today (camera man).

mathboy23 · **Posted:** Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:07 am

Not happening. The stream just went off the air.

bmacsmith · **Joined:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:52 pm **Posts:** 8288

if the reason is that they are still mad at AT&T, then that is fucking bullshit. they should stop crying about it and get over it.

Alessiana · **Joined:** Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:14 am **Posts:** 4355

bmacsmith wrote:

if the reason is that they are still mad at AT&T, then that is fucking bullshit. they should stop crying about it and get over it.

my guess is this has to do with an "exclusivity clause" with verizon, and not a desire to deny us the enjoyment of watching them in a web cast. PJ is understood to have enough "musical power" that AT&T wouldn't try that again. there was blow back on them the last time. they don't need negative publicity out of PJ's camp. of course i could be wrong. it might be that they told eddie they would edit him. if that's the case, then PJ did the right thing.

.

dkfan9 · **Posted:** Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:37 pm

signing a clause like that seems a bit anti-Pearl Jam.

Alessiana · **Joined:** Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:14 am **Posts:** 4355

dkfan9 wrote:

signing a clause like that seems a bit anti-Pearl Jam.

sounds like business to me

.

Mine · **Posted:** Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:58 pm

Alessiana wrote:

dkfan9 wrote:

signing a clause like that seems a bit anti-Pearl Jam.

sounds like business to me

.

business seems a bit anti-Pearl Jam

dkfan9 · **Posted:** Sat Aug 29, 2009 6:49 pm

Mine wrote:

Alessiana wrote:

dkfan9 wrote:

signing a clause like that seems a bit anti-Pearl Jam.

sounds like business to me

.

business seems a bit anti-Pearl Jam

especially when that business results in fans not seeing a show.

bmacsmith · **Joined:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:52 pm **Posts:** 8288

Alessiana wrote:

bmacsmith wrote:

if the reason is that they are still mad at AT&T, then that is fucking bullshit. they should stop crying about it and get over it.

my guess is this has to do with an "exclusivity clause" with verizon, and not a desire to deny us the enjoyment of watching them in a web cast.

maybe they shouldnt sign any exclusivity deals anymore.

Alessiana · **Joined:** Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:14 am **Posts:** 4355

bmacsmith wrote:

Alessiana wrote:

bmacsmith wrote:

if the reason is that they are still mad at AT&T, then that is fucking bullshit. they should stop crying about it and get over it.

my guess is this has to do with an "exclusivity clause" with verizon, and not a desire to deny us the enjoyment of watching them in a web cast.

maybe they shouldnt sign any exclusivity deals anymore.

I have no idea, so I was talking out of my ass, but it doesn't sound like them to do something because they are crying about it. It's not a fair characterization. It's either a business decision based on who the fuck knows, or AT&T was going to censor. It would have been free publicity. They weren't crying about the past.

.

Sandler · **Posted:** Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:07 pm

Festival guy: "Hey Eddie, all the other bands are broadcasting their show on the web, you want in?"
EV: "How much extra does it pay?"
Festival guy: "Um, it's a webcast, so nothing"
EV: "Go fuck yourself"

Is the show on youtube tonight?

Who is online