Turner CEO: "PVR Users Are Thieves"

mrbrown1602 writes: "It was bound to happen - 2600.com is reporting that Turner Broadcasting CEO Jamie Kellner is calling PVR users thieves. When asked why personal video recorders are bad for the industry, Keller says 'Because of the ad skips.... It's theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming.' Since when have we made contracts with the broadcasters for watching their content? More of the 2600 article can be found here."

Comments

Ha Ha friggin Ha.

[Erik_Kahl]

This is silly. I pay my damned cable company ~50 for the right to watch whatever portion I want of what they send down the wire. I didn't agree to watch everything they offer.

Are they going to come and beat me now up if I flip the channel during a commercial. I almost always do.

This is silly.

the future according to the broadcast companies

[Sarin]

Normally I just zap away during a commercial break.
If they get what they want then I can imagine a future with digital tv, when you zap away the commercial break too long, you will be banned from watching the end of the show.
There's going to be all kinds of irritating rules if we don't watch out.

Re:the future according to the broadcast companies

[alcmena]

Actually, I get HB0(1-3) and Cinemax(1-2) for $10/mo total. That's 5 channels at $10, or $2 each. I really wouldn't mind paying $2/month per channel I watch provided the channel is ad-free.

Heck, doing so would drop my monthly bill from $40/mo to around $20/mo. I really spend almost all my time between Fox, SciFi, Discovery, TLC, Animal Planet, HBO(1-3), and Cinemax(1-2).

I'd be hard pressed to name five more channels that I really watch so even at a base rate of $10/mo + $2/channel I would come out ahead.

The future of TV and commercials

[btempleton]

The bad news is the Supreme Court betamax decision, if you read it in detail, may not protect automatic commercial skipping, though it would probably protect manual skipping like the 30 second button or 60x FF.

I've written up an essay of one possible result of the conflict between commercial TV, PVRs, commercial skip and DRM.

You can read about The future of TV in the essay.

Sorry, Cable was to be ad free. BZZT.

[Zeio]

Why do I pay for cable? I remember when they were laying out the lines that it was supposed to be that you paid for a subscription to avoid ads!

HAHAHAH.

And cable stations didn't have to following the 7 dirty words and decency regulations.

What a crock. MTV is sanitized, no one shows skin, its all a failure.

Sorry, Turner, you and your mogul pals failed to deliver. How about showing European style ads with breasts showing? I hate American TV for how sanitized it is. Forget you TED.

I feel like getting a Tivo - I have already upgraded several for my friends, I should just do it. Thanks for MFSTools.

As for Turner's content, it's a joke. Time for Direct TV with a Tivo BUILT IN!!!

End rant;

disgusting

[gvonk]

The only payment for a lot [of content] is the willingness of the viewer to watch the spot, the commercial. That's part of the contract between the network and the viewer. For anybody to step in between that content and encourage the viewer to disregard the payment in time that he's making--I think everybody should fight those people...or let the viewer have a subscription model where they pay for that, in which case the monies can be taken in and distributed back to cover the loss of the ad revenue.

This is wrong on so many levels. I can watch whatever the fuck I want to of the television programming you send into my house. If I want to watch only 3 minutes of CSPAN perday and nothing else, so be it. If I want to watch only the 5 or 6 interesting shows on the air, so be it. If I want to close my eyes and not watch the ads or find some other way to not watch them, too freakin bad for you! YOU were the one who decided that the volatile business model of selling advertising would bring you stable profits; you are the one taking the risk and putting together the programming together in the first place.
I don't owe you anything.

Re:disgusting

[dimator]

YOU were the one who decided that the volatile business model of selling advertising would bring you stable profits

Volatile? This is how television has worked for decades. This model is what pays the stars of the shows millions of dollars per episode. It's hardly volatile.

The interesting thing is, does it really matter if you watch the ads or not? Networks' ad revenue is based on how many people watch a show, which is based on Nielson ratings. It is NOT based on how many people buy something after they see an ad, because that is pretty hard to determine.

So if a Nielson family PVR's a show, it will still show up in it's Nielson rating. Who cares if everyone *else* watches or doesnt watch the ads?

Re:disgusting

[dirk]

While I disagree with saying PVR is basically theft, we have to consider the ramifications of TV with no commercials (or commercials which are watched by no one). Commercials are the only way commercial TV stations generate money. The only other way I can think of for them to generate money is to charge for their channel (and if this happen, cable prices would increase probably 20 times) or to include ads in the actual shows themselves. The problem with the first is obvious, but there is a bigger problem with the second solution. If ads are included in the show (say the cast of friends always have to mention how much they love Jif peanut butter) you start to lose show content and more importantly, show control. If the advertising is integrated with the show, advertisers will rightly want to control how their ads show up. They won't want the evil murder on Law and Order talking about how he loves to spread Jif peanut butter on dead bodies. SO creators lose control of at least part of the content of their shows, which makes for much worse television.

I don't agree that PVRs are theft, but I see no other ways TV can stay free (or even affordable for most people) and have no one watching the commercials.

Re:disgusting

[Rogerborg]

• So if a Nielson family PVR's a show, it will still show up in it's Nielson rating

With a big old question mark over it regarding whether the ads were actually watched. Advertisers - who have to pretend to believe that advertising has an effect - will happily use any uncertainty to leverage pay deals.

There's an interesting advert airing in the UK at the moment, for the main satellite broadcaster. They're selling a tweaked PVR that also decodes two channels at once. The advert is about how subversive this is. Unspecified Men In Black are aghast that Joe Consumer is pausing live TV and watching one channel while recording another. What they don't say is that you can skip adverts. It's a very intruiging angle on it; the broadcasters are clearly uncomfortable with the idea. It doesn't feel right, even to them, and they backed away from pushing one of the big selling points, the ad skips.

Incidentally, in the UK, ratings are gathered minute-by-minute, so they know if we're channel hopping during the adverts. The ratings households also have their VCR recordings watermarked, so their viewings are registered when they play them back. I don't know if they can detect advert skips in a recording, or whether the watermarking works on PVR's. I do know that they're worried about digital content, as we went a week or so at the start of the year with no figures, when they screwed up the rollout of a new interim system to track figures, while they come up with a complete solution to registering all digital content play through the TV.

Now there's a thought. What's the difference between recording and playing back to my PVR, between me getting that same digital content from someone else, or downloading a copy from the 'net, or for that matter using my TV to play a sports game from my PC or console which has in game advertising?

I can see why this is keeping the advertising droids awake at night. If they want to continue pretending that advertising works, they'll need some pretty smart hardware - or some pretty harsh legislation. And it's that latter thought that worries me. If you thought the RIAA and MPAA were bad, wait until the advertising market wakes up and smells the digital coffee.

FINE!

[gnovos]

Then I'll just take my public airwaves back please... Oh, NOW who's the thief?

Does this mean..

[ShaunC]

..if I decide to watch the ads, I can quit paying money to watch cable?

I was under the impression that the money I pay to my cable company - Time Warner, which is a Turner enterprise in its own right - is passed along to the cable content providers in licensing fees. I thought that my cable subscription fee was divvied up and sent piece by piece to Showtime, E!, the Comedy channel, etc. I guess perhaps I've been wrong all these years, and Turner is giving the programming to my (Turner) cable company? That Turner isn't making a penny off the fees I pay to my cable company? Ignoring, of course, the obvious Turner-Time Warner relationship.

I really don't get it. I pay for cable programming, it has commercials. My local TV stations are free, they have commercials. Guess which channels on which I'm more likely to mute/skip commercials? Damn right - the channels I pay for.

Shaun

Re:Does this mean..

[fwr]

You're wrong of course. If that was the case then there would be no extra charge for extra programming with commercials. Most cable companies have a "basic cable" option where you get the basic channels, possibly 20-30 channels, all with commercials. Then they charge you EXTRA for additional channels (like CSPAN, FNC, etc) that ALSO HAVE COMMERCIALS. If your bogus excuse was true then all programming with commercials would be free and there would only be one basic fee for cable TV with extras only for premium programming with no commercials. In fact, as others mentioned, MOST channels do cost the cable company $$$ to provide to it's customers, and that money goes right to the producers of that programming. A much smaller percentage "give" their programming free to cable companies, and an even smaller percentage actually pay cable companies to run their programming. Either you are severely misinformed or you are being dishonest.

Social contract?

[autopr0n]

Maybe he just means 'social contract'. But still, if you can claim someone owes you anything simply for passively listening to radio waves broadcast on public spectrum unencrypted, you seriously need to reevaluate your position.

Its a bit different with cable, since you do actually sign a contract, but I doubt "must watch the adds" is a clause.

And how is this different from flipping channels, or going to the bathroom or something during a regular TV show? Or fast forwarding through commercials on a tape?

really, turner's CEO's position is really pretty tenuous...

Re:Social contract?

[interiot]

There are already exceptions to the "I can listen to anything on the public airwaves I want" notion. It's illegal to 1) listen to other's cellular phone conversations, or 2) import or manufacture a device that allows one to do that. 10 years ago, the idea of such a law would have been laughable, because there's unencrypted stuff passing through your body, right? Now it's law. Today, a law that states that you can't listen to the television airwaves without using a certified TV would be laughable. 10 years from now, it may be ancient history, simply accepted by the lemmings^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hconsumers.

Fair use = STEALING

[HanzoSan]

Face it, its their way of trying to make you feel morally wrong for doing what you have a right to do.

You paid for access to the information, once it gets to you its YOURS to do whatever you want with it, or at least thats how it should be. information is NOT an object, its more like air, they want to charge you for air and then say you are a thief if you use the air in the wrong way, (example you find a way to use the air to create more air)

I love these morons...

[MrHat]

I'm sure they wouldn't mind producing this 'contract', then. What's that? I didn't sign a contract? Well, that's interesting. Perhaps they meant 'broken business model' and not 'contract'.

Additionally, maybe this fucktard Kellner can explain how I go about stealing something I've already paid for. I'd love to hear that one.

I swear to God, the year that we perfect a method to endlessly duplicate food will be the year in which half of the US population starves to death.

In the rare chance that Slashdot is still here when that happens, I'll post an 'I told you so' message. I'll be the one with a shotgun and a food duplicator, hiding in my basement, posting from the only Apple IIe that survived the circumvention crackdown of 2015. I'm saving this link. I expect a +5.

Somebody has to pay for it...

[Gordonjcp]

If you pay for cable or satellite TV, then only a small proportion of the money goes to the company that produces the programmes. Most of it is sucked up by administrivia.

Here in the UK, the "TV Licence" that so many USians seem to just not understand pays for something like 6 advert-free TV stations (two of which are on analogue UHF, all six only being carried on digital TV) and a couple of dozen advert-free radio stations. Now, there's a side effect to this - in heavily commercial radio and TV the programmes are just a vehicle for the adverts. In other words, any programming is just there to fill the 10 minutes between ad breaks. Remove the need to be commercially competitive, and the quality of the programmes goes up - the incentive is to make something that people want to listen to.

£130 well spent, I think...

Re:Somebody has to pay for it...

[extra88]

Remove the need to be commercially competitive, and the quality of the programmes goes up - the incentive is to make something that people want to listen to.

Let me make the american free market counter-argument. American programming is of higher quality because it is ad-supported. You are correct that the progamming can be considered filler between the advertisements but that filler must be of high quality for people to watch it and therefore for advertisements to pay for the programming. If a show is bad, people don't watch, advertisers don't pay for ads on unwatched shows so the show goes away. If a show is good, more people watch it and advertisers pay more to have their ads shown during that program.

With the TV license, the network already has their money, from the TV owners. The network won't get more money if they produce better shows and they won't get less money if they produce worse shows. Even if a TV owner only watches the network's competition, the private broadcasters, the network still gets its money. They only have to produce "good enough" programming across their whole line of channels to keep masses of people from getting rid of their "rabbit ears," dish, cable, or the TV entirely. Even those that do try to do without broadcast TV are harrassed by their own government who treats them as guilty before proven innocent of not paying the license.

The real pro-license argument is it means the network is free from appeasing risk-adverse advertisers and from appealling to the lowest common denominator in its audience. Also the fact that shows do not have to be cut into little bits to fit between the ads allows for greater artistic freedom. The networks have more "pure" goals, they want to "enrich" the audience, not themselves.

PBS is a dilluted form of this. PBS relies on tax money and contributions individual viewers. However the programs also have "sponsors" who are sometimes non-profit organizations but are usually for-profit corporations and they get to show an "ad-like" spot before the program. I remember the sponsor spots being fairly dry, read by PBS announcers with fairly ordinary text shown on screen. It made the argument that show sponsors were not doing it for the TV time plausible. Today the spots are virtually indistinguishable from advertisements on other channels so it's hard to believe the TV time isn't a major motivation for the sponsors.

Thieves is a little strong, but...

[Rakarra]

.. he does have a point, in that commercial TV is supported by.. surprise surprise, commercials!! Commercial advertisers pay money to networks with the expectation that people will see the commercials. If that doesn't happen then the advertisers don't get a return on their money. The advertisers aren't paying for a commercial to simply run, they're paying for a commercial to be run and for people to see it. That's why networks charge more for a timeslot during the Superbowl or during popular programs. Sure, they know not everyone watching a program will see the commercial, but they can be sure a good percentage will. For a device to come around that makes this truly common.. now that's when it becomes dangerous enough to be attacked. The RIAA never cared enough about a few people swapping .wav files or .mp3's over irc... but Napster, Napster became a threat. Advertisers put up with VCRs, because even with those you're still getting a fair amount of the commercial. But a device where you don't even know what commercial aired? The commercial that is paying for the program? It should be no surprise advertisers aren't thrilled about that. And if these devices become popular? Should be no surprise again that they go on the attack. Network TV isn't commercial free, it's not supposed to be. Comments about whether or not this would be a good thing aside, the networks and channels like Cartoon Network, Sci-Fi, Food channel, History Channel.. none of these would survive without people actually watching the commercials that run. Or does everyone look forward to every channel running PBS-like pledge drives?

This is the same argument that comes up when people complain about banner ads in websites. Commercial TV needs either advertising, or else they have to become a pay channel like HBO. Slashdot needs to run advertisements to survive or just become a pay site. So does Salon.

All of them are supported by advertising, advertising which requires viewers for it to work. Saying that PVR users are thieves is... a little extreme, and somewhat silly, but to strip commercials completely out of programs is being a little dishonest.

Re:Thieves is a little strong, but...

[johnw]

There seems to be a growing misconception that, because a business model has worked in the past it therefore must be entitled to legal protection in order to ensure it continues to work in the future.

Consider the position of being, say, a musician a few hundred years ago. You could make a living (probably not a very good one) by composing and playing music for other people but, much like a plumber today you couldn't apply any multipliers to that. You play music for one evening - you get paid (or fed or something) a corresponding amount. If you want to be paid again tomorrow, make sure you have another gig lined up. The only way of avoiding that would be to find a rich sponsor.

Along came printing - suddenly there was a way for musicians (and others) to get the multiplication factor in. Write a piece of music and then *sell* it. You only have to write it once but you can sell it lots of times.

Along came audio recording - an even bigger multiplier. Now you don't even have to play it for each listener. Play it once (all right - I know - several times), record it, then sell it lots of times. You're not guaranteed to make lots of money that way but the potential is there and it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do (and it's perfectly reasonable to insist that others comply by the restrictions you choose to put on your material when you sell it - copyright).

What is *not* reasonable is then to expect legislation simply to preserve your business model from other perfectly legitimate business models. If you're producing and selling recorded music you have absolutely no right to insist that others can't distribute *their* music in a different way, even if it blows your business model right out of the water.

Similarly with the question of commercial TV channels. 100 years ago there were no commercial TV channels (bliss!). A particular combination of available technologies made them feasible (TVs available at prices consumers can afford; cameras and broadcasting kit available at prices consumers definitely can't afford; limited broadcast bandwidth available etc.) Now the technology position is moving on. Lots of new equipment is available and people may not be willing to make the same trade-off as before ("I'll watch your irritating adverts because I want to watch the program in the gaps"), particularly as the quality of both programs and adverts goes through the floor. Perhaps an entirely new business model will have to arise but there is absolutely no possible justification for legislation to protect an existing business model just because its window of opportunity is closing.

Execs say: Well, it sure isn't OUR fault!

[nettdata]

Let's face it, we're becoming over-saturated with marketing, and I think it's losing its effectiveness.

The companies that are placing ads on TV (which seem to take up 50% or more of any show's air time these days) are probably seeing a shitty return on their investment.

As a result, the ad companies are probably complaining that there aren't the same levels of profits, etc., and are complaining to the network execs. Those execs are probably in denial and are looking for a reason that would explain the drop in marketing response, and have become somewhat fixated on PVRs as their scapegoat. After all, it CAN'T be due to the quality of the programming or advertising, could it?

It amazes me that they put such incrediblely shitty programming on TV and yet expect the same returns as with quality programming. Look at adcritic and ifilms to see how quality stuff is entertaining and effective.

Oh, yeah, and I forgot to mention that my PVR is the ONLY reason why I don't ever watch the commercials on TNN... yeah, that's it... it's got nothing to do with the fact thay they have shitty programming and I don't watch ANYTHING on TNN, never mind the commercials.

The solution has been around since the 1920s

[phaze3000]

It's called the BBC. You pay a flat fee, and you get to watch quality TV programs (and shitty TV programs too if you so desire) without any adverts!

Ted Turner has a good point, adverts as an advertising medium haev passed their sell-by date. What a shame his company will go out of business because he'd rather bitch about it than get a new revenue model.

Reducto Ad Absurdum (or something like that)

[briaman]

If this argument applies to broadcasted content - that not watching the adverts constitutes theft - then the same argument must by extension apply to other mediums. Thus buying a newspaper and not reading all of the adverts contained therein also constitutes theft. I hope you have large prisons in America.

Re:strange things are afoot ;)

[drsoran]

what's scary is that you could almost see something like this happening. how fucked up is that?

Almost happening!? It already does happen! I don't remember what channel it was but they were showing some movie and had this big ass graphics overlay run across the screen advertising another television show that was coming "next month" to their channel. Why in the FUCK do they think I care? Does they really need to inform you of that in the middle of the program? Then you get the clowns like TNN and the E network who put a huge band across the bottom of the screen and scroll text across it while the show is on. Also, pretty much every channel now puts their big old logo sitting in the corner of the screen now. Yes, thank you NBC, home of the Olympics. Thank you for putting your huge ass logo on the screen all the time. If it wasn't there I would forget to look at the channel indicator and might think I was watching CBS.

Re:Contract with the networks

[Golias]

An FCC license in a minimal expense compared to what it cost to run a broadcast station. An FCC license is provided (at a small fee) in exchange for keeping other would-be broadcasters from crouding out your signal, it is not a lease of the frequency itself. Use of the frequency is allowed for free, and in exchange, the broadcaster must agree to serve the public interest. Serving the pubic interest, for these purposes, include doing whatever the FCC says is required, (i.e., broadcasting news updates and station ID each hour on radio stations, playing PSA's, etc.)

If broadcasting rights were parceled out like land, and auctioned to the highest bidder, the would cost an order of magnatude higher than an FCC license fee. The market value of bandwiths is huge.

All this is actually off-topic though, because Turner networks are all cable channels, and therefore are not regulated by the FCC. They can broadcast whatever the fuck they want, and no, there is no implied contract that you will watch their ads, because you are paying a cable company to watch their channel, who in turn pays them, and the requirements of all parties are spelled out in black and white on your cable subscription agreement.

The Turner rep who said this is actually flat-out wrong.

In Summation

[blankmange]

This guy is an idiot -- there is no contract with the network when I watch TV, there is certainly no contract to contend with when I skip the addled advertising (is it just me or is it just noise?), and there is certainly no contract dispute when I turn the damn thing off.

In summation, an idiot...

Re:Contract with the networks

[bleckywelcky]

I wonder if the 'channel up' and 'channel down' buttons are in violation of this "contract" as well. Under their train of thought anyone who changes the channel during commercials, or even gets up from the TV to get something to eat or use the bathroom during commercials is a criminal. I know I for one find a couple shows to watch at the same time, and always flip between channels when commercials come on. It always annoys me when the stations time their commercials together too, heh. Well, at least I don't have to watch both sets of commercials... or do I?

All day long I feel like a criminal

[eyeball]

We're seeing an increase of law abiding citizens being treated like criminals in so many parts of our society. Every day we are being combarded with copy protection technology, security screenings, identifications, background and credit checks, etc. I really wonder if someday someone is going to do a study and find that the psychological effects of going through most of life not being trusted is causing all sorts of issues, like incrased stress, depression, family problems, etc... At the very least, one has to wonder if being treated like a criminal would start to make someone act like a criminial.

Let's see...

[Rogerborg]

If I go out of my way actively to avoid an advert, what exactly are the chances that I would buy the product if I'd watched it? Quantify your answer, please.

Advertising is a crock, an utter crock. Advertising is something you spend between X and Y% of your budget on, because that's what market analysts expect, and if you do something unusual, you're high risk. The only people who pretend to believe that it actually does anything are advertising executives and the people carrying the adverts. Note: "pretend".

Oh, sorry, let's also include in that delusional group "e-advertisers". Because god knows that click-through adverts have really being pulling in the revenue, right?

Once again for luck: overt advertising doesn't work! Actually, even advertisers know this, which is why they are so keen on product placement (place the product with the content, or place the content (e.g. of Britney's brassiere) with the product) rather than trying to actually sell the product on merits.

I'm quite happy for the delusions to continue though: I mean, it's paying for this great free ride that we're all enjoying right now. But for anyone in the industry to actually claim that it matters that we watch commercials is crackpot delusion, pure and simple.

Likewise...

[Greyfox]

Listening to NPR or watching PBS without becoming a member must also be theft. Only difference, really, is that NPR and PBS actually have content worth partaking of. I can't wait for the day you park your kids in front of Sesame Street and the SWAT team breaks down your door and demands to see your PBS membership card. And if you can't produce it, they cart you off to jail for theft and put your kids in a foster home.

A lot of new TVs have picture in picture now, which makes channel surfing a breeze. I guess all those companies are just aiding and abetting. I'd love to see the end result of all this being that all remote controls become illegal in the USA. At least that's something that Joe Sixpack can really get up in arms about. "You can take away mah freedom, but you nae can take away mah remote!"

I'm sure it won't take Turner and his slimy little friends long to come up with an even more obnoxious advertising method than the one he currently employs.

my cantract i signed

[4444444]

I signed a contract with a cable company where I pay them for cable access to tv shows I don't remember paying for comercials

Actually, it does work

[ragnar]

What you say assumes that the only function of advertising is to make a direct sale, when in fact it is more often to gain mindshare. The public quickly forgets about a product and advertising is used to keep it in the forefront of people's minds. This is why McDonald's still advertises, even though everyone knows who they are and what they do. (as an aside, McDonald's is really in the real estate business, but that isn't pertinent to my point)

Advertising actually does work, but not in a reliable way. A common marketing mantra is "I know half of my advertising budget is wasted, I just don't know why half." Consequently, they try all sorts of thing, akin to throwing mud on the wall and seeing what sticks. Everybody knows it is a crap shoot and the advertisers and media who sells advertising aren't as naive as you make it out to be.

The fact is that there is some return on investment for advertising or else they wouldn't do it. It may be the case that advertising doesn't work too well on you, but they have already factored in this loss.

Re:Other Crimes

[jelle]

Right on the bat.

I think Kellner is responding to messages from his advertisers that they realize that a lot of people don't actually watch the TV commercials and want to pay less.

On the Internet, one of the factors in the dot com bomb was declining ad revenues because advertisers realized that the banner ad wasn't worth as much as what they were paying for it. Maybe the same advertisers are now questioning the value of TV ads.

As they should, because I've seen enough beep-beep commercials (I just bought a new car, am not looking for another), neither do I have herpes or am I looking for a lawyer. The time of mass media marketed TV ads is over, advertisers are realizing how relatively worthless they are.

What PVRs can do for you is viewer profiling and targeted ads. After a couple of car ads, I'd tell the machine I just bought a new car, and then it will show me commercials for accessories for my new car, and cell phones and PDAs instead, because I'm in the market for new ones right now. What counts in advertising is eyeballs, and another car ad doesn't get my eyeballs right now, it doesn't matter whether I'm looking live or recorded TV.

Really, this will become one of the classic examples that established industry first fights ferociously against changes, and in the end praises the changed environment.

Hey, this sounds familiar

[mikemulvaney]

It seems like someone else was complaining that blocking ads was stealing services(this was around 15:34):

<hemos> Here's the reality:
You block ads.
You cost us money.
Ultimately, I mean.

-Mike

Re:Hey, this sounds familiar

[Sloppy]

And Slashdot had a solution to the problem. Turner has three choices:

1. Accept it and lose money
2. Be smart, like Slashdot, PBS, etc.
3. Purchase legislation against technology

Re:Contract with the networks

[sabinm]

And as the advertising companies pay less for the ads, the programming will get worse.

Why don't people realize that broadcast TV, and even superstations only have programming to sell advertisements, and only have programming because they do sell advertisments.

That is only half the truth. Most likely, what the broadcast stations really want is to maintain their monopoly position (yes, they do have a monopoly position for their specific market). In other words, they want to remain price makers and not be price takers.

In the worst nightmare for the broadcast stations, advertisers will move from paying broadcasters to paying pvr makers. You will just get your advertisements through your pvr, or you will have to record and view a certain amount each month in order to remain active with your pvr account and services.

The broadcast companies will no longer be able to name their price, and will most likely bid for space in the pvr arena. That is what the broadcast fears. There will be no reduction in programming or quality of programming, or people watching, the market will just shift its focust to greener pastures. So no the artist won't starve and you'll still get your good programing. Just instead of "Must See TV", there will be "Must Record TV" brought to you by TiVo, Budweiser, Coca-Cola, and McDonalds.

Getting so you can't tell the pigs from the humans. (paraphrasing from George Orwell's Animal Farm)

Come on people.

[mindstrm]

Don't get so riled up. IT's PR spin, nothing else.

Ranting about it here is preaching to the converted.

They know it's not illegal. They just want it to be, and if big important people get up in the big media and start saying it is, believe it or not, lots of Americans start to believe it too... which curbs the behavior, which is what they want.

no bathroom breaks then?

[amigabill]

Well, I've been stealing TV shows for the vast majority of my lifetime then, taking bathroom breaks, refilling my drink, grabbing a snack, taking dirty dishes to the kitchen, cheking my email, or whatever else I feel during breaks in the show. I suppose I'm also stealing when I fast-forward through commercials if I've taped a show I wasn't home for.

Besides, a lot of commercials are really annoying, and sometimes outright insulting to me. And these commercials only end up making me boycott the product/service/company involved, so not seeing commercials in my case should usually be good for the marketing guys, and hte networks should be happy that I am not boycotting advertizers' stuff due to watching my favorite TV show on that channel.