Slashdot Mirror
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."
Apparently there was no clause in the contract about quality of programming, have you seen the crap on TNT?
yes i run a goth/punk/emo porn site.
How does receiving publicly broadcast data bind you to a contract? It wasn't in the EULA when I bought my TV.
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.
I don't look at ads anywhere -- on television, at the cinema, on shopping center walls... And yet I continue to keep my eyes open and see everything else!
I am stealing all of society! I will crush the world economy! It is my evil masterplan!
Bwahahaha! Ha-ha!
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
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.
Skiping commercials is theft? Then what about hitting mute? What about going to the bathroom? What about talking loudly to your loved ones during commercial? Gonna send us to jail for that?
Should we envision a dark future where you watch a show and then are QUIZZED on the ads you saw? If you pass you're good, if you fail you're fined? That's the only way I can see this form of theft ever really held in check.
When I buy something and take it home or have it delivered to my home, I can do whatever I want with it. If I buy something I can use it however I want. I can even throw it away if I want. Same should apply with my cable television. I paid for it, it was delivered. I didn't sign any contracts promising I'd watch any single second of it, and whatever I do with it is up to me -- the sale never stated otherwise.
And what about broadcast television? What are your signals doing tresspassing on my property? Okay, that one's a bit silly, there are federal regulations for airwaves, but it isn't much siller than calling skipping an ad theft.
Who moderates the meta-moderators?
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.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
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;
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
That's right kids, your cable bill buys you.. spam! Not just any spam, but spam that talks to you and tells you how much you need their products.
:P
I don't remember agreeing to anything about watching commercials and actually wanting to. Nowhere did I put my john hancock on a piece of paper saying, "I wanna see Billy Mays pimp more Oxi Clean to me!"
Someone explain to me PVR's are any different from VCR's with "VCR Plus!" which automatically mark commercials and skip over them when you watch a recorded tape. Same thing, except it's not instantaneous like a PVR. Why is one stealing and one is not?
AOL TW if you're reading. Wanna save some of that 45B mark down? Fire her ass, you'll save yourselves a whole lotta grief down the road.
Don't forget! When you're stealing TV (that you paid for), you're watching communism.
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.
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
Then I'll just take my public airwaves back please... Oh, NOW who's the thief?
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
..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
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
What's going to be next? This???
Will they pay me if I record their channel and JUST watch the comercials? It sounds like a sound arguement.
RonB
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
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...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
After a quick Google I found an example of such device, being the Hitachi VT-FX880E that has a feature called Commercial Advantage. I am not sure how effective it is but his a snippet taken from a review
If the FX880 were a computer Commercial Advantage would be described as its killer app. What it actually reflects is Hitachi ingeniously tackling the old problem of getting rid of the ads from programmes recorded from commercial TV stations. There have been attempts to do this almost from the dawn of the VCR but most have attempted to blank out the ads completely. What Commercial Advantage cleverly does is detect when an ad break starts, automatically kicks into fast forward and then drops back to normal speed when the programme resumes, all without you having to lift a finger.
It does this by detecting a signal that is sent at the beginning of each ad break which effectively returns a network to local programming so ads for that region can be shown. A signal at the end of the break marks network programming restarting and the end of the Commercial Advantage option. As with all good ideas it is deceptively simple but not without its faults. In our tests of the feature we found CA kicking in at the start of local TV promo spots (trailers, etc) that run before the advertisements themselves. Even so, it's a great idea and a genuinely useful one.
aus.music.scrapbook
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)
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
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.
No such draconian measures are required. A simple mandatory commercial display device (CDD) will be required to be installed in the bathroom, behind (for the guys) and in front (for the ladies) the toilet.
A computer will detect when you fall asleep, and will air specially created 'sleepverts' that influence buying decisions why the consumer is asleep!
See, no draconian measures are required at all! Good behaviour will be rewarded with soma
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
laugh now.
but bill and ted will have their revenge:
- digital television, brought to you through your xbox2.
- advertising overlays on your shows every three minutes that you can only get rid of by pressing a special key combo on your xbox controller
what's scary is that you could almost see something like this happening. how fucked up is that?
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...
.. 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.
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.
$0.02 (CDN)
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.
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
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.
==========
Error in module creativity.dll : Unable to create witty comment.
Abort / Retry / Ignore ?
Actually, what Ted doesn't realize is that I use my Tivo so I don't miss any commercials. When I leave the room to get a snack that I saw advertised in the previouse commercial break, I can pause the signal so I don't miss any valuable and high quality advertisements for useful goods and services! Its the people WITHOUT PVRs that are really costing them money.
So, basically I think the networks should make it mandatory that everyone have a Tivo and buy them for everyone. Of course, those of us that already have them would get a credit for a big hard drive.
Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
Smith. 487536 Smith, Winston. I saw you blinking suring that advert.
BB is watching you.
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
If he thinks I have a contract to watch the ads, then he also had a contract: (1) to go back to just showing about 2 minutes of spots every 15 minutes instead of making them every 7 or 8 minutes and taking more than 1/2 of the time; (2) to not have my volume blasted when an ad comes on.
I signed no contract with him or anyone else to watch commercials. But I do question that all seem to put commercials on the same time. Is that collusion between networks???
In summation, an idiot...
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
Actually, for every 2.75 minutes of show that you skip, you're allowed to skip 1 minute of commercials. Keep a calculator handy when you watch.
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.
_______
2B1ASK1
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.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
CW: Have you had any pressure from advertisers?
JK: Our business is so much better this year than it was last year--it's remarkable. Rates are higher.
Doesn't this pretty much nullify and credibility in the whining about how people who skip through ads are hurting the industry? What's very annoying is that they don't "get it": when I'm fast forwarding through the ads, either on the VCR or PVR, I'm scanning to know when to let go of the FF button. I'm paying MORE attention to the ad (albeit in time-compressed space) than I probably would be in real-time.
For example:
"Ad, ugh, where's the remote, , car ad, tampon ad, Miss Cleo, whoa what's that? check out ad, back to fast forward, grow more hair ad, lose unwanted hair ad, Miss Cleo, dog food ad, ad that made no sense and I doubt I'd do better in real-time, Jordan's Furniture ad - stop hafta watch, FF again, car ad, stop for Dean's Home Furniture ad? I doubt it!, Miss Cleo, back to program...
There's probably MORE brand name recognition among VCR/PVR users than the people who have to suffer through real-time ads. If I were in advertising, I'd definitely do a study on this - actually I'd exploit it by making an ad that looks great while fast-forwarded (or one that mimics it in real-time - you'd get 60 seconds of content in 30 seconds!)
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
http://Lenny.com
4 great justice!
Source: The Judge in Life-Line
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
My certain amount of tolerance of overreaching entertainment industry executives has been breached long ago.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
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.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
Below is an excerpt from an article in The Economist about television:
So how is it that commercial American TV can come up with such funny, clever output? The first explanation is HBO. "Sex and the City", "The Sopranos" and "Six Feet Under" are all made by this cable channel, part of AOL Time Warner. "HBO's achievements have had a dramatic impact on the entire media culture; creatively, it's put its rivals to shame," comments Peter Bart, editor of Variety, a Hollywood industry newspaper. HBO owes its achievements to a potent mix: stable management under Jeff Bewkes, who has held one or other of the two top jobs for the past 11 years; savvy, blanket promotion of its shows; and a business model that relies entirely on subscriptions rather than advertising. Curiously, a channel that did not originally chase ratings, because it did not need to, has ended up grabbing them anyway: on Sunday evenings during the summer, "Sex and the City" often beats other network shows. All this enables HBO to take creative risks, which itself draws talent to it. Alan Ball, who writes "Six Feet Under", had previously won an Oscar for the screenplay for "American Beauty", a successful movie. Writers love working there. "On most network TV, once you have a successful formula, you have to stick to it for ten years," says Michael Patrick King, creator of "Sex and the City". "With HBO, we have complete liberty to take the story wherever we want."
The full text of the article is here
Amazing magic tricks
when will the insanity end? arresting whole populations, doesn't, uhm, scale well.
in this particular case, there was NEVER a contract. show me my signature, please. therefore no wrongdoing is ocurring. the stations put on 'free' broadcasting and they really thought thay had us nailed. we now have a workaround and their pissed. well, maybe its time to find a better business model! remember the story about the buggy whips and how, when cars became popular, the BW companies had to find a new business? same thing here. no one is willing to watch commercials (given a choice) and you can either legislate/force people to watch the stupid things or - well - update your business to modern times.
personally, I'd be very happy to see all commercials go the way of the buggy whips. if you want to watch tv, pay for it (eg, cable, satellite). but of course, once we pay for it, let us record and watch the way WE want to.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
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.
It's never failed when recording any channel off of DirecTV satellite.
I don't know if it's the same technology but here's what it does: records the show, and after it's stopped (or powered off by the sat receiver) the VCR travels back through the tape and marks the commercials. It may not be using cue tones, but whatever it is (alien mind-rays?) it's worked perfectly every time I've recorded anything. On UPN, FOX, TLC, WB, ABC, etc.
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
First, consider that for non-premium and non-public channels between one sixth to one third of all broadcast time is advertisement. That cuts the length of original content to between sixteen to twenty hours each day right there.
Second, consider that in the US most prime-time drama and comedy show will film between nine and twenty new episodes per season. (I don't know how frequently news magazine shows produce new episodes.) Even generously assuming one special event that co-opts a show's time slot happens once a month, this means that for prime time comedy and drama shows, only one quarter to one half of broadcast time is original content. Three hours of prime already gets reduced from 180 minutes to 120 to 150 minutes from commercials. Then we need to reduce that by one quarter to one half yielding a range of 60 (at worst) to 115 (at best) minutes of original content programming each night.
Third consider that Friends and ER are the exceptions. The vast majority of television shows do not cost nearly as much as high profile prime time hits.
Fourth, one isn't counting syndication of programs from series that are owned by a network.
Fifth, networks pay studios so much for high profile prime time hits because the studios can get away with charging the networks so much. Whether or not Friends would still be made at the same quality (*cough*) and sold for such a high price in market driven by subscriptions is an unknown.
Sixth, your division of money is skewed because many of those 100 channels are repeats of the same network. A network only has to pay for a program once, when it purchases it. Your figures would only make sense if 100 channels were actually making 100 different prime time hit programs. As it is, of those 100 channels 10 are ABC, 10 are NBC, 10 are CBS, 10 are WB, 10 are FOX, 10 are independant and 10 are PBS or community access.
Seventh, the thirty odd channels left are by sucscription only. It should be rather obvious that these channels already find subscriptions are more than adequate for producing or purchasing enough original content to stay in business.
Your entire argument is built on verbal flatulence. You may in fact be right, but your numbers are so skewed as to be meaningless to figuring out whether or not subscriptions service only is viable as the main model of television viewing.