ReplayTV Users Sue Hollywood

Seth Schoen writes "A group of ReplayTV 4000 users, led by Craigslist creator Craig Newmark, today sued a group of entertainment companies to establish that plaintiffs' use of the ReplayTV (including skipping commercials) is not illegal. The defendants are the same entertainment companies which have sued ReplayTV. Here the end users of the product are getting involved to defend the legitimacy of their activity in the face of allegations that skipping commercials is "theft". The plaintiffs are represented by Ira Rothken and EFF. The case is Newmark v. Turner, in the Central District of California (at Los Angeles). (Some people are calling it Craig v. Hollywood.)"

Comments

Craig vs. Hollywood?

[Mr_Bethesda]

Is that anything like Joe vs. the Volcano?

Re:Craig vs. Hollywood?

[cnewmark]

It's exactly like that, without the girl.

Craig

Re:Craig vs. Hollywood?

[1 (smarterThanYou)]

If Hollywood wins this lawsuit, it is nothing more than a signal of the end of the decline of American Law and Her Courts as something more just than law itself. Seriously. How in the name of all that is just in this world could Hollywood's claims be found true based on an implied contract that the viewers are going to watch the commercials in exchange for the television content? If Hollywood wins, maybe I'll file a suit claiming that Hollywood and I had an implied contract that I never have to watch the commercials. (Remember your Simplicio? in On Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres- The Fifth Element making the imperfect heavenly spheres like the Moon or Mars into perfect ones? And the response that there were imperfect mountains of this clear element on top of the layers that make the heavenly spheres perfect?) Galileo was a pimp. (That was Galileo wasn't it? Maybe Copernicus...but to the best of my recollection it was the former.)

Re:Craig vs. Hollywood?

[geekoid]

only hollywood has more hot gases coming out of it.

Re:Craig vs. Hollywood?

[smnolde]

It's more like public pr0n... There's no sex, but a lot of people get screwed.

Re:Craig vs. Hollywood?

[Jeffrey Baker]

Are you going to run for mayor next time or what?

Re:Craig vs. Hollywood?

[garcia]

No, when that movie was on TV I actually got up during the movie and watched the commercials.

Re:Craig vs. Hollywood?

[milo_Gwalthny]

I doubt Hollywood is going to argue that they can enforce an implied contract. That would be silly. Implied contracts are for ethical use, not legal use.

Hollywood will most probably claim that recording their show, removing the commercials, and then showing it is copyright infringement. That argument is, well, arguable, although it probably fails the fair use defense.

I doubt Hollywood is going to try and make skipping commercials illegal, they just want to make the sale of hardware that skips commercial illegal. An analogy is between sharing songs with friends (legal) and putting up Napster (seemingly illegal as of this writing, although probably changing daily.)

Re:Craig vs. Hollywood?

[Cramer]

Actually, if you pay close attention to the fine print (or fast talking at the end of something like an NFL game), it's not legal for you to "show" your recording. You can record it for your viewing, but nothing more. In reality, those clauses are intended for "public broadcast" of your recording -- i.e. renting a theater and showing last weeks Friends episode to anyone who walks in. Of course, it's perfectly legal for you to have 100 of your friends, neighbors, and random people found in a nearby mall over to watch said Friends episode as it's aired.

• An analogy is between sharing songs with friends (legal) and putting up Napster...

Again, read the fine print. The copyright notice on every CD I've ever read specifically prohibits lending the disc to someone else. The purchaser is granted the right to listen to the thing, but nothing more. I'm sure someone is going to get the dim idea to sue people for playing said diccs where things other than the purchaser can hear it.

It's a very stupid, greedy world we live in.

Re:Craig vs. Hollywood?

[milo_Gwalthny]

I agree, the copyright argument is obviated by the fair use exemption.

I am pretty sure that the courts have found that making copies of music for friends is legal, it's the making them available to everyone and his uncle that is illegal.

Re:Craig vs. Hollywood?

[Cramer]

• making copies of music for friends is legal

No, it isn't. It's just nearly impossible to enforce.

Lending them the original is what the fine print prohibits. Making "mix tapes" is open for debate.

Re:Craig vs. Hollywood?

[Art Tatum]

Hollywood will most probably claim that recording their show, removing the commercials, and then showing it is copyright infringement.

Really, wouldn't it make more sense that putting commercials INTO the broadcast is in violation of copyright because the original program was conceived as a continuous whole? Of course, content creators are probably forced to sign over all rights to the networks similarly to the way musicians end up losing all rights to the record labels.

Re:Craig vs. Hollywood?

[milo_Gwalthny]

Don't laugh at me... this USA Today article was the first google that wasn't propaganda: Music-copying laws often shield consumers.

It basically says this point is untried and unclear. It does say "the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act shelters consumers from being sued over music they copy at home for their use. Furthermore -- and this is where the law gets ambiguous -- the act also may protect consumers from being sued over music they copy for their friends, legal experts say."

Of course, I wouldn't pay USA Today $500/hour to represent me in court :).

Re:Craig vs. Hollywood?

[BamaSlam]

Maybee I can get that guy that drives thru my neighborhood in the middle of the night playing his car stereo at volumes high enough to wake the dead arrested for copyright infringement.

Just a thought

Re:Craig vs. Hollywood?

[Cramer]

Making a tape from a CD isn't "duplication" either. They are certainly correct in saying you make copies for your own personal use. Lending them to friends isn't exactly "your personal use".

There's a big difference between what laws exist and what laws are enforcable. If I copy a CD and give it to a friend, how will the fuzz know to come arrest me?

Re:Craig vs. Hollywood?

[patchmaster]

If Hollywood wins, maybe I'll file a suit claiming that Hollywood and I had an implied contract that I never have to watch the commercials.

I think you'd have better luck claiming the networks have an implied contract to put on quality programming that's actually worth watching. They've obviously not kept up their end of the contract.

Re:Craig vs. Hollywood?

[someone247356]

Wouldn't "lending the original CD-ROM" be covered by the "first sale doctrine"?

Since you aren't making a copy of the CD-ROM, if you lend it to your friend, copyright law has absolutely no bearing on it.

If I want to resell, lend, use for target practice, a CD-ROM that I have legally purchased, it's none of the record companies business.

If it was, used records stores and libraries would have been out of business years ago.

IANAL, so your mileage may vary....

Just my $0.02 (Canadian, before taxes)

Re:Craig vs. Hollywood?

[Cramer]

• Wouldn't "lending the original CD-ROM" be covered by the "first sale doctrine"?

No. You are not tranfering ownership of the disc. You are handing the disc to someone with the expectation that they are going to return it at some (near term) later date.

See, you may own the actual physical metal and plastic disc, but you do not own the data it contains. The industry believes you don't own anything at all. They've leased the disc and contents to you and they have the right to terminate that lease at will.

• If I want to resell, lend, use for target practice...

What you do for your own exclusive use is your business only. Just as my right to swing my fist stops where your nose begins, your right to do as you please with that disc ends where someone else gets involved.

• used records stores and libraries

... are very specific exceptions. It's perfectly legal to transfer ownership. So, the store itself is perfectly legal -- however the person selling their CDs are very likely to be violating copyright by still holding duplicates. Libraries and rental stores are explicit exceptions. Libraries don't make a profit lending things nor are they likely to have new, "exclusive" content -- in fact, a lot of libraries don't have anything until someone donates it. Rental stores have explicit permission to run their business -- and they pay a premium for "first available" content (5 to 10 times what you will pay at WalMart.)

Re:Craig vs. Hollywood?

[someone247356]

Hmmm, where should I start?

You said;
"No. You are not transferring ownership of the disc. You are handing the disc to someone with the expectation that they are going to return it at some (near term) later date."

From (http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/scc/tutorial/basics2a.htm l)
"The First Sale Doctrine
A distinction not always recognized is that ownership of the physical item, such as a book or a CD, is not the same as owning the copyright to the work embodied in that item. Under the first sale doctrine, ownership of a physical copy of a copyrighted work, like a book, permits lending the item, reselling the item, disposing of the item, burning the item, and so forth, but it does not permit copying the item in its entirety. That is because the transfer of the physical copy does not include transfer of the copyright to the work. A transfer or assignment of copyright must be signed and in writing to be valid ..."

or from (http://www.idsa.com/firstsaleopposition.html)
"What is the "First Sale" Doctrine?
The "First Sale" doctrine is a key element of the legal framework to encourage dissemination of copyrighted works. As now codified in the Copyright Act, the doctrine allows the owner of a particular lawful copy of a work to "sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy" without the permission of the copyright owner. This provision enables, for example, wholesalers to sell copies to retailers, libraries to lend copies to patrons, and individuals who have lawfully acquired copies of works to give them to friends or family. The doctrine states (with some exceptions) that the copyright owner's exclusive distribution right no longer applies to a particular copy once it has been sold the first time. "

or even from (http://www.ala.org/oitp/copyr/firstsale.html)
"First Sale is a historic user protection in copyright law. The doctrine basically says that purchasers of tangible products containing copyrighted information, such as books or music CDs, may dispose of those works in any way they wish. They may sell them, give them away, loan, or rent them, for example. Libraries, which regularly purchase works and loan them to users, are clearly very dependent on First Sale."

etc., etc., ad nauseum....

You said;
"Libraries and rental stores are explicit exceptions. Libraries don't make a profit lending things nor are they likely to have new, "exclusive" content... "

Are you saying that I make a profit lending my CD-ROMs to my friends and family? Or perhaps you meant that I somehow manage to get my hands on EXCLUSIVE content? The only library exemptions are exemptions on the prohibition of copying. Lending isn't covered by copyright, it's covered by "First Sale".

You also said;
"...See, you may own the actual physical metal and plastic disc, but you do not own the data it contains. The industry believes you don't own anything at all. They've leased the disc and contents to you and they have the right to terminate that lease at will."

The copyright holders may want you to believe that you have leased the data, but copyright and especially "first sale" applies anytime you purchase a copyrighted work fixed in a tangible medium. The sale/lease/rental of intangible works is still a bit of a gray area, but if they sell you the book, CD-ROM, DVD, you have a couple of centuries of law to stand on.

In fact, according to Judge Dean Pregerson ( http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/hague-jur-com mercial-law/2001-November/000364.html )
"The judge, in the case Adobe vs. Softman heard in the Central District of California, has ruled that consumers can resell bundled software, no matter what the EULA, or End User License Agreement, stipulates. Specifically, the ruling decrees that software purchases be treated as sales transactions, rather than explicit license agreements. In other words, consumers should have the same rights they'd enjoy under existing copyright legislation when buying a CD or a book. They can't make copies, but they can resell what they own."

[also at http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/pubs/s wbook/#copyright Softman Products v. Adobe Systems 171 F.Supp.2d 1075 (C.D. Cal.2001)]

So actually, (at least in the 9th circuit) I do own the data it contains. Admittedly, this case was about software, not CD-ROMs or DVDs, but I draw your attention to the last portion of the statement;
"...consumers should have the same rights they'd enjoy under existing copyright legislation when buying a CD or a book. They can't make copies, but they can resell what they own."

It illustrates that this judge at least, and I would suspect most judges, view music CD-ROMs as having the same protections as books have enjoyed all of these years, no matter how badly the publisher may wish it otherwise. That includes all of the privileges under "Fair Use" and the "First Sale Doctrine".

I think that illustrates that my initial statement that "First Sale", not copyright governs the lending of the original legally obtained copy of an audio CD-ROM, or DVD. Furthermore lending your CD-ROM to your friends/family/perfect stranger is perfectly legal.

As always, IANAL so consult with your local barrister/judge if you want legal advice.

Just my $0.02 (Canadian, before taxes)

Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait for the TV movie adaptation of this trial. Hopefully they'll get Tom Cruise to play Craig Newmark

Re:Interesting

[jimm]

...and Arnold Schwarzenegger as Hollywood.

Re:Interesting

[user32.ExitWindowsEx]

I presume you'll fast forward through the ads.
:p

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO a Scientologist wouldn't be the most appropriate choice for the role.

PayPal donations go where?

[Beatbyte]

Someone needs to setup a donation account somewhere so we can donate in Craig's cause.

I know I'd donate. I value my rights enough to drop 50 bucks on it.

Re:PayPal donations go where?

[Cmdr Taco (luser)]

Well, seeing as how EFF is helping to bring the suit, just donate here

Paypal is amongst their many payment methods.

Re:PayPal donations go where?

[klund]

I know I'd donate. I value my rights enough to drop 50 bucks on it.

I would think that the best destination for your donations would be an EFF membership. In fact, the EFF has already set up a Newmark v. Turner page:

EFF has asked a federal court to declare that Replay TV owners have the right to digitally record television programs, fast-forward through commercials, and send shows to other devices. In numerous press statements and legal filings, the entertainment industry claims that such recording for "time-shifting" and "space-shifting" purposes is a copyright infringement and that avoiding commercials is "theft" and "stealing". Five Replay TV owners have filed a Declaratory Judgment law suit against twenty-eight entertainment companies asking that their activity be ruled lawful fair use under copyright law.

Join EFF's fight to defend the consumers' right to digital VCR's.

And yes, the EFF takes PayPal.

Re:PayPal donations go where?

[mosch]

don't trust paypal. paypal sucks.

Re:PayPal donations go where?

[MindStalker]

Yes, when VCRs came out the movie industry had a fit, and said any recordings of broadcast material made for any purpose without permission is illigal. The supreme court knocked that down and told them to go away. They still think its bad though, shrugs.
Now they are saying that time shifting through commericals is illigal.
The betamax case happend 10 years after the introduction of the VCR. So everybody was very familiar with them, and the judges themselves had partaken in the use of them. In this case, the judges have very little experience with the devices, and hopefully can gain substatual knowledge of them for this trial. I Replay should send all the fed court judges who may get this trial a free PVR? Or is that bribary, well atleast they should make sure to let the judges try it out in some manor of the other.

What about snacks and VCRs?

[ProlificSage]

So, now every time I go to the fridge to get a snack during commercials, I'm a thief? Or the thousands who tape their favorite shows and then hit the Commercial Skip button on the VCR remote? Give me a break. Hollywood needs to grow up.

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[BagOBones]

Better also lock the up channel up and down buttons so I don't flip the channels while thier add is on..

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[BitHive]

The parent post gets at one of my only complaints about DVDs. Most I've seen do not let you skip the intro clips and FBI warnings. One even had previews I couldn't skip! If I paid for a DVD, I expect to be able to skip tracks. There's no good reason to lock out my remote control--ever.

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[dasmegabyte]

I generally use that time to take a big dump. Maybe the RIAA should sue my colon. If I know ahead of time, I can have taco bell for lunch and guarantee a large settlement.

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[Midnight Thunder]

Just for added measure the entertainment companies are going to attach cuffs to TV sets. You can only watch the program if you have cuffed yourself to the TV and then it is up to the broadcaster when you can go pee or have a life - the cuffs will only unlock when they decide.

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone thought about this...

What happens if I change the channel to watch a different commercial at the same time? Do the advertisers sue each other over audience thievery?

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[1010011010]

I will sometimes use VLC (VideoLAN) rather than by entertainment center DVD player and TV, to watch DVDs with annoying ads, promos, previews, warnings, etc. that cannot be skipped. VLC doesn't understand menus at all -- it just plays the movie. WHICH IS HOW THE GOD DAMMNED THING SHOULD WORK ANYWAY.

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[doofus1]

Actually, what the entertainment industry really wants is something ala a clockwork orange where you're stuck in from of the tv with an apparatus attached to your face to prevent you from closing your eyes during commercial breaks.

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[Target Drone]

So, now every time I go to the fridge to get a snack during commercials, I'm a thief?

I heard a rumor that Hollywood is working on a way to force people to watch commercials using the same technique as in the movie A Clockwork Orange. They expect that this will completely eliminate the problem of theft.

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[xTK-421x]

You can order from this company Techtronics. They have mod chips and kits that give you the ability to skip FBI Warnings, change regions, and remove macrovision. They have a nice kit for my Pioneer 525 here, but it's too expensive for the little use it would get for me.

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[cicho]

...and not just FBI warnings. Some DVDs have copyright warnings in several languages (most of which I don't speak, of course), and you get to sit through them all. But of course, since none of these warnings is ever in my mother tongue, I still don't feel bound by any of them!

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[DLWormwood]

The Turner/AOLTW exec who said this was theft completely missed the entire point of advertising...

I mean, if a Malted Battery Acid(TM) ad came on during a show, it might remind me that I have some in fridge. Wouldn't getting up to get the drink contribute to a possible future purchase to replace it, even though I'm now "stealing" since I'll miss the next couple of ads?

Even with a digital recorder that can skip ads, they are still recorded, meaning that the viewer may still end up seeing the very start or end of an ad, enough for some ads to be effective. And remember, people who are irritated by ads enough to skip them would be less likely to buy the product if they are "tricked" into seeing an ad for it, especially if they know of a competitor from what is perceived to be a less intrusive ad or from word of mouth.

IMHO, the best way advertisers and the media can cope with this new tech is to start to vary the length of commercials away from fixed-15 or 30-second spots. A 27-second or 19-second commercial can be just as effective, and modern digital technology can now ease the burden of scheduling that variable break times can cause.

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[gehrehmee]

All the FOX dvd i own, in particular, have unskippable previews/advertisements.

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[clarkgoble]

The news organizations are doing this. (Damn I hate those cluttered screens on CNN Headline news) Worst yet is TNN which blocks a black bar along the bottom of the screen to put various information during all their shows. (Except for commercials, of course -- those are sancrosanct)

Also notice that those @#$%ing network identification icons every station has aren't put on any commercials. Yeah. They *don't* affect your viewing "pleasure" they say. If that's true, why aren't they on the commercials?

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[Cramer]

Yes, there is a bit in the data to lock the UI. This was put there only for the FBI warning (copyright crap.) However, the entire industry began abusing this instantly. Disney is, by far, the worst of the lot locking the UI for over 10 minutes of previews, promos, and other useless shit on some DVDs. Someone should sue the industry for misuse of the technology -- of course, the DVDCCA won't allow that sort of thing to happen. (and only a licensee could bring such a suit which would require disclosure of at least part of the secret book.)

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[RocketRay]

I rarely see those warnings because I put the DVD in, then turn on the stereo, then turn on the TV, then I go hit the can. By the time all that's done, I'm happily looking at the menu. :)

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[Physics Dude]

If I ever buy a DVD that has unskippable adds or previews, I immediately take it back to the store for a refund.

If the studios get enough returns, they'll either have to put a warning label on it, or just put up with the lost revenue. (my guess is they'll take that second option over loosing any kind of control of the masses)

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[_ph1ux_]

speaking of this... has anyone noticed that networks plan their commercial breaks at the same time as eachother to try to prevent people from flipping between shows. So if show A goes to commercial - show B does at the same time. I HATE THAT.

But then again I also HATE hollywood and have contempt for it and all stars for their eliteism anyways.

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[bafu]

So, now every time I go to the fridge to get a snack during commercials, I'm a thief?

That depends on whose fridge you are raiding, I suppose...

;-)

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[Suppafly]

i think /. ran a story a while back where people in canada or some place are suing to regulate those damn network id icons

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[inquisitor]

Techtronics have a pretty awful reputation, unfortunately. Amazed they're still around, actually...

There's lots of other companies in the UK (and elsewhere) that will mod for you if you look.

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[xTK-421x]

Really? While I haven't used them personally, my friend in the UK ordered a 525, and he got it a week later and it worked great. Please post some of the others here so people will be able to shop and compare.

Re:What about snacks and VCRs?

[inquisitor]

OK, here are a few: Home Cinema Heaven/Upgrade Heaven, Link Online, AV Land, all of which have much better reps on uk.media.dvd than Techtronics.

Techtronics' problems mostly come from their after-sales customer service, as far as I can see - never dealt with them myself, but seen far too many horror stories on umd. YMMV.

Linux users should sue Hollywood

[User 956]

Linux usres should sue Hollywood for the same thing, so OSS doesn't get the DMCA smack-down sometime in the not-so-distant future.

Unfortunately, given that you corduroy-wearing bearded linux hippies can't even get it together for a coherent boycott, I doubt a class-action suit will surface anytime soon.

its too bad

[davmct]

I thought Tuesdays were "screw the MPAA" day and Thursdays were "Oooh, Newline just released the LOTR Behind the Scenes DVD" party.

Re:its too bad

[jamie]

"I thought Tuesdays were 'screw the MPAA' day and Thursdays were 'Oooh, Newline just released the LOTR Behind the Scenes DVD' party."

http://slashdot.org/faq/slashmeta.shtml#sm1100

congradulations...

[Ty]

...Replay users are eventually going to screw up the ad industry so much that the net result is going to be more aggressive product placement ads. For example, ads superimposed into the program or more product placement.

Just wonderful.

Re:congradulations...

[s.a.m]

Just to let you know if you have Directv then this is sorta the case now. I'm watching ads on the tv and whenever AT&T comes on it asks me to interact w/ it. I'm using the Phillips receiver which has the interaction stuff.

It pops up on the Discovery Channel, several ads and on the Showtime network.

So this is already in place. Yeah there is probably some way to turn it off. Or I can just hit exit and it will go away. It's usefully because there are certain times where the interact button comes in helpful so I don't wanna disable it.

Re:congradulations...

[TheNecromancer]

...Replay users are eventually going to screw up the ad industry so much that the net result is going to be more aggressive product placement ads. For example, ads superimposed into the program or more product placement.

Just wonderful.

For God's sake, do you value your rights so little that you're more worried about superimposed ads in your programming than someone telling you what to do in the privacy of your own home?

Show some backbone and start fighting for your rights, ffs!

Re:congradulations...

[Sloppy]

Being offrred more shitty content that you can refuse, sure beats having even more laws pushed on you (e.g. outlawing PVRs), which you can't refuse.

Re:congradulations...

[fire-eyes]

Any program or station that starts crap like commercials inside the program is going to kiss my viewership goodbye. I don't care what program or network or sport it is.

Think with your heads, television industry.

Why the hell should the rest of us suffer for what you see as a threat, by a small percentage of users? Eat me.

Re:congradulations...

[Geeyzus]

more product placement.

How can you even bitch about product placement as a way for companies to make money? It's completely non-intrusive. Do you really get upset when you see someone on a sitcom drinking a Pepsi? I know you want 24 hours of great uninterrupted entertainment geared directly towards you, with no money being made by anyone and all, but give me a break...

Mark

Re:congradulations...

[jbarr]

Placement? Initially, but I don't think this is a long-term solution. For "national" brands, this might be OK, but what about "local" brands? (Car dealerships, local stores, etc.)

The problem with product placement is that they can become quickly outdated, and they are not necessarilly globally targeted.

Superimposed? Fine! Let the technology advance. A good alternative would be to have "superimposed product placement". Imagine filming a show like "Friends" and when Ross drinks a can of pop, he just uses a "generic" can. Then, depending on the market, a specific "brand" could be superimposed on the can. Maybe this type of technology isn't advanced enough, but remember what is the "Mother of Invention?"

Re:congradulations...

[Zathrus]

They don't have the right to make me watch it on their terms either.

realize that skipping commercials will prompt the producers to find other ways to recoup production costs

Exactly. And they need to do that. The industry is changing, but instead of trying to change with it they're attempting to legislate and sue their business model into perpetuity.

Re:congradulations...

[AJWM]

Do you really get upset when you see someone on a sitcom drinking a Pepsi?

Heh. Remember the subtle and amusing anti-product placement in the movie "Repo Man"? They'd go buy some snacks and beer and everything was generically labeled (in plain black and white as I recall) "Chips" or "Beer" or "Food".

Pretty funny really. (And if you haven't seen that movie, you should.)

Re:congradulations...

[prockcore]

"How can you even bitch about product placement as a way for companies to make money? It's completely non-intrusive."

Product placement isn't a problem, but have you seen the *very* intrusive ads the WB have been doing? Here in Tucson there's a god awful Car Ad that plays DURING the show. A car horn honks, and the ad "drives" across the bottom of the screen.. during the goddamn show.

Expect a crapload more of this. Soon all TV will be framed in ads.

Re:congradulations...

[Erasmus Darwin]

"How can you even bitch about product placement as a way for companies to make money? It's completely non-intrusive."

Spoken like someone who hasn't seen the Josie and the Pussycats movie. Despite being a somewhat formulaic teen friendship comedy with a predictable "evil corporate empire" plot, it manages to serve as an excellent satire and example of over-the-top product placement.

While the product placement in the movie is intended to be absurd, I can't help but imagine television latching on to similar practices when/if product placement becomes their primary source of revenue.

Re:congradulations...

[Sloppy]

"NetSec" doesn't ring a bell with me. That guy must be an imposter.

Re:congradulations...

[dasmegabyte]

As an aside, I feel product placements, as long as they're not forced, are nice. I absolutely hate it when a program has to make up the name of a product. Ex: the first episode of Andy Richter's new show has him eating what are obviously Doritos, and referring to them as "Ranch style taco chips," which was not even funny. If they can make a few grand AND call them by their real name...hey, more power. After all, I don't say "hey, would you gross American style yellow beer?" -- I say "wanna bud?"

Re:congradulations...

[dirk]

I can bitch about producy placement because if that is the revenue model, the advertisers will completely control the show. TV is by an large for the basic common denominator right now. If it was funded in this way, there would be no controversial television. Advertisers sometimes cave to small groups of people protesting a show now, and their product is not directly linked to the show. If a show wants to do something controversial, do you think advertisers will let their products be in the show itself? If there is a domestic violence episode, will they allow the abuser to talk about how much he loves Pepsi? Not a chance in hell. The shows will no longer be controled by the networks and the creators, but by advertisers how will veto anything that is controversial.

Re:congradulations...

[powerbarr]

Well then maybe more World Cup games will be shown on TV. They seem to be the ones who have already started doing this with the little product ad inserted in the upper left corner of the screen for the entire game. Also, no more TV time outs in basketball games. Maybe sports will speed up the pace of play because they don't have to worry about getting that last advertisement in.

Re:congradulations...

[kindbud]

The day I notice a product placement on Sopranos or Chris Isaac or any other HBO/Showtime production is the day I cancel my subscription to those channels. I pay a monthly fee for those shows, and expect them to be commercial-free. If I don't notice the product placement, well fine.

As for network ad-supported shows, who cares? I just told you I have HBO and Showtime, so why do I need Friends when I have Sopranos to watch? "EFF" that crap! (pun intended :)

Re:congradulations...

[Bodhammer]

Remember "Smeat" instead of Spam in Waterworld?

Re:congradulations...

[jazman_777]

...but remember what is the "Mother of Invention?"

Laziness is the mother of at least 9 out of 10 inventions.

Re:congradulations...

[powerbarr]

Do you really think TV is not already catering to the advertisers. Why do think The Shield is on FX and Sopranos, Six-Feet Under, and Sex and the City are on HBO. Because if these shows were on network TV they'd be crap. The networks would cow-tow to the advertisers and would not let them have any controversy. FX is the only one with balls big enough to say oh well we lost some advertiser, we'll keep the show going.

Re:congradulations...

[Larne]

Do you really get upset when you see someone on a sitcom drinking a Pepsi?

Yes, when the can is held in a completely unnatural way, logo facing out, and is positioned at the exact center of the shot.

I know you want 24 hours of great uninterrupted entertainment geared directly towards you, with no money being made by anyone and all, but give me a break...

Hardly. Tell me how to send my money to Joss Whedon and company for next years' "Buffy" and I'll write the check so fast the paper will have scorch marks.

Ultimately, viewers paying the creators directly is a more efficient system all around, and someday someone is going to figure out how to make it work. It's already happening with music, video will just take longer because of the higher barrier to entry.

Re:congradulations...

[TheOnlyGonz]

Product placement in shows wouldn't be all that bad. In actuality, it would add an element of "realness" to the show without being obtrusive. As long as it's not obviously blatant (Austin Powers II, anyone?), I personally believe it would work out for both sides.

Re:congradulations...

[LordKronos]

The one problem I see with product placement is in reruns. Once a product is placed into a show, it could be prohibitively difficult to remove or replace the item being advertized. This is all fine for the first run of a show, where Coke pays paramount to put a can of coke on the bridge of the Enterprise. Paramount gets the money, makes the placed ad, and airs show/ad on UPN. Now what happens when TNN buys the rights to reruns of old Star Trek episodes? Does TNN pay Paramount even though the ads are already in the show and they will not be able to make any money? Or is coke forced into a contract where they have to pay fees to anyone who replays the show for eternity?

And what happens when you place a product into a show, and the product proceeds to flop its way out of existance, or is even phased. You then end up with ads for products you can no longer buy: "Go to your neighborhood Ford dealer and test drive the new Aerostar"

Re:congradulations...

[NanoGator]

"As an aside, I feel product placements, as long as they're not forced, are nice."

I find it startling when everyday products are replaced with generic ones. I don't remember what movie it was, but there was a guy carrying what looked like a can of Coke. Only, it said 'COLA' on the side.

Personally, I'd prefer he just using the Coke can. If a character has a singular preference to Coke vs. Pepsi, that is acceptable as long as it's interesting in some way.

To be perfectly honest, I'd like to see a Coke guy and a Pepsi guy get into a fist fight over it. heh.

Re:congradulations...

[milo_Gwalthny]

Of course, the 30 million households in the US that choose not to even pay for cable-TV might see it differently. I bet they like the fact that they don't have to pay money for every show they watch.

Re:congradulations...

[mpe]

How can you even bitch about product placement as a way for companies to make money? It's completely non-intrusive. Do you really get upset when you see someone on a sitcom drinking a Pepsi?

It only works with certain kinds of products, you can't really do any kind of "local add". It only works with contempoary drama, fans will spot an anachranism PDQ. You are in serious trouble if the product ceases to exist, gets renamed or the supplier goes the way of Pan Am or Enron.

Re:congradulations...

[rworne]

I thought they solved this with broadcasts of sporting events... they can change the ads on the signs at the edge of the playfield in baseball games.

Simply have the actor use a product that is an odd color like cyan, so it can be masked out and substituted with a product and logo. That way, when the first run has actors eating "Lay's" and drinking "Coke". Reruns can have "Utz" and "Pepsi". If the show is after 10PM they can change the can to beer. No sponsor? Change it to "Chips" and "Drink." Hackers or disgruntles employees can change them to "shit" and "piss"...

The possibilities are endless.

Re:congradulations...

[akvalentine]

How about Pepsi paying for the abuser to talk about how much he likes Coke?

Re:congradulations...

[mpe]

This is all fine for the first run of a show, where Coke pays paramount to put a can of coke on the bridge of the Enterprise. Paramount gets the money, makes the placed ad, and airs show/ad on UPN. Now what happens when TNN buys the rights to reruns of old Star Trek episodes?

What happens if they have changed the logo in the mean time? Though since they have managed to wangle time travel into "Enterprise" it could probably be plausable for the stuff to actually be there.

And what happens when you place a product into a show, and the product proceeds to flop its way out of existance, or is even phased. You then end up with ads for products you can no longer buy: "Go to your neighborhood Ford dealer and test drive the new Aerostar"

It gets even riskier, not only did Pan Am not have scheduled flights to the moon in 2001 they didn't even make it into the 21st century.

Re:congradulations...

[Elwood P Dowd]

I'd want to be able to pay for channels with premium programming where directors would not be required to make such allowances. If David Lynch doesn't feel like product placement would work for an episode of Twin Peaks, I'd rather pay for the privilege of watching it.

Re:congradulations...

[fishbowl]

"the WB"

The fact that you call it this, "THE" WB, indicates that their marketing tactics have influenced you substantially. Don't you get this?

I stopped watching TV quite a few years ago. The day I decided to cut it out completely was the day of the OJ Simpson chase ("cavalcade", I think they called it...)

I had some real prosperity in recent years where I sort of accreted some trappings of household material stuff, including things like tv's, dvd players, an espresso gadget, and so on, but my habit of not watching TV has stuck. Every couple of months, I entertain the idea of getting cable hooked up (there's wars and stuff, and TV might be a reasonable news source I suppose), but I always blow it off -- Television is too much of a time sink and does not benefit me enough to compensate for the time it takes. Hell, the time it would take to deal with the Cable Guy is too much.

Nobody else seems to have this problem, or even is aware of just how much of their life they spend watching tv. (More than sleeping+working combined, some of em..., and MOST of them spend MOST of their non-sleeping/non-working time watching. Watching what, exactly, I don't know, and don't really care.)

Re:congradulations...

[Tim C]

How can you even bitch about product placement as a way for companies to make money? It's completely non-intrusive.

I challenge anyone to watch the Inspector Gadget movie and not cringe when the Yahoo! billboard falls on the car.

Besides, with more people becoming more aware of, and sensitive towards, advertisements, more people will find product placement intrusive. As other posters have also pointed out, product placement in cartoons, documentaries and fantasy programs simply will not work. What product could you possibly place non-intrusively in Lord of the Rings or Star Trek, for exmaple?

Cheers,

Tim

What grounds?

[phloon]

I don't understand what grounds the plaintiff's are suing on. The article wasn't specific. Is it a countersuit based on Hollywood's suit or ReplayTV?

Re:What grounds?

[gclef]

It's possible to pre-emptively sue (at least in the US, which is where this is all occurring) to ask the courts decide if your actions are legal or not. The idea is to prevent the "chilling effect" of not knowing and being subject to the threat of a lawsuit based on actions that may in fact be legal.

If the courts don't think you have a case, or they think that there's no chilling effect occurring, they'll throw out your suit. If there is legitimate question as to the legality, and legitimate value in deciding early, they'll hear it.

Felten and the EFF tried this a while ago against the DMCA, but the courts dismissed it.

Re:What grounds?

[Sloppy]

All I could pick up were the words "Declaratory Judgment" law suit which may be a technical term for this type of thing?

Re:What grounds?

[mikeee]

They're asking for a declarative judgement, not sueing:

"Judge, I'm planning on doing X, and I'm pretty sure it's within my rights, but this isn't 100% clear, and I don't want Mr. So-and-So to sue me about it after the fact. Rather than me go ahead and do it and then get hauled into court, can we go ahead and get a ruling on whether it's ok or not now?"

Re:What grounds?

[NanoGator]

If the case goes in their favor, then it grows increasingly hard for similar lawsuits against Replay (or anybody else) in the future. Replay would simply respond with "Well, a judge in this 2002 case already ruled that..."

Re:What grounds?

[dbretton]

That's because there were _no grounds_ for the case.

This one will be tossed out just as quickly.

However, it is still a good thing. This kind of thing will get a LOT of attention.

Re:What grounds?

[Alsee]

That's because there were _no grounds_ for the case.

Actually there was. The RIAA threatened Professor Felton with DMCA. The letter the lawyers wrote clearly reffered to the DMCA, but they designed it with leagle-weasle words so it was in a grey area weather the letter legally constituted a threat. The RIAA backed off on it's threat as soon as EFF etc confronted them and it became news.

The judge in the case liked the DMCA and tossed the case by telling Felton that he was being silly for for considering a DMCA letter from major industry lawyers to be a legal threat.

-

Re:burn holywood burn

[Rude Turnip]

Amazing how much of the stuff Public Enemy wrote in the late 80s/early 90s is starting to relate to all walks of life.

(For those that don't know, "Burn Hollywood Burn" was written by Public Enemy).

Re:First thing, let's kill all the lawyers

[Wiggin]

i think it is just like skipping stones, it just requires more arm strength.

Hollywood's expected response:

[Snard]

"Isn't that cute? ... But it's WRONG!!!"

Two Words

[Zelet]

Kick Ass!

Contract?

[atathert]

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.

Funny... I don't ever recall signing any contracts. What about the people that channel surf during commercials? Are they stealing programming too?

Re:Contract?

[K_E_Morr]

It's Hollywood's version of the EULA. "Press Power Button On Your Remote To Accept This Agreement"

Re:Contract?

[SlightlyMadman]

Actually, they don't seem to mind this as much as you think. Most of the networks try to run commercials around the same time as each other, so when you surf, you're actually increasing your exposure to commercials, by catching little bits of multiple commercials as you flip by. Most commercials are very cleverly designed to be still effective if you only see a brief flash (or if it's viewed on fast-forward, which was their answer to the VCR).

This is, of course, the advertisers' opinion. They assume their commercials will be surfed into as much as surfed out of. The networks themselves really don't give a damn, because somebody channel surfing through commercials still records that they watched the show on their ratings card, so they still get to charge the advertisers for the spot.

Re:Contract?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

You enter a contract when you buy something at the store, even if you pay cash and do not say a word. It is called a verbal contract.

It is called an implied contract. You exchange money for goods. The merchant warrants some minimum level of usability, as required by local laws, and you warrant that you have actually used real money.

Re:Contract?

[Zathrus]

By your wonderfully specious logic, you enter a contract to buy something when you enter the store. Or even look in the window.

Re:Contract?

[Daeslin]

Simple, hire some 15 year old to sit around and fast forward for you. Also get him/her to do your software installs. They can't legally enter a contract, so your set. ;-)

IANAL, etc.

Re:Contract?

[bobdehnhardt]

You enter a contract when you buy something at the store, even if you pay cash and do not say a word. It is called a verbal contract.

"do not say a word".... "verbal contract".... Illogical! Illogical! Norman, coordinate!

Re:Contract?

[jdavidb]

I wonder if I can get a clause in my contract that says I don't have to watch the ads for feminine hygiene products.

Re:Contract?

[st0rmshad0w]

Ok, so they say I have a contract with me, they get me the programming then I watch the spots. Fine. Who do I talk to about their end of things? I mean, there are over a dozen stations in my area and only two come in half-way decent. They want me to watch the spot, they can get me the show. Oh, did I mention my power is off? Where can I send them my bill? They can just send me a tape of the show I guess and I'll watch it at a friend's place if they like.

Re:Contract?

[NanoGator]

I don't think that they imply very well that they expect you to watch the ads. Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying, I'm just saying that the networks did create a bit of a problem for themselves.

TV is percieved as free. You go buy a TV, turn it on, and you'll have content all the sudden. There's very little indication that the ads are part of watching the show. For example, when you watch MST3k or DS9, the eps are designed around breaks every 15 minutes or so. You get the impression that it's an intermission, as opposed to getting the impression that you're watching the ads to support the network airing the show.

This gets more complicated when you pay $30 a month for cable TV. "I'm already paying for TV! Why do they expect me to pay *and* watch the ads? Screw them, I'm getting a Replay!"

This is why people don't have a guilty conscience about skipping the ads. Networks try to cram more commercials into a show without realizing that the extra annoyance is going to cause somebody to think "Hmm.. if I just tape this show, I can zip past the commercials".

The networks should have invested a little into educating their audience about what they do and don't allow. It wouldn't hurt to have a 30 second spot that says "These ads support this show...".

If there is an implied contract, you have to learn about how TV works before you can be aware of it. That doesn't sound so implied to me.

(Again, I'm not disagreeing with you Fulcrum, I'm disagreeing with the statement Turner made.)

Re:Contract?

[milo_Gwalthny]

I agree there is an implied contract. I don't think it is enforceable under the law, however. What is enforceable is the law itself, in this case probably the Universal Commercial Code and the laws against counterfeiting. Of course, in the US (and other countries that have an English legal system) since the law is more than just what is written down (it includes the Common law, going back centuries) there are probably some things we take for granted that aren't exactly codified.

The implied contract in this case is more of an ethical obligation to pay, in some fashion, for what you are getting. It's pretty obvious that the networks aren't giving away content for free and that the way they are getting paid is by showing you the ads. That contract is neither enforceable under contract law or any other law, because there probably isn't any that adequately covers it. This may mean that the government has to make a law, as is often the case when people start to wholesale break implied contracts.

Re:Contract?

[LMacG]

Why do you think they call it "Must See TV"?

Re:Contract?

[Buck2]

Untied linux == Caldera

I don't get it. Did you mean to mispell this?

Re:Contract?

[alouts]

Actually, I would guess that it's less of a concerted effort by the stations agreeing with each other than just that all the shows follow basically the same formula. They're all 22 min for a 1/2 hour show, with X min. breaks after like 7, 15, and 22 min.

I would guess this is a least as much due to the production companies that make the shows and sell them to the networks as it is to the networks themselves.

The net result is pretty much as you describe it though - most stations tend to run commercials at the same time.

Re:Contract?

[ninewands]

I agree there is an implied contract.

*BZZZT!* WRONG in one ...

There is no such thing as an "implied contract" under any branch of the English common law or any American statute that I was able to find in law school.

I don't think it is enforceable under the law, however.

Got that much right ...

What is enforceable is the law itself, in this case probably the Universal Commercial Code ...

ermmmmm ... I don't THINK so ... just because the ads are called "commercials" doesn't make the UCC apply. It governs things like Sales of Goods (Article 2), Lease of Goods (Article 2A), Negotiable Instruments (Article 3), Bank Deposits and Collections (Article 4) Funds Transfers (Article 4A) Warehouse Receipts (Article 7) and Investment Securities (Article 8) to the extent state law governs such things, and Secured Transactions (Article 9).

... and the laws against counterfeiting.

All I can say here is ... huh???

Re:Contract?

[milo_Gwalthny]

Uh, read the parent. I was replying to the post that stated there was an implied contract when you bought something in a retail store. I *believe* that specific legislation (ie. the UCC under Sales of Goods, and, yes, laws against counterfeiting - rtf parent) applies in this situation, not contract law at all.

I think I pretty clearly said that an 'implied contract' is not a legal contract (well, 'not enforceable under the law' means that to me.) By implied contract I mean more of a societal agreement (and no, I don't mean in the legal sense.) I know it's unfashionable now in the US to have any sort of ethics or etiquette that isn't written into law, but personally I think we would do better to have fewer laws and more 'implicit contracts.'

Re:Contract?

[SlightlyMadman]

Yes, I didn't mean to imply there was neccesarily some sort of a conspiracy going on. One interesting thing to check would be if televised movies tend to hit commercials at about the same time, too. If that is, in fact, the case, then it could be argued that it's completely intentional. The sensible way of breaking up a movie for commercials would be at the appropriate moments in the plot, which I severely doubt come every 7.5 minutes (if they do, then the existence of an even deeper conspiracy could be argued).

As for your mention of the 22 minutes, try taking a stopwatch to a prime time television program some time. They've gotten shorter. You'll find you only get about 20 or 21 minutes of content per 30 minute programming block, in many recent broadcasts.

Re:Contract?

[bryan1945]

This kind of depends from what I've noticed. AM and FM seem to be off by a few minutes. FM stations always seem to hit commercials at the same time, but AM seems to vary a bit.

This could be wrong now since I've stopped listening to FM stations because (IMHO) current music is utter shit. Plus it's really nice to know more news, current events, and sports info than the rest of the office.

Re:Contract?

[Suppafly]

*BZZZT!* Stupid..

there is such a thing as an implied contract or a non-verbal contract in American law at least, not sure about other countries.. business law 101 would clue you in on about the 3rd day.

Re:Contract?

[tchapin]

Have you ever noticed that the women in those commercials are on the uglier side of the beauty spectrum? Keep an eye out; it's true!

Re:Contract?

[jdavidb]

It's stupid childishness. I had a fit of not liking the whole United Linux thing and said, "Well, I'm just going to misspell it all the time. So there. :P" Then I heard the stuff about per-seat licenses and said, "Hey, this is just warmed over Caldera. What's the point of Linux if you don't get freedom with it?"

The reason you don't get it is, it's not funny. I really can make good jokes sometimes, but this sure isn't one of them. :) I left it though wondering if people would wonder if the misspelling was intentional. Honestly.

Re:Contract?

[gfreeman]

What about the people that channel surf during commercials? Are they stealing programming too?

Have you tried to surf during an ad break? All you get is more fuckin ads.

--

Re:Contract?

[Buck2]

I wondered.

You made my brane hurt.

Re:Contract?

[jdavidb]

And as a second attempt at explaining, it's sort of related to the anagram craze that began in today's poll (started in an option and then spread in several comments). Only my anagram isn't near as funny as the ones other people are coming up with.

Outstanding

[lunenburg]

If the plaintiffs win or lose, some good could come out of this suit.

WIN: Reinforces a person's right to use their own technology as they see fit, within the bounds of the law. Skipping commercials is NOT a copyright violation.

LOSS: Gets an admission from the governments and the courts that "You have no rights to the media that you see or own. The owner can dictate terms even after it has left their control." If we get an admission like that, it could be used as a rallying cry to get nontechnical folks concerned about the issue.

Re:Outstanding

[s.a.m]

Lemme tell you this. WHO IN THE HELL IS GONNA ENFORCE THIS????!!!

Ok so they lose and it somehow is now illegal to skip commercials. They need to define that. Why? Because I'm still gonna get up and go to the bathroom, answer the phone or do whatever I want.

Why? Because you can't control people. Technically they're breaking their own little "law". If you wanna be extreme about it that is. Good thing I just watch anime most of the time. I'll gladly pay for dvd's of that rather than deal w/ the crap they're spewing out.

Re:Outstanding

[lunenburg]

I'll grant you that. Unfortunately, the problem with that law (like lots of others on the books), is exactly THAT it's not practical to enforce it. Thus, you get selective enforcement. So while the odds are good that if you crack your new HD-VCR to record "protected" content nobody will come get you, they could if they wanted to. Remember, they got Al Capone on tax evasion - just add "recording protected material" to the laundry list of other things that you could conceivably be busted for.

So you're right. Much like the satellite dish "black boxes" in the 80s or so, odds are that if the laws stand you'll just see a few token arrests in order to keep people in line. Even though the odds are it won't be you getting arrested, do you want to risk the criminal record (or see someone like you hauled off to jail) so that Michael Eisner can buy another yacht?

But the question we as a country need to ask ourselves is if we really want or need a Congress that passes hundreds of new laws every year, with a net result only of making more people into criminals.

Re:Outstanding

[Jucius Maximus]

This case is a biggie.

Adding to your comments, this sets prescedents about web ad viewing as well. This could answer questions such as:

Are there legal problems with blocking banner ads? Or can a web site sue you for blocking their popups?

Can PVRs be used AT ALL? Can you be jailed for changing the TV channel or radio station when the ad comes on?

One of the things that scares me is that if they lose, there will be very little incentive for making advertisements worth watching. They know that you have to watch them. Why spend money to make them interesting or fun to watch when you have a legislated viewership anyway?

Re:Outstanding

[Trekologer]

Lemme tell you this. WHO IN THE HELL IS GONNA ENFORCE THIS????!!!

Its not about enforcement, its about precident. Courts typically make rulings based upon previous rulings. Getting a judge to break a standing precident is tough since judges don't want to get their rulings overturned. They tend to rule based upon what previous judges have ruled in similar cases.

Let's say that the court hears the case and decides in favor of Newmark, and that both time shifting and commercial skipping are acceptable forms of fair use under copyright laws.

Let's further suppose that I begin marketing a device that will record your favorite television shows, remove commercials, and stores them for later viewing, but instead of using a built-in harddisk that has finite space, my device uses a storage medium that could be expanded and the only limit is the amount of money you're willing to spend on it. Television studios are unhappy that my device can record digitally record as much as the user wants and decide to sue me to prevent me from selling the device. The studios will probablly argue that viewers shouldn't have as much control over television that my device would give them. In my defence, I can cite Newmark v. Turner's ruling that timeshifting a commercial skipping is fair use. Further, I could argue that because timeshifting and fair use is a non infringing use, I can also cite Sony (the Betamax case) that because my device has substantial non-infringing uses, I should still be able to sell it.

Here's another reason: the studios have the ability to flag HDTV signals so that they can't be recorded. If I sell a video recording device that conveniently "ignores" that flag, the studios are probablly going to sue me over it. Again, this ruling, if in the favor of Newmark, could shield such devices or modifications to other devices that would normally not record such flagged broadcasts, from suit.

Re:Outstanding

[oni]

But the question we as a country need to ask ourselves is if we really want or need a Congress that passes hundreds of new laws every year, with a net result only of making more people into criminals.

Damn right!! Well said. Did you know the constitution says congress must meet at least *once* a year? The idea of career politicians whose sole purpose in life is manufacturing crisis in order to induce an imbecilic public into crying for help is utterly absurd. They should spend the next few years repealing the bad laws already on the books, then go home - we'll call them if we need them.

Re:Outstanding

[Gaccm]

lets use this logic for the hollywood side:

WIN: We now have a precedent from the courts that uses can't skip commercials

LOSE: We now have more proof to show to congress how we are losing money to piracy.

There is no such thing as an absolute good choice and absolute bad choice. It's a war, winning 1 battle can make no difference in the end.

Re:First thing, let's kill all the lawyers

[pi radians]

I dunno, I've seen some very big stones and some very small lawyers.

One step further

[Fantanicity]

Users who have been called thieves by the entertainment industry should sue for libel.

Calling someone a thief is very serious. Under English law, and therefore under US law as well possibly, accusations of theft do not require the accusee to prove real damages - the accusation is damage enough.

Perhaps if the industry was punished for doing this they would stop using such emotional language in order to make their point seem more serious than it is.

Re:One step further

[Afrosheen]

As Sol Rosenberg (of the Jerky Boys) once said:

"Sue Everybody!" "for what sir" "Punitive damages!!"

Re:One step further

[renehollan]

Yeah, I thought of this, but don't you have to show damages from the libel?

Furthermore, by targeting TV watchers as a group, they haven't singled out an individual.

If I spout, "All <insert ethnic catagory> are assholes!" I may be guilty of ethnic-based hatred and perhaps discrimination (if I use that view in a hiring, rent, sale, or service decision), but I have not libeled any specific member of that group.

Perhaps the key is not libel and slander law, but rather "hate crime" law: with Bush's urging consumers to spend the U.S. out of recession, maybe consumers should be a "protected group", and saying bad things about them a "hate crime" and "economic terrorism".

Aw heck, that's too much trouble. Why not just bulldoze Hollywood into the Pacific, fake tits and all?

Re:One step further

[silentbozo]

Aw heck, that's too much trouble. Why not just bulldoze Hollywood into the Pacific, fake tits and all?

Because the EPA would be all over your ass for dumping hazardous waste. :)

Re:One step further

[Vuarnet]

...Aw heck, that's too much trouble. Why not just bulldoze Hollywood into the Pacific, fake tits and all?
Because the EPA would be all over your ass for dumping hazardous waste. :)

Not to mention that all of those fake tits would probably float in the ocean. Heck, you'd have former Baywatch actresses (heh) washing up on the beaches of Thailand for decades.

Gotta love the "Entertainment Oligolopy"

[sphealey]

Great term - hope it sticks in the popular press.

sPh

Re:Gotta love the "Entertainment Oligolopy"

[Royster]

Great term - hope it sticks in the popular press.

You mean in the... ummmm... Entertainment Oligolopy?

Skipping

[Mr_Bethesda]

These people - the Hollywood content industry - well, idiotic doesn't begin to describe them.

What are they going to do next? Lock the doors at the movie theater during the opening previews and commercials? Make you pay extra is you come in late and thus skip that crap?

And what about fastforwarding through the previews and commercials on videos and DVDs? Are they going to try and put anti-fast-forwarding technology in them?

"You have fast forwarded this tape illegally. Your VCR/CD/DVD will self-destruct in 5 seconds. Thank you!"

Oh shit, and what about flipping radio stations during the annoying 5 minutes of commercials they have at ten minutes to the hour, every hour? Are they going to put a special no-station-changing feature in the radio that's activated during that time?

Oh well. Even if they do I'm sure someone will figure out a way to circumvent it with a paperclip, or perhaps a magic marker. Sledgehammers probably work pretty well, too.

What a bunch of assholes.

Re:Skipping

[billDCat]

And what about fastforwarding through the previews and commercials on videos and DVDs? Are they going to try and put anti-fast-forwarding technology in them?

Actually, yes. The DVD format supports the blocking of certain actions during certain segments of playback. I have seen examples of this in action with commercials on some rental DVDs, and it pisses me off. Sure as hell doesn't motivate me to buy the DVD later!

Re:Skipping

[thesolo]

And what about fastforwarding through the previews and commercials on videos and DVDs? Are they going to try and put anti-fast-forwarding technology in them?

They are already trying it, unfortunately.

Disney's "Tarzan" DVD places ads in the FBI warning track, which prevents a user from fast-forwarding through them. You have to watch the ads every time you put the DVD on. And while they can be skipped, you can't jump directly to the menu, you have to skip through them one at a time. The "High Fidelity" DVD does this too.

Who knows, maybe if they keep doing things like this, more people will get pissed off at them. You'd think it would be in their best interests to not piss off the very people who earn them their money.

Re:Skipping

[Phexro]

If you are using Ogle, you can skip anything. It ignores the idiotic DVD button restrictions, and it supports DVD menus.

Re:Skipping

[sustik]

Let me get this straight: You paid money for a DVD and it still had ads on it?

Matyas

Re:Skipping

[gmhowell]

About DVD players: Many/most DVD's I have seen do not allow you to skip over the FBI and Interpol warnings. It's trivial to apply this 'feature' to the advertisements.

Re:Skipping

[Toshito]

It has already begun, on the Canadian version of Le fabuleux destin d'Amelie Poulain, you are forced to view a Macrovision add (wtf?), the ads about the distributors, and an add about wine.

You have no way to FF this shit, as soon as you insert the disc, you have to wait about 3 minutes before being able to access the main menu.

Hey! I bought this freaking disc!!! I paid 25$ to buy it, why do you force me to view those adds EVERY TIME???

Re:Skipping

[NanoGator]

"I have seen examples of this in action with commercials on some rental DVDs, and it pisses me off. Sure as hell doesn't motivate me to buy the DVD later! "

I vaguely remember somebody telling me that rental DVD's have the commercials, but commercial ones don't. In other words, it's possible that if you buy the DVD at a movie store you won't have that.

However, I totally understand your frustration. I'd be annoyed by that too! As if the cost of renting isn't high enough, they want to bombard you with more ads.

I kind of wish DVD players had a cookie system so that it'd remember that you already saw the ad, and skip it the next time.

Re:Skipping

[mpe]

The DVD format supports the blocking of certain actions during certain segments of playback.

Open souce players will deal with this. Also it wouldn't suprise me if standalone players have undocumented options in their firmware.

Re:Skipping

[Admiral Mouse]

And what about fastforwarding through the previews and commercials on videos and DVDs? Are they going to try and put anti-fast-forwarding technology in them?

There are quite a few DVDs out there that do not let you fast forward through the commercials, FBI warnings, etc. The technology to prevent you from fast forwarding or whatever is already required for DVD players.

Re:Skipping

[sphix42]

>>Oh shit, and what about flipping radio stations during the annoying 5 minutes of commercials they have at ten minutes to the hour, every hour?

I circumvent is using NPR.

Re:Skipping

[Elwood P Dowd]

The DVD format supports the blocking of certain actions during certain segments of playback.


Open souce players will deal with this. Also it wouldn't suprise me if standalone players have undocumented options in their firmware.

That's why it's illegal to make open source DVD players. The DVD CCA will sue your pants off. You'd have to create the software and distribute it from Iran.

Re:Skipping

[aussersterne]

Apex, the company famous for making the DVD player with the "region selection menu", also has taken care of this with the "PBC" (playback control) button.

The magical PBC button bypasses the menu, the introductory crap, and RCE as well, and just gives you the film, period.

I love my Apex DVD player!

Re:Skipping

[fishbowl]

>I vaguely remember somebody telling me that
>rental DVD's have the commercials, but
>commercial ones don't. In other words, it's
>possible that if you buy the DVD at a movie
>store you won't have that.

Yabbut, that is totally, absolutely irrelevant.

The experience with the rental pissed of the consumer, in the case of the OP, to the extent that the frustration would work against his buying impulse. It's the exact opposite of what an ad is supposed to accomplish.

It matters not at all that the retail version is different. It's a very subtle issue with consumer's perception of a product, and with the very limited period of time during which he is hot to buy. Once you've lost him, it takes monumental effort to close.

Re:Skipping

[fishbowl]

>You'd think it would be in their best interests
>to not piss off the very people who earn them
>their money.

Well, it appears that the only people who are pissed off represent a very small minority. Large enough group to bring down a website with the slightest controversy in 15 seconds, but not large or influential enough to bring about a culture audit in the entertainment industry.

In a fair fight between those who do care about this stuff and those who don't, those who do will lose because of overwhelming numbers.

Re:Skipping

[Slashamatic]

Still get the stupid copyright warnings. I'm not in America, I don't give a fuck about the FBI

If you have a DVD that displays the FBI warning, it is probably Region 1 (i.e., exported from the US/Canada). Regrettably since DVDs will probably end up being better protected against export than munitions, you have already broken the law and are on the MPAA/FBIs most wanted list.

Re:Skipping

[norm_bone]

And what about fastforwarding through the previews and commercials on videos and DVDs? Are they going to try and put anti-fast-forwarding technology in them?

Umm... Where have you been? Many DVD's already require this of CSS compliant DVD players.

Hollywood Pictures Home Video held me hostage for ten minutes after inserting The Sixth Sense into my DVD Player. I was unable to fast-forward past the previews and the menu button was disabled.

I'd rather have product placement

[Black Aardvark House]

Rather than wasting timewatching boring ads, I'd rather see companies pay to have actual products placed on sets in television shows. It could even add to the realism. Let's face it, do you have cans of Coke or Pepsi at home (or strewn around the house!). The answer is "bloody likely".

Superimposed ads are far less likely, as this would probably cause a firestorm of protest from annoyed viewers.

Re:I'd rather have product placement

[ArsonSmith]

Yea and it would really screw up the tribial persuit game.

Question: What brand of cola was on the table during the 3rd episode of _Third Rock From the Sun_?

A. Coke
B. Pepsi
C. Root Beer
D. Depends on witch one payed more money this time
E. All of the above

Re:I'd rather have product placement

[blankmange]

Well, dammit -- which one is it??? Don't leave it just hanging there!!!!

I say 'A'... no, 'B'......aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Re:I'd rather have product placement

[Erasmus Darwin]

"Rather than wasting timewatching boring ads, I'd rather see companies pay to have actual products placed on sets in television shows."

Except that they aren't just stopping there. Lately, there's been a revival of "product integration". Instead of ordinary product placement, the actors in the show actually begin hawking products.

Personally, I refuse to listen to Paul Harvey on the radio due to his obnoxious tendency of underhandedly segueing into ads. Just imagine if stuff like that becomes standard for television.

Re:I'd rather have product placement

[Artifex]

Yea and it would really screw up the tribial persuit game.

You do know that some answers in "Trivial Pursuit" are wrong, right?
This is done deliberately, as an anti-copying measure, in case someone tries to knock-off the game ("see, they're using the same wrong answers we use").

Much more likely the answer would be F., whoever paid the game company more to make up the answer =)

Re:I'd rather have product placement

[davmct]

Conversely, how would you try to fit in a tampax ad? blech, I don't even want to think about it...

Re:I'd rather have product placement

[Guignol]

They already do this in Mexico (superimposed ads).at least I think so... maybe I just witnessed a proof of concept... whatever..
I really generally don't watch TV-Azteca, nor televisa since they suck way beyond imagination but they were showing Blade Runner and I wanted my wife to see it (even with awful dubbing and looooooooots of ads)(I finally found it on vhs with subtitles now)
But then they superimposed an add for tequila reposado hmm herradura I think it was.. don't remember very well... I switched channel instantly and never ever once put it back. This was one or two years ago..

Re:I'd rather have product placement

[JHromadka]

In Undercover Brother, there's a scene where they find out if UB has sold out by asking him what was on his girlfriend Julie's table when he kissed Rachel. So we're already there. :)

Re:I'd rather have product placement

[smnolde]

None of the above!

It's a dessert topping!

No, a floor wax!
No, a dessert topping!
Floor wax!

It might get this bad.

Re:I'd rather have product placement

[lynx_user_abroad]

...do you have cans of Coke or Pepsi at home...

I probably wouldn't object to the sitcom makers filming the cola cans with bluescreen labels so that whichever sponsor's logo could be superimposed, but there's a risk here you're missing.

There are certain television shows where these type of product placement strategies are inappropriate (at best) or impossible (at worst).

Think about nature documentaries. Are we going to see the Mountain Dew(tm) logo carved into the fur of the cheetah?

How about news programs? When the evening news show scenes of rioters hurling the familiar Coca-Cola(tm) bottles at the police, do we need to be concerned that these images will be digitally altered to show them as a more generic form or bottle? How far will this editing of the news go? Will the reports of poverty stricken children living in trash-strewn streets instead show the streets clean, because all the (identifiable) sponsors paid to have their trash digitally removed?

When the daily business report show does the stock price wrap-up, will we hear about the day's performance of "Always Trustworthy, Always Reliable(tm) Arthur Anderson Accounting sliding another ten and a quarter points on news of additional fraud probes by the SEC"? Aren't we already seeing this with the reports of stock analysts paid to promote stocks they think are trash?

Are we creating a television system where only the entertaining shows have enough commercial potential to get aired; a television good for nothing other than entertainment? Is this all our "50 years of spectrum rights" was able to purchase; a handful of Simpson episodes?

Or, worse still, are we creating a class division between those who can afford "commercial skip" technology (and can watch for free) and those too poor to afford it, and must be subject to these commercials?

In some ways this mirrors what is happening, has been happening, on the Internet, only at a much accelerated pace. Already there are web sites which are unusable to those of us who cannot get (or cannot afford) broadband. (cnn.com takes a good two minutes to load the home page if you're browsing via dial-up.) Email has become virtually unusable to anyone who has not deployed (or cannot afford) some sort of SPAM-blocking technology. If you weren't technically inclined, and had to run Windows, would you even think of connecting to the Internet without both a rock-$olid firewall and the latest anti-viru$ $oftware?

Re:I'd rather have product placement

[psxndc]

While I know this is done by map companies, can you prove it is done in Trivial Pursuit? I would really like to see a written statement of the question and the incorrect and correct answers. Not disagreeing with you, I'd just like to see it. There have been a few times when I swore I was right but the card said different

psxndc

Re:I'd rather have product placement

[Artifex]

While I know this is done by map companies, can you prove it is done in Trivial Pursuit? I would really like to see a written statement of the question and the incorrect and correct answers. Not disagreeing with you, I'd just like to see it. There have been a few times when I swore I was right but the card said different

It's in one of the books in the series called "Big Secrets."
I don't have the books on hand (they are at my parents'), but the reference does show at least one question with the wrong answer, etc. You can probably find the books at a library.

Re:I'd rather have product placement

[mrsam]

A. Coke
B. Pepsi
C. Root Beer
D. Depends on witch one payed more money this time
E. All of the above

F. CowboyNeal

Re:I'd rather have product placement

[zaffir]

The only problem with that is that product placement begins to be the focus of the show, and not a little thing we can ignore.

For instance: The Malcom in the Middle episode that followed the Super Bowl had some incredibly obvious placements. The one that sticks out in my mind was duing the "mud wrestling" scene. As the two moms are going at it, the camera decides to focus on not the crowd, but a fat guy in the crowd. He was chowing down on Doritos 3Ds (which Malcom pans to viewers in a couple commercials). The camera came back to him several times, and stayed there.

Instead of having the family share a bag of Doritos 3Ds while watching a movie, which would allow a decent writer to continue to further the plot, Fox chose to show me a fat man. He had nothing to do with the show at all, except for the fact that he was watching the fight.

My fear is that instead of seeing the actors walk in front of a bank of Coke machines at the amusement park, we'll get little "product" moments that have nothing to do with the show.

Re:I'd rather have product placement

[Graspee_Leemoor]

I will gladly think about it on your behalf. Heh heh.

graspee

Re:I'd rather have product placement

[DaveSchool]

Whoa, whoa, slow down Jon Katz!

Yeah, I'm sure there'll be a "class division" with commercial skip technology. Just like cable and Pay-Per-View have created.

And "Are we creating a television system where only the entertaining shows have enough commercial potential to get aired" That's the way it's worked since TV began, if a show sucks, nobody watches it, it can't get sponsors, it gets cancelled. I can't believe you haven't figured out that system yet.

Re:I'd rather have product placement

[bafu]

I recall a definite wrong answer once when I was playing it. I don't recall the exact question... the answer should have been "License to Kill" (one of the Timothy Dalton James Bond movies). They had the answer as "License Revoked". That may not have been on purpose since that was the 'working title' of the movie at one point... maybe they just stuck it in there during production and then forgot to change it when the movie title was finalized.

The worm turns

[Jhon]

It appears to me that the "industry" uses the "spend them out of existance" form of litigation. Maybe it's time for them to experience a bit of their own medicine.

Maybe a group of VCR owners can group together and bring a case against Turner about fast forwarding through commercials.
Maybe a group of channel surfers can bring a case against Turner -- for flipping the channel during comercial breaks
Maybe a group of incontenent elderly can bring a case against Turner -- for taking Pee breaks during commercials.

I know it's a pipe dream -- but I surely would enjoy seeing it.

-jhon

Skipping adverts is not illegal!

[Xcrap]

I go and do something else when adverts are on, I use pop up blockers. I do a lot to stop unwanted adverts and its NOT ILLEGAL!

Kick those hollywood losers where it hurts!

Better for me...

[ArsonSmith]

being a Tivo user and not using the 30 second skip, but using the fast forward I will stop and watch commercials that I am interested in. I will skip the ones that I am not interested in or that completely annoy me.

Maybe this will be a much better way to target advertising and maybe get some of the really crappy commercials of the TV.

If a commercial is something I want see I will watch it. With my Tivo I don't have to have things basted at me repetitively. I will see a commercial once or twice as I feel is needed. If it is something I want I will look into it more. Much better for the advertiser because otherwise I would just get annoyed with the constant bombardment of advertising until I don't want anything to do with there products or services.

Re:Better for me...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is said that every time a Tivo skips past a 1-800-CALL-ATT commercial starring Carrot Top, an angel gets its wings.

Re:Better for me...

[SanLouBlues]

I'd prefer that commercials that show up twice get skipped so I don't have to see 50 pizza hut, 2000 you-are-watching-Fox and 100 anti-smoking commercials on my family guy tape. I'd be happy just skipping the repeats which is far closer to not being theft.

Re:Better for me...

[ArsonSmith]

Maybe someday the PVRs will have the ability to say, Excuse me you have seen this Comercial 2 times now would you like to automaticly skip it from now on?
Y/n

unfortantly the riaa/mpaa would have to agree on some form of marking commercials for the pvr to keep track of them.

ohh well, we can dream can't we.

Re:Better for me...

[ayeco]

"me too". I don't 30second skip, I might miss and entertaining commercial. Seriously.

Bottom line, there are too many commercials. The "power of the commercial" has weakend to near uselessness. Fewer ads = more important ads = more viewed ads. When will they figure that out?

Re:Better for me...

[no_opinion]

FYI, there is a way to activate a 30 second skip feature on your Tivo. The details are in the Tivo Faq.

Re:Better for me...

[NanoGator]

"unfortantly the riaa/mpaa would have to agree on some form of marking commercials for the pvr to keep track of them."

COOKIES!!! :)

Re:Better for me...

[Bald Wookie]

More ads = more network revenue = higher profits = higher stock price = larger CEO bonus = bigger yacht.

Always pick the option that always ends with the people in power getting a bigger yacht.

I agree with your points about the quantity of ads reaching the over-saturation point. The difficulty is in the implementation.

Lets say you allow one 30 second ad per commercial break. For the networks to make the same amount of money, they would need to charge about five times as much to show that ad. Some advertisers might balk at that. Lets say I've got a product with a wide demographic appeal. Every week I want to hit several market segments with an advertisement. To hit these targets I want to show an ad during the following shows:

Ricki Lake
The Simpsons
Friends
Young and the Restless
Bernie Mac

Do you think that showing only my ad during the 8:15 break on Friends will help my sales more than five ads a week? As an advertiser I'd want you to back up your claims before signing up for your plan.

As a network exec this plan screws up my schedule. I now need to fill an extra 6 minutes of each half hour. You could make shows longer to accommodate the plan. On the other hand, you could simply make commercials longer. In either case you are changing an accepted format. Expect to find resistance from both sides. Shows are longer, so distributors will start charging more. Ads are longer, so production costs will eat up more of the advertising budget. I don't see more money for me here. As it stands now I can speed up Will and Grace a tiny bit to wedge another ad in. More ads = bigger yacht.

With the threat of the skip, I see a few trends developing:

Irregular commercial lengths. Ads bloat to 35 seconds and try to deliver the entire message in the five seconds you do see.

Short 5-10 second network promos to shift the skips right into the meat of the ad.

A return to the old style of advertising, where the people on the show hawk the products.

Doubleplus product placement.

I hope these rent seeking corporations start getting shot down by our government for hire. I just don't see it happening. The guys with the big yachts will just keep passing the ball around while we sit as the monkey in the middle.

Re:Better for me...

[e_n_d_o]

I used to do this as well. Then the networks sued ReplayTV, and I enabled 30 second skip on my TiVo.

Re:Better for me...

[cpt kangarooski]

Why would I want to watch it two times? I'd be much happier not ever seeing a single advertisement. I have a proxy filter on my web browser that pretty much achieves this.

Now if I could just get something like 'They Live' glasses which I could use to filter my perceptions of reality so as to, I dunno, replace any instance of visual advertising with a nice looking painting or something, I'd be in pretty good shape.

Re:Better for me...

[Dirtside]

...And every time someone watches one of those commercials, an angel bursts into flames.

Awesome and Potentially Ground Breaking

[noahbagels]

Finally, real action by a recognized key-player in the space of online communities.

Imagine if one of the key slashdot players joined with the EFF and sued the RIAA for a declaratory judgement that mp3 use was legal.

My goal in this post is not to pressure any slashdot hanchos, nor criticize anyone.
Simply this:
Please: Those of you in the community with name-recognition, use your influence for good causes other than running linux on an aibo. You have the ears of 100,000s of /. readers, and we WILL support you in these important acts.

Now - off to the eff to make a donation.

Re:Awesome and Potentially Ground Breaking

[dthable]

I believe that the /. community has given a lot of notice to the EFF. Why is this any differnt? Because it's new and current? Since learning about the EFF through other posters, I've given a large chunk of change to them. You don't need big names to become an activist, just an idea.

Re:Awesome and Potentially Ground Breaking

[jazman_777]

Please: Those of you in the community with name-recognition, use your influence for good causes other than running linux on an aibo. You have the ears of 100,000s of /. readers, and we WILL support you in these important acts.

How do you get the name recognition if you don't port Linux to Aibo or Furby or my Desklamp?

Re:Awesome and Potentially Ground Breaking

[cpt kangarooski]

Two things. First, the courts in the U.S. do not, as a rule, issue advisory opinions. There has to be a legitimate case brought before them. Mere legal questions don't work.

Second, there already have been decisions finding it legal to listen to mp3s that you rip from CDs etc that you own. The Diamond case in the 9th Circuit is one of the leading ones, in fact. I don't recall that there's any real dispute about this.

Arg! IE-centric webpage!

[Eric Seppanen]

Gotta love the fact that the page only formats correctly under IE. Under Netscape 4.75 and Mozilla the text runs way off the right edge of the window.

Re:Arg! IE-centric webpage!

[Eric Seppanen]

Oops. I meant that the EFF page referenced runs off the right side of the page. It wasn't exactly clear what page I was referring to.

Another Name...

[skroz]

I'd call it Dave v. Goliath, or Joe v. Volcano instead. Unlike those earlier 'cases', though, I don't predict a similar outcome.

Some analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

LawMeme has some analysis.

Re:Some analysis

[MagnaMark]

LawMeme also has a Letterman-style "Top Ten New Copyright Crimes".

One of those things that's half funny, half scary because of its ring of truth.

Why it's not theft..

[RailGunner]

I hope Craig whoops Hollywood's ass on this one. First I'm going to state the obvious:

When an advertiser buys time on a network program, they're trying to "buy eyeballs". The networks charge a rate based on the ratings, which is a statistic of approximately how many people are watching.

However, it's not accurate as people get up, go to the bathroom, grab a snack, change the channel, etc, or if taping the show (which Nielsen accounts for) people fast forward through the commercials. The notion that you're required to watch the commercials is offensive and ridiculous.

Now I can see why the ability to skip commercials might be frightening to networks, but it's nothing new for the reasons I've described above. The worst that can happen is that there's no money to be made in traditional commercials, so advertisers are forced to pay for product placement. For example, instead of a 30 second add with a poorly written, poorly sung "Diet Coke" commercial, maybe Jennifer Aniston drinks a Diet Coke and talks about how much she loves it on Friends. You know.. this is how advertising is still done in places.

The big problem I have with Hollywood also is the notion that SonicBlue should be FORCED to collect usage statistics. It's nobody's business that I watched Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Playoffs (go Red Wings) unless I want it to be, meaning I agree to fill out one of those stupid Nielsen books or otherwise agree to be a Nielsen Household.

And this should be a lesson: When your current business model is out of date, CHANGE THE MODEL. Too often big corporations try to legislate profits rather then be innovative.

Re:Why it's not theft..

[kindbud]

When an advertiser buys time on a network program, they're trying to "buy eyeballs". The networks charge a rate based on the ratings, which is a statistic of approximately how many people are watching.

Perhaps they are really afraid that advertisers will discover that the networks have been selling them something that they don't actually own and therefore cannot legally sell.

Re:Why it's not theft..

[mpe]

And this should be a lesson: When your current business model is out of date, CHANGE THE MODEL.

This is something too many corporate entities just don't get.

Too often big corporations try to legislate profits rather then be innovative.

The likes of the RIAA and MPAA apparently see "buying" legislation to be and easier and cheaper option...
There are also commercial entities, which whilst they can't actually buy laws, appear to think that there should be laws forcing their customers to make their business work. The I-Opener and Cue:Cat: spring to mind as recent examples.

Re:Why it's not theft..

[SamTheButcher]

Some product placement is already done, obviously. I used to work for a software company that made a product that competed with ARCServe. Naturally, we always noticed the Computer Associates boxes very prominently placed on ER. Those boxes have no business being right there at the nursing station, but there they were, getting some screen time. It would be hard to believe that someone on the ER set just loved their product enough to put it out there. It's one of the only named products that you see directly on that show.

That's not that offensive to me, but hearing Aniston prattle on about how much she loves diet coke, that would get to me!

Re:Why it's not theft..

[Jon Howard]

No offense buddy, but you sound like Alex Chiu arguing for "Government Rights" over individual rights.

The simple fact is, they don't have the right to tell their customers how to use their product - so long as copyright isn't violated. If we give this up, we allow a legal precedent which will effectively give them that right. After that happens, other businesses will start suing to give themselves power over their customers.

I prefer to live in a country where I can actually own things rather than just renting them, perhaps you don't mind giving someone else a say in what you do with your property. If that's the case, it should be pretty easy for you to avoid arguing with my advice. ;)

Re:Why it's not theft..

[gfreeman]

Perhaps they are really afraid that advertisers will discover that the networks have been selling them something that they don't actually own and therefore cannot legally sell.

Dunno about the States, but here in the UK commercial broadcasters have to pay for a licence to broadcast. For this, they "own" the airtime being sold. How their advertising charges are calculated is based on ratings, but they are selling something (airtime) legally.

--

ELA for TV?

[madHomer]

Before you know it, we're going to have to sign an ELA before we watch TV saying we will not skip the commercials.

/me wonders

[Garion911]

If xxAA will sue blind and/or deaf people cause they can't see/hear the commericals? Isn't that theft in their eyes?

TiVO

[aluminumcube]

I was just wondering, but how is it that TiVO seems not to acquire the wrath of the MPAA and television studios?
They have a fast forward feature, but unlike ReplayTV, they don't have an instant 30 second skip button. Does that make all the difference?

Re:TiVO

[no_opinion]

As I posted above, there is a way to turn on 30 second skip on a Tivo. Read about it in the Tivo FAQ.

Re:TiVO

[JPelzer]

Of course, Tivo does have the 30-second skip feature. You just have to enable it. On the remote, hit:

Select-Play-Select-3-0-Select

Mr. Tivo's bell will ring three times, and now the skip forward button skips forward 30 seconds at a time.

Enjoy.

Re:TiVO

[jbarr]

Actually, yes. Their contention is that even though you fast-forward, you are still seeing the content (albiet really fast.) ReplayTV's QuickSkip button is similar because you do see "bits" of the commercial between button presses.

The real issue is the "Commercial Skip" feature that actuall skips all commercials in the break. I'm not exactly sure the details, but basically, you go from program content to program content, completely skipping over the commercials. Funny thing is that this technology has been available on VCRs for years. It's just more convenient on a hard disk-based ReplayTV box.

Re:TiVo

[GregGardner]

1. The latest ReplayTV (4000+) has a Commercial Skip feature. This isn't a 30-second skip button, this is a "hit this button and we will automatically skip every commercial" button.

2. TiVo does have a 30-second skip button, it just isn't enabled by default. See the TiVo FAQ for more info.

3. The 3 major networks (NBC, CBS and ABC/Disney) and TV/Movie content providers such as AOL/Time Warner are investors in TiVo. You don't usually go around suing people you have already given large amounts of money to.

Re:TiVO

[milo_Gwalthny]

Check the shareholder lists. From their proxy:

"[Greater than] 5% shareholders:
America Online, Inc. 14.3 %
National Broadcasting Company, Inc 8.5 %
DIRECTV, Inc. (10) 7.4 %
Sony Corporation of America 5.5 %"

(I have dropped some info here for space purposes.)

Hard for the media companies to sue when three of the biggest are four of the five largest shareholders. Better to sue the competition.

Re:TiVO

[deverox]

Tivo is in Bed with the MPAA, remember old Tivo's had Commercial skip but it was disabled in an "update."

The reason that they do not like commercial skipping on PVRs but Fast forward is ok because you are still "watching" the commercial when you Fast forward it even if it onlty takes 10 seconds instead of 30. With Commercail skip it really does skip it as opposed to speed it up.

Re:TiVO

[nvrrobx]

You have an interesting point here.. The DishPlayer had a 30 second skip button also, but Dish never seemed to get attacked for this...

Re:TiVO

[SmittyTheBold]

I think it's no so much that they don't want to fight those TiVo features...they're just testing the legal waters. If they fight the ReplayTV and win, they have an improved chance of winning again. If they fight TiVo and lose, there goes their chance to win against SonicBlue. Since the ReplayTV box is the "worst offender" in their eyes, it seems the logical one to go after first. It should be the easiest to win/hardest to lose because of a few specific stances SonicBlue has taken thet TiVO has not.

Re:TiVO

[SmittyTheBold]

First off, the TV biz is not the MPAA. The MPAA makes movies.

Now, TiVo may be "in bed" with the TV companies, but I think it's more an issue of them playing both sides. TiVo wants to be everyone's friend. The removal of 30-second-skip as a backdoor feature was right about the time SonicBlue got sued. If I was them, I'd be scared too. When it became apparent they were not going to be sued, or at least not right then, TiVo put the feature back in - might as well keep the customers happy if it's not doing any harm.

It may also be important to note that the feature they removed temporarily was never an official feature anyway. That's like complaining the MS removed the flight-simulator easter egg from Excel. It's undocumented and officially not there, so don't expect it to go away. Now, if TiVo started killing features that were officially in place, you would have something to ysll about.

Re:TiVO

[Suppafly]

As I posted above, there is a way to turn on 30 second skip on a Tivo. Read about it in the Tivo FAQ [tivofaq.com].


so why redundantly post it again and brag about it?

candyass

[Ender Ryan]

Are you really such a candyass that you value your T.V. programming more than you value the right to do as you please in the privacy of your own home?

I sure hope not.

Re:candyass

[albanac]

Assuming the person you address is a) under 30 and b) brought up in the US, UK or any other western country, the answer is statistically almost certain to be a resounding yes!.

~cHris

we're not all crooks, y'know

[Alien54]

This makes some good sense. unfortunately, with the hollywood types and lawyers, anything can be twisted around to make something a crime.

I can see someone deciding to make all TV shows, as presented by the networks, complete with commercials, as a separate copyrightable object. This would mean that no one could skip the commercials.

But this would lead to other copyright issues with the show's producers, and with the advertising agencies, especially when they went into syndication.

all of which is sheer madness, but that never stopped anyone before. (nb - link to another example of marketing mayhem)

Re:we're not all crooks, y'know

[kindbud]

I can see someone deciding to make all TV shows, as presented by the networks, complete with commercials, as a separate copyrightable object. This would mean that no one could skip the commercials.

Oh yeah? If a book is copyrighted, am I required by law to read every chapter, in the order presented? If I buy a magazine, am I required to read all the ads? The entire magazine issue is copyrighted as work unto itself. How is this any different if the entire half-hour of a sitcom including all commercials, is copyrighted as a unit?

Holding a copyright has never given the author the right to dictate to me how and in what order I consume his work, or what portions of it I choose to experience.

Re:we're not all crooks, y'know

[antibryce]

I can see someone deciding to make all TV shows, as presented by the networks, complete with commercials, as a separate copyrightable object. This would mean that no one could skip the commercials.

While I understand what you mean by this post, it's important to note that making the entire show (including commercials) one copyrighted object would NOT mean you couldn't skip commercials. If I buy a movie and decide a part is boring, I can fast forward through the boring part without violating any copyright laws. Nor does it remove that boring part from the movie itself. If it did that there would be many more "phantom edits" of TPM floating around :)

But seriously, can you imagine the implications of violating copyright law by refusing to view something?

Re:we're not all crooks, y'know

[st0rmshad0w]

"I can see someone deciding to make all TV shows, as presented by the networks, complete with commercials, as a separate copyrightable object. This would mean that no one could skip the commercials."

So? Every book I've ever purchased was a completely copyrighted item, but that still doesn't make it illegal to skip pages.

I find it _highly_ offensive that the network boneheads not only think its theft if I choose not to watch a commercial, but some are soon going to add more commercial time by not airing the credits of the programs! I could give a damn about ads. If I need something I'll find out all about what I'm looking for on my own.

Quick clarification/recap

[Erasmus Darwin]

The EFF summary fails to make it clear that we're talking about a feature the automatically and completely skips ads -- no user intervention required, no fast-forwarding shown on the screen. That's why it's just the ReplayTV 4000 that's receiving all the extra flak (versus Tivos, other ReplayTV units, and other PVRs). It's essentially commercial removal rather than commercial skipping.

So we're talking about something that means that no matter how clever, relevant, and eye-catching an ad is, the user still won't stop and rewind to check it out since they didn't even receive the briefest of notification.

Anyway, this issue may or may not affect your opinion on the ReplayTV unit's acceptability, but it's worth keeping in mind as to why people are singling out this unit. (There's also the other controversial feature of built-in capability to share files, which the networks aren't happy about, either.)

Re:Quick clarification/recap

[jtl]

The commercials are recorded, they're available for playback if the user chooses.

User intervention *is* required -- the user has to either 1. set the default to be 'commercial advance on', 2. set the checkbox for 'commercial advance' on the play menu, or 3. push the 'commercial advance toggle' button on the remote control.

There is on-screen notice when a commercial block is skipped; depending on timing, there's also up to 1/2 second of commercial shown at both the beginning and end of the block.

Re:Quick clarification/recap

[subsolar2]

The idea of the automatic Commercial skip is nothing new. I know somebody that worked at Magnavox during the 80s and apparently they were working on adding such a feature to their VCRs.

They were looking at the black level, information during the vertical retrace period, and the sound level (commercials are louder than regular programs). When it would detect a commercial it would stop rewind the tape and wait a period of time before it started recording again. If it started recording again and the signature was still there it would repeat the process.

He was not sure as to why the feature never made it to market. His opinion was that it was just difficult to get it work consistently with the technology of the day.

- subsolar

Re:Quick clarification/recap

[Lazlo Nibble]

I don't think it's necessary to call this out; the word "skipping" implies a complete lack of interaction with the thing being skipped (Merriam-Webster Collegiate: "to pass over without notice or mention"). E.g., skipping tracks on a CD, skipping pages in a book, skipping class at school. "Commercial removal", on the other hand, implies that the commercials are being excised from the copyrighted work; e.g., removing pages from a book, etc. ReplayTV does not remove commercials embedded in the work, it merely ignores them.

Even if ReplayTV removed the commercials completely from the copy on disk, I know of no provision of copyright law that would prohibit it. Once you have a legal copy of a copyrighted work, you have the right to mangle it as you see fit. (This situation might be different somehow in that the copies in question are "fair-use" copies, however.)

The plaintiffs are on shakier ground when dealing with redistribution of the copies.

I think this suit is a fantastic idea. If the court issues a declaratory judgement (rather than throwing the suit out), there'll be a foundation to stand on for supporting or fighting the current state of copyright law whatever the judgement holds. The uncertainty around what's legit and what isn't needs to be cleared up.

Re:Quick clarification/recap

[Erasmus Darwin]

"the word "skipping" implies a complete lack of interaction with the thing being skipped"

It may imply that, but that hasn't stopped several Slashdot readers from confusing this form of automatic commercial skipping with the regular notion of fast-forwarding on a VCR or non-ReplayTV 4000 PVR. Besides, even your examples of skipping require the user to make a conscious decision to skip the material versus the ReplayTV 4000's autonomous/preprogrammed ad skipping.

Re:Quick clarification/recap

[Manitcor]

Actually it did make it to market but I don't remember by whom I remember having a player that did just that but without rewinding. It would detect the commercial and stop recording and then resume at the end. Sometimes it would fail and you would get 1 or 2 commercials but no big deal.

Then of course back in the 80s I don't think we had as many commercials either. There seems to be a lot more commercials on TV and they seem to come up more frequently than they used to (Maybe it just me) Sci-Fi seems to be really bad about this, too bad I love that channel.

Re:Quick clarification/recap

[ninewands]

It's essentially commercial removal rather than commercial skipping.

... and your point is?

The truth of the matter is that the audience is not the *caster's customer. The *caster's CUSTOMER is the advertiser. The customer buys the product from the *casters. The product is the opportunity to present his message to the audience (me). The fact that the product is *presented* carries no guarantee or warranty that it will actually be watched!

A small portion of the revenue from that sale is used to develop content which is offered to the audience as bait to generate ratings which, in turn, determine the value of the product in the media marketplace.

The content is a mere byproduct of the sale transaction between the *caster and their customer. The only reason it is sent into my home is to serve as bait to entice me to watch the id10t box. There is no privity of contract between me and the *caster, therefore, there is NOTHING in this transaction that obligates me to watch the advertising on TV.

<sarcasm>
An analogous transaction would be the act of me buying a box of worms from a bait shop. Do you think for one minute that the purchase obligates a fish to bite my hook???
</sarcasm>

<RANT>
Theft my ASS! The ONLY thing that Kellner's remarks have shown me is that I now have a VERY good reason to NEVER watch TNT again.
</rant>

Re:Quick clarification/recap

[alouts]

An analogous transaction would be the act of me buying a box of worms from a bait shop. Do you think for one minute that the purchase obligates a fish to bite my hook???

Your "sarcasm" is actually one of the better analogies I have read so far on this thread. It's as ridiculous, yet so parallel it's hard to deny. Even though you may not want the points, I would mod you up if I coul just so more people could get that analogy in their head.

Re:Quick clarification/recap

[seaan]

Yes, Replay does try to automatically skip commercials (claim about 90% success rate). The same feature is available on VCRs too, look at the JVC line for just one example. I have not seen Hollywood going after JVC.

PS: There is one difference, the skip is not instant on a VCR. The picture is frozen, and the you can hear the tape fast forwarding.

Re:Quick clarification/recap

[subsolar2]

Yeah the commercial density seems to be getting higher and higher ... it almost seems sometimes like there are more commercials than show.

Frankly it would be a feature I would love in a VCR. Of course there are times I would like the opposite feature ... so I can record the CDW "Fred" commercials.

- subsolar

Re:Quick clarification/recap

[Erasmus Darwin]

"There is one difference, the skip is not instant on a VCR."

There's another difference in that it's much less practical to use a VCR as a ubiquitous recording device. You've got limitations relating to programability, capacity, and access.

When I got my Tivo, I went from recording a show every 6+ months (on the odd occasion that I wasn't home when something I really wanted to watch was on) to recording everything. Even shows that I don't always watch get recorded, just because it's so damn easy.

Re:Quick clarification/recap

[dlbowm]

An analogous transaction would be the act of me buying a box of worms from a bait shop. Do you think for one minute that the purchase obligates a fish to bite my hook???

Well, no, but if a fish nibbles at said worm, I sure as hell expect him to bite it, and this is the sense of entitlement that the broadcasters feel as well. Is it valid? Probably not, but it doesn't keep me from feeling pissed off when my worm is stolen.

Re:Quick clarification/recap

[Alsee]

it doesn't keep me from feeling pissed off when my worm is stolen.

Yep, the fish is a thief.
Or should I say "the fish is a pirate".
To combat rampant piracy the federal government must mandate that all fish contain an approved mouth structure that makes it impossible to eat a worm without swallowing the hook.

Anything else would be a violation of the contract between you and the fish. If you aren't guarenteed to catch the fish then you obviously aren't going to throw as many worms into the lake. Having more worms thrown into the lake is in the fishes' best interest. Therefore the law mandating less functional mouths on fish would is good for the fish.

P.S.
If the less functional mouths happen to make it harder for fish to excercise their "fair use" rights of eating food in the public domain, well that's a good thing too. Any "free meals" the fish eats in the public domain contribute nothing to the economy. When the fish become starved for food it will just motivate fishermen to throw more worms into the lake. The more worms people throw into the lake the better the economy, and the better for the fish.

Remember, the best way to fight terrorism is with a strong economy. We must protect the children.

-

Browsing....

[imta11]

Is browsing at +3 violating a contract with other slashdot users?

What Copyright?

[Twench]

My question is what copyright is being violated? The industry is upset that their revenue model is being circumvented by this product, but what EXACT copyright is bein violated and how? It's the same argument as "skipping commercials is theft". Am I a thief if I get up to go to the bathroom? Am I a thief if I fast forward through a commercial using a VCR? Hollywood is scared that they won't be able to make money the same way and they want the government to make laws to guarantee that revenue stream. No matter how they try to hide it by using phrases like theft and copyright violation, in the end that is their only argument: "We can't make money the same way if people use this product". That is not the government's place.

Re:What Copyright?

[pjrc]

Now I'd like to see Craig and the other four win... even though I don't watch TV, but it's not too hard to envision the broadcast side. Well, maybe it is, (or perhaps the few pro-broadcast "devil's advocate" posts are mod'd to -1??) Well, at the risk of a minor karma loss, here goes.

... but what EXACT copyright is bein violated and how?

The television broadcast, shows and commercials are certainly copyrighted. Since the early 90s, all works of authorship are automatically copyrighted unless the author declares the work to be in the public domain. The aggreate of the show with commercials inserted is also probably a subject of copyright. That is exactly what is copyright might be violated (wether it is a voilation of not is up to the courts, not mere mortals like you and me, regardless of how strong our opinions may be, expressed here on slashdot or elsewhere).

According to copyright law, the copyright holder has several exclusive rights. The ones that might be violated here are:

1. Right to prepare derivative works
2. Right to distribute copies

#1, the exclusive right to prepare derivative works is quite a gray area. The Replay4000 apparantly has the ability to automatically detect commercials and prevent them from being recorded. Personally, I think that's a great feature (which I would certain use, except that I don't watch TV).

In the case of a VCR, the broadcast is recorded to the videotape without any modification. Commercial skipping happens during playback, but the copy (which was fair use) is an exact copy of the original. But if the recorder analyzes the picture in real time and automatically alters it, maybe that's enough to be considered a "derivative work".

#2, the exclusive right to distribute copies of the work is also a point of contention. The Replay4000 has a file sharing feature, where copies of the broadcast (presumably originals OR modified copies that might be derivitive works) can be transfered to 15 other Replay4000 owners via broadband internet connections. This file sharing certainly is distributing copies, so the only hope for it to be legal is if it's a fair use

There are four factors for fair-use (decided on a case by case basis by courts):

1. purpose and character of use (educational, non-profit, commercial)
2. nature of the copyrighted material (artisitic vs informational)
3. amount of the work copied
4. effect on value and potential market for the author

In terms of the fair use criteria, #1 and #4 are a mixed blessing for Replay4000 users. Sharing is almost always non-profit, but usually for entertainment rather than eductional purposes (yeah, some shows are eductional, but to really be for educational purposes you'd be talking about copies for students at a school). #4 is also middle ground... a small number of copies to friends has a small impact on the market (though the studios will argue that the derivitive works worsens the market for royalties) and the broadcasters will claim the market for "premium" channels is dimished if users distribute certain key shows to their friends who don't susscribe to those channels.

#2 and #3 really work against the Replay4000. The material is "artisitic" (neglecting the overall lack of substance and quality of TV... at least when my girlfriend made me sit through a "survivor" episode a couple months ago). The copies are the whole thing (#3).

One final thing to keep in mind, which seems to be easy to forget while reading all these "ought to be" slashdot comments, is that fair use is decided on a case-by-case basis by courts. The famous Sony vs Universal case (VCR is fair-use) was decided by a 5/4 vote. Very close, and the VCR of the mid 80's required the user to press FF to "skip" a commercial, instead of making a modified recoding (derivative work) automatically. That 80's VCR allowed "swapping", but by physically transporting tapes instead of just pressing a couple buttons (think "subjective opinion of a judge on the impact for the market for or upon the value of the copyrighted work).

I personally hope the Replay4000 and similar devices are ruled to a legal fair use. But saying "it's exactly like a VCR" is a stretch... and the VCR case from the 80's was a 5/4 split of the high court!

What about calls of nature?

[HopeOS]

At least the networks were thoughtful enough to make a provision for you to use the restroom...

In an interview with [INSIDE] Magazine, Turner Broadcasting CEO Jamie Kellner voiced this opinion on the issue: "[T]he 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." When prompted, Kellner did admit that "there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom."

The problem lies with using vague wording like "a certain amount," and it is for that reason that a proactive lawsuit is necessary to define exactly how long is too long. The downside is that if the networks win, they may even be able to show a breach of contract and be awarded damages for each minute you're gone. Could provisions be made for people who are actually ill? Only in a court of law can the fine points of contracts really be resolved.

Add that's the real danger of using contracts for this type of relationship. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to find my copy to check the specifics, but I suggest you all re-read the relevent sections. I wonder if I can request a copy from Turner?

-Hope

Re:What about calls of nature?

[ShawnDoc]

This was all predicted in the 1980's, on a show called "Max Headroom". It took place "20 minutes into the future" where entertainment companies rule the world, and it is illegal to have an off switch on your TV or to play video tapes. TV's line the allies so even the homeless can watch TV.

Its only a matter of time until we get Blipverts.

Re:What about calls of nature?

[Kintanon]

Contract? What contract? I didn't sign any contract with anyone.... I never even SAW a contract. I think that if I were going to sign a contract that involved my telivision service I would certainly demand that I get ONLY the channels I want. And pay for nothing else. And I would demand that commercials be between the shows only so as not to mess up my continuity, and that no single commerical could exceed 20 seconds, and no block of comercials could exceed 3 minutes.
I would sign that contract.

Kintanon

Re:What about calls of nature?

[daveed]

Unfortunately a contract can be made without signing a bit of paper. That is not the definition of a contract.

A contract can be made by word of mouth, by the shaking of a hand....

David

Re:What about calls of nature?

[Trevin]

Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots.

MY HELL! Pardon my vulgarity, but where the **** do these guys get the idea that they have any sort of contract whatsoever with the audience? They may have a contract with the shows' producers and with advertisers, but (especially in the case of broadcast television) they have absolutely no business relationship with the viewers. Even in the case of pay-per-view channels, where there actually is a contract with the subscriber, I would be very surprised (and outraged) if there were any provision which says the subscriber has to watch their station at any given time for any duration.

Geez!

That's even worse that software EULA's; instead of saying if you use the product then you agree to our terms, they are trying to say you will watch our station and agree to our terms!

Re:What about calls of nature?

[southpolesammy]

Sounds like PBS to me...

Re:What about calls of nature?

[HopeOS]

My original post was intended to be a subtle jab at all those involved, particularly the use of the court system for compensating for the failures of contract law in the United States, but as usual, subtlety is a wasted effort. Turner's position has no merit, and there obviously is no contract. But let us wait for the court's decision, since that is the one that will matter, hence the actual reason behind the suit. Personally, I would like to see Turner have to argue the bathroom issue in court. If they're going to waste public resources and consumer goodwill, they can at least be made to look ridiculous in the process.

Generally, the determination of whether a contract exists or not, especially when there is an absence of a document, and to what effect it is binding on a given circumstance is normally decided in a court of law.

Placing an order for 10,000 widgets which you subsequently reject on the basis that you never signed a contract could easily land you in court. Even if you used the phone and never signed anything, you could still be held responsible for damages (restocking fees, shipment, etc.) Granted, IANAL, so this example may fall under some other legal classification, but near as I can tell, it is all basically breach of contract. Perhaps someone who studies law could help clarify.

-Hope

Re:What about calls of nature?

[manyoso]

Then again, WHERE IS THE CONTRACT? I never shook a hand or spoke with anyone about my obligation to watch commercials.

Re:What about calls of nature?

[QGambit]

Apparently, Kellner believes that admonishments like "don't touch dial, we'll be right back after these messages" actually carries legal weight.

What's next? Movie studios saying that we have to watch movies in the evenings because cheaper mattinee showings are theft?

"What a maroon!"
-Bugs Bunny

Re:What about calls of nature?

[fazzumar]

I loved the bathroom line in that article.

I don't know about everyone else, but I never agreed to watch the commercials of my favorite programs. I read my cable contract and it only mentions that I agree to pay for the services rendered and there are stipulations about late fees and such.

My favorite things to do during commercials:
&nbsp Fast Foward on the VCR
&nbsp Get snacks from the kitchen
&nbsp Web browse
&nbsp Work on configuring my Linux box
&nbsp Answer the phone
&nbsp Sex (Better make it quick hon, show'll be back on in 2 minutes)

Re:What about calls of nature?

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Let's see... I go to the Fred's neighborhood garage sale. I buy his old 19" TV.

I plug it into the wall, and connect the TV's built-in rabbit-ears to the ANT-IN terminals.

I turn it on, switch to Channel 4, and by golly, "Friends" is right there on my screen.

Where and how did I make a contract with anyone?

Re:What about calls of nature?

[albanac]

Contract? What contract? I didn't sign any contract with anyone....

Now, I live in .uk and have satellite not cable, but the situation is at least comparable. And before they'd activate channels, I had to sign a contract.

Now, I don't *recall* anything being in it about advertising at all. I'm fully intending to check that mind you.

£0.02 from the other side of the pond.

~cHris

Contract? We don't need no stinkin' contract

[frovingslosh]

If there's a jury trial it will be hard to find 12 juriors who have never gone to the bathroom during a commercial break, or who want to be labeled criminals for doing so.

Heck, it's seldom mentioned but RCA has long put into their TV's a feature where you can sure to other stations and the TV will return to the one you were originally watching after some user select multiple of 30 seconds. Notice how the industry leaves them alone but comes up with this lame argument against little guys it figures it can bankrup if they try to fight back.

The Price We Pay

[PMadavi]

I can think of nothing more worse than the idea that we can't even skip past the commercials. Next thing you know, they'll want to take the MUTE button off the the remote controls. I also find it funny that TV studios are willing to toss the word "thief" around. This is why people don't care that using PtP's is stealing from Music, Movie, and TV companies. They're bastards.

Let me see if I understand...

[sirgoran]

When I watch TV using an antenna to view my local stations, I am a theif because I didn't pay for access to the shows. If I tape a program I'm watching for my personal use, I'm a theif because I'm "stealing" a copywritten program. If I pause the tape while recording to "edit" out the commercials, I'm a really big theif because I'm altering the "original" broadcast of the show.

So if recording a show so I can watch it later when I have the time to do so is wrong, then it only makes sense for me to never watch TV.

I wonder if next I'll be called a criminal for NOT watching the programs and commercials.

-Goran

Re:First thing, let's kill all the lawyers

[eikonoklastes]

I've seen some very small lawyers PASS some very large stones.

Publicity stunt?

[axlrosen]

My understanding is that the networks are suing SonicBlue because ReplayTV lets you easily upload shows (with their commercials deleted) to lots of other people. And, this EFF lawsuit has nothing to do with that lawsuit. Instead, they heard an industry executive say that commercial skipping as "theft", even without the uploading, so now they're pre-emptively suing to establish that this is legal, even though no company has actually tried to stop the commercial-skipping feature.

So, one media exec says something questionable, and the EFF decides to sue over this? Isn't that a little excessive? Does this sound more like publicity for the EFF (and maybe the plaintiffs) rather than something really worthwhile?

Re:Publicity stunt?

[kindbud]

Publicity for this issue is not a bad thing. That is a major purpose of the EFF, and is part of their mission statements.

You have to admit, the line about "we have a certain tolerance for bathroom breaks" is rather damning and needs to be played up.

Re:Publicity stunt?

[jtl]

Shows are sent as-recorded, commercials intact and all.

The EFF suit is short, you could read it in one sitting, and see that it *is* related to the ongoing lawsuit.

For the plaintiffs to win their suit against SB, they have to prove contributory copyright infringement on SB's part; to prove that, they have to prove direct infringement on SB's customers' part. The plaintiffs repeatedly refer to R4k users as copyright infringers in both the court filings and, yes, the media.

Put it all together, and there's reason to believe that, if they win the case against SB, their next target will be users. THAT is what the EFF is suing to prevent.

Re:Publicity stunt?

[jimmcq]

My understanding is that the networks are suing SonicBlue because ReplayTV lets you easily upload shows (with their commercials deleted) to lots of other people

That's not quite correct. It does allow to send shows to others, and it does allow you to skip commercials while you view a recording... but it does not allow you to delete commercials, and it does not allow you to send an editted program to someone else (editting isn't even possible).

So, if you do send a show it still has the commercials included, but they may skip them while viewing it if they wish.

Re:Publicity stunt?

[axlrosen]

For the plaintiffs to win their suit against SB, they have to prove contributory copyright infringement on SB's part; to prove that, they have to prove direct infringement on SB's customers' part. The plaintiffs repeatedly refer to R4k users as copyright infringers in both the court filings and, yes, the media.

Right - the lawsuit against SonicBlue says that the customers are direct infringers because they're illegally sharing shows, not because they're skipping commercials.

Trying to prove that commercial-skipping by itself is illegal would be impossible, I think. My interpretation is that this was just an exec who was running off at the mouth, and said something silly just to make a point, and everyone knows would it never stand up in court, so it'll never actually go to court, but the EFF is pouncing on it as if it were real, just to get some publicity.

Re:Publicity stunt?

[jtl]

First, there are four separate lawsuits against SB, all with slightly different language.

Second, all four claim that both internet video sharing and commercial skip violate copyrights.

Some add additional claims on top of that -- the MGM and Columbia suits claim that recording based on keywords in show descriptions violates copyrights, for instance.

Pop Up Ads

[xSterbenx]

So, if the TV giants win, could this apply to pop-up ads? I mean, if i go to a website that supports itself with ads, and I have a program (or setting) that prevents me from seeing them, would that be against the law?

Re:Pop Up Ads

[WetCat]

Pop Up ads on TV?!
Imagine:
You watch TV program.
Suddenly... a new TV set pops up in the air!
With Celine Deon ad in it! Loud!

Remote Controls and Picture in Picture are next

[powerbarr]

Isn't Picture in Picture (PIP) and remote controls the same idea, only you switch channels when a commercial comes on the show you are watching until the commercial is over or you find something more interesting.

Re:Remote Controls and Picture in Picture are next

[Tired_Blood]

Amusing, eh? The irony of it all.

TV remotes were originally designed to assist the viewer from having to watch commercials. Why else would someone feel the need to instantly change the channel if there were so few (ABC/CBS/NBC/?) in the 1940's/50's?

Zenith advertised this appeal, as seen on this site, but more specifically in this picture.

It seems logical that if entertainment companies are opposed to the 'skip-commercial' feature offered by any product, then they must be real pissed with the popularity of the TV remote seeing as how the consumer exerts some limited power through the remote.

Only thing that allowed the existence of remotes is that people were buying them and therefore supporting the manufacturers.

Imagine a world without TV remotes. The industry has to deal with it, and are currently trying to stop any more similar products which the consumer can enjoy.

You can even say that since the consumers of TV service already have the ability to skip commercials (specifically by instantly switching channels via remote) and the industry has adapted to this ability, then they should adapt to the technology once again.

To this end, the solution I've heard is to incorporate ads within the programs with product placement. It's done quite regularly in movies and doesn't have to be obvious (ie. "Wayne's World II" where they're sporting Pepsi stuff compared to "Blade Runner" with background Coca-Cola advertisement).

Precedents may not be good...

[sphealey]

I am afraid the precedents may not be good on this one. Parents have sued school districts in an attempt to have their children excused from watching Channel One. Channel One, you may recall, provided free video equipment and news feeds to school districts in exchange for students being forced to watch certain amounts of commercials per day. Parents objected on the grounds that the government's coercive power should not be used to force children to watch commercials.

As far as I am aware, the parents lost all of these lawsuits. Courts held that government did in fact have the power to force (pre-voting) citizens to watch commericals.

sPh

EULA

[t_allardyce]

Can anyone give me the link of the EULA I signed when i bought/first switched on my TV? Yes, the one that says I must watch all adverts broadcast with a show and that i may not use any recording devices to allow me to skip them...

thought not

Theft?

[nochops]

Skipping the commercials is theft?

I guess if they can FORCE us to watch their commercials, then they don't have to be bothered with developing better, more captivating ways to get people to WANT to watch their commercials, and ultimately buy their products. Why don't they just skip the millions they spend in post-production of the commercials, and show a simple white background, with a huge black font, and static text like:

BUY CELINE DION CDS

for 30 seconds. I mean, if they can FORCE you to watch it, why spend all that extra dough trying to make WANT to watch it?

I can just hear it now:

"You veel vatch dees commercials, and LIKE THEM!"
"You veel go out and buy de Celine Dion CDs!"

I guess they're logic is: "We made a commercial, so if you don't like it enough to watch it, something must be wrong with you."

I thought the whole idea of advertising was to make the product look appealing, so that people want to buy it. If people dont want to watch your commercial, then something's wrong with the commercial, not the people watching it. That's why I like websites like adcritic.com. you can (could) go there and watch the really creative, entertaining, and captivating commercials.

Re:Theft?

[gnovos]

Even better, make it blink.

Re:Theft?

[NeuroManson]

Don't they already do that, with the networks that have the black bar on the bottom of the screen, advertising different shows and squashing part of the screen (TNN and Oxygen networks come to mind), not to mention whenever they squash the end credits of shows and movies to the side so you can no longer read the credits (there's something patently illegal in that as well, robbing the folks who made the show of their screen credits, not to mention valuable copyright information, which aids and abets in the copying they constantly decry... An illegible copyright notice basically makes the copyright info invalid), while they run ads for other shows on the side?

Makes me flash back on the SNL sketch where they were making fun of the onscreen bugs, "Lets put a picture of the Terminator up on the screen, just because it looks cool!"...

Re:This oughta be good

[ArsonSmith]

I just spit my dew all over my keyboard.

You have the funniest sarcasm around.

sorry I couldn't help my self

Unstoppable!

[bmooney28]

While it is true that a victory by replay users could result in a slightly stronger push for more aggressive advertising, unfortunately, it will make little difference in the end, as this movement is already going full-steam ahead and growing by the day.

Examples abound! There exist steamroller-like vehicles that press advertising patterns into sand on public beaches... Skies in public places are filled with advertising banners hanging behind aircraft... Around the world people PAY inflated rates to buy T-shirts, hats, and other clothing items bearing advertising slogans... sportscasts rarely exist without mid-play endorsements by the sportscasters in addition to the inbetween inning/quarter/period commercials... more and more stadiums and other buildings are named after corporate giants... GPS based IM advertisements will soon target cell phone users nearing storefronts... the list goes on!

It is only a matter of time before the entire world is taken over by advertisements... I doubt that a small lawsuit like this can spur this on too much faster... I sure hope not!

Now you're talking!

[Newer Guy]

It's well past time that we as consumers stopped beign passive over big business' land grab. I for one would gladly provide time and money to sue the RIAA and the movie studios back into the stone age.
How dare they try to sue away our rights?!

It's time to organize against these creeps!

Anyone else agree and is willing to get on board?

No ads, no pay subscriptions, no tv

[silversurf]

No one wants ads (I don't)
No one wants to pay for programming (although we do anyway to some extent, cable, hbo, etc.)
No one wants adverts plugged in the background
and No one wants to pay for public tv

So where does that leave us? While I fundamentally agree that it is my choice to watch ads or not while at home, I also understand that economics and the free market play a role here. I cannot expect that someone is going to produce or air a TV show without getting anything in return for it. That's just not reasonable. Now if we don't want commercials, then we'd better start supporting our publicly funded media, because they're only ones who do that (and they're so underfunded they can't seem to get away from sponsors anyway). Otherwise, we're stuck with ads, because there is no other business model for media content except to sell ads (either in the program or between segments) or to sell the programming via subscription.

What further frustrates me, are the posts where people are declaring that these big media co's need to update their antiquated business model; To what, I ask? How should they update it? and where else are they going to get their revenue?

It's the same thing with the music industry. We like our nice sounding CD's and many people enjoy the big concerts and personalities developed and paid for by these entertainment co's, but everyone's complaining that they're trying to make a buck. Sheesh, people, do you realize how much it costs to pay the artists (who don't get enough from records anyway), make that nice sounding record, and put on a concert...

Now, I'm not saying that the media co's and their strong arm legal tatics don't reek of misconduct or that these companies don't need to adapt their methods for selling and capturing the marketplace somewhat, but I have to side with them in some ways because they are the ones getting that shaft at both ends financially (and don't give me that "they're so rich it doens't matter" crap, this is capitalism, not charity).

They have a right to be pissed that their ads are getting skipped, because what happens next is that advertisers start saying "well 30% of the viewers of your shows skipped our ad, so we want to 30% credit back" or in the future they force a cheaper rate. Which in turn impacts profits, which then forces the studio to limit what they make, thus impacting selection for the consumer. Or even worse, forcing production companies and studios out of business so that it then narrows who is producing content. Which as we all know would suck.

-s

Re:No ads, no pay subscriptions, no tv

[Aquaman616]

"To what, I ask? How should they update it? and where else are they going to get their revenue?"

I don't really care. That's their business not mine.

"paid for by these entertainment co's, but everyone's complaining that they're trying to make a buck."

No, more like $12 bucks. It costs pennies on the dollar to make a CD and the actual artist gets a few more pennies. It's all a very simple concept known as price fixing, which happens to be illegal.

"and don't give me that "they're so rich it doens't matter" crap, this is capitalism, not charity"

The problem is that it *isn't* capitalism when the rich can write the laws. (which you know is the case unless you are deluding yourself)

"Or even worse, forcing production companies and studios out of business so that it then narrows who is producing content. Which as we all know would suck."

No, it wouldn't. Suddenly content would matter again... what a concept.

Re:No ads, no pay subscriptions, no tv

[stubear]

Some programmers do make lots of money. You're trying to compare apples to oranges though. If you want to compare Nomar Garciaparra or The Rolling Stones to a programmer, try John Carmack. If you want to compare yourself to sports players or musicians try the minor leage players and the bands that play in the more prominent urban clubs (Mama Kin's, though it's now closed, comes to mind). Keep things in perspective. Many artists and athletes work a second job to be able to support themselves and their families.

Re:No ads, no pay subscriptions, no tv

[tobes]

I'll tell you what I'd like to see. No big budget corporate entertainment at all! In the near future I envision that cheap digital video, and editing equipment will make it cheap and easy for people to start making their own "tv shows" and distributing them on the net. Same goes for quality music. Technology is finally reaching a point where the intelligestia don't need to leverage the masses to get media of high pysical quality (as opposed to content quality). It's time for people with taste to take back entertainment.

Re:No ads, no pay subscriptions, no tv

[poot_rootbeer]

What further frustrates me, are the posts where people are declaring that these big media co's need to update their antiquated business model; To what, I ask? How should they update it? and where else are they going to get their revenue?

You know what? That's not my problem. That's not the government's problem.

It's the media companies and the media companies alone that are responsible for discovering a business method that is profitable without driving their customers away.

Re:No ads, no pay subscriptions, no tv

[arkanes]

Basically, I don't care. One of two things will happen: Either, a, people will prove to like TV enough that some enterprising person will find a buisness model for it (maybe all the good producers/script writers/actors will start working for PBS, out of the love of thier craft?) and TV will continue more or less untouched, but with less commercials (or different ones), or b) Everybody will stop watching TV, the industry will die, and we'll move on to something else. Neither one of these is any sort of earth-shaking problem that we should regulate against. In both cases, it's the market and the consumers making choices, which is how it should be. Either there is a market there, or there isn't. They can be pissed all they want, tough crap. I'm pissed that the dot-com crash (another buisness model built on incorrect and failing assumptions) makes it hard for me to have high-paying, easy work, but I'd never lobby for a law demanding, say, minimum 6-figure salaries for IT workers.

Re:No ads, no pay subscriptions, no tv

[autechre]

I don't care what they do. I don't buy their music; I haven't liked anything that's come out on Sony records this year, and the only things on Capitol I've liked have been Ed Harcourt, Badly Drawn Boy, and Gorillaz. And two of those were actually released by smaller labels that are just owned by Capitol. Everything else I've listened to has been from small, non-RIAA organisations.

As for the television and movie industry...gak. When I was a teenager, I used to go see a movie about every 2 weeks, and sometimes more often. This year, I might have seen 4. Now, some of that is avoidance because of all the crap they've been up to, but it's also because I haven't been interested in any of them. Am I worried about them not being able to waste millions on a live-action version of Scooby Doo or the next action movie? Not really.

I watch 4 TV channels: FoodTV, Comedy Central, Sci-fi, and Toonami. Many of the commercials on those networks are "house ads". And yes, I switch between them or go get a drink during commercials.

The advertising on FoodTV (the bit that isn't house ads) is not bad; a lot of it is actually related to food. Go figure! In fact, between these 4 channels, I haven't seen ads for "feminine products" for a very long time. Maybe more targeted channels are the answer; it seems to be working for these guys. Sci-fi started out with "Every movie we can buy for $20 or less apiece", and now they're producing their own content (much of which is of debatable quality, but hey). I think that channels like this will continue to do well, and I'm not sure I'd miss networks that are full of biased news and sitcom drivel.

If I could, would I pay for just these 4 channels? Absolutely; maybe even half as much as they want to charge me for the other 50 channels I don't watch.

Re:No ads, no pay subscriptions, no tv

[SpotBug]

You're right it's a tough challenge for them. I don't believe they're up to it, but that's neither here nor there.

It's not our job to figure out what they should do to remain profitable. Hell, if it was our job, we'd take the easy way out and agree not to skip the commercials!

They want (need?) eveything to stay as it is. The point is, stuff changes regardless. They won't be able to stop it.

This is like the Horse and Buggy Manufacturers Association trying to get internal combustion engines outlawed, back in the day. It ain't gonna happen. They need to read the writing on the wall and adapt their business or die.

Re:No ads, no pay subscriptions, no tv

[Art Tatum]

The problem is that it *isn't* capitalism when the rich can write the laws.

Well, capitalism is a philosophy of private investment and doesn't really have anything to do with political philosophy per se. Also, I know some wealthy people who are pro-life. Obviously, only SOME rich people get to write these laws you're talking about.

Re:No ads, no pay subscriptions, no tv

[fishbowl]

>No one wants ads

Past a certain threshold, ads are just lost in the noise of other ads. I suspect even the advertisers don't like this.

>No one wants to pay for programming

I'm sure if the programming was of a certain quality AND you could figure out a way to charge for it, people would be happy to pay. Possibly not to the kinds of margins that broadcasters enjoy under the current model, but enough to keep the industry alive.

>No one wants adverts plugged in the background

That's been there since before the "commercial break."

>No one wants to pay for public tv

But we do! Public TV stations act like they barely make it, but that's only because they have to compete just to save their channel from being taken over by a "church" or other syndicate.

>So where does that leave us?

Hopefully in the post-television era.

It would not bother me if a television set became an anachronism, a quaint thing of the previous century that a few people have for nostalgic purposes. Maybe keep it in the room with the victrola.

What is the aggregate amount of time spent by Americans watching television over the period of a year?

Would 10e10 hours be an overestimate?

In the big picture, does "what we do" amount to sleep and watch tv? Does anybody else see this as a tragedy on a monumental scale?

Re:No ads, no pay subscriptions, no tv

[evilviper]

Actually, they need to downgrade their business model. It wasn't too long ago that commercials were entertaining, few, and far between. Now, there's a ton of them, even during a show (FYI I won't watch any channel with disruptive ads. Just a handful more channels adapting over to this method and I won't be paying for Cable TV anymore.)

Now, the commercials are mindless, appeal to the lowest of instincts to get your attention (why do all skin-cream commercials show a woman's nearly bare ass, anyhow?) I'm basically boycotting NBC because I refuse to be subjected to the Fear Factor commercials where someone does nude cart wheels, or bites into a bug that squirts at the camera. I refuse to be subjected to anything I don't want to be subjected to, and commercial skip or something similiar is actually going to get me watching more ads than I do now.

In case I haven't made my point clear enough... IT'S DAMN T.V.. IT'S UP TO THEM TO MAKE MONEY, NOT ME. IF CONSUMERS ARE SKIPPING THROUGH THE 5 MINUTE COMMERCIAL BRAKES, MAKE THE COMMERCIALS SHORTER, OR IF THEY ARE TOO BRAIN DEAD TO FIGURE IT OUT, MOVE TO THE FILM INDUSTRY! AS PEOPLE HAVE SAID, WE NEVER SIGNED AN AGREEMENT TO WATCH COMMERCIALS, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN OUR CHOICE. NOW, THEY'RE USING TECHNOLOGY AS AN EXCUSE TO ELIMINATE THAT CHOICE WHICH HAS FORCED THEM NOT TO BOMBARD US WITH TERRIBLE COMMERCIALS, YET!

Most of the problems we have today are purely due to the (what we often call) the stupid & greedy theory. Investors that have no clue are making decisions based on one-sided profit-charts. They could care less about the people, and in any industry that deals directly with consumers, that's a criminal act that deserves to put them out of business.

Do you think they need 10 minutes of commercials to say in business? Or do you think they could make profit, and have a very loyal viewer base if they had shorter commercial brakes, and fewer of them?

Re:No ads, no pay subscriptions, no tv

[Elaine_r]

well in the UK if you plan on owning a television you have to pay the bbc for it, even if you never intend to watch a bbc program (because you could possibly tune into oe of there broadcasts)
OK on adverts (apart from there own programs)
but it does cost £100 or so pounds a year... (on top of any additional cable or satelite service)

Re:This oughta be good

[Clanner]

So you *never* change channels or go to the bathroom or do anything but mindlessly watch commercials when you watch TV? And you believe that you are required to do so? If you don't watch the commercials, you're just as much a "pirate" as PVR users supposedly are.

Forced to watch ads...

[hikeran]

This got me thinking.... yes it's dangerous.. but...

If i were to write a website that had uniqe content and it would be content everyone would want to see.. but could some way make it so no one ealse could post this content.. (i know impossible for the web but not tv.. but hear me out) and in the mean time in the click thru to enter my site i in the background installed spyware that poped ads on to your desktop when not even surfing the web...

use the claim that i have the right to adversie since you accessed my website's content.. aka you got to watch my tv show so you ahve to read the ads i pop on your screen...

same buisness model... different medium...

I hope .. one day ... people will stop trying to push their thoughts/ideals/products on my home build computer... i dint build it to be advertised to i built it so i could have fun...

just my 2 cnets worth about the subject

Some commercials deserve not to be skipped...

[Akardam]

For example, the new Pepsi commercial where Brittany Spears gets the crap beat out of her by Austin Powers.

Finally, someone has done something that we all have been just drooling to see! Thanks, Pepsi!

We've been through this already.

[Mars Hill]

In The US and in Canada, recording TV broadcast is legal. What you choose to record is unrestricted. It is not illegal to use technology to quell annoyance.

Once and for all...

[GungaDan]

It's time-shifting, with an "f"

Re:Cool!!!

[D0wnsp0ut]

The problem is, Big Corporation has nearly limitless funds for legal services and almost as much patience, whether they are going after someone for "illegally skipping commericals" or to defend themselves. Joe Public generally doesn't have that kind of money. Even if the lawyer(s) waives all fees, there could still be substantial costs for other legal services.

If I had a couple 10's of thousands of dollars, I wouldn't mind putting it towards a case like this.

Great lawsuit

[Animats]

This is the SonicBlue suit backfiring. That attempt by the studios to get SonicBlue to spy on its users is the basis for this suit. That, plus the accusations of "theft" for skipping commercials, created a valid reason for a lawsuit.

That spying attempt is going to go down in history as one of the dumbest moves in the history of customer relations.

Re:Great lawsuit

[silversurf]

>>That spying attempt is going to go down in history as one of the dumbest moves in the history of customer relations

Yes it will.

But, it's an advertisiers wet dream, and anyone is a fool to think that by plugging in that phone cord to the back of your TiVo or replay box you're just uploading what pay movies you bought, diagnostic data and getting the latest guide info.

It may be anonymous (or not), but they are watching what you watch. It's the Neilson Ratings, on steroids.

-s

This could be a win-win situation...

[bmooney28]

Personally, I think it is somewhat disturbing, as the appearance of one name brand item in the midst of so many generic items serves as a reality blast to break the mood of disbelief...

Fortunately, as more and more product placement enters movies and television, it becomes the norm, and not the exception, and therefore is less distracting... I never thought I'd say it, but more product placement advertising could eventually be a great solution in another way also, as it could result in fewer distracting commercials... That's a win-win situation as far as I see it!

Commercials are a necessity.

[jukal]

Why on earth do you think you are paying $42 (or even $ zero) for your entertainment instead of $84? Because the entertainment companies thought that it is easier to get the money from advertisers than you. If everyone decides to skip the commercials, then the audience ends up paying everything. When the audience ends up paying everything, there will be less audience that wants to pay for everything, and when there is less audience to pay for everything, the cost will be higher, and as result there will be even less audience that wants to pay for everything, and as result the cost per individual will be higher, and there is even more who decide to not pay for everything, and as result...

Did you get the point yet? Even though commercials suck, their existance is a natural result.

Re:Commercials are a necessity.

[geekoid]

First of all, these thing are rarely an endless spiral like that.
second of all, they will come up with another way for revenue.
Third less TV will probably be a boon to society.

Re:Commercials are a necessity.

[jimmcq]

If everyone decides to skip the commercials, then the audience ends up paying everything

I think that would be just fine as long as I decide which networks I pay and which ones I don't.

I never asked ABC/CBS/NBC/etc. to broadcast their crap into the sky... but I am more than willing to pay HBO for their content (which has never included advertising).

Re:Commercials are a necessity.

[pjh3000]

Hmmm... but if there were zero ads on television, then the companys that normally advertise on television would potentially be spending less on advertising, and therefore could sell their products at a lower cost, which could lead to increased sales, and would leave more money in the pockets of consumers to then spend on quality television. That may sound naive, but I've always wondered what the world would be like without marketing...

Re:Commercials are a necessity.

[stubear]

If companies didn't market their products there would be no product awareness by the consumer and they wouldn't know to buy the product.

Re:Commercials are a necessity.

[87C751]

Oh, my gawd! You mean we might have to rely on word of mouth?

</sarcasm>

Claiming that advertising is the only method of promotion and publicity is naive at best.

Re:Commercials are a necessity.

[Windcatcher]

Man walks out to his car. There is a big crack on the windshield.

Man: "Oh no! I need a new windshield! But where do I get one?"

He remembers that he hasn't watched a TV commercial in the last five years.

Man: "What do I do? I have no idea where to get one! Woe is meeee!"

(let's assume that he has lost his trusty PHONE BOOK)

later on...

(typing into Yahoo!(tm) search box)

+windshield

(TONS of websites reviewing and offering windshields come up, including ones in his local area that will even install them at his house.)

Man: "I'm saved!"

(a true story, minus the cooky dialogue)

Moral: Commercials?! Who needs stinking commercials?!

Re:Commercials are a necessity.

[pjh3000]

If companies didn't market their products there would be no product awareness by the consumer and they wouldn't know to buy the product.

Yeah, that can be a real problem for me when I'm in a store and there's a product I want to buy, but I haven't seen the commercial for it yet, so I don't know if I'm supposed to buy it or not.

Hmmm... so if you do buy a product, and it turns out to not live up to how it was advertised, should you then boycott any TV programming that features adverts for that product?

That's probably a good question for Ted Turner...

Re:Commercials are a necessity.

[Cyno]

idiots like your parent post that don't know how to run a search on yahoo. Just think what would happen if we got rid of commercials and all of a sudden yahoo went out of business. Half the people that read your post would suddenly be lost and not no where to go to get things like food and clothes and furniture. Personally I think we should make advertising illegal, so all those people would starve. Survival of the fittest baby. ;)

Your trolling powers are weak, old man.

[Lendrick]

By watching TV you are entering into a Hobbesian contract.

Excellent use of obscure terminology. The phrase Hobbesian contract makes you appear smart, because most readers don't know what a Hobbesian contract is. (Namely, an agreement to obey an authority as long as said authority does its duty.)

They agree to show a show, you agree to watch the commercials. It's a concept as old as the Magna Carta.

Citing historical documents. Excellent.

I can't wait until these self-delusional pirates are given the smackdown by a clueful judge.

Here's where you lose me. A skilled troll would have omitted this sentence, or at least softened the wording a bit. Referring to people who want to skip commercials (at last count, almost everyone) as "self-delusional pirates" is an obvious attempt at ruffling feathers.

One other note: you probably should have written a few paragraphs and explained your ridiculous opinion in more detail. It's far more effective to progressively piss people off than hit them with one insult four sentences into your post.

Final Grade: C

Keep at it. You'll get there eventually.

Re:Your trolling powers are weak, old man.

[Lendrick]

That's right. We're all idiots. Oh, except for you.

Naah. My guess is that you can probably do a Google search on a Hobbesian contract too. :)

And you must buy the products!

[frovingslosh]

This concept has about as much validity as requiring viewers to actually go out and buy Pepsi, or Budwiser, or a new Oldsmobile, or the current flavor of Prozak because it was advertised on a show you watched. After all, if you don't buy the product then there's not much point in advertising it and paying for the show, is there? So clearly anyone who doesn't buy everything that was advertised is in just as much violation of this unsigned contract.

Looking at it another way, if the commercial is for something I'm simply genetically not going to buy, say any of the vividly advertised female products while I'm male, am I contractually obligated to buy the product? If I'm not going to buy it, am I obligated to watch the commercial, and how is the sponsor harmed if I don't?

Sponsors advertise because many people will watch the commercials. Heck, I've rewound a fast forwarded VHS tape many times when I noted that the commercial was something of interest. And some of those watchers will buy the product. But there is no obligation to do either, buy the product or watch the commercial. And calling those of us who go to the bathroom, grab a snack, or otherwise don't watch a commercial "thieves" is the real crime.

Re:And you must buy the products!

[jakew]

Looking at it another way, if the commercial is for something I'm simply genetically not going to buy, say any of the vividly advertised female products while I'm male, am I contractually obligated to buy the product?

You're contractually obliged to have gender reassignment surgery, if you bother to check the fine print.

Re: product placement

[ip_vjl]

Reminds me of the scene in Return of the Killer Tomatoes" (The movie George Clooney *doesn't* list on his resume)

Very cheesy movie.

Halfway through the movie, they stop in the middle of the scene and the director comes in and tells the staff to go home because they ran out of money. One of the actors says the problem is the lack of sponsors - ie. bags that say things like "chips", etc. So they all decide that in order to keep working, they'll raise money by product placement. After that, shots show them noticeably changing their position on screen to show off labels on cans, or specifically working product names into dialog, etc.

There's one scene of a lightning filled sky in front of the mad scientist's house with a Pepsi sign (IIRC) inserted in the foreground.

This attempt at poking fun was probably the funniest thing in that movie, though.

another good analogy

[bokmann]

When I go a concert and get a 'program', that program has a lot of ads for sponsors. Especially 'programs' like Playbill magazine that you get at classical concerts, broadway shows, etc. Is there an implicit contract that says I will read those ads?

Is there an explicit contract when I buy time magazine to read all of their advertisements?

-db

Re:another good analogy

[JordoCrouse]

then I go a concert and get a 'program', that program has a lot of ads for sponsors. Especially 'programs' like Playbill magazine that you get at classical concerts, broadway shows, etc. Is there an implicit contract that says I will read those ads?

The important thing in all of these situations is ad exposure. Anyone who is buying advertising, anywhere, must hope that they will be exposed to enough people in order to offset the cost of the advertisment. The people selling the advertising space are hoping that they will get enough sales so that they can provide the product to the consumer at a lower cost (and hopefully increasing the number of consumers and increasing the amount of exposure...)

So when you buy Time magazine, you are being exposed to the advertisments, and in exchange, Time is providing you with a product at a lower cost. It really doesn't matter if you personally are personally attracted by the ads, because even a 1% success rate should be enough to pay for the cost of the ad (especially with a readership like Time).

The same thing happens with TV - you are given free television, in exchange for exposure to some number of advertisments. Once again, it doesn't matter if you get up and eat a snack during the commercial, because with a big enough viewership, even 1% success rate would enough additional revenue to make the ad pay.

So say that today, 40% of all people watching a given show end up watching at least 3 commercials during a 30 minute span (the others are off doing something else). So, say during a show lke ER (assuming 10 million viewers), that would be 4,000,000 people watching an ad, and assuming a 1% success rate, each ad would generate 40,000 sales (my numbers might be wrong, but I'm a geek, dammit, not a marketer).

So then, move forward 5 years, when (almost) everyone has a Tivo / ReplayTV unit. Now, the networks would be able to only assume a 10% watch rate during the commercials, which would only be 1,000,000 people. Still alot, but they are now only generating 10,000 sales per viewing. Now eventually, the number of people watching would drop low enough that advertising would become unprofitable, and free TV would cease to exist.

Thus the idiotic quotes from our friends at Fox. Will they see a decrease in advertising revenue? Yes. Is it stealing? No.

If they really cared, they would research new ways to generate revenue, instead it is much eaiser to bitch and complain to the government that technology is hurting them, than it is to attempt to generate new revenue models.

Re:another good analogy

[mpe]

When I go a concert and get a 'program', that program has a lot of ads for sponsors. Especially 'programs' like Playbill magazine that you get at classical concerts, broadway shows, etc. Is there an implicit contract that says I will read those ads?

How about bill boards? That could be very interesting with traffic cops. They could either book people for not watching where they are driving or book them for not looking at the ad.

Tivo helps fight theft!

[bobKali]

But with a Tivo you can pause the commercials while you go to the bathroom, and thereby fulfill your commercial-watching obligation ala the Turner watching contract (that I suppose appears on your television for the first 1/1000 of a second when you turn it on:

"...by watching the programming on this television you [the viewer of said programming] agree and are bound to watch all commercials [paid advertising used to support the creative GEINUSES who bring you this high-quality content] and occasionally buy products from our sponsers [the people who buy our commercials] ...."

This is the lawsuit Hollywood should be scared of.

[tomq123]

Finally, users of technology are getting into the legal act fighting for their rights. If I were Hollywood, I would be very worried about this lawsuit.

No longer can they use their marketing, political, and financial muscle to beat technology companies into submission.

This lawsuit brings the topic right were it should be, into the users home and their rights as consumers to freely use recorded broadcasts as they see fit within the confines of existing laws.

I see this going all the way to the Supreme Court with Hollywood losing eventually. It should be a very interesting battle to watch.

Is this the beginning of the Fair Use Wars?

[mesozoic]

Let nobody underestimate how big this is. This is, in a roundabout way, just the fight Hollywood wants.

I am not a lawyer, so I could be wrong, but the way I see it, this will determine whether it is legal to manipulate digital content received from a subscription service. The content companies want to prove that when you sign up to receive television signals, you can only use those signals the way they want you to -- through their services, with their approved equipment, period. The counter-argument is that once content is received, people should be free to manipulate it for their own private use however they wish, so long as they are not violating copyright law.

I'm fairly confident the DMCA will come up at some point during this trial, and I'm also fairly confident that it will set the stage for the ultimate battle: defining Fair Use.

Gentlemen, let's get ready to rumble.

Re:This oughta be good

[Artifex]

They agree to show a show, you agree to watch the commercials. It's a concept as old as the Magna Carta.

Surely you are being sarcastic?

I didn't enter any contract when I bought my TV or when I had cable, that stated that I agreed to watch anything. The cable contract essentially limited me to use within my own place and no resale of the material, but that was it. With open-air broadcasting, there is definitely no contract - the broadcasters are sending their material out into the public airwaves, and I certainly don't see a problem with collecting it for personal use any way I feel like it.

The idea that advertisers on TV are buying eyeballs and have the right to be intrusive about what goes onto a machine I buy to collect the stream from the public airwaves is nonsense. Look at the print industries - advertisers buy space, but don't demand that you sit and read their ads, even though you paid for the paper or magazine.

I can't wait until these self-delusional pirates are given the smackdown by a clueful judge.

If someone made a machine that recognized and clipped the ad-only pages from newspapers or magazines and mulched them, do you think the advertisers would/should sue? Would they have a moral leg to stand on? Keep in mind that this is in the print industries, where you at least you generally pay for your own copy, and not the broadcast media, where it's just thrown out there.

Re:Commercials are annoying.

[dada21]

I've been writing to broadcasters for years, asking them to offer the option of no-commercial television. With cable, it can be done. With digital TV it can be done. Broadcast a 30 minute TV show (giving me 8 minutes more on average of actual TV show material). If I pay for my portion of the show, they know I am watching, and they are getting paid directly. For those who don't pay, digitally squeeze the 30 minutes into 22 minutes (speeding up the show a bit, but most people wouldn't notice) and insert said commercials.

I watch HBO TV shows for the simple fact that I pay for them, and there are no commercials. I would say screw public television in general, if not for my Tivo.

The few shows on broadcast TV that I do watch, I would GLADLY pay for. I'd pay $1 a month to watch King of the Hill, even $2 a month if it meant keeping it alive. I'd pay $1 a month for the Simpsons, maybe even $3.

Would everyone pay? Probably not. But you're paying for TV already in higher costs of goods sold. And if you don't watch TV, you're still paying.

What good is that?

Hey, it's not just Craig

[sh00z]

Infinitely cooler to me is that fact that one co-plaintiff is none other than Glenn Fleishman, author of the Furioso Font, recognizable to "Prisoner" fans everywhere as a clone of the "Albertus" font used in the classic TV show.

Re:Hey, it's not just Craig

[cnewmark]

Hey, you're right, completely so!

... and I didn't know that Glenn did that, I'm a
big fan of the show, watched it late sixties

the argument is moot.

[fermion]

It is interesting because innovation comes of these new uses. Where would we be if playhouses were able to stop movie studios from making movies of the plays? Where would we be if movie studios were able to stop TV broadcaster from creating original content? Where would we be if TV broadcasters were able to keep cable companies from using their contest, as with satellite providers? In each of these transitions, the value of the previous product was reduced and the providers of the product had to rethink the business plan. The surprising thing is that even with movies and TV and cable, playhouses still survive. They are not the powerful industry they once were, but face it, they are an outdated form of entertainment. A profound change had to take place for playhouses to survive.

Advertising based TV is also an outdated form of entertainment. Modern tools allow the advertiser to see exactly how ineffective the ads are, and realize that TV is not the most effective form of branding. Outside of sports event for men and a few shows for women, everything else is taped and ads are skipped. Sweeps weeks exist because the networks realize the ineffectiveness of their business model.

So, the gig is already up. If TV is to survive, they must make an honest assessment of its current and future value. Once that occurs, the networks can figure out how to extract that value. The same goes for movie and music distributors. Remeber, TV, like CDs and DVDs, is merely a distribution channel, a distribution channel sometimes owned by the public. It is not inconvievable that broadcast content would be sold outright, and bypass the ad middlemen altogether.

Call ME a thief? That's SLANDER. See ya in COURT

[crovira]

Actually, the position if the xxAAs is legally indefensible.

They are basically calling YOU and ME thieves and saying that WE, by the very act of buying their products, can't be trusted to own them. (Okay, I don't own a TV and I don't go to movies, but its the principle of the thing.)

Basically, somebody woke the fuck up and said "I am NOT a thief and you can't get away with calling me one."

And Jack Valenti and Hillary Rosen CAN'T. They DESERVE to get SUED by everybody who'se intelligence they insulted.

Re:Commercials are annoying.

[jukal]

> With cable, it can be done. With digital TV it can be done

Paying only for selected content in a way that everyone, or even majority of people don't face a too high technical barrier to use it? Yes, it can be done, but I believe it will take many years before it makes any sense for the majority of people living in developed countries. It does not happen overnight. For now, I still believe commercials are a necessity.

And yes, there already exist setups in which you only pay for what you watch, but this is not what TV is about for majority of people living in today's world. It is reality only for slashdotters, and others who are not afraid to start using new things.

Re:bulldoze Hollywood into the Pacific

[user32.ExitWindowsEx]

Just use their own content against them. I'm sure one of those movies about an evil villian trying to crack California off into the sea along the San Andreas fault has a plan that is NOW technologically workable, but wasn't workable when the movie was made.

I don't think so

[RealTimeFreeAgent]

Have you seen all the crap on TV these days?

As a plaintiff, I hope we win

[eggboard]

I'm one of the plaintiffs in the suit. There is some risk for us and some inconvenience, but it's minor compared to the scale of the outcome if we win or if the "entertainment oligopoly" (as defined in the suit) backs down. I mean, I'm not a thief. I don't like being called a thief. And I'm willing to stand up to the bullies who are trying to take away a combination of constitutional and statutory rights and privileges. Copyright is a grant in the public interest; fair use allows a lot of leeway in individual private use of copyrighted materials.

The networks created their own problem...

[NanoGator]

Ever notice that movies have FBI warnings at the beginning? Those warnings are a big clue that we're not supposed to copy movies and send them around. TV lacks these warnings, though. We have no reason to believe that there's anything illegal about capturing a show with Replay, for example, and sending it over a network to another user. You'd think at the very least they'd explicitly deny that, but they don't. They don't deny *anything* with TV.

It is for this reason that I am extremely unhappy with the statement that the CEO Turner made about 'implied contracts'. It almost feels like entrapment. "We'll bombard ppl with commercials until they develop technology to circumvent them, then we'll sue them, then we can exercise even MORE power to cram more ads in there." Yah, I know that sounds ridiculous. I'm just expressing how this whole thing strikes me.

Re:The networks created their own problem...

[NanoGator]

"So if 7-11 doesn't put up a sign that says "don't steal--stealing is illegal," that's entrapment? "

Bad example. Let me correct it for you:

Ever see those charity things where they have a plate of candy with a donation jar. Leave a donation, take some candy. If you make a 1 cent donation and take two pieces of candy, are you stealing? If you get sued for 'breach of implied contract', is that entrapment?

Re:The networks created their own problem...

[cyril3]

donation=voluntary also means that not giving is acceptable. you can just take it if you want. they are giving it to you. they are a charity, thats their mission in life. to give candy to people who can't afford to buy their own.

but candy is a low value item and they can't afford to check the eligibility of everyone who wants a piece so they just say take it and if you can afford to pay, please do so.

or more likely they are trying to raise funds for their other charity work and the candy costs 0.05 cents a piece so they suggest a donation of 1c a piece and they can afford to have cheap pricks take 20 pieces without making a donation before they lose money on the deal.

and the saddest part of it is they tend to lose money on the deal most of the time.

Ironic

[milo_Gwalthny]

Is it ironic that if everyone gets a Replay4000 and sets commercial skipping to on, TV stations won't show commercials anymore (no money in it) so the technology of commercial skipping will be useless?

Of course, the on-air stations won't show TV anymore (no money in that either), so maybe it's a moot point.

I guess we could go to the model that the BBC would like to get away from - having the government charge a 'TV tax' to everyone with a TV. In fact, if the BBC manages to free itself from government dominance, maybe we can buy those antenna detection trucks they have to implement the tax here!

Re:We need more of this

[lawyamike]

Makes no difference, really. In a jury trial, the jurors would apply the applicable law -- the content of which is the more important aspect of this case -- to the facts of the dispute as they find them. The lawyers on either side still would compile, and the judge would approve, the charge given to jurors before deliberation, with the backstop that the judge could ignore a verdict that clearly is not accordance with that law. (In fact, most of the relevant facts may be established in other litigation, i.e., the suit by the content makers against Replay, without the need for independent findings here). Better to hope for a smart and tech-savvy judge than to wish for a jury.

Thanks for the recap

[Our Man In Redmond]

Next I expect spammers to sue the Unix software model to make filters and killfiles illegal.

It may be time to up my EFF contributions.

Re:Thanks for the recap

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Next I expect spammers to sue the Unix software model to make filters and killfiles illegal.

Something close to that's already happened

Passivity of the medium

[Joel Ironstone]

There is something to be said for the passivity of the television experience. People do not, generally, plan to sit down and watch a movie or a television show. They watch whatever is on. I would like to see the actual statistics of what percentage of commercials are skipped by owners of these PVRs compared to the average television owner. One would have to consider the demographic who owns these things, but I would bet that even generally not many commercials are missed.

It takes some effort to do that, and christ, i'm already wasting time watching the tv to start with what's another few minutes staring at commercials. Its much worse for the content providers to make it any more difficult to watch tv. They should be careful, advertisers will pay much for tv time than users will. The act of paying will remind people of how long they've been watching etc, and people might do something else.

Bathroom TV - all commercials, all the time

[wytcld]

Let's space shift and put the commercials in the bathroom. Just have a little flat screen and a speaker next to the toilet with a motion sensor, and then whatever commercials are associated with the programming you watch start scrolling when you enter the room. Put a pressure sensor on the toilet seat, and appropriately themed adverts could play as you sit down. Get one of those fancy Japanese toilets that perform instant stool analysis, feed that back to the sponsors to help them determine your medical and dietary needs and vices, and get hours of special bonus viewing! Install a proctoscope and get even more!
___

Re:Bathroom TV - all commercials, all the time

[BrookHarty]

While im the bathroom reading a playboy, I really dont want to hear about yeast infections or feminine hygiene products.

BTW good article on CmdTaco in CPU magazine. (another good bathroom read.

return-of-the jedis-dept?

[psycho]

That should be jedi not jedis.
Every self-respecting geek knows that "jedi"
is plural

Oops!

[madHomer]

Oops! That should have been ULA. (User License Agreement)

Ad Value

[Synn]

You know I always wondered why television advertising was so lucrative when internet advertising bombed out.

But all I know is that the only really sure thing is that people want to sell things, people want to buy things, and there will be money to be made in bringing the two together.

"A certain amount of tolerance?"

[Passacaglia]

Just how much tolerance, exactly? You feel you have even a _little_ say about when I go to the bathroom?

Go ahead, dig your own grave nice and deep. . .

Suing ReplayTV and Sonic Blue?

[cozimek]

Did anyone actually read the complaint? It shows ReplayTV and SonicBlue as DEFENDANTS, not Plaintiffs. Why would PVR supporters sue the PVR manufacturers?

Here's the PDF of the complaint:
http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/Newmark_v_Turner/20020 606_replaytv_complaint.pdf

Re:Suing ReplayTV and Sonic Blue?

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Yes, and the complaint quite plainly spells out WHY they name ReplayTV/SonicBlue as defendants. If you actually read the complaint, that is.

If this works...

[Spiffy]

...we oughtta try it in other areas where copyright holders have overstepped their bounds.

For instance, I'm thinking about BNETD. People who own Blizzard games should think about suing Blizzard/Vivendi, to get a court to establish that Blizzard don't own exclusive copyright on game status information.

Think about it: The game status develops through interaction with the player, so the player should have at least a partial copyright interest in the game status (not the game itself, of course--I'm not arguing for piracy here). Although the player shouldn't be able to sell a recorded performance, he should be able to do any other damn thing with it he pleases--including exchanging it in realtime with other players over any server he wants, whether Blizzard likes it or not.

Re:No ads, no pay subscriptions, no tv, not quite.

[Aleatoric]

Just because you (and they) can't think of a business model to supplant their current one doesn't mean that the need to do so does not exist. The same difficulty has been present with every technological change in business history. Adapt or die has been the rule through history, and it is no less valid now.

First, lets start with the fact that the underlying mechanism for determining viewership / advertising returns is flawed. The quasi statistical calculation that says, "here is how many people will be watching your commercial during program X" is less and less valid in the age of many channels and channel surfing, etc. Second, something like 50 or 60 percent of those watching aren't the target of the advertiser in the first place.

Second, the advertisers are paying for their ad space based on those ephemeral numbers of viewers. And those numbers are provided (indirectly) by the content providers (via shams like the nielsons, etc.). I, as a viewer, am not at all obligated to make the effort to support their flawed business assumptions.

Third, if they REALLY wanted me to watch their advertisements, they would produce advertisements that didn't have to evolve for 2 million years just to improve to the level of mind-numbingly stupid. I am not obligated to make myself physically ill in order to support their flawed business model.

All that said, there are two ways (off the top of my head) that the providers can change their models to improve the current situtation. First is that they can take advantage of the ability for the viewer to set preferences in the PVR's (and the like) and use those preferences to target advertisements that, even if still stupider than a member of congress, would at least have the value of being of passing interest to the viewer.

Second, they could embrace some form of the subscription plan. Channels like HBO and Showtime (as an example) manage to produce some seriously fine programming, both because they don't depend on advertising, and also because they aren't subject to the advertisers whims concerning content, etc.

And they don't have a right to be pissed about ads being skipped, anymore than buggy whip manufacturers had a right to be pissed at the automobile (to use an oft repeated analogy).

How about a viewer's moral rights?

[xeromist]

Say my mother had a PVR and she recorded some ABC movie that she thought my grandmother would like. Now they are sitting there watching it and a Victoria's Secret commercial comes on. My grandmother is offended by this display and believes it it morally wrong to use sex to sell products. According to the content providers she would be doing something illegal by not watching the commercial!?! Give me a break!

**** subject line ****

[MsGeek]

Actually it *was* product placement.

Ralphs Supermarket here in Southern California had a generic line of groceries. They had blue stripes on the label and a very distinctive type face. In "Repo Man" they used the Ralphs generic stuff all over the place, including stuff like a can of "Food" and a six-pack of "Drink."

After "Repo Man" Ralphs put out merchandising with their generic design. You could buy a "Mug." You could buy a "T-Shirt" and/or a "Cap." From what I understand they sold pretty well.

Eventually Ralphs phased out generics along with just about everyone else. I think that Lucky was the last supermarket with generic products...yellow boxes with black writing on them. I think those went when Lucky was bought by Albertson's.

Agreed: everyone should see "Repo Man" at least once. For the MPAA conscientious objector, here's a link to how to get a used copy on Half.Com

Re:**** subject line ****

[Surt]

Generics are alive and well. You can get them at almost every supermarket chain. They just have nicer packaging now because the cost for fancy packaging went way down. They don't say generic anymore, they are designed to look as much like the national brand as possible (to the point where there are a lot of lawsuits going on about theft of trademark and copyright violation.)

I buy a fair amount of generics, as in many cases they cost 1/2 the national brand price for essentially identical product. Finding those cases where generics aren't equivalent kind of sucks, but otherwise they are usually a pretty good deal. I'm sure someone gets badly exploited in the process, but it isn't clear who.

Re:**** subject line ****

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

One of my favorite movies of all time and I did not know that. Comes from not living in So. Cal, I guess. Cool, thanks for clarifying that.

Re:**** subject line ****

[fishbowl]

>Generics are alive and well. You can get them at
>almost every supermarket chain.

I think it's very important to differentiate between "store brands" and the true "generic products" of the 80's. Wasn't there some sort of public support for generic food products? I don't think there was a "generic food company" per se, rather something like a tax incentive to help low to moderate income people make ends meet.

parent +1; he's quoting Shakespeare

[eiseley]

Lawyer this, lawyer that....I'm sick of it too. Bad way to run a society. I'm glad these guys are fighting back, and I fully support the EFF, but, as Richard Dawkins pointed out in The Selfish Gene, when parties fight it out in court, it's not a zero-sum game; the lawyers win, regardless of who "prevails."

It's not an issue of theft

[ceswiedler]

It's obviously not theft, but it does mean that the revenue model of the media companies is going to change. TANSTAAFL. If they can't get money through advertising, they'll switch to another model. Can anyone think of a website which did this lately?

If you don't like advertisements, fine. There's obviously no requirement that you do so (yet). But don't go whining to the world when all TV is paid for up front, magazines cost $15 each, and your gasoline tax goes through the roof to pay for the roads which will fall apart without billboard revenue.

There's a much stronger law at work here than any Congress could pass.

Re: FF better than Skipping

[vantagec]

Actually, TiVo does have commercial skip but after trying it out, I turned it back off, for a couple of reasons:

1) As others have pointed out, there are a few commercials I actually want to see - movie trailers for instance. If I skip over them completely, I miss visuals that might indicate an interesting flick.

2) Overshoot. If the last commercial is a 10-second blurb, you find yourself 20 seconds into the show. If there was mini-clifhanger before the commercial, you've ruined the effect. I would rather watch a few seconds of commercial brought in by the Reaction Time Compensator than jump too far into the show.

Contract??

[SillySlashdotName]

I think this is doubleplus ungood. The networks have a contract to provide 'eyeballs' at a certain rate (based on Neilson ratings which is why they have sweeps week - to increase the number of people watching at specific times so their ad revenues are increased. VERY basicly dishonest, as the numbers of people tuning in for some extra-exciting episode or special event is not representetive of the numbers at other times.), and the TIVO/RePlay PVRs undercut their bargaining position. Instead of estimating that 35% of the estimated number of viewers will get up to use the head, raid the refridgerator, nail teh old lady, or surf the net, they now have to add that another 40% will likely 'comercial skip' (note that the numbers were pulled out of my ... uh .. ear and have no relation to reality!), thereby reducing the amount the networks can charge for air time. Yes, not watching the comercials is theft - the NETWORKS are taking unearned money by not delivering TO THE ADVERTISERS what they (the networks) contracted to deliver - eye balls in contracted numbers.

Its a COMPLEX issue people

[Gekko]

Ok first of all in many states verbal contracts are only binding if the value of service rendered is under 500 dollars. My cable costs me about 600 a year so I would be excluded from this.

Secondly their is the hude regulatory issue. The airwaves are the publics, and the rights given to the channel coportations are contracted very specifically with the FCC.

Re:Its a COMPLEX issue people

[rusty0101]

Social contracts are quasi binding. If you live in a neighborhood that has a public standards commitee, you may have a binding contract without signature, or word of mouth, that may easily exceed $500. For example if the public standards commitee decrees that houses on the block may not be painted white, with black trim, and you subsequently move in, and repaint the house white with black trim, the social contract you live in that neighborhood under may require that you either re-paint the house, or have the house re-painted.

The cost may easily exceed $500 to you, but may be offset by increasing the value of the adjoining properties in the neighborhood by virtue of the house being in agreement with local paint standards.

This is not the only type of social contract you participate in. Open air concerts generally do not hire squadrons of armed security personel to gaurd the perimiter, however the vast majority of people do purchase tickets and attend by passing through the gates with a valid ticket. This is a social contract with a written contract on top of it. (tickets being considered written contractual material.)

There are several other social contracts that you comply with, for example you and your co-workers may have an agreement to dress in some group co-ordinated style, where the office clothing code does not specify more than buisness attire, shirt and tie with jacket for meetings for men, business dress for women, casual fridays. Casual fridays in most businesses does not mean t-shirt and cut-offs, but may be interpreted as anything from a flanel or polo shirt with clean un-torn jeans, up to dockers, turtleneck and daily business shoes. How you interpret it is part of the social contract you have with your co-workers.

Another way to look at that cable contract is that it is a monthly re-curring contract for $50 a month. It also may not be entirely a verbal contract in that when you signed off on the installer's completion paperwork, you may also have signed a contract for the service to be rendered. This contract (as with your credit cards) may be ammended by an insert in your monthly bill.

Part of this contract idea that broadcasters have (which I am not entirely in agreement with) is that if you get up during a comercial break, to get snacks, or relieve yourself, the possibility exists that you will return to the program some time after the comercials have ended. Without a rewind capability, or pause option, you stand to loose as much the entertainment value of the show, as the advertizer believes they have lost in walk-aways. PVR's change that.

-Rusty

Re:Its a COMPLEX issue people

[micheas]

Wrong.

Mostly.
In the United States oral contracts are generally binding for three years.
There are some items that are not subject to oral contracts. In general you cannot enforce oral contracts for one of a kind items such as real estate.

The majority of stock trades are oral contracts and they are legally binding and over $600US.

The statement that an oral contract isn't worth the paper it's writen on is very often wrong. (There are gray areas though. for example freddie macs: are they real estate or securities? They have been found to be both so it depends on what you are doing. Talk to your lawer for the law of the week.)

Re:Its a COMPLEX issue people

[radish]

Social contracts are quasi binding. If you live in a neighborhood that has a public standards commitee, you may have a binding contract without signature, or word of mouth, that may easily exceed $500. For example if the public standards commitee decrees that houses on the block may not be painted white, with black trim, and you subsequently move in, and repaint the house white with black trim, the social contract you live in that neighborhood under may require that you either re-paint the house, or have the house re-painted.

They can ask me to repaint the house, but they have no legal authority to force me to. At least in the UK, I can paint my house any colour I like provided (a) I actually own it and (b) it's not "listed" (of historical significance).


This is not the only type of social contract you participate in. Open air concerts generally do not hire squadrons of armed security personel to gaurd the perimiter, however the vast majority of people do purchase tickets and attend by passing through the gates with a valid ticket. This is a social contract with a written contract on top of it. (tickets being considered written contractual material.)

This is different. There is a (legally enforcable) rule that to gain admission to the concert you need a ticket - the concert venue is considered private property (even if only for the course of the show). Provided the perimeter is clear (i.e. so you know whether you are in a ticketed area or not) you are breaking the rules by entering that area without a ticket. It doesn't matter whether they actually physically try to stop you or not. They would be perfectly within their rights to throw you out. There's no "social contract" here, it's just trespassing.


There are several other social contracts that you comply with, for example you and your co-workers may have an agreement to dress in some group co-ordinated style, where the office clothing code does not specify more than buisness attire, shirt and tie with jacket for meetings for men, business dress for women, casual fridays. Casual fridays in most businesses does not mean t-shirt and cut-offs, but may be interpreted as anything from a flanel or polo shirt with clean un-torn jeans, up to dockers, turtleneck and daily business shoes. How you interpret it is part of the social contract you have with your co-workers.

No, how I interpret it is up to the rules laid down by my employer, in my contract of employment, which I signed, and by which I am bound.


Another way to look at that cable contract is that it is a monthly re-curring contract for $50 a month. It also may not be entirely a verbal contract in that when you signed off on the installer's completion paperwork, you may also have signed a contract for the service to be rendered. This contract (as with your credit cards) may be ammended by an insert in your monthly bill.

You certainly do have a contract with the cable company, I don't understand why people think you don't. If you didn't - they could stop providing, or you could just stop paying them. Neither of these are acceptable and could result in legal action.


Part of this contract idea that broadcasters have (which I am not entirely in agreement with) is that if you get up during a comercial break, to get snacks, or relieve yourself, the possibility exists that you will return to the program some time after the comercials have ended. Without a rewind capability, or pause option, you stand to loose as much the entertainment value of the show, as the advertizer believes they have lost in walk-aways. PVR's change that.

But here's the rub. My contract is not with the program producer, but with the company who run the distribution mechanism. They in turn have a contract with the networks. My contract is to get the content provided by network XYZ into my home via cable owned by ABC, it says nothing whatsoever about compensation to XYZ for that service. I pay ABC, they pay XYZ. If XYZ chooses to get more cash by selling ad space that's their right. If I choose to watch/not watch those ads (or indeed any other part of their programming) that's my choice.

Re:The diff

[BTWR]

Why is MY salary 1/100 of theirs? Same with sports..

It's VERY simple why Michael Jordan makes $30 million a year and you don't. MJ makes the Wizards, for example, an extra $100 million with the extra television rights, jersey sales, ticket sales and gatorade bottle sales! It's not the Harvard guy upstairs in the boardroom that made the company the hundred mil, it's Jordan. Therefore he FULLY deserves that money! HE'S the one who brought it in!

If you make YOUR company $100 million a year annually, YOU TOO will be getting Jordan's Salary, or more!

I mean, comeon!

[Pig Hogger]

Now, you have a bunch of scumbags going in front of a judge, and ask him to declare that a device that allows anyone (including the judge) to get rid of the scourge of modern (even pay-for-play) television programming, advertising.

And they expect the judge to give them reason????

Let's hope that, just before hearing the case, the judge will have had 2 week of cable outage and will have been forced to watch TV programs full commercials!!!!

Syndicaton is theft!

[Quixadhal]

Ok, when a brand new show is aired, the advertisers all buy up spots that get scattered throughout the timespace, and thus we've all signed a deal with them (in blood) to stay rivited to the TV and buy everything they say is cool.

When a show gets shown in reruns, those advertisers don't get as much money. A commercial spot during the Battlestar Galactica rerun is going to be cheaper than one during "Girls of C.O.P.S Gone Wild Live!". So does that mean, if you watch a syndicated TV show, instead of seeing the original, you're also stealing???

So everyone under the age of 30 who's ever seen the original Star Trek is a thief and should be hung from the MPAA's yardarm with the RIAA chanting exorcism rites. Go Hollywood!

Big Brotha

[Mulletproof]

Well, hey, it must be illegle to turn your TV OFF now. I mean, that'd interupt those advertisements too...

Go Craig!

[innate]

Go Craig! There is no fucking "contract" between me and the broadcasters to watch their commercials. The fact that they choose to finance their publicly broadcast product with that type of advertising is not my problem.

And yes, I would be willing to pay a reasonable monthly fee to watch the same programs without commercials.

Nate

let's see here

[dutky]

Ok, let's see if I have this straight:

1. If I make a copy of something (music, TV shows, movies) for my own use in another medium (MP3 rather than audio CD, or playing DVD on Linux rather than some other OS) then I am stealing. To simplify: wathing the content is stealing
   
2. if I don't watch some content (advertising, FBI warnings, what-have-you) then I am also stealing. To simplify not watching content is stealing
   

So, I'm a thief no matter what I do. Worse yet, I'm a thief even if I don't do anything. Nughty me for breathing their air! Next thing you know, it will be illegal to own a TV with an off switch. (que Mac Headroom)

Re:let's see here

[albanac]

Good post. THis is, btw, a classic implementation of the quote from someone or other (can't remember who said it first, but a great many people have said it since) about government. In any state which recognizes basic freedoms, government has power over populace only if they break the law. The innocent man has nothing to fear from government and therefore no driving compulsion to obey it. Therefore, in order to have government, one must have legally enshrined guilt; ie, activities must be made illegal. To have complete control of the populace, which (fundamentally) is the aim of any free-market government, everyone must be guilty. Therefore, construct your laws in such a way that any choice leads to guilt. You can then *choose* who you prosecute (ie, you can take anyone you want, because everyone is guilty of something) and thus you have total control over your populace.

~cHris

Re:No ads, no pay subscriptions, no tv, not quite.

[silversurf]

Yes, you (and some of the other replies to my post) have some good points. I think what I was getting at though, was that based on the type of complaints being fielded here and other places they take the tone of "screw the media companies" and "they need to change" (which may be true), but very few suggest what is wrong with the current model besides that it "sucks" or it seems that everyone wants it all for free with no ads, which as I said and will say over and over again, is unrealistic (at least in the US).

I'm pretty much in the market economy camp. Which is to say that since the US is a market based system, then let the market drive it. I know these (and most) companies fight that because it's alot of work and money to change with the market (and the consumer). So legislating their niche is a better deal all around. I find that appalling and lacking in foresight. However, since it is a market economy we exist in, then those companies also have the option to defend their market model, even if goes against the grain of the consumer. Who will win? Well usually it's the market (and consumer) in the end, because we'll drive them to change, one way or another. If they stick to something that is losing popularity and therefore revenue, they will change to meet it.

What's unfortunate, as you point out, is that we (I mean a collective "we" not you specifically) the consumer accept "mind-numbing" material as the norm, thus punishing quality, which in turn (in my opinion) makes it so I want to skip the ads, which I do with my TiVo. In the end of this debate, it will probably boil down to one question; do enough of the consumers of TV care? because that will determine which side is successful, because it is we as the collective that choose to consume this stuff or not.

-s

Don't let the door hit ya in the ass

[sat985]

It's about time people started to stand up to these crooks. They think they can jus pick at our rights like vultures an get away with it. Time to donate to eff, the hell with those entertainment companies. It's been a long time since they came out with anything worth watching. What was the last good ORIGINAL movie?

What about music that didnt sound the same?

ZDNet is picking this one up

[Hector73]

Here's the link on for the story on ZDNet. Good to see some mainstream outlets exposing this story.

Why the BBC is better

[DrJAKing]

...because using advertising to fund TV is massively inefficient. Why waste the lives of talented creative people producing what most consider to be an irritation and they themselves claim does not induce anyone to buy anything? Those people could be doing something better (and I'll defend the moral absolutism if anyone wants me to. Starving babies.). Why not collect a smaller amount of money and have a few channels of quality programming with no breaks for our sponsors? And no product placement insulting our intelligence.

Maybe the average attention span might go up. Maybe our kids might grow up without turning into materialist consumer drones. Maybe it's actually immoral to try and influence someone's thought processes in the way advertisers do.

When I watch pay satellite channels like Sky I am amazed that anyone puts up with these constant rude interruptions. Know how long an episode of 24 really is? about 43 minutes. Friends? Those overpaid bloaters do about 17 minutes work per show.

I say to hell with all advertisers. Let them wither on the vine, one day we'll find away to edit out product placement, and dynamically overdub scipts. We'll killfile their brands because most of us would rather make our own minds up. And what we'll find is that without these scumbags our media will get a lot cheaper.

JK

Don't Play Their Game

[Higatsuku]

Its easy folks...boycott.

Don't watch TV, don't buy CDs, Don't read the newspapers. Get out, talk to people, create a subset of culture devoid of copyright bull. The OSS community is a sign that the coperate world hasn't serviced the needs of potentional consumers. This community, with out a doubt, consists of the smartest people out there. They supply the infomation channels now, but that can all change really fast. If the slashdotters have been modivated enough to replace most of their computing experience with an open, free one, why not take that experience and expand it to all more areas where we aren't happy. It's just a thought, but it could work. forget the industry who things you are a thief. They only want your money.

Barf

[sbeitzel]

Why does there need to be a new word? What's wrong with "oligarchy"? What value is added by conflating "oligarchy" and "monopoly"? Why not just learn the language, instead?

Re:Barf

[hplasm]

Monarchy? Oh, that one exists...AFAIK you can make up new words, or else we would all still be going UGG.

The contract is between the networks and the gover

[Macdude]

The contract isn't between the networks and the viewers, it's between the networks and the government. The networks get free access to the radio spectrum in return for broadcasting their shows free of charge. They are more than welcome to give up their radio spectrum if they don't want it any more...

The problem with the 'implied contract' theory

[manyoso]

Using the content producers logic there is an 'implied contract' between the actual advertiser and the viewer to buy the product advertised. Afterall, if the viewer has entered into a contract with the content producer, by the implied understanding that he/she will watch the advertisements, then it would stand to reason that by watching the advertisement he/she has entered into a contract with the advertiser, by the implied understanding that he/she will purchase the advertised product.

Implied Contract1: Watching shows --> Watching advertisements.

Implied Contract2: Watching advertisements --> Purchasing products.

Implied understanding justification1: Consumer understands that content producers make there money through advertisements.

Implied understanding justification2: Consumer understands that advertisers make there money through the purchase of advertised products.

Re:The problem with the 'implied contract' theory

[innate]

The scary thing is, while this sounds absurd to a normal person, this is exactly the logic that broadcasters and advertisers are using.

Eventually, any monopoly will come to believe that it has a "right" to continue to receive income from its business model, even if that model is outdated, superceded by a newer, more innovative one, and rejected by the market. And, by the way, "things are different this time". Yeah, they always are.

Nate

The solution

[tornater]

We need to have a device where we can be "jacked in" to the entertainment industry's flow of information at all times. That way, they could constantly bombard our brains with commercials and info we're obligated to see no matter where we are or what we're doing. After all, we're under contract to see this stuff. Funny that I don't recall signing my contract.

Re:The solution

[tornater]

Oh and another thing. We will be required to purchase 1 item out of every 10 commercials seen or we will be shut down--as per the EULA

Excuse me, but

[TheBaker]

WTF. I believe I am paying for the commercials on television as some portion of the products I buy invariabuly are earmarked for the marketing budget of that company or product.

Hey, I pay for cable television, and I get commercials on cable-only stations. Double-dipping?

You TERRORIST!

[Art Tatum]

What happens if I change the channel to watch a different commercial at the same time? Do the advertisers sue each other over audience thievery?

If so, every company in the country would end up going out of business. It would put our economy in the toilet. In fact YOU'RE REALLY A TERRORIST, AREN'T YOU?! BUT WE CAN SEE THROUGH YOUR EVIL PLAN! YOU WON'T GET US! EXPECT TO SEE AGENTS AT YOUR DOOR PROMPTLY!

Watch And Buy, Or Else!

[djmoore]

Are we required to watch each and every occurence of each and every ad? Do I really need to let an advertiser poke the same needle in my eye every five minutes?

And let's face it, the real issue is that it's not watching the ads that makes money for sponsors; it's actually buying the product. If it is found that we have an implied contract to watch the ad, how long before we'll be held to an implied contract to buy?

Re:Channel Flipping is a zero sum game.

[Buck2]

Are you retarded? It's not zero-sum at all from any perspective.

Consider the viewer, if they see _one_ piece of programming on another channel then they have won. There is no way to lose.

You could only have a zero-sum game if, perhaps, you could argue that when you see a part of another show you are distracted from the original show in such a fashion that it detracts from the quality of the first so that the perceived benefit of viewing regular programming on another channel in lieu of commercials is counteracted (this is real, but difficult to quantify). Or, maybe if the channel surfer was such a fool that he/she couldn't make it back to the first show at the time that it resumes broadcast (this happens all the time).

Think about the zero-sum nature of this situation from the advertisers' persepective and you will see that it still doesn't make sense.

Zero-sum games are RARE.

Movies should have commercial breaks

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Suppose you were watching, say, Matrix 2, and suddenly Keanu's left hanging on some digital cliff and you cut away to a doggie yum yums spot? Would YOU leave your seat and make a fuss when you're out with your hot date? Heck no! You'll watch it.

Obviously, if the industry wants captive eyeballs, they should forget about tv and target movies.

They started stealing first.

[SharkPork]

CableTV/Network TV are already stealing our paid-for NON-commercial time anyway. Saw this on TechTV a while back:

http://www.techtv.com/news/culture/story/0,24195 ,3 369312,00.html

I'm thinking this whole thing with the MPAA/RIAA/xxAA is opening the eyes of a lot of people to the power that Big Money has on our governmental decisions. I for one, am actually considering voting for once, to get rid of all these asinine politicians who don't care how they vote policy, as long as they get their kickback.

The U.S. government is very powerful. So is Hollywood (film & music both). Let us not forget the truism of Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887. 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.'

BURN, HOLLYWOOD, BURN!

[tempest303]

Wait, so by skipping commercials and not paying for subscriptions to TV services, TV might start going away? HOW CAN I LOSE?

Yeah, I love the Simpsons and South Park, but aside from this...

Fuck television.

I honestly think we'd be better off without TV. By this, I mean TV's content, not its medium. Other than mild health risks and the need too be carefully recycled instead of thrown away when they die, I have no problems with CRTs. However, if that spring-loaded tube (no pun intended) full of raw sewage mixed with mind numbing mental barbituates that passes for "content" on the networks goes away, how much have we really lost? Yeah, I'll miss a few shows, but I've gotten to the point where I truly believe the world would be a far better place without the fscking idiot box roaring all day in everyone's home. I really don't mind most web ads, and if the ads on 'net radio are enough to keep it going, RIGHT ON! It's worth it. Even the most glossy, corporate-influencesd *cough*USA Today*cough* newspapers and magazines, ad-laden as they may be, far surpass the mind paralyzing tripe on TV.

So like I said, if commercial television starts dying, who exactly loses here? Soap opera addicts? "Friends" junkies? People that can't get enough of that top-notch Fox "News"? Good riddance to bad rubbish. The sooner corporate TV dies, the better.

A note from the Felton case

[StormReaver]

This looks at first glance to be travelling down the same failed road as Professor Felton's attempt to get a court to issue a ruling saying that he was not violating the law by giving his SDMI speech.

The judge in that case refused to issue the order because Felton hadn't actually been sued. Since Craig et. al. haven't actually been sued, this case looks like it will suffer the same fate. In other words, you can't sue unless you have suffered actual monetary damages.

Like the FBI warning ever stopped anybody...

[crovira]

C'mon. You have probably dup'ed a tape for a friend at some point if only because you had a spare VCR that you'd never got around to turfing...

Re:Like the FBI warning ever stopped anybody...

[NanoGator]

I don't doubt that it happens, but I personally have never done that. It's a pain in the ass to do, really.

If you think about it though, it's really not a very wide spread thing. It's something you'd have to be talked into. Not really true with TV shows, though. I've had friends (particularly my gf, she's awesome about that...) tape shows for me and loan them to me, but getting them to copy a movie is a different scenario all together. Usually I get told 'go rent it'.

Re:Like the FBI warning ever stopped anybody...

[NanoGator]

One more point: I never said that the warning stopped people from doing it. I'm saying that it at least lets people know they're not allowed to do it. If somebody copies a movie and sells it, then gets busted, they can't claim they didn't know it was illegal. But what happens when you do it with a TV show?

Is anybody else frustrated with people nitpicking details so hard that they ignore your point? Is it really worth the energy trying to prove that everything everybody says is wrong in some fashion?

Re:Like the FBI warning ever stopped anybody...

[Art Tatum]

Is anybody else frustrated with people nitpicking details so hard that they ignore your point?

Yes.

Oh, BTW, you might want to modify your sig so that it becomes more obvious that it's a sig. No, I'm not nitpicking. :-)

Re:Like the FBI warning ever stopped anybody...

[NanoGator]

Lol!! That was funny hehe.

You're right though. Is it better now?

Re:Like the FBI warning ever stopped anybody...

[cyril3]

much better. i hadn't seen it before and assumed you were making a final comment at the end of your message about the candy/charity.

the only way you can tell some of these things are sigs is they don't show up in the comment screen. some people only ever seem to post stuff that relates to their sigs and its not obvious where one ends/the other starts.

Re:Like the FBI warning ever stopped anybody...

[NanoGator]

Yeah I know what you mean. There is a user preference you can set that seperates the sig from the post with a couple of dashes. I've missed that a few times heh. :)

Re:Like the FBI warning ever stopped anybody...

[Art Tatum]

Yep. Looks good.

You're pretty sure?

[phriedom]

I doubt that very much. I don't think fair use has ever extended to making copies for friends and family. And yes, making a "mix tape" or in today's world a mix CD for someone else would be copyright infringement. But making one for yourself isn't. The courts may have found that these small scale kinds of infringement do not justify outlawing the devices which have significant non-infringeing use, but that doesn't mean sharing is legal.

...and don't call me Shirley.

[phriedom]

If you look at them carefully, I'll think you will see that they're not kidding. Wake up. They would like to retain total control over their content and dictate exactly what you can do with it. And while your loaning of a VCR tape to a friend actually increases their viewership, it reduces their control, so they don't like it.

Re:This oughta be good

[hymie3]

By watching TV you are entering into a Faustian conract. They agree to show a show, you agree to sell your soul (some people refer to this as "watching commercials"). It's a concept that's as old as evil. I can't wait until that guy with the free cable winds up in h-e-double-hockey sticks. "But, but.... I just wanted to watch Sopranos!"

One hiccup with product placement

[fazzumar]

Since most of the shows we watch are shown to a national audience, the local advertisers would not be able to buy airtime for their local market except for the airtime between shows. Of course, since most of the local advertisers are grocery stores and car dealerships, I don't suppose that matters too much.

Buying shows directly from the producer

[macom]

Yeah, I love the Simpsons and South Park, but aside from this...

and sadly the New York Rangers. I would be happy to buy those three programs individually or as a package from the creators of the show. As to the New York Rangers, I would happily pay them directly to watch their games. Each time I have joined for cable and satellite I have told them that.

mocom-

Re:This oughta be good

[Artifex]

If someone sold you a software product and told you that you couldn't modify it in any way or let anyone else use it while you were using it, or make more than one copy, or...

You didn't pay attention, did you?

Over-the-air broadcasts are entirely free, and no contract is needed to get them. I feel a moral obligation not to violate fair use by redistributing and claiming it's my own stuff, but that's it.

The cable company I went through never told me I couldn't timeshift or edit material for my own use, only that I could not resell it or show it as a public venue. Private parties are okay... again, nobody says I can't edit things for my own use.

As far as software goes, no, I don't modify software beyond what I'm allowed to do (.ini files, .rc files, whatever) and I don't give copies to others. The terms of all the software I buy let me make multiple copies, as long as I only use one copy at a time (laptop & server, only use the laptop while away, etc.)

3 cheers for precedent.

[phriedom]

This is the first intelligent post I've read today. And what I like about this move is by the EFF and Craig is that it removes SonicBlue from the equation, and they are the point of vulnerability. In Hollywood vs. a PVR maker, Hollywood can argue (and maybe convice a judge) that the PVR maker is profiting by providing a service that makes an infringing derivative work. SonicBlue will counter that the entire program is recorded and only during playback is auto-skipping enabled at the users choice, but the judge can decide that it amounts to the same thing. In Craig vs. Hollywood, Craig can argue that it is the user who chooses to watch the show in the manner they want to and Hollywood is going to have a much harder time sticking infringement on him. Well, that is my uninformed opinion anyway.

Re:A user agreement with every new TV purchase...

[cyril3]

don't say that too loud or someone will offer you a pile of money to run for congress.

What about abusive commercials

[systemaster]

There are those commercial that show sex or starving people, those offend the crap out of me. That and the much much louder commercials, where normal talking is like yelling in a show. I watch TV when others are asleep, I have to mute the f#$% TV when commercials come on. OK maybe the sex ones don't bother me, but some of the gross ones do, even if they warn before showing it, I'm to damd lazy to turn my head, also saying "don't look" is like really saying "LOOK AT ME"

Re:you are either a poor brainwashed fool....

[jukal]

> When they start spamming cell phones will you say that they make our rates lower?

When they start spamming cell phones, I will sue them. Commercials are part of the TV program. With mobile phones, you pay just for what you use. In TVs you, or the provider, cannot currently in most areas decide or see what you use, neither is there a good billing scheme for the current TV.

This is the current situation, which will change, in let's say 5 years from now, so that majority of TV users have devices based on technology which allows similar billing structure to mobile phones. Then, I will sue also the TV companies if they splash anything I did not order on my screen. For now I won't because it would be ridiculous.

Nice Comment, Flawed Reasoning

[The Raven]

I'm sorry, I am being picky, but this comment is highly inaccurate (though amusing in a satirical fashion). This comment is +1 Funny, not +1 Insightful.

More accurate, though less 'Insightful', would be to say that watching content in any fashion other than the way they dictate is becoming illegal. If you want their content (paid for or not) they demand you watch it their way, and no other. They are not making content illegal, they are making Fair Use and its logical relatives (like Common Sense) illegal.

I believe the big media corps are desperate to hold on to the unnaturally big chunk of power they currently have in the US. I believe they will fail, but go down kicking, screaming, and lobbying.

Raven

You're not in serious trouble...

[The Raven]

They digitally add many of those spots, they can digitally change them as well. A bit W00t! out to blue screen technology!