Slashdot Mirror
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.)"
Is that anything like Joe vs. the Volcano?
I can't wait for the TV movie adaptation of this trial. Hopefully they'll get Tom Cruise to play Craig Newmark
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.
Get paid to code OSS
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.
Real software engineers regret the existence of COBOL, FORTRAN and BASIC.
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.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
I thought Tuesdays were "screw the MPAA" day and Thursdays were "Oooh, Newline just released the LOTR Behind the Scenes DVD" party.
Just wonderful.
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?
i think it is just like skipping stones, it just requires more arm strength.
"I don't need a compass to tell me which way the wind shines." - Mr. Furious, Mystery Men
Funny... I don't ever recall signing any contracts. What about the people that channel surf during commercials? Are they stealing programming too?
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.
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.
Great term - hope it sticks in the popular press.
sPh
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.
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.
I am the evil aardvark!
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.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Finally, real action by a recognized key-player in the space of online communities.
/. readers, and we WILL support you in these important acts.
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
Now - off to the eff to make a donation.
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.
314-15-9265
I'd call it Dave v. Goliath, or Joe v. Volcano instead. Unlike those earlier 'cases', though, I don't predict a similar outcome.
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
LawMeme has some analysis.
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.
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?
I sure hope not.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
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)
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
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.)
Is browsing at +3 violating a contract with other slashdot users?
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.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't
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
I've seen some very small lawyers PASS some very large stones.
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?
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?
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
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.
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
I just spit my dew all over my keyboard.
You have the funniest sarcasm around.
sorry I couldn't help my self
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
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
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!
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
That spying attempt is going to go down in history as one of the dumbest moves in the history of customer relations.
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.
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.
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.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
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
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.
Get off my launchpad!
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?
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.
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.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
> 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.
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.
Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
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.
"Derp de derp."
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!
Milo
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.
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.
Someone you trust is one of us.
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!
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
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.
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).
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
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
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
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.
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.
I mod down any one who says "I'm sure I will get modded down for this"
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!!!!
Well, hey, it must be illegle to turn your TV OFF now. I mean, that'd interupt those advertisements too...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
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)
...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
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?
Oh, go on, check out my job.
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.
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!
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.
The Free desktop that Just Works
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...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
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!"
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...
.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.)
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,
Get off my launchpad!
> 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.
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
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
They digitally add many of those spots, they can digitally change them as well. A bit W00t! out to blue screen technology!
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.