Slashdot Mirror
New Patent on TV Forces You to Watch Ads
WebHostingGuy writes "A patent application filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office says researchers of the Netherland-based consumer electronics company have created a technology that could let broadcasters freeze a channel during a commercial, so viewers wouldn't be able to avoid it. Philips acknowledged that this technology might not sit well with consumers and suggested in its patent filing that consumers be allowed to avoid the feature if they paid broadcasters a fee."
I remember seeing this a few days ago and thinking they couldn't manage it, but slashdot has broken all coding records and implemented it already ;)
The one thing thats worrying me though is that I'm a paying member here on slashdot, so theres a bug somewhere still.
Ahhh well, if slash can do it, so can I - heres the posting I made in the previous article:
Forget muting commercials, this is TV - when the ad break comes on, will I be able to switch channels?
What about the advertising on the other channels that I'm missing.
What if I am flicking around the channels (from a sanctioned spot) and happen upon a commercial, will I not be able to continue to the next channel?
liqbase
Will I still have to watch the ads?
Seriously - its a good thing that there's a patent on this. The more heavily patented (with associated royalties, etc) something is, the less likely it is that industry will actually use it...
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
OK, so that's Philips and Sony off the list. Who's next?
They probably don't care. They'll just do what everybody else does when their customers won't voluntarily support their business model: Pay Congress to force it on us.
Yes but can it keep me from turning the TV off and reading a book instead?
Fuck you. The commercials are the stupidest part of my television-watching experience. Everytime a commercial break happens, I feel my intelligence is insulted. The idiots ensure that the commercials are as annoying, as loud, as irritating as possible in the chance that I might pay attention and buy whatever it is they are pushing, kinda similar to when you visit some neighborhoods in Detroit, and the pimps and pushers start trying to hawk their wares to whoever will listen.
Best example: Matthew Lesko, the screaming asshole who hawks the book full of gubbermint programs to help you go to college, get a job, get money to pay your bills, etc. This idiot runs around in a coat covered in $-signs, looks like Waldo of "Where's Waldo" fame, and SCREAMS ABOUT HOW MUCH HE'S GOING TO HELP ME FIND MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO GET A CIRCUMCISION OR BOFF MY WIFE NEXT WEEK OR USE CAT FECES AS AN ALTERNATIVE FUEL SOURCE.
Second best example: Recently, Burger King started a commercial campaign to promote a new chicken sandwich. To do so, the commercial starts this slow music with lyrics that go like this:
Big.... buckin' chicken...
You are big... and you are chicken...
Big... Buckin' chicken...
The commercial features some clown in a chicken suit with a saddle on its back and another idiot riding in the saddle, probably a midget. I work from home, usually leaving the television on, tuned to Spike TV, since there's like a 5 hour marathon of ST:DS9 and ST:TNG reruns, which seem like heaven when compared with the rest of the afternoon fare. Spike ran this commercial at every break during that 5 hour marathon every weekday for the entire months of January through March. On my wife's days off, it was a race to see who could grab the remote the fastest to at least mute the idiocy that was that commercial. Since then, I've vowed never to eat at a Burger King again.
So, now they want to extort money from me to have control over an appliance I've paid upwards of $400 to $1000 US for? Fuck you, you assholes. I'll toss the bleedin' thing in the garbage and start pirating even *more* movies than I do from USENET. It's getting so that I really don't need the TV any more.
Every month when my cable bill comes in, I pay a fee, I should be able to time shift and skip any commercials I want, I pay nearly $80 per month for all the bells, whistles, and channels I get and by god I feel like that gives me all the right I need to skip the stupid commercials.
Product placement is gonna get more and more common and intrusive as the old way of just showing commercials becomes less and less profitable. Wait till people stop mid show, hold up a bottle of dawn and smile and say how much they love how it makes their hands feel. What's old is new again.
--- www.f-theocean.com
Advertising that will make your potential customers hate and resent you! Who wouldn't want that?
With TV viewership declining and TV execs scrambling to find a way to retain the remaining viewers and attract more, I cannot think of a better strategy. I can imagine the discussion now..
"Should we try to improve the quality of the programming? No screw that, let's roll out a few dozen more reality shows and then really piss them off by locking their TVs during commercials." Or maybe it is a threat: Amercia better start watching more TV or next we will start selling TVs that bitch slap you every time you get up to head to the kitchen (although there may be an innovative weight loss plan there)
I guess the TVs that add this patented feature will target the same customers who purchase Windows Vista. You know the kind, they feel as though what they currently own has way too many features and capabilities and are eager to pay more for something that includes a lot of technical restrictions on what they can do.
Finkployd
A few months after Philips are manufacturing these things, you know that Daewoo will start buying the same chipset. One quick firmware hack later, you will have a telly that automatically changes channels for you when the adverts come on. Or a DVD+RW recorder that automatically puts chapter marks fore and aft of every piss-break.
..... come on. If there is ever a reliable way to distinguish advertising from editorial content {such a thing actually was nearly mandated in the UK once but was rejected}, then it will end up being used in ways that benefit the consumer more than the advertiser.
I mean, seriously
Also, I don't see what there is to grant a patent against. Either there's already a spec for an "advertisement" flag, in which case making use of it to enforce viewing of advertisements should be obvious; or there isn't a spec for an "advertisement" flag, in which case introducing such a flag would be obvious. Patent application is invalid on grounds of obviety either way. Ting! Next, please.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
The technology and the patent for sure it real, but there is no reason to be upset. Philips (I think?) have no power of broadcasting per se and the technology will only be in their box. Their idea is that various companies will bundle their box with TV sets or special offers and that the customers will recieve the box for free. If they do not like the "feature" they can always buy another box which will allow them to zap away from the ads. Of course, in the future this patent might prove to be worth Gold if the broadcasters themselves finds a way to enforce everyone to include this technology on their boxes.
When they beamed it into my house and I collected it on some pieces of metal.
Who's talking content? We own the hardware. That includes the remote and the controls on the TV.
Who owns my remote? Me, or the content provider? If I want to change the channel and watch something else, that's my right.
Until my TV comes with a EULA stating that I am not buying the hardware, and that I'm just licensed to use the hardware however Fox network sees fit. And that is the day I stop buying TV's.
Thank you for pointing out how angry advertisements make you. I would like to point out to you, that without advertising Television as you know it would not exist. you're upset because you paid 1000 dollars for a TV that won't let you skip ads, but you don't seem to mind using that very (relatively) cheap device to watch hundreds of hours of free television programming. Such as, (from your post) Star Trek. Let me expand your mind a little with the notification that programming like Star Trek costs money, and that money comes not from your puny 1000 dollar TV, but from the 10 million dollars worth of ads that get sandwiched into every star trek episode.
it's big business, huge revenue, and it pays for the TV programs you watch. It's a huge industry, and although patents like this might annoy you, they are there to ensure that your children will also be able to enjoy hours and hours of B-list actors with putty-ridges on their foreheads running around plywood spaceships.
Something I think that has been ill considered. In this, Philips, Sony (with the rootkit CD), et al are attacking their "consumer" customers. Don't their senior management or share holders realize that those same "consumer" customers are also the engineers, technicians and mid/lower level managers that create, design and produce other companies products? Other companies products that could use Philips or Sony components and subassemblies. Those of us who do the creation, design and production of new products (for those other companies) not only can avoid their "consumer" products, but, we can also design using a competitors component or subassembly into our products (e.g. design out Philips or Sony stuff)! Thus these monkeys lose twice and more. After all, if I avoid Philips or Sony components and subassemblies, they lose every time that we sell a product using a competitors component or subassembly. Remember, Philips and Sony have many competitors at the component and subassembly level. As an engineer, I can defend the decision to avoid Philips, Sony et al on the grounds that a corporation that preys on its "consumer" customers will prey on and abuse its corporate customers. Even if Philips/Sony promise cheaper components and subassemblies, price is only ONE requirement of many, in the decision of choosing a component and vendor! Often, trustworthyness (reputation) is more important. If I can't get a part in a timely manner, or it doesn't meet published speicifications, then, price is irrelevant. Respectfully: Anonymous Design Engineer
If I am flipping through channels and find myself unable to switch away from a commercial, or turn up or down the volume, I will use the big red OFF button to solve the problem. And if that is also disabled I'm likely to put my foot through the display and never use the thing again. Just an FYI.
My book, podcast
On the other hand new technology, which hasn't percolated down to Mom and Pop level yet but soon will will allow all the viewers to skip the ads, not just the tech savy ones. The advertisers will say, with good reason, why waste money on TV advertising when no-one watches the ads. The TV stations will lose advertising revenue and have less money for programming and we'll all end up with some sort of pay per view or endless reruns of the I Love Lucy show.
I'm no friend of the advertisers, I'd love to watch ad free telly, in fact I mostly do which is why I don't begrudge the UK TV license fee. But you really can't expect advertisers tro pay for your television if no-one is watching their ads because of new technology.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
Alex: No. No! NO! Stop it! Stop it, please! I beg you! This is sin! This is sin! This is sin! It's a sin, it's a sin, it's a sin!
Dr. Brodsky: Sin? What's all this about sin?
Alex: That! Using Ludwig van like that! He did no harm to anyone. Beethoven just wrote music!
Dr. Branom: Are you referring to the background score?
Alex: Yes.
Dr. Branom: You've heard Beethoven before?
Alex: Yes!
Dr. Brodsky: So, you're keen on music?
Alex: YES!
Dr. Brodsky: Can't be helped. Here's the punishment element perhaps.
.
.
.
.
If a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man.
--Anthony Burgess
The Admin and the Engineer
Here's a scenario. A small chiild wakes up in the middle of the night and walks into the living room where the parents are watching TV. While there, a Girls Gone Wild ad comes on the screen, which the parents decide they don't want their child to see. With this technology, they'd be screwed. One would hope the power could simply be turned off, but what if that feature is disabled too? One would hope the TV could be unplugged, but what if TV manufacturers start installing batteries or capacitor-banks to provide just enough juice to run the unit for a single commercial?
There is a rule in user-interface design that says the user must always be in control. Unfortunately, the quest for bigger profits seems to be redefining who the user is, taking control away from the consumer and giving it to the producer.