Slashdot Mirror


NBC Activates Broadcast Flag

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "NBC activated the 'broadcast flag' on a number of shows this week, ranging from American Gladiator to Medium, which prevented compliant programs like Windows Media Center from recording them. The matter is being 'looked into,' but that doesn't tell us whether it was an accident or a ploy to see how outraged viewers would be at being stripped of the time-shifting rights they've enjoyed ever since Sony v. Universal. Just in case it's the latter, it wouldn't hurt to let them know what you think."

53 of 430 comments (clear)

  1. The epitome of unbiased summaries by Macthorpe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The matter is being 'looked into', but that doesn't tell us whether it was an accident or a ploy to see how outraged viewers would be at being stripped of the time-shifting rights they've enjoyed ever since Sony v. Universal. Just in case you don't know which one the submitter thinks is true, it's the latter...
    --
    "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    1. Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft just sell the guns. It was NBC that fired first.

    2. Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries by adpsimpson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whether the flag was set on purpose or not, it indicates that any system paying any attention to it is broken.

      Time shifting was ruled many years ago as an allowed privilege. That doesn't change when the broadcaster says they don't want it any more (remember who brought the court case to try and ban it? The broadcasters). It certainly doesn't change when your computer decides to deny you that ability.

      --
      Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
      John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
    3. Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries by Phillup · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft just sell the guns. It was NBC that fired first. They designed the gun, built the gun... and forced everyone to have the gun.

      Of course someone was going to shoot the damn thing!
      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    4. Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries by damienl451 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Time shifting is not a right, it's a defense. It means that you cannot be found guilty of copyright infringement if you time-shift some TV shows. However, it does *NOT* mean that networks cannot implement measures, such as the Broadcast Flag, that prevent you from time-shifting. The law does not require copyright holders to allow users to exercise their fair use `privileges', it simply says that fair use is not copyright infringement.

    5. Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries by electrictroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      hey!

      Good thing I use Super VHS VCRs for my recording. Good old analog technology... it just works & says "bah" to digital no-record flags. (Ditto my analog cassettes ignoring digital radio's no-record flags.) I can record whatever I want off NBC or XM or HD Radio.

      It's gotta suck though for digital users. You want to tape a show in the middle of the day (say, Oprah) or night (Letterman), but you can't because of that stupid flag. Therefore that show loses time-shifting viewers. NBC == "Stupido" (to borrow from NBC's cousin Telemundo).

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    6. Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries by electrictroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's okay.

      We still have a vote.

      We can vote with our dollars & stop watching NBC. Get your shows from alternate sources like DVDs. When NBC Broadcasting sees its ratings drop to 1.0% of the nation, then maybe it will wake-up (or go out of business). THE PEOPLE hold the power to kill corporations. They just need to learn to exercise that power.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    7. Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries by haeger · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It's almost like they want me to go to The Pirate Bay and get my media fix. Seeing how this is the simplest and least annoying way of enjoying my favorite shows.

      .haeger

      --
      You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
    8. Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries by davolfman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That said copyright exists because it is granted by society. Fair use is part of the social contract by which it is granted. Actively preventing fair use was never possible before so I just don't think the law has caught up with the need to Nullify copyright for those who break that social contract.

    9. Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries by Amouth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i look at it this way.. i have a box set up with media center (hey it does a good job).. the only TV i watch is what i records - if there is nothing recorded then i don't watch anything and go do something else..

      if they block the recording .. that is fine with me.. it means i will never have something to watch and will go on with my life as if their channle never existed.

      i will admit.. while my wife when she watchs stuff alwasy fastforwards through ads.. personaly the TV is back ground noise to what ever i am doing .. be it a book or a game or something.. so i while i pay enough attention to get the story the show is portraying.. when the ads start my brain shuts off.. so i don't fastforward them.. all they are doing by this is preventing people from seeing any of their content.. if that is what they want.. it is their own foot they are shooting.. not mine

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    10. Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Time shifting is not a right, it's a defense. It means that you cannot be found guilty of copyright infringement if you time-shift some TV shows.

      Try using that defense after selling a DVR with an HD tuner that ignores the flag.

      However, it does *NOT* mean that networks cannot implement measures, such as the Broadcast Flag, that prevent you from time-shifting.

      The problem is that it isn't the networks implementing these measures - but the FCC. It is illegal to manufacture a DVR that does not respect the flag...

    11. Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We can vote with our dollars & stop watching NBC. Get your shows from alternate sources like DVDs. Buying DVD's would do exactly the opposite of what you want. The studio that produces the show makes money from every DVD sale. The studios only make money from the broadcasts by selling advertising, so if you aren't a Nielsen house, whether or not you watch the broadcast doesn't change the studio's income.
    12. Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do know that they plan to have it so it won't work on the TV if it doesn't get a proper responce from the recording device, right?

      Yes, they are aware of the Analog issue.
      What you, and everyone else, needs to do is tell this to all the people you know who like to watch movies and record on their device and right a nice but firm letter to all your federal reps telling them why this is bad.

      Contrary to what a ,lot of people seem to think, they do take those letter seriously, they just need a few hundred to begin to think it will impact there chance of getting reelected.

      and anybody patient enough to download Dr. Who over 56K is clearly able to take some time to do this.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Voting with dollars leads to an aristocracy, not a democracy, and makes "voting" empty. If I have 100 dollars and you have 20, I have 5 times the voting power you do. In a society where 20% of the people hold 80% of the wealth, how well do you think "voting with dollars" would work?

      This is why a democratic government cannot leave the economy completely unregulated. We vote in a democracy to give everyone equal voice over the forces that effect our lives, like the economy.

    14. Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries by STrinity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The studios only make money from the broadcasts by selling advertising,
      No, the studio makes money by selling broadcast rights to the network, which makes money by selling advertising. Studios and networks are separate entities, though they're sometimes owned by the same parent company. Note that all of Joss Whedon's shows have been produced through Fox, but only one of them aired on the Fox Network.

      If NBC puts a broadcast flag on a show that wasn't produced by NBC-Universal and you decide to buy the DVD instead of watching it off the network, you aren't giving any money to NBC.
      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    15. Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you just made-up some BS. If they did design TVs like that, how would people playback their old SVHS-C, Hi8, or miniDV home movies from the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s? Nobody would buy such a TV that refused to show their old wedding and baby videos. It would die a quick death.

      http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/04/aacs-key-revocation-future-drm

      They did design TVs like that. The technology is in every modern computer processor, every modern television, every set top box. This isn't just about preventing recording. You can use this to revoke playback rights after something has been recorded. Like a news program that leaks information embarrassing to the government, for example.

      Oh, and those TVs that you'd rather buy? The ones that don't have this technology? They're illegal to manufacture and illegal to sell. You'll have to build your own or smuggle them into the country if you want one.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    16. Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries by WK2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But if I can't tape Medium because of NBC's blocking flag, and I can't buy the DVDs, where do I go to get the show? (Legally.)

      You seem to be missing the whole point of a boycott.

      --
      Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
  2. Benefit of a doubt? by blank89 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That seems like a rather large mistake to make. If it was mistake, it's the kind someone might get fired for (especially after attention from slashdot).

    1. Re:Benefit of a doubt? by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most people don't get fired for a single mistake. This isn't The Apprentice. In the real world people need to be replaced and that's a costly process. The person who made the mistake will know not to do it again.

    2. Re:Benefit of a doubt? by arthurpaliden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If that was the case then our corporate mannagers would not be required to beat expectations every quarter and we would not be in the financial mess we are in now. No, in western corporate culture there is only one rule and that is you must make or better your corporate numbers and if you do any thing that causes that not to happen you are gone.

    3. Re:Benefit of a doubt? by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Speak for yourself. My mistakes must have cumulatively cost the company thousands. Still seem to be pretty much employed.

      If I made the same mistake twice, that would be another matter.

    4. Re:Benefit of a doubt? by mgblst · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes quite true, or even several mistakes. In fact, I see incompetent people walking around all the time, making mistakes all over the place, and not a word of being fired.

    5. Re:Benefit of a doubt? by crawling_chaos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One of the best bosses I ever had had a simple rule: "If you aren't making mistakes, then you probably aren't working. Just don't repeat those errors, and don't try to hide them when you do screw up." He ended up retiring after 30 years with the company, so his philosophy certainly never cost him his career.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  3. From the site: by Daimanta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "It seems the flag only triggered copy protection measures in Vista, as one of our staffers with a DirecTV HD DVR recorded Gladiators as usual, and a TiVo spokesperson told CNet that the company had not received any complaints."

    Well well, another reason NOT to use Vista MCE. If you simply ignore a broadcast flag this only annoys people who pay for commercial software. I, on the other hand, couldbuild a MythTV box without any problems whatsoever :)

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    1. Re:From the site: by adpsimpson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It does seem ridiculous when any form of security is built around proprietary software telling you what you can and can't do.

      If timeshifting is a court-granted right, then a broadcaster saying you can't do it and a recording system believing them should be plenty of evidence that it's time to change to a system you control.

      There have been many cases of this recently, but essentially it's the Alice/Bob/Charlie situation - Alice wants to send Bob some data, without Charlie getting it. The problem with ANY form of DRM is that Bob and Charlie are the same person.

      If Vista refuses to record it cos it's told not to by the broadcaster ("Oh, uh, I'm Bob, right? I can watch this! No, hold on, who am I? Charlie? They say I'm Charlie, so I must be! I'm not letting you see it!"), then from the user's perspective it's broken.

      --
      Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
      John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
    2. Re:From the site: by makapuf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It does seem ridiculous when any form of security is built around proprietary software telling you what you can and can't do. Isn't that the definition of DRM ?
    3. Re:From the site: by hal2814 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "If timeshifting is a court-granted right, then a broadcaster saying you can't do it and a recording system believing them should be plenty of evidence that it's time to change to a system you control."

      Then it's a good thing for broadcasters that time shifting is not a "court-granted right." For that, you'd have to assume A implies B is equivalent to B implies A. The specific case of record television shows to watch later does not violate copyright laws. That does not mean that broadcasters have to make the recording of television shows easy or even possible. Timeshifting is merely a legally valid excuse for what would normally be considered copyright infringement. The court has granted you no rights forcing timeshifting to be made available.

    4. Re:From the site: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If timeshifting is a court-granted right, then a broadcaster saying you can't do it and a recording system believing them should be plenty of evidence that it's time to change to a system you control.

      US Courts don't grant rights. They only affirm that we do or do not have a right.

      The Constitution was written with "implicit allow" rules for citizens and "implicit deny" for government.

      Over the years people have lost sight of this fact and that has been seized upon those in a position of power. The average citizen now believes if a right isn't listed in the Constitution, they don't have it aka "implicit deny". Even worst they think the government has an "implicit allow" aka they are without bounds.

    5. Re:From the site: by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If time-shifting is not a copyright violation, and studios implement measures to prevent time-shifting, then any DVR anti-DRM tools they've been fighting so hard against suddenly have a huge legitimate use. The whole "anti-circumvention" clause in the DMCA becomes shot for their purposes because now those tools are now "primarily" for legally time-shifting rather than for circumventing copyright protection.

      I like how you think, friend, but..

      If a tool is primarily intended for legal time-shifting, and the only way to accomplish that goal (legal time-shifting) is by circumventing access controls, then it is also primarily intended to circumvent access controls.

      DMCA's prohibitions were never worded (and arguably, never intended) to merely prohibit circumvention by people who seek to do illegal things (such as violate copyright). It prohibits circumvention regardless of why your doing it, with some exemptions. Time-shifting is not one of the exemptions. Everything not explicitly allowed, is prohibited. That's one of the things that made it such an evil law.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  4. Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Use non-compliant software. Or software you (or someone for you) can make non-compliant.

    If you use software you have no control over it just suits you right to get shafted once in a while by it.

    Vote with your money.

    1. Re:Easy fix by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even better, how many people who were out of the house for American Gladiator are about to be introduced to the world of piracy and bit torrent because of the broadcast flag?

    2. Re:Easy fix by jeremyp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I were out of the house and American Gladiators failed to record, I'd regard that as a lucky escape.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  5. Don't complain to NBC. by rusty0101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tell the advertisers for those program that you're really currious about their support NBC in using the broadcast flag. Not only did you get the opportunity to miss that program, but you didn't get to see any of the ads for their company promoting their products, sales, events, or anything else they were interested in letting you know about.

    Believe me, word will get back to NBC that it's not to their advantage to follow such tactics.

    --
    You never know...
  6. Huh? by dammy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    People still watch TV?

    Dammy

  7. Whatever... by OMNIpotusCOM · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless it's Heroes, it's not worth watching anyway. Tell NBC what you think by... oh, I don't know... NOT WATCHING? Just tell NBC that you're "going green," they'll understand.

    1. Re:Whatever... by marc_gerges · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe they're trying to lose even more viewers by not letting these viewers tape their programs. How brilliant. Attract more customers by treating them like crap. Reminds me of RIAA. It's funny how with commercial TV the product always thinks it's the customer. Unless you pay NBC to receive their programming, they couldn't care less if you watch it timeshifting and ad-skipping, or if you choose not to watch it at all. They're after eye balls watching the ads. That's the product they offer to their customers.
  8. Submarine restrictions: how can they be stopped? by dpbsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This brings up what I think is the biggest potential for unfair use of DRM: restrictions that are built into the technology and acknowledged by fine print in the user agreement, but not enforced until after millions of consumers have already purchased the product.

    There's nothing new about this. You can waste an awful lot of time reading contracts and discovering that you've agreed to obnoxious things... and that there's not an awful lot you can do about it because all the competitors have similar contracts... and that, surprise, surprise, the employee behind the car rental counter is not interested in striking out clauses and negotiating contracts with an individual customer with a line behind him.

    What's new is the potential for cheap, automatic, mechanical enforcement at some later date.... and the consumer's inability to know the company's real intentions.

    When you buy something with unenforced DRM you are truly buying a pig in a poke.

    The free market can't operate in the absence of the buyer having reasonable information on what they're buying. In the case of unenforced DRM, that means not just the theoretical existence of restrictions, it means that companies should be required to disclose a policy on their intentions for future enforcement... a policy that must be included in the contract for the contract to be valid, and one which they can be held to in the future.

    It should be use-it-or-lose-it. A company that fails to use automated restrictions for a long period of time, and has failed to disclose clearly its intention of using them in the future, ought to right to enforce them.

  9. Re:These things are rarely accidental by OhPlz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps they're testing to generate articles like this. Then they get a nice shopping list of products that don't enforce the flag. They know they have to address each of them before setting the flag on everything, all the time. That way people have no escape. So be vocal, the content distributors need this information so they can lock up their content.

    I guess it depends on whether you're a cynic like me, or an optimist that thinks corporations really care.

  10. VCR.. by 56ksucks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's a good thing I still have my trusty old VCR. Of course it's not like I'm actually going to watch gladiators anyway. But if I wanted to record it I'd use good old VHS!!!!

    --

    ---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"

  11. Re:NBC? by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's this place where people watch commercials interrupted by programs at the time least convenient to them, and have to wait a whole week between episodes; instead of downloading them one season at a time and watching them whenever you want... There .. fixed it for you.

    It amazes me that people think that shows are the reason for the existence of TV stations, when really the whole broadcast system depends on hooking in enough people in order to get them to watch the commercials.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  12. Re:Ironic timing by electrictroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To quote an often stated phrase:

    - "Banning guns doesn't stop criminals from owning guns."
    - Using DRM doesn't stop criminals from owning illegal copies.

    Illegal ownerships still continues amongst the criminals who know how to circumvent the law/crack the code, so all you've accomplished is piss-off your legitimate customers.

    --
    The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
  13. Re:Mr. Rogers is crying. by demachina · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Probably wont be a popular thing to say but back in the VCR days the stakes were a lot lower than they are today. It didn't matter so much back then because the tape of the show inherently couldn't travel very far and there was inherent pain in stripping out or fast forwarding through the commercials, to they were mostly for fair use.

    In the digital and Internet age, most people might record for fairly benign fair use purposes, but some people are going to record, strip the commercials, put the shows on the Internet and undermine the business model under which TV networks currently function.

    Me personally I'm not sure I can think of any content NBC produces I would actually want to watch or record, let alone post on the Internet, its not like they have a Daily Show or Colbert report. To counter my own argument John Stewart and Stephen Colbert seem to do OK encouraging free Internet trafficking in their shows but thats because their shows are A. wildly popular and B. cheap to produce.

    Here is a question for all the Slashdot crowd that want all their media freed from the man. Do you want to watch content that actually costs a lot to produce, you know with writers, actors, sets. This would mean pretty much anything beyond game shows and reality TV. If so how do you expect the producers to pay for them? The options are pretty limited. One model depends on you watchings ads, and unfortunately its fairly rare for people to actually want to watch ads outside of the Super Bowl. If you let people strip the ads at a wholesale level the model doesn't work. Are you willing to pay a subscription fee for all content? Some people will pay for some content, its just wont work for most people and most content. What else is there? Shows which sucker you into voting or calling in for prizes and charge you on your phone bill? Do you want to just watch content mostly produced for free on YouTube, kind of entertaining and weird, but not exactly compelling drama?

    Free network TV is a business model that is failing so desperation on the part of the networks is understandable. It worked when there were three networks, not many other mass market entertainment options and no digital recordings. Now there are so many channels diluting the market, and people are spending more time on the Internet and games. As a result ads don't produce as much revenue, so the networks counter by loading up shows with more and more of them in more obnoxious ways and try harder to force you to watch them. In turn they are annoying people more and more, causing a snowballing effect that will drive down their ratings and their revenue. If the networks allow people to rip the shows, cut the commercials, and post them on the Internet its inevitable more and more people will watch them there instead and further destroy any motivation to produce content in the first place.

    --
    @de_machina
  14. Re:Let them know what I think? by Kelbear · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I watch BSG on a Hulu stream.

    It still sends the message that I prefer to watch things on my schedule rather than a
    predefined one. It's a bit more noticable because the lack of a viewer is hard for them to measure, but an additional view on Hulu is easily registered. It's a satisfactory middle ground between watching in real-time and bittorrenting the show and then watching.

    I don't mind the 15-30 second ads, I find them a reasonable exchange for my show and I even watch them since they're short enough that it's not worth getting up or doing something else. I just wish they'd stop repeating the same goddamn ad.

  15. Re:Mr. Rogers is crying. by electrictroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's because Fred Rogers did his job for a *higher* cause: To speak to the children & families. He'd still have done the exact same job, even if they only paid him minimum wage, because it wasn't about greed for him. It was about the message.

    For (almost) everyone else in television, it's about greed.
    Hence they hate giving anything away for free (like time-shifting).
    If someone asked them to "Donate to the children's orphanage" they'd probably ask, "What's in it for me?"

    Sad.

    --
    The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
  16. TV accelerating its own decline by Phoenix666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's very little worth watching, and what is, is available to watch by the season on DVD. With the key demo, males 18-35, spending more and more time playing GTA IV and Halo, the TV industry would be well-advised to stop poisoning the well. Else, in 10 years' time the only ones watching will be retired Baby Boomers who live on $800 of social security every month.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  17. MythTV by Pepebuho · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Solution to his problem is simple: MythTV.
    Build your own on any spare PC and forget about it.

  18. Don't get too smug - remember Macrovision? by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't be surprised if buried in the analogue output circuitry of your digital set top box is a macrovision circuit just itching to be switched on by a hidden flag hidden in some program to mop up the remaining analogue recorders such as yourself! :)

  19. Re:Going Green by JCSoRocks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Only thing worth watching on TV is on the Discovery / History channel. That's all I watch when I get someplace with cable. My TV at home is just for DVD's / game systems / windows media center.
    TLC used to be good but it's turned into a frickin' reality show channel. (at least they stopped making insert dumb idea here story shows. Baby story, wedding story, ugh. What, we don't know how weddings happen!?)

    --
    You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
  20. Re:Let them know what I think? by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't just stop buying and watching, you should also write them and be vocal.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  21. Re:Going Green by agrounds · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I did as well.

    I stopped watching TV about ten years ago. I had spent a year and a half in South Korea on non-stop field exercises in the Army and then was honorably discharged and shipped back to the US. After being away from any TV for so long, I found that I just couldn't stand to sit in front of the box idly staring at it. It really bugged me on a fundamental level to see how it panders to the lowest common denominator of society. I never looked back.

    Occasionally a friend will recommend a particularly good show to me, and I might watch it on DVD though. I can honestly count the number of shows on four fingers though that this is true for over a decade.
    Babylon 5
    Deadwood
    Battlestar Galactica (the new one)
    Heroes

    I didn't quit out of a hatred for the media conglomerates or for any lofty ideal. I quit just because after stepping away for a while, I think you see it for what it really is when you come back.

  22. Re:Ironic timing by electrictroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was making a point that you can not outlaw or protect what determined people want.

    Look at alcohol prohibition. Did it work? No, the people just created underground, black-market speakeasys. How about drug prohibition? Nope, people still get the drugs they want. Gun prohibition? Nope people get their hands on guns for hunting or self-defense. Copy prohibition (DRM)? Nope, people crack the code and get what they want.

    THAT was my point.

    It's a fruitless and pointless effort to try & block people. You're just wasting your time. They WILL find a way around the obstacle & reach their goal.

    --
    The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
  23. Re:Going Green by potat0man · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow, good work. Maybe soon you'll be able to rid yourself of theater, novels, poetry, radio, periodicals, video games, board games, essays and albums.

    Then you'll be able to focus on what's REALLY important...

  24. Re:Mr. Rogers is crying. by unitron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the digital and Internet age, most people might record for fairly benign fair use purposes, but some people are going to record, strip the commercials, put the shows on the Internet and undermine the business model under which TV networks currently function.

    The business model is that they (or their affiliates) get to use the airwaves which belong to the people as long as they are deemed to be acting "in the public interest". This allows selling a certain amount of advertising time to pay for operations and just like movie theaters show movies that the studios and not they make money on so that people will come in and buy popcorn, television stations show entertainment so that people are watching when they slip in the ads (which is what makes the ad time worth buying in the first place, an audience). Just like the ads in newspapers and magazines (which cover most of the cost of publishing), some will be ignored and some "consumed".

    People who record for time-shifting purposes will fast-forward through the commercials or not as they wish and the advertisers haven't really lost anything because those people were doing something else when the show actually aired. The stations may even benefit because going to your kid's band concert didn't cause you to give up watching "Lost" or "24" on an ongoing basis due to losing track of the storyline because of not being available to watch in real-time that one particular evening.

    I find it difficult to believe that many people who are able to use a VCR or DVR for time-shifting will prefer to go to the trouble of searching for and downloading what may or may not be a good quality recording just to avoid having to hit the fast forward button, especially if they have to shell out for extra hardware in order to be able to watch said recording on their television sets instead of on their computer monitors.

    If anything undermines the business model under which the networks currently operate, it'll most likely be that people aren't watching because there's something else they'd rather be doing or because the shows just aren't very good.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.