Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Can Smart TVs Insert Ads Into Your Movies? (gigaom.com)
dryriver writes:
Back in 2015, the owners of some Samsung smart TVs complained about their viewing of films and other content being constantly interrupted by a recurring Pepsi ad. It turned out that yes, the Samsung TV itself was inserting the ad into content.
Samsung said at the time that it was a software glitch that caused this. They left a function on by default that should have been off when they shipped the TVs. But it proves that Smart TVs have an unnerving capability built into them -- the ability to interrupt content playback with product ads actually stored on the TV itself.
So here's the question -- what if all Smart TV makers suddenly decide that having the ability to push custom ads to the owner of the TV is "fair game"? What if they decide "You want to own this model of TV for XXX Dollars? Well, you can have it, but we'll reserve the right to show you customized advertising as you are viewing stuff with it"? Are there any laws anywhere that would protect TV owners from such intrusive advertising?
Samsung said at the time that it was a software glitch that caused this. They left a function on by default that should have been off when they shipped the TVs. But it proves that Smart TVs have an unnerving capability built into them -- the ability to interrupt content playback with product ads actually stored on the TV itself.
So here's the question -- what if all Smart TV makers suddenly decide that having the ability to push custom ads to the owner of the TV is "fair game"? What if they decide "You want to own this model of TV for XXX Dollars? Well, you can have it, but we'll reserve the right to show you customized advertising as you are viewing stuff with it"? Are there any laws anywhere that would protect TV owners from such intrusive advertising?
A Smart TV is a Dimwit TV after two years at most anyway.
Compared to even the most basic stand-alone media player, the "Smart" part of TV's is rarely more than "Marginally above braindead" any way.
Get a separate screen and separate smart media box.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I disconnect it from the internet and run my own media box.
Avoid buying a 'smart' monitor
LOL!
No.
If you buy a smart TV at a discount in exchange for giving the TV manufacturer the rights to show you adverts then of course there's no law that's going to 'protect' you from this. By buying the TV with those conditions attached, you've accepted the conditions.
Don't buy such a TV. Simple law of economics.
This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.
It's TV, I can live without it. I haven't had any TV channels for years now.
I only use it for streaming now, of course I wouldn't accept ad's when watching it.
I have the feeling that they are really over-estimating their worth, Personally I watch less and less TV shows and movies, I haven't watched a movie in a year, and I can't find any new TV shows that I care to watch anymore.
However, I do subscribe to a bunch of youtube channels and support some of them on Patreon.
Break the glass first to protect poor salvagers.
Recall that the Kindle/Fire line of e-readers/tablets have a slightly cheaper version which shows large ads on the lock screen. In my experience they resemble the scrolling ads on Netflix for shows they offer, that works as a screen saver, which I haven't heard anyone complain about or even mention. If that bothers you, you can spend a few dollars more for the model with no ads. So silent ads as screen savers, sure why not.
Pausing the content you're actively trying to consume, and inserting additional ads, is enough of an annoyance I imagine people would purposely avoid TV models that do this. It's not like there's no competition between manufacturers, as it's the end manufacturers and not the panel manufacturers who would do this. There are lots of other companies you can buy from, unless you want something unique like a 2017 OLED TV. That said, the TV would have to be able to pause the content, meaning the content is running from the TV's smart features; since TVs are now able to control connected devices via HDMI I could see them sending a 'pause' signal to a Bluray player, but am not sure if pause signals are actually one of the commands that can be sent over HDMI. The TV would have to connect to the net to verify how many times the ad was watched, so not connecting your TV to the net would probably disable ads.
The amount of ad revenue earned by TV manufacturers would be so minuscule that it wouldn't be worth the backlash or reduced sales. Consumers buying $2k TVs would do the research beforehand, and nearly anyone would rather pay $10 more for a TV without the ads. Cord-cutters using smart TV features are the people MOST likely to abhor ads, so the placement is horrible; a better idea would be to replace the bootup splash screen with a static ad image.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
I don't need a law. I just need a router with a Firewall. And I have one.
As an Australian though, unless they advertise such a "feature" at the point of sale, I can take it back. It's clearly broken, and not working as advertised or expected. And if they advertise it, then nobody will buy it. Furthermore, if they all do it together, I can demonstrate collusion.
Worst case, some cheap Chinese manufacturer lies waiting in the wings to take advantage of such a situation. Best case, the Japanese manufacturers will not fail face.
It's a non question, anyway you look at it.
The easy answer: I don't understand why anyone would by a television anymore. Buy a dumb screen, or a projector, and put whatever content you want on it.
I confess, we do have a commercial tuner (cable box) as one possible input to our projector, but it is only used to tune in standard cable channels. Films and such go directly from our media server.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
There's no big uprising when facebook, windows 10, oculus rift, nvidia drivers, ... collect all the data they can. Data, for which the only commercial value is ads.
Why would anyone expect that there will be more resistance when TVs, cars, or toasters do it? Step by step, advertisers will get every piece of data, from everywhere.
If we're lucky the ads-bubble might burst. Unfortunately, collecting data and distributing ads everywhere is getting far too cheap, so its unlikely.
Prepare for a future that looks like Idiocracy. Car dashboards constantly displaying ads targeted at the driver and passengers, only interrupted for notifications about lesser crimes (also based on the data), and a farting ass.
Unfortunately, I suspect that the law most likely to defend the interests of the buyer of "smart" TVs in this case is going to be consumer protection law. In the specific scenario described by the OP, I think that this may hinge on the decisions that a typical buyer would have made at the time of purchase. For example, we know that it is technically possible to have a smart TV without forced commercials, because many of us own them today.
We also can find out whether or not users choose to purchase smart TVs with forced in-line advertisements through analysis of buying trends as this technology is introduced. And we can add the uproar that Samsung faced when they "accidentally" altered some of their TVs, by pushing new firmware [without user action], is a pretty clear indicator that this modification is *not* welcome.
What it all boils down to is choice. If a buyer can show that they would not have chosen to purchase a model of TV if they had known, at the time of purchase, that it would subsequently be modified to show commercials, then the manufacturer of the smart TV is going to have a problem on their hands. This is not the first time this issue has been discussed - and the last time it came around I used the following analogy:-
Suppose that you went out and bought yourself a new car. For a year you drove it around and it was just what you wanted - absolutely perfect. Then you booked it in for it's first service, and when the car was handed back to you, the dealer had put a big light rig across the roof, with the word "TAXI" on it, they had put decals and logos down the side, and now you were obliged to stop and give rides to people who hailed you. Even better, if you did this [because you had no choice] any money generated from these rides went to the dealer, not to you...
This is a variation on the concept of post-purchase modification to a product. Put in this context it is entirely unacceptable, but in *legal* terms it is remarkably similar to what Samsung did with their TVs and the subject of the OP's question.
I think the only way that we can resist this is to vote with our wallets. If we find ourselves in a situation where all manufacturers of Smart TVs do this, then we're going to have to rely on Consumer Protection laws to defend us. I would not give high hopes for our chances.
A Smart TV is a Dimwit TV after two years at most anyway.
Bull. I have a Sony smart TV bought in 2012 whose Netflix and Amazon apps work just as well today as they did when it was new.
And very likely, they will.
The point is: should they?
My personal answer is "no, they shouldn't, unless the user agrees".
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Actually, yes, there are.
But you live on the wrong (north american) side of the atlantic pond.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Don't give them ideas!
The government is not your parent and you are not an infant. If you agree to get a discounted or even free TV set in exchange for inserted advertisements, it is your choice and you should be free to make it or decline. Why do so many people think that they always know what is better for other people and want to force their "wisdom" onto everybody with laws (and therefore threat of fines or jail)?
Tweets about a particular hashtag would make watching TV much more enjoyable.
Come on, that's entirely specious...
If a manufacturer had pairs of all the TV models they sold, at 2 different prices, one with "commercial free" and the other with a warning that made it crystal clear to the consumer that they were buying a product in which the *product* would insert content, over and above the ability of the user to control, then that would be fair. Amazon did exactly this with their lower-priced Kindle readers - in return for a discounted product, you agreed to take advertisements.
That is most assuredly not happening here. In this case, vendors are taking advantage of the ability to remotely update *your* product, which you purchased under a set of terms and conditions and under the protection of the "Sale of Goods Act" [or your local equivalent] and now the vendor are trying to argue that they have the legal authority to remotely alter/degrade the functionality of the product even if doing so is against your will.
Nope. No way. The Kindle example sets a clear precedent of what can be done by a vendor wishing to explore this revenue stream. Personally, I don't see many takers. If you can afford to buy a decent Smart TV, you can avoid the advert-free model... Or you can buy from someone else! I happen to own a Samsung Smart TV - and if they [Samsung] started to embed commercials in my TV, not only would I junk it, I would never buy another Samsung product again. There are plenty of others to choose from.
Advertising is notoriously pernicious and invasive. Remember when commercials became part of "pay TV" despite its promise? Remember when they started popping up at the bottom of the screen during TV shows? Remember when they started appearing in cinemas? Remember when they showed up above the urinals in public washrooms? Remember when PBS started running advertising content? Remember how advertising took over whole sections of the World Wide Web? Who will speak for us when they intrude into yet another part of life? No one, because the problem is not considered important enough. (It is decidedly a first-world problem.) But the need for advertising on the scale we see it suggests some deeper malaise, presumably along economic lines.
"This suite," she continued, "is complete with a kitchen, all the appliances of which are free, rather than coin-operated.
Obviously, outright blatant expense has been incurred in the constructing of this living unit,
which is ample enough for twenty persons, possessing, as it does,
its own self-regulating air, heat, water, and unusually varied food supply,
plus closed-circuit TV and high-fidelity polyphonic phonograph sound-system -
the two latter facilities, however, unlike the kitchen, being coin-operated.
To aid you in utilizing these recreation facilities, a change-making machine has been placed in the game room."
This place just keeps getting more and more relevant every day.
Amazon offer reduced price kindles with advertising built in. They also offer a more expensive version. Some people feel the intrusiveness (which in this case is pretty minor) is worth the saving. Others feel it isn't and pay more.
Do the first group really need to be protected from a cheaper product?
Yes, to answer the question. In fact, there is a huge, incontrovertible law that prevents this. It is called the law of supply and demand. If there is no demand for this garbage, there will be no supply. It's that simple.
They're the same thing but without the built-in bullshit
Twinstiq, game news
...if it doesn't have an internet connection? Or how about if I block all the ad servers on my router? Even if some company tries to do this, there are easy ways to defeat this that have been used for decades now.
We'll make great pets
Are there any laws anywhere that would protect TV owners from such intrusive advertising?
Yes, the law of supply and demand. Don't buy a device you don't like. There are plenty of non-smart devices out there, with HDMI ports that let you apply whatever degree of smartness or dumbness you want. And they're cheaper.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
...will do just nice for OTA TV. Internet stuff (Youtube/Netflix) is best accessed by a small media player PC.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
We are force fucked ads, we have our data stolen (Windows 10, Roomba, Verizon, Google), we have no control and we are digitally raped. So we're fucked anyways.
0. The summary offered a link to, not TFA, but to another /. article, where TFA was actually linked. Um, hey, /. editors, are you clickfarming?
1. TFA, dated February 2015 (yes, more than 2 years old), makes some interesting points:
- One report claimed the user was viewing content on the Plex server. Seems as if a media server wouldn't prevent ad insertion, much to the chagrin of current commentators who purport that a media server would defeat this 'feature'.
- Another report claimed the problem appeared approximately a year after purchase. Seems as if the excerpt in the summary; 'software glitch that caused this. They left a function on by default that should have been off when they shipped the TVs', is at odds with the original Samsung response, 'This was a result of an error that occurred as part of a recent software update that was not intended for the Australian market.'. Who's right? I'm trusting the original report.
For those of you scoring at home, that's Truth 2, Summary 0, current commentators 0. So far.
- This was reported in Australia. Not the US, so far as I know.
- And this tidbit: 'On my Samsung, at least, the Yahoo Privacy Policy terms and conditions are delightfully Orwellian:
"By either selecting that I agree or by not selecting that I disagree, I agree to the Yahoo Connected TV Terms of Service." The kicker? There is no "I disagree" option. Only the "Agree" button shows at the top of the window; scrolling through the complete terms does not produce a disagree option. Lovely. Thanks Samsung!' Either someone delightfully 'forgot' to include a 'disagree' option, or someone deliberately chose to employ a catch-22 in this. I vote for the former, as we should not mistake ignorance for malice in these matters.
2. Referring to TFA, at the time this was only reported iN Austraila. I found some random reports since:
- The Verge, May 2016, 'adding interactive advertisements to the menu bars of its high-end smart TVs'. Menu bars, not content,allegedly. The Verge ran the copy from the CNet report also back in February 2015.
- In May 2016, Engadget ran a report that stated Samsung 'will increase the number of tile ads that it displays in the menu bar of its smart TVs. These small squares are currently only available in the US, although the paper believes that Europe will be added to the program in the near future. In addition, older models will get the ads delivered to the home screen thanks to a future software update.'. Interesting, Samsung already showing ads in menu bars in the US. Well, at least they weren't interrupting your sixth binge run of Lost, right?
3. If Samsung decided to try inserting ads into content, I suspect the various discouragements available to those content providers affected could include:
- Demanding that certain 'partners', such as Hulu, Roku, and other apps included in Samsung TVs cancel their arrangements and remove themselves from Samsung products - this causing some brand damage, alerting consumers to the issue and perhaps influencing buying decisions...
- Demanding that broadcast partners, such as 'cable TV' (how ya like that characterization, CenturyLink?) providers, challenge Samsung on their behalf, for failing to provide to viewers the content they desired, unchanged, and are either censoring or altering content without permission...
- Appeal to the government, claiming on behalf of copyright holders or IN COLLUSION WITH those copyright holders that this would be an alteration not protected by fair use or other provision.
This will not be successful by any manufacturer. Seemed like a bright idea at the time, but if I were HBO, an ad bar appearing below an episode of Game of Thrones would have my lawyers descending on the manufacturer(s) as locusts, with similar effect.
This I do not believe is going to be a big problem, witness no real impacts since the 2015 Australian reports.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Give you a cheap TV, but insert ads into it and sell what you watch?
Seriously, let other devices handle the content delivery. A monitor is virtually featureless
This is old tech, as I know for a fact this was a capability of ip set top boxes fifteen years ago.
Pause the content. Play unskippable ad (no, you can't change the channel). Resume content.
No.
If you buy it with the advertising provision in the TOS, you bought the commercials.
For that matter, since the TOS can be changed without notice, the commercials can probably be added to existing smart TVs. If you don't accept, all "smart" functions would be shut down leaving a dumb monitor, perhaps with a working OTA tuner. Again, no consumer laws would protect you (at least in the US) in that situation. And good luck suing them - mandatory arbitration.
This is the real nightmare scenario for IoT privacy violations.
There are already devices on the market that come with their own independent connections to a wireless data network, and the trend seems to be accelerating. If we're talking about devices that are also connected to anything on your home network and/or that have safety or privacy implications, I'm not sure this is a healthy trend at all. We need much stronger regulation in terms of security, privacy, longevity, and transparency, and meaningful enforcement with substantial penalties, for this to be a sensible direction from the owner's point of view.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
But we are a minority. Majority of the people don't have money to spare, they don't have time to spare either due to working multiple jobs. They are just too tired to fight, and they will succumb to "4K TV 60 inch screen for 99$, but we interrupt any stream you are watching to insert ads".
They are the vast majority, they will drive the market. Not us.
All we can hope for is to carve out a part where we pay for content and avoid ads. But for all that talk about it, we really don't pony up cash. We do the easy things, ad block plus, no script, etc etc. But paying for local newspapers or paying full price for ad free video stream, lot less people are actually paying compared to the number of people posting in these threads.
Can't blame them, they are not charity, and if we do not form a big enough market, they will ignore us.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
oh why is this story on Slashdot? Lets be concerned about this hypothetical scenario (triggered by something in 2015, talk about behind the times) instead of what TV manufacturers are actually doing today - actively spying on what you watch.
As is the insertion of ads into web pages by ISPs, FWIW.
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
Because your "smart tv" was never connected to the network.
What's that? You gave your TV network access?
OK, then you get ads. Sucker.
The 2016 version of Vizio's P series came with a VERY basic IR remote and the rest of the setup and features were controlled through an app (on either the included Android tablet or installable on an iPhone.) Which basically mandated that the TV was on the wireless network all of the time.
They ditched this for the 2017 models for ease of use, but how long before another manufacturer tries this again and manages to make it stick?
You can always just never configure the "smart" features, never connect the TV to the Internet at all if you don't want to use the "smart" features. Current TVs all can function as a regular display just fine, even those super-spy Vizio TVs that had software to software in the read pixel data from a segment of the screen could be used offline.
If you want to worry about targeted advertising injection, look at your local cable provider and their set-top box. That's a much more likely source of leakage about your viewing habits and a place for ad injection/substitution without you noticing.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
If they tell you this TV at this price, but we get to inject ads, Dont fucking bitch. You have a fucking choice. Make it like a fucking adult.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Here's the thing: my TV and the desktop-class computer that is connected to it 24/7, are both about 7 years old now.
The computer isn't anywhere near obsolete. Its CPU doesn't sound like much (Athlon II) but it's running a modern distro, it's blazing fast, and it can do anything.
The TV's software is hilariously bad. (Samsung.) But the two computers are the same age. The desktop computer was cheap-mid range for 2010 but the TV was relatively high-end. Now maybe its computer is lameass by 2010 standards whereas my 2010 desktop is still good by 2017 standards, but the real problem comes down to these two aspects of the TV's software:
1) It isn't maintained, or at least isn't nearly as well maintained as Ubuntu is. Not even close.
2) It wasn't designed to be particularly useful. It has a bunch of streaming apps that I don't use and never asked for, and while it can connect to the same server as the desktop, it doesn't play as many file formats as mpv can.
People (like me) have been buying a computer-with-built-in-monitor where someone else is the sysadmin & software developer, but the someone-else doesn't do his job. As long as the computer doesn't have a built-in monitor, everyone knows this is an amazingly stupid thing that do that is guaranteed to have bad results. But as soon as the computer has a built-in monitor (whether it's a TV or a phone) consumers throw all their previously-acquired knowledge out of the window, and settle for less.
And that's why I laugh as most people's idea of a "smart" TV or a "smart" phone. I am convinced that "smart" means "dumber than average." The problem isn't that it's a computer, it's that you don't treat it like you treat all your other computers or have the same expectations as you would from all your other computers. And the person who sold it to you intended for you to not treat it correctly.
"Smart" shouldn't mean "lameass and stupid" but that's exactly what it does mean. A smart thing has a lamer computer and vastly lamer software than a not-smart thing does.
But if it were done right, it would be pretty good. There's no reason that the computer built into a 7-year-old-TV should suck. I have the proof: the desktop computer that I'm using is that old.
So sell an Ubuntu TV already! You know, where everyone realizes that they're probably going to go through many software upgrade cycles over the life of the hardware, and you're not so much asking the manufacturer to do it, as demanding they let you do it. Like you would with a "normal" computer.
Let's Make Smart TVs Great Again. Having the word "smart" start to mean modern 1970s+ tech, not 1960s-take-what-IBM-offers-or-leave-it.
"Are there any laws anywhere that would protect TV owners from such intrusive advertising?" so long as the what is going on is FULLY DISCLOSED and buyer is aware of what is happening. Why would you need or even want a law preventing it. Say someone wants to give away tv. or sell them for a dollar. That makes them available to people who otherwise wouldn't have them. So they have to put up with ads. Some people would be happy with that. Others just not use it. Not like anyone dies if they don't like their TV. This seems like a place the government doesn't belong other then to make sure sellers are honest and buyers understand what they are paying for.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
It seems to me that if this -- the TV itself inserting ads into ad-free content -- is important to people, it will open a market for "dumb tvs", monitors with modern viewing specs that don't have the capability to do this. They could even develop an "AD FREE" sticker to inform the consumer.
But if enough don't care, of course, it'll definitely happen.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
It's the broadcaster's, and honestly, unless the TV manufacture is splitting the revenue with them, then I strongly suspect that it will fail.
HBO / Showtime, movies, payed content, I'd think again the content makers would sue on the same basis as the Hollywood studios did to VidAngel (https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865656008/Major-Hollywood-studios-sue-movie-editing-service-VidAngel.html).
So, with the legal ground already shaky from that, what's left? Pop-over ads ala Youtube?
Don't think that's going to fly either.
That is what I'm doing with my new LG 4K TV. It's not connected to my home network in any way; only the cable box and my Apple TV are connected, and they are connected via wire and a separate WiFi network, respectively, and the Apple TV is the only device on that network.
Uhh....no nope not true
My Samsung and Visio smart TV remotes are unable to control other devices including required simple cable tv box.
it is very illegal for communication transmissions to be altered, in any way, especially by a carrier. We're big on trusting communication up here. Industry Canada. It all revolves around fire fighters being able to use their radios, always, no matter what, anywhere.
So your cable company can't alter content along the way. Of course, with myriad reasonable exceptions. I would imagine that your television altering the streaming movie would count as altering communication.
Instead of being constantly glued to a TV, you might want to consider alternatives such as exercise or a book, neither of which will spy on you nor rot your brain.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
I have a CPAP machine I use every night and it DOES send data back to the manufacturer every morning. I have created an account so I can peruse it through a browser. I don't feel bad about it, though. I didn't create the account for a few days after I started using it, so the data from those days is unavailable. Was it discarded or do they still have it? Dunno.
Based on how long it takes to upload it, the data might be being sent at 110 baud. (grin)
When I watch TV at a friend's, he has three or four controls. One for the TV, one for the XFinity, one for the Roku, and (I think) one "universal" which might be the XFinity or the TV instead.
I have three. The TV, the Roku, and a DVD player. I'm not so sanguine about combining them. And I'm not at all persuaded that a third party "universal" remote is likely.