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?

29 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. Don't buy a smart TV by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by thsths · · Score: 2

      Yes, I think that is what most technically competent people do anyway.

      The funny thing is that my PVR is getting 5 years old, and I would struggle to find one now that is as good.

      Of course the internet related functions have mostly moved to a different box, but most smart boxes are not good PVRs.

    2. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by Gaygirlie · · Score: 2

      I have a Philips TV that received one software-update and then got dropped by Philips like a hot potato. The software is absolutely fucking riddled with bugs and holes and it'd be trivial for someone to plant malware in there or brick the damn thing, and even without any such nefariousness it's slow as molasses and crashes every now and then when trying to turn on. I've tried the "smarts" on it and it was the most ridiculously awful experience, and almost nothing works anymore anyways. That said, the TV was never bought for its smarts in the first place; it's sitting there without any Internet-connection whatsoever and it's just used as a dumb display for a separate box that actually works and handles Internet-streaming and all beautifully.

      This is to say, I totally agree with you.

    3. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by thomst · · Score: 2

      I just bought a brand-new Vizio E55-E1 "smart" TV.

      The first thing I did was to plug the video card HDMI out from my media computer into the TV. The second thing I did was to set the TV to HDMI 1.

      What I did NOT do was to give the TV my wifi password.

      I'm pretty happy with my new 4K, big-screen monitor - and fuck a whole bunch of its "smart TV" features. If I want to stream content from the Internet, I'll do so via my media computer.

      And my TV won't be injecting any ads - or spying on me - while I'm doing it ...

      --
      Check out my novel.
    4. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by omnichad · · Score: 2

      "Basic Stuff" for which we haven't even had much of a consistent standard for very long. And of what we have, everything is being constantly extended - still makes sense for that to be handled by a cheap external box.

    5. Re:Don't buy a smart TV by lucifer_666 · · Score: 2

      Just out of interest, would something like a Chromecast solve your problem? Seems to fit the bill, screen mirroring, streaming from UMS, casting from phone apps?

      I picked one up on a whim a few months back, plugged it into my receiver, and it works great. Free app called LocalCast will stream from UMS straight to the Chromecast, UMS shows it knows what the Chromecast is and transcodes or encodes media beautifully.

      I also discovered I could install Plex on my NAS, which does a similar thing to UMS albeit within its own ecosystem, but it allows me to download to the NAS then stream to the Chromecast with the PC off, which is nice.

      The Chromecast also turns the TV on by itself when you start casting to it, which is one less remote to find.

  2. Daft question by Harold+Halloway · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Daft question by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      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.

      In fact, Amazon does this now with smart phones and tablets. You can buy the phone or tablet at a discount for the "ad supported" version.

      Case in point.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    2. Re:Daft question by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yep, I don't mind such deals if they're up front about it. Many people will pay for a Kindle subsidized by such ads. I choose to pay $10 more for an ad-free experience, and appreciate that I have a clear choice in the matter.

      What's I absolutely despise is when I pay a premium for hardware and/or software, and a company thinks it has the right to monetize my eyeballs regardless. Microsoft is particularly prone to this with its Xbox consoles. And TV manufactures apparently can't seem but to help themselves earning a little extra on the side through sneaky methods such as the Samsung auto-playing ads, or Visio when they got caught snooping on user viewing data.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  3. The law of economics by Erik+Hensema · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't buy such a TV. Simple law of economics.

    --

    This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.

    1. Re:The law of economics by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't buy such a TV. Simple law of economics.

      We live in the era of never-asked-for-this-shit features, which means you'll get what the manufacturer says you need.

      The only simple thing to understand here, is that your opinion no longer matters.

    2. Re:The law of economics by cardpuncher · · Score: 2

      Between them, Samsung and LG make a third of the world's TV sets. Regional players like Vestel make a lot of the rest. You don't really get much of a choice of supplier.

    3. Re:The law of economics by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Then I guess one of those smart TVs needs to be lobotomized before being allowed in my network.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:The law of economics by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a common, defeatist, and ultimately self-fulfilling argument.

      The GP was right. Stores are selling what they can convince people to buy, because they want the money. If pitching so-called smart TVs as better than normal ones and thus being able to sell them successfully at a higher price works, that's what they'll do.

      On the other hand, if enough potential customers ask about products without the junk or start asking tricky questions about the realities of these devices that waste the sales people's time, and particularly if those potential customers are then leaving the store without making a purchase, the stores will go back to demanding simpler units that they can sell. And if customers are giving their money to people who supply good, "dumb" TVs today then the stores and manufacturers offering that option also have a direct incentive to continue.

      Voting with your wallet is possibly the most successful form of lobbying for change that humanity has yet conceived.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  4. I can live without it. by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:I can live without it. by Kiuas · · Score: 2

      I think this is why they can't do things like the article talks about.

      They realise that the second they do, not only do TV sales drop, but the amount of content purchased will drop dramatically. What's the point in paying for a movie from Netflix or wherever if the smart TV is going to put ads into it for you?

      Currently there's no point. But if they start giving discounts for the devices that play ads you might well see consumers being okay with this. Hell, one day in the future I can even see tvs going out for nearly free if you agree to being shown say 10-15 minutes of ads per each hour of content. The ability to get accurate data on what people are watching and target ads based on that is something the advertisers would pay good money for. For the same reason I don't see it as an impossibility that Netflix & al will sooner or later create a 'freemium' model that could for example give you access to their own original content for free if you'll take some ads while watching them.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
  5. Kindle With Special Offers by mentil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  6. I don't need a law. by Rip!ey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I don't need a law. by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      Have fun watching you 5 year old pre-installed, intentionally annoying Pepsi ads, because you blocked your TV from downloading new ads.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:I don't need a law. by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      It doesn't matter if you're connected or not. Hulu and Pluto already show you the exact same ad a gazillion times per show, that's why they're so much more annoying than traditional TV ads.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  7. Who buys TVs anymore? by bradley13 · · Score: 2

    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.
    1. Re:Who buys TVs anymore? by coofercat · · Score: 2

      I was looking for a largeish screen, just HD sort of quality, although I'd have 'traded up' to 4K without too much thinking about it. The cheapest solution was infact to buy a TV. No idea why a screen with no tuners, 'smart' features or speakers is more expensive, but it seems it is.

      Just a quick look on Amazon, and the top result for "32 inch smart tv" was a panasonic at £199. The top (flat) hit for "32 inch monitor" was a Samsung at £269 (with speakers & camera built in). I'm sure there are differences in quality, but hopefully you get the point.

      That reminds me... I need to go drill out the camera and microphone on our crappy not-very-smart TV (although I'll grant it does Netflix quite well). The 'apps' it's got are truly horrific - the 'media player' is so horrific to be unusable, and all easily surpassed by a FireTV box + Kodi.

    2. Re:Who buys TVs anymore? by edtice1559 · · Score: 2

      I have an LG Smart TV with the magic remote and it's way better than any of the setups suggested here. The magic remote works just like a mouse. I use Amazon Streaming, YouTube, Skype (occasionally) and it's really a pleasant experience. Single remote for everything. No fussing.

  8. step by step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  9. Consumer Protection Laws by ytene · · Score: 2

    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.

  10. Laws by DrYak · · Score: 2

    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 ]
    1. Re:Laws by davecb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In Canada, ask your solicitor whether the device is "suitable for the purpose sold", ie, to watch broadcast tv without interference, and if the seller is "obtaining money upon a false and fradulent pretense", by rerpresenting a lease as a sale, and by representing the device as being as TV, as opposed to a "telescreen" (ie, from 1984).

      Logically, one can make numerous arguements that the devices break statute law, but you need a lawyer to research the case law and see if the courts will countenance your complaints. And that will differ from one legal regime to another.

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
  11. Disingenuous Argument by ytene · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Independent connections are dangerous by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.