Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

The State of Automated Commercial Skipping 381

iskqy writes "Even though attention to commerical skipping has gone down since the motion picture studios sued replaytv for it, I've noticed that it appears to be alive and well in some PVR products on the market. ReplayTV PVRs have it (though different from what they got sued for) in what they call Show|Nav (what a terrible feature name!) and SnapStream's Beyond TV has it in a feature they call SmartSkip. In both cases, the user has to press a button to automagically skip a commercial (vs. the original ReplayTV feature which skipped them without any user intervention) but it's basically the same thing. ReplayTV plays down commercial skipping ("jump forward and back between scenes in a show") but SnapStream is more open about the feature ("Skip commercials and other parts of TV shows"). "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The State of Automated Commercial Skipping

Comments Filter:
  • by jtilak ( 596402 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @11:41AM (#7835200) Journal
    This has probably been said already (maybe not) but isnt suing replaytv for giving consumers the ability to skip commercials like suing mozilla for blocking popups?
  • state of commercials (Score:5, Interesting)

    by a1g0rithm ( 688772 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @11:42AM (#7835208)
    aside from the lawsuits, maybe the push for this techology will force the media to step up their game when it comes to the quality of commercials.. it seems that more and more people are watching things like the superbowl - just to see the commercials that promoters spent time and money to develop.. either the quality of the commercials will increase, or they will go the way of the internet banner ad..
  • I don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)

    by acidrain69 ( 632468 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @11:42AM (#7835209) Journal
    As a TIVO/ReplayTV virgin, how does the commercial skipping operate? Does it skip a certain amount of time ahead? Does it somehow use motion compensation to detect frame changes and stop fast forwarding when the scene has changed a significant amount? Are commercials just a set amount of time and I've never noticed it all these years? Is it more like a VCR system where you have to fast forward and then curse when you went too far, and then it uses scene changes to go back? Any ideas?
  • Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Interesting)

    by a1g0rithm ( 688772 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @11:44AM (#7835231)
    well, one of the major flags for a commercial skip is the instant increase in sound decibels for the commercial slot..
  • Re:MythTV (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LightlyToasted ( 95756 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @11:49AM (#7835269) Homepage
    I don't find the auto-skip feature to be very useful in MythTV. It gets it right about 80% of the time, but some shows that I watch with lots of black frames (like 24) tend to get confused with commercial boundaries. 80% isn't good enough yet, but it's an awfully cool feature that I'm sure will improve as the product evolves.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @11:49AM (#7835270)
    Since so many TV stations now put an obtrusive station logo in a corner of the screen, I think a useful commercial detection device could detect if part of the signal isn't changing.

    Teach those stations to clutter up my screen with their crap.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @11:56AM (#7835338)
    No I don't work for ReplayTV nor do I sell these. Just providing info...

    Having owned a ReplayTV for some time now, I can let you guys know exactly how the commercial skip and the new show/nav features work.

    Commercial skip, when on, attempts to detect commercials and skip over them. It uses an unspecified algorithm, most likely relying on fade-outs and black screens. It does not blindly skip ahead x number of minutes.

    There is another feature that is quite handy, a button on the remote that skips ahead 30 seconds. Another button will skip backwards 7 seconds. In addition, you can type a number on the remote (like "3") then hit the skip ahead or skip backwards button, it will skip that many minutes ahead or backward.

    Another feature is, if you want to skip to a certain portion of the show, and you know how many minutes into the show that portion is, you can just type that number and hit the "skip" button.

    Show/Nav works similar to commercial skip, but you have to press the right-direction button. You can also go backwards by pressing the left-direction button. I find it helps to see the time, just to make sure I don't skip too far ahead... so I hit "select" to show the current program time, then hit the right-direction button. If it skips too far ahead, I just hit the left-direction button, then use the other methods to jump over the commercials.

  • by IIEFreeMan ( 450812 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @11:57AM (#7835340)
    What's so pricey nowadays that requires so many advertisements constantly?

    Shareholders ?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @11:58AM (#7835352)
    It should be easy to identify commercials for skipping. They are the blocks of broadcast time that don't have the Broadcast Flag set.
  • Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Threni ( 635302 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @11:59AM (#7835360)
    Also, many commercials have speech which has been edited to increase the speed but maintain the original pitch, so it doesn't sound like a chipmunk on helium and so that you can fit more in. It still sounds pretty funny to me (try and repeat what they just said) but apparantly not many people notice it.
  • by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @12:07PM (#7835431)
    They have the right to show commercials. They do NOT have the right to expect us to watch them, or to stop us from using technical means to get around them. But I don't think the OP ever mentioned them not having a right to air commercials.

    If this ends up being a feature TV watchers like, TV stations will just have to change buisness models. Probably by increasing product placement in lieu of commercials.

    Truthfully, I'm surprised that advertisement as a TV revenue stream didn't fail decades ago. Survey results show that it just isn't that effective beyond initial product introductions. And they annoy people. No buisness model thats based on annoying your customers will work once there's an easy way to circumvent the annoyance.
  • by buelba ( 701300 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @12:11PM (#7835461)
    That's actually an interesting analogy. Here are some very vague initial thoughts (yes, IAAL):

    A commercial broadcast is a copyrighted work. So you can't infringe on that copyright by creating a derivative work. Deleting the commercials creates an unauthorized derivative work, just like deleting certain scenes of a movie creates an unauthorized derivative work. This is why devices that automatically remove the commercials for you infringe.

    But wait, you say, I am not deleting the commercials, I am just skipping them! Actually I am not even doing that -- I am just skipping ahead 30 seconds when I feel like it. If that always happens to come during commercials, that's not my fault. This is where it gets really interesting -- the networks say that the 30-second-skip is an infringing device under the DMCA because there is no substantial non-infringing use for a thirty-second skip ahead. That is, the only purpose that most TV users would use for a 30-second skip is to skip commercials, thus creating an unauthorized derivative work. On the other hand, you could say that 30-second skip is no different from fast-forward, and we know fast-forward has a substantial non-infringing use -- going past stuff that you've already seen or don't want to bother with.

    If I wanted to distinguish pop-up blockers from replay, I would say that pop-up blockers are different because (1) the commercials are not integrated with the rest of the site (they change by user) and therefore they are not a coherent copyrighted work like a TV broadcast, and (2) pop-up blockers have a substantial non-infringing use because they prevent people from falling into pop-up traps, which are obviously very bad.

    But I'm not sure that argument would win.
  • Well, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bnavarro ( 172692 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @12:18PM (#7835526)
    It appears that the reason ReplayTV got sued is because the boxes were automatically skipping commercials, without the user's intervention in any way. It could be argued that perhaps a user wants to see the commercials, but were prevented from doing so because the PVRs were doing so without prompting from the user.

    Popups, on the other hand, and at least for now, require that a person enable popup blocking, so they are voluntarily requesting to skip "web commercials", and it can't be argued that a user might have missed a "feature" that they wanted to see. When Microsoft's next version of IE automagically disables popups, we'll have to see if they get their hands slapped in a simmilar manner to ReplayTV.

    Also, it could be argued that popup and popunder advertisements are really a hack/loophole in the web standards (especially popups that trap on the back & close buttons), and that this was not the intended usage, so a user has the right to take "corrective" measures to disable them.
  • by fahrvergnugen ( 228539 ) <fahrv@@@hotmail...com> on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @12:37PM (#7835687) Homepage
    Believe it or not, there's a point to the practice of showing you the same ad time after time. The idea is to burn the idea of the product and logo deep into your brain. They want you to associate the ad, and the situation in the ad, no matter how poorly acted/presented, with a product.

    Repeatedly showing the same scenario to you - say, the white nuclear family is talking about Timmy's grades over dinner, Whippy Mayonnaise in the new plastic container falls off the table and falls, bounces, but does not break - is done intentionally, and designed so that over time, when you're sitting at dinner talking about grades, you'll think fleetingly of the new container for Whippy Mayonnaise. Since you've seen it hundreds of times, it occupies that same kind of memory space that your favorite songs do, and will be recalled by associated moments and events. Thus you will be more likely to buy Whippy (because you think about Whippy every night at dinner when you ask your kid about school today). These are called "impressions," and they are carefully crafted by psychologists and marketing people to take over your thoughts about particular events.

    In essence, they're trying to take over a part of your brain forever, and all you get for "free" in return is.... television, which frankly sucks.
  • by Quantum-Sci ( 732727 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @12:37PM (#7835689) Homepage
    There was a controversy about 20 years ago, when ppl started noticing commercials were LOUDER than the show. Measurements were taken, and indeed with a dB meter the show and commercial volumes were about the same.

    Some of us knew though, that a dB meter measures 'heating', or average level. The new trick advertisers were using was sampling, which essentially PULSED the audio, at much higher levels, so it looked the same on a meter, because its heating value (duty cycle) was equivalent, but sounded louder, because it deflected speakers more.

    Replay commercial skip just looks for video blackouts, which typify transition to/from commercial. Though this makes mistakes on dark shows/interludes, it's still amazingly good.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @12:55PM (#7835887)
    I don't mind watching commercials... some of them are quite clever and amusing. Some of them inform me regarding things I'd like to be aware of. But some of them annoy the hell out of me.

    What I would like is a method to "kill" a commercial I don't like. I see a commercial I don't like-- *BOOP* it's gone, the hypothetical system remembers I've killed it, and it makes sure I never see it again. I don't even mind if the information about which commercials I've killed and how many times I viewed it before I killed it get sent back to the networks or some information clearinghouse. I don't even mind if they replace the commercial I killed with *gasp* another commercial (which I haven't killed yet).

    I would especially like if they make the aggregate information available to the public. It would be interesting to me to see statistics on how many times people will watch a good commercial before they kill it because they are tired of it. And to see product categories or advertising agencies whose commercials get killed the most quickly.

    In general, I accept advertisements as the devil's due for broadcast channels.. but I would like to see technology relieve some of the annoyance factor.
  • by Artifakt ( 700173 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @01:07PM (#7836040)
    IANAL, NDIPOOTV (I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV).
    As it stands, it looks like automating the skipping process is what takes away the substantial non-infringing use claim for customers. (Of course, this is likely to change rapidly in the existing legal environment, but that looks to be the case for now).
    The court should have recognized that being able to detect commercials automatically in the first place shouldn't have been possible at the accuracy the devices are capable of, unless broadcasters are themselves infringing on both laws and FCC regulations. For example, some of these devices detect differences in the peak or mean amplitude of the audio track. Others detect digital labeling originally used internally by the broadcast studios, and so are not just detecting commercials, but public service broadcasts, tests of the EBS, and station identification.
    That last would not be necessary if local stations didn't sometimes broadcast 10 or 12 commercials in a row, broken up by a station identification segment to give a superficial legal defense against violating the FCC rulings.
    That being the case, it's like a drug dealer going to court for taking a bad check. Their own violations mean they should not have standing to bring the lawsuits. Unfortunately, their own violations have been largely ignored by the system, which is often reluctant to enforce the law, and powerless to give FCC rules the full weight of law.
  • Re:Car ads (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Artifakt ( 700173 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @01:30PM (#7836310)
    Do commercials actually work? There's increasing evidence they don't. For example, there have been some new studies on movie theatre subliminal type methods, and the researchers announced that the old claim that they didn't influence behavior was actually wrong, but that they didn't influence behavior in the desired way, instead.
    It seems that a quick subliminal picture of a Coca-cola product, for example, actually influences viewers a great deal. They apparently all get reminded to think about whether they are thirsty. Then they either decide they aren't, or go ahead and respond to their decision that they are. They go get water from the fountain, or buy a Coke, or buy a Lemonade, or decide not to pay movie theatre prices and wait until later.
    By this model, subliminals don't increase Coke sales at all, but instead of people trickling up to the counter throughout the movie, more of them cluster in the times just after showing the commercial. They also still pick the brands they prefer, among the available alternatives.
    Now what if regular commercials work the same way? You see a Geico ad, you think "I really do need car insurance. I think I'll compare their price with some local agents and make a final decision. Huummm, I wonder if Allstate can do any better? What was that insurance company that used to sponsor Wild Kingdom?", and so on.
  • by seaan ( 184422 ) <seaan@nospAm.concentric.net> on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @01:37PM (#7836390)
    First, the Slate article is at best misleading. The original FCC press release had a lot of contradictory material - things like "the flag won't affect computers" and "computer HDTV tuners must preserve the decoded HDTV signals with robustness (eg. hardware protection)". The Slate article resolved all FCC contradictions as pro-consumer; something that I don't think will happen once the details are released. If the FCC were honest, they would just say we can't design the system with the promised consumer protections; so we will rescind the broadcast flag requirement. There is little chance of that happening, unless they are motivated by massive protests (both consumers, and hopefully the consumer-electronics and computer industries).

    Second, there is full intent by the studios to force the use of the broadcast flag everywhere. The FCC may only require its use in over-the-air HDTV signals, but don't forget that that the studios have already forced satellite providers to include this functionality (thus no FCC mandate required). Just because the FCC does not require the flag for "satellite or cable consumers" does not mean that they will not also be subjected to it!

    Don't forget that once the flag has been added, that the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent it (regardless of why the flag was put there; the DMCA treats both FCC-mandated over-the-air and manufacturer "feature" broadcast flags equally).
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @03:56PM (#7838044)
    The only way for stations to solve this commercial dillemaa is this.

    Make it really, really easy to download commercials - then before every show show "trialers" for a few commercials related to the show. If these are done well enough then people would watch instead of skipping, and go somewhere else to view the full versions of thigns they liked.

    I LOVED adCritic when it was free and I could look at whatever commercials I liked. Broadcasters (including cable on over the air stations) are really missing out by not making it so that I can look at a commercial when I want to, instead of when they think I should. As it is even if skipping is not in a product I can and do just leave or FF anyway, since I have no idea anything of any interest may be shown.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Working...