ReplayTV Users Sue Hollywood 592
Seth Schoen writes "A group of ReplayTV 4000 users, led by Craigslist creator Craig Newmark, today sued a group of entertainment companies to establish
that plaintiffs' use of the ReplayTV (including skipping
commercials) is not illegal. The defendants are the same entertainment companies which
have sued ReplayTV. Here the end users of the product
are getting involved to defend the legitimacy of their
activity in the face of allegations that skipping commercials is "theft". The plaintiffs are represented by Ira
Rothken and EFF. The case
is Newmark
v. Turner, in the Central District of California (at Los Angeles).
(Some people are calling it
Craig
v. Hollywood.)"
Craig vs. Hollywood? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Craig vs. Hollywood? (Score:4, Funny)
Craig
Re:Craig vs. Hollywood? (Score:3, Funny)
Just a thought
Re:Craig vs. Hollywood? (Score:3, Funny)
Interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
PayPal donations go where? (Score:3, Interesting)
I know I'd donate. I value my rights enough to drop 50 bucks on it.
Re:PayPal donations go where? (Score:4, Informative)
Paypal is amongst their many payment methods.
Re:PayPal donations go where? (Score:5, Informative)
I would think that the best destination for your donations would be an EFF membership [eff.org]. In fact, the EFF has already set up a Newmark v. Turner page: [eff.org]
And yes, the EFF takes PayPal.What about snacks and VCRs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about snacks and VCRs? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about snacks and VCRs? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about snacks and VCRs? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What about snacks and VCRs? (Score:4, Informative)
What about calls of nature? (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem lies with using vague wording like "a certain amount," and it is for that reason that a proactive lawsuit is necessary to define exactly how long is too long. The downside is that if the networks win, they may even be able to show a breach of contract and be awarded damages for each minute you're gone. Could provisions be made for people who are actually ill? Only in a court of law can the fine points of contracts really be resolved.
Add that's the real danger of using contracts for this type of relationship. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to find my copy to check the specifics, but I suggest you all re-read the relevent sections. I wonder if I can request a copy from Turner?
-Hope
Re:What about calls of nature? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would sign that contract.
Kintanon
Its a COMPLEX issue people (Score:4, Interesting)
Secondly their is the hude regulatory issue. The airwaves are the publics, and the rights given to the channel coportations are contracted very specifically with the FCC.
Re:Its a COMPLEX issue people (Score:3, Insightful)
The cost may easily exceed $500 to you, but may be offset by increasing the value of the adjoining properties in the neighborhood by virtue of the house being in agreement with local paint standards.
This is not the only type of social contract you participate in. Open air concerts generally do not hire squadrons of armed security personel to gaurd the perimiter, however the vast majority of people do purchase tickets and attend by passing through the gates with a valid ticket. This is a social contract with a written contract on top of it. (tickets being considered written contractual material.)
There are several other social contracts that you comply with, for example you and your co-workers may have an agreement to dress in some group co-ordinated style, where the office clothing code does not specify more than buisness attire, shirt and tie with jacket for meetings for men, business dress for women, casual fridays. Casual fridays in most businesses does not mean t-shirt and cut-offs, but may be interpreted as anything from a flanel or polo shirt with clean un-torn jeans, up to dockers, turtleneck and daily business shoes. How you interpret it is part of the social contract you have with your co-workers.
Another way to look at that cable contract is that it is a monthly re-curring contract for $50 a month. It also may not be entirely a verbal contract in that when you signed off on the installer's completion paperwork, you may also have signed a contract for the service to be rendered. This contract (as with your credit cards) may be ammended by an insert in your monthly bill.
Part of this contract idea that broadcasters have (which I am not entirely in agreement with) is that if you get up during a comercial break, to get snacks, or relieve yourself, the possibility exists that you will return to the program some time after the comercials have ended. Without a rewind capability, or pause option, you stand to loose as much the entertainment value of the show, as the advertizer believes they have lost in walk-aways. PVR's change that.
-Rusty
Re:Its a COMPLEX issue people (Score:3, Insightful)
Social contracts are quasi binding. If you live in a neighborhood that has a public standards commitee, you may have a binding contract without signature, or word of mouth, that may easily exceed $500. For example if the public standards commitee decrees that houses on the block may not be painted white, with black trim, and you subsequently move in, and repaint the house white with black trim, the social contract you live in that neighborhood under may require that you either re-paint the house, or have the house re-painted.
They can ask me to repaint the house, but they have no legal authority to force me to. At least in the UK, I can paint my house any colour I like provided (a) I actually own it and (b) it's not "listed" (of historical significance).
This is not the only type of social contract you participate in. Open air concerts generally do not hire squadrons of armed security personel to gaurd the perimiter, however the vast majority of people do purchase tickets and attend by passing through the gates with a valid ticket. This is a social contract with a written contract on top of it. (tickets being considered written contractual material.)
This is different. There is a (legally enforcable) rule that to gain admission to the concert you need a ticket - the concert venue is considered private property (even if only for the course of the show). Provided the perimeter is clear (i.e. so you know whether you are in a ticketed area or not) you are breaking the rules by entering that area without a ticket. It doesn't matter whether they actually physically try to stop you or not. They would be perfectly within their rights to throw you out. There's no "social contract" here, it's just trespassing.
There are several other social contracts that you comply with, for example you and your co-workers may have an agreement to dress in some group co-ordinated style, where the office clothing code does not specify more than buisness attire, shirt and tie with jacket for meetings for men, business dress for women, casual fridays. Casual fridays in most businesses does not mean t-shirt and cut-offs, but may be interpreted as anything from a flanel or polo shirt with clean un-torn jeans, up to dockers, turtleneck and daily business shoes. How you interpret it is part of the social contract you have with your co-workers.
No, how I interpret it is up to the rules laid down by my employer, in my contract of employment, which I signed, and by which I am bound.
Another way to look at that cable contract is that it is a monthly re-curring contract for $50 a month. It also may not be entirely a verbal contract in that when you signed off on the installer's completion paperwork, you may also have signed a contract for the service to be rendered. This contract (as with your credit cards) may be ammended by an insert in your monthly bill.
You certainly do have a contract with the cable company, I don't understand why people think you don't. If you didn't - they could stop providing, or you could just stop paying them. Neither of these are acceptable and could result in legal action.
Part of this contract idea that broadcasters have (which I am not entirely in agreement with) is that if you get up during a comercial break, to get snacks, or relieve yourself, the possibility exists that you will return to the program some time after the comercials have ended. Without a rewind capability, or pause option, you stand to loose as much the entertainment value of the show, as the advertizer believes they have lost in walk-aways. PVR's change that.
But here's the rub. My contract is not with the program producer, but with the company who run the distribution mechanism. They in turn have a contract with the networks. My contract is to get the content provided by network XYZ into my home via cable owned by ABC, it says nothing whatsoever about compensation to XYZ for that service. I pay ABC, they pay XYZ. If XYZ chooses to get more cash by selling ad space that's their right. If I choose to watch/not watch those ads (or indeed any other part of their programming) that's my choice.
Re:What about snacks and VCRs? (Score:5, Funny)
Once and for all... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:another good analogy (Score:3, Interesting)
The important thing in all of these situations is ad exposure. Anyone who is buying advertising, anywhere, must hope that they will be exposed to enough people in order to offset the cost of the advertisment. The people selling the advertising space are hoping that they will get enough sales so that they can provide the product to the consumer at a lower cost (and hopefully increasing the number of consumers and increasing the amount of exposure...)
So when you buy Time magazine, you are being exposed to the advertisments, and in exchange, Time is providing you with a product at a lower cost. It really doesn't matter if you personally are personally attracted by the ads, because even a 1% success rate should be enough to pay for the cost of the ad (especially with a readership like Time).
The same thing happens with TV - you are given free television, in exchange for exposure to some number of advertisments. Once again, it doesn't matter if you get up and eat a snack during the commercial, because with a big enough viewership, even 1% success rate would enough additional revenue to make the ad pay.
So say that today, 40% of all people watching a given show end up watching at least 3 commercials during a 30 minute span (the others are off doing something else). So, say during a show lke ER (assuming 10 million viewers), that would be 4,000,000 people watching an ad, and assuming a 1% success rate, each ad would generate 40,000 sales (my numbers might be wrong, but I'm a geek, dammit, not a marketer).
So then, move forward 5 years, when (almost) everyone has a Tivo / ReplayTV unit. Now, the networks would be able to only assume a 10% watch rate during the commercials, which would only be 1,000,000 people. Still alot, but they are now only generating 10,000 sales per viewing. Now eventually, the number of people watching would drop low enough that advertising would become unprofitable, and free TV would cease to exist.
Thus the idiotic quotes from our friends at Fox. Will they see a decrease in advertising revenue? Yes. Is it stealing? No.
If they really cared, they would research new ways to generate revenue, instead it is much eaiser to bitch and complain to the government that technology is hurting them, than it is to attempt to generate new revenue models.
Linux users should sue Hollywood (Score:2, Troll)
Unfortunately, given that you corduroy-wearing bearded linux hippies can't even get it together for a coherent boycott, I doubt a class-action suit will surface anytime soon.
its too bad (Score:2, Funny)
Re:its too bad (Score:2, Insightful)
http://slashdot.org/faq/slashmeta.shtml#sm1100 [slashdot.org]
congradulations... (Score:3, Interesting)
Just wonderful.
I'd rather have product placement (Score:2, Interesting)
Superimposed ads are far less likely, as this would probably cause a firestorm of protest from annoyed viewers.
Re:I'd rather have product placement (Score:3, Funny)
Question: What brand of cola was on the table during the 3rd episode of _Third Rock From the Sun_?
A. Coke
B. Pepsi
C. Root Beer
D. Depends on witch one payed more money this time
E. All of the above
Re:I'd rather have product placement (Score:3, Funny)
I say 'A'... no, 'B'......aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Re:I'd rather have product placement (Score:2)
You do know that some answers in "Trivial Pursuit" are wrong, right?
This is done deliberately, as an anti-copying measure, in case someone tries to knock-off the game ("see, they're using the same wrong answers we use").
Much more likely the answer would be F., whoever paid the game company more to make up the answer =)
Re:I'd rather have product placement (Score:3, Funny)
It's a dessert topping!
No, a floor wax!
No, a dessert topping!
Floor wax!
It might get this bad.
Re:I'd rather have product placement (Score:2)
Except that they aren't just stopping there. Lately, there's been a revival of "product integration". Instead of ordinary product placement, the actors in the show actually begin hawking products.
Personally, I refuse to listen to Paul Harvey on the radio due to his obnoxious tendency of underhandedly segueing into ads. Just imagine if stuff like that becomes standard for television.
Re:congradulations... (Score:2)
Just wonderful.
For God's sake, do you value your rights so little that you're more worried about superimposed ads in your programming than someone telling you what to do in the privacy of your own home?
Show some backbone and start fighting for your rights, ffs!
Re:congradulations... (Score:2)
realize that skipping commercials will prompt the producers to find other ways to recoup production costs
Exactly. And they need to do that. The industry is changing, but instead of trying to change with it they're attempting to legislate and sue their business model into perpetuity.
Re:congradulations... (Score:2)
candyass (Score:3, Insightful)
I sure hope not.
Re:congradulations... (Score:5, Insightful)
How can you even bitch about product placement as a way for companies to make money? It's completely non-intrusive. Do you really get upset when you see someone on a sitcom drinking a Pepsi? I know you want 24 hours of great uninterrupted entertainment geared directly towards you, with no money being made by anyone and all, but give me a break...
Mark
Re:congradulations... (Score:2)
Heh. Remember the subtle and amusing anti-product placement in the movie "Repo Man"? They'd go buy some snacks and beer and everything was generically labeled (in plain black and white as I recall) "Chips" or "Beer" or "Food".
Pretty funny really. (And if you haven't seen that movie, you should.)
Re:congradulations... (Score:2)
Product placement isn't a problem, but have you seen the *very* intrusive ads the WB have been doing? Here in Tucson there's a god awful Car Ad that plays DURING the show. A car horn honks, and the ad "drives" across the bottom of the screen.. during the goddamn show.
Expect a crapload more of this. Soon all TV will be framed in ads.
Re:congradulations... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:congradulations... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:congradulations... (Score:3, Insightful)
It only works with certain kinds of products, you can't really do any kind of "local add". It only works with contempoary drama, fans will spot an anachranism PDQ. You are in serious trouble if the product ceases to exist, gets renamed or the supplier goes the way of Pan Am or Enron.
What grounds? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What grounds? (Score:5, Informative)
If the courts don't think you have a case, or they think that there's no chilling effect occurring, they'll throw out your suit. If there is legitimate question as to the legality, and legitimate value in deciding early, they'll hear it.
Felten and the EFF tried this a while ago against the DMCA, but the courts dismissed it.
Re:What grounds? (Score:2)
"Judge, I'm planning on doing X, and I'm pretty sure it's within my rights, but this isn't 100% clear, and I don't want Mr. So-and-So to sue me about it after the fact. Rather than me go ahead and do it and then get hauled into court, can we go ahead and get a ruling on whether it's ok or not now?"
Contract? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny... I don't ever recall signing any contracts. What about the people that channel surf during commercials? Are they stealing programming too?
Re:Contract? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is, of course, the advertisers' opinion. They assume their commercials will be surfed into as much as surfed out of. The networks themselves really don't give a damn, because somebody channel surfing through commercials still records that they watched the show on their ratings card, so they still get to charge the advertisers for the spot.
Re:Contract? (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if I can get a clause in my contract that says I don't have to watch the ads for feminine hygiene products.
Re:Contract? (Score:2)
You enter a contract when you buy something at the store, even if you pay cash and do not say a word. It is called a verbal contract.
It is called an implied contract. You exchange money for goods. The merchant warrants some minimum level of usability, as required by local laws, and you warrant that you have actually used real money.
Re:Contract? (Score:3, Insightful)
TV is percieved as free. You go buy a TV, turn it on, and you'll have content all the sudden. There's very little indication that the ads are part of watching the show. For example, when you watch MST3k or DS9, the eps are designed around breaks every 15 minutes or so. You get the impression that it's an intermission, as opposed to getting the impression that you're watching the ads to support the network airing the show.
This gets more complicated when you pay $30 a month for cable TV. "I'm already paying for TV! Why do they expect me to pay *and* watch the ads? Screw them, I'm getting a Replay!"
This is why people don't have a guilty conscience about skipping the ads. Networks try to cram more commercials into a show without realizing that the extra annoyance is going to cause somebody to think "Hmm.. if I just tape this show, I can zip past the commercials".
The networks should have invested a little into educating their audience about what they do and don't allow. It wouldn't hurt to have a 30 second spot that says "These ads support this show...".
If there is an implied contract, you have to learn about how TV works before you can be aware of it. That doesn't sound so implied to me.
(Again, I'm not disagreeing with you Fulcrum, I'm disagreeing with the statement Turner made.)
Re:Contract? (Score:3, Insightful)
Great news. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hollywood's allegations in this case are absurd. After all, it's not illegal to get up to go to the bathroom during a commercial break, so if you have the means, you should be allowed to timeshift through them too. As a viewer I haven't entered into any contract with the networks to watch everything they broadcast.
Next you'll hear publishers claiming it's illegal to tear the ads out of magazines you buy. Absolutely ridiculous.
Re:Great news. (Score:4, Insightful)
Who pays for the multimillion dollar paycheque for Jordan to appear in a Nike ad? It ain't Nike: You and I pay for Nike's Jordan ads! (Well, you do, at any rate: I don't buy Nike products.)
And who pays to put that advertisement on Friends? It ain't Nike: You and I pay to put the ads on television! (Well, you do, at any rate: I don't watch Friends, and indeed watch exceeding little television at all.)
Given that the consumer paid to have the commercial produced, and then paid again to have it shown, the consumer sure as hell better have the right to ignore the commercial.
Wanna hit Hollyweird where it hurts? Quit supporting 'em. Quit watching TV, quit going to movies. Start playing sports, reading books, and visiting friends. You'll be happier and healthier for it, to boot!
Outstanding (Score:4, Insightful)
WIN: Reinforces a person's right to use their own technology as they see fit, within the bounds of the law. Skipping commercials is NOT a copyright violation.
LOSS: Gets an admission from the governments and the courts that "You have no rights to the media that you see or own. The owner can dictate terms even after it has left their control." If we get an admission like that, it could be used as a rallying cry to get nontechnical folks concerned about the issue.
Re:Outstanding (Score:2, Insightful)
Adding to your comments, this sets prescedents about web ad viewing as well. This could answer questions such as:
Are there legal problems with blocking banner ads? Or can a web site sue you for blocking their popups?
Can PVRs be used AT ALL? Can you be jailed for changing the TV channel or radio station when the ad comes on?
One of the things that scares me is that if they lose, there will be very little incentive for making advertisements worth watching. They know that you have to watch them. Why spend money to make them interesting or fun to watch when you have a legislated viewership anyway?
Re:Outstanding (Score:2, Insightful)
So you're right. Much like the satellite dish "black boxes" in the 80s or so, odds are that if the laws stand you'll just see a few token arrests in order to keep people in line. Even though the odds are it won't be you getting arrested, do you want to risk the criminal record (or see someone like you hauled off to jail) so that Michael Eisner can buy another yacht?
But the question we as a country need to ask ourselves is if we really want or need a Congress that passes hundreds of new laws every year, with a net result only of making more people into criminals.
One step further (Score:2, Informative)
Users who have been called thieves by the entertainment industry should sue for libel.
Calling someone a thief is very serious. Under English law, and therefore under US law as well possibly, accusations of theft do not require the accusee to prove real damages - the accusation is damage enough.
Perhaps if the industry was punished for doing this they would stop using such emotional language in order to make their point seem more serious than it is.
Re:One step further (Score:2)
"Sue Everybody!" "for what sir" "Punitive damages!!"
Re:One step further (Score:2)
Furthermore, by targeting TV watchers as a group, they haven't singled out an individual.
If I spout, "All <insert ethnic catagory> are assholes!" I may be guilty of ethnic-based hatred and perhaps discrimination (if I use that view in a hiring, rent, sale, or service decision), but I have not libeled any specific member of that group.
Perhaps the key is not libel and slander law, but rather "hate crime" law: with Bush's urging consumers to spend the U.S. out of recession, maybe consumers should be a "protected group", and saying bad things about them a "hate crime" and "economic terrorism".
Aw heck, that's too much trouble. Why not just bulldoze Hollywood into the Pacific, fake tits and all?
Gotta love the "Entertainment Oligolopy" (Score:2)
sPh
Skipping (Score:5, Insightful)
What are they going to do next? Lock the doors at the movie theater during the opening previews and commercials? Make you pay extra is you come in late and thus skip that crap?
And what about fastforwarding through the previews and commercials on videos and DVDs? Are they going to try and put anti-fast-forwarding technology in them?
"You have fast forwarded this tape illegally. Your VCR/CD/DVD will self-destruct in 5 seconds. Thank you!"
Oh shit, and what about flipping radio stations during the annoying 5 minutes of commercials they have at ten minutes to the hour, every hour? Are they going to put a special no-station-changing feature in the radio that's activated during that time?
Oh well. Even if they do I'm sure someone will figure out a way to circumvent it with a paperclip, or perhaps a magic marker. Sledgehammers probably work pretty well, too.
What a bunch of assholes.
Re:Skipping (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, yes. The DVD format supports the blocking of certain actions during certain segments of playback. I have seen examples of this in action with commercials on some rental DVDs, and it pisses me off. Sure as hell doesn't motivate me to buy the DVD later!
Re:Skipping (Score:2)
They are already trying it, unfortunately.
Disney's "Tarzan" DVD places ads in the FBI warning track [ign.com], which prevents a user from fast-forwarding through them. You have to watch the ads every time you put the DVD on. And while they can be skipped, you can't jump directly to the menu, you have to skip through them one at a time. The "High Fidelity" DVD does this too.
Who knows, maybe if they keep doing things like this, more people will get pissed off at them. You'd think it would be in their best interests to not piss off the very people who earn them their money.
Better for me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe this will be a much better way to target advertising and maybe get some of the really crappy commercials of the TV.
If a commercial is something I want see I will watch it. With my Tivo I don't have to have things basted at me repetitively. I will see a commercial once or twice as I feel is needed. If it is something I want I will look into it more. Much better for the advertiser because otherwise I would just get annoyed with the constant bombardment of advertising until I don't want anything to do with there products or services.
Re:Better for me... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome and Potentially Ground Breaking (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine if one of the key slashdot players joined with the EFF and sued the RIAA for a declaratory judgement that mp3 use was legal.
My goal in this post is not to pressure any slashdot hanchos, nor criticize anyone.
Simply this:
Please: Those of you in the community with name-recognition, use your influence for good causes other than running linux on an aibo. You have the ears of 100,000s of
Now - off to the eff to make a donation.
Arg! IE-centric webpage! (Score:2)
Another Name... (Score:2)
Some analysis (Score:2, Informative)
Why it's not theft.. (Score:5, Insightful)
When an advertiser buys time on a network program, they're trying to "buy eyeballs". The networks charge a rate based on the ratings, which is a statistic of approximately how many people are watching.
However, it's not accurate as people get up, go to the bathroom, grab a snack, change the channel, etc, or if taping the show (which Nielsen accounts for) people fast forward through the commercials. The notion that you're required to watch the commercials is offensive and ridiculous.
Now I can see why the ability to skip commercials might be frightening to networks, but it's nothing new for the reasons I've described above. The worst that can happen is that there's no money to be made in traditional commercials, so advertisers are forced to pay for product placement. For example, instead of a 30 second add with a poorly written, poorly sung "Diet Coke" commercial, maybe Jennifer Aniston drinks a Diet Coke and talks about how much she loves it on Friends. You know.. this is how advertising is still done in places.
The big problem I have with Hollywood also is the notion that SonicBlue should be FORCED to collect usage statistics. It's nobody's business that I watched Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Playoffs (go Red Wings) unless I want it to be, meaning I agree to fill out one of those stupid Nielsen books or otherwise agree to be a Nielsen Household.
And this should be a lesson: When your current business model is out of date, CHANGE THE MODEL. Too often big corporations try to legislate profits rather then be innovative.
Re:Why it's not theft.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps they are really afraid that advertisers will discover that the networks have been selling them something that they don't actually own and therefore cannot legally sell.
TiVO (Score:5, Interesting)
They have a fast forward feature, but unlike ReplayTV, they don't have an instant 30 second skip button. Does that make all the difference?
Re:TiVo (Score:3, Informative)
2. TiVo does have a 30-second skip button, it just isn't enabled by default. See the TiVo FAQ [tivofaq.com] for more info.
3. The 3 major networks (NBC, CBS and ABC/Disney) and TV/Movie content providers such as AOL/Time Warner are investors in TiVo [tivo.com]. You don't usually go around suing people you have already given large amounts of money to.
we're not all crooks, y'know (Score:2)
I can see someone deciding to make all TV shows, as presented by the networks, complete with commercials, as a separate copyrightable object. This would mean that no one could skip the commercials.
But this would lead to other copyright issues with the show's producers, and with the advertising agencies, especially when they went into syndication.
all of which is sheer madness, but that never stopped anyone before [radiofreenation.net]. (nb - link to another example of marketing mayhem)
Re:we're not all crooks, y'know (Score:2)
Oh yeah? If a book is copyrighted, am I required by law to read every chapter, in the order presented? If I buy a magazine, am I required to read all the ads? The entire magazine issue is copyrighted as work unto itself. How is this any different if the entire half-hour of a sitcom including all commercials, is copyrighted as a unit?
Holding a copyright has never given the author the right to dictate to me how and in what order I consume his work, or what portions of it I choose to experience.
Re:we're not all crooks, y'know (Score:2)
While I understand what you mean by this post, it's important to note that making the entire show (including commercials) one copyrighted object would NOT mean you couldn't skip commercials. If I buy a movie and decide a part is boring, I can fast forward through the boring part without violating any copyright laws. Nor does it remove that boring part from the movie itself. If it did that there would be many more "phantom edits" of TPM floating around
But seriously, can you imagine the implications of violating copyright law by refusing to view something?
Quick clarification/recap (Score:5, Informative)
So we're talking about something that means that no matter how clever, relevant, and eye-catching an ad is, the user still won't stop and rewind to check it out since they didn't even receive the briefest of notification.
Anyway, this issue may or may not affect your opinion on the ReplayTV unit's acceptability, but it's worth keeping in mind as to why people are singling out this unit. (There's also the other controversial feature of built-in capability to share files, which the networks aren't happy about, either.)
Re:Quick clarification/recap (Score:3, Informative)
User intervention *is* required -- the user has to either 1. set the default to be 'commercial advance on', 2. set the checkbox for 'commercial advance' on the play menu, or 3. push the 'commercial advance toggle' button on the remote control.
There is on-screen notice when a commercial block is skipped; depending on timing, there's also up to 1/2 second of commercial shown at both the beginning and end of the block.
Browsing.... (Score:2, Funny)
What Copyright? (Score:4, Insightful)
Publicity stunt? (Score:2)
So, one media exec says something questionable, and the EFF decides to sue over this? Isn't that a little excessive? Does this sound more like publicity for the EFF (and maybe the plaintiffs) rather than something really worthwhile?
Re:Publicity stunt? (Score:2)
You have to admit, the line about "we have a certain tolerance for bathroom breaks" is rather damning and needs to be played up.
Pop Up Ads (Score:3, Interesting)
Precedents may not be good... (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as I am aware, the parents lost all of these lawsuits. Courts held that government did in fact have the power to force (pre-voting) citizens to watch commericals.
sPh
Theft? (Score:5, Funny)
I guess if they can FORCE us to watch their commercials, then they don't have to be bothered with developing better, more captivating ways to get people to WANT to watch their commercials, and ultimately buy their products. Why don't they just skip the millions they spend in post-production of the commercials, and show a simple white background, with a huge black font, and static text like:
BUY CELINE DION CDS
for 30 seconds. I mean, if they can FORCE you to watch it, why spend all that extra dough trying to make WANT to watch it?
I can just hear it now:
"You veel vatch dees commercials, and LIKE THEM!"
"You veel go out and buy de Celine Dion CDs!"
I guess they're logic is: "We made a commercial, so if you don't like it enough to watch it, something must be wrong with you."
I thought the whole idea of advertising was to make the product look appealing, so that people want to buy it. If people dont want to watch your commercial, then something's wrong with the commercial, not the people watching it. That's why I like websites like adcritic.com. you can (could) go there and watch the really creative, entertaining, and captivating commercials.
No ads, no pay subscriptions, no tv (Score:4, Insightful)
No one wants to pay for programming (although we do anyway to some extent, cable, hbo, etc.)
No one wants adverts plugged in the background
and No one wants to pay for public tv
So where does that leave us? While I fundamentally agree that it is my choice to watch ads or not while at home, I also understand that economics and the free market play a role here. I cannot expect that someone is going to produce or air a TV show without getting anything in return for it. That's just not reasonable. Now if we don't want commercials, then we'd better start supporting our publicly funded media, because they're only ones who do that (and they're so underfunded they can't seem to get away from sponsors anyway). Otherwise, we're stuck with ads, because there is no other business model for media content except to sell ads (either in the program or between segments) or to sell the programming via subscription.
What further frustrates me, are the posts where people are declaring that these big media co's need to update their antiquated business model; To what, I ask? How should they update it? and where else are they going to get their revenue?
It's the same thing with the music industry. We like our nice sounding CD's and many people enjoy the big concerts and personalities developed and paid for by these entertainment co's, but everyone's complaining that they're trying to make a buck. Sheesh, people, do you realize how much it costs to pay the artists (who don't get enough from records anyway), make that nice sounding record, and put on a concert...
Now, I'm not saying that the media co's and their strong arm legal tatics don't reek of misconduct or that these companies don't need to adapt their methods for selling and capturing the marketplace somewhat, but I have to side with them in some ways because they are the ones getting that shaft at both ends financially (and don't give me that "they're so rich it doens't matter" crap, this is capitalism, not charity).
They have a right to be pissed that their ads are getting skipped, because what happens next is that advertisers start saying "well 30% of the viewers of your shows skipped our ad, so we want to 30% credit back" or in the future they force a cheaper rate. Which in turn impacts profits, which then forces the studio to limit what they make, thus impacting selection for the consumer. Or even worse, forcing production companies and studios out of business so that it then narrows who is producing content. Which as we all know would suck.
-s
Re:No ads, no pay subscriptions, no tv, not quite. (Score:3, Insightful)
First, lets start with the fact that the underlying mechanism for determining viewership / advertising returns is flawed. The quasi statistical calculation that says, "here is how many people will be watching your commercial during program X" is less and less valid in the age of many channels and channel surfing, etc. Second, something like 50 or 60 percent of those watching aren't the target of the advertiser in the first place.
Second, the advertisers are paying for their ad space based on those ephemeral numbers of viewers. And those numbers are provided (indirectly) by the content providers (via shams like the nielsons, etc.). I, as a viewer, am not at all obligated to make the effort to support their flawed business assumptions.
Third, if they REALLY wanted me to watch their advertisements, they would produce advertisements that didn't have to evolve for 2 million years just to improve to the level of mind-numbingly stupid. I am not obligated to make myself physically ill in order to support their flawed business model.
All that said, there are two ways (off the top of my head) that the providers can change their models to improve the current situtation. First is that they can take advantage of the ability for the viewer to set preferences in the PVR's (and the like) and use those preferences to target advertisements that, even if still stupider than a member of congress, would at least have the value of being of passing interest to the viewer.
Second, they could embrace some form of the subscription plan. Channels like HBO and Showtime (as an example) manage to produce some seriously fine programming, both because they don't depend on advertising, and also because they aren't subject to the advertisers whims concerning content, etc.
And they don't have a right to be pissed about ads being skipped, anymore than buggy whip manufacturers had a right to be pissed at the automobile (to use an oft repeated analogy).
Great lawsuit (Score:3, Interesting)
That spying attempt is going to go down in history as one of the dumbest moves in the history of customer relations.
Commercials are a necessity. (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you get the point yet? Even though commercials suck, their existance is a natural result.
Re:Commercials are annoying. (Score:3, Interesting)
I watch HBO TV shows for the simple fact that I pay for them, and there are no commercials. I would say screw public television in general, if not for my Tivo.
The few shows on broadcast TV that I do watch, I would GLADLY pay for. I'd pay $1 a month to watch King of the Hill, even $2 a month if it meant keeping it alive. I'd pay $1 a month for the Simpsons, maybe even $3.
Would everyone pay? Probably not. But you're paying for TV already in higher costs of goods sold. And if you don't watch TV, you're still paying.
What good is that?
Re:Commercials are a necessity. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that would be just fine as long as I decide which networks I pay and which ones I don't.
I never asked ABC/CBS/NBC/etc. to broadcast their crap into the sky... but I am more than willing to pay HBO for their content (which has never included advertising).
Re:Commercials are a necessity. (Score:4, Funny)
Call ME a thief? That's SLANDER. See ya in COURT (Score:3, Insightful)
They are basically calling YOU and ME thieves and saying that WE, by the very act of buying their products, can't be trusted to own them. (Okay, I don't own a TV and I don't go to movies, but its the principle of the thing.)
Basically, somebody woke the fuck up and said "I am NOT a thief and you can't get away with calling me one."
And Jack Valenti and Hillary Rosen CAN'T. They DESERVE to get SUED by everybody who'se intelligence they insulted.
The networks created their own problem... (Score:4, Informative)
It is for this reason that I am extremely unhappy with the statement that the CEO Turner made about 'implied contracts'. It almost feels like entrapment. "We'll bombard ppl with commercials until they develop technology to circumvent them, then we'll sue them, then we can exercise even MORE power to cram more ads in there." Yah, I know that sounds ridiculous. I'm just expressing how this whole thing strikes me.
Bathroom TV - all commercials, all the time (Score:4, Funny)
___
let's see here (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I'm a thief no matter what I do. Worse yet, I'm a thief even if I don't do anything. Nughty me for breathing their air! Next thing you know, it will be illegal to own a TV with an off switch. (que Mac Headroom)
Re:First thing, let's kill all the lawyers (Score:3, Funny)
Re:First thing, let's kill all the lawyers (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This oughta be good (Score:2)
You have the funniest sarcasm around.
sorry I couldn't help my self
Your trolling powers are weak, old man. (Score:5, Funny)
Excellent use of obscure terminology. The phrase Hobbesian contract makes you appear smart, because most readers don't know what a Hobbesian contract is. (Namely, an agreement to obey an authority as long as said authority does its duty.)
They agree to show a show, you agree to watch the commercials. It's a concept as old as the Magna Carta.
Citing historical documents. Excellent.
I can't wait until these self-delusional pirates are given the smackdown by a clueful judge.
Here's where you lose me. A skilled troll would have omitted this sentence, or at least softened the wording a bit. Referring to people who want to skip commercials (at last count, almost everyone) as "self-delusional pirates" is an obvious attempt at ruffling feathers.
One other note: you probably should have written a few paragraphs and explained your ridiculous opinion in more detail. It's far more effective to progressively piss people off than hit them with one insult four sentences into your post.
Final Grade: C
Keep at it. You'll get there eventually.