News on TiVo, "God's Machine" 283
Brace for incoming TiVo news!
rtphokie pointed out that FCC chair Michael Powell got a TiVo for Christmas and calls it
"God's machine."
Powell also said he wanted to share TV shows with his sister -- but he might have to violate the DMCA to do it: TiVo wants to
join the home network
(thanks Insomniac), but parr pointed us to
TiVo's Thursday press release
in which they assure us that "every TiVo Series2 DVR contains a unique public/private key pair," so only "designated" units within your home can share programs, you "cannot send content outside the home," and transfers over your home network will be encrypted (no sniffing!). Meanwhile, on the WB (part of AOL-TW), everything old is new again, as producers and advertisers work to create a live variety show with
built-in commercials (free reg. req.) (thanks eternal_software).
And if you missed our earlier TiVoesque stories, check 'em out:
TiVo-radio wanted,
HDTV TiVo,
and
TiVo Rendezvous. Whew!
You have to wonder... (Score:2, Interesting)
So TiVo is going out of it's way to assure it's customers that the device has been purposely and explicitely designed so as to be less useful to them. What the fuck is going on here?????
Re:You have to wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say they're covering their asses to make sure they can stay in business. They know that the hackers can figure out ways to extract video from it and send it wherever they please. As long as they stay on the good side of the DMCA/copyright law/whatever they won't have to deal with 500lb media gorillas flinging feces at them. Can you blame them? I'd much rather find a hack on the internet to extract/share video than risk having my Tivo go lifeless because of lawsuits.
(Although I've heard there's a 'plan B' if Tivo does go under...)
Re:You have to wonder... (Score:2)
You say providing what's best for the customer will drive them out of business. AFAIC they might as well already be out of business, because their money-grubbing and restrictions make them irrelevant to me.
Re:A New Hope (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically, this would be the last act of a company that has already been bankrupted, so it'd have nothing left to lose from Hollywood lawsuits.
Re:You have to wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)
However, ReplayTV is being sued over their not-so-Hollywood-friendly way of doing file sharing... and based on the outcome of that lawsuit they may be ordered to send out a software update that removes that feature.
On the other hand, should ReplayTV win the lawsuit... what stops Tivo from dropping their encryption system in a software update? It seems to me as if Tivo is letting ReplayTV take the risk of being the rulebreaker, so if the rule holds Tivo has done no wrong, but if the rule falls Tivo can take advantage almost immediately too.
Re:You have to wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't see any fair reason this could be considered unlawful... There is no law (yet) that requires digital manufacturers to play babysitter and include DRM, so they could make their "system" be nothing more than a GUI on top of a Linux box, and just let the users close the GUI, and do whatever they want to do with the files. Same thing.
If ReplayTV looses, get ready for THE BIG CHILL FACTOR... That would instantly make it illegial to make it possible to pirate... Instant defacto DRM requirement.
Re:You have to wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
A agree with you 100%.
The thing is that COURTS HAVE RULED VCR'S ILLEGAL. It took a supreme court ruling to overturn that decision, and it was a one vote margin, 5 to 4. Had one person voted differently VCR's would be prohibited in the US.
The situation is perilous. We have the MPAA and RIAA and others constantly fighting HARD for expanded copyright restrictions. They have been lying and deceptive and people are falling for it. Judges and legislators have been catering to corporate interests and neglecting the public interests. Perfectly legal activies are being outlawed in the name of copyright.
-
So... (Score:4, Funny)
Yes (Score:3, Informative)
The DVR (digital video recorder) pioneer is offering software that enables customers to share the content delivered to their TiVo recording hardware throughout the home. The service uses Wi-Fi (802.11b) wireless technology to turn the DVR into a networked entertainment center.
Remote Recording
TiVo's home networking software will be rolled out this spring, at a cost of US$99 to subscribers with Series2 DVR units. Activation of additional units within the home will cost $49 per DVR. The software will be downloadable via broadband or phone line to any TiVo Series2 box.
Following activation, the DVR will connect over a Wi-Fi or wired network with Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL - news) or Windows PCs. All required applications will be available at the company Web site.
In addition to streaming entertainment throughout the home, subscribers will be able to access their DVR remotely and schedule it to record from virtually any location, much like they currently do at home.
Sharing jokes (Score:5, Funny)
where have you been? (Score:2)
Re: DMCA statement (Score:5, Insightful)
The sentence construction in the original posting suggests that Powell is actually aware of the law and its problems, and neither the article nor anything he as ever said proves any such thing.
Yes, it's semantics, but it's damn important semantics. One is playing what-if games where we say 'Gee, wouldn't it be k-rad cool if Michael Powell was breakin' the law, huhhuhuhuh?', the other makes a _clear-cut statement_ that an appointed government official is aware of the problems of a copyright law his department nor administration never gave a nod to.
Ha.
The post should read, 'Powell also said that he wanted to share shows with his sister. What Powell may not be aware of is that in saying so, he may ultimately have to break the DMCA to do it.'
Re: DMCA statement (Score:5, Interesting)
Except for the fact that it has nothing to do with the DMCA. Distributing copies of home recordings is a violation of plain old copyright law, law which has been on the books since 1790.
But making snide remarks about a 200-year-old law makes you look kind of like an anti-establishment wacko, while snide remarks about the DMCA are always socially acceptable.
Re: DMCA statement (Score:4, Informative)
Sharing TV shows non-commercially would not have violated the original 1790 law, which covered only "vending" of protected works.
Re: DMCA statement (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, you're the chairman of the FCC. You're deeply involved in the legality of the media business, which is currently chiefly concerned with the DMCA. You want to share recordings of television shows.
Do you seriously think he doesn't know the DMCA might be a problem there?
Re: DMCA statement (Score:3, Interesting)
Powell said he intended to use the TiVo machine to record TV shows to play on other television sets in his home, and even suggested that he might share recordings with his sister if she were to miss a favorite show.
"I'd like to move it to other TVs," he said of his digitally recorded programming. A number of products already allow that.
He says nothing about the DMCA or copyrights.
I suspect Mr. Powell is aware of copyright law. On the other hand to have the FCC chairman give an enthusiastic endorsement of PVRs and indicate a desire to share recorded material with others is a pretty major coup. I'm sure Mr. Valenti fuming right now.
Now to get Sen. McCain using a PVR as well
For the record (Score:2)
How about a TiVo icon? (Score:5, Interesting)
What's your recommendation between PVR choices? (Score:3, Informative)
Can a good Slashdot nerd who's researched the pros and cons of each give the rest of us a good intelligent recommendation? (Or at least point to a good URL you've found elsewhere?)
Thanks!
Re:What's your recommendation between PVR choices? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's your recommendation between PVR choices? (Score:5, Informative)
Built-in LAN access. Ability to offload shows (MPEG2, no funky wrappers or encryption) to PC. Stream shows from one ReplayTV to another, or (with third-party GPL software, like DVArchive) stream to a PC. Or stream from a PC's archive of shows back to your ReplayTV. Better quality video capture than Tivo, better search. Not so good season / show recording options as Tivo (the inability to determine if a show is a repeat or not, or even if you already have a copy of that show on the unit, is a stupid oversight). But there's strong indication that ReplayTV is going to add features in the near future via software upgrade.
ReplayTV also has Commercial Advance (works 70% of the time; I don't use it) and 30-second skip, which I use religiously. Tivo also has 30s skip, but it's an unsupported software hack that they could disable at any time.
Re:What's your recommendation between PVR choices? (Score:4, Insightful)
This a case of Tivo going as close as they can to the line without being sued by Hollywood. If 30 second skip buttons are determined to be illegal, Tivo can drop the unsupported feature and nobody can say Tivo every promised it to anybody. On the other hand, it's there and you can use it for now.
Re:What's your recommendation between PVR choices? (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess that's why I didn't buy Tivo. You know it's majority shareholders are the networks, right? The networks control Tivo's featureset so as not to disrupt their current business model, and sue ReplayTV (whom they do not own stock in) to force them out of the market. It's all about control, and I resent that. I resent that they're giving us a feature 'on the sly', to those in the know, as a way to get buy-in from technically-aware customers who would otherwise choose ReplayTV.
Re:What's your recommendation between PVR choices? (Score:4, Informative)
BUZZ!
It's true that General Electric, who owns NBC along with a whole lot of other things, is the largest shareholder, but that's only 1.78% of the company. Every other shareholder in the top ten is an investment bank or mutual fund company.
Don't trust me? look it up for yourself. [yahoo.com]
The networks do not control Tivo. A clear majority of the company is in the hands of non-network interests. Tivo has no majority owner.
Re:What's your recommendation between PVR choices? (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, this thing has changed the way I watch TV - especially since I can now finally get local channels on the satellite (at MUCH better quality than over the air).
This unit has two features that together make eliminating commercials a snap! A 30 second instant forward skip button, and a 10 second reverse skip. It also can schedule recording from the Dish Network's schedule (downloaded autmatically from tge satellite) with a trivial interface. You can also tell it to do periodic recordings, although you have to do that by hand.
It doesn't try to psych you out and record programs for 6 year old left handed child molesters, or something!
The one I have (the 901) seems to be pretty a bit unreliable, but since it is rented it is replaced free of charge by depot maintenance (meaning that while you are waiting 24 hours for the new one to arrive, you can still use whatever is still working on the ole one). I suspect the newer models may be better.
Re:What's your recommendation between PVR choices? (Score:2)
So it's the Microsoft Windows version of a pvr? Oh, crap, there's already one of those [ultimatetv.com]? :)
Re:What's your recommendation between PVR choices? (Score:2)
Re:What's your recommendation between PVR choices? (Score:2)
So far, I'm very pleased.
Sniffing (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, just because it's encrypted doesn't mean I can't sniff the encrypted data to try to work out the keys. How do you think you crack WEP?
Re:Sniffing (Score:2)
Now, it's entirely possible TiVo will decide it makes good business sense (saving money, yeah, that's why) to let the high-school co-op build their encryption...
Re:EXACTLY (Score:3, Funny)
I can factor large primes instantly.
If N is a large prime, the factors are 1 and N.
Make TiVo without file sharing! (Score:4, Insightful)
I do think that a major victim of file sharing TiVos will be HBO, as I can see "The Sopranos" and other non-basic cable shows to be most shared files out there, and I don't think that's right. I'd say a feature that isn't really necessary, is highly controversial, and in IMO most likely to be used illegally should be removed right now, especially if it threatens the overall survival of the excellent service.
Re:Make TiVo without file sharing! (Score:4, Insightful)
I really don't see net-based transfer of Tivo-recorded content to be a workable solution.
Re:INet vs. DVD - Re:Make TiVo without file sharin (Score:2)
When you have a TB worth of data to move, I don't think the 'net will ever catch up to the speed of a van.
Re:INet vs. DVD - Re:Make TiVo without file sharin (Score:2)
This will be an issue only when it takes a terrabyte to encode a TV show, which won't be happening anytime soon. With compression, a hour-long (42 min w/o commercials) program can be trimmed to a very watchable 150 MB, a full quality 450 MB, or a widescreen HDTV 800 MB - all quite doable on the average cable modem. I can grab 800 MB from usenet in about 2 hours on my home connection.
Re:INet vs. DVD - Re:Make TiVo without file sharin (Score:2)
You might not need to move a TB, but NetFlix has to move more data than that through their system every day. It'd be impossible for them to afford that kind of bandwidth on the Internet, but the USPS has no problem giving them a reasonable price.
Re:INet vs. DVD - Re:Make TiVo without file sharin (Score:2)
Re:What if you miss it? (Score:2, Interesting)
Your example is rather contrived - yes there is the possibility that you'll *gasp* miss a television show despite probable repeats. But to be honest, I think this sacrifice is worth it, especially as it'll give the powers that be less ammo to attack the TiVo with.
And let's face it, you'll miss a lot more TV without it!
Re:What if you miss it? (Score:2)
We're saying that TiVo should completely omit the sharing feature until the law is changed to make the sharing of home recordings legal. Don't be a test case, TiVo, because it looks like you'll lose!
Re:What if you miss it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, but your examples were hypothetical ones. "What if there hadn't been a 'Shield' marathon? What if there had been no 'Buffy' reruns?" The fact is, programs (especially cable progams) are increasingly being show more than once in a given week. Unless a show is a prime-time network program, the chance that you'll miss an episode and not be able to catch it another time is very slim.
Program sharing would benefit very few people. Sure, lots of people would like it, but they'd be using it for a purpose that is not unclear, like the central issue of the VCR case was, but rather explicitly illegal. TiVo should wait (or should have waited, I guess) until the legal dust settles before releasing a sharing product.
Re:What if you miss it? (Score:2)
No, they're not. They passed on it several days ago.
About the only chance I have are an eventual (years away) release of a DVD for a half-season of a show
Minear says the DVD will be out much sooner than "years away."
Re:What if you miss it? (Score:2)
Re:hypothical (Score:2)
That's not the hypothetical part. The hypothetical part is the aspect of his argument that says, "If, hypothetically, the old episodes were not available via reruns, then we could have used show-sharing." He's using a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate how useful show-sharing would be. My point is that hypothetical scenarios are a dime a dozen, while the real examples are much less common. My larger point, of course, is that TiVo should (or should have) avoid implementing a show-sharing feature that few people will find more than simply convenient until the legal issues sort themselves out.
Re:Show sharing (Score:2)
on the next episode of 24... (Score:5, Funny)
President Palmer: Here, try this new Tide detergent.
Keifer sprinkles Tide on shirt, blood dissapears.
Keifer, smiling towards camera: Wow! Tide really gets those stubborn blood stains out!
Re:on the next episode of 24... (Score:2)
Re:on the next episode of 24... (Score:2)
Looks like "The Trueman Show" nailed it (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't Step on My SonicBlue Suede Shoes! (Score:2)
If you think this is not possible, consider the TV shows that simply show funny or bizarre adverts from other countries. Product placement can be very well done and entertaining in itself, and the only limit to turning a Pepsi spot into a full feature movie is the director's imagination.
Is this the future of digital media art?
This is actually retro (Score:4, Informative)
Putting adds in the content, or having the content members plug stuff is not new. Soap operas are called "soap operas" because they were shows pormoted exclusivley for a single advertiser. Some shows required the story to involve laundry scenes where the "whiteness of your whites" could be commented upon. Ed sullivan, groucho marx, and all the rest used to plug the products right in the show, reading the ads.
I imagine they went to the "modern" format of distinct ads becaause they were deemed more effective at catching viewer attention. Now the pendulum swings back.
A freind told me that in some european country, italy perhaps, there are certain shows or channels that only have ads at the begining and ends. The response of the adveritsers is to make comercials so good that you really want to watch. Which of course is sort odd segwaying back into making whole shows again with embedded comercials.
Coverage of same article from The Globe and Mail: (Score:2)
(Saturday, January 11, 2003 - Page R7)
New York -- Striking a blow against viewers who skip through TV commercials, a new variety series will blend commercials into its program fare, offering a seamless hour of entertainment mixed with salesmanship.
The series will air for six weeks this summer on the WB, with Michael Davies, best-known for ABC's Who Wants to be a Millionaire?,as its producer, according to a story in yesterday's New York Times. Its working title is Live from Tomorrow.
The show, which Davies described as "a contemporary, hip Ed Sullivan Show," is a response to worries among advertisers and network executives about the rising popularity of personal video recorders that allow viewers to zap commercial breaks.
The new plan -- actually a throwback to long-ago days when sponsors owned network TV and radio shows, and packed them with product plugs -- will marry the show with two main sponsors, Pepsi and Nokia, and four secondary sponsors, Davies said.
The show might send an entertainer to the Nokia headquarters to take part in its internship program for a feature, Davies said, or charge a movie studio for an appearance by a star of a film the studio wants to promote.
Though the new show would be the most comprehensive response to ad-zappers, it isn't the first. Since premiering three years ago, CBS's Survivor has successfully sold product placements of beer, cars and snack foods within its program content. But these rather blatant endorsements only supplemented conventional ad breaks, rather than replacing them altogether.
AP
Here's the thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Content owners (TV studios, "Hollywood") probably couldn't care less if people time-shift television. Why? Because for broadcast at least, the TV shows are almost the precise definition of a loss leader. If you time-shift your show, the local station or cable provider that is playing it has still paid the license fee to run the show. There is no change in the net income from the show. The show generates no more or no less revenue than it did before. If the show is a money-losing venture in itself - which most of them probably are - the the show is no MORE of a money-loser because it's been moved out of its time slot.
(Now, there is the possible exception that time-shifting screws up the studios' ability to generate statistics about viewing habits, etc., which could impact relationships with advertisers, but, well, keep reading.)
So, if a television show's movement through time has no impact or minimal impact on its revenue generating capacity for the studio which creates it (please note, the actors don't care because they've already been paid), why are the studios upset?
Advertising moolah.
This is not a revolutionary observation. I'm aware of that. But they're so angry about you time-shifting because you want to get rid of exactly the thing that gives them the profit motive to make the show in the first place. They can try product placement and inline ads as partial replacements for traditional block advertising, but the 30-second ad spot is still the cash cow.
And you're getting in the cash cow's way.
So the studio is upset. But let's take a step back and look at what the combat really means. (This is where this post gets flamable, so if you liked it before, stop reading.) TiVo owners are demanding a right, and spending their hard-earned money, to time-shift
What value are they to anybody? The studios don't care because they don't represent any real revenue. They will only make good shows if they think those shows will attract eyes to see ads crammed into the spaces between show segments.
And do they represent any real value to you? Eh, you might chuckle or cry or gasp or cower when watching, but after the 30 minute sitcom is over, what have you gained? A new skill? Truly reduced stress? Enlightenment? Not likely.
In fact, and paradoxically, the only benefit to the viewer in a usual TV watching session is in the ADS. It's like the old advice on how to pick up women: "Just walk up to one and ask her if she wants to f***. Nine times out of ten you'll get slapped, but that tenth time.. wowee..." That's how the advertisers see you. And with good reason: because 1 time out of 10, you're going to see an ad and think "Hey, that's neat..." And you might go buy it. If you ignore the ad the other 9 times, the advertisers don't really care, because there are 280 million other people out there deciding whether "Can you hear me now?" is going to provoke them to get or keep Verizon phones.
So, you actually derive more tangible benefit from that one time you actually are moved by an ad than you do from all the sitcom watching in the world, except in those instances where the sitcoms are so insidious as to be indistinguishable from the ads themselves.
My solution? No tv. I don't have to pay the cable company $520 a year for television I don't watch. I don't have to pay $400-6,000 dollars to replace my ten-year-old TV when it finally dies. I don't have to spend hours upon hours sitting in front of the brain control box, um, TV soaking up advertising. And I don't have to spend money to fight the advertising by buying a TiVo. I lose some entertainment, sure, but I have books, family, the Internet, and even my own imagination.
I'm not passing judgment on anybody, except the advertisers who attempt to monopolize your mind. But do me a favor, you Slashdot people I don't even know... Try going without TV (and TiVo) for a month. Completely without TV.
See if you really miss it.
But, I like (some) tv... (Score:5, Interesting)
You mention you like to read, as do I. I also happen to prefer to buy my books over borrowing them (although I do borrow some), just because I like having my own little library. So, everytime I, or you, buy a non-reference book, we are essentially paying for entertainment. Reading a book, despite what some think, does not necessarily improve you in any way (you can pick up new skills and reduce stress just as well with tv as with a book), you won't find "enlightenment" (assuming there is such a thing anyway).
Ever go to the movies, a concert, a play? All of these are like tv, in the fact that you are paying for the entertainment. Hell a lot of vacations are really people just paying for entertainment, of course there's a more tangible component to that entertainment.
Fine, if you don't get much enjoyment out of tv, don't watch it. I, however, find some shows rather amusing, and enjoy watching them. The great thing about tv is that it only requires partial attention, I often do something else while watching it. You can't do that with a book.
By the way, I never got into the habit of watching commercials (even long before TiVo). I'll gladly flip or do something else for those minutes, assuming I can't find a "filler show" to use during commercials, before I will sit there and absorb the advertising.
Is it possible that you just haven't found the right things to watch?
Maybe you didn't intend it, but to me your post comes off a bit "holier-than-thou", which is a sense I get from a lot of people who don't watch tv. I have gone a month without tv. I often don't watch it while I'm travelling. Still, I do enjoy it when I'm at home, and not doing anything in particular. You could make a similar case for surfing the web, it's not much better than tv...
Re:But, I like (some) tv... (Score:2, Interesting)
Now for the humungous disclaimer. There really is good TV out there. I think some shows like CSI, Buffy, Sopranos, etc. are genuinely good and valuable entertainment. If I had TIME to watch TV (I'm a law student - and former software developer and database admin, so don't eat me - so I don't have much) I would love to watch some of the good stuff on TV.
But I have to sacrifice those good shows and find my entertainment elsewhere (yes, occasionally in movies, but those are getting so ad-saturated and, frankly, uninteresting that I don't go to them much now) because of an almost monastic self-denial. I guess it's a discipline thing: I can't watch TV a little bit for fear that I'll get sucked into the crap that I currently hate.
Nah, I don't look down on any person for watching TV... I guess I'm not really holier than thou... I suppose it's more that I see how much more we can be doing with our time.
Go build a house or something...
Re:But, I like (some) tv... (Score:2)
Ooooh he's using his evil lawyer mind tricks on you!
Re:Here's the thing... (Score:2)
Built-in commercials ... what about syndication? (Score:5, Informative)
Not so today.
When a program is recorded, space is left for the commercials. They usually don't even know who the sponsors are yet. Then the commercials are added later. A season or two later, if it's a popular program, it's all picked up for syndication (a wild process involving conventions and stations and networks and lots of wheeling-and-dealing). The station or network airing the program in syndication will be putting in a completely different set of commercials.
See the problem here? If the commercials are irrevocably embedded into the program, they can't be removed and replaced during syndication. That means it won't syndicate at all, because the cable networks and superstations of the world won't be able to put in their own commercials. They won't be able to make back the money they paid for the programming. So, they'll either choose other programming, or if this style of programming becomes dominant, the smaller stations and networks may go away entirely.
It's kind of like forcing people to take a web browser or media player with an operating system, whether they want it or not. It puts people's eyeballs where you want them in the short term, but it screws up the flexibility for pretty much everyone else in the universe.
Re:Built-in commercials ... what about syndication (Score:2)
The idea is for this to be cheap entertainment, and to try to get ad dollars out of everyone who participates. (I.E... Selling the right to send the musical guest to record labels, since all the artist really is doing is promoting their album... selling the right to send the guest host to movie studios, since all that actor really is doing is promoting that movie, etc.) It's not clear if this is gonna work or not, the news headline is that the guy who backed Who Wants to be a Millionaire is willing to try.
BTW, the way this show is being set up is that the production company is actually going to pay the WB network for its airtime, rather than the WB paying for the show.
Re:Built-in commercials ... what about syndication (Score:2)
In other words this is "paid programming". Yum! Prime-time infomertials!
-
Re:Built-in commercials ... what about syndication (Score:5, Insightful)
If shows could be entirely paid for by embedded advertisements, then the business model the distribution of the shows would have to be different. Firstly, the producers would want to have as many viewers as possible, spreading over the Internet would be greatly encouraged. Secondly , while it is true that there would be no reason for syndicated channels to pay for the material if they cannot tack on their own advertisements, the original sponsors and producers, again looking for as many viewers as possible, would want the shows syndicated. So the business relationship would be inverse: producers would pay channels to show there shows.
The question that remains, of course, is that of the efficiency of the adveritising. It is obvious that if an advertisement in embedded in the program instead of tacked on, it will be less flexible both geographically and temporally (difficult to change for different markets, as well as for different times), meaning that advertisers are less likely to pay as much as they do today per viewer of the add. But there are several things that help moderate this. Firstly, brands and products are much more global today then when television started - there is probably no shortage of companies that are willing to market there product at every viewer of Friends (or whatever mind numbing sitcom we are being spoon fed this week). Secondly, a loss in advertising revenue does not necessarily mean the end of TV - there are what, five?, different Discovery channels in cable packages these days, will it really be the end of the world if they were forced to scale that back to one or two? Television has become much more efficient in just the last ten years or so - it is now possible to produce material for much less per possible viewer then it was previously.
Writing off the concept of embedded advertisements is premature. The nature of the information age (barring the bonds that MS and co. want to place on it) is that people are in control, down to the micro level, of what content they consume. In the long term, it is not possible in such a society to try to make people pay attention to things they do not desire - making it seem to them that they do desire it is advertisements only hope.
Digital replacement, man... (Score:2)
It just alters the contracts for syndication to allow digital alteration of content - that's all.
Re:Digital replacement, man... (Score:2)
I just had a cool thought. Once various versions are available on the net it would be pretty trivial to filter them out. The "generically shaped product" could be automaticly converted back into a featureless grey box
-
Re:Built-in commercials ... what about syndication (Score:4, Interesting)
Another problem I forsee is the law (well regulations rather than law). Here in the UK product placement in shows is not allowed, plain and simple. If you are selling the product (i.e. infomercial, shopping channel etc) that's fine, but it has to be obviously an advertisment (including the "This is an ad" text if required). But regular TV shows cannot advertise, and have to avoid making brands too obvious. For instance shops will sell made up brands, presenters will refer to "a popular cola flavoured beverage" etc etc.
Now this may not be the case in the US, but a lot of your shows get sold over here, so unless they were edited we couldn't buy them. I believe that's the case for much of europe. Therefore, your network is going to lose all that lovely foreign money (believe me, it's a lot of cash).
Just a thought...
tv shows with ads in them (Score:5, Interesting)
There are already plenty of TV shows with ads in them - look at sports, for instance, with ads all over the various stadiums, and even with soccer which goes commercial-free and has an ad of the sponsor under the clock. I figure it's just a matter of time before regular TV programming adopts this form of advertising, with a little logo in the corner, or maybe shrinking the screen down ala MTV to give you some ad along the side and bottom of the screen.
And we'll probably get used to it, just as we've gotten used to the logos for the channel that are always on now..
Re:tv shows with ads in them (Score:4, Interesting)
I have very recently stopped watching TNT all together because their logo has gone wild and taken up the lower third of the screen, and then they have a massive popup for "The Perfect Storm" that is disguised as a legitimate hazardous weather alert. I guess that AOL-TimeWarner meger had some unforseen implications.
So, I wouldn't mind some minor product placement if it is NOT DISTRACTING, and if it is in-lieu of commercials. Just layer upon layer of ads gets very bothersome, and does push many people away. Not to mention that they expect to get a certain ammount of content that is ad-free for their cooperation. Hey, I stopped going to movies when product-placement got popular. If I'm going to sit through 30 minutes of ads (trailers), then see major product-placement, all for a movie that turns out to be terrible, I'm not going to pay for a ticket on top of that! So, networks need to be very careful in this area (lest they drive everyone to read a book!) and all I've seen so far is gung-ho ads-everywhere, and as in your face as they can be.
Most stations' commercials push too hard for your attention... If it isn't something sexual, it's flashing lights, and screaming announcers. Not to mention that commercial breaks are getting longer and more frequent.
You know why people aren't watching ads anymore? The advertisers are getting much more annoying, the TV stations are happy to let them get more irritating since they'll pay a few bucks more that way, meanwhile the networks don't seem to know or care that the commercials are making their entire networks less popular, not to mention prone to channel-flipping. Hell, how many units has Tivo sold? There's no way in hell they can be single-handedly be destroying the ad market. I suspect they were just in the perfect position to be a scape-goat.
Stations need to make tolerable and benign to watch ads. Anyone that's been around long enough knows that TV was that way before. In fact, I don't think I've ever avoided the commercials on ABC World News Tonight, because the breaks are short, and the ads aren't so annoying that they push me to change the channel. So, it's not even a forgotten tradition, it's still (mostly--they could do better) happening.
I'm not going to spend $1000 to get a Tivo, or any other device just to fix what broadcasters broke. If anything, I'll be starting to spend less money, as I cancel my cable subscription when a few more stations become unwatchable.
Oh yeah, the rant started somewhere up there... Possibly near the beginning, but that doesn't mean it's any less true. Stations are far more likely to loose viewers than they are to increase their income. And when viewers stop watching the half-dozen watchable channels from their cable or satellite providers, they cancel their service, and then everyone looses, except the advertisers, because they aren't tied to TV at all... They'd stick flashing neon signs along the freeway just to make a buck, even if some people get killed along the way... and so far, everyone is letting the advertisers go wild.
seriously folks, this can be instructive (Score:5, Interesting)
we spend so much time bitching about stupid pols writing bad laws, but has anyone spent the time to setup the kewl things they are trying to legislate into vaporware????
maybe, we need to start a campaign to give great geekware to legislators and government officials for the sake of winning their hearts (or wherever powell's god lives) to our causes. if we can make enough lawmakers into violators of the DMCA and other heinous laws on the books, or proposed and show them why we feel strongly about this. or even have the EFF donate linux boxen to lawmakers. we will gain an advantage.
at any rate. i propose we start by giving a copy of the Linux Bar Monkey [slashdot.org] to Ted Kennedy and go from there .. . .
Re:seriously folks, this can be instructive (Score:2)
What about a variation of that idea: donating services? Imagine some open source app that helps senators get their job done better than proprietary software. Then imagine providing 24-hour support for it for free to
Re:seriously folks, this can be instructive (Score:3, Interesting)
email me [mailto] if you're interested in the below:
i would be amenable to starting a SF project to make a PHP/MySQL constituency response web application. there would be lots of easy to find items that could be integrated into something useful for polling, bulk emailing to opt in listings, etc. Maybe the kind of thing that runs campaigns and listens to voter concerns, etc. email me if you're interested, i can't confess to having a mass of free time at the moment, but would be interested in directing, some coding and testing, etc. to be involved in such a project.
as for deployment, could be provided from any of a number of locations, php mysql is robust enough for yahoo, and that's enuff for me.
Re:seriously folks, this can be instructive (Score:2)
are his monkeys related to the phonics monkey from south park? :-)
Powell in a position to bring about change (Score:2)
http://www.netparadox.com/
on slashdot
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/22
I don't recall seeing any follow up on this. It sorta looks like he's staying the course.
People know not what Tivo is... (Score:4, Insightful)
The other night I asked a business man who is one of those gadget freaks if he had tivo and he had the similar response!
How is it that people dont know what Tivo is? Why the hell does anyone who watch TV NOT have a Tivo? Listen to people like Adam Carolla on Loveline. He is just blown away by Tivo's powers. Don, Mike, Buzz, Rob of the Don and Mike show all have it and its just like going to the bathroom on how often they use it. It was a plot topic on King of Queens even! So, why the hell have people not jumped all over this thing?!
Now, I cant afford Tivo so what shows I really DO wanna watch (Sopranos) I record using my GF's All-in-wonder. If I didnt have an all-in-wonder, Id be saving up for a Tivo.
Better solution than Anti-Piracy fascism (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Better solution than Anti-Piracy fascism (Score:2)
You sir are a cheap ass... (Score:5, Insightful)
Two things. First of all no one is forcing you. Second of all 600$ is dirt cheap. There are som 178 episodes (not counting all the extra stuff, like behind the scenes) of TNG. That is about 3 bucks per episode. If you can't afford that, you either live in Afghanistan or you are simply to cheap to buy, no matter what they were charged.
I sincerely doubt it. At
Some people will not be satisfied before you can get it for free. And then they will probably bitch because the download is too slow.
For
Rumagent
God's machine (Score:4, Funny)
Imagine the stunning marketing avenues and license approval for new tech that have been opened by this endorsement from the high priest of the EM spectrum.
Such clerical pontification can only do wonders for the promotion of any product. Hey Mike, how about the George Foreman Grill?
"Oh, I love it. I mean it's in Jesusez' kitchen."
Any thoughts on the new HUM-V?
"That is exactly the same car with which I expect Saint Peter will meet you for your ride up that long road behind the Pearly Gates."
Tell us about that new iPod.
"The Holy Ghost's very own walkman."
They should have sent this guy a freebie three years ago. Someone needs to promo him a High-Def TV set pronto.
Actors in Commercials (Score:2, Interesting)
Embedded advertising won't work for everyting (Score:3, Insightful)
Documentary type shows, like the Crocodile Hunter, would also have problems placing products.
Re:Embedded advertising won't work for everyting (Score:2, Informative)
The other option is to build a show around a product line. Anybody who grew up in the 1980s knows how that works with toys, but Hanna-Barberra actually had a cartoon starring Sugar Bear (of Post Sugar Crisp fame) and other Post cereal mascots.
Both of these practices were outlawed by the FCC until the 1980s, when the gloves came off and bare-knuckled fighting for kid money clogged the airwaves again.
--DocL
---
BMW Films (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know if anybody's seen BMW Films [bmwfilms.com], but that's the sort of interesting thing that I think we're heading for. Basically, BMW hired a bunch of film directors (John Frankenheimer, John Woo, Tony Scott, Guy Ritchie, etc.) and had them creat short films featuring BMW vehicles in prominent roles. They're actual shorts, with discernible plots, and no superimpositions of the specs of the cars or announcer voiceovers. They've had some success getting various cable and satellite channels (DirecTV even had a special channel that just looped them continuously) to show what amounts to a series of 10-minute ads for BMW.
In a related vein, DaimlerChrysler is shopping a series of films which were entered into a competition. Apparently, they had a contest where owners of Chryslers could send in homemade films featuring their cars for a prize. Some of the entries were good enough, in DC's estimation, to warrant packaging them into a series.
Re:BMW Films (Score:2)
Re:BMW Films (Score:2)
I saw that one. What was it again??? ``James", something? No, no, no... It was, something, ``Bond".
God's Machine? (Score:3, Insightful)
Um OK. So we now equate God with an fancy, glorified VCR. Terrific.
I'm not religious or anything, but the only tech that I'd even come close to calling God's Machines are those that save or improve the quality of lives. Like artifical organs, medical equipment. For me, even the simple concept of an ambulance is about 10,000 orders of magnitude above a Tivo.
Not just human life. Any life.
Re:God's Machine? (Score:2)
Um OK. So we now equate God with an fancy, glorified VCR. Terrific.
No, you missunderstand. He calls it "God's machine" because God is the only one who is exempt from copyright violation meaning he is the only one who can use it leagally.
Once The MPAA gets a law closing the "Analog Hole" they intend to work on getting a law to close the "God Hole". PIRACY MUST BE STOPPED!
-
Re:God's Machine? (Score:3, Funny)
God doesn't need an ambulance. (Imagine Kirk asking: "What does God want with an ambulance?") Got snaps his fingers, and whatever patient he feels like working on, will be on his operating table. God's ambulance is up on blocks, rusting on His lawn.
But God does use a Tivo. It is hard to be everywhere at once, and it may be that sometimes God just can't make it, and despite the songs you've heard, He isn't always watching. But with time-shifting technology, he really can keep tabs on when your sleeping or awake. So be good, for goodness' sake!
TiVo Topic? (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Very little besides TiVo is interesting on this "television" that provides so-called "entertainment."
2) It'd be relatively easy to seperate the TiVo topics from under the "Television" heading, as they all have the uniquely-capped word in them.
3) Apparently every
Just my $.02
TiVo a weaning device? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, I've started wondering lately. Is the TiVo going to cut down on the TV I do watch?
I got my wife a TiVo for our anniversary last year. She LOVES it.
We spent the first while or three configuring the thing, then selecting all the shows we liked. We told it to record EVERYTHING, first runs and reruns. We spent hours a day watching it. We recently realized how much time we spent watching it. For 2 months, we spent 2-4 hours a weekday watching TV, and more on the weekend. It was entertaining, but there was more to life. Part of it was just getting through it so we would have the hard drive space (on an 80 hour unit) to not miss anything.
So, we pared it down to the TV shows we really enjoy, and first runs of those.
I'll be honest. We fast forward through the commercials. Not all of them, we actually stop, rewind and play ads that catch our eye with a visual joke or breathtaking nature view (or the like). Mostly those are for products, like a cola or a car or other tangible thing. I don't think we've ever stopped to watch a TV ad for a TV program. Which brings me to this observation: If we're not exposed to new shows, how will we decide what new shows to record? Will we just reach the point where the TiVo records a show a week that's requested? What happens when that's cancelled?
We don't watch TiVo's recommendations. They're just WAY off. TiVo may as well get paid to record episodes that the networks want us to see that we haven't specifically "thumbs downed" as far as I'm concerned, they're that relevant most days.
So, now we limit ourselves to an hour of TV a day. We see only the show or two that we really want to see, and nothing else. When the new season stops, will we bother to turn the TV on? I don't know. With Firefly and Birds of Prey going away, we may not bother.
So, here's my real question. If TiVo is going to help us find only shows we want to watch, are we going to get to the point where TiVo hasn't found any first runs that we want to watch? Will we then not turn the TV on every day? If we get to that point, will we eventually just forget that we have a TV?
I did a little write up on epinions [epinions.com] to describe the machine shortly after we got it because I didn't see many reviews on the TiVo 2. (If you're not into blatant plugs, don't click the link -- it's my write-up.)
This is a travesty (Score:2)
I'm being sarcastic, of course, but if Michael Powell starts opposing the DMCA, that might ALMOST get him off my shitlist.
What defines "inside my home"? (Score:5, Interesting)
I read the "TiVOGuard" portion of the press release. But it leaves me curious about how they determine the bounds of one's 'home'. Is this subnet masking or something that determines what IP addresses are inside my home? What if someone wants to designate their own weekend cottage or parents' home as shareable? Care to speculate?
Re:What defines "inside my home"? (Score:2)
Hey! Why is everyone laughing? STOP IT! Come on, guys... Stop laughing...
Re:What defines "inside my home"? (Score:2)
I bet they just correlate that in their DB.
Public/Private Key Encryption (Score:2)
I love it! When the *AA sues you for distributing copyrighted content, you can claim it's just a PBS program or a video you made. If they crack it, you can have the case thrown out(IANAL) and sue them for violating the DMCA.
built-in commercials (Score:2)
Interesting Idea (Score:2)
This gives me an idea. Perhaps we should start a fund to buy every member of Congress a TiVo or, preferably, a ReplayTV. If enough money is raised, perhaps one device for every member of the federal judiciary as well, at least the appellate level.
Apologies if this has been posted already, but I couldn't find it anywhere on here.
A Simple Plan, that's way too complicated. (Score:3, Insightful)
OT, but what the hey.... (Score:2)
Reality shows got their biggest boost over a decade ago, when the lower production costs (fewer actors & writers needed) of reality shows helped launch Cops and America's Most Wanted around the time of a writers' strike. Besides, I'd say "Survivor" was a lot more of a "reality" show than WWTBAM, which is just a game show. What made Millionaire so big was the stakes--it's a lot neater to see someone win mil for Trivial Pursuit-type questions than watch some braniac get $20k on Jeopardy or $5k for playing hangman on Wheel of Fortune.
2 things... (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. It started with the channel changer. Advertisers have survived a few decades of remotes, first with the ability to change channels during an ad, later with the VCR-granted ability to fly through them. Not to mention the old standbys--going to the bathroom or getting a snack. Yet we still get breaks filled with 30-second commercials, 6 times an hour. I don't think tivos will change the face of TV that much, even when cable & sat providers start making them standard. I still know a whole lot more people with regular cable than digital cable.
But he noted that advertisers were also responding by trying to make their commercials more entertaining. "Advertising is becoming art," he said. "You don't need it, but it's fun to look at."
Eactly. Advertisers just need to use their brains and make good stuff. I'd rather watch the $CAR ad with the guy licking the door handle, or the one where the guy unplugs to fridge so the food will spoil and they have to go to $RESTAURANT, than half the shows on TV. Note to Madison Avenue: You need to go beyond "Sunday, Sunday, SUNDAY!"
Re:Shoulda got the ReplayTV (Score:2)
Wrong Powell! You're thinking of General Colen
Powell, who is in no way shape or form involved with the FCC.
Re:Shoulda got the ReplayTV (Score:2, Interesting)
Michael Powell is Colin Powell's son.
Re:Shoulda got the ReplayTV (Score:2)
No, this is Michael Powell, of the Federal Communications Commission; not to be confused with Colin Powell, Secretary of State and former Army General. Pay attention.
Re:Why buy a Tivo at all? (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh. My TiVo is connected to my TV. When I'm at home, my iPod is connected to my stereo.
And it's quite easy to use.
Yes, I'm sure it passes the mom test quite handily. "Okay, Mom, all you have to do is log in, then go to 'Start,' 'Cyberlink,' 'PowerVCR II.' Okay? Then click this button here that looks like... well, okay, it kinda looks like the Devil's ATM machine. All right, click that and then select the file you want to watch. Like if I wanted to watch an 'Oprah' episode from two weeks ago, I'd just pick '4_CH4_11_16_10_7.0000.' Got it? Mom? Mom? Where ya goin', Mom? Mommy? Don't you love me any more, Mommy? Oh, Mommy, no!"