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"). "
automagic skipping (Score:5, Funny)
Re:automagic skipping (Score:2)
This is why I stay up all night and sleep through work ...
Re:automagic skipping (Score:2)
Re:automagic skipping (Score:2)
maybe im missing something... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:maybe im missing something... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:maybe im missing something... (Score:2)
Re:maybe im missing something... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:maybe im missing something... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:maybe im missing something... (Score:4, Insightful)
Cable stations often replace sections of advertisments with their own local ones. Some shows are repeated on different networks with different ads.
The show is a copyrighted work. The commercials are each individual copyrighted works. I'd keep typing, but you see where I'm going with this...
Re:maybe im missing something... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not 30 second skip that got them in trouble (Score:3, Informative)
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
It wasn't the 30 second skip that got RePlay in trouble, which is why the new RePlays (55xx) still have it, as do many VCR's. The older RePlays (50xx) had a feature called commercial skip, that by hitting a checkbox before playing the show would automatically skip commercials. It uses periods of fade to black to determine what it skips
I have
Re:maybe im missing something... (Score:5, Insightful)
First, I defer to any lawyers here and hope to hear any rebuttals they may have to the following. Just having completed a copyright course (and thus having a little dangerous knowledge), I offer the following:
Copyright subsists at fixation (17 USC 102), so, as another poster noted, the shows and commercials are obviously separately copyrighted. If the shows are then fixed with commercials interposed, then a copyright would also presumably exist for the compliation of the shows and commercials. This is likely not how it is done as it would seem that the commercials would be served from a separate source in real time. If this is true, the channel stream viewed by the user would not necessarily have a copyright as a compliation. On the other hand, I would expect, if determination of the order and identity of the shows and interposed commercials is done by a file, the file would be copyrightable and thus protectable. [This follows from a case we studied on the Duke Nukem game in which so-called "MAP" files which had no graphics but which controlled the display of library graphics were basically held copyrightable.]
I think this doesn't matter, however. It is a well-known copyright tenet that derivative works are not created by unfixed alterations of performances/displays. For example, if you hold up pink cellophane in front of a television to make everything appear pink, you have not created a derivative work (the pinkified work was not fixed in any physical medium), although photographing the result would. This example was from Judge Kosinski (spelling?) of the 9th Circuit in the Duke Nukem case referenced previously. This is also why people with sunglasses aren't sued for creating derivative works of everything they see. So, blacking out commercials or skipping them would seem to clearly not create a derivative work.
The most likely way for broadcasters to prevent commercial skipping would seem to be under some form of moral rights. Moral rights protects against mutilation or unauthorized modification of works of art. However, first, the broadcasters would have to prove a television broadcast was a work of art, which seems unlikely (I mean, the shows in combination with commercials interposed). Second, in the US, at the federal level at least, protection of visual works does not extend to movies or television (see the definition of visual art under 17 USC 101). So this fails as well.
Well, (Score:3, Interesting)
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 mig
MythTV (Score:5, Informative)
Re:MythTV (Score:3, Interesting)
state of commercials (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:state of commercials (Score:2)
You mean, they will be ubiquitous and annoying? Welcome to the future, my friend!
Re:state of commercials (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:state of commercials (Score:3, Insightful)
- Serge
I don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
"Technically, the maximum volume is the same for commercials and normal programming. If you watch the audio levels on a VU meter you will see that they peak at around the same level.
The difference is that advertisers make use of various tricks to make the commercials seem louder. Whereas a TV program will have a range of audio levels, commercials do tend to be full-on noisy. Tricks such as compression are also used to maintain constantly "louder" levels and try to attract attention.
So it's mainly a perceptual thing. Although the commercials don't reach a high volume, the way they are made gives the impression that they are louder."
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
Potentially commercials can have a higher average volume.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
If these devices are smart enough to scan ahead and split the previously-recorded broadcast into segments based on average volume, then it might work. But if they're just trying to detect the "edge" where the volume goes from low to high, it won't.
They're probably doing the former though
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
So by checking the variation in dynamic range of the sound the software is able to guess that some part of the recording is a commercial.
I believe this is the main method used to detect commercials.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
TiVo also has fast-forward, and when you stop fast-fowarding, it jumps backwards a few seconds because it knows you hit the button one second too late.
But I have no idea how the automatic commercial skip of ReplayTV works. I'm pretty sure it is more sophisticated than just skipping ahead 30 seconds. So mod me "+1 informative" and "-1 doesn't
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
It's a trick! There is no "doesn't know what he's talking about" moderation! Karma whore! Karma whore! :)
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Sure it does (from the TiVo Community forums):
While playing a recorded show, press Select, Play, Select, 3, 0, Select. You should hear some kind of beeping confirmation tones at the end. The ->| button will then function as a 30-sec skip instead of it's normal function.
Another feature I didn't know about is you can sort the now playing list:
Sorting the Now Playing List (3.0)
In Now Playing, Enter:
(S)low (0)Zero (R)ecord (T)humbsUp
Press enter to switch sorting options.
short cut keys are
1 for normal
2 for experation date
3 for alphabetical
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't use time. The commercials can be any length. It seems to be about 90% effective (with the latest software update, it used to be worse). So while Im watching a show, it almost always skips ahead at the correct time (when the commercial starts) but 10% of the time it will either start about 10 seconds before the commericals end, or 5-10 seconds into the show (in which case, I curse, then use the goback button (whatever its called) that automatically goes back seven (I think) seconds.
Its a neat feature, and it seems like it sometimes works better on some shows than others. For instance, I always had a problem with it working with X-files more than say, Family guy.
Black screen is the trigger (Score:2)
My old VCR used the completely black screens that preceed the commercial and the resumption of the show.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
I might be false... (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
Basically, it involves the folding of time and space; each 30 second skip acutally moves you forward in time 30 seconds. The time is then reclaimed at 2 am while you are sleeping, so you are basically unaware that you are 30 seconds ahead of everyone else (except that, if you talk on the phone to someone outside of your home, you can answer questions before they've been asked).
Unfortunately, y
Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Informative)
While a DVR is recording (a VCR with the feature typically has to scan the program after taping to mark the commercials), it looks for a pattern of "fade-to-blacks". Just before each commercial, and just before the program resumes, there is typically a 1/10-3/10ths of a second black fade that "frames" each commercial (you'll notice it readily once you know to look for it). The DVR will lo
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
How long before advertisers demand that there is a fade do white (or blue) instead to bypass such mechanisms?
Flawed business model? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Flawed business model? (Score:2, Insightful)
Trust me when I say that I hate commercials as much as the next person. The does not mean that networks are in the wrong fo
Re:Flawed business model? (Score:4, Insightful)
THIEF!!!
I'll bet that you even have a pop-up blocker installed on your computer, you evil bastard.
Re:Flawed business model? (Score:2)
In fact, when I do read the newspaper, I read many of the advertisements, because many of the ads are promoting sales & discounts on stuff I want to buy.
Your counter-argument is flawed. You aren't compelled to watch TV commercials; you can record a TV show on a VCR and fast-forward through a commercial. The same goes for newspapers. Don't like an ad, turn the page. The ad-revenue model is based upon the assumption that an ad will
Re:Flawed business model? (Score:3, Interesting)
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. Sur
Re:Flawed business model? (Score:2)
They have the right to force you to sit through the commericals?
>For the life of me I can't figure out where people believe they should get TV for free.
Because we naturally rather have it for free?
Re:Flawed business model? (Score:2)
They provide us with programming and they hope we watch the commercials. When the government gives a company the right to use a chunk of the airwaves or to create a monopoly (in the case of cable TV), they don't guarantee the company that the people receiving the broadcasts will tune into any particular part of a broadcast.
What makes you think they don't have a right to make money but you have the right to watch free TV?
If the
Re:Flawed business model? (Score:2)
Re:Flawed business model? (Score:2)
Re:Flawed business model? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can change channels when a show jumps to commercials, I can mute the sound when a show jumps to commercials, I can even video tape a show and watch it at a later time - as many times as I like to. Because presentation is different from copyright. I can re-present a copyrighted work to myself, if I have an authorized copy of it. I am not licensed to watch a copyrighted broadcast work - there are no limits on how I may use it, as long as I don't break copyright law.
Read that again - there are no limits on how I may use it, as long as I don't break copyright law.
I am under no obligation to buy all of the advertised products. I am under no obligation to give due consideration to the advertised products. I am under no obligation to pay attention to the advertised products. I am under no obligation to watch the products be advertised. Even though, if I were to do all of those things, it would make the broadcast business more successful, and those reasons are in fact the only reason why the business is providing a broadcast television signal.
McDonalds could hire a guy to stand in a Hamburgler suit, and hand out $1 bills to everyone that walks into the restaurant. They are legally allowed to give things away for free. They can expect people to notice that they're giving away something for free. They can expect people to buy more of what they're selling, because they've given away something for free. But the people have no legal obligation to notice, or to buy the products!
It's advertising! Even the television program itself is advertisement for the products in the commercials. "Notice me! Buy this!" Certain forms of advertising are illegal - false advertising comes to mind. But as long as consumers obey copyright, they are allowed to do anything they want to with the advertisements! They provide me with a free product, broadcast television, and they hope that I'll watch the commercials. A car company could give away free cars, loaded with 10% off coupons for McDonalds. If I don't sign any contracts, then I am under no license, there are no limits on my use of their free product, and I don't have to drive their car to freaking McDonalds. If they program the car to automatically drive to McDonalds, then I can chose not to use the car - but under the DMCA, I am prohibited from tampering with the device, and I must merely accept what it does - drive me to McDonalds - as long as that causes me no harm. I may not personally like that law, but it is the law.
It doesn't matter that you're correct that if people completely ignored advertising, that "free" publications would go away. They have no legal protection that their business practice of giving away something free will always result in increased sales. They're relying on psychology, that repeated presentation increases the perceived desirability of a product. They're using your mind against you. I can use my remote control against them.
Everything has an associated cost somewhere unless those doing it are not getting paid.
They are giving away something for free, and they hope that you'll be tricked into buying their products. They're chosing the cost of giving away something for free - I am not accepting the responsibility to pay them. If I signed an agreement saying that I would watch commercials in exchange for video programming, then they would have a legal right to force me to watch their commercials - it's a contract, and both parties profit - I get TV, and they get me to do what they want - watch their commercials.
I HAVE SIGNED NO CONTRACT. THEY'RE HANDING OUT FREE GOODS. THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO MAKE ME WATCH THEIR COMMERCIALS.
Re:Flawed business model? (Score:4, Insightful)
div_2n: If you are viewing their network programming they do. They provide you with programming for the low price of watching commercials.
That is saying that "they [have] a right to force you to watch commercials." There is no price for the consumer associated with watching broadcast television. The television station is providing something for free - that means with no price. Not a low price as you indicate, but with no price.
"Expect" is a dangerous phrase when you start talking about law, div_2n. There's the conversational usage, which means something akin to, "I believe," and there's the legal definition which is much closer to "I am entitled to." They may believe that they can make money from giving away a free product, but they have no entitlement to that money. They have done nothing which guarantees (or entitles) them to profit. They have chosen to give away something for free, and can have no expectations beyond the protection of their rights, which are limited almost exclusively to those of being copyright holders over the material that they broadcasted.
Don't get so defensive about your rights.
Don't post stupid comments. Like this one. If you didn't want to engage in a conversation, then you shouldn't have posted. When you attack personal rights, people get defensive.
I don't have a right to free TV, you are correct. But if free TV is made available to me, then I am WELL within my rights to use it within the bounds of the law. For instance, not watching the freaking commercials. Or buying a product that helps me not watch the commercials.
They could expect revenue (different from profit), if I had agreed to terms, including providing something (like watching commercials), in return for that service being provided. I HAVE NOT AGREED TO ANY TERMS. I am making use of a free product. They cannot expect any revenue from that. They have no rights in this conversation, other than as granted them by copyright law.
Don't get so defensive of the profit motive of multi-billion-dollar corporations. My rights are far more important than their profits.
Re:Flawed business model? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think anyone thinks that commercials should disappear. It's a matter that networks have made commercials monumentally annoying, and are willing to put the extra effort into skipping them because of that annoyance.
Additionally, I don't think you'll find that people are complaining that over-the-air broadcasts should be commercial-free, but you could certainly say that cable/satellite TV should be, since you are paying a few dollars for each station, per-person, per month.
Also, programming is getting crappier (no nostalga here, it really is much crappier) and if you had to tolerate the nasty commercials, it wouldn't be worth watching. Networks should consider these boxes their saviors, otherwise nobody would be willing to watch their stations, and nobody would then be paying their providers and keeping the stations on the air.
Right now, stations are so terrible that the market is ripe for the picking. Put on a handful of decent station, decent content, and non-iritating commercial, and you'd take-over. Unfortunately, stations that seemed to be doing that (eg. Bravo) got swallowed up by big companies with other annoying channels (eg. NBC/Time Warner) who don't want people to have an alternative.
No then, I'd be more than happy to pay a few bucks for each commercial-free channel I recieved, but I don't have that option. I strongly dislike the programming on HBO/Showtime and even if I didn't cable companies want too much money, and don't offer them without $40++ basic service as well.
So, I'm disgusted with the whole thing, and there doesn't seem to be much alternative out there. If things get much worse, I'll just cancel my cable service, and invest that money in upgrading my netflix service.
Re:Flawed business model? (Score:2)
I'd love to be able to pay only for the 4 channels I care to watch so I could see them commercial free.
Or for that matter, I'd like to be able to pay for each show that I watch and get it commercial free and in DVD quality (many old reruns are so highly compressed that the MPEG or whatever compression artifacting is very distracting).
Re:Flawed business model? (Score:2)
If they are no longer profitable, the service disappear. So, without national broadcasting, you have to protect them, in the interest of the public.
Note: I don't believe half what I just wrote, but it could be an explanation.
30 second skip vs vcr commercial skip (Score:2)
Re:30 second skip vs vcr commercial skip (Score:2, Informative)
For me, it works most of the time. The times it doesn't is typically during shows with a lot of black gaps like 24 and Law & Order.
Re:30 second skip vs vcr commercial skip (Score:2)
That was the way it used to be, but they recently updated the software to "automagically" sense the end of a commercial block while your hitting the skip button and it stops (the skip icon changes in the corner of your screen to let you know that it has sensed the end of the block). It works correctly about 90% of the time too.
Advertising "product placement" (Score:5, Insightful)
Looking forward to seeing bart's room covered in butterfinger wrappers.
Re:Advertising "product placement" (Score:2)
Re:Advertising "product placement" (Score:2)
Perhaps they realize that all the Star Trek geeks have TiVo and are skipping the commercials.
I hope this doesn't become a trend. Having my favorite character on "Friends" holding a Diet Squirt is fine withe me. Having a big can of Diet Squirt appear in the corner of the screen and bounce around wo
Commercials are ok - once (Score:5, Insightful)
If a commercial / ad actually imparts information or entertainment value, then I enjoy and look forward to it, the first couple times. Too many commercials
It is unfortunate that advertisers believe (and possibly rightfully so) that consumers are more likely to purchase a product if they are repeatedly exposed to an ad that does not actually provide information about the product, but instead annoys the heck out of them due to content or frequency of occurrence.
Much like elections, it usually comes down to name recognition.
Car ads (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Car ads (Score:2)
IANAAE (I am not an ad exec) BUT, I'd augue that product awareness is exactly correct. Ever buy a car, new or used, and all of a sudden you start to notice that SO many other people have one, when you've never noticed before? Yeah. It's like that. If you don't notice the product rea
Re:Car ads (Score:2)
Re:Car ads (Score:4, Insightful)
How often would you think about buying a new car if you never saw a car commercial?
Re:Car ads (Score:3, Interesting)
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 t
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Commercials are ok - once (Score:3, Interesting)
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 b
Re:Commercials are ok - once (Score:3, Insightful)
When Coke was doing their blind product testing for New Coke, people liked the new recipe and Coke thought they were onto something. But a lot of people liked the original Coke because of those impressions - it reminded them of their first kiss, or going somewhere with their parents, etc.
When the formula changed, some people lost their connection to those impressions and declared that they didn't like the new formula - even if they picked it as a preference in a blind test. The
Skipping ads is nice, but .... (Score:3, Insightful)
Commercial skipping is nice nonetheless, although I'm not sure how useful automatic skipping is; I'e never tried it. TiVo also has the ability to skip 30-second chunks of shows. Just start playing something from "Now Playing." Press Select-Play-Select-3-0-Select. You'll hear 3 "dings." Now when you press the "jump-to-live" button, you'll skip 30 seconds at a time. You have to repeat this procedure if the TiVo gets rebooted.
What's with extra commercials anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, on pay television and free to air, I'm seeing 8-12 advertisements in each slot, and massive amounts of the shows I watch being cut out. Last time I watched X-Files (only because I know it used to be 43 minutes per episode when first shown) the entire show was cut down to 35 minutes. that's eight minutes of the show I want to watch gone, and over 80 advertisements.
Now. What's the difference? What's so pricey nowadays that requires so many advertisements constantly?
Pricey reality television shows. blah.
Re:What's with extra commercials anyway? (Score:2)
Re:What's with extra commercials anyway? (Score:2, Interesting)
Shareholders ?
Re:What's with extra commercials anyway? (Score:2)
Re:What's with extra commercials anyway? (Score:5, Informative)
That amount of time is a good justification to actively skip commericals.
Re:What's with extra commercials anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
And they have the gall to wonder why nobody is watching TV anymore. Most ads on the internet can be skipped as soon as you are done viewing them. Sometimes on a slow connection, even before. Funny how nobody is rushing out to buy a digital TV set. They are fighting over the b
Friends (Score:3, Informative)
That's $6 mill per, by my math. That'll certainly up the costs of TV these days. Ask a TV actor from the 80s if they made even 1/10th of that.
Well send out the FBI to collect me... (Score:2)
Even worse I don't even have any form of broadcast/cable/sat television signal coming into my home at all.
Horrors! I must be some sort of terrorist freak since I prefer to spend my time reading books. Were it not for my DVD collection and my PS2 I'd not even have a TV in the house.
Send out the FBI! Notify the NSA! Wake u
NOT the end of commercials (Score:3, Insightful)
Subtle and not so subtle product placements [foxnews.com] will ensure that we continue to see advertising every time we watch TV, despite our best efforts.
I suggest listening to public streaming radio [radio.cbc.ca] (in ogg format no less) as a wonderful alternative to the tripe Madison avenue continues to shove down your throat.
Unless you like tripe. [tripesite.com] Whatever floats your boat.
The big red button (Score:2)
Identifying Commercials 101 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Identifying Commercials 101 (Score:3, Interesting)
I want auto skip back!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I want auto skip back!!! (Score:2)
For the children my ass.
You want it back for yourself (!) so you can be lazy and let the television raise your children for you. The real solution to your problem is to not leave your children in front of the television alone, and to have them watch public television.
Are you completely blind to the fact that childrens shows these days *are* the advertising? Look around your house. How many TV show related dolls or action figures do you have? How will auto-skipping the commercials fix that?
Also
Skipping Overt Ads Will Lead To Covert Marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
Disney owns ABC, ESPN and the Discovery Channel. How often on ESPN does one see "the stars" of that great new hit on ABC? How often does ABC tout programs on ESPN? And now, Discovery is in the act too, offering us "documentaries" on the magic behind Disney World in Orlando. And of course, who owns Disney World? Disney.
Films made by Sony's studios almost always feature Sony equipment when a given character is using his or her PC. Also, the word "SONY" is often in huge black letters on the rear of a monitor, even though they aren't usually so prominent on the products shipped to Joe Consumer from the factory.
Add to that the PAID product placements like Coca-Cola being drunk by a given character. There are many of those.
And finally, the grand-daddy of product advertising discguised as content: NASCAR. Each car is festooned with no less than twenty different sponsors, starting with the make and model of the auto being raced (even they have exactly one part in common with their street version: the roof panel) plus the major sponsor of the driver, plus the minor sponsor plus all the super-minor sponsors not the least of which is NACAR itself. The whole race is a rotating advertisement, one which the competitors are trying not only to beat each other but also to gain the most exposure time for their sponsors. A higher position on the track means more "impressions" for the sponsors on the viewers. Best of all, when a driver is interviewed, he thanks 1) God 2) his crew and of course his sponsors for painting his "Folger's/Viargra/Ford/Taurus" in their colors. The entire event is, in short, an ad.
That's direction we're headed. Like death, taxes and Microsoft security flaws, one simply cannot avoid marketing. It's simply more malleable than are the viewers or listeners of a given content.
Re:Skipping Overt Ads Will Lead To Covert Marketin (Score:2)
How it works (Score:3, Informative)
Act now! (Score:2)
At least they have a sense of humor!
We've been slashdot'ed! Woo hoo! Get $10 off Beyond TV and Beyond TV Kits (with tuner card). Buy Beyond TV for as low as $49.99! Simply use coupon code "slashdot2003" to redeem this special offer. (posted 12/30/2003)
Pick from one of the items below:
The very reason I love my ReplayTV (Score:2)
1. Automatic Commercial skips WORKS. (It works best when a show has "bumpers".)
2. Networking...with DV Archive I can offload shows onto unlimited drive space and/or burn to DVD.
3. Component video...yes I know the source is only S-Video, but there is an unquestionable increase in quality. I have both s-video and component outs hooked up, and there IS a difference.
I also prefer t
Better yet... (Score:2)
Another reason why I love my MythTV (Score:5, Informative)
I cannot emphasize just how cool this project is - it has all the features you'd expect from a modern DVR, and many more besides. It's open-source and immensely configurable. For example:
I also decided I'd like to be able to transfer recorded programs to my machine at work and watch them there, so I hacked up a little script to re-encode them at 100kbps, and added a "Watch Now" link to the MythWeb HTML web interface.
The other day my wife was complaining that the fonts on the screen were too small, so I tweaked the XML configuration file to bump them up a bit.
Thanks to LIRC, I can pretty much use any remote I like to control the box. I'm using an ancient, spare TV remote right now, and I can map the buttons whichever way I like.
It'll also optionally rip DVDs and CDs, enabling you to play them from the hard drive. It will also play pretty much any video file you have (through MPlayer). If I want to show the wife a movie trailer that I've downloaded from the internet, I just copy it over to the MythTV box, and she can watch it on the television.
Let's see you do all *that* with a Tivo!
SpamAssassin-style comercial skipping? (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The blackout interval. Sometimes though, like on Frasier there's blackouts during the program.
2. The audio levels
3. Closed captioning. Are commercials closed captioned? I haven't goofed off with CC settings for a while. My advent tv seems to have several of them.
4. network bug detection.
Perhaps using a combination of the 4 above can do perfect commercial skippage. Then have it make a small database of which times it skipped commercials a day/week before to give it a general guideline on when to do it again.
Take your anti-spam tech and use it towards tv commercials.
I used to work in a TV studio (Score:3, Informative)
Of course this rarely happened due to the fact that college kids were running the place as interns and there was a *lot* of screwing up..
Anyway, I had been working on a circuit that would monitor the video stream for the fade to black and would mute the volume automagically on live TV. (This was about 20 years ago though.)
You would be amazed at the information that's encoded into a video stream that you can't see without special equipment. It's neat as hell. We used to send stuff out, like text messages in the VBI that only other techs could get. The FCC would have shit if they had known what was going on back then..
Anway, The point is that you can design circuits that KNOW (or are supposed to know) when commercials start and end and take action based on that. But it's not fool proof, it depends on the broadcaster sticking to the rules, and they rarely do...
Automatic skipping shouldn't have been illegal (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Commercial skipping? (Score:3, Funny)
The only solution for commercials - trailers (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:More intelligence needed (Score:3, Insightful)
It worked! (Score:2)
Re:Commercial skipping (Score:2)