NBC Activates Broadcast Flag 430
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "NBC activated the 'broadcast flag' on a number of shows this week, ranging from American Gladiator to Medium, which prevented compliant programs like Windows Media Center from recording them. The matter is being 'looked into,' but that doesn't tell us whether it was an accident or a ploy to see how outraged viewers would be at being stripped of the time-shifting rights they've enjoyed ever since Sony v. Universal. Just in case it's the latter, it wouldn't hurt to let them know what you think."
The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether the flag was set on purpose or not, it indicates that any system paying any attention to it is broken.
Time shifting was ruled many years ago as an allowed privilege. That doesn't change when the broadcaster says they don't want it any more (remember who brought the court case to try and ban it? The broadcasters). It certainly doesn't change when your computer decides to deny you that ability.
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
We still have a vote.
We can vote with our dollars & stop watching NBC. Get your shows from alternate sources like DVDs. When NBC Broadcasting sees its ratings drop to 1.0% of the nation, then maybe it will wake-up (or go out of business). THE PEOPLE hold the power to kill corporations. They just need to learn to exercise that power.
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
if they block the recording
i will admit.. while my wife when she watchs stuff alwasy fastforwards through ads.. personaly the TV is back ground noise to what ever i am doing
Not many people CAN boycott NBC (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the studio makes money by selling broadcast rights to the network, which makes money by selling advertising. Studios and networks are separate entities, though they're sometimes owned by the same parent company. Note that all of Joss Whedon's shows have been produced through Fox, but only one of them aired on the Fox Network.
If NBC puts a broadcast flag on a show that wasn't produced by NBC-Universal and you decide to buy the DVD
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to be missing the whole point of a boycott.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We can vote with our dollars & stop watching NBC. Get your shows from alternate sources like DVDs. When NBC Broadcasting sees its ratings drop to 1.0% of the nation, then maybe it will wake-up (or go out of business). THE PEOPLE hold the power to kill corporations. They just need to learn to exercise that power.
Three things.
1: 99% of the country does not care what you think, and will not give a rat's ass if NBC sets the "broadcast flag", the "liberal flag" the "1984! flag", or the "evil bit." If their Tivo or DVR breaks, they'll blame the manufacturer -- who should be able to patch their box to allow time shifting lickety split.
1a: So, the ONLY people who care about the broadcast flag are folks using Windows Media Player to record TV? Is there ANYONE like that?
2: You cannot kill a corporation. At best, you can
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Interesting)
At least, that's what the law used to say, before the DMCA case against DeCSS confirmed that software for decoding someone's video obfuscation scheme is an illegal "circumvention device". I'd like to know whether a court thinks that "removes or ignores broadcast flag" would be a similarly illegal property for a consumer device to have, but I suspect that the threat alone will persuade many PVR manufacturers to avoid pushing the issue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Try using that defense after selling a DVR with an HD tuner that ignores the flag.
However, it does *NOT* mean that networks cannot implement measures, such as the Broadcast Flag, that prevent you from time-shifting.
The problem is that it isn't the networks implementing these measures - but the FCC. It is illegal to manufacture a DVR that does not respect the fla
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:4, Informative)
Xesdeeni
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, today NBC and Universal are both owned by General Electric [ge.com], so their interests are now aligned in a way that was legally impossible in 1976. Now that we've abolished the "financial interest [museum.tv]" rules, the sharp divisions between content and conduit in US television have dissolved.
How do someone a get a "+4, Informative" when the information being presented is wrong?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course someone was going to shoot the damn thing!
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
Good thing I use Super VHS VCRs for my recording. Good old analog technology... it just works & says "bah" to digital no-record flags. (Ditto my analog cassettes ignoring digital radio's no-record flags.) I can record whatever I want off NBC or XM or HD Radio.
It's gotta suck though for digital users. You want to tape a show in the middle of the day (say, Oprah) or night (Letterman), but you can't because of that stupid flag. Therefore that show loses time-shifting viewers. NBC == "Stupido" (to borrow from NBC's cousin Telemundo).
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Informative)
There are digital capture cards that predate the broadcast flag, as well. They're just hard to find.
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.pchdtv.com/
(if you run Linux!)
Don't get too smug - remember Macrovision? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Remember Macrovision eliminators?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, they are aware of the Analog issue.
What you, and everyone else, needs to do is tell this to all the people you know who like to watch movies and record on their device and right a nice but firm letter to all your federal reps telling them why this is bad.
Contrary to what a
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/04/aacs-key-revocation-future-drm [eff.org]
They did design TVs like that. The technology is in every modern computer processor, every modern television, every set top box. This isn't just about preventing recording. You can use this to revoke playback rights after something has been recorded. Like a news program that leaks information embarrassing to the government, for example.
Oh, and those TVs that you'd rather buy? The ones that don't have this technology? They're illegal to manufacture and illegal to sell. You'll have to build your own or smuggle them into the country if you want one.
Whatever... (Score:4, Insightful)
Heroes is even worse (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Whatever... (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe they're trying to lose even more viewers by not letting these viewers tape their programs. How brilliant. Attract more customers by treating them like crap. Reminds me of RIAA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they're trying to lose even more viewers by not letting these viewers tape their programs. How brilliant. Attract more customers by treating them like crap. Reminds me of RIAA.
It's funny how with commercial TV the product always thinks it's the customer. Unless you pay NBC to receive their programming, they couldn't care less if you watch it timeshifting and ad-skipping, or if you choose not to watch it at all. They're after eye balls watching the ads. That's the product they offer to their customers.
Re:Whatever... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is one of those situations where it actually makes sense to root for free-market capitalism.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
TLC used to be good but it's turned into a frickin' reality show channel. (at least they stopped making insert dumb idea here story shows. Baby story, wedding story, ugh. What, we don't know how weddings happen!?)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I stopped watching TV about ten years ago. I had spent a year and a half in South Korea on non-stop field exercises in the Army and then was honorably discharged and shipped back to the US. After being away from any TV for so long, I found that I just couldn't stand to sit in front of the box idly staring at it. It really bugged me on a fundamental level to see how it panders to the lowest common denominator of society. I never looked back.
Occasionally a friend will recommend a particularl
Re:Going Green (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you'll be able to focus on what's REALLY important...
From the site: (Score:5, Insightful)
Well well, another reason NOT to use Vista MCE. If you simply ignore a broadcast flag this only annoys people who pay for commercial software. I, on the other hand, couldbuild a MythTV box without any problems whatsoever
Re: (Score:2)
Re:From the site: (Score:5, Insightful)
It does seem ridiculous when any form of security is built around proprietary software telling you what you can and can't do.
If timeshifting is a court-granted right, then a broadcaster saying you can't do it and a recording system believing them should be plenty of evidence that it's time to change to a system you control.
There have been many cases of this recently, but essentially it's the Alice/Bob/Charlie situation - Alice wants to send Bob some data, without Charlie getting it. The problem with ANY form of DRM is that Bob and Charlie are the same person.
If Vista refuses to record it cos it's told not to by the broadcaster ("Oh, uh, I'm Bob, right? I can watch this! No, hold on, who am I? Charlie? They say I'm Charlie, so I must be! I'm not letting you see it!"), then from the user's perspective it's broken.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:From the site: (Score:5, Insightful)
Then it's a good thing for broadcasters that time shifting is not a "court-granted right." For that, you'd have to assume A implies B is equivalent to B implies A. The specific case of record television shows to watch later does not violate copyright laws. That does not mean that broadcasters have to make the recording of television shows easy or even possible. Timeshifting is merely a legally valid excuse for what would normally be considered copyright infringement. The court has granted you no rights forcing timeshifting to be made available.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I like how you think, friend, but..
If a tool is primarily intended for legal time-shifting, and th
Re:From the site: (Score:5, Insightful)
US Courts don't grant rights. They only affirm that we do or do not have a right.
The Constitution was written with "implicit allow" rules for citizens and "implicit deny" for government.
Over the years people have lost sight of this fact and that has been seized upon those in a position of power. The average citizen now believes if a right isn't listed in the Constitution, they don't have it aka "implicit deny". Even worst they think the government has an "implicit allow" aka they are without bounds.
Re:From the site: (Score:5, Informative)
I asked 6 friends that did have those Media Centers and all of them were able to record it just fine.
Sounds like it only affects the DRM special from microsoft.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Only Vista DRM has a problem (Score:5, Informative)
http://thegreenbutton.com/forums/45/262419/ShowThread.aspx [thegreenbutton.com]
Re:Only Vista DRM has a problem (Score:5, Funny)
Furthermore, if you can record a flagged broadcast with XP or TiVo you should probably file a complaint that this software is circumventing the DRM and failing to manage your digital rights properly.
Ironic timing (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore, if you can record a flagged broadcast with XP or TiVo you should probably file a complaint that this software is circumventing the DRM and failing to manage your digital rights properly.
Priceless. :-)
Ironically, here in the UK, the front of today's Guardian Technology section has a full-page story on how pretty much anyone who is anyone is dropping DRM as fast as they can open their fingers. Among other things, it cites research showing that shows DRM has no impact on piracy levels (and makes the obvious but rarely stated observation that this means DRM is just annoying legitimate customers), and mentions several major on-line music distributors who are already offering DRM-free tracks or have definite plans to do so later this year. Apparently the market has a different view on how it would like its digital rights managed than Microsoft do...
Re:Ironic timing (Score:5, Insightful)
- "Banning guns doesn't stop criminals from owning guns."
- Using DRM doesn't stop criminals from owning illegal copies.
Illegal ownerships still continues amongst the criminals who know how to circumvent the law/crack the code, so all you've accomplished is piss-off your legitimate customers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at alcohol prohibition. Did it work? No, the people just created underground, black-market speakeasys. How about drug prohibition? Nope, people still get the drugs they want. Gun prohibition? Nope people get their hands on guns for hunting or self-defense. Copy prohibition (DRM)? Nope, people crack the code and get what they want.
THAT was my point.
It's a fruitless and pointless effort to try & block people.
Easy fix (Score:3, Insightful)
If you use software you have no control over it just suits you right to get shafted once in a while by it.
Vote with your money.
Re:Easy fix (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mr. Rogers is crying. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mr. Rogers is crying. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Mr. Rogers is crying. (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably wont be a popular thing to say but back in the VCR days the stakes were a lot lower than they are today. It didn't matter so much back then because the tape of the show inherently couldn't travel very far and there was inherent pain in stripping out or fast forwarding through the commercials, to they were mostly for fair use.
In the digital and Internet age, most people might record for fairly benign fair use purposes, but some people are going to record, strip the commercials, put the shows on the Internet and undermine the business model under which TV networks currently function.
Me personally I'm not sure I can think of any content NBC produces I would actually want to watch or record, let alone post on the Internet, its not like they have a Daily Show or Colbert report. To counter my own argument John Stewart and Stephen Colbert seem to do OK encouraging free Internet trafficking in their shows but thats because their shows are A. wildly popular and B. cheap to produce.
Here is a question for all the Slashdot crowd that want all their media freed from the man. Do you want to watch content that actually costs a lot to produce, you know with writers, actors, sets. This would mean pretty much anything beyond game shows and reality TV. If so how do you expect the producers to pay for them? The options are pretty limited. One model depends on you watchings ads, and unfortunately its fairly rare for people to actually want to watch ads outside of the Super Bowl. If you let people strip the ads at a wholesale level the model doesn't work. Are you willing to pay a subscription fee for all content? Some people will pay for some content, its just wont work for most people and most content. What else is there? Shows which sucker you into voting or calling in for prizes and charge you on your phone bill? Do you want to just watch content mostly produced for free on YouTube, kind of entertaining and weird, but not exactly compelling drama?
Free network TV is a business model that is failing so desperation on the part of the networks is understandable. It worked when there were three networks, not many other mass market entertainment options and no digital recordings. Now there are so many channels diluting the market, and people are spending more time on the Internet and games. As a result ads don't produce as much revenue, so the networks counter by loading up shows with more and more of them in more obnoxious ways and try harder to force you to watch them. In turn they are annoying people more and more, causing a snowballing effect that will drive down their ratings and their revenue. If the networks allow people to rip the shows, cut the commercials, and post them on the Internet its inevitable more and more people will watch them there instead and further destroy any motivation to produce content in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the digital and Internet age, most people might record for fairly benign fair use purposes, but some people are going to record, strip the commercials, put the shows on the Internet and undermine the business model under which TV networks currently function.
The business model is that they (or their affiliates) get to use the airwaves which belong to the people as long as they are deemed to be acting "in the public interest". This allows selling a certain amount of advertising time to pay for operations and just like movie theaters show movies that the studios and not they make money on so that people will come in and buy popcorn, television stations show entertainment so that people are watching when they slip in the ads (which is what makes the ad time wor
Re:Mr. Rogers is crying. (Score:5, Insightful)
For (almost) everyone else in television, it's about greed.
Hence they hate giving anything away for free (like time-shifting).
If someone asked them to "Donate to the children's orphanage" they'd probably ask, "What's in it for me?"
Sad.
Stallman calls for freedom. Are we listening? (Score:5, Interesting)
Stallman can be hard to get along with at times, to be sure, but understanding his message doesn't require you to be his buddy and it should be harder than it is (judging by posts I've seen on so many discussion websites) to convince people to throw away their freedom in pursuit of some agenda set by business.
Typical (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in the days of Napster, I attended a "satellite" senate hearing on campus. Orrin Hatch, Sean Fanning, and two musicians were there. One musician was a local independent artist who said he had no problem with Napster, but had huge problems with the record companies. The other musician was the lead singer for the Byrds, and he testified that his concert attendance was up and a "whole new generation of fans" learned about his music through Napster.
Also there were a few small tech firms who gave overviews of how they intended to use P2P technologies and expressed their concern that legislation that targeted Napster would interfere with their business.
Orrin Hatch seemed to agree, nodded, smiled, even presented Fanning with a hat from the college bookstore. He closed with remarks like, "This is a complicated issue that needs more attention." And then promptly furthered his work to kill P2P and consumer rights.
Your anecdote about Mr. Rogers just contributes further evidence that what's happening here is not what the artists want and definitely not what the consumers want. It's the middlemen forcing something on both parties, limiting the reach of the artists and what consumers can do with the artists' work.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And my MythBox (Score:2)
Wonder how many new MythTV installs this event prompted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And my MythBox (Score:4, Interesting)
And, I'll take a regular analog tv that can be watched at my leisure over the clearest signal possible if the price is that I have no control of the content... thank you very much.
P.S. I have IPTV (in rural northern Minnesota... go figure). Myth records directly from the network, digital all the way.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I always like when higher-than-thou's make this point, it tickles me in a way. This guy falls into an especially large trap since the whole point of his post is that one method of delivery is better than another method.
TV, books, radio, newspapers, magazines, email, forums, websites... they are all media. They are all information. Only the delivery method is different. I watch very little news on tv, mostly get my news online or from the radio. My
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Back to the original topic: I for one hope that this is as big a mistake for the content providers as I think it is. Basically, someone just turned the heat up too quickly on the stove, and I want the frog to notice that the water's getting kinda hot.
Re: (Score:2)
With an existing MCE box, you can disable MCE, install MediaPortal or GBPVR in 12 minutes and be up and running without an OS change and less the recording system's DRM. Only drawback is you have to subscribe to schedules direct instead of getting the MSFT free feed.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't complain to NBC. (Score:5, Insightful)
Believe me, word will get back to NBC that it's not to their advantage to follow such tactics.
Exactly Right! (Score:3, Informative)
This is something activists have to learn: go after advertisers.
Just how easy is MythTV to install? (Score:4, Informative)
How easy? Impossible... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you only care about SD, and broadcast networks, sure. It's really easy.
I used to run MythTV for years, and loved it. But as soon as my signal provider moved to encrypted QAM, it became useless. I'm still patiently waiting for somebody to sell decryption device (PCI-E cableCARD slot?) so I can start using it again... But until then I went to an HD TiVo. The hardware is cheaper anyway, and the updates are automatic...
I want a quality flag (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Be sure to flash the correct signs to other American Gladiators so that they don't kill you for wearing the t-shirt.
Re:I want a quality flag (Score:5, Interesting)
The fun game atmosphere is gone, and now it's all hyper-competition and 'roid-fueled trashtalking. I would never have expected that basic sportsmanship was actually so integral to my enjoyment of this whimsical game. It's like going from little league softball to halo 3 team deathmatch teabagging.
Re:I want a quality flag (Score:5, Funny)
Same in Germany (Score:5, Informative)
According to company [dwdl.de] which runs the satellite signal, it was just an technical error.
Submarine restrictions: how can they be stopped? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing new about this. You can waste an awful lot of time reading contracts and discovering that you've agreed to obnoxious things... and that there's not an awful lot you can do about it because all the competitors have similar contracts... and that, surprise, surprise, the employee behind the car rental counter is not interested in striking out clauses and negotiating contracts with an individual customer with a line behind him.
What's new is the potential for cheap, automatic, mechanical enforcement at some later date.... and the consumer's inability to know the company's real intentions.
When you buy something with unenforced DRM you are truly buying a pig in a poke.
The free market can't operate in the absence of the buyer having reasonable information on what they're buying. In the case of unenforced DRM, that means not just the theoretical existence of restrictions, it means that companies should be required to disclose a policy on their intentions for future enforcement... a policy that must be included in the contract for the contract to be valid, and one which they can be held to in the future.
It should be use-it-or-lose-it. A company that fails to use automated restrictions for a long period of time, and has failed to disclose clearly its intention of using them in the future, ought to right to enforce them.
Contract law already covers this (Score:5, Informative)
You can waste an awful lot of time reading contracts and discovering that you've agreed to obnoxious things... and that there's not an awful lot you can do about it because all the competitors have similar contracts... and that, surprise, surprise, the employee behind the car rental counter is not interested in striking out clauses and negotiating contracts with an individual customer with a line behind him.
The interesting thing here is that contract law in most places already makes allowances for this sort of thing. There's even a legal term — contract of adhesion — describing standard contracts where there wasn't equal power for each party to negotiate on the details. Also, contracts generally require a meeting of minds, with both sides understanding what they are agreeing to; where this is not the case, courts can (and do) hold that unreasonable conditions are unenforceable.
In other words, it shouldn't be necessary to change the law to achieve what you want. If a contract of adhesion includes deceptive provisions that a typical person would be unlikely to agree to if they understood the implications, then it's already the case that courts might strike those provisions. You just need someone to bring the case.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Disclosure: The customer should be made aware of potential changes to their usage by the company. Even if every company does it, every company should disclose it, and I would think that a court would allow a customer to break out of a contract without contract termination penalty aside from the legal costs incurred(the amount of legal costs to the customer will vary depending on the company's temperament)
2) Understanding what is disclosed: 60 pages of fine
History Eraser Button (Score:4, Interesting)
LIES! (Score:4, Funny)
TV accelerating its own decline (Score:5, Insightful)
not supported (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Benefit of a doubt? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Benefit of a doubt? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Benefit of a doubt? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Benefit of a doubt? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Benefit of a doubt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:NBC? (Score:5, Informative)
It's this place where people watch programs interrupted by commercials at the time least convenient to them, and have to wait a whole week between episodes; instead of downloading them one season at a time and watching them whenever you want...
Re:NBC? (Score:5, Insightful)
It amazes me that people think that shows are the reason for the existence of TV stations, when really the whole broadcast system depends on hooking in enough people in order to get them to watch the commercials.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Interesting)
To make advertising pay, corporations need viewers to sit in front of the stupevision. "Entertainment" just has to keep you in your seat. If that means T&A shows, the "wide world of sports", live car accidents and one cartoon making fun of other cartoons, then so be it.
Whatever is cheapest to produce and easiest to recycle week after week to keep viewers in their seats is what stays on television.
This is not a perfect book, but reading it will make you t
The propaganda arm of General Electric.... (Score:3, Informative)
Also comes in handy for whitewashing their union-busting and environmental crimes, as well.
Re:These things are rarely accidental (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess it depends on whether you're a cynic like me, or an optimist that thinks corporations really care.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I timeshift everything. I don't watch any live TV. Even sporting events. Pause 'em for 20 minutes first, so I can skip the commercials and commentators (more annoying than the commercials).
Set the broadcast flag? Ok. I can't and won't watch your show. I'm not going to go watch it on your website, either. I have a big 47" HDTV for a reason. I don't want to watch a 320x240 version of a show in a tiny window on my computer.
The days of planting your ass on the couch and being a captive audience to on
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You just end up 1 season behind the people who are willing to wade through the eternal bog that is broadcast and cable television. It's home-grown ala-carte TV.
I can't tell you the last time I found something interesting by flipping channels, I've reverted solely to pre-recorded shows, and even that is still a PITA compared to watching a DVD.
Not that I would of course, but if you were so inclined, you could use HandBrake + MetaX
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It still sends the message that I prefer to watch things on my schedule rather than a
predefined one. It's a bit more noticable because the lack of a viewer is hard for them to measure, but an additional view on Hulu is easily registered. It's a satisfactory middle ground between watching in real-time and bittorrenting the show and then watching.
I don't mind the 15-30 second ads, I find them a reasonable exchange for my show and I even watch them since they're short enough that i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Do you people really care? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is easier to stop the sooner people react.
Like it or not, many people will be running media center.
To just quit watching as an answer is to stick your head in the sand. How about you DO something?
It's really not your palce to tell other people what they like is bad. It might not be bad to you, but they seem to enjoy it. TV is just a medium, like books. PBS and NOVA is on TV do you honestly think those are worse then reading fan fiction?
It's not the medium that matters.
A lot of people liked Buffy. I didn't, but that doesn't really matter.
No, I don't watch any broadcast TV. I don't like my kids being exposed to those damn commercials.
However we will probably get it soon. My son is having troubles relating to other kids when they talk about shark week. Initially you would think it wasn't a big deal, but the social aspects of communicating with your peers in grade school is not something that should be overlooked.
"It seems highly unlikely that content providers will absolutely block digital time shifting of THEIR property,"
They've wanted to to that for years, why should it being digital matter. Now that they realize that after market DVDs can be a huge money maker they ahve even MORE reason to block them.