It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TV Networks Say You're Breaking The Law When You Skip Commercials

page: 4
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by stumason
Also, for those claiming that there would be no TV without Ad's, I beg to differ.

There are plenty of examples around the world of ad-free TV. Take the BBC, for example. But, shock horror, we have to pay a TV licence, which I know many Yanks think is just a step away from a Police State complete with armed airships hovering in the sky, troopers shooting children in the streets and everyone being chipped......



LOL Your BBC is owned by the government. The shows you watch are paid by your taxes.


"LOL", your wrong..... I even gave you the answer in my post and yet you still missed it. Bloody Americans...

We don't pay for it in taxes. Want another bite of the cherry?

Besides, what has that got to do with what I said? I was just pointing out there are ways to have ad-free TV. The BBC isn't the only example, by the way.

And the BBC makes damned site better programmes than many private networks who are only concerned by profit and then churn out drivel for the masses.
edit on 27/5/12 by stumason because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Any one remember Max Headroom
As the show went the network controlled every thing on TV to the point of killing people if need be. Why is it that more and more of the make believe on TV seems to be making it way into real life?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
I'm a rebel!! I also tear the tag off my pillows and break the seal on the back of my appliances!!! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedal
 


I have,nt had a tv for over four years. Too much " Reality tv " and tripe. Not to mention the mind numbingly patronising commercials. Especially the ads where men are portrayed as idiots, only for the wife or kids to put the man of the house right, wiith the the latest trashy product..

Presumably, if ads did,nt work, they would have given up by now ? Don,t miss tv either, now. I have a projector and DVD sound system, just watch films, when I want, and no ads ....



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
I suppose that the networks are trying to extort more money from the advertisers as well. One payment for real time broadcast and another payment for recorded viewing.

That will go down well.... not.

Imagine the negotiations:
Network: Well that's the payment for the real time broadcast sorted, now for the recorded payment.
Ad Company: What?
Network: Well, people watch the shows after the real time viewing which also includes your advert.
Ad Company: But people won't watch it, they skip the adverts.
Network: Don't worry about that we're going to get the law changed to make the mugs watch them.
Ad Company: How can you enforce that.
Network: All TV's will have chips and cameras in soon so we can see if they are watching the ads or not.
Ad Company: And what if they are not watching?
Network: We'll have the UN troops pick them up and take them to a FEMA re-education camp. There's bound to one close by.
Ad Company: Looks like you have things sown up, what's the cost going to be then?

May be fiction now, but Big Brother will be here one day.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Connman
Just ask ATS owners how they feel with this. As we all know or should know you can`t block adds here either.



I'd just like the site owners to know that I block the # outta the ads on this site.

Ban me.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   
I never understood advertisements. I don't think that I have really ever purchased anything because of an advertisement. Maybe something on sale that I was looking for at te time anyway. I usually tend to zone out into thought when commercials came on when I might watch the television. Anyway, wasn't the original attraction to cable television and such was to pay to not have to sit through commercials...??



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Xaphan
 


If the money isnt coming from advertisers, it will be coming from the viewers.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Actually none of that matters, it SHOULD, but it doesn't. Commercials that are successfully use an emotional message, not a logical one. It's all psychology. The 1% like me (and presumably you) wonder how in the world anyone buys into this crap, but to the other 99% it works wonders.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


UK version of Being Human is awesome, one of my favorite shows. Way better than the US version. And I love the accents, I need to find a Brittish gf now that I'm single.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
Obviously it's not illegal to skip adverts and it's impossible to see how it ever could be.

However, TV stations rely on adverts for revenue. Without the adverts there would be no TV programmes. So naturally they don't want technology that enables everyone to readily skip adverts as then why would anyone want to place adverts with them?

If there are no adverts and/or no-one watches them, there will be no TV, except the BBC in Britain, which I think is the onlt channel separately funded through a compulsory license for all TV owners, regardless of whether they watch the channel - which seems the only alternative?


This is they're problem, not yours, do not offer up suggestions that involve placing shackles on yourself, slavery, is slavery no matter where you find it, and, if you cannot live without your shackles, i suggest you get rid of the TV altogether.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedal
"The networks are accusing Dish of "inducing" copyright infringement. That's a legal theory first created in the record labels' case against peer-to-peer software maker Grokster. The problem for the networks is that a technology maker, service, or other middleman can't be held liable for inducing copyright infringement unless their customers are actually infringing. And that means the networks will have to convince a judge that people who record a TV show, and later decide to skip over the commercials during playback, are violating federal law."


Haha that's the funniest thing I've heard all week... old media has proven yet again it will stoop to just about any low.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by The X
 


Wrong, it is your problem if you choose to watch TV. Producing TV cost money, if it's not being covered by ad revenue it will be covered by fees to the consumer.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SilentKoala
Haha that's the funniest thing I've heard all week... old media has proven yet again it will stoop to just about any low.


How is it funny when they are 100% right. Dish is given the right to show a copyrighted material. Dish is then taking that copyrighted material and altering it and showing only the portions they want to. They do not have the right to alter it. You should get a basic understanding of the situation before you present an opinion.

The DVR in question is not just allowing the user to fast forward through commercials, it actually edits it out.
edit on 27-5-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedal
 


This is another example of how, by not adapting to the times, the television networks are going to end up irrelevant just like the record industry did. Nowadays, it seems like the only way the record industry is going to make money by clinging to the old model is by suing people... who can't actually pay them. Seems like a bad idea to me.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedal
 


This is another example of how, by not adapting to the times, the television networks are going to end up irrelevant just like the record industry almost is. Nowadays, it seems like the only way the record industry is going to make money by clinging to the old model is by suing people... who can't actually pay them. Seems like a bad idea to me.
edit on 27-5-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
It just occurred to me... pretty soon this is what they'll be saying about people who have pop-up blocking add-ons installed on their internet browsers.

Speaking of which, is anybody else really irritated by that god damn Robaxacet ad on here?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

And the BBC makes damned site better programmes than many private networks who are only concerned by profit and then churn out drivel for the masses.
edit on 27/5/12 by stumason because: (no reason given)


Thats for sure!
quality over quantity with the BBC



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by stumason
Also, for those claiming that there would be no TV without Ad's, I beg to differ.

There are plenty of examples around the world of ad-free TV. Take the BBC, for example. But, shock horror, we have to pay a TV licence, which I know many Yanks think is just a step away from a Police State complete with armed airships hovering in the sky, troopers shooting children in the streets and everyone being chipped......



LOL Your BBC is owned by the government. The shows you watch are paid by your taxes.


"LOL", your wrong..... I even gave you the answer in my post and yet you still missed it. Bloody Americans...

We don't pay for it in taxes. Want another bite of the cherry?

Besides, what has that got to do with what I said? I was just pointing out there are ways to have ad-free TV. The BBC isn't the only example, by the way.

And the BBC makes damned site better programmes than many private networks who are only concerned by profit and then churn out drivel for the masses.
edit on 27/5/12 by stumason because: (no reason given)


HA! I wasn't arguing. I don't care if your shows are paid for by selling dung beetles. All I did was google 'who owns bbc', and it came up with government and some licensing board. By the by, I love the BBC!



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhysicsAdept
reply to post by Daedal
 


The funny thing is, when you paid for cable it used to mean you were paying to avoid commercials think about the evolution of things since that...


Agreed! Growing up in a rural area, we received programming through the air waves. There was no cost to the viewer as the advertising paid for the programming. Somehow, "the man" figured out a way to extort money where it once was not! This is the main reason I do not have television programming. If I wished to pay for programming, this would not include advertising!



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join