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: 7
40
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedal
 

Not like anybody watches commercials much. What this boils down to is that TV is too cheap. It should be much much more expensive to pay for the shows. Either that or the production studios and the actors have to be paid significantly less in order to compensate.

The commercials are supposed to make TV affordable by advertising. But these days most people do their product searches on internet googles/comments/reviews, not on TV. I almost never look at an ad unless it's cute - sort of like the geico insurance commercials. Really, a lot of advertising (anywhere, not just TV) is outdated and they need to find another way to get income.

Example... I see a lot of ads on the internet. But I never click on them. Like I say, I always do my product searches via google, comment lists, and review sites. Ads are not dependable.

Bottom line, I really don't watch TV anyway. Right now I'm watching the NBA playoffs (some of the games), but that's about it. I am pretty much solely a internet consumer. I prefer interactivity. So my opinion that ads aren't useful income is subjective and maybe it doesn't apply to everyone.

I WILL say this.... BEING a great product is ALWAYS the best advertising!
edit on 27-5-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by AndyMayhew
 


That's the thing people don't realize about ads. Without them, you'd be paying $10/month for *every* networkl, just like you currently do on the so-called premium cable networks like HBO.

People are blowing this out of proportion, anyway. The networks are simply arguing that the cable and satellite providers can't provide their subscribers with a means of automatically skipping ads. I agree with them. They should have a reasonable expectation that their intellectual property will be broadcast in its entirety by the distributor, ads included, especially when the price the networks charge the cable/satellite companies is almost certainly based upon that happening.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

So why are they ONLY suing Dish Network and not Tivo or DirectTV?

OH, I KNOW WHY. It's because Dish will boycott a station over price hikes (and post it obviously on the menu) until the station agrees not to hike their prices. It's how Dish keeps prices low.


No, it's because Dish has automatic commercial skipping, the others do not - you have to fast forward past them. If you recall, ReplayTV was obliterated by legal actions for its commercial skip, which is why the others did not do it. So why Dish is doing it baffles. ALTHOUGH.. Tivo has an secret way to skip them as well. It can skip 30 sec increments - once you set it, just hit a button 3 times, and it skips 3 commercials. I don't bother with that though, I just fast forward through them.

Why people would complain baffles me though. They want everything free. Gimme gimme gimme. I have my ad-blocking in my browser turned OFF for sites I often visit. And for those I visit a lot, I actually occasionally click on the ads. It's how sites stay in business. That's the mindset of people these days though. Download all music and books illegally, skip all commercials, block all ads, and then get outraged if a show is cancelled because it's making no revenue. Greedy, greedy people.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Here is another take on this subject:

Ats is a "television" network where it has "channels" and "programming" that other people enjoy and you the poster is the advertiser.

ATS is the place The forums are the major networks the threads are the channels and the posters are the adverterings "selling a product".

ATS has its own Neilson rating system via Flags and stars that may or may not reflect the most "liked content".

and true enough some people wish there was a dvr function to skip over those "commercials".

Something to ponder.
edit on 27-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by ajay59
With the cost of receiving programming,(cable, dish, etc.) there should be no need for revenue from advertisement! Just as in the early days of broadcast, one or the other should be sufficient! If we are to pay for the ability to watch television let it be through one source!


And then only the rich can recieve it. Is that what you want?

If someone offered al channels with no adverts for, say, $10,000 a year, you'd be happy?


You may pay the price you choose to pay. If you so desire to have your head softened a bit, that is YOUR freedom of choice! I for one would rather pay one fee either for having to endure adds or for the signal or nothing at all! Are you being paid to advocate the way it is now? Just asking, because you seem so passionate toward the cause!



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I stopwatched the movie is "The day The Earth Stood Still" on FX.

9min 15sec on commercials, and 9min 24sec on the movie. So just a few seconds more movie then advertisements. Friggin ridiculous!



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but this is flat out retarded.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
The day they started charging me to watch tv was the day that I had no problem skipping advertisements. These dinosaurs need to catch up to new technology. They are consistently behind the times and then whine when new technology makes them irrelevant. Too bad....



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I stopped watching tv a few years ago mainly because of all the adverts, now i only turn the box on to watch specific things. To many adverts on everything - Internet, TV, radio. Its just ridiculous and to declare that skipping over the things is an infringement is pure cheek. I hope the case not only gets thrown out of court but the people arguing the case follow suit, spineless gits.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedal
 


Easy way for the public to stop this straight away. It is by suing the networks for showing excessive adverts. Many people have sued cinema for the same BS.

IT violates our freedom of CHOICE and waste OUR time.

Chinese woman sues cinema



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
i don't always watch t.v, but when i do, i prefer to skip commercials.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Maybe this is what needs to happen to wake people up. Hit them where it REALLY hurts: their TV experience! Ouch! That'll be like a splash of water in the face!

So concerned with just themselves, the battle may finally come home for them. I hope they do succeed so it will wake up more people to the true nature of these monsters!



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I don't even watch live tv live. I'll pause when the show starts, fiddle around for 15 mins the start the show and forward through the commercials. If they take this ability away I'll gladly cut the cable (again). I only got satellite tv again so I could watch my local hockey team. With the no contract, cheap deal it wasthe same price as going to 3 games vs a year of tv.

I think the big issue with Dish network is the fact that the box automatically skips the ads with no input required from the user.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zakaris
I think the big issue with Dish network is the fact that the box automatically skips the ads with no input required from the user.


That is exactly the issue the networks are complaining about. Fast forwarding through the adverts doesn't bother them (well, I am sure it does but they can't do anything), but removing them entirely is something they can take to court and fight over..

As I said before though, analysts think this is a tactical move by Dish, in so far that they can use this as a bargaining tool to negotiate cheaper rates.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I pay for cable and mostly watch movies, with some of the news channels thrown in as background 'noise' when I'm working on the computer. Heck, who cares what the newscasters or others on talk shows look like after you've looked at them once.
The traditional TV model of advertising interspersed into TV programs is actually dead. It's just that the advertising people have not figured it out yet. Soon, and I hope it is very soon, the whole model is going to collapse. The best example will be the wasted millions during the coming campaign season. Nobody with an ounce of sense is going to sit through any of that rot, regardless of party origination. My opinion is that most of us will simply go to other Internet sources for our viewing pleasure. The only question will be which major network will make the change first, from advertising paying to the people paying for on-demand.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
If I'm understanding this, I really doubt that anything will come of this because if skipping commercials is ruled illegal then a tidal wave of lawsuits is sure to follow.

For example, I built an HTPC which does everything a TIVO does and more, including skipping commercials. Is someone going to sue Microsoft? Windows Media Center allows you to set your remote to skip ahead whatever amount of time you want. Mine is set to skip 30 seconds. My remote which is made by a Chinese company has a "skip ahead" button. will they get sued? My Hauppauge tuner software allows you to skip commercials. Are they going to get sued?

If skipping ahead is illegal, then will switching channels during the commercials be illegal also? Why not? It achieves the same end.

This is a single device we're talking about here. How many others do you suppose are out there? How many lawsuits will result from this? Too many, I suspect.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by AntiNWO
 


I'll say it again....

This isn't about forwarding through commercials on a recorded program, but rather the system actively removes them so you don';t have to skip forward yourself.

Merely forwarding through a recorded program's adverts is not what they are complaining about.
edit on 27/5/12 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
The few shows I do watch, I get through torrents these days. No commercials there. If that wasn't available, I would watch no TV shows at all. Not really worth the hassle IMO. TV shows are only a small time filler for rainy days for me. Not very important to me at all in the grand scheme of things.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Quote from the OP:
"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."

You can see why I would think this is about people skipping over commercials potentially being illegal, right?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by AntiNWO
 


Yep, which is why I was clarifying.

The OP, whether it be the poster or the site he was linking, have got the premise wrong. The actual Court action is because Dish have enabled a feature on their boxes which allows the DVR to remove adverts altogether, effectively altering copyrighted content for re-broadcast.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join