Fox, NBC, and CBS: Skipping ads is illegal

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/05/tv-networks-say-youre-breaking-law-when-you-skip-commercials

Television networks are having a busy month trying to stamp out new TV-watching technology, including telling a court that skipping a commercial while watching a recorded show is illegal. Yesterday, Fox, NBC, and CBS all sued Dish Network over its digital video recorder with automatic commercial-skipping. The same networks, plus ABC, Univision, and PBS, are gearing up for a May 30 hearing in their cases against Aereo, a New York startup bringing local broadcast TV to the Internet. EFF and Public Knowledge filed an amicus brief supporting Aereo this week.

The suits against Dish are a response to the "Hopper" DVR and its "Auto Hop" feature, which automatically skips over commercials. According to the networks' complaints, the Hopper automatically records eight days' worth of prime time programming on the four major networks that subscribers can play back on request. Beginning a few hours after the broadcast, viewers can choose to watch a program sans ads.

These suits are yet another in a long and ignominious series of lawsuits by content owners seeking to control the features of personal electronic devices, and to capture for themselves the value of new technologies no matter who invents them. We've seen this movie before. Most directly, the Dish suits look like a replay of the 2002 suit against DVR maker ReplayTV. The networks sued ReplayTV for copyright infringement based on another automated commercial-skip feature. They claimed that viewers were infringing copyright when they skipped ads during playback, that skipping "robs the advertisers," and that ReplayTV should be responsible. EFF argued then, and in a later suit on behalf of Replay's customers, that choosing not to watch ads during playback is pretty far from being a violation of federal law. Unfortunately, the cost of the suit drove ReplayTV out of business before the court could rule on the networks' wacky theory.

Fast forward ten years. 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.

Dish is fighting back hard, filing its own lawsuit in New York to have its devices ruled legal. Hopefully, the courts won't turn millions of American commercial-skippers into lawbreakers.

So what do you think Escapist?

Makes sense. Take away ads and you can no longer support free viewing tv, they will just have to sell tv channels outright

Giftfromme:
Makes sense. Take away ads and you can no longer support free viewing tv, they will just have to sell tv channels outright

People skip ads all the time, but I don't see things like Youtube going out of business.

They tried the same thing when Betamax came out, and while Sony won that one, it's not like the MPAA and their allies haven't been trying to get a do-over on it ever since. IP law needs to die.

So by their logic, if I leave the room during commercial breaks then what I'm doing is illegal?

Lionsfan:
So by their logic, if I leave the room during commercial breaks then what I'm doing is illegal?

Precisely my would be reply, skippig ad is as old as the mute button. It is just easier.

They want you to think it is new but i have been doing if since 1995.

Typically I would be against anything related to ads, but commercials are probably the most beneficial(to the average consumer) ads that have ever existed, and it's a bit shortsighted to start skipping them without considering how the television shows would be funded without them.

That's likely a hypocritical stance to the subject, given choices i make in other places in my entertainment, however commercials have never affected anything beyond my television.

Oh, I rob advertisers all the time by not watching their ads.
Their money just MAGICALLY transfers out of their account and into mine. By osmosis.

I'm such a rebel, I know.

Zaik:
Think your cable bill is bad now? Just wait.

Which is dreadfully ironic when you consider that the original purpose of cable TV was to provide ad-free entertainment.

Lionsfan:
So by their logic, if I leave the room during commercial breaks then what I'm doing is illegal?

No.

Your television watches the commercial whether you are present or not. Assuming you have been watching this one channel for some arbitrary period of time, you are considered a "viewer", which is used to calculate how much the station you are viewing can charge for commercials.

Suddenly skipping commercials would have no immediate effect, however as the big money products that have been basically paying for television to run catch on and stop buying time, the cost is going to eventually(and likely permanently) shift to the viewers. Think your cable bill is bad now? Just wait.

So wait broadcasting companies are only now starting to get in a hissy-fit over people skipping commercials during a recorded show? Way to be thirteen years late to the party.

Atmos Duality:

Zaik:
Think your cable bill is bad now? Just wait.

Which is dreadfully ironic when you consider that the original purpose of cable TV was to provide ad-free entertainment.

I suppose that does make the whole situation rather humorous, but i do have to stand by commercials being the most beneficial to consumers ads ever invented. I suppose radio commercials are technically equally beneficial, depends on whether you find localized advertizing or national/international advertising more personally useful.

Zaik:

Lionsfan:
So by their logic, if I leave the room during commercial breaks then what I'm doing is illegal?

Think your cable bill is bad now? Just wait.

What Cable bill? It is all on the internet legally for far less than most very basic cable packages. I have 3 TVs and no Cable of any form. I will give you they are the most useful for of ad however, I just think TV as we know it will soon evolve.

Ultratwinkie:

The suits against Dish are a response to the "Hopper" DVR and its "Auto Hop" feature, which automatically skips over commercials. According to the networks' complaints, the Hopper automatically records eight days' worth of prime time programming on the four major networks that subscribers can play back on request. Beginning a few hours after the broadcast, viewers can choose to watch a program sans ads.

Wait a minute... if it's recording it how does that make a difference anyway? The device tells the networks which recorded parts are being watched or something?

Mortai Gravesend:

Ultratwinkie:

The suits against Dish are a response to the "Hopper" DVR and its "Auto Hop" feature, which automatically skips over commercials. According to the networks' complaints, the Hopper automatically records eight days' worth of prime time programming on the four major networks that subscribers can play back on request. Beginning a few hours after the broadcast, viewers can choose to watch a program sans ads.

Wait a minute... if it's recording it how does that make a difference anyway? The device tells the networks which recorded parts are being watched or something?

Its basically the same shit networks have been spewing about VHS and other recorder.

They are 20 years late.

Lionsfan:
So by their logic, if I leave the room during commercial breaks then what I'm doing is illegal?

Yes. The television will come to take you away to jail.

Ultratwinkie:

Mortai Gravesend:

Ultratwinkie:

The suits against Dish are a response to the "Hopper" DVR and its "Auto Hop" feature, which automatically skips over commercials. According to the networks' complaints, the Hopper automatically records eight days' worth of prime time programming on the four major networks that subscribers can play back on request. Beginning a few hours after the broadcast, viewers can choose to watch a program sans ads.

Wait a minute... if it's recording it how does that make a difference anyway? The device tells the networks which recorded parts are being watched or something?

Its basically the same shit networks have been spewing about VHS and other recorder.

They are 20 years late.

I am speechless. I was wondering if there was some kind of justification to separate it from any other recording. But... no. That's stupid.

Mortai Gravesend:

Ultratwinkie:

Mortai Gravesend:

Wait a minute... if it's recording it how does that make a difference anyway? The device tells the networks which recorded parts are being watched or something?

Its basically the same shit networks have been spewing about VHS and other recorder.

They are 20 years late.

I am speechless. I was wondering if there was some kind of justification to separate it from any other recording. But... no. That's stupid.

Well, at least initially with VHS your television had to be viewing the channel to record it. That's what they're after. You don't actually need to be present or anything, having a viewer to put down on the books to charge advertisers with is all that matters, exactly like how the public school system charges the state per head they have in attendance per day(which is why they have the bizarre fetish for attendance, for those who didn't know. It's not actually some sort of life lesson, like everything else it's all about the $$$).

I'm sure that VHS recordings left some evidence they were viewing the station after your television didn't actually have to be on the same channel anymore.

Tbh i'm not sure how tivo works/worked, so i can't really say.

The reason this is an issue is that it is intelligently and intentionally cutting the entire commercial out of the program. That will eventually lead to commercial time not getting bought or being severely devalued, and costs *will* shift to the consumer.

DANEgerous:

Zaik:

Lionsfan:
So by their logic, if I leave the room during commercial breaks then what I'm doing is illegal?

Think your cable bill is bad now? Just wait.

What Cable bill? It is all on the internet legally for far less than most very basic cable packages. I have 3 TVs and no Cable of any form. I will give you they are the most useful for of ad however, I just think TV as we know it will soon evolve.

Really? You seriously think companies like netflix don't have to send a sizable cut of their revenue to the copyright holders of the shows they are running? I'd guesstimate that at least 80% of each subscription is sent elsewhere, and that's just for reruns that would normally air as daytime filler while most people are preoccupied with school or work.

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

Ultratwinkie:

Its basically the same shit networks have been spewing about VHS and other recorder.

They are 20 years late.

I am speechless. I was wondering if there was some kind of justification to separate it from any other recording. But... no. That's stupid.

Well, at least initially with VHS your television had to be viewing the channel to record it. That's what they're after. You don't actually need to be present or anything, having a viewer to put down on the books to charge advertisers with is all that matters, exactly like how the public school system charges the state per head they have in attendance per day(which is why they have the bizarre fetish for attendance, for those who didn't know. It's not actually some sort of life lesson, like everything else it's all about the $$$).

I'm sure that VHS recordings left some evidence they were viewing the station after your television didn't actually have to be on the same channel anymore.

Tbh i'm not sure how tivo works/worked, so i can't really say.

The reason this is an issue is that it is intelligently and intentionally cutting the entire commercial out of the program. That will eventually lead to commercial time not getting bought or being severely devalued, and costs *will* shift to the consumer.

You're missing the point.

Tell me, how exactly do they tell whether someone watched the recorded ads or not? And if you can't, then tell me how this is a fight against not watching ads as opposed to this whole recording system in the first place.

Fuck ads, and fuck the networks. I don't pay out the nose for TV service to hear about fucking Toyota Priuses and some sort of miracle aerosol that you can seal anything with. I just want to watch Adam and Jamie blow shit up, to watch Lewis Hamilton bounce off Felipe Massa's Ferrari, and to watch a bunch of V8 sedans beat the ever loving shit out of each other in Austrailia. I DO NOT WANT TO BE FORCE-FED ADVERTISEMENTS FOR HIPPIEMOBILES EVERY TEN LAPS!

So networks: Fuck off. Skipping ads isn't illegal, and if people are willing to pay extra to avoid them YOU NEED TO RETHINK THINGS! THE ADS DON'T WORK IF PEOPLE REFUSE TO WATCH THEM!

Zaik:
Typically I would be against anything related to ads, but commercials are probably the most beneficial(to the average consumer) ads that have ever existed, and it's a bit shortsighted to start skipping them without considering how the television shows would be funded without them.

Sorry for caring about my hearing and sanity, but I honestly don't give half a shit about hearing the guy yelling about majicjack at 120 fucking decibels.

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

I am speechless. I was wondering if there was some kind of justification to separate it from any other recording. But... no. That's stupid.

Well, at least initially with VHS your television had to be viewing the channel to record it. That's what they're after. You don't actually need to be present or anything, having a viewer to put down on the books to charge advertisers with is all that matters, exactly like how the public school system charges the state per head they have in attendance per day(which is why they have the bizarre fetish for attendance, for those who didn't know. It's not actually some sort of life lesson, like everything else it's all about the $$$).

I'm sure that VHS recordings left some evidence they were viewing the station after your television didn't actually have to be on the same channel anymore.

Tbh i'm not sure how tivo works/worked, so i can't really say.

The reason this is an issue is that it is intelligently and intentionally cutting the entire commercial out of the program. That will eventually lead to commercial time not getting bought or being severely devalued, and costs *will* shift to the consumer.

You're missing the point.

Tell me, how exactly do they tell whether someone watched the recorded ads or not? And if you can't, then tell me how this is a fight against not watching ads as opposed to this whole recording system in the first place.

As i have said t least 3 times now, whether an individual human watches an ad is entirely irrelevant in this sitution. A television which views a station for some pre-arranged period of time is considered a "viewer", which is then used in order to calculate fees for commercials. Your tv does not have a camera inside it to tell the advertiser whether you're paying attention or in the other room cooking popcorn. That would be kind of creepy.

The issue(for them, Fox/NBC/CBS) here is that the service in question is NOT that it is a recording, but that it intelligently and intentionally removes exactly all of the commercial. This would obviously not impact their "viewers" initially, however the big money that has been covering 99% of the costs for television to run by buying commercials will obviously have to devalue or completely stop buying commercial space altogether when people are never even seeing them to begin with.

Now, the reason *I* give a damn, is because when that money up and disappears, guess who is going to start covering the tv networks' bills? You and me.

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

Well, at least initially with VHS your television had to be viewing the channel to record it. That's what they're after. You don't actually need to be present or anything, having a viewer to put down on the books to charge advertisers with is all that matters, exactly like how the public school system charges the state per head they have in attendance per day(which is why they have the bizarre fetish for attendance, for those who didn't know. It's not actually some sort of life lesson, like everything else it's all about the $$$).

I'm sure that VHS recordings left some evidence they were viewing the station after your television didn't actually have to be on the same channel anymore.

Tbh i'm not sure how tivo works/worked, so i can't really say.

The reason this is an issue is that it is intelligently and intentionally cutting the entire commercial out of the program. That will eventually lead to commercial time not getting bought or being severely devalued, and costs *will* shift to the consumer.

You're missing the point.

Tell me, how exactly do they tell whether someone watched the recorded ads or not? And if you can't, then tell me how this is a fight against not watching ads as opposed to this whole recording system in the first place.

As i have said t least 3 times now, whether an individual human watches an ad is entirely irrelevant in this sitution. A television which views a station for some pre-arranged period of time is considered a "viewer", which is then used in order to calculate fees for commercials. Your tv does not have a camera inside it to tell the advertiser whether you're paying attention or in the other room cooking popcorn. That would be kind of creepy.

The issue(for them, Fox/NBC/CBS) here is that the service in question is NOT that it is a recording, but that it intelligently and intentionally removes exactly all of the commercial. This would obviously not impact their "viewers" initially, however the big money that has been covering 99% of the costs for television to run by buying commercials will obviously have to devalue or completely stop buying commercial space altogether when people are never even seeing them to begin with.

Now, the reason *I* give a damn, is because when that money up and disappears, guess who is going to start covering the tv networks' bills? You and me.

You should be less condescending since you cannot apparently read my post properly. Because I never fucking said that it could tell whether an individual human watches it. I said nothing that depended on it and if you actually read my post with an inkling of comprehension you should know that. Less strawmen, more time reading the post until you can get it?

What you're missing is that you have failed to explain how there is a difference between watching a recording with ads and a recording without. You have failed to explain how it impacts them more to watch a recording with ads as opposed to one without.

People still watch TV? That's news to me! XD

Yes it's a bit silly yet kinda makes sense if you look at it from the business side of blah blah blah you know the drill

Anyway, I wonder where Adblocker software falls under this "rule?" Wonder if they'll try to ban that now as well... Adblocker looks to be fine unless you're adblocking a livestream or something, it's kinda poor manners to adblock the pretty much only source of revenue for the stream. Like wiping your feet on the dog when arriving at someone's house!

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

You're missing the point.

Tell me, how exactly do they tell whether someone watched the recorded ads or not? And if you can't, then tell me how this is a fight against not watching ads as opposed to this whole recording system in the first place.

As i have said t least 3 times now, whether an individual human watches an ad is entirely irrelevant in this sitution. A television which views a station for some pre-arranged period of time is considered a "viewer", which is then used in order to calculate fees for commercials. Your tv does not have a camera inside it to tell the advertiser whether you're paying attention or in the other room cooking popcorn. That would be kind of creepy.

The issue(for them, Fox/NBC/CBS) here is that the service in question is NOT that it is a recording, but that it intelligently and intentionally removes exactly all of the commercial. This would obviously not impact their "viewers" initially, however the big money that has been covering 99% of the costs for television to run by buying commercials will obviously have to devalue or completely stop buying commercial space altogether when people are never even seeing them to begin with.

Now, the reason *I* give a damn, is because when that money up and disappears, guess who is going to start covering the tv networks' bills? You and me.

You should be less condescending since you cannot apparently read my post properly. Because I never fucking said that it could tell whether an individual human watches it. I said nothing that depended on it and if you actually read my post with an inkling of comprehension you should know that. Less strawmen, more time reading the post until you can get it?

What you're missing is that you have failed to explain how there is a difference between watching a recording with ads and a recording without. You have failed to explain how it impacts them more to watch a recording with ads as opposed to one without.

Sorry, I thought it was common sense that if a company makes a profit from offering a service which involves a recording of a television broadcast, they are obviously going to have to report the number of viewers it sees to the people they received the recording from.

And of course, with this information, said people can gain additional revenue from the advertisers, seeing as they ran the advertisements for more people.

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

As i have said t least 3 times now, whether an individual human watches an ad is entirely irrelevant in this sitution. A television which views a station for some pre-arranged period of time is considered a "viewer", which is then used in order to calculate fees for commercials. Your tv does not have a camera inside it to tell the advertiser whether you're paying attention or in the other room cooking popcorn. That would be kind of creepy.

The issue(for them, Fox/NBC/CBS) here is that the service in question is NOT that it is a recording, but that it intelligently and intentionally removes exactly all of the commercial. This would obviously not impact their "viewers" initially, however the big money that has been covering 99% of the costs for television to run by buying commercials will obviously have to devalue or completely stop buying commercial space altogether when people are never even seeing them to begin with.

Now, the reason *I* give a damn, is because when that money up and disappears, guess who is going to start covering the tv networks' bills? You and me.

You should be less condescending since you cannot apparently read my post properly. Because I never fucking said that it could tell whether an individual human watches it. I said nothing that depended on it and if you actually read my post with an inkling of comprehension you should know that. Less strawmen, more time reading the post until you can get it?

What you're missing is that you have failed to explain how there is a difference between watching a recording with ads and a recording without. You have failed to explain how it impacts them more to watch a recording with ads as opposed to one without.

Sorry, I thought it was common sense that if a company makes a profit from offering a service which involves a recording of a television broadcast, they are obviously going to have to report the number of viewers it sees to the people they received the recording from.

Common sense is not a very good source. Prove that they have to tell them the number of viewers and that they record who views what parts.

And of course, with this information, said people can gain additional revenue from the advertisers, seeing as they ran the advertisements for more people.

Based off an assumption of 'common sense' from someone who didn't even read my post right the first time.

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

You should be less condescending since you cannot apparently read my post properly. Because I never fucking said that it could tell whether an individual human watches it. I said nothing that depended on it and if you actually read my post with an inkling of comprehension you should know that. Less strawmen, more time reading the post until you can get it?

What you're missing is that you have failed to explain how there is a difference between watching a recording with ads and a recording without. You have failed to explain how it impacts them more to watch a recording with ads as opposed to one without.

Sorry, I thought it was common sense that if a company makes a profit from offering a service which involves a recording of a television broadcast, they are obviously going to have to report the number of viewers it sees to the people they received the recording from.

Common sense is not a very good source. Prove that they have to tell them the number of viewers or that they record it at all.

And of course, with this information, said people can gain additional revenue from the advertisers, seeing as they ran the advertisements for more people.

Based off an assumption of 'common sense' from someone who didn't even read my post right the first time.

Damn, sista, that's some hubinna-bubbina-conundruma you done got there.

OT: Lookit all these big-ass corporations tryin' to muscle in on my hard-earned dollar. Y'all don't want me to skip your dumb-ass commercials? Stop playin' the same ones thirty times an hour.

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

You should be less condescending since you cannot apparently read my post properly. Because I never fucking said that it could tell whether an individual human watches it. I said nothing that depended on it and if you actually read my post with an inkling of comprehension you should know that. Less strawmen, more time reading the post until you can get it?

What you're missing is that you have failed to explain how there is a difference between watching a recording with ads and a recording without. You have failed to explain how it impacts them more to watch a recording with ads as opposed to one without.

Sorry, I thought it was common sense that if a company makes a profit from offering a service which involves a recording of a television broadcast, they are obviously going to have to report the number of viewers it sees to the people they received the recording from.

Common sense is not a very good source. Prove that they have to tell them the number of viewers and that they record who views what parts.

And of course, with this information, said people can gain additional revenue from the advertisers, seeing as they ran the advertisements for more people.

Based off an assumption of 'common sense' from someone who didn't even read my post right the first time.

Why so hostile? You'd think I was trolling you or something. tbh I was honestly just making a point initially, sorry if it came across wrong.

And obviously I can't prove it, because if I could i'd be in a position of power in one of the compnies involved, and i'd be on my personal yacht banging my trophy wife right now instead of winning the special olympics on the internet.

I'd personally prefer to approach situations like this from every angle rather than only use my own perspective though.

Sure, *maybe* i'm wrong, but I tried to be more correct than every kneejerk "fight the man" reaction this gets.

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

Sorry, I thought it was common sense that if a company makes a profit from offering a service which involves a recording of a television broadcast, they are obviously going to have to report the number of viewers it sees to the people they received the recording from.

Common sense is not a very good source. Prove that they have to tell them the number of viewers and that they record who views what parts.

And of course, with this information, said people can gain additional revenue from the advertisers, seeing as they ran the advertisements for more people.

Based off an assumption of 'common sense' from someone who didn't even read my post right the first time.

Why so hostile? You'd think I was trolling you or something. tbh I was honestly just making a point initially, sorry if it came across wrong.

I don't like it when people argue against things I didn't say when talking to me.

And obviously I can't prove it, because if I could i'd be in a position of power in one of the compnies involved, and i'd be on my personal yacht banging my trophy wife right now instead of winning the special olympics on the internet.

In which case your point really doesn't work very well. If they aren't reporting it to them then the point is completely moot since from the networks' point of view someone who watches a recording with ads and someone who watches a recording without ads are indistinguishable to them. If you can't show that they're working together to that degree then you have no point. It seems doubtful they would anyway since they clearly aren't getting along very well.

I'd personally prefer to approach situations like this from every angle rather than only use my own perspective though.

Angles that depend on information you don't know aren't very good. It's pure speculation.

Sure, *maybe* i'm wrong, but I tried to be more correct than every kneejerk "fight the man" reaction this gets.

If you can't show the amount of collaboration you claim then you're no better than anyone else. And it's nonsense to just call it a 'fight the man' kneejerk reaction. I could just accuse you of calling it that out of a kneejerk reaction. It's a baseless accusation.

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

Common sense is not a very good source. Prove that they have to tell them the number of viewers and that they record who views what parts.

Based off an assumption of 'common sense' from someone who didn't even read my post right the first time.

Why so hostile? You'd think I was trolling you or something. tbh I was honestly just making a point initially, sorry if it came across wrong.

I don't like it when people argue against things I didn't say when talking to me.

And obviously I can't prove it, because if I could i'd be in a position of power in one of the compnies involved, and i'd be on my personal yacht banging my trophy wife right now instead of winning the special olympics on the internet.

In which case your point really doesn't work very well. If they aren't reporting it to them then the point is completely moot since from the networks' point of view someone who watches a recording with ads and someone who watches a recording without ads are indistinguishable to them. If you can't show that they're working together to that degree then you have no point. It seems doubtful they would anyway since they clearly aren't getting along very well.

I'd personally prefer to approach situations like this from every angle rather than only use my own perspective though.

Angles that depend on information you don't know aren't very good. It's pure speculation.

Sure, *maybe* i'm wrong, but I tried to be more correct than every kneejerk "fight the man" reaction this gets.

If you can't show the amount of collaboration you claim then you're no better than anyone else. And it's nonsense to just call it a 'fight the man' kneejerk reaction. I could just accuse you of calling it that out of a kneejerk reaction. It's a baseless accusation.

Are we seriously going to play the semantics and intellectual masturbation game?

That's cool.

Let me ask you this:

Can you prove anything you just said(current post) with any significant degree of accuracy?

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

Why so hostile? You'd think I was trolling you or something. tbh I was honestly just making a point initially, sorry if it came across wrong.

I don't like it when people argue against things I didn't say when talking to me.

And obviously I can't prove it, because if I could i'd be in a position of power in one of the compnies involved, and i'd be on my personal yacht banging my trophy wife right now instead of winning the special olympics on the internet.

In which case your point really doesn't work very well. If they aren't reporting it to them then the point is completely moot since from the networks' point of view someone who watches a recording with ads and someone who watches a recording without ads are indistinguishable to them. If you can't show that they're working together to that degree then you have no point. It seems doubtful they would anyway since they clearly aren't getting along very well.

I'd personally prefer to approach situations like this from every angle rather than only use my own perspective though.

Angles that depend on information you don't know aren't very good. It's pure speculation.

Sure, *maybe* i'm wrong, but I tried to be more correct than every kneejerk "fight the man" reaction this gets.

If you can't show the amount of collaboration you claim then you're no better than anyone else. And it's nonsense to just call it a 'fight the man' kneejerk reaction. I could just accuse you of calling it that out of a kneejerk reaction. It's a baseless accusation.

Are we seriously going to play the semantics and intellectual masturbation game?

Oh this is fun. Point out where I make any semantic arguments there.

Btw, expecting you to actually have substance behind an argument isn't intellectual masturbation. I know you've kind of come across as the type to spew irrelevant things like a broken record, but please, do think whether things apply before you say them.

That's cool.

It would be much cooler than your insistence on baseless attacks.

Let me ask you this:

Can you prove anything you just said(current post) with any significant degree of accuracy?

What exactly needs to be proved? Seriously. Look at my post and find any given claim and ask me to prove it. It's all either pretty self evident or conditional. If you disagree, go ahead, pick an example out, and I'll point out why.

Yeaaah...the only ads I pay attention to are ones being pitched by Don Draper and his associates. Regular commercials are just bathroom breaks to me.

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

Ultratwinkie:

Its basically the same shit networks have been spewing about VHS and other recorder.

They are 20 years late.

I am speechless. I was wondering if there was some kind of justification to separate it from any other recording. But... no. That's stupid.

Well, at least initially with VHS your television had to be viewing the channel to record it. That's what they're after. You don't actually need to be present or anything, having a viewer to put down on the books to charge advertisers with is all that matters, exactly like how the public school system charges the state per head they have in attendance per day(which is why they have the bizarre fetish for attendance, for those who didn't know. It's not actually some sort of life lesson, like everything else it's all about the $$$).

I'm sure that VHS recordings left some evidence they were viewing the station after your television didn't actually have to be on the same channel anymore.

Tbh i'm not sure how tivo works/worked, so i can't really say.

The reason this is an issue is that it is intelligently and intentionally cutting the entire commercial out of the program. That will eventually lead to commercial time not getting bought or being severely devalued, and costs *will* shift to the consumer.

With OTA, only "Nielsen families" are counted, generally. Most people aren't, so for the majority of people, the advertisers have no idea. On cable, boxes could theoretically communicate back to the head end, assuming someone's listening over there. There are still many who plug their cable directly into the TV, and usually no two way communication is possible there.

Bottom line is, it's unlikely anyone knows what channel you're watching and practically guaranteed no one knows if you use an antenna.

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

I don't like it when people argue against things I didn't say when talking to me.

In which case your point really doesn't work very well. If they aren't reporting it to them then the point is completely moot since from the networks' point of view someone who watches a recording with ads and someone who watches a recording without ads are indistinguishable to them. If you can't show that they're working together to that degree then you have no point. It seems doubtful they would anyway since they clearly aren't getting along very well.

Angles that depend on information you don't know aren't very good. It's pure speculation.

If you can't show the amount of collaboration you claim then you're no better than anyone else. And it's nonsense to just call it a 'fight the man' kneejerk reaction. I could just accuse you of calling it that out of a kneejerk reaction. It's a baseless accusation.

Are we seriously going to play the semantics and intellectual masturbation game?

Oh this is fun. Point out where I make any semantic arguments there.

Btw, expecting you to actually have substance behind an argument isn't intellectual masturbation. I know you've kind of come across as the type to spew irrelevant things like a broken record, but please, do think whether things apply before you say them.

That's cool.

It would be much cooler than your insistence on baseless attacks.

Let me ask you this:

Can you prove anything you just said(current post) with any significant degree of accuracy?

What exactly needs to be proved? Seriously. Look at my post and find any given claim and ask me to prove it. It's all either pretty self evident or conditional. If you disagree, go ahead, pick an example out, and I'll point out why.

It had substance. Just substance you personally did not like. So instead of attempting to address that, you state that it *must* be inaccurate because it did not have to the letter factual evidence on hand, regardless of any circumstancial or supporting evidence provided.

Common sense is not a very good source. Prove that they have to tell them the number of viewers and that they record who views what parts.

In which case your point really doesn't work very well. If they aren't reporting it to them then the point is completely moot since from the networks' point of view someone who watches a recording with ads and someone who watches a recording without ads are indistinguishable to them. If you can't show that they're working together to that degree then you have no point. It seems doubtful they would anyway since they clearly aren't getting along very well.

By the way,

It would be much cooler than your insistence on baseless attacks.

Who exactly is using a strawman now?

So go ahead. Don't sidestep. Prove anything everything you said in that last post is true. No "self evident" or "conditional" nonsense applies, apparently, by your own decree. Apparently anything that could possibly be subjective can not be correct.

Hell, following those rules, prove that anything is true, ever. You will inevitably be forced to backstep yourself into everything being false. That's why I called it intellectual masturbation. You couldn't simply respond to my opinion on the situation, you had to sidestep it with all this logical fallacy nonsense.

evilneko:

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

I am speechless. I was wondering if there was some kind of justification to separate it from any other recording. But... no. That's stupid.

Well, at least initially with VHS your television had to be viewing the channel to record it. That's what they're after. You don't actually need to be present or anything, having a viewer to put down on the books to charge advertisers with is all that matters, exactly like how the public school system charges the state per head they have in attendance per day(which is why they have the bizarre fetish for attendance, for those who didn't know. It's not actually some sort of life lesson, like everything else it's all about the $$$).

I'm sure that VHS recordings left some evidence they were viewing the station after your television didn't actually have to be on the same channel anymore.

Tbh i'm not sure how tivo works/worked, so i can't really say.

The reason this is an issue is that it is intelligently and intentionally cutting the entire commercial out of the program. That will eventually lead to commercial time not getting bought or being severely devalued, and costs *will* shift to the consumer.

With OTA, only "Nielsen families" are counted, generally. Most people aren't, so for the majority of people, the advertisers have no idea. On cable, boxes could theoretically communicate back to the head end, assuming someone's listening over there. There are still many who plug their cable directly into the TV, and usually no two way communication is possible there.

Bottom line is, it's unlikely anyone knows what channel you're watching and practically guaranteed no one knows if you use an antenna.

It's nice to hear from someone who at least seems to actually know anything whatsoever about the situation.

What's your opinion on the whole thing?

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

Are we seriously going to play the semantics and intellectual masturbation game?

Oh this is fun. Point out where I make any semantic arguments there.

Btw, expecting you to actually have substance behind an argument isn't intellectual masturbation. I know you've kind of come across as the type to spew irrelevant things like a broken record, but please, do think whether things apply before you say them.

That's cool.

It would be much cooler than your insistence on baseless attacks.

Let me ask you this:

Can you prove anything you just said(current post) with any significant degree of accuracy?

What exactly needs to be proved? Seriously. Look at my post and find any given claim and ask me to prove it. It's all either pretty self evident or conditional. If you disagree, go ahead, pick an example out, and I'll point out why.

It had substance. Just substance you personally did not like. So instead of attempting to address that, you state that it *must* be inaccurate because it did not have to the letter factual evidence on hand, regardless of any circumstancial or supporting evidence provided.

Liar. I didn't say it must be inaccurate.

Common sense is not a very good source. Prove that they have to tell them the number of viewers and that they record who views what parts.

In which case your point really doesn't work very well. If they aren't reporting it to them then the point is completely moot since from the networks' point of view someone who watches a recording with ads and someone who watches a recording without ads are indistinguishable to them. If you can't show that they're working together to that degree then you have no point. It seems doubtful they would anyway since they clearly aren't getting along very well.

By the way,

It would be much cooler than your insistence on baseless attacks.

Who exactly is using a strawman now?

Lol? Don't use words you don't know the meaning of. There's no strawman there.

So go ahead. Don't sidestep. Prove anything everything you said in that last post is true. No "self evident" or "conditional" nonsense applies, apparently, by your own decree. Apparently anything that could possibly be subjective can not be correct.

You don't seem to understand much. I mean, you quoted a part where I asked you to prove something. It is utterly asinine to ask me to prove that when it wasn't a claim. I simply want you to list out which parts I need to prove.

Not only that, you then quoted a segment that starts with a sentence I support with further logic.

Hell, following those rules, prove that anything is true, ever. You will inevitably be forced to backstep yourself into everything being false. That's why I called it intellectual masturbation. You couldn't simply respond to my opinion on the situation, you had to sidestep it with all this logical fallacy nonsense.

What rules? That you can't just say 'common sense' and think that works as evidence?

Zaik:

evilneko:

Zaik:

Well, at least initially with VHS your television had to be viewing the channel to record it. That's what they're after. You don't actually need to be present or anything, having a viewer to put down on the books to charge advertisers with is all that matters, exactly like how the public school system charges the state per head they have in attendance per day(which is why they have the bizarre fetish for attendance, for those who didn't know. It's not actually some sort of life lesson, like everything else it's all about the $$$).

I'm sure that VHS recordings left some evidence they were viewing the station after your television didn't actually have to be on the same channel anymore.

Tbh i'm not sure how tivo works/worked, so i can't really say.

The reason this is an issue is that it is intelligently and intentionally cutting the entire commercial out of the program. That will eventually lead to commercial time not getting bought or being severely devalued, and costs *will* shift to the consumer.

With OTA, only "Nielsen families" are counted, generally. Most people aren't, so for the majority of people, the advertisers have no idea. On cable, boxes could theoretically communicate back to the head end, assuming someone's listening over there. There are still many who plug their cable directly into the TV, and usually no two way communication is possible there.

Bottom line is, it's unlikely anyone knows what channel you're watching and practically guaranteed no one knows if you use an antenna.

It's nice to hear from someone who at least seems to actually know anything whatsoever about the situation.

What's your opinion on the whole thing?

Agreed. Much better than someone who comes up with 'common sense' bullshit that is then later proven to be baseless. Common sense practically translates to 'I think it make sense'. It's not a logical argument, it's bullshit.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked