Five PVR Users Allowed To Join Replay Court Fight 151
hachete writes with this snippet from the Mercury News: " 'A federal judge in Los Angeles agreed to allow consumers to join the legal battle between Hollywood and the makers of the ReplayTV 4000 digital video recorder to defend their uses of the device.'" The five customers chosen to add some insight include craigslist founder Craig Newmark.
Signs of Intelligence? (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time I consider fleeing this country in terror, something like this happens that makes me reconsider.
Plus, it probably has the *AA foaming at the mouth, which is always a good thing.
Re:Call me ignorant, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I imagine that, should the bottom fall out of the advertising model, it will all move to a subscription model, which frankly, suits me fine, since it will (hopefully) allow me to pick and choose which channels I want (Discovery, TLC, History, HGTV, Noggn, Cartoon Channel, etc) instead of having to pay for a bunch of crap I'll NEVER EVER EVER watch (QVC, HSN, TNN, BET, etc)
-9mm-
Re:Call me ignorant, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hear, hear! But wait... the invention of TV ended the glory days of radio entertainers! We should ban that, too. Those poor radio stars... And look what the "talkies" did to all those silent movie stars -- they hardly ever land a good part now! Let's ban the movies, at least, the ones with sound...
As has been said before, and will be said again,
Or, more succinctly,
It's time for them to adapt or die.
Re:Call me ignorant, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Call me ignorant, but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Call me ignorant, but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
1) BBC in the UK have two channels (BBC1 and BBC2). IMHO, they are the best channels in the world in terms of content *and* they don't sport any commercials whatever. They make their money through television licenses. Whether this system is good for all or not is highly debatable (state run televsion) but is nevertheless a half option
2) What upsets many people is that people *pay* cable/satellite to view their television *and* be forced to watch ads. If ads disappear, the corollary is that subscription prices will increase in conformance with market forces to make up the revenue and cover costs. Some would say that's not a bad thing to pay just for the tele. Me, I don't mind watching television ads, there aren't so many in the UK (ads appear only every 15 minutes here for 3 minutes typically) and sometimes it is entertaining or I learn something. Of course, this latter point is highly subjective!
Re:Call me ignorant, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
When a TV show or Movie is made, extra steps are taken to make sure that the stage hands and cameras aren't visible in the shot. Unfortunately, they don't always do enough. Sometimes cameras are visible in the reflections of metallic objects. Mirrors are turned to avoid revealing the crew. Heck, the planet that Knight Rider was filmed on has 6 suns in the shape of a rectangle!
The reason they go through all this extra baloney to keep camera equipment invisible (even though we ALL know cameras were used...) is because it's distracting to the audience. When they can see the boom mic come down above the camera they get snapped out of the immersiveness of the show it breaks up the flow. Out of comfort, they keep these distractions to a minimum.
Unfortunately, they are aware of this, but they don't understand how commercials really deaden the dramatic impact of a scene. When shows like Quantum Leap really get somebody interested in what's happening, it is a pain in the ass when 2-3 minutes of commercials suddenly break it up.
They shouldn't be surprised that people would actually spend time to find a way to remove these commercials. It's not just about watching content, it's about enjoying it! You can't enjoy it if you have to hop in and out of it like Sam Beckett.
I'll tell you all something, it's startling to watch a TV show with the commercials out. It's a big ehough difference that I spent $15-20 on DVD's that contain a couple of episodes. Too bad DVD's haven't caught up with all the content out there.
Re:Call me ignorant, but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, not everyone is going to skip the ads, so their will be transitional revenue to allow the current model to change. Also, not everyone will have a PVR for a while --same effect.
As the numbers grow, other sources of funding for programming will evolve. Look at HBO now. They charge for their programming and have come quite a ways from their old movie only no commercial formats. Some of the programming produced with these models has enough value that it gets resold on DVD.
So there will be stuff to record for sure, just not the material we have today and that is a good thing.
Cost recovery (Score:3, Insightful)
The other night my housemate and I were wondering, "Is there anything we see advertised on the shows we watch that we actually buy?" At first we couldn't think of anything. Eventually an ad came on for a brand of gasoline I sometimes pump. There are certainly some brands of stuff I don't buy because I'd never want to be associated with the advertising. Has there been any research on the negatives of showing commercials to the sorts of folks who are greatly annoyed by most of them?
But if you really want me to watch commercials as a condition of receiving television - which I don't consider totally a bum deal since I don't watch much television and have never subscribed to cable - then use technology to allow me to see commercials that are about stuff I might have an actual interest in buying. This should be done in a way that can't trace back to me as an individual. I would gladly watch commercials for, say, portable mp3 players - but showing me commercials for cars is just dumb, since I won't be buying a new car in the next 5 years, and you can't tell or show me enough about a car in a minute to interest me anyway.
And please don't show me ads for prescription drugs. The last thing I want to do is justify the further inflation of medical costs to pay for these ads; and I really don't want to think about other people's diseases when I'm trying to relax into some escapist TV - or even focus on the nightly news, for that matter. I mean, old people are depressed, need diapers, and the males can't get it up without help ... but do I need to meditate on my still-years-off future decay every time I want to luxuriate in the fires and floods besetting distant parts of our greenhoused world?
Possible infringing uses don't outlaw a device (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright is held in the public interest -- it's part of the public good as a means to ensure the creation and dissemination of knowledge. Fair use is a tool to allow individuals to have reasonable access and use of materials they license or buy from copyright holders. With the expansion of copyright law, there's no connection any more between the notion of copyright as a limited grant by the people of the United States (and other countries, too, of course) and the utility to which that copyright can be put to use.
I'm an author as well as a defendent in this case, and I support copyright as a method by which words, images, and motion can be protected for a limited time to allow the artists, writers, and other creators to make a living. If other modalities arise in which I would copyright nothing but still be able to pay the bills, I would certainly be interested in that as would most authors I know.
The point is this: I don't ask Xerox and Canon to stop selling copy machines because they might photocopy articles that appear in magazines. I don't ask ISPs to filter all content because my words might pass through without payment. I don't require my readers to peruse advertisements and read my articles in one sitting. (You can make the case that one useful item built into new color copiers is their ability to recognize when currency is being photocopied and prevent it -- that has compelling public and private interest all over it, even though it prevents certain kinds of art.)
Re:Call me ignorant, but.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I dunno, but (content-wise), it seems they are already there!
Re:Call me ignorant, but.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Fearing the demise of television reminds me a lot of the Futurama scene where Bender throws Fry's beer into the TV, smashing it. Fry exlaims indignantly, "Hey! Now what am I supposed to drink and watch all day?" TV is a lifestyle for a lot of people, not just a gadget that can be used to watch certain, specific things. I think it's disgusting, and it's contributing to the ignorance that causes most of the problems we see today in the US.
Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question is, since when are we obligated? I'll leave the sentence fragment like that, because it makes more sense then specifying the obligations. Exactly at which point did we become obligated to watch commercials? Where are these obligations stated? How did we agree to these obligations? Who the hell seriously believes in these obligations? What legal basis do these obligations have?
Are we equally obligated to watch every single commercial that comes into our home? Are we obligated to watch the same damn Burger King commercial all 4000 times it is on a day? (One could interpret it that way.) What if we only watch part of a show? What if we only watch two minutes of the show, then leave? Are we obligated to watch some commercials later?
Are we all going to be in deep legal poo-poo for retroactive penalties for not watching commercials? Can the judge rule in favor of the obligation theory when he or she has almost certainly not behaved that way themselves? Do the executives making these insane claims themselves watch commercials?
Fair use is a phrase best left unused by Slashdotters, as most of them get it wrong. The real questions in this case are trivialized by using the fair use concept. (Look it up.)
It is about the advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of television is the advertising. If there was no advertising, there would be no commercial need for TV in the US, not even PBS.
American Corporations depends upon broadcast television to market their product and brand their trade and service marks. TV has been very kind to the U.S. corporation, allowing mega corporations such as McDonalds, WalMart, and Coca Cola to create a unified vision of their corporation in the public mind, one that often has little to do with reality. Broadcast television has, in effect, given the corporation a means to brainwash entire generations.
To the U.S. Corporation an end of television commercials means an end of a powerful marketing technique. If McDonalds is not allowed to brainwash the kids to annoy their parent for a Kids' Meal, what is to stop the consumer from just going to the restaurant next door, or, god forbid, actually cook a nutritious meal? If WalMart is not allowed to push the fallacy that they provide the best value, what is to stop the consumer from going to a store where the workers are actually paid for the hours worked? If Coca-Cola did not constantly equate itself with the American Way, would there be any reason for us not buy Shasta?
Some may think I am exaggerating, but I am not. TV has been critical in the evolution of the American Corporation and the mass adoption of new products. For instance, when instant coffee first came out, it was not widely accepted. Most women at the time were homemakers, and making real coffee for their husbands was considered part of their duty. Instant Coffee producers launched a large scale campaign to equate instant coffee to loving one's husband, by way of having more time to be with him. We see the same thing in recent paper plate commercial aimed at the single mom. By using paper plates, the single mom has more time to spend with her kids, and therefore only a mom who did not love her kids would not use paper plates. Every few minutes on kids' shows, McDonalds equates going to their restaurants with loving your kids.
So, now perhaps we can stop all this silly talk about the quality of TV, or that maybe we can just start paying for TV. The sole purpose of a television program is to deliver a large number of a certain demographic to an advertiser. Nothing less, nothing more. Advertisers know how important this is, and will often pay inflated prices to insure their influences. This is particularly true for certain groups such as young men. This, by the way, explains why male professional sports do so well.. Such sports are also a vehicle to deliver a demographic to the advertiser. The value of such entertainment to us as consumers is far less than the value to the advertiser. We would unlikely to be willing to directly pay that kind of money.
Re:Possible infringing uses don't outlaw a device (Score:2, Insightful)
Things to note when (if) speaking to the Judge:
1) As your message title said, "Possible infringing uses don't outlaw a device". Look at guns. The right to bear arms is in the constitution, but there's nothing to say what kind of arms are allowed, so something like a sword or dagger would qualify just as much as an M16. (ie, guns could be outlawed without a constitutional crisis) Obviously, the most efficient method of killing someone with a bullet is by accelerating it with a gun. Yet the gun is not illegal to own (nor the bullet), it is only illegal to use it for - you guessed it - illegal purposes. (Incidentally, a handgun has few legal uses - fewer than a PVR. They may used for target shooting, and for self defense. It's sometimes allowed, but very rare, to hunt with a pistol.)
Of course, it may be wise not to link PVR's with guns - you never know how an MPAA lawyer might twist that one
2) The television industry sends out copyrighted information without first licensing it (to the viewer). If I rent/buy a tape or DVD, there is an FBI notice on it, telling me what uses aren't allowed. To say that I have fewer rights to something for which there has been no notice given, nor any license agreed to is insane. Remember - I can pause, rewind, stop, piss, whatever with the tape or DVD.
3) The argument that there is "an implied agreement to watch the commercials" is complete crap. The TV station has agreements with their advertisers, to put the commercials on the air at certain times, or during certain types of shows. There is no agreement with the viewer to watch. None. The TV station pays the network for programming, and the advertisers pay the TV station for product exposure. End of story. I (as a viewer) have always had the right to: a) channel surf; b) take a piss; c) make popcorn; d) turn off the TV; or e) watch the commercial. It is my choice as the viewer. I choose what shows to watch, and what commercials to watch. The TV station chooses what shows to broadcast, and what/when commercials will be broadcast. If they have the right to require us to sit through the commmercials, the obvious next step is to make certain shows mandatory as well. That would be terrible - imagine having to watch reruns of "Rosanne".
4) The industry lawyers claim (from the EFF page about this suit) "... commercial skipping infringes copyright and digital recording aids piracy." Of course, the telephone also aids piracy. So does the post office. And the interstate highway system, and the oil industry, and the auto industry
The really funny part of this is that the TV stations/networks have been broadcasting modified versions of TV shows for years. They cut out segments of the shows so that more commercials can be fit in. One hour TV shows used to be 52 minutes or so, now the same show would be about 42 minutes. It's interesting that the TV stations claim that we are illegally not watching parts of the programming when they are actually preventing us from seeing the whole show in many instances.
Here's to making a difference.
Re:It is about the advertising (Score:3, Insightful)
The beer commercial is the classic example of a product that is so constantly associated with a vision that is not even remotely associated with reality. Since when does drinking a beer magically turn you into a stud whom the girls can't resist? As I see it, beer has a nasty tendency to make you slow, stupid, potentially dangerous, and generally repulsive if you aren't careful.
The images that fermion mentions are equally as ludicrous. That's why they're great examples. Taking your kids to McDonalds does not and never will equate to properly loving and caring for your children. Coca-Cola is not synonymous with the American dream. Anyone who believes that drinking Coke will automatically make you successful deserves whatever fate is handed to them.
This is why a recent Ask Slashdot [slashdot.org]ran chills up my spine. The De Beers diamond cartel designed a series of commercials (none of which are running anymore, thankfully) that actually had the gall to tout the sales pitch "how else can two months salary last a lifetime" when everyone knows that a diamond is not going to keep your marriage intact. Your wife may love it, but if YOU aren't a good husband then no amount of jewels will help.
But then again, we know this. It's the masses who don't.
--
Re:Call me ignorant, but.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you a Communist?
I remember living in Soviet Union where we was
told every day that we should give up our freedom
and propriety (if anybody in Soviet union had any)
to help starving children somewhere in the Third World, tortured by evil Americans, or to build
bright future for our own grandchildren or to something else.
In 1991 we said "enough' and throw communist goverment away.
Now, evil American capitalists, which do not need
assistance of their own people to fight Cold War
with us anymore, begin to borrow communist ways
of propaganda, which are aimed to get more money
from the people without giving any real goods
back.
And they was able to brainwash innocent slashdoter
enough to make him feel that he is obliged to
pay people, who brainwash him, otherwise
these poor people would starve.
I suspect that some our most competent brainwashers emmigrate into US and were hired
by advertising industry. Patterns are too recognizable.