Studios Forcing ReplayTV to Collect Viewing Info 164
superposed writes "The San Francisco Chronicle has articles here and here about an ongoing court battle between ReplayTV and several major media organizations. A federal judge has required SonicBlue, makers of ReplayTV, to begin collecting data on how customers use the systems to swap shows and skip commercials, and hand the information over to the studios so they can make a case that copyrights are being infringed. SonicBlue is appealing the ruling, saying that collecting the data would violate their privacy policy. " It seems strange to me how
much legal hoopla SonicBlue has been dragged through considering how many of
these things they've actually sold. Update: 05/05 14:22 GMT by M : See the previous story as well.
Great... (Score:1, Funny)
A new low! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sheer genius, but also very depressing. Our legal system is more screwed up than people think. Way more...
Re:A new low! (Score:3, Interesting)
SonicBlue needs to make a legal argument why ReplayTV does not infringe on copyrights. As a replayTV owner, I really hope they are able to do it....
Anyway, I think the studios will win. It can't be hard for SonicBlue to gather the data in aggregate, so I bet the court will think thats ok. And I'm not sure how beneficial the data will be for the studios....I doubt people are really swapping files much, since you can only do it with other people that have the brand new units. The commercial skip is fairly analagous to recording with a VCR and fast forwarding. Its not instant on a VCR, but its close to the same.
Re:A new low! (Score:4, Informative)
Let's look at this another way (as I'm a replay owner too). The judge has ordered the company to invade your privacy - Ever hear of the 4th ammendment??? The requirements for a search warrant are even close to being met here! Now - the judge said that our identities will be protected for the time being... how nice.
Support the EFF - they are at least looking into helping us. Whether they can or not is another matter. I was a disinterested 3rd party to this proceeding until the judge violated my rights. Wait you say - doesn't a judge have the power to do just that - yes they do, but it mustn't be a global invasion like this, but specific and for specific legal reasons. I gotta think that this is wanting in that department. I sure hope so.
Again - drop a check to the EFF. $10, or $20 or whatever you can afford. They seem to be the only people concerned about this BS.
Re:A new low! (Score:1)
Re:A new low! (Score:3, Interesting)
HIS 4th Amendment rights are being violated.
SonicBlue's records are ok to bring into the
court - but the judge is saying: reach into
HIS house and create new data based on what
you find in HIS house.
I don't see how MY constitutional rights are
somehow put into limbo because SonicBlue and
the studios are in court.
Re:A new low! (Score:2, Insightful)
or to put it more simply, it's not a 4th Amendment violation.
Re:A new low! (Score:5, Interesting)
[IANAL]
Re:A new low! (Score:1, Insightful)
2. It's a government organization ordering the collection - which is in all relevant ways equivelent. If the government could circumvent the COnstitution by ordering or paying private companies to do dirty work for them, the Constitution would be irrelevant.
3. The fact that the end users are not being investigated is more ammo for the 4th ammendment argument. It's no different than a court ordering QWest to tap the phones of all of it's customers and to report to the nature of all conversations, along with a number which personally identifies each customer.
4. Unique ID numbers are functionally no different than names. They are both tracible back to a single identifiable individual.
Scythe
Re:A new low! (Score:2)
I have one of these devices - and the agreement I had with Sonic Blue has been invalidated by the judge - not Sonic Blue, and I have NO recourse but to either turn the device off, or un-plug it. That SUCKS!
Re:A new low! (Score:3, Informative)
Instead of "betting", read the articles. The judge specified that individual users behavior be tracked, and linked to an anonomous ID. This is *not* aggregate data collection. Somewhere there would be a record of every movie you watch, and how often, and when, and every keystroke you use with their machine.
Central District Court Magistrate Charles F. Eick told SonicBlue to gather ``all available information'' about how consumers use the Santa Clara company's latest generation ReplayTV 4000 video recorders, and turn the information over to the film studios and television networks suing it for contributing to copyright infringement.
Also:
The plaintiffs asked SonicBlue to turn over information on how individuals use the recording devices. SonicBlue said it does not track that information. The magistrate, who is supervising discovery, ordered the company to write software in the next 60 days that would record every ``click'' from every customer's remote control.
Re:A new low! (Score:3, Insightful)
The amount of randomness that adds to the system is anathema to justice.
--Blair
Re:A new low! (Score:2)
As truesaer already pointed out, it's called "discovery", and it basically works like this:
a) Various EvilSuperMegaCorps say: "You're violating our copyrights! We'll sue!"
b) SonicBlue says: "No we're not!"
c) Judge says: "Prove it! I know you have that data, now hand it over!"
On first blush, this may seem intrusive, but imagine if you were the litigant, suing EvilSuperMegaCorp for copyright violation. In that case, of course you would expect that the judge would order ESMC to hand over the data about the use of that material that you know they're collecting.
Two lessons here:
IANAL, although the more I read uninformed posts like these, the more I think about entering law school...
Re:A new low! (Score:2)
From my point of view - one of the guys who owns this device - the court has ordered Sonic Blue to violate my privacy. They have been ordered to spy on me. No more or less than that. Can there court-ordered observation of my viewing habbits and use of this box be argued to be anything else?
So, if you do finally admit that they have been ordered to invade my privacy on behalf of the media industry - then even though it is a company doing the spying, it's at the government behest, and therefore the company is merely an agent of the government. It doesn't matter who gets the data, it's the government that ordered them to do it. Last time I heard, there is some expectation of privacy that I have of my home and papers unless I'm personally suspected of a crime. The government isn't allowed to go on fishing expeditions. That is ALL this really amounts too when looked at from the position of the stuckee.
Look - I have nothing to hide except the use of the 30 second advance button
At the same time - I'm now subject to a court-ordered search of my premises without ever seeing the search warrant? That is what invasion of my data is considered isn't it??
Tell me how it isn't the above?
Re:A new low! (Score:4, Informative)
*Wrong! The judge gives them 60 days to write the software that will collect more information than they have ever collected before. The fact that you think they are already collecting this data indicates you didn't read, or can't understand, the articles mentioned. Yet you suggest
Re:A new low! (Score:2)
There is also the irony of gathering data on alleged copyright infringment by using actual copyright infringment.
And therein lies the problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And therein lies the problem... (Score:2)
No wonder there are so many $cientologists in Hollywood!
Question (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't afford either, but from all I've read, they're the same thing: digital VCRs. Maybe ReplayTV should have copied Tivo.
Re:Question (Score:2)
Now, my question is this: why are the studios forcing Replay to collect something that will -- I'm assuming -- be used later to incriminate ReplayTV?
These studios -- and Valenti and Rosen, in particular -- must think they're the King and Queen of America -- they can do anything, ask anything, require anything.
Yes, anonymously (Score:2)
Yes, they do, anonymously. This order goes even beyond that, in that a unique ID will be assigned to each users data. Tivo is capable of doing that, agreed, but they do not and their privacy policy forbids them from doing that without the user's explicit consent...
This is a heavy blow to privacy, and probably illegal according to the 5th amendment. I sincerely hope they tell the judge to fuck off and take it to a higher court somehow. Stupid legal system.
Re:Question (Score:3, Informative)
But this is America, and tampering with data to manipulate the system is done every day. We should all go buy ReplayTV units from Best Buy, set it to record only the most inane infomercials, and return it within 30 days.
And Sonicblue should provide all the info in hardcopy.
Re:Question (Score:1)
I didn't know that. Can recordings be swapped to non-ReplayTV machines (which might have the ability to save a permanent copy, like a CD)?
Re:Question (Score:3, Informative)
SwapDV lets you pull shows from your ReplayTV and can even show up on your UPnP network as another Replay box to stream shows from, acting as a nice backup. Users can also burn the MPEGs to CDs and DVDs or swap them with P2P clients. Gnutella integration is coming also from what I understand.
Re:Question (Score:4, Informative)
The first is that you can easily send shows over the internet, etc with the sonicblue box. We know this for a fact pisses the industry off. Not only can you send shows, etc, it's marketed strongly that way.
Secondly I think they are probably attacking SonicBlue because they are the weaker company. They have less dollars and most likely less lawyers. Once they get standing and precident from a case that's easier to win they can move on to going after the big dog with that in their pocket.
Re:Question (Score:1)
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:3, Informative)
The Electronic Frontier Foundation of San Francisco and San Jose's TiVo Inc. , Sonicblue's main competitor in the digital video recorder market, rushed to Sonicblue's defense, saying the order could prove a setback to consumer rights and could have a chilling effect on new technology.
It definitely sounds as if TiVo is aware of the gravity of the situation.
Of course they are, they want to do the same thing (Score:2)
Re:Question (Score:1)
The media companies are enormous, have enormous resources, and seem to have much more political power than the public.
Maybe it's not that we're lethargic, maybe we have lost so much faith in the legal system that it seems pointless to fight.
Re:Question (Score:2)
You can't. That's capitalism for you. As the who said once "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
Re:Question (Score:1)
The people or their representatives?
If 99% of the people do X then X is legal.
If you want to drink alcohol, drink it.
If you want to copy TV programmes, copy them.
If unrestricted copying becomes legal (and copyright is abandoned as a quaint custom) artists will still make money while people want new art. Don't worry about it.
www.digitalartauction.com
The public is bigger than the government - last time I looked anyway - or are Americans just sheep these days?
Re:Question (Score:2)
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for dinner...that is why America is not a democracy. There are some democratic elements to the way our system works (and those elements have been responsible for, among other things, some of the darker elements of our history), but we never have had a pure democracy—and I hope we never have a pure democracy.
Here's how. (Score:4, Funny)
Hand the media companies what they want. With one catch, however. Send them the files in Claris Works 1.0 on 600 floppies. Don't forget to accidently catch a virus that just happens to latch itself onto Claris Works files.
Seen this before. (Score:2)
When Napster was going down the tubes, as a news reporter in Nashville, TN, I did a piece on the company that was propped up by the labels and nailing Napster.
Napster was required by law to send all of the relevent material to the company that was handling the lawsuit, which I can't name right now, I don't think they exsist anymore, I might be mistaken.
SO THEY DID. IN HARD COPY.
Napster mailed long, old dot matrix printouts to the office in reams that (I kid you not) were at least three and a half feet tall.
Moral of the story... they complied with the company. And the company couldn't afford to compile all of the infringers by hand but instead tried to have a chilling effect on Napster by getting a few of them scared.
So my suggestion would be paper.
Besides, I cannot believe that this is even happening. This is extremely "Farenheit 451" in the way that the television companies are trying to legislate the way we watch television that they supposedly give away for free.
Helping prove they are guilty (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only guilty until proven innocent, but they have to help win their own conviction.
Sucks.
To quote Chuck D, "Fuck Hollywood"
Re:Helping prove they are guilty (Score:1)
Personally, I don't know what the judge was high on. Discovery should not cause harm to third parties, like me!
Re:Helping prove they are guilty (Score:2)
Except that "discovery" typically does not involve the court telling either defendant or plaintiff to spy on third parties. Unless all of ReplayTV's *customers* have now become parties to the case. If so the judge might need to move the next hearing to a sports stadium and be prepared for a very long hearing...
Re:Helping prove they are guilty (Score:2)
Ditto with Fifth Amendment rights. You can't please the fifth in a civil case and you have to provide testimony and allow discovery even if it is prejudicial to your case.
And no, it doesn't suck. It sounds like you have assumed that SonicBlue is guilty and that the data will prove it. This is simply a discovery process. SonicBlue has the data and claims that they are innocent. Now the judge has asked them to hand over the data so everyone can see for themselves if they are lying.
Re:Helping prove they are guilty (Score:1)
So, you're saying that only the guilty have something to hide?
Gathering evidence (Score:3, Interesting)
No (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Gathering evidence (Score:1)
IANAL (BIPOOTV.)
Re:Gathering evidence (Score:2)
Too featureful product - court orders (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Too featureful product - court orders (Score:1)
This is one of the reason why it sucks to be a hardware manufacturer, I guess. The likes of MPAA and RIAA could threaten to sue you because your hardware could in principle be used to violate (copyright) law.
In the case of software, if you have closed source (like Microsoft), it seems very difficult to *prove* it has or doesn't have some feature or ability. In the case of open source software, while you can easily demonstrate it has or doesn't have some feature, there is nobody to sue, except for trying to curtail the circulation of said program (see DeCSS).
Re:Too featureful product - court orders (Score:2)
Hence, being feature-poor is evidently no defense.
Re:Too featureful product - court orders (Score:1)
If the Studios involved want the data, surely they should be the ones writing the software and not SonicBlue! Mind you, I wouldn't trust them to just get viewing data...
Re:Too featureful product - court orders (Score:1)
How many they've sold (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How many they've sold (Score:2)
5th amendment? (Score:2)
Re:5th amendment? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:5th amendment? (Score:1)
Re:5th amendment? (Score:2)
Second, as pointed out by another poster, evidence is not testimony. For example, DNA samples can be taken to ascertain whether you were the rapist. That is far, far more intrusive than looking at your TV watching diary.
You are correct for the burden being on the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff is entitled to "every man's evidence" in pursuing his claim. So he can subpeona documents, witnesses, etc. (There are quite a number of limits on this, too tiresome to enumerate, but the idea is to get to the right answer by making as much evidence as is reasonably possible available.)
PR!!! (Score:1)
Re:PR!!! (Score:1)
The thing that makes it different here is not that they're required to hand over evidence, but that they're being forced to collect that evidence on their opponent's behalf from innocent 3rd parties.
Partialy SonicBlue's fault? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm glad SB is not just rolling over though. Just like Diamond Rio and the MP3 player suit, the Digital PVR suit needs to hit courts and law set, good or bad. People keep referring back to the Sony timeshifting case, but the problem list that was analog, this is digital. It needs to go to court and get settled, but having SB collect evidence for the plantiffs is just ridiculus.
Re:Partialy SonicBlue's fault? (Score:1)
The myreplaytv features give them somewhat more, but still not enough for the skipping data; to comply with this, they're going to have to do a client-side software update, presumably adding things to the system log.
old news (Score:1)
from the man-that-sucks dept. (Score:5, Funny)
Commercial skipping on PVR and VCR (Score:4, Informative)
But on the subject of commercial skipping I would point very strongly toward the better Panasonic VCRs and similar models that have automatic skipping. My techno savy 70 year mother got the first one in my circle of contacts. Now I have influenced several people to go that way. A simple demonstration is all that it takes. The only person that did not get a Panasonic after I showed them the feature in action was buying a low end deck for his toddler.
We have been working on watching Seinfeld for once and for all -- All episodes in order, as collected by Tivo, dubbed to VHS for additional buffer space. The broadcasts are frequently out of episode order. The Panasonic VCR is virtually 100% effective at catching the commercials with the only annoyance being about 50% of the time it does not detect the final short segment of the program as being non-commercial content.
Also Panasonic VCRs have about the best rating for reliability in Consumer Reports.
Here is where the problems are (Score:5, Informative)
1. TiVo by default does not remove commercials. You either have to hit your fast foward button, or enable the 30sec skip backdoor code. And either way you still have to be there to do it. The new ReplayTV units remove the commercials automatically so you don't even know they are there at all.
2. ReplayTV allows sharing of problams to other ReplayTV units (also to computers running a program to make the ReplayTV think the computer is another ReplayTV). Now, again, this isn't a big deal until you realize that I can get HBO and record Six Feet Under or Sopranos and now share them with people that don't pay for HBO. This would be in effect the same as buying a movie, and copying it for others that don't own the movie.
Also, TiVo does collect user data, but it's ANONYMOUS, it does not link you to your TiVo unit unless you call in for service and they half to (they have you key something in on the remote). You can also make a 5min phone call and be removed from this.
Question (Score:2, Funny)
Outrageous! (Score:2)
It would be nice to get a class of consumers to intervene in that action, or to seek some sort of extraordinary write, perhaps a writ of prohibition to keep this court from doing to American citizens what no other branch of government can do.
Re:Outrageous! (Score:1)
Suppose the government would keep statistics about Latinos, and the crimes they commited, against whom, and so forth (oh they already do?). This is no different.
-------
Re:Outrageous! (Score:2)
What If? (Score:2, Interesting)
U.S. District Court Magistrate Charles Eick told GA to create software within 60 days to monitor everything customers shoot at, everything they miss and any bullets they transmit through others.
MjM
Blame the advertisers (Score:2)
Privacy is NOT private (Score:1)
1: Go live in a cave without any form of technology at all.
2: Live as a hermit in society today, only letting your electricity/gas bills track you.
3: Come to the conclusion that the only part of the world that is ours anymore is the few cubic centimeters inside your skull.
What's my answer? #3. Don't kid yourselves, you're only delaying the inevitable.
k_d
Fifth amendment... (Score:2, Interesting)
This judge is asking Replay/Sonic to gather data that will be used against themselves in a civil action. This should be the primary defense instead of "it goes against our privacy policy" non-sense that any judge would just tell them "so, modify your policy and process my request."
More PRIVACY to battle for? (Score:2)
Meaning if a company wants to invade your privacy, they should be required to get your permission rather than you having to fight off every F*&Kin company that seems to assume they have the right to invade your privacy. Rather than the "if you don't respond, we then assume we can invade your privacy" it should be "if you don't respond and agree to invasion of your privacy then we legally can't invade your privacy"
This would certainly reduce alot of concern and stress to the people along with reducing the sales hype that uses "your privacy is our concern".
Wouldn't privacy interest be consistant with not responding?
Bell South called me the other day wanting to sell me some sort of new "privacy" service. I didn't listen to the complete sales pitch because by simple logic I shouldn't have to buy my privacy.
War on terror......which seems to have brought privacy issues to the limelight --- what could be more terrorizing than having to buy privacy?
sounds like buying protection from the mob...
Is it useful without an "account" (Score:1)
Presumably, I could still manually record shows and share them, I just wouldn't get their automated listings. Correct?
What about the Fifth Admendment??? (Score:4, Interesting)
According the the fifth admendment, one does not have to provide information that may be used against them in a court of law.
How is it that this judge does not know this?
Have they ben following the MS anti-trust case to much?
Re:What about the Fifth Admendment??? (Score:1)
Judge Learned Hand said it best, "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no Constitution, no court, can even do much to help it."
Re:What about the Fifth Admendment??? (Score:2)
Personally, this seems like a Very Good Thing to me, since I don't want companies to avoid having their wrongdoing come to light just because the main evidence is internal.
For those of you who are law-geeky enough to care about references, check United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 701 (1944); Baltimore & O.R.R. v. ICC, 221 U.S. 612, 622 (1911); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 69-70, 74-75 (1906).
Re:What about the Fifth Admendment??? (Score:2)
There is other recent examples too, like Enron and even more current another company which I do not recall the name of but only that it sounded like Enron until the news promo said it wasn't. And of course, as a simple matter of fact, there is Microsoft which with the inherent possibility of Bill consulting his former judge father, has been able to apply the 5th amendment, maybe not in direct statements but certainly in actions which many preceive as acts of purgery (cept for some reason the court doesn't seem to..)
It seems what you are refering to is not something so avoidable by not applying the 5th amendment directly or even indirectly.
Although I do not have quick and easy access to reading about another case (link) I do question whether or not such a situation as this could intentionally be set up to entrap consumers, making it appear to not be such a set up but in effect being just that. With an overall target not of attacking specific consumers but of trying to get laws passed which as not in the general publics best interest and even perhaps not in the best interest of the talent either.
recent article comments dealing with music [slashdot.org]
My video tape collection has grown, since DVD's have caused tape to greatly drop in price to be compairable to going to the theater (which typically is not play such older movies anymore).
But I've had a VCR for far longer than my video tape purchase habbits
The Ability to track and report??? Gastopo tactics?
Which in effect is and invasion of privacy of the people.
Is not being a long term US citizen good enough to have privacy as a default thing for companies to respect of the people/consumers?
I'm getting really tired of "having to tell companies I do not want my privacy invaded" for it cost me in time and postage to do such "required batteling for my
And given everyone and their sub company has jumped on the privacy sales pitch bandagon, it's not getting any better.
How much more is it going to cost me to continue the battle for my privacy, and do I now have to be concerned about what products I buy and how they might be used to invade my privacy?
And such cases as this where the effect is entrapment.....
I don't think the case you refered to really applies or addresses the bottom line issues of consumer rights.
It is wrong for a judge to put the task of invading the peoples privacy in the hands of a company who sold a product to the people, using that product against them.
Especially considering that the only reason it's being done now and not over the past 30 years is because it can be now done.
Re:What about the Fifth Admendment??? (Score:2)
Wasn't it using the 5th ammendment which got US corporations declared to be "legal people" in the first place?
Re:What about the Fifth Admendment??? (Score:2)
Wasn't it using the 5th ammendment which got US corporations declared to be "legal people" in the first place?
The 14th, actually, based on a Supreme Court case: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, in 1886. The Court's decision was later used to justify giving corporations most of the protections afforded citizens under the 5th Amendment, but not all. The clause against self-incrimination has been curtailed where corporations are concerned.
Re:Corportate fifth amendment right (Score:2)
Re:Corportate fifth amendment right (Score:2)
Self Incriminating (Score:1)
So, wouldn't this have the potential of allowing the studios to sue Sonic Blue in the end? As far as I know, you tell the police to investigate a crime, not the family of the victim.
Here is what to do (Score:2)
Did everybody miss this? (Score:1)
What's the difference between this and a VCR? (Score:1)
Re:What's the difference between this and a VCR? (Score:1)
I don't know anyone who -purposely- watches ads in a recorded show, but I have from time to time played a damned good, funny ad back and had a chuckle.
How about that - make better ads that people don't laugh at for the wrong reasons
McMuffin soup (Score:2)
The retarded part of the whole thing is the TV networks conception that not watching commercials is somehow evil. They don't get money from me watching a McDonalds commercial (even though that is how they charge advertisers), they get money from me buying a Big Mac and a Coke. The only reason they're going after PVRs is because they fuck up their audience statistics. If a show has a specific rating they can assume a certain number of people are watching and charge advertisers accordingly. All an advertisers has to do in negotiations is whip out a paper that says there are a million ReplayTV and not have to pay the netwok as much money as they are charging. It's greed on two fronts screwing over ReplayTV users.
Re:McMuffin soup (Score:2)
What they are missing is that all advertising is simply a kind of gambling. What next, postal spam companies want people who throw away their material unread (and possibly unopened) fined?
They don't get money from me watching a McDonalds commercial (even though that is how they charge advertisers), they get money from me buying a Big Mac and a Coke.
Actually the TV companies get money from McDonalds trying to persuade people to buy Big Macs and Cokes.
The only reason they're going after PVRs is because they fuck up their audience statistics. If a show has a specific rating they can assume a certain number of people are watching and charge advertisers accordingly. All an advertisers has to do in negotiations is whip out a paper that says there are a million ReplayTV and not have to pay the netwok as much money as they are charging.
However ReplayTV and the people using the hardware they sell are not party to any of the negotiations broadcasters and their advertisers enguage in. It simply isn't (nor should be) anyone else's problem. Not ReplayTV's, not their customers and certainly not government or the general public.
Here's what you do.... (Score:2)
This has got to stop!!! FUCK MICKEY!!! (Score:1)
Idea for SonicBlue... (Score:2)
step 2: apply trivial content protection
step 3: hand over encryted content
step 4: require subscription service to view data at $0.75/user's info (fees would be on a per-lawyer basis...sharing of the data would be expressly prohibited).
Re:Studios Forcing ReplayTV... (Score:1)
Isn't there ONE prosecutor with guts... (Score:2)
What's Next -- Potty Cam?? (Score:2)
Re:What's Next -- Potty Cam?? (Score:2)
The trouble with this sort of lawsuit is that it's a real short hop from here to criminalizing use of ad-blockers in ANY medium, from TV to web, lest the user "steal" from an ad-supported host by deprecating its advertising demographics and thereby its advertising revenues.
It's also a close parallel to legally-enforced artificial support of other obsolescent revenue models, oft-discussed hereabouts.
Re:What's Next -- Potty Cam?? (Score:2)
Maybe billboards will have cameras to track people not looking at them. There will be fines for not reading junk mail (probably email spam too).
If anything this is further proof that the US is not a capitalist country. If it was then anyone making such claim would be considered a fool. With this kind of court case being laughed out of court (by the judge/B).
Why bother? (Score:2)
Seriously, I've been thinking about this one for a while. There is only a chance that a viewer will stick around for the commercials. If they start showing customers (ie: Pepsi, McDonalds, yatta) that we flip or "skip" then the advertising customers will not want to pay up.
Advertising is a crap shoot. Anything from banner ads to newspaper ads to tv ads. Even if they (us) see them it doesn't mean they care.
I'm 110% for Nielson style ratings. I want the network to know I like Futurama before it's too late, I don't want Night Court to go out of syndication again...
But who knows. Most companies spend their advertising budget on "conceptual" ads that don't even tell the customer where to get the product. When was the last time you saw a Pepsi commercial which said: "Go to your local Rite-Aid for Pepsi this week!" ? Of course that is a bad example. Simply tell us where to get the product, how much and why it's better. Save Mrs. Spears for the porno (that we are waiting for).
About the betamax case... [off topic] (Score:2)
He claims that VOD isn't on the side of the betamax case, but what is the point? I enjoy VOD right now from Time Warner/AOL [the people who pay Keller]. I also enjoy it with no advertising what so ever.
Why is it that I get no ads with VOD? Because I fucking pay a monthly fee. HBO on demand, iControl - both are funded directly by me, the consumer. (iControl is a pay-per-view based model)
These technologies are a step forward because it gives us what we all want. We want media, free of ads. Subscription based viewing is nice because you get what you want for a price you can swallow. It's similar to the pay-per-single music idea. No ads, it's on when you want, you can fast forward and rewind - and his parent company is selling it to me.
How can he complain? Especially since I'm watching "Contact" on a Turner station and the volume for commercials is about 20% higher....
Re:what's the matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
Theres a tarriff we all pay when purchasing VHS cassettes, that will supposedly pay the offset in profits lost to piracy.
Yeah, even if you are just recording your sons first birthday party, you were already assumed guilty of piracy.
------------
Re:video surveillance everywhere! (corrected) (Score:2)
What popup? I have _never_ seen a popup on this site. You're going to http://slashdot.org, correct? If you're getting popups, then maybe you ought to run Ad-Aware and see if you have spyware installed.