|
|
More Crappy legislation regarding skipping commercials
http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html
Some Quotes: ....The bill would also permit people to use technology to skip objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films, a right that consumers already have. However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited. The proposed law also includes language from the Pirate Act (S2237), which would permit the Justice Department to file civil lawsuits against alleged copyright infringers. ...."This legislation enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. Many pieces of it already have unanimously passed one house of Congress," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy wrote in an e-mail. "The intellectual property industries are one of our leading national exports, and it's approprate for the federal government to have a role in protecting those sectors from rampant piracy." End Some Quotes Seems to be more towards DVD and Movie's but can TV be far off? -- David |
NEWS FLASH!!
Free TV has never been free!! Commercials pay for the content. No commercials, no "free" tv. Too bad so sad, but stations and networks gotta make a buck too. Or do you work for free?! \ "SINNER" wrote in message . 130... http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html Some Quotes: ...The bill would also permit people to use technology to skip objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films, a right that consumers already have. However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited. The proposed law also includes language from the Pirate Act (S2237), which would permit the Justice Department to file civil lawsuits against alleged copyright infringers. ..."This legislation enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. Many pieces of it already have unanimously passed one house of Congress," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy wrote in an e-mail. "The intellectual property industries are one of our leading national exports, and it's approprate for the federal government to have a role in protecting those sectors from rampant piracy." End Some Quotes Seems to be more towards DVD and Movie's but can TV be far off? -- David |
In article , curmudgeon
wrote: NEWS FLASH!! Free TV has never been free!! Commercials pay for the content. No commercials, no "free" tv. Too bad so sad, but stations and networks gotta make a buck too. Or do you work for free?! Christ, I'm sick of this ridiculous argument. People have been skipping commercials since TV was invented. They change the channel, they go to the bathroom, they routinely do something other than watch them. Now they can skip over them. So what? Does this make them "pirates"? How? What in the nature of piracy, as we have come to know it, permits this interpretation? How is this "stealing"? The business model for free TV has been changed, which is why these thieves are looking to make me a criminal for not watching their commercials. What should happen is that the business model should be changed. |
SINNER ) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
...The bill would also permit people to use technology to skip objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films, a right that consumers already have. However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited. Actually, the proposed law doesn't say that skipping commercials is prohibited. It merely says that editing a movie by automatic on-the-fly skipping of "objectionable" content is *not* a violation of copyright. Normally, such choices must be made by the user, not a device, and that's the crux of the issue. Anything that requires human intervention is "OK", and always will be. Otherwise, the MPAA would be able to file suit against you if you start playing a DVD, then stop it because you have to leave the house. ..."This legislation enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. Many pieces of it already have unanimously passed one house of Congress," But, since it will be combined into one bill, the many pieces that have not passed *either* house will make this a non-starter for many representatives. Also, the "unanimous" referred to is the vote to get the bill out of committee and pass it on to the entire chamber. -- Jeff Rife | SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverThe...Internet02.gif | | |
No, it isn't free, but commercials do *NOT* pay for it, the general
consumer does. The funds are stolen from every individual who buys a potato, a head of kettuce, or a video game. It's stolen from everyone who buys a car, or who rides the bus. Every one of those people pay for the priviledges of those who do watch any television not paid for on a pay-per-view basis or by an infomercial. It isn't the commercials which pay for the content, it is every person who buys an advertised product, whether they watch the programs or not. Ignoring for the moment the effect of advertising on unnecessary impulse buying, if every commercial were magically ripped from every network program, it wouldn't change the income generated for the advertisers by a single penny. The advertisers in turn only pay for advetising becasue they believe (rightly) they cannot compete as well against other vendors who do advertise, but they do not pay for the advertising. Those costs are passed directly to the consumer. I refuse to watch network or any other advertised television, but I still pay for the programming, and so does everyone else. All television - indeed all media - should be subscriber funded only, whether it be pay-per-view, monthly subscriptions, paid advertisements, or charitable support. Don't try to tell me it can't be done, because HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, PBS, and others all do very well, thank you, without jacking up the price of everyone's commodities whether they care to watch the programming at all or not. Let those who wish to see football games pay for the football games, and let those of us who would just as soon they not be televised at all buy our tires and computers free of the tarrif imposed by such unwanted programming. Let me buy a bar of soap or box of detergent without having to know a very large fraction of the cost to me is producing several vomitous daytime melodramas, and let those of us who actually want to watch such rubbish, pay for the rubbish. Although the production value of most infomercials is questionable at best, I have no beef with the infomercial or sales channels like QVC. The products which the entertainment is designed to sell are paid for only by the individuals who tune in to the program with the express intent of buying the goods for which production the programming pays. Network television, however, bilss me and ev eryone else whether any enjoyment is obtained from the contecnt and whether we like it or not. That is theft. Stations and networks have to make money, but they do not have to make it through advertising. They only do so because it is far easier and more lucrative to steal legally than to actually work for an employer - especailly if that employer is the public at large. OTOH, not every network and station does obtain their money through theft. Remember those names, HBO, Showtime, PBS, QVC, etc? "curmudgeon" wrote in message . .. NEWS FLASH!! Free TV has never been free!! Commercials pay for the content. No commercials, no "free" tv. Too bad so sad, but stations and networks gotta make a buck too. Or do you work for free?! \ "SINNER" wrote in message . 130... http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html Some Quotes: ...The bill would also permit people to use technology to skip objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films, a right that consumers already have. However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited. The proposed law also includes language from the Pirate Act (S2237), which would permit the Justice Department to file civil lawsuits against alleged copyright infringers. ..."This legislation enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. Many pieces of it already have unanimously passed one house of Congress," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy wrote in an e-mail. "The intellectual property industries are one of our leading national exports, and it's approprate for the federal government to have a role in protecting those sectors from rampant piracy." End Some Quotes Seems to be more towards DVD and Movie's but can TV be far off? -- David |
"Leslie A Rhorer" wrote in message ... No, it isn't free, but commercials do *NOT* pay for it, the general consumer does. The funds are stolen... snip fantastic rant Excellent points made there Leslie. It brings to mind a propsal by the musical cut-and-paste masters Negativland. Here is a copy of the insert from their cd DisPepsi: One World Advertising Presents A Proposal to Coke® and Pepsi® C O N F I D E N T I A L Conclusions of the Corporate Cola Strategy Analysis Project WITH NON-PROBLEMATIC SOLUTION RECOMMENDATIONS Our recent exhaustive analysis of the multinational cola beverage divisions of Coca-Cola® and PepsiCo® have revealed that neither of these companies are presently taking advantage of significant potential savings in their respective yearly advertising expenses. We find this unfortunate promotional oversight to be typical of many corporate advertising bureaucracies which become enmeshed in self absorbed competition with each other. Neither Coca-Cola® nor PepsiCo® appear capable of any truly new approaches to the marketing strategies which now rule them both. We have observed that the CEOs of both these companies are not only thoroughly insulated from their consumer targets by their own luxury filled lifestyles, but are also physically trapped inside the high security boardrooms and offices deep within their tall buildings. They have become more and more unfamiliar with the exact nature of current reality as the rest of us experience it, and have less and less interaction with any human perceptions which might be occurring outside their own worldview. The proposal which follows, then, is the inevitable result of a clear, objective, and disinterested analysis of the way things actually are, and as usual, One World Advertising offers it free of charge to whichever of these multinational corporations wishes to vastly increase their dividends while achieving a huge savings coup over their competing cola adversary. It is first necessary to grasp the simple fact that both Coke® and Pepsi® are, by now, totally familiar brands to everyone on this planet. Their saturation advertising strategies reached the 100% saturation point long ago, yet both brands continue to spend millions every year to make and place their ads and commercials everywhere all the time. The actual value of doing this is now questionable at best since everyone has already tried these drinks and everyone knows everything about them that they will ever need to know. However, in deference to these two companies' ice cold assumptions about the need to constantly counter each other's escalating ad campaigns tit for tat, we are not yet suggesting anything so radical as the elimination of their advertising budgets (although that is a perfectly plausible possibility). For now, our proposal is suitably conservative and virtually unassailable in its logic: If either one of these soft drink giants care to reap a monumental windfall of unexpected profits by doing absolutely nothing, they can simply begin placing their ads every other month, rather than every month. Six months of placements and sponsorships per year rather than twelve months! This would cut their yearly advertising expenses in half, resulting in many millions per year in extra profits. Savings on TV costs alone would be astronomical! Our easily provable contention is that these six interspersed months of no visibility will have no recognizable effect on sales whatsoever. It is obvious to everyone except these two companies that people are simply no longer buying Coke® and Pepsi® because of their commercials at all, and certainly not on the basis of monthly exposure to these commercials. No one will notice the missing commercials and sales will remain the same as they always have been. This simple, elegant, and foolproof scheme is guaranteed by our research to succeed beyond either of these two companies' wildest dreams of bigger profits. There may be some slight corporate embarrassment at discovering that all of the millions shelled out on their advertising are not particularly well spent, but their ability to gloat on their newfound shrewdness over the competition's continuing foolishness will undoubtedly make up for that. Of course this economic advantage will not last long before the opposing beverage company institutes a similar advertising policy in a predictably copycat fashion. Ultimately, this new form of de-escalating advertising competition will end up eliminating Coke® and Pepsi® ads for whole years at a time with no loss to these companies' respective yearly incomes. Finally, the tried and true artistic dictum of "less is more" will come to fruition in corporate awareness for the first time in advertising history. One World Advertising hereby offers up this new strategy to both Coca-Cola® and PepsiCo® for the taking. We expect nothing in return. Who will be first? One World Advertising is an internationally aware organization established by C. Eliot Friday for the purpose of monitoring our planetary advertising environment and developing strategies for its improvement. |
"Leslie A Rhorer" wrote in message ... Don't try to tell me it can't be done, because HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, PBS, and others all do very well, thank you, I wouldn't put PBS in the same catagory. They do list all of the programs sponsors prior to the begining of every program. 30+ years ago they showed a list of sponsors and read the company names. Then they started showing company logos as their name was being voiced as a sponsor and over the years they have evolved to the point that one could argue that some of these are commercials. |
"Keeper of the Purple Twilight" wrote in message ... Besides, the only things that PBS shows that are really worth watching anyway are Red Green, Dr. Who and Red Dwarf. :) nice display of ignorance |
First, you need to learn to read. They're not "making you a
criminal"...they're just making it hard or impossible for you to skip thru commercials. Kinda like speed humps make it hard for you to speed thru a neighborhood. No one but you mentioned theft, piracy or stealing. You have the right to ignore commercials; you have the right to "skip" over them, if you can afford the technology. And the stations/networks have a right to protect their investment in programming. Simple. But one thing you've got right. The model is changing. The "free tv" model is disappearing. You'll definitely live long enough to be paying a subscription fee for EVERYTHING you watch on TV. Or, ala Britain, you'll pay the govt. a license fee for every tv in your home....now there's a business model for you. "Dr. Personality" wrote in message ... In article , curmudgeon wrote: NEWS FLASH!! Free TV has never been free!! Commercials pay for the content. No commercials, no "free" tv. Too bad so sad, but stations and networks gotta make a buck too. Or do you work for free?! Christ, I'm sick of this ridiculous argument. People have been skipping commercials since TV was invented. They change the channel, they go to the bathroom, they routinely do something other than watch them. Now they can skip over them. So what? Does this make them "pirates"? How? What in the nature of piracy, as we have come to know it, permits this interpretation? How is this "stealing"? The business model for free TV has been changed, which is why these thieves are looking to make me a criminal for not watching their commercials. What should happen is that the business model should be changed. |
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:44:49 -0500, "curmudgeon"
wrote: But one thing you've got right. The model is changing. The "free tv" model is disappearing. You'll definitely live long enough to be paying a subscription fee for EVERYTHING you watch on TV. Or, ala Britain, you'll pay the govt. a license fee for every tv in your home....now there's a business model for you. That's not necessarily bad - if they're getting me to pay directly for the programming, there will be no commercials. If they get my cash, they don't get to annoy me with stupid ads. |
"Keeper of the Purple Twilight" wrote in message
... Besides, the only things that PBS shows that are really worth watching anyway are Red Green, Dr. Who and Red Dwarf. :) Interestingly, those are the only three shows on PBS I despise. ALL the other British comedies I like. . .plus lots of other programming, of course. - John |
That's not necessarily bad - if they're getting me to pay directly for
the programming, there will be no commercials. If they get my cash, they don't get to annoy me with stupid ads. That's why cable and satellite TV are ad-free in the USA -- NOT! Gordon L. Burditt |
In article , curmudgeon
wrote: "Dr. Personality" wrote in message ... In article , curmudgeon wrote: NEWS FLASH!! Free TV has never been free!! Commercials pay for the content. No commercials, no "free" tv. Too bad so sad, but stations and networks gotta make a buck too. Or do you work for free?! Christ, I'm sick of this ridiculous argument. People have been skipping commercials since TV was invented. They change the channel, they go to the bathroom, they routinely do something other than watch them. Now they can skip over them. So what? Does this make them "pirates"? How? What in the nature of piracy, as we have come to know it, permits this interpretation? How is this "stealing"? The business model for free TV has been changed, which is why these thieves are looking to make me a criminal for not watching their commercials. What should happen is that the business model should be changed. First, you need to learn to read. They're not "making you a criminal"...they're just making it hard or impossible for you to skip thru commercials. Kinda like speed humps make it hard for you to speed thru a neighborhood. No one but you mentioned theft, piracy or stealing. You have the right to ignore commercials; you have the right to "skip" over them, if you can afford the technology. And the stations/networks have a right to protect their investment in programming. Simple. But one thing you've got right. The model is changing. The "free tv" model is disappearing. You'll definitely live long enough to be paying a subscription fee for EVERYTHING you watch on TV. Or, ala Britain, you'll pay the govt. a license fee for every tv in your home....now there's a business model for you. First, stop top-posting. (I've corrected your lapse in this response.) Second, I know how to read. Third, you're profoundly ignorant of what this proposed law may mean. And I'm hardly the only one who's mentioned stealing in this context. (You haven't been around here very long, have you?) And what is this nonsense about Britain and license fees? Those fees support public broadcasting over there; they have nothing to do with commercials or lack of same on other outlets. Further, such license fees in the U.S. would be unconstitutional, as has been stated on the several occasions that CPB/PBS advocates have tried to have such fees enacted. The issue of license fees in the U.S. is a straw man. Yes, I would rather pay a reasonable amount for ad-free TV than have to sit through endless mounds of crap ads that don't address anything in which I'm interested. I don't care at all if the free-TV model disappears. It matters nothing to me. Something better and more useful to me will replace it. |
curmudgeon seemed to utter in
: NEWS FLASH!! Free TV has never been free!! Commercials pay for the content. No commercials, no "free" tv. Too bad so sad, but stations and networks gotta make a buck too. Or do you work for free?! An honest question for the group... If this hypothetical "pay one fee for TV and all advertising is removed from broadcasts" system came into be. Do you think the quality of TV content would improve or degrade? On one hand I think, "If there are no advertisers paying more to put their ads on the popular shows, what incentive do show producers have to make high quality shows?" but on the other hand I think, "If producers did not have to worry about winning advertising dollars, they might make quality shows rather than the prurient, 'popular' junk they make today." -- TRW _______________________________________ My e-mail: t r w 7 @ i x . n e t c o m . c o m _______________________________________ |
In article 1, Tim
Witort wrote: An honest question for the group... If this hypothetical "pay one fee for TV and all advertising is removed from broadcasts" system came into be. Do you think the quality of TV content would improve or degrade? On one hand I think, "If there are no advertisers paying more to put their ads on the popular shows, what incentive do show producers have to make high quality shows?" but on the other hand I think, "If producers did not have to worry about winning advertising dollars, they might make quality shows rather than the prurient, 'popular' junk they make today." I think HBO is a good model for this. I pay them, they show me stuff, I like it, and so I keep paying them. It doesn't get much simpler than that. All of HBO's original productions are high quality, even if they're not to everyone's taste. Showtime, not so much. I've been surprised by some of the awful crap I've seen go to series on Showtime -- in particular, Odyssey 5. I guess this is to say that direct subscription does not guarantee high quality, but (at least in HBO's case) it signifies that an effort for high quality will be made. |
Wrong. The law doesn't guarantee your right to a profit -- just fairness in
competition. If the technology model has changed the landscape of your business, then you must change to fit the times. I don't recall anyone riding to the rescue of the horse and buggy when the automobile came along. Crafting laws that guarantee the continuance of a fading business model cannot, and will not, save that model. Time marches on, and if free TV goes the way of the dodo, then so be it. Figure out another plan. "curmudgeon" wrote in message . .. NEWS FLASH!! Free TV has never been free!! Commercials pay for the content. No commercials, no "free" tv. Too bad so sad, but stations and networks gotta make a buck too. Or do you work for free?! \ "SINNER" wrote in message . 130... http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html Some Quotes: ...The bill would also permit people to use technology to skip objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films, a right that consumers already have. However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited. The proposed law also includes language from the Pirate Act (S2237), which would permit the Justice Department to file civil lawsuits against alleged copyright infringers. ..."This legislation enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. Many pieces of it already have unanimously passed one house of Congress," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy wrote in an e-mail. "The intellectual property industries are one of our leading national exports, and it's approprate for the federal government to have a role in protecting those sectors from rampant piracy." End Some Quotes Seems to be more towards DVD and Movie's but can TV be far off? -- David |
|
In article , g666bush
wrote: I'm sure many talented people could be employed, the seasons could go back to 35 weeks from 13 and more variety of programming would arise. I think the BBC model might serve well. Come up with good writing, find actors who like to work with good material and other good actors, and make episodes six or eight at a time every year or so. This would guarantee variety, since new series would be beginning all the time. Also, all shows get cancelled after four seasons. No exceptions. |
g666bush ) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
If that model were implemented, perhaps "stars" would not get $100k per person per episode; Real "stars" get far more than this per episode. perhaps fresh faces would work on a weekly show for oh, say, what you work for each week. Let them make $2000 per show. Not a chance. When a hit show can make $50K/30s ad spot, the producers of the show will want $500K or more per episode. Stars see how much money is flowing and want their cut, because the *are* the show (to them, anyway). Then, too, when you have DVD season sets selling 500K units and making $20-50/unit profit for the production company, that's another $10-20M season that the producers get, or about $1M/episode. Again, stars want their cut. -- Jeff Rife | "Isn't that just great? I can't find a real SPAM bait: | relationship...I'm incapable of meaningless | sex...what does that leave me? Oh, my | God...I'm gonna have to learn computers." | -- Jon Cryer, "Partners" |
"Kenny" wrote in message ... "Leslie A Rhorer" wrote in message ... Don't try to tell me it can't be done, because HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, PBS, and others all do very well, thank you, I wouldn't put PBS in the same catagory. They do list all of the programs sponsors prior to the begining of every program. 30+ years ago they showed a list of sponsors and read the company names. Then they started showing company logos as their name was being voiced as a sponsor and over the years they have evolved to the point that one could argue that some of these are commercials. True. Indeed, PBS is finding it very hard to compete with both ad based and subscription based content, not to mention the large volume of content. Philosophically, I am opposed to their modified format, but in a practical and personal sense, I find it to be much less objectionable than Madison Avenue's pookie. Indeed, while I am quite ideologically opposed to ad based media, I have to admit it is the quality and pervasiveness of the ads which revolts me most. I would still object, but I would do so much less if the adds were not so objectionable - even insulting - and if they were limited to ten minutes per hour, rather than nearly 20 (or in the case of late night, sometimes over 20) and were moved to spots between programs, rather than throughout the programming. |
That's a matter of opiniuon, and I happen to disagree. Nova is often
very good, and the children's programing is excellent. I like Mark Russel, and the arts based programming is sometimes great. "Keeper of the Purple Twilight" wrote in message ... In article , Kenny wrote: "Leslie A Rhorer" wrote in message ... Don't try to tell me it can't be done, because HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, PBS, and others all do very well, thank you, I wouldn't put PBS in the same catagory. They do list all of the programs sponsors prior to the begining of every program. 30+ years ago they showed a list of sponsors and read the company names. Then they started showing company logos as their name was being voiced as a sponsor and over the years they have evolved to the point that one could argue that some of these are commercials. Besides, the only things that PBS shows that are really worth watching anyway are Red Green, Dr. Who and Red Dwarf. :) -- "No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have pulled down the stars to our will." - Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City |
"Tim Witort" wrote in message 5.201... curmudgeon seemed to utter in : NEWS FLASH!! Free TV has never been free!! Commercials pay for the content. No commercials, no "free" tv. Too bad so sad, but stations and networks gotta make a buck too. Or do you work for free?! An honest question for the group... If this hypothetical "pay one fee for TV and all advertising I'm not suggesting one fee for TV. Quite the opposite. I am suggesting all sports channels be removed from all cable and off air packages unless one pays for them. 'Ditto network television. The same for hobby channels, etc. is removed from broadcasts" system came into be. Do you think the quality of TV content would improve or degrade? On one It would be very hard pressed to degrade, IMO. Much of the more popular programming is not only disgusting, it is offensive and even destructive. It panders to the lowest, basest, most despicable, and unacceptable of human emotions and instincts, and it glamorizes those things against which we should be fighting the hardest. There is nothing real or redeeming about "reality" series. Donald Trump, Ozzy Osborne, and Paris Hilton are not entertaining or even interesting, and they should be ignored with extreme prejudice. Sex is a beautiful expression of our evolutionary heritage and a fascinating topic of discussion, not a spectator sport and not an appropriate weapon. It is also highly personal, not an appropriate means of selling automobiles. Voyeurism is illegal for very good reasons. We shouldn't encourage it 24 hours a day on the television. hand I think, "If there are no advertisers paying more to put their ads on the popular shows, what incentive do show producers have to make high quality shows?" but on the other The same incentive any artist has: the desire to produce art. What's more, no one is suggesting the producers work for free. Movie production companies certainly do not. They rely upon the sales of their products to the public at large, not to an advertiser who cares nothing for the content. hand I think, "If producers did not have to worry about winning advertising dollars, they might make quality shows rather than the prurient, 'popular' junk they make today." I certainly would hope so, although I suspect the impact on the quality of programming will not be vast. Some of the more expensive junk will fall by the wayside, and some of the more expensive quality content will have a little easier time - since the money originally wasted on the expensive junk will now be available, but for the most part I think the impact on the quality of the content will be moderate at best. The real benefit is *I* won't have to pay for the junk, and the morons who do want to watch it will have to pay for it. |
The ONLY reason I have TIVO is to skip the commercials.
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:45:02 GMT, SINNER wrote: http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html Some Quotes: ...The bill would also permit people to use technology to skip objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films, a right that consumers already have. However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited. The proposed law also includes language from the Pirate Act (S2237), which would permit the Justice Department to file civil lawsuits against alleged copyright infringers. ..."This legislation enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. Many pieces of it already have unanimously passed one house of Congress," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy wrote in an e-mail. "The intellectual property industries are one of our leading national exports, and it's approprate for the federal government to have a role in protecting those sectors from rampant piracy." End Some Quotes Seems to be more towards DVD and Movie's but can TV be far off? |
You watch ALL programming when it airs and never watch it later?
Before getting a DirecTV DVR, I watched TV programming recorded on video tape and fast forwarded over the commercials. I haven't watched live TV for more than 20 years. Joe wrote in message ... The ONLY reason I have TIVO is to skip the commercials. On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:45:02 GMT, SINNER wrote: http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html Some Quotes: ...The bill would also permit people to use technology to skip objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films, a right that consumers already have. However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited. The proposed law also includes language from the Pirate Act (S2237), which would permit the Justice Department to file civil lawsuits against alleged copyright infringers. ..."This legislation enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. Many pieces of it already have unanimously passed one house of Congress," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy wrote in an e-mail. "The intellectual property industries are one of our leading national exports, and it's approprate for the federal government to have a role in protecting those sectors from rampant piracy." End Some Quotes Seems to be more towards DVD and Movie's but can TV be far off? |
Jack Ak said in a posting:
----"You watch ALL programming when it airs and never watch it later? Before getting a DirecTV DVR,I watched TV programming recorded on video tape and fast forwarded over the commercials.I haven't watched live TV for more than 20 years."---- Reply: That's all well and good for MOST (not all) TV fare.But speaking for myself,I prefer to watch live sports AS IT HAPPENS.I do not like recorded sports contests,due to the fact that somewhere along the line some idiot is going to tell me the score or what happened rendering the recording pointless.So,I watch ALL SPORTS LIVE.It irritates me otherwise. |
And what is this nonsense about Britain and license fees? Those fees support public broadcasting over there; they have nothing to do with commercials or lack of same on other outlets. Further, such license As Robert Heinlein said, "A government supported artist is an incompetent whore." fees in the U.S. would be unconstitutional, as has been stated on the several occasions that CPB/PBS advocates have tried to have such fees enacted. The issue of license fees in the U.S. is a straw man. Too true, but ad based programming is a defacto tax, albeit levied by private enterprise rather than government. In this instance the distinction is largely moot, if you ask me. We're all forced to pay the tax and no one ever voted on it. Of course, the constitution regulates the government, not private enterprise, but I can think of few things more in opposition to the spirit of the US Constitution than ad based network programming. Yes, I would rather pay a reasonable amount for ad-free TV than have to sit through endless mounds of crap ads that don't address anything in Amen. which I'm interested. I don't care at all if the free-TV model disappears. It matters nothing to me. Something better and more useful to me will replace it. Even if not, you've lost nothing, but gained the advertising dollars spent without your consent. Personally, I can't find a down side. |
IOt hasn't been 20 years, but it's been more than 5, for me. I almost
never watch live TV, whether it has commercials or not. "Jack Ak" wrote in message om... You watch ALL programming when it airs and never watch it later? Before getting a DirecTV DVR, I watched TV programming recorded on video tape and fast forwarded over the commercials. I haven't watched live TV for more than 20 years. Joe wrote in message ... The ONLY reason I have TIVO is to skip the commercials. On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:45:02 GMT, SINNER wrote: http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html Some Quotes: ...The bill would also permit people to use technology to skip objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films, a right that consumers already have. However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited. The proposed law also includes language from the Pirate Act (S2237), which would permit the Justice Department to file civil lawsuits against alleged copyright infringers. ..."This legislation enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. Many pieces of it already have unanimously passed one house of Congress," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy wrote in an e-mail. "The intellectual property industries are one of our leading national exports, and it's approprate for the federal government to have a role in protecting those sectors from rampant piracy." End Some Quotes Seems to be more towards DVD and Movie's but can TV be far off? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com