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.