More Crappy legislation regarding skipping 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.

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

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:56:36 GMT, omdotcom (Tim
Witort) wrote:

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
_______________________________________
Tim- here's a thought:

If that model were implemented, perhaps "stars" would not get $100k
per person 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. Hell, if I had an ounce of talent- which I dont- I'd work for 2
grand a week.

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.

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.