Skipping commercials is copyright infringement?

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by plib

I think if the advertisers have any sense they realize the horse has already bolted. At least 90% of TV that I watch is prerecorded and I f/fwd the commercials. Most "1 hour" shows are finished in about 40 minutes and stuff like the fluff they broadcast as local news can be done and dusted in about 15 mins.

but that is you not the provider. the case law above( the first batch i found im sure there is more that is relevant) says the carriers provide the stream unedited. since this is a new device/method a legal opinion is necessary to settle who is doing the editing.

the rights holders are obligated to bring actions if they believe there is infringement.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Kirtai

I was just reading a thread where people were arguing in favour of making copyright infringement a criminal offence. I wonder if they had this in mind.

I was one of those discussing that in the other thread, the point I was tryig to make was.

It'll take making infringment into a criminal offense in order to allow the police to play a part in the subsequent investigations. Invovling the police is realistically the only way an IP address should be used as evidence, since it'd be sufficient grounds for the police to conduct a more detailed investigation.

I may have said something like "maybe it should be a criminal offense", but if so (I'd have to re-read my posts to check I didn't give the wrong impression) it was only with the view of backing up that the police need to be involved if an IP address is used as a partial basis for a court case.

I don't think infringment causes a personal harm, not in the same way muggings, buglary or theft/fraud do. Which is a reason for it not becoming a crime but remaining a civil issue. Unfortunatly, I also think that the current process of enfocing those laws benefits large business' with deep pockets for lawyers (who can also abuse that position) but does not really aid small companies or individuals in protecting their copyright. They can't afford to take people to court unless it's causing large scale harm to them, such as another company ripping off their software and even then the costs would need to be weighed.

As for the skipping commercials. If that ever went as far as removing the ability to skip commercials from programs you've recorded to a DVR and no hacks were forthcoming (like the hacks for DVD players to skip the unskippable trailers and warnings you're sick of seeing for the 1000th time), that's probably the day I stop paying for a TV subscription.

I'd say I can't see it happening, but it already has with DVDs and PUO, I can see them attempting to enforce the same on recorders too

As far as the broadcaster of the TV programs modifying the ads, well, that's between them and the contract they signed with the TV show provider. If they agreed to buy the show with ads already in place and later modify them, I'd expect nothing less than a court case and probably them losing. Which is what the original article appears to be talking about. It's not quite at the home user stage, although I think that's coming in time.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by plib

Yup. But you'll still have Greenpeace after you for marine pollution.

With an exceptionally long half life.

These blokes certainly orbit another star than ours.

We record TV shows on our PVR all the time, plus time shift the ones we do not record for later. We watch commercials in this house at x16.

Oops, gaol time for us.

[OlfBookReader]

I have a life time Replay TV, it still works and the guide automatically downloads. The model I own is the one that Replay was sued over and really does skip commercials. The only downside to it is that the tuner is analog, not digital, so no high definition. Works well with our Cable since locals are still sent via analog.

FYI, the person who invented the Replay TV (Anthony Wood) is the same one who invented the Roku. I love my Roku and I love my Replay TV.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by JoeD

It's not quite at the home user stage, although I think that's coming in time.

If it did get to that stage (and I am of the belief it will be attempted by targeting some poor sap for a trial run), then downloading "cleansed" TV shows will skyrocket.

Talk about contributing to the problem rather than moving forward and attempting to reduce it.

[HansTWN]

Actually, some commercials are more fun to watch than the shows themselves. At least they put a lot more thought into making them.

Not that I see anything wrong with skipping commercials. But if all advertisers believe nobody is watching their ads... What do you propose, pay TV only, tax supported TV, no TV at all?

[J. Strnad]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Actually, some commercials are more fun to watch than the shows themselves. At least they put a lot more thought into making them.

Not that I see anything wrong with skipping commercials. But if all advertisers believe nobody is watching their ads... What do you propose, pay TV only, tax supported TV, no TV at all?

First, you're right about some ads being very entertaining. But once you start fast-forwarding through the ads, you skip the good ones along with the boring ones. So making better ads doesn't really work as a tactic.

All that really works is product placement within the show itself. Once product placement becomes conspicuous, it becomes annoying. If it's annoying enough, people stop watching the program.

The next step is inserted ads within the program. We have them now with enlarged and extended "bullets" advertising other shows, though so far they're limited to the first few seconds of a program after the commercial break. If people put up with it, they'll appear in the middle of a show and eventually throughout the whole thing.

Maybe people will get so fed up with commercials they can't skip, they'll be willing to pay extra for what we think of as "normal TV shows" (non-HBO, etc.) without them.

For the foreseeable future, though, if there were a way to buy stock in product placement, that's where I'd put my money.

[emellaich]

I think that product placement is useful to advertisers, but it is only of limited value in the TV value chain.

Product placement works for large national advertisers on new TV shows. Local advertisers can't embed their ads into the show. Furthermore, it breaks the rerun and international syndication approaches.

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

First, you're right about some ads being very entertaining. But once you start fast-forwarding through the ads, you skip the good ones along with the boring ones. So making better ads doesn't really work as a tactic.

All that really works is product placement within the show itself. Once product placement becomes conspicuous, it becomes annoying. If it's annoying enough, people stop watching the program.

The next step is inserted ads within the program. We have them now with enlarged and extended "bullets" advertising other shows, though so far they're limited to the first few seconds of a program after the commercial break. If people put up with it, they'll appear in the middle of a show and eventually throughout the whole thing.

Maybe people will get so fed up with commercials they can't skip, they'll be willing to pay extra for what we think of as "normal TV shows" (non-HBO, etc.) without them.

For the foreseeable future, though, if there were a way to buy stock in product placement, that's where I'd put my money.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by plib

I think if the advertisers have any sense they realize the horse has already bolted. At least 90% of TV that I watch is prerecorded and I f/fwd the commercials. Most "1 hour" shows are finished in about 40 minutes and stuff like the fluff they broadcast as local news can be done and dusted in about 15 mins.

When they "realize that," they will stop paying for the programs you watch... and you will have no programs to watch. Television programs are paid for by the advertisers, and personally, I don't think it's too much to ask to sit through a commercial by the company that brought you the program you so enjoy. It's not as if you're forced to buy their products, after all; watching doesn't cost you a penny.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

When they "realize that," they will stop paying for the programs you watch... and you will have no programs to watch.

Maybe FoxNews can get some conservative billionaire to fund them

Seriously, the ad bypassing already in place probably has contributed to replacement of expensive scripted programs with low-production-cost reality shows.

Not a problem for me, as I am uninterested in TV. Shame for writers, actors, directors, and so forth, though.

[GA Russell]

I watch very little television, and don't have cable. One thing I do watch on broadcast tv is the American LeMans Series auto races which are on ABC. They are sponsored by high end automotive products which are relevant to the program, and I enjoy watching the commercials!

It occurs to me that it might behoove the advertisers to sponsor programs which are relevant to their products, so that the audience might be interested in watching the commercials rather than skipping over them.

[Cyberman tM]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Actually, some commercials are more fun to watch than the shows themselves. At least they put a lot more thought into making them.

Be glad you've never seen the kind of ads we get. If there is any thought put into them, it's about how to melt the viewers brain most efficiently.

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

personally, I don't think it's too much to ask to sit through a commercial by the company that brought you the program you so enjoy. It's not as if you're forced to buy their products, after all; watching doesn't cost you a penny.

It may not cost money, but it costs me a lot of restraint. Most of the ads (which all are by far louder than the regular program for some reason) are annoying enough to make me turn of the TV if I see too much of them.

I seriously doubt that the ads are actually tied to the program anyway - if a company directly pays for a show, it's usually told so before the show begins. The rest of the ads is just the usual tripe.
If they were actually interesting, I wouldn't mind half as much. But most of them I'd classify as torture.

[Giggleton]

Skipping commercials is equal to downloading a copyrighted text from a torrent site. The question is what shall we do about it?

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Well how do you think those megacorporations are going to make money if they can't get other megacorporations to advertise. Who cares what the whiny consumers want.....

Well, i dont like ads, but, I undersand there had to be a source of revenues.
You can't get someting that is both "free" and ad-free.

It occurs to me that it might behoove the advertisers to sponsor programs which are relevant to their products, so that the audience might be interested in watching the commercials rather than skipping over them.

That's already the case here.

[morantis]

It is funny in the end, do not forget that to record 95% of TV is illegal without "the express written consent of...." the network.