Skipping commercials is copyright infringement?

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by 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.

theres an app for that:

"If you’ve watched syndicated reruns of sitcom How I Met Your Mother lately, you might have been startled to see advertisements for very current movies such as Bad Teacher and Zookeeper in episodes that originally aired as early as 2006, long before those flicks were made. The photos here, for instance, are from the second-season episode titled “Swarley,” which originally aired Nov. 6, 2006 — more than four years before Bad Teacher hit theaters. So… what exactly is going with this phenomenon? EW investigated, and here’s the scoop.

Turns out that 20th Television — the studio distributor behind Mother — has been selling promotional spots in syndicated episodes to wring even more money out of the sitcom’s already rich syndication deals. Specifically, the feat is accomplished by a partnership with a company, SeamBI , which stands for Seamless Brand Integration and is responsible for digitally altering old episodes with new products and brands.

The company’s CEO Roy Baharav calls SeamBI an “advertising technology innovator” and says that what they do — in essence, monetizing aging television shows by adding new brands and product placement into old episodes — is the future. “What we do is we insert, very efficiently, brands into content in a natural way and in a way that is valuable to advertisers,” Baharav says. “So we find the balance between not compromising the integrity of the content and, on the other end, bring a lot of value to the advertiser.”

The really interesting thing about the technology is that the advertising can be changed for different markets (the Bad Teacher advertisements, for example, were specific to the New York metropolitan area) and can also be changed to a new advertisement in subsequent re-airings. What that means is that the show can continue to make even more money for the syndicator. “We looked for a way to basically find a hybrid between a commercial and product placement,” Baharav says. “It’s in the content, but it can change in a very efficient way, so that you can monetize the content throughout the life cycle.”

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/07/07/ho...her-zookeeper/

change the ads per market and viola! so don't be surprised if one day captain kirk is using an ipad.

[plib]

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. 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.

Well tough luck on them, and me if I cared, which I don't. There isn't really anything on tv that I care enough about to sit through the torture of their irrelevant, inane, too loud mass delusion that by assaulting my senses and insulting my intelligence every 15 minutes they're somehow going to persuade me to buy something. If the alternative is no tv and sit and read a book that's fine by me.

You can be a good little consumer if you wish, I don't care to. I wouldn't worry too much about the demise of advertisement ridden mass tv though. Far too many people and industries have far too much invested in the thesis that it works for it to go away any time soon.

[wizwor]

We have a channel called METV which broadcasts over two frequencies in my area. Usually, both broadcast the same programming, but sometimes one has infomercials. I inquired as to why and was told that this should not happen. The syndicator asked me to let them know when the cheater broadcast commercials instead of programming. I didn't and didn't think much about the whole thing until reading this topic. Maybe ME also expects its feed to be broadcast unedited?

[Cyberman tM]

Originally Posted by 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.

Depending on where you live, you might already be paying for the privilege of recording the TV program.
I can't remember the word - the special "tax" on any and all empty recordable media and devices. (i.e. cassettes and VCR, DVD and drives,...)

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by wizwor

The syndicator asked me to let them know when the cheater broadcast commercials instead of programming. I didn't and didn't think much about the whole thing until reading this topic. Maybe ME also expects its feed to be broadcast unedited?

A more likely scenario is that your local station has a contract with ME, and they're showing infomercials when they should be showing content per their contract.

[BenG]

If fast-forwarding through commercials is copyright infringement what about skipping through the boring parts of a program?
Must we pause the player when we go to the bathroom so we don't miss the commercial.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

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.

They try to do just that: They sponsor commercials which are expected to appeal to the type of person that is expected to be watching the show, ie, if you're watching a daytime talk show, you are projected to be a home person, so you might be interested in home cleaning products... if you're watching a home improvement show, you might be interested in a pickup truck that can carry a lot of lumber... and you probably won't see a commercial for Spongebob Squarepants during The Vampire Diaries...

Obviously, there's not always a strong or even coherent connection, or the advertiser just wants to push their product at everyone possible; in which case, they try to make it look like it will appeal to those who like the show it advertises by making it look like the show (brooding commercials with sexy young people during prime-time soaps, hard rock soundtracks and action during sports events, learned spokespeople during documentaries, etc). That can work, too.

I mean, they clearly don't want you to turn away, and they hope you'll make some connection to their product. It's the over-zealous ad wonks who push the volume up (they probably know you're heading for the kitchen, and want to make sure you can still hear them) or try to go psycho with their 30 seconds to force you to watch the train wreck.

What it comes down to, though, is this: Program creators and their advertisers have absolutely no legal right to dictate exactly how you watch their shows in your own home. They can't stop you from fast-forwarding past the parts you're not interested in, re-watching the parts you really liked, or walking away during the commercials. The only thing they can do is try to give you a good reason to watch, and if they fail that... oh well.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

What it comes down to, though, is this: Program creators and their advertisers have absolutely no legal right to dictate exactly how you watch their shows in your own home. They can't stop you from fast-forwarding past the parts you're not interested in, re-watching the parts you really liked, or walking away during the commercials. The only thing they can do is try to give you a good reason to watch, and if they fail that... oh well.

But what is being discussed is the possibility of changing the legal rights of program creators so that they can dictate exactly how you watch their shows.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

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

no its not. keep that in your thread

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by BenG

If fast-forwarding through commercials is copyright infringement what about skipping through the boring parts of a program?
Must we pause the player when we go to the bathroom so we don't miss the commercial.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

But what is being discussed is the possibility of changing the legal rights of program creators so that they can dictate exactly how you watch their shows.

no its not about the individual user- its about what the carrier is required by copyright to deliver to you

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

no its not about the individual user- its about what the carrier is required by copyright to deliver to you

On the one hand, yes. On the other... if it's only legal to copy or display in the format it's given to you, is it copyright infringement to fast-forward past the commercials when you're watching a recorded show with your family?

Copyright infringement doesn't have a built-in exception for "home use noncommercial purposes."

I'm really not sure I buy "you're given the WHOLE PACKAGE INCLUDING COMMERCIALS and must not allow modifications to that." Especially since the owner of the *commercial's* copyright is different from the owner of the show's copyright.

Whose copyright is presumably being violated here?

[speakingtohe]

Seems to me that only the original show material can be copyrighted and the individual commercials. How would you copyright a show with one set of commercials and then display the same show a week later with different commercials.

Not saying it can't and hasn't been done, but for shows that have been broadcast many times by many stations it does not seem feasible.

My understanding is that copyright is for original works not a combination of a bunch of random, already individually copyrighted works that many people have some sort of rights to display.

Helen

[Elfwreck]

Theoretically, the package is copyrighted by someone, just as a magazine with ads is copyrighted by the magazine producer, even though the articles & ads are copyrighted by their creators.

However, I'm a bit lost at how selling a magazine with post-it notes covering the ads is violating the copyright of the magazine, and as far as I can tell, that's about what's being offered here.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

no its not. keep that in your thread

Why isn't it? Are you hung up about the method of procurement?

Is skipping the commercials on a DVR recording of a broadcasted television show morally/ethically/legally equal to downloading a commercial free version of that same DVR recording from a torrent site? Keep in mind that the two DVR recordings might or might not be the same copy.

You can try to justify skipping commercials all you want but it is piracy. Maybe not as clear cut as neglecting to send monies to the creator, since there is only the vague theoretical notion that monies will be sent to the creator upon viewing the commercials that you decided to skip.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

My understanding is that copyright is for original works not a combination of a bunch of random, already individually copyrighted works that many people have some sort of rights to display.

Helen

That's a fine understanding of copyright, mine is probably a bit different than yours, who is right?