MasterRacker
Active member
Especially troubling:
Jeff
The future is already here - it's just not widely distributed yet...
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Chriss Miller on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Scary Copyright Bill 2
- Thread starter MasterRacker
- Start date
- Status
Especially troubling:
Jeff
The future is already here - it's just not widely distributed yet...
mrdenny
Programmer
- May 27, 2002
- 11,595
That's just a scarry looking thing. According to the article I would be guilty of a felony by using the commercial skip feature of my ReplayTV or by fast forwarding pask commercials on my cable company provided DVR.
Denny
--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)
![[noevil]](/data/assets/smilies/noevil.gif "[noevil] [noevil]")
wired said:
Denny
--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)
mrdenny
Programmer
- May 27, 2002
- 11,595
We should also repeal the CAN-SPAM act, and let that spammer out, so he can keep on sending us his advertisments. (thread717-946905)
Denny
--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)
Denny
--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)
CajunCenturion
Programmer
I certainly enjoy the comments, but keep in mind, the restriction applies to material legally being copied. In other words, if you get permission from CBS to make a copy of a 60 minutes episode, then in addition to the content, you must include the commercials that air during that episode. Once the advertising spot has been bought, then it becomes an integral part of the show.
Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
>Once the advertising spot has been bought, then it becomes an integral part of the show.
Although my mind disconnects itself from all thoughts once an ad is on the air, this seems to make some sort of sense. Many shows and films wouldn't be possible without the sponsors.
On that note, many ads are seemlessly embedded into the shows and movies. Soda cans, latest model cars
, flashiest cosmetic surgeries, etc. Maybe we should force ads to be part of the show, rather then party poopers as they are now.
Although my mind disconnects itself from all thoughts once an ad is on the air, this seems to make some sort of sense. Many shows and films wouldn't be possible without the sponsors.
On that note, many ads are seemlessly embedded into the shows and movies. Soda cans, latest model cars
, flashiest cosmetic surgeries, etc. Maybe we should force ads to be part of the show, rather then party poopers as they are now.
-
1
- #7
Stella740pl
Programmer
Once the advertising spot has been bought, then it becomes an integral part of the show.
Shouldn't it depend on the wording of the contract? Was the spot bought for the time they air the show or forever and ever? How this ad can be still relevant and an integral part of the show if you want to use a copy 5 years later, say, in a movie review or historical presentation of a TV show?
Well, then why I can't find contents of the ads objectionable? Say, the movie is OK with me, but I wouldn't want my children to watch ads promoting unhealthy (or fatty, or non-kosher, non-vegetarian, non-natural, insert your definition here) foods, or spending time in a way that contradicts my family's values, or whatever you can say about an ad.
Seems weird, but kind of gives you a loophole.
When I read the article, the King from Antoine de Saint Exupéry's "Little Prince" came to mind:
Code:
"Sire--over what do you rule?"
"Over everything," said the king, with magnificent simplicity.
"Over everything?"
The king made a gesture, which took in his planet, the other planets, and all the stars.
"Over all that?" asked the little prince.
"Over all that," the king answered.
For his rule was not only absolute: it was also universal.
"And the stars obey you?"
"Certainly they do," the king said. "They obey instantly. I do not permit insubordination."
...
"I should like to see a sunset . . . Do me that kindness . . . Order the sun to set . . ."
"If I ordered a general to fly from one flower to another like a butterfly, or to write a tragic drama, or to change himself into a sea bird, and if the general did not carry out the order that he had received, which one of us would be in the wrong?" the king demanded. "The general, or myself?"
"You," said the little prince firmly.
"Exactly. [COLOR=blue]One must require from each one the duty which each one can perform[/color]," the king went on. "Accepted authority rests first of all on reason. If you ordered your people to go and throw themselves into the sea, they would rise up in revolution. [COLOR=blue]I have the right to require obedience because my orders are reasonable[/color]."Will general public actually obey these new rules?
CajunCenturion
Programmer
Perhaps in a perfect world. Dimandja is right in that most shows would not be possible without the sponsors. From the advertiser's perspective it is, "I sponsored (paid for) that show, so if you want to copy it, then you going to have to copy my ad as well." To try to create a copyright that takes into account whether or not a specific contract ties the ad to the show would be so totally unwieldy and costly as to be totally impractical.Stella740pl said:
As whether or not you, or anyone else, could find an ad to be objectionable, I think you've got a valid point, provided that your objection has reasonable grounds.
Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
johnherman
MIS
The question at hand is actually:
"Did the sponsor pay for the show, or did the sponsor pay for the right to air a commercial at at particular time (hour and minute)?" In other words, if the show was pre-empted or not broadcast for some other reason, does the right or obligation to air the commercial still stand. It probably depends on the way the lawyers word the contract. In radio, people buy air time for a particular time of the day. TV contracts might be written that way, too. Or they might be written to air commercials against/within specific aired content.
On the net, do advertisers pay by a block of time (week)?
Or do they pay by the "hit"?
Or do they forever have advertising rights to, say, the story of the Red Sox winning the World Series on CNN/SI?
Or some other way?
-------------------------
The trouble with doing something right the first time is that noboby appreciates how difficult it was.
- Steven Wright
"Did the sponsor pay for the show, or did the sponsor pay for the right to air a commercial at at particular time (hour and minute)?" In other words, if the show was pre-empted or not broadcast for some other reason, does the right or obligation to air the commercial still stand. It probably depends on the way the lawyers word the contract. In radio, people buy air time for a particular time of the day. TV contracts might be written that way, too. Or they might be written to air commercials against/within specific aired content.
On the net, do advertisers pay by a block of time (week)?
Or do they pay by the "hit"?
Or do they forever have advertising rights to, say, the story of the Red Sox winning the World Series on CNN/SI?
Or some other way?
-------------------------
The trouble with doing something right the first time is that noboby appreciates how difficult it was.
- Steven Wright
So, if we're all required to watch the commercials -- what about bathroom breaks? Surely they wouldn't deny us that!
;-)
Chip H.
____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first
;-)
Chip H.
____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first
Good points, johnherman.
A reason why there are TV ads is because somebody has to pay for the show you are watching for free. If you paid for the 'copy' of the show, the ads which are not essentially part of the show, doesn't have the right to be there (unless they contributed in lowering the price you paid for the show).
A reason why there are TV ads is because somebody has to pay for the show you are watching for free. If you paid for the 'copy' of the show, the ads which are not essentially part of the show, doesn't have the right to be there (unless they contributed in lowering the price you paid for the show).
My understanding of ads is that the "air time" in question is priced according to the popularity of the show airing at that particular time.
In other words, shows are produced because some sponsor will pay for it, usually leaving a tidy profit for the makers of the show.
When a show is ready to air, or when a well known program is scheduled to air, marketers get to work selling spots based on the reputation of the production. If no one pays for it, the show usually dies.
Sponsors therefore have an implied ownership of the show, and insist on being part and parcel of it. Their argument: they paid for it.
As Stella pointed out, will their right to air the same stale commercial stand for ever? I mean, their product was probably long ago disgracefully abandonned...
Reruns don't seem to have that problem, though. Newer ads from any other sponsors are always shown.
SO, if the producers insist on my having to see ads now and then, I don't mind picking or making my own ads to insert in the program I bought for my private viewing. 10 years old ads don't do it for me.![[upsidedown]](/data/assets/smilies/upsidedown.gif "[upsidedown] [upsidedown]")
In other words, shows are produced because some sponsor will pay for it, usually leaving a tidy profit for the makers of the show.
When a show is ready to air, or when a well known program is scheduled to air, marketers get to work selling spots based on the reputation of the production. If no one pays for it, the show usually dies.
Sponsors therefore have an implied ownership of the show, and insist on being part and parcel of it. Their argument: they paid for it.
As Stella pointed out, will their right to air the same stale commercial stand for ever? I mean, their product was probably long ago disgracefully abandonned...
Reruns don't seem to have that problem, though. Newer ads from any other sponsors are always shown.
SO, if the producers insist on my having to see ads now and then, I don't mind picking or making my own ads to insert in the program I bought for my private viewing. 10 years old ads don't do it for me.
Something I've noticed is that the local cable company will run ads on top of the national ads (Joe's car wash, Cindy's nail salon, etc). I wonder how the national accounts feel about their message not reaching the potential customers they're paying for...
Chip H.
____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first
Chip H.
____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first
>Something I've noticed is that the local cable company will run ads on top of the national ads...
Actually spots are reserved for the local distributor's bank account. Otherwise, distributors could simply decide not to run the show (no profit for them in it), and broadcast the local high school hockey game instead (with local ads only, of course).
Actually spots are reserved for the local distributor's bank account. Otherwise, distributors could simply decide not to run the show (no profit for them in it), and broadcast the local high school hockey game instead (with local ads only, of course).
-
1
- #15
reruns are subject to new sponsorship contracts, usually less expensive ones.
That's why there's different advertising (and sometimes less of it) in reruns when compared with the original showing.
Yes, I've noticed too that the local cable company blots out the advertising of some channels to provide its own.
They do it only with some channels though, which may mean they have secured the right to do so by contract (with the show being sponsored effectively by them instead of the sponsor paying elsewhere).
This is mostly the case with stations from different regions of the planet, the advertising they'd otherwise show would be useless here as the products and services can't be obtained here.
As to subsidiary stations doing this, it's likely the stations themselves and the show has been released by the network for this (so with empty advertising blocks). Again this will most likely be the cheaper spots they themselves may have a hard time selling nationwide.
----------
What every complaint about the new proposed US IP law doesn't address is the reason it was introduced in the first place: the wholesale violation of that law by a large part of the general population.
Music, movie and software piracy is rife. The law is intended to address that by imposing better mechanisms to fight these crimes. As a side effect other things get tightened as well.
As usual the good suffer under the bad except in this case the number of good is rather lower than usual and the bad guys often don't even realise they're doing anything wrong, having been trained from childhood into their acts by the very people that should have educated them (parents, teachers).
That's why there's different advertising (and sometimes less of it) in reruns when compared with the original showing.
Yes, I've noticed too that the local cable company blots out the advertising of some channels to provide its own.
They do it only with some channels though, which may mean they have secured the right to do so by contract (with the show being sponsored effectively by them instead of the sponsor paying elsewhere).
This is mostly the case with stations from different regions of the planet, the advertising they'd otherwise show would be useless here as the products and services can't be obtained here.
As to subsidiary stations doing this, it's likely the stations themselves and the show has been released by the network for this (so with empty advertising blocks). Again this will most likely be the cheaper spots they themselves may have a hard time selling nationwide.
----------
What every complaint about the new proposed US IP law doesn't address is the reason it was introduced in the first place: the wholesale violation of that law by a large part of the general population.
Music, movie and software piracy is rife. The law is intended to address that by imposing better mechanisms to fight these crimes. As a side effect other things get tightened as well.
As usual the good suffer under the bad except in this case the number of good is rather lower than usual and the bad guys often don't even realise they're doing anything wrong, having been trained from childhood into their acts by the very people that should have educated them (parents, teachers).
lionelhill
Technical User
say I write a really nice space-invader game, but program it to pop up little adverts for my organic produce shop once in a while. Now I offer it as freeware, with the usual statement "you can copy this program and pass it on to your friends, provided you don't change it in any way, and you include this statement with it..."
Now this is very similar to the TV show. You are being given the right to copy something that otherwise wouldn't be yours to copy, but with conditions. You don't have to copy it. No one is forcing the adverts on you. It's just if you do copy it (or if you want to play my space invaders, for free I might add!) then you have to have the adverts too. Seems fair enough to me.
Now this is very similar to the TV show. You are being given the right to copy something that otherwise wouldn't be yours to copy, but with conditions. You don't have to copy it. No one is forcing the adverts on you. It's just if you do copy it (or if you want to play my space invaders, for free I might add!) then you have to have the adverts too. Seems fair enough to me.
johnherman
MIS
What if I want to mute the sound and avoid looking at the screen while the commercial is running. Am I breaking the law? I doubt it.
What if, as chiph noted, I went to the bathroom during the commercial(s). Am I breaking the law? I doubt it.
So, it looks like we have demonstrated that the viewer has the right to avoid watching the commercial. So why can't the viewer use technology to make the process of avoidance easier?
-------------------------
The trouble with doing something right the first time is that noboby appreciates how difficult it was.
- Steven Wright
What if, as chiph noted, I went to the bathroom during the commercial(s). Am I breaking the law? I doubt it.
So, it looks like we have demonstrated that the viewer has the right to avoid watching the commercial. So why can't the viewer use technology to make the process of avoidance easier?
-------------------------
The trouble with doing something right the first time is that noboby appreciates how difficult it was.
- Steven Wright
>So why can't the viewer use technology to make the process of avoidance easier?
Too easy. Besides, you may send out for the wrong beer.
Remember, they tried to prohibit the maufacture/sale of DVD recorders. Now, they are prohibiting the manufacture/sale of a DVD player feature. If you have money/power, you can try to impose anything you want on people, in order to gain even more money/power: dictatorship 101. But, since this (US) is a budding democracy, we can sue the socks off of them. Justice is a good thing -- especially when you can afford it.
Too easy. Besides, you may send out for the wrong beer.
Remember, they tried to prohibit the maufacture/sale of DVD recorders. Now, they are prohibiting the manufacture/sale of a DVD player feature. If you have money/power, you can try to impose anything you want on people, in order to gain even more money/power: dictatorship 101. But, since this (US) is a budding democracy, we can sue the socks off of them. Justice is a good thing -- especially when you can afford it.
dilettante
MIS
You probably are, unless you can find "outs" written into the laws.
You have to remember, we have a long tradition of relatively unenforceable "spit on the sidewalk" laws. The purpose of these is to gain control over society (such as suppressing technology) and the side benefit is when they want to "get you" they can. "They" just need to catch you at something like this. You make enough normal behaviors ilegal and "they" have good odds of finding violations when they want to make your life difficult.
The movie "Enemy of the State" only explored the tip of the iceberg that is our evolving police state.
That said, some outfits seem to be trying to cope technologically. I read that TiVo is going to force you to watch a still "billboard" ad whenever you fast forward across a commercial.
If you can't manage to outlaw a thing you just handle it by "creeping inconvenience" until you suppress it to a level you can live with. Not to open another off-topic can o' worms, but this is how pro-life forces have been fighting abortion. Lots of nibbling at the edges has been the game for about 3 decades: outlawing certain extreme "types," prohibiting the use of public funding, etc. I'm not taking a position, just illustrating a strategy. When you can't win you adopt a scorched earth retreat giving as little ground as you can, hoping to muster your strength or await the arrival of reinforcements.
The battle being lost in the light of technological advance here is probably the ad-based financing model for information and entertainment. When you think of the inefficiency of the advertising industry and the costs passed back via consumer prices, you have to wonder whether "pay as you go" might not be one heck of a lot cheaper to individuals and society overall.
What next? Dial-tone ads every time you pick up the phone?
mrdenny
Programmer
- May 27, 2002
- 11,595
Oh for god sakes don't give them any ideas. Or the next time you go to make a phone call, after you dial, but before you call is connected you'll be subjected to an ad.dilettante said:
You've got to give Tivo credit. Putting ads that you have to watch while fast forwarding past the ads. It's just brilliant. This would really piss me off if I had Tivo. It's things like this that make me glad I bought a Replay. With requard to the Tivo popup ads, is any ad revenue going back to the TV Show, or is it all going to Tivo? From what I understand about the popups they are supose to be for the same products who's ads you are fast forwarding past.
Denny
--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)
- Status