Turner CEO: "PVR Users Are Thieves"

Quote:
As a cable subscriber you are actually not paying for the TV signal, you are paying for the delivery of the TV signal.


I for one would be happy to pay a required small monthly fee like the japanese do in exchange for having a public TV system equivalant to NHK.


But that's wishful thinking.


bb

Quote:
I know, stupid analogy. But so is the reason for this thread.

Many people think all implied or shrink wrap license agreements are now enforceable. Imagine if they ran a shrink wrap agreement before each show stating that you would not skip the commercials.


Then of course they would go to Congress complaining that the technology folks have not helped them enforce this quasi-legal agreement. They would seek legislative help.


Next, if they actually got some legal help in this area (Disney calling, Mr. Hollings) then they would starting running shrink wraps (blink wraps?) where you actually promised to buy the product.


Then back to Congress again, asking for an automatic debit from your account for the items advertised. Finding ways to avoid these purchases would be a violation of DMCA2.


So, remember, if we don't support Hollywood then it could be the end of civilization as we know it.


- Tom

This is an old issue that is being rehashed. I go through my magazines

when I get them taking out the obnoxious cards that make the pages

snap open. When reading the magazine, I don't believe I pay much

attention to the ads.


Whatever. Thats not how it works. Ads are sold according to oportunity.

It'd be as ridiculous as claiming that keeping your eyes on the road

eliminates billboard revenue. The guy who buys that space has as much

a chance as anyone that the ad will catch someones attention.


If there were a way to automatically eliminate commercials, then that would

be one thing. But it takes at least the effort to look at the fact a commercial

is being played to skip it, and even viewing it in fast motion gives oportunity

("hey, thats the truck I want to buy").


If the ad makers can prove that less people are able to see their

commercials, then they pay less. If broadcasters lose revenue accordingly,

then it goes into another collumn, next to declining viewership and

competiton from other channels.


The broadcasters can certainly prove that a automatic device to cut

commercials should not be sold, but it would be money equally well spent

on technical aspects like suppressing commercial data cues instead of

lawyers. Otherwise, anything we want to do, from recording and skipping,

to going to the bathroom, to (my personal favorite) making fun of the

commercials is fair game. I'm just tearing out those cards, which are

easy to find 'cause you can flip through the mag and they snap open