YOU WILL WATCH THE COMMERCIAL!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by AP
New Technology Could Force TV Ad Viewing

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- In this era of easy ad skipping with TiVo-like video recorders, could television viewers one day be forced to watch commercials with a system that prevents channel switching?

Yes, according to Royal Philips Electronics. A patent application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office says researchers of the Netherland-based consumer electronics company have created a technology that could let broadcasters freeze a channel during a commercial, so viewers wouldn't be able to avoid it.

http://www.livescience.com/technology/0604...ommercials.html (http://www.livescience.com/technology/060420_force_commercials.html)

Next?

A "mute" button freeze? A "power-on" freeze?

Or perhaps watchers could be "tracked" and sued if they took a toilet-break during the commercials. :lol:

Isn't "not watching the commercials" a form of "intellectual property theft"?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Tungsten]

What does the rest of the article say?


On Wednesday, company officials issued a statement that noted the technology also enables the opposite: allowing viewers to watch television without advertising. The intention was never to force viewers to watch ads against their will, the company said of the technology.

"We developed a system where the viewer can choose, at the beginning of a movie, to either watch the movie without ads, or watch the movie with ads,'' the company stated. "It is up to the viewer to take this decision, and up to the broadcaster to offer the various services.''

The company also said it had no plans to use the technology in any of its products.

So much for that.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Whether or not they "intend" to use it in this way is rather irrelevant. Other companies may do so, and may intend to. Forced advertising is nothing new. I remember nearly being sick when I read about Channel One in American highschools in "No Logo" 6 years ago...and then there are DVDs that do not allow skipping past the ads.

I don&#39;t know what it is, but I tend to have a negative view of these sort of companies <_<

[enigma2517]

Isn&#39;t "not watching the commercials" a form of "intellectual property theft"?



Ahahaha

This guy is pretty clever, ya know? ;)

[silentprotest]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:57 PM
What does the rest of the article say?


On Wednesday, company officials issued a statement that noted the technology also enables the opposite: allowing viewers to watch television without advertising. The intention was never to force viewers to watch ads against their will, the company said of the technology.

"We developed a system where the viewer can choose, at the beginning of a movie, to either watch the movie without ads, or watch the movie with ads,&#39;&#39; the company stated. "It is up to the viewer to take this decision, and up to the broadcaster to offer the various services.&#39;&#39;

The company also said it had no plans to use the technology in any of its products.

So much for that.
If that is so then why have they Patented the technology?

[red team]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:57 PM
What does the rest of the article say?


On Wednesday, company officials issued a statement that noted the technology also enables the opposite: allowing viewers to watch television without advertising. The intention was never to force viewers to watch ads against their will, the company said of the technology.

"We developed a system where the viewer can choose, at the beginning of a movie, to either watch the movie without ads, or watch the movie with ads,&#39;&#39; the company stated. "It is up to the viewer to take this decision, and up to the broadcaster to offer the various services.&#39;&#39;

The company also said it had no plans to use the technology in any of its products.

So much for that.
Right, and tobacco companies says that nicotine isn&#39;t carcinogenic and addictive.

[Jaden]

Originally posted by silentprotest+Apr 24 2006, 02:22 PM--> (silentprotest @ Apr 24 2006, 02:22 PM)
[email protected] 24 2006, 04:57 PM
What does the rest of the article say?


On Wednesday, company officials issued a statement that noted the technology also enables the opposite: allowing viewers to watch television without advertising. The intention was never to force viewers to watch ads against their will, the company said of the technology.

"We developed a system where the viewer can choose, at the beginning of a movie, to either watch the movie without ads, or watch the movie with ads,&#39;&#39; the company stated. "It is up to the viewer to take this decision, and up to the broadcaster to offer the various services.&#39;&#39;

The company also said it had no plans to use the technology in any of its products.

So much for that.
If that is so then why have they Patented the technology? [/b]
Yes, won&#39;t patentening it mean that anyone who wants to use such technology in their own products have to pay the Royal Phillips Electronics company? Thus this would probably increase the price of the product to make up for the extra cash being put out. Why any company would want to do this, though, is beyond me, but if they did some false advertising (such as excluding the fact that the product prevents channel surfing during commercials) it might work for some time before it comes back and bites them in the ass. I think it&#39;s suicide for their companies. The Telly isn&#39;t more than a box of moving commercials to me anyway.

And those DVDs that don&#39;t allow you to skip past the advertisements will piss me off. My TV has no function other than playing videos and video games.

[redstar2000]

As usual, Tungsten, you missed the good part...


Philips acknowledged, however, that the anti-channel changing technology might not sit well with consumers and suggested in its patent filing that consumers be allowed to avoid the feature if they paid broadcasters a fee. -- emphasis added.

As to their promise "not to include" this technology in their consumer electronics, I don&#39;t believe them. ;)

If cable can handle the internet, then cable can handle a signal from a broadcaster to activate a dormant "feature".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Tungsten]

red team

Right, and tobacco companies says that nicotine isn&#39;t carcinogenic and addictive.
Irrelevent, as usual.
redstar2000

As usual, Tungsten, you missed the good part...
So did you:

Philips acknowledged, however, that the anti-channel changing technology might not sit well with consumers and suggested in its patent filing that consumers be allowed to avoid the feature if they paid broadcasters a fee.
Who&#39;s going to buy a system with this stupid system on it? No one. You&#39;ve lost the argument.

[apathy maybe]

You would be surprised. People buy all sorts of crap. While you might not, you mustn&#39;t extend that to everyone.

Who would buy such a fake and obnoxious thing as a Barbie doll? What parent would promote their kids to shoot people? Who&#39;d be a capitalist?

[RebelOutcast]

Perhaps they patented the tech so that no one could use it and thus save the consumer?
Yeah right.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There would be a big consumer backlash if this technology was actually put into use. People would buy other products without this stupid gimmick, the success of TiVo is a testament to that. And even if every TV apparatus had this technology, people would come up with ways to circumvent/ignore it.

Personally, I&#39;d wait and see what actually happens with this before jumping to conclusions.

[Dyst]

It&#39;s not like we aren&#39;t already being forced to watch commercials, except if you decide to live by your own hands out in the forest. You could do that, assuming the forest isn&#39;t private property...

Anyways, this is just another way for them to make money, nothing too new or groundbreaking.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Tungsten
Who&#39;s going to buy a system with this stupid system on it?

Same folks who bought those "copy protected" DVDs that fucked up their computers? :lol:

I don&#39;t expect the manufacturers to put a big orange sticker on the sets: Hey, dummy, this set contains technology that will make it impossible for you to channel-surf during the commercials&#33;

Do you? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Tungsten]

Anyone who&#39;s worth anything won&#39;t be stupid enough to buy them, that&#39;s all that matters.

[apathy maybe]

Right ... I can see why you&#39;re restricted.

I guess you didn&#39;t buy one of those Sony rootkit CD&#39;s. Or maybe you did but just don&#39;t want to admit it.

The fact is that the majority of the population do not know as much about technology as you might think. Unless a minority are vocal enough so that the rest of society hears them, people will buy these. They won&#39;t know what is wrong with them until they get them home, then the majority will accept the fate of watching comercials.

[overlord]

Tungsten is right. No-one is going to buy that TV when all TV programs will soon be available for free on the net with just a few ads on the web page to look at. You can already watch &#39;La Linea&#39; (anybody remember that?) for free and pretty much any ancient movie.

You see ladies and gentlemen, this is one of the manifold glories of capitalism. If an idea is wrong, it is naturally selected for termination and a new better idea takes its place. Hence our stores contain all the best products, (usually), and plenty of them too.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by overlord
You see ladies and gentlemen, this is one of the manifold glories of capitalism. If an idea is wrong, it is naturally selected for termination and a new better idea takes its place. Hence our stores contain all the best products, (usually), and plenty of them too.

You see "ladies and gentlemen" we have here a sad example of what happens to people who not only watch the dummyvision commercials but believe them to be true. :lol:

"Best products"?

"Plenty of them"?

Redstar2000&#39;s "Law": If you purchase a product at a reasonable price that actually does what it purports to do, you got lucky&#33; Return to the store and buy two more...because the manufacturer will soon stop making it in order to make an inferior product at a higher price&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Dyst]

No-one is going to buy that TV when all TV programs will soon be available for free on the net with just a few ads on the web page to look at. You can already watch &#39;La Linea&#39; (anybody remember that?) for free and pretty much any ancient movie.

Hey&#33; That sounds almost like communism... Except the ads.

You are right, no one is going to buy anything, when they in reality could get it for free. Without the fucking ads.

[Cheung Mo]

I support the proliferation of this invention: Fuck with their boob tube and watch the ignorant masses turn against capitalism. :lol:

[cyu]

You see ladies and gentlemen, this is one of the manifold glories of capitalism. If an idea is wrong, it is naturally selected for termination and a new better idea takes its place.

What does this have to do with a person owning the means of production, not doing any work, and profiting off the work of employees? There&#39;s nothing that prevents this from happening when companies are democratically controlled.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 24 2006, 02:46 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 24 2006, 02:46 PM)
AP
New Technology Could Force TV Ad Viewing

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- In this era of easy ad skipping with TiVo-like video recorders, could television viewers one day be forced to watch commercials with a system that prevents channel switching?

Yes, according to Royal Philips Electronics. A patent application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office says researchers of the Netherland-based consumer electronics company have created a technology that could let broadcasters freeze a channel during a commercial, so viewers wouldn&#39;t be able to avoid it.

http://www.livescience.com/technology/0604...ommercials.html (http://www.livescience.com/technology/060420_force_commercials.html)

Next?

A "mute" button freeze? A "power-on" freeze?

Or perhaps watchers could be "tracked" and sued if they took a toilet-break during the commercials. :lol:

Isn&#39;t "not watching the commercials" a form of "intellectual property theft"?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
So what is this technology?

Is it part of your T.V.

If so there&#39;s bound to be a market for T.V.s that don&#39;t use this technology.

[overlord]

You see "ladies and gentlemen" we have here a sad example of what happens to people who not only watch the dummyvision commercials but believe them to be true.

"Best products"?

"Plenty of them"?

Redstar2000&#39;s "Law": If you purchase a product at a reasonable price that actually does what it purports to do, you got lucky&#33; Return to the store and buy two more...because the manufacturer will soon stop making it in order to make an inferior product at a higher price&#33;


Go on Redstar&#33; You should feel free to buy your &#39;far superior&#39; communist products - if there ever were any. (There weren&#39;t and there never will be).

Oh and don&#39;t forget to buy that TV as well - Its a ripper&#33;

[Vladislav]

So overlord, you agree to this new technology?


You see ladies and gentlemen, this is one of the manifold glories of capitalism. If an idea is wrong, it is naturally selected for termination and a new better idea takes its place. Hence our stores contain all the best products, &#40;usually&#41;, and plenty of them too.

Yes,but some people can&#39;t afford them. What do you say about the people who can&#39;t afford these types of things?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by overlord
Go on Redstar&#33; You should feel free to buy your &#39;far superior&#39; communist products - if there ever were any.

You don&#39;t "buy" communist products...they&#39;re free for the asking.

Everything on my computer is "communist" except the operating system.

You can&#39;t buy a personal computer these days without paying for Windows&copy;&#33; :o

If the Linux people ever produce a "user-friendly" version that someone like me (tech-dummy) could actually install and get to work, then I&#39;d go for it.

I do not own and would never purchase any kind of dummyvision set, of course.

Why should I pay to be lied to?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif