by RedDogRER - 4/19/06 6:32 PM
If you can't fast forward, or change the channel, what about parents that want to skip over racy, scary, or inappropriate stuff on TV (especially commercials)? Someone think of the children!
by: RedDogRER April 19, 2006 6:32 PM PDT
0 people like this thread
Total posts: 32 (Showing page 1 of 2)
...in so many ways. Was there really no one at phillips that had the guts to stand up and say "People, I know that this SEEMS like a good idea. But it's really gonna tick a lot of people off. It doesn't matter if TV and advertisers love it if consumers don't actually buy it"
Once again, the almighty dollar trumps common sense.
I'm not a strict political libertarian but the libertarian streak in me thinks that any tinkering and experimenting in a free market democracy could lead to unexpected and welcome innovations. Its Philips' money let them do whatever they want.
If I don't like any eventual outcome of this patent application I'll just boycott anyone involved. Its not like this is 1984 and the inter-web is still formulating in Al Gore's mind. What's the worst that could happen? Basically that our TV experience would be utterly destroyed. Who cares? Its just TV... do we suffer from a lack of content distribution? Is there anything on TV that you really, really just can't live without?
If the worst case scenario played out I would so much have no problem cancelling my satellite subscription and never watching another second of TV until they fixed it.
If you don't like being forced to watch commercials you can't fast forward through, I wouldn't advise watching any videos on cnet.com.
They don't buy TV's.
What's next? They're going to stop me from going to the bathroom during commercials? Or why not stop me from surfing the internet during commercials.
i thought it was about. i read in the headlines something about flags and commercials and thought that it must be a little flag on the side of the tv so you can goto the bathroom and come back when the flag is going down.
Well, this is what I did.
I went to college in upstate Vermont and got a BS in Video Production & Videography. My professors lectured me on the evils of money and how it corrupted the media - it was our job to bring integrity back to television advertising.
Soon after, I got a job at a TV station and discovered the horrible truth. Evil beings called salesmen called all the shots and didn't care about anything besides their wallet. They didn't care how corruptive or bad TV ads were as long as it made them money.
After two and a half years - I ran like hell for the door, got a different job and stopped watching TV.
But now (11 years later) I have iTunes and can download commercial FREE Lost episodes. What a blessing, and YES, paying two bucks not to see stupid/non-entertaining/unimaginative ads is worth it to me.
I kind of fear seeing blatant product placements in the shows I download from iTunes - but so far I haven't seen any Dharma Initiative Mac & Cheese at the grocery store.
Wasn't the article about a Patent?
Good or bad idea I'm sure they grabbed the patent so if anyone else wanted to be so bold they'd get their share.
Content companies are getting way too agressive and greedy.
i would like to know who was the genius who thought that this is something worth patining. come on how much anti consumer can you get at this point and the fact that we arent supprise that some conpany actually did this is also a sign of the times.
just as in "A Clockwork Orange"...
Just like in "A Clockwork Orange" choice is the answer... the exercise of free-will.
Until and unless they strap us down in a chair and tape open our eyelids we will always have a choice.
I say let Phillips get their patent and even make such a device. It will be their loss as consumers will not buy it. The more time, effort, and money Phillips spends in pursuing this the better.... because that will be their punishment.... spending time, effort, and money on something no one will buy.
What if Philips just patents the idea and sits on it? They could be looking out for the concern of the consumer. Then nobody else could do it, and we could all be happy.
Of course, this is more than unlikely, but I wanted to share it anyways.
I have a question -- unless suddenly all TV manufacturers adopted this technology, no one would buy a TV that had this feature on it, so I think maybe we're safe. Unless they can sneak it in and the consumer wouldn't know it was there till they bought it.
But, then again, if I bought a TV that did this, I'd take it back as soon as I found out it did that.
There's a little more to it than that...
What happens if Phillips licenses the technology to other manufacturers? If the broadcasters want it and implement it as a standard, Philips will license it, and then it ends up on every set on the market... Now getting a TV without this would become impossible.
I thought of that, but . . .
. . . I really still don't think people would buy it. I mean, it's partly about getting people to adopt new technology. Sometimes people buy TVs because the one they have breaks, but they also buy them because of new technology. If they don't like the new technology and don't buy it in volume, won't that cause the manufacturers a problem?
Well, I went to Philip's web site and emailed them a letter complaining and saying that I would not buy a TV with technology that wouldn't let me change channels, and if I bought it without knowing it did that, I'd return it once I found out.
(NT) (NT) BTW, great rant, Molly! :-)
That's about what I thought when I read that article (haven't had a chance to listen to the podcast yet, so I'm sure I'm missing a monumental Molly rant).
After a full few seconds of thought on the subject, I've decided that taken face value this isn't too bad. It's just a patent, granted it's a patent for a "feature" that would quickly become one of the most revilled features of interactive TV.
There is however a few obstacles to this being implemented in the US, not the least of which is the sheer hatred it would cause if put into place... But if you read the article it says that this technology uses the Multimedia Home Platform to work... From reading the article MHP uses flags that allow viewers to call up extra features... We don't have this system in the US, and I haven't seen anything that indicates that any broadcaster or cable company in the US is looking to implement such a system...
However, this could affect folks in Europe, as some broadcasters there DO use MHP, SkyNews in England for one. While watching a SkyNews broadcast while in England last year messages popped up all the time on the screen that said something to the effect of "Press the Red Button on Your Remote For More Information." Being in a hotel, our remote didn't have the magical Red Button, so just what happened I don't know, but it's that capability that this patent is looking to leverage off of.
I suppose the rationale is similar to the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Just because we make it doesn't mean we have to use it. Let us remember that the tech bubble should have shown us that just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should. Shades of 1984, Rollerball and other dark predictive Sci-Fi satires describing a totalitarian future. What's next preventing us from turning the display Off? Or On for that matter!!!!
Dan Beyer - Marketing Consultant
VOIP / Cell : 954-727-1983
Tamarac, FL 33319
MSN IM: STREAMrep@hotmail.com
Doh! Looks like Philips is looking for ways to tick consumers off, while selling their souls and our time to the global prostitution ring known as: ADVERTISING. I am pretty positive that I do not want some company or the ad agencies it has sold it's soul to telling me what I am allowed to watch or not. The changing during live broadcast is bad enough, but preventing fast forward during playback of RECORDED MATERIAL???!!!!? I seem to remember seeing this level of control over people and their media outlets before. If I remember correctly, the film was black and white footage of men high stepping in uniform and the whole thing was in GERMAN. What is next? Scary to me..
What effect would this technology have on channel surfing? Whenever I'm flipping through channels, it seems that somewhere around 50% (if not more) of the channels have commercials on at any given time. Does it mean that as soon as I hit a commercial, I can't change the TV at all, or is there an amount of time that has to pass before I'm locked in?
Just thought I would throw that into the fire.
Then no one would ever be able to watch any programming, because as they would flip the channel to a channel showing commercials, they would be locked in there until the program started back up.
Browsing, WHERES THE BROWSING
As much as the TV Guides on digital try to stop me, I am a fan of pressing the CH+ button over and over again to check whats on. If U browse through and u get an ad ur stuck on that crappy TV channel, and u miss the show ur after!!!
Phillips r digging their own grave
What renevation have they realli given us?!?!
Consumer Rights ... or Chuck Your Digital Devices!
Considering how entertainment-related firms strive to horribly abuse their customers (Sony root-kits, Blu-ray restrictions, loony CinemaNow constraints, and Phillips' forced viewership), I believe it is time for a Consumer Digital Rights Act.
We need a law that can protect our rights to fair use, to content portability, and to control our own devices.
Like Tom has said, the concept of DRM is not bad, but the implementations to date are sinister and borderline evil. It's getting out of hand, and there does not seem to be a concerted effort to represent the poor, abused entertainment content consumers.
Perhaps we should chuck our digital devices and resurrenct the analog tape equipment of old.
At least you could use it on your own terms...
I wouldn't count on anyone being able to chuck out...
by ddubb - 4/21/06 1:33 AM
In Reply to: Consumer Rights ... or Chuck Your Digital Devices! by mwrisner
... their digital devices. Even when its non-essentials like TV, movies, music, basically entertainment.
Unfortunately, as consumers, we just don't have what it takes to send a strong message to those evil corporations that hold all the power. Even our representatives in government may be controlled by mass media dollars. You know how its impossible to not think of a banana when someone says, "Don't think of a banana?" Why doesn't that hold true when you tell someone, "Don't think of where corporations and the government get their dollars from!"
Guess we just have to swallow what they shove down our throats!
This is the worst patten I believe that it will be denied by the patten office. This is SO STUIPD I agree we need a right to let us change the channel if we want to what happens when you are watching two different shows and you want to go back to the other show when the show you are watching plays a commercial. Also what happens to the TVs that have Picture in Picture what you couldn't switch between them that is SO WRONG on So many levels that it is not funny at all. I understand about that the are up set that people ff though the commercials would that mean that you also couldn't ff though stuff that you don't like on the show either???
Maybe we consumer tv lovers should file our own patents
for all of these ridiculous ideas. that way the big corporations would be unable to implement them without violating out patents.
how about patenting a device that can TURN ON a TV when an infomercial comes on?
or one that turns off the set just before the climax if you don't call a 900#?
The possibilities for malvention are simply endless!
...btw, has anyone patented the rootkit yet?
Maybe Microsoft should patent the BSOD before someone else does & sues them for every 'infringement incident'. That could clean their coffers quickly
How is this different from free wifi?
OK so on ther face of it it sounds like a terrible idea, but you don't really know how they intend to implement it. What if they release 2 versions of a show one you pay for which has no ads, one you dont pay for which has ads that you can't skip through. Is this sounding familiar? How can it be that this is a really good idea for wifi but terrible for TV? If implemented in the right way, this could be
The only difference between a tool and a weapon...
...is the skill &/or intent of the user.
Sure it could be used benignly, but I'm not banking on it.
Look at DVDs. It started with the FBI (or interpol) warning. It didn't take some marketing 'genius' too long to figure you could force people to sit through oceans of drek before getting to the feature.
Once the ability exists, the 'race to the bottom' seems inevitible.
The skipping isn't so much what everyone's upset about
People are more upset that they can't change the channel during commercials. I fully and completely understand the skipping even if I don't agree with it, but not letting me change the channel just becaue a commercial is on is abosolutely asinine.
If you don't like it, then DO something about it (iPac)
Leo Laporte talked had a show last week introducing iPac, a political group to fight this sort of thing. One topic discussed was the Broadcast Flag. Hollywood wants the Broadcast Flag to be law. So to me it just sound like Phillips wants to the patent on something that they will be forced to implement.
If you really want to do something, I suggest goint to www.ipaction.org, and get involved in some form. You can complain all you want, but unless we do something, as a community, Congress will always favor Hollywood.
[TWiT show reference]
[EFF on Broadcast Flag]
Total posts: 32 (Showing page 1 of 2)