| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Fox sues Dish over ad-blocking feature |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-05-25 07:39:04 |
| Dish' DVR has an 'auto-hop' feature, which automatically skips commercials on recorded TV. Fox is now suing Dish over this feature, because they claim it will destroy the business model of ad-driven television. "We were given no choice but to file suit against one of our largest distributors, Dish Network, because of their surprising move to market a product with the clear goal of violating copyrights and destroying the fundamental underpinnings of the broadcast television ecosystem," said Fox. This is the photographic film industry suing digital camera makers. It's so utterly absurd I can hardly believe it's for real. |
|
| At risk of really going off on a tangent... |
| By UltraZelda64 on 2012-05-25 08:02:08 |
|
I'll just say, Fox probably hates me anyway, because I have never once subscribed to broadcast TV and I have absolutely no plans to in the future. Their programming can rot for all I care. Thanks Fox, you've just fueled my hatred towards broadcast television. :) The only communications services I need are cell phone and the Internet... Fox can go suck an ad-infested d*** on their already-overpriced-yet-ad-l aden channels. I wonder if I'll get sued for going to take a shit during the commercial break of Fox News over at my cousin's house? After all, when he has it on, I'm not really paying much attention to it myself anyway. |
 - Score: 3 |
| Comment by franko |
| By franko on 2012-05-25 08:27:23 |
| I reckon Fox would hate MythTV as it also lets you skip commercials. Luckily it is open source so it would be a bit hard to sue. |
| - Score: 4 |
| ads on a paid channel? |
| By Lion on 2012-05-25 08:37:51 |
|
As a non-american I didn't realise that Fox is a paid service that also has advertising. Here in NZ we either pay for SkyTV and don't get ads, or have free TV with ads. How do people consider it acceptable to pay to watch advertising? |
| - Score: 7 |
| Comment by Laurence |
| By Laurence on 2012-05-25 08:41:39 |
|
What about people who record shows just to fast forward through the ads like I do with Sky+? I set a program to record and then start watching about 15mins into an hour long show, just to skip the adverts and so I finish watching the show around the same time it finishes airing. Or, if I really must watch TV in real time, then I channel hop during the ads. I guess that means that everyone is liable. I really hope Fox wastes a lot of money on this case and loses because nothing good comes out of that shitty network aside Furturama - and that's been pretty crap since it's returned from cancellation anyway. |
| - Score: 3 |
| copyright |
| By Gooberslot on 2012-05-25 08:42:52 |
| How does skipping ads violate copyright? |
| - Score: 11 |
| RE: ads on a paid channel? |
| By Laurence on 2012-05-25 08:47:50 |
|
> As a non-american I didn't realise that Fox is a paid service that also has advertising. Here in NZ we either pay for SkyTV and don't get ads, or have free TV with ads. How do people consider it acceptable to pay to watch advertising? Sadly the American system is the norm. In the UK, cable and satellite TV is a non-free service with ads. I guess they justify this because of the cost of production for many of their flagship shows. But I just with the vast majority of content wasn't budget reality shows (aka serialised soaps about the spawn of Satan). |
| - Score: 2 |
| Comment by NuxRo |
| By NuxRo on 2012-05-25 09:09:56 |
| Hardly surprising, remember these are the people that cancelled "Firefly"! :-) |
| - Score: 9 |
| Comment by marcp |
| By marcp on 2012-05-25 09:11:11 |
|
Maybe it's time to change your anachronistic god damn business model, Fox? People are using these "crap skippers" with a serious reason, not for fun. Maybe they just don't accept commercials? It's like MPAA/RIA/whatever bitching about low sells of CDs. Just use your brains for once for something else than feeding your unimaginable greed and figure out the way to be a good man for yourself AND for the actual consumers. Now, to be honest, I don't believe they are capable of doing it. But it's always good to point out the real problem. Edited 2012-05-25 09:12 UTC |
| - Score: 5 |
| Older than you think |
| By Neolander on 2012-05-25 09:26:52 |
|
I can only think of this comic right now. http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/532 |
| - Score: 5 |
| The industry can, in fact, learn. |
| By tidux on 2012-05-25 11:53:38 |
|
I was listening to NPR this morning, and CBS's profits are up something ridiculous like 80% from last year, and a big piece of that is non-advertising revenue sources like syndication deals of their old programming to Netflix, Hulu, and cable/satellite on demand video services. I don't begrudge them any of it - if they're making money by selling stuff they produced to consumers who want it, or to distributors who also sell at a fair price (netflix, hulu, etc.), that's capitalism at its finest. tl;dr A Rupert Murdoch company is being greedy and anticompetitive, film at 11. |
| - Score: 4 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |