| 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. |
|
| RE[2]: At risk of really going off on a tangent... |
| By dylansmrjones on 2012-05-25 18:51:58 |
|
> You subscribe to Cable or Satellite, you do not subscribe to broadcast TV. Perhaps not in USA, but in many other countries that is wrong. In Denmark it's been common to encode terrestrial TV for several decades, even back when TV-signals were analogue. Today all signals are digital and one cannot see much terrestrial TV without subscribing to one of the packages from Boxer-TV. One can see a few selected state-channels, but one can also see satellite tv without subscribing to any company. |
 - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: At risk of really going off on a tangent... |
| By DrillSgt on 2012-05-25 18:55:58 |
|
> Perhaps not in USA, but in many other countries that is wrong. In Denmark it's been common to encode terrestrial TV for several decades, even back when TV-signals were analogue. Today all signals are digital and one cannot see much terrestrial TV without subscribing to one of the packages from Boxer-TV. One can see a few selected state-channels, but one can also see satellite tv without subscribing to any company. I stand corrected then. I thought FOX was strictly a US network, so I was using that train of thought. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: Re: |
| By redshift on 2012-05-25 19:23:09 |
|
Even when I watch TV the old fashioned way without ad skipping I rarely pay attention to them. That is always a good moment to hit the restroom or to get a drink. I guess fox would like to have us all watching TV Clockwork Orange style. Anything less is piracy to them. What ever... they canceled Firefly and left me hanging on the Sarah Connor Chronicles. Nothing has caught my interest on cable in some time, so I am planning on going net only anyway. HD is less compressed over the air for local channels too. I have been able to catch my Doctor Who on iTunes, and I can wait and watch other stuff on Netflix. I would just as soon wait to find out that the show gets a proper ending before I invest myself in watching it. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: copyright |
| By umccullough on 2012-05-25 20:03:02 |
|
> How does skipping ads violate copyright? I'm guessing they're going to use some argument about how the "copyrighted work" is being modified by Dish's hardware and thus the consumer. They'll probably argue that the commercials are part of the TV show, and that Dish has no right to remove them. Ultimately, however, it is the consumer that is making the decision to skip the commercials, so I have a feeling this will be baseless. They might try to use some "DMCA circumvention device" argument, but I kinda doubt that would stick. Fox (and other content companies who complain about such things) really just hates their customers... Just another dinosaur media company who has been outsmarted by technology along with their own customers, and would rather litigate than innovate. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: Brace Yourselves! |
| By StephenBeDoper on 2012-05-25 22:02:32 |
|
> Tablets will soon be outlawed. It's way too easy to do some web browsing on your tablet while watching TV during the commercial breaks. Maybe Fox and the other TV networks will band together and force the tablet makers to lock the screen or display their commercials on the tablet too so we don't get distracted by stuff that actually matter to us. You jest, but these days I wouldn't rule out the possibility of them at least making an attempt. Wasn't there an attempt by some radio association to mandate FM receivers in many types of consumer electronics a few years back? |
| - Score: 2 |
| US vs the World |
| By deathshadow on 2012-05-25 22:36:10 |
|
Something our friends from overseas may not grasp -- and we've seen it both in Thom's little rant and from a few posters here... is that broadcast TV is FREE in the US to consumers -- it is paid for ENTIRELY by advertising. Blocking advertising removes all broadcast channels income. Just as broadcast radio is free here in the US -- paid by advertising, and why a newspaper still costs about half what it costs them to print them -- paid for by advertising. It's why our fish wrappers/community papers/"shoppers" are FREE, as they are cover to cover more advertising than content. This is not even CLOSE to what Thom kneejerked into thinking it was from a US standpoint... and I'd not be surprised to see the other broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS, NBC and WB hop on this bandwagon to protect their affiliate broadcast stations from losses in revenue. That's why broadcast TV has advertising... and why I never really understood "cable only" stations need for it given the noodle doodle prices ($100 and up these days) of most cable and satellite packages... except of course that even channels like USA or Spike make far, far more money from advertising than they do in 'carrying fees' from cable and satellite providers. NOT that I'm one to talk anymore since I canceled cable and now just watch Netflix and Hulu, which for me are far more economic and reasonable choices. Or that I now live in a valley where ever since the stupid malfing switch-over to digital broadcast only means there is ZERO broadcast TV reception any more. Thanks Congress for shoving a technology change nobody could afford down our throats, and destroying broadcast TV availability in the process... not that it was a big loss here since the only channel you could get before the switch-over without a 100 foot tower in the back yard was PBS. OH, BTW, Dish is a total ripoff given their 2 year contract locking, thousand dollar fees for trying to discontinue service, auto-billing when you discontinue service without you EVER authorizing auto-billing to checking accounts, fraction of the channels of what we get in my area on cable at about $20/mo less in cost, and general sleazeball practices that make them one of the most disreputable companies in the nation. I've watched three of my neighbors deal with that ***, and it makes me really glad I was never DUMB ENOUGH to try and get satellite service. These guys make Amway look legitimate... and the really sad part is, DirectTV (the only other major satellite provider here) makes Dish look GOOD. Edited 2012-05-25 22:53 UTC |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: US vs the World |
| By deathshadow on 2012-05-25 23:00:54 |
| Oh, BTW, there's a REASON commercial free cable channels cost even more noodle-doodle money each! Top 200 is $15/mo more, while HBO, Showtime and Cinemax cost that EACH? Ring any bells? |
| - Score: 2 |
| It was Disney |
| By jefro on 2012-05-26 00:04:23 |
|
This is not news. This issue has gone on for 20 years or so. Yes, seems kind of odd to pay for dish and have to watch ads. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: US vs the World |
| By ilovebeer on 2012-05-26 00:39:46 |
|
> Something our friends from overseas may not grasp -- and we've seen it both in Thom's little rant and from a few posters here... is that broadcast TV is FREE in the US to consumers -- it is paid for ENTIRELY by advertising. Blocking advertising removes all broadcast channels income. I didn't bother reading any further than this because I didn't see the point. You are absolutely wrong when you say networks only revenue is generated by advertising. Perhaps you're confusing local affiliates with networks -- they are two completely different things. As is true for all the major networks, the lions share of money they make is from syndication. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: US vs the World |
| By redshift on 2012-05-26 01:29:17 |
|
> Something our friends from overseas may not grasp -- and we've seen it both in Thom's little rant and from a few posters here... is that broadcast TV is FREE in the US to consumers -- it is paid for ENTIRELY by advertising. Blocking advertising removes all broadcast channels income. One of the things I hate about this model is that they have been encreasint the amount of advertising per program steadily over the years. You will find that old shows actually need to be edited and or time compressed to fit in the smaller space allotted for shows so that they can spend more time advertising. Even the number of episodes in a season seems to have dropped. THey go so far as to alter the content of shows in reruns now.... http://articles.businessinsider.... I am so sick of advertisements layered into every aspect of our lives. Most of them for crap I would never buy anyway. |
| - Score: 2 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |