FCC did something right ...yaay

[feralkid]

A couple of blog posts and lazy ass forum goers != issue requiring federal intervention.

Jesus Christ, you people can't even hit the mute button anymore without the government doing it for you? Fuck it if we aren't completely fucked as a country, a culture, and a society.

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

 

[BoberFett]

No, I'm arguing that legislation by limp dicks for limp dicks is a pointless waste of time and energy. You're the limp dick who decided to try to turn this into an ecomonic issue of externalized cost when it most certainly isn't.

And loud commercials are no more a nuisance than incorrect condiment dispensation. I still see TV from time to time at places other than home, and I didn't even know it was still an issue.

There are countless annoyances every day that people deal with. Welcome to life, pussy. If you can't deal with annoyances without crying for government to fix them, life must really suck for you. In fact, maybe that's the problem with America today. We're so coddled that any little annoyance quickly becomes an injustice requiring massive spending to correct. Being such a soft bunch of pussies is one of the things that will destroy this country. Other countries that aren't such a big bunch of pussies are going to leave us in the dust.

Seriously. Imagine yourself trying to explain this "horrific injustice" to a starving child in Africa.

"Great news Otombo! today was a great victory for people everywhere who stuff their face with snack foods while watching sitcoms. No longer will they have to be bombarded with slightly louder commercials for products that they will probably buy anyway because the TV told them too."

"Yeah. Snack food. It's something you eat between meals when you're not really hungry for a full meal."

"You know, sitcoms. They're on TV. They're like funny plays, but on TV. TVs are an electronic box with a moving picture on it where we watch shows. And you don't have to leave your couch to see it."

"Yes, a couch. In our country everyone has a large cushioned piece of furniture. No, we burn our logs, they're too uncomfortable to sit on."


America! Fuck yeah!

 

[bfdd]

bober i agree with you that it's rather trivial to denote time to, there are much more crucial things we need to work on.

 

[DominionSeraph]

The free market fixed this long ago. DVRs help you skip commercials. If you don't like that, go get your entertainment and news online with an ad-blocker installed.

How's that welfare working out for you? Because that's exactly what you just posted: "Let someone else do the work and pay for things while I get them for free."

Advertisers have advertising dollars to spend because advertising works -- it shifts spending habits (and thus money) away from everything else and towards the advertised product. Some of the skim off this pays for "free" programming -- basically, the programming is there to get you to sit still long enough for them to feed you the ads which pay for it. Skipping commercials with a DVR (or just stealing the TV show) is not a "free market solution", it is a complete undermining of that entire market. And this has real effects: There's a reason that there's crap for sci-fi on TV nowadays: it's because the sci-fi crowd tends to be first adopters when it comes to technology. We adopted DVR's, the advertisers noticed, they refused to pay anything for the time-shifting demographic, and so no network wants anything to do with the shows.

So the FCC regulating advertising volume is nothing like skipping ads altogether.

Honestly Bober, get some fucking perspective. You're always trapped on the smallest of scales.

 

[Craig234]

Morally, skipping ads with a DVR is a form of theft. This is the one case I can think of where I'm not 'doing the right thing' as well, i.e., I skip ads with a DVR.

I do make some effort to watch some ads, but that's rationalizing and mitigating, not avoiding the theft.

Why do I say it's theft? Pretty simple. Entertainment costs money to produce and air. Those bills are paid by advertisers. Watching those ads is the price paid by customers of the entertainment, instead of paying like on HBO in dollars (even movie theatres are a hybrid, with some advertising - even some in product placement in the movies - and snacks part of the business model for paying for movies).

If you skip the ads, you are taking the product - watching the entertainment that cost money to produce and air - and not paying for it by paying the price of watching ads.

Fact is, on average those ads more than pay for themselves when watched, or there wouldn't be a television business profitable for them to advertise on.

The fact that others watch the ads, that the business adjusts to more DVRs, is just shifting the cost off you onto those who do watch the ads - still stealing.

Basically, DVRs are cable cable companies and consumers profiting from short-term benefit of theft, while undermining the whole business model of 'free tv'.

The industry is having issues with what to do about it as DVRs spread. Options range from just moving to low-cost programming (reality tv crap) and more in-show ads.

DVRs are a nice 'wouldn't it be nice for people to spend a lot of money making entertainment for free for us' way to steal.

Just as piracy as digital products are more easily stolen than LP's and TV used to be increases and harms the music and PC gaming industries, easy to steal hurts TV.

 

[BoberFett]

How's that welfare working out for you? Because that's exactly what you just posted: "Let someone else do the work and pay for things while I get them for free."

I was cut off because greedy fuckers like you won't keep unemployment going forever. What's wrong with you? Can't pay a little bit higher taxes to keep people like me living a life of leisure? Greedy sons of bitches.

Honestly Bober, get some fucking perspective. You're always trapped on the smallest of scales.

This is incredibly funny. Being lectured to "get some fucking perspective" over a debate about the volume of television commercials. If you had "fucking persepective" you'd realize how trivial this truly is and how small and pathetic the people must be who care so passionately about it.

 

[BoberFett]

Morally, skipping ads with a DVR is a form of theft.

Another classic from Craig!

This forum never fails to deliver teh funny!

 

[Vic Vega]

More stupid and pointless regulation from our wonderful Federal government.

Why we ever gave them the power to regulate television at all is beyond me.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yeah, I don't about about fast forwarding through ads being "theft." By that logic, if I go to the can or the kitchen during the commercial, or read a magazine or talk to my wife and not pay attention to the ads, I'm also "stealing." Also, DVR's are about much more than skipping ads. They allow you watch the programming when you want to instead of just the times they are aired.

I think if the DVR's are creating problems then the industry has to adapt to the changing technologies. I don't think there's much to be gained by insinuating that the user is unethical if he doesn't keep his eyes and ears glued to every TV commercial that airs.

 

[Vic Vega]

A couple of blog posts and lazy ass forum goers != issue requiring federal intervention.

Jesus Christ, you people can't even hit the mute button anymore without the government doing it for you? Fuck it if we aren't completely fucked as a country, a culture, and a society.

Yup. We're fucked. These people can't be bothered to mute their TV - a service which for 99% of households they are BUYING from a service provider - yet we need big brother to mute the TV for us. We're fucked.

 

[BoberFett]

Hey Craig, the poor and middle class typically have less time because of kids, multiple jobs, etc. while the wealthy have lots of spare time.

Perhaps we need a way to subsidize commercial watching time for the poor. Maybe we have the wealthy forced to watch extra commercials while the truly poor can watch TV and not have to see any commercials. Consider it a form of progressive advertising.

 

[Vic Vega]

Hey Craig, the poor and middle class typically have less time because of kids, multiple jobs, etc. while the wealthy have lots of spare time.

Perhaps we need a way to subsidize commercial watching time for the poor. Maybe we have the wealthy forced to watch extra commercials while the truly poor can watch TV and not have to see any commercials. Consider it a form of progressive advertising.

I'm sure he'll tell us we need someone who makes $250k a year to come over to their house and watch the commercials for them.

 

[woolfe9999]

Hey Craig, the poor and middle class typically have less time because of kids, multiple jobs, etc. while the wealthy have lots of spare time.

Perhaps we need a way to subsidize commercial watching time for the poor. Maybe we have the wealthy forced to watch extra commercials while the truly poor can watch TV and not have to see any commercials. Consider it a form of progressive advertising.

Nah, that would be stealing. We can't have all these poor people teaching their kids the wrong lesson. "Now Johnny, you can't just go play with your toys during the commercials. Come over here right now, sit down, and watch and listen to every single TV commercial very carefully. Otherwise, you're stealing, and we've always told you it's wrong to steal." Poor kids need to be taught values just as much as the rich!

 

[DominionSeraph]

Morally, skipping ads with a DVR is a form of theft.

I'm going to take issue with your wording because, if you trace it down the pathways of the program provider/viewer social contract, the conclusion that would follow from that is that the viewer has the moral obligation to make the advertised product a success; i.e. he is morally obligated to buy.
Because of the vagaries of advertising in which an ad may only hit a particular demographic, because the number of advertisers does set up an internal market in which any one advertiser may fail without disrupting the whole system, and because there's really no inherent right for the ad revenue-driven programming system to even exist, I'd say you can't attach it to morality.

If you skip ads you're an ass and a leech on the system -- by all effects you are stealing content -- but I wouldn't say it's immoral. You're merely engaging in the technical destruction of that particular system.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

This is the one case I can think of where I'm not 'doing the right thing' as well, i.e., I skip ads with a DVR.

I hope that you don't genuinely believe that are morally perfect aside from this.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

On a related note has anyone noticed that some online video players don't let you turn down the volume during the ads?

 

[DominionSeraph]

Hey Craig, the poor and middle class typically have less time because of kids, multiple jobs, etc. while the wealthy have lots of spare time.

Perhaps we need a way to subsidize commercial watching time for the poor. Maybe we have the wealthy forced to watch extra commercials while the truly poor can watch TV and not have to see any commercials. Consider it a form of progressive advertising.

As I said before, you really need to broaden your perspective. Pattern matching exclusively on such a ridiculously small scale will lead to stupidity such as yours.

The wealthy are taxed higher not because of the mere fact that they have more, but to redress inequality in the system wherein a few can be deeded the rights to the economic output of the many. The wealth inequality that follows is taxed so the system doesn't progress to the point where it falls off a cliff.
This does not apply to free time, so your analogy fails.

Try again, but with +50 IQ points next time so you don't bore us to death.

 

[Craig234]

I'm going to take issue with your wording because, if you trace it down the pathways of the program provider/viewer social contract, the conclusion that would follow from that is that the viewer has the moral obligation to make the advertised product a success; i.e. he is morally obligated to buy.

I'm not saying that.

But let me split a hair here.

If you watch the ads and buy nothing, you have met your requirement. You do not have to buy anything to 'pay' for the entertainment.

But the hair I'm splitting is that of course, while everyone is free to buy or not buy, the system only works when the advertising is profitable, so some need to buy to function.

However, that's not a 'moral issue' like skipping the ads is. Worst case, everyone who watched the ads does not buy, and tv shuts down. Or not many buy, and budgets go down, and there are fewer choices and/or lower quality shows. But this is a theoretical issue; in practice, advertising gets results on average.

A further hair to split is that you are a good faith consumer who is open to buying advertised products, not someone refusing to do so, but no need to get into that.

Because of the vagaries of advertising in which an ad may only hit a particular demographic, because the number of advertisers does set up an internal market in which any one advertiser may fail without disrupting the whole system, and because there's really no inherent right for the ad revenue-driven programming system to even exist, I'd say you can't attach it to morality.

The morality here is in taking the product of others - the entertainment they produce to sell you for the price of watching ads - without paying the price for it.

People with DVR's are like a group who find a hole in the fence at a theatre, and sneak in and watch the show without paying, leaving others to pay the costs.

When more find the hole and sneak in, ticket prices go up on the others, udgets go down for booking acts; when everyone sneaks in, the theatre closes.

If you skip ads you're an ass and a leech on the system -- by all effects you are stealing content -- but I wouldn't say it's immoral. You're merely engaging in the technical destruction of that particular system.

I'd say choosing not to watch tv at all is what you are describing - and is the 'technical destruction of that system'. Taking the product and not paying is 'stealing' as you say.

This is an old debate among digital pirates - when the cost of distribution is virtually free for one more consumer, how does that hurt anyone, they didn't take a hunk of gold.

It's analogous to asking, if you watch the concert from a hill outside the theatre and it doesn't cost anyone anything, how is that 'stealing'?

It's a longer answer, but the short answer is, because the business model to pay for the creation and distribution of the entertainment relies on the people who want to consume it paying for it (by watching ads), there is an implied mutually beneficial contract you are agreeing to by consuming the product, to pay for your fair share.

I won't get into more obscure issues, such as, if you pirate a game you wouldn't have bought or sneak into a movie you wouldn't have paid for, but that prevents you from buying another game you would have bought or a movie ticket for a movie you would have, that harms those other products. Common sense: people owe something for these things they use.

 

[waggy]

wait!? so skipping commercials with a DVR is theft? what about takeing a leak? getting a drink? turning the channel?

no it's not theft. not even close.

 

[Craig234]

wait!? so skipping commercials with a DVR is theft? what about takeing a leak? getting a drink? turning the channel?

no it's not theft. not even close.

Those other things are not theft; they're normal, expected behaviors that are built in to the business model, which does not rely on you watching every ad.

But watching NO ads with a DVR giving the advertisers NO return on their spending money for the shows you watch is another matter, and is morally theft IMO.

What magical source of paying the costs do you think the money comes from for shows?

 

[HeXen]

i've complained about this for years. I dunno why something is just now being done about it. It really sucks when your watching a show thats kinda quiet, with lots of whispering and talking, so ya crank the volume a bit more then suddenly a commericial goes booom

 

[Ausm]

You simply cannot be a real person.

I think that dude is possibly Spidey's spawn.

 

[fskimospy]

Those other things are not theft; they're normal, expected behaviors that are built in to the business model, which does not rely on you watching every ad.

But watching NO ads with a DVR giving the advertisers NO return on their spending money for the shows you watch is another matter, and is morally theft IMO.

What magical source of paying the costs do you think the money comes from for shows?

You are under no obligation to watch any part of the show that you don't want to watch the networks/advertisers know this going in.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I'm arguing that legislation by limp dicks for limp dicks is a pointless waste of time and energy. You're the limp dick who decided to try to turn this into an ecomonic issue of externalized cost when it most certainly isn't.

And loud commercials are no more a nuisance than incorrect condiment dispensation. I still see TV from time to time at places other than home, and I didn't even know it was still an issue.

There are countless annoyances every day that people deal with. Welcome to life, pussy. If you can't deal with annoyances without crying for government to fix them, life must really suck for you. In fact, maybe that's the problem with America today. We're so coddled that any little annoyance quickly becomes an injustice requiring massive spending to correct. Being such a soft bunch of pussies is one of the things that will destroy this country. Other countries that aren't such a big bunch of pussies are going to leave us in the dust.

Seriously. Imagine yourself trying to explain this "horrific injustice" to a starving child in Africa.

"Great news Otombo! today was a great victory for people everywhere who stuff their face with snack foods while watching sitcoms. No longer will they have to be bombarded with slightly louder commercials for products that they will probably buy anyway because the TV told them too."

"Yeah. Snack food. It's something you eat between meals when you're not really hungry for a full meal."

"You know, sitcoms. They're on TV. They're like funny plays, but on TV. TVs are an electronic box with a moving picture on it where we watch shows. And you don't have to leave your couch to see it."

"Yes, a couch. In our country everyone has a large cushioned piece of furniture. No, we burn our logs, they're too uncomfortable to sit on."


America! Fuck yeah!

Nice to see our good friend Boberfett in a full fledged meltdown, all the while complaining that people take commercial volume too seriously.

Never change, boberfett, you're perfect the way you are.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I'm not saying that.

But let me split a hair here.

If you watch the ads and buy nothing, you have met your requirement. You do not have to buy anything to 'pay' for the entertainment.

But the hair I'm splitting is that of course, while everyone is free to buy or not buy, the system only works when the advertising is profitable, so some need to buy to function.

However, that's not a 'moral issue' like skipping the ads is. Worst case, everyone who watched the ads does not buy, and tv shuts down. Or not many buy, and budgets go down, and there are fewer choices and/or lower quality shows. But this is a theoretical issue; in practice, advertising gets results on average.

A further hair to split is that you are a good faith consumer who is open to buying advertised products, not someone refusing to do so, but no need to get into that.



The morality here is in taking the product of others - the entertainment they produce to sell you for the price of watching ads - without paying the price for it.

But you're agreeing that the advertisers have no natural right to payment -- that the system may fail due to natural internal consequences. If there is no natural right to payment then taking without paying the proffered cost isn't morally stealing. The advertiser doesn't actually have any ownership rights to a hypothetical profit of any amount.

Your moral subsystem there is unbalanced. You have an individual immorality of stealing that isn't countered by an individual morality of paying -- you dump it off into a vague group morality of a pattern of behavior that has no necessary connection to any result. It's awkward. How can it be individually immoral if the contrary group "moral" behavior can result in the exact same thing as every individual engaging in "immorality"?
You're assigning morality to a system with no dependence on the inputs or outputs of the system. You're basically arbitrarily declaring the ad revenue driven programming scheme to be objectively "good."
If it can fail without impacting humanity on a fundamental level then it's just a thing. It may be nice, but there's no moral obligation to it.

Bypassing the revenue structure is a dick move, but it's not immoral.

I'd say choosing not to watch tv at all is what you are describing - and is the 'technical destruction of that system'

WTF? The fact of a system's nonexistence in a particular location does not prescribe its technical infeasibility.
"I am using Windows as my desktop OS, therefore Mac OS cannot work."
My using Windows does not fail Apple's system.

This is an old debate among digital pirates - when the cost of distribution is virtually free for one more consumer, how does that hurt anyone, they didn't take a hunk of gold.

It's analogous to asking, if you watch the concert from a hill outside the theatre and it doesn't cost anyone anything, how is that 'stealing'?

Different thing, as individual = individual. You have individual = group.