Microsoft patent to cover penalising users who skip TV Ads

[reboot]

"We are a society totally dependent on science and technology.
Which is surprising, since so few of us know anything about science and technology".
Stephen Hawking

I dont' care if they want to charge me for skipping commercials.
Firstly, I timeshift everything, so any tracking method they use, will show that I'm watching commercials, even when I'm not.
Second, as soon as this becomes law, there will be multitudes of methods invented to circumvent it.

[reven]

i doubt this would ever work, they'll probably do what the wb seems to be doing a lot, and put ads on the bottom of the screen during the show (which is annoying but i can live with it), or even more hard core product placement (like in the truman show).

[andlju]

or even more hard core product placement (like in the truman show).

Yep, I think that may very well be the future. But I guess that when everything has gone completely digital, they'll be able to DRM all content...

[capone]

Not sure what you mean by "more"

They are writting them right into the plot now. Not just shots, but having the product as part of the story. There was a instance recently where some show's star refused a subplot because it was so obvious.

You see it in shows when say, they are talking about going to a particular movie, for instance, or include an actor from the same network who is in a popular show on that network as a cameo. Other examples are becoming more obvious when you start paying attn.

[wtg]

Just a few comments...

To the whole "if only Jobs would save us" comment... if you think he'd do things any more consumer friendly, are you familiar with iTunes? Please...

As far as skipping commercials goes, I do it as much as anyone. But before you complain too loudly about efforts to curb it you should recall exactly how much you pay for your current TV content. In the US it's $0 for network broadcasts. If homebrew pvrs or any other device ever makes skipping commercials popular enough that a significant percentage of the population does it, the networks will have to do something and who can blame them? It's their advertisers who pay for the shows, and if they won't pay, there won't be any programming w/o subscription.

So many people act like their TV shows are some constitutional right and that they should be able to do anything they want with them. While our UK folk who pay TV taxes and fund the BBC with public money might have some legitimate complaint, a US consumer doesn't really. If you aren't paying for it, why do you think the company that is paying for it doesn't have a right to stick a few commercials in?

I use ShowAnalyzer to tag my commercials and even remove them from movies I want to archive, but I'm not under any misconception that network studios won't be forced to do something to stop it if my conduct were to become anywhere near the norm. What, would we prefer they moved everything to subscription like HBO, or just went off the air? Commercials may be annoying but it's a fair trade-off for free viewing, IMO.

Personally I hope networks end up using more product placement to alleviate their concerns only because some of the other alternatives are much worse. An overreaction like legislation that makes it illegal (or illegal to produce technology that makes it possible) would really suck. I certainly understand why the networks are concerned though... what would you do if you were in charge?

[LilY0da]

Whereas that holds true for the basic networks here in the US, they are not many.
A good 80% of the channels you see on cable (so you pay for them) still have around 30% commercials (10 minutes on a 30 minute show, for ex.) If we followed your logic, it would mean that all those channels would have to be commercial free.

Also, following that logic would make it illegal as well to get off your seat and take a wizz during the commercial breaks. After all, you're not watching the commercials in that case either.

Whereas you'd think that it can't be measured, I can tell you it is. Overseas, where I lived, someone once had the idea to monitor the water level in the city reservoir during the airing of a really popular movie. You could see a significant drop in the water level during the one commercial break in the middle of the movie,, and a total crash in the water level within 1 minute of the movie ending. Guess where all that water went...

[wtg]

Whereas that holds true for the basic networks here in the US, they are not many.
A good 80% of the channels you see on cable (so you pay for them) still have around 30% commercials (10 minutes on a 30 minute show, for ex.) If we followed your logic, it would mean that all those channels would have to be commercial free.

Actually, not really. Your basic cable costs cover running the signal to your home and profit for the cable company doing so. Channels like TBS, WGN, etc started at terrestrial stations that now sell their station content to cable providers, but not at the kind of premium that an HBO or Showtime charge. Stations like MTV and Discovery channel don't carry the same premiums either. They keep their charge to cable companies low so that they get carried by more cable operators and therefore get more viewers and can get more revenue from advertising. The portion of your cable bill that go to these channels is much, much less than what a premium channel with no commercials gets. If they went non-commercial you'd be paying much, much more to have them included in your line-up.

Advertisers see a direct result of their commercials at the retail counter, which is why they pay for the ads in the first place. If the majority of people don't see the ads that won't happen, and things will have to change. It's not all corporate greed. If you think things can possibly remain the way they are if everybody started skipping or cutting out commercials like we do, you're ignoring the very real economics of the entertainment business.

[LilY0da]

If you think things can possibly remain the way they are if everybody started skipping or cutting out commercials like we do, you're ignoring the very real economics of the entertainment business.

If everyone started not watching commercials either by going to the bathroom, or doing other things (like popcorn) during commercial breaks, would they make it illegal?
What about people that flip between 2 or 3 channels to not watch commercials?

I'm talking about case law here, not really "does it make sense or not".
If you allow the courts to criminalize and/or penalize the fact to not watch commercials, then where do you draw the line about which method of not watching commercials is legit, and which isn't?

[wtg]

If everyone started not watching commercials either by going to the bathroom, or doing other things (like popcorn) during commercial breaks, would they make it illegal?
What about people that flip between 2 or 3 channels to not watch commercials?

I'm talking about case law here, not really "does it make sense or not".
If you allow the courts to criminalize and/or penalize the fact to not watch commercials, then where do you draw the line about which method of not watching commercials is legit, and which isn't?

No, they obviously couldn't make it illegal to either go to the restroom or change the channel, and despite my low regard for most of them, I don't think there's a legislator stupid enough to propose something so obviously rediculous. But I think outlawing a device that enables you to skip them conveniently is definitely a possibility.

Remember, the industry has 50+ years of experience with understanding people's viewing habits and how it effects advertising. They aren't worried about everyone leaving the room because they know only a small percentage of the population does, and theoretically their "viewer response/ad $" numbers already reflect that. They know because advertisers see results from their ads. The industry wouldn't care if you could skip commercials as long as the vast majority of people didn't... advertisers will pay as long as they get results. But advertisers can't get results if no one sees the ad, and if the industry detects a serious problem, or is so afraid of a potential one that they are unwilling to take a wait and see approach, we'll likely have to deal with some unfortunate legislation, no matter where in the world you are. Legislation is easier and less uncertain than an industry shift in advertising models.

To me, product placement is the only other likely solution, but whether that'll appease the industry enough should our commercial skipping habits suddenly catch on remains to be seen.

[nitrogen_widget]

MS won’t be happy until they can sink their code into every electronic device out there.
They know DRM is going to kill their sales with the tech savvy because if media center were so great there wouldn’t be a handful of other PVR applications out there.
So they try to force competitors off the market.
Not by unfair business practices, but by passing a law & touting their OS.
Anything to make a buck.

Will this law affect PC cards or just whole computers sold with tuners?
What about PVR manufacturers like Tivo?
If service providers won’t let these companies decode their signal then they can’t be competitive now can they?
Look at how direct-TV is giving Tivo the shaft.
I believe I read somewhere MS was looking into providing tuner cards that can decode digital cable channels legally?

I just don’t think it’s going to work.
People will not tolerate it, not when their cable bill is over $100 /mo
In the end I doubt networks will stop broadcasting because advertiser’s stop paying them because the cable companies are allowing people to FFW through the commercials on shows they recorded a week before.