TV Networks File Legal Claims Saying Skipping Commercials Is Copyright Infringement

from the wow dept

Fri, May 25th 2012 6:42am — Mike Masnick

Okay, we had expected the TV networks to possibly take legal action against DISH Networks for its new Auto Hopper technology, which allows DISH subscribers who use the Hopper feature (which records all prime time shows from the four major networks) to autoskip commercials, if they watch shows in the days after they originally air. It wasn't a surprise that the TV networks didn't like this at all, but could they really make a legal argument that skipping commercials was against the law? We've all heard the story of former Turner Broadcasting exec Jamie Kellner claiming that not watching commercials was "theft," but do the networks actually think there's a legal basis for such claims?

It appears they do. Though, the legal arguments are insane.

As you may have heard by now, Fox, CBS and NBC Universal have all sued DISH in California. At about the same time, DISH itself filed for declaratory judgment in New York against those three, and ABC, who hasn't yet filed suit, but perhaps will shortly. I would imagine that all of the cases will be consolidated in one of the courts.

What's scary, however, is that the TV networks appear to be using this lawsuit to claim that skipping commercials is copyright infringement. ~~I haven't yet seen the NBC filing~~, but the Fox and CBS filings both make this same basic argument. Update: NBC filing is added below, and is nearly identical to the CBS filing, down to the very same lawyers. Fox first argues that merely recording the entire prime time lineup is making "bootleg" copies of the videos. That's a rather stunning claim, and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in the Betamax case, which made it clear that time-shifting is legal. The networks are claiming that this is not the same thing, because the "copies" aren't being made by the user, but by DISH itself for use by the user. Beyond being a meaningless distinction, it's also not true. As the Cablevision case concerning a "remote DVR" offered by the service provider showed, if the actions are at the request of the consumer, then it's the consumer making the call. With the DISH offering, the subscriber is still the one pushing the button and asking the DVR to record the shows. Is it really that different that it takes one button rather than punching in a few shows? That would be extraordinary -- but these filings are full of such extraordinary claims.

Where the filings go really off the wall is in basically saying that skipping commercials is infringement. They do this in the sections on "inducement," wherein they suggest that, even if DISH doesn't directly infringe, it is is inducing infringement by offering the auto commercial skip feature to users. From the CBS filing:

Users of the Hopper's PrimeTime AnyTime feature who record Plaintiff's prime-time shows and use the Hopper's Auto Hop feature to automatically skip commercials otherwise contained in those recordings infringe Plaintiffs' exclusive reproduction rights under section 106 of the Copyright Act,

But this makes no sense. Recording the show for later viewing is already deemed legal. So the only difference here is the intent of the user to watch later to skip commercials. Thus, CBS seems to be saying that merely wanting to avoid commercials is, itself, direct copyright infringement. And, given that Auto Hop doesn't work until the day after the shows air, does that mean that it's legal to record the shows if you intend to watch them the same day... but the second your intention is to watch them later, it's copyright infringement? That makes no sense and has absolutely no basis in the law. And, uh, what happens if you record it with the intent to watch the next day and skip commercials... but then watch it the same day with the commercials? The allegation above says merely recording the shows with intent to skip commercials is infringement, even if you don't actually skip the commercials! That makes no sense.

Fox's filing makes similar claims, insisting that DISH is inducing infringement because it "took active steps to encourage its subscribers to use Primetime Anytime to infringe FOX's copyrights." But that's flat out malarkey. It's legal for users to time shift shows. That's established. Yet, these filings seem to want to totally ignore that, and then assume that a user watching a DVR'd s how is automatically infringing on copyright because they might skip commercials.

The argument makes absolutely no sense at all. Effectively, the networks are trying to claim inducement to infringe... but do not (and, indeed, can not) show what or who is actually infringing. Time shifting is legal. Not watching commercials is legal. So, er, where's the copyright infringement, unless you completely throw out the Betamax ruling?

The filings also go down the path of explaining how this disrupts their business model. They honestly seem to be arguing for what some people have amusingly referred to as "felony interference with a business model." They list out all the different ways they get companies and users to pay multiple times for the same content, and use that to suggest this must be illegal, even though DISH has a retransmission license and all the individual parts are legal. I honestly don't understand this argument -- they're just claiming that because they don't like how end users engage with otherwise legal content, it must be illegal. Fox even uses this to claim that DISH's offering is not "enhancing consumer choice." Apparently, in the minds of TV network lawyers, what counts as "consumer choice" is limited to what the TV networks want to count as consumer choice... and any other choices are no choices at all. Or something.

There are a few slight differences in the lawsuits. For example, Fox brings up the fact that DISH also offers the Slingbox to allow users to not just time-shift but also place shift, though fails to explain why that's an issue at all. Fox also includes a breach of contract claim, which also may be difficult to support if all of the other actions prove to be legal.

DISH's declaratory filing gives you a pretty clear sense of that company's argument, pointing out that this is a nice feature that consumers want, that this kind of technology is already widely in use, and that it's not clear how any of this is infringement.

Auto Hop is a more efficient way of achieving what consumers already do with standard DVRs. A 30-second skip feature is already standard on many DVR remote controls. It permits viewers to automatically skip ahead in a recording, at the touch of a button, completely bypassing a typical 30-second television commercial. The remote controls that come with DVRs supplied by Comcast, an NBC affiliate, can be programmed to include this 30-second skip feature. DISH has provided a 30-second skip feature for years. By pressing the 30-second skip button multiple times, a viewer can elect to bypass the full complement of commercials between show segments. Now, DISH allows the customer to opt to use an Auto Hop feature that is just an extension of this 30-second skip function. It avoids the common frustration that occurs when viewers, using the 30-second skip or plain fast-forwarding, overshoot the commercials and fastforward into the television programming content that they really want to watch.

DISH also points out that skipping commercials is not illegal:

DISH's Auto Hop feature promotes consumer autonomy. Viewers have skipped commercials for decades. Viewers commonly use the commercial break as a time to get up and momentarily leave the room. Ever since the advent of the remote control, viewers have changed channels or muted the sound during commercial breaks. And, since the advent of the VCR and DVR, viewers playing back a show have fast-forwarded through commercials. DISH is simply making it easier for viewers to refuse to be a captive audience and to exercise the well-accepted choice to skip a commercial.

I can't see how the networks' argument can stand very much legal scrutiny at all -- but stranger things have happened when copyright cases hit the court. Still, the arguments here are so bizarre, and so unsupportable, you have to believe a judge will reject them quickly.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: auto hopper, betamax, commercials, dvr, jamie kellner, television
Companies: cbs, dish networks, fox, nbc universal

221 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rich Kulawiec, 25 May 2012 @ 6:54am

And yet it never occurs to them to ask...
...why viewers are so very eager to skip commercials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward of Esteemed Trolling (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:36am
  
  Great question....but
  That's ignorance that could work in our favor.
  
  1) Agree that skipping commercials is copyright infringement.
  
  2) Write petitions to government demanding tough laws.
  
  3) ???????
  
  4) Profit!
  
  People will say WTF....
  ""I am criminal for not watching ads""
  ""There is something wrong with copyright""
  
  This is the best anti-anti-copyright plan I have seen in a while.
  
  Let's make this crazy law happen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:38am
    
    Re: Great question....but
    Brilliant. Fits your alias with perfection!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - G Thompson (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 10:07am
    
    Re: Great question....but
    Though you forget that if you DO watch the ads by copying them you are still, in the idiotic eyes of these dumb attorneys that the USA seems to ooze out of their esteemed law schools (sarcasm meters just blew up everywhere), committing copyright infringement. Even though the actual networks don't actually own these copyrights on the advertisements in the first place (the advertisers instead do - see Righthaven) so no matter what the idiocy of the attorneys is dumber than a box of rocks (apologies to any rocks out their for lumping you with these morons)
    
    Btw excellent avatar and handle ;)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward of Esteemed Trolling (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 11:48am
      
      True.....But
      1.)
      then you also have the argument of the opposite...
      "O.K to pirate if you keep in the adverts."
      "Your rules Copyright Trolls , U mad ?"
      
      2.)::Remember the lulzyness of making good folks watch adverts
      We can force kids to watch embarrassing penis enlargement adverts with their parents.
      
      Win and win = Epic Win !
      
      Btw...Thanks for that handle G-T , will try to do it justice.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dave, 27 Mar 2018 @ 8:00pm
    
    Re: Double dipping
    All of the stations are double dipping. When cable first came out we paid to watch add free right? So why are they making us pay to watch these stations ,when they should be free. Just like abc cbs and NBC. We are getting the shaft big time. IT'S CALLED DOUBLE DIPPING THEY ARE STEALING OUR MONEY. They snuck in the adds because there greedy.
    And we are stupid for letting them do it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris (profile), 30 Dec 2018 @ 9:55am
      
      Re: Re: Double dipping
      Your Absolutely Correct Dave, In the old days before cable tv... tv was free. How was it paid for? Commercials. Now a days, you pay for the tv service and channels. Even ABC, NBC and CBS charge the cable companies for broadcasting it over their networks. THEN in turn, they force you to watch their programming, to simply ask for your favorite channels and get a reasonable price to customize your viewing preferences is basically non existent with cable companies or any kind of service like it that charges for free and cable exclusive channels. Now with cable exclusive channels, They show commercials too, so they do double dip, and triple dip, they charge the cable company for the channel which they charge you for (i imagine they charge more than they pay to get it on their network per account) and then your paying too in 2 ways, money wise for the channel and service, and also with your time having to watch the commercial. They should be paying me or giving me a discount for having to watch commercials on a cable exclusive channel! The Attorneys in the lawsuits against Dish Network have absolutely NO leg to stand on with those particulars being brought to light. Also, I am disabled, I am up a lot at night, there's nothing but PAID PROGRAMMING, wait a second, paid to and by whom?? I'll tell you paid by me, and by the people that made the commercial TO the cable network. There's your double Dip!! Because its always on cable exclusive and free TV channels as well. If the free channels did not charge the cable networks a dime to harvest the Public digital TV feed to their networks and pipe it to the customers and the cable tv company did not charge you extra for them channels either, then i would say , as much as i hate them, allow commercials. The network does have to pay for the station somehow and its not cheap either. That's fine with me and is fair. But if your a channel that is not a free channel and you charge the cable company a lot of money just so they can offer it to their customers, bet yer ass the cable company is gouging us further in higher costs than they are getting it for to make a profit that way too. Just like "franchise fees" What the hell is that crap? Its not a friggen mcdonalds, its a corporation owned by at 3 entities to make it a corporation. There is no franchise.... its a damn monopoly because you really do not have any real choice... its like my other post you can buy any car in russia that you want, you can buy communist model a b or c! see you have a choice! *they think just like communists! Un-Patriotic and criminal imo* So i really don't give a flying rats ass what others think about me or my opinion on this subject... you ALL know Dave and I speak the truth when we say they double dip. They technically do more than that with all the little fees associated with the service like the franchise fee and such and the other examples i pointed out. I am to the point i am cancelling my TV portion and will stream all of my entertainment and set up a power antenna and rake in the free tv all i want. As far as the lawyers saying infringement, the only infringement is on the consumer rights for lack of quality programming, without commercials and a fair cost for the service in the 1st place. POWER TO THE PEOPLE! Phyck them fat cat corporations!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 10:51am
  
  Re: And yet it never occurs to them to ask...
  +1
  
  Frak You MAFIAA !!!
  Skipping a Commercial is not an infringement as WE THE PEOPLE just might not like being barraged by worthless adds every 5 - 10 minutes per hour.What a bunch of Assholes these guys are.
  Support & Buy INDIE Please.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2012 @ 3:01pm
  
  Re: And yet it never occurs to them to ask...
  blue flim
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ben Berry III, 7 Sep 2012 @ 2:18pm
  
  Re: And yet it never occurs to them to ask...
  This simple but short response is probably the most on point and direct answer I have ever read in any comments.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rjdriver (profile), 7 Jul 2014 @ 9:33am
  
  Re: And yet it never occurs to them to ask...
  >>>...why viewers are so very eager to skip commercials.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2014 @ 5:03pm
  
  Re: And yet it never occurs to them to ask...
  I am in an electrical computer engineering fraternity and we do not allow commercials because they are junk food for the brain.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 25 May 2012 @ 6:57am

All I'm gathering from this foolish venture is that they now seek to make what is currently legal and common/accepted practice (avoiding commercials) illegal. To me this shows just how ridiculous these people are. The fact of the matter is now they're trying to tell us how we can watch television that we're already paying for, and I say this as a DISH Network subscriber who has multiple DVR boxes in the home and routinely fast forwards through the commercials (as do the rest of the people in my household). I mean "geez" and "wtf" do not even begin to cover my first reactions to this.

And they wonder why some people turn to piracy. "Because you're acting like a d*ck! And treating your customers as criminals or as criminals in the making, even the ones who are clearly not. Not to mention you are now trying to tell them what they can do, when they can do it, how they can do it and so on so forth. Basically, you're acting like an egomaniacal control freak."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:35am
  
  Re:
  And they wonder why some people turn to piracy. "Because you're acting like a d*ck! And treating everyone as criminals or as criminals in the making, even the ones who are clearly not. Not to mention you are now trying to tell them what they can do, when they can do it, how they can do it and so on so forth. Basically, you're acting like an egomaniacal control freak."
  
  Fixed for you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gene Poole, 25 May 2012 @ 7:46am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style on May 25th, 2012 @ 6:57am
  Next step will be forcing everyone with a TV subscription to watch TV when they're home. "If you're subscribing and you're not watching the commercials you're infringing our copyright!" Consumers strapped into their chairs a la Clockwork Orange, eyes pulled open to force Two Broke Girls upon them. Oh the humanity!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 25 May 2012 @ 9:46am
    
    Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style on May 25th, 2012 @ 6:57am
    No, it's worse than that. So You Think You Can Dance just came back for another season. My eyes are in pain from rolling too much after hearing my significant other watching it in the other room.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:00am

Maybe they are worried we will all skip their content and just watch the commercials. That's no more out of touch than anything else that comes from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 8:03am
  
  Re:
  When I want to watch commercials I go to Youtube. But how do I figure out what adds are worth watching? Someone has to let me know that there are good ones worth watching.
  
  If the content providers could improve the signal to noise ratio on on TV, then I would not have to wade through over 30 minutes per hour of crap programming just to see if there are any good adds playing. And usually there aren't any good adds that I have not seen so the whole effort is in vain.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 9:07am
  
  Re:
  Holy shit, you just described how I watch the SuperBowl.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
WysiWyg (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:03am

About "consumer choice"...
You got it all wrong, "consumer choice" isn't about what consumers choose, it's about which consumers THE NETWORKS choose to serve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pixelpusher220 (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:39am
  
  Re: About "consumer choice"...
  "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black" - Henry Ford
  
  Choice indeed ;-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris (profile), 30 Dec 2018 @ 9:27am
    
    Re: Re: About "consumer choice"...
    Of course you can buy any car you want here in Russia... You can buy Communist Model A, Communist Model B, Or Communist Model C. -Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924) :^D
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:52am
  
  Re: About "consumer choice"...
  it's about which consumers THE NETWORKS choose to serve.
  
  If the networks are unhappy with DISH, perhaps they shouldn't renew their contracts with DISH and pull their channels off the air. That'll show those darn consumers who is boss!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - WysiWyg (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:54am
    
    Re: Re: About "consumer choice"...
    I think they're using some sort of standard license. If the networks COULD legally deny DISH their content they would.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PT, 25 May 2012 @ 11:46am
  
  Re: About "consumer choice"...
  '"consumer choice" isn't about what consumers choose, it's about which consumers THE NETWORKS choose to serve.'
  
  That's so obviously correct, it's a surprise it needs to be stated. Viewers are not the customer, they're the PRODUCT. They're consumers in the same sense as livestock on a feedlot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justin (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:03am

I look at it this way, I don't watch your crap now because I don't want to sit through 10 min of commercials to see a 20 min show. so either I will watch your shows later when they don't take up as much time, or I am just not going to watch them and forget about you. I guess you really want me to forget about you. I'm OK with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pixelpusher220 (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:27am
  
  Re:
  Even more stupid, I don't intend to watch tomorrow, I intend to watch today...I just start 10 minutes into the show so I can skip the commercials and still end up at the same place.
  
  Yet according to them that would not be infringement because it's 'same day'. *headdesk*
  
  As soon as timeshifting is legal, and it is, what I do with that timeshifted signal is up to me, it's 'mine' (not the copyright, but the use)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:06am

Soon they'll declare that having a remote or even buttons on your tv is illegal because it allows you to change channels during commercials and skip them.

Later they'll rule out that turning off or unplugging your tv is crime.

And finally they'll rename your tv sets, their new name shall be telescreens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pixelpusher220 (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:37am
  
  Re:
  Kudos, *very* well done!
  
  if you don't get it look here:
  Telescreen
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- el_segfaulto (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 8:14am
  
  Re:
  The secret is to always smile at it, lest you get accused of a facecrime. I love newspeak!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 8:58am
  
  Re:
  next
  sueing the government for blackouts
  
  after the that
  
  the world
  
  Muahhahhahahah *pingy finger*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 10:26am
  
  Re:
  Personally, I'm hoping this one gets summarily dismissed by reason of the studios not having standing. They don't hold copyright on the commercials.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 11:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    I was thinking the same thing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tom, 31 Aug 2013 @ 9:21am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 25th, 2012 @ 7:06am
  Exactly - one of the premises of an old TV series, Max Headroom
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:09am

So what happens if I do something else during these commercials such as return a missed call or go into another room? Will I get sued for not watching them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:10am

Doesn't the Murdoch family (FOX/NewsCorp) have a huge piece of DirecTV? Interesting that Fox is suing the competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lucidrenegade (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 9:34am
  
  Re:
  They sold it off to Liberty Media (I think that's who it was) a few years ago.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcos, 25 May 2012 @ 7:11am

Is it legal to take a leak or make a sandwich during a break?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:17am
  
  Re:
  You filthy pirate, don't tell me you are doing it? We'll have to sue you for $150.000 for each time you went to the bathroom or get some popcorn during the ad break. /clueless_MAFIAA_exec
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Old hat, 27 May 2012 @ 2:45pm
  
  Re:
  No. You also can't mute the audio and feed your dog. And, if the pixelated spy camera on your HD set catches you dozing off (with your eyes closed), they will send you a fine in the mail and harass your parrot, but only on the second Tuesday of every other month, so that's not so bad.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - WysiWyg (profile), 27 May 2012 @ 11:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Little known fact; if you don't have a parrot they will supply you with one.
    
    And the "only the second Tuesday of every other month"-part is an urban legend. The truth is that you get your own day assigned, and you may get more as they hire new parrots - I mean police!
    
    The more you know...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:12am

Bah, the solution is quite simple, we just need to time-shift ourselves to the moment the program is airing. Easy.

On another news: Time-shift Corp to sell first portable time-machine so everyone can watch their favorite shows without infringing copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:31am
  
  Re:
  you just infringingly summarized an Adam Sandler movie
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fairusefriendly (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:14am

in other news fox sues Swanson tv dinners for inducing infringement
because that created a product that causes people to go to the bathroom during the commercial break.

An action that is designed to deny content producers their hard earned advertising income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:15am

Oh look. Mike's foaming at the mouth over a new copyright complaint. And, of course, Mike gives extremely shallow, one-sided analysis and ignores inconvenient facts in his pirate diatribe. Just another day of TechTurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:21am
  
  Re:
  You are an idiot.
  I pay for the cable service, the TV, the DVR, the electricity.
  I will make decisions on what I am willing to show in my home.
  And, BTW - Many commercials are far more offensive than the shows on today.
  
  Take that Entertainment Lobby Probe out of your @$$ and listen to what the consumers are saying. No matter how you get your Shill pay, once people dump the networks (Cord cutting is becoming more common.), your paycheck will get smaller and smaller.
  
  And that is what you get for not paying attention to your customers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 10:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    http://www.badgroove.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Big-Bang-Theory-Leonards-sarcasm-sign.png
    
    s eriously how could you not get that
    
    i was saying the Entertainment industry was going to sue a TV dinner manufacturer because eating makes you shit.
    
    How could you not tell that was sarcasm?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TasMot (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:24am
  
  Re:
  And look, this AC is wasting his time reading this article, wasting our time complaining about Mike, makes snide allegations about incomplete reporting, and YET has NOT added any backup to his complaint. Where is your "not one sided" analysis. Where is your "more convenient" facts to back up these allegations. OH WAIT, instead of believing Mike, we need to take this ACs UNVERIFIED and unsupported (without any facts or references) accusations that Mike is wrong.
  
  What is wrong with this picture. Please stop the obnoxious rant and support your side with your more convenient facts, a balanced analysis and some supporting references. OR, JUST SHUT UP AND GO BACK INTO YOUR ANGRY HOLE IN THE GROUND.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    Don't believe for a second that this troll read the article. That is a lie perpetuated by the Troll lobby.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    LOL! Really? Mike would say this lawsuit is a loser no matter what the facts or the law because Mike works backwards. Every single thing Mike says about a copyright case is dripping with lies, bias, and prejudice. He couldn't be honest about a case like this if his life depended on it. But, yeah, keep believing what Mike says. He'd never lie to his readers and fans.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You haven't shown a single shred fo evidence to support your verbal diarrhoea. No matter who wins, only the legal teams win. This isn't a win for consumers. This isn't a win for the entertainment industry. This isn't a win for the judge presiding.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Bob's hemorrhoids must be acting up again.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Greevar (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I thought bob was a hemorrhoid. Isn't that a bit recursive?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 10:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Even haemorrhoids have to have something worse than them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So, are you going to educate people as to what's not truthful here? Of course you're not, facts can be proven, examined, backed up and debated. You have none, which is why you resort to name-calling and baseless attacks.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - WysiWyg (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Care to give us a link to a different point of view? Or better yet, explain in more detail what you're referring to?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 8:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If Mike won't be honest about the case then why don't you be honest about it? You've posted no substance here or anywhere about anything, just a bunch of ad hom.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Trails (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 10:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      LOL! Really? You would that Mike is biased no matter what the facts or the law or the fire or the chain because you work backwards. Every single thing you say about Mike is dripping with lies, bias, and prejudice, and superfluous commas. You couldn't be honest about Mike if your life depended on it. But, yeah, keep dead agenting for your paymasters. As long as there's the appearance of real debate...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - G Thompson (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 10:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh look you're now trying to state that you care about facts or even the law, though I'm glad you at least know the distinction.
      
      Maybe you should actually debate the facts, or even the law (even at a laypersons level).. but sadly you don't want to debate anything well other than the masturbating you do over your snide comments and fallacious imaginings of conspiracies.
      
      Personally I think you are infatuated with Mike and are jealous of the attention that Techdirt is getting. Either that or somehow you see a perceived threat against some sort of power you imagine you hold sway over and are fighting against the overwhelming tide of entropy that is heading your way.
      
      Whatever it is it's sad and worrisome.. have you considered Cognitive Therapy and say some classes on Ethics, social dynamics or even "why feudalism is not the answer in the 21st century"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:26am
  
  Re:
  lol, srsly? Don't tell me you watch every single commercial shown on TV? Do you use diapers just in case you feel like taking a leak during the breaks?
  
  Must be sad to be you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:27am
  
  Re:
  "extremely shallow...one-sided...ignores inconvenient facts"
  
  I know that this won't carry much weight, coming from and AC, and I know for sure that you'll be too much of a wuss to come back and answer but I challenge you to prove your claims.
  
  Prove to us that you aren't just a luser that likes to piss on comment boards.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:37am
  
  Re:
  Go on, then, tell us what inconvenient facts there are. Or better yet, tell us what part of copyright law states that not watching advertisements constitutes as copyright infringement.
  
  "The definition of copyright hasn't been changed", my foot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:50am
  
  Re:
  "And, of course, Mike gives extremely shallow, one-sided analysis and ignores inconvenient facts in his pirate diatribe"
  
  OK, I'll play. Which facts?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dcee (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:55am
  
  Re:
  Well, one thing is sure, with so little content in your messages you sure will never be accused of copyright infringement!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 10:12am
  
  Re:
  Instead of clicking report on your dribble I instead clicked funny!
  
  Why you ask?
  
  Well it comes back to the difference between a comedy and a tragedy. A tragedy is when I make a fool/idiot of myself whereas a comedy is where you do.
  
  What would be an even better comedy is for you to seriously consider winning this years Darwin Award. Now that's comedy at its best.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:18am

wouldn't be surprised to see the Betamax ruling overturned. the entertainment industries have managed to get everything they ever wanted into law by using one means or another. cant see them failing now.

wonder whether copyright infringement charges would be filed if a person recorded shows but skipped everything except the adverts?

what would happen if a person actually, physically, used a fast forward button after recording something? the adverts would still be skipped, so is that infringement?

i was of the opinion that i made the choice of what i wanted to watch, not them so when will the entertainment industries be forcing people to record all channels and watch them as well as what they want? when are people supposed to watch all these recorded channels and programs?

when the hell is someone gonna have the balls to tell the entertainment industries to fuck off, grow up and stop trying to dictate who can do what, with what and when?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:33am
  
  Re:
  wouldn't be surprised to see the Betamax ruling overturned. the entertainment industries have managed to get everything they ever wanted into law by using one means or another. cant see them failing now.
  
  This would be *great*. Think of the mad dash to piracy that would occur. People are already used to being able to timeshift, if suddenly they are no longer allowed to do so legally, they wouldn't rearrange their schedules to make time for the show; they would pirate, or not watch.
  
  It would be delicious to watch.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ahow628 (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:38am
  
  Re:
  I've seen people skip the content for the commercials. I know of a number of people who don't like football record the Superbowl and only watch the commercials and/or the half-time show.
  
  Those people should obviously be in jail imo, bro.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:43am
  
  Re:
  I can do that right now...entertainment industry...are you listening....fuck off, grow up and stop trying to dictate who can do what, with what and when?
  Done.
  That'll show em! take that evil entertainment industry.
  
  Boy! sure makes you feel better does'nt it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    entertainment industry...are you listening....
    
    If they're not listening, please sue them for copyright infringement, since that's what they're doing to their customers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pixelpusher220 (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 8:52am
  
  Re:
  I hope they do overturn it. It will seriously bankrupt them. Because if Sony vs Betamax is overturned, VCRs and by extension, DVD players are 'illegal'.
  
  And since Hollywood makes something like 50% of it's revenue from DVD sales...byebye revenue stream.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 11:13am
  
  Re:
  No one cares whether you watch advertisements. They care that they can count you to advertisers when they sell time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:18am

Makes Me Wonder...
I've seen commercials posted on YouTube by people that may think the commercial is funny or entertaining...whatever. My question is: have any of these commercials received a take-down notice, or is it okay to "pirate" as long as it is a commercial that is being "pirated ".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 10:13am
  
  Re: Makes Me Wonder...
  Likely it's because the ad agency involved as posted it to YouTube. What better place to put your catalogue when someone is looking for a record of the agency's work?
  
  Particularly when the ad is an award winner which SuperBowl, World Cup and Olympics ads frequently are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 10:15am
  
  Re: Makes Me Wonder...
  I don't know about others, but Heineken's commercials - which are pretty funny and interestin - are taken down every now and then.
  
  I don't think by it's by Heineken though, it seems it's either by studio who did the campaing or the record label that owns the right for the song licensed for the ad.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:22am

This is hilarious. What if I change the channel when a commercial is airing? Is that infringement? You can't force people to watch commercials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ahow628 (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:32am
  
  Re:
  Actually, I read an article (on TechDirt perhaps?) that media companies said exactly that. If you skip commercials or walk to the fridge during commercials, you are stealing from media companies. Insanity. Pure insanity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Infamous Joe (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    Click on the blue word "claiming" in the OP. :-)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ahow628 (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah, I saw that afterward. My bad.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ahow628 (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:34am
  
  Re:
  Here it is:
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20020715/0130220.shtml
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:24am

Prediction
DISH will lose because the broadcasting companies have more money than DISH does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jack Furlong (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 1:02pm
  
  Re: Prediction
  Yep, that's the EXACT outcome. The media companies will simply keep suing/filing over and over until they get the result they want.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greg G, 25 May 2012 @ 7:24am

Not even turning on the TV
And if I don't turn the TV on at all? Am I infringing their copyright if I don't even watch in the first place?

"You didn't watch out broadcasts! We're going to sue you!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 10:16am
  
  You don't want to know :)
  Soon they'll demand a chip be implanted that will play back only the commercials 24x7! THEN try to skip them!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mega1987 (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:27am

homocide....
I think the multimedia industry just committed homicide...
On their own logic...

I think we should all ignore the locos/baka/gago/bobo/morons/dumb-bells before they, in turn, make US insane from their ILLOGICAL way of attracting consumers at the same time them most logical way to drive their consumers away....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:30am

English is not my native language (Dutch is) but:
Isn't the definition of copyright infringement not something like copying something without permission of the copyrights-holder?
By recording a tv-show with ads is copying and the betamax ruling stated that that should be allowed so the copy is already made.
How the hell can opting not to watch the ads be infringing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:48am
  
  Re:
  Because of all that imaginary money going from your eyeballs to the exec's salary.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ahow628 (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:31am

Uh oh...
OH GOD! I'M GOING TO JAIL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:35am

This will pass. Then they will have what they want. Everyone is infringing. I mean, I can't possibly watch a commercial on fox and nbc at the same time, much less every other channel as well. So if I am watching a fox commercial, I am infringing on nbcs' copyright.

Just another step towards taxing your paycheck.
The Ahole tax. Artists, helpers, overlords, leeches & executives tax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:36am

I'm waiting for the day when these broadcast companies file a lawsuit against the public for not giving them all of our money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anomaly Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:40am

Excuses
I think something worth noting here, right or wrong, is that we (the viewer) are not the major networks' direct customer, the advertisers are. Advertisers are the ones paying for everything. They pay the major networks just so they can reach whatever their target demographic of viewers might happen to be. TV programming lives and dies by what ratings they get, because that rating directly translates to the advertising revenue that is brought in.

The people who are most upset with this feature would obviously be the advertisers whose commercials are getting skipped. A play like this on behalf of the major networks, as foolish or futile as it may be, probably goes a long way to at least appease the rising frustrations of their main customers.

The TV landscape is going to have to change eventually to adapt to the new technologies of the day, but we won't see a major change until either the networks find a completely new way to monetize their programming or until the advertisers find a new strategy for advertising through TV. Until this change, desperate gestures like this are bound to continue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pro Se (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 8:15am
  
  Re: Excuses
  You raise a valid point that generally gets lost in the "noise". Broadcast television currently depends largely on either consumer subscriptions or advertising revenues. When you start screwing around with the latter, then of course objections will arise, which are always fertile ground for litigation.
  
  Turning now to the Betamax Case, it has largely disappeared from the legal scene. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the case turned upon the legitimacy of hardware, and the court held 5-4 that things were fine so long as the hardware was suitable for a substantial non-infringing use.
  
  To explore what could comprise non-infringing uses, the court majority started racking-up various scenarios that would likely qualify. One of them, of course, was "time-shifting". Now, it has been repeated ad nauseum that "time-shifting is perfectly legal". In truth, this is not exactly what the court actually held. As an appellate court, the Supreme Court was bound by the factual record established by the trial court. In the case of "time-shifting", Fair Use was examined and it was determined that under the facts before the court the plaintiff's, Universal and its cohorts, did not present evidence sufficient to overcome fair use. Importantly, this is not a holding that "time-shifting" is legal in all circumstances, but only that given the then facts the plaintiff's fell short of the mark defeating the defense.
  
  Where this case begins to depart from this part of the Universal v. Sony decision is that by enabling the "skip commerical" feature, Dish Network may have changed the fair use dynamics. Would this be enough for the broadcasters to prevail? While a longshot, the answer is "maybe it would", in which case a decision could come out that would distinguish the present case from Universal v. Sony.
  
  I cannot begin to emphasize enough just how important it was that the factual record from the original trial did not work to Universal et. al.'s favor. They had to present proof of how they were being harmed, and the court held their proof was lacking. Here the facts are a bit different. By "skipping commercials" the broadcasters may have very well had a new arrow added to their quiver sufficient to demonstrate financial harm. Again, a longshot, but a significant factual distinction.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Infamous Joe (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 8:24am
    
    Re: Re: Excuses
    In this situation, if they end up being "right" and skipping commercials is deemed to be copyright infringement and therefore illegal, the backlash from the public would do much greater harm than merely skipping commercials.
    
    This is a lose-lose situation. They should quit while they're ahead.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pro Se (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 9:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Excuses
      I am not sure this would be the case. I am curious what kind of a response DN is receiving from broadcast advertisers.
      
      I have to wonder how this skip function would operate with respect to DN's commercials?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - G Thompson (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 10:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Excuses
        Interestingly (I haven't read the docs) are the networks claiming they actually have been given the right to sue for infringement as agents (see Righthaven) of the actual copyright owners of the commercials, the Advertisers themselves. Or are they stating that the Advertisers could sue for infringement?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 9:37am
    
    Re: Re: Excuses
    You bring up an interesting point. However, I must ask this:
    
    Is skipping commercials entirely that much different from fast forwarding through them? Sure when you fast forward you catch fleeting glimpses of commercials, but you are not really taking anything in as your mind is focused on finding the show again.
    
    Since Fast forwarding has existed along side time shifting for the entire time it has been deemed fair use, do you really think that the Supreme court would decide that now fast forwarding has gone too far? I find that unlikely.
    
    However, in the off chance that it does happen, I can easily see a huge backlash by the viewing public. A public that has over the last 30+ years become accustomed to recording shows and fast forwarding through commercials. They will not take lightly the loss of that ability.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 9:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Excuses
      I will ad this. I am not against all advertising. I am against intrusive advertising. I hate website ads that pop over the content I am trying to view. I am against ads that play music or sounds without my authorization.
      
      On TV, I am just plain tired of commercial breaks that have grown longer and louder over the years.
      
      There are ways for tv shows and television networks to make money from advertising. It is just that the nature of advertising is changing and changing rapidly. They can fight that change like they are now, or they can adapt (ooh there is that word we use constantly here on Techdirt) to that change and find new ways to make money that meet the needs of the viewers.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anomaly Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 9:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Excuses
        I agree completely. I don't think they have any leg to stand on with their claim here. My whole explanation is this is merely the networks trying to keep their advertisers happy. To show them "Hey, guys we're trying to help you!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Pro Se (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 9:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Excuses
        I always look for a silver lining. Yes, commercials have become much longer, but at least this gives me the opportunity to do things like mow my lawn before the show starts up again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - fairusefriendly (profile), 27 May 2012 @ 9:33am
    
    Re: Re: Excuses
    except the financial harm arguement doesn't exist unless you ignore reality.
    
    Advertisers don't pay for timeshifted ad runs. If you were to record your favorite show with a non commercial skipping vcr the advertiser would not pay for that ad viewing irregardless if you were a good boy and sat thru every commercial or if you simply hit the fast forward button.
    
    So the economic loss is zero when compared to the fair use alternative that this product is designed to replace.
    
    It only when you falsely allocate those views to non stubstitute (watching the show live) that you get a false economic loss.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 9:30am
  
  Re: Excuses
  Your missing the fact that most tv now is subscriber based. Tv networks have been trying to end broadcasting over the air (free) channels and what is left of free tv has been severly downgraded.
  
  The saddest part of all this is that more money is poured into the production of commercials than the actual tv show. It doesn't say a whole lot when viewers want to skip the most expensive part of the show.
  
  Execs would probably be better off if they focused on getting viewers to even pay attention to tv since they've lost the last 2 generations of viewers (same with RIAA). Their real enemy is doing "anything else".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anomaly Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 9:47am
    
    Re: Re: Excuses
    I am not missing this fact. In this particular case, we're talking major networks. Unlike cable channels, they do not rely on subscriber fees. They rely much more heavily on advertiser funding.
    
    Also, getting viewers to "pay attention" to TV, isn't really the issue networks are facing. The problem is they can't get people to watch tv "live" anymore, which is what the advertisers care the most about. If a TV show gets a huge time-shifted DVR viewing or significant online views, it doesn't help keep a show on the air. Major networks can't sell that data to the people who pay to advertise during the show. They wouldn't want to pay to put their commercial in a spot everyone is skipping.
    
    Overall live viewership is dropping every year, but as long as advertisers keep paying top dollar for their advertisement slots, the major networks have no incentive to change.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ltlw0lf (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 11:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Excuses
      I am not missing this fact. In this particular case, we're talking major networks. Unlike cable channels, they do not rely on subscriber fees. They rely much more heavily on advertiser funding.
      
      But we are talking about DISH network, which has to pay carriage fee for retransmission of major networks. Therefore, DISH customers are already paying for these networks regardless to whether the networks rely on a subscription fee or advertiser funding.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - camcall.me (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 8:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Excuses
        you pretty much nailed it right there. the content was already purchased, whilst in whatever manner consumer watches the content (or skips, and doesn't) is completely irrelevant.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jack Furlong (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 1:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Excuses
      Advertisers like to see ratings data as soon as possible. DVRs mess with the immediacy of that data, and this upsets them. This also messes with how networks can set pricing for ads. See http://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-traditions/tv-and-culture/dvr-viewings-tv-ratings1.htm
      
      An ything the networks can do to discourage DVR use makes them friends among advertisers.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:43am

If skipping TV commercials is theft...
What is using Firefox with ad block plus?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:51am
  
  Re: If skipping TV commercials is theft...
  Investment fraud.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 9:12am
  
  Re: If skipping TV commercials is theft...
  illegal........apparantly
  
  mmmmmmm, not just dvr owners then, mmmmmmmm, wonder how many other things this would affect
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Blow, 25 May 2012 @ 10:39am
  
  Re: If skipping TV commercials is theft...
  Firefox also has a plugin that lets you save YouTube videos and many other video formats to your computer. (Ant Video player I belive is the name) I think it also takes out the advertising videos that play beforehand.
  
  So I can copy these videos to my hard drive and other portable devices and play them anytime I want which is nice when I don't have an internet connection.
  
  Now if I were to download all the YouTube videos of commercials and played them over and over again, that's infrignement too right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
W Klink (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:44am

It won't last, no matter what
Since networks like Fox can hold their local channels hostage if Dish doesn't also carry unrelated channels, I don't understand why they don't just add a "no commercial-skip feature on our content" clause to their carrier agreements. Most likely, that would require them to wait until the current agreements expire and they want it stopped before it starts.

However, if they lose this case, they'll almost certainly add those clauses in the future (unless they can get Congress to pass a "no-commercial-skipping" law (probably calling it something like the "Free Television Act").
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 8:01am
  
  Re: It won't last, no matter what
  (probably calling it something like the "Free Television Act").
  
  Why would include a dirty, obscene word in the name of their law?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jack Furlong (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 1:12pm
    
    Re: Re: It won't last, no matter what
    Yes, they'd call it the "Broadcast Television Act"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
shawnhcorey (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:48am

No More Copyright
And people wonder why I'm against all forms of copyright. There is no way to fix[1] copyright to prevent insanity like this from happening. Copyright: Just Say No.

[1] Unless by fix, you mean neutered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:49am

What if I leave the room?
If I leave the room while the commercial is on, is that also infringing behavior? What if I switch channels? Either way I'm skipping the commercial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jack Furlong (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 1:15pm
  
  Re: What if I leave the room?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Kellner#Criticism
  
  Jamie Kellner CEO of Turner Broadcasting System:
  "Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The century of DNA mutation, 25 May 2012 @ 7:51am

There must be a DNA attacking Virus eating peoples brains. This is why we need every 50 years a large conflict so you can give this people a riffle and send them to kill each other
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:53am

A new first
Well this is a new one for me. So let me get this straight... NOT watching content is infringement now????

I can't stop laughing. So I'm a dirty pirate thief if I don't watch the content now. Nice one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 25 May 2012 @ 8:02am
  
  Re: A new first
  I'm just waiting for the obligatory "entertainment" tax to be imposed on us by the government at the behest of the entertainment industries (specifically the movie studios and record labels).
  
  And EVEN THEN I wouldn't be surprised if they still bitched about piracy and illegal commercial avoidance and lost revenues despite record breaking profits for the year and technology still advancing despite all efforts to curtail it and so on.
  
  That's in addition to us and the ISPs and everyone else footing the bill for piracy enforcement measures that still won't work, because fixing your own problem just isn't how things are supposed to be done.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Soma (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 9:48am
    
    Re: Re: A new first
    There already is an entertainment tax on blank DVD's and CD's isn't there?
    
    This litigation is taking up our tax dollars and court time. The companies involved should be made to pay fines.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 25 May 2012 @ 10:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re: A new first
      Yeah, there is an entertainment tax on blank DVD's and CD's, but only in some countries. At the moment there isn't one in the U.S. as far as I'm aware. Although that will be rectified soon enough if the entertainment industries keep having their way, which seems to be something that'll keep happening til enough people get pissed and put them in their place. Sooner or later that will happen.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Karl (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 11:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: A new first
        At the moment there isn't one in the U.S. as far as I'm aware.
        
        There is, actually:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ltlw0lf (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 11:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A new first
        There is, actually:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act
        
        Yeah, the reason why most people avoid "Music CDs". There is no fundamental difference between music CDs and other CDs, but you pay an additional tax on music CDs that you don't pay on other CDs. I had a friend who once bought Music CDs for everything, including backing up his own documents off of a hard drive. He didn't like MP3s, because he had a golden ear and preferred listening to music on vinyl. He told me that music CDs were supposed to be higher quality than regular CDs, because they charged more for them, and that is why he used them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 26 May 2012 @ 7:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A new first
        As I said as far as I was aware, but I stand (gladly) corrected. Appreciate the link Karl.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jack Furlong (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 1:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: A new first
        In countries where there IS a levy, the media companies are trying to get it repealed so that they can begin suing "infringers" in that country.
        
        If there's a levy, they CANNOT sue, by law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
candide08 (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 7:57am

All I can say...
Is that the TV networks should package and sell the drugs that can, obviously, remove them so far from reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jac, 25 May 2012 @ 7:59am

Only in America
Everywhere else in the world, this would get kicked out of court so hard that everyone at Fox, CBS and NBC would have trouble sitting for months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 7:59am

While you were sleeping
OK you were sleeping last night weren't you?
ALL OF YOU ARE UNDER ARREST!
Being tired is not a defense!

WARNING:
Sleeping during commercials carries a Maximum fine of $200,000 and 5 years in a re-education center managed by the infotainment industry and hosted by Billy Mays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bengie, 25 May 2012 @ 8:03am

Re-title that
They need to re-write that as "not watching" instead of "skipping".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Blow, 25 May 2012 @ 11:02am
  
  Re: Re-title that
  "not watching" sounds too much like "not making any money" but the thought is good.
  
  How about "protecting the children"
  
  Viewers can now invoke the new child protection button on their remote to prevent hearing loss suffered by children who have more fragile ears. This child protection button maintains consistent audio levels while enjoying your favorite programs.
  
  Of course adults are f$#%ed but really, it's all about the children.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 8:06am

"TV Networks File Legal Claims Saying Skipping Commercials Is Copyright Infringement"

So whats the punishment on completetly oblitirating a companies means to deliver commercials

ala megaupload
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brent (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 8:09am

I can see exactly where this is going. Once the networks buy off a judge or 50 and these lawsuits are not only make it to court but go in favor the networks, it will be illegal for anyone to skip commercials, ever. This means that like Hulu and March Madness on the web, whenever commercials come on your tv, not only will you not be able to pause, mute, or change the channel, but you will also not be able to turn the TV off. In fact, even though that law passed making it illegal for commercials to be louder than the tv show itself (which i swear still happens), commercials will now turn up the tv to be the loudest thing in the room (after analyzing current room volume of course). In a few years, your TV may even be required to turn itself on to play commercials for any shows you have ever recorded on your DVR b/c otherwise you're infringing. Heck, lets go 5 years down the road when Google Glass is mainstream and you can watch shows right on that little thing. When that happens, you will have to stop moving, stop talking, stop listening to any real people, and close the eye that's not watching the Glass screen just to watch commercials or you'll be arrested within 30 seconds. Heck, by then, it will be infringement if you don't watch any tv at all in a single day b/c you haven't seen any commercials (Not cool bro!). Every 15 minutes in real life will be mandatory commercial break time for the entire country (soon the world!).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jack Furlong (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 1:28pm
  
  Re:
  Online streaming video sites that include commercials already disable FF & RW controls during the commercials.
  
  Since so many people now have cameras attached to their TVs (kinect, etc) I can easily see a time in the future when if you leave the room or don't pay attention to the commercials, playback will pause until you _DO_ pay attention.
  
  And if you try to get around this somehow, the media you WANT to watch simply won't be displayed at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trails (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 8:10am

Great Article and all, but.. Malarkey?
What are you, a 1920 itinerant farm hand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 8:18am

Yet, these filings seem to want to totally ignore that, and then assume that a user watching a DVR'd s how is automatically infringing on copyright because they might skip commercials.

Should be show, without the extra space between the s and the h.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nonsense, 25 May 2012 @ 8:27am

...and speaking of use the bathroom during commercials,every time anyone defecates, they are infringing on the content of both the shows and the commercials
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- FormerAC (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 8:33am
  
  Re:
  Crapping all over television is a commentary or critique, so wouldn't that qualify as fair use?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 8:29am

Avoid as many commercials as i can.Check

Buy second hand.Check

Point people who have SHOWN interest to stories i find "enlightening".Check

Donate to causes with goals i share.Check

Keep bullshit sensor on at all times.Check
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FormerAC (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 8:31am

Are they claiming copyright on the commercials?
Sounds like the networks are claiming to own the copyright on the commercials themselves.

Have they cleared this with every single company that produced a commercial that airs on all of their networks?

We know you cannot assign a right to sue, so they *must* own the copyright on every commercial to ever air.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 8:39am

Right? Wrong!
So let's see if I've got this right:

Time shifting: Right
Remote DVR: Right
User in control: Right
Place shifting: Right
Not watching commercials: Right
All of the above taken together: Wrong

So... 5 rights make a wrong. Unless you're driving. Ummm... What was the question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 8:40am

To all good american citizens who own a dvr, you are now considered a criminal in tv networks' eyes

What?
I dont care if you bought it before you knew

What?
I dont care if its not hurting anyone, its hurting our business

What?
How dare you, business is more important then air, ........ insert typical character slander
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terminus (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 8:44am

Tools
That is what we used to call idiots back in the day. Next they will be suing the government for forcing the networks to lower the volume during commercials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 8:46am

Good old networks, holding us hostage to our own couches, you guys....

damn, i gotta pee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 8:48am
  
  Re:
  LOL, how many people are gonna wait until their programs come back on, before peeing
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 9:03am

So many commercials...So little time
So,if I am being the ever good consumer and watching NBC and diligently watching all their commercials, can CBS or ABC sue me for not watching their commercials at the same time slot?
I'm Going to need one TV for each network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 9:07am

So if this passes, according to the letter of the law, i'll have to pirate in order to stand a chance of not breaking the law.

Damn it, im so confused, do they want me to pirate or not?

/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 9:09am

If an officer comes a'calling, make sure to turn on your tv's, you dont want to get into that kind of trouble, believe me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jason, 25 May 2012 @ 9:13am

how bout i file a law suit against the broadcasting companies claiming commercials are merely brainwashing and propaganda...which is illegal. so basically, what theyre saying, is that we are supposed to be forced to watch commercials so we buy the products they show during their television shows...or perhaps companies are taking a new direction in advertising...which is cutting the prices networks charge for commercials cuz no one watches them. sorry all your youtube and google advertisements try to brainwash me enough already...someone should just bring in a copy of Clock Work Orange and the play the scene with him strapped into a chair with his eye lids peeled back...forced to watch whatever bullshit they throw in his face all day until it becomes embedded in his mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 9:19am

If a commercial plays in an empty room, does it still make a sound
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amber, 25 May 2012 @ 9:32am

So let me get this straight...
If I *don't* watch something, I'm infringing on a copyright? If I *exclude* something, I'm infringing on a copyright? But, if I were to purposely get a copy of the commercial and post it on my website, wouldn't *that* be a copyright infringement? Now I'm infringing if I don't? I thought copyright was for *watching* something without the ok of the "owner" of the content? Now it's for *not* watching it?

I'm confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dwg (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 10:37am
  
  Re: So let me get this straight...
  Exactly: you've copied too little to qualify for time-shifting. I guess fair use considerations of the amount of a work that's copied is about to experience a seismic shift as well: unless you copy an entire work, your use is not fair.
  
  Hey, works for me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 9:37am

This PBS is infringing because it has no advertistments!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 9:39am

So all the networks are suing over the same thing .. Isn't that the definition of price fixing or monopoly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 9:41am
  
  Re:
  No, that's the definition of a class action lawsuit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 2:19pm
  
  Re:
  psh, price fixing and monopoly, who bothers with that stuff anymore? Trying to make money with products is the past. Buying laws has proven easier and more profitable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baldaur Regis (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 9:39am

In Related News...
...a recent article in The New York Times noted the passing of Eugene Polley, who invented the world's first remote control in 1955. Of interest in the article:
�Just think!,� an advertisement breathlessly proclaimed that year. �Without budging from your easy chair you can turn your new Zenith Flash-Matic set on, off, or change channels. You can even shut off annoying commercials while the picture remains on the screen.�
Imagine that - an advertisement promoting a way to avoid other advertisements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TDR, 25 May 2012 @ 10:05am

Picard can't facepalm hard enough for this idiocy. DISH should hit the networks back with a countersuit for RICO charges and see how fast they backpedal.

Egomaniacal control freak = the short definition of virtually anyone in power today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jack Furlong (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 1:34pm
  
  Re:
  And who enforces RICO?... why the government, who gets helpful campaign contributions from the people they're supposed to enforce RICO on...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brian LaSorsa, 25 May 2012 @ 10:07am

For the purpose of consistency, maybe TV networks should make it illegal for people to look away during product placements scenes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 10:09am

The Betamax case allowed for time shifting of recorded TV shows.
One of the reasons this was allowed: commercials were also recorded.
Auto skipping might be a barrier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 10:16am
  
  Re:
  +1 To Insightful.
  This is the first post that actually made me afraid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- fairusefriendly (profile), 28 May 2012 @ 11:48am
  
  Re:
  except that statement is a lie
  
  Jack Valenti complained about commercial skipping when he testified to congress.
  
  "Now, what does that mean, Mr. Chairman? It means that when you are playing back a recording, which you made 2 days or whenever -- you are playing it back. You are sitting in your home in your easy chair and here comes the commercial and it is right in the middle of a Clint Eastwood film and you don't want to be interrupted. So, what do you do? You pop this beta scan and a 1-minute commercial disappears in 2 seconds."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 10:16am

Oh the many headed-hydra of commercial skipping technologies. TiVo was the first head to drop at the outset of 'naughts.

Now if only knowledge and understanding weren't auto-regenerative, industry folks'd be making progress by now....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 10:35am

I would think there would be a good case for drm circumvention, certainly the maker's intent was to prevent commercial skipping using technology, and they are getting around that by recording and allowing users to fast forward or by auto blocking or whatever. There is no requirement for infringement or wrongdoing of any kind to be guilty of circumventing drm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh god..., 25 May 2012 @ 10:36am

this makes me want to punch a baby.....there babies to be exact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 6:16pm
  
  Re:
  No no, punching actual babies would make you just as bad as them. However, they all seem to be acting like babies, so...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 11:17am

By skipping over my comment and not reading it you have commited copyright infringement!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitari, 25 May 2012 @ 11:18am

Re:
so, the next step is you will have people coming into your home to have the "live commercial hour" ya know like carolers during Holidays.

the will come in the evenings and do live ads that are paid for buy TV advertising

(hey, maybe I just came up with a new business model and help for the jobless, I can get government grants AND money from advertisers)TM �
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Digitari, 25 May 2012 @ 11:19am
  
  Re: Re:
  dang it forgot Pat Pend
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert Scott Lawrence (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 12:33pm

Skipping Commercials Is Copyright Infringement
Presumably they are going to name GE, Viking, and sundry devices contribute to this inappropriate skipping of commercials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 12:49pm

They just now came up with their response for betamax, they're a little behind is all. If it weren't for those pesky rewind and fast forward buttons, people would only be able to watch VCR tapes one time and would have to buy new ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flo Demarkus, 25 May 2012 @ 12:50pm

Encourage the courts to take this up
This was a very foolish thing for the networks to instigate.

I think we need to trust the courts to see the same wisdom this article describes, and then establish as case law that, yes, we as consumers may intentionally skip commercials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 1:54pm

So by this logic, skipping TV entirely is copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libby, 25 May 2012 @ 2:46pm

Simply Laughable
While I have read the docs, the premise based on copyright infringement is simply laughable. What happens if you leave the room? The millions of Super Bowl viewers who take their toilet breaks at that time will all have to be individually sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anon, 25 May 2012 @ 2:59pm

Timeshifttorrent
Well i say just get rid of dish and download, it is easy and much much cheaper and not only do you get a really good copy but you can watch it whenever you want on almost any device in your house or car, you can watch it in a week 6 weeks or even a year, especially when it can sometimes take a year for them to show a 22 part show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 25 May 2012 @ 3:02pm

They're lucky I'm not in charge of designing such features, because with today's computing power, I can think of a mechanism for finding the start and end of commercial breaks in a DVR recording that would yield pretty good accuracy for skipping the entire break. This way the show would flow seamlessly with only a very short pause where the commercials would be. It would require programming some logic into the DVR, but I'm pretty sure that it would work on virtually every channel that carries commercials.

Gee, maybe I should patent my idea and then I can sue the DVR makers if they ever come up with the same idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 3:08pm

I always skip commercials (if I can).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any Mouse, 25 May 2012 @ 6:18pm

Wow, really?
The really, really sad part of all of this? The only thing worth watching on any of those networks are the commercials. If I'm going to skip those, I might as well turn off the TV and read another Terry Pratchett book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Renee Marie Jones, 25 May 2012 @ 8:51pm

Copyright abuse
This sort of copyright abuse by "rights holders" is all too common, and is just getting worse and worse. The only answer is to outlaw copyrights altogether, or at least place severe penalties on corporations that abuse copyrights in this way. The penalties for this sort of abuse need to be as severe in comparison to a corporations revenue as the $150,000 penalty that they demand for a single infringement is to a normal person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jared, 25 May 2012 @ 9:58pm

Sandwich
Ridiculous. Acorrding to their logic, if im watching a show, and walk into the kitchen during the commercials and make a sandwich: infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unknown Scardy Cat, 26 May 2012 @ 4:09am

I've been saying for a while now that it's only a matter of time until they start playing ads at the same time the show is playing. I know they've actually been doing it for a while now with station identifiers and what show is coming on later, but today was the first time I ever saw a real (totally distracting) ad play while I was watching a show. It was for a breakfast cereal and it played in the lower left. This kind of thing is going to get a lot worse very soon from the looks of things.

I find myself wondering often these days what the heck is in our food/air/water. The human race seems to be getting dumber year after year. For instance every single time I go through the fast food drive through they get my order wrong. Just trying to make an order has become a teeth grinding experience these days. Anyways over the past decade we've seen a lot of awesome shows get canceled, usually replaced by yet another boring reality show. This story is just more proof they've all lost their frakking minds. I may just cancel my cable subscription if things get bad enough. After all I can always download the DVDrip at a later date and then buy it if it's any good... unless they decide to play unskipable ads on those too. Never say never (or underestimate the power of stupid).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MLC (profile), 26 May 2012 @ 5:12am

From as early as I can remember watching TV, I have always thought commercials were incredibly annoying. And with the advent of all these disgusting pharmaceutical commercials telling you that you have a really good chance of dying or being maimed if you use these "wonderfully innovative" drugs. There are more reasons than ever to avoid commercials. This lawsuit has to backfire on these fools who filed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2012 @ 5:17am

If you leave the room during a commercial, it's infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Logician (profile), 26 May 2012 @ 12:47pm
  
  Re:
  AC 169, without an explanation as to how, with evidence and empirical data, your statement is invalid. It is possible, however, that you were being sarcastic rather than serious. If that is the case, then I will say well-played.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
EngineerScotty, 26 May 2012 @ 5:15pm

At least they can make a GOOD argument
Or at least try.

How about this one: Stripping the commercials on playback creates a "derived work", one which isn't fair use, because the whole point of doing so is not viewing is to bypass the means by which content is paid for.

True, it's not a good argument either, but it's better than trying to retry the Betamax case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jambalaya Bob, 27 May 2012 @ 8:00am

It's really not so much that they don't know their suits make barely any sense with already established law, it's more that they are just once again attempting to make recording television unlawful. They have done this every single time a new technology for recording TV shows has become available, and they're not gonna stop.

The reason they do this is generally because they're afraid that advertisers will start paying them less money when their ads are theoretically being watched way less. Of course, the vast majority of people have been and will continue watching live broadcast content in addition to recorded content. Things like this just understandably make huge corporations nervous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paulocaust, 27 May 2012 @ 12:25pm

‎"Don't touch that dial, Two and Half Men will be right back! ..Also if you do, we're gonna send the police to your door you fucking thief."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BLiP, 27 May 2012 @ 12:31pm

I can already hear the phrase "You have to come with us sir" delivered by tall men in dark suits as I step out for a cigarette during a commercial break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2012 @ 8:45pm

They will eventually demand that they be given the ability to read and write people's memories since those are nothing but copies of information just like everything on our hard drives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drew2, 28 May 2012 @ 3:59am

How about not watching tv full stop , screw these propaganda spreading vile extortionist .

Sick of the tv license in the uk, sick of the utter crap the broadcasters push onto the airwaves .

I'll watch what I want to watch, when I feel like watching it , even if it's an illegal download I don't care, screw the so called entertainments industry.

Waiting for license man to come round so I can give him a piece of my mind, I'm so sick to death with being told what the hell I can/can't watch.
Stuff the bbc , bunch of crooks alongside all the others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An unrepentant adskipper, 28 May 2012 @ 4:55am

Well from now on if it's illegal to skip ads, I'll let them play from now on and go off to make a cup of tea/visit the loo/sort the washing/while they're on. Unless they force my eyes open, gag me, and tie me to my sofa, they can't make me watch or listen to anything I don't wanna!

Part of me might really enjoy the being tied to my sofa part, though not for the reasons they'd expect...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fairusefriendly (profile), 28 May 2012 @ 7:16am

if skipping commercials is a copyright infringement
does that mean taking down a site and therefore blocking distribution of content that want to be distributed by the site also a copyright infringement.

And if that is the case, doesn't that mean that the US government is guilty of willful infringement for taking the mega upload domain down.

Is BEIN similar guilty for demand domain blocking of the pirate bay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Xenobyte (profile), 29 May 2012 @ 5:56am

Double standard are twice as good!
So they want to sue DISH Networks because their Auto Hopper changes the broadcast as delivered by the TV networks because they hold a defacto copyright on that, and the new technology violates it, but they have no qualms chopping the tv-shows up into little pieces (even worse when it comes to movies), overlaying the image with huge animated and highly disturbing ads for other shows, speaking over theme songs and so on?

They have no problems shredding others copyrights to pieces and yet they want everybody else to respect theirs?

Go figure!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 8:33am

Internet added 'reliable metrics' to advertising.... suddenly the network 'lies' weren't so appealing.....
I think the real issue here is that the internet and increased communication has added reliable and realistic metrics to advertising in many cases.....

Which makes the network 'promises' of just give us the money and we'll make sure LOTS AND LOTS of people see your ads... see here is our self created survey system (nielsons?) that show that the consumers we are paying to watch TV are seeing your ads.... Now for only $250,000 we'll include your commercials in next seasons show, we can count on your advertising support, right?

As opposed to (arbitrary figures for example purposes, not based in reality), your purchased Keyword ad on your 19.95 product was clicked on 154,268 times in the last month, with an average estimated click-thru purchase rate of 35%, we project that this ad generated an estimated $1 million dollars while costing you .25 per click or roughly $40 thousand dollars.

Guess what, companies looking to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising may actually want to know WHAT they are paying for... TV Networks can't provide that information other than in 'statistical sampling of selected family homes' (aka, numbers we paid people to tell us) types of figures.... They can't say with any reliability how many people saw the commercial you put on prime time at 8:35 last night, or how many of those people were interested enough to 'click thru' the ad to get more info, or how many were even in the room (yet)...

Wait for the rise of TV's/set top boxes with cameras watching YOU.... they will be welcomed at first as customers are using them for gaming and convenience, but like any slippery slope the changes will come.... commercials will pause when nobody is looking at the screen, as that would be 'stealing' from the advertisers (or copyright infringement as claimed in this article)...

Of course I'll make a killing with my patented, trademarked, copyrighted, product the lifesize 'couch potato' which will provide a face and eyes that can always be 'watching' the television, preventing the customers from having to sit thru all the commercials themselves. And taking a page from the current companies playbooks, these couch potato's will not be 'sold' they will be 'licensed for personal home use' and will charge by the number of commercials they help customers 'avoid'... which means the potato will have to have enough eyes to watch the rest of the room, so it knows when it's the only one 'watching' the commercials... but I'll never use the video that's sent back to the central server for anything other than business use....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OldGeezer (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 3:13pm

Is Commercial Skipping New?
I have been recording programs and fast forwarding through commercials since I bought my first VCR 30 years ago. In that time I have taped almost everything I watched rarely watched anything off the air. That means for every hour of programing time I have saved about 12 to 16 minutes of wasted time. Ballpark figuring that amounts to up to probably well over a year of my life I have not wasted on their annoying commercials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hunter, 6 Jun 2012 @ 8:16pm

I don�t understand why CBS, FOX, & NBC execs don�t want us to enjoy commercial-free TV. I�m a DISH employee � AutoHop is great because you can easily watch commercial-free TV. Public Knowledge, a consumer advocacy group, is taking a stand for consumers by creating a petition that tells CBS, FOX, & NBC media to keep their hands out of your living room & DVR. Sign their petition to keep control of how you watch TV http://bit.ly/KFdn1Q.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob Smith, 17 Jul 2012 @ 5:22am

Thanks Hunter for the link, it went ahead and signed the petition. If commercials were entertaining to watch, or had something to offer, I might actually watch them instead of wanting to skip over them. With Dish and Auto Hop, you do still have the option to watch the network recordings with commercials, but it�s the viewer�s choice to watch or skip ads. I first heard about the Auto Hop feature from one of my coworkers at Dish, and when I use my DVR, I skip through commercials anyway and the Auto Hop feature just makes it easier to do just that. When Dish introduced Auto Hop, it was a huge hit with its customers, because customers like to have a choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Milburn, 2 Sep 2012 @ 4:46am

TV adverts
The electricity used by the advertisers is stolen from the viewer who we can presume in most cases will be billed for it. Most other advertising is at the expense of the advertiser ie. billboards and newspaper placement. TV & radio companies charge for the space & time. Maybe we should find a way to get a return for our overused electricity with product discounts that reflect the usage of electricity not owned by the advertisers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rikard Nilsson, 25 Nov 2012 @ 2:47pm

Gggggnnnnn
several times when I've been meaning to watch something on a video site I've been forced to sit through a commercial in order to see the clip, some times the video ceases to load and I have to reload, watch the commercials again only to find that it ceases loading again and I have to repeat that some 10 more times, can I get reimbursed for lost time please? No? Then STFU about skipping commercials you greedy corporate cunts!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Baillie, 4 Dec 2012 @ 12:02pm

In the beginning . . .
In the beginning, we paid for cable because it didn't HAVE commercials. Now we pay an arm and leg for cable and have NOTHING BUT commmercials. What they should do is, for a 30-min show, run the show for 25 mins uninterrupted, and then run 5 mins of commercials at the very end. Better yet, get rid of ALL commercials, or put them all on ONE channel! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
izraul, 13 Jan 2013 @ 5:29pm

Networks have filed a lawsuit against Dish TV for providing The Hopper. They claim it is illegal for anyone to bypass commercials. lol They are using our (property of the public) airwaves to over charge us for their advertising and bullshit tv then have the nerve to file a bullshit lawsuit claiming we dont have the right to decide what we watch on top of that.

If you dont understand the logic then search around to see how much it costs to advertise for us. It damn sure aint free and you damn sure cant force charge anyone else for it. Especially using something that belongs to them.. Yet corporations are supposed to be people. So why dont we the people have those same bullshit rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2013 @ 5:36pm

oh ya. and they pay no taxes either. lol wow the only logical thing to do is to incorporate ourselves. If you can't beat em join em!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2013 @ 5:42pm

The public owns the airwaves! They should be paying us! In exchange for the right to do business for profit they should also pay taxes!

Their rights are our privileges? How the F*** did that happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jamie Jacobson, 17 Jan 2013 @ 7:53am

iPhone app for skipping commercials
I, like many of you hate (most) commercials. � Some are genius and crack me up, but most of the time it's a world of pain.

I decided to combat advertisers head-on and stop this torture. A friend and I created an iPhone app so we won't have to watch commercials at will.

it's called, ... �wait for it ... � � � �"Commercial Break" �:)

The idea is simple. You launch the app and select the channel you're watching. Then when commercial start running, you can zap the TV to a different channel and watch something else. (This is what I usually do when commercials come on). �So how do you know when your program is back from the break ? �The app sends you a notification! ��
Then all you have to do is change back to your program, �and BOOM, no commercials.

The app is free and ad-free, and we hope to keep it that way for as long as we can fund this project.

We currently support CBS,NBC,ABC and FOX in New York, and ESPN and CNN nation wide, and working on adding more channels.

I'd love to get your feedback and will do my best to add any features and channels you request.

you can download the app for free here:�
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/commercial-break/id589327264?mt=8 - https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/commercial-break/id589327264?mt=8

feel free to contact me directly at tvjunkie1990@gmail.com

enjoy!!

- Jamie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joob, 22 Jan 2013 @ 4:33pm

Question is all the people against time shifting or against skipping commercials, do they themselves skip their own commercials? I wonder how many ad makers actually watch, click, view ads themselves. I love how hypocritical our society has become.

And what about netflix they dont show commercials but still have the shows and isn't that by their definition still copyright? (in all reality i know its not but by their definition it would seem thats their view.)

Its a good thing i dont watch normal tv anymore, i refuse to give them the time of day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Willow, 10 Mar 2013 @ 4:55pm

Next they will literally tie people to their chairs and force them to watch the commercials. Then they will have to deal with a bunch of lawsuits from the people who could not use the bathrooms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rich Kilchrist, 25 Mar 2013 @ 3:19pm

repeat ads
isn't illegal to brain wash or put subliminal ads into tv programs? If anyone says that being subjected to the same identical ad during a program or programs on the same network called? for example I already pay for cable tv, so why am i paying to see the same ad 3 - 4 dozen times in 4 hours of viewing? it's so bad that children of 2-5 years old can sing or hum the tunes of these ads. This age group has no buying, purchasing, or dicession making authority for products, but are being brain washed none the less. I have to change channels all during the program only to find almost all channels are timed to air ads at the same time. Why can't i determine what my family is being exposed to. How much money do i have to pay tp get total ad free tv that im payng for already?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
madashel, 23 Jun 2013 @ 2:29pm

commercials
I absolutely despise commercials,I will turn the channel even at the expense of missing the show I want to watch,and I refuse to buy a product that interrupts my shows.
TV used to be free,and I can see back then using commercials to make money, but that is assuming that commercials actually create income,Imagine the money they could save if they didn't pay millions in advertising,the price of products we buy includes advertising,so in reality,we pay for the ads we see by paying higher prices for products.
Maybe if actors and directors and producers... that make TV shows and movies didn't make so much money...Hmm, No, wouldn't matter because it comes down to greed.
Buy a box of cereal,price goes up ,box gets bigger, but they put less in it, buyer beware and screw the consumer.
I payed for my TV, I pay my cable bill,I pay the electricity,and the truth is we all are being screwed because very,very few people want to pay their cable bill just for commercials, we are force fed advertising and we pay to see them,not only do we have 5 commercial breaks an hour, but they now have commercials on the screen during our programming.I will be glad when someone with enough clout and power is able to convince the courts that copyright laws are a joke,you write a song, get a copyright,I can write the same song change a couple of words and a couple of notes and I can get a copyright also,its all a big scam to cheat consumers out of their money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter Styles, 24 Aug 2013 @ 3:15pm

Commercials
It is the unflinching ability of the advertisers to flood the airwaves, and thereby the scheduled programing with enough advertising to cause the viewers to become frustrated with the networks that makes the action of Direct TV a viable product with enough customers to be an unavoidable product.

When I want to watch a movie, I want to maintain the rhythm and interest of the program. I don't want it disrupted by
10 minutes of commercials (witness much's presentation of Be Cool today, in which the entire program was halted at one point for just such purpose, including the same commercial twice in one period). Is there any question that abuse of the right of advertising is the reason for the existence of companies such as Dish TV with their commercial skipping ability?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Willow, 19 Oct 2013 @ 12:42pm

Comcast On Demand
When I watch Comcast On Demand and it won't let me fast forward, I use the other remote to mute the TV and close my eyes for a couple of minutes. It is my method of protesting, and they cannot take that away from me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob, 5 Nov 2013 @ 11:18pm

What is the point of this? What's to prevent me from getting up and taking a crap or making a sandwich or just hitting the mute button? Disabling the FF doesn't accomplish anything--except make me never want to watch a free ON Demand again...Well done guys. Have you noticed that all of corporate americas and Govs bullshit ends up backfiring?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2014 @ 9:29pm

Total BS
This is just hilarious. I don't dish out thousands of dollars of my hard earned money to watch commercials... I pay to watch what I want, when I want. FU tv networks. This is the main reason why TCM is basically the only channel I watch... no commercials. If you force me to watch commercials I will simply pirate my shows and movies. Suck on that media pricks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John A Damgaard III, 29 Aug 2014 @ 8:20pm

Commercials on Direct TV
If we are to watch commercials, then we should not
have to pay for service.

If we are to pay for service, then we should not
have to watch commercials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James, 8 Sep 2014 @ 9:01am

Stupid
With two vcrs or two dvd recorders I CAN REMOVE COMMERIALS MYSELF !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark, 24 Oct 2014 @ 9:22pm

Buggy whips and other outdated business models
Why is it the rich Hollywood liberal elite seem to be so delusional in their claims?

Why not change their business model?

If they want me to watch their crap commercials contract with me to not delete them, fast forward through them and not watch them.

Their contractual claim as it is for the people in their distribution chain is to deliver that content to the viewer.

Their contract doesn't involve me.

If it is provided to me and I choose not to watch it that is my choice.

If I'm reading a book and I decide to skip pages have I committed copyright infringement?

No.

If I cut pages out of my copy so that I can skip them from that point forward have I committed copy right infringement?

No.

If I'm doing research and I only copy certain pages of a copyrighted publication for research have I committed copyright infringement?

No.

I can go on but that is the succinct argument.

As long as I'm not repackaging their copyrighted product to distribute and sell to others its not copyright infringement.

If a company sells me a device that resides in an area that I exercise care, custody and control over and viewing is restricted as per the fair use copyright doctrine and I cause such a device to remove the commercials I am within the fair use guidelines.

If they want me to watch the commercials cut a contract with me as a first party where I agree to watch the commercials and they actually pay me (no dufus network executives "free TV" is not paying me) put real money in my pocket.

Your business model worked great when technology wasn't available to enable this.

However, you are victims of adopting a business model that eventually was going to be defeated.

I'm sick and tired of these liberals bashing everyone else and trying to use the courts to get rich.

If their shows are great like the XFiles, Mash etc they could charge for a commercial free stream and if its a show that I like and consider it worth the money I'd pay for it.

The problem is the shows are mostly crap and the commercials are drivel ad infinitum ad nauseam.

Ever notice that the super bowl ads are watched and enjoyed?

Remember the e-trade ads with the baby?

There are some ads worth watching.

An ad during primetime for products for women's private parts that's offensive.

If you want me to watch your crappy commercials give me hazardous duty pay other wise shut the F up and change your business model.

Advertisers either improve your commercials to make them worth watching to me not you.

Networks make the shows good enough that I'm willing to pay for an ad free feed.

Or realize that some Chinese company immune and protected from your lawsuits will come up with a device that is placed in the HDMI cable chain between the TV and the cable box or DVR that will automatically remove your commercials for us.

If it is sold for 100 over the internet, can get updates over the internet to enable it to cope with the new schemes to force us to watch commercials it becomes beggar they neighbor.

The average schlep to cheap to buy this will have to watch the commercials for the rest of us.

Now here's what I have to say F*** the TV networks, their executives, their advertisers, their lobbyist and their attorneys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Foxxy, 17 Jan 2015 @ 8:28am

sigh
If skipping the commercials is infringement...
Why are they not putting same said commercials in the episodes they put out in box sets???
Seems to me the should have to put it in there as well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert, 24 Apr 2015 @ 10:08am

Netwoks
For Networks to even bring such cases to court is the fact that they know people don't like sitting through their commercials, i know I don't I can care less about their commercials or their sponsors. Some shows end up having commercial breaks every 5 mins which is crazy. F the Networks if I don't want the commercial then that's to bad for them. But thanks to warez I can download my shows and their NO commercials in them they are already taken out for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rjdriver (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 11:38am

Double Dipping
When the TV networks started double dipping - meaning, when they started charging us by the channel with the advent of cable, in addition to still including commercials (and more per hour than ever) - they post the right to complain about us not watching them, or taking whatever steps necessary to skip them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gourdman, 26 Feb 2016 @ 3:55am

DISH's Arguments
DISH's arguments are clear, cogent, and compact. Obviously not written by a lawyer or corporate exec.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tony Tabat, 14 Mar 2016 @ 11:01pm

Double charging for cable
We should not have to watch commercials and and pay for TV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2017 @ 11:14am

there was an older law about this raising the sound during commercials. what happenned to it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CJ W, 28 Mar 2017 @ 9:57pm

TV Networks are dead
They are dead and dying. Along with all of mans governments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]