TV Networks Say You're Breaking The Law When You Skip Commercials
164 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;36112214]No it isn't. How can you seriously think that? Its absolutely fucking ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
I already explained how it is on the same level. You are extracting a service by viewing a webpage, using up bandwidth, and your payment for this service would have been through viewing ads, but you blocked them and no money is made. The main difference is that the money-making for adblocking is indirect, through the viewing of ads, whereas for piracy it is directly required of you.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;36105455]"Stopping content you don't want to see from being displayed."
"Obtaining content without paying for it."
Exactly the same. Good logic.[/QUOTE]
Piracy: Acquiring content without any form of payment to the owner.
Ad-blocking while surfing the web: Acquiring content (the website) without any form of payment (via ad views) to the owner.
It's the same principle. People pirate because it's more convenient to not have to pay or be subjected to DRM. People use Adblock because it's more convenient to not view ads. In both cases you're cutting off the revenue stream of the content owner for the sake of your own convenience. The only significant differences are that piracy is more direct about not paying whereas ad views are indirect, and that piracy is illegal while ad blocking is not (which has little to no bearing on the ethicality of either).
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36109269]I don't understand. Why is this even an issue? When you're recording something, your box is still "watching" it, and it counts as such for the ad payout.[/QUOTE]
Advertisers aren't dumb. As more and more people record and watch later, skipping commercials, they're going to decide that the ads are worth less of their money as an investment because regardless of what the numbers say, people aren't watching them.
[QUOTE=lavacano;36104947]There are two ways in which you can use ABP to [B]improve[/B] the quality of ads from being annoying little shits to being bearable (regardless of if you click the fuckers or not):
- Tell ABP to allow "acceptable advertising". What this does is it enables an exception list that lets ads through if they're unobtrusive and non-distracting (usually text-only). This list is maintained by the people that maintain ABP. They reach agreements with advertisers where if the advertisers only show THAT sort of ad, ABP will let it through. If an advertiser abuses it, they're blocked like everyone else.
- Whitelist sites that do advertising acceptably. What fukung.net used to do (they've stopped showing ads for some reason) was have ads that fit in with the rest of the content on the site (random, typically amusing images). [URL="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5733962/ZScreen/SS-2011-11-10_18.34.38.png"]One example.[/URL][/QUOTE]
I am absolutely 100% A-OK with this. It helps set standards for acceptable ads and the sites still get revenue.
And I'm okay with regular Adblock, as long as it's just for general use and not for sites you use regularly. Website owners don't [I]want[/I] to put ads on their sites, it's a necessary evil so they can pay for the sometimes high costs of website operation. It's not the software I have a problem with, it's the ethics behind taking advantage of a website for its content but not respecting the owners enough to allow their revenue source to be visible on your machine.
I turn AdBlock off if the site I'm viewing tells me to. Some sites actually generate most of their revenue from ads, and in most cases I've seen that the ads are non-intrusive.
Otherwise, I just leave it on.
[QUOTE=willer;36088962]I like how we paid for their offered 999 channels, but everything over 150 is pay per view.
And then I really liked how suddenly they decided to replay commercials, right after the same commercial just aired.
And then I especially liked how they began making my commercial breaks more often, drawing out 25 minute shows to an hour long.
And then the real zinger was that when the show came back on after all the time of waiting and looking for something proper, I realized that it was another retarded reality TV show that ended by giving us an answer that three seconds of proper thinking could have solved.
And from that day I decided that videogames were probably the better way to go. Or drawing. Or writing. Or reading or just fucking anything besides watching the absolute rubbish that they try to force feed into my retinas. No sir, I don't want to watch another episode of fucking King of Queens, I understand that the entire show is based around a man trying not to get in trouble with his overbearing wife.
Aliens/big foot/chupacabra/dinosaurs/monsters don't exist. Nostradomas was a smart con-man that realized that people were retarded enough to pay money to hear about something that will happen after they're gone.
Just be more communicative with your wife and every single problem would be solved.
Why are you being payed to go onto a ship and fish, when you could just as easily simply go into a business that doesn't try to specifically kill you? Don't act tough and mysterious- you chose this job.
And, to finally solve the major problem of every single tv show's plot:
If you don't think it's safe, then it's probably a busted myth. Otherwise, try not to die so much.[/QUOTE]
You left out the part where commercials were much louder in terms of volume than the actual TV show.
I think Congress finally did something about that. One of the best laws ever passed.
[editline]28th May 2012[/editline]
[url]http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/121829-congress-turns-down-the-volume-on-tv-commercials[/url]
[QUOTE=catbarf;36113049]Piracy: Acquiring content without any form of payment to the owner.
Ad-blocking while surfing the web: Acquiring content (the website) without any form of payment (via ad views) to the owner.[/QUOTE]Piracy is acquiring content that one must actually purchase before using it. Viewing a website is something that has no inherent cost on the part of the viewer. Viewing ads does not actually get the company that put them there any money, because no good or services were genuinely purchased. So all they are doing is paying out to the owner of the website without actually getting anything in return. The way that company actually makes any money is through purchases of their goods or services, which are not garunteed even if someone views the advertisement. Which brings it to a key point: Even if blocking ads is equivalent to piracy (which it isn't), it is still subject to the same distinction that there is no actual loss of revenue because there was never any garuntee revenue would be made in the first place. If someone isn't going to purchase a good or service, then viewing the ad is no better than not viewing the ad because they weren't going to purchase anything to begin with. The only difference is that not viewing the ad means that individual didn't have to deal with an obtrusive annoyance to their viewing.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;36114663]Piracy is acquiring content that one must actually purchase before using it. Viewing a website is something that has no inherent cost on the part of the viewer. [/QUOTE]
This is not strictly true. The ad is part of the page and is viewed as such, and in many cases the advertiser pays for the view alone and not the click. It is not as direct as pay for product -> receive product, but the site owner receiving money is directly tied to your accessing the page's content. Your payment is not in money, it is in viewing the ad. When you view the site, you view the ad. That's your payment.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;36114663]Viewing ads does not actually get the company that put them there any money, because no good or services were genuinely purchased. So all they are doing is paying out to the owner of the website without actually getting anything in return. The way that company actually makes any money is through purchases of their goods or services, which are not garunteed even if someone views the advertisement. [/QUOTE]
That does not change the nature of the viewer-advertiser-site owner relationship, which remains the same whether a product is later purchased or not. What the site owner is guaranteeing in his deal with the advertiser is that the ad itself will be seen, nothing more.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;36114663]Which brings it to a key point: Even if blocking ads is equivalent to piracy (which it isn't), it is still subject to the same distinction that there is no actual loss of revenue because there was never any garuntee revenue would be made in the first place. If someone isn't going to purchase a good or service, then viewing the ad is no better than not viewing the ad because they weren't going to purchase anything to begin with. The only difference is that not viewing the ad means that individual didn't have to deal with an obtrusive annoyance to their viewing.[/QUOTE]
The [i]exact same argument[/i] is used all the time with piracy: if someone isn't going to buy a game or movie, then pirating the game/movie is no worse than not buying the game/movie because they weren't going to purchase anything to begin with.
In any case you don't get to make the call of whether or not you might possibly purchase the good or service without ever seeing it. The site is not being paid on the basis of people visiting the site and then buying the product being advertised, the site is being paid on the basis of people visiting the site and seeing the ad. Whether or not they act on it is irrelevant.
Again, you are circumventing the site's method of generating money in return for its content, for the sole reason of your own convenience. Whether the physical mechanism is different is irrelevant, the bottom line is that you are using the content without paying the price of admission, so to speak, and ethically that's very similar to piracy.
Is it illegal for me to turn the TV off too?
You can't make me watch another Geico commercial with that damn obnoxious pig, because that's [b]torture[/b], and that's illegal.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;36114663]Piracy is acquiring content that one must actually purchase before using it. Viewing a website is something that has no inherent cost on the part of the viewer. Viewing ads does not actually get the company that put them there any money, because no good or services were genuinely purchased. So all they are doing is paying out to the owner of the website without actually getting anything in return. The way that company actually makes any money is through purchases of their goods or services, which are not garunteed even if someone views the advertisement. Which brings it to a key point: Even if blocking ads is equivalent to piracy (which it isn't), it is still subject to the same distinction that there is no actual loss of revenue because there was never any garuntee revenue would be made in the first place. If someone isn't going to purchase a good or service, then viewing the ad is no better than not viewing the ad because they weren't going to purchase anything to begin with. The only difference is that not viewing the ad means that individual didn't have to deal with an obtrusive annoyance to their viewing.[/QUOTE]
I see ABP as much less of a harm to advertisers as it is to the websites themselves. The website owner has no reason to care fi you buy the product or not, he wants you just to see the ad, and he gets his $.005 or whatever. Otherwise it is a waste of bandwidth.
It doesn't get the company that put the ad there any money, but if the ad is loaded, it gets the website owner money.
I dislike how much my parents pay for TV when 50% of the time they're watching commercials.
Its not so much the fact that there are commercials that bug me (unless its 5+ minutes long). Its the fact that a lot of the time, the commercials are just repeated. Over, and over again. Heck, its not even uncommon to see the same ad within the same commercial break, sometimes even back to back.
Commercials: Buying shit you don't really need or even have to watch. Family talk is more important, then we go back to be glued to our favourite shows when it comes back on.
...Really? Terrestrial television I can *kinda* see, but not something like cable or satellite. I pay £60 for Sky television, I'll skip what I damn well please!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.