(no subject)

[theweaselking]

Phillips files patent on methods to force you to watch advertising.

An apparatus (270) and method is disclosed for preventing a viewer from switching from a channel when an advertisement is being displayed on the channel. The apparatus (270) and method comprises an advertisement controller (270) in a video playback device (150) that (1) prevents a viewer of a direct (non-recorded) broadcast from switching channels when an advertisement is displayed, and (2) prevents a viewer of a recorded program from fast forwarding the recorded program in order to skip past advertisements that were recorded with the program. A viewer may either watch the advertisements or pay a fee in order to be able to change channels or fast forward when the advertisements are being displayed.

I don't know about you, but I'd refuse to buy any device with one of these inside it, and I think I'd make a bloody fortune selling ones that DIDN'T have it and removal kits.

Comments

[dolston.livejournal.com]

I'd just cancel my cable and pirate whatever I wanted.

[graethorne.livejournal.com]

That's one way to generate LOTS of negative brand identification...

[jackoutofthebox.livejournal.com]

YAH I'D BE BUYING THE CHEAT KIT TOO.

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

The removal kits would be illegal in the US, at least.

[missysedai.livejournal.com]

Ooooh, no no no no no. Phillips will get no money from me ever, and neither will any company that installs this device into its products.

Not that my TV serves much more purpose than to play video games on, mind...

[desdenova.livejournal.com]

Well, there is no economic incentive for electronics manufacturers to include such technology in their devices. I suspect that the point of this is to stake a claim on ad-forcing technology in case content providers manage to bribe Congress into passing a law which requires TV & video recorder manufacturers to include it in their products.

Which, in the end, will do nothing but hasten the end of the advertising-supported television business model, but that's an entirely different rant.

[culfinriel.livejournal.com]

No freaking kidding.

[stormfeather.livejournal.com]

They want us... to pay a fee.... to not have to watch their bloody advertising on programming we already pay for, on our own equipment? Including in any recordings made thereof, in perpetuity?

Oh I DON'T think so.

(Especially since it means you'd pretty much need to be really on the ball so you can switch channels during end credits to make sure you can catch a new program from the start, although since they do stuff during end credits usually now, I wonder if that'd even count...)

[jerril]

Stop me if I'm wrong here, but I forsee the following usage:

"This show is kinda boring."
*Channelsurfs up one channel*
*surfs into a commercial*
*gets stuck.*
"Fuck."
*Waits for end of commercials*
"This show sucks too."
*Channelsurfs up one channel*
*surfs into a commercial.*
"Fuck."

[jerril]

And what happens if you use Picture-in-picture?

I HONESTLY HOPE that the idea is to get the patent so they control the idea - and then lock it in a box, and cement the box, then drop the box in the Marianas trench or something.

[scixual.livejournal.com]

OOoh, I hadn't thought of that. That's what I'll hope for, too.

[paoconnell.livejournal.com]

AHEM: power switch. And then--buy another TV. If Philips actually try to do this, they just might kill the market for their TVs entirely.

[corruptedjasper.livejournal.com]

Oh, nonono. You see, you'll only be able to watch VHDTV *at all* with such a chip installed, so every tv manufacturer will have to have one -- which they're required to buy from Philips, at that!

See, instant profit.

See HDMI.