Ultraviolet on 20/4/2006 at 23:13
...force ad viewing? I hope they do! Maybe people will stop watching TV alltogether.
And then I read the article. Sick. Just sick. Won't be long before the TV watches YOU.
There was apparently a study (if it can be called that, I don't know -- maybe a "test") where some company gave free TVs away to anyone who would take them. Big screen things, I forget what size. There was one catch. They had cameras in-built that, takers were told, could start sending video back to the company at any time. People took the TVs anyway. The company probably didn't actually activate the cameras, but just the potential being there and people willingly allowing it sickens me.
descenterace on 21/4/2006 at 06:00
You are insufficiently cynical. People often willingly give up privacy for immediate kickbacks. A large TV for free? They'd be falling over themsevles to let you spy on them.
Ultraviolet on 21/4/2006 at 06:05
Ah, so, if I were more cynical, it would not sicken but delight me. Got it.
duckman on 21/4/2006 at 06:07
Depends. I'm sure if people live in a regular house with a living room they wouldn't care, but I doubt people would put that TV in their home if they lived in a one room suite. Also I bet they signed some waver which stated the recorded footage would not be distributed commercially or publicly. It also occures to me that I bet there was a clause which stated for how long the TV cameras would be operational. If the cameras were to shut off after a week I'd do it.
Jenesis on 21/4/2006 at 09:05
In any case, how were these cameras transmitting? What's to stop you just hanging a cloth over the lens? Or were they behind the screen like an autocue camera? I wouldn't be at all surprised if the 'cameras' were a threat and nothing more.
pakmannen on 21/4/2006 at 09:53
I have also been wondering about the difference between downloading a TV show and video tape it (we don't have TiVo or whatever over here). Mostly because most of the series I watch are broadcast on commercial free channels (we have goverment funded channels etc)
They recently passed a law over here that makes downloading copyrighted material illegal (not just sharing). They only ever mention music and movies in the media coverage though. Seems like TV-shows is a fuzzy area at the moment.
Myoldnamebroke on 21/4/2006 at 10:02
I'm not sure public channels are any less problematic. I think the BBC tried to make their archives freely available but found it was such a mess trying to work out who had the rights to what that it was shelved. Just because it's being broadcast by someone who pays the programme makers from public funds rather than commerical ones doesn't necessarily mean the actors etc don't get royalties or what have you.
pakmannen on 21/4/2006 at 11:28
Quote Posted by Myoldnamebroke
I'm not sure public channels are any less problematic. I think the BBC tried to make their archives freely available but found it was such a mess trying to work out who had the rights to what that it was shelved. Just because it's being broadcast by someone who pays the programme makers from public funds rather than commerical ones doesn't necessarily mean the actors etc don't get royalties or what have you.
But if I pay the fees (which is kinda obligatory anyway) they don't loose anything: money, commercial sales, or ratings. I tend to watch the show, then download it (instead of videotaping) since I prefer to have them stored digitally.
Then again, I don't get the commercial argument, since (as some have mentioned) you can just skip the commercials (or, like with the newer DVD recorders, delete them)
Myoldnamebroke on 21/4/2006 at 12:19
Well, they might lose DVD sales. The BBC argument centred around contracts with the performers whereby (for example) they had to pay them for each time it was aired, and how that transferred over to paying them when their show was downloaded. The channel itself loses nothing directly (if you do actually watch it when they show it, instead of only downloading it), but the people that made the programme do. Programme makers would struggle to sell on their programmes - Fawlty Towers was on the BBC, but John Cleese can make money having it rebroadcast on other (possibly commercial financed) channels. Or similarly, The Simpsons was shown on public TV here in the UK, but that doesn't mean you should be able download it.
Additionally, if it was shown once and then made available for download, the BBC could argue no-one would watch reruns and they would have to pay more money to develop new programmes.
It does feel like a grey area, because we feel we have the right to tape stuff off the TV and keep it, but not (as previously pointed out) is the scale different between digital and videotape recording different, but the control in the tape instance is still in the hands of the broadcasters - they have to choose to show it at all, when to show it and on which channel to show it. With downloads, they lose all control of their programmes.
duckman on 21/4/2006 at 18:03
Even if you do download stuff, I don't see how they would ever catch you unless you flaunt it or distribute your downloaded material through a physical means such as cds or disks. Monitoring people's computers would be the same as wiretapping, and unless your in America that would be a huge freedom violation.
