Jump to content

Phillips Patent to Keep You from Changing Channels


Movie Junkie
 Share

Recommended Posts

The following is from the beginning of the patent application.

 

 

Abstract

 

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.

 

Read the full application here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is from the beginning of the patent application.

 

 

 

Thanks for the info.

 

This'll never fly. I know one thing: I'll never buy another Phillips or Magnavox TV again if they implement this crap.

 

But it just adds more evidence to what I've been saying for years:

 

"DRM", "copy protection" all of that shit has NOTHING to do with piracy. Absolutely nothing.

 

This all goes back to the "Bill bill." Gates inadervtantly tipped his hand to his (and Hollywood, the Networks and record companies) REAL goal.

 

This is ALL about figuring out how to charge us for watching each episode of popular shows. About charging us for taping shows (that we might miss for example while we're WORKING so we can afford to buy these bastards' products!). About creating ways to make us pay a few bucks evertime we pop a DVD (or whatever) into the player to watch something we've already paid for!

 

FOLLOW THE MONEY is my maxim and, 'ceptin' where religion is involved, it is almost always true.

 

The public outcry on this, if they move to put it into production--let alone if the FCC allows it--will be horrendous, at least in the US.

 

There are plenty of Congressmen and Senators willing to take to the well of their respective to Chambers to denounce this. After all, it beats doing anything about something that really matters--like cutting that damn gas tax which adds 50 cents to each gallon of gas! In fact, depending upon locality, state (and sometimes local taxes) taxes make up 25% to 33% of every gallon of gas sold in the US. julli-rasende.gif

Edited by Pain_Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is from the beginning of the patent application.

 

 

Abstract

 

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.

 

Read the full application here.

 

Just fabulous. However, I can?t see consumers lining up to buy equipment that makes their lives miserable, regardless of how many bells and whistles it has. Stupidity like this will see a revival of the humble VCR or equally non-intelligent products. They might be a bit dated by comparison but these machines do what they?re told.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and to think I'm old enough to remember when cables selling point was "no commercials".did you notice that a lot of the commercials play at exactly the same time so if you try to get away from a commercial by changing channells you get another commercial its a conspiracy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[This is ALL about figuring out how to charge us for watching each episode of popular shows. About charging us for taping shows (that we might miss for example while we're WORKING so we can afford to buy these bastards' products!). About creating ways to make us pay a few bucks evertime we pop a DVD (or whatever) into the player to watch something we've already paid for!

Bittorrent will be even more popular. TV shows without commercials digitally encoded and downloaded in an hour or two. They?re shooting themselves in the foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and to think I'm old enough to remember when cables selling point was "no commercials".did you notice that a lot of the commercials play at exactly the same time so if you try to get away from a commercial by changing channells you get another commercial its a conspiracy

 

 

What're you, new? :) (Take no offense...)

 

Of course its a conspiracy.

 

You think its a coincidence that the stories on ABC, CBS & NBC are the same stories as on the front page of the NY Times!

 

What's even worse is being old enough to remember when San Diego had only 5 channels. And LA had only 8.

Edited by Pain_Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[

Bittorrent will be even more popular. TV shows without commercials digitally encoded and downloaded in an hour or two. They?re shooting themselves in the foot.

 

 

Why do you think the KGBPAA and the GesatpoRIAA are going after P2P networks so hard? The French just put stringent requirements on them. There's pressure on Congress to outlaw or severely restrict them (basically by making the ISP financially responsible for the so-called "infringement").

 

They want to close off that channel.

 

Once they've nailed that down, then comes the $5 to watch ER and $2.50 a pop to watch your DVDs.

 

It's coming. It's only a matter of time.

 

Of course, They are too stupid :frustrated: to realize that this will only spur a gray-to-black market for Rights Protection Technology. :weightlift2: Encryption schemes will be cracked. Ananymous filesharing networks will be created with RSA1024 encryption.

 

Basic law of physics: for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.

 

Only Hollywood dimtwits are too stupid to realize this.

Edited by Pain_Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think the KGBPAA and the GesatpoRIAA are going after P2P networks so hard?

Downloading a copyrighted mp3 (for example) is different (in my book) to downloading something that has been ?free to air? tv. Even the US Supreme Court recognises that a program screened ?free to air? may be recorded using a mechanical device like a VCR and I?m sure the Australian Supreme Court does also.

The French just put stringent requirements on them. There's pressure on Congress to outlaw or severely restrict them (basically by making the ISP financially responsible for the so-called "infringement").
You can?t blame ISPs nor can you expect them to monitor traffic for every user. For example, let?s say that ISPs decide to cut down on torrent traffic by blocking port 1843 (I *think* this is the default for BitComet but I might be wrong), in an effort to close the torrent flood gates. The user then changes to port 80 or port 21 (default HTTP and FTP ports). What?s the ISP going to do?
Of course, They are too stupid :frustrated: to realize that this will only spur a gray-to-black market for Rights Protection Technology. :weightlift2:

Of course it will.

Encryption schemes will be cracked.
DRM (one version anyway) was cracked last year. There was a bit of fooking about to get around it but it worked. Media Player 9, I think it was.
Ananymous filesharing networks will be created with RSA1024 encryption.

It already exists. Freenet comes to mind. There are others as well. http://freenet.sourceforge.net/

Basic law of physics: for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.

Only Hollywood dimtwits are too stupid to realize this.

Or too slow to embrace the technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely no arguments, there. The SCOTUS case you site is the "Betamax" case of 1986.

 

Don't get me wrong: I'm not in favor of these things. I personally do not use P2P or filesharing, but I have nothing against them. And I really detest the idea that ISPs should be held responsible for people actually engaging in piracy.

 

It's aking to suing car manufacturers for drunk driving or gun-makers for murders. (This, thank GOD, has largely failed in US courts, but the goddamn lawyers and anti-gun nuts keep trying. They won't rest until we're as helpless and disarmed as the Chinese people or the old Soviet Union. I know they took handguns away in Britian--if they tried that in America most cops would refuse to do it, not only that there'd be a shooting war in the streets. The right to bears arms is the most important right there is.

 

Second to that is the write to free speech. And the biggest threat is the danger from Rights Destruction Technology (aka "DRM" or "copy protection" bullshit).

 

 

Why do you think the KGBPAA and the GesatpoRIAA are going after P2P networks so hard?

Downloading a copyrighted mp3 (for example) is different (in my book) to downloading something that has been ?free to air? tv. Even the US Supreme Court recognises that a program screened ?free to air? may be recorded using a mechanical device like a VCR and I?m sure the Australian Supreme Court does also.

The French just put stringent requirements on them. There's pressure on Congress to outlaw or severely restrict them (basically by making the ISP financially responsible for the so-called "infringement").
You can?t blame ISPs nor can you expect them to monitor traffic for every user. For example, let?s say that ISPs decide to cut down on torrent traffic by blocking port 1843 (I *think* this is the default for BitComet but I might be wrong), in an effort to close the torrent flood gates. The user then changes to port 80 or port 21 (default HTTP and FTP ports). What?s the ISP going to do?
Of course, They are too stupid :frustrated: to realize that this will only spur a gray-to-black market for Rights Protection Technology. :weightlift2:

Of course it will.

Encryption schemes will be cracked.
DRM (one version anyway) was cracked last year. There was a bit of fooking about to get around it but it worked. Media Player 9, I think it was.
Ananymous filesharing networks will be created with RSA1024 encryption.

It already exists. Freenet comes to mind. There are others as well. http://freenet.sourceforge.net/

Basic law of physics: for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.

Only Hollywood dimtwits are too stupid to realize this.

Or too slow to embrace the technology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.