Fox Tries to Thwart DVR Fast-Forwarding

Thanks Garak. That was exactly my thought when I saw the headline - very misleading.

Agreed - I think this is pretty clever of them. As much as I hate ads, they are part of our reality that must be accepted.

Memo to Shadybird: It's 2006. Ads are a way of life...as they should be.

Let me guess, you use an ad blocker when visiting sites? Just because you don't like ads doesn't mean people don't need to earn money/make a living. Unless you're willing to pay to visit sites and watch specific channels on television, stop freeloading.

Shadybird-

They are not stopping the box from working properly. They are just changing the way a commercial is viewed. They aren't fighting they are adapting.

Freeloading? I don't have a DVR, but I still mute the TV during commercials, and I use an ad blocker because I never click on ads anyway. Are you saying that what I'm doing is freeloading, and that I should be a good little consumer and buy crap I don't need just as a show of support?

I do believe blocking ads is indeed freeloading. Just because you don't click on ads doesn't mean the site with the ads doesn't get money. Infact, the large majority of the ads on the internet are CPM (Cost Per Impression) based anyways...meaning the site gets money just for displaying the ads. Not blocking ads has nothing to do with "buying crap you don't need"...you're not buying a single thing. Infact nobody has mentioned "buying" anything, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

It doesn't even have anything to do with "showing support." It's about the fact that a site (like Newsvine) is providing you with a product (in this case, news and social networking) without making you actually shell out cash. But somehow you've gotten off thinking it'd be okay for you to get their product for free (ie. blocking ads) when infact they don't have a "free" product...they're an ad supported company.

So yes, what you are doing is freeloading.

Get off your soapbox, Josh.

I'd note three things. One, ad supported media is generally crappy. It lacks detail and analysis. Back in the day, subscriber-based media had a lot more of both. But subscribers generally won't pay a lot of money for information. On the other hand, advertisers will pay a lot of money for exposure. This has been the primary force that has driven news and analysis to favor big business; making media more conservative politically and in the framing of news, while simultaneously providing entertainment that is more liberal in its framework. Meanwhile, media purveyors try to maintain a facade of neutrality. 50 years ago, newspapers, television, etc. didn't try to hide their biases but announced them-- which allowed consumers of these products to know where they stood and create a rational assessments of the different sides of an issue. Today, media provides a superficial Left vs Right dichotomy sans detail, and expects that since both sides are "represented", they've done their jobs.

Ad supported media has generally killed reasoned analysis by the public at large.

Two, broadcasters (and websites) hope to buy your attention by providing a good product. They then try to sell your time to advertisers. There's nothing inherently wrong with blocking ads or skipping them. It's a negotiated exchange, even when one side doesn't realize it, and even when what's exchanged isn't money. Viewers who skip ads are raising the price of their attention. Hopefully, TV (and other media) will respond by increasing the quality of their product. Note that this relates to broadcast or "free" media. Subscriber-based systems such as cable TV generally don't face the same constraints or problems.

Three, Newsvine provides a venue. It doesn't create content, its users do. It provides a medium of communication. It's indicative of groups of media purveyors who seem to inherently grasp that bias is ineradicable from news analysis, and that what people really desire (as indicated by the wide readership of such sites as Newsvine, Plastic, etc.) is rational discussion of today's issues. This is a tradeoff for Newsvine. They hope to provide a good service that spurs debate, in order to (once again) buy your attention. They hope that the quality of their product is such that you will be willing to look at ads which they are selling to advertisers, i.e. they are selling your attention to advertisers. Again, this is a negotiated exchange. Compare this with a site such as Plastic.com or treesandthings.com which do exactly the same thing as Newsvine, only without advertising revenue. Make a comparison of the features available on those sites, and consider whether there's value added with the features Newsvine offers in exchange for hoping you'll view ads.

Contrary to your assertion, what noisepipe or Shadybird Johnson are doing is not "freeloading."

Get off your soapbox, Josh.

Yes sir.

Josh, one quick response, you say I do believe blocking ads is indeed freeloading, then what would you call 50 bucks a month for regular cable? 50 more for cable internet... more for digital cable etc. I mean we are paying 1200 a year on cable tv and internet per household (roughly). I do not think that is freeloading.

Not everyone has cable. You can get TV over the air for 'free' still. I don't know how well a Tivo would work with this approach, but you do not have to pay a monthly fee for it.

Wow Tom... that's... graphic.

Wow! You can clean furniture with oranges?

Garak, I agree that Fox does indeed seem to be adjusting to the times. However, given that DVR software can be obtained open source, it's only a matter of time before the ability to skip the commercials without viewing them at all becomes a reality. And nothing that a network does is going to be able to display an ad if you simply omit that 30 seconds of broadcasting.

Wow! You can clean furniture with oranges?

Ha, sort of. :)

And nothing that a network does is going to be able to display an ad if you simply omit that 30 seconds of broadcasting.

True, but so long as the instant skip-ahead remains a feature of the build-your-own DVRs, I think the networks will ignore it.

I'm counting on that... in computer security it's called "security through obscurity".

I really can't wait until all major shows are produced and sold ala cart via the net to download and burn/watch. If they put out a free pilot and/or free shows every now and then to drum up interest then sell the others I think we would get higher quality and better targeted shows and no commercials.

Right now show producers have to sell to two customers at the same time, and the two have different desires. The consumers and the advertisers, and as a subset of advertisers the networks. We still have a good ways to go on the infrastructure though as compared to broadcast TV.

Hell -- people pay money to sites like AdCritic.com to watch ads.

One of my favorite episodes...

Perhaps we're getting stuck in a technology loop here where we'll have to rediscover all the things in the future that we've become accustomed to in the present and this is the harbinger? I don't really think so but it sounds like a good science fiction short story....