That means, by definition, the tools we create can be used to retransmit information. You cannot remove the ability to retransmit information without also removing the ability to receive it. They are one and the same.

We already have ways to interface audio and video to people - no matter how you encrypt or alter the data, the space between the black box and your head is where it's sent unencoded.. perfect for interception.

The RIAA complains that you can create "digitally perfect" copies of a work. But why does that matter? MP3's are a lossful compression scheme. People used audio tape for years before CDs became available. It's obvious the quality is "good enough" for most consumers - that was the state of technology ten years ago.

Who bloody cares how they encrypt it at this point, or what use it is put toward? We're past the point of controlling the media. If the industry wants to go back to using handwritten scrolls then *maybe* it'll have a chance at control.. but as certain religious texts have leaked out despite the church's enormous grip on the world at the time some scrolls were found.. I have my doubts to even that.

Give it up. Take your ball and go home, you're obsolete. You have been for a thousand years.

dd if=/dev/random bs=1024 count=10 | mail -s "Green Crow" spook@nsa.gov

Add Syntax Highlighting to your java app.

I miss being able to access iCraveTV, but the ability to pick and choose anything from my local cable provider would be even better!

To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. -- Thomas Edison

This reminds me, why doesn't someone come up with a mainstream VCR that automatically edits out commmercials? I think I saw one once that did it on the basis of volume levels, since ads are usually several decibels louder than the actual program, but I haven't seen one since.

It seems like it wouldn't be that hard to create. You could use several criteria, such as volume level, dead space (black screen between shows and commercials), length of time since last commercial. With digital recorders, you could just record everything, and the machine could automatically skip what thought were ads. If it was wrong and skipped part of the real program, you could always go back and view it later.

There is no doubt in my mind that someone else has thought of this. Is the television industry's power so great that it has precluded a device like this from making it to the consumer market?

It would definitely be nice to be able to watch all of my Simpson's episodes commercial free. If I see one more ad for the Bose wave radio, I will puke on myself.

I don't watch anything at all live, I record everything, and let the machine skip commercials for me.

There are a number of VCR's out there that do this, look for them. What I'm waiting for is for the Tivo/Replay TV to do this. But I'm guessing it'll never happen. So any chance we4 can hack it ourself?

-Ariel

Or listen to it on the radio...

Anyways, it sounds like you didn't read the article. The point is that Tivo and ReplayTV are new developments that have the potential to seriously screw with the business models of older, established media companies. That's how they're similar to Napster. But unlike the RIAA, the TV industry wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on if they tried to go after these companies in court.

Of course, with a decent video capture card you can really do this sort of thing anyway.

Someone had to put all that chaos there!

Once you start talking about recording digital TV, content providers become very concerned about people pulling the hard drives out of your devices, getting the files off and posting them on the Internet.

I can fast forward through the commercials now when I record stuff to VHS. It hasn't killed the industry yet.

Ultimately you'll be able to watch what you want to watch when you want to watch it. It's inevitable. Content producers are going to have to get a whole lot more clever about how they make their money.

Someone had to put all that chaos there!

I can fast forward through the commercials now when I record stuff to VHS. It hasn't killed the industry yet.

Ultimately you'll be able to watch what you want to watch when you want to watch it. It's inevitable. Content producers are going to have to get a whole lot more clever about how they make their money.

That's also what keeps the Tonight Show and Letterman on the air. The reality is that Nightline normally blows them out of the water on ratings, but generally doesn't get the same advertising revenue.

Another example of how terrible the current ratings system is: Touched by an Angel. While this group may not watch it, it is one of the most popular programs on the air. CBS almost canceled it due to low ratings, but kept it on after a MASSIVE viewer response (one of the biggest ever).

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Perhaps the proper way for the content producers to embrace this technology would be for them to arrange for digital signatures to be attached to the content and then relay the information about viewing back to some database. This brings up some privacy issues, but I've given them the idea; implementation is their problem :-).

Privacy should be easy enough to handle. Just combine a device ID (in ROM) with the date and random numbers. Take a secure hash (such as MD5) and that becomes the unique ID for the box. Every month or so, a new unique ID is made. Ratings are relayed by sending unique ID and program ID pairs back to TiVo. TiVo counts the number of distinct IDs in a month for each program.

Companies that claim they can't gather statistical data without identifiable information about you are lying.

These devices are apparently going to have IP addresses. They also run linux, which makes them somewhat hackable. Now imagine someone replacing the software on there with software that

• edits out commercials (not too hard, just scan the image for the station-logo, which goes away during commercials)
• offers the files for download by anyone (it has an IP addres, remember?)

Lewis isn't saying that the two are technologically or ethically similar; he's saying that the effect they have on the marketplace is similar. They're both popular, seemingly legal technologies which grant so much freedom to the consumer as to endanger the continued existence of the producer. Both of the producers in question are more powerful than most countries' governments, though, and will not fade into obselecence gracefully. He points out that we haven't seen shit yet, and I think he's right.

This is why I like Lewis -- although he is intelligent and has a good understanding of geek issues, he is at heart a businessman, and so he offers an extremely fresh point of view. Read "Liar's Poker" and "The New New Thing." You won't regret it.

But, the reason I would love it is because a standard place for the commercial would mean that some bright boy out there would write some software that just removed that chunk of the video, leaving only the show.

Then, no more commercials for me :)
when in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout --Robert Heinlein

Good point. The questions to ask then, who controls TiVO? The government or corporations. As long as the power isn't centralized, then all is not lost. Additionally, would it be possible to watch TV without TiVo?

Personally, I am waiting to buy a TiVO until they can allow me to record MTV programs without the censorship blur. When they can do that, I'll pull out my credit card.

If you can watch TV, why can't it watch you?

...do you have any conception of how Orwellian that is?

Advertisers' response will be to eventually switch to a model of product placement in the content itself. It's already a very widespread phenomenon, from all the sports wares hawked in Jerry Maguire, to the number of Pottery Barn mentions in a particular episode of Friends ... And that kind of advertising is much, much harder to edit out.

The thing is, you can make distribution and reediting of this stuff practically free, but production of content will still remain (relatively) costly. If every show looked like South Park, then anybody with a decent computer could put out their own, but most shows require a set, actors, costumes, cameras, crew, etc., etc. Information wants to be free, but not when its production depends on so many atoms.

Francis Hwang
Writer, Programmer, Cartoonist

There are some interesting things going on in the high end graphics world. It is now possible to get a box from SGI that can make a virtual set. The talent (actors) just walk around a bluescreen set and computer takes care of the rest. You can even move the camera and the set will move in response, keeping the set looking real. I have seen examples of this, and you really can't tell (as long as the lighting on the talent doesn't give it away).

I can see the day when the next generation playstation or Sega box will be able to create photorealistic images from nothing. Just have a bucket of pre-defined actors ready to go, set them in a world, and give them something to say.

I think the only thing holding the concept back is believable voice synthesis.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

From the article:

Either the ads will need to become as entertaining as the programs or the programs will need to contain the ads, so that they cannot be stripped out. If Jennifer Aniston wants to remain a Friend, she may need to don a T-shirt that says "Diet Coke."

Believe it. I worked on a hardware/software project which monitored a camera feed at a "sports venue" where we were doing a live broadcast. It would detect a particular advertising sign along the course, and remap it, in real time, with a selected advertisement, and THAT was what was broadcast to the TV viewers.

So, instead of virtualizing the ENTIRE stage/world with live actors, they could use blue-screen-colored products on the set. Then, the producers could acquire and transmit the coordinates (maybe in the vertical blanking interval?) The images to be placed could have been transmitted during prior VBIs.

The broadcasters would encode a default product placement on the broadcast. The TiVo box, knowing the user's preferences, and having access to the product's coordinates, could generate, in real-time, a virtual product to place there, instead.

So, depending on viewer's preferences, Jennifer Aniston 's t-shirt may say "Diet Coke" OR "Budweiser". That said, I doubt it would take long for a /.'er to create their own image files to be mapped.

VBIs? Don't be silly--digital can just send the alternate versions in separate streams.

Life is scary when your local broadcaster can sell that ad space separately. Life is really scary when your settop box causes you and your next-door neighbor to get different images.

"Mommy, how come Jennifer Aniston always drinks Bud Light on our TV and Diet Coke over at Bobby's house?"

It's gotten so bad that in the not-so-distant past (last 3-5 months?), I managed to catch 3 or 4 shows back-to-back on the same channel, where the entire plot focused on an after-school specialesque anti-drug message.

:wq!
Follow my URL for streaming audio.

I can tell you that the average ad has more impact on FFW2 than it does on 'normal' TV because the viewer is intently watching to determine when the show comes back on so they don't overshoot.

Nobody is going to "pass around" a recording made on a TiVo or ReplayTV box, unless someone wants to go to the trouble of dumping it to tape on an external VCR. The files on the hard disk can't be copied by the user.

channel.nytimes.com.

The irony involved in the Times' posting their article on how TV will follow music down the digital gravity well on their registration-required Web site, and our using the back door to read it for free, is tasty.

Also, where is the mouse wheel on notebooks. Still waiting for the obvious there.

It's called Commercial Advance, and it remembers the start and end of the commercial while recording, then goes back and marks it (takes about 12 minutes after the show).

I don't watch anything at all live, I record everything, and let the machine skip commercials for me.

There are a number of VCR's out there that do this, look for them. What I'm waiting for is for the Tivo/Replay TV to do this. But I'm guessing it'll never happen. So any chance we4 can hack it ourself?

-Ariel

Most of the newish Sony VAIOs have one. They have the standard mouse-pad, with LBM and RMB below the keyboard, and a kind of clickable jog-dial thingy on the right-hand edge of the machine. If you're sitting reading long documents on the train, this is a fairly convenient place to put it. By defualt, you're running 'doze, and the dial runs a special click-dial menu system thing, but it can be configured as a "normal" mousewheel if you prefer.

Having said that... the right-hand and bottom edges of the mouse-pad can be used for scrolling anyway, and the top-left can be used for things like iconising and close-gadgets.

No... the REAL "still waiting for the obvious" is a volume-control for the mother-in-law ;-)

Nick Waterman. Senior Systems Administrator, Sony Interactive Services #include <stddisclaimer> Team *AMIGA*!

:wq!
Follow my URL for streaming audio.

H:\copy * linux

h:\linux => h:\linux\linux [unable to open source]

Good question. I think the main reason I personally dislike ads is the intrusiveness. Last year I spent a fair amount of time living in an apartment where someone else was paying for HBO. I got to really like all of their original shows, and a big part of the reason was the fact that I could sit down and be absorbed for an hour, without being smacked in the face with noisy flashy ads for deodorant every 5-10 minutes. After a while, I found that I couldn't really enjoy conventional ad-interrupted television any longer.

So I have mixed feelings about the product placement type of advertising. One one hand, I like the fact that there's no overt interruption of my experience. On the other hand, I worry that what starts out as superficial product placement could develop into advertisers having increasing clout over deeper aspects, like the plot of a narrative. Actually, I'd say that we already see this sort of influence on current ad-supported television - ad supported programming will want to try to make the watcher more receptive to advertising, and that can't help but influence its creative content. But without explicit commercials, the needs of advertisers will probably come to play a much more overt role in all aspects of production.

You are not a beatiful and unique snowflake Tyler Durden

Many people seem to think it's about skipping commercials and how cool that is because I really hate those things. Well, you can't skip them on live TV, period.

Many others think it's about being able to jump back and replay live TV if you missed something, or create your own instant replay. This is useful, but still something you get anyway when you record a show.

What it's really about is the main reason I bought one. To not have to watch live TV anymore except for special events. I was fed up with being slave to the broadcast schedule because regular VCRs were so limited in recording capacity and, not difficult, but annoying to program. Every event was like it was the first time. Managing my video tapes was not impossible, but a chore that I do not care to do - not in this era of technology. So, a system that does away with these annoyances and gives me a searchable program listing rather than endlessly perusing chronological listings until my eyes glaze over, is valuable to me, and I paid for it.

I'm sure there might be a free solution at some point, but I'm sure it'll also suck. I think software developers (particularly GUI people) should take notice that the Tivo does not display computer graphics directly, but uses a video text generator. Thank God for that. It probably also uses something more sophisticated than your typical white box video card as well as the other hardware bits. Since it runs on a PowerPC hardware, I would imagine that says something about Intel hardware.

I like being able to time shift more than 6 to 8 hours of stuff and easily access and delete any of it. I don't have to remember to have a blank high grade tape ready to go to tape that favorite movie and then have to suffer recording a sitcom at the beginning of it in order to record both wile I'm out. I just record both with the Tivo, each at the quality I desire, and dump the movie off to the tape later when I have it ready.

I can find those elusive computer shows easily that always seem to be on at 3am. Not that I couldn't look those up by other means, but none of those let me press a button when I find the show to automatically record it.

We watched live TV only out of habit and the lack of more intelligent VCRs and the lack of an easy way of finding something good on. Before, you might have a moment you just want to be passive and watch a show, so you spend forever just trying to become synchronous with the live TV schedule so that a good show was on. This often took longer than you had to spend, so you would "settle" on something that you would normally not watch (sounds a bit like Windows). Now, when I have these moments, there is always something of interest to me waiting there, and I don't have to worry about interrupting the VCR recording another show in order to watch something else I recorded.

Now with regard to this thread's general topic of commercials: since I rarely watch live TV, I can always fast-forward through the commercials. I always think how this should make advertisers worried. However, the thing that really annoys me about commercials now is the process of skipping them. For years, we've dreamed about the magical commercial skipping device, and there are even some crude things out there that will pause your VCR for some fixed interval, etc. But what I want is one of two things: 1. The commercials be targeted to my interests, and often relating to the subject matter of the show, so that I don't have to forward through the commercials because I want to see the commercials almost as much as the program; 2. the ability to pay for my programming to obviate the need for advertising, but in a way unlike PBS where even if I pay, I still have to endure the pledge drives.

I think it funny the stuff I see posted in these Slashdot discussions sometimes. The PC world doesn't even have anything that comes close, but go on and on about how it isn't "perfect" and "free", so spout on about how easy it should be to hack up out of some spare wire and string.

In the end it's not about making this stuff free. That only means that someone is going to demand some of your time in return. I work at a job that I'm good at and enjoy to make money to buy and do things that I enjoy. Wasting time waiting for these things, finding these things or listening to a sales pitch for other things I'm not interested in, is not what I want to be doing. I will pay money to avoid that. The people who created Tivo seem to grok this, when TV networks understand this, then things might get nicer. Warning: this will mean that you will pay for TV. This also applies to the Internet. However, TV is linear - I have to go forward through the commercial to get to the rest of the content. The Net is different (for now) in that I can mostly visually dodge the banner ads to get to the content I am looking for. This is not to say that my brain dodges them. Much like product placement, Web ads, probably have subconscious effects. Now, if TV were like the Web, then there would be a banner ad on the top of the screen during the whole show with the program confined to a frame below it, but the program would not otherwise be interrupted.

Prices are coming down all the time. Recently, some cable companies have started to offer TiVo and Replay on a rental basis (much like you rent a cable box).

The technology is slowly but surely becoming affordable, and will soon be in every household.

Eventually, the same thing will happen to the oil industry.

In twenty/thirty years time we'll look back, smile and wonder what all the fuss was all about.

Rob.
I won't use words again. They don't say what I said. They don't mean what I meant.

• The recording medium is random access. You can record and play at the same time. On the ReplayTV, you can skip ahead 30 seconds almost instantly.
• The capacity is much larger than a video tape. This allows the box to record all of the shows that you might be interested in.
• The combination of the software and the program guide allows you to do things like record all episodes of Star Trek, or any movies that feature Natalie Portman.

I think that network television will remain a 4:3 picture and the networks will use the remaining space to run target banner advertising during the show.

How about animated images in the corner where the network logo now sits? It could even be possible to change them for the sponsors on syndicated shows. Just a thought.

No one has mentioned the best part of the article, this sidebar
mmm.. exploding tvs... gooood...

For instance, you do a search on TiVo for shows about "Computer Programming" and you get a listing of everyone who has shows that fit that description currently on their hard drives. Then you either stream it, or copy it in-bulk to your box. After watching it, you decide that it was so good that you want your friend to see it...so you email the link over to their TiVo box...etc..etc..

This would undoubtly cause some real weirdness in the TV industry because distribution would then be *totally* outside their control. How do you advertise when you don't control the distribution? (Besides product placement). This is essentially the same problem that the RIAA has with Napster.

TiVo changed the way I handle TV, but its relatively steep price prevents it from becoming as common as napster...

"Relatively steep price?" The one I snagged last weekend (a Philips HDR112) was $300, but a $100 rebate knocks that down to $200. That's about what you'd pay for a decent HiFi VHS VCR (decent == reputable brands such as JVC, Sharp, Sony, Panasonic, etc., not el-cheapo brands such as Symphonic or Craig). The $10/month for service is about what you'd pay for dial-up Internet access (or you can fork over a $200 lump sum and be done with it).

It only took it a couple of days to figure out what type of stuff I watch. At first, it was a bit frustrating to not be able to put in "season passes" for two different programs that each have a showing on at the same time in some time slot you never knew even existed, but it's done a good job so far of catching stuff to watch all by itself. Sehr gut.

  _/_
 / v \
(IIGS( Scott Alfter (remove Voyager's hull # to send mail)
 \_^_/

If you could compress the standard 30-second adverts by a factor of 10, you get the three-second BlipVerts "invented" by George Stone, Rocky Morton, and Annabel Jnakel. Remember the original idea:  "BlipVerts happen so fast, they're over and embedded in viewers' minds before they have a chance to channel-switch."

The updated patent filing would read, "BlipVerts happen so fast, they're over and embedded in viewers' minds before they have a chance to fast-forward past them."

Couple that with the research that has been done on driver reaction-time and you can see that editing out commercials on-the-fly would be virtually impossible; indeed, you would need the electronic equivalent of an A/B Roll Editor to get rid of the pesky things. For those shows with a high beer-drinking quotient (like football games, guy), the BlipVerts could extend to six seconds because the alcohol-sotted viewer would need several seconds to find the button, let alone press it enough to make contact. So says the driver-reaction studies over the past 30 or so years.

The movie Max Headroom:  20 Minutes Into the Future (later released to video as Max Headroom, The Original Story) postulated a solution that assumed real-time viewing. Interesting that the same solution would apply to the easy time-shifting that the TiVo and ReplayTV enable.

(To show just how prescient the writers of the original script were, just how soon do you think it will happen that a television network executive will be able to propose this solution to a knotty scheduling war:  "We can go porno early.")

The TiVo unit makes recommendations and automatically records stuff based on your viewing preferences (it has little thumbs up/down buttons you can press for shows you like/dislike), so it could presumably be programmed do the same for music. And this could be made legal, too: It would be pretty easy to make dedicated hardware like a TiVo unit track what somebody actually listens to and then implement some kind of pricing scheme against it.

So what I am suggesting as a sort of TiVo 2.0 Home Media Server is this: an Ethernet connection (since cable/DSL would be vastly better than a modem connection), MP3 rip/playback support, software that would automatically download/record your favorite musical selections, and an agreement with record labels that would let me do this with their blessing. Of course the thing could have a slick, WinAmp-like UI that could run on my TV.

Technically this seems entirely feasible to me. And personally I'd be happy to support a legal MP3-swapping scheme where artists were compensated for their efforts. Of course you can imagine all kinds of bells and whistles that could get added, too (on-screen ordering of physical CDs, concert tix, etc.).

When I say "he" i of course refer to his company but still that says a lot about how tight the networks' grips are on our tv

i thought the BBC was a rip off! This is like telling you that you cant fast forward on your VCR! hmm...

anyway there is an article in Wired this month about it if you want more info.

here is a link to the online article:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archi ve/8.03/bskyb.html

As I read the article I saw all the same arguments that people make about banner ads: No one reads them, 99% of them are ignored, if people block them then advertising will work its way into content in a subtle but insidious way, etc. Banner-blocking proponents like to argue that internet advertising is not like TV advertising. Well, it sounds like TV advertising is going to evolve to be exactly like banner ads.

The article crowed about how TiVO could precisely target people based on their likes, lifestyles, and medical conditions. Sending a Preparation H commercial to someone who has hemorrhoids sounds like an incredible invasion of privacy, much more than anything that any banner network is contemplating. Why is there no reaction to this?.

It says that the price that people will pay to watch TV in the future will be that they have to give up information about themselves to the networks who will sell this to advertisers.M

This is far worse than what ad networks are doing -- ad networks are using aggregated information to send users advertising that they may be interested in. And people are so freaked out by this that they are writing banner-blocking software, calling for legislation, etc.

If anyone should be complaining about these TV devices, it should be the privacy advocates. Are you guys out there? Where's the outrage?

Ralph

It seems likely that most of the major networks might find this an ideal way to maintain their income: rather than broadcasting to everyone, they would sell their broadcasting to the major TV-Recording companies (TiVo, Replay). If a network's show becomes incredibly popular for some reason, the network could increase the amount they charge for TiVo or Replay to have a 'subscription' to that network.

One impact of this is that a high enough 'subscription' fee might require TiVo/Replay to raise their customers' rates, possibly resulting at some point in something akin to a pay-per-view model for the consumer; if you watch the popular (and thus more expensive shows) you have to pay more. It wouldn't be a prohibitive increase, but enough that it would give networks incentive to make better quality shows.

Obviously this sort of dramatic change in revenue sources would require a large majority of the TV-watching public to own such black boxes, as 'closed' networks (the ones who 'sell' their broadcasting to TiVo/Replay) would lose nearly all advertising revenues from their former unlimited broadcast. However, it seems a distinct possibility for the future.

Just my $.02.

-Angron

To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. -- Thomas Edison

You will notice he mentioned UK law. The lawsuit you mentioned was in the US, and as such pretty much irrelevant to UK law.

You mean like how the non-US WIPO steals domain names from people in many nations all around the world?

You mean like how France says Yahoo (A US company) is breaking the law cuz French surfers can see their Nazi parephenellia for sale on Yahoo's auction site?

You mean like how the US wants to ban internet casinos (based on island nations where its legal)?

You mena like how Washington wants to ban college sports betting? (Gambling is an issue for each state to decide for itself if it wants to legalize it and to what extent.)

You mean like how Nintendo wanted to block video game rentals in the US because it is illegal in Japan?

Need I go on? The law means shit nowadays except when its to reduce your (the peon citizen's) rights.

So let's see. "Do a crime and you will be punished." Makes sense.

The obvious corollary, though, is: "Once already punished, you may as well do the crime."

So since I am assessed a fine for piracy on blank tape sales, why shouldn't I pirate? I've already been tried, convicted, and sentenced. A piracy tax makes piracy legal since I've already paid for that pirate copy by way of the tax. Same for DAT tape. And "audio grade" CDRs.

In the UK we have a thing called the BBC and this may come as a shock but it is NON COMMERCIAL as in NO adverts and we have to pay a licence to have tv's here (£100 per annum) Yeah cassets are bad analogy things but are the RIAA going to ban the manufature of cdrw drives as well? Or how about hardrives? I could give mates 20 gig drives full of mp3s/divx...

1. Most taping only deals with one to one copies. You borrow a CD, tape it. One copy, significant signal loss with the copy at that point, and each copy afterward suffers more signal degradation

2. Napster involved thousands of potential downloads at a time, of digital copies. No, MP3 isn't perfect CD quality, but there is no signal loss involved when transferring.

--
C'mon..... Score: -5, Troll!!!!