<nettime> fst frwrd dgst [geer, spornitz, mcelroy]

["nettime's_remote_control" <nettime@bbs.thing.net>]

Re: <nettime> Fast forward as theft
     Benjamin Geer <ben@beroul.uklinux.net>
     Bill Spornitz <spornitz@mts.net>
     "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" <...>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


From: Benjamin Geer <ben@beroul.uklinux.net>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Fast forward as theft
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 09:15:53 +0100

On Tuesday 14 May 2002 7:31 pm, Felix Stalder wrote:
> *	First, in an interview with Cableworld magazine, Jamie Kellner, the
> head of ad-supported television for Turner Broadcasting (the folks that
> bring you CNN), said that skipping ads on a recorded TV show was theft.

Easy solution: throw away your TV.

Ben


________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 09:03:08 -0500
From: Bill Spornitz <spornitz@mts.net>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Fast forward as theft

Fellow monkeys;

I'm not exactly sure, but I think the word hegemony applies in this 
*gotta watch the commercials or else* debate... as I remember, that 
refers to the powerful controlling others less powerful. We see it in 
this case where, despite the fact that this *law-making* is of a 
distinctly US flavour, it has repercussions with international 
companies who manufacture these devices for sale to the *global 
market* (read US market). When pork-fed US lawmakers make 
simple-minded and unfair laws simply because of their poor education, 
we all suffer.

As far as the argument that a  *contract* exists between a 
television viewer and a network to watch the ads - this sounds like 
more of that New Communism rampant in America - *we're all in this 
together, my country right or wrong, love it or leave it, these laws 
are good for all of us, MSFT will take care of you* -

This is the way it really is (in North America):

1 I buy a television (Japanese, please - reasonable price, flawless for years)
2 I turn it on.
3 I see fuzzy pictures ( the miracle of tv! Entertainment through the 
airwaves!)
3b The kids complain about the fuzz. I pay for a hardwired connection 
to the *cable network*
4 As a family, we change channels constantly looking for 
satisfaction, passing the remote around the circle like a 21st 
century doobie
5 This pastiche of signals and noise (and wrestling for the remote) 
constitutes the entertainment experience
6 If I really have nothing else to do, I actually plan to watch an 
actual program
7 The ads don't seem to apply to me (I'm healthy and don't need 
brand-name pharmaceuticals; I drive an '81 Econoline (with fuzzy 
purple interior) with the express purpose of burning all the gasoline 
as quickly as I can in order to force the development of better 
technology - I don't need a car with an inspiring name.)
8 I turn it off and work in the garden

At no point is a contract presented to me; there are no 
*agree/disagree* buttons to push, there's no shrink wrap to deflower. 
If a social contract exists, it's too ephemeral for me to discern. 
Sounds like the proverbial *bill of goods* to me.

In a way, the rise of TV advertising was one of the first indications 
that human systems have developed to a point where traditional models 
of trade do not work any more. The simple minded argument that

>"Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to
>watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported
basis.

   expresses this frustration; we need tv shows bigtime, that is 
clear. They must be extremely expensive to produce, otherwise they 
could not be as valuable (ford knows that the messages that they 
perpetrate are not their value) but we have to give it away for free 
(except the cable) or else nobody would watch it. Let's get business 
to pay a lot of money to make cloying white trash scenarios to suck 
us in. It's a construct, it's not a contract. Besides that, if we 
weren't so lazy, we would have never invented the remote control and 
simple inertia would remain the advertisers one true friend.

But the Market will solve this problem too! Clever Market! Clearly, a 
brave new manufacturer will step up that offers a product that 
satisfies the more reasonable laws of it's home country and, using 
eBusiness savvy (clever business-people! XML Forever!) markets their 
superior product to hapless Americans directly. Maybe it will be open 
source, to boot!

I saw a word in a recent nettime post that I think I like; the word 
was *gormless*. As the American lawmakers/lawbreakers continue to 
distract us with their lunatic caterwauling - from the environment to 
the marketplace to the battlefield to the sponsor's vital message - I 
think we need a new word that means gormless-en-masse. Suggestions?

atb
b

>Fast forward as theft
>
>By Scott Bradner
>Network World, 05/13/02
>http://www.nwfusion.com/columnists/2002/0513bradner.html
 <...>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 10:40:31 -0400
From: "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" <joseph@electrichands.com>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Fast forward as theft

> The VCR was the gun that won the first battle. Do not expect that something
> like that will happen again. You will need to know how to tap into
> integrated
> A/D converters, how to extract keys and decrypt digital streams in order to
> make copies and view only what you want to view, when you want to view it.
> This
> is impossible for most, but as the old saying goes ... tough shit.

I suppose if the laws of right-of-way were done a way with, making it 
impossible for you to get to your little shack in the mountains because you 
can't cross your neighbor's property, you'd be the first to get out the gun and 
shoot your way across.  Then sit fat-n-happy watching all the fools without 
guns sleeping in tents in the valley. 

Ye-haw

-- 
Joseph Franklyn McElroy 
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]™
Take the Survey everyone is talking about...
http://www.electrichands.com/genius2000
Electric Hands, Inc
www.electrichands.com
212-255-4527



Quoting Morlock Elloi <morlockelloi@yahoo.com>:

> > There are already DVDs sold where the DVD player doesn't let you skip the
> > 10-minute ad at the start of the movie. If Kellner had his way, you
> > wouldn't even be able to mute the sound on commercials you hate. I wonder
> > if he reads all the ads in the Sunday paper, just to be consistent.
> > 
> > Separately, the implication of the judge's order in the SonicBlue case is
> > that the Kellners of the world might be able to check to see that you are
> > following their rules. Because there is no technical reason for a device
> 
> There is a gross misconception here that problem is somehow in the law. The
> law generally depicts the enforceable reality and, now and then, ventures 
> into unenforcable in order to fulfill the ultimate goal of any legal system 
> - make everyone an criminal.
 <...>


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net