TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Is 'Transitional Fair Use' The Wave Of The Future?

Re: Is 'Transitional Fair Use' The Wave Of The Future?

hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
16 Dec 2004 10:10:14 -0800

As others mentioned, it will get to the point that no one will watch
their stuff because the imposed restrictions are too onerous.

There's a lot of stuff on now I will only watch as a VCR tape because
it is just too loaded with commercials and irritating ones at that.
It used to be about 45 minutes of content vs. 15 minutes of
commercials.

In an hour show; my guess now they added another 5 minutes so it's 40
show 20 commercials. Some late night or cable fare is 30/30 -- you get
five minutes of content then five minutes of commercials -- utterly
unbearable to watch live. (And very annoying if on cable which
you're paying separately for anyway).

I don't watch much of network news anymore because they made that 18
minutes instead of 22.5 and the commercials are all disturbing health
care products.

Yes, the VCR does allow me to skip commercials but on the other hand I
can watch simultaneous shows now (watch one live, tape the other),
which means I see more TV, benefiting them. Time shifting of course
allows me to see stuff I'd never see, again, a benefit for them.

I'd hate to see increased govt regulation of Hollywood and
the TV networks, but these people have become incredibly greedy
and need to be reined in. Of course, we must remember that some
controls may be _worse_ than what we have now*. But I would:

1) Separate ownership of the cable TV industry from the production
industry. In other words, Time Warner would be allowed to make
movies/TV, but not own cable delivery systems.

2) Separate network owners. I don't mind cable networks from having
multiple similar channels (ie NICK and TVLAND or A&E and HIST), but I
don't like ABC owning Disney and the Family Channel, and I understand
CBS/Viacom own a lot as well.

*In some cases, it might be better if networks owned more of their
affiliates. During some controversial broadcasts the affiliates
refused to show them while the network did (ie Murrow vs. McCarthy,
southern civil rights issues). That's a tricky double-edged sword.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do you remember *many, many* years ago
when cable television was first getting underway how 'they' said cable
would be a better deal 'since there would not be any commercials; it
is all paid for by your cable fees'. What a joke that was. Of course
that was long before they started showing commercials in the movie
theatres (where you had bought a five or six dollar ticket to watch
a movie also.) PAT]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com: "Re: Software Should Not Be Copyrighted -- Lawsuit"
Go to Previous message: jrefactors@hotmail.com: "Re: Cingular Migration"
May be in reply to: Monty Solomon: "Is 'Transitional Fair Use' The Wave Of The Future?"
Next in thread: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com: "Re: Is 'Transitional Fair Use' The Wave Of The Future?"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page