Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Patent Monetizes Your TV Remote

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the you-will-pay-in-all-the-ways-you-are-able dept.

Microsoft 234

theodp writes "Microsoft, reports GeekWire, is seeking a patent on monetizing the buttons of your TV remote. In its application for a patent on 'Control-based Content Pricing,' Microsoft explains how one can jack up the cable bill of those who dare fast-forward past a diaper commercial or replay a sports highlight. From the patent application: 'If a user initiates a navigation control input to advance past (e.g., skip over) an advertisement, the cost of a requested on-demand movie may be increased. Similarly, if a user initiates a replay of a sporting event, the user may be charged for the replay control input and for each subsequent view control input.'"

cancel ×

234 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

too late (5, Funny)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388551)

I skipped this article.

Re:too late (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388633)

Same here, what I'd like to know is if they will use their other patented / patent application stuff to really ream it down your throat.

Eye tracking with a camera, monitor your "blood pressure, heart rate, etc." Maybe use it to show commercials for statins. I don't know.

I did my part to help Microsoft go under. I've boycotted their products since 2005, and haven't bought a single thing from them. I keep a copy of XP SP2 in a vm just in case, but it never gets used, and will be obsolete soon anyway...

Fortunately, I don't have a TV at the moment, and no remote, I wonder what this tech will do to the battery life. More waste surely.

Re:too late (1)

click2005 (921437) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388693)

I guess the Kinnect could be used to see if you are watching the advert.

Re:too late (2)

SexyHamster (174881) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388719)

At the end of a commercial break there will be a series of questions to see if you were paying attention.

Re:too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389099)

You should patent that! (And, preferably, lock it away so they wouldn't be able to implement it)

Re:too late (4, Interesting)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389137)

At the end of a commercial break there will be a series of questions to see if you were paying attention.

I can think of *so* many ways to leverage this kind of thinking:

i) shoes that detect when they're being put on, automatically debiting your chequing acct. for each use, and for each step taken in them.

ii) Shirts that detect when they're being buttoned up. Ditto for zippers. Add modifiers for when used long sleeved, or rolled up.

iii) sunglasses that charge per solar day.

iv) clothing that detects seasons and charges by the year.

v) & etc.

I'm glad I'm not going to live long enough to see that world. The rest of you are welcome to it.

Re:too late (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389357)

Will we get a price break for this? From the example of cable tv I'd say no.

Re:too late (2)

Gozzin (2125020) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388977)

No tv here either..We just have a couple to watch DVD's and streaming video. This does not surprise me..They want to nickel and dime us to death..A company can have billions of dollars,but it is never enough..They are never satisfied. I stopped using Microsoft's OS years ago when I discovered Linux...Never looked back.. This reminds me so much of the Beatle's song Tax man.

Re:too late (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389027)

If you use any modern OS, you're making use of a ton of research that MS does. MS's research is larger than IBM+Intel combined. They work with A LOT of universities.

Re:too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389207)

What a load of slimy bullshit. Most MS "research" is plagiarised from rel universities anyway.

Re:too late (2)

Maow (620678) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388803)

I skipped this article.

And now you owe Slashdot double your subscription rate, filthy pirate.

On a more serious note, if someone is already paying for TV, who the fuck thinks they should pay again?

Oh, right, content providers. And, of course, Microsoft (can I say Micro$oft this time, seems appropriate).

I guess I can't complain, being a Linux user with no cable TV (nor any torrents, Hulu, Netflix, etc.) In fact, I can almost chuckle at it and hope it drives more customers away. One can hope...

Re:too late (3, Interesting)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389021)

Well, it will drive more to piracy. And they will think it is just cost...

Re:too late (2)

iplayfast (166447) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389101)

I agree, pay for cable, watch commercials, we are double paying for everything, and all for re-runs and rehashes of old shows. I think it's time to quit TV and go totally internet.

Re:too late (1)

techishly (1792140) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388817)

You owe Microsoft a nickel now.

Re:too late (3, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389185)

Meh the future is gonna be embedded ads that you simply can't escape. You'll see the characters drinking Coke while using their iPhone and driving their Ford Explorer to the Taco Bell. As for cable doing this if the other cablecos are like mine they pretty much have you over a barrel anyway so its not like there is anything you can do about it. Between the major networks having their shows in Windows 7 Media Center (which I'm sure MSFT paid a pretty penny for) and Hulu I haven't even bothered to hook my basic cable up to my PC yet i'm still paying for the damned thing because they have it priced in their contracts so you get screwed if you don't take the crap.

So in the end it doesn't matter if they stick in more commercials (remember when the whole selling point of cable was commercial free TV?) or jack the price or whatever, because you'll take it simply because you got no choice. in my area its 12Mbps cable with bundling bullshit or 2Mbps DSL run by the evil empire known as AT&T, aka "STFU about the lousy quality bitch or we'll leave you on hold for another 4 hours" so it isn't like there is a damned thing I can do about any wallet raping anyway. man what I wouldn't give for real competition and just a big fat dumb pipe. While EU and Asia are getting these sweet huge pipes we are getting the short bus to the information superhighway. Pretty much MSFT has nailed what is the only "innovation" we have here in the USA anymore, all the new and exciting ways the megacorps can steal your wallets.

Re:too late (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389429)

Meh the future is gonna be embedded ads that you simply can't escape. You'll see the characters drinking Coke while using their iPhone and driving their Ford Explorer to the Taco Bell.

I have no real problem with that. I'd rather watch a show where everyone's using the products of a particular brand, and not be interrupted for an ad, than watch a show which is constantly being interrupted for ads but has only generic products used. Unfortunately, the most likely outcome (and the status quo) is we get both.

As for this patent... it really shouldn't be patentable. But in this case I don't mind, because anything that makes it harder for those other than the patentholder to be assholes is OK by me.

well fuck you! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388577)

and you realy expect people dont find ways to steal media content from the web?

Re:well fuck you! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388643)

Lucky for me, my DVR controls are linked to MythTV

Re:well fuck you! (0)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388933)

Oh look, someone using this as more justification for their sense of entitlement...

Re:well fuck you! (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389031)

Yep. Content producers. I mean if you bought the DVD, why are they entitled to make you watch the adds EVERY TIME? And so on... If there was a way to legally buy the pirate rip MKVs I would actually pay more for them. They are just better product.

Re:well fuck you! (3, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389145)

Well, they're certainly not doing anything to discourage it when they roll out stupid bullshit like this...

You know an industry is fucked up to the core when customers are treated like adversaries right off the bat. I won't shop in a store where I'm made to feel like a thief the moment I walk in the door, and that's precisely what all this crap does. As a corollary to that, I'm extremely short on sympathy for those that do treat their customers that way and end up with large portions of the population comfortable with ripping them off.

A survey [slashdot.org] a few months ago found that 70% of people in the U.S. think it's reasonable to share music with family and friends. Now, the RIAA will stamp their feet and gnash their teeth at that, but the fact of the matter is, the majority of the people of this country do not see a problem with it. They can choose to ignore this and throw billions of dollars at court costs and all the other bullshit related to music piracy, or they can start more closely examining why it is that so many people out there don't have any moral compunction trading music back and forth in the first place. I suppose one could say "Well, that just proves that most people are thieves...." but still, when that many people openly do something that is technically illegal, maybe it's time to start examining those laws. If laws are passed that make the vast majority of the population "criminals", then there's obviously something wrong with the laws.

Re:well fuck you! (1)

runeghost (2509522) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389351)

As a group, the public does not and will not make fine distinctions about copyright. To the 'man on the street' either copyright is a good thing or it's a bad thing. I think the main effect MAFIAA's war against piracy is to convince an ever larger segment of the public that copyright is a tool used by greedy corporations, and thus bad. The net result of stuff like 'control-based content pricing' is going to be that the idea of Intellectual Property is going to be reduced to a joke for generations. YMMV on whether that's a good thing or not, but that is where America is headed.

let's be consistent (5, Funny)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388579)

Does the patent cover giving the customer a refund if she pushes the "off" button?

Re:let's be consistent (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388709)

No, no, no, the service is to supply you with the opportunity to watch these shows as streamed. Fast forwarding... woah. That is skipping ahead, dear boy/girl/thing. That is using excess media enjoyment entertainment. Why, user, you are stealing when you fast forward. You should be glad we aren't suing you for theft instead of offering you an instant settlement.

In fact, by turning off your television you are wasting entertainment that could have gone elsewhere. Refund, dear boy/girl/thing? You should be glad we aren't charging you for not constantly leaving your television on so you can hear commercials in the background.

Re:let's be consistent (1)

Gozzin (2125020) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389015)

You should be glad we aren't charging you for not constantly leaving your television on so you can hear commercials in the background.

Shhh..Don't give um any ideas!!!!!

Re:let's be consistent (4, Insightful)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388887)

You don't get it. Pushing the off button is equivalent to skipping all of the advertising, so you will have to pay even more.

Re:let's be consistent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389039)

What if I break it? Do I still pay? What if I give the TV to someone? Do I still pay? Do they? Do they have to know they have it to get charged?

Re:let's be consistent (1)

penix1 (722987) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389199)

What if I break it? Do I still pay?

Yes...

What if I give the TV to someone? Do I still pay? Do they?

Both of you pay....

Do they have to know they have it to get charged?

Nope...

It's the American way after all.

Mod Parent Up (1)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389525)

+1 "Capitalism"

Re:let's be consistent (1)

Psicopatico (1005433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389151)

I was going to grab the remote to raise the volume a bit to better enjoy the experience of those marvelous advertisings, but I stumbled on the power cord and ripped it off the wall socket, damn it...

Re:let's be consistent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389245)

Oh but please! Pressing the "off" button would be indicative of disobedience. Repent!
Next time a sporting event comes up, you will replay that ad, three times, or else there will be voiceover in mandarin.

Fortunately I don't habe a TV remote (3, Interesting)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388587)

In fact, I do not have a TV and dropped that waste of time about 8 years ago. Never missed it since then.

With the amount of stupidity that idiot box pours out these days, that sheer amorality of this patent does not surprise me. The source does not either.

Re:Fortunately I don't habe a TV remote (1)

equex (747231) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388615)

I have a TV remote stashed somewhere. Forgot to throw it out with the TV. Cheers!

Re:Fortunately I don't habe a TV remote (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388757)

I wonder whether the patent applies to _that_ situation? Probably does with the over-broad patents granted today.

Re:Fortunately I don't habe a TV remote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388627)

Is that you Jonathan, CHAPEL HILL has so much to offer.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-tel,429/

Re:Fortunately I don't habe a TV remote (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388637)

Obligatory Onion
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-tel,429/

Re:Fortunately I don't habe a TV remote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388949)

My wife and I did the same about 7 months ago. In Canada they're charging over 60 dollars a month just for basic bullshit cable. We just use Netflix, which has kept us more than entertained, and is so cheap it feels like we're getting away with something.

See also (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388597)

Now where have I heard this idea before... Ah, right! [smbc-comics.com]
Though to be fair, the patent seems to have come first (Filing date: Mar 19, 2004, Issue date: Nov 22, 2011, WTF.) Great minds think alike?

I will always make sure... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388603)

...that my TV is receive-only. No pay-TV, no on-demand, just unencrypted broadcasts. If you can't deliver that, I will just stop watching. Your move.

Re:I will always make sure... (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388735)

dont worry, the CIA is working on a way to spy on you thought your TV

Re:I will always make sure... (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389165)

The amount of pushback on stuff like this has nothing whatsoever with tinfoil and everything with some businesses attempting to foist needless complexity upon the consumer with no benefit to the consumer whatsoever.

All in the name of monetization.

Gawd, the spellcheck did not flag that bit of stupid business jargon as a "not-word."

jeg opgiv

--
BMO - monetize the eschaton.

Re:I will always make sure... (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388763)

Some of us never bothered to get an ATSC tuner since the switch to digital TV in 2009.

What's the point?

--
BMO

Funny (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388611)

Dont they realize that some would choose to be without the tv all together rather than having to pay more and more for less.
Well maybe it's just me who have ditched the cable tv and just have an antenna. The shows I want to see aren't aired in my country anyway.
After a month or two it is really not hard to live without. I don't even miss it anymore just wonder why it was that I was willing to pay so much money for it.

TV Caused my Blindness (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388727)

I still can't get the last thing I saw on tv out of mind. It was such a blinding confusion of color and screeching sound that I'm now permanently blind from it. Can the Queen save God?

Although we still have a cable box, the only reason the TV is even used is for the local news so we'll be dropping that soon. Hell I don't watch it and haven't really missed it in the last 10 years because there's nothing intligent on and I'd rather read a good book.

Maybe MS will help us out here (3, Insightful)

DynamoJoe (879038) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388613)

If they get the patent they can charge so much for the license that none of the media companies will buy it.

Re:Maybe MS will help us out here (3, Insightful)

Maow (620678) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388845)

If they get the patent they can charge so much for the license that none of the media companies will buy it.

I think the favour they're doing us is thus: making it so onerous to watch TV that people simply turn it off, cancel their cable, and suddenly realize that they don't even miss it.

Mediaroom (3, Interesting)

rogueippacket (1977626) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388645)

Considering a number of large television providers use Microsoft Mediaroom (which requires Microsoft certified set-top boxes, most of which are PVR capable) today, there is already a large platform this patent could be deployed to. But I guess it's a sign of the times - upfront subscriptions are slowly disappearing, with pay-per-use content (such as Video on Demand) and Micro-transactions taking over. Who knows, maybe we will see an overall reduction in subscription costs with patents like this, but probably not any time soon. I don't know if the average broadcast television subscriber is ready to be nickel-and-dimed for skipping a commercial yet.

Re:Mediaroom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388877)

Who knows, maybe we will see an overall reduction in subscription costs with patents like this

Ha ha, yeah, because these companies want to spend a lot of money doing R&D and deployment on a system like this so that they can charge you less.

Re:Mediaroom (1)

cowboy76Spain (815442) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389219)

Not that easy.

I guess that what they really want is to make you pay according to the usefulness to you.

Theoretically, you will pay for a good as long as its price gives you more usefulness than the same money spent in any other good (say books / internet / going out). Of course, the tricky point is determining that point.

Right now, consumers who only have a small interest in TV just don't get suscribed. In the other hand, users which could not live without their favorite series pay the same that people who are just barely interested.

With a pure no suscription/pay per use model, everybody would be "suscribed" and they would get the cents from the people who watch little TV and the big bucks of people who is constantly watching it.

And yes, all of this is for increasing revenues / profit. After all, it is what is expected from everybody who works for/manages a bussiness in a capitalist economy.

Re:Mediaroom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389157)

Yea, you just made my day! I look forward to paying less as a result of this development.

Pointless, will not work without a monopoly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388669)

I find it amusing that people would wast money making applications that have never really been thought about.

We are constantly moving toward more competitive media platforms, why would anyone use a service that forced them to pay to skip ads, and then why would any company want to advertise to a (hence) low consumer base. I even think there would be considerable (more than normal) anger at any advert that you knew you could not skip. People DO NOT like taking a step backwards. If you hadn't noticed, its goes against our very nature.

Re:Pointless, will not work without a monopoly (4, Funny)

fish waffle (179067) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388773)

why would anyone use a service that forced them to pay to skip ads

You mean like slashdot subscriptions?

Re:Pointless, will not work without a monopoly (1)

shess (31691) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389081)

why would anyone use a service that forced them to pay to skip ads

You mean like slashdot subscriptions?

Wait, slashdot has ads?

Re:Pointless, will not work without a monopoly (4, Informative)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389319)

Actually, if you participate regularly, SlashDot gives you the option to skip ads even without being a paying subscriber. Because of that, I don't block their ads.

PR Department? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388677)

I know I wouldn't want the name of my company on a remote that consumers will hate more and more every time they touch it.

But hey its only fair I guess that the general public get to grow to hate M$ as much as us computer geeks. But maybe I'm wrong, I never thought anybody would be willing to pay for Xbox live for something the competitors give away free.

Confusing article (1)

skyraker (1977528) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388685)

I think what we need to get out of this is that this is for a patent application. 1) It needs to be approved (though it probably will). 2) This does not mean they can make every remote already out there do this. What its probably intended to accomplish is give Microsoft a way to profit if TV/movie producers decide that they want to cause these charges to occur. Then Microsoft can say 'hey, we already thought of that, pay us money'.

Re:Confusing article (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389433)

Patent applications should require you to submit a working prototype. Good luck with the business method patents.

Pathetic... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388687)

This is so pathetic... Both the idea and the patent system itself.

Re:Pathetic... (1)

flytripper (2540266) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388737)

Aye. Patents are a joke. Never been a fan of Microsoft. Even less so with the introduction of paper COA's that rub off easily.

Re:Pathetic... (1)

MitchDev (2526834) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388895)

Patents are on the road to being just as respected as childporn and copyrights....

Re:Pathetic... (1)

LVSlushdat (854194) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388979)

This is so pathetic... Both the idea and the patent system itself.

This is so pathetic... Both the idea and the patent system itself AND Microsoft...

FTFY

Yet more reasons to drive people to.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388705)

..download content without the copyright owner's permission (so-called "piracy").

fsck you microsoft! (2)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388707)

stay out of my TV and Remote!!!

So if I burp in a restaurant (1)

Ice Station Zebra (18124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388745)

are they going to charge me twice and if they do, is Microsoft going to sue them for patient infringement?

Re:So if I burp in a restaurant (1)

Gozzin (2125020) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389047)

are they going to charge me twice and if they do, is Microsoft going to sue them for patient infringement?

yep...

Charlie Brookers Black Mirror (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388769)

They've stolen this idea from episode two of Black Mirror. Trust Microsoft to take a scary dystopian idea and try to make it come true.

Re:Charlie Brookers Black Mirror (1)

Phics (934282) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388985)

They've stolen this idea from episode two of Black Mirror.

From the patent [google.com] - Filing date: Mar 19, 2004. Black Mirror [wikipedia.org] originally aired in December 2011. Clearly Microsoft didn't steal this idea from Black Mirror, however, that makes it all the more chilling, does it not?

Black Mirror (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388793)

Anyone else thinking of the second episode of Black Mirror [wikipedia.org] ? Hey Microsoft, let me give you a hint: that story was intended as a joke or dystopia, not an ideal to strive for.

Re:Black Mirror (1)

hldn (1085833) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389113)

yep, this is the first thing i thought of.

RESUME VIEWING
RESUME VIEWING

Waiting for them to patent it on a computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388801)

Charging developers more if they use another DB product than MSSQL and so on ...

Soon subscription + pay per use DLC like video games?

Are they trying to kill TV or what?

Yet another reason to torrent TV shows (1, Offtopic)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388809)

I don't even own a TV any more -- my computer is my media center. I became addicted to PVR technology in the US when I had DirecTV with TiVO.

When I moved back to Canada, torrents took the place of the TiVO. I'd become addicted to the idea of watching shows when I want to, instead of on some arbitrary schedule. I expected I'd watch more TV seeing as I could watch it whenever I want, but instead what happened is I started watching less -- a lot less.

For some reason, once I broke the mentality of "slave to a schedule", I soon broke the "slave to a series" mentality as well. I still download all kinds of TV series and archive them, but to be honest, I doubt I watch 2 hours of what I download per week. The rest is just archived for that inevitable some-day retirement when I expect to have time to waste time on something as unimportant as series TV.

So pay extra for skipping ads? *LMAO*

Ah well, I guess it's like an atomic weapon. Just because it can be built doesn't mean it's legal to use or would be tolerated by the public.

A better way of advertising (4, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388917)

One thing advertisers don't seem to understand is that I actually like catching a new ad when I watch TV at a friend's place. Many of them are very artistic, cute, and funny.

But even a good joke told 5-6 times per day wears thin.

It's the broadcast time that is the majority of the expense for most advertisements, not the creation of the content. Stop torturing people with the same joke 50-60 times per week for a month at a time, and maybe they'll stop skipping over the ads. Show a new ad each day, or at least once a week.

But stop trying to hammer your "message" into us by repeating yourself ad-nauseum at full volume dozens of times per week. All you're doing is pissing off people and forcing them to use torrents and PVRs to escape your tripe.

Modern advertising is as annoying and effective as a two or three year old yelling "Mommie, mommie, mommie, can we..." over and over for three hours straight, trying to wear down their parents.

It's my money in the end. I'm not going to spend it on your products or give it to you just because you nag like a child. In fact, I'm likely to use your competitor's product because they're not insulting my intelligence and harassing me.

Re:A better way of advertising (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388947)

That goes for the companies that set up "newsletters" as well. I can't tell you how many "newsletters" I've subscribed to over the years to keep tabs on a companies products, only to be inundated by weekly "specials" trying to sell me their old stuff, which I've already bought if I wanted it. Needless to say, I've unsubscribed to every single one of those email lists within a month.

Give me information about new products in your newsletter, not a regurgitated nag to buy last year's model.

Re:A better way of advertising (1)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389065)

Well, we dropped our cable (again) about 6 months ago for several reasons.
The first reason was that there was quite literally nothing I wanted to watch on the channels available. The shows I *do* want to watch are not broadcast here
The second reason was that at ~$99/mo for basic cable, internet and home telephone through Shaw it was priced well beyond reasonable. When we signed up they gave us 6 months at almost half that price. When that expired we cancelled.
The third reason was that when you watch a TV show, 25% of what you are watching is fucking advertising. I hate advertising and for the most part if I am inundated with it, I make a mental note *not* to buy that product whatever it may be (obviously there are some exceptions but not many).
Trying to suck additional money out of my wallet via a scheme like this patent proposes just guarantees that I will never sign up again.
I really wish companies, government, etc would realize they have long since bypassed the point where they can get all my money. I am now in the position where I decide what thing I am used to I shall do without instead.
I no longer go to movies (can't stand the media companies and the horrendous pricing at the theatres).
I no longer listen to music - can't stand the media companies and I am exposed to music all the time in my environment. I do listen to radio. I rarely if ever buy DVDs/BluRay anymore because most movies are only worth watching once. Those I know I will rewatch a lot, I do pay for (LOTR for instance).

If the media companies out there don't smarten up, then they are going to fail without any doubt. They wonder why people download TV show? How about because that makes them available when *they* want to watch them, without advertisement (and without losing content to make room for advertisements), without outrageous cable fees etc.

A company like Netflix gets this. I subscribe to NF, and I like what they offer. If I need to watch something I can find it there mostly (If I can't well then perhaps its torrent time but I try to avoid that). Why? because NF is offering the content I want in a format I can access easily at any time, without advertisements and for a reasonable fee.

Its unfortunate that the only options for my internet connection rely on me choosing between Shaw or Telus, since the CRTC has been bending over to service the Canadian Media industry for decades. Since they collude to keep the prices high, it still costs about $60/mo just to get decent internet access.

Re:A better way of advertising (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389523)

Since they collude to keep the prices high, it still costs about $60/mo just to get decent internet access.

You can get a basic 1.5Mbit DSL or cable link from SaskTel or Access Cable here in Saskatchewan pretty much anywhere in the province for $25/month, roughly the same price as a land line. Sure I pay for a $60/month upgraded link, but that's because I need upload capacity for work, not because I needed faster downloads or couldn't stream video and audio just fine at 1.5Mbit.

Faster services are meant for multi-user households, effectively the same as if you had multiple phone lines for each connected device. Just because you can get the faster service doesn't mean you need it.

I know one fellow who pays for the 10Mbit top-tier download package, and gloats that he can pull down a movie torrent in 20 minutes. In the meantime, I can go to my sister's place and start a video stream instantly on her 1.5Mbit link. It pissed him off to no end when I pointed that out to him, and went off on a rant that sounded like Nigel's "but it goes to ELEVEN!" in Spinal Tap. :)

Oh, companies... (2)

Nugoo (1794744) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388811)

I wonder if, someday, I'll hear about a media or tech company doing something that doesn't make me even happier I'm a pirate.

Re:Oh, companies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389311)

You will. And on that day you will know you've arrived in Davy Jones' bit locker.

Time to dig out my VCR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388833)

I'd like to see them try to put DRM and content monetizing opportunities on to my VCR. Irritatingly there is a sucker born every minute and I can see idiots be totally fine with this scenario in the not too distant future.

I will not count myself among their number; I'd rather read a book and abandon TV altogether than pay twice to watch the same sports play or skip a tampon advert.

Might be a "Good Thing"... (4, Interesting)

X!0mbarg (470366) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388843)

Think about it this way: If anyone does try to implement this type of thing, they have to pay Micro$oft for the Patent.
Now, if they don't wish to put such a financial burden on a system such as this, (thus increasing its cost, and reducing its appeal to the end user), they'd opt to leave such a feature out.
Active DISCOURAGEMENT of a Bad Idea by Patenting it, so they can actually DENY it to folks, and the right to Sue if anyone actually Infringes!
Big Oil has been doing this for years, tho: Buying up high fuel efficiency ideas, patenting them, and Denying them to anyone, and suing them into the ground if they try to bypass their patent.

Not that I'm For such a "feature" on any system I'd subscribe to. This would be a decent way to head such a heinous money-grab off at the pass!

Maybe "Uncle Bills' Kids" aren't as bad as we all thought...

That, or I'm simply seeing a possibility that others are far more likely to Implement than avoid...

In THAT case, say Hello to rampant 'Product Placement' as revenue! After all, I don't see ANYONE wanting a system like this anywhere near their wallet!

advantage Microsoft... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388861)

...in the three-way who-can-be-most-evil tennis match between Apple, Microsoft, and Google.

Re:advantage Microsoft... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388953)

What has Google to do with this?
How is Google evil?
Apple, Microsoft - yes. But Google? Why?

New Privacy Policy? Look at Facebook, it's 100x worse and nobody says it's evil.

Or probably you mean Google is *potentially* evil, yes?
Then you are potentially a murderer, because you have two hands and can hold a knife...

Enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388875)

If this ever happens, I'm cancelling cable and throwing up an antenna or simply dropping TV all together.

Replay advertisement for free TV? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388885)

So if you replay the advertisement instead of skipping it, you should be charged less for the movie. Yay!

Wait... (1)

fullback (968784) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388893)

This isn't from The Onion!?!

Dogbert Static Network (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388927)

I'd pay for the DSN [dilbert.com] channel in addition to my regular ones, and switch to it during the commercials. And leave it to Dogbert to handle Microsoft or whoever the content provider of the advertized channel is.

One up on Apple (1)

gsgriffin (1195771) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388935)

As Apple is kicking themselves that they didn't think of this first. Soon to be announce an Apple TV patent that more intuitively charges you for thinking about skipping a commercial.

just get a dish and don't hook it to the phone lin (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388945)

just get a dish and don't hook it to the phone line.

Both dish and directv don't force you to hook there boxes to the internet or the phone line any more.

This is great! (2)

DRMShill (1157993) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388961)

So this means they're going to give me the option to pay a little extra and automatically skip commercials right? Right...?

Who needs cable ? (3, Insightful)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388963)

Even more abuse, and expense, from cable companies? Why do people put up with up?

You can watch practically anything on the internet. Not to mention services like netflix, hulu, or amazon, for about $8 a month. I have heard of people paying $190 a month for comcast.

Also, I think there are ways to get HDTV from broadcast signals.

mfod 0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388967)

real ProblemEs

Is there no limit... (1)

ChodaBoyUSA (2532764) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388973)

...to Microsoft's evil??? (Or Apple's, or Google's, etc.)

see this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39388983)

you should also see scimad.com [scimad.com]

Lame (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388989)

Maybe this will catch some flack, but what if they just tracked how many people fast forwarded through what content?. Then you can sell that data back to the content providers. That seems a little less punitive and depending on the spin you give it, almost a value to the consumer.

Alternate motive? (5, Funny)

kpainter (901021) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389097)

I wonder if they plan use this to charge people for skipping Windows 8?

Just no (2)

VargrX (104404) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389159)

No... I'm going to give you the same answer to this type of garbage that I alway's have:
READ your TOS - as far as I can tell, and that some laywer friends of mine can tell, and unless there is something specifically stating this in YOUR TOS, You are NOT liable for 'skipping advertising of any kind' when you sign your agreement with your local broadcasting company.

The advert's are nothing more than a nuisance to most people, and do absolutely nothing except provide for 'snack/bathroom break' time during the show. As far as 'advertisers/distributors /producers' aiming to make thier money back by violating your eyeballs, tough luck, they didn't pay directly for that privelege.

Re:Just no (3, Interesting)

StewBaby2005 (883886) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389613)

"and do absolutely nothing except provide for 'snack/bathroom break' time during the show" I wonder if Advertising is responsible for the rise in obesity in the US population then? Isn't it a bit like Pavlov/Behavioural ? Once you get up to fix a snack during a break, you ALWAYS get up to fix a snack during a break, except when you are going to the restroom to relieve yourself of the aforementioned snack?

YOU FAIL IT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389161)

The resources that benefits of being AAl major surveys To 7his. For *BSD but FreeBSD variations on the stand anymore, rapid,

Movie on demand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389201)

People actually pay for movies on demand WITH advertisement in them?

next thing you know... (4, Funny)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389343)

...we'll start getting "Drive by Rewinds"

A bunch of geeks high on red-bull and cheesy puffs in a 4x4 armed to the teeth with universal remote controls.
Driving the suburbs, Sega beats blaring from their iPhones, aiming their remo's at the houses pressing the rewind button.

Costing the poor householder $$$ in MS rewind fees...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>