[KLUG Advocacy] Re: And the Spam Wars continue...

[advocacy@kalamazoolinux.org]

>>My whole point is:
>>o  I don't mind advertising from places that have value to me.  
>>o  I don't mind paying for a service that is of value to me.
>>o  I do NOT want BOTH!
>OK, that's pretty clear.
>>That's usually the way it works, contract or not.
>When you rent a DVD, there's a contract.

When you buy DVD, CD, Software you are making a bit of a different kind of
purchase then when you buy a screwdriver.  Your buying a bit of physical stuff
AND into a contract - called the End User License Agreement.  One doesn't own a
copy of M$-Office in the same sense one owns a screwdriver.

>>>>When I watch HBO/Showtime/MAX/Stars/... premium channels, that I PAY
>>>>for, I expect to watch commercial free, and it happens all the time!
>>>>I'm currently watching the movie "Ali" on Max, and I haven't seen a
>>>>commercial since it started two hours ago.
>>>That's right, but trivial... it's part of the contract you're party to,
>>>and part of a contract HBO and Charter is party to.
>>Right, I'm paying for no advertising.
>Yeah, that's a feature you are willing to plunk down bux for, but you get
>rather more than that, mostly a selection of home entertainment you would
>not get otherwise. The content you get is not yet on "public" TV channels
>(with a few exceptions), or have otherwise restricted distribution. 

The no-commercials parts was an explicit line item in the
why-you-bought-the-product.  So you'd be right to be ticked about commercials
(and they'd be crazy to insert them).  Something like a DVD is entirely
diffrent.  You bought the right from AOL-Time-Warner to play thier movie in your
home any time you like as often as you like.  Nothing explicitly stated no
commericals.  

BTW, I thought the initial segment of the DVD that isn't skipable was for the
FBI warning and copyright notice.  Some companies have just slipped in a little
extra content.
 
>>I don't mind advertising, forced or not, if I'm receiving value and 
>>I'm not paying any money for the service.
>>I have to PAY MONEY to buy/rent a DVD.  I don't want advertising there!
>But that's the point, you're seeing it now, and you're force-fed the stuff,
>now.

But do you now want advertising there bad enough to not buy the rest of the
content on the DVD?  The media companie is making a pretty succesful wager that
the answer is no.

>>I don't want to pay for a service AND be forced to see ads too.
>The world is changing. Folks are always looking for new media to sell stuff.
>>That's all I'm saying.  There is no contract or legal obligation to make
>>it that way.  That's the way it's usually worked, until now.
>That's right.

Yep.

>>>>>The Britsh do this, and have since the 1920's. They collect a license fee
>>>>>for operating a RECEIVER...
>>>>That's nice, but it's different here, and we are here.
>>>...Do you beleive this is a better model, or not as good? Why?
>>I don't have enough facts to form an opinion.
>OK, that's fine.

That would NEVER be feasuble in the US anyway.  Better or not.

>>>>>Um, this thread, or my postings have been doing that, sans any need for 
>>>>>cheerleading or gainsaying.
> >>>I'm sure all the network / media executives on this list will get right
>>>>at it.   :-)
>>>Your tone suggests that it is futile to discuss these things.
>>I believe it's futile to discuss them _here_ anyway.
>>It may be fun (or annoying) but we're not going to change anything here.
>That's true, we're not going to change anything if it all stops here. We 
>may get a few people thinking, and that is a precursor to them actually 
>TRYING TO DO something, although just that may be is hard to predict. I'd
>like to see what others are considering as these messages are read and 
>processed.

I write letters.  Beyond that there isn't much that can be done.  Flat out - no
one cares about the pervasiveness of commercial material in American
society/culture.  No republican is going to do ANYTHING about this.   And the
democrats can't get their head out of their ass to even run a decent campaign
for anyone.  I'm just waithing till it gets really bad, then maybe someone might
care, or else I can just immigrate to somewhere less insane and garish.

>>>>>>But what happens when the next release of Mozilla/Netscape/IE/Opera/...
>>>>>We have two conflicting commercial interests here; perhaps they need to 
>>>>>get together and discuss things....
>>I doubt the commercial browsers will.  They'll accept payoffs instead.
>>Payoffs? In what form? By who? To serve what ends?
>Are you suggesting that Proctor and Gamble (for example) would compensate
>Microsoft (for example) to NOT block their ads, while everything else (save
>other takers) is blocked?

>When (not if) this becomes public, you're going to see a firestorm.

Maybe, I really doubt it.  Page 15 of the press, maybe.  Enron balked how many
people out of their pensions/retirements?  No one cares, nothing substantial
will happen, they won't see any of their money ever again.

>>I wouldn't put it past Mozilla ...
>The point is that I wouldn't put it past any of them, since the end users
>have generally expressed opposition to some of the methods used to promote
>products on the net. Any player who does this best and first may gain share 
>among end users, which is thought of as a universal goal.

Except it won't support DRM....

>>>>As long as we keep the monopolies from taking control, the users should
>>>>end up deciding in the end by their actions.
>>>Can we apply this generally true statement to this situation? Let's see 
>>>this....
>>See what?
>See it applied, perhaps with other ideas, to the situations we've touched on
>in this thread.

Can "keep" monoplies from taking control?  Maybe if we "could have kept".

>If the payoff scheme you're suggesting isn't ample evidence of monopoly
>control, I don't know what is, especially if it involves pervasive software.

I believe, because it involves pervasive software is the exact reason why
nothing would be done about it.

>I think we've drifted some from the topic, but into some interesting 
>background (in this case). The really pragmatic point here is that
>advertising forced on people (on the net, or on DVDs) is very much
>less than another potential sale because it violates our expectations
>and engenders resistance, to both the medium and the message.

It engenders resistance in some tiny percentage of the population, I think most
don't even notice.  NASA is far more concerned about people who think the Moon
landing was fake, than any currently elected representive is about what a
handful of annoying and argumentative geeks thing.