quote:

Originally posted by e304233:
Digital On-Screen Grafitti

or

Digital On-Screen Garbage

Thanks but wouldn't that be DOSG OR DOG

quote:

Originally posted by bala:
sorry but What does DOGS stand for?

Digital Originated Graphics (DOGs)

quote:

Originally posted by e304233:
Not if one waits for the DVD rips, it doesn't. Otherwise, one just waits for an airing on a proper TV channel like C4 or FIVE.

But you originally said:

quote:

Originally posted by e304233:
It looks like BitTorrent will be the place to catch The Sopranos, ER, The West Wing, and what ever

Make your mind up: either downloading early from the States is the thing to do, or waiting months (or years) after broadcast for the DVDs is right. You're either breaking international copyright law, or you're having to wait and pay money.

Or you could just accept that in life we sometimes have to make sacrifices for free stuff. We get to see programming on More4 at no additional cost (Freesat viewers aside). Unfortunately you need to deal with a light graphic on screen. You also have to deal with adverts, trails and possibly cuts to content - cf the constant unnecessary cuts to Friends et al on C4/E4. But you're also not directly paying for it!

If you don't like what you see, fair enough, but why try and spoil the enjoyment for those who do like it?

Don't try to moralise or preach Neuro.

The standard of picture quality which I set is "excellence", not flawed. My standard is 100%, not 95%, and does not excuse "light" picture interference.

I won't watch any DOG disfigured broadcast and you will find that the "minority" of people that I am within is small but there are millions of us who do modify our behaviour because of on-screen logos.

It is not my concern what the consequences of my personal actions are on you. In a free-market, there will always be winners and losers.

Excuse me, but Channel 4 and More4 are not "free". Earlier this week, Gavyn Davies was lecturing how advertising does cost us all. Perhaps you could take up your dismissal of the cost of advertising with him!

There is a morale contract, as you suggest, between C4 and its viewers. If one wishes to accept C4's broadcast of programmes, one should also consume the adverts (and presentation) contained. The contract works both ways, and if C4 fails to satisfy viewers whether by bad programmes or unacceptable practices, C4 knows it must accept forefeiture of viewers too.

However, Channel 4, as a public entity, need to be aware that when they start an unnecessary practice such as putting valueless logos on screen, this will cause some "customers" to deviate away from Channel 4.

Such "discriminatory" practices such as on-screen logos (known to alienate some viewers) are not in the interests of a Public Service Broadcaster, not forgetting that C4 is both a PSB and a commercial "business" at the same time.

If Channel 4 don't go annoying viewers, then viewers won't take their business elsewhere.

There is sparse evidence to suggest that on-screen logos add to the viewing experience of viewers. There is no evidence to suggest that a DOG adds any viewers.

There is evidence however that clearly shows that on-screen logos annoy a minority of viewers and act as a repellant to a minority.

However, broadcasters tend only to count "hits" not "misses", and thus the mechanisms that impose a penalty on "misses" tend to cause the broadcaster to ignore this data.

I think the chanel DOG goes strictly against the "Television for Adults" impression Channel 4 so brilliantly set up. Adults know what channel they are watching and intelligent adults do not want DOGS on their screen.

If they do have to have a DOG, they should keep it at the bottom right hand corner like it is on the Daily Show because that is where it is least distracting. There is a reason why the Yanks do it this way. It will still show their logo should anyone want to copy More4's material, which, let's face it is the real reason for these DOGS.

Why they can't fade in and out at the start and end of each part of the show I do not know, clearly no one innovative works at any of these digital TV channels.

So the moment More4 broadcast I suspect a huge majority of it's viewers lost all respect for the channel because like BBC Four, the type of viewers More4 are trying to attract are especially offended by channel junk on-screen.

quote:

It will still show their logo should anyone want to copy More4's material, which, let's face it is the real reason for these DOGS.

Other broadcasters wanting to plagirise simply stick their own logo crap over the existing logo crap, as happens on 4MORON's Daily Show. The result is an even more unholy mess.

Actually, the absence of an on-screen logo is the assurance that one has got the highest quality of television product from the most verbatim and unaltered of original sources.

HBO don't logo the TV programmes such as Six Feet Under which I watch via BitTorrent. I still know its HBO, since the file metadata tells me so. (I don't watch SFO via E4 for reasons already stated. HBO don't broadcast in the UK, so I can't subscribe.)

Consumers are not cretins. We know where to find the programmes we like.

The choice about "channels" and "brands" is a pre-set choice which most discerning viewers have made before their viewing has even begun.

It is absurd to try to self-advertise at one's existing customers especially when the result of such self-advertising is likely to invalidate the good-will and lose the customers they have already secured.

If C4 won't, BitTorrent and DVD will.

So instead of watching a channel you don't directly pay for (unless you're unfortunately watching via dsat or dcab), you'll steal from a subscription channel you can't receive?

I didn't say I like DOGs, I'm just trying to understand how you rationalise theft to avoid watching a freely available channel because they want, for whatever misgiven reason, to brand their output.

Why do you accept that they wish to brand their output but you can't accept that when they so this, people will seek their programmes from other sources?

Accept that he would rather watch an unbranded version of a programme that watch a branded version.

Downloadng TV shows is very easy and becoming extremely common. For TV channels to avoid the impact, they are going to have to be perfect. And that means providing programmes in the best presentation possible.

For each TV programme ruined by MORE4 or any UK Satellite TV channel with "DOG" mess, I will potentially find an alternative source via DVD or BitTorrent.

I do not care about the "immorality" of this.

I do not "justify" such behaviour, and am not required to do so.

Does Channel 4 care about the loss of viewers caused by their unacceptable behaviour? Of course not.

The only person who suffers from this action, principally, is Channel 4 (or what ever other UK broadcaster) who lose audience share from viewers they would have retained had they declined to offend.

The content maker still sells their content to Channel 4. The advertisors still advetise. But, Channel 4 loses "eye balls" and audience share.

Point of Law: "Copyright infringement" is not the same law as "theft".

Mr Neuro. If you wish to "accuse" persons of theft or stealing, please ensure you get your legal terminology and the facts of the case correct. Who "stole" what from whom? What did the accussed "deny" the plaintiff? What was the intent? What was the consequence of the loss?

Other sites have discussed the legal issues involved so I won't rehash existing arguments here.

Ironically, the only thing I can really be accused of, hypothetically speaking of course, is accessing the TV content that Channel 4 would otherwise prevent my access to without DOGs. They broadcast 95% of the picture, but my standard is 100%.

Be that as it may, any viewer who deviates from Channel 4 because of DOGs, are really viewers and customers discarded by Channel 4, since Channel 4 does not wish to continue the reciprocal relationship. It is their self-harm policy that does this.

TV companies maintain their power by constraining access to content, by allocating content within schedules, and allocating the audiance within channels and tiers of channels.

Until now, viewers have been powerless, bar the small liberation created by VCRs, TIVO, and Sky Plus.

But through DVD and BitTorrent technologies, now viewers have redressed the balance of power, for we are able to stand up to to the domination of corporations like Channel 4.

C4 needs to adapt or die. It's a "scorched earth" scenario. And if you don't stand up to DOGs, tomorrow it will be "ALL NEW" and "REPEAT" all over the screen, but next year, as ITV and RTL have asked, it will be adverts for sponsors, premium rate telephone numbers, and advertising tickers.

quote:

Originally posted by e304233:
Point of Law: "Copyright infringement" is not the same law as "theft".

Mr Neuro. If you wish to "accuse" persons of theft or stealing, please ensure you get your legal terminology and the facts of the case correct. Who "stole" what from whom? What did the accussed "deny" the plaintiff? What was the intent? What was the consequence of the loss?

So how much did you pay for your subscription to HBO to get those programmes?

Neuro, no one on this board will beleive you are as high and mighty as you'd like us to think you are.

Are you saying you've never copied anything? Never taped something off TV and skipped through the adverts? Never copied a music CD? Never downloaded a music track without paying? Out of principle?

If you haven't then you're a loser. You get no reward for being that way.

quote:

So how much did you pay for your subscription to HBO to get those programmes?

Channel 4 pay for it since HBO does not offer services within the UK to viewers.

raymond904: regardless of whether I've done any of those things or not, I'm a loser if I haven't? What kind of logic is that? Are my parents and grandparents also losers because they haven't? A small percentage of people in the UK download content in breach of international copyright law on a regular basis - to not join that group of people should not be seen as undesirable.

e304233: Channel Four pay to air HBO content on their assigned broadcast frequencies. They do not pay for people to download HBO content in terrorities outwith that which they were originally broadcast in the same way they don't pay US advertisers to refund the money they sink into network broadcasters like ABC, NBC and UPN for shows such as Enterprise, Lost and The West Wing.

As if most viewers care, Neuro. That is "corporate" stuff that you are talking about discussed by cosmopolitan types in suits (or Polo shirts if you are Andy Duncan) who normally communicate in strange language via PowerPoint bullet points.

These are the same sort of people who think that sticking visual interference on TV programmes endears viewers to their corporate brand.

I note that advertisors and indeed 4Moron's own adverts don't get DOGged. Only viewers who are bottom of the pile, get shown this disrespect.

I think the point of this is that if Channel 4 does not wish to lose viewers, they don't need to go piddling off viewers with tacky marketing gimmicks.

I merely return the same favour or contempt to Channel 4 that it shows me. The outcome is up to them at Horseferry Road.

It's Ofcom who say adverts should not be DOGged. L!VE TV got bollocked for doing that a couple of years ago, and obscured some terms and conditions for some shady phone line thing with their logo.

I think you'll find that the number of people who download media illegally in this and every other developed coutry is far from a small percentage.

I'm saying you're a loser if you put up with shoddy presentation from more4 when you can easily get whatever you want with the best channel presentation of all.. i.e none.

So it's easy for older folk like my parents who don't have a computer in the lounge, don't have broadband and don't see the point in buying TV shows on DVD unless it's classic shows they love from the past? And you're saying they're all losers? What precisely are they losing?

quote:

Originally posted by neuro:
So it's easy for older folk like my parents who don't have a computer in the lounge, don't have broadband and don't see the point in buying TV shows on DVD unless it's classic shows they love from the past? And you're saying they're all losers?

No, try reading my post thoroughly.

"If you haven't [copied anything, taped something off TV and skipped through the adverts, copied a music CD, downloaded a music track without paying] then you're a loser." That's what you said. I've inserted your conditions to make it clearer. Now what part of abiding by the law (the skipping through adverts part aside) is bad or makes one a "loser"?

Were you to say "I enjoy downloading stuff [or whatever you subscribe to from your list above], but I respect yours and others rights not to want to do so", I'd understand that, but you seem fit to denigrate those who who either don't agree with or don't understand your viewpoint.

You don't even know if I've done any of the things you list, but you think it's cool to get catty?

you're a loser if you put up with shoddy presentation from more4 when you can easily get whatever you want with the best channel presentation of all.. i.e none.

Then you presented me with a case that didn't fit these conditions.

Since when has it been agaisnt the law to download TV shows, fast forward through adverts or copy a music CD?

At present, not one of those actions is against the law.