Microsoft "new" patent could "force" downloaders to view commercials!!
GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
Microsoft "new" patent could "force" downloaders to view commercials!!
A new patent application filed by Microsoft describes methods for "enforcing" advertisements in downloaded media. Traditionally, ads accompany streaming content and, by extension, restrict that content to a browser. But technology that could bring ads to downloaded content would open up new opportunities for digital distribution services, advertisers, and consumers, and could give DRM a whole new leg to stand on.
Microsoft's patent application, titled Enforcing Advertising Playback For Downloaded Media Content, describes systems that are based both on tokens and DRM which would prohibit playing a media file unless its accompanying advertising is viewed. The technology is designed to prohibit fast-forwarding, editing, or otherwise circumventing the advertisements, though it is unclear exactly where the ads would be placed. Internet users have repeatedly announced their distaste for pre-roll ads in streaming content and video games, but users of NBC's Hulu service reportedly don't mind its TV-like interstitial ads. READ MORE
I think that if it's really annoying, people will simply stop downloading media that uses this technology to stuff commercials down their throats. And you'd likely see alternatives pop up that offer visitors the same service, but use less obtrusive advertising techniques to generate income. And failing that, there's always usenet of course
It always amuses me how old-media executives continue to see the Internet as a glorified version of "cable tee-vee." You have a system in place that allows instantaneous, cost-free, point-to-point distribution of any form of content imaginable, and they continue to think in terms of "twelve minutes of programming followed by eight minutes of pitches for soap." Or vice-versa.
But what's really driving their (lack of) thinking is the notion that they still have control. The reality is that, since everyone can produce content, everyone will. The best advice today about how to get a recording contract is: "don't!"
A patent like this one would be interesting only if you felt that you knew that you could force the viewer to accept it. But you can't. It will be an immediate and fatal market disadvantage.
I don't know how it works on every country, but over here we have to pay taxes for having a TV. No, I am not saying for the cable. The thing is, you've to pay a license for just owning a TV. On the past, it was done this way so the (few) channels we have, were ad-free. This is not true today, but the license for the TV still exists.
Many simply say that "they don't have any TV", just to avoid this (stupid) license. I do pay for the TV and cable, but it is mostly for my son. I can't stand watching TV. Granted, I watch just one or two programs on the Discovery Channel and a few soccer matches as well if "I happen to come across it". It is not like I plan to watch a TV program on a given time.
Sometimes, when flipping through the channels I often can come across a film that catches my attention, but I don't actually watch it. I see what the movie is called and I download it. In 15-30 minutes I can usually get a movie of a torrent site. No ads, no interruption and I can watch anytime I want.
The problem with TV (and many other media out there) is that it became full of ads. It feels like it is 15 minutes of a movie and 15 minutes of ads. I can't stand that. When I get a DVD from a store, it usually comes with a bunch of crap and warning against piracy that you usually can't skip.
Truth to be said: Internet and media (music, films) became popular today not (only) because people are not willing to pay a few bucks to watch a movie. It it because of all the annoyances that paying costumers has to keep up with. And TV, it plain sucks.
So it is understandable that they want to make a quick buck from downloaded content through ads, but so far, it ain't that easy to control the stuff that flies around the Internet. The media executives are loosing money because of their own greediness, not because of piracy, not because of file sharing. The problem is that we pay for the TV, the cable, the DVD and we have ads. It is one thing or another, both are just plain wrong. And that is pretty much what is wrong with the Microsoft's Enforcing Advertising Playback For Downloaded Media Content. If somebody paid for the content, they should be ad-free.
Last edited by Mega Man X; 12-25-2007 at 06:35 AM.
just get rid of the menu ... i dont want to buy anymore things after having a look at them ...
i dont consider "rubbing my senses(or neck)" an advancement of any kind ...
btw ... actually all these "carriers" are there for a purpose ... if not , what the use of all those "more power , more speed and more storage space" ... ?? just for gaming ... ?? and for super speed unix-home(or from home)-networking ... ?? i dont think so ... not worth the trouble of broad-base-"ing" them ...
you have to have the will(without forcing yourself though) to "block" them ... actually quite satisfying and tranquil ...
I think you're all looking at this backwards... Since there's a patent for it, it's LESS likely that people will do that, since it will cost them royalty payments now... For once M$ may be doing something good for us!
when i see people complaining about these sorts of things ... makes me wondering how is it can be that hard to 'block" all those things ... i dont understand ...
i think normally when there are signs showing people is going to be clueless of what are they going to do with their pc/laptop next that these sorts of things start appearing ... like a saviour bringing new(probably a renewed ones) life to the masses , its important to know that they all seems to be very happy ... i dont think these are "innovative" , "revolutionary" or "new" in anyway , its just about the appopriate timing ...
also , maybe its because of these sorts of things(i mean "more power , more speed and more storage space" things) that we start seeing fatter and clumsier linux ...