On 24/01/2011 17:41, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/24/2011 1:42 AM, scott wrote:
>>>> A good example is the adverts before a film on a DVD that you are
>>>> forced
>>>> to watch. A cracked copy will usually cut out the adverts, and some
>>>> people would say it is doing no harm by doing that themselves for their
>>>> own personal use. But, the fact that the adverts cannot be skipped is
>>>> actually creating income for the publisher, without them they'd need to
>>>> charge more for the DVD in the first place.
>>>>
>>> This is funnier than hell. You do realize that 100% of those
>>> advertisement are for products *produced* by the same company that you
>>> bought the DVD from? Who are they losing revenue from if you remove
>>> them, themselves?
>>
>>> Sure, you "might" see something you want to buy later,
>>
>> You seemed to answer your own question.
> Not really, because if I was interested in buying something else there
> are myriad other ways to find it, without having to run through 10
> minutes of crap, before getting to the movie.

I don't think they expect that 100% of people watching the adverts will 
go out and buy something they otherwise wouldn't!  Some will though, and 
that's the value of them.

Post a reply to this message

On 25/01/2011 10:27 AM, scott wrote:

> I don't think they expect that 100% of people watching the adverts will
> go out and buy something they otherwise wouldn't! Some will though, and
> that's the value of them.

The other day I was reading various stories about people who actually 
fell for the Nigerian banker scam. I mean, seriously, WTF? How dumb 
would you have to be? I am utterly mystified...

Post a reply to this message

> Hey, don't worry. When I eventually get somewhere of my own to live, I
> will have to pay money to fund the BBC, even though I don't watch TV or
> listen to the radio. The fact that the building doesn't contain a TV
> apparently is no excuse.

The licensing website is very clear on this:

"You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV 
as it's being broadcast."

If they are able to prove that you are doing the above (through any 
device and transmission medium) and you have not paid the license you 
will be fined.  They have quite sophisticated ways to prove such things.

Just owning a TV is not enough to get a fine, they have to prove you are 
actually watching a live TV broadcast (traditionally done with the "TV 
licensing van").  Ditto for other devices, although I imagine they are 
much more hi-tech today.

Post a reply to this message

On 25/01/2011 10:32 AM, scott wrote:
>> Hey, don't worry. When I eventually get somewhere of my own to live, I
>> will have to pay money to fund the BBC, even though I don't watch TV or
>> listen to the radio. The fact that the building doesn't contain a TV
>> apparently is no excuse.
>
> The licensing website is very clear on this:
>
> "You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV
> as it's being broadcast."
>
> If they are able to prove that you are doing the above (through any
> device and transmission medium) and you have not paid the license you
> will be fined. They have quite sophisticated ways to prove such things.
>
> Just owning a TV is not enough to get a fine, they have to prove you are
> actually watching a live TV broadcast (traditionally done with the "TV
> licensing van"). Ditto for other devices, although I imagine they are
> much more hi-tech today.

The point is, my home (when I eventually have one) will contain a 
computer, and probably have Internet access. Therefore, there is no way 
I can prove that I'm not using something like BBC iPlayer to watch the 
drivel on TV.

Not owning a TV isn't enough.

Post a reply to this message

>> I don't think they expect that 100% of people watching the adverts will
>> go out and buy something they otherwise wouldn't! Some will though, and
>> that's the value of them.
>
> The other day I was reading various stories about people who actually
> fell for the Nigerian banker scam. I mean, seriously, WTF? How dumb
> would you have to be? I am utterly mystified...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8490275.stm

And the beauty of email is that it's almost free to send out as many 
copies as you want, you you just send out millions and no matter how 
obvious it is some people are bound to respond.

Post a reply to this message

> The point is, my home (when I eventually have one) will contain a
> computer, and probably have Internet access. Therefore, there is no way
> I can prove that I'm not using something like BBC iPlayer to watch the
> drivel on TV.

You don't have to prove you're not using iPlayer, they will prove if you 
*are* using it!

Post a reply to this message

On 25/01/2011 10:41 AM, scott wrote:
>> The point is, my home (when I eventually have one) will contain a
>> computer, and probably have Internet access. Therefore, there is no way
>> I can prove that I'm not using something like BBC iPlayer to watch the
>> drivel on TV.
>
> You don't have to prove you're not using iPlayer, they will prove if you
> *are* using it!

In other words, they will say "you possess a device capable of watching 
TV, give us your money".

Post a reply to this message

On 25/01/2011 10:40 AM, scott wrote:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8490275.stm

This is about scams in general. Some are more convincing than others. 
For example, my grandparents had a guy ring up claiming to be from BT 
and demanding bank details or the phone line would be cut off. The 
managed to pressure him into giving over the codes. Sad, but not 
entirely unexpected.

The Nigerian scams, on the other hand, are so absurd that no human being 
with more than three functional synaptic junctions could possibly 
believe something so ridiculous.

> And the beauty of email is that it's almost free to send out as many
> copies as you want, you you just send out millions and no matter how
> obvious it is some people are bound to respond.

I hear you, and statistically it makes sense. (Even if *nobody* replies, 
what have you lost?) But it still mystifies me that anybody could 
actually believe that a multi-billion dollar transaction could just 
randomly land in their inbox like that...

Obligatory XKCD reference: http://xkcd.com/570/

Post a reply to this message

>> You don't have to prove you're not using iPlayer, they will prove if you
>> *are* using it!
>
> In other words, they will say "you possess a device capable of watching
> TV, give us your money".

They may well say that, but you don't need to give them any money unless 
you are actually *using* the device to get live TV.

What they *might* say is they recorded your IP address accessing live 
content from iPlayer whilst simultaneously correlating the changes in 
light level from your window with the live broadcast signal.  Then 
you're shafted.

Post a reply to this message

On 25/01/2011 10:55 AM, scott wrote:
>>> You don't have to prove you're not using iPlayer, they will prove if you
>>> *are* using it!
>>
>> In other words, they will say "you possess a device capable of watching
>> TV, give us your money".
>
> They may well say that, but you don't need to give them any money unless
> you are actually *using* the device to get live TV.
>
> What they *might* say is they recorded your IP address accessing live
> content from iPlayer whilst simultaneously correlating the changes in
> light level from your window with the live broadcast signal. Then you're
> shafted.

Yeah. I imagine that playing Call of Duty might produce light level 
changes that look rather like Secrets of World War II from outside the 
building...

Post a reply to this message