Posted by Gene E. Bloch on 04/21/06 17:16

On 4/21/2006, Dick Sidbury posted this:
> In article <vlog42pmjsng2lav1b37b0klaiffu0t1jb@4ax.com>,
> Allan <Spamsuckhard@finallykantica22admitstobebrianlamb.org> wrote:
>
>> Update 2: Royal Philips Electronics, ever mindful of their
>> Engadget-reading customers, had this to say in a note to us:
>> "(Philips) filed a patent application, as yet not granted, that
>> enables watching a television movie without advertising. However, some
>> people do want to see the ads. So, we developed a system where the
>> viewer can choose, at the beginning of a movie, to either watch the
>> movie without ads, or watch the movie with ads. It is up to the viewer
>> to take this decision, and up to the broadcaster to offer the various
>> services. Philips never had the intention to force viewers to watch
>> ads against their will and does not use this technology in any current
>> Philips products, nor do we have any plans to do so."
>
> Now this I don't understand. If you opt to watch it without
> commercials, and it's being broadcast, what shows up on your screen
> during the time that commercials are being broadcast?
>
> dick
> -- or is this something that happens in Europe (or elsewhere) and that
> we Americans don't understand?

You need the time-machine accessory, available at 7.95 USD/Month, or
the equivalent prices in other currencies.

Or, to turn off the sarcasm and express my opinion directly:

Basically, I think there is a chance that the above quoted stuff from
Philips is just possibly smoke-and-mirrors.

When I first read the OP's link yesterday, I couldn't for a minute or
two remember the word I wanted. Then it came to me in a flash:
"extortion".

OK, it's not the same as the "protection" rackets famous during
Prohibition days in the US, but it still fits the definition, I think.

Gino

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")

[Back to original message]