Ask Slashdot: Can Smart TVs Insert Ads Into Your Movies? (gigaom.com) 235
dryriver writes:
Back in 2015, the owners of some Samsung smart TVs complained about their viewing of films and other content being constantly interrupted by a recurring Pepsi ad. It turned out that yes, the Samsung TV itself was inserting the ad into content.
Samsung said at the time that it was a software glitch that caused this. They left a function on by default that should have been off when they shipped the TVs. But it proves that Smart TVs have an unnerving capability built into them -- the ability to interrupt content playback with product ads actually stored on the TV itself.
So here's the question -- what if all Smart TV makers suddenly decide that having the ability to push custom ads to the owner of the TV is "fair game"? What if they decide "You want to own this model of TV for XXX Dollars? Well, you can have it, but we'll reserve the right to show you customized advertising as you are viewing stuff with it"? Are there any laws anywhere that would protect TV owners from such intrusive advertising?
Samsung said at the time that it was a software glitch that caused this. They left a function on by default that should have been off when they shipped the TVs. But it proves that Smart TVs have an unnerving capability built into them -- the ability to interrupt content playback with product ads actually stored on the TV itself.
So here's the question -- what if all Smart TV makers suddenly decide that having the ability to push custom ads to the owner of the TV is "fair game"? What if they decide "You want to own this model of TV for XXX Dollars? Well, you can have it, but we'll reserve the right to show you customized advertising as you are viewing stuff with it"? Are there any laws anywhere that would protect TV owners from such intrusive advertising?
Don't buy a smart TV (Score:5, Insightful)
A Smart TV is a Dimwit TV after two years at most anyway.
Compared to even the most basic stand-alone media player, the "Smart" part of TV's is rarely more than "Marginally above braindead" any way.
Get a separate screen and separate smart media box.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I think that is what most technically competent people do anyway.
The funny thing is that my PVR is getting 5 years old, and I would struggle to find one now that is as good.
Of course the internet related functions have mostly moved to a different box, but most smart boxes are not good PVRs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My Panasonic smart TV is five years old (2012 model) and is still as smart as the day I got it. YouTube and Netflix work just fine, because they had the foresight to make them basically HTML5 apps with a simple wrapper.
Now that the 5 year warranty is coming to an end I guess they might not support it any more. Last firmware update was for Heartbleed last year IIRC.
Re: (Score:2)
Continued support for a moving target like Netflix is hit-or-miss.
Re: (Score:2)
The SmartTV has one thing going for it: Integration. One remote ships with the box that can access all the SmartTV media sources; instead of having two boxes, two remotes to manage, and have to pick the right input to switch from normal TV to streaming sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
plenty make non smart tv.
Plenty the indoor farming company backed by Jeff Bezos makes non-smart TV's too? That's weird.
Re: (Score:3)
I just bought a brand-new Vizio E55-E1 "smart" TV.
The first thing I did was to plug the video card HDMI out from my media computer into the TV. The second thing I did was to set the TV to HDMI 1.
What I did NOT do was to give the TV my wifi password.
I'm pretty happy with my new 4K, big-screen monitor - and fuck a whole bunch of its "smart TV" features. If I want to stream content from the Internet, I'll do so via my media computer.
And my TV won't be injecting any ads - or spying on me - w
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, did the exact same thing a few years back with my Visio. It's a dumb terminal that displays content from HDMI port 1, and *nothing more*. No WAY it gets my wifi password.
Re: (Score:2)
Just think of how much time it has to sit there and crack it tho....
Ahaha, true. Fortunately, the processors on those things are so under-powered, I'm probably good for the next hundred years or so.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just having a 3G/4G card. Those are dirt cheap.
Independent connections are dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the real nightmare scenario for IoT privacy violations.
There are already devices on the market that come with their own independent connections to a wireless data network, and the trend seems to be accelerating. If we're talking about devices that are also connected to anything on your home network and/or that have safety or privacy implications, I'm not sure this is a healthy trend at all. We need much stronger regulation in terms of security, privacy, longevity, and transparency, and meaningful enforcement with substantial penalties, for this to be a sensible direction from the owner's point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised to see more devices wind up using this, perhaps offering "functionality" like bridging/IP forwarding so the IoT's maker's tech support (or anyone who hacks it) has free reign into that subnet.
I do agree about IoT regulation, be it something like a UL listing, to GDPR-like laws on what data can be transmitted. Ideally a law requiring the 3G card to have the option to be obviously disabled by the user and the device function without it without issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I am increasingly of the opinion that any product sold that includes any form of sensor or communications device that is not both obvious and fundamental to its intended purpose should be required to carry prominent disclosure. The level of disclosure could be related to the risk, for example whether these components were on-by-default, whether they had any clear and robust indication that they were and/or had been in use, whether they could be reliably switched off by the user, and the nature of an
Re: (Score:2)
Or forming an ad-hoc WiFi network with other TVs in range until they find one with network access...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I did something similar. new 55in Samsung SmartTV.
DirecTV box went on HDMI1, PS4 went on HDMI2, Roku went on HDMI3.
Wired it into the switch to update the firmware, disconnected immediately afterward.
I'd wanted to avoid a SmartTV if at all possible, but the fact of the matter is that with the local stock available and pricing, it was far more cost effective to buy the SmartTV and just leave it disconnected than it was to purposely hunt down a non-SmartTV with the specs I wanted
Re: (Score:2)
The bandwidth may not be good for injecting ads, but an embedded el-cheapo 2G transmitter is certainly practical for spying on those of us who don't give their Wi-Fi passwords! (not saying they do that in this particular model, but I once purchased a medical device only to find out it had one of these that sent data back to the manufacturer by default. You could put it in "airplane mode", but it would harass you at every junct
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why everyone doesn't do this.
Because marketing >> technical specs, at least to the vast majority of potential customers who aren't knowledgeable enough about the tech specs to know what they're looking at and understand the implications. To be fair, since people keep buying this junk, it appears that the manufacturers are simply producing what the market wants.
I think the only real solution to this is better education. We need geeks to be telling their less technical friends and family about how fragile and/or dangerous all these
Re: (Score:3)
"Basic Stuff" for which we haven't even had much of a consistent standard for very long. And of what we have, everything is being constantly extended - still makes sense for that to be handled by a cheap external box.
Re: (Score:2)
Just out of interest, would something like a Chromecast solve your problem? Seems to fit the bill, screen mirroring, streaming from UMS, casting from phone apps?
I picked one up on a whim a few months back, plugged it into my receiver, and it works great. Free app called LocalCast will stream from UMS straight to the Chromecast, UMS shows it knows what the Chromecast is and transcodes or encodes media beautifully.
I also discovered I could install Plex on my NAS, which does a similar thing to UMS albeit wit
Re: (Score:2)
If that happens, return the TV to the store as defective, because it is unable to do its primary function. If even a relatively small amount of people do this and make sure it is know that the TV will be sent back if it requires an internet connection, then all new TVs will not require it. In fact, if a TV requires a EULA, it goes back, which is legal, because you are not accepting their Draconian terms and conditions.
The ironic thing is flashing a TV's firmware can be easily done via a SD card. The proc
Daft question (Score:5, Insightful)
If you buy a smart TV at a discount in exchange for giving the TV manufacturer the rights to show you adverts then of course there's no law that's going to 'protect' you from this. By buying the TV with those conditions attached, you've accepted the conditions.
Re: (Score:3)
If you buy a smart TV at a discount in exchange for giving the TV manufacturer the rights to show you adverts then of course there's no law that's going to 'protect' you from this. By buying the TV with those conditions attached, you've accepted the conditions.
In fact, Amazon does this now with smart phones and tablets. You can buy the phone or tablet at a discount for the "ad supported" version.
Case in point [amazon.com].
Re:Daft question (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, I don't mind such deals if they're up front about it. Many people will pay for a Kindle subsidized by such ads. I choose to pay $10 more for an ad-free experience, and appreciate that I have a clear choice in the matter.
What's I absolutely despise is when I pay a premium for hardware and/or software, and a company thinks it has the right to monetize my eyeballs regardless. Microsoft is particularly prone to this with its Xbox consoles. And TV manufactures apparently can't seem but to help themselves earning a little extra on the side through sneaky methods such as the Samsung auto-playing ads, or Visio when they got caught snooping on user viewing data.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft is particularly prone to this with its Xbox consoles.
WAIT A MINUTE! I was getting set to buy me an XBox One S. Are you telling me they inject ads with that thing? I'm only buying to to play games, am I going to get ADVERTISING in the games??? Because I may have to re-think that.
Re: (Score:2)
That goes without saying. If one buys a device with special offers, they have agreed beforehand that there will be ads on the device.
However, if a TV that was bought with no pre-arrangement beforehand, other than maybe some dialog of, "Do you accept the EULA?" that starts slinging ads and requires an always-on connection to function is a device that the maker has deliberately misrepresented its function. Those go back as defective.
There is a line between, "you are getting a price break, because you agree
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Daft question (Score:2)
But.. He bought a TV, not an advertising billboard
Re: (Score:2)
The law of economics (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't buy such a TV. Simple law of economics.
Re:The law of economics (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't buy such a TV. Simple law of economics.
We live in the era of never-asked-for-this-shit features, which means you'll get what the manufacturer says you need.
The only simple thing to understand here, is that your opinion no longer matters.
Re:The law of economics (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a common, defeatist, and ultimately self-fulfilling argument.
The GP was right. Stores are selling what they can convince people to buy, because they want the money. If pitching so-called smart TVs as better than normal ones and thus being able to sell them successfully at a higher price works, that's what they'll do.
On the other hand, if enough potential customers ask about products without the junk or start asking tricky questions about the realities of these devices that waste the sales people's time, and particularly if those potential customers are then leaving the store without making a purchase, the stores will go back to demanding simpler units that they can sell. And if customers are giving their money to people who supply good, "dumb" TVs today then the stores and manufacturers offering that option also have a direct incentive to continue.
Voting with your wallet is possibly the most successful form of lobbying for change that humanity has yet conceived.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Thankfully this not a problem I have to deal with as like with many of us millennials, I've realized that a TV is just another redundant device
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then I guess one of those smart TVs needs to be lobotomized before being allowed in my network.
Re: (Score:2)
They won't be any cheaper.
They might even be more expensive, because the price isn't being partially subsidised by all the junk.
They might still be better value for money, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I wonder if obviously other companies would be very upset with this practice. After all, I didn't pay all those streaming services just so the f****** display device could splash ads over the shows.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can.
You can rest assured that the prospective ads will factor into the selling price of the device, eventually meaning that you can get a huge TV for the price of a small one without the "feature", which by the laws of the stupid customer means that in the end everyone who makes decent TVs will not be able to continue business and only ad-sponsored TVs will remain.
Re: (Score:2)
Like everything else, the consumer will do a cost\benefit analysis. If they believe that they are getting something beneficial from accepting the ads that exceeds the annoyance of having them, then they will accept them.
Off the top of my head I can only think of one benefit; a reduced price for the TV, but no doubt they're trying to come up with others.
Personally, it would have to be a massive reduction in price before I'd consider the cost outweighed. But others may have tighter budgets and greater toler
Re: (Score:2)
I can live without it. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's TV, I can live without it. I haven't had any TV channels for years now.
I only use it for streaming now, of course I wouldn't accept ad's when watching it.
I have the feeling that they are really over-estimating their worth, Personally I watch less and less TV shows and movies, I haven't watched a movie in a year, and I can't find any new TV shows that I care to watch anymore.
However, I do subscribe to a bunch of youtube channels and support some of them on Patreon.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is why they can't do things like the article talks about.
They realise that the second they do, not only do TV sales drop, but the amount of content purchased will drop dramatically. What's the point in paying for a movie from Netflix or wherever if the smart TV is going to put ads into it for you?
It will just force people onto other methods of viewing, and so long as there's one model of device on the market that DOESN'T do the ridiculous advert insertion, they will lose out to them.
Personally
Re: (Score:3)
Currently there's no point. But if they start giving discounts for the devices that play ads you might well see consumers being okay with this. Hell, one day in the future I can even see tvs going out
Re: (Score:2)
The problem won't be "free" advertiser-paid TV's, it'll be the vastly increased cost of paid, advertiser-free TV's.
As soon as those TV's exists, you can be sure they'll try to make the model you actually want less desirable.
Re: (Score:2)
"a TV is just a computer display with a content box on it. And you can't go putting adverts into a computer monitor without destroying someone's ability to work, so people would just use those if it really came to it."
I don't associate watching TV with 'work' as I know it. What is this 'work' you refer to that is done on a consumer television set as we commonly know it?
Or, perhaps, you have found a computer monitor with this consumer-oriented advertising insertion capability included? Please, let us know, t
Kindle With Special Offers (Score:5, Insightful)
Recall that the Kindle/Fire line of e-readers/tablets have a slightly cheaper version which shows large ads on the lock screen. In my experience they resemble the scrolling ads on Netflix for shows they offer, that works as a screen saver, which I haven't heard anyone complain about or even mention. If that bothers you, you can spend a few dollars more for the model with no ads. So silent ads as screen savers, sure why not.
Pausing the content you're actively trying to consume, and inserting additional ads, is enough of an annoyance I imagine people would purposely avoid TV models that do this. It's not like there's no competition between manufacturers, as it's the end manufacturers and not the panel manufacturers who would do this. There are lots of other companies you can buy from, unless you want something unique like a 2017 OLED TV. That said, the TV would have to be able to pause the content, meaning the content is running from the TV's smart features; since TVs are now able to control connected devices via HDMI I could see them sending a 'pause' signal to a Bluray player, but am not sure if pause signals are actually one of the commands that can be sent over HDMI. The TV would have to connect to the net to verify how many times the ad was watched, so not connecting your TV to the net would probably disable ads.
The amount of ad revenue earned by TV manufacturers would be so minuscule that it wouldn't be worth the backlash or reduced sales. Consumers buying $2k TVs would do the research beforehand, and nearly anyone would rather pay $10 more for a TV without the ads. Cord-cutters using smart TV features are the people MOST likely to abhor ads, so the placement is horrible; a better idea would be to replace the bootup splash screen with a static ad image.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got to the nub of the gist there. Inserting adverts into content would be unacceptable to most people IMHO, and impossible for content being displayed from an external source, unless the HDMI spec were changed to accommodate such things.
But would people accept 'screensaver' adverts? Maybe. I've got a Kindle that shows adverts but it does so when the device is in sleep mode; as soon as you swipe the screen to start reading something, the ad disappears. That doesn't bother me at all, and I'm fairly sen
Re: (Score:2)
I could see them sending a 'pause' signal to a Bluray player, but am not sure if pause signals are actually one of the commands that can be sent over HDMI.
I have an Samsung set, bought back in 2007 (IIRR), that at the time was supposed to have some "smart" features, but I never made any use of them.
Now, I have a Raspberry Pi running Kodi and a PS4 connected to it using HDMI cables, and I use the remote controller for the TV to select files on my NAS (Kodi) or to select content from Netflix and Amazon Prime (PS4), to play, jump forward and back, and to pause streams.
I think that this shows that the TV is receiving a signal from the remote controller and is sen
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the confirmation that it's possible. I know the ps4 lets you disable this functionality, although I expect the hypothetical TV would just show the ad anyways, and you'd have to back up to see what you missed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Recall that the Kindle/Fire line of e-readers/tablets have a slightly cheaper version which shows large ads on the lock screen. In my experience they resemble the scrolling ads on Netflix for shows they offer, that works as a screen saver, which I haven't heard anyone complain about or even mention. If that bothers you, you can spend a few dollars more for the model with no ads. So silent ads as screen savers, sure why not.
It's worth noting you don't even have to make the decision at the time of purchase. You can pay a one-time fee to Amazon and get the advertising removed from the "~with Special Offers" models post-purchase, too.
I don't need a law. (Score:5, Insightful)
As an Australian though, unless they advertise such a "feature" at the point of sale, I can take it back. It's clearly broken, and not working as advertised or expected. And if they advertise it, then nobody will buy it. Furthermore, if they all do it together, I can demonstrate collusion.
Worst case, some cheap Chinese manufacturer lies waiting in the wings to take advantage of such a situation. Best case, the Japanese manufacturers will not fail face.
It's a non question, anyway you look at it.
Re: (Score:2)
And if they advertise it, then nobody will buy it.
You're underestimating human stupidity. And greed. And miserliness.
I would never have thought people would buy a TV that includes a camera they don't control and put said TV into their bedroom. But they did. You think they wouldn't buy a 80" TV for 300 if the fine print tells them it will constantly bombard them, I mean, entertain them with custom tailored ads that have been selected JUST FOR THEM?
You bet people will buy that junk.
Re: (Score:3)
Have fun watching you 5 year old pre-installed, intentionally annoying Pepsi ads, because you blocked your TV from downloading new ads.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't matter if you're connected or not. Hulu and Pluto already show you the exact same ad a gazillion times per show, that's why they're so much more annoying than traditional TV ads.
Re: (Score:2)
If this happens much
Who buys TVs anymore? (Score:3)
The easy answer: I don't understand why anyone would by a television anymore. Buy a dumb screen, or a projector, and put whatever content you want on it.
I confess, we do have a commercial tuner (cable box) as one possible input to our projector, but it is only used to tune in standard cable channels. Films and such go directly from our media server.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I was looking for a largeish screen, just HD sort of quality, although I'd have 'traded up' to 4K without too much thinking about it. The cheapest solution was infact to buy a TV. No idea why a screen with no tuners, 'smart' features or speakers is more expensive, but it seems it is.
Just a quick look on Amazon, and the top result for "32 inch smart tv" was a panasonic at £199. The top (flat) hit for "32 inch monitor" was a Samsung at £269 (with speakers & camera built in). I'm sure there are
Re: (Score:3)
step by step (Score:2, Insightful)
There's no big uprising when facebook, windows 10, oculus rift, nvidia drivers, ... collect all the data they can. Data, for which the only commercial value is ads.
Why would anyone expect that there will be more resistance when TVs, cars, or toasters do it? Step by step, advertisers will get every piece of data, from everywhere.
If we're lucky the ads-bubble might burst. Unfortunately, collecting data and distributing ads everywhere is getting far too cheap, so its unlikely.
Prepare for a future that looks li
Re: (Score:2)
Ohh, can I have the model with the farting ass?
Consumer Protection Laws (Score:3)
We also can find out whether or not users choose to purchase smart TVs with forced in-line advertisements through analysis of buying trends as this technology is introduced. And we can add the uproar that Samsung faced when they "accidentally" altered some of their TVs, by pushing new firmware [without user action], is a pretty clear indicator that this modification is *not* welcome.
What it all boils down to is choice. If a buyer can show that they would not have chosen to purchase a model of TV if they had known, at the time of purchase, that it would subsequently be modified to show commercials, then the manufacturer of the smart TV is going to have a problem on their hands. This is not the first time this issue has been discussed - and the last time it came around I used the following analogy:-
Suppose that you went out and bought yourself a new car. For a year you drove it around and it was just what you wanted - absolutely perfect. Then you booked it in for it's first service, and when the car was handed back to you, the dealer had put a big light rig across the roof, with the word "TAXI" on it, they had put decals and logos down the side, and now you were obliged to stop and give rides to people who hailed you. Even better, if you did this [because you had no choice] any money generated from these rides went to the dealer, not to you...
This is a variation on the concept of post-purchase modification to a product. Put in this context it is entirely unacceptable, but in *legal* terms it is remarkably similar to what Samsung did with their TVs and the subject of the OP's question.
I think the only way that we can resist this is to vote with our wallets. If we find ourselves in a situation where all manufacturers of Smart TVs do this, then we're going to have to rely on Consumer Protection laws to defend us. I would not give high hopes for our chances.
Re: (Score:2)
legally they can't just make you car a taxi look at uber legal issues with citys
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they can! (Score:2)
And very likely, they will.
The point is: should they?
My personal answer is "no, they shouldn't, unless the user agrees".
Oh God. (Score:2)
Why would we need a law? (Score:2)
The government is not your parent and you are not an infant. If you agree to get a discounted or even free TV set in exchange for inserted advertisements, it is your choice and you should be free to make it or decline. Why do so many people think that they always know what is better for other people and want to force their "wisdom" onto everybody with laws (and therefore threat of fines or jail)?
Disingenuous Argument (Score:5, Insightful)
If a manufacturer had pairs of all the TV models they sold, at 2 different prices, one with "commercial free" and the other with a warning that made it crystal clear to the consumer that they were buying a product in which the *product* would insert content, over and above the ability of the user to control, then that would be fair. Amazon did exactly this with their lower-priced Kindle readers - in return for a discounted product, you agreed to take advertisements.
That is most assuredly not happening here. In this case, vendors are taking advantage of the ability to remotely update *your* product, which you purchased under a set of terms and conditions and under the protection of the "Sale of Goods Act" [or your local equivalent] and now the vendor are trying to argue that they have the legal authority to remotely alter/degrade the functionality of the product even if doing so is against your will.
Nope. No way. The Kindle example sets a clear precedent of what can be done by a vendor wishing to explore this revenue stream. Personally, I don't see many takers. If you can afford to buy a decent Smart TV, you can avoid the advert-free model... Or you can buy from someone else! I happen to own a Samsung Smart TV - and if they [Samsung] started to embed commercials in my TV, not only would I junk it, I would never buy another Samsung product again. There are plenty of others to choose from.
Re: (Score:2)
No disagreement on changing the product afterwards. No different than if Samsung changed your 4K TV to only display 480i content via a software update - you should be able to claim it as defective under warranty or return programs. If they do it after warranty, that's unfortunate but no different than if their update failed and your TV was bricked - after warranty you have no recourse other than what you already mentioned, junk it and never buy another product from them again.
Re: (Score:2)
The government is not your parent and you are not an infant. If you agree to get a discounted or even free TV set in exchange for inserted advertisements, it is your choice and you should be free to make it or decline.
Correct, but the key point is that the terms and conditions of the TV are presented at the time of sale in a way that allows the consumer to make an informed choice. If this is not done, it's considered fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
If the TV no longer works as advertised, then in my book it's broken and should be repaired if under warranty or exchanged. If it broke after warranty, no recourse other than bad reputation for the product.
This is a much bigger problem by the way than just TV's. It applies to all products which can be updated over-the-air. How much functionality is a manufacturer allowed to change or remove before you can claim the product is broken? I'll give you an example, I bought a car in 2013 and couple of months into
Re: (Score:2)
If the TV no longer works as advertised, then in my book it's broken and should be repaired if under warranty or exchanged. If it broke after warranty, no recourse other than bad reputation for the product.
Well, you see, it doesn't particularly matter what your opinion or mine is on that. Two things matter: 1) How the FTC views the issue in the context of the law and 2) As long as the details of the product are made clear to consumers, the free market will sort it out. If no one likes the products, there will be no demand and thus it would be irrational for the producer to continue producing a product for which there is no demand. As has been stated many times on this site, vote with your wallet.
Personally
Monitors will become more popular (Score:2)
They're the same thing but without the built-in bullshit
Can a Smart TV insert ads... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ad system, analytics, and telemetry, only require a few megabytes a month of data to download and update.
We are fast approaching the point where Samsung / Sony / etc could sell you a TV with a cellular radio good and 20GB pre-paid data that would last it 20 years.
It doesn't need to connect to your network, or follow your routers rules.
An OTA tuner/DVR box and a large PC monitor... (Score:2)
...will do just nice for OTA TV. Internet stuff (Youtube/Netflix) is best accessed by a small media player PC.
Overlooked in this (Score:2)
0. The summary offered a link to, not TFA, but to another /. article, where TFA was actually linked. Um, hey, /. editors, are you clickfarming?
1. TFA, dated February 2015 (yes, more than 2 years old), makes some interesting points:
- One report claimed the user was viewing content on the Plex server. Seems as if a media server wouldn't prevent ad insertion, much to the chagrin of current commentators who purport that a media server would defeat this 'feature'.
- Another report claimed the problem ap
Why we lose this fight all the time. (Score:2)
But we are a minority. Majority of the people don't have money to spare, they don't have time to spare either due to working multiple jobs. They are just too tired to fight, and they will succumb to "4K TV 60 inch screen for 99$,
Why (Score:2)
Felony Copyright Infringement (Score:2)
As is the insertion of ads into web pages by ISPs, FWIW.
No. (Score:2)
Because your "smart tv" was never connected to the network.
What's that? You gave your TV network access?
OK, then you get ads. Sucker.
Lack of full featured remotes (Score:2)
The 2016 version of Vizio's P series came with a VERY basic IR remote and the rest of the setup and features were controlled through an app (on either the included Android tablet or installable on an iPhone.) Which basically mandated that the TV was on the wireless network all of the time.
They ditched this for the 2017 models for ease of use, but how long before another manufacturer tries this again and manages to make it stick?
Disconnect your TV from the Internet entirely (Score:2)
You can always just never configure the "smart" features, never connect the TV to the Internet at all if you don't want to use the "smart" features. Current TVs all can function as a regular display just fine, even those super-spy Vizio TVs [forbes.com] that had software to software in the read pixel data from a segment of the screen could be used offline.
If you want to worry about targeted advertising injection, look at your local cable provider and their set-top box. That's a much more likely source of leakage ab
It is called a Fucking Choice. (Score:2)
Should tehre be? (Score:2)
"Are there any laws anywhere that would protect TV owners from such intrusive advertising?" so long as the what is going on is FULLY DISCLOSED and buyer is aware of what is happening. Why would you need or even want a law preventing it. Say someone wants to give away tv. or sell them for a dollar. That makes them available to people who otherwise wouldn't have them. So they have to put up with ads. Some people would be happy with that. Others just not use it. Not like anyone dies if they don't like
Laws (Score:3)
Actually, yes, there are.
But you live on the wrong (north american) side of the atlantic pond.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Laws (Score:5, Interesting)
In Canada, ask your solicitor whether the device is "suitable for the purpose sold", ie, to watch broadcast tv without interference, and if the seller is "obtaining money upon a false and fradulent pretense", by rerpresenting a lease as a sale, and by representing the device as being as TV, as opposed to a "telescreen" (ie, from 1984).
Logically, one can make numerous arguements that the devices break statute law, but you need a lawyer to research the case law and see if the courts will countenance your complaints. And that will differ from one legal regime to another.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then it shows you the built-in ads. Makes you kinda nostalgic every time you see the 3 year old Pepsi ad...
Re: (Score:2)
commercials became part of "pay TV" despite its promise? not true.
HBO is still the same other stuff on pay was superstitions that ad's all the time.