Kevin Tarr schreef:
> <paranoid mode> Now think about this, you already know that when a
> commercial comes on TV the sound is noticeable LOUDER. I record everything
> before I watch it so I can fast forward past commercials, my remote has a
> button labeled skip which fast forwards for one minute. This would be highly
> unlikely, but imagine advertisers talking with VCR makers and broadcasters
> and saying 'We want a signal that will disable the fast forward when our
> commercial is playing.' A consumer has no 'right' to fast forward past
> commercials. If all of those companies agreed to this who could you turn to?
> Coke might have a commercial, in print media, saying 'You can fast forward
> past our commercials, those BASTARDS over at Pepsi make you watch theirs'
> VCR makers might market certain models, 'This unit costs 2X then other
> units, but the fast forward chip is removed!' </paranoid mode>
A thought occured to me. Shouldn't we get money for the intrusion into our lives
called commercials? It would be fairer then having to pay for all the
advertising crap they dump on us through the higher prices we have to pay if we
buy any advertised products. All things well, but they use our electricity,
running time on our equipment and our valuable free time to get a message
across. ;o) (Forgot to mention the assault on eardrums. I'm not deaf, but the
increase in loudness of sound in commercial broadcasts seems to imply that I am)
Sonja
