1. Guest,
    If you need help getting to know Xenforo, please see our guide here. If you have feedback or questions, please post those here.
    Dismiss Notice

Station Logos Complaint

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by StephenRabinowitz, Sep 8, 2002.

  1. StephenRabinowitz

    StephenRabinowitz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 1999
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    We all know those station logos are annoying & can cause burn in on our projection tv's. We should email the fcc to have stations stop this practice because of the reasons I listed. Also we should email all offending networks to inform them that we watch their station & that if our tv's are damaged by burn in from the logos or banners they will see us in small calimss court for the price of a new tv + expenses. Maybe when they realize it will cost them money they will discontinue this practice. I just bought a Mitsubishi WS55411 which is great & don't want to limit what I watch because of potential damage & am sure most people feel the same.
     
  2. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,740
    Likes Received:
    129
    Until lawsuits start clogging up the courts, Stephen, all the e-mails, snail mails, and phone calls in the world won't persuade the broadcasters to stop this odious practice. We live in an ever-increasingly commercialized world, and the station-bug plague is one of the more obnoxious examples of excessive branding of the networks' "product."

    It will not stop until the broadcasters are forced.

    But what's a non-First Amendment-threatening way to do this? Probably the only thing that could do it would be a plethora of class-action suits by owners of expensive but burned-in displays.

    A political solution to this problem tends to scare more people than encounrage them.
     
  3. John Chevalier

    John Chevalier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    UNfortunatly these types of cases would not hold up in court. It shouldn't be the networks fault that the TV's are getting burn in. The networks have every right to place whatever logo they want to on their station. If a person doesn't like the logo, they should not watch the channel, plain and simple. The networks are not liable for damages. Why is it that people that dont know how to research and learn how to prevent burn in are the ones that complain so much? I get so upset at the RPTV vs TV network bit. It's probably because I'm going to be a lawyer.

    Hope I didn't offend anyone.
     
  4. Luis C

    Luis C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    0
    John,
    This is completely OT but I'm curious... why did you choose to become a lawyer? Truthfully now... [​IMG]
    BTW, I agree with you completely...
     
  5. BruceSpielbauer

    BruceSpielbauer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2002
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    0
    >>> UNfortunatly these types of cases would not hold up in court. It shouldn't be the networks fault that the TV's are getting burn in. The networks have every right to place whatever logo they want to on their station. If a person doesn't like the logo, they should not watch the channel, plain and simple. The networks are not liable for damages. Why is it that people that dont know how to research and learn how to prevent burn in are the ones that complain so much? I get so upset at the RPTV vs TV network bit. It's probably because I'm going to be a lawyer.
     
  6. Chris PC

    Chris PC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2001
    Messages:
    3,994
    Likes Received:
    1
    I hate those stupid logo's. I almost avoid stations because of it.
     
  7. John Chevalier

    John Chevalier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bruce, just because you cannot disprove that the logo's are the cause of burn in doesn't mean that it's the consumers responsibility to protect their own assets. The TV station should not be forced to pay for a TV being damaged because a customer was ignorant to the fact that there could be possible burn in. The owness is on the TV purchaser. I dont think that TV stations market their products primarily to RPTV folks. It's not the same as a tobacco company type issue, because tobacco companies targeted youths who were unable to understand fully the risks of smoking. They also make their tobacco much more addicting that what it should be. TV stations do no such thing. I would be able to agree with your position if the TV stations actively pursued the RPTV market as a primary target audience, when they know that their logos could cause burn in on the TV's. That is not the case however, and it most likely never will be the case unless RPTV's become completely mainstream and every home has one.

    Luis, I want to become a lawyer because I love to analyze and provoke issues and force someone to see my side and agree with me. Everytime i win an arguement or I get someone to change their mind about something, I get a rush that I haven't found a way to top at this point in my life.
     
  8. Luis C

    Luis C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, I see.

    Thats too bad because what we really need are people who understand the fundamental principles of justice and freedom our founding fathers wanted for their descendants; which the majority of the people currently in the legal system have absconded with in order to manipulate the laws to their own advantage/beliefs.

    Is that truly justice and freedom?

    **sigh!** Back to HT...
     
  9. John Chevalier

    John Chevalier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Luis,
    I do not wish to become a criminal lawyer at all. I want to focus on corporate law. With criminal law, I can agree that there are a lot of criminals that get away from punishment by working around the legal system. It's not a perfect system but it's a lot better than most types of government. I wouldn't use the founding fathers arguement in any case because they were selfish and greedy as well. They created the constitution because it was pro business and it made sure that a persons wealth could not be controlled by a single person other than themselves. They really didn't set up a lot of this stuff because of freedom and justice, they just wanted to be able to keep making money.
     
  10. Luis C

    Luis C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    0
    ROTFLOL...
    Wow... what an interesting opinion.
    BTW, corporate law falls well with the description of
    "...which the majority of the people currently in the legal system have absconded with in order to manipulate the laws to their own advantage/beliefs."
    Legal manipulation is an art form in corporate law.
    But anyhow! [​IMG] Back to HT! [​IMG]
     
  11. BruceSpielbauer

    BruceSpielbauer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2002
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    0
    >>> Bruce, just because you cannot disprove that the logo's are the cause of burn in doesn't mean that it's the consumers responsibility to protect their own assets.> The TV station should not be forced to pay for a TV being damaged because a customer was ignorant to the fact that there could be possible burn in. >>>>

    Hmmm... your tobacco parallel might be more pertinent than you think. Weren't more than a few of the successful lawsuits based on the premise that (early on), tobacco "knew of the problem," yet did nothing to educate the public, and in fact downplayed the risk, pretending as if nothing was wrong? Is that not a good parallel? The one I recall was the elderly gentleman who began smoking in the late 1950s, and I thought the case was all about the fact that big tobacco already knew the safety risks at that time, and put a lid on it, downplayed it, denied it, and worked to dispel the facts.

    Wasn't this also the issue with the airbag lawsuit of about 18 months ago? That the airbag manufacturers and auto manufacturers both KNEW of the risk to smaller adults, and failed to educate the public, and also simply decided that it was better to protect "most" of the consumers rather than re-design, or insist that only those of a certain size wear them. Is this not a very strong parallel to our issue, (to a logo which might be fine for some [the direct view customers, or LCD projector users], while it poses a significant hazard to property of a significant minority?

    >>>The owness is on the TV purchaser. >>I dont think that TV stations market their products primarily to RPTV folks.They also make their tobacco much more addicting that what it should be. >>They also make their tobacco much more addicting that what it should be. TV stations do no such thing. >>I would be able to agree with your position if the TV stations actively pursued the RPTV market as a primary target audience, when they know that their logos could cause burn in on the TV's. That is not the case however, and it most likely never will be the case unless RPTV's become completely mainstream and every home has one.
     
  12. Lew Crippen

    Lew Crippen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    Messages:
    12,060
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  13. John Chevalier

    John Chevalier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Luis, I fail to see how one that finds holes in the legal system could be considered someone that doesn't respect the constitution or who wrote it.

    Bruce, By your logic, if I get numbness on my finger that is related to typing the same button on a keyboard day in and day out, I should be able to sue the manufacturer of the keyboard? It's been proven that typing causes certain medical ailments to hands and forearms. So I should immediatly file a suit against Dell for making a quitkey keyboard that makes my fingers numb when I get home every afternoon. It doesn't work that way.

    I product is being produced by a TV station. There is a certain viewership involved. TV stations most likely to know about burn in. They are not however trying to lure people into buying RPTV's and forcing them to watch the station. Your probably right that there possibly could be some type of disclaimer that informs the viewer of possible danger, but it should not be manditory. Video games usually do not have a disclaimer. Should we sue video game manufaturers? What about black bars? Should we sue the motion picture industry for not giving us other options besides widescreen format? It's silly to assume that a TV stations should be forced to change their broadcat property. If a TV station does it to stay out of court, fine. Why should it be required? Thats the real question. If anyone should take the blame, it should be the TV manufacturers. They should give a better warning to the users about the potential danger of burn in. I think that if people would focus on manufaturer-customer education it would be a lot more productive than going after network TV who are basically excercising their freedom of expression. As long as they follow FCC standards, they should be able to put on TV what they want to.

    I'm sure that the people on this fine forum would not like us to continue our rubbish on here. Please, feel free to e-mail me if you would like to continue this debate.
     
  14. John Royster

    John Royster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2001
    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  15. Jesse Skeen

    Jesse Skeen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 1999
    Messages:
    4,200
    Likes Received:
    163
  16. Luis C

    Luis C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW, one thing not mentioned by anyone yet is the point that these broadcasters are doing this partly on the desire to discourage you from copying/recording their broadcasts. The ultimate copy protection? [​IMG]
     
  17. John Chevalier

    John Chevalier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, well I admit. I haven't really looked at the video game disclaimer, but I will as soon as i get home. I also feel that the blender issue is a common sense issue and there is no grounds for a lawsuit and whoever was defending the blender company did a bad job of it. If a person is a moron and doesn't know not to stick their hand in a blender, that is their fault. Can you sue an artist because the painting he created offends you? No, you just go on to the next painting. Just like TV channels. IF oyu dont like it, dont watch. If enough viewers stop watching the channel, that would deffinatly make them change. If someone can go to court and for regulations on TV stations to remove logos that is a different story. But to sue for damaging your TV, is in my opinion, is uncalled for because the manufacturers need to warn better, not the TV stations.
     
  18. David Banfield

    David Banfield New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just my 2 cents worth, but as a new RP TV owner who is worried about this issue perhaps we (as a growing number of viewers) can cause the networks to change, by boycotting the advertisers. This is the one area where we perhaps have a chance to force real change. If these advertisers were aware that it could affect them then the pressure on the networks would come from the one place that they cant ignore. Maybe its just a pipe dream, but who knows.
     
  19. Jesse Skeen

    Jesse Skeen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 1999
    Messages:
    4,200
    Likes Received:
    163
    I think I've already said this 100 times, but STOP watching anything that has a logo (this may narrow you down to 1 channel in some areas, but so what), if you have cable, get rid of it unless there's a logo-free and commercial-free channel on it that's actually worth paying for, and if you get a chance to participate in the ratings, inform them that you don't watch anything with a logo (I got a brief survey from Nielsen in the media which I answered, mentioning that I watch "1 hour or less" of TV per week because of the logos.) If you complain about it but keep watching, which most people seem to do, they won't go away.
    I think some legal intervention is necessary because the FCC still operates on the premise that the airwaves "belong to the public" and should "serve the public interest". Technical restrictions should at least prohibit this.
     
  20. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,740
    Likes Received:
    129


    Quite the contrary. This is a healthy, respectful debate of the issues. I am very, very impressed by the level of discourse in this thread.

    And I say that as someone who has read every—and participated in nearly every—thread about this subject at Home Theater Forum. Superb discussion here.
     

Share This Page