Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

Station Logos Complaint


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
37 replies to this topic

#1 of 38 StephenRabinowitz

StephenRabinowitz

    Agent

  • 45 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 27 1999

Posted September 08 2002 - 02:54 AM

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 of 38 Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer

  • 16,725 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted September 08 2002 - 06:44 AM

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 of 38 John Chevalier

John Chevalier

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 87 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 24 2002

Posted September 09 2002 - 02:47 AM

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 of 38 Luis C

Luis C

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 192 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 17 2002

Posted September 09 2002 - 03:22 AM

John,

This is completely OT but I'm curious... why did you choose to become a lawyer? Truthfully now... Posted Image

BTW, I agree with you completely...

#5 of 38 BruceSpielbauer

BruceSpielbauer

    Second Unit

  • 275 posts
  • Join Date: May 27 2002

Posted September 09 2002 - 03:30 AM

>>> 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. <<<

If one is using a product in the way that it was reasonably intended to be used, and that product is the cause of property damage, it most certainly can establish a prima facie case. And, keeping in mind that TV sets ship with incredibly high contrast, and brightness overkill, and then simply watching a station with a logo can permanently damage the set, I believe that the legal responsibility would lie with the station (in the majority) and with the manufacturer (in the minority). Also, the fact that this phenomena is NOT well-known, and that many reasonably informed people are not aware that it even exists, helps this cause. And, the fact that few manufacturers make any effort to inform the customers in advance (some do), helps as well.

And, yes, it is purtely anecdotal, but Chicago resident posted on this very forum last year that he had won a small claims judgment against CBS and Channel 2, Chicago. I o not know if this was true, but it did not suprise me.

Just my thoughts,

-Bruce in ChiTown

#6 of 38 Chris PC

Chris PC

    Producer

  • 3,994 posts
  • Join Date: May 12 2001

Posted September 09 2002 - 03:56 AM

I hate those stupid logo's. I almost avoid stations because of it.
Going from projector to flatscreen for a while.... :P

#7 of 38 John Chevalier

John Chevalier

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 87 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 24 2002

Posted September 09 2002 - 03:59 AM

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 of 38 Luis C

Luis C

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 192 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 17 2002

Posted September 09 2002 - 04:08 AM

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 of 38 John Chevalier

John Chevalier

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 87 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 24 2002

Posted September 09 2002 - 05:17 AM

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 of 38 Luis C

Luis C

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 192 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 17 2002

Posted September 09 2002 - 05:49 AM

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! Posted Image Back to HT! Posted Image

#11 of 38 BruceSpielbauer

BruceSpielbauer

    Second Unit

  • 275 posts
  • Join Date: May 27 2002

Posted September 09 2002 - 07:20 AM

>>> 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.<<<

Is this stated correctly? I am not certain what you are saying here, with all due respect.

Let me make certain my post was clear. I was intending to argue that it SEEMS as if a suit against a TV station for broadcasting a static logo could be successful by an afflicted consumer, based on what I know about this issue.

My point is that 1.) If a logo is now ever-present on a white screen, it is relatively easy to prove that the "phosphor wear" problem resulted from that particular station.
2.) The stations have done nothing (that I am aware of) to warn consumers of this risk.
3.) They themselves have received complaints about the risk from videophiles (I know this for a fact, since I have E-Mailed and written to more the 24 of the more popular stations, and there is a popular web site dedicated to doing just this.) So, they are aware of the risk.
4.) Some stations have have reduced the "brightness" and intensity, and the translucence of their logos which would also establish that they have received some of those complaints, and understand the risks themselves. When, for example, the Discovery Channel switched their logo from being a bright, opaque, colored logo which completely obliterated the original image under its superimposed image, to more "whitish," transparent logo, it was in response to consumer complaints. Their own attorneys would be able to point out that this may have been wise, to avoid lawsuits, but it also was unwise, since it is almost an admission of earlier fault. They have mitigated the damage, but I seem to recall that judges will still hold corporations liable for damages done before any such mitigation begins. Am I not correct?

Further, most consumers are NOT aware of this risk. This is obvious. Most of those who visit a forum such as this ARE aware of it, or they BECOME aware. However, we are in the minority. I haved read literally dozens of posts who ask if burn-in is a myth, even on this very forum. I read many others where people are obviously learning of it for the first time. And, again, MOST people are not obsessed enough about their video equipment to ever visit a forum such as this. I first became aware of this issue earlier this year, as I thought it had been completely eradicated in 1987, when those early computer monitors switched from "amber" flashing cursors to colors.

>>> 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. <<<

Morally? Legally? Ethically? What are you saying here, exactly? In my opinion (which is purely a layman's), similar lawsuits have been won in other areas, where a product liabiity existed that the general population would not be expected to be aware of. I do not think the onus should be on the consumer, especially if the networks KNOW they are doing harm to people's personal property, and do not try to educate the customer to avoid the potential harm, and even downplay the potential harm, while quietly changing their logos so they are still present, still pose a risk, but lessen the numbers affected because of the lessening of the opacity of the logo.

>>>>I dont think that TV stations market their products primarily to RPTV folks.<<<

We agree. It is only partially.

I don't think those airbags were marketed "primarily" at 8 month year old babies, either.

>>> 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. <<<

Yes, some of the cases were over the marketing of youths, you are correct. However, I believe I recall that some of the suits were over "what did you know, when did you know it, and why didn't you tell the public, as soon as you knew?"

>>>They also make their tobacco much more addicting that what it should be. <<<

Yes, and some of the big tobacco cases were over this issue, as well.

>>>>They also make their tobacco much more addicting that what it should be. TV stations do no such thing. <<<

Of course, they do. (LOL!) Well, they certainly try, although they are so often a bit inept at it (big grin). Just kidding...

>>>>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. <<<

Sorry, are you arguing that stations are NOT aiming their product (partially) at the more than 5 million owners of RPTVs in this country? If so, I guess I fail to see why this would make any difference, since RPTV owners are intended consumers of the broadcaster's product.

I am sorry to (gently and respctfully) disagree, but logic would seem to dictate that the opposite should be true, that it is those who are NOT savvy videophiles who whould (and could) easily win a suit against these television stations, due to the stations' persistence in displaying static images, and in not providing some sort of "warning" that this might pose a hazard for those with CRT displays, especially the rear-projection type of CRT displays. _I_ may have my case thrown out, if someone drags one of these posts into a courtroom, and can point out that I was obviously aware of the potential risk. The average user would not have the same fears. Since he or she was not aware of the problem, he or she never posted anything about it on the Internet. In civil cases, when it to successfully suing a corporation over product liability, ignorance CAN sometimes be bliss.

-Bruce in Chi-Town

#12 of 38 Lew Crippen

Lew Crippen

    Executive Producer

  • 12,060 posts
  • Join Date: May 19 2002

Posted September 09 2002 - 07:24 AM

Quote:
A political solution to this problem tends to scare more people than encounrage them.
As much as I despise the station logos, I would despise by an order of magnitude more actions taken by the government to limit the practice.

But on the other hand, if litigants can collect damages from the networks, thereby causing the practice to cease, I’d be extremely happy.

As an aside I note that some cable/satellite networks, like A&E, fade their logos out a few minutes after commercials.

The overall practice seems to be on the rise, however. This became common in Australia a couple of years ago, with one network holding out (they maintained that they did not need to engage in such a tasteless self-promoting practice). Naturally, that lone holdout, also began superimposing their telecasts with their logo after losing just a bit of market share.
¡Time is not my master!

#13 of 38 John Chevalier

John Chevalier

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 87 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 24 2002

Posted September 09 2002 - 07:46 AM

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 of 38 John Royster

John Royster

    Screenwriter

  • 1,089 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 14 2001

Posted September 09 2002 - 08:26 AM

Quote:
Video games usually do not have a disclaimer
they all do and have for quite a long time specifically about RPTVs. Its on the first page along with the seizure, repetative strain injuries as well.

You could try to sue Dell, but they also provided a warning on proper use. Covered there.

Same reason there is a sticker on your blender that says "Don't put your fingers in here when operating" Because someone, somewhere decided to jucie his own fingers and sued the blender company and won.

I'm not going to argue, but of course the Broadcasters are responsible. I'm all for some form of action to get them to stop.

#15 of 38 Jesse Skeen

Jesse Skeen

    Producer

  • 3,995 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 1999

Posted September 09 2002 - 08:33 AM

http://www.logofreetv-usa.com
Home video oddities, old commercials and other junk: http://www.youtube.com/user/eyeh8nbc

#16 of 38 Luis C

Luis C

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 192 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 17 2002

Posted September 09 2002 - 08:41 AM

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? Posted Image

#17 of 38 John Chevalier

John Chevalier

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 87 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 24 2002

Posted September 09 2002 - 08:59 AM

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 of 38 David Banfield

David Banfield

    Auditioning

  • 2 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 09 2002

Posted September 09 2002 - 09:15 AM

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 of 38 Jesse Skeen

Jesse Skeen

    Producer

  • 3,995 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 1999

Posted September 09 2002 - 10:22 AM

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.
Home video oddities, old commercials and other junk: http://www.youtube.com/user/eyeh8nbc

#20 of 38 Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer

  • 16,725 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted September 09 2002 - 03:21 PM

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.


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.





Forum Nav Content I Follow