Mark Spatny ((E-Mail Removed)) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
> Think about it...how does putting a logo have anything to do with
> piracy? If you see a pirate copy of Carnivale, Iron Chef, or Queer Eye
> online, you don't have to be a rocket scientist, or see a logo, to know
> that those shows air on HBO, Food Network, and Bravo.
You also don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that channel 501
is *still* HBO, like it has been for the last 5 years. Most people very
quickly learn those things.
> No. When people push the channel up or down button, they aren't
> neccesarily seeing the DBS box interface.
Note that for at least one of your examples, this isn't true. Premium
channels are watching using a 3rd-party box 99.9% of the time. For them,
branding isn't as big a deal (and the argument that "I'm paying *directly*
for this channel...get rid of the logo" holds even more water).
I know that the logos started as both branding *and* some "copy source
detection", and they are used the same today. My point was that branding
isn't nearly as important in reality as it was even 5 years ago. As DVRs
take hold, it becomes even less important. I don't channel-surf, but the
few times I do use the channel navigation, I either use the guide or
directly enter the channel number. This really is the way most people
work nowadays. Even my 75-year-old mom knows *all* the channel numbers on
her 150-channel cable system.
> If, in mentioning CNN, you are suggesting that the logo is to protect
> video exclusives on news channels, that plays a part, but a small part
> in the reason for having logo bugs. For 90% of the channels on cable or
> DBS, identifying the source is irrelvant.
Lately, it's getting more important, as you can get the *same* show from
different channels. With the ability to "rip" data from digital recorders,
the MPAA is getting a little more interested in being able to prove
exactly where things came from.