Sorry boys and girls, but these sorts of arguments on ABC budgets, STB identifiers making WMs obsolete and alleged plasma "burn" is all just micturating into the breeze.
None of these have got a snowballs of reversing the WM decision, nor should they be taken seriously.

If you want to get the networks to remove watermarking, then for goodness' sake come up with some decent arguments or strategies, rather than the pathetic whining which makes up too much of the 23 odd pages of this thread.

I am not defending WM practices, just suggesting you be realistic about dealing with it.

Cheers

JB

Agree 100% JB. Sent an email myself got the standard reply and apart from feeling a little better for a moment - got nowhere.

There is a much better answer and that is to start peppering senators with the proposal that Australian Govt should mandate acceptable practices for those who wish to retain licences.

The ownership of a licence is controlled by them and as the licencors they have the right to set standards on our behalf .

Self regulation clearly does not achieve the result - so just as Brendan Nelson is telling universities "no more compulsory student unionism" the communications minister must start telling ALL broadcasters - no more:
• Watermarks
• banner ads
• deliberatley running overtime
• pop ups
• averaging ad content over several hours
(add your own)

Yes, but the problem is John, that THESE are the "reasons" they give for the watermark and if you don't like it, then too bad.

However, having said that, I think you maybe correct, since that is what they are going to say and will not move from that position, then going the government route really does need to be the next step.

The only problem with that, is when the government then contacts the TV stations, they will tell them the same stuff they tell us. So John, how do you counter an arguement from a group that use those points to justify doing whatever they want?

I've already written to parliamentarians (some 6 or 7 weeks ago) - only a trickle of responses so far - 3 sympathetic, 1 for watermarks - and am currently drafting my second letter. If you care about this, you should write too - especially mentioning lack of accountability and useless costs to taxpayers.

I have no illusions that posting on this board does nothing directly, but it does help to read and occasionally discuss stuff and I'm not about to be put off.

As has been shown elsewhere in this thread - the history of the watermark in the UK shows that a co-ordinated response does work.

Is this still a democracy, or did I wake up in a different country? It's our money that is being misused. If the ABC can't get it right with a relatively small part of their budget, how much confidence can we have in the rest of its management decisions?

Cheers,

And when the "Squezze-backs" over end credits and "Pull-throughs" during Auntie programs start, perhaps then one may ask, oh bugger I wish I had made a bit more of a fuss when they started down this road with the watermark?

Jet :ph34r:

Exactly - it's the thin edge of the wedge.
No, in fact that started some time ago with bloody voice-overs over end credits. It was a fun day in Presentation Control years ago when I had a sudden act of rebellion and madness in deliberately not running it on my last shift. Ah, the days of manual button-pushing...

rage will no doubt be watermarked when 4:3 analogue transmission gets closed down in 2008. This being that native ABCTV Presentation output is 16:9, and reoptimised for the legacy 4:3 network, in other words, the 4:3 network is sourced from the 16:9 network. From then when only running in 16:9, the watermark will not bounce around the screen (as it does for the 4:3 analogue network) as rage uses multiple aspect ratios, clip by clip, this being the reason why rage is not bugged at the moment. But who knows, this policy may change tomorrow after a change of wind direction or at the behest of a future phonecall from FOXTEL, who knows??

With regards to squeezebacks and pullthroughs, why not give them a few more ideas. The technology exists for the ABC to adopt the BLOOMBERG look. Push/squeeze the active vision to a fulltime corner box, have a fulltime ABC news and finance ticker on the bottom of screen, with the remaining parts of the screen taken up with screen shots of upcomming programs and merchandise for sale at ABC shops. That would be the real thin edge of the wedge. I expect to be paid a consultants fee of $150,000 for this masterplan to further alienate ABC viewers by ABC management.

ct

Except that it will have to remain this way until analog in regional areas gets shut down in 2014 or so.

Figured it was the ARCing that would get them in the end.

- Miles.

No doubt the ABC will adopt the WIN policy of running everything in 14:9 letterbox on the regional analogue network by then anyway, so in effect, what I am guessing will occur in 2008 will most likely happen anyway with regards to bugging and rage. That is if rage survives that long?

ct

No, I am having a go at the pathetic arguments being raised AGAINST watermarking, Plasma burn, the claim that STB LED displays make WMs obsolete, and the ridiculous claim that ABC's watermarking budget is akin to writing blank cheques.
This is pi$$ing in the wind, you're going to have to get a better argument or action against WMs to make any difference.
The fact that the "justifications" in favour of watermarking are weak is not going to help the case much either.

Cheers

JB

Is there any info on how they got rid of the watermark?

It would be interesting to know, how much has been spent on the watermark and what the ABC had to cut out of their budget to get the watermark.

Sorry to hear about the "new improved" watermark. But if it helps motivate you to reduce your viewing even more and seek a medium that is less contemptuous of its audience, perhaps you should be thankful for it. Their timing could hardly have been better: TV Turnoff Week is less than a week away!



I believe the burden of proof rests on those who introduced the watermark. Regardless, if you want arguments against watermarking that aren't refutations of the ABC's stated reasons, you can find them in the earlier discussions in various threads. I have my own views about the way others have approached the issue, but I believe in the principle of looking at your own actions before criticising others. If I've spent a few hours writing letters, while others have clearly spent a great deal more time on detailed submissions, then I really don't have the right to offer anything other than polite suggestions.

I posted this earlier on this thread, but here it is again...

http://forum.logofreetv.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1175

FYI, currently gathering stuff together for a website...

Ahh, OK.
Well, I find that interesting.
For example, Plasma burn is real, I've even seen a LCD TV the marketing around it saying that it doesn't suffer from burn-in like Plasma's do.

As for the STB LED, I actually never said anything about that at all. What I refer to, is the graphic overlay info that is displayed on screen whenever you change channels, this clearly "identifys" the station and if the bloody TV stations do the right thing, gives show info as well. In other words, I get the Station Identification that watermarks are said to be so great at (tho if you read my other post about the calls the ABC gets about shows they don't even broadcast, then clearly WM's on other stations don't work as an Ident), that I don't need a fixed WM on the screen all the time, I watch a show, not a station.

In the case of the money, I never said it was a blank cheque, however, there is a cost involved (which I am sure you will agree to), that is funded by my tax dollars. Hence, as the person that is "paying" for it, why am I payng for somthing that I don't want.

Maybe its just me, but I consider those to be all totally valid reasons for not supporting a WM.

What I find bizarre about this whole debate is that when DTV was introduced the broadcasters refused to introduce 16:9 letter-boxing, because it would annoy the viewers. A couple went center cut and the others went to 14:9. Since then some shows have broadcast full 16:9 without (to my knowledge) any significant complaint from viewers. Even the TV commercials are letter-boxed 16:9, because advertisers think the viewers like it!

But still the networks refuse to broadcast letterbox, because years ago the BBC did a survey, (in the days of VHS and before widescreen TV's), that concluded people hated it.

Yet it's obvious that people hate watermarks more, and the same "14:9" BBC has reacted by removing them.

All I want is nice sharp widescreen picture, free of lens smudges, artifacts and watermarks. Is that too much to ask?

and Amen to that.

And no, its not too much to ask for, its call a DVD! Which it would seem is exactly what they want you to watch.

So, is it just me or has the "watermark" just got a lot fainter?

Could it be that complaints have had 'some' affect, like when I pointed out that an increase from 7% to 12% is not a "slight increase" it is in fact a 58% increase.

I wonder what would happen if petrol overnight increased 58%, would ppl have said, "O' thats ok, is only a slight increase."

Tony it is worse!!!!!. It is in fact a 71% increase.My calculation is -
5 (increase) over 7 (original number) times 100 (percent)

hmm, so it is, see what happens when one spends year 12 maths on caclus and all that other crap one would never need.

Either way, its not something that I think anyone could call "slight increase". If so, I wish I could get a pay rise with that kind of slight increase

PS. Tho what would have been even funnier is if the ABC had then corrected me, "No its not 58% increase dummy, it is in fact a 71% increase, o' hold on....."

In today's Sydney Morning Herald, there's an article in "The Guide" on what annoys viewers.

The major gripes that readers reported are -

- Shows running overtime
- Pop-up promos
- Credits crushing
- Erratic scheduling
- Watermarks
- Ads
- Loud background music

Under watermarks they reported that

"Viewers really hate these permanent station logos in the corner of the screen."

The Channel 7 jumping logo was described as not being funny or cute, just pathetic.

No they don't, the ABC told me that watermarks make no difference to the viewing of the show. So clearly we "viewers" must be totally wrong, I mean we are after all just the "public", what would we know about industry standards and the like.

All hail the mighty TV stations :ph34r:

PS. On a side note, that is just such perfect timing, it covers all the things I am covering in my letter to the various TV stations and the like, and why I want the government regulators to step in and put a stop to all this crap.
"Watermarks are needed for station identification", yeah, so you know who to complain to over all this rubbish.

Just got the following in the mail from Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications, etc.:



Of course it's more than unsettling that they should copy and paste a response that actually comes from the ABC as a reply to a letter that was already aware and had refuted the claims in that response. Not sure what I'm gonna say in response - in the meantime, there's still my FOI request from the ABC and the letter of complaint to the ABA. Today I wondered if the the National Film & Sound Archive might have a problem with the degradation of images too...

Cheers,

Shouldn't that be "Senior CTRL-C | CTRL-V"

So, clearly its ABC management calling the shots and they don't give a sh*t what anyone thinks.

Having now read that SMH article, I atleast feel better in knowing its not just me sick of all this crap, that articles lists exactly what I have been thinking and saying for over 12 months and whats better is that its not just me.

On a partly related subject, I found this rather interesting:
Film vs DVD

over $24 billion USD in the US alone spent of DVD's, anyone would think the TV stations have a death wish.

So, it would seem that the ABA is the only hope we have left, I wonder if they are a toothless tiger as well.

The article Film vs DVD was very interesting, I wonder if the producers of television series are having the same thoughts. If so life could soon become very difficult for television stations.

I saw a recent annoucement that Telstra Big Pond will be offering movies and television series to download on demand before the end of the year. I wonder if they will be DVD quality. If so the day of reckoning for the network's could be a lot closer than they think.

I don't want to speak too soon, but has anyone noticed that the ABC watermark has seemed to fade again.

Yup, I've noticed a vast amount of fading, in fact its been a two step process

STEP 1

I now watch bugger all on the ABC (in fact I now watch bugger all on TV at all), see that SMH article and that link above for the reasons why.

STEP 2

On the 1 or 2 things that I do still watch, its totally faded, after a bit of post processing in virtualdub. :ph34r:

The ABC Sport watermark in the upper right section of the screen is badly positioned and it does not look like it has much fading at all. Lucky it has the word SPORT with the watermark, or according to ABC's thinking, we would not know sport is being shown on the TV.

The show "A Current Affairs" had a segment about what people hate most about TV and when they came to watermarks, the only one they showed was the ABC watermark At the end of the segment, Ray in his wisdom, laughed it off and said, in the end it is only TV after all. Funny thing to say when you earn your money from TV.

It is strange that while the commercial channels do not watermark every TV show, the ABC watermarks everything it can..

That's because POXTEL are telling them too!

Last time I wrote I was trying to be nice but I am reading this stuff and it is so PETTY, no wonder the abc do not take any notice of you! Who would?

The ABC one was huge and opaque and badly-positioned when it began, definitely, but that's all been rectified and now it's fine.

Can someone please explain what the actual problem with transparent watermarks is?

Because some of us care about the visual integrity of an image and last time I checked, the director, cinemaphotographer (sp?), etc didn't created their vision with any watermark in mind.

Correct, as the ABC is only taking advice from POXTEL with regards to program branding/graffitti tagging style marking in return for free digital carriage. What right has the ABC or anyone have to spoil the artistic integrity of the original program makers with such marketing driven nonsense. No wonder mostly everyone who cares are now watching less and less broadcast television and the television they do watch is via DVD or internet downloads which are watermark free. The ABC argument about being able to identify itself within a multi-channel environment does not stack up as the BBC operates watermark free in an environment which has 4 to 5 times more channels than this side of the world does.

ct

True, but we don't have that right anyway. What's on free-to-air television is free [ABC and SBS excepted of course]. Most programmes can be seen on video/DVD if integrity's an issue.

... and that's exactly what increasing droves of viewers [including me] are doing ... switching to DVDs and broadband downloads!!

The broadcasters are just nailing shut their own coffins by pissing us [advertising consumers] off while they hide behind multiple layers of government protection and bullsh!t excuses for their narcissism.

If only one of the station execs had ever been to business school .................

... and, that is also what my answer would have been, so now I don't have too.

Other then too add, since this is a ABC thread, then the exception also kicks in, ie I am paying for content thats been "crapped" over, even if I don't watch it.

Most viewers don't care enough to stop watching. Probably less than 1% of the public has stopped watching shows bearing a watermark, which really is a drop in the ocean. If profits are affected at all it's negligible. That's all the networks care about.

Most of my friends and family are watching less and less TV and that includes all the channels, not just the ABC. They are watching DVDs and downloads of shows. Most of them have bought more DVDs than they can watch. No commercials, no watermarks and they can watch them at any time they want, so why watch TV.

On a slightly off topic note (though on artistic integrity):

If any one gets the chance hire out an Italian Film called The Icicle Thief (Ladri di saponette) if you can, it deals with the issue of Commercials interupting Movies and etc; it's a great film.

As the above link says:

It's about a movie resembling the 1948 Italian film The Bicycle Thief (Ladri di biciclette) being shown on TV, however the real-life world gets muddled with the film and the TV commercials.

The director Maurizio Nichetti is invited by a TV studio to introduce a screening of his best-known film, the neo-realist classic 'Ladri di saponette'. But Nichetti is horrified to discover that his black-and-white tale of life in poverty is constantly interrupted by garish colour commercials, and even more horrified when a power cut in the studio causes film and commercials to be mixed up. A glamorous model finds herself in the arms of an unemployed pauper, while his wife finds herself in consumer heaven, so Nichetti has to break into the film to try to sort everything out.


Well worth looking at, a classic film that is now more about our times than it was when it was made.

Also interesting to note that in 1989 (just after this film was made and shown), the Appellate Court in Rome passed a law saying that the interruption of a film with commercials "alters the identity" of a film and "violates the director's rights." So in Italy you cannot put ads in between, or anything that changes a film in any way (other than wht the Director has changed of course), while that film is being shown on TV.

yeah, baby, thats what we want!!!!!

There's nothing petty about an organisation wasting public money on degrading product (some of which they don't own, they only licence) and then getting away without having to be properly accountable for it. Translate that to any other government-funded organisation and think if you like the sound of it.

Anyway, FYI, I got a reply from the ABA - it was actually the first letter I received that properly deals with the issue. Unfortunately, the ABA can't do much because the ABC Code of Practice does not specifically mention watermarks. They regard the watermark as 'non-program content.'

I'm still waiting now for what my Freedom of Information request from the ABC unveils, and I'm wondering now if it is worth contacting various production organisations to get them to express to the ABC their opposition to watermarks. I guarantee you, they would prefer their images to be clean.

When you spend hours and days and weeks getting images and sound as good as possible to produce a program, it is almost painful that it can be deemed acceptable to slap logos and graphics over content. It is unbelievably stupid if it drives any viewers away. Think about this - the best case scenario is that they keep the same number of viewers - they certainly will not gain any; they actually undermine their competitiveness!!!

I have pretty much not watched the ABC for 3 months now, with the only exception being a few unwatermarked programs, and the odd check now and then to see if they have come to their senses. I used to watch them more than 70% of the time. ...I also don't buy any ABC product anymore. Some programs I have already sourced on DVD overseas.

I have also gone out of my way to congratulate SBS on resisting this stupidity. How good "Mythbusters" is when you don't get distracted by rubbish on the screen...


Cheers

You're not alone, either! This pretty much mirrors my change since the ABC "revamp" over recent months ... from 70%+ ABC to now practically zero!!

And not just because of a watermark ... I'm also pissed with:
* increased posterisation of previously good quality vision
* the ABC2 "repeat channel" at analogue composite PQ
* 576p HD at lower quality than 576i SD
* Every 'Next' item in 'Now & Next' is "News Update" (which runs for just 2 minutes)
* Still no daily EPG (even SBS has had one for years!!)
* Very poor colour grading of studio material
* Multiple watermarks on some progs
* etc

I'm now of the opinion that the ABC's broadcast licence should be revoked before any of the others .........................

Actually i dont know where you get your downloads from but all US networks have clear embossed watermarks, much more visible than the ones on seven, ten and nine.

What, because of a few visual quibbles? Despite everything the ABC actually does? Don't you think that's just a little bit harsh?

You're sounding more like Santa in your old age!

BTW: You get an EPG on SBS ... why, you lucky ....

If you know where to go, you can get clean copies which have no visual graffiti on them, and with no breaks, no trailers, and glorious full screen end credits! This has been the case for me with programs like Carnivale, Six Feet Under, Enterprise, Desperate Housewives, Lost, Doctor Who, the list goes on. The local FTA networks are dead in the water as far as I am concerned. They will only survive if they start to beef up local production again, so as to not rely on foreign content that anyone will be able to download within minutes, if not seconds in the very near future and not the hours it takes at the moment.

ct

Doctor Who isn't watermarked because it comes from BBC1 which doesn't have watermarks.

I don't know how long downloading broadcast content will last. Already the US government has moved to make it illegal [up to three years in prison from 2007, I think], and that's likely to roll across the west. Some ISPs in Australia are already sending cease-and-desist notices to customers who are caught doing it.

Still, one door closes, another opens. By 2007 a whole new way of getting this stuff will probably emerge, whether it's a torrent alternative or legal pay-per-view models.

Yes, but they have been doing the same over MP3's for a lot longer. Short of shutting down the Internet, I can't see anything really changing. In fact, I can see things increasing.

And as for those "losses" the huge record companies are so called making, try this on for an interesting read.

True, the profit loss argument is largely rubbish. I think recording companies secretly enjoy the convenience of blaming poor quarterly performance on the internet, especially EMI after its low financial results 1-2 years ago. Just as Nintendo always blames its losses on the falling/rising yen, rather than acknowledging the truth and blaming disappointing sales. Shareholders will swallow anything if it says "proactive" and "leverage" and "going forward" every five seconds.

Scaring people doesn't work. People don't like being told how to behave, and such coercion turns consumers against the company and increases illegal activity. Really the best course of action to reduce internet piracy is an itunes-style platform for television. Recognise that this is the way things work now. Make it cheap, make it widely available. Give worldwide free-to-air and cable networks a slice of the pie so it doesn't cut their lunch. Eventually people will tire of finding that most of their 'free' illegal downloads are either poor quality or red herrings, and cut the hassle by just paying for the things.

No company wants to be forced to change its business model, but the model needs to change. CDs and DVDs in shops, while still profitable, is no longer suitable for every consumer. Nor is waiting six months for a television programme.

Having worked for a very large international corporation, it always used to amuse me how "good" results were always the result of the outstanding talents and skills of senior management, but "bad" results were always caused by external events beyond the control of management, and could never have been foreseen. I always found that amusing, especially with all that "vision" floating around the floor of the executive suites.

Isn't this whole watermark thing (and a lot of the other annoyances/ills of society today) down to this rise in "Management" culture? There's nothing wrong with good management, but the sad thing is that most of these guys are pretty stupid and there's not a lot of talent out there running most large organizations today.

Yes, thats exactly the problem with the ABC as well. And yet they just don't listen.

I just read another article that said iiNet had registered the brand names, iimusic, iimovies and iimedia. This is on top of Telstra, Internode and I think a couple of others seriously looking into full movie/TV broadcast of the net (adsl2). It makes you wonder how long the TV stations can keep their heads in the sand.

"That which does not evolve, dies."

A few nights ago I started watching "The Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith" off my PVR and found the watermark so intrusive that I gave up watching.

This energized the following email to ABC Shop:

Hi,

I have just posted the following on the aus.tv and aus.dvd newsgroups.

As said in the newsgroup posting, I believe that an ABC which shows contempt for its viewers by showing a watermark does not deserve community support.

Yes, the watermark does annoy some people so much that we bother to take action.

From someone who previously supported the ABC.

Newsgroup Posting:

ABC Shop Rip-off

Save money and avoid the ABC shop.

A quick comparison of prices at Chadstone on Tuesday May 3, 2005 shows what a difference some shopping around can do.

For example, look at the following DVDs of TV shows:

Kath & Kim: Complete Box: ABC $99.95, Kmart $74.44
The Office - Complete Box set: ABC $90.95, Kmart $69.84
The Python Pack: ABC $64.95, Kmart and JB $49.98
The Goodies - Tasty Second Helping: ABC $50.95, JB $46.99
To the Manor Born - S2: ABC $40.95, JB $36.99
Ab Fab S4, and Kath & Kim S1 & S2, Each ABC $29.95, Kmart $24.99
AB Fab S1 - S3, Coupling S1 and more: Each ABC $19.95, Kmart $15.92

Despite most viewers not liking the new ABC TV watermark, the ABC thinks that marketing itself this way is more important than pleasing viewers. In my opinion such an ABC does not deserve our support in its shops. So save money and shop around.

Michael