Congress outlaws loud commercials

[Nords]

Anyone notice the ads now being put in-line in TV shows and movies? The 60 second product demo for voice navigation in the detective's car? Actors setting down their sodas and turning the can so the label faces the camera?

Jerry Seinfeld's cereal box on the counter?

Every year I seem to watch less & less TV. There's not much "less" left.

 

[Emeritus]

This should be interesting. Remember that you are dealing with advertising, where a specific ad might be in play for at most several days. By the time that adjudicatory hearing happens, the ad will have been off the air for months to years. Cease and desist? Soitanly, yer honor! Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck!

I particularly like that this falls back ultimately to the "Yeah, but I know it when I hear it" process. "Please note that the complaint was lodged by a person using a Pioneer YSR-701K receiver, which is known to excessively expand the audio range by several decibels." There are many 'moving parts' between the recording studio and the listener's speakers. That provides plenty of room for finger pointing and argument. (It's all billable hours, though, so I don't mind.)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. This sort of regulation is doomed to fail, or at least provide a really nice living to people familiar with the issues.

Advertising can continue to be obnoxious without fear of any real impact.

Anyone notice the ads now being put in-line in TV shows and movies? The 60 second product demo for voice navigation in the detective's car? Actors setting down their sodas and turning the can so the label faces the camera?

You don't go after the advertiser , you go after the cable operator or broadcaster. They have a lot at stake. It's just like a loud bar, you don't sue the patrons you threaten to take away the bar license from the bar. You make them come up with a system. Repeat violations are contempt of court and they get shut down. I agree that there can be a lack of political willingness but "I know it when I see it" is absolutely standard in administrative law.

 

[samclem]

If I had to choose between the technical ability of regulators and the skill, guile, and cleverness of those trying to work around a regulation of this type, I know where I'd put my money. The deciding factors would be "degree of motivation" and "agility."

 

[Emeritus]

If I had to choose between the technical ability of regulators and the skill, guile, and cleverness of those trying to work around a regulation of this type, I know where I'd put my money. The deciding factors would be "degree of motivation" and "agility."

You forgot political clout, campaign contributions (AKA Bribes) and public apathy.
http://thedemocraticdaily.com/2010/...safety-obstruction-in-face-of-big-egg-recall/
e.g. look at the obstructionism in dealing with contaminated eggs

My point is simply that the law part is straightforward.

 

[ERD50]

Are political ads exempt from this regulation? Ya know, like the Do Not Call list?

-ERD50

 

[Martha]

I agree (but am mostly ignorant of the inner workings of regulators versus Congress). IMO, Congress micro-manages far too much. Details like this should be left to a regulatory agency, or the free market (not totally applicable in this case, since they are using public airwaves). If Congress doesn't think the agency is doing its job, they should fix that, not regulate around it.



-ERD50

The bills require the FCC to come up with the rules. So, they are telling the FCC to get off its rear. One thing I did read is that some engineers say that it is harder than you think to match sound level up with the tv show, so there may be the possibility of getting a waiver. I guess that is for the FCC to figure out.

 

[spncity]

Agree the FCC should have done this long ago. Still, I'm happy for it to be addressed.

Hope other distributors will follow suit. It's not fun to be watching something online on the laptop with ear buds and then a commercial comes on which blasts the volume. You can't always tell when a commercial is about to play.

I was thrilled re: the "Do Not Call" legislation, as were others (remember when that law was about to expire?)

 

[M Paquette]

One thing I did read is that some engineers say that it is harder than you think to match sound level up with the tv show, so there may be the possibility of getting a waiver. I guess that is for the FCC to figure out.

Even if the broadcast engineer can manage to get average and peak loudness matched up, bear in mind that the advertiser's goal is to get you to look up from the newspaper to the TV. There are plenty of ways to startle or distract the viewer beyond playing games with loudness, which the broadcast engineer has no control over. I've enumerated some of these in previous posts.

I'm sure that TV viewers will find these as annoying as the range compressed loudness of some current ads.

 

[thefed]

I dont think this is something they need to be messing with. FCC- maybe. Congress? c'mon

 

[Rustic23]

I am becoming more of a libertarian as each day passes. Where does it end? Can you picture the enforcement of this? Say you are in Onalaska Texas, and you think the commercials are too high. What sort of bureaucracy will exist to check out you complaint. I have a volume control, a mute button, and a channel button. I can handle this and do not need another Washington bureaucracy/police department to solve this problem.

 

[harley]

All in all, it's just another couple of pages in the thousands of volumes that make up our laws. As unenforceable as the no texting while driving laws. I've read that that law has actually increased the number of accidents, since texters are holding their phones down low so they don't get caught, resulting in having to take their eyes even farther off the road.

 

[Emeritus]

All in all, it's just another couple of pages in the thousands of volumes that make up our laws. As unenforceable as the no texting while driving laws. I've read that that law has actually increased the number of accidents, since texters are holding their phones down low so they don't get caught, resulting in having to take their eyes even farther off the road.

Texting while driving is simply another example of the social cost of "I've got mine, screw you and yours" Its not a question of law or law enforcement it's a question of what kind of society we live in. If from the word go "what's in it for ME" is the only value we respect we are in deep trouble whatever the law is.

You want real libertarianism? go to Kabul See what happens when society breaks down completely

 

[harley]

Texting while driving is simply another example of the social cost of "I've got mine, screw you and yours" Its not a question of law or law enforcement it's a question of what kind of society we live in. If from the word go "what's in it for ME" is the only value we respect we are in deep trouble whatever the law is.

You want real libertarianism? go to Kabul See what happens when society breaks down completely

I would think someone who claims the education levels you do would understand the simple differences between libertarianism and anarchy. That's the last time I'll ever press the "view ignored post" button.

 

[Emeritus]

I would think someone who claims the education levels you do would understand the simple differences between libertarianism and anarchy. That's the last time I'll ever press the "view ignored post" button.

I'm well aware of the claims of difference between what some people think of as libertarianism and some people think of as anarchy.
Are you familiar with Déjacque , the person who coined the term libertarianism ? He was unquestionably an anarchist
Perhaps a reading of Grhams Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas will give a grounding in the subject.

As just one example of libertarian mind muddle ask a libertarian "who gets to define what is "property"?

I'm a legal taxonomist and I study reification. People routinely create fantasies of libertarianism where somehow they get to keep all the benefits of civilized society without the costs, financial and otherwise.
I specifically teach the problem of protecting privacy in a libertarian society. Its a very difficult concept.

 

[ERD50]

You want real libertarianism? go to Kabul See what happens when society breaks down completely

And the equally ignorant response could be: You want real Government control? Turn over all your belongings and income to the Government and let them determine how much you get and what you are allowed to do with your time since they are so all-knowing. Let us know after you've done that, if they allow you computer access. geesh.

I would think someone who claims the education levels you do would understand the simple differences between libertarianism and anarchy.

I'll paraphrase a bit, but there is a saying that it is difficult/impossible to convince someone of something, if the belief in that thing challenges their own livelihood.

How they appear to others when they try to defend the indefensible isn't changed though.

-ERD50

 

[Emeritus]

And the equally ignorant response could be: You want real Government control? Turn over all your belongings and income to the Government and let them determine how much you get and what you are allowed to do with your time since they are so all-knowing. Let us know after you've done that, if they allow you computer access. geesh.


I'll paraphrase a bit, but there is a saying that it is difficult/impossible to convince someone of something, if the belief in that thing challenges their own livelihood.

How they appear to others when they try to defend the indefensible isn't changed though.

-ERD50

Who said they wanted "real government control" ? Who clams that as a "virtue" or an "ideal" ? you threw out the terms"your belongings" exactly who or what makes them "yours"? In Kabul its a gun , here it is a government

We live in a complex society where what we think of "your belongings" or wealth or property or rights are generated and defined in a matrix of personal and social actions.

You can't separate them

 

[ERD50]

Who said they wanted "real government control" ?

And who said the wanted "anarchy"?

I'm done with your circular justifications - bye. - ERD50

 

[Martha]

I am becoming more of a libertarian as each day passes. Where does it end? Can you picture the enforcement of this? Say you are in Onalaska Texas, and you think the commercials are too high. What sort of bureaucracy will exist to check out you complaint. I have a volume control, a mute button, and a channel button. I can handle this and do not need another Washington bureaucracy/police department to solve this problem.

No different than now. The FCC will check out your complaint. Just as it does if people cuss or have wardrobe malfunctions on prime time.

 

[LOL!]

I learned 40 years ago in public school that advertisers sometimes made their commercials louder on TV and that there was a mandate against that. I've always thought that the law went into effect decades ago. I guess I was totally wrong, though I'm sure this treating of loudness of commercials has been on the drawing boards or books for a very long time.

Of course, the producers of TV series can make sure the scene before cutting to a commercial is quieter than the average scene in the show, so that a standard volume commercial seems louder.

Actually it would be pretty funny if the law was already on the books. It would make Congress look pretty stupider. "Oh, there already is a law like that? Never mind."

 

[M Paquette]

For what little it's worth here, many TVs, amplifiers, and receivers offer a feature variously named 'Late Night Cinema, 'Midnight Listening', 'Night Mode', 'Dynamic Range Compression', or similar colorful phrases. The feature reduces or limits the dynamic range of sound, making quiet bits louder, and loud bits quieter.

This does a nice job of whacking commercials that have adjusted the loudness of everything in them toward peak loudness. It's a technological fix, though,and doesn't provide the full employment of regulators and litigators combined with ineffective application that a regulation carries with it.

 

[Emeritus]

And who said the wanted "anarchy"?

I'm done with your circular justifications - bye. - ERD50

Everytime some claims they are libertarian I point out that it was a concept invented by Anarchists

its like using sex worker instead of prostitute
Libertarian is a Euphemism
We know what they are we are just arguing price

 

[samclem]

I'm a legal taxonomist . . .

Everytime some claims they are libertarian I point out that it was a concept invented by Anarchists

its like using sex worker instead of prostitute
Libertarian is a Euphemism

I would think most taxonomists (legal or illegal) would place a high value on precision in word usage--as words are their stock-in-trade. To deliberately add grit to the machinery of political discourse by claiming libertarians and anarchists are the same thing seems unusual.

To begin with the fundamentals:
Does an anarchist agree that government is desirable? No
Does a libertarian agree that government is desirable? Yes, it is essential.

This would seem, to me, to be a fairly significant distinction.

 

[Emeritus]

I would think most taxonomists (legal or illegal) would place a high value on precision in word usage--as words are their stock-in-trade. To deliberately add grit to the machinery of political discourse by claiming libertarians and anarchists are the same thing seems unusual.

To begin with the fundamentals:
Does an anarchist agree that government is desirable? No
Does a libertarian agree that government is desirable? Yes, it is essential.

This would seem, to me, to be a fairly significant distinction.

Taxonomists do not define words. they classify things
IMHO Libertarians are anarchists who believe in magic fairy dust.

Saying "Does a libertarian agree that government is desirable? Yes, it is essential." is a fun dodge, but when it comes to cases they cannot come up with a principled system of limited government except classical positivism. So I don't recognize their pseudo-category
of "limited government libertarian" they simply are people who thinks the government should not regulate the things THEY don't like the government to regulate


I always ask libertarian what should be the social reaction to a person who has a gun which is stolen and used in a crime. Are they responsible or not? Anarchists would clearly say no, the concept of responsibility is anathema. Libertarians have never come up with a clear answer based on principles. If they like guns they say no responsibility. If they don't like guns they say strict responsibility since the act infringes on the rights of others.

If its not anarchy, its just a slogan, not a category

 

[M Paquette]

IMHO Libertarians are anarchists who believe in magic fairy dust.

Well, it would be in everyone's best interest to define just what sort of libertarian we are discussing. There's a wide selection of libertarian belief systems and philosophies to choose from, ranging from the rare and endangered left-wing libertarian, through the Heinlein variety, to the very pinnacle of the Atlas libertarians.

Me? Hee hee hee...

Where's Porky?

 

[samclem]

Or, we have . . .


I hear Porky warming up. "Beat it, pig! Nothing happnin here, just a little clean fun!"