# CBS Wins in Federal Appeals Court



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

The FCC has been overturned in the CBS/Janet Jackson/Superbowl incident:

A federal appeals court just tossed the $550K fine against CBS for her infamous 2004 "wardrobe malfunction," ruling that *the FCC acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" in slapping CBS with the fine.*

No Surprise there.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Sheesh, I know the court system is backed up, but 4 1/2 years later?! :eek2: :nono2:


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

If the FCC could not prove that CBS was aware of and had approved the stunt that Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake pulled off, I think it's justified that CBS not be fined. Justice is served. Now, if they want to go after Jackson and Timberlake ...


----------



## N5XZS (Apr 26, 2002)

What we really need to do is overhaul the dumb FCC system, and their dumb TV rating system.

Besides, we are 20 years behind what Europeans TV broadcasters has been showing R to XX rated TV shows OTA for years.:eek2: 

Here in the USA is all TV shows are cut up, and censored on the OTA channels thanks to FCC and besides TV shows are crappy it's all G-rated anyway....:barf: 

Also just use MPAA rating and we just don't have need to have 2 different rating systems.

Also I think the PTC, should be fined for sending a massive E-mail false protests to the FCC, just because some salty words being said on TV.:nono2: 

Besides kids will alway hear F words, out in the school or any public places or even better sport stadiums which has the reptutation for the most F words around!:hurah: 

And remember this F word and nudity stuff, has always been goes back to caveman time!! You will never be able to get rid of this good ranchy system. 

7-21-08


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

N5XZS said:


> What we really need to do is overhaul the dumb FCC system, and their dumb TV rating system.
> 
> Besides, we are 20 years behind what Europeans TV broadcasters has been showing R to XX rated TV shows OTA for years.:eek2:
> 
> ...


See that's called common sense. Those in the PTC and those that support them, they have mental problems that cause them not to comprehend common sense. Great news! I'm glad CBS got off the hook for this stupidity this should have never even been an issue, but thanks to the wacks in the country it was.


----------



## MrMojoJojo (May 23, 2008)

I think South Park nailed it perfectly in the _Fun Times With Weapons_ episode. Butters is up on the stage for the county fair's auction, disguised (badly) as a dog, and with a shurukien in his eye. Cartman decides to "make himself invisible" and try to nab Butters off the stage, when in reality he is stark naked. This causes a huge stir at the next town meeting when they get upset not at the boys for playing with Ninja Weapons, but because Cartman was naked and being broadcast on Public TV, where "Literally dozens of people saw that boy's genitalia!"

Cartman only responds by saying "It was... a.. uh.. wardrobe malfunction?"


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

That was a great episode, that and that one Go Daddy Super Bowl Commercial was a great middle finger to those that made a big deal out of this or want Viacom sued out of business. Although the prudes that were 'outraged' at the Super Bowl Half Time Performance are probably not the target demo of South Park.


----------



## MrMojoJojo (May 23, 2008)

True, but the rest of us still found it hilarious.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Drew2k said:


> If the FCC could not prove that CBS was aware of and had approved the stunt that Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake pulled off, I think it's justified that CBS not be fined. Justice is served. Now, if they want to go after Jackson and Timberlake ...


I have to agree with you on that one ...


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2008)

N5XZS said:


> What we really need to do is overhaul the dumb FCC system, and their dumb TV rating system.
> 
> Besides, we are 20 years behind what Europeans TV broadcasters has been showing R to XX rated TV shows OTA for years.:eek2:


More like 50 years. And you can blame the party that controls the majority of seats on the FCC for the crackdown that has been going on the past few years. It was moving in the other direction (i.e., standards were being relaxed) before the current majority of the commission was appointed. Since political discussions are not welcome in this forum, I will refrain from naming names.


----------



## Roquefort (Mar 19, 2008)

N5XZS said:


> ... Besides, we are 20 years behind what Europeans TV broadcasters has been showing R to XX rated TV shows OTA for years...


Not just TV....Europeans have different standards. Period.

Wifey and I were on vacation in the UK last year. We saw at a underground station a billboard advertising a brand of brassiere...let's just say (I don't want to get in trouble here) that the photograph of the model left nothing to imagination.

If it had been in the US, certain parts of that model's breasts would have been airbrushed for sure.

We traveled to Spain, Germany and France and saw the same things. Either billboards, TV ads, and even magazines at news stands.

Nobody cares over there.

In our good ol' US of A, stuff like that would *never* fly.:nono2:


----------



## Scott in FL (Mar 18, 2008)

Roquefort said:


> Not just TV....Europeans have different standards. Period.
> 
> Wifey and I were on vacation in the UK last year. We saw at a underground station a billboard advertising a brand of brassiere...let's just say (I don't want to get in trouble here) that the photograph of the model left nothing to imagination.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't say nobody cares. They just don't sweat the small stuff (like what we were all born with, our bodies). When this all happened I was still living in Holland and all of my Dutch friends thought "nipple gate" was ridiculous. Ditto for my British, Irish and German friends. I have to agree... the good ol' US of A didn't look too swift on this one.

What they couldn't understand is how we are so uptight about nudity and sex, but guns and violence are OK. I had no answer for them.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

most of us "free thinkers" in the USA also have the european view about what is acceptable TV on the public airwaves. I'd rather see nudity / sex / etc. than violence too...


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Wow that's over four years of lawyers fees being paid and for what? No wonder so many people want to go to law school, after all apparantly there's never going to be any shortage of stupid people wanting fight over stupid stuff and are willing to pay lawyers good money so they can do it.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

tsmacro said:


> Wow that's over four years of lawyers fees being paid and for what? No wonder so many people want to go to law school, after all apparantly there's never going to be any shortage of stupid people wanting fight over stupid stuff and are willing to pay lawyers good money so they can do it.


You're right. CBS should have had a digital delay and used it, and saved everyone a lot of grief.


----------



## Scott in FL (Mar 18, 2008)

paulman182 said:


> You're right. CBS should have had a digital delay and used it, and saved everyone a lot of grief.


A digital delay on the Superbowl??? I don't think so.

And I doubt if lawyers were collecting fees for all of those 4 years. I think that's how long it took the Appeals Court to hear the case.


----------



## jkane (Oct 12, 2007)

The lawyers were collecting fees for 8 years over those 4 years. They always bill 48 hours in any given 24 hour period.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Scott in FL said:


> A digital delay on the Superbowl??? I don't think so.


I don't think a 7-second delay would bother, or be noticed by, many viewers.


----------



## Scott in FL (Mar 18, 2008)

paulman182 said:


> I don't think a 7-second delay would bother, or be noticed by, many viewers.


Plus add the latency from the video encoder, plus contribution satellite delay and your over 10 seconds before it even hits the tv transmitters. More latency, possibly more satellite delay...

But whether or not the viewer would notice or mind isn't really the issue. After working in broadcasting for 35+ years trust me, the broadcasters would never go for it!


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Scott in FL said:


> Plus add the latency from the video encoder, plus contribution satellite delay and your over 10 seconds before it even hits the tv transmitters. More latency, possibly more satellite delay...
> 
> But whether or not the viewer would notice or mind isn't really the issue. After working in broadcasting for 35+ years trust me, the broadcasters would never go for it!


Since this incident they have used it on other live events, although not sporting events AFAIK.


----------



## Scott in FL (Mar 18, 2008)

You got me curious, so I searched for 7 second delay broadcast video equipment. I really didn't think it existed. Audio yes, but not video. Guess what I found??? ABC apparently used a 5 second delay when they broadcast the 2005 Super Bowl.

http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/02/04/abc-puts-a-5-second-delay-on-super-bowl/

I stand corrected! :grin:


----------



## jkane (Oct 12, 2007)

The delay would be weird. Our neighbors have a party every year and watch on TV, but listen on the radio so they get local commentary.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

paulman182 said:


> You're right. CBS should have had a digital delay and used it, and saved everyone a lot of grief.


Nah, people should've just decided to be rational about the whole thing to begin with. It was total non-event and there was no reason for anyone to get excited about it. The farthest it should've gotten was for those people who were actually traumatized by seeing Janet's breast should've written CBS to express their displeasure. The odd thing is that the only people who really saw anything had to be the people that rewound and then paused the broadcast to begin with because it happened so quickly in real time that you really didn't see anything anyway. Perfect example both my wife and I were watching at the time and when "it" happened and although we were both watching neither one of us even realized we got a flash of Janet's breast it happened so quick, who knows maybe we both blinked right at that moment and missed it. But neither one of us even knew what had happened until the next day and heard the news reports of "OMG!!!! Everbody saw Janet's breast after her jacket was ripped off!!!" And both my wife and I were like "huh? when did this happen?" After all we were watching the whole thing and didn't see a thing. Like I said a total non-event that was completely made into a "issue" by hype, first by the media and then the conservative groups who latched on and made it their latest "cause" to write letters to the FCC, people who probably also didn't really actually see anthing offensive either but someone told them there was nekkid breasts on tv that could've corrupted their precious children so they complained by god! It was nothing, should've been allowed to die a quiet death, the fact that the FCC and lawyers, guns and money were even involved is ridiculous and the fact we're still talking about it is even more ludicrous.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

Scott in FL said:


> You got me curious, so I searched for 7 second delay broadcast video equipment.


http://www.primeimageinc.com/hdsd-pipeline.html

It costs about 15 grand.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Delays have also been used for a multitude of awards programs in recent years.


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

Well, I am glad CBS is off the hook on this deal. It was a little rash to throw a fine out there before they were able to prove whether CBS know about the plan or not.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2008)

paulman182 said:


> I don't think a 7-second delay would bother, or be noticed by, many viewers.


So in your opinion, I suppose there should never be any live TV. Everything should be on a delay so that nobody every sees or hears anything considered "indecent" on TV. Is that what you're saying?


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Have you ever done a side by side comparison of watching OTA vs DBS ? I see AT LEAST a 7 second delay...


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2008)

scooper said:


> Have you ever done a side by side comparison of watching OTA vs DBS ? I see AT LEAST a 7 second delay...


I've seen a delay of a couple of seconds on so. What difference does that make? Are you saying there shouldn't be any live TV, just because there's a slight delay on satellite anyway?


----------



## phox_mulder (Nov 1, 2007)

scooper said:


> Have you ever done a side by side comparison of watching OTA vs DBS ? I see AT LEAST a 7 second delay...


Try doing a side by side by side by side comparison of OTA-SD, OTA-HD, Cable SD, Cable HD and Satellite SD/HD.

Anywhere from a 2 second delay to a 10+ second delay.

We monitor all our signals coming back from all sources, see something happen on one screen, you can see it happen over and over and over again all around the room.

(TV Master Control)

phox


----------



## ziggy29 (Nov 18, 2004)

paulman182 said:


> I don't think a 7-second delay would bother, or be noticed by, many viewers.


Except for people who watch local football games on TV but prefer to listen to the radio call for the audio. They'd hear the results of the play 7 seconds before they saw it.


----------

