Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

InappropriateTA t1_j6e9xyt wrote

Reply to comment by cbbuntz in Three seconds of audio could end up costing Fox $500,000 by blaspheminCapn

Doesn’t seem like it. The article mentions:

> The Federal Communications Commission, which polices use of the sound to protect its integrity, now wants to fine the organization $504,000 – just as it did for Hollywood action film Olympus Has Fallen ($1.9 million, 2014) right down to Jimmy Kimmel Live ($395,000, 2019).

195

cbbuntz t1_j6ealnp wrote

Seems pretty pointless to fine a multinational corporation a half million. Not much of a deterrent

116

Zarathustra30 t1_j6eqw81 wrote

Eh. I doubt that using this specific tone profits FOX half a million more than any other tone.

89

Sokobanky t1_j6fc9zl wrote

I mean, we’re all talking about it.

5

Zarathustra30 t1_j6fe5pr wrote

Point, though is r/television really the demographic who cares about sports?

19

ThomB96 t1_j6h9jyx wrote

All kinds of people care about sports

2

officeDrone87 t1_j6i9n3h wrote

Reddit is the largest hub for sports discussion in America.

1

Locke_Moghan t1_j6f684e wrote

Given that they could have used a slightly different tone and not get a fine, it still seems like a decent enough deterrent.

59

orangemaroon25 t1_j6g0h85 wrote

I thought it was the tone you hear before the national weather service reports that you can't use. The one with the three short repeats.

9

AidanAmerica t1_j6gjigr wrote

It’s those three short tones, one long beep, then three (slightly different) short tones again. this

20

UniqueMeasurement161 t1_j6el351 wrote

If it wasn’t much of a deterrent then it would happen more often.

28

44problems t1_j6ncn40 wrote

I would hope if Fox repeatedly ignored this warning that harsher penalties would arise.

1

MarcusLiviusDrusus t1_j6ezlxq wrote

As John Rogers says, "A fine is a price."

You might even expand it to "A fine is a price that you only occasionally have to pay."

10

Anchor689 t1_j6eh9w7 wrote

Yeah, I wish we would stop fining large corporations. Nullify their patents/trademarks or something like that instead. That might be a bit extreme in this case, but when large fines and maybe sending executives to jail are the worst punishments we give large corporations, it's insane that we think they'll learn any kind of lesson.

9

WhileNotLurking t1_j6fu1u4 wrote

Eh. Mistake happen. A one time mistake like this is perfect for a fine.

Now repeat offenses or blatantly ignoring the law - I'm with you.

Wells Fargo / HSBC makes a business out of breaking the law. Making billions then paying a few hundred thousands in fines.

22

whoooocaaarreees t1_j6ibtth wrote

Up vote for calling out HSBC and Wells Fargo on systemic shitty and often illegal behavior.

3

apply_induction t1_j6fbyyt wrote

Play the emergency tone, now your bosses’ bosses’ boss gets solitary? Sounds like a plan!

7

MissDiem t1_j6fersd wrote

If risk of executives or board members doing any jail or prison time for things was actually on the table, we could fix so many things.

4

ktElwood t1_j6hdcv0 wrote

They will put the blame on some employee and claim they had not been informed and have no information.

4

PaxNova t1_j6hyf8d wrote

I doubt they review all footage. It would be the truth here.

1

MissDiem t1_j6idqze wrote

What I'm saying is if we could create legislation that states company executive and board members go to prison if X happens, you'll find they have miraculous solutions and previously unrevealed projects that guarantee X won't happen.

1

ktElwood t1_j6ix93a wrote

Yeah but you'll never have that because politicians are heavily influenced by lobbyists, who get hired by executives.

The amount of Senetor's and Rep's children in managing roles of big tech is astonishing...seems like they always should have second thoughts while voting on bills...

1

MadeByTango t1_j6glu5n wrote

It may be based on the size of the potentially harmed audience, not the finances of the offender (which feels fairer, honestly, even if I don’t care to stand up for Fox)

Audience size would likely be:

  1. Box office movie
  2. Fox show
  3. Jimmy kimmel
3

bearsheperd t1_j6gwgce wrote

Even these big corporations like to nickel and dime. If someone uses the tone without realizing they were going to be fined then it’s a screw up and someone will get fired. If they did it knowing full well they’d get fined and got the go ahead anyway, then yes they should fine them more.

3

ranhalt t1_j6fywsf wrote

It’s low enough that they won’t pay to fight it. But the real question is where does that money go.

2

chpr1jp t1_j6ga2n6 wrote

Article says that three have been fined. It seems that the deterrence factor is there.

2

Agariculture t1_j6gkq23 wrote

More like government grifting. Its cost of doing biz for the corps. But significant money to the department. If you watch you will see this type of grift all over the globe. All governments are doing it.

0

unsaltedbutter t1_j6elw30 wrote

It's almost just a very expensive licensing fee. They already pay licensing fees to play short clips of music. Same thing.

12

ballrus_walsack t1_j6eu2h1 wrote

Except they don’t get to keep using it. Each use is a new fine.

14

Archangel9731 t1_j6ezh94 wrote

So it’s pay-as-you-go

−1

ballrus_walsack t1_j6f1fb1 wrote

I guess so… but fines can ratchet up if they are meant to deter a behavior or action. So if they tried to budget for it then it would be very uncertain.

2

lego_office_worker t1_j6f4ldm wrote

no its like a speeding ticket. you kow what happens after you get enough speeding tickets?

2

orangemaroon25 t1_j6fzz2n wrote

Why can't Hollywood use it, especially given that it would be entirely appropriate within the context of what is going on in Olympus Has Fallen?

−3

cold08 t1_j6g5g3i wrote

It's an alert, so if it's used often you get desensitized to it and may not pay attention to alerts in the future because you assume it's a TV show or movie.

12

orangemaroon25 t1_j6g7n99 wrote

Yeah, but a movie isn't a live broadcast so that's a totally different situation.

−11

SirCB85 t1_j6h1qxh wrote

You are aware that movies also get broadcast on TV?

7

MasterPlanPenguin t1_j6g27h3 wrote

As others have said it’s to protect the integrity of it. If it’s being used in movies and TV shows then people get use to hearing it and it loses its impact and people won’t listen to it when it is real and just ignore it as being a movie on tv or something like that. Even if it makes sense in the context of the movie you are still using something that is only meant for emergencies and that’s it. The more it gets used outside of that though the less impact it has and so emergencies won’t be listened to as much or brushed off and ignored as not being the real deal.

11

orangemaroon25 t1_j6g2nf2 wrote

But if I'm watching a movie then I know it's not really breaking in to deliver an actual message. The concern would be with live broadcasts. I suppose airing a movie on cable you might have to edit that, but in a theater or on a home edition it shouldn't matter.

I already am desensitized to it because the tornado warnings on the radio use the same sound and the listening area of the radio station is such that I hear warnings for folks three counties away which does not affect me in the slightest.

−15

MasterPlanPenguin t1_j6g3f8v wrote

Others may not though. The point remains that it should never be used except for emergencies and as others have pointed out this tone can trigger other things to happen as well which can then in turn create an emergency.

Well obviously not because you still recognise it and know it to be in use for an emergency. You aren’t desensitised. Just because you may not react doesn’t mean you are desensitised. You still know “that’s an emergency”. If it’s being played all the time in movies and tv and such you eventually hit a point where you stop thinking emergency and think “eh just a movie”. Your brain stops recognising it as an emergency sound and as just a sound that’s recognisable but not anything to worry about.

8