This year’s Super Bowl to be held in New Jersey could be the coldest on record.  (Super Bowl VI which was played at Tulane Stadium was 39 degrees at kick-off).  Swedish retailer H&M is hoping to heat things up with a 30 second commercial that not only features super hunk and former soccer player David Beckham without a shirt, but will also allow some viewers to purchase items from the David Beckham Bodywear collection directly from the TV.

Say hello to “t-commerce”, a new technology that takes advantage of smart TV’s.  Delivery Agent, a company that creates and develops apps has come up with one that will allow you to make purchases through a Shop TV shopping platform.  Currently, only viewers watching the ads on a Samsung Smart TV will be able to take advantage, but expect the technology to extend to other Smart TV models soon.

In case you’re worried about your buddy interrupting the game to buy some boxers; don’t be.  A small part of the screen will present a pop-up menu while the ad runs on the larger part of the screen which will, offer product information, the ability to send that info to another device as well as the option to buy the product directly. And, if the game gets boring, the ad will still be interactive and available for purchase to consumers who rewind back to it using their DVRs.

To make sure everyone knows to take their bathroom breaks during the game and not when the commercials are on, Beckham will make his first appearance at the new Times Square H&M location (where the in-store music is louder than a Seattle Seahawks home game) to get you pumped up for what is sure to be another epic night of advertising and football.

Hold onto your beer can sports fans because there is trouble brewing on the sports television landscape that does not involve Jim Crane and Comcast Sports Houston.

There is a new player on the television scene called Aereo. Aereo is a new way for consumers to drop cable-TV subscriptions. Anyone with a television can buy an “antenna” from Aereo and get free access to broadcast channels via the Internet. Cable programming such as HBO and ESPN are not available so for now, Aereo (which is available in Houston) is simply a convenient way to record and watch local television.

So why should the mighty NFL be worried?  All their games are broadcast over the air in their respective markets. Theoretically, Aereo could put up antennas in NFL markets and sell a package which would provide subscribers to buy online access to NFL games broadcast anywhere. This would allow Aereo to offer a similar version of DirecTV’s NFL Sunday Ticket without paying the NFL anything.

The timing could not be worse for the NFL. The NFL Sunday Ticket agreement with DirecTV is set to expire at the end of next year. DirecTV pays a reported $700 million per season for having exclusive rights to all the games. It does not take a Warren Buffet to figure out the value of those rights would drop faster than Enron stock.

But wait, there’s more. Aereo could also undercut the NFL’s plan to dole out the way people watch the games. Currently the league has an agreement with Verizon to show games on smartphones, but for whatever reason, restricts it being shown on tablets. Aereo could let people watch games on whatever device they want.

The NFL and MLB are not taking this lightly. In a recent friend-of-the-court brief, they claim Aereo “has no purpose other than to avoid compensating the copyright owners whose programming Aereo exploits.”

Broadcasters are also fighting back, but are down in the scoreboard early on. Federal judges in Boston and New York have ruled that Aero could operate during the legal fight, giving it time to spread to new cities. Look to see this case make its way to the Supreme Court sooner than later.

It has long been thought that all major sports programming would cease to be offered on over-the-air television outlets and move to a paid, or pay-per-view model. Aereo could just be the final nail in the proverbial coffin to make that happen.

The way you pay for cable television may soon change if Senator John McCain gets his way.  He has introduced the Television Consumer Freedom Act which would allow consumers to subscribe to only the channels a la carte instead of having to pay for packages of channels they’ll never watch.   No more paying for ESPN for those not interested sports or the WE channel for viewers who are not interested in Bridezillas.

Senator McCain recently wrote an op-ed piece in the L.A. Times saying…

“Many industries over the years — from the stagecoach builders and saddle makers to those who made the eight-track tape and the Sony Walkman — didn’t much like the change forced on them by the tide of history. Sooner or later, companies standing in the way today will face a similar choice: Meet consumers’ demands or become obsolete.”

Locally, the interesting question is what would happen with Comcast Sports Houston.  As many frustrated sports fans know, CSN Houston has not had much luck being picked up by a number of the major cable providers.   If this bill passes, CSN Houston will be in the position of having fans choose whether or not they want to watch the games and the other ancillary programming they provide.  The sports channel has been adamant about being made available to every subscriber on the basic service level and being compensated for that number.  That all becomes a moot point if Senator McCain’s proposed bill actually becomes law.

More and more, we are living in an on-demand world.  Services like iTunes, Netflex and Hulu are proving that consumers want, what they want, when they want it.  It’s time the cable industry take a hard look at where this is going and get ahead of the curve before they become the way of the 8-Track.

Something scandalous is happening with reality TV.  It turns out many of the reality programs aren’t very real at all.  The latest revelation comes from A&E’s hit show, “Storage Wars”.   Former “Storage Wars” star Dave “Yuuup” Hester is suing A&E, alleging that substantial aspects of hit reality show are fake (insert gasp here).

Hester asserts producers of the program plant expensive items in storage lockers that its “stars” are supposed to bid on.  It has also been alleged that producers have asked some of the cast members to give them special pieces that are planted in the lockers.  The production company would then pay a rental fee to the “star” for using their items.

Now this isn’t the first reality show to be accused of not being real.  A contestant on HGTV’s “House Hunters” reveled back in June that she would not be featured in an episode until she had already closed on a home.  Yet, she was still required to view other homes even though she had already purchased a home.  And then there’s TLC’s “Breaking Amish” whose cast members supposedly lied about their backgrounds and had left the Amish community several years before the show began.

You would think most people would be outraged, but many viewers don’t seem to care.    “Who cares, it doesn’t matter to me” to the sarcastic, “Really, it’s a fake?  I am shocked!!” fill up message boards by people who follow such programs.  The posters seem more amused people actually thought the shows were real, than the fact the producers take “creative license” with many of the story lines.

But it seems to be a sad state of affairs for people like Dave “Yuup” Hester that, when it comes to reality TV, things just aren’t always as they seem.

If you spend any time on Facebook recently, you have probably seen one of your friends post this statement…

In response to the new Facebook guidelines I hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, illustrations, comics, paintings, professional photos and videos and similar in line with the Berne Convention.

For commercial use of the above my written consent is needed at all times. (Anyone reading this can copy this text and paste it on their Facebook Wall. This will place them under protection of copyright laws) By the present communiqué, I notify Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, disseminate, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The aforementioned prohibited actions also apply to employees, students, agents and/or any staff under Facebook’s direction or control. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of my privacy is punished by law (UCC 1 1-308-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute).

Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are recommended to publish a notice like this, or if you prefer, you may copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once, you will be tacitly allowing the use of elements such as your photos as well as the information contained in your profile status updates.

At first glance, language looks very official and binding, except for one little problem; it’s a bunch of mumbo jumbo that would make even Perry Mason blush.    Let’s break it down…

1. To begin with, posting anything on Facebook does not supersede the user agreement you agreed to (and probably never bothered to read) when you first signed up.
2. Citing the Berne Convention should be enough to make Facebook quiver in its tracks, except that the Berne Convention has nothing to do with the Internet.  The World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty was developed in 1996 to deal with issues raised by information technology and the Internet that the Berne Convention does not cover.
3. Using the word “communiqué” (while very official looking even though it’s roots are French), simply means an official announcement about a usually very important piece of news and has no legal bearing or merit.
4. Referencing a law by its number certainly conveys importance, however the law cited in the post (UCC 1 1-308-308 1-013) concerns Commercial law – that’s why it’s called “Uniform Commercial Code” and is meaningless in this context.
5. This next one is my personal favorite, the Rome Statue.  This statue summarizes who can investigate and prosecute core international crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.  Makes you wonder just what people are posting in their status update to warrant this type of protection.

Facebook has addressed all of this on its Facebook and Privacy page (although admittedly, it is difficult to believe a company whose stock value has lost what economists described as “a crap load of money”).  Still one has to wonder what possesses people to copy and paste with such reckless abandonment.    Maybe we have become a generation lemmings that jump off the cliff screaming “they can’t put that on the Internet if it wasn’t true!”