But I hope the media industry doesn't whine and try to employ litigation as a strategy. Furthermore, I don't think this is the end of content players such as ABC. I know Boorstin mentioned the weakness in media shares yesterday as perhaps being related to the Supreme Court ruling, but, quite frankly, I didn't see much in the price action that led me to believe that the market is overly concerned about the issue. And I certainly would not recommend a sale of stock based on the news. After all, media companies would still have to worry about erosion in network ratings because of all the changes going on in the digital culture.

What, then, should broadcasters do? Well, first, they need to keep doing what they always try to do: greenlight concepts guaranteed to be commercial enough to be profitable. That stays the same. But let me give a better answer. I think broadcasters need to accept the fact that exposure to advertising just isn't as guaranteed these days unless you basically force it down the throat of a viewer via product placement or little brand logos in the corner of a screen. Viewers hate this kind of stuff. Guess what? They shouldn't have a choice. I know many will think that I'm not a good person for saying such a thing, but it's true. Network execs simply have to stop worrying about offending viewers and really turn up the dial when it comes to product placement and logos. In my opinion, I don't see enough of this stuff. As an investor in Disney and GE, I want to see as much forced advertising as possible.

In fact, imagine if the commercial went the way of the dinosaur and all we had were product placements and logos. Don't worry: commercials will never disappear. But seriously, if commercials no longer existed (and, remember, to DVR subscribers, they basically don't), then content could play uninterrupted. Of course, that would imply a new problem: longer content. Longer content equals more expensive programming. Obviously, one would want to keep content the same length. What would then fill the gaps left by a forty-five minute commercial-free airing of what used to be an hour-long commercial-interrupted drama? Well, I think synergy might be the answer. If Disney wanted to promote one of its upcoming theatrical releases, it could use those gaps to full effect. In a sense, commercial-free television supported by 100% product placement and corner-screen logos wouldn't be much different than the Disney Channel. If you've ever watched the Mouse's kids network, I'm sure you've noted that all the commercial breaks are nothing more than little promos for the Disney company. I would just change the model a bit and aggregate all of them into extra-long bumpers instead of using them to interrupt programs on a piecemeal basis.

It's just a thought, anyway. What media companies must realize is that, at the end of the day, advertisers want to advertise effectively, and advertisers are the key to shareholder value. Again, I don't think investors should panic over this Supreme Court decision in the short term. Longer term, though, investors need to keep an eye on how their companies are responding to the constantly evolving platforms that are attacking the intrinsic worth of content libraries.

Disclosure: I own Disney, GE; positions can change without notice.