Time on "Pirates of Primetime"

TV Shows being pirated by arnoroefs2000 · 2002-02-21 04:08 · Score: 5, Informative

To get an idea of the amount of TV shows being pirated, and the speed at which they get ripped take a look here.

Re:TV Shows being pirated by Lumpy · 2002-02-21 05:23 · Score: 2

first off, it isnt pirating. I am SICK of these scare words added to a topic to make it evil. Second, the nwtworks, etc.. are lying hard about any revinues they lose except for the pay-per-view or pay premium channels. off the air channels and other free non-subscription channels are losing nothing by this and in fact they are gaining as the show becomes more popular. This is just another example of CEO's and CFO's trying to squeeze the tit a bit harder to get more milk.
first the quality of the shows (example my collection of the entire shown invader ZIm episodes.) is horrible.. VHS quality at best. Which by the way is legal? I can tape the shows and trade them legally. and the shows are not being re-broadcast or sold for a profit which takes the profit from the company.

They have to OFFER something to lose sales of it. and they do not and never will offer the invader Zim collection on DVD (start your subscription for only $29.95 and recieve 2 more episodes each month... bullcrap)

nope, they lie, and they lie horribly.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Fair Use by commonchaos · 2002-02-21 04:12 · Score: 2, Informative

For me at least there is much less of a grey line in this area, I dont have a TV, so I've had friends tape shows, and go and watch them later. I have traded tapes. People have had VCRs for ages, and there actually are people who can program them. The industry has known this for a long time. Most people have a small collection of movies taped off of cable.

I hope that they can learn from the mistakes that the music industry made.

my 0010 cents

Difference from music warez being... by weird+mehgny · 2002-02-21 04:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

...that TV shows get broadcasted once or twice, and that's what you get (it's not like everything gets released on video tapes...).

Thank God! by jdma · 2002-02-21 04:13 · Score: 2, Informative

This allows us (in Europe) to see some shows that we may not be able to see even if we have cable! Or seet it before (South Park, Futurama).

Piracy? by toupsie · 2002-02-21 04:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

The TV networks should be flattered that anyone would want to "pirate" their crap. It seems that as I get more channels on my cable system, the less quality I get. I can honestly say I do not watch one network show during PrimeTime outside of Enterprise and the Simpsons.

Its gotten so bad, I actually watched a History Channel show on the history of hand tools over the shows that were on CBS, NBC, Fox and ABC and I wouldn't even know what to use those hand tools for! Once the Olympics go off the air, I most likely won't be watching NBC anytime soon.

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

Re:Piracy? by mblase · 2002-02-21 04:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

The TV networks should be flattered that anyone would want to "pirate" their crap.

You're willfully missing the point. It's not popularity that makes money for the networks, it's advertising, which online pirates strip out, or VHS/DVD purchases, which *probably* aren't being made.

Unlike MP3 swapping, there's a HUGE difference between watching a quarter-screen pixelated copy of a show and seeing it on my 32" television, but that's clearly not a big deal for many viewers, and in any case, it WILL change as technology and bandwidth progresses.

The networks are losing money on this, and that's why they're upset. They don't care if you watch it, they only care if you watch it with the commercials in.
Re:Piracy? by Waffle+Iron · 2002-02-21 04:51 · Score: 2

Would you be "flattered" if I stole your wallet? Same concept, different medium.
Bzzzt. It's not like stealing your wallet. It's like making an unauthorized copy of your wallet.
IP 'Piracy' is not theft. It is copyright infringement.
Re:Piracy? by sql*kitten · 2002-02-21 04:56 · Score: 2

It's like making an unauthorized copy of your wallet.

Like copying credit card numbers and magstripes, you mean?
Re:Piracy? by ncc74656 · 2002-02-21 05:06 · Score: 2

The networks are losing money on this, and that's why they're upset. They don't care if you watch it, they only care if you watch it with the commercials in.

I haven't paid any attention to TV ads in years. Even before I got my TiVo, I used VCRs to timeshift everything I watched...and I buzzed right past all of the ads. What makes the network execs think anybody is watching the ads at all?

--
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Re:Piracy? by toupsie · 2002-02-21 05:07 · Score: 2

Then why don't you remove the fast forward button off your VCR?

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Re:Piracy? by toupsie · 2002-02-21 05:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Would you be "flattered" if I stole your wallet? Same concept, different medium. Get real.
Please explain how copying a TV Show is the same as someone hitting me on the back of the head and stealing my wallet? I don't open my wallet up to everyone that walks by and show them the content within it. I keep it inside my coat pocket so it is protected from prying eyes. TV Networks are sending an unencrypted signal through the air and are begging me to pick it up and view it. There is no disclaimer or contract before the show that requires me to view the commercials. If they don't want you to copy the show, the should either encrpyt it or sell it on a media they can control.
Also, does a TV network have a right to control my memory of the show so they can make sure I remember the commercials along with the plot line?

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Re:Piracy? by toupsie · 2002-02-21 05:19 · Score: 2

Perhaps you are just getting old?
Guess so. All the "women" on TV and in the Music Industry are starting to look like jailbait -- or maybe they all are. I am now a "Thirty-Something" and no one in Hollywood and TV Land gives a damn if I am entertained anymore.

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Re:Piracy? by Aexia · 2002-02-21 05:32 · Score: 2

I'd have to imagine that most of the people downloading TV shows do so because they can't see the original broadcast.

So what's better: someone seeing the program and becoming a fan or someone not seeing the program at all?
Re:Piracy? by Anthony+Boyd · 2002-02-21 06:19 · Score: 2

So what's better: someone seeing the program and becoming a fan or someone not seeing the program at all?

Whichever the content owner decides.

--
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
Re:Piracy? by Waffle+Iron · 2002-02-21 06:20 · Score: 2

As someone already pointed out, they make money from commercials... when someone downloads a show and watches it without commercials (as I've done with enterprise many times) it degrades the amount they can charge for commercials...so, you're the dumb motherfucker, not the guy you responded to...
What you describe is called copyright infringement. You describe the basis behind why copyright infringement is not legal. Your particular example may or may not fall under fair use. Either way, it still isn't theft. Now, reread this paragraph again and again until you understand.
Re:Piracy? by Tackhead · 2002-02-21 06:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

> The TV networks should be flattered that anyone would want to "pirate" their crap. It seems that as I get more channels on my cable system, the less quality I get. I can honestly say I do not watch one network show during PrimeTime outside of Enterprise and the Simpsons.
And that is the fundamental problem with the TV networks.
In the 50s and 60s, you watched networks. Just as there were Ford people and there were Chevy people, there were people who watched "NBC" or "CBS" or "ABC".
Today, I don't know anyone who gives a rat's fried patoot what network, nor even what channel, their programming is on. We watch shows, not networks.
And that's why the woman in the article won't pay for HBO. She doesn't want "HBO". She only wants to watch "Sex in the City", and if she could pay $1/month to watch 1 hour of HBO's programming (that is, the new episode of "Sex in the City") a week, she would.
But she can't. Because HBO doesn't work like that. Because the cable system doesn't work like that. The whole notion of "broadcasting" (and this includes "niche channels") is that you fill the pipe 24/7 with content, charge your viewers for all that content, even though they only want one or two shows you offer.
It's not quite the same as the RIAA model of "put one good song on the album, the rest can be filler", because your idea of filler might be my idea of content. (That is, some folks watch highbrow channels for the Shakespeare, others for the war documentaries, still others for the Red Dwarf reruns ;-)
But the practical effect is the same -- an end user buys a subscription to a channel in order to get the hour or two of "good stuff" per week that they care about.
Cable makes it worse, of course, in that underlying technical restrictions have created buyers used to buying "packages" of 10-20 channels at a time in order to get the 2-3 channels that carry the 4-5 shows you watch. It's not like buying a whole CD to get the one song you want, it's like buying a whole box set!
Now comes the 'net - we bypass the high-level middlemen (cable/satellite operators) and the low-level middlemen ("channels") to allow an individual to get the product ("shows") they actually want. In effect, the 'net makes the traditional distribution system ("shows" aggregated onto "channels" and sold in "packages of channels") obsolete.
The woman who says "Fuck that!" and downloads her Sex in the City isn't saying "Fuck copyright".
She's saying "Fuck the dumb distribution system".
Re:Piracy? by toupsie · 2002-02-21 06:59 · Score: 2

It was interesting but I still wouldn't know what to do with them. Check out the History Channel web page to find times of broadcast. I really like the History Channel, Discovery and TLC (except for the Maternity Ward - ick!). Its like PBS without the losers begging for money so I can watch Bert Wolf cook something I can't pronounce.

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Re:Piracy? by Cruciform · 2002-02-21 08:16 · Score: 2

Anyone who does telephone banking with their credit card company?

Lions 1 - Christians 0

:)
Re:Piracy? by Cruciform · 2002-02-21 11:51 · Score: 2

Sorry, I meant on a cell. My bad.

Paradox by ackthpt · 2002-02-21 04:14 · Score: 2

Networks and broadcasters want shows to be popular, producers want shows to be popular, when they are popular they want to control how they are popular, which if you've read /. over the past months, is unpopular. The golden goose who pays for it all is the sponsor, which they want to protect, but since many people are already paying for cable, why not just add a tariff so viewers pay to watch the shows, thus getting rid of sponsors. But wait, they're greedy enough to want it both ways, so they'd have viewers pay and still stick them with commercials and yet not want them to make copies to edit out the commercials to watch when is convenient or interesting to them.

I wonder where TWAOL is planing to take what they've got...

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Re:Paradox by Zocalo · 2002-02-21 04:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem with your theory is costs, and the (dead tree) magazine industry has a similar situation. It costs more to produce an episode of a given show, or pay for the rights to air a given sporting event etc., than the potential audience alone will bear. So they need the advertising subsidies to reduce the costs to the viewers.
I don't know what the figures are for the studios, but I did see a comment in a UK PC magazine once that to produce the same content without any advertising at all would increase the shelf price from £5 to £25. Quite a hike. Would you be prepared to see your cable/satellite bill go up by the same percentage just to lose the adverts? Plus the additional amount to cover the costs of those who say stuff it and cancel their subscriptions?
I'm guessing that for the majority of viewers the answer will be a resounding "NO WAY!"

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Re:Paradox by maxpublic · 2002-02-21 07:11 · Score: 2

So let's see...corporate society finally wakes up to the fact that *everyone* timeshifts and virtually no one watches commercials. Shitty TV shows are pulled off-air because there aren't enough suckers to pay to watch them now that no one makes those useless commercials anymore.

What's left? Pay TV! Y'know, like we have right now on digital cable - watch a show or six hours of shows (depending) for $2.95. Or series just like "Sex..." on HBO, produced within a budget but still popular.

Exactly how is this a bad thing? If this were to replace the 'basic cable' service my bill would drop to $3 a week, $12 a month - alot less than what it is right now. Even for the addicted, say 18 hours a week, that's still only $36 a month. (Anyone who watches more TV than this needs to be cleansed from the gene pool).

Not only would you have pay-per-view and pay-per-block, but specific pay-per-channel as well - again like HBO and Showtime. Once more, how is this bad?

Oh, and if anyone argues that this somehow 'disenfranchises' the poor, please - pull your head out of your ass before you walk off that cliff. There is no Constitutional right to entertainment, and the "Jeff Corwin" show hardly counts as 'necessary education that can't be obtained elsewhere' (although he's certainly nice to look at).

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:Paradox by ackthpt · 2002-02-21 10:12 · Score: 2

The networks don't want to protect their sponsors, they want to protect their ratings.
Oh, they certainly do want to protect their sponsors. The ratings are used to negotiate advertising costs, this is where the networks make their earnings. Fail to look after the one who pays the bills and they'll go elsewhere. This is particularly why network news frequently tiptoes around bad news about big advertisers, or buries it altogether. Defense attorneys aren't the only ones adept in the use of the word "alleged".

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Paradox by Zocalo · 2002-02-21 13:25 · Score: 2

Sorry, but your counter examples don't wash. Do you think a book costs more than it's cover price to produce? A video game? Or an audio CD, video or DVD for that matter? Now compare that with "Friends" which runs at nearly $10m an episode to produce - that's a lot of revenue to recoup from airing. Do the math - $220m dollars per series / viewers = cost to those viewers to watch in a pay per view scheme. Friends might survive because it's a very popular show, but an awful lot of other shows would come in below the profit line and be canned, many of which are probably the ones that the typical /. reader watches, because we seem to like a lot of "cult" programs...
Don't get me wrong, I think DRM as it stands sucks big time and we've got this whole mess because no one bothered to drag copyright legislation into the digital age in a timely and effective manner. The crux of the matter though is that if the studios can't make a profit on a show then they won't make it and people are getting confused by two totally seperate and unrelated issues with regard to downloading episodes.
There is the issue of "copyright" and there is the issue of "piracy / loss of revenue". If you download an episode of show x, have you really deprived the studio of revenue? In truth the answer is probably not - you would have most likely have watched it (and the ads) when it aired, and if you couldn't have downloaded it would have recorded it instead. So all you have done is changed the media you taped it to into one more convenient for your use instead of encoding it yourself. Where the studios are losing money however is when the people who have recorded or downloaded episodes don't by the "official" releases of the show when they are released. The problem is that this has not really been settled in the courts yet like happened when video recorders first arrived. The way things stand at the moment, I don't see that the studios have any beef with the people who download the episodes / MP3s or whatever (even if they would like to). Any potential cases would rapidly become "fair use" issues and they stand to set a precedent that they would prefer to avoid no matter what, so they grey area is not ideal but preferrential. However, distribution of movies/MP3s without approval *is* a copyright infringement, hence the attack dogs going after the likes of Napster and sites offering episode downloads.

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!

Relative statistics? by mydigitalself · 2002-02-21 04:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

...it pried open a Pandora's jewel box: Last year CD sales declined for the first time in a decade.

it would be interesting to see the % fall in this versus the general economic downturn. otherwise its a meaningless statement.

Re:Relative statistics? by Lumpy · 2002-02-21 06:03 · Score: 2

you also forgot that the number of RIAA members ritually murdered in fields stayed the same as it has for the past 5 years. while the number of visitors to the moon dropped by 100% over the past 50 years.

remember this is media, and they are talking to the general public.. accuracy and truth have no meaning in the news when it comes to statistics. It never has and never will. The truth doesn't sell.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Relative statistics? by phaze3000 · 2002-02-21 08:26 · Score: 2

Corelation does not show causation.
It's difficult to prove anything, but I strongly suspect that the downturn in record sales is strongly linked to the economic downturn.

--
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.

Re:Oh... by HCase · 2002-02-21 04:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, in her case it may well be that this is the only way for her to get the show with any ease at all. I'm also a sophmore, i live in a dorm, the college supplies the cable, but i don't get channels like hbo. If its not a standard cable channel there isn't any(short of setting up a dish in a neighbors room across the hall) way to get it. She may well be in the same situation.

A missed opportunity by RalphSlate · 2002-02-21 04:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

I am against pirating stuff en-masse (i.e. Napster, posting on websites). One-off trading shouldn't be a big concern to the content holders. If I tape a show and give it to a friend, yes, that's illegal, but it's essentially insignificant because it's usually more trouble than its worth, its uncommon, and its a drop in the bucket. I doubt I'd ever be prosecuted for loaning a copy of Star Trek that was just on yesterday to a friend who forgot to tape it.

However, the prevalence of trading shows that there is a demand for this stuff. Why not make it available for sale? Who says that shows need to be off-the-air for a couple of years before they're made available? Who says that only the most popular shows should be made available?

Why isn't the distribution process streamlined so that printing 5000 DVDs for the 5000 people who want to see "Cop Rock" is still profitable?

There are plenty of TV shows that I would gladly purchase on DVD. I was happy to see "Buffy the Vampire Slayer, season 1" on DVD -- not because I want to buy it, but because I'm hoping that means that shows like "Kojak, Season 1" make it.

I suspect that the media companies are at a crossroads. Do they sell their content and possibly ruin the repeat-TV market, or do they hold it close and risk people trading it among themselves?

Ralph Slate

Re:A missed opportunity by banuaba · 2002-02-21 04:33 · Score: 2

Taping a show and sharing it with a friend is NOT ILLEGAL. It falls under fair use. It's the same thing (conceptually) as making a mix tape and giving it to a friend. You can legally do both.

--

Brant

Argle. Bargle.
Re:A missed opportunity by Nurlman · 2002-02-21 05:08 · Score: 5, Informative

Why not make it available for sale? Who says that shows need to be off-the-air for a couple of years before they're made available? Who says that only the most popular shows should be made available?

Syndicators, that's who. The real money in producing t.v. shows is getting enough episodes of a show ordered that you can then turn around and sell them as a syndication package.
Think about it-- the major networks really only supply prime-time programming-- 8p.m. to about midnight. Everything else that shows on network affiliates (and non-affiliate stations) is either locally generated programming or syndicated stuff. That's why you get The Simpsons or ST:TNG showing every day on a given channel-- because the channel bought the syndication rights for that package of shows. Syndications of popular shows can reap a bloody fortune in revenues for the production company-- in the hundreds of millions of dollars for a reasonably successful comedy. (Typically because an affiliate in every market will buy a syndication package for a successful show, rather than having the network pay for it once for first-run.)
Anyway, the reason shows aren't released to video shortly after they finish their first-run is because the money to be made in syndication is so staggering. If Paramount sold ST:TNG videos of the most recent season's episodes 6 months after the end of each season, they'd have a much harder time pitching the entire series in syndication to the local stations-- after all, the fans of the show (who translate to eyeballs watching the local station's advertising) already have permanent copies of the episodes that are being offered as a syndication package.
That's why you're only seeing Seasons 1 & 2 of The Simpsons on DVD now: because the syndication package that features those episodes doesn't command much of a price from local stations any more. Fox (or, more accurately, Gracie Films, the producer of the show) waits to release videos until it has gotten maximum value from syndication of those episodes because syndication offers a bigger revenue stream than video sales. For shows that don't (or won't) make it into syndication (typically, you need in the neighborhood of 100 episodes or about 5 seasons to make it attractive to an affiliate who will run 5-7 shows a week), a video release can occur much faster. (Witness South Park, which Comedy Central knows damn well won't run on a broadcast station because of its content. You can buy videos of SP now, because those sales aren't cannibalizing potential syndication revenue.) Of course, if a show wasn't popular enough to survive for 100 episodes, it's unlikely to have a big enough market to make a video release financially viable. There may be 10,000 people who loved the live-action Tick series, but even if all 10,000 people buy the DVD set, will that cover the cost of pressing and marketing the discs?
Re:A missed opportunity by Guppy06 · 2002-02-21 05:09 · Score: 2

"If I tape a show and give it to a friend, yes, that's illegal"

I'm not sure it is. If the government or anybody else with a security camera has the right to record what goes on in public and more or less do what they like with it (distribute it to the Discovery Channel for documentaries, for example), why is it then illegal to record a free public broadcast and treat it similarly?

I could understand doing this with cable and DSS broadcasts, since the encryption and/or physical wire dictate a private medium. But VHF and UHF television broadcasts? Hell, the FCC says I have a right to tune in to any signals that reach me and as long as I don't have to decode it I'm free to observe the content, whether it be military communications, cordless phone conversations, Morse code conversations on HAM radio, or Enterprise on UHF channel 54.
Re:A missed opportunity by jmccay · 2002-02-21 05:43 · Score: 2

I could think of several older TV shows I would like to see on DVD, but I won't hold my breathe. The companies that are still around won't do it. Why should they pour their money in producing DVDs of older stuff when the can produce newer stuff and charge more? The industry just hasn't come to understand it's consumer like they think they do. Maybe someday they will learn.

--
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Re:A missed opportunity by The+Cat · 2002-02-21 12:21 · Score: 2

This leads the conclusion that the market value of content will approach zero in the future.

Then there will be no content. It's that simple. Isn't that the big complaint about the Internet already? The value of the content isn't even zero yet.
Re:A missed opportunity by The+Cat · 2002-02-21 17:52 · Score: 2

Linux itself is a good example of the kind of high quality user-created content that will proliferate.

Sure. But most of the people working on Linux are either:

1) Employees of a company that markets Linux
2) People who have other jobs that work on Linux in their spare time.

There is a way for these people to support themselves, in other words. Now, if the goal is for all or most content to be hobby-level, that's fine for some people, but people are also going to want some variety, and they are also going to want professionally-produced content.

Besides, the value of Linux is far from zero. I've paid for at least four boxed versions (IIRC).
Professionally-produced content has to be valued enough by the marketplace to pay for it, or there won't be any, unless the grocery stores, utilities and mortgage companies suddenly make their products free too.

nyimes article by asv108 · 2002-02-21 04:17 · Score: 2

The New York times had a better article entitled "Black Hawk Download." I submitted the nytimes article a month ago but it was rejected. Since the story is over a month old it's only available in the Pay Archive. Does anyone know how to get free access to archived nytimes stories?

2002-01-17 13:49:49 Black Hawk Download (articles,news) (rejected)

awful by vukv · 2002-02-21 04:18 · Score: 3, Informative

awful article... things that "journalist" forgot to mention are important: replaytv allows you to send file to other users 15 times and users who received the file can not send it again to anyone.

That makes all the difference in upcoming lawsuit. I find it hard to believe Sonicblue people didnt stress that out to him.

Copyright Trouble Of The Week by wiredog · 2002-02-21 04:18 · Score: 4, Informative

Here's Dvorak's latest...

--

Best Slashdot Co

Sometimes desire is not enough by haplo21112 · 2002-02-21 04:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Its not always possible to get a cable hookup to college Dorm room....I know it wasn't where I went to school...so just what the hell are those people supposed to do...

--
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.

Re:Sometimes desire is not enough by tkrotchko · 2002-02-21 05:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Would it be okay for a friend to videotape it for them and then loan it to them to watch it later?

Or is it only okay to watch it as its broadcast?

I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just trying to understand the limits of fair use.

--
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Re:Sometimes desire is not enough by zangdesign · 2002-02-21 08:36 · Score: 2

If you don't like the school's policy on what is or isn't allowed, get it changed. But apathy about changing the policies does not automatically give you the right to do what you want. And if you are unable to change the policy, that still does not give you the right to flout it.

Otherwise, what the hell do we have laws for?

--
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Re:Sometimes desire is not enough by ryanwright · 2002-02-21 11:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Would it be okay for a friend to videotape it for them and then loan it to them to watch it later?

Yes, would be. It's called time shifting and is no different than if she recorded it herself and watched it later. True, she's not paying for HBO, but her friend is, and if she went to her friend's house to watch it while it aired there would be nothing wrong with that. Borrowing her friend's VCR and recording it is essentially the same thing.

That said, what is the difference if she downloads it from Morpheus? As far as I can tell, there isn't any. I do see the concern: If everyone just downloaded it, HBO will lose money. I'm sympathetic to that. But on the other hand, it really is no different than if she drove to a friend's house and watched a recording that was made the previous night OR borrowed said recording for her own personal use - and both situations are perfectly legal.

There's got to be a common ground here somewhere, but I can't find it. Personally, I think if they flat out allowed everyone to copy their broadcasts, they'd make plenty of money. I'd even be willing to bet subscriptions would go up. Just once I would love to see someone try an open approach with their customers - I bet the popularity of the show would go through the roof, and with that popularity will come more subscriptions from people who want to watch it first, when it's broadcast.

All it takes is one person with a highly successful TV show to not only give up on copying, but to encourage it. Then you'll have real numbers. How about it, HBO? Are you willing to take the risk on "Sex and the City?"

--
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig

Fair use? by glh · 2002-02-21 04:19 · Score: 2

Wouldn't it be fair use to download the TV shows? I mean, if they are beaming the signal to your TV you should be able to do with it whatever you want in theory..

By the way, do "cappers" remove the commercials when they are digitizing it? I'm gonna have to check into this...

Re:Fair use? by sql*kitten · 2002-02-21 04:59 · Score: 2

By the way, do "cappers" remove the commercials when they are digitizing it? I'm gonna have to check into this...

You could "check into this" by reading the article, which says it takes about 5 minutes to strip out the ads, and an hour to compress the file suitable for distribution.
Re:Fair use? by AnotherBlackHat · 2002-02-21 05:23 · Score: 2

I suppose it's possible, with the exception of those shows (usually sporting events) which state that "This broadcast is property of . No portion of this broadcast may be redistributed or reproduced without the express written permission of ."

By reading this post, you agree to pay me $50.00

That is, unless you believe that saying something doesn't necessarily make it true.

Re:Big Pussy? by toupsie · 2002-02-21 04:19 · Score: 5, Funny

WTF does that mean? Could someone explain to us non-Americans.

It refers to the expanding waist lines of women that watch too much network television in America. We are getting too fat and that line is just a obscene, negative way to refer to these obese women.

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

This should be an interesting battle.... by sleeperservice · 2002-02-21 04:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

The lawyers have to prove that this is markedly different from trading video-taped shows. Aside from 1 factor (the greater distribution breadth), I don't see how it is.

So the question they've got to answer is: why is digital media different from analog (i.e. tape) media?

Like I said, should be interesting....

Why is the industry scared? by Navius+Eurisko · 2002-02-21 04:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

IMO, there are two types of people who trade tv shows:

1. People who have already seen the show and want to view it again at a later date. These people have already seen the ads from the commercial sponsers from the first airing.

2. People who are the fan base of the show. These people archive the episodes for their own enjoyment. These people also probably view the shows during their original airing rather than waiting for the show to appear somewhere over the internet.

Both populations of people have probably seen the original airing of the program with the commericals in place. The only valid concern I can think of from the TV industry is that sponsers may not pay for ads during reruns of a particular show if viewers already have copies of it to watch. But how many of us sit down to watch a rerun of a episode we have already seen? Unless it rocked, most of us I imagine probably end up surfing the TV during breaks anyways. Reruns really only serve the population of people who didn't see the episode in the original airing. It seems to me that the industry wants to keep this population away from recorded TV shows.

Re:Why is the industry scared? by asv108 · 2002-02-21 04:33 · Score: 2

Don't forget about #3
3. People who download show just for the sake of downloading
I've run in to plenty of people who download TV shows and movies they don't watch, but they download them anyway just to increase the size of their collection.
Re:Why is the industry scared? by the_rev_matt · 2002-02-21 05:07 · Score: 2

I recall this phenomenon from my tape trading days, where people would trade any artist/any recording quality just to make their trade list look more impressive.
My thought was always: I need to store/move/keep organized all that crap. I'm only asking for things I WANT.

--
this is getting old and so are you
blog
Re:Why is the industry scared? by Guppy06 · 2002-02-21 05:14 · Score: 2

"The only valid concern I can think of from the TV industry is that sponsers may not pay for ads during reruns of a particular show if viewers already have copies of it to watch."

You mean then networks would have to come up with original content more often than two months out of the year? It's the end of the world, I tell you!

"Reruns really only serve the population of people who didn't see the episode in the original airing."

Their intent is to serve the networks. They get a profit from the commercials without having to pay the production costs of a new episode. Just a few bucks here to pay for the guy playing the glorified VCR. Personally I think that if advertisers pay the same for reruns as they do for original episodes then they're getting screwed.
Re:Why is the industry scared? by ymgve · 2002-02-21 10:39 · Score: 2

Another reason is that the world has more countries than just the USA. So the only resort for people in non-important countries (Like myself, here in Norway) is to get the shows from the net - or wait for YEARS (And that's only if we're lucky) till the shows come here. For example, ST: Enterprise won't be shown for atleast a few years here - the same with the new Babylon 5 pilot. So downloading off the net is the solution for me.

(A point that the networks should take note of: I'd GLADLY watch internet streams with those shows on, even if they'd been filled with commercials. I'd even pay a small sum for those streams if the selection of shows was wide enough. Hopefully, this won't stay a dream for long..)

poor Vdub by Niadh · 2002-02-21 04:19 · Score: 2, Funny

The article mentioned VirtualDub... It's now only a matter of time before the Television Industry starts to sue Avery Lee for helping to pirate millions of dollars in TV episodes.

Thanks Time magazine by Commienst · 2002-02-21 04:21 · Score: 2, Funny

I never knew the Kazaa network had Sopranos.

--

I am into the copy and paste.

Napster by Psmylie · 2002-02-21 04:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

I like how this article seems to want to tie a decline in music sales to Napster, and not to the fact (Ok, it's actually my opinion) that music seems to really suck right now.

--

psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

Re:Napster by mjh · 2002-02-21 04:30 · Score: 2

I like how this article seems to want to tie a decline in music sales to Napster, and not to the fact (Ok, it's actually my opinion) that music seems to really suck right now.
Or how about the possibility that the decline in record sales coincides with the shutdown of Napster?

--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.

A simple solution ... by HerringFlavoredFowl · 2002-02-21 04:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

A simple solution would be for the TV Network's to make the shows avaliable (with adds) on a bunch of fast servers. For pay per view type programming, have a subscription style service ... All they need to do is follow the p0rn industries model and they will be rolling in the dough

Trying to enforce at what time a person watches a show is silly. Not to mention controlling and repressive.

TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken

--
TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken

Just? by tcd004 · 2002-02-21 04:22 · Score: 4, Funny

"This is just more of the TV industry coming to grips with what happened to
the music industry. But it's important that the mainstream learns about it."

Yeah, that music industry thing was no big deal.

tcd004

Re:TV is dying by mccalli · 2002-02-21 04:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why would I want someone else to decide when I want to watch something when I could download it whenever I want?

If you hadn't watched at least some of a series first, how would you know whether to download it?

This is always my big argument against totally prescriptive 'personal scheduling'. I have a TiVO box and think it's great, but still watch ordinary TV because otherwise how would I ever find out what's new in the world? If all I ever watched was what I'd told it to record, things would become stagnant very quickly.

Cheers,
Ian

My (off-topic) Experience with Jack Valenti by KelsoLundeen · 2002-02-21 04:24 · Score: 2, Offtopic

I derive great pleasure by watching (and hearing about) the foibles of geriatric Jack Valenti. He's been around forever -- since the days of JFK in various positions, IIRC -- and is probably the the thing that's standing between the MPAA and forward-thinking, progressive movement.

This is off-topic, but when I was 9 or 10 I desperately wanted to get into films like 'Apocalypse Now' and the 'Deer Hunter.' I didn't want to go accompanied with my parents (I did, eventually) and so took the opportunity to write Mr. Valenti and short (and not irate) letter about problems with the MPAA rating system. Now, say what you will about a 10 year old going to see 'Apocalypse Now' (and make cracks about it not being a good film anyway, blah blah blah) it was one of those formative experience films -- and I understood that even before seeing it.

Anyway, I had the letter proofed by various people (my dad taught English at a local college, so it was easy to get a bunch of opinions on whether or not the letter was 'too shrill' or 'too juvenile') and wrote a variety of drafts. The gist was this: that the MPAA rating system (before the days of PG-13) as it existed in 1979 was unfair: that it should be up to parents whether or not their children could go see a movie unaccompanied. My parents *wanted* to see 'Apocalypse Now' and 'The Deer Hunter' and 'Coming Home' and -- a few years before -- 'Saturday Night Fever' -- so it wasn't a matter of me not being able to go -- it was one of those 'on principle' things: who is this MPAA and why are they making rules for parents on what they can and can't do with their kids? (Kids can go to movies -- but only if their parents are there, too. To me, it was absurd. I mean, I was watching stuff like 'Wild Strawberries' and 'The Bicyle Thief' and 'Walkabout' (yeah, I know, it sounds pretentious -- blah blah blah -- but that's the sort of world I lived in -- lots of good films, good books, and I loved every minute of it) so it was absurd that some guy named Jack Valenti was telling me I couldn't see certain films by myself.

Anyway, I wrote the letter. Wrote many drafts. Finally nailed it. It was a page long. Not shrill. Thoughtful, but fim. I mailed it off to him. (A friend of a friend got his actual address.)

And I *never* heard back. Not a peep. Not a form letter. Nothing.

I thought: well, fuck him. I knew it was a dumb thing to do -- sending off a letter of complaint. And I knew even then that I was raging into the chasm. There was nothing down there except the sound of my own voice. I knew that.

But I at least expected a response. Some inkling that after all the trouble I went through he'd at least "took note" of my complaint and thanked me for writing and understood my frustration but, ya know, that's just the way it was.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Not much except for the Valenti link. The fact that it's still -- after all these years -- Jack Valenti telling us what we can and can't do. And why we're wrong doing what we're doing. It's Hilary Rosen, too, over at the RIAA -- I know that.

But somehow my little experience 15 years (I finally realized) is emblematic of the whole problem with corporate giants: that no one, in the end, gives a fuck. The corporations don't, at least. The politicians try, sure. But they're hamstrung by Valenti and Rosen and all the lawyers fighting the 'Bleak House'-like endless legal battle: battling for years and years. The point of the case is all but forgotten. But they're still suing, still collecting their fees.

That first lesson in cynicism still rankles me to this day. I wonder if he ever even read my little letter.

Re:Oh... by uebernewby · 2002-02-21 04:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

OK, so what about this: I live in the Netherlands, Enterprise doesn't air here until next year or so. I do, however, have a broadband connection. Guess what? I want to see that show so bad I'll just download it two days after it airs in the US. Illegal? Yes. Would I do the same thing if they'd give up that stupid "release in the US first, then UK, then rest of the world" policy of theirs and had Enterprise in NL, even if were, say, two weeks behind schedule? Probably not, as I prefer to watch TV on my TV.

--

News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/

As the owner of Planet Replay, my views. by Tide · 2002-02-21 04:25 · Score: 5, Informative

I was interviewed for this article last week and I was sorely disappointed to read how sensationalistic is was towards sharing shows with the ReplayTV 4000 likening us to Napster. Napster traded what was known copyrighted material, bought by home users and illegally copied and sent to others. RTV on the other hand is basically a digital VCR, or timeshifting device. It is currently legal to timeshift, send to friends, and receive shows this way. No different than user a standard VCR and even slower depending on file size. The biggest complainers should be advertisers who pay big money to be on Friends. But really,I don't agree with that either. They take a chance that I will see there ad anyways. There is nothing preventing me with regular TV to just leave the room or turn off the TV when ads come on.

Check out my site Planet Replay for more information on Replay show sharing.

--

People think Microsoft is the answer. Microsoft is just the question, "No" is the answer.

Re:As the owner of Planet Replay, my views. by Catbeller · 2002-02-21 06:41 · Score: 2

Um, no, Napster did not trade materials, never copied anything, never sent any materials to anyone, and did not know if any of the material, particularly, was copyrighted.

Napster was an index of file names and locations. That's all.

The judge in that case was a dedicated champion of intellectual property laws, even if she had to create some for them to violate. She made a spectacular fool of herself by showing ignorance of the technology and personal animosity towards the defendants.

And the damage she created spreads outwards, like a tsunamic shock wave.
Re:As the owner of Planet Replay, my views. by ryantate · 2002-02-21 07:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Napster traded what was known copyrighted material, bought by home users and illegally copied and sent to others.

First of all, the Napster trial is ongoing, so the legality or illegality of that network is still up in the air, as is the legality or illegality of the actions of its users. Judge Patel's rulings thus far have concerned the preliminary injunction that was, after much wrangling in the federal appeals court, finally put in place. She reached some initial conclusions that may or may not point to the final outcome of the trial, but the legality of the service is not established. Further, the company (last time I checked) offers as one of its key arguments the notion that sharing among users is protected by both the Audio Home Recording Act (1992?) as interpreted in the Diamond v MPAA (?) case and fair use doctrine of the overall copyright code. Someone please correct me if this legal stance has changed, I haven't followed the case closely since the injunction came down.

Second, Napster also used a time-shifting argument in fighting the preliminary injunction. It became clear in both the district and appeals courtrooms (I was there) that the judges found this a bit ridiculous, as the focus and technical structure of Napster was not oriented toward, say, sharing a file at home and downloading it at work, but rather distributing it to others.

Most importantly, is it reasonable to call the Replay 4000's sharing and especially timeshifting functions "no different than using a standard VCR?" I doubt even Sonicblue's own marketing department would agree to that bland assesment of their product, and I suspect that in an Amazon or epinions review you might disagree with yourself here. In terms of timeshifting, you have a device that is capable of skipping over commercials with a new degree of automation and of capturing a massive volume of shows and of doing so with, again, a new degree of automation.

As for sharing, it is quite different to be able to beam something to someone rather than to haul a tape to them physically. What's more, what you are beaming is much more easily placed onto a computer hard disk and shared at large, albeit by circumventing controls in the Replay unit. Either one of the traits taken by itself widely expands the circle of "friends" you are able to share with, and it is the line between friendly or scholarly sharing and mass distribution that is at the heart of the Napster case. The line is only a little bit more clear, IMHO, with Replay.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your legalargument, but you seem a bit quick to dismiss the paradigm-shifting capabilities of Replay, similarities (if only superficial) to Napster (and IIRC the article in question was talking not just about Replay but about how others use/abuse its files) and those who finance the production of free television shows (setting legal issues aside, I like the fact that while I'd have to pay ~$20 a month for Sopranos I get West Wing and 60 Minutes for free, and the chance society at large might watch just somewhat fewer commercials could harm the free programming model). I think it is possible to make a much stronger case for the machine if you attempt to grapple with these issues.

Cheers
R
Re:As the owner of Planet Replay, my views. by rbeattie · 2002-02-21 07:07 · Score: 2

Okay, this is cool, but I need a more broad video-sharing FAQ...

What are the standard formats? MPEG-4? DIVX? Other?

How much degradation in content is there? Is it a postage-size stamp video or am I seeing VHS quality (bad but viewable) or DVD quality (great) content?

What's the common file sizes? Are we talking 300 Megs per 1/2 hour?

Do all these boxes have a standard format or do I need to translate the format from ReplayTV once it's recorded?

Where's the commonest source for this stuff? Morpheus? Gnutella? .RU websites?

Thanks,

-Russ

--
Me
Re:As the owner of Planet Replay, my views. by Tide · 2002-02-21 07:24 · Score: 2

You make some great points, and my initial post was a bit misleading on my part in regards to Napster. But I will point out some things.

It is faster to time shift and send a show via VCR and snail mail. Thats a fact for 90% of us ReplayTV users. Im currently receiving a show now thats 1.5 GB for 1/2 hour. With cable modem upload speeds and being able to send more than one show at a time it will take over 4 days for me to receive this file. I can't even pull down 2 shows at once (a bit silly, you can send many at 128k up, but only receive one at 1.5m down). Ive had my RTV for 3 months now and have received exactly 2 shows.

I'd also like to theorize a bit for the future. Even when broadband gets faster (say 2-3 years), TV still has the upper hand by only broadcasting in HDTV. Now that 1.5GB file is 15GB and we're all back to waiting 4-7 days for the episode of Sex and the City.

Commercial Advance is great when it works, its my favorite feature. But its such a pain in the butt when it doesn't. Ive had it skip portions of a show without my knowledge.

There have been some great responses to my post, thanks to everyone, its been an interesting read.

--

People think Microsoft is the answer. Microsoft is just the question, "No" is the answer.
Re:As the owner of Planet Replay, my views. by ryantate · 2002-02-21 10:16 · Score: 2

I must admit, I am amazed at how long it takes to move a show; it is easy to forget than on the PC you can mess with resolution and color depth and refresh rate to a greater extent. I am pretty lucky in that my DSL line can pull down 50KB/s (that's kilobytes) pretty reliably, and I've had it up to 100 KB/s even though i only pay for 384kbps, which probably works out to about 40 KB/s, so if I could find an equally capable peer I could theoretically get a show in 5 hours. In reality I'm guessing it would take at least a day =)

So speed is obviously a big limiting factor with Replay, and so I can see where this makes it less like Napster. But for many people it is likely easier to have a video just stream into the box rather than have to go travel physically to pick one upor package some snail mail. Myself, I would go nuts having my bandwidth hogged by Replay that whole time and just ask for a tape (or buy one on eBay or Target in the case of HBO).
I always suspected the commercial feature would have glitches, and I'm sure the broadcasters aren't cooperating with fixing that.

I think what MPAA is afraid of is the march of commercial progress -- SonicBlue looks like it is (gasp) actually giving customers what they want, and if they continue to do so (extra compression, simult downloads) many of the complaints will become less of an issue. re: hdtv, i think a company like sonicblue will likely offer the old grainy compressed resolution for a long time to come unless the bandwidth situation changes dramatically. assuming they remain in business.

overall good points
cheers
r
Re:As the owner of Planet Replay, my views. by ryanwright · 2002-02-21 11:53 · Score: 2

What's more, what you are beaming is much more easily placed onto a computer hard disk and shared at large, albeit by circumventing controls in the Replay unit.

So? This should make the Replay unit illegal? You can do the same thing with a video capture card or firewire port & DV camera. Perhaps those should be illegal, too?

--
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Re:As the owner of Planet Replay, my views. by ryantate · 2002-02-21 12:52 · Score: 2

I never said the unit should be illegal, and I specifically said I was not making a statement about legality. I was addressing the statement was little different from a VCR when it comes to timeshifting and sharing.

C&D letter from the MPAA by xjosh · 2002-02-21 04:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

Here is a nice letter that someone from the MPAA sent to my news provider regarding the posting of a par file to a newsgroup. I'm still trying to get my head around how parity data for a part of a capture can be construed as copyrighted and infringing.

Perhaps instead of posting shows, 60-120 people should independantly review the shows and include a clip in their review.

Begin message:
----------------
From: MPAA@copyright.org
To: dmca@giganews.com
Subject: [DMCA #1604] Unauthorized Distribution of Copyrighted Motion Pictures (Reference#: XXXXXX)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 18:23:00 (GMT)
Errors-To: dmca-admin@lists.texas.net
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0b8
Precedence: bulk
List-Id:
X-BeenThere: dmca@lists.texas.net
X-Mailing-List:

MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.
15503 VENTURA BOULEVARD
ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436

UNITED STATES
Anti-Piracy Operations
PHONE: (818) 728 - 8127
Email: MPAA@copyright.org

Tuesday, February 19, 2002

Name: dmca@giganews.com
E-mail: dmca@giganews.com
ISP: Giganews

Via Fax/Email

RE: Unauthorized Distribution of Copyrighted Motion Pictures
Site/URL: usenet://xjosh@GigaNews.Com/ATTN Mike - Need anyall of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02
Reference#: XXXXXX

Date of Infringement: 2/15/2002 4:32:43 PM GMT

Dear dmca@giganews.com:

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) represents the following motion picture production and distribution companies:

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
Disney Enterprises, Inc.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.
Paramount Pictures Corporation
TriStar Pictures, Inc.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
United Artists Pictures, Inc.
United Artists Corporation
Universal City Studios, Inc.
Warner Bros., a Division of Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.

We have received information that you are offering Internet access service to the above referenced account holder, who has utilized your services to post downloads to Usenet newsgroups of copyrighted motion picture(s) including such title(s) as:

24 (TV)

The distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted motion pictures constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 106(3). This conduct may also violate the laws of other countries, international law, and/or treaty obligations.

We request that you immediately do the following:

1) Take appropriate action against the account holder under your Abuse Policy/Terms of Service Agreement; and
2) Disable access from your own servers to the particular posting(s) identified above. (See also header information attached below.)

By copy of this letter, the owner of the above referenced Internet site and/or email account is hereby directed to cease and desist from the conduct complained of herein.

On behalf of the respective owners of the exclusive rights to the copyrighted material at issue in this notice, we hereby state, pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 512, that we have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owners, their respective agents, or the law.

Also pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we hereby state, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California and under the laws of the United States, that the information in this notification is accurate and that we are authorized to act on behalf of the owners of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification.

Please contact us at the above listed address or by replying to this email should you have any questions. Kindly include the above noted Reference # in the subject line of all email correspondence.

We thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Your prompt response is requested.

Respectfully,

Hemanshu Nigam
Vice President and Director
Worldwide Internet Enforcement
Usenet Incident Summary

User: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Host IP Address: GigaNews.Com
File Name: ATTN Mike - Need anyall of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02
Date: 2002-02-15 16:32:43 GMT
Admin Contact: abuse@GigaNews.Com

Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.h ome.com!news.home.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp .giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!bin3.nnrp.au s1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10001
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:38:30 CST
X-Trace: sv3-IWNvJciYDZCgMTjpHXdY9ELuQCk5qO2aAwPYThr835givI +I9u/mLuCjs8MOKgsLV+ddM0SLezPCn4U!uFHQYEdbawdJ6fFR fsVk6OubC5RR75Z3O3Zs50RgkGZ3+gBQXZmM1VCuGZqXsP8Yus IGKsh613jM!/A==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-In fo: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:38:30 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1957007
------------

Re:C&D letter from the MPAA by jeffehobbs · 2002-02-21 04:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hey, thanks for all the crap.

~jeff

TV "ripping" software site by arnoroefs2000 · 2002-02-21 04:26 · Score: 2

Actually it's called "The Definitive DVD Backup Resource" :)

But you can find all the software (and some pretty decent guides) which the article talks about on this site, it's the best there is....

pr0n by asv108 · 2002-02-21 04:29 · Score: 2

These articles always talk about network TV and big budget movies, but what about the amount of copyrighted pr0n vids that exist on the net and p2p networks such as Morhpeus or Gnutella. In a college enviroment, most of the people I have introduced to these networks don't download movies or television shows, they download music, warez, and pr0n.

So when can I pay for it? by volsung · 2002-02-21 04:30 · Score: 2

I haven't gotten into the trading of TV shows, but I would be willing to pay for the ability to legally download select TV shows. I think an affordable service of this sort would do more to kill "TV piracy" than a zillion cease-and-desist letters backed by crazy laws.

Re:So when can I pay for it? by Robotech_Master · 2002-02-21 07:22 · Score: 2

The sad thing is, if the MPAA were to do something like this, it would be so crippled with DRM and downloading limitations and format limits that it wouldn't be useable. It would be the same joke that those pay-for-download music services are now.

--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org

URL by tiltowait · 2002-02-21 04:31 · Score: 3, Informative

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/17/technology/circu its/17VIDE.html

You just have to know the address, then you can get in through the free registration method. Although Google follows the nytimes.com robots.txt, enough people link to articles that the search engine has records for the URLs.

TV on Demand by mini+me · 2002-02-21 04:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

The dream for TV was always to be able to watch any show you want, when you want. VCRs started this trend, but doesn't achive the desired results due to limitations in the technology. Due to other past technical limitations, no other device or provider could feasibly give TV on demand either.

This is all starting to change however. Instead of having all the shows in one central location, spread the shows around different homes across the world. This model was popularized by Napster and it works fairly well, ignoring the legal issues.

What the media needs to see is that things are changing. Their roles will become different, not obsolete. There is still plenty of room for them to make money if they embrace the technology and act fast. The music industry ignored online music distribution, and they lost out. Had they been a player in online music distribution then things would have been different and they wouldn't have to complain about lost CD sales after the demise of Napster.

If people use the technology to distribte media then that is obviously how they want to do it, and that is how they should get it. Otherwise they wouldn't use it. It's not fair to the consumer to be dictated on how they will enjoy their entertainment. If they want to watch a TV show recorded by someone else across the globe then it should be up to them.

Re:TV Shows being pirated - what's really scary by ip_vjl · 2002-02-21 04:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

If I were a network executive I'd definitely be scared by that list ... why?

It's not as much the fact that people are pirating, but that these people would rather download the numerous episodes of ALF than watch what's currently on TV.

Hollywood has been leading the best prevention against piracy by producing stuff that nobody would want to own in the first place. Who knows, maybe writing a good script would be seen as a breach of the DMCA because it would promote the desire to own and copy.

Re:Big Pussy? by rhinoman455 · 2002-02-21 04:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Big Pussy is a character on The Sopranos :)

We are not the customer by Silverhammer · 2002-02-21 04:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

As someone else noted, in the current scheme of television production and distribution, we the viewers are NOT the customer. We are the product that is harvested, packaged, and delivered to the real customer: the advertisers.

Once you understand that, the rest makes perfect sense.

Re:We are not the customer by JPriest · 2002-02-21 05:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

If I had mod points I'd mod this up

--
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.

What half arsed journalism by Commienst · 2002-02-21 04:40 · Score: 2, Informative

"The owners of Morpheus, Grokster and Kazaa, on the other hand, are expected to argue that since they don't use a Napster-like central server--even the indexing software is distributed among users--it is impossible for them to monitor the activities of the millions of people who use their programs."

Millions? Did they even check their facts.

--

I am into the copy and paste.

Don't even get me started about Farscape by huntdwumpus · 2002-02-21 04:42 · Score: 2, Informative

The last 4 eps. of season 3 have already aired in the UK, but they won't air on SciFi Channel until April. There's really no choice but to download...(or fly to Europe).

Re:Oh... by decarelbitter · 2002-02-21 04:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just my point. And to add to that (I'm .nl too), not only do we get to see stuff *way* later than say, the US; but we're kept in the dark about *if* we ever see it, and when. I know, it's about local (in our case national) tv-stations buying the shows from in this case Paramount.
But how come they can't buy it at the same time it gets shown in the US? Star Trek in all its forms has al large fanbase here (Voyager is even shown on primetime, which is quite unusual for a sci-fi series here), Enterprise would surely attract enough viewers to satisfy the advertisers. It's because of ancient behaviour like this people start trading tv-shows in the first place. The tech is there to show us Europeans things that happen on the other side of the globe in no-time. But no, they can't do that with tv-series. If at times like these the US entertainment industry holds on to ancient principles, I have no objection to people doing some trading of tv-shows online.

Re:Oh... by sjhwilkes · 2002-02-21 04:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Absolutely. The media companies still have their heads in the sand, they need to wake up and see that the world's a small place now.
If they persist with region locks, and big time lags/price differences between regions they should expect people to bypass them and chip their DVD players and download the TV episodes they can't get.
My wife is American and I'm English, we've lived on both continents and either way one of us is downloading stuff - I'd happily pay a per episode fee to do it legally - of course I'd want to be able to keep the episode on disc or tape until it's released on DVD so streaming's not what I'm after.
I echo what others have said above, Napster happened because the music industry didn't step up to the plate with a solution of it's own. The TV networks (many of the same companies) are repeating the error.

It's all just time shifting! by JoeShmoe · 2002-02-21 04:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

There is a big difference between the TV industry and the music industry...the Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed our right to time shift televised content.

This means that as soon as a television station airs a program, I have the legal right to record that program to watch it at a different time or to watch it multiple times. So look at it these case situations:

A) Me pressing the record button on VCR to record content that will later be transmitted by coaxial cable to be viewed on my TV set = legal (Betamax decision)

B) Me pressing the record button on PVR to record content that will later be transmitted by coaxial cable to be viewed on my TV set = just as legal. If the courts did not see any distinction between existing media formats (Beta vs. VHS) then likewise there should be no distinction between media characteristics (magnetic tape vs. magnetic platters)

C) My friend pressing the record button on VCR to record content that will later be transmitted by coaxial cable to be viewed on my TV set = just as legal. Again, the courts did not specify that timeshifting only applied to the person making the recording. Otherwise how could sons setup the family VCR to record Days of Our Lives for technophobic mom? It's simple to see how it makes no difference who presses the button, the result is the same.

D) My friend pressing the record button on PVR to record content that will later be transmitted by coaxial cable to be viewed on my TV set = just as legal...combining case B and C.

E) My friend pressing the record button on PVR to record content that will later be transmitted by coaxial cable to be viewed on my monitor = just as legal...again the courts made no requirement for viewing device, whether tuner-ready television or single-channel monitor.

F) My friend pressing the record button on PVR to record content that will later be transmitted by CAT-5 cable to be viewed on my monitor = JUST AS LEGAL!...because yet again the courts made no requirement for trasmitting cable. Coaxial, Audio/Video, CAT-5, it's all the same as far as its purpose is concerned.

So working a step at a time from A (which we know is legal) it is trivial to show that F (what the article is talking about) is just as legal.

Now, I admit the issue is a little grey on pay-per-view and premium channels. I don't know if those things existed back in 1980 when the Betamax decision was written. But, even so, if I can go next door to watch HBO on my friend's TV, why can't I timeshift that same content to a time I'm in the comfort of my own home? Maybe my friend has HBO but I have the better TV/stereo? Again, these would be cases the courts could have mentioned but didn't.

The Internet changes nothing. My friends and I were recording shows for each other in high school back when Internet cost your $10/hour. The only difference the Internet makes is it becomes much more efficient...which is what progress is supposed to do.

- JoeShmoe

.

--
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing

Re:It's all just time shifting! by Kanasta · 2002-02-21 12:38 · Score: 2

I guess the difference is:

On the net, are you trading with your friends or strangers?

If they're your friends, then it's fine (F).

You haven't covered strangers in your argument.
Re:It's all just time shifting! by JoeShmoe · 2002-02-21 13:47 · Score: 2

To quote Blanche in the Simpson retelling of A Streetcar Named Desire:

"A stranger's just a friend you haven't met."

Ha! But seriously...at least on IRC, the channels that form around shows like Futurama, Simpsons, Jackass, 24, Star Trek, Southpark, et cetera are all a pretty tight, close-knit bunch. The regulars all get to know each other. They all discuss the show and they trade items of interest back and form, like clips from unreleased pilots or deleted scenes. In theory it's possible for a total stranger to walk in and download an episode but in practicalty it doesn't happen very often because regulars get taken care of first. Begging leeches tend to get ignore or the boot.

Now with Kazaa and Morpheus...it's a little bit less clear. Whereas IRC is based on chat and file exchanges are secondary, P2P clients for the most part are the opposite. Napster and maybe Direct Connect are the only two that come to mind that have a topic based chat system to help people find other people interested in the same thing. Oh yeah, Filetopia too.

Still...in theory, there is nothing stopping you from talking with someone on Kazaa. I was once messaged by someone who had been searching for Tracy Ullman Simpson shorts and noticed I had the complete collection. Since he typically used Dalnet and I used EFNet, we would have never met if it wasn't for Kazaa and now we know each other pretty well (about as well as you get to know anyone on the Internet) and regularly trade clips and episodes with each other.

The bottom line? I don't think courts can decide what a friend is. I don't think Congress can legislate it. I don't think there could ever be a law passes that says I can only shared with the 20 people closest to me. I don't think the courts could say that just because you don't know someone's real name (just their handle) then it's not really a friend you can trade with.

- JoeShmoe

.

--
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Re:It's all just time shifting! by JoeShmoe · 2002-02-21 14:01 · Score: 2

Well, it's a tricky game of words.

Technically, I don't have the rights to make a copy of anything. But since the court have affirmed the principle of "fair use" then I effectively do have that right.

Here we have a law. Now, if the executive branch doesn't enforce the law, then it is as if the law doesn't exist. But let's say the law is enforced. Now, if the judicial branch says "you can't enforce the law in situation X" then for situation X, it is as if the law doesn't exist.

That means the battle is over what X means.

Regarding their right to keep us from timeshifting...I disagree and thing that (eventually) the courts will find this is unacceptable. In the 1970s, book publishers tried to put licenses on books to prevent a wide range of fair use activities (quoting without written permission, reselling, translation, etc). The courts affirmed the "first sale doctrine" which put an end to this practice. I think someday the courts (assuming they are immune from the influence of the copyright cartel, that's a big assumption) will do something similar for other media.

- JoeShmoe

.

--
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing

You forgot number three by mblase · 2002-02-21 04:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

IMO, there are two types of people who trade tv shows

...and a third: people who don't get the channels, or can't rent or afford to buy the DVDs, but want to watch the shows all their friends are raving about.

Don't pretend that third group doesn't exist. The article mentions "Sex in the City" and "Friends," but if you go online you don't have to look far to find shows and movies that are only available in recorded format. People wouldn't be swapping ripped copies of anime imports or "Shrek" -- not available on TV but expensive on tape/DVD -- if that was the case.

Re:You forgot number three by poot_rootbeer · 2002-02-21 08:13 · Score: 2

Shrek on on sale for like $14.99. That's not "expensive" to anyone except children on fixed allowances. They've made it very very easy for anyone who wants a legitimate copy of the movie to own one.

There are some people who trade warez files simply for the thrill of trading warez files.

Re:TV is dying by mccalli · 2002-02-21 04:54 · Score: 2

Entirely true. It's not a perfect analogy, but I don't pay some corporation to force me to read a chapter from a series of books before I decide what I want to read.

Fair point.

My counter-argument would be that my most common way to choose which books I want to read is to go to a bookshop and browse them. Second most common would be reviews (word of mouth or otherwise).

Now, putting my points and your points together, we seem to come up with the idea of a central repositary of TV shows from which we could randomly browse clips to decide if we liked it. I could then use my browsing method to decide, you could use your word of mouth and reviews methods to decide.

Seem like a good idea?

Cheers,
Ian

What happened ? by AftanGustur · 2002-02-21 04:55 · Score: 2

This is just more of the TV industry coming to grips with what happened to the music industry.

And just what is it that happened to the music *industry* ??

As far as I know, the so-called "losses" from "piracy" are all theoretical, CD sales were never as high as during Napsters prime-time and there is nothing indicating today that the music *industry* is losing anything from people downloading free music.

The argument goes something like : "50.000 copies of GroupX were downloaded, that whould otherwise have been sold for 30$ a piece, that makes 50.000*30$ = 1.500.000 $ in losses", which is nonesense.

--
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc

more aggressive commercial technology by peter303 · 2002-02-21 04:58 · Score: 2

TV advertisers will have to get more creative like web advertisers and embed commercial messages in the content itself- like those annoying network logos. (I oppose this.)

Re:Oh... by someone247356 · 2002-02-21 05:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Um, maybe I'm just terminally dense, but...

If I tape a show with my VCR that's legal right.

If I run the TV signal though my Digital capture card and write it to CD-R that's legal too, right.

If I tape my daughters favorite show for her, because she has to work and give her the tape
when she gets home, that's legal.

If I run the TV signal though my Digital capture card and write it to CD-R and give her the CD-R when she gets home that's legal too, right.

If I don't own a VCR only a video player is it legal to have my friend video tape it for me and give me the tape when he comes in to work? (I catch the show in question, but I have to work during this weeks show)

If instead of a VHS tape, since I don't have even a video tape player he gives it to me on a CD-R. (being a proper geek I do have a computer with a CD-Rom drive) Isn't that the same thing?

If my friend lives in the same apartment with me is that legal? On the next floor? The next building? The next state? The next continent?

Why is it legal for me to tape Enterprise or the Simpsons, but illegal to have my friend in France tape it for me?

Why can I tape a show on my VCR, but if I tape it to CD-R that's a problem?

If the music stations don't want you to record songs off the radio don't air them. If television stations don't want you to tape episodes, then don't air them.

Here's one final quandary.

If I live in a frat house with 200 other guys and we get cable television service for say $50.00 USD a month. It's perfectly legal to hook it up to a large screen television and let as many people as can fit in the room all watch it together. Take that one step further, since in the US the cable company can't charge you per television for service (they are trying to get back to that with digital cable and the required decoder box rentals, that's why they'll hate to see digital cable decoders as ubiquitous as cable ready TV and VCR's), I can legally hook up 100 or more televisions to that one cable line. All legally. The fraternity can tape every episode of a television show and keep them in the television room of the frat house, now potentially thousands of people can watch this show, and we are still legal. So why is trading episodes of a show through the internet suddenly a problem?

.

--
Just my $0.02 (Canadian, before taxes)

Re:Looks like they have been r00ted. by Guppy06 · 2002-02-21 05:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

"The MPAA counted more than 5,000 locations on the Internet last year where people could download episodes for free."

... as opposed to watching the broadcast for free?

The networks already got their money, and they didn't get it from the viewers. The advertisers paid for the broadcast and there shouldn't be anything more to ask for (unless they want to take the position of cable companies where they charge both the advertier and the viewer). If the networks don't feel like they're getting enough money then they should be talking to the people that actually pay for it, and if the advertisers won't pay any more than that's your problem, not mine.

The shows are being broadcast whether I like them or not. My TV received those broadcasts but either wasn't on or was focused on a different channel at the time. I also have the right to record such broadcasts whether I watch it at the time of recording or not. While it's true that it's copyrighted matieral, giving the networks the ability to control what they themselves distributed to anybody and everybody free of charge is ridiculous. If this keeps up will the networks attempt to have a say in the affairs of TV and VCR manufacturers to "help the networks defend their rights?"

Consumers don't want to play by the network's rules. In a capitalist society it is the network that must adapt to the situation, not the consumer.

Re:My (off-topic) Experience with Jack Valenti by micromoog · 2002-02-21 05:03 · Score: 2

(-1, Annoying Pretentious Bastard)

Daria on DVD...PLEASE!!!! by MsGeek · 2002-02-21 05:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

There are plenty of TV shows that I would gladly purchase on DVD. I was happy to see "Buffy the Vampire Slayer, season 1" on DVD -- not because I want to buy it, but because I'm hoping that means that shows like "Kojak, Season 1" make it.

I want to see the entire 5-season run of "Daria" on DVD. So do a lot of other people. There is an organized drive to get "Daria" out on DVD: it can be found at http://www.the-wildone.com/dvdaria/.

One way this can be helped along is by buying the DVD of "Is It Fall Yet?" the first "Daria" TV movie. Research by "Daria" fans in the UK has found that even though the DVD is marked "Region 1" that it is in reality regionless, able to be played on any DVD player or DVD-ROM drive. This is a Good Thing (tm) and suggests that anyone, anywhere in the world should go out and get the DVD.

I would give a link here but there are too many people with too many beefs against too many online merchants to where if I linked to anyone I'd get people upset, and Powell's doesn't seem to carry DVDs anyway. Just go to your favorite video online site and search for "Is It Fall Yet?" Or ask at your local video store. Since Viacom still owns Blockbuster (ugh!) they might be a likely suspect.

Another TV product that I would love to see on DVD is the TNT original movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley." Time-Warner has put it out on VHS but has yet to put it out on DVD.

The media companies need to either start RAPIDLY putting out TV content on DVD or face more of this so-called piracy. I thought that the Sony vs. Universal Pictures decision found that there was a right to not only time-shift TV programs but tape trade stuff taped off the air provided no money changes hands! So what's the fsckn prob? No profit is being made on this, and most of these programs don't have a legit video/DVD pipeline anyway. No bread is being taken out of anyone's mouth.

--
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.

Re:Daria on DVD...PLEASE!!!! by DanThe1Man · 2002-02-21 05:43 · Score: 2

You can download most of first four seasons of Daria here. http://cronus.spaceports.com/~alphatv/daria.html

Re:Oh... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-21 05:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

In some part of Asia here where even cable don't cover certain shows, especially sci-fi. I mean "woot, no sci-fi channel?" and we have to live with that.

Now that STTNG is on DVD, may be I can buy it over the net or something, remember the show ended in 1994? It's been 8 freaking years! So if I am going to buy Enterprise I have to wait another 8 years and for the rest of the world cable provider finished showing them?

For every black market there exists a big red sign saying "Bad marketing. Huge demand exists but you are missing out of it."

Things to remember... by Lumpy · 2002-02-21 05:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

in the 1970's the broadcaster and networks complained and screamed that VCR's were going to destroy their industry.. It was stealing money from them and destroying their business... they lied... In the 1970's the broadcasters and networks also screamed that Cable Television was going to destroy their industry.. it was stealing their revinue from them and destroying their industry.. They lied again. in the 1980's the broadcasters and networks screamed that sattelite Tv companies were stealing their customers and revinues and it would destroy their industry... They lied again.

They did this in the 90's with Digital Television. and Now they are doing it about PVR's and digital tv shows on the internet.

you know what? with their track record in the past of lying... it's safe to instantly assume that they are yet again .... lying...

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Listen up Movie and TV Industry... by NanoGator · 2002-02-21 05:44 · Score: 2

I'm a busy guy. I work a lot of extra hours. I can't base my life around TV Timeslots. On top of that, some of the shows I like to watch get preempted too easily. *cough futurama cough*

I think a lot of people feel this way. It's a huge hassle to get TV shows off the net. The valuable ones are the ones that you can't see on TV anymore! I can't see the Tick anymore. There's 7 seasons of MST3k I'll never see on TV again. This is why people turn to the net!

This isn't widespread piracy, it's a new market opening up! It's a market where people want shows when they're ready to watch them. It's called Video On Demand. If the TV Networks would realize this, they'd very quickly find a way to meet this demand and make a profit on it. Until they do, they're going to lose to PVRs and the Internet.

I refuse to call downloading an old ep of MST3K piracy because I have NO MEANS to see it otherwise. Dilbert? Nope. The original Transformers Series? Uh uh. I can't even go buy these shows. Until you provide me with a reasonable way of acquiring these shows to watch (i.e. fill up digital cable with TV show reruns or something like TV Land), then don't go bitching about anybody doing it. Your 'lost revenue' is directly related to your own shortsightedness, not because people want to steal.

--
"Derp de derp."

And what if you *can't* see the show? by edremy · 2002-02-21 05:45 · Score: 2

I like Futurama. I want to watch Futurama. I can't watch Futurama on my TV, since I don't get TV reception at my house (hills+trees), cable doesn't run there and I can't get network programming on my satellite dish. (Waiver pending, but I've already been denied once.) So if I want to see it I have to pirate it. Ditto Family Guy.

I can't be the only one in this boat. The one good thing is that I now realize how useless network programming is: other than the two shows listed, Monday Night Football and the Olympics there's nothing on that I care about.

--
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"

Re:In response to her article by jd142 · 2002-02-21 05:51 · Score: 2

Point D is speculation. Correlation != Causation.

What needs to be done is a valid statistical study of Napster users to gauge cd purchasing habits before, during, and after Napster's heyday.

Anecdotal evidence on /. does not equal a valid causal relationship. I have yet to see anyone point to a study that verifies a causal relationship between Napster usage and cd sales.

Anime too by cryptochrome · 2002-02-21 05:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

The situation is similar for anime here in the US. Rather than waiting years for a particular show or movie to show up (IF it shows up) in the US, independent groups of fans capture, subtitle, and distribute them for free.

They generally dub to high bitrate and high resolution DivX files, which are viewable on most any computer that has the processing power for it, but still not the same as doing it on TV. The quality of the subtitles has also become increasingly good - even professional - over the years. Of course these are watchable for anyone that speaks english, and there are other groups who work with other languages too. In fact the most difficult part is the trading and distribution of these files, which is pretty haphazard and often results in corrupted files since there is no error checking and correction, and the fact that you watch them on the computer rather than the TV (which is acceptable to many).

So the moral of the story is? TV, movie, and video producers - get your asses together and make your products available to anyone and everyone in the world at the same price simultaneously (within a week of each other), or quit your bitching. It ain't piracy if it ain't available in the first place. And if you don't want to put money into a translation, give people some way to add independent subs/dubs to it.

--

---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

Re:Anime too by cryptochrome · 2002-02-22 05:32 · Score: 2

The locals pay $0 for most of their anime, since it's on TV. Incidentally, 15% of $0 is also $0. I would have no problem paying that.

Nor would I wouldn't mind spending slightly more for anime when it does cost (movies and OVAs), in the relevant context. That is, if I can see it in the theater or rent it. I hardly ever watch anything more than once, so there's never any point in me buying the videos.

Oh wait... you mean to say there ARE no anime movies in the theaters, except perhaps a few arthouse releases in big cities? That the only anime videos at my local rental locations are a couple of the best films, hentai, pokemon, and a handful of ancient titles? And that all the anime that is on TV is heavily edited and dubbed? Hmm. So, should I watch anime a week or two after it comes out with good fansubs and decent quality, or wait years for the same title to come out edited for my protection with crappy dubbing and dubtitles. What to do, what to do...

What people so often fail to appreciate is that "the market" is about more than just the price. Companies are free to let their actuaries pick prices for the maximum possible profits, and take as long as they want to do so, but the more people they leave out in the cold the more people are going to find ways to get it at prices they WILL pay. That's why black markets happen. And it the companies weren't so busy maximizing their profit equations, and instead charged at a fair price accessible to all, no one would bother to create the markets that undermine their carefully calculated strategies.

--
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Re:Anime too by cryptochrome · 2002-02-22 07:49 · Score: 2

I fail to see how my tendency to spend as little money for the most product is any less moral than industries tendency to get as much profit for the least product. I'm simply treating them with as much respect as they treat me. And I find it hard to take copyright law seriously lately, which industry has been litigizing and lobbying into their favor, away from its original purpose of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts.

The entertainment industry does not owe me entertainment. (The world doesn't owe me anything, nor I it.) But neither are they owed control over their immaterial creations.

--
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

Re:Oh... by RazzleFrog · 2002-02-21 05:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

The difference is that you would be fine letting people borrow your tape of a show but if you gave everybody a copy of the show to keep then you would be getting in trouble. When you make a show available online you are allowing millions (not just the hundreds you are talking about) of people to download and keep a copy of the show.

I would also note that if you tried to split your cable signal to 100 TVs you would probably notice some serious degradation unless you use a repeater.

Re:TV is dying by mccalli · 2002-02-21 05:55 · Score: 2

Papers? Radio? Net news?

Entertainment, not news shows...

Cheers,
Ian

Why the industry is scared and why you should be. by Erris · 2002-02-21 05:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's scared because it wants you to have to watch hours of crap everyday. If you could get what you wanted, when you wanted you would not be tempted to wait for something worthwhile and you would continue to soak up hours of adverts every day. This will destroy their revenue stream because their affiliates would no nonger be able to charge.

Their only recourse is to own the internet itself and forbid all "servers". Gee, that kind of looks like the new Cox.net Terms of Service. Time/Warner AOL ToS anyone? I suppose the Bells will co-operate if the cable companies keep people from using their bandwith for long distance voice comunications. M$ might make some money collecting extortion fees from various media companies to protect content with the new XP EULA and Digital Rights Denial Patents. Looky there, all the big publishing interests CAN be happy with new technology after all. What a deal, all use of your bandwith is stripped, you computer is a TV.

Kinda sucks life. All I want to do is run my own mail, and share pictures of my two month old girl with my friends and family. No can do, those tools make me a Pirate and endanger the profits of major publishers. I don't watch TV.

--
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.

Using Slashdot as a source... by raindog2 · 2002-02-21 05:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

I always wondered how reporters were able to canvass for hackers in this kind of story; it's hard to imagine them hanging out on IRC channels asking for interviews without getting /kicked pretty fast.

But I got an email from the author of this Time article a few weeks back after I mentioned getting all of B5:Crusade on two CD's in a /. post. It went to one of my spam-catcher addresses so I didn't see it until much later. I was surprised, though, as the story seemed pretty balanced considering it appeared in an AOLTW property. And it probably reads better with a guy like "Necratog" editing out commercials in vdub rather than some schmuck from Albany, New York ;)

From: anita_hamilton@[no, I'm not that cruel]
To: webmaster@kudla.org
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 23:40:35 -0500
Subject: TIME Magazine Interview request

Hi Rob,

I noticed that you posted a message on Slashdot about how you were able
to save Babylon 5 shows, convert them to digital, edit out the
commericals, and burn them onto CDs. Well, it turns out that I too am
writing a story about this topic and wondered if you could tell me more
about how you did it and how easy it was.
Would you be interested in talking on the phone for a few minutes about
it? If so, I wondered if we could talk sometime Friday or Saturday. It
should take less than 15 minutes total.

If you are interested, please let me know when is a god time for me to
give you a call.

Thanks for considering this,

Anita Hamilton
Staff Writer
TIME Magazine
212/[xxx-xxxx]

Re:Oh... by ZaMoose · 2002-02-21 06:40 · Score: 2

This is precisely the sort of argument that The RIAA/MPAA hates to see. They scream "Revenue loss! Look at the poor 'artists'! They're losing money! And CD sales were down last year!"

I have yet to see a convincing argument based upon the law that deflects any of the points you've raised.

--
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.

Viewing figure information by Rogerborg · 2002-02-21 06:43 · Score: 2

For those interested, in the UK, viewing figures are collated by the Broadcaster' Audience Research Board. The system monitors minute by minute (catching commercial hopping), and it also fingerprints VCR recordings, and identifies them when they are played back. BARB figures are collated nightly, are available the very next day, and BARB also takes great care to ensure that their sample viewers are demographically representative.

The trouble is, new technology is a real pain for them. The UK has been slow to jump on the channel-explosion bandwagon, but we're there with a vengeance now. Viewing figures are currenty in a real mess, partly because BARB was stonewalled on getting access to some set top boxes. In fact, it's an open secret that their figures for digital TV have been pretty much a big old guesstimate for the past couple of years.

Nobody likes that. BARB doesn't like it, because their subscribers wonder why they're paying for the data. The networks don't like it, because advertisers assume that bad data means viewing figures are being overestimated (which appears to be true as the new BARB system comes on line). Advertisers don't like it, because they don't know how many eyeballs they're getting (and remember, they've been getting minute-by-minute, they do know when we're channel hopping).

And now here comes digital VCR's and looking forward, DVD recorders. BARB can currently fingerprint VCR recordings, but that's a no brainer using a simple in-line analogue device, like a non-invasive Macromedia. But digital, phew, that's a whole new ballgame. Who knows how Replays and TIVO's (and other digital tech) filters or compress information. Even if you can insert the watermark, it might be stripped or mangled on replay. It might give you garbage, or it might give you the wrong show. And if your sample viewer decides to plug in a PC with TV capture/out cards, god knows what data you're going to get.

I wonder if the big issue that networks (et al) have with digital VCR's is simply that they don't know what a very small number of people are watching on them. The BARB sample size is something like 0.025% of the UK population. It's possible that they don't really give a rat's arse about what the other 99.975% of us are watching or doing with them, just that they're screwing the figures for the sample group. After all, that's really all that matters to them, materially.

The concern might not be about what we're doing with new technology, merely that it exists, and they can't keep up with it.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.

Creative Business Models by FreeUser · 2002-02-21 06:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

A simple solution would be for the TV Network's to make the shows avaliable (with adds) on a bunch of fast servers.

Absolutely right.

The reason the Copyright Cartels (specifically the Television, Movie, and Recording industries) are running scared is because none of their current leadership has any skills at running a business in anything other than a coercive, cartel form.

Alternatives do exist, but they either don't have the imagination to explore them, or are so addicted to their own coercive power that they would rather destroy the most promising, democratizing and empowering technology to emerge in the last 100 years, the Internet, and our constitutional rights to free expression, rather than change their business models.

What business model(s) would work, you ask? For television (and, for that matter, movies) offering commercia laden television programs for free, exactly as they do now. Only, except requiring cable providors or broadcast stations to disseminate their product, they can do so via the internet (and without middlemen).

Offer the same content for a nominal fee (say $1.00, or 1 Euro) without any commercial content.

Mark each downloaded copy with registration information (the user's name and IP address they downloaded to). That is all the copy protection that is required, and it works beautifully (if not perfectly) in the digital world of software. People are much more reluctant to share illegal copies of software that are marked with their identity in some fashion than they are anonymous products (such as clean rips from a firewire port).

None of this is perfect, but it is very workable and people would eat it up. Their revinues would, if anything, increase over time.

Similar approaches could be used by the recording industry, if they were intelligent enough to get their heads out of their asses and stop persuing copy prevention schemes which have been demonstrated both empirically and mathematically to NOT work, and instead embed the purchaser's name and/or ip in the audio stream itself.

Unfortunately this requires imagination, flexibility, and both business and technical savvy, something that is woefully lacking at the upper levels of the copyright cartels. They would rather simply purchase laws from our cheaply sold congress, and shred the constitution in the process.

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

Re:Creative Business Models by roystgnr · 2002-02-21 09:01 · Score: 2

Offer the same content for a nominal fee (say $1.00, or 1 Euro) without any commercial content.

When I digitally record television on my own, it takes me maybe five minutes to cut out the commercials. At least one person downloading your free commercial laden programs will decide that a dollar is worth more than five minutes of his time, and the commercial-free copy he makes will then be available for everybody else as well.

Similar approaches could be used by the recording industry, if they were intelligent enough to get their heads out of their asses and stop persuing copy prevention schemes which have been demonstrated both empirically and mathematically to NOT work, and instead embed the purchaser's name and/or ip in the audio stream itself.

This is called a "watermark", and the recording industry is putting a lot of research into failed attempts to figure out how to make such an embedding unremovable, despite the fact that such a thing seems to be mathematically impossible.
Re:Creative Business Models by FreeUser · 2002-02-22 04:07 · Score: 2

At least one person downloading your free commercial laden programs will decide that a dollar is worth more than five minutes of his time, and the commercial-free copy he makes will then be available for everybody else as well.

[...]

This is called a "watermark", and the recording industry is putting a lot of research into failed attempts to figure out how to make such an embedding unremovable

You make my point for me. The recording industry, indeed all of the copyright cartels, have their heads placed firmly, and deeply, within their intestinal tracts.

Call it a watermark if you like ... such embedding of licensing information has been used by commercial software manufacturers for over a decade. They don't have to be impossible to remove! If it is merely non-trivial, that will suffice. You will never stop determined copyright violators who are technically savvy. Never. Not with a thousand DMCAs, not with a million Hague Conventions, not with a billion lawsuits. Probably not even with summary execution (and even if you could, who would want to live in such a world, merely to protect the profits of a few outdated cartels?).

99% of the users would not be willing to share their recorded copies of broadcasts or movies with anyone other than a close friend or family member (which is legal in most jurisdictions outside of the ever-more-draconian United States), if their name is attached to the recording. 99% of said users won't have the knowledge, patience, or inclination to go hacking into a video or audio stream to remove their identity.

It is simply a license stamp, as has been done for years. It works remarkably well with software, despite the fact that a hex editor will allow you to remove most such identifiers.

Why? First, because there is possibly a record of sale of such and such serial number to such and such a credit card, so removing the identity, or "watermark" if you really want to use that inaccurate term, doesn't guarantee the software can't be tracked back to you if a copy appears somewhere else and, two, people would rather feel secure and just not distribute something illegally if there is even a small chance they'll get caught.

The DMCA, Watermarking, encryption, all that nonsense is unnecessary. It won't stop the serious copyright violators, and the casual violators will be stopped by something much simpler: a serial numbered copy of the software sold to them, with the explicit inclusion of their identity to drive home the fact that, if a copy of their recording appears somewhere on the net, the might be tracked down and held accountable. It has worked for years, in a medium where copyright violation is trivial and has been a fact of life for years.

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

Decline of CD sales by Hostile17 · 2002-02-21 07:01 · Score: 2

Last year CD sales declined for the first time in a decade.

This was my favorite line in the article. It blames the decline of CD sales on music sharing, but misses the more obvious cause, Bad Economic Times. It may be true that people are getting thier music online rather than buying the CD, but given the choice between spending $20 on a CD, which probably has 1 or 2 songs I like, and buying food for my family, or puting gas in my car, guess what, I'll download the 2 songs I want, buy food for my children, and fill my gas tank. If downloading the music wasn't an option, guess what, I still wouldn't buy the CD. Maybe if the Music Industry would allow us to buy singles, either online or on CD, at a reasonable price, I'd be inclined to skip my lunch one day (my lunch, not my childrens) to buy the 1 or 2 songs I like.

--
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli

Easy: by big_groo · 2002-02-21 07:10 · Score: 2

Study. That's why you're there. You'll thank me in 10 years.

This is NOT Napster by namespan · 2002-02-21 07:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

While this is peer-to-peer trading, there are several important differences from Napster.

First of all, there really wasn't a large-market device for capturing _broadcast_ music (I've often wondered why, because the number of times I've heard something wonderful on the radio that I won't hear again for months or perhaps EVER has been waaay too many). There was no "time-shifting" argument.

Second of all, most of the available material on Napster was available for purchase. Yes, there were the live/bootleg/rare recordings, which I enjoyed as much as anyone, but I don't think that was the majority. Most of it seemed to be off of ripped CDs.

However, for a lot of the TV shows, there is no medium to rip from. The shows aren't available for purchase.

It's interesting that rather than see this as a great opportunity, TV studios get scared and try to wipe it out. There's quite OBVIOUSLY a market here, and filling it wouldn't be all that hard....

--
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.

What people want.. by nolife · 2002-02-21 07:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Do not underestimate the power of the people. The bottom lines is, when people want something, they will find it or create a method to get it in the form they want it in. With or without the so called innovation of the big players. MP3 and TV episode swapping are two perfect examples. I feel the big corporations and media giants are too far away from the public and fighting a loosing battle. They want to control what you watch and when you watch it. Much to thier dismay, this is not what the people want!! No amount of marketing and manipulation can change that. How many pay for play, streaming this and that business models are going to fail before they wake up? With the distibution snafu they created for media, how are they going to overcome the overhead to distribute and control on demand media at a cost that people will be willing to pay for it?

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.

indeed... by MenTaLguY · 2002-02-21 08:37 · Score: 2

Not funny. All of the tools that home users can use to create media can also be used for unauthorized copying.

We're going to start seeing all media creation tools taken from us if we're not careful.

--

DNA just wants to be free...

Re:Looks like they have been r00ted. by Guppy06 · 2002-02-21 08:59 · Score: 2

As anybody with a dish capable of receiving in the C-band can tell you, we're all getting HBO for free. The trick is just getting around the macrovision...

Speaking of which, would it still be illegal if I uploaded an episode of The Sopranos still encrypted?

Re:Looks like they have been r00ted. by Guppy06 · 2002-02-21 09:03 · Score: 2

The last time when what I watched made an iota of difference in what a network makes on advertising was the last (and first) time I watched a TV that had a Nielson box on it, about ten years ago.

And even if I did have a Nielson box in my home it's only on one television. And if I'm watching television in a different room (say, on my computer) I still don't count.

Why the poor need free TV by pyramid+termite · 2002-02-21 09:42 · Score: 2

Oh, and if anyone argues that this somehow 'disenfranchises' the poor,

It wouldn't disenfranchise them - it would simply force them to make their own "entertainment", possibly out on the streets. They would no longer be docile and preoccupied. They might even starting thinking for themselves.

There was a reason the Romans gave away bread and circuses ...

Re:Oh... by RazzleFrog · 2002-02-21 10:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well repeaters and signal boosters are all perfectly legal.

Never said it wasn't. Would make it pretty difficult on apartment buildings if it was.

If I let my friend borrow my tape, and he made a himself a copy and returned it that would be ok then?

Video tapes are kinda fuzzy all around. Just like music tapes there isn't as big of a concern about copying. If you had a digital copy of the show and your friend copied it then you may have a problem.

So the issue, as you see it, isn't the action but the number of people?

First, how I see it is not at issue here. I personally think the whole thing is ridiculous. I am explaining to you the way the industry, and probably the courts, would see it. Please don't believe that any of this is my opinion. Second, of course number makes a difference. Fair use doesn't allow for you sharing with large amounts of people. What is large is up to interpretation.

So I guess the next thing we'll have to do is put a counter on everything in the library. Loaning out that video tape to 100 patrons is ok, but once we hit some magical number (100,000, 1,000,000) it becomes a crime?

Again we are talking about loaning versus copying. The library is not making a copy for you so they are not doing anything "wrong." If I remember correctly it says somewhere on the agreement you fill out to get your library card that you won't make copies.

How is that any different than if 10 people record that episode and "share" it with 1,499,990 "friends" over the internet.

Well this is the fuzzy area when it comes to broadcast TV. If you include the original commercials with the distribution then you probably should be able to squeak by. When it comes to pay channels though you are up a creak without a paddle. Unless you can somehow prove that the only people downloading your file are subscribers to that pay channel you would have a hard time.

Now if you want my opinion on all of this. I think that anything that is broadcast for free should be free to rebroadcast as long as you include the original commercials. Anything that is PayTV should be off limits.

Re:TV is dying by mccalli · 2002-02-21 10:30 · Score: 2

You certainly won't find out what's new in the world by watching TV.

Caused confusion twice now. I meant as in "What's new in the world of TV?". People do need to know this in order for viewing habits to change, otherwise "I love Lucy" would have lasted forever...

Cheers,
Ian

Wherez da Warez? by Grendel+Drago · 2002-02-21 12:36 · Score: 2

Go on DalNet (#simpsons-central, #futurama-central, #x-files-central, #blahfoobar-central...)and either wait in one of those interminable queues or suck it up and donate half your cable-modem bandwidth as an fserve in exchange for sweet, sweet FTP access.

--grendel drago

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

not that accurate... by issachar · 2002-02-21 12:56 · Score: 2

the article claims that you download a whole episode in as little as ten minutes. horse-hockey! Morpheus is quick, but not that quick.

Interestingly, I've seen a few websites that are posting entire episodes of shows claiming that since they are only thumbnails since they reduce the screen to such a small size. Interesting, but I'm not sure that's what the court had in mind when it said that thumbnails were legal.

--
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com

Valenti = Ass by Grendel+Drago · 2002-02-21 13:00 · Score: 2

"We're fighting our own terrorist war," said Mr. Valenti, whose lawyers sent 54,000 letters to Internet service providers last year requesting the removal of copyrighted material from customers' Web sites...

And here I thought our "president" had a monopoly on the Terrorism Tie-In Business.

'Cause, you know, iSO-NeWS kiddies blow up buildings and shit.

Hell, you've got to watch out for all those college students, ready to tear open the throat of an unsuspecting TV exec.

Will someone explain to me why Jack Valenti couldn't find a more reputable line of work, such as peddling his ass for urine-soaked cigarette butts?

--grendel drago

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

cry me a river by poemofatic · 2002-02-21 13:25 · Score: 2

Every person who chooses to watch Sopranos by downloading instead of subscribing to the services is taking money out of the pocket of HBO.

Every person who chooses to watch Sopranos by..

watching the show at their friend's house

borrowing it from a lending library

borrowing a tape from a friend

watching (future) reruns on another channel

..instead of subscribing to the services is taking money out of the pocket of HBO.

There is always a public space: libraries, friends, free boradcast outlets
...and a commercial space: hbo

Now hbo, when analyzing their market size, knows that the public space can cut into the private space, and so it adds services and convenience to offset this. It's not revolutionary to assume that changing technologies can expand the public space, and hbo needs to adjust their marketing startegy accordingly.

It cuts both ways, changing technology forced people to buy several copies of the same thing: vhs --> dvd, lp--> cd

And changing technology often creates entirely new markets: movies, radio, tv, cable

So sometimes the public space shrinks and sometimes it grows in proportion. It's not theft, it's not taking money out of anyone's pockets, since no one has a right to be profitable.

Cable owes it's existance to a cool new distribution medium, which definately cuts into the profits of the broadcast networks. boohoo. Note that in the beginning cable did nothing but recycle old tv leftovers.

Perhaps the tables are turning again, and now ISP's, websites which stream media on demand, and those who sell bandwidth/hard drives will cut into HBO subscription rates. boohoo.

--

When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.

other way around by poemofatic · 2002-02-21 13:42 · Score: 2

actually, it's the ad revenues which drive up the costs.

There's nothing in the laws of physics that require that the cast of friends get $1,000,000/episode. That figure is determined by the add revenues. The only required costs are those for film, make up, food and lodging for the actors/producers. The other stuff is determined by market forces arguing over a potential revenue stream. Same for sporting events.

The many well produced foreign films, which were created in a different economy for under $100,000,000 testify to this. And magazines were highly profitable in the last century and they derived the bulk of their revenues from subscriptions. The only problem is when market forces inflate salaries and then revenues drop for the newcomers. The problem is from a time lag in a nonlinear feedback response, since markets are very chaotic. The costs inherent in the content or medium are very low.

--

When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.

Slashdot Mirror

Time on "Pirates of Primetime"

132 of 459 comments (clear)