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.

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...).

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 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 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".

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.

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 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?

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 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

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.

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

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.

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
------------

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.

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: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!

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

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: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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

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

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Time on "Pirates of Primetime"

38 of 459 comments (clear)