Slashdot Mirror
UK Leads in TV Show Downloading
dirutz writes "Britain has emerged as the world's biggest market for downloading pirated TV, with Australia being the second and the U.S. sitting at third. Among the top pirated TV shows, '24' ranks the first. 'The Simpsons,' 'Enterprise,' 'Stargate SG-1' and 'Battlestar Galactica' are also among the top hitters." 'Pirated' seems a strong word, at least for watching those programs which have been beamed (unencrypted) through my body. Where can I pay a quarter per show for moderate-quality, sanctioned torrent files?
Can I call it????
(sigh)
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
I second that motion. I would gladly pay a quarter for a tv show download. DRM or not, just let me see it!
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. - Victor Hugo
... that they're now beating out the UK as well!
...Because there's a tax on TV mate!!
http://www.commaecho.com
...that this show is a repeat.
Lousy cheap networks.
You're doing it wrong.
I don't think they will ever sell shows for that cheap because DVD sales are becoming very popular for TV. Why would you pay 30 dollars for season 2 of family guy when you could download the whole season for 5 bucks?
OK, I'm just going to start submitting whatever story I see on the front page. A delay of a couple of hours for a duplicate story seems to be the going rate.
Damn those pesky terrorists
This is really not suprising because many of these TV shows don't make it over the pond till a few years after their orginal air date. But of course internet discussion is always my the american dates so if people want to see these shows and not wait years, they need to download them.
With easy and cheap bandwidth it is time that we start seeing simultaneous releases of shows. The article is basically saying that people are already taking it into their own hands. If the networks start pushing out the content worldwide at the same time it will reduce this demand.
Do slashdot editors think we're stupid?? It's the 2nd repeat today!!!
Reminds me of a Simpson's quote:
Bart: Uh, say, are you guys crooks?
Tony: Bart, um, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
Bart: No.
Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart: Uh uh.
Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes?
Bart: I guess that's okay.
Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart: Hell, no!
Tony: Enjoy your gift.
indeed, become too american.
Two points for the idiot to consider:
1. The networks won't allow a middleman. Where have you been for the last 10 years?
2. The geeks are getting exactly what they want. The networks aren't. Guess being a suite isn't so great, eh?
It comes out there First. Not a big mystery. If Asscrack, Nowhere had the show playing- guess where the show would come from?
It's TV's problem for not distributing over the internet. Problem solved now- and too late for them.
We get series weeks and weeks after they first air in the US, and then only on sky TV. Downloading the shows from torrents is the only way you can see them while they're still a current topic of conversation. Also, the UK get gouged on DVD prices (just like everying else!), hey DVD makers, £1!=$1 damn you!
MacBook Pro. Worst name since the Bicycle
This is a dupe, but I'll put in my thoughts anyway:
Most of the television torrents I've seen have been free of advertisements. I know those ads are obnoxious, but they're the bread and butter of whatever network you (the show ripper) took that show from. The least you can do is leave them in the file and let the downloader decide what to do with them.
End of thought. Back to my regularly scheduled dupe righteous indignation.
1. It's 'sense' not 'sence'
2. It's 'lousy' not 'lausy'
3. So Spitting Image's utter lack of subtlety is somehow 'better' than Little Britain? Wouldn't the better comparison (given the political content of Spitting Image) be Spitting Image and Brass Eye, or Dead Ringers? Or The Day Today?
Define 'The British Sense Of Humour' before you harp on about its extinction, please. For me, the epitome of that has been summed up by the word 'dryness'*. Spitting Image was anything but dry, and as such could be classed as an anomaly. The new generation has taken 'dry' and added 'disturbing', to its credit. Take League Of Gentlemen for instance. Dry and disturbing.
It's evolved, but I don't know you you equate this to extinction, exactly.
* Add absurdity if you like, for example much Monty Python, but absurdity is a comedy universal, IMO.
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Not only a dupe but trails fark.com... again. WOnder if submitter is cross posting?
Too lazy to create a sig...
It's true!
I read it on another site... Except THEY ONLY POSTED THIS FACT ONCE!
Well, in the U.S. due to the DMCA, you can lend your friend a VCR recording of a TV show but not a DVD recording of a TV show, because the DVD recording is digital.
Basically, what people do on the internet could be considered "fair use", but since so many people can transfer so many high-quality format recordings, those who pushed the DMCA forward decided that fair use had become too much of a good thing in the digital world, and put a stop to it.
There's good arguments on both sides. It's not wrong to view a TV show without commercials, but it would be unfair if a good TV show had 10 million viewers but only 200,000 saw the commercials. It's a matter of degree. Bittorrent is more dangerous to networks if lots of people use it than if few do.
Personally, I think it's more wrong to go after someone who downloads last night's episode of Lost than to download last night's episode of Lost, regardless of the "but it's THEIR show" argument. Yes, it's their show, but that doesn't give them carte blanche to do whatever they want to anyone who sees that show in a manner they don't approve of.
and Slashdot leads the world in dupe posting.
from the they-Duped-it-through-me dept.
dirutz writes "Slashdot has emerged as the world's biggest market for Dupeing Storys with Mirrordot being the second and the coral cach. sitting at third. Among the top duped storys, Uk pirates' ranks the first. Linux TCO,' 'Windows security holes,and 'EFF endangerd Gadjets ' are also among the top hitters." 'Dupe' seems a strong word, at least for watching those Storys which have been beamed (unedited and unchecked) through my Slashdots editors. Where can I pay a quarter per Dupe for moderate-quality, sanctioned Dupe storys
Where did you get those figures? Australia has about 20 million, and the UK has around 60 million.
OLPC Australia
'Pirated' seems a strong word, at least for watching those programs which have been beamed (unencrypted) through my body.
No, 'pirated' doesn't refer to recording them, it refers to posting them on the Internet for anybody to download. I would think the difference was obvious.
The standard meaning of the word is "distributing copyrighted material without permission" (for instance, here). Regardless of your position on this issue, you have to agree that the definition applies here.
And yes, it's a strong word. It's a newspaper headline. What do you expect?
Java: the bastard demon spawn of C++ and Ada
why would UKers be downloading Battlestar Galactica? it airs for them 3 months before us..
-- Note: These Comments are Generated by ME! Not You! ME!
There's the problem of convincing them to pay for it...
I see no sense in waiting for the shows to come over here. I download them and keep them for a season and them delete them. I use to stock pile them and serve them to anybody else, but its risky stuff now what with the lawsuits.
I see a future where the networks will have to come together and release these shows at the same time around the world. One because there will be less rips and second. Cinema, DVD and Music is normally released worldwide these days as well anyway.
This also helps my schedule since I don't have time to a program at the same time each week (kinda hard anyway since I have no TV), I'd rather download it and watch it at my leisure. The power of the internet at work.
Jonathanjk.com
Microsoft's parent's primer to computer slang
If networks posted their shows, with the ads intact and maybe a few extra, I'd download it in a heartbeat. It'd sure beat the hell out of finding a torrent (especcially with the sudden lack of good torrent directories). Sure, I can fast forward through commercials, but I could do that if I used TiVo or if I recorded it.
Recent studies shows that more then 500 000 Swedes download at least 1 TV show each week.. I wonder how only 100 000 ppl download the new 24 every week?
what could be interesting is the rise of a legal napsteresque service for TV shows. I guess it will be coming as fatter pipes arrive, but why can't we have a method of paying say $30-$50/month to watch unlimited amounts of shows on demand. Hell the networks could even throw commercials in there. You could have the ability to stop and rewind but the server could refuse to let you fastforward the commercials. This could work great. Go get popcorn in the commercial, come back 10 seconds too late and rewind. Sure its not as good as the free stuff on torrents, but its the only option that would keep shows being made. It would outdate cable instantaneously and be highly convenient to those of us who want to watch tv whenver we want and what we want.
Sure we'll never get rid of cable/broadcast tv completely as theirs local news, and other realtime stuff, but for entertainment purposes such a system would be amazing.
Phil
It was just a joke. Laugh. Or even better, do what the rest of us did - Insult the yanks back.
I'm offended by you taking offence.
Maybe we could make a movement where we write and film our own shows and license them such that everyone is free to modify and redistribute them. It's not like DV cameras cost a lot of money (no more than a computer) and everyone has video editing software these days, and our desktop machines are good enough to do tv quality CG (movie quality if we use distributed networks). Where's the Free (as in freedom) Tv?
How we know is more important than what we know.
That's two dupes in forty-eight hours! It's not April 1st yet, is it?
I don't know much about Tivo in order to understand your post. But if it is sarcasim then might I remind you that I don't own a TV, nor want to.
Jonathanjk.com
With that sort of population UK would be the fifth most populous country on earth, and only one million behind the fourth.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
We as TV watchers want shows. We hate ads, but are willing to put up with them in order to get the "free gimmick", the show.
The shows are created merely as a side effect of advertising; the goal of the television industry is *NOT* to create quality programming for you. The goal is to sell advertising to corporations. What you as a TV watcher want is *completely* irrelevant.
At least in the US, without advertising, there would be no tv shows. Period. The show is just there to entice you into watching the advertising.
There is no real *money* to be made from the shows themselves directly; they are merely a means to an end for generating vastly more significant ad dollars.
As such, you can't tell *great* stories on TV like you can in books because you are beholden to the customer (corporate advertisers) to produce bland inoffensive content that leaves the consumer with a vaguely positive feeling after watching it.
If you controlled your copy of the show, you would not be generating new ad dollars every time you watched it, which is the business model these things operate on. You would also be less likely to watch it (and the ads) "just because it's on", further detracting from the ad revenue. DVD's of shows are a new concept, and they only come out after the up front ad dollars have been sucked out of the system.
While there may be a quite a few people who would like to own a copy of a tv show for their collection, there is no way the sales for copies can compare to the royalties and advertising revenue from broadcasters.
Even if the producers of shows *could* cut out the middlemen and offer their content as a free download with inserted advertising, they would be foolish to move to that model because they would only get paid for the show *once* (from the ads). With broadcasters, they generally get paid royalties each time the episode airs, and it is up to the broadcaster to make a profit on the ads.
One wonders why people are willing to both pay for cable/satellite TV service *and* deal with advertising. The advertising revenue should more than pay for the service; paying service fees on top of the inconvenience of be advertised to is outrageous.
Food for thought...
Then if you want the DVD quality later with the extras, you wouldn't mind so much...
I'm convinced the networks have been brainwashed into the mindset of the only source of revenue being from the advertisers... and lack the ability now to see outside the box...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Little Britain is an amazing parody of some British stereotypes. It is very funny if you understand the context it's parodying. Sadly, most of the jokes will go right over the head of anyone who wasn't brought up here. Shame really, as it is very good.
Aint this the most out of topic photo taken EVER?
5 5.stm
:)
what one you say?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/42762
the picture a bit down, with the guy at the comp.. well he is playing HOMEWORLD (2?)..
mohaha..
damn me and my geekish experiences..
anyway, just wanted to say that anyway, first post.
Per capita, Australia is comfortably in 1st position, with 1.22 times as much downloaded by every person.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Can't I record an episode of the simpson with my vcr?
Yup. Delayed viewing. Explicitely permitted by law.
If yes, can my friends borrow the tape from me? Can I do that
Possibly. IANAL but it probably comes under fair use.
If yes, what if I have 1000 friends? is it still legal?
Then you're pushing your luck. Fair use takes into account various factors, including impact on the market. Letting a few friends see a copy is unlikely to have a huge effect on the market. It may result in a lost 'sale' (or rather fewer viewers resulting in lower revenue)for the broadcasters, but the effect will be small. Sharing with 1000 people is a lot more likely to have an effect. But you are limited here. It will take a long time to lend it to 1000 people. At the minimum, if only one person watches it at a time, it will be difficult for all of them to see it within a month.
If yes, can I use bitorrent to share the video??
No.
It isn't if you turn off the TV and turn on the radio. There is much humour on BBC Radio 4. I've been in paroxysms of laughter from some of the stuff they have on. Trouble is I was driving at the time...
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Why, when for a change we got Battlestar Galactica before the yanks. That was unusual to say the least and quite refreshing. I do however wonder why it is our country is so keen to be in a close relationship with the States and yet is happy to accept the last season hand me downs of tv shows and films.
.
I can imaging that TV piracy would be reduced if we felt that it would be possible to watch the same seasons of Westwing, Battlestar, Rescue Me, Las Vegas, Gilmore Girls etc etc as the states tends to
It seems wierd that my email and files can be sent through the net a within moments of me hitting the enter key but the Execs at Fat Cat studios still seem to send all the episodes by row boat across the atlantic !
And thats why Firecrackers and kittens don't mix.
Besides, if all those writers had made Enterprise interesting instead of a steaming pile of shite, then it might not be scheduled for cancellation either!
You must think in Russian.
Okay, we all are aware that this story is a dup of a previous one, well everyone except the individual that allowed this story to make it to the slashdot front page again, so I would like to take a moment to change the topic and voice my gripe about cable television and the utter stupidity of the entire situation in general.
Why is it that the public at large is expected to foot the bill for cable television for the luxury of watching programming that includes commercials? Television networks as well as your cable company make tons of money on the advertising that goes into television programs. The only reason the networks are able to charge as much as they do for the commercials is because people watch the programming.
It seems to me that if someone pays to receive television channels (many of which can be received for free over the air) via cable or satellite they should be able to receive programming that does not include commercials at all. For example if I can watch FOX using an antenna for free what value am I getting by paying to get that identical programming with commercials over a cable line? Compare it to viewing content on a website for free with ads or opting to buy a subscription to view the content without ads, much like you can on slashdot. Now channels like HBO that do not include commercials I can see paying for because they are offering me original commercial free content, something I can not get otherwise.
There is certainly a market for commercial free programming as can be shown by the popularity of subscription based DVRs such as Tivo. Sure people like watching their favorite programs at their convenience, but really a large part of it is being able to do so without the commercials.
To put it simply, I am of the opinion that basic cable should be provided to everyone without cost because the ad content has already generated more than enough revenue to cover the cost of distribution. The cable companies also generate ad review by selling local commercial spots into the programming. The cable companies should be able to pass on their costs to the networks rather than the general public because the networks could not possibly charge the advertisers as much as they do without the viewers the cable companies provide.
Offering at least basic cable for free would greatly increase the potential number of viewers which would in turn allow the networks and cable companies to charge more for their advertisement spots. Compare it to the way that print ads are sold where the cost is based on total distribution; higher distribution equals higher revenue per ad sold. Television viewership is down greatly and I would suspect that this trend will continue unless something new and innovative is given a chance.
Another thing I would really like to see happen would be for the cable companies to allow you to pick the programming you would like to receive. There are only 10 to 20 channels at most I would be interested in watching if I did have cable. Perhaps I could warm up a little to paying a nominal amount, say less than $20 per month including all taxes, if I were able to hand pick which channels I could receive and at least a fair number of those would have to be commercial free (such as HBO).
-- Just my $0.02 worth...
This just in. Timothy is leading in Slashdot duplication.
This isn't going to happen soon because the networks do not own most of the stations that broadcast their shows, and the individual stations would view such downloads as competition. Stations make their money on advertising revenue, and the rates they receive are based on the number of viewers watching that station. (Based on such ratings tools as Nielsen and local population figures.) Every viewer who chooses to buy a downloadable version of the show directly from the network instead of watching it on the local station is one fewer viewer in the station's audience figures for their advertising revenue. Why, therefore, should the station remain on that network when the network is directly competing with them for revenue?
I worked for an advertising agency that was doing a web site for a major product manufacturing company. The company wanted to be able to sell its own products on its web site, but its dealer network threatened firmly that if the manufacturer did this, they'd stop carrying the manufacturer's products.
I'm sure if a network decided to sell downloads of its shows, its stations would threaten to drop them in favor of a competing network.
I've thought about this a bit. I suppose it's technically illegal to download TV shows. I download a few (Lost, Alias, and occasionally Charmed), which are all free-to-air in my country. So personally I don't feel guilty about downloading free-to-air shows, as the show creators get paid regardless of whether I watch the show or not.
Of course, this is the other way around from what you are suggesting - I'm downloading the shows instead of 'VCRing' them and sharing them.
hi
can i repeat myself?
can i repeat myself?
i m enjoying my$rbtl
i m enjoying my$rbtl
_ In Egypt Networks: Network Solutions with a Twist
That's untrue, though. Have you ever seen how much merchandise there is for - for example - Spongebob Squarepants? It's an insane amount really, so don't tell us that the shows itself are entirely irrelevant and that the only money comes from advertising. It may be true for some shows, maybe even many (but that's hard to determine), but it certainly isn't for all of them.
Oh yeah, and don't forget shows that are made into movies - that's another source of income not related to advertising. Again, Spongebob is a good example...
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Yeah, but what if you have to choose between being a suit and being sued? (Sorry, that was a horrible pun, but I couldn't resist.)
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
..so i'll say again, its not 'piracy', that's when you COPY someone's product and SELL it cheaper but at a higher profit to you. Technically this is IP 'theft' for the sharers and potential sale circumvention for the views. But really who cares.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
How about making comments down here with the rest of us, where we can reply to them properly and even moderate them?
For that matter, how about checking for dupes before posting a story?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
If all those brits would have paid for Trek instead of pirated it, then it might not be scheduled for cancellation. Bottom o' th' morning to ya.
Then why do they cancel it when most of us over here are still waiting for season 4? The answer? They (read: the US networks) don't give a shit about the European market. It's just an added bonus. The US market is the real deal.
Well if it's piracy to time shift some TV output so I can watch it when I want without adverts then my VCR unit has been doing a Captain Pugwash impression ever since I first bought it !
I've been taping stuff for years to watch later on so what's the difference now that I'm getting the stuff via P2P ? I'm still not watching the adverts (sorry advertisers you can all fuck off back up your own rectums) so the only difference is I'm not no longer even slightly constrained by the TV suppliers schedules.
But wait a minute... What's going on here. Now that I've properly looked at them it appears that both my VCR and my cassette tape deck have both hoisted a small Jolly Roger ! So maybe we are off to the high seas after all...
Repeat after me:
1 Copyright infringement is not piracy.
2 Piracy involves stealing by force, figues of eight, scurvy swabs, parrots and grog
3 Copying something does not deprive anyone of their copy of a work.
So all together now (in a Rage against the Machine stylee) "Fuck the *AA I won't do what you tell me".
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
Dammit ! That should have read:
"Fuck the *AA I won't watch what you tell me"
That'll learn me to use the preview button...
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
This is getting to be worse than broadcast TV with all these reruns!
Hardly surprising
Take ST:VOY for example, the last episode finally aired on 9 last month, you could buy/rent the tape in Australia quite a few years ago and TV execs wonder why no one watches their networks anymore
Second, I just think I figured out a way for the networks to make money off of downloaded shows aside from charging for the download.
The real problem arises when people edit out commercials and having the ability to skip through them, which the networks hate.
What if there were small ads at the bottom of the screen? You know, like the kind that pop up to let you know what show is on next? I realize some might find this intrusive, but if they're only on for say...10 seconds, and there aren't that many during the whole show, I think that would be a fair tradeoff (if the download were free of course).
On season 2 episode 9 of Arrested Development which I just downlaoded, there was a popup for the Simpsons after the show, and I know that it caught my eye.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Timothy dupes (for the second time today) an article that has *already* been on Slashdot the same day(or at least within a 24 hour period!)
I'm drunk and can recognize a dupe when I see it... What's Timothy's excuse?? Too many 'shrooms??? (Not too mention I can still manage some very basic HTML formatting!)
Web hosting that doesn't suck!Dreamhost
As someone else who was very intrigued by Battlestar Galactica, I resorted to BitTorrent to download the mini - which didn't air in Sydney until _last_ week (over a year after airing in the US), and got even more excited waiting for the series. (I've seen the whole season, and it's well worthwhile.)
All I can say is that the television networks have well and truly lost control over their choke-hold on distribution. Air a program _anywhere_ in the world and it's instantaneously available _everywhere_ in the world. Which means either a) all showings of all series will take place on the same date all around the world; or b) piracy is going to drive the television business out of business, broadcast flag or no. (In Australia we don't have broadcast flags. Yet. Nor do they have them in the UK.)
The economic pressure of filesharing broadcast TV is going to force the national networks to coordinate their offerings across the world - mark my words...
Original here /. editors wake up in the morning, they read this guy's RSS feed, and write about any interesting stories, unaware that they may have given him the news in the first place.
I think we are seeing recursive RSS blogging.
I have a theory that someone who reads Slashdot is running a website/blog in another timezone. During the American night, he writes articles on many stories, some of which come from Slashdot. When the
This would explain the regular pattern of stories that pop up again the next day. News that comes back after two days may be explained by American sites, which don't write articles in the night but instead during the following day.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
I'm british. Please enlighten me on how I can pay for enterprise instead of downloading it, seeing as the DVD box sets have only just been announced. I watch it on Channel 4 when it's on, and that's the best I can do (cable and satellite not available in my area). Besides, as other posters mentioned, they probably don't look at the UK ratings anyway when deciding whether or not to produce the show.
Linux Wireless Hardware in the UK
Duped story is not the word I would use in this case... I'd say it's a rerun.
:-/
Seriously Taco, if duped stories are this common, why is it that redundant posts give you bad Karma? I sn't this a 'Do as I say, not as I do'?
before the dupes start appearing on the front page together. I'm just waiting.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
And 2nd place aint even close!
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Here is a question from people outside USA and want to download a show:
:-P Or for the price of free life time access to this service.
What if I have remote access to a computer/PVR which can record shows in USA. And I personally click a button to record a copy of the show and then download it off to my australia computer for time-shifting viewing which is legal?
It is a little bit stretch here... what if a USA company set up a remote recording service and allow users to set up their own timers to record a show and have it ready for download.
Maybe the users who have legally recorded the same show can even use BT to quickly download since they have basically the rights to the exact same recordings.
I want to patent this idea.
Information Efficiency
Just goes to show how bad the programming in Australia is (I cant speak for .uk).
If the programming guys took note of *what* we were downloading....
Can't I record an episode of the simpson with my vcr?
You can timeshift, that is fair use. You are using a machine to record a copy for your self to watch in your own time as many times as you want.
If yes, can my friends borrow the tape from me? Can I do that
Even if you didn't make a copy you can not do this. You could argue that your fair use copy when lent is only watchable on one machine at one time, and that it was your fair use copy permited under the law. But make no mistake. You don't actually have the right to sell, lend, or copy. You can time shift, but not local shift.
No one gives a shit, but that does not mean what you are doing is protected under fair use.
If yes, what if I have 1000 friends? is it still legal?
It would take years for 1000 friends to borrow that one copy. To hit 1000 people in a reasonable time, you'd have to make a copy. This isn't time shifting nor protected under fair use.
If yes, can I use bitorrent to share the video??
It stops being protected under fair use the moment you copy, lend, or sell it. You could hardly even call the thousands of people who use bittorrent your friends.
Time shifting for personal use is fair use.
Lending a time shifted copy isn't fair use.
Making copies of a timeshifted copy isn't fair use.
Battlestar Galactica was apparently aired on sky (in the uk) as the entire seasons episodes is locatable it (*unusually*) aired over the pond first
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
It isn't if you turn off the TV and turn on the radio. There is much humour on BBC Radio 4. I've been in paroxysms of laughter from some of the stuff they have on. Trouble is I was driving at the time...
;-)
Yup, loads of the good BBC comedies of recent years have come via Radio 4, including the aforementioned Little Britain. A lot of it is repeated on the digital-and-interweb-only BBC 7, which is an utterly ingenious trawling of the BBC radio archives for drama and comedy.
Fortunately, unless you've got a DAB radio in your car, there should be less risk of comedy-induced accidents...
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
Slashdot Leads in Story Duplicating!
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
Stargate SG-1 is currently ahead of the US networks on Sky One - so, it makes more sense for you guys to be downloading from us.
However, I've been downloading it because I don't have Sky in my University accomodation. My parents have it, so morally I see no difference between downloading it and having them post it me on a tape.
PocketGamer.org - For the gamer on the go!
Considering how badly modern television in the U.S. sucks (Reality TV? Who fucking cares? At least the brits do theirs more like docos) compared to the U.K., it's surprising that we don't download as much. Back when sites like BuckTV.net used to be up, I found myself downloading programs mostly from the U.K. or older U.S. shows that aren't yet available on DVD. I was able to see the excellent series "The Worst Week of My Life" just a week behind british viewers thanks to BuckTV and eDonkey. The series finaally premiered here on BBC America six months later and with commercials. There has to be someone out there who will address the needs of those of us who want high quality programming (movies and TV series) without commercials, on demand, and from around the world. As far as I can tell, this was the closest thing going...
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
This is a fantastic idea!!!! For crying out loud they'll pay for commercials in movies at the theatre, and they'll pay for an ad on a web page, for people to watch their programs, and yet they won't do the same for the programs to be distrubted online???? Man, what a waste!!!! Just imagine the bucks they'll make...the televison show is an after thought as it's the commercials that make them the cash!!! There's a commercial for Motorola, and I can't get enough of it because of the hot chick in it, and now I can't get Motorola out of my mind....so it worked...now imagine the same thing is on every episode of Battlestar Galactica, and instead of just a small fraction of a country, or maybe just one country, you get the WORLD to view your ad!!!! Can you say "Cha-Ching????" Oh, and I've had it pounded into my head since I was a kid to always get the ones with wings, and the absorbant strip for my mother, so Playtex has had netted the advertiser$$$!;-) Ultimately, if the studios embrace the technology, and give their programs to the people for free, or for almost free, then they'll have a much wider fan base, and that adds up to more cash for them. One problem is that it will probably hurt the DVD sales of televison programs, but as with most DVD Programs, they always have extras, and I really like to see that, but on the other hand I think the diminished sales of the DVDs will be paled in comparison by the amount of money that the studios will make from the advertisments, so it all works out in the end:-) Of course, that's my theory...maybe it just makes too much sense.
Why is it that the public at large is expected to foot the bill for cable television for the luxury of watching programming that includes commercials? Television networks as well as your cable company make tons of money on the advertising that goes into television programs.
Because cable companies DON'T get advertising revenue from the channels they carry. In general cable companies have to pay the content sources for the programming they carry. Some basic channels are free, but most are not.
League is just disturbing and more annoying than funny.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
Seriously, why do you have to buy (for instance) Star Trek TOS? Isn't the copyright long expired? Oh that's right, copyright law has been perverted to solely benfit corperations and not society as it was intended to.
I guess my respect for copyright went down in the same drain as the original intent of the law.
And when some <sarcasm>1337 h4x0rs</sarcasm> can rig better distribution than big corporations, with next to no expenses, I guess it's just another sign of what we have known for some time: media distribution companies belongs in the same part of the historybooks as the steam engine.
At least I dont want law to codify a technological standstill. Which from my point of view seems increasingly to be the case.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Excuse me, but I pay my cable bill. I'd like to be able to see some of these shows whenever I want, but don't feel like spending the time/money to encode them. If somebody else did and can share that with me, great! Heck, the simpsons is even still on 'free' air. How can they claim this as piracy? Nobody is trying to sell the stuff for profit (oh yeah, the networks want to overcharge you for the DVDs several years later. I forgot)
to be honest, i think it's because they're lazy shits :-)
Which is legal, no matter what you losers around here think.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Try watching any of the crap on BBC1s Friday line up and say that with a straight face.
British comedy has gone down hill and is now all canned laughter and black people with an old man who's horny, a husband whos horny and a wife who is just there to look after the kids.
The current state of TV is trash at very best, comedy hasn't evolved, it's just got dumber to the point where a brick against the head would work just as well.
Young ones, Bottom, Black Adder, Mr Bean and so many others. Maybe not the most witty of comedies but they sure as hell made you laugh, which is what comedy is about. Not having 5 "parody" shows each week all covering the same thing.
The only decent thing we're making right now is comedic-quizshows. Nevermind the Buzzcocks, QI and this sort of thing. Nothing else we make is even worth it since it's watered down American drivel without the fake accents.
I like muppets.
Go see "Spaced": http://www.tvtome.com/Spaced/
then complain about poor British humor.
"Jar-Jar makes the Ewoks look like fucking Shaft."
-Tim in "Spaced"
The fact that some people would pay $5 and not $30 does not guarantee the studio will make more or less money by offering downloads. The studios are facing the monopolists price discrimination problem. They know there is a segment of the market that is willing to pay $30 and a much larger segment willing to pay less. If everyone is lumped together, i.e. they can't price discriminate, then the best price to charge is the price where the added customers due to the new price yield as much profit as is lost by dropping everyone else's price who would have bought anyway. The whole picture changes when you can somehow segment the market. Imaginge there was a large group of tech saavy buyers who would pay $5 but not $30, and a large group of people who are willing to pay $30, but are not tech saavy, and a small group who are willing to pay $30, but will only pay $5 if that option is available. The monopolist (the studio) can offer $30 and $5. The only revenue lost is on the group willing to pay $30 but now noly pay $5, and the gain is on all the additional customers at $5 that would not have purchased before. So, depending on the number of people that give up paying $30 to pay $5, this could make or cost the studio money. What complicates the situation is there really would be three options. $30, $5 and $0. The only difference between $5 and $0 is the good feeling you get from being legal and paying $5. Now the studio has to balance revenue lost on tech saavy people willing to pay $30 against revenue gained from people willing to choose $5 over $0. How likely is that to be profitable for the studio? It is my prediction that as long as option $0 is around, there will be no option $5. PLus, if tech saavy becomes everyone, how many people will choose option $30, or even option $0 at an infelxible time with commercials. When that happends, the studio as we know it will no longer exist. I wonder what kind of production studios would?
They've already recouped their production costs in broadcast advertising. If you think their manufacturing and distribution costs are $22 per box, you're truly clueless.
And boy, I'm resentful with they charge almost as much for Buffy Season 1 (12 eps) as they do with following seasons. That, and no DVD of Cupid (1997) box set.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
While this is an entertaining discussion of IP and elite Intarweb usage patterns of the American and European wired societies, the discussion seems to have ignored Asian usage. In Korea, viewers regularly download tv programs from the broadcaster's site to their handheld devices. This trend can only accellerate in China, and throughout the rest of Asia. This model ignores a lot of IP issues and cuts to getting eyes o the screen. We could all take a lesson here and just get on with it. "When all is said and done, a lot more is said than done!"
I have 1,000 VCRs taping one show. Can I then give the copies to 1000 people?
IntechHosting - Free domain, 2GB, PHP, £4.95/$8.95
What about Canada's downloads? Tons of people are on the popular download sites for episodes from Canada...don't we at least get a say?
They need to say f!ck the pirates and understand that their content is going to be copied even if they don't offer tv downloads. But, I am sure there are a ton of people out there that would pay the dollar or whatever to download a mpeg4 copy of the episode, giving the company a profit for something that might not have been paid for at all. If they use the streaming idea people are just going to ignore their misguided attempt at raping the consumer once again.
This is a truly interesting and insightful post. But I'm guessing that, for them to bite - the big production houses would need to know that they could make more money using this model than the current broadcast > DVD > Syndication one. That definitely seems plausible, but it seems like it would still require the establishment of some sort of "network" to really get the word out worldwide.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
well, if everyone seeds until they've uploaded between 1 to 3 times, then they aren't really sharing it with 1000 friends...just one to three =)
To be frank, there is probably more great comedy around than then.
To be fair though, the media companies with their real-world experience don't seem to be a whole lot smarter when it comes to issues like this than a bunch of random Slashdotters. Which is pretty sad.
English is easier said than done.
Can I record something with a VCR? Yes.
Can I record something with a TiVo? Yes.
Can I record something with a black box which works by magic? Yes - the law covers the action, not the mechanism. It it were otherwise, the TiVo would not be covered by the same rights as the VCR, and killing someone with a gun would fall under a different law to killing someone with a knife.
If I have the right to watch something on television (either because it is broadcast on free to air, or on a channel I have a paid subscription to) then can I download a copy of it?
The answer to the final question has not yet been tested in court, but I would argue that downloading a single copy of a show that has already aired comes under the heading of time shifting (legal), as long as you have access to the channel on which the show was broadcast. There is no difference between getting a copy from BitTorrent, or getting it from your TiVo. To illustrate this, imagine that the TiVo, rather than having its own hard drive, is connected to a SAN. Now imagine that this SAN is made from hard drives in every TiVo in the country. To save on disk space, TiVos recording the same show simply create links to the existing files. Now, assume that the TiVo automatically records everything, just in case you want to watch it. When you want to watch a show, it accesses the remote copy, caches it on the local storage, and plays it. Such a device would appear to the user to do exactly what a normal TiVo does (assuming it's programmed correctly). The mechanism it uses is exactly the same as that currently employed by `illegal' BitTorrent users[1].
[1] If you are downloading shows that have not yet aired on channels you have paid for, the situation is different.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
So, people want to download stuff that was already available on TV ? Perhaps, if the price wass right, they would pay for it ?
Imagine if, for a quid ($1.80), you could download any programme you missed because you were down the pub when it was broadcast. Nowadays this could be deducted by SMS (in the UK at least) - who would think twice ?
Think about it TV people - a whole new market.
The more together punters would simply video the programme by setting the timer before they go to work. In the real world most people would be too hungover to sort this out before they run out to go to work. The same people wouldn't think twice about texting themselves a quid debt in order to download a digital version of the programme they missed. Certainly easier that finding a torrent the next day...speaking from personal experience that is.
You can't tell me that somehow they'd come out behind there. Personalize advertising. And unlike a Tivo or VCR, you can't skip the ads!
Thanks to our DRM, you also cannot watch it at all after the DVD comes out, unless you buy the DVDs. (And if you buy the DVD from us, we'll turn them back on for you while you're waiting for it to ship.)
I mean, I can think of a completely workable model here. Yes, people will break the DRM, but is that any worse than people trading ad-less DVD and HDTV rips on Usenet, which is happening right now? At least this way, the ads would remain intact, unless someone edited them out, at which point we're exactly where we are now!
As for speed and quality...anyone on DSL can download high quality video in roughly the amount of time it takes to watch it. So buffer it for five minutes, which is about the amount of time it takes to get ready to watch, and then play it.
Or...
If you're really worried about copy protection, make it all in a set top box with an ethernet jack, and don't even give it a hard drive, just two gigs of memory, which should be enough for four hours of TV. (Remember, with DSL, all you really need is a buffer.) Assuming an encrypted connection back to home base, this is basically uncrackable without hardware alteration. (Which, yes, is breakable, but there's no point when you can just rip DVDs and HDTV broadcasts.) You can do this for very cheap, especially if you don't try to make it a Tivo...just make them use a real computer to get the shows, it's just the playback device, like a DVD player. You want to 'change DVDs', you have to go back to your computer. Think of it as iTelevision.
And then they can do really clever things, like taking their entire library and putting the 'most interesting' episode of each show up for free...but just that episode. Want more, you have to buy the DVD. Which, remember, you can do from them, and immediately unlock the rest of the shows. It's a frickin gold mine.
I mean, honestly. Any geek could figure out how to do this very cheaply, and even keep it cheapish while utterly securing it. (A hell of a lot more secure than DVDs.) So what's the hold up?
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
> Can't I record an episode of the simpson with my vcr?
.au. you would be committing an offense. The law is changing however thanks to this new free trade agreement..
Yup. Delayed viewing. Explicitely permitted by law.
In the US I believe you may be correct, but by the letter of the law, here in
From an Australian perspective, commercial television sucks major arse. SciFi fans get shafted the hardest. They don't keep to their programmed schedule, constantly shuffle SciFi episodes around in their timetable and show episodes out of order. To add insult to injury Australian commercial TV show crap copies of successful "reality" tv gameshows. Popstars vs Australian Idol? Makes me spew. Australian commerical TV brought in on themselves. Nowadays, torrent is my TV and good riddance to crappy channels 7,9 and 10.
This is the most ridiculous claim of piracy yet. I'm in the 'fuck you, you send it out for free, we'll do what we want with it' crowd.
I was raised here and I still think it's crappy. It was fine untill the second season when it became too popular and rather then it being funny as a whole I just got sick of people going "yea but no but" and "I want that one", to the point where I just got sick of the whole thing and gave up on it.
So you can't say it's about growing up here.. if anything it's better if your ARNT here. When Richard and Judy start using the lines you know it's fucked.
I like muppets.
http://www.hindu.com/2005/02/20/stories/2005022001 762000.htm
No doubt anyone who either lives here in Australia or who has visited will vouch for the fact that our television is terrible. Old American soapies, telemovies that never even made it to video! Add into the mix 5 adverts every 6 minutes and you have the Murdoch / Packer version of entertainment. No doubt downloads of decent TV from the UK, Canada and US are a saviour. God bless bit torrent (-;
I downloaded the brit BSG episodes because they are IHMO better. There is content in the brit version that isn't in the yank version. Also the into music is different for some odd reason. The brit version is ethereal and very cool. The yank version sounds like a funeral march. I watched all the episodes from the brits and only a couple from the yanks. Makes you wonder what else is missing.
Speak truth to power.
Micropayments to publishers are the last gasp of the middlemen. I want my twenty-five cents to go toward production, not publishing and promotion.
What I want to know is, where can I pay to finance the production, and release under a free license, of the sort of stuff I want to see?
I am reading more and more about independent TV series being produced for the internet distribution. The question is...would i pay for such content? Well since I get satellite TV and I'm in the US, I might be willing to pay for some original programming that is NOT available on regular TV. How much would I pay? Well it seems the typical video online has a quick ad on the beginning of a video clip and possibly one at the end, so it is relatively commercial free. I think anywhere from $.99 - $1.99 would be reasonable. Imagine if MIAMI VICE was created for online distribution only.... I would pay to see a show like that. Any thoughts?